Illusions adieu

In bouts of self criticism I occasionally ask myself whether the reality of this world has passed me without my noticing, or whether I am in fact the one who is particularly realistic. There are those that smirk or smile when I speak of the dreams of international justice that we had in the eighties. We were hopeful that we could overcome the century of world wars and widespread holocausts, which were not just catastrophic for Jews, but for millions of other human beings in apparently far-off countries.

The smirk is alarming for a number of reasons, but mostly because there seems to be a growing acceptableness about millions of people dying in atrocities committed for profit. If this has already become the common attitude of people living in our western societies, then it looks like Alduous Huxley may have been right after all – even though his “brave new world” was made up of physical rather than mental clones. Perhaps human beings are far more susceptible to “Gleichschaltung” than I had imagined.

It is easy to criticise the left-wing for their lack of “reality” but what kind of “reality” are we subscribing to? The ideal of socialism has long suffered defeat and moderate Socialists have long ago taken on a form of capitalism “with a friendly face” - which in fact only suggests that there is an element to this kind of politics that is not openly shown. This almost always entails the bowing down to the American dominance without admitting it.

Some have welcomed the policies of G.W. Bush because they are openly violent towards any who stand in the way of what this administration regards as “progress”. It is a welcome alternative to those who were continually pulling the wool over our eyes, suggesting that there was a moral offensive within their policies that somehow resembled the ideals of the eighties. I believe that it is time to accept that the illusions of the past have always only been instrumental to the profits made by “illustrious” minorities.

But is it really illusory to believe that justice and righteousness should have relevance? Is the “clash of civilisations” a real problem that arises because of the diversity of human ideology, or is it an artificial crisis that arises as result of fundamentalism fuelled on disinformation and greed realised by means of military dominance? It has always been the Art of Deception that has led us into wars – the twentieth century was a typical example for that.

The mixture of Capital and Power has always led, and will always lead to corruption. There are too many people without either, who are subsequently victims of militant policies, wherever they arise. But where lies the alternative? Communism sought to separate the two and only succeeded in creating a new hell. Western democracy sought to install safety measures, which failed miserably because the people and the press lost interest in controlling those in power. In reality, it is the decadence of western society that has gambled away democratic potential.

If we really want to be sober about the whole issue of prosperity, isn’t it true that we the people only have some form of prosperity in order that the rich have someone to take something from?


You can’t change the world but you can change yourself.

The world will go on at haphazard in it’s own unpredictable way. It is nothing to you.

The only thing you have control over is your assent or dissent, your desires and aversions, dealing with the impressions that come to you, you a little bug on a big planet, in short, your free will.

Cultivate that little garden within you and forget trying to cultivate the world.

Did it? Could it not be that what we have and see now is the realisation of the “democratic potential”? The “democratic ideal” - if indeed it is an ideal - is still an illusion.

Thank you phrygianslave the wise, but as I have said in the past, the Mystic in me is socially aware and active. Of course I rest in the assuredness that all things will be as they will be, but I still have my “pound” that I need to bring to the bank.

Perhaps the human component is the weak link of the democratic system, but the theocratic was never any more successful - and has a lot more pitholes.

What disturbs me - and to be quite honest, is even capable of getting me furious - is the fact that supposedly religious people very often turn out to be real anarchists as long as it isn’t their backside that is being singed. They are quite comfortable with the fact that corporate business ruins countries, starts wars, has Politicians look away from ethnic cleansing and mass-murders, as long as the President holds a Bible meeting at the start of the day.

It is this kind of flagrant naivity that gave rise to opposition of western colonialism (which succeeded in getting them out) and the following US empire (which will last no longer than it’s predecessors - but cause as much suffering) has followed almost in the same footsteps. The British saw themselves as righteous upholders of decency as they blew the “wogs” to pieces - the same racism that today regards exploitable civilisations as acceptable targets.

The conciense of the people is bought. We are all bribed to keep quiet - or threatened with economic destabiliation if we don’t. And, after all, whats a couple of “natives” in comparison to all this “progress” we’re bringing…


Yes our world is in anarchy at current. But it is not impossible to change the world. One person can make a difference, how you influence the lives of others influences their lives and the lives of others. We dont have to accept whats ‘wrong’ just because its public oppinion.

Thank you for your optimism!

I believe too that we have alternatives to what we presently are experiencing - especially in the light of the fact that generally speaking, at least 70% of the population wants peace and prosperity - shalom. It is the 15% either side that makes up the aggressors


The only way that I can see to effect any change is by educating as many people as possible. The reason why Bush’s pro-war propaganda worked so well here in the States is because the general population is ignorant. Bush would go on about how horrible Hussein was because he gassed “his own people” (even though he didn’t really consider the Kurds his people and they don’t really consider themselves Iraqis and want to make Kurdistan) but my point is alot of Americans, probably most Americans, thought that this happened recently not almost 20 years ago.

Westerners have become complacent because they have everything they want at their fingertips, and feel like they have earned this because of how hard they’ve worked in life, and forget all the advantages they’ve had, most of which were gained by theft and murder.

A Republican anesthesiologist (highest paid profession in the U.S.) that I know once mentioned glibly that he didn’t donate money to/vote Democrat because they “give money to people who don’t deserve it”. I didn’t confront him at the time, but ever since then I’ve wished that I had. I wished I would’ve pulled a Socrates on him and questioned him about it, but it wouldn’t take long for my questions to start to carry an obvious slant, “So you think you deserve the money you have because you’ve worked hard for it, even though you are a white male with moderate to wealthy parents and you’ve never been the victim of violent crime?”

I know now that we need to confront people like this, and even more importantly people without strong opinions, with information and facts. And if you don’t have any off had, try to out-logic them. Their position is usually based only on cold, hard, practical reason; but a peaceful, pro-human opinion is usually based on hard, practical logic but also compassion, understanding and even love.

Exactly, but Education leads to people wanting to change things, and the Corporate bosses are quite happy the way things are. Education is only acceptable for them, if it can be utilised.

Many people here in Europe have asked why America hasn’t expanded the Peace Corps or simiilar organisations. The Peace Corps traces its roots and mission to 1960, when (then) Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students at the University of Michigan to serve their country in the cause of peace by living and working in developing countries.

Surely such an enterprise could win people to think differently about America. “Learning by Doing” is a success for those who partake, or perhaps from this distance the Peace Corps is more idealistic than it seems.

What such enterprises do not do, they don’t guarantee profits for Companies like the Carlyle Group! That seems to me to be the greatest problem we’re up against: Profits versus Ideals. And profits too, at any price in human lives.


Then we educate ourselves, and others. If the schools won’t teach us the systems of thought control, we’ll have to learn to overcome them on our own, then teach everyone we can. We can subvert the corporations, with internet we now have greater power than ever to distribute independent media.

You’re exactly right about the peace corps. Certainly the peace corps and similar organizations should be expanded, but the government’s not the only one to blame. Where is the public outcry? I’ll tell you where, locked up in a bomb shelter with gas mask and bottled water. Americans have been tought to fear and hate non-Americans. Why do you think we use the terms African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American and Arab-American, so that the people are more accepting of them because they are dubbed as “American”. Technically all “Latinos” are Americans, everyone from either of the American continents is American. But the word is used to refer to United States Americans.

My overall point being that Guerilla Education is the way to expel the fears and misconceptions of not only Americans, but close-minded conservatives all over the world.

The world corporate superpowers are frightening indeed, and with their size and global reach they seem impossible to overcome. But that’s exactly what they want us to think, they only have power when we let them have it. We can’t allow ourselves to be discouraged by their economic might. What gives people like the Carlyle group their power? Their connections. We can fight them by making our own connections, by reaching out to other pro-people people and spreading the truth.

If they don’t value human life, then perhaps human life should stop valuing them. There’s more human life than there are Carlyle groups, so we have the advantage.

Having watched the New Documentary ‘Preventive Warriors’, examining a the new foreign policy paper introduced by the White House in September 2002 entitled: “The National Security Strategy of the United States,” I have come to the conclusion that we have a greater task on our hands than we realise. Unfortunately the people who are ‘pro-active’ in this strategy have used a phase of political apathy and taken the opportunity to amplify the 9/11 tragedy to promote their ‘Mob’ policies.

They ask, “what do you want, popularity or safety” in a manner that reminds us of Goebbels rhetoric. They make a gigantic leap from presenting terrorism as the prime danger in our world today, to promoting preemptive war against ‘Rogue-States’. The very fact that terrorism is not addressed by preemptive war is ignored by the Paper. The very clear message coming from Iraq is that Terrorism grows on preemptive war, because terrorism is a reaction to oppression by an over powerful enemy.

Education makes people aware of what gross injustice is occurring in the name of corporate power – most of the terrorists on Sept 2001 were students. They were not just hot-blooded militants with hate in their heart. The targets are carefully selected – the symbol of Globalization for a start. Other targets were chosen to show the world-wide presence of opposition. Then the targets proved that they can strike anywhere anytime. Now they are striking targets that weaken our economy. There is nothing that the Administration can do to stop such attacks.

It is America’s prominence that makes it a target. The fact that it, more than any other country in the world, has declared it’s right to choose who is a danger. In doing so, it has presented itself as a target to anyone who feels oppressed by America’s economical or military dominance. Such people will not stand up to America’s military might – they would be hotheaded fools to do so. They choose the guerrilla tactics that has continually proved itself successful against empires. Unfortunately, this kind of tactics involves the deaths of ‘a few’ Americans or Europeans. Few in comparison, they would say, to the hundreds of thousands throughout the world, who die as a direct result of corporate business policies.

Their goal is, of course, to make other people aware of the injustices done in the world. Europeans for example, who are not restricted by so much corporate owned Media as Americans. People who start asking questions after tragedies like in Madrid, and don’t immediately go out shooting. People who can, despite their comfortable couches, start realizing that terrorism isn’t going to go away until we start caring more about the countries and people we have exploited since the war. People who, like before the Iraq war, could go out on the streets and protest against the aggressive strategies of the American administration in the service of corporate giants.

It must become clear to us that we must start looking for some other basis for freedom and peace, welfare and prosperity. A basis that includes the majority of the worlds population, instead of just a minority. We must accept that the present policies of western governments, already faltering readily when things don’t go according to plan, must find a more stable foundation for the future of the world.


This is a point that the corporate owned media has hidden with aplomb. They changed the topic from economic and political control and oppression to religious and fundamentalist rhetoric. Most Americans have the view that the attack on the World Trade Towers was only about killing infadels.

It seems to me that this is an important stumbling block. Making Westerners aware that there is more at play in their reasoning than racism/creedism.

One of the questions I am struggling with is whether or not terrorism/freedom fighting is the right way. I’m more inclined toward pacificism, but every time I read something about the state of the world and corporate control I start to wonder if it woulden’t be better to start brewing up molotov cocktails and try to burn down the establishment one building at a time.

Is violence the only way to end this minority ruled economy?

I feel the same sometimes but I think that the only way to rid ourselves of frustration, disappointment, and depression is to become as independent as possible of the things that the Power offers - a task beyond many I agree. I would say that any path we take will be full of hardships.

With such a widespread Power, the only way would be the way of Christianity in the Roman Empire: Build small pockets of ‘positive’ resistance, undermine the dependance that Globalization is trying to create by offering services to people out of compassion. Embaress the Empire by organising a community spirit that draws people to ecumenical humanist and religious ideals, exposing their apocalyptic Evangelism as the cruel lie that it is.

We need an ethical stance that shocks but wins people - not the stance of terrorism. Terrorism uses the suffering of other people to amplify their message, but fail because of the cruelness of their militancy. Christians in the Roman Empire won in the end because they were the only ones who bore the brunt of oppression as a result of their resistance and people became aware of the injustices being done.

But the message of Christ was: If you fear the cross, stand back and let others do their job. His followers had to know that opposition to the cruel image of Imperial Rulers meant the holding up of a contraposition of Christ, the humble and meek ‘Kyrie’ who refreshed the souls of the labouring and heavy laden. The Indian resistance against the British Empire had a Ghandi, who do we have today?


Thank you, Bob, that last post was very inspiring. I especially like the comparison to the Roman Empire.

I’m not so sure about the religious part though. It worked well against the Romans because it was something new and opposed to nations, with the “God is our only king” sentiments. But since then religion, especially Christianity, has been abused by the ruling class far too many times e.g. European feudalism and more recently some of Bush’s weird “we must kill them terrorists because that’s what God wants us to do”-type statements.

But in the sense of the ideals themselves about peace, equality, compassion and love without attaching them to any deities or dogmas it is a great idea. I think that by not attaching religion to the message it will appeal to a greater number of people, especially those jaded by jihads and televangalists.

Indeed. Now more than ever we need ourselves, and others.

We need the inspiring ‘Idea’ of how to carry such a message. The trouble with such a mission is that it has to be transported by some conviction, thought or conception that gives it significance ‘now’. Abstract or theoretical ideas won’t help us further.

Marianne Williamson, in her book “The Healing of America,” claims that traditional political activists are combining spiritual contemplatives with ideas to extend their service to the world into political realms. The convergence of the two impulses forms what Williamson calls a “holistic politics.”

Whatever we find, it must install a feeling of achievement, responsibility, growth, advancement, even enjoyment, and the chance to earn recognition - this must have been achieved by the early church somehow, and will play a role too in overcoming Empire.


Bob & Lanky

Apologies for interrupting - just wanted to say, great to see intelligent discussion going on here - sorry - continue!

Violence begets violence.
I grew up in the middle east, it was not pretty. Violence in every sad and twisted form. Lack of compassion. Empathy non-existent.

If they cannot deal with the problems themselves, others should remain out of it. It may go against all that we feel is our moral obligation. However we/ NA is not dealing with people with like mind or desires.

Like rats in a cage let them deal with their own filth. Eventually…there will be silence. Those that remain may have learned something. If the only thing they have learned is “TOLERANCE” then that is a great lesson in itself. “Respect” may take a great deal longer.
Live and let live is not on their list. Kill or be killed…? Not all. But to survive I would.

Its not pretty, but its real.
Awakening and enlightenment come in their own time. Sooner for some than others. :cry:

Who are ‘they’?

I don’t quite understand…

Do you believe that you have a capacity for recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others? If you do, I think you should reconsider your last posting. As for respect, well, if you look into a Dictionary, you will find something like this:

Again, I don’t recognise much respect for human life in your statement - perhaps it’s because you are very young and you haven’t learnt to express yourself properly yet.


I have a few comments…

Yes, I agree that it is of utmost importance that we change ourselves. For one, it is with self reflection and change that we can achieve happiness and declare an identity with which we feel genuine.

However, I do not agree that self progress is our only responsibility. We are also responsible for being active and aware participants in our social world. There is no democracy without active participation by its citizens. Humans are the agents of change - if we do not strongly participate on the side of good (if we agree that social justice, equality, democracy, human rights are good) then we are allowing the stronger side (profit, greed, corruption) to be the winning agents.

I see a lot of posts saying that “education is key”. I agree in general, but its a vague statement. What kind of education? There is always a social and political agenda to education. We don’t always realize it because we assume we are just taught “the facts”. Realize that down to the type of mathematical thinking that is valued in the classroom is a social value judgement. What kind of history should we be teaching? What kinds of life goals should be guide our students toward? What are we saying about our role in the world? How are we defining democracy? The kind of education that goes on in American public schools is not preparing our youth to be active participants in democracy, active agents of social progress, or even critical thinkers of reality. There is a reason for this, and its not as simple as teachers are not well prepared and classrooms are overcrowded.

If we believe that education is key, then we need to decide what kind of education is key and then we need to active fight to implement that kind of education in our schools.

World Peace in 20 words or less:


As long as your solution involves forcing people to comply it is NOT gonna work, in fact I think I’d sabotage it just cause I don’t like having a king.

And, I’m not alone.

How many folks have sniped your idea just because they didn’t think of it first?

Why is the drug war a failure to everybody except the powermongers?

Why do folks pass you when you are following “The LAW”?

Why do folks trade food stamps for drugs?

People WILL do exactly what they want to do, and until they are free to do so war and chaos, not Anarchy, will rule the world.

Anarchy is the absence of a central authority, in order to live without a controling authority, folks must be peacefull.

At the very least they have to agree to disagree.

Until violence is not an acceptable solution to what ails ya, it’ll be chaos in the world.

So, check your solutions and see if they contain violence as an element and you’ll know if it’ll succede.

Crime is, of course, forcing somebody to do something they don’t want ot do, so the socializations against robery and rape and murder would continue.


Bob, I think it was Gandhi who said something like ‘what you wish to change in the world you must change in yourself’. I agree with him, in that if you are trying to bring world peace and harmony, then you must first know how to bring it to yourself or otherwise you won’t know how to do so for others.
In my opinion the only way to bring peace and harmony to yourself is through healing of the unhealed emotional traumas (uet’s) that I believe everyone either inherits or acquires through their life (particularly in childhood). As you heal yourself it affects your behaviour towards others in a positive way and creates more potential for them to heal, through showing them that it is possible, or through no longer colluding in unhealthy behaviour, or theoretically if you heal all of your uet’s then you’ll be able to express unconditional love that others will ultimately be unable to resist, and which will pull them into healing their uet’s.
Politically I would call myself a social anarchist, which for me means that no-one has a right to tell me what to do, and I have no right to tell anyone else what to do, but that I will rely on people’s mutual self-interest and caring for each other to lead them to cooperate with each other. I can’t see this system working at the moment, because there is too much unhealed emotional trauma around (which stops people from being able to interact in a harmonious fashion), but I am condident that the situation will change for the better, though it may not seem that way at times. Gandhi created a peaceful middle ground between the extremes of violence of the British, the Hindus and the Muslims, and through the continued application of non-aggressive activism was able to forge a way ahead and allow for a relatively peaceful shift in power (relative to what could have been a much more violent time). I believe it is possible to create this middle ground between the various extremes in the world today, and although there will be a lot of violence we will come through it to a better place.