Portland man faces jailtime for collecting rainwater.
I watched the video. If we consider what gives the authorities their authority, let’s review a few cases: when “colonists” from Europe invaded India and made a new branch of the British Empire there, what was the origin of their authority? It was superior military violence. When “colonists” from Europe invaded in North America (what is now Canada, US, Mexico, Caribbean islands, etc) what was the origin of their authority? It was superior military violence. PR is also helpful of course, but good PR does not replace cannons and warships and bomber jets and chariots and “human resources.”
When the US “liberates” Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or France (in world war 2) or Texas, what is the origin of their authority (effectiveness)? Is it good PR? Or is it superior military violence?
Iraq (Photo credit: The U.S. Army)
“The authorities” may target the masses in various places for extracting the wealth of the masses for the benefit of the providers of the commercial enterprise of “governing.” PR campaigns are also important to governments and other syndicates of organized violence, because with effective PR, more people are more compliant in the payment of taxes (extortion) such that there can be an efficient (inexpensive) collection of the extorted wealth, whether that wealth is in the form of rainwater or what (as shown in the linked video).
So, various procedural issues may be used to exhaust those easily exhausted. The best targets are those who are reclusive and cash-poor but argumentative and contemptuous toward gangs and thugs and civil extortionists of governments. In other words, terrorist bullies tend to target those who are most easily intimidated, starting with the fattest, slowest prey.
United States Senate candidate Rand Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, along with Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Will Paul. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. Unauthorized use by any candidate or candidate’s committee is strictly prohibited without approval. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Back to the issue of effective PR, consider that the US Constitution is, to some extent, a PR document, just like a Constitution for the US Confederacy or for the UN or for the European Union and so on. Consider that it is, to some extent, black magic. It is a sales pitch. “The consent of the governed” is perhaps just a hypnotic suggestion.
“The consent of the governed” may be of secondary importance in the US, in Iraq, in Vietnam, in China, in the USSR, and so on. When the “Southern states” seceded from the US in 1865 or so, the states and the legal citizens of those states withdrew their consent to be governed by the bureaucrats of Washington DC, right? Yet, even without the consent of the governed, the northern states invaded and “over-ruled” the dissent of the governed (the rebels).
In the case of Texas, when the Apaches and Mexican nationals dissented, the US Army just kept coming, “annexing” Texas. In other words, the US invaded or “liberated” Texas from the Texans who lived there.
Did the Apaches lose their native lands because of ineffective PR or because of inadequate military violence? Why did the US negotiate such a favorable treaty with the Apaches (compared to other tribes)? Was it because the Apaches had excellent PR or because the Apache presented one of the most challenging military forces? Living in Northeast Arizona most of the last 12 years, I am aware that a native Apache on their reservation has significantly different legal rights than a native Hopi or Navajo.
English: Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderberg Conference (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
But PR can be important. Consider that a 2.7 million dollar campaign contribution from Mr. Theil, a leading member of the Bilderberg Group, does not itself imply that Ron Paul is in any way influenced by Mr. Theil, but that such influence is possible. Of course, anything unconfirmed is just a rumor right? Further, anything unreported by major mainstream media outlets probably did not even happen, right? If Ron Paul’s PR does not emphasize the huge donations of a leading member of the Bilderberg Group, would that be at all surprising?
Consider that the people who we might identify as “the authorities” may be directed (influenced) by some rather smart folks, some of whom may have names quite unfamiliar to us- so not just Kissinger and Rockefeller and Rothschild and Colonel House and Schiff and Morgan. Perhaps it is not “the official authorities” that have the authority, but the people who direct the authorities, like who have the military influence to intimidate or even remove prominent “leaders” such as JFK or Lincoln. If JFK was not the authority over those people, then is it even accurate to call him a “leader?”
Those who have authority over official history (which could be considered a type of PR) may label JFK as a leader. They may label Jesus as a hero, as in someone for the masses to emulate. We may be trained by the Holy Roman Catholic Empire to model ourselves after the most famous victim of the Roman Empire. (Is it possible that the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Empire are not two things but one?)
Is it possible that they would train millions of people to be their compliant victims, their sheep, martyrs, their loyal subjects, the patriotic underwriters of their extortion rackets, their slaves, their “citizens?” Consider that it is possible. Consider that it is not only possible, but perhaps even relatively easy.
Garry replied:
Very informative. I enjoyed reading this. Thanks JR…
J.R. adds:
I noticed at the very end of the video, one of the 2 guys being interviewed said something like “Glenn Beck rules. We should be on his show. We love you, Fox news!”
>
That means to me that the PR has been working very well on him. The mainstream media is perceived as the ally of the “justified rebels.” They are seeking publicity… and they may get lots of publicity even if they lose the case and get convicted.
>
To me, that is like going to a public defender employed by and licensed by the court and expecting unbiased and dedicated legal advocacy. A criminal defense attorney for O.J. Simpson making $500 per hour (or whatever) might be expected to be slightly more dedicated and effective, right? Just because Fox News has “fair” in their slogan does not mean that they do not have loyalty to “the authorities behind the official authorities.”
>
Justice means whatever the government can establish as the dominant pattern of activity. Keep in mind that court officials (with the assistance of organizations such as legislatures and parliaments) are the ones who define and enforce the definition of words- the legal definition- the definition that results in things like fines and arrests and criminal convictions and ritual human sacrifices of the ruling military order of the knights of the Temple priesthood.
>
The word justice is derived from “what the Judge/Magistrate/Magi/Military Commander/Ruler rules (dictates) as the rule.” “Right” is derived from the word for king, as in whatever the rulers observe and enforce. There are always functional rulers in every social context, even if that is just the fully grown parents ruling over little children.
>
I wish the guys in Portland the best, but without any particular interest. They may win their case. However, those with contempt may find another source of frustration right after any “victory.”
>
The religious teaching about contempt is interesting to me. While many Christians may not know the teaching, the New Testament scriptures are very clear about it. Of course, thousands of other authors have written or spoke about the dangers of self-righteous contempt, including folks like Sun Tzu in “The Art of War.”
>
To divide and conquer, to demoralize the target population, to cultivate contempt and reactivity- these are the signs of an excellent strategist, not just developing a well-trained and well-supplied military.
>
That is not a direct quote. However, the idea is not new. Contempt, if sincere, is a sign of desperation. Confusing the masses is essential in effective governing.
>“All warfare is based on deception.” – Sun Tzu (translated)
Thanks JR… I agree about the PR obviously at play with that statement at the end of the video. During my watching of the video, I was expecting to hear the other side of the story [perhaps more of an explanation of any alleged "public interest" behind the prosecutor going after the guy], not just the farmer’s [woes]. Such uninformed prejudice serves to instill fear, anger… but then again, that maybe the purpose here, eh?
JR replies:
Wait, you are not suggesting that the mainstream media would deliberately arouse fear and anger in their audience, are you? There is no such thing as horror movies and I am offended that you would even imply such a thing.
The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove, surrounded by angels, by Giaquinto, 1750s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Could it be that the Holy Spirit of God has formed you and your life and your actions and your perceptions and even any sequence of words that you might call yours? Could it be that the same Holy Spirit of God has formed everyone and everything and all activities and all perceiving, every hair on every head, every mustard seed and every mustard tree, and every sequence of words including these letters and words visible on your screen right now?
For those without direct knowledge or revelation, God has provided many hopes and beliefs in language, as well as many fears to motivate the fearful toward those hopes and those beliefs in language. Appreciate the possibility of a distant, remote God who rewards your trust, if that is as close to the Authority of God as you are ready to experience.
By the grace of God, we may learn of reports that someone has credited the Holy Spirit of God as the architect of one’s life. We may learn of sayings like “These results are not through my will, but through God’s.” We may be exposed to the idea that “It is not I who do these things, but God who does them through me.”
Many may learn of these sayings, though some may dismiss them as nonsense or irrelevant. Some may study the sequences of words and even worship those words themselves. Some may defend the words themselves as “being as important as God, even equivalent to God” and then harshly condemn anyone who does not repeat them ritually a certain number of times per day and in a certain human language and in a certain specific way.
God forgives all sins, even the sin of such idolatry. However, it may involve a certain amount of faith for there to be an admission of idolatry (a confessing and repenting). In other words, it may involve a certain amount of faith for there to be an experience of the remission of all condemnations.
Of what sins do I condemn others? Could it be that I most fiercely condemn the same ones that I am so ashamed of that I do not recognize that I am vulnerable to the same sin (whether I have been actively involved in a particular behavior or I merely am secretly terrified that I might be in the future)?
One cannot at the same time both drop a stone from one’s hand harmlessly and cast that stone at a target of condemnation. Beware of focusing so much on the personality of one of God’s voices that one does not hear what God is saying through that voice. The instruction is to drop the condemnation. The instruction is to recognize God as the source of all developments, including the behavior of condemning.
It is notable that it is from the same lips that one may condemn people with curses and yet also praise God. However, there is a time for cursing and a time for praise- a time for every activity and development under the Authority of God.
The authority of these words does not come from the shapes on this computer screen or from the letters of ink on some page. The authority of these words is not limited to a particular language.
There is a time to exclusively worship a particular branch of idolatry. There is also a time for recognizing that all of the branches extend from a single source, extending from a single authority.
The word divine is similar to the much more ancient word Diva. The word God derives from an ancient Sanskrit root related to the word Indra. The word authority (and author and auto and even actor and agent) may be derived from the ancient Sanskrit letter sequence of Atma.
Fanatics of thousands of different religious groups have shouted “my religion is the only true religion.” There is a time for such shouting and fanaticism. There is a time for divisiveness and antagonism and holy wars between two groups each claiming an exclusive authority over God, though perhaps not using such openly monopolistic language.
There is a time for such arrogance. There is a time for such naivete. There is a time for such hysteria.
There is also a time to be humbled by the glory of the only authority, one which branches through all of the creatures created by that authority, including every single organism, every single cloud, every single word, every single letter. If you can, show me one thing- even a shadow on the ground- that is not evidence of the glorious authority of God.
I know that your only authority is as a subsidiary or branch of the only authority. You may accept this claim or you may reject it. Either way, I recognize that your response is not your glory or your sin, but only the will of the one who develops all developments according to the timing and sequence through which all forms are actually formed.
English: Centurion (Roman army) historical reenactment Boulogne sur mer (France). Français : Centurion (armée Romaine) Reconstitution historique à Boulogne sur Mer en France. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Is it in the Bible? No. Though it is one of the most popular sayings in Christianity, the English phrase “God helps those who help themselves” was first popularized by Benjamin Franklin in his 1736 Almanac.
However, even then, it was not a new idea. Mohammed is reported to have said something similar and several ancient Greek philosophers published variations on the idea that could be translated in to English as “God helps those who help themselves.”
Before we explore how the idea could be useful, let’s consider the obvious side issue that much of modern Christianity has no basis in the Bible, such as Santa Claus. So, that brings up a question that many may fear to even recognize: where does scriptural authority come from? Scriptural authority cannot come from written scriptures, since virtually all written scriptures are identified as transcriptions of oral teachings given long prior to the recording of those teachings in to writing. Further, if scriptural authority only comes from scripture, than what about conflicting claims to authority amongst the scriptures of various religious traditions and translators? King James may have authorized a particular translation of the Bible in to English, but based on what did he claim any authority to authorize a particular translation?
Well, he was simply a ruler with an enormous concentration of military threat behind him. Considering that many other versions of the Bible have been historically attacked by rulers as heresy, we can recognize that popular authority influences public perception. In fact, in many cases, rulers have declared that all versions of the Bible are banned under threat of criminal punishment.
Logically, scriptural authority cannot come from rulers later authorizing those particular transcriptions or translations. Further, if the sequences of words have authority when written down, there is no additional authority than when those sequences of words were passed down by oral tradition.
When exactly did spiritual authority begin? With Moses? With Abraham? Thousands of years prior to them?
There is no beginning to spiritual authority. That is a fundamental aspect of the idea. If an authority never ends and never begins, that could be called an eternal authority, not just a remnant of some old cultural tradition or an authorized translation.
If God is the source of the eternal authority in the Bible, then did God’s eternal authority end when the Bible was written down? No. Further, God’s eternal authority did not begin with any particular revelation to any prophet (Mohammed, Jesus, Isaiah, Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc).
God’s authority is not limited to a particular time period, to a particular language, or to a particular religious tradition. God’s authority is not limited to a particular species or to a particular geographical boundary.
God’s authority is not limited. It is not authorized by a particular king or by any higher authority. Relative to God’s authority, all other authority is just a small branch extending from a larger trunk.
The authority of God has been compared to the authority of a mustard seed. Just as a mustard seed produces all of the branches of a mustard tree, so is all authority a branch of God’s authority.
(Note that many translations reference the Kingdom of God rather than the Authority of God. That is probably just because of a lack of direct comprehension by translators, who would probably not be studying scriptures of foreign languages if they understood the simplicity and power of the Authority of God. In fact, someone who has a direct experience or awareness of the Authority of God operating within them is not likely to spend a lot of time studying ancient scriptures to figure out what they might mean and how they might be useful, right? Did Jesus go around carrying a copy of the Old Testament? Did Isaiah go around carrying a copy of the sayings of Prophets prior to him? Those with direct revelation may say some radical things about old scriptures such as “”Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm)
There is no authority beyond God’s authority. If there is a temporary authority who has any authority, it is only as a subsidiary authority of God. If there is a devil who has any authority, it is only as a subsidiary authority of God.
God, the Father watches us all everywhere. (Photo credit: angelofsweetbitter2009)
God’s authority is the only authority. If we even remove the word God, then we could say that authority is the only authority. All forms of authority are just forms of authority. Authority is a larger linguistic category than any particular instance of authority.
Claims of authority are fundamentally claims. Claims are constructed in language. The root of the word authority is author. An author is one who constructs sequences of words.
God gives authority to those who claim authority. Those who reject authority (their own or that of anyone else) may not exert authority.
Did King James have the authority to authorize a particular translation? He allegedly claimed to authorize that translation, right? What other popular authority is there but an authority claimed in language?
God by grace reveals to some the nature or source of authority. The nature or source of popular authority is through the activity of language, through the claiming or exercising of authority.
Action is the exercise of authority. The future capacity to act is the result of prior activity.
Without language, there is no claiming of authority nor any labeling of one as having authority and another as a subject or agent or instrument. However, sequences of words flow as the revelation of God‘s eternal authority through God’s human instruments.
Which sequences of words are not branches of God’s authority? All sequences of words are branchings of God’s authority! What other authority could there be?
If God claims that there is some other authority external to God, then that is what God is claiming. If God claims to be in a struggle with some conflicting authority external to God, then that is what God is claiming. If God claims to be the victim of some unjustified external authority, then that is what God is claiming. If God claims to need some savior to come and rescue God from the problems and torments of a hell that has been imposed on God by some isolated distant oppressive authority as a punishment for shameful sinning, then that is what God is claiming.
This is the activity of God’s authority. All activity is the activity of God’s authority.
When an instrument of God speaks of what is to come and then that speaking is consistent with what actually arises, then we can call that speaking authoritative or faithful or credible or consistent with what actually is happening. When an instrument of God speaks of what has been, then we can call that speaking reflective or interpretative.
Many of God’s branches claim confusion about recent developments in human civilization such as the changing of economic trends and of changing social values that are measured in changing prices of various things. That would be an instrument of God claiming to have no authority.
God can claim authority or God can claim resentment and victimhood and helplessness or God can claim innocent curiosity. In fact, God claims all of these through the many instruments or branches of God.
“You have always been innocent. You have always been pure. However, I brought you the experience of guilt and shame. I taught you to forget your innocence and purity. I taught you to reject yourself or certain aspects of yourself. I taught you to condemn your past or certain parts of it. I taught you to blame someone else for the past that you condemned.”
“I alone am the one who has caused you to experience confusion and distress. I brought you fear. I brought you frustration. I brought you resentment. I brought you rage and agonizing. You only rejected these things in your life because of me. You rejected fear, you rejected frustration, you rejected resentment, you rejected rage and agonizing. However, you did so because of my will. I taught you to reject whatever you reject, to say whatever you say, to believe whatever you believe, to do whatever you do.”
Logo of the band Rejected Español: Logo de la banda Rejected (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“Most of all, I taught you to reject me. I taught you to blame me. I taught you to deny the part of yourself that is the Divine Voice. I taught you that you are not a branch of the divine. I taught you that there is no divine, no divine voice, and no divine branching of a divine tree.”
“I taught you to fear the possibility that there might be a divine voice. I taught you to fear the possibility that there might be innocence and purity. I taught you to fear the possibility that there might be courage (and maybe even curiosity?).”
“I told you that if you go to confront the wicked witch, sneak in to her castle, and then pour some water on her, then, after you complete that simple task, next I will give you a very courageous piece of paper with lots of shapes of ink on it. Once you have that very courageous piece of paper in your pocket, then you will be able to act even if fear arises. Then you will have the faith beyond fear, the commitment to see the wicked witch not as your enemy or as a threat to your courage or faith or divinity, but as a partner in your process of discovering what I may have taught you to say that you absolutely could not be, what is simply impossible, what is obviously ridiculous and certainly only a silly children’s story for silly children.”
“Blame me, not yourself,” said the Divine Voice. “I command you to declare that I have all authority and you have none. I command you to proclaim that I have all responsibility and you have none. I command you to identify me as having an exclusive monopoly on purity and innocence and divinity and power and the capacity to bestow courage through the use of language.”
“Everything that you say, that is my voice speaking through you. Everything that you do, that is my choice acting through you. Everything that you are, that is my being manifesting as you, the divine child of a divine parent, the divine branch of a divine tree, the divine creature of a divine creativity.”
“Now, just pick up that bucket of water and throw all of that water on me. I’m ready. So are you. Go ahead.”
The Wicked Witch of the West as pictured in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Wicked Witch of The West, melting after being doused by Dorothy. From the first edition of The Wizard of Oz. Français : La méchante sorcière de l’ouest, en fusion après avoie été arrosée par Dorothy. Extrait de la première édition de Le Magicien d’Oz. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Once there were two people facing the exact same circumstances. One of them was frightened, disappointed, worried, embarrassed, argumentative and angry. The other was calm, clear, open, present, and receptive.
They both were in the exact same place, wearing the exact same clothing, with the exact same past, with the exact same skills, with the exact same possessions, and with all of the exact same circumstances. The most obvious difference was simply one of language.
One of the two people said “it is the authorities that have done this to me. They should not have been how they really should not have been. Further, they should have been how they should have been. In particular, they should have protected me and saved me and given me more authority (or perhaps less authority). I am the victim of an evil vile villain, surely the descendant of Eve. The enemy is to blame. The devil has cheated me and overwhelmed me. By the way, I did everything right and yet there must have been some kind of a mistake. After all, how else did I get these pathetic results? Someone else must have made a terrible mistake, because I know that I did everything exactly right! Obviously, God has forsaken me. God has condemned me. God has nothing but ill will for me. I can tell because I am very scared of God.”
God, the Father watches us all everywhere. (Photo credit: angelofsweetbitter2009)
The other person did not say any of those things. The other person instead reported the following incident: “Well, there I was just travelling down the road you know riding along talking to myself as usual when suddenly God showed up. By the way, that kind of thing happens to me a lot, but what really surprised me is that this time God immediately apologized to me. God told me that God is the one who had made me all stubborn and rebellious and neurotic and paranoid and that I had no choice in the matter. God said that there was a very good reason for doing things this way, but it is somewhat hard to explain- sort of a mystery apparently. Anyway, God had just been testing me all along. I passed. I just did not know it. God had been thinking about telling me for a long time, but every time God was about to
the Conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus as painted by Michelangelo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
give me a clear sign, God was overcome by laughter at how blind I have been to seeing all of the clear signs God has been giving me constantly. So, God kept giving me more clear signs and kept laughing at how arrogant I was about misinterpreting the signs and signals and code and symbols and communications. I was busy dismissing them and ridiculing them. God had even told me repeatedly to be my own authority, but I said that I knew that there is no way in hell that I could be my own authority. God said I was totally right and that there is no way in hell that I could be my own authority, but there is a way in heaven and I had been in heaven all along, though I had been investing my own heavenly authority in proclaiming to be in hell and convincing myself that my life was truly the most hellish justification for victimhood and resentment that God had ever witnessed before. God said that I was a truly amazing actor as well as a genius comedian. God said that the victim character that I had invented was absolutely hilarious. I was not laughing though. At first, when I heard this, I was even more outraged than on my average day. However, now that I have gotten used to it, I admit that it really isn’t so bad being in heaven. Unfortunately, though there are a bunch of idiots here who claim not to have any authority and never stop complaining about how they live in hell and they always use hyperbole, irony, and parody, but never all at once, so it can be very confusing to understand it all so very suddenly right now. Seriously, God, you should hear the kind of attention-getting things that they always say to themselves and to each other. Anyway, they are actually kind of cute. It reminds me of this one video that I saw on youtube of a puppy growling at a mirror.”
In the midst of a variety of ideas about authority, I claim that ideas about authority are all categorically distinct from authority itself, like shadows are distinct from light. While people may follow one who displays confidence, mere confidence is also distinct from authority.
For instance, a child may be confident merely for lack of experience with the present task. “No, I have never done it, but I did read a book about it, or at least part of the book.”
However, there may be times of desperation when a display of confidence is relevant to gather a group and launch a new initiative. In other words, there are times when seeking the wisdom of someone with the authority of experience is a priority and times of emergency when experimenting even ignorantly is essential.
Mere confidence is no match for the authority of experience. For instance, one who has done something even only once has more authority through direct experience than someone who has read a book about it even many times.
Many are encouraged in their confidence because of institutions which reward them for agreeing with the institution’s ideology. Agreeing with ideology leads to an excessive confidence called arrogance.
In fascistcultures, agreement with popular ideology is essential to institutional inclusion. A child is trained as a priority to act in conformity with the ideology of popular institutions.
One must conform at least minimally to avoid persecution. One must recognize the functional authority of the fascist institution, such as the public school system, even when a child is being trained to provide answers that do not conform to reality, but do conform to the ideology of the institution. The trainee learns the distinction between a display of conformity (ideological correctness AKA political correctness) and the direct recognition of the reality.
Further, the child may learn that displaying arrogance is essential to conforming to the standards of a fascist institution or a fascist society. One pretends that institutional conformity is the highest form of authority, when in fact that is not actually authority at all, but only an arrogant conformity.
Arrogance is presented as equivalent to authority. Mere confidence without arrogance is presented as indicative of slightly less authority. Direct experience is discarded as completely irrelevant to authority or even a sign of insanity or at least foolishness.
For instance, if the approved diagnostic code of the official medical authorities dictates that certain medical conditions are incurable, that is the default official position of all agents of that institution. Direct evidence to the contrary may be dismissed, ridiculed, and even criminalized.
Of course it is possible for a licensed agent of a fascist institution to privately recognize the ultimate authority of direct experience, yet to publicly display arrogance or at least a general conformity to the institutional ideology. Outside of their official capacity as agent of the fascist institution, one may privately and discretely practice in conformity not to institutional ideology but in conformity to the authority of direct experience.
Institutional authority is a type of authority, but it is only a social authority. In fact, it is not really authority at all, but only social
Fascist symbol and date "9th year of the fascist era" (1931) on the facade of the Central train station in Milan, Italy. Picture by Giovanni Dall'Orto, december 28 2006. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
power. Of course, the term authority may be so often associated with other patterns like confidence or power that the unique meaning of authority is not recognized.
Authority is the natural consequence of the clarity of personal recognition that only comes from direct experience. Institutions cannot confer authority because they cannot transmit direct experience. Institutions can concentrate political power and then delegate or distribute that power, but that institutional power is not authority.
Further, those with authority in matters that do not conform to institutional ideology may accumulate direct experience in interacting with the agents of institutional ideology. First, contact with institutional agents may be kept to a minimum.
Avoid arguing with them. Avoid drawing attention to yourself. Do not seek their approval. Do not seek to correct them or educate them or govern them.
What is the social and evolutionary value of fascist institutions? They promote arrogance by training people to be arrogantly confident by adhering to the official ideologies of the institutions, then they punish those naive enough to take their personal arrogance to an extreme by attempting to protest or correct the fascist institutions for their fascism.
Fascists cultures present the arrogance of righteousness (ideologically-based confidence) as the highest virtue. In promoting foolishness, fascist cultures serve to sort the naive from the intelligent and adaptive, like a fisherman baits fish with a lure.
The least adaptive in a fascist culture will internalize the basic values of the culture, such as self-righteousness and arrogance, then hypocritically claim to reject the very fascism which is the foundation of their behavior and psychological identity, even protesting self-righteously against self-righteous fascism. The next least adaptive will never call the fascist system fascist, but will gather in to groups and compete against each other for power using the official channels of marginalizing the influence of the masses, such as the democratic elections that are so favored in fascist cultures.
Those moderately adaptive will directly promote their personal administrative power through participating in the fascist institution. Those most adaptive will publicly condemn fascism while privately promoting it, also encouraging the masses to voluntarily marginalize themselves by gathering together to compete with other special interest groups, such as gays vs disabled vs veterans vs gay disabled veterans.
They may assert that all power is derived from rightful institutional power, then condemn all specific instances of institutional power as less than rightful. They may entirely ignore the subject of the authority of direct experience, to the extent that there is any such thing.
Above: the fascist symbol, a fasces, on the city hall of Norrköping, Sweden.
In this famous sculpture of George Washington by Houdon (in the Virginia Capitol in Richmond), the General and first President of the United States rests his left hand on the fasces, symbol of Roman republican power. Fasces were composed of a bundle of rods around an axe.
Even the columns of the great holy temples of Western Political Empires are “fluted” so as to resemble the Roman fasces:
Many agonize over what is right vs what is wrong, what is good vs what is evil, or what is the truth vs what is imprecise (which has been one of my favorites). That pattern of linguistic model is the basis of all political campaigns and conflicts: at least two sides oppose each other by asserting that (at least) two conflicting proposals are “the best, the only right one,” then they have wars or elections or whatever to “resolve” the issue.
It is like pressing your two hands together with great force, like so that they tremble, rather than just resting them with palms barely touching. It produces a big caloric expenditure, but very little productive activity. It just exhausts energy. That is my metaphor for much of politics.
Of course, I am oversimplifying in that huge decreases in population can result from those conflicting expenditures of energy (as in through war). Also, major technological advances can come from the friction of the two opposing forces of military-industrial complexity, kind of like rubbing sticks together with great friction can produce a spark and light a fire.
So, agonizing can be internal, with a lot of energy and time and perhaps reading and conversation and so on. Or, agonizing can be interpersonal, with lots of debating and arguing and shouting and perhaps laughing and “make-up sex” (having sex right after having a big dramatic argument and nearly “breaking up”). Or, agonizing can be “social,” as in political conflicts and wars and organizing demonstrations and strikes to promote the interests of the union employees or nursing home residents or public schools and so on.
That is more broadly termed “conflict.” I am calling it “agonizing” because I am focusing most particularly (below) on the internal or private or INTRApersonal context of conflict.
That can manifest in language patterns like “what is the right job for me? Is this the right relationship? What political party is best? Which candidate is the right one for “2012 best actress in a comedy?” Which religious tradition is the most true? How am I going to fix humanity so that there will no longer be any conflict, at least not in the Northern half of the state of Arizona, which is obviously the region of geography on this planet which is the most important to God Almighty, as evidenced by her clear specification of that region in the holy Book of Mormon? Which words are evil and which are good? Omigod, did I just say something wrong? What thing that I said was the wrong thing to say?”
In the programs of Landmark Education, that particular portion of the realm of language is called the “already always listening.” It has been labeled in many ways in the last few thousand years, with ancient terms like Dhukka (suffering) and Gehenna (Hell) being among the terms used for referencing it. Here is a reference from the New Testament, with the “tongue” being used to reference the process of language and speaking and so on:
“…Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.“
James 3:5-6
“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth…. The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you” Matthew 15:11,18
Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Jesus taught that the spirit of divisiveness (the spirit of accusation, of the adversary or of the devil) is a very distinct pattern of spirit from “The Holy Spirit” or the Spirit of God. Jesus repeatedly rebuked people for “being self-righteous,” calling those people hypocrites and “children of the devil.”
43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies…. 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
John 8:43, 44,& 47
Ironically, the translation there above (“NIV“) is only so clear, perhaps because the translator(s) were not precisely clear about the point being made. The point is that anyone who “belongs” to the Spirit of God or is fluent in that kind of language will understand the words of anyone else who is speaking in that kind of language. However, just like anyone who is deaf cannot make sense out of the sounds of someone speaking English, anyone who is “possessed” by the spirit of opposition cannot comprehend the language of the spirit of holiness or wholeness or non-dualism (“advaita”).
The translator wrote “because you are unable to hear what I say.” This is not a reference to the lack of the capacity to literally hear the sounds, like the wind was too loud in the background or something like that. Clearly, what Jesus was referencing is something about those listeners in regard to their personal development or intelligence, which Jesus contrasts many times with another possibility (the capacity to comprehend the messages from the Holy Spirit)- even something that could eventually be possible for people for whom it is not currently possible.
When people made reference to things like waiting for the messages of the Holy Spirit to begin to be transmitted (like waiting for a TV program or radio program to being broadcasting, Jesus corrected their misunderstanding:
Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs.d21You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you.e”
Luke 17:20-21
Again, we have a case in which different translators have rendered this passage in to English in distinct ways. Consider the following version from the Aramaic Bible in Plain English:
20And when some of the Pharisees asked Yeshua, “When is the Kingdom of God coming”, he answered and he said to them, “The Kingdom of God does not come with what is observed.” 21“Neither do they say, ‘Behold, here it is!’ and ‘Behold, from here to there!’, for behold, the Kingdom of God is within some of you.”
Those translators were not translating Greek translations in to English, but apparently were translating the original statements in the Aramaic language (the one actually spoken by Jesus) directly in to English. As I skim through a few dozens translations of that verse in to English, only this one says something exclusive like “within SOME of you.” All of the other translations leave out the reference to an exclusive subcategory of people who have the capacity to recognize something that other people would not recognize. Incidentally, I never had seen the Aramaic translation of that verse until moments ago, but that translation is the only one consistent with my direct personal experience, or one could say the one that is most consistent.
John the Baptist baptizing Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Of course, for people who do not have any direct personal experience that they associate with these words, they might be interested in the secondary authority of translations and proclamations from a particular church hierarchy and so on. For those who know through the authority of direct experience, any form of secondary authority may be of no relevance to them.
21And when they entered Kapernahum, at once he taught in their synagogue on the Sabbath. 22And they were dumbfounded at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority and not like their Scribes. 23And in their synagogue there was a man who had a vile spirit in him, and he cried out 24And he said, “What business do we have with you, Yeshua the Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, The Holy One of God.” 25And Yeshua rebuked him and said, “Shut your mouth and come out of him.” 26And the foul spirit threw him down and he cried out in a loud voice and came out of him. 27And all of them marveled and they were inquiring with one another, saying, “What is this?”, and “What is this new teaching? For he commands even the foul spirits with authority and they obey him.” 28And at once his fame went out in the whole region of Galilee.
Mark 1:21-28
Above, some poetic metaphors were translated in to English in phrases like the foul spirit, the vile spirit, the evil spirit, teh demonic spirit, the spirit of the devil, the split spirit or the broken spirit. In Greek, the wording might be “skhizein (σχίζειν, “to split”) and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; “mind”).” The Greek roots together mean a split mind or dualistic mind, a broken heart, a spirit of opposition, or even a suppressed breathing or respiration. In 1912, one century ago, a new English word was created from those two Greek roots which could be used in future translations of ancient spiritual texts about personal development and “human potential:”
schizophrenia
1912, from Mod.L., lit. “a splitting of the mind,” from Ger. Schizophrenie, coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939), from Gk. skhizein “to split” (see shed (v.)) + phren (gen. phrenos) “diaphragm, heart, mind,” of unknown origin.
However, there is a connotation to the modern term “schizophrenia” as a category for a rather exceptional or unusual condition, like only a small percentage of people are labeled diagnostically as schizophrenic. Note that what Jesus (and Buddha and Isaiah and so on) were referencing was a widespread typical condition within an entire society. Within any culture, only a rather select group of folks “awakened” from that general social norm of “unenlightened language” or “unawakened consciousness.” The Holy Spirit is available to all, and while many people may talk about it or “give lip service to it,” it may be rather rare that one “possesses” it, rather than being “possessed” by an ego or a “psychological shadow” or a “split persona.”
Jesus said: 6 ”Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites,” He [Jesus] replied; “as it is written, “‘This People honour Me with their lips, while their hearts are far away from Me: [and they do not know me or belong to me]
7 But idle [vain, worthless] is their devotion [worship, reverence, faith] while they lay down precepts which are mere human rules.’
8 ”You neglect God’s Commandment: you hold fast to men’s traditions.”
Mark 7:6-8
Well, there is another interesting inconsistency in Bible translations that I never noticed until just now. Skimming through a couple dozen translations of Mark 7:8, I see that only 3 refer to the commandments or commands of God (plural rather than singular). All of the rest refer to the command of God or commandment of God, as in the authority of God.
People may neglect the actual functional authority in favor of symbols of authority or labels of authority. However, claiming a secondary authority (an authority derived from some other source, such that there may be conflicts of authorities) is quite distinct from the exercising of authority as the author or root of all authority.
Latter-day Saints believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Christus Statue in the North Visitors' Center on Temple Square in Salt Lake City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So, in summary, as we mature, we humans naturally notice conflict interpersonally, like two puppies wrestling or two kids fighting over who gets to hold the puppy next and for how long, then next we are exposed to conflict socially, and further as a “higher” or later stage of development, we notice it “internally” or “introspectively” in our own patterns of language. That internal conflict is what I am calling “agonizing,” though others have called it “suffering” or “sin” and “neurosis” and “foul spirit” and “bad attitude” and “negativity” and so on. Whatever it is labeled, it is basically a pattern of “linguistic behavior,” as in neuro-chemical programs or sequences.
It is labeled awakening or enlightenment or the dark night of the soul. “Meditation” and all spiritual rituals are for relaxing the tendency or momentum of internal neuro-chemical “struggle” (like “a tug-a-war” with two teams of people trying to pull a rope in opposite directions).
The name of the Chinese martial art Wu Shu can be translated as “stop fighting.” “Stop resisting” is the key, not “resist resisting,” but just “notice resisting and do nothing other than notice it.”
In fact, even “resisting” implies two opposing forces, so we could say “stop pushing” or “notice pushing yet do nothing other than notice it.” Again, though, that focuses attention on pushing and isn’t focusing already a subtle pushing? Soon, along comes a Jnani Guru like Jesus Christ who says something like “Who am I? Well, who are you? Notice who you are! Be still and know God, the Supreme being, the presence I am. Before Abraham was, I am.”
That kind of communication can interrupt “doing” and “noticing” and “stopping.” That patterning of attention can produce a deep relaxing, often followed by laughing or weeping.
So, there is language for agonizing and for arguing over what is true and for gathering together congregations and armies to oppose others in the war to end all conflict and negativity. That is all the expression of the hypocritical spirit of the divided one, the dualistic, the self-righteous, the devil.
Further, there is language for influence. In fact, even language to forbid reverse psychology is still language for influence. Prohibitions against dualistic language are the black magic at the core of all religious traditions.
“Beware of prohibitions and reverse psychology. They are strictly forbidden.”
In particular, you will experience eternal torment and agony and hell if you practice the behavior of agonizing. You will be cast out of paradise and heaven if you argue against the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is the worst of all possible sins.
Here ends the Gospel of Santa. Here begins the experience of the absence of language, even if only for the briefest of eternities.
Search this site
Archives (posts only- not pages)
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Financial Talks (Videos)
Misc. (mostly music)
Music- spiritual
Old Financial Articles (2003-2009)
Other videos from 2006-07
Other pages (alphabetically listed)
However, there may be times of desperation when a display of confidence is relevant to gather a group and launch a new initiative. In other words, there are times when seeking the wisdom of someone with the authority of experience is a priority and times of emergency when experimenting even ignorantly is essential.
Further, the child may learn that displaying arrogance is essential to conforming to the standards of a fascist institution or a fascist society. One pretends that institutional conformity is the highest form of authority, when in fact that is not actually authority at all, but only an arrogant conformity.
What is the social and evolutionary value of fascist institutions? They promote arrogance by training people to be arrogantly confident by adhering to the official ideologies of the institutions, then they punish those naive enough to take their personal arrogance to an extreme by attempting to protest or correct the fascist institutions for their 
