Conner Habib, on Progressives Disconnect From Spirituality

#61
Alex,
As is no doubt obvious by now, I will continue to insist that war, whether international or civil, is almost always ultimately fought over ideology and not because the factions seek to gain financially/economically. The few exceptions are when hordes of barbarians just want to pillage as a way of life.

I don't believe in evolution via genetic mutation and prefer something along the lines of conscious morphic fields driving change. However, there is no doubt that the results of what the morphic fields produce are put to the survival of the fittest test once they're here in this dimension.

Humanity evolves by putting its ideologies, it's ways of life, to the fitness test. Constantly. That is a good thing. It keeps it real and it keeps it as efficient and value laden as possible. Thus war is the natural state of humanity. The bleeding hearts who's sensibilities are so terribly offended by that reality are just another ideology that is competing and they will always resort to war themselves, or be crushed out. We are always killing to achieve peace. I don't see a problem with that because I accept it. There have always been prophets and gurus who say it can be otherwise, but they always fail; often, themselves, killed. Railing over the injustice and inhumanity of that is senseless. It's like complaining about gravity when you trip, fall down and break your knee. The spiritual aspect is to make yourself strong (full of personal power) so you don't fall down for as long as you can; knowing that one day you will fall and it may be your final act - so you seek to so it with acceptance and grace. That's where I'm coming from. I make sense to me and that's all that counts. I don't have a Christ complex. The golden rule is great and makes life a better experience, but, hey, those barbarians are out there; sometimes in sheeps' clothing.

Right now, in capitalist systems there has arisen competing ideologies; socialism being a major one of those. It's a morphic mindset that's always been around, but is being highly energized currently. They try to wear sheeps' clothing. I say they are barbarians looking to pillage. Historically, socialists have always been willing to kill, often in great numbers, to achieve dominance of their ideology. Any socialist who says otherwise is either deluded or lying.

To be fair, I don't not comprehend what most people in forums like this are calling "spirituality" It seems to me that it is some form of agape; a communal brotherly love/mutual support thing. Like some kind of vestigial appendage from Christianity. IMO, that is an arbitrary definition that is largely limited to the western world (which is expected if it's a vestigial Christian outlook). The mighty Apache warrior Geronimo was considered a highly spiritual medicine man by his clan. He is said to have demonstrated great displays of spiritual power. Yet he was a warrior through and through. I have already mentioned Krishna's advice to Arjuna elsewhere (to kill his usurping relatives in battle and claim the throne). There are many more examples of spiritual warriors world over. IMO, people that have this emphasis on agape being the highest evidence of spiritual attainment are going to be frustrated because they have made a false assumption about a definition.
 
Last edited:
#62
"But if you live in the real world, you have to be smarter, more ethical and better.... Capitalism..... "

An equal strawman can be built against capitalism, but that is not an interesting avenue of argument for me.

However, not trying to derail this discussion, I humbly suggest you deeply look into the discussion/differences between capitalism vs free markets vs unconstrained competition. They are not the same, nor do we have real world pure examples of any of these in real human societies (all have capital restrictions, market restrictions and competition restrictions).
You missed the point of the post. I did not straw man socialism. I did a critique of Star Trek's subtle portrayal of socialism (working in a complete fantasy reality). I was critiquing a straw man of socialism.

I also made no comment on capitalism vs. free markets vs. competition. I only, in an earlier post, outlined what capital was inside the monetary M-series trading chain.

Are you sure you replied to the correct post?
 
#63
I don't know, having spoken to Steven Novella on several different occasions I always pegged him more as a useful idiot... a very smart and personable one, but with enough of an ego to be directed.
He presents that personality doesn't he? If you read his books, or attend a lecture of his (i.e. "Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills' or 'A Skeptic's Guide to the Universe') - you will find him cleverly spinning the method of casuistry and flawed mindset which is cruxial in enforcing thought. He knows what he is doing with regard to methodical cynicism and promoting an enforced conclusion.

Is he really all that competent inside the philosophy of science? No. An interesting combination.
 
Last edited:
#64
Bhagavad Gita = religious text.
Yes, a religious text that discussed fractals before we knew mathematically what a fractal was. You probably haven't read the Tao of Physics, but it's also amazing how many parallels there are between ancient wisdom and the world of the quantum. The quantum world blows the materialist model out of the water; the only thing holding it together is that its proponents haven't died off yet. I'm actually inclined to believe that every single atom in the universe is actually physically connected to every other. What I'm generally alluding to is that this knowledge of the interconnectedness of all things is very deep and very old and it is foolhardy to discount it, especially with so much corroborating evidence. And if you haven't tried LSD, please do, and when you're quaking in your boots after looking up from your CRT screen at the 4K reality that you encounter, do remember that I told you so.

Put it this way, physicalist, we only perceive a fraction of reality. Can you concede that there are larger forces than the ones you perceive at work all around you? If so, that's all you need to get it. Forget gods, forget angels... just know there are larger forces than yourself working in concert with the ones you can detect. If that isn't humbling then try again, you didn't do it right.

---
We are a great melting pot, a collective. We are also individuals, and always have been and always will be, for infinity. - KindaGamey
 
#65
yeah, but don't you think there's a "don't blame the player, blame the game" aspect to this. we've created a system that is winnable for lots of people, maybe not for everyone, but for more people than anyone in history. it would be nice if the system had a better interface with the spiritual path but from my experience it doesn't.
Don't get me wrong - I support collectivism for specific social needs. But I do believe the majority of wealth should be placed back into the economy at the M0 and M1 level and not be hoarded for paper trading to make more wealth, which benefits no one (which is why Royalty loves Socialism). The key resides in the development of solving problems, evolving and providing incentive for joy, growth and self realization if people want that. Collectivism does not serve that social goal set well, because that is not its purpose. However, let's be clear - we are a socialist society now (see below). Socialism both creates the problem in the first place, then blames the problem on any alternative form of governo-economics. It is crony agency driven - part of social engineering.

We are seeing the 'blame the game' effects yes, so I do 'blame the game'. It is failing. Right now I pay 66% of my income to mandatory collectivist activities. I further observe that 85% of our wealth as a nation is hoarded into the hands of Cronies - and this is increasing. I cannot get capital to grow my mercy and green energy based businesses - because if you get a good idea - the Cronies want it for themselves (a form of philosophy's 'Relegation Error'). This is what is defined as socialism - this is what is causing our suffering. The key is this:

If I place a dollar into the taxation cycle - 65% of it never benefits its intended purpose and the velocity of money reduces to 1x (bad thing)
If I place a dollar into the wealth cycle - 90% of it never benefits anyone but the royalty holder, 10% is given to ease suffering and tender appearances of virtue (it builds for them a natural 'screaming shield' defense in the poor - they hold the poor hostage to keep their power), and the velocity of money plummets to less than 1x (social collapse)
If on the other hand, I place a dollar into the capitalization cycle - only 12% of it never benefits its intended purpose and the velocity of money rises to 6 - 8x (everyone wins - including and especially the poor)

I sent a letter to principals in three countries last night, outlining emergency food trade and shipments through my market to those countries, because they have lost a portion of their Sovereign backing, for not toeing the line politically to a bully empire who supports them. They are all heavily socialist countries - and they are on the brink of social collapse and starvation. All three countries are characterized by heavy Cronyism, 100% wealth and no money, and 90% collectivist practices. Misery abounds. They exist on the right hand side of this chart. So yes - I blame the game.

Cronyism is the gateway drug to socialism. And while collectivism is a necessary counter to pure individualism, and there must be some wealth - when these are driven to the extreme, they serve to destroy and foment suffering. The case histories are well over 100 on this.

Capitalism vs Socialism.png
 
Last edited:
#66
Don't get me wrong - I support collectivism for specific social needs. But I do believe the majority of wealth should be placed back into the economy at the M0 and M1 level and not be hoarded for paper trading to make more wealth, which benefits no one (which is why Royalty loves Socialism). The key resides in the development of solving problems, evolving and providing incentive for joy, growth and self realization if people want that. Collectivism does not serve that social goal set well, because that is not its purpose. However, let's be clear - we are a socialist society now (see below). Socialism both creates the problem in the first place, then blames the problem on any alternative form of governo-economics. It is crony agency driven - part of social engineering.

We are seeing the 'blame the game' effects yes, so I do 'blame the game'. It is failing. Right now I pay 66% of my income to mandatory collectivist activities. I further observe that 85% of our wealth as a nation is hoarded into the hands of Cronies - and this is increasing. I cannot get capital to grow my mercy and green energy based businesses - because if you get a good idea - the Cronies want it for themselves (a form of philosophy's 'Relegation Error'). This is what is defined as socialism - this is what is causing our suffering. The key is this:

If I place a dollar into the taxation cycle - 65% of it never benefits its intended purpose and the velocity of money reduces to 1x (bad thing)
If I place a dollar into the wealth cycle - 90% of it never benefits anyone but the royalty holder, 10% is given to ease suffering and tender appearances of virtue (it builds for them a natural 'screaming shield' defense in the poor - they hold the poor hostage to keep their power), and the velocity of money plummets to less than 1x (social collapse)
If on the other hand, I place a dollar into the capitalization cycle - only 12% of it never benefits its intended purpose and the velocity of money rises to 6 - 8x (everyone wins - including and especially the poor)

I sent a letter to principals in three countries last night, outlining emergency food trade and shipments through my market to those countries, because they have lost a portion of their Sovereign backing, for not toeing the line politically to a bully empire who supports them. They are all heavily socialist countries - and they are on the brink of social collapse and starvation. All three countries are characterized by heavy Cronyism, 100% wealth and no money, and 90% collectivist practices. Misery abounds. They exist on the right hand side of this chart. So yes - I blame the game.

Cronyism is the gateway drug to socialism. And while collectivism is a necessary counter to pure individualism, and there must be some wealth - when these are driven to the extreme, they serve to destroy and foment suffering. The case histories are well over 100 on this.

View attachment 1130
"Cronyism is the gateway drug to socialism". Do you think the Russian Oligarchy is a form of Cronyism? I just don't understand how cronyism can lead to socialism unless in the socialistic society,the power and resources are concentrated in the hands of a few people connected to the leadership, that I called corruption. Socialism is supposed to mean everybody gets to share the wealth.
 
Last edited:
#67
We are a great melting pot, a collective. We are also individuals, and always have been and always will be, for infinity. - KindaGamey

It seems that we agree that individuality is retained after death. However, I don't believe in collective spiritual entities.

This excellent article by Titus Rivas summarizes very well my beliefs:
My own conceptualisation of reincarnation is personalistic. I hold that the mind is not some impersonal or collective category, but the life of a constant, substantial self.
AMNESIA: The universality of reincarnation and the preservation of psychological structure
 
#68
Cronyism is the gateway drug to socialism. Do you think Russian Oligarchy is a form of Cronyism?
Yes. But that does not mean therefore that Russia resides inside a gateway drug to capitalism... Oligarchy is symptom of monist oppressive rule, not its cause.

Cronyism (Wealth Power Rules) - US​
Socialism (Virtue Power Rules) - Venezuela​
Mafiaism (Violent Power Rules) - Russia​
Royalty (Birthright/God Power Rules) - Saudi Arabia​
These are all the same thing - consolidating power upward and displacing accountability downward. (See Definition of God). These are all pretenders to the throne, if you will. ;)
 
#69
Socialism is supposed to mean everybody gets to share the wealth.
Yes, everyone gets to share the wealth equally...*

Please agree to this by voting here ___________________________________​

*You hereby agree and recognize that in order to enforce this and make sure that everyone is treated according to this standard, you must appoint one central authority who holds and protects all that wealth (there is no money, only cash, see above) which administers this control. You hereby cede to me all the weapons of violence which will allow me to protect this wealth I hold on your behalf. You hereby agree that, since I give a teensy bit of this wealth to the poor, that I have earned this right, in irrevocable perpetuity. Oh by the way, before you make that decision, I own all the guns... just to let you know. Had to, because this is how I got power. Did you think I got here because of my economics degree? You really are dumb. But then again, that is why you have appointed me as collective enforcement. My palace doors are always open, except when they are not.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
#71
I think Conner said a mouthful in the third person with this: "I’m aligning myself with beings that want to undo love and compassion in the world and I’ve done that intentionally, and freedom and free will, and I’ve done that intentionally." Of course firstly this means one must be willing to acknowledge the existence of such beings. In aligning oneself with such beings. A (lucky) person might soon ask him or herself, "How has it come to this for me?" As they realize at some point how inhumane, (evil) they have become. Correcting the situation for themselves will require a sincere renunciation of their present path and an earnest desire to be healed of their insanity. Such a person may at this point turn to God and learn it is not in vain. God can and will act to free His child.
 
#72
If the truth ever be known, probably the biggest conspiracy in world history was the European aristocratic reaction to the spread of American-style democracy - the Theory of Evolution (no, I am not religious).

The American system was, in part, more successful than others because an allowance for our human nature, our natural self-interest, was made in the founding documents - late 18th Century. But the same documents also spelled out human rights that were were the same for everyone by nature and "inalienable" i.e. that were not based on the biological heritability of family wealth. This was close to the traditional concept of “Natural Law”.

This was seen as an existential threat to European Aristocracy, especially after the democratic revolution in France and the Revolutions of 1848 threatened to topple established, biologically heritable, aristocrat regimes all over Europe.

Darwin’s theory, expressed as “Survival of the Fittest [because the Fit Survive]” is a meaningless repetitive statement pretending to be a scientific “Natural Law” that upholds the biological heritability of family wealth, aristocratic and plutocratic rule i.e. the “Fittest”.

Our most prevalent belief, survival-of-the fittest Social Darwinism, is now taken as a given in American life, but it hasn't always been this way. Evolution and Social Darwinist-style Capitalism are inter-related ideas that were later arrivals - late 19th Century.

This kind of Capitalism and Evolution were pushed by friends of Darwin (who was one of the richest people in Europe) by his other American robber baron business tycoon buddies, to get Americans to accept the rule of European-style hereditary wealth.

Long Story Short -

Chas. Darwin's Servant: "There's a revolution! There's a crowd with torches and pitchforks outside demanding democracy! They say the Americans have declared that we are all equal by nature!"

Chas. Darwin: "Don't worry, I've just invented Evolution! It's a theory I've written that states that we're all unequal by nature!"

Convenient timing.
 
Last edited:
#73
almost always ultimately fought over ideology and not because the factions seek to gain financially/economically.
I don't think you've been paying attention to the last, um, few thousand years or so. Resources and special interests, that's it, bro.

@KindaGamey

On the StarTrek thing.... isn't everyone in the military?

I agree with you on the liberal bashing stuff, though. It's getting annoying and I don't see how it ties in to the the podcast's stated aim.

The mighty Apache warrior Geronimo was considered a highly spiritual medicine man by his clan. He is said to have demonstrated great displays of spiritual power.
Yes, spiritual 'powers' and morality / ethics are not necessarily linked. (Observe pervy Hindu holy men as but one example.) Also, it's probably worth keeping in mind that tribal holy people are very much embedded within a practical societal role and are thus more interested in utilitarian spiritual effects, and less in consciousness raising and universal mind experiences (or whatever). That being said, and as far as I'm aware, American Indian medicine people do not practice malevolent spirituality, confining themselves to prediction, guidance, healing, and protection. So, for example, a ceremony may be performed to discern the location and strength of an enemy force, but not one to inflict direct harm through spiritual practice. Indian folk who do practice malevolent spiritual acts are not classed as medicine or holy men. And finally, even the holy people of the most warlike tribes still maintain a philosophical conception of the unity of all life.

So, maybe the Agape stuff is more linked to spiritual lineages concerned with attempting to climb the consciousness ladder (if one exists).

I am trying so hard not to get into an economics argument with you! I spent years thinking about all this M0 & M1 crap, and I think it, like, totally, literally, atrophied my pineal gland, man. :)
 
Last edited:
#74
I don't think you've been paying attention to the last, um, few thousand years or so. Resources and special interests, that's it, bro.

@KindaGamey

On the StarTrek thing.... isn't everyone in the military?



Yes, spiritual 'powers' and morality / ethics are not necessarily linked. (Observe pervy Hindu holy men as but one example.) Also, it's probably worth keeping in mind that tribal holy people are very much embedded within a practical societal role and are thus more interested in utilitarian spiritual effect and less in consciousness raising and universal mind experiences (or whatever). That being said, and as far as I'm aware, American Indian medicine people do not practice malevolent spirituality, confining themselves to prediction, guidance, healing, and protection. So, for example, a ceremony may be performed to discern the location and strength of an enemy force, but not one to inflict direct harm through spiritual practice. Indian folk who do practice malevolent spiritual acts are not classed as medicine or holy men.

So, maybe the Agape stuff is more linked to spiritual lineages concerned with attempting to climb the consciousness ladder (if one exists).
Downsouth,
I spent a fair amount of time with the White Mountain Apaches. I can assure you that spiritual powers are applied to all sorts of malevolent purposes. Fear of witchcraft and protection against is prevalent. evidence that it witchcraft has actually been applied is ample.

No soldier or warrior, beyond barbarians like Vikings, shot or stabbed another because he wanted to make someone rich. None! You must be another conspiracy theorist. WW2 - Hitler wanted revenge and to promote the Aryan as natural ruler of the world. US entered against Germany to prevent inhumanity from triumphing. Japan had the ideology of Samurai glory and superiority. ...Korea - spread the ideology of communism and take over the South. The US - stop the spread of communism; an evil ideology. Vietnam - repeat of Korea. Gulf war - New world order run by the shining city on a hill (the US). ...American civil war - clash of "ways of life". Only a miniscule % of confederate soldiers owned slaves......American revolution - freedom (read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution)....Greek versus Trojan - a matter of honor.....Aztecs versus their neighbors? War to obtain humans to sacrifice to the gods......Various American Indian tribes versus each other? Tribal pride. There were almost endless resources and few consumers. No need to fight over resources.....

Where is it written that agape is a sign of spiritual advancement? Can you show me the tablets produced by God that have this written on them? On the other hand I can see where the sheep and weaklings of life would promote agape, via religion and spiritual mumbo jumbo as a political ploy. It's certainly to their advantage to do so. And maybe there are different spiritual realities for different types of people. I can accept that. But please don't dictate to me or judge my spiritually based on your own notions. I happen to understand that you can "help" people to death - literally or spiritually. People need to go out there on their own and make it or fail based on their efforts. No one benefits from being coddled or allowed to perpetuate losing ideas and ways of life. The ethical lines are not really so clear even if you're into agape.
 
Last edited:
#75
Eric, " Meanwhile, those FP idiots are manipulated by various profiteers and psychopaths who recognize the prevailing idiocy and use it to their advantage", your own words! However, I do believe your experiences and opinions are much needed here, they provide a grounding effect.
 
#76
Eric, " Meanwhile, those FP idiots are manipulated by various profiteers and psychopaths who recognize the prevailing idiocy and use it to their advantage", your own words! However, I do believe your experiences and opinions are much needed here, they provide a grounding effect.
You misunderstand. The FP crowd is going to do something because of ideology. The vultures point out opportunities and help make plans as to who the contractors will be, etc.

One more time, the psychopaths cannot start wars by themselves. That is impossible. The psychopaths are like remoras that ride along with the great white shark of ideology. Once in a while the remora whispers in the shark's ear, "Hey, Look over at 4 o'clock. There's a seal".
 
#77
No soldier or warrior, beyond barbarians like Vikings, shot or stabbed another because he wanted to make someone rich. None! You must be another conspiracy theorist. WW2 - Hitler wanted revenge and to promote the Aryan as natural ruler of the world. US entered against Germany to prevent inhumanity from triumphing. Japan had the ideology of Samurai glory and superiority. ...Korea - spread the ideology of communism and take over the South. The US - stop the spread of communism; an evil ideology. Vietnam - repeat of Korea. Gulf war - New world order run by the shining city on a hill (the US). ...American civil war - clash of "ways of life". Only a miniscule % of confederate soldiers owned slaves......American revolution - freedom (read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution)....Greek versus Trojan - a matter of honor.....Aztecs versus their neighbors? War to obtain humans to sacrifice to the gods......Various American Indian tribes versus each other? Tribal pride. There were almost endless resources and few consumers. No need to fight over resources.....
OK, if you're claiming ideology as a mobilising factor for the troops, well, maybe I get that more, but the people I've known who've signed up to the military have done so for a variety of, mostly personal, reasons (including one or two 'barbarian' ' show me the money' mercenaries). It strikes me that your view of the causes of conflict is something of a mythological approach to history, and, upon reflection, is perhaps a more insightful viewpoint than I first thought. But then how would we deal with the thicket of class interest, economics, self interest, historical context, and personal psychology that underlie concepts like 'national pride' or 'national interest'? Are they secondary or does thinking in terms of mythical narrative (a clash of civilisations, for example) only serve to obscure the root causes of most conflicts and obfuscate the role of the vultures?

You must be another conspiracy theorist.
Next you'll tell me you still believe the moon landing actually happened.

I spent a fair amount of time with the White Mountain Apaches. I can assure you that spiritual powers are applied to all sorts of malevolent purposes. Fear of witchcraft and protection against is prevalent. evidence that it witchcraft has actually been applied is ample.
Sure, this is common globally in communities that have been less ardently rationalised by hard materialism. My point is one of classification, the malevolent practitioner is one kind of practitioner (or just a function of petty community squabbles or feuds) and the medicine person is another.

Where is it written that agape is a sign of spiritual advancement? Can you show me the tablets produced by God that have this written on them? On the other hand I can see where the sheep and weaklings of life would promote agape, via religion and spiritual mumbo jumbo as a political ploy. It's certainly to their advantage to do so. And maybe there are different spiritual realities for different types of people.
Sorry, I don't think I was clear: Tribal spirituality is not inferior to other branches, just different in focus and emphasis. Tribal religions are concerned with effects that are highly contextual, functioning within a specific context of situation and landscape (making them communal and placed), whereas mystical traditions are more concerned with seeking experiences that attempt to transcend situational context (making them strangely individual and universal). And one must say that many mystical practitioners, in many times and places, have reported a state that lies beyond this reality that comes close to the concept of Agape..... which is something, I suppose.

Still, you're right, life is not simple.

But please don't dictate to me or judge my spiritually based on your own notions.
Can I ask how you would describe your spirituality?
 
#78
You missed the point of the post. I did not straw man socialism. I did a critique of Star Trek's subtle portrayal of socialism (working in a complete fantasy reality).
Understood. Thank you for the correction.

I also made no comment on capitalism vs. free markets vs. competition. I only, in an earlier post, outlined what capital was inside the monetary M-series trading chain.

Are you sure you replied to the correct post?
I think I did :-D

But apparently misunderstood it and didn't read it (understand it) thoroughly enough.

I was clearly projecting my pet peewees in discussions like these. People have no functional or real-life understanding what capitalism, free markets or unconstrained competition mean (in theory, in history and in reality, including actual historical results of approximations of each of these).

As for your definitions of of M0/M1 and M3/M4 (and further derivatives) is confusing to me (if I follow the post 60s modern monetary creation reality, not theory, of monetary aggregates). Can you explain further (if you like), what you mean by these statements:

The Ethical Skeptic said:
Capital is not wealth. Capital (M1 and M0) is money which is burdened with the task of 1. Velocity and 2. Return. In other words, justifying its keep.
The Ethical Skeptic said:
Wealth (M3 and M2) never justifies itself - it just sits and pretends as if it were the sovereign 'Kingdom of Heaven' on Earth (an imitation of God in this role) - the unlimited source of immediate value.
The Ethical Skeptic said:
Capital in contrast, is earnings (pre-wealth) - it is recycled at the M1 and M0 ecosphere level, which means that the elite cannot get their hands on it.
This doesn't seem to temporal-causally align with the proven (time series) fact that money in reality is created first at M2-M3 level in commercial bank activity and only after that do commercial banks go looking for required reserves AND central bank adjusts MB/M0 respectively.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your argument again, if so, please assume it is done with full attempt to understand.
 
#80
OK, if you're claiming ideology as a mobilising factor for the troops, well, maybe I get that more, but the people I've known who've signed up to the military have done so for a variety of, mostly personal, reasons (including one or two 'barbarian' ' show me the money' mercenaries). It strikes me that your view of the causes of conflict is something of a mythological approach to history, and, upon reflection, is perhaps a more insightful viewpoint than I first thought. But then how would we deal with the thicket of class interest, economics, self interest, historical context, and personal psychology that underlie concepts like 'national pride' or 'national interest'? Are they secondary or does thinking in terms of mythical narrative (a clash of civilisations, for example) only serve to obscure the root causes of most conflicts and obfuscate the role of the vultures?
I'm not really talking about what motivates the actual troops, although that is not irrelevant. As you say, troops sign up these days for all kinds of reasons now that we have an all volunteer military. Still, American young men (and women now) signed up for military in large numbers after 9/11/2001 because their country had been attacked and they wanted to go out and get the bad the bad guys and make sure an attack on US soil never happened again. None of them were looking to make Haliburton a huge profit.

Still, who I am really talking about is the foreign policy establishment and the government. The people that make the decision to launch the ships, start the bombing from the air, to land the troops. The people that don't have skin in the game and are working at the conceptual level. I'm not sure why everyone here is having such a hard time with what I'm saying. It seems that most people here are so deeply into conspiracy theories and generally seeing the higher echelons of society as corrupt self-enrichers and the military as evil zombies that anything else ricochets off their heads.

You frame my position in a way I wouldn't have myself, but I kind of like it - "mythological". Yes. The people in the US that make the decisions, that study the world of global affairs, that move the chess pieces on the board see themselves in a mythological way. The shining city on the hill. The exceptional kingdom that by virtue of superiority and moral virtue has a right to rule the world and re-shape it in its own image. Don't take my word for it. Read some of the material they have produced. A good example is Francis Fukayama's "The End of History". In his view the US is so great - so God-like - that it is bending the direction of this mythological and magical force called "history" toward a progress that looks like everyone becoming Americans. In fact, he and his fellow travelers told us, we are so great that now we can "create our own reality". Fukayama is by no means alone in these assertions. He was (is) so popular because he voiced rather articulately what all of these people think. You have no idea the religious fervor that these people have. The are godless atheists and their social sciences crusade to apply US force to usher in a new glorious age has become holy to them (I always say that humans are spiritual by nature. Deny the true spirit and you end up with false gods, but with equal fervor).

Now, I am talking about the US in the modern age (which I have witnessed personally). My reading of history, which I think is above avg in volume in quality of sources shows me that similar attitudes have always driven policies. I have provided a few examples up thread.



Next you'll tell me you still believe the moon landing actually happened.
LOL. Glad there is a sense of humor around here

Can I ask how you would describe your spirituality?
Have you ever read the Casteneda books? I am very sure Casteneda was a fraud; or at least became one shortly after his fame and material success began. That said, oddly enough, the spirituality of Don Juan most closely matches my own. I read the books after I explained my outlook to someone and they recommended them because of the similarities. I believe that we are multidimensional beings traveling through infinity. It's a magical journey. How far we travel and how deeply we experience is dependent on our personal power; a vital well which builds itself through freedom of mind and is depleted by petty "low vibrational" thoughts and activities.

I do not believe that, for example, "The Oneness of All Things" is some ultimate truth. Rather, it is just another way to assemble reality; which means it is a true place; an internally logical coherent universe - yet only one of many. Just as "real" and just as not real as the material dimension we are all familiar with. All of these places can be visited and experienced, but none are The Truth. People get hung up on going to one different universe and then thinking that they have found something more real. What is real is Me and wherever I am, there I am. I am not a herd creature. I am the lone bird that seeks the ceiling of the sky and beyond.







.
 
Last edited:
Top