God

Universal Humanity,

Peace, Love, Compassion,

Serenity, Understanding

Open your windows

Peace Activism Resources

These are archives. The current blog page is here. Technorati Profile

July 7, 2006 - On the restructuring of relative power in changing times.

While an informed and fearless positive minded populace is a necessity for constructive change, I don't think it will ever be enough to treat the symptoms of corruption.

As the populace does become increasingly familiar with Bush's actions and motives, we must keep in mind that his key players were in position prior to junior's administration. I speculate that George will become a fall guy at the end of his term, that he will get away with all he can prior to that, and that the media will make out that the corrupt politician has been replaced by a fresh new leader, possibly even a democrat. The same pentagon, media, and corporations will still be pulling the strings under the guise of a reformation.

I mentioned some time ago that our US civilization is under a decline not unlike an accelerated fall of the Roman empire. Increasingly I hear talk on the radio of that, or envisioning of the form a revolution might take. A few weeks ago I overheard quite a quip from someone on a cell-phone: 'The US is over, and everyone else knows it.'

As always, I think we need to be several steps ahead of the curve, and work towards positive construction in league with that which will come to exist. If we take current Russia as our cue of things to follow a fuel and economic collapse, then we can look forward to contending with a corporate mafia.

I wish, as with the Solari model, that we could create islands of incorporated socialism, to stand against pure leveraging capitalism, but I haven't much faith in our ability to pull that off in just a few years, especially when competition to such a model might be brutal under threat of dissipation. Thus, I think the best we can hope for is training the public to be aware of grass-roots networking models of tangible solidarity which may be of us upon the demise of existing dominant communication and distribution consumer models.

I don't see that the fall of our current system will be readily apparent, and subject even to blatant attempts at a revolution, but that rather we will be gradually acclimatized to a corporate anarchist mafia tyranny, and our government will be seen as necessarily adapting to socio-economic trends. Corporations will only prosper as long as there is belief in a common barter currency. I take that back. I'm sure retail credit systems could adapt to operating in thousands of geo-community and internal corporate currencies, bartering everything from groceries and rents of member serfs, to trade agreements with community collectives.

If it is not possible to directly democratize key logistical services of the
future, then possibly we can at least create the infrastructure for democratizing consumer unions. I would suggest that the place to do this is at the city council level, and through a networking of local businesses. There has to be some mechanism by which local communities have a say about their interactions with multi-national corporations as to labor, imports and exports, environmental degradation & utilization of local resources, and transfer of wealth from communities.

I see these concerns not as irrelevant sci-fi fantasy, but as issues we will probably have to contend with within 5-10 years.

As I write, KPFK's 'Divine Forces' show word of the week is 'barbarism'.

The models which can be used to ward off a decay into barbarism can also be used to create utopias - eradication of profit, people utilizing their gifts in harmony. If things ever become tribal, I think a good measure of a just society would be one in which congregate service, not commodities or tokens served as currency. It wasn't until the 11th century that the Irish even operated under the notion of private property.

If we're really lucky, we can perpetuate a culture of space exploration; abundant nano-materials; leisure activity, education and living commodities far all, without hierarchical wealth and privilege, beyond any decay of oil reserves and international stock values.

Whatever we do, our ability to do so will be contingent upon our ability to foresee and navigate the forces of local and global economic, social, media, and political forces. At this point, to operate with say congress as our mechanism of change, we would first have to restore congress as a primary means of directing the planet in response to needs of the general welfare. Protesting an erupting volcano doesn't do much good, although informing a populace of their options against a volcano eruption is invaluable.

* * *

On a side note, I came to perceive why peaceful resistance sometimes fails. What really fails is passive-aggression posing as Gandhi-like peaceful resistance. When one's motivational thought is "I can take as much as you can dish out", escalation is inevitable; to demand compassion is quite different than opening a common understanding.

Through millennia of powerful tyrants, one thing has saved humanity, and that is that such power is typically defined in relative proportion to those whom are subjugated. Corporations and barbaric lords find no power in subjugating the meek, and thus have usually been obligated to nurture their subjects. Being a subject in such circumstances is really a matter of the mind. On the tangible surface, it could be mutually beneficial. As in 1984, the ultimate subjugation is one's mind (or ones soul, if you wish to get biblical). In 1984 the authority had to not only subjugate minds, but allow them to be informed of their subjugation and attempt resistance, in order to define their subjugating power. Such often is the role of protest in the scheme of political power. Ralph Horowitz seems to be an example of this phenomenon. If you look at it in this fashion, it is the ambivalent 'good germans', oblivious of their mechanism of support, and without either allegiance or resistance, who most undermine the reward of those motivated by subjugating authority. Their existence forces subjugating authorities to take on instead roles as providers. These meek sheep in our culture, while not concerned with philosophical domination, still buy into the concept of pursuing relative wealth, hence they inadvertently encourage their dominion by economic entities.

If we were to revert to an imposition of a gold standard, yet declined to value gold, we would disempower those whom had hoarded gold reserves. Still, people need to eat, and we certainly don’t want to return to an age where grain stores are marauded. This means we'll have to maintain a society in which food is abundant and free, and not perceived as relative wealth. In light of an impending fuel shortage, this could be a considerable undertaking. Often our current struggles are in relative domains like labor conditions. I suggest that the key to all such current and future arising struggles, is to diminish relativism in all such domains. Such work is of a deep contagious subjective philosophical nature, and objective battles in such domains can only perpetuate such societal rubrics.

The revolution is ultimately a common state of mind, and not an activity. It is the dissolution, not the transferance of relative power.

- kristal

July 7, 2006 - Response to 'I'm still not generally into time based understandings of the cosmos though.'... 'What are your understandings of the cosmos based upon then?'

The only thing certain is this very instance. This instance contains it's current past and future. Change this instant and you change all time.

Time is a matter of relative conscious perception.

Even if time were a founding principle of physics, I still have doubts that it flows at the same rate everywhere.

Time is said to flow from past to future because our memory suggests a causal sequence. If we had total alzheimers, yet absolute precognition of things to come, we would have to say that time flows from future to past.

When ones perception escapes consciousness of time, so too does matter escape tangible causal form and sequence, and becomes subject instead to a flow like that of a holographic river created in the moment.

If their is a sequential causal flow of events from history to future that we are involved in, like frames of animation, each frame as real as the next, then the only distinguishing factor between now, and past & future, is which frame our conscious observor visits: the entire flow of events and thoughts exist, but only our relative presence of consciousness determines one part of the time-line as current. If we visit each frame, we observe the mind talking about each frame as the current one upon which past and future are based. If those moments exist, or ever existed, then that was true. Every moment is 'now'. Just as any geography one might visit is 'here'. If consciousness is larger than our pinpoint focus, and occupies all places in time and space, then everything is here and now.

I don't see time as a force which existed prior to god or the universe. They come as a package. If there is god, universe, and consciousness, there is all time, otherwise there is no time.

If one insists on a sequence of events in which only one moment is now, and other moments no longer exist, then just by virtue of this moment existing, we are created from nothing, nothing being the last moment which no longer exists. If it really no longer exists, then there is no such thing as history. It is merely the imagination of memory, with no data to support it. Either a fresh universe is created every instant, while others are destroyed without a trace, or all time co-exists and consciousness is the means of traversing it. Either way, there is no beginning or end. We are the alpha and the omega.

If I were to use your six day model, three of those days would extend infinitely into the past, while three others would extend infinitely into the future.

To digress almost entirely, this reminds me of my thoughts on using infinity in math. It seems to me that if one plots a cartesian graph with points at (0,0), (3,5), & (6,10) and claims these lines go on indefinitely, that the slope will always be 3/5, and not 1/1 (infinity over infinity), nor 0 (division by infinity), nor infinity (infinity divided by any denominator). If one ploted the slope at half of infinity (which would also be infinity), the slope would still be 3/5
{hmm, I seem to be hemmoraging somewhere in my GI tract. That can't be good. I just saw a squirrel die of that a couple days ago. Hopefully it's just those almond slivers I ate last night.}
Anyhow, this also applies to multiples and divisions of infinity, as applies to comparative rates and ratios. If every numeral in itself is really a product of a numeral and infinity, then all proportional rates and ratios are relative to infinity. Depending on the scope of infinity, relative reality is either infinitely vast in every dimension of space, time, mass, energy, and such, or doesn't actually exist at all.

That too applies to my undertanding of the cosmos. If we take e=mc^2 as the rule of the universe, but consider c to be d/t, both products of consciousness, then matter and energy, and their relative configuration all become products of relative focus of consciousness. It is our relative congregate consciousness on earth which surveys the heavens. Elsewhere that relative focused consciousness might be configured quite differently, thus making warp speed and time travel possible, so folks like Horus can visit ancient Egypt.

July 7, 2006 - On trickle-down economics.

Not a good idea, nor does it work.

Money in the hands of the wealthier has an entirely different meaning than in the hands of the masses. For the poor and middle class it is a token for barter of consumable commodities and services, bread, shoes, and such. In the hands of the wealthy who can't buy 6 billion shoes, it becomes a token of political power, abstract ownership of workers and distribution.

For such a system to work, taxes should be based either on profits, or in inverse proportion to value-added labor. Products which create labor benefits would be tax free, while mark-up of goods produced by automation would be taxed heavily.

Whatever the intent, Reagan's policies were followed by the demise of middle-management and conversion of jobs to independent contracting.

This article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics] confuses trickle-down and supply-side economics.

The effects of trickle-down can be demonstrated by playing Monopoly and making the wealthiest player immune from rents and street repairs. The best one could hope for is that this wealthiest player lowers their rents as other players become unable to pay.

The result of trickle-down (or unfettered supply-side) is that the wealthier gain leverage over other economic tiers. The only redeeming quality of the model is that since this leverage is in the form of a ratio, and is hopefully contigent upon the willing participation of consumers, that the power of the wealthy is defined by the power of their consumer base. If you can control a populace of billions who each own their own private space ship, you're doing pretty well.

The bottom line of trickle down is milking labor and consumers. An example of this is trapping consumers into cell phone contracts and charging as much as the consumers are able to pay. Neither generosity nor indirect benefit to consumers figure into this. The money saved by big business will continue to be invested in efficiently cutting labor and production costs, and diminishing consumer options.

* * *

No one ever discusses it, but a 'trickle-up' theory makes far more sense for both lower and higher economic tier participants. Rather than encouraging the milking of the masses, encourage the masses to build their own space-ships, and tax the hardware, reinvesting those taxes in development of better hardware. Selling expensive space-ship hardware at a low mark-up will make for just as much wealth as milking the public for over-priced bicycle hardware.

It is big business, not labor and consumers that are in need of regulation. Think back to the Boston Tea Party and early U.S. corporate charters. Trickle-up is what is our nation was founded on, and it worked fantastically. Big business has managed to turn the pradigm around 180º yet convince us that we are still operating on our founding values.

FDR was at war with this turning upside down of the relationship between the people and economic authority. If he were in office today, I expect corporations would be democratically administrated foundations serving public services above economic leveraging on behalf of select investors.

Imagine how much more liquid wealth the average person would have if Coca-Cola was a non-profit public asset, where community representatives were elected to determine pricing, product lines, and environmental policies. India would vote on what they do in India. Here we'd vote on the balance between labor benefits and cost, with the interest of overall benefit to american society ahead of value to stock-holders. The nation itself would be the stock-holders, and we could either subsidize production if the need for soda outweighed the cost, or divert profits to developing extra-planetary nuclear power if production was dirt cheap.

If someone wishes to argue the benefits of competition, theres no reason the public couldn't own several soda manufacturers.

The current economic model is based not on supplying public needs and interests (which at least occurs indirectly), but on everyones dream of securing a higher position of relative economic power. While their is some overlap in the fruits of these models, the democratic public corporation model could produce a universal utopia, while the competitive economic dominance model inevitably creates abstract serfdoms. Most of us will be the serfs, without much say in things. Leveraging, not bountiful production is the primary means of pure capitalism.

* * *

I might add here that bountiful production isn't necessarily in our best interests either, especially when planned obsolescence is factored in. With efficiency comes decreased need for labor; Wages decrease, and people are forced to hold several meaningless jobs to pay for basic survival. If instead, pricing was non-profit, although production was still efficient, people could have more leisure time which would also stimulate the economy or promote self-sustainability of society.

Our current model of capitalism is in itself a Keynesian pyramid scheme. It relies on subsequent generations being more rabid consumers. Since there's a limit to what people can consume, we've had to introduce planned obsolescence to keep the profit machines running. Pyramid schemes eventually collapse. Now that the big players are fairly established, they have taken to replacing the model of offering competitive wares with that of offering subscription services for products. This means that you don't just buy a stereo and hope it lasts 30 years, instead you pay monthly for the ability to play music, whatever the format. Serfdom.

June 30, 2006 - Response to a young person dubiously considering the teachings of a church that claims aboriges are doomed to hell for not  knowing of Jesus.

Where did you get this thing about slaughtering a lamb. I don't recall that in Genesis, maybe though. I may have glossed over that part, as I consider the early stuff purely metaphoric, the product of 1000's of years of passing down stories without aid of writing.

There are many speculative attributes of god. It can be pretty easily reasoned out in any theology course that if god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, that god is not omnibenificent, at least by general human standards of good.

I suggest to you though, that if you wish to believe in God, you consider that God is omnipotent, the creator of all, present in all. This pretty much has to be the case unless you believe that there were two or more gods creating everything. If satan exists, satan is god's creation, doing god's bidding. The most important thing to consider though is our own existence. How could our bodies, souls, or minds be made of anything but god, for anything but god's purposes? Hinduism explains this. God divided into creator and perceiver, otherwise there would be no creation, or nothing to give it meaning. We, us humans, are God incarnate for the purpose of enjoying creation. Granted, some of it is miserable, but no one enjoys watching movies that are pure happiness, and we, being made of god immortal, will live eons to experience new adventures in creation. Were it not so, god would just be a joyous ball of light, if any sort of creation at all. As a human, one might wonder at god filling a life with some crippling disease, but think of your life as a human, with a toe that got hurt climbing a tree. Without the risk, the climbing would be dull. Now think of that toe as the crippled person. From the vantage point of a day for a toe, or a life for a human, not fun, but from the vantage of the tree climber, or god, a heck of lot more entertaining than sleeping for eternity. In that model of cosmolgy, think of God's love not as parents love for their children, but as you would love your eyes and hands if you were eternal and imperishable.

I don't think people really contemplate the omniptence of God enough. They take way too much stock in the view of reality based on humans enduring earthly life. In the blink of an eye God could replace all the 15 billion galaxies and all of us humans with a new reality with different concepts of physics as fundamental as time, matter, and consciousness are to our current universe.

..and lastly, with a God like this animating every proton and quark in a divine scheme, you don't have to ultimately worry about thoughts, actions, heavens, or hells. God is doing all of it, and you're just along for the ride, being god's eyes, perceiving the miracle of creation for gods sake. That you are tormented with questions of who is god and what does god want, when there's only really God here in the first place, is god's way of making the game entertaining, forgetting the nature of god. Once god finds god, the game is up and has to be started over.

Read Genesis over again. It's all in there, but as metaphors like Adam and eve naming the animals, clothing themselves, pretending not to hear god. Even Eve being made from a rib alludes to humankind being made of god, so that god would not be devoid of the companionship of creation. Good and evil is yet another entertainment. God plays all the parts, after all, and eventually everything must return to God, or at least become parts of God's new evolution as god becomes phrazillions of new universes over eternity.

One of the cool things God likes to do is meet God. This is done through mysticism. There are hindu, shaman, catholic, buddhist, muslim, and christian mystics. Many words exist for such seekers, and the variety of ways in which they learn to communicate with or somewhat experience the mind of God is fascinating. If you are an elightened being, knowing the mind of God, as various prophets, gurus, saints, monks, meditators, and such have to varying degrees of knowledge and power, in varying realms of creation, in various styles, over the millenia, then you have an opportunity to know directly from God what god thinks on such matters. There are several references in the bible about talking to the holy spirit, but, even writen, as the book gets handed down the generations, few ministers talk about those passages, because few of them are talking to god to even know what these passages mean, and the churches would be out of business if people talked to god directly anyhow. For one thing, those rules in the bible were for the 'dead', applying to the ignorant masses of that long gone culture. Jesus had another term, the 'quick', for those that were talking to God and getting instructions that applied specifically to them. Every one of us has a specific different life path. Only by talking to God will you get to fully undertand it that which is specific to you.

My advice to you, if you truly wish to devoutly follow God, become a spiritualist in any mystical tradition concerned with directly experiencing the divine. It doesn't matter if it's called buddhist or christian or hindu. When you study the deep esoteric mystical cosmology of these faiths, you find out that they all pretty much teach the identical thing anyhow, just as minds and hearts are pretty similar, no matter what ones language or career.

On one end of the spectrum you have mysticism, finding god's presence in everything around and inside us, and on the other you have God's self-delusion of human ego by which creation is perpetuated, forgetting that it is all God. The nature of ego is objective identity. To claim you are good means you have to call something else evil. To think of yourself as chosen means you have to think of others as heathens. By definition, when a religion claims to put an exclusive gate on heaven, they create the outsiders, those who will go to hell or something. What that's really about is their collective ego wanting to feel special apart from something else, but there's nothing but God here, no way we could be apart except by self delusion, or in the christian metaphor, by deception. You'll perhaps recall the story of Lucifer (beloved light of God) falling to earth and filling it with deception. Our being something other than God, and imagining ourselves to be having these wars and ethical tribulations here on earth is that deception. Satan (in that sense of the metaphor) is doing the work of creation, but again, it's still just god.

That's not to say you're completly off the hook. As long as you believe in physical matter, good and bad, I highly suggest that you do good.

Part of the mechanism by which god, like a dream made real, becomes our life is through karma. That part of our consciousness connected to the creator fills our personal universes with our thoughts. If we believe in doing harm, we end up living in situations where others do us harm. In biblical terms it was said, 'as you reap, so shall you sow'. 'Do unto others as they would have them do unto you' fits the bill. This isn't so because it's an ethical mandate by God, it's so because it's the cosmic mechanism by which God creates our reality. As you let go of your ego and merge with the god consciousness from which you are made, you will find yourself to be co-author of grand heavens and hells here on earth, and as you merge further, with an eternal diversity of heavens and hells and phrazillions of new universes in which you will again forget that you were ever made of god, and take it as a new and fascinating adventure.

With 15 billion galaxies out there, and possibly conscious nebulae spending a million years to bend their elbows, you need to look at God as more than just a human thinking dude hanging out at sacrifices and laying down the laws, yet at the same time you need to consider why anything exists at all and how is that you are conscious to witness creation. Without massive metaphoric translation, and a faith that transcends anything taught in the biblical text, you won't reach any understanding of these issues vital to the question of our existence through biblical christianity. Don't get me wrong, I think it has much to offer, and have witnessed the ressurection of christ in a vision (in Hinduism, one calls such research visions the Akashic Records, made possible by accessing the memory of God which we all share). I'm just saying that it's also frustrating and possibly leads more people astray from finding God than it helps, particularly when it is administrated by dogmatic churches. Also consider there are a variety of different styles of lessons written by different prophets for people of different personality types. These prophets mostly communicated with God somewhat, and were human teachers with a knowledge of human nature, and thus were able to concoct some miserable yet effective means of finding God. One path that Baptists are fond of is the one in which you consider yourself to be a miserable impure wretch full of natural sin yearning for God's favor. The result of this path is that you make your ego (and surrounding environment) such an inhospitable environment (a living hell) that you leave it behind, and thus are left with the reamining god consciousness. It's one heck of a miserable path though. I went through the yogi equivalent, being a renunciant. Both Hindus and Christians (everyone, mostly) also teach a path of loving everything and thus eventually finding god's presence in it all as your mind merges with the omnipresent love of God and leaves behind the ego of seperativeness. Where christian churches confuse people is when they claim that the lessons of these diverse prophets somewhat familiar with God &/or spiritual matters in their immediate context, are instead the direct words of God, and that somehow you are supposed to reconcile 'love everything' and 'loathe everything' as being part of the same study plan. They both work, but they aren't the same plan, and they aren't meant for everybody. I'm sure those aborigines have their own plans too. Think of how many plants and animals there are, of how many thoughts and feelings there are, of how diverse culture is. God creates plenty of diversity. I wouldn't trust any church that claims that's there's only one way to God. If Jesus is supposed to be god incarnate, then of course the only way to god is through god. If god goes by the name Himzelgerk, it's no different, just semantics. I suppose though, knowing what I know of prophets, that Jesus was serving as a channel to his 'quick' friends and adherants in his immediate circle at the time, in the absence of any other prophets, that he was indeed physically and literally their door to communion with God. People who really know god have power over nature, events, and such, but there is no shortage of lessor prophets, nor do you need a prophet at all to commune with God, but, like a foreign language teacher when you're travelling, they do come in handy. Many of them (though none quite of the Jesus caliber) are modern writers and lecturers. The nice thing about them is that they teach for modern culture, and have several millenium of several cultures to draw from. Some might explain the 'love everything' path in significant spiritual detail, while others may still further distill the 'loathe everything' path (as examples). There are two dozen sorts of Hinduism, or Buddhism, just as there are two dozen brands of Christianity. The best authors in my opinion draw from all these faiths, and of course, have reached some state of enlightenment and communion with God themselves. Find a path that resonates with you. If you want to find God by gardening and singing in devotional prayer, then you can become a Krishna. There are paths of heart, mind, and/or even the body (as Gospel, Shaker, and Kriya yoga practices relate to).

Ultimately, your search for God in your life is a unique contract between you and God. Anyone who would deny an aborigine might just as well deny you on some subtle discriminating grounds, but I assure, God is available to everyone. Plus, karmically speaking, if you go joining those denying those with aboriginal beliefs access to God, then you can count on that as your just reward as well.

While god can take on a punishing nature for those who believe their world to be as such, God can also manifest as heaven on earth for those who delight in God, thus consider whethar your every thought and action is motivated by love or fear. If your church motivates by encouraging your fear, I'd shop around for another church, if not another faith.

Good luck in all this. Blessings.

June 30, 2006 - Response to a young woman medical biology student considering the Dr. Susan Blackmore proposal that consciousness does not exist.

I was going to say that thats pretty out there, but you then proceeded to identify what's at stake. If 'I think, therefore, I am' can be disproved by science, science ain't worth much.

In one sense, to the degree that I believe in matter at all, I think of the human body and brain as interface to the soul. I've had astral travels with and without my intellect along, and in doing so, observed that the mind was just a machine following the script of the universe, but the same was not true of the essence of observation which typically occupies the mind and body. Without that force, we would be nothing but machines. No matter how many perceptual sensors are attached to a robot with the programmatic sophistication to conjugate sentences like 'I am', it will never have the experience of being that we, or even a fish with less sophisitcated thoughts has.

We are not our thoughts, our senses, or even our feelings; we are are the observor of creation which inhabits creation and creates it.

If you reach a state of meditation without senses, without thoughts or feelings, you will still be aware in another dimension of sense that you are there. - That is what no computer will ever recreate. At best, it's domain is limited to constructions of tangible data. Pure consciousness is beyond that domain. Science too is limited to the domain of tangability, thus of course science must inevitably prove that we are not conscious. Science also says something can't come from nothing, and yet we are here.

Science, while claiming to be the ultimate authority on matter, is only a man-made abstraction. Let's take yet another man made abstraction, mathematics, and compare it to reality. For awhile we had no such things as negative numbers or fractions. Did this mean that half a fish on ones dinner plate couldn't exist? While the mathematical model is always always being expanded, it has a lot of catching to do before it can represent things like emotions. Mathematics is it's own domain, mapped to domains like tangible matter. The laws of tangible matter are also a man-made abstract domain hoping to catch up to the domain of actual matter it always strives to model. The domain of tangible matter is yet in itself another abstraction of the ultimate reality, of which things like consciousness and emotions are other abstracted sub-domains.

To ask physical matter to describe the entirety of reality is implausable. We know of things whichlie outside it's domain. To ask some man-made abstracted model of reality we call science to explain reality is purely wacko. The best science can hope for (and this is true of all abstracted systematic domains), is to describe itself. Anyone choosing to abide by the laws of science has arbitrarily resticted their domain of reality from the get go. It's like living on a plane of Flatland, and describing spheres and cones as circles, but worse, because we have hints that life is more than 2-D.

Dear god, I should have known what to expect with the name Blackmore (one of those 'ellipse is a cone' cues). Did you per chance notice that there's a theme to most of her blog, that consciousness is not a good thing?

I speak somewhat figuratively as I say: Bravo. What a fascinating new demon you've conjured for us here!

Dang. I've read further. She's deep and subtle. She's not disproving that a universal consciousness exists, just that any personal doer exists. It's not entirely contrary to the point I was trying to make. Shes following one of the Zen traditions, which, I will say again, is but a single plane (domain, if you will), within reality. I have experinced this state of no decider/thinker/doer she brings up in many forms. My favorite to bring up is the 'Heaven on Earth' experience I had for a week and a half.

Where I part part paths with her is on the matter of there being no consciousness. While I agree that personal consciousness as an aspect of or counterpart to intellect and ego is a delusion, provable by spiritual practices, I don't agree that there is no such thing as consciousness. Buddhists are afraid to bring up the notion of God, yet all there practices lead to a merging with God, which they might call the tao, or the flow of nature, or something, but implicit in it is an orchestrating order, perhaps not conscious in the way we call ego intellect consciousness, but still with a plan, and that, a universal plan, should be looked upon as god, by definition.

I can see some logic to her train of thought, given her experiences: If ego intellect turned out to be a delusion, perhaps consciousness too is a delusion. You'll recall my using the phrase 'to the degree I believe in matter at all', as I have found too that matter itself is a relative delusion, and really takes on a myriad of forms (with accompanying explanations and histories) as suit consciousness. That ego, intellect, consciousness, and matter are all possibly delusions gets to the heart of the matter, the force behind creation.

Anyhow, don't take her work too superficially. The implications are not readily grokked.

I somehow got from you that you were suggesting that she was suggesting that consciousness is a fluke of machine activity (there are adherants to that understanding). She is only claiming that thought is a product, possibly epiphenomenalistic, of some higher order. She hasn't gathered enough data to draw conclusions on consciousness itself.

I applaud her on her experimental study using spiritual philosphy as her thesis, and scientific observation as her proof. I do the same thing myself. Granted, my experiences allows me to be open to grand possibilities, given the open implications of what I have thus far witnessed to be the order of reality. I've never been one to promote faith without understanding and evidence.

You are blessed that your life path contains such food for inquiry into the nature of reality.

Mar 13, 2006 - Statement to the peace movement on building utopia (response to mid-east religious turmoil speculations)

The link gave me uninterpreted audio, no video. (need to change my computer setup) []

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

I have not been there and am no expert, but I have had Iraqi and Iranian friends, and had done some research before the war, and keep my eyes open.

My friend from Lebanon described the wars in Lebanon a couple decades back: Five political-religious factions in a bloody urban war with a front-line that shifted from block to block amidst the skyscrapers. US and Israeli involvement was not the issue.

While it is true that Hussein's speeches rallied around fear of the Jews (not unlike the 'war on terror' here), it was primarily both an internal religious civil war and a desperate attempt at preserving national borders since the Iranians had breeched the Thalweg river division established in 1967. Water is very important there. The response was of course barbaric, and we responded with sanctions.

While I don't think we should have been there at all, if there was to be any just military solution, it would have been to back up the UN in a pan-lateral defense of all nations against any aggressors. Leaving Iraq unarmed in it's war against Iran was a recipe for further trouble.

However, the US is involved now, and in no small way. It is clearly establishing a broad mid-east policy, although the arrangement of the big picture is still indiscernible. With all the base plans in Iraq, and recent allegiances with the U.A.E, I think it's safe to say that the US has abandoned merely using Israel as a toe-hold island in balance against the region, and intends instead to establish a far reaching connection through internal allegiances. These plans probably failed in Iraq already, though aren't likely abandoned either. At this point I'd be on the watch for not only all US mid-east enmity spin, but also for any trade and military aid which flies under the radar, towards a unified US controlled mid-east. When we have such a thing, I suspect we will dump collaborations with Israel entirely, if necessary, as a token of compromise with new partners.

Religion may enflame local politicians, but the major strategists operate as atheists.

I'm not particularly defending the Jews, but if they had a part in this, they would have already been in the US coalition forces. This would probably have started a world war no one was ready for. Put this way, as long as Israel remains nuclear, the US would maintain Israel even if it controlled a united mid-east. It could never assist beyond that though if there was any mid-east military unity.

It is my guess that there will be a few more wars of the scale we've seen, resulting in a briefly united mid-east which shakes it's US allegiance after the US military becomes it's tool in compromise with US oil contractors, and buys global real-estate in the fashion of the Japanese with the last of it's oil reserves, beginning a new phase of global mid-east cultural expansion. This will probably take another 40 years. I think the best US policy to support in the meantime would be one of local borderless self-sufficiency.

The US was more bankrupt than the USSR which collapsed monetarily. The difference was in our economic faith. The key indicator in upcoming global trends will be international debt and perceived faith in new currency standards. The US, as a geo-political nation is irretrievably in debt, particularly if you dismiss the number juggling and look at who's resources support whom. It will be interesting to find what stands here if other nations come to collect.

In light of an increasing government of global capitalism, our best route to preserve political freedom would be to democratize institutions like the WTO and WMF via the UN while non-economic political power still exists around the globe. You can bet that the same sort of blackmail leveraging tactics used against third world nations in trade negotiations will soon apply to global corporatism transactions with individual global consumers. - Business vs. consumers & labor without any political representation, not just in Vietnam, but here as well.

There are two sides to every coin. The free market doesn't have to be a bad thing. The liberty of people comes down to opportunity, manipulation, leveraging, and enforcement. The mechanisms of the latter are institutions like banking and insurance (like the WMF, the macrocosm mirrors the microcosm, and we can even expect them to merge). Like in the macrocosm, our answer is to democratize banking practices. One means of doing this is to form our own democratized credit consumer unions and build non-profit democratized corporate public institutions to replace our schools, welfare, utilities, and other communal infra-structure.

If we always do nothing but respond to global events as they unfold, we will always be subject to them. The alternative is a pre-emptive reconstruction of society towards a new golden age. - While this may sound preprosterously formidable, it can be achieved though mindfulness in the most incremental of daily actions. Every step taken with a neighbor to network and share resources where community value comes before mere self-advancement helps form this necessary infrastructure. As a movement, this awareness would naturally lead to the grander infrastructures for diversified global utopia. In such a plan there is no room for devisiveness. Nor can it be achieved merely though 'a' common point of unity. Rather it would be a web of diversified unity where everyone is connected to everyone else though a myriad of routes, where people felt that they were positively connected indirectly with all the people they don't know.

It's simple - spread shared constructive connections with everyone, ignore divisiveness, and we will all be connected for evolving common positive change. It requires that faith and will replace fear.

Feb 25, 2006 - Statement to the peace movement.

The purchase of our East coast ports by the United Arab Emirates brings up the serious matter of who is even running our country.

At this point, the best I can presume is that it is an anarchy of global capitalists of which Bush and his cabinet are participants.

If we are to stop wars, it would sure help to know who is causing them, towards what end.

For the most part we have been acting in the movement as if we are dealing with a political body of public representatives that has gotten out of control. While public representatives still exist, I am not sure this is entirely the status of our governance.

- For some years brewing in my mind has been the sub-textual concern with our alternatives. Though revolution is an alternative, I mean by this all alternatives aside from mere shifting of the political body, including boycotts, hippie communes, moving to other countries, and any other means of living a free life and steering local or global society. While I still don't buy into illuminati depths of conspiratorial thinking, it troubles me to imagine that collaborative global forces are manipulating even the façade of national super-powers as well as public perception and global economics.

In light of this concern, I suggest that we strive not merely to protect our bill-of-rights capacity to shift the political body from patriot acts, but that we vigilantly keep an observant eye open to protect all natural means of freedom of the human experience.

Towards this end I propose that we go beyond corporate and political transparency, educate generations to come on the most bountiful varieties of collaborative human experience, and promote all envitalized means of creative personal interactive participation, lest we resign our progenitor to being cogs in a machine run by the unseen hand of our id.

Our having done so already is certainly at large fault for the existing war machine. The defense industry is no anomaly when consumerism reigns and one's neighbors are irrelevant.

Many cultural foot-prints have passed by, including rocket-scientist boy scouts, free-love, and yuppie dot-comers. Imagine what a generation could do if their empowered foremost focus was on manifesting a vibrant bountiful living global society, rather than engineering a better commodity market for mutual personal gains.

While we may not be able to identify who's running our country, we can identify the soul source which has fallen asleep and allowed passive division of our mutual experience to become the standard which forces may exploit.

While citing our passivity, I do not mean to suggest that actively engaging in an 'identity' with love and peace is an answer either. The Tao creates through polarity of opposites. Leftists conspiratorial paranoids dream schemes for the right. The answer to achieving a harmonious planet is to propagate living participation without ego. The universe has an infinite store of battle for all those who want either side of the experience. The peace movement should be seen as a means to itself, and not as an oppositionary force.

This, all my friends, is why I play guitar with neighbors as my effort in the peace movement. Sure, I write in forums to kids, steer them clear of recruiters, but most heartily I encourage them to find the joy of life within each other.

Kristal McKinstry
February 25, 2006

Nov 30, 2005 - Rebuttal to argument on absence of good and evil

Their thesis: I believe there is Power and Weakness but not good and evil. Reason. Hitler in our perspective and opinions was evil but in his minds and in the minds of the Germans and the Nazi's his destruction of the Jews was good.

My response: That's a bit like saying there aren't stupid and intelligent choices to be made just because a lot of smart people can be confused into making stupid choices. Look at all the intelligent people who support a nuclear arms race.

Sounds to me like you are hoping to enforce some Aleister Crowley 'Do as thou wilt', 'every man for himself' lack of moral constraint, in which case you'll find that real friends are attracted to good character and friendships of negotiated favor are empty.

Your question has merit though. It's corrolary implication is that 'everyone' could be considered to be intrinsically good (or all are intrinsically evil for that matter). You bring up the context of moral relativism as well, i.e. the concept of honor amongst thieves. Another issue you bring up is whethar good can be defined as behaviouralism, or if the teachings of Jesus pertain in which doing something in your head is practically as bad as doing it physically.

People can be convinced of anything - that killing off 90% of the planet's population by lottery will save humanity in centuries to come.

Excepting the diversification of masochists and such, the prime guage of good is 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. On the surface, this merely amounts to a criteria for laws of conduct for the sustained promotion of a harmonious society. But at it's core, via deeper levels of reciprocity we find that this rule is not just good karma for all involved but a creative means of diversification steering towards a good god singularity. Everything we do to others, we do not just to flavor what gets passed around, but because what we do to others we do to ourselves. We are not islands free from the influence of our surroundings, we ultimately are our surroundings. If you are giving with love you will feel the same love you created as if you were on the receiving side of that love. Evil is not a philosophy or behaviour, it is the absence of love. To say that there is no such thing as evil is to say that there is no such thing as love, and that, in the context of the golden rule, you have no preferences for the actions or emotions you wish to experience. If we were magnetic gamma rays living in a nebula the physical behaviour that love calls for would be different than here or in 1930's Germany. In 1930's Germany you could say that people wore blinders, extending their love to their closest neighbors, and letting ignorance, the evil absence of love cloak their distant relations with the world. The truth however is more like people had succumbed to evil in general in the first place. That evil took the form of fear which Hitler was a master at fostering with those midnight black boot and torch marches of armies through the streets. Fear makes one forget love. If you want a quick rule of a thumb for 'living' a wholesome growing life, examine if the motive of each of your actions is love or fear.

Let us take now your argument and make some use of it. You suggest that behaviour is not neccessarily good nor bad, and that people are not necessarily good or bad, and I will agree, though I suggest that good and evil to continue to exist in the abstract at every instance. Let us hope that the average person is more evolved than your average machine and that morals and ethics imply more than correct operation. For the most part, people are making choices of good and evil, if not with a love and extended awareness of identiy within others, at least with a selfish love for their own self interests. Love is, so to say, graded on effort, not performance. The person who has overcome great personal fears to hug a desperate stranger is more loving than the billionaire who absently checks some box to give $10,000 to some charity. That said, good and evil are relative to the context of each individual soul. Every person is the product of a lifetime of circumstance. And while the average person might not be blooming with love, neither could they generally live with themself to perpetually pursue their notion of evil. They live in a balance of intuitive wisdom and circumstantial justification based on their upbringing. A callous murderer may have been raised to believe that it's a dog eat dog world, but they still have a sense for what's cool to do and what's not cool. Murdering someone who has screwed you over a hefty transaction is different than murdering some random guy who wears turquoise cowboy boots. Sure, there are those sociopaths completely out of touch with any ethical reality, but we can't have a discussion of good and evil in humanity based on a few anomalies. My point is that , given the context of their upbringing and the philophical imprint of such, most everyone behaves as they feel is appropriate, even if they are aware that the mainstream of society has different guidelines for some reason.

So far I have isolated both behavior and personal circumstance from good and evil, but what of personal human nature itself. Those concerned with good and evil are often also concerned with the issue of forgiveness. With what I've said already, one should understand christs words "Forgive them, for they know not what they do". There is the saying 'Evil is as evil does'. Look at a newborn child. You could argue one way or another on calling their purity good, but either way, it remains preposterous to call them evil. Their field of awareness is negligible. They have no intent. They make neither good nor poor informed choices. Even if we believe in reincarnation, few would go as far as to condemn the newborn for past life grievances. Now let us examine in contrast a reformed murderer. Someone 'reborn'. To be certain, their body once committed a crime. They have memories of having committed the crime. They may have memories of being the person who committed the crime. The question is whethar or not they still live in those memories. To be reborn is to wipe the slate clean and live in a new world understanding. We judge a person by who they are, not who they were, just as we do not judge the newborn baby. The reborn man (human-kind) who has no desire or propensity to murder is no different than any other man on the street. To condemn him, we might just as well condemn any other man. We could condemn the murderer, but the murderer is a man that no longer exists. A man is his mind and soul, not his flesh. (for that matter, most of our flesh is just a few weeks old, and only our deepest bone marrow has been on this planet for some seven years). People suggest that an ex-criminal should be repentant and feel guilt and remorse, but I suggest to you that these are transitional stages at best, and enemies of rebirth. To feel guilt and remorse is to reconjure and identify with the former identity and all it's world-view through which the crime was a natural act. Such reinforcement of a state of being precludes development of a fresh world-view in which such criminal acts are out of harmony with ones being.

We are co-creators of our existence, steering what comes into being through belief and definition. When we condemn others (motivated by insecure fear and selfish righteous exclusive self-identification) we reinforce and perpetuate these negative definitions of reality and preclude change for the betterment of humanity and ourselves.

It's admirable, Will, that you challenge and probe beneath the surface of conventional wisdom to find the truth, but let me assure you that you are responsible for the field of beauty and misery you propogate around you, and that you should give serious consideration to the qualities of good and evil you wish to have reflected in your life. You can make life a Merry Christmas or a wary stay in a prison camp like Hitler created.

I suppose a debate on good and evil with an East/West mystical cosmology Reverend wasn't quite what you had in mind; that your goal was to win some philosphical symantics battles rather than have to digest a larger context. You'll have plenty of opportunity in years to come if you wish to pursue such, though may I suggest that expressing your arguments with an open eagerness to share and learn rather than demonstrate prowess is most rewarding. In fact, you'll probably find that a strange karma exists in debate such that the most rational and compelling arguments won't actually sway anothers opinion, excepting to the degree in which you surrender and adopt an opposing world-view towards finding common ground.

Aug 29, 2005 - Katrina & the Waves - a msg. for Pat Robertson & Bush

The message of hurricane Katrina.

Nations have karma too. It was just a week ago that Pat Robertson, leader of the 700 club and the Christian broadcasting Network, suggested that we should have secret operatives bump off the president of Venezuela, that a strong arm dictator shouldn't be permitted to give OUR oil to impoverished locals who live above it, and thus force us into another 2 billion dollar war like that in Iraq. He also announced that he has authority with God over hurricanes.

It is also worth mentioning that this same morning as Katrina hit New Orleans, our final-draft constitution for Iraq was publicised, one which insists that Iraqi oil assets are for sale to foreign investors.

This hurricane was targetted at the heart of our gulf oil platforms and refineries. While their are intercessories for things like hurricanes, such powers are not meant to be misused by those favoring factions over world harmony. This hurricane was directly karmic, and by other intercession was downgraded to a message. The platforms were saved, the ecology was saved, and so were 100's of thousands living in a city 20' beneath sea level, although the roof was ripped off the Super-Dome (those tv evangelists sure love their football), a reminder to all those taking shelter refuge there that this hurricane could have had an impact.

Those ecologically minded will also note that it is the local industries destruction of 30 miles of wetlands which made the risk all the more grand.

Pathetically, half the news was not about all those lives at risk, but what threat to the cost of gasoline.

Ride a bicycle or mass transit folks, and be wary of greedy righteous war mongering tv ministers boasting that they'll protect us from hurricanes.

{Robertson was a presidential candidate who believes heaven favors Bush, democratic judges are a greater threat than Hitler, and 9/11 was the fault of gays and lesbians. His network has millions of international viewers.}

May 22, 2005 - Transferring my entire site. Expect mayhem New songs posted at http://ereiamco.ipower.com/foundation/arts/music/songlist.htm for now

February 8, 2005 - Update on global peace movement.

Our local CFWP (Coalition For world Peace) is hosting a convergence of 40 or so local UFPJ (United For Peace & Justice) affiliates and like minded orgs near the end of the month. That in turn is tied into a parallel national convention of UFPJ affiliates. The proposal I am bringing up is as follows:

Solidarity in protesting the war has done nothing. We need to disable the cause of war. Our U.S. has four branches of governmnt; the legislative, judicial, executive, and big business, especially defense contractors. Because this fourth branch is not part of our system of checks and balances it has corrupted our other three branches, especially the executive and legislative branches. Nearly every prominent player in the Bush regime is a stockholder or board member of an aerospace or energy industry. These industries have increased profits from roughly 20-40% during this war. We didn't cure the problem during the Vietnam war when Lady-bird Johnson owned munitions plants. It's upon us to protect future generations from this corrupt incentive for holding office and promoting war.
The solution is to not allow representatives economic motives. Basically, we need to prevent and treat as a treasonous felony politicians from having any stock or consultancy profits from any enterprise with governmental contracts for a period from seven years before they take office to fourteen years after they leave office.
This proposal or bill can be implementd by a nationally orchestrated, locally ground-up policy in which city council members, state senators, and on up understand that their voters will abstain electoral support unless they agree to both support the bill and refrain from endorsing other politicians who do not.

~ and yes, a continental mid-east nato/eec would be helpful, but I'd like to see a global peaceful non-corporate confederacy even more. It would start as comprised of nations like argentina, afghanistan, and bosnia, recovering from internal wars, invasions, or bankruptcy. Unlike the UN, it would have equal representation by populace and nation, much like our house and senate, rather than held in check by by the veto power of a few super-powers. Also, unlike the UN, citizens would vote for their global reps.

This wouldn't answer the other cause of wars between nations like Iraq and Iran however. One must also keep in mind that war exists in the US too. Personal fortunes and the sustenance of labor forces are in at risk in inter-corporate competition. The somewhat forgotten anti-monopoly laws were a meta-force for maintaining some harmony in this realm. Wars wouldn't exist in places like the mid-east either if some umbrella power forbid factions from winning entirely.

Did you ever see the movie Max-Headroom? A bit cheesy, but prophetic in it's portayal of citizen membership and wars existing purely in the realm of info-age corporate competition.

I had success in getting my server running and running php. When will you visit?

January 19, 2005 - On 'teleological' inferences at the PBS Forum on the Question of God.

For those who do not have direct experiences as proofs, there is still a middle ground between scientific observation and faith of inferences via 'Teleological' proofs.

Here is a skeleton example:

A) There is an awesome creator.
a1. Some force created the entire universe of tree-frogs, philosphy, nebulae, and billions of other fascinating integrated kaleidoscopic intricacies via an initial big-bang, an entire universe pouring forth from an absolute void. This force of physics as is an awesome creative power beyond the boundaries of mankind's comprehension.
a2. The universe is an integrated kaleidoscopic fantasy replete with an infinite past and future. This dream again comes from some awesome force beyond human comprehension.

B) Most life exhibits a pattern of evolving from one state of consciousness and environment to new realms. This pattern includes dragonfly nymphs that once considered swamp silt to be reality, and preschoolers having tea parties with their stuffed animals, before becoming lawyers. This pattern typically involves evolution to the extent that the life forms come to an understanding of the forces which created them and become part of that creative force.

Applying pattern B to condition A, it becomes likely that the subject of creation of the big-bang or dream-moment will eventually come to understand that invisible creative force and transcend it's limited environment to join the creative force.

Various toleological proofs exist. Some are concerned with proof of God, others with the purpose of humanity. A simple example. A) Something higher created us. B) We are ignorant worldly creatures. Conclusion: We are meant to experience a worldly ignorant state of being rather than immediately transcend it.

One can get quite needlessly complex, even mystically paranoid, observing connections and realising that there must be some invisible directing hand to it all, but really all one need do is sit down, look at the space in front of them, hear the sounds around them, and marvel at the pure awesome majesty that there is anything to experience or a consciousness that experiences in the first place. The average person operates 'within' reality, taking reality itself for granted. If you can stop time to witness reality itself, it will expose itself to you with a shimmering light that will vaporise you.

Open your mind ask what you are and what you are playing a part in until you feel an answer that explains the phenomenon itself.

Best of prayers towards that moment,
Kristal

August 23, 2004 - Response to a 'immigrants deserve prison' adherant.

But why have the borders in the first place?
What happened to our birthright to just start taking a walk around the planet. Isn't it rather arbitrary having your rights depend upon which side of a border you are born on?
Our leaders speak of Free trade, but it's really just 3rd world exploitation. If we had international laws that said foreign employees have to the same benefits as the companies own country, including federal health/retirement, and 3rd world geo-resources are to be compensated with stock for the locals, then US companies would stay domestic, giving our economy more jobs, and fewer would have reason to cross into our border. A grander way of saying what I'm saying is that if we want to do business with Mexico, we should let Mexico become states of our country. We let people from Kansas New Mexico come to California, heck, we even let people from Oakland come to LA. Where should we draw the line?

Borders are discriminatory policies, based on nothing but a persons birth. If you claim the problem is populationnumbers, well that too is absurd. We should then enforce zero population growth here, no more 8 kid families. The fact of it is that we should be able to support whatever our numbers are. If we can't self-sustain ourselves, ie have more jobs, production, consumerism, education, whatever, then our economic, business, and social structure is at fault, not our immigration policy. Immigration is a scapegoat for a failing economy run into the ground by a corrupt corporate system and the demise of all the checks and balances we once had for anti-trust law, overtime, etc. It's the expected outcome when those at the top of the economic foodchain, and not the general public, are responsible for supporting political candidates. We aren't headed towards reforms in prescription coverage or anything, until the major stockholders get a lions share, and that won't help workers. For the last three decades policies have shifted from favoring workers to favoring investors. Such policy thinking is simply not sustainable, but it's now a vicious cycle likely to continue until the wealth of investors becomes meaningless, as the poor ignore them, bartering for goods and services with neighbors instead.

Are you telling me you wouldn't try to move to Australia or something, if your industry and retirement benefits fell through, such that you couldn't pay for rent and groceries in the US?

Personally I'd like to live off the land and build my own home from local materials. That's hardly even legal in the US, property is expensive anywhere that has resources, and foreign countries like New Zealand won't let you immigrate unless you are wealthy. It seems like a birthright of mankind to forge their own way has become illegal, and the options are to become a victim or victor in an oppressive chain.

What are the mexicans looking for?.. To work a hard 8 hour day that pays the rent, buys a car and a tv, and gets groceries for some kids. It's a natural line of thought. Why should crossing a border decreed by armies 156 years ago make that natural thought illegal? For that matter, if they had the won the war, it's you and I who would be the illegal california immigrants. The borders are immoral in my book. They are based on arbitrary competitive exploitative selfishness of mankind, not man collaborating with man to sustain society. Laws aren't 'just' laws unless they give people equal opportunity. They could make a law preventing transgendered people from going to the bathroom, that doesn't mean we suddenly 'deserve' to go to prison for doing what we have to do. Which laws did you participate in writing lately? Did you shake hands with the people that lost the vote and were destined now for prison?
The Golden Rule and Karma apply here. You should wake up south of the border and see if you still think laws and the corporate social system are just.

Sadly, the trend is going to get much worse, but it's not the fault of immigration. Americans will be wanting to move to Canada and Europe, where this hasn't been allowed to happen, and vacations are 6 weeks, not two.

August 10, 2004 - Response to a 'right to bear arms' tyranny resistor.

The liberals are usually against guns, but they're not the ones destroying the economy; That's the multi-national corporation power-players which are getting more conservative backing.
This isn't some third world Zapatista culture either. Our lives are controlled not by military force, but by bank loans, insurance regulators, telecommunications subscriptions, etc. A resistance could be shut down by pushing a software button, and no guns would save us, when we're cut off from all our customary life-support systems. If a tyrannical collapse were to come down to fending against a corrupt governmenst militia, bearing arms would make sense, but that thinking is obsolete, since power is now administrated through control of services, therefore, our only hopes of restoring the sort of liberty you speak of would be to directly democratize our life-support sytems and not leave them solely in the hands of covert moguls motivated by profit and power control. The privatization of water is the next coming phase of this tyranny. Guns won't help us with that. You'd think that public awareness through the media could thwart off such threats, but the media is already an impenetrable service-system.

Our culture is collapsing in exactly the same fashion as Rome collapsed, but at a much faster rate. Rome decayed from within, centrally controlled, relying on exhausting exploitation of 3rd world periphery resources, bloated in process detached from civic life, until what had been the working class were all drafted as responsible tax collectors, indebted, and eventually indentured, to what became factioned castle barons, not unlike the factioning gubernatorial and corporate power grabs of indentured citizenry evolving now. The prison industry is an example of such a faction in this age which hasn't restructured the economy to accomodate our living in a post-industrial society in which people theoretically should have had to work less to make ends meet rather than working three useless telemarketing jobs in an age where work is insignificant.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, if you can describe to me some plausible scenario in which a gun will help you resist tyranny. Who would you shoot? The poor schmuck in the phillipines answering the customer-service line when your electricity is shut off? The cashier at the supermarket when your credit card is rejected? The guy loading the ATM machine when your debit card is also rejected? Heck, you won't even be able to call these folks.
The first thing the US did in the Iraqui war was shut off their international banking and seize their assets. The WTO can blackmail countries into cooperating on exploitative trade agreements by shutting off their international banking too. What do you think those protests in Seattle were about, which, I might add, was probably mostly a liberal activity, though any informed conservatives would find it their agenda too.
If we lived on self-sufficient farms, and there was a threat of an invading army staying in our homes, as was the case when the 4th amendment was written, then it would make sense. That circumstance hasn't existed for nearly a century, and we face far more insidious subtle, yet comprehensive threats. I think extreme liberals and extreme conservatives want pretty much the same thing, a libertarian amish environment built on community and the ability to work for a decent living without being exploited.

My presidential hero was FDR. He turned around a failing economy beyond all others, and his means was liberal socialism. Every conservative leader I know of has merely strengthened the corporate moguls at a cost to the working class.

http://www.votenader.com/

July 26, 2004 - The Democratic National Convention

Personal Commentary:
Watching the Democratic National Convention weighed heavily on me. The DNC offers a distant razor-sharp cage for those who believe in free speech. There weren't even token photos of Kerry and Edwards, in case you took this nomination seriously. Gore moaned a rally cry. Hillary appointed Kerry as Commander in Chief, and Clinton attested that Bush takes good care of him. As I sensed deceptive speech fabrication (the call to live in terror), Carter would avert eye contact, and Hillary would nod 'no, no, no' while saying 'yes, yes, yes'. The '2004' banner looked like a '007' gunshot, and the following PBS broadcast title summed up the convention with 'the Lincoln assassination as told by a ventriloquist dummy'.

I was left with the same intuitive dread I had before Bush was elected and tv ads featured jet fighters; only this time around they want us all in the same gun boat. Some homework on Kerry's actual platform confirmed my suspicions, that he isn't actually offering the only reasons a liberal populist should vote for him.

As tragically expected, the beacon of hope, Dennis Kucinich deferred his supporters to the democratic party. Kudos to him though for putting the Jamaica Plain People's Party barbeque on his front page, and posting photos of what free speech looks like these days. I was going to write him in anyhow until he sold out his ideals (officially at least).

Until then, scrutinize platforms, and you'll find that Nader is the only candidate who offers one for intelligent people with a conscience.

Voting the lessor of two evils is an invitation for evil.

I urge you to vote for Ralph Nader, and start supporting him immediately.
Sure, he'll split the Democrat vote, but he may gather as many disenfranchised Republicans.

Likewise, I'm torn between endorsing an exodus to tropical grassroots sanctuaries, or running for president in 2012 to offer what humanity deserves. - Kristal McKinstry

Apr 14-22, 2004 - email advice to a young meditator.

Apr 24 - letter to my peace coalition.
I’m still thinking to write in Kucinich.
At the last CFWP meeting someone suggested we work on conveying to Kerry a desire to have the UN step in in Iraq. My feeling is that with Kucinich, Nader, and even a MoveOn petition towards such ends with Bush, that Kerry has had his chance to be aware of and adopt such a position already. If we vote for a guy that announces plans upfront to do that which we don’t want to do, we get what we deserve. Who would you have baby-sit your kids, a murderer or a drug-lord? If that’s the choice, I’ll stay home and watch them myself. My hope with Kerry is that we leverage him to make sure democracy exists next time around, tear down the two party system not with a multi-party system (as we theoretically have), but a no-party system, everyone on each ballot, and a run off. Alas, we have no leverage with Kerry. He knows we won’t vote for Bush, and even the threat of losing all non-Kerry democrats won’t be taken seriously, because he knows we won’t accept the risk of Bush winning either.
It’s not too late to have something incredible happen this election.

This has to be the last election we lose to business as usual. (better yet, the first that wasn’t). Whatever happens this election, we have to vow now that the system which allows this to happen will change before 2008. If we don’t drastically change how presidential elections are won, we need to shift all authority to elected representatives – mayors, congress and senate, and have them in turn respond to popular vote on detailed concerns. We need to resurrect the 10th amendment which has slept for decades. We can’t stop until we have ‘by the people, for the people’. I don’t see that existing at the moment, and yet I don’t see anyone questioning our current governance paradigm either.

Moveon was briefly a fresh step in the right direction, but as Leone point out (thank you), they aren’t really representing us anymore either. We need a system in which accurate numbers on every diverse opinion are on the desk of every citizen and representative, and a system which questions representatives that can’t justify ignoring public thought. It’s true that effective visionary platforms, like FDR’s, can’t accommodate total diversity (well, I have ideas that actually would), but lately, we aren’t even electing package deals which more or less represent us.

I was against impeachment because hatred can not be cured with hatred; We also saw a humble governor recalled who only admitted to all the good he did in office after he was recalled; still, a vote of no-confidence should be a routine option in yearly elections, and not something which requires catastrophic mass outrage We would have more leverage with folks like Kerry if not-voting-for-Bush wasn’t a free ticket for the lesser-evil candidate.

I didn’t vote for war in Iraq. I doubt a majority of republicans would have either. We are a peace coalition. Let’s think about repealing the War Powers act. Granted, that act was a response to the potential of wars which could decimate nations in fifteen minutes, but ‘we the people’ didn’t even provide restrictive guidelines. There is a distinction between impending doomsday, suspected scrub thugs, and the prince of Kapoon stealing the First Daughter’s playdough.

At the last meeting several views were brought up. Much of it amounted to a very pitiful world predicament, raising funds to host an advertisement which amounts to ‘Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards man, Thou shalt not kill’. People suggest that my ideas are not immediate enough. I say that until we change the system and causes of wars, that this will keep happening, and we will continue desperately following up with ‘it shouldn’t have happened’. Look at the system. It will happen again in a year, in two years, in three years, in seven years, in twelve years…, and I’m already tired of simply saying it shouldn’t have happened.
- One thing is clear, Kerry is part of that system.
Back from the holy ghost cloud of 9/11, Even KPFK has become brainwashed into that system which blames candidates for having poor military credentials. How handy is your chosen baby-sitter with an AK-47? I’m seething. That’s rare. If there is someone responsible to prevent this, and manifest better, it is us. – even electing a hero won’t absolve our own responsibility to life.

‘Anti-war movements’ only exist amidst the proportional fervor of war. A ‘peace movement’, defined as serenity, can not be readily energized. A sustainable peace movement needs to be a creative entity, a practical harmonious vision which people can work on positively, not merely the dismantling of global criminality.

- We need to insist upon being utopia, and let any politicians who want admiration to follow suit. It is time for a renaissance, and it’s not ‘coming’ from the white-house. Take over your own home, then take over the city and state; when this catches on with everyone, the white-house will be our home. And we will elect our own UN representatives.

It took declaring a party to have a real CFWP meeting again. Let’s do this globally. This is the peace movement.

..and, let’s still have that party. Now that we aren’t burnt out anymore, and see the sense of becoming a coalition, joining and integrating forces, I want to reintroduce the notion of alternating bi-monthly formal and informal CFWP meetings.

In the last meeting it was apparent that this group is not interested in launching new political systems, but is open to working with groups who do (which apparently is my next avenue). For next month’s meeting, I’d like to suggest ‘Defining and Creating the Peace Movement’ as our next topic of progressive contemplation activism. Lila Garret said ‘Is that what the peace movement looks like? Nostalgia?’ Clinging to decay is not energizing. No wonder we burnt out. I would also like to suggest a homework assignment for our next meeting, and that is to go on a fact finding mission, then discuss in group all we know about the dominant peace organizations, in preparation for outreach, as suggested in the last meeting. If we can’t identify cooperative niches or parallel support, then a progressive peace movement is dead, and it’s time to embrace Dr. Strangelove.

Manifest bountiful harmonious vision.

Warm regards,
Kristal McKinstry

Apr 11, 2004 {Eostara} - email distribution response to my peace coalition

Since you're pushing for a view (on implied pro-choice march endorsements), I'll offer mine.

I'm of the same mind that Kucinich had when swayed by Lila Garret; That, like suicide, it shouldn’t be considered as a practical option, but that such options should exist as our own choices, rather than those imposed by some external theocracy, otherwise we couldn't even be said to have ethics. Having telepathic connections with life, I dread the day when all life-forms are licensed designer brand name products, sponsored through insurance only by benefit/risk cost-analysis of gene projections.
- I recall 20 years ago dreaming up a photo magazine called 'wipe-out', dedicated to sporting accidents., not that I'd read such a thing myself, I just imagined it would be popular. People called me depraved, and said it would have limited appeal. Now, home video shows on tv bring this to the public daily, without little consideration of depravity.
- 'Choice' is required to value 'Life', but devaluing life to promote choice is something I can not endorse.

Nothing is black and white; The concept of women as baby-making machines was entirely obsolete. I think that hurdle has been crossed already however, and our economy of meaningless post-industrial labor would now benefit more from the higher wages resulting from partners alternating quality time home spent with children. We reduced family size significantly and still ended up with a generation nurtured on video games. Life is not a machine, and we should be mindful of when our actions may promote such a misconception.

Sincererly,
Kristal Rose Phoenix McKinstry

and in response to PS: I don't like how movements try to hijack select words to aid in
their propaganda, at the expense of sidestepping the concerns of those
with opposing views. Most "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" are both for
choice and for life. Ofcourse, it is much worse when people hijack words
like "democracy" and "freedom" to promote unjustly meddling in other
people's affairs while actively curtailing democracy, freedom and other
important things. (I am not saying that the abortion issues are any less
important, but that the misuse of the words are not as bad as is the
case with war propaganda.)

There was a tribute to fire-side theater on KPFK which closed with the phrase ".. was brought to you by the so-&-so corporation. We own the concept 'Now'."

In an age when nanotech alchemy can turn water into bread and televisions for the cost of asking, there may still be those imposing hierarchial scarcity for the sake of relative power. Relate the book 1984 to consumer media; The current currency of power is people-moments of consciousness allegiance.
Kristal

Diary Apr 11, 2004:

I'm a bit lonely today, waking up near sunset on Easter. My meditation the other night was hours of transcribing Krsna Murti and such, like a one on one with God. Mostly about the formulaic relationship between the tao and kaballism. Our throne swims in effulgent light. (air becomes water becomes fire, in the directions of time/space). The Earth is our well equipped spaceship. Universes occur at each different frequency of the wave graduation between being and anti-being. Eternity exists within the moment. Working on my car, just in case I need to do something with it. Lately I've been in blue crystal starlight phase with moonlit tropical music. It's the same old story, too much work to leave the house, and no need/excuse to do such anyhow. I'm working on convincing Arnold Schwarzenegger at his Aerospace conference keynote with wolfowitz, to suggest a reactor on our uranium/thorium moon, instead of telling local communities to build more WMD's. Been meeting neighbors on an animal chakra plane (new to me).

Message to a youth counselor Mar 23, 2004:

Society has changed considerably since I was a child in the 70's: The black t-shirt had just been invented, we wore rainbow colors and the popular songs sung of sunshine and hope, not angst and despair. The violence on Americas Funniest Home Videos would have been considered entertainment for the depraved 30 years ago. My parents parents generation created power and commodities like 32 button blenders, my parents generation said anything was possible, my generation exhausted the resources and created virtual reality for the youth. The youth now grow up asking 'what reality?', 'what's the point?'. On top of that, tv commercial advertisers create an immediate wedgoe between children and adults, because it's easier to sell products to children than adults. People weren't always so buried and regimented. When I went to college, students were responsible for creating their own assignments, not just running through a mouse-maze of technical benchmarks. We no longer teach how to learn, and churn out techs instead of artists and engineers. It is the path described in the books 1984, the Time Machine, and Brave New World.
Youth today are disenfranchised because their lives have no meaning nor hope of purpose in the future, thus they don't even bother with learning self-responsibilty. What they need is vision and responsibility for getting there. They need to believe that they are entrusted with creating a utopia much better than we have left them, and that it is possible if they work hard together. They have a right to be pissed. We told them everything was possible yet gave them nothing to work with. In earlier times we may have had a false and limited identity, but at least we had something to believe we were, now we are so much yet nothing. On the other hand, who wants to run though a tightly defined rat-maze built by someone else, run by corporations, who now nearly even control how we communicate and our interior decorating. Convey to your youth that they are responsible for creating their world, and show them the best it has been, golden apples in unfenced yards, old ladies dancing in the streets. Let the courage of love replace the desolation of fear.

From the Dead Seas Scrolls - The Book of Hymns:
The spirit that lies in man's speech, Thou did'st create. Thou hast known all the words of man's tongue and determined the fruit of his lips, ere those lips themselves had being. It is Thou that disposeth all words in due sequence and giveth to the spirit of the lips ordered mode of expression; that bringeth forth their secrets in measured utterances, and granteth unto spirits means to express their thoughts, that Thy glory may be made known, and Thy wonders told forth in all Thine unerring works, and that Thy righteousness [ may be proclaimed, ] and Thy name be praised in the mouths of all things, and that all creatures may know Thee, each to the meed of his insight, and bless Thee alway.

  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  Thou shalt not kill.

  The world is a reflection of our inner-being.

  Let everything flow from love.

  Live with an active heart that illuminates the divine presence in everything. Bring heaven to Earth and all humanity.

  Being harmony is the first step towards creating harmony.

  Televise the Revolution.

  The Tower  ( Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.)

I love and welcome all of you.