05/28/2012: The Role of Religion as Existential Security

Unfortunate, ain’t it?

In Nietzsche’s, The Gay Sciencewe are met with this famous trope:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Nietzsche’s pronouncement seemed prophetic at the time when belief in European rationalism was at its zenith, but belief in God has isstill very much here with us.  However the fact remains that Religion, despite being the “opiate of the people” as Marx put it, still serves a crucial function: as a protector and a firewall against uncertainty and existential insecurity.

Not surprisingly, studies have found that atheism is more likely to appear within the industrial and post-industrial countries. In impoverished, less educated countries, belief in God predominates.

Religion of course not only provides relief from existential stress by supplying existential security, it also moderates human behavior within the socio-economic insecurity of the times. Religion thus helps keep failed states somewhat stable. It might seem obvious that there are no atheists in foxholes, or in the impoverished cities of India or in sub-Sahara Africa while there are plenty of atheists in post-industrial  countries that feature high education along with strong social safety nets (Yes, Virginia, Socialism indeed breeds atheists!). One country seems to invalidate this formula. The United States is the wealthiest of all industrial nations and yet the most religious – due to extensive income disparity.

This all but guarantees that religious fundamentalism is still going to be around for a very long time (especially in the impoverished Muslim and Asian countries where existential security is nonexistent. And here is where the behavioral moderation properties of religion come into play and will grant a longer life to belief in God. Atheists make a terrible mistake in their belief that the application of applied reason and positivism alone will change the world for the better without any kind of action plan. The stealth religion that is atheism is useless as a force of reason unless those proponents can put their logical prowess into practice and help produce existential security for all. But atheists don’t seem to be interested in doing anything for all of us. The Equal Money system is such a proposal that will give all more security through social and economic programs that will ultimately give everyone that existential security only those privileged few now enjoy. We need all people to buy into economic equality and security or else we will have to endure the consequence of allowing  the grizzled, intolerant specter of religious fundamentalism to destroy what’s left of the world for centuries to come. Such a fate is only as inevitable as our avoidance to the necessity of change.

Notes:

[1] Pippa Norris, Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics), Cambridge University Press, 2004. The authors claim that their research shows that the world’s industrial nations are more secular while the third world remains religious due to economic insecurity. The birth rate in these impoverished countries have grown to numbers where there are far more people who hold religious views than ever before, while the birth rate among secular nations are dropping.  Implication: unless economic equality is installed to remove existential uncertainty, religious fundamentalism may never leave us, threatening to collapse civilization into the Dark Ages 2.0.

05/26/2012 – Is the Mind the most powerful thing in the Universe?

“Uhn.. if I could just think… a bit… harder… somethin’s bound to happen!”

Your thoughts create your reality.

Your mind is more powerful than you know.

Are you worried about something right now?

Are you feeling unsure about something these days?

God invites you to change your thinking.

Miracles seldom occur in the lives of those who do not consider them possible.

There could be a miracle waiting for you this minute.

Please make room for it in your thinking. Thanks.

Love, Your Friend….

Neale Donald Walsch

Wow. The mind has been given a lot of credit by philosophers, metaphysicians, science and religion. Not only does the miraculous mind receive credit for moving things in the universe, it has been touted as creating the universe! That sounds nice but seriously, can we really define consciousness in any other terms other than a vampirous abstraction, or as  generative and consuming energetic of substance –  like a flame devouring and evaporating a candle of wax?  But the majestic brilliance of the flickering light lasts only for a moment until it vanishes into the darkness, rubbed out from existence and from memories. But such metaphors must sound too cruel for people like Walsch when referring to something so God-like as the mind, until one realizes that  there is a difference between “God” and “God-like.” I suppose the biggest difference is that “God” is a mind-created fable and  truth-claim about a unseeable object while the mind is something we are all very intimate with, especially its oppressive, deceptive and ingratiating nature which ceaselessly drives us to erect such titanic monumental altars to worship it.  The mind has seemingly deserved all the praise that we have given it, what with all the wonderful things in the world that the mind has given us, like depleted uranium, plastic soup oceans and genetically modified vegetables (and wasn’t the world clamoring for more depleted uranium, plastic in the oceans and genetically modified food?)

If one would find any benefit to blame whoever was responsible for lifting up such a bully to eminence, we could mention the Brahmanas and the ancient Greeks. The Advaita – the orthodox philosophical school of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), claims that Brahman is “knowledge” and everything in the visible world, “eternal spiritual body which is full of bliss!”  He is the Supreme Person! A Consciousness of Absolute Truth! The principle Upanishads claim that Brahman is the infinite consciousness. And how did we come to know of this infinite consciousness? From the words handed down from Vedic literature. You know, from stories. But the Vedas will be the first to admit, the Brahman that can be talked about is not the true Brahman.  Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

The Greeks had their stories as well, but I’m not talking about their superhero gods like Hercules, Aphrodite and Apollo. Their conception of the mind as God was just as abstractly absolute as anything  the Brahmanas cooked up. Anaxagoras conceived of a cosmology of where there was nothing but a formless, cosmic soup that existed at the beginning , until a cosmic mind he called, nous placed everything in order.  As Donnie Darko would say, “Deus Ex Machina! Our Lord and savior.” Anaxagoras never said where is “mind” came from, but you gotta admit, it makes for a great story and it even influenced the great Plato and the Neoplatonists, who also conceived a transcendent cosmic mind as being and thought from which all things emanated. The enemies of the Neoplatonists were the Gnostics, who claimed that the physical creation was the inferior and flawed work of an evil creator and a growing post-Judean sect called Christians who worshipped a crucified man as the Son of God, the Logos, the creative principle made flesh.

And to this day, there are people who believe that the mind within our holy brains, is the most powerful thing in the universe. Good ol’ New Age. Way to keep the cosmic consciousness home fires burning. From this we gather stories about how the human mind, the “greatest force in the universe,” is evolving into achieving “higher consciousness” and increasing our vibration to the point of becoming one with the cosmic consciousness.  Which is all well and good, but goddamn, where does the love-in end, Neale Donald Walsch? Why do you ask us to “make room in our minds for miracles,” for God’s sake? I understand that some of the books you’ve presented appear rich in wisdom and profound statements and that  you made a fortune with them, but did you ever ask yourself whether the alleged contact with “God” could in any way be verified? Did you ever consider that the words you assumed that came from “God” were actually formed within  a secret compartment  within your mind that in no way was connected to any Divine source? From judging the above quote, I reckon not, because it sounds like you are serious when you suggest that “making room” ” in your thinking for a miraculous intervention from “God.” Somehow, according to the schematic of  Walsch,  ”God” is quite limited – and can only act on the human scene through the thoughts of human beings, but only if we engage in wishful, magical thinking. Again, like Eckhart Tolle, Barbara Hand Clow, Esther Hicks  and many, many others who present consciousness as the most powerful force in the universe, they present claims as truths and don’t seem to realize the difference. To tell people to make room in their thinking for a miracle is capitulation of one’s self-direction. Thus Walsch’s claims are not credible and people need to check themselves for the lack of development of their common sense if they buy into this garbage. And that so many people do buy into this trash should make one question whether consciousness is all that “powerful” after all.

05/04/2012 – 2012 My Reply to “Franklin Beenz”

Franklin Beenz (if that’s his real name) is upset that I don’t give a fuck whether he properly investigates the Desteni Material or not. Something is stuck in Franklin’s craw and I don’t know why he insists on posting his disappointment about… why I don’t give a fuck whether he properly investigates the Desteni Material or not. The reason why I don’t give a fuck is because I’ve already investigated it, compared it to what I already knew and understood, participated fully on the various forums, visited and lived with them for years and still find the material (and the people behind it) trustworthy, impeccable and free from bullshit. So Franklin, how is it my responsibility to “prove” anything to you? You apparently know how to type, have access to the internet and seemingly have a working knowledge in English. If you can’t be bothered to research this yourself, then fuck off. Simple. Surprised I had to say that, a bit.

Now for you out there who may think I’m being too harsh on Franklin, here’s his last comment to me, submitted for your approval. He was asking my “source” responsible for the story I related in the FAQ. I told him the source was from a thread in the old Open Forum – which is archived to be viewed through permission only.

The source is from a ‘thread’ – and so that’s that, it’s true because it’s from a thread and you ‘simply don’t care’ that the words, message in that ‘thread’ should make actual and factual sense, be logical for any of your fellow human beings. So while traditional religions offer the word of god, you offer a thread and it matters not that either traditional religious beliefs nor your thread should actually make sense to your fellow humans.

The words and the message in the thread make perfect sense to me, Franklin, although according to your sensibilities it may seem like we’re pissing on logic and rationality… but I find it amusing that you would drag the Gods of the traditional religions into your bosom. Aren’t you a well-conditioned automaton?

Thanks for this little demonstration on how selflessness and equality operate in ones life if one puts into practice the teaching you are selflessly sharing and promoting here.

You’re welcome, but Franklin, I would never dream of taking your own responsibility away from you (unlike the Gods of your traditional religions). And I would never stand in your way of understanding equality and self-honesty if you sincerely asked, instead of spiking your inquiries with hater-aid.

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if everyone arrogantly and selfish-centeredly ‘simply didn’t care’ that their religious beliefs/teachings, philosophies of life, ideologies, value systems, etc ,that they were promoting and sharing with their fellow human beings, actually and factually contained logic and actually made sense?

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if people didn’t pretend to understand more than they actually did, and considered different ideas without the need to always place one’s own precious perspective above all others, without deceptive forked-tongued blandishments and deceitful dissembling? But that would be asking too much from you, eh Franklin?

It would be and remain a world demonstrating ‘the fucked-up nature of human beings and the world we’re bent on destroying’.

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with my words you pasted above. There’s too much of the Desteni Material to go through to make such sweeping conclusions, Franklin.  There are thousands of documents and videos. It’s deep, gnarly and sometimes scary stuff. And you’re not going to understand a lot of it. I’ve walked this for almost 5 fucking years and I barely grasp it. So, those are the main reasons why I don’t give a fuck whether you get the message or not. Because it’s your responsibility to get it, not mine. It’s all there waiting for you. You know it’s there. But if you’re like all the other haters, then get over yourself, stop posting on my blog, go back to your Traditional Gods and fuck off. And thanks for reading.

2012/3/31 – 2012 & U.G.K. – Is Enlightenment Possible?

While I don’t agree with everything he said, U.G. Krishnamurti got one thing right. “Enlightenment is a thought-induced experience.”

He correctly demonstrated how the very idea of “Enlightenment” is contingent  is linked to accepting the claims of  the “Great Sages” without question. This is very important to understand, as the mechanism of so-called enlightenment has only come down to us through the transmission of the traditions laid down by the sages and their proponents. In other words, “Enlightenment,” like the concept of “God” or the “Divine,” is something that one never experiences without first hearing all about it from somebody else. The narrative of “enlightenment” always involves a search for a guru who has experienced it and relates the alleged state to others. If one accepts the narrative of the Buddha, one has to imagine that nobody had ever experienced “enlightenment” before. Yet, the Buddha made it his mission, claimed to achieve it, and then told everyone else about it. But U.G. hits the nail on the head when he remarks in this interview that,

“…once one questions the whole idea of enlightenment, or as you put it, the concept of enlightenment,  we are questioning the teachers who have talked about it – and we have invested tremendous faith in them, so the sentiment comes into the picture, and we accept it as the gospel truth.”

According to the stories related by the Buddhists, Buddha actually achieved “enlightenment.” How he managed to convince others that he spoke the truth would be no great feat considering the way most people are willing to believe in any story, the more grandiose the better. This is why religion and spirituality still reigns in a world where any evidence of the divine is completely lacking. When Nietzsche exclaimed in the 19th century that “God is dead,” it seems that he spoke only for himself and the minority of European intelligentsia who surmised the role of religion as a control dynamic of the masses.
Nietzsche must’ve hoped that his view would become dominant in an empirical world of logical positivism, but could not have foreseen that the masses would  never be able to give up  their sentiment attached to religion, for sentiment, through its power of emotionalism and feeling is believed to be a higher form of knowledge (a “peace that passes understanding”), that ultimately  breaks down all common sense and the ability for discernment.

U.G.’s contention, which is correct in my opinion, is that enlightenment, the “soul,” or spirit, are all  inventions and projections of consciousness which demands some assurance of survival. When the interviewer asks U.G. that he imagines that the body does not survive after death but he hopes that his “ability to experience” (sentience) will continue at some level after death. U.G. asks in return, “Can you experience your body while you are living now?”

Of course, Western philosophy has always taken an interest in the nature of consciousness. When the interviewer brings up the famous maxim of Descartes: “I think, therefore I am,” U.G. says that Descartes asked the wrong question and references an old Indian adage:  “If you are not thinking, are you there?”

Clearly, U.G. considers that consciousness and its production of interpretation of experience, projections, thoughts, knowledge and emotions creates a vicious circle of impediments to any understanding of who we really are and what we are doing here.  When the interviewer expresses (almost in exasperation), “It sounds like we’re trapped,” U.G. offers only that “there is no answer” to getting out of the trap. Enlightenment, or rather, the enlightenment claimed to be in the possession of  so-called spiritual masters throughout human history has not elevated the whole of humanity one iota or solved a single problem confronting the human race. The enormous catalog of suffering, poverty, war and exploitation has grown larger with each passing century. U.G. correctly surmised what enlightenment actually is: an imaginary “solution” within the metaphysics of “hope.” This led U.G. to say that there was no “answer” and “no escape” from the condition of the world, and this was his big miss. He did not see or accept his responsibility to this world or how universal equality is the answer.

It’s a pity, because U.G. perhaps could have offered us even more than what he left behind.

3/28/2012- 2012: Spirituality as Energetic Mind Enslavement

Freedom of Belief: Narratives of Mental Enslavement

The ancient Greek philosophers that lived before Socrates (d. 399 BCE) tried to devise cosmologies that offered a more naturalistic explanation of how the world worked, as they found the religious and mystical explanations lacking. They sought a unifying principle which they believed to consist of a singular substance from whence all things were made. Thales believed that water was the principle. Others believed it was fire or air.  To the modern mind, such theories, in light of what we believe we now today,  are laughable and quaint, but these speculations actually formed the beginning of the scientific process. We are intrigued at how the element of spinning stories to explain the visible world is essentially all philosophy and religion has ever done. Buddha found “enlightenment” under the bodhi tree. Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Jesus as the Son of God, died and came back to life. The earth is flat.  I think, therefore I am. Human beings are inherently good. Man is born with Free Will. There are supernatural powers that control reality and human destiny. And so on. But it is important to realize that these narratives, while they are quite handy in providing cover for our fears, when it comes to religious beliefs, they can never escape what they are: constructions of human consciousness in response to fear of the unknown.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many expressions of supernatural belief? How about that first person who convinced another that they saw a “god” or some spiritual event actually happened? What has to happen to someone for them to believe in something that they don’t understand? Let me give you an example of what I mean.

A colleague of mine was explaining to me why he was a Christian. The story he shared centered on this point; that there was a person he knew that had some sort of medical problem and he prayed about and was miraculously healed. “What else could it be,” he asked me. The unspoken answer that obviously formed in his mind was that it had to be “God.”

“Can’t you see,” I replied, “that all you did was create a story to explain something you don’t understand?”

“You must be a free-thinker.” (I’ve been called this many times in my life). He continued,” I respect your beliefs, why don’t you respect mine?”

In other words, he is asking me to believe that what he believes in is actually true. But I wasn’t claiming that he made the story up. “Your mind just created an answer. You can’t prove God healed your friend.” [1]

“You can’t prove God didn’t,” he replied.

“Then explain why God healed your friend and not the thousands who died today?” Because, wait for it… it was God’s will. See how wonderfully the different narratives dovetail into each other to form a perfect circle of logic of theology? Unless this person can find it within himself to break out of this mental fun house of crucified gods and miracles, he will be trapped within this for the rest of his life.

I bet some are asking, “But what’s the harm in believing in religion and its stories? Isn’t it a basic human right to freely express one’s religious belief?”

Take a look at the wars that are occurring now in this world. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (which is part of the larger Arab – Israeli conflict) which has its roots in the desperate religious competition between Muslims and Jews. In Nigeria there are murders galore being committed by religious fanatics representing Christianity and Islam. The Lord’s Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony has been running religious war in the central Africa for over 20 years, killing, torturing, raping all in the name of Kony’s twisted Christian theology. In Yemen a civil war is being fought between Islamic Sunni and Shi’a sects and both sides are not above recruiting child soldiers to fight each other.

I could go on and on. These religious atrocities are occurring in modern times, never mind the voluminous catalog of vaguely ignorant fears the Unexplained conjured up in centuries past. Needless to say, humanity has not benefited from the religious narratives in any way.

Sai Baba is quoted to have said, “ The mind carries the divine principle (the light of love) and conveys it to all who contacts it.” From what I’ve seen in this world, the mind is a repository of unimaginable cruelty where the “light of love” only exists as a denial of the horrors that befall most people on this planet on a daily basis, almost of it committed by competing economic, political and religious systems.  Sai Baba may have actually believed his slogan of the light and love principle of the mind, but the fact remains  that all he could do was provide a nice-sounding story for his followers.

Isn’t religion the most subtle form of brainwashing? Isn’t spirituality the most subtle form of Mind Enslavement?

Now, what does this have to do with the notion that people have the “right” to choose and express their religious beliefs?

Note

[1] Reminds me of the story of Diagoras of Melos, the notorious Greek atheist who allegedly threw a wooden statue of Hercules into a fire and commanded it to either miraculously save itself or perform his 13th Labor and boil his pot of turnips. For this, a price was laid upon his head by the city fathers of Athens, causing Diagoras to skip town. But the story I want to tell comes from the Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero:  Diagoras was being lectured by a friend who tried to convince him of the existence of the gods by showing him the many votive pictures lovingly rendered by those who were saved from storms at sea by “dint of vows to the gods.” Diagoras replied, “Where are the pictures of those who had been shipwrecked and drowned at sea?”

2012/03/10 – 2012 and My Search for the Holy Ghost

I have been baptized a total of five times. I don’t know if there is a Guinness Book of World Records regarding the most times a person has undergone baptism, but if there is, I’d like to throw my name up for consideration.

I don’t recall every detail of each baptismal event, but I do recall the similarities and the feelings I experienced undergoing them. The first occurred when I was 6 when I was baptized in a Catholic ceremony in the North Toledo parish of the St. Vincent de Paul church. I would also attend the parish school for the next three years. I recall being very excited and pleased about having the priest make such a solemn fuss over me as he murmured in Latin and gently poured a small dish of water across my forehead. It was a moment that I always compared my subsequent baptisms to, and all comparisons failed to impress.

The reason why I had to require four more baptisms is simple. I am not certain why we stopped attending St. Vincent’s as I have never asked my mother about it, but my father is the son of a minister who led his own church at Zion Church of God in Christ, so there may have been a compelling reason to bring that religious stream into our lives as well. In any case, to be fully recognized as a fully – fledged member of my grandfather’s church, I and my sisters would have to be baptized again. At this I resisted. Why would I have to be re-baptized? Didn’t God recognize my first baptism as valid? But as a child these thoughts were pushed aside and I relented, although a bit offended, and allowed myself to be dipped into the pool of cold water behind my grandfather’s pulpit. Everyone in church was very pleased.

Fast-forward several years. My parents split up. I still want to attend my grandfather’s and I do at various times in my teens, but my mother doesn’t feel comfortable there, so she takes us to other churches in the neighborhood. I had to endure further baptisms to gain admittance in each church, and the ceremony quickly became tiresome and absurd. I became to doubt the efficacy of baptism itself, and certainly became very suspicious of churches in general. The questions kept coming. Did God really care that I had to be baptized into every church I attended to be acceptable in His sight? Or was this some requirement dreamed up by the pastor to fulfill some church quota or something? What did Jesus have to do with all these desperate and worn out black faces that I observed every Sunday who came here worship Him and His Son? Nobody here was alive when all these stories about Jesus were told. What if it was a joke? What if none of it ever happened? These thoughts would produce a nausea in my stomach and I quickly pushed them away, and I tried to get back into the sermon being delivered by the preacher.

But I was never satisfied. The priests and ministers I had to listen to were nowhere as memorable as the Latin Mass at St. Vincent’s or my grandfather Reverend. T.T. Thomas’ dignified orations. In fact, I found subsequent ministers more outlandish and even crazy. But with each church I had to attend I also had to be formally introduced with being dressed in white and plunged into an ice-cold pool of water. With each drenching a payment of new doubts entered my mind.

Have you heard of “salvation?” It’s something that happens to you when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. You are “saved” from an eternal fate of damnation and separation from God through accepting the story of Jesus’ blood-sacrifice as true. And if that was all that would be required of a Christian, the story would be easier to believe. But one also has to gain the favor of the Holy Spirit as well, according to the Pentecostal doctrine of my grandfather’s church. Of course, the Pentecost refers the to singular event in the book of Acts where the Holy Spirit is said to descend upon the Apostles in the form of tongues of fire that allegedly appeared above their heads, causing them to “speak in tongues,” sometime after the death of Jesus.[1]

Since I had been tormented by the scary stories about the End Times according to the Book of Revelations from childhood, I very much desired to “have” the Holy Ghost. I was led to believe that this was crucial in being saved. I had witnessed various saints, always women, it seemed, “speaking in tongues.” I was told it was the language that the angels spoke, and it sounded like a frightful convulsive string of elongated and abbreviated vowels and stuttering. The people speaking in tongues never knew or remembered what they were saying. Their bodies and faces were contorted in painful ecstasy and a kind of possession. It was weird to witness and marked for me a major difference between the Catholic and Protestant churches I attended. It was also “proof” that the Holy Ghost was indeed valid and real, and thus their Christian faith was valid and real, at least to the believers.

One night while having been forced again to attend another tiresome mid-week church service, I was led to the front of the church during a call for new members who were wanting to accept Jesus into their lives. The music, shouting and clamor were especially raucous this hot summer evening, and somehow I found myself standing before the congregation in tears. Apparently, this made me “saved.” An old black man was overjoyed as there was seven of us standing before them, “one saved soul for each day of the week.” One the ride home I was completely still within the knowing that I had not been changed or transformed in any way. I had fooled them without intending to deceive. They couldn’t tell I was the same as before. It was all a joke.

In any case, I longed to have the Holy Spirit, to cease my curious mind from doubting so much. Often I would pray to receive the Holy Ghost. But nothing ever happened. I was told to receive the Holy Ghost was a life-changing and beautiful experience. When church members would ask me if I was going to be a “preacher like your granddaddy” (whom I strongly resembled in appearance), I often didn’t know what to say, because I didn’t have the Holy Ghost, so until that happened, I couldn’t actually say I would be a preacher. I wanted to be. But I didn’t have it.

One night I witnessed the choir’s organist, who was bad-ass on the organ and piano, being called to come to the altar to repent his sin of homosexuality. He pitifully broke down and repented. But it was obvious to me that he was still going to be gay, just as he was still going to be a bad-ass organist. It was just who he was. I didn’t understand how that kind of separation his sexual identity could occur within salvation. But this caused me to pray to receive the Holy Ghost even more fervently. But I never received it. And I gave up. For some reason, it was never gonna happen for me. I was either unworthy of the Holy Ghost, or it didn’t exist.

My experience as an African-American within the African-American religious tradition that I just recounted here is not unique. Although I did not realize it at the time when I was a teen, similar experiences were reported by other important African-American authors like Langston Hughes, Richard Wright and James Baldwin [2], among others.

At the time I could not understand why the Holy Ghost had seemingly chosen to forsake me. As I further delved into college textbooks and became more aware of the subject of comparative religions, the more I began to lose touch with the religious framework (which seemed to all be based on unverifiable stories first told in the dim past). I realized I had no more at stake in defending the reality of God any more than I had to defend the reality of say, Neptune or Hercules. Yahweh, Neptune and Hercules all share one point: they have all been created and given existence through the consciousness of human beings. And it is through this conscious creation that all manners or evil and cruelty can be committed and justified. It will be a better world when religious ideas are set to the side by a mature civilized world. I don’t know how we will get there, but since nobody fervently insists that Hercules or Neptune be worshiped today, there is a chance we might be able to dispose of all religious superstition if we can make it through this bleak existential gap of insanity and despair.

 

NOTES

[1] 2.1. When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. ² And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. ³ And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. ⁴ And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

⁵ Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. ⁶ And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. English Standard Version (ESV)

[2] …”being in the pulpit was like being in the theatre; I was behind the scenes and knew how the illusion worked.”… “If the concept of God has any validity or any use,” he wrote, “it can only be to make us larger, freer, and more loving. If God cannot do this, then it is time we got rid of him.” James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963)..

 

2012/03/07 – 2012 & My Reply to a Buddhist

Buddha taught to achieve inner peace. But at what cost?

I received this comment from a reader and I want to place this as a new blog post because it reflects an argument that I’ve seen many times before from various religious devotees. In my earlier post a reader claimed that I was picking on Buddha for and his followers for no good reason.

Reply from esantipapa

““Enlightenment” is a fraud. It is a deception that assumes to know and understand more than it can. Enlightenment doesn’t fail because you’ve applied it incorrectly, or because you are not worthy of it. People throughout the ages have sought it and it and only a few have dared to claim that they have attained it. It would be one thing if Enlightenment actually changed the world for the better for all of us. We can easily see that is not the case.”

Enlightenment is a personal journey. No two people have the same path to it. And as far as it not changing the world, that’s beyond ridiculous. Those who strive for deeper compassion and kindness (to their fellow humans), as a path to Enlightenment, do great things because of their compassion and kindness. Sneering at individuals who aim for deeper understanding of their fellow human, deeper compassion for all peoples, and greater personal-outward kindness is not praiseworthy or intellectual by any measure. It makes me sad to know you do not see how you are right on the core issue, but wrong on the examples, as you demonstrate here:

“The solutions are all here on Earth, not locked away in some inaccessible region of consciousness but within understanding who we are and choosing how we are going to relate with ourselves and each other.”

That IS essentially the concept expressed by the whole of the Dharma (and it is put so eloquently by you). Why are you arguing against Buddha when you express ideas that are virtually identical to the Dharma? You may want to read more about the current Dalai Lama’s life story, he’s had a much better set of translators than those of antiquity, and uses almost the same language you use here. That our compassion is derived from our sameness, and how we see each other. That we have all the tools we need here in this life to further understand one another if we choose to use them.

 

My reply:

 

You say enlightenment is a “personal journey.” I have to challenge that assertion. Have you gained enlightenment? Do you know someone who has? How would one even verify that someone, or anybody, including Buddha achieved it? All we have are stories of individuals gaining it, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and there’s no proof that anything like “enlightenment” or “karma” or “the wheel of reincarnation” exists the way the Buddhists say it does.

If people as a whole strove to gain a “deeper understanding of their fellow human, deeper compassion for all peoples, and greater personal-outward kindness” through the application of Buddhist principles and that resulted in a far more sane and rational world, then that would be an entirely different thing. But the Buddha attached a spurious metaphysical component that ended up creating a void where self and the material world is negated. I understand that in principle the Buddhist is to follow the Middle Path, but metaphysical fence-sitting has not brought about a better world for everyone.

Buddha’s starting point within attaining enlightenment has been so ineffective in dealing with the world because the criterion, the foundation, is suspect. Instead of establishing a world based on egalitarian terms, the focus was placed on eliminating anguish and suffering, which are not causes, but the effects or symptoms of the poisonous relationships between people. Did Buddha, as a member of the royalty, denounce or taught that such a social order was beneficial or detrimental to proper relationships within the world? I doubt that he did. Instead, the Buddha focused on meditation and mental stratagems in removing self from the world, which he considered an illusion, anyway. Look at India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, China, Thailand; all the countries that have followed Buddhism to one extent or another. The people who live there have caught hell for a long time. Karma must be something that is defective, because it allegedly is supposed to equalize the human experience towards good and proper ethical relationships. Yet unspeakable poverty, injustice and exploitation exists in conditions that are worse than ever. How would the Buddha explain that?

I do not “sneer” at people who are interested in making this world a better place for everyone – such a goal is what I’ve always been about. People like myself have been diverted and mislead by religious, spiritual and metaphysical principles that have proven to be ineffective, dubious and actually harmful to our cause. Following religious principles and chasing after gurus and special Ascended Masters has made us into dumbasses that has allowed the elites to be able to run slipshod over us for so long. You don’t see them worrying about samsara or dharma, do you? Their lineage continues and continues as if karma only rewarded their efforts to dominate, exploit and destroy.

It takes action to change the world, not sitting on your ass under a bodhi tree until you are an ass-ending master so you can teach others how to ass-end.into their minds. I mean, it just hasn’t worked. Achieving inner peace at the cost of separating one’s self from the world is only separation. This practice has obviously been a defective, impractical and self-interested approach to the problems it alleges to “solve.” And don’t bring the Dalai Lama into this. He is completely irrelevant in the affairs of the world while he sits in a saffron robe placing guru-seekers’ heads in the clouds all day. I mean, don’t equate what I am saying as a personal attack on your belief system. Take it for what it is, facing the truth, as I have faced – that all religious systems lead to one point: deception. We don’t need God, Buddha or the Dalai Lama to tell us the proper way to relate to people. We don’t need meditative states or following gurus or attaining an enlightened state to realize that suffering in this world can be stopped. We only need to release our desire to chase after things we can’t verify and embrace the common sense of universal equality. If the Buddha had spoken about that, I’d be all over it As it is, we have to let it go, because what Buddha represents has not been worthy of following, as the world has entertained the Buddhist perspective for centuries and it has failed completely.

2012/03/06 – 2012 & the Fraud of Buddha’s “Enlightenment”

Meh. He meant well.

“Well, this has been an interesting site. Thanks for helping me find some sanity in some of the rather bullcrappish stuff I have followed over the past decade. I know I have bought and read all of the books mentioned of all of the authors so far and I am broke, unemployed, ready to lose my home, so you figure, who is enlightened by all of this?” – kkorth

Indeed, all the Eckhart Tolle’s and the Neal David Walsch’s of the world pump out their discredited New Age spirituality fictions while passing them off as “truths” and selling them for big bucks to people like you and me, who knew something is terribly wrong with the world and was forever looking for a way to deal with it. As we both have learned, kkorth, reading and applying these principles peddled by the New Age community doesn’t work. It may work for the 1% who write, market and sell this fluffy flowerhat metaphysics, but for the other 99% all we get is a lump of coal in our stocking.

There’s a very good reason it all works this way. We all have been led astray by the assumptions made by philosophers, theologians and spiritualists that there is something “out there” that 1) has our best interests at heart and 2) gives meaning to our suffering. Human suffering is the out-flowing of the singular human condition of necessity. Nobody would ever survive infancy without the aid from others. This condition of needing/requiring aid from others can only come from the network of relationships that are formed by all things in this world. Thus everything that necessity demands is Here. On Earth. The “Power of Now” has nothing to do with anything essential to anything as it is only a refurbished, retooled religious philosophical abstraction created by people like Tolle in the guise of offering a “truth,” who probably mean well, but as we have seen, this doesn’t give anyone any lasting benefit at all.

“Enlightenment” is a fraud. It is a deception that assumes to know and understand more than it can. Enlightenment doesn’t fail because you’ve applied it incorrectly, or because you are not worthy of it. People throughout the ages have sought it and it and only a few have dared to claim that they have attained it. It would be one thing if Enlightenment actually changed the world for the better for all of us. We can easily see that is not the case.

For example, “enlightenment” has long been associated with the doctrines and legends of the Buddha. The fundamental core of the doctrines of the Buddha is the claim that provides an understanding and methodology that allows a person to end “suffering.” But for the Buddha, this cessation of suffering had been personal and it had to include a denial of the physical Here-ness while insisting that there was mental realm of inner peace that transcended suffering (and hence, necessity). This is the fatal flaw of all metaphysics, Eastern and Western. For it is within the relationship-networks of humanity, poisoned by self-interest and the seeking of overpowering others that are the causes of suffering. There is no need for any reaching out to the metaphysical. The solutions are all here on Earth, not locked away in some inaccessible region of consciousness but within understanding who we are and choosing how we are going to relate with ourselves and each other. Yes, the Buddha was correct in a sense that desires and cravings are instrumental in the suffering of human beings, but that arises not because existence is suffering, but because have not learned from what we have all seen, accepted and allowed within ourselves that is reflected in out in the world. Buddha missed the Equality Equation, the universal point that is the key to appropriate self-government and democracy. The application of universal equality alone will end human suffering. People will call this “communism” and “utopia,” but these people have not lost everything yet. Only those with nothing to lose will consider the elegant proposition of political and economic equality. And one doesn’t need ‘the Power of Now” or a Buddha to get there.

 

 

2012/2/20 – 2012, the Sovereign Individual and Equal Money

Would "minivanjack" trade places with this being? Would YOU?

 

I’m expanding a discussion with Youtube user, “minivanjack” regarding his video, “God, Money and Lies.” The video seems to be a rather boilerplate Alex Jones/Lew Rockwellian libertarian diatribe about the Federal Reserve, the Federal Government, the worthlessness of fiat money and how these three institutions are robbing us Americans our liberty and freedom (as if we possessed them in the first place). I’m sure thoughtful readers of this blog has heard this song and dance before and probably agree that the case presented in the video is fairly accurate.

But “minivanjack” does not like the Equal Money platform and is suspicious and distrustful of Democracy and presumably the democratic process. In the comments section of his video, “minivanjack” peppers his disdain for democracy as “mob rule” derisively ridiculing the concept by borrowing libertarian author James Bovard’s witticism of democracy being, “two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. “Mob rule,” “minivanjack” said, adding, “Study some history, all your mistakes are there.”

In studying history extensively ever since grade school, I’ve read and understood  a bit of it. Democracy has not acquitted itself well in historical terms (Neither has “liberty” or “freedom,” for that matter). The intellectual founders of Western Civilization, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were notoriously anti-democratic, preferring strong rulers to lead the common people who were too simple and ignorant to appreciate such lofty concepts as governing a state or themselves.

The Founding Fathers of the United States thought much along the same lines, despising the notion of “mob rule” of the people as much as their classical forebears. They were under no illusion how America would be ruled. “The people who own the country,” said Founding Father and first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, “ought to run it.” In the wake of Occupy Wall Street, the idea that the 1% controlling how the 99% lives has brought Jay’s throwaway line into public focus. Indeed, the people who do own the country do run it, but hasn’t always been this way in every country that has ever existed?

Leaving that aside for now, I turn to “minivanjack’s” comments about Equal Money after several EM proponents left their views on his videos. To say he wasn’t impressed about EM would be an understatement. When one poster remarked that he hadn’t fully studied Equal Money sufficiently, “minivanjack” shot back:

 

“I do know something about Equal Money, I read the web site. I did not attack Equal Money, I attacked the idea that my earnings would be taken and distributed by someone other than myself. I am advocating the right to keep what I earn and to earn what I wish to keep. If my earnings are snatched into some giant pot to be managed by some psychopath who aspires to do that, I will not bother to earn, and the redistribution model will collapse, as did the Soviet Union.”

 

“minivanjack” wasn’t finished. He added:

 

“Enforcement of “equal access”is called “redistribution”. How else can you enforce that “equal access”? Somebody besides the earner and rightful possessor is ENFORCING the presumed “ideal”distribution or “access” if that’s what you want to call it. You don’t seem to distinguish between the right to operate freely and the “right” for a person to receive a benefit paid for or created by another person, that benefit being transferred by force of policy, authority and regime.”

 

Which I saw as my entry point into the conversation. I pointed out:

 

The “right to operate freely” has historically been abused to cause a lot of human suffering in this world under colonial & neoliberal economic practices. This in itself is economic totalitarianism. All people are exploited by this neoliberal economic domination – it’s just that some slaves can afford to buy toys other slaves are forced to manufacture. Foxconn is a case in point why your thesis of “rights” and “freedom” is incoherent, ironic and self-deceptive.”

 

“minivanjack”:

Foxconn has nothing to do with my comments or positions. You are throwing red herrings, and you are failing to explain how your system will force redistribution to create “equality”. Please explain the mechanism that will force the redistribution of resources, possessions and equity. You say people must “give”. Who forces them to do that?

 

Me:

 

“I used Foxconn as an example in how your comments about “the right to operate freely” within this capitalist system doesn’t make sense because such a thing isn’t even possible under current circumstances. One’s reality is contingent upon the ability to purchase survival from others. There’s no “freedom” within that at all no matter where you happen to fall within the enslavement spectrum, and that is the point I addressed.

 

“minivanjack”:

 

“Believe it or not, working for Foxconn is a choice. We set our wages and working conditions by agreeing to them. We have freedom the moment we take it. Freedom cannot be given. Only benefits and privileges are given. Freedom must be taken.”

 

Looking back at this quote, I wonder if “minivanjack” would be happy exchanging places with a worker facing such “choices.” Me:

 

Working for Foxconn is a choice,” alright. So is exploiting crummy economic conditions of one segment of the human race so another may benefit. Choosing between starvation or exploitation is not a “choice” made “freely.” It is the response to the immediacy of survival, which one either “chooses” to temporarily forestall, or like a few Foxconn workers, leap to their deaths when nothing of life was left within them, You are trivializing great suffering. Shame on you.

 

“minivanjack”:

 

I am not trivializing, you are missing my point. The more tyranny we suffer the more of us must oppose the tyranny. There are two enemies of justice, the tyrant and the willing slave of the tyrant. The tyrant alone can do nothing. EMS does not account for everyone’s obligation to resist tyranny. If people are exercising their responsibility to resist tyranny your ‘inequity” problem solves itself.

 

Me:

 

The Equal Money system is a democratic & economic government (One Person, One Vote) that is based on universal equality and respect for life. This is a post-capitalist government where money doesn’t buy power for an elite. EMS is the end of all elites, Economic Darwinism and political deception. People will no longer waste their lives working only for money. Basic needs will be provided by the State as the State (the People) will only exist to do what is best for all.

 

“minivanjack”:

 

“What is best for all” ?! Last I checked “All” has never said what is best for it. That means that some “leader” will be deciding what is best for all. And that will also happen to be best for that “leader”. Democracy? I noticed you never responded to my definition of democracy. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Mob rule. Study some history, all your mistakes are there.

Me:

There’s a simple reason why ‘all’ hasn’t said what is best for it. All has been separated, divided, diverted and manipulated by forces that has operated under a program of self-interest and money. One day the people will wake up. We want them to do it before it is too late. Your fear of “tyranny” prevents you to see how One Person, One Vote is the most practical principle in dealing with issues that affect everyone. Sorry that makes you feel like a sheep among wolves.

 

“minivanjack”:

 

“that makes you feel”?? You do love to invent things to suit yourself. That doesn’t “make me feel” anything. That is mob rule. The majority “ruling” and violating the rights of the minority and the individual. You will never get equity by letting people “vote” on anything. Control is control.

 

Me:

 

If you are going to have a society then you are going to have controls to regulate relationships between people. Are you advocating “anarchy”? Your apparent disdain for democracy and “tyranny” from “control” (I assume you mean “state control”) is very curious. This clip on the subject of fiat money seems directed to get people (as a group) to gain “control” over the situation and do something about it. So I don’t understand where you are coming from.

 

“minivanjack”:

 

Controls to regulate relationships? No thank you, I can manage my own relationships. It is very clear that you don’t understand. There are other options besides mob rule (“democracy”) and anarchy. Obviously I a not suggesting anarchy. I am suggesting individual responsibility, honor and rights. “Controls” are for tyrants and slaves.

 

Me:

Fascinating. What do you get when a group of individuals relate responsibly and honorably with each other if not equality and justice? And what “rights” can one assert without being recognized by others?

 

“minivanjack”:

 

You described a Republic of Individual Sovereigns there. So Equal Money relies on the good behavior of all members and has no central authority?

 

And at last we get to cleave to the real matter at hand. I should have picked up on this earlier, but it’s been many years since I flirted with libertarian perspectives from the inside, which at its heart is the libertarian claim that states one specific political philosophy is superior to all others and is the most conducive to human freedom. It is the same claim set in quasi-religious terms which states that America was founded by Great Men as a Constitutional Republic, not as a “democracy.”There is often the religious-type belief which accompanies this thesis that these Great Men fought for Freedom and Liberty. The truth is that this was the case, if one fulfilled the requirement of being a wealthy, white landowner.

Leaving aside all that for a moment, I was impressed by “minivanjack’s” final statement. Not just because it was the only comment he didn’t completely refute, object or sneer at, but because it offered a small point of agreement (at least that’s how I took it. It is more interesting to me to investigate points of possible agreements than endlessly arguing with someone. I’ve learned that most people will not give up a single point rather than question various things within their perspective. They’ve invested so much of themselves within them, haven’t they?

So here it was, a seeming agreement of an ideal situation between people, “a group of individuals relate responsibly and honorably with each other.” I call it Equality and Oneness through the Equal Money program while “minivanjack” sees it as a “Republic of Individual Sovereigns.”

 

Sovereign Individuals
To understand what a “Republic of Sovereign Individuals” implies, we have to understand the its definition. A “sovereign individual,” according to proponents of the “Sovereign Movement,” ”believes in rights and power for the individual.”[1]

There’s your starting point. “Rights and powers for the individual.” But what do they mean by “rights?” According to various dictionaries you will get a multitude of answers, from “Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality [2], or, “an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature,”[3] or, “something to which someone has a just claim.”[4]

A “just claim?” The Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence famously asserted  that:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Let’s give a close reading to this bit of baroque propaganda. The first two clauses of this statement we can let pass without comment, for we agree with them. What is the uniting factor in all human beings? It is that we all are born into this world needing the aid of others to survive infancy. In this truly all creatures are equal.

The third clause sails into a storm with no return, as it claims to know of a “Creator” who has “endowed” human beings with “certain, unalienable rights.” Since no “Creator” has ever been proven to exist except within the minds of believers, we have no choice than to regard this as a self-deceptive abstraction: a story (actually, a lie) fabricated by consciousness which demands a beginning to the story of Mankind. There was no “Creator” which gave men “rights,” (unless you can call the human ego,
“The Creator” which is much closer to the truth). Thus rights are an abstraction created by the minds of men. A right is a political abstraction that implies freedom from oppression committed by others. “Liberty” is another political abstraction. It implies a kind of self-authority not contingent upon the actions of others. These are the major planks in the platform of classical liberalism, which may have its beginning with John Locke, the great liberal propogandist and slave-trade profiteer. Locke regarded the individual sovereign as having:

 

” a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did.“[2]

 

Nowhere in this lofty formulation of personal liberty does kidnapping, holding and selling fellow human beings enter into the equation. Apparently “unalienable rights” and the “pursuit of happiness” has never taken all into consideration, just those who can afford the ticket. Since Locke, celebrated by proponents of Natural Law, liberty and Republicanism as one of the putative fathers of classical liberalism was foremost a major investor in the Royal African Company, all he had to concern himself with was his own pursuit of happiness, which has to be nothing more than the pursuit of wealth through slave trading and installing a feudal arrangement through his drafting of the Constitutions of the Carolinas while composing liberal philosophies at his leisure. Africans and the indigenous people he helped enslave and disenfranchise were considered by Locke to be sub-humans to be regarded as cattle, as private property – with no “unalienable rights” to liberty and freedom at all.

As for the “pursuit of happiness,” this is something altogether different. This “right” is merely a truth-claim that human beings have a right to experience sensations of pleasure at any cost. This unfortunate externalization of the ego had been attempted to be elevated as a political principle of the ideal society being presented as “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” by the Utilitarian proponents Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Not that the Founding Fathers and the elites they represented were interested in the “greatest happiness for the greatest number,” they absolutely were not. They were bewitched by liberal notions of enlightened self-interest as the externalization of the ego, and this is the fatal flaw of liberalism, which pretends to consider human beings as agents of personal autonomy endowed with free choice. What we see clearly is that rights are not lofty, high-minded abstractions, but actually only privileges granted under certain conditions that must be bought and paid for.

And yet, people like “minivanjack” look forward to an ideal society where human beings relate responsibly and honorably with each other in equality and justice. He calls this a Republic of Sovereign Individuals. We call it the Equal Money System. It is our opinion that such future state cannot possibly manifest from so-called “free trade” capitalism, republicanism, democratic republicanism or socialism. Nothing that has been tried has ever worked to the benefit of all people. As Bernard Poolman has said,

 

“the only important issue while on earth is what is going on here on earth and whether what has been given is shared equal and one that all may make the best of the time they have on earth.” It is not about the “rights and powers” of the Individual that is at stake, but the future of this world where everyone arrives here in need and aid.

 

Money  and the Individual
Money has been the Great In-equalizer of the Human Condition. There is where the ax must be laid at its root. Money is the most ubiquitous system of control ever devised by human beings. Money is an abstraction of a system of exchange. It is a symbol of power and authority. It is God. With it one has life and prosperity. Without it, death and poverty. The Individual is always the slave of Money. This is why neoliberals, anarcho-libertarians, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independents, socialists and communists make such a big deal about personal property and wealth. The individual’s relationship to money is the most important thing in the world to them. This is the major cause of madness within the human beings with access to money. The world is a fine place for these people, as money inoculates them from unpleasant and painful experiences and scenarios that may impede and retard their pursuit of happiness.

 

The Equality Equation
In the Equal Money System, there is a different focus and starting point; life, not abstractions as “power and rights.”As Sunette Spies remarked, “the only equation that works with life is the equality equation which, “equates the accumulation of what is best for all ’til all is part of one group within which each part is an equal in every way.”

Immanuel Kant, the German Idealist philosopher of the Enlightement Movement, devised a principle that behavior should be determined by duty, the categorical imperative. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” Here is where the Equality Equation becomes that living principle with these three points all other systems have known and bandied about, but always failed to establish:

 

1. Give to another that which you would like to receive. This is a fundamental basic human right, such as basic living requirements from birth till death. The basic living requirements of each person is pre-planned and the person is setup for life for what it is that they will require to live within the current trend of a particular era.
2. No person will work for money. Work is considered a pleasure to be performed voluntarily, people will participate according to their interest and because they understand it is a physical act of love to give to others. As Kahlil Gibran states: “Work is love made visible and as love is good and money is evil, working for money creates evil as the world demonstrates”.
3. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This statement describes the starting point and behaviour necessary to include all into all considerations and decisions made in the Equal Money System, to support ‘what is best for all’. Within this, we move from the starting point of equality and equal access for a life to be lived in dignity. We are creating this system wherein we all agree to give to each other what we require to live a satisfactory life. We apply this understanding to the raising of children, ensuring that we pass on the necessary tools of maintaining equality to those who determine the future of the system. [6]

 

In this the Individual is established through acts of self-responsibility, walking this process of transitioning into an equality system as individuals, not as a group among groups competing in a game of winner-takes-all, but for the inclusion of all of existence.

This is quite a challenge. People have been so brainwashed and enchanted by their own ego-based mindsets that very few can hear what we are saying at this point. People want to hold onto what they have and what they know.  Many will complain that EM cannot be successful for many reasons. It sounds too much like a utopian pipe-dream. But as the current money system slowly but surely crumbles under its own weight of corruption and greed, and everyone loses everything they value, a true, workable alternative will be sought, and the principles of Equal Money will finally be established for the benefit of all, and not only those who can afford the price of the ticket.

 

Footnotes:
[1] http://libertas.ws/what-is-a-sovereign-individual/
[2] “right,” wordweb.com. Accessed Feb. 18, 2012;
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rights ”rights,” The Free Dictionary” accessed on Feb. 18,2012.
[4]http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=right “Right” Britannica Online, accessed on Feb. 18, 2012
[5] Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morality
[6] “The Equal Money System, “Contributers, Destonian Wiki, http://wiki.destonians.com/Equal_Money_System

2012/01/28 – Barbara Hand Clow’s 2012 Mayanist Cottage Industry

Clow: Mapping the Galactic Underground

The 2012 phenomenon is largely a cottage industry of writers, lecturers and New Age celebrities who market their theories to people through videos, in workshops and on websites. There are many of these people who have been spreading for years the Gospel of the Mayans, “time – acceleration,” the evolution of consciousness and of course, the end of the current age. Appeals are made to the allegedly superior spiritual culture of the Mayans and their “sacred” time – keeping, while the darker side of that civilization is given scant attention, if any. Hey, if something you promote has a side that cuts against the narrative, best leave it alone, right?

It is noteworthy that since the era of the post New Age Harmonic Convergence date of 1987, there have been a steady rise in the publishing of books that claim received knowledge and wisdom from extraterrestrial sources through trance channel mediums. While books claiming to be dictated from alien races coincided with the UFO culture from the 1950′s. this was still a marked departure from earlier channeled material that allegedly came from “ascended beings” or “masters” who resided on Earth (at least at one time). In the late 19th century, the original Theosophist (and Godmother of the New Age Movement) Helena Blavatsky claimed to receive messages from mysterious God – like “Mahatmas” who were former humans who acquired enough spiritual power to break free of the wheel of reincarnation. This belief in the veracity of received knowledge through mediumistic means established a tradition that was carried out by Blavatsky’s followers. Alice Bailey, who was deeply influenced by Blavatsky‘s work, joined the Theosophical Society and eventually produced a highly technical series of spiritual writings from “Ascended Masters” she claimed was dictated to her for over 30 years.

A few years after Bailey’s death in 1949, George Van Tassel,  former aircraft inspector began having Friday night channelings that he claimed came from other planets. George Adamski’s book, The Flying Saucers Have Landed came out the following year, in 1953. Ken Carey’s, The Starseed Transmissions was immensely influential in the New Age Movement in the late 1970’s and every loner and outsider who read it soon imagined themselves to be a “walk-in” from some other planet. But that book has been eclipsed in recent years by two well-known New Age authors, Barbara Marciniak and Barbara Hand Clow. And they both have plenty to say about aliens, ascension and 2012.

Barbara Hand Clow is undoubtedly the more important writer as her works has been published in different languages worldwide. Clow is not only the author of at least 14 books you can buy on Amazon.com that deal in various subjects such as “Awakening the Planetary Mind,” ”the Pleaidian Agenda” and the “Alchemy of Nine Dimensions,”  but she’s also the publisher, as well. Clow began her career as an astrologer and then as a medium who allegedly channels “the Pleiadians.” She married  Gerry Clow, a book publisher and owner of Bear and Co, which under Hand Clow’s direction, became one of the most well – known New Age book imprints in the world. Almost all of the books published about New Age Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon have been written or published by Clow or people closely associated with her, such as Jose Arguelles, James Calleman and John Major Jenkins – and many others.

James Calleman has perhaps an unfortunate and mysterious connection with Clow. His book, The Mayan Calendar was published by Bear & Company in 2004. Calleman was a major influence on Clow and she claims to have written The Maya Code as a response to Calleman’s theories. Clow alleges in The Maya Code, that her middle-aged son Tom had “snitched” a copy of Calleman’s book from Hand’s brother. On June 6, 2004, Tom’s body was found hanging from a tree, an apparent suicide. Clow claims her son was depressed over the deaths of his brother Matthew and his father. Both Matthew and Tom Clow, along with their mother, had been initiated into a Mayan mystery ritual in 1989 by another 2012 promoter and shaman, Humbatz Men,(Clow, 2004)  and the date of his death coincided with a a “key event in the Mayan calendar,” according to Clow.  Barbara claims in The Maya Code that her son’s backpack was missing, and she thinks that it was stolen along with the missing copy of Calleman’s book which she assumes was in the backpack. This awful incident is both tragic and significant to Clow, and it apparently led her to become more involved in spreading the 2012 Mayan prophecy.

All this is tragic enough, but that did not stop Clow from choosing a different target than the December 21, 2012 date others like Arguelles, McKenna and Drunvalo had selected, predicting instead that “time and evolutionary acceleration (?) would be completed by October 28, 2011.”  this date corresponds to Calleman’s speculations and corresponds to Terence McKenna’s 2012 “Timewave” theories before McKenna “corrected“ his date to align with the winter solstice, 2012. Were they copying from each other’s notes, or what? Bear in mind that Clow is not trained scholar in archeology,  anthropology, or history. Clow claims to arrive at her pseudo-scientific speculations through “intuition” and “meditating.” That’s right, Clow’s primary scientific method is “intuition.“ What Clow and the authors who publish their speculative reports for her publishing house have done is little more than project their theories onto the dim past and work them into a mixer of their consciousness and work and mix and match until the evidence says what they want it to say.

But let’s speak plainly. The  Mayans, as far as anyone can tell, died out because their so-called superior “time-keeping” couldn’t keep them from wrecking their environment which produced catastrophic droughts that went a long way in wiping out their culture. Nor did their impeccable time – keeping prevent the Spanish from shooting, plundering and colonizing what was left of their civilization. If building wondrous structures and tracking the stars and composing calendars till the cows came home couldn’t help the Mayans back when they needed it the most, why on Earth does  Clow and her New Age celebrity gang  think it will help us now in the 21st century? Because it is telling that Clow and her Mayanist stable of writers believe that the West will not survive this materialistic age without “the secrets of the Mayans,” which sounds to me like the blind leading the blind. (Clow, 2004)

Remember, the Mayans were fairly easily dispensed with by the likes of Cortes and his hired killers. In fact, Mayan civilization had been in a precipitous decline for many, many centuries before the Spanish finished them off for good. But let’s look at what made the Mayans so wise and worthy of making such a big deal over. Their chosen  form of governance was heavily dependent on a social division of slave labor, a priestly elite and very wealthy aristocracy. Check. Recent scientific findings suggest that the Mayan civilization never recovered from three successive droughts brought on by the Mayans overwhelming their environment that destroyed their eco-system and forced millions to abandon the cities – states. Check.  They engaged in ritualistic bloodletting and human sacrifice, including child sacrifice which was practiced on special holidays. Check. Removal of the still- beating human heart was a quaintly barbaric practice performed by the Mayan political and religious elite. Check.  I don’t know about you, but these Mayans hardly  sound like something I would want to emulate or hold in high esteem. What nobility  or wisdom can there be in a culture who superstitiously and brutally sacrificed children? Not that we as a race have evolved beyond that point since the Mayans. We’re more inclined to use children as soldiers or sex slaves than just killing them. Yet, for Barbara Hand Clow, the Mayans are to be revered as the “keepers of sacred time” and whatnot. According  to Clow and her stable of Mayanist mythologists the Mayans held the key to the evolution of human consciousness by devising a calendar that was more attuned with the Divine Plan., a future towards a “a time-less Enlightened cosmic consciousness.” (Calleman, 2001) According to Calleman:

“The prophetic Mayan calendar is unique among the calendars of the world in being non-astronomically based. Rather than being based on the physical movements of the earth, sun and planets it charts the changing spiritual energies of cosmic evolution.”

 

The Mayans also murdered children on their altars, so if this crap is true, then “cosmic evolution” best appears to be avoided and regarded as sinister. I really would like to know how Calleman was able to verify this beyond doubt. Like all the 2012 New Age/Mayanist crowd, Clow, Calleman and others present their opinions and beliefs as if they were based on solid, factual evidence. Does the calendar of the Mayans actually “represent the nine underworlds of consciousness” as maintained by Calleman? (Calleman, 2004) Or is that something these writers want to believe so badly that they backwards engineer their opinions, beliefs and perspectives to find what they are looking for. And in this, Barbara Hand Clow is making a lot of money misleading many into a mindset that is going to be ripe for disappointment come December 21, 2012. I just hope those who were foolish enough to fall for her enlightened pseudo-rationality will stand up from it and chose to finally stand up for reality.

Sources:

“Barbara Hand Clow.” Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. The Gale Group, Inc, 2001. Answers.com 25 Jan. 2012. http://www.answers.com/topic/barbara-hand-clow

Calleman,Carl Johan, The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation of Consciousness
Bear and Co. 2004

Clow, Barbara Hand, The Maya Code, Time Acceleration and the Awakening of the World Mind, Bear and Co. 2007

Hammer, Olav, Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age, Brill. 2001

“Barbara Marciniak.” Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. The Gale Group, Inc, 2001. Answers.com 25 Jan. 2012. http://www.answers.com/topic/barbara-marciniak