Hi Tereza, i don't want to mess up your postings but since you seem to read them all, i thought it might be the best way to communicate with you further about those tunnels. I read Don Jeffries regularly and have found him to reliable. His latest might be of interest to you. Maybe you can let me know if you think he's on track.
Mess away, Specie! Anytime I'm talking strategy or philosophy, it's a slower comment thread than controversies on politics or religion, but I never mind new info about things I'm missing.
Don Jeffries is hilarious! I haven't read him before. He's astute and is pointing out all the contradictions in those stories, and what the media response would be otherwise, if it was anyone other than orthodox Jews.
I'm still unclear on whether this was real or a staged exposure. Did you notice the little jiggly dance one Rabbi does, maybe with his hands cuffed, on the side of the police with the other rabbis turning over tables (to barricade themselves in?) The rabbi emerging from the grated hole seemed cartoonish, running to draw attention to himself rather than blending in. And why the big ruckus? Why would NYPD bring cement trucks to fill them if something nefarious was going on? Why would the rabbis object to this, if something nefarious was going on? It doesn't make sense.
I don't have enough of a coherent opinion to do a post on it, but I'm glad you're keeping me abreast.
Thx, Tereza! Amen to stop judging other people and to being responsible for our own happiness. Even the concept of self love is often thought to be selfish. I couldn’t disagree more. What makes me happy these days? Wandering in the woods for hours on end. Blissfully alone. Well…I’m not really alone. 🐻 🫎 🦌 🌲🌲🌲💚
Love the emojis, they made me feel like I took a little virtual walk in the woods with my eyes ;-) Speaking of which, between my Amazon purchase of honey eyedrops and the Ayurvedic rose drops that just came in the mail, I'm feeling bright eyed and bushy tailed, thanks to you!
Oh you sent me the link! As you said, they burn so good! OptiMel, I think it's called, after miel I'm sure. Curiously I'm reading a book in which there are women covered with bees, all called the Melissas ;-)
Hmm...well if I did it was a. mistake! I've never heard of them. I thought I sent you a link of. my Ayurveda teacher, John Douillard, describing how to make them! I hope they're pure without any junk added. I just boil distilled water, let it cool and add the Manuka honey. Book sounds good! 🐝🐝🐝
A fun and interesting discussion, one in which I find myself agreeing with the argument and disagreeing with it at the same time.
It seems to me the agreeing part is that often (usually/always(?)) the small changes don't work to a significant extent because we are working from a outwards perspective that is a form of avoiding changing within: aka spiritual by-passing. The most egregious examples of that are the virtue signalling totalitarianism of groups like the contemporary climate-change activists, gender dysphorians and a significant portion of militant vegans. (I just read an egregious self-so smug totalitarian vegan FB post so that came to mind easily tonight.)
The society we live in ultimately reflects we the people that collectively comprise it, and that their constitution in totality will be how the society manifests. In our time, right now, we are seeing the expression of that bully culture coming to a kind of apotheosis, perhaps, because we have been embodying it for a long time. Most of the so-called medical freedom movement genres/sects are comprised of the exact same fear-based authoritarian bully mentality they are 'fighting.' Filled with the invisible bully language built around 'have to' and 'should' mandates exacerbated with the assignations of the deserving and the undeserving that are connected to 'have to' and 'should' and 'deserve'.
And so long as that is the dominant mode of contemporary internal psychological structure, expressed mostly unconsciously with the bully language we do not see and continue to use, that will continue to be made manifest as the truth of our totality within totalitarianism. When I want to know what my psychology is, in it's totality, I need only look into my life for it is telling me who I am and what I am a part of. Am a filling my internal dialogues with internal mandates and debasing judgments? And are those the kinds of people I find myself consorting with?
It seems to me that likely most people have used the Corbett's 'chump-change' methodology to avoid the deep shadow work that we are seeing clearly made manifest in the shadowy ptb structures. Our entire cultural zeitgeist, heightened to an incredibly toxic degree by 'New Agism', is all about by-passing our shadow work and projecting it onto the 'bad' guys, those ones there on the other side.
On the other hand, when 60 Tibetan monks did meditation for a month in Washington DC to reduce crime the police were shocked (horrified that they would be put out of work, maybe?) that there was a very big reduction in the violent crime. That 'experiment' has been duplicated.
I've joined Tessa Lena's 'philosophy club' zoom meeting she recently started up. And a few of us are noticing the signs of an authoritarian structure sliding into it on kitten feet. Last week me and someone else talked about the normalisation of the authoritarian structure we saw happening there. And proposed alternatives. The biggest response, at least spoken, was that without the authoritarian structure there would be chaos. The Chomsky Affect and Paradox, which I recently wrote about and which your topic here is moving around.
Again this points to the shadow work not being done and being projected out. You're right, the methods being done aren't working because they have become, in general, a way people have of by-passing their deep work. It is the same as what I mostly see in the people becoming things like a certified yoga-teachers, Buddhist, born again Christian, vegan or any other '-ism': -isming allows us to avoid the reality of the pain of our existence and the real limitations of who we are. I discuss some aspects of that in an early stack when I responded to a reader's dismay that her Buddhist temple was closed to her, as was 'my' yoga community closed to me, with convidiana's injection mandates. It began as a response to Steve Kirsch's dismay at his inability to red-pill people. If curious, read 'Steve Kirsch asked "What are the best ways to red-pill someone?" My answer.' https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/thoughts-covid-reset-yogic-and-uncategorised/. And the follow-up essay 'Q: '"I agree that [yogic calmness] is important, how do we account for all the yoga teachers who fly Ukraine flags and require masks in their studios?" A: "Yoga as drug."' https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/q-i-agree-that-yogic-calmness-is/comments.
And as a kind of mild synchronicity with my delayed response, I listened to a short discussion of spiritual bypassing as a common analgesic drug here: "SPIRITUAL BYPASSING – A GUIDE TO SPOTTING IT AND STOPPING IT | TCM #123 (PART 1): THE COSMIC MATRIX PODCAST".
And I'll end with two great quotations from Jung, not because I 'need' his authority to bully you. Nope. Simply because he describes our 'state' with clear, concise, and powerful language that has resonated powerfully with me and so I like to share them:
1) The Western superciliousness in the face of these [East] Indian insights [into man's shadow] is a mask of our barbarian nature, which has not the remotest inkling of their extraordinary depth and astonishing psychological accuracy. We are still so uneducated that we actually need laws from without, and a task-master or Father above, to show us what is good and the right thing to do. And because we are still such barbarians, any trust in the laws of human nature seems to us dangerous and unethical naturalism. Why is this? Because under the barbarian's thin veneer of culture the wild beast lurks in readiness, amply justifying his fear. But the beast is not tamed by locking it in a cage. There is no morality without freedom. When the barbarian lets loose the beast within, that is not freedom, but bondage. —Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. Princeton: Princeton University Press, par 357.
And:
2) Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed, and educated as a social unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses...(par 499).
But if the individual, overwhelmed by the sense of his own puniness and impotence, should feel that his life has lost its meaning – which, after all, is not identical with public welfare and higher standards of living – then he is already on the road to State slavery and, without knowing or wanting it, has become its proselyte (par 503). —Jung, C.G. "The Undiscovered Self," CW 10, cited in C.G. Jung: His Myth in our Time by Marie-Louise von Franz. New York: G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1975. Tr. by William H. Kennedy, p 254-5
Thanks for this thoughtful and thorough reply, Guy (which doesn't rhyme ;-)
You've taken the question in a different direction, both valid, and I appreciate you giving me the chance to sort my thoughts out. Let me rephrase them and see if we agree or disagree.
The organization of my exploration for this year is into socio-spiritual solutions and subversive scripture studies. On the first corner post, taking a hard look at the reality IN the world, I think we're in agreement. You're always clear-sighted about the social issues (and militant vegans is a great way to put it, regarding that particular self-righteous faction!)
On the second post of spirituality, I think we disagree, which we've explored elsewhere. And I think we've gotten beyond labels to perhaps the core of our disagreement (please correct me if I'm wrong): you see inner work as dealing with the shadow self or barbarian nature, I see inner work as questioning the Reality of the world through forgiveness of others. We both see BEing the change in this sense as changing the outer world, so we agree on the method if not the goal.
On the third post of solutions, which I was setting the foundation for in this episode, I might be addressing Jung's concern in the second quote. Rather than the false dichotomy of individual development vs. social welfare, I'm looking to present different problems in society and ask how you would address them using the economic tools of my caret system. It's an act of practical imagination, of thinking in ways that take responsibility.
And the last cornerpost I didn't think would apply until I changed 'Bible' to the more generic 'scripture' (thanks for that realization!) I'm looking at the Bible as an encoded strategy based on the divine right of some to rule over others and have them be their slaves. There is no scripture in which this is more blatant than the Hindu. And I've been curious to present On the Annihilation of Caste vs. Gandhi, so maybe I should move that up.
In any case, Jung has a lot of nerve, imo, castigating the West for not following Eastern insights into facing 'the beast within.' Religion and laws work together in India, it's my understanding, to keep people in their appointed roles. But correct me if I'm wrong. And I realize I'm reading Jung out of context and don't know which Indian insights he refers to.
Hola, Tereza. I've been looking forward to the time to respond and it seems that that time has opened up. I've found your exploratory response around my observations very interesting. (Glad I helped with a scrap of script clarification.)
The nuanced distinction you elaborate between you and I found particularly interesting.
"And I think we've gotten beyond labels to perhaps the core of our disagreement (please correct me if I'm wrong): you see inner work as dealing with the shadow self or barbarian nature, I see inner work as questioning the Reality of the world through forgiveness of others. We both see BEing the change in this sense as changing the outer world, so we agree on the method if not the goal."
Again, you have helped me to see 'things' lost in the sea of thought-fragments, mostly unconscious, more clearly by helping them become conscious. And so now with you having helped me, here is more elaboration of what I think I saw. The *method* you suggest being the same with us is to change the outer world, if I've understood your point correctly. This has confused cause and effect, imo, in that we both want to see the suffering reduced. (I think that is the common element.) Although our methods of doing that are subtly different. In my case, that comes, by your observation of my expression, from shadow work. And that is substantively correct, although in recent years not its totality by far.
And in your case it arises from forgiveness of others. That was a new understanding for me. I've not had that idea come to mind before as your method of reducing suffering and confess to being a little surprised at how directly you stated it here as if I would naturally have known it and didn’t. And this is the sticky wicket for me: I am stopped there with the question of 'forgiveness for what?' Having hurt us, directly or indirectly? Then that raises the question of: those who we know who hurt us in most cases didn't know they were hurting us. And certainly the factory worker in China doesn't know s/he is hurting us personally
Now to look at the other shoe: What about those we have and are hurting unknowingly? What is our responsibility for that? Or do we continue to unknowingly hurt them and infer by our own virtuous forgiveness that we will get from them their forgiveness when they see the true reality and power of forgiveness? Before or after we have been able to teach them that forgiveness is the 'right' thing to do? Hmmmm. Tough call, I think. And the under understood presence of narcissists who have hurt us will not forgive us add a curious bump in the reduction of suffering challenge, period, full stop, end of story. Or are we forgiving that *them* for being in the world without questioning its validity? Again, I think this is basically untenable and not practical in reducing the suffering.
If anything the closest to what might work in line with my understanding of your point would be the practice of Ho'oponopono SITH - 'Self Identity Through Ho'oponopono’. https://hooponopono-asia.org/en/reading/about-sith-hooponopono/ It may be significantly more powerful at creating this ostensibly desired reduction of suffering than forgiveness, because instead of forgiving those who we perceive as having hurt us, we take responsibility for how we have hurt others either knowingly or not.
And then it comes back to how can I ask someone to forgive me if I have not taken responsibility for how my shadow has hurt the other, the community, and the environment? If I don’t see how my shadow has blackened my heart I will continue to blacken the hearts of the other with it and, with just enough learnèd authoritarian virtue, will practice forgiving the others for the black hearts that they don’t know they have and by-pass my own.
And the third solution pillar you cite is also problematic in my imagination, depending on further clarification of my (mis)understanding of what I think you mean. It seems that you are suggesting a tertium quid (third paradigm) into a to-be-imaginatively determined non-dichotomous solution that doesn’t contain either the individual or the community. Have I understood you correctly? I like the Gnostic idea of using lots to determine the structure of the day’s meeting by having trusted that ‘God’ has directed the lot assignments. For the Gnostics this is predicated on a level of ‘enlightenment’ of personal responsibility for their shadows within the individuals of the sacred and select community before such a lottery system could be utilised. That may be correct, and goes to Jung’s comment about our barbarian nature requiring restraints of rule. And that ‘issue’ was, of course, the very thing that the church fathers authoritatively cited as chaotic and leading to the total annihilation of order. (That was the sentiment that came up with Tessa’s group when two voices suggested that an authoritarian structure was unconsciously being evolved into the group. That group was formed, ostensibly, to examine and perhaps implement in our own individual ways ways to disassemble the authoritarian structure of the group-behaviour that brought us to our current state.)
As to your castigation of Jung for his (misplaced) praise of eastern insight. It is both justified and not at the same time. Within the context of this short citation justified. His praise was really for the a-religious yogi who takes to heart the shadow as the true practice of the individuated, ie fully adult, human. The yogi is really a-religious, which is often misunderstood, it seems to me, and has fully recognised that the world is a kind of dream imagery of projection from the Self.
And Gautama was adamantly opposed to the caste system, to which you are inferring, here. All people including women people and the castaways were welcomed by him. He was looking to restructure India, is how Stephen Batchelor puts it, after Batchelor’s research into the life of Gautama. It didn’t work, and Buddhism evolved outside of that goal into what you have (mistakenly) castigated for being extremely elitist. *That* isn’t really a problem, that there are distinctions between the levels of awareness of ‘truths’ between people. So that kind of disdain of that part of Buddhism is a kind of false flag critique. Where Buddhism mostly went against Gautama’s teachings was to not take personal responsibility for reducing suffering except as it is used as a spiritual by-pass of the shadow work. Tibetan Buddhism is perhaps the acme of that by-passing method (in my limited view of the breadth of Buddhism to date) and ignores most egregiously much of the subtlest teachings of Gautama. And at the end of the day, on his death bed, Gautama said to his life-long companion ‘Ignore my life-time of teaching. Trust your Self. Don’t trust the sangha or the dharma.’ That trust in ourselves, in our Self, doesn’t come until we stop blaming others for our own blackness. Forgiving others and asking them to forgive ourselves doesn’t go far enough. It can be (and often is) like the militant vegans or posturing yogis and yoginis sitting on a zafu, a proviso that allows for the perception of doing the right thing and not seeing the shadow being projected into the black hearts of the others. Alice Miller talks about an aspect of this ‘problem’ in an interesting way in her excellent book ‘The Body Never Lies: the Lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/386697.The_Body_Never_Lies
Hello, Guy. I'll just clarify a couple of points here. When I said that we agreed on the method if not the goal, I meant that we agreed that inner work was the real way to BE the change. The goal of the inner work is different, for you working on the shadow self, yes? For me, forgiveness.
How I define forgiveness is giving forward the benefit of the doubt that everyone's doing the best they can. We don't need to agree on this, it's just my goal. To use forgiveness as a way to first confirm the wrong that someone has done to you and then, from a position of moral superiority, forgive it, would be contradictory.
Jung says, " The Western superciliousness... is a mask of our barbarian nature." The definition of superciliousness is 'haughty disdain, arrogance, behaving as if you're better than other people.' It's not Jung's praise that I'm 'castigating', it's his disdain. And I think that's not just for the West, it seems like he's saying that human nature is 'barbarian.' That's a word I define in my book as coming from 'babbling' for the lower-class or foreign Greeks who didn't speak the proper Greek. From its etymology, it would mean our non-hierarchical nature that doesn't oppress others, but that's not how Jung is using it. I'd guess he means brutal, primitive, animalistic, un'civil'ized. I don't share his bias on human nature and my subheading on Greek subjugation is "Will the Real Barbarians Please Stand Up?"
And it's Gandhi, not Guatama, I meant for praising the caste system. I leave all speculation on Guatama to you, since I know next to nothing about him.
As to Jung, I understand your perspective. It comes from a piecemeal knowledge and not from his broader and wholeness of his view. The challenge comes down to language and differentiation. How do I describe the elephant in the room to people who don't see it. That differentiation of awareness creates distinctions. And new-ageism refuses to acknowledge these things as important. I disagree. If we are unable to describe our natures accurately, which includes the nature of sociopathic/psychopathic narcissism that wants to kill the world, from those who don't, then we have a problem.
Thank you for the dig into the nature of things. You certainly are helping me to look at those things more deeply and broadly.
Late night here down East & an early up in the morning, but I scanned and caught "Bucky", so I thought you might like a couple of geometric dance numbers I've had stashed in the back pocket of my 'dome' for a few years.
Teresa, You & many others confuse "individual solutions" as separate from all other levels of collective action & organization. "Become the change, you want to see in the world" was coined, exemplified & advocated by Mohandas Gandhi is a 'fractal' ('fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole') program. Gandhi as part of India's ancient & current 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'Indigenous' = 'Self-sufficiency') helps us understand; not to pretend System-Change, without our personal example, commitment & 'participatory' (L. 'part' = 'share')-involvement in our own life as the cultural fractal basis. This personally rooted system change or 'Organizing from the Tree-roots' enables people to re-assert their personal & collective sovereignty without waiting for captured governments, corporations & institutions.
'Swadeshi' is the economic-engine, wherein individuals, families, 'Ashrams' (the ~100 (50-150) Multihome-Dwelling-Comp[lex (eg. Apartment, Townhouse & village) organized Circular Economy as the base cultural 'fractal'. Indian people animated these local intimate, intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale to produce their own food (from Polyculture Orchards), shelter (100 person Ashram), Khadi clothing, warmth & Ayurvedic medicine & health right across the whole of India. Confusion is from 7000 years of western Oligarch controlled institutional 2-D linear thinking rooted in top-down fake 'money' (Greek 'mnemosis' = 'memory'). Colonized people with institutionally reduced capacities often don't understand 3-D cultural 'fractal' human mathematics in Relational Economy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy
As India in the midst of violent British, US, Canadian, Australian empire parasitism, re-animated their own resources & 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'), Indians re-gained self-confidence. By the time just 5% of India's import & export economy had been recaptured, many 100s of the empire top-down inefficient companies went into bankruptcy.
Gandhi expressed the ancient 'indigenous' (L. 'self-generating') time-based equivalency accounting practice in a letter to a British governor, as "Regard human labour as more even than money & you have an untapped & inexhaustible source of income, which every increases with use"
ECONOMIC ENGINE Example of 'Becoming the Change' from Tereza's research: What distinguished the 8 core Axis Nations (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine, Korea & Japan) & another 6 nations who supported the 'Participatory' system is the system of laws requiring all companies over ~30 employees to convene participatory progressive share ownership among Workers, Founders, Managers, Suppliers. Townspeople & Consumers stakeholders. Participatory accounting recognized the varying contributions of each. Germany's system of Labour Certificates (time & task based accounting) enabled Germany & its axis partners to be the 1st to recover from the Oligarch imposed Depression. Invested interest by progressive ownership stakeholders creates the decentralized trust of participants in each department & division of enterprises. Axis nations are still renowned for their excellent product & process engineering because of these same laws in effect to some degree still. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/2-participatory-accounting
AXIS nations being products as well of western exploitation only understood part of all humanity's worldwide ancient indigenous economic practice, which centres economy in the collective Domestic labours of the ~100 person Multihome. Industry & Commerce are considered as subsets of the Domestic. Women (& some men) often take a greater role in the essential Domestic economy. All collective Domestic labours recorded on the time-based String-shell Accounting system (integrates Capital, Currency, Condolence, Collegial mentored-apprenticeship Education, Communication & professional Costume) & fully organized into personal progressive ownership within specialized Production-Society-Guilds. Hence women were fully empowered in local & national decision-making. Multihome-extended-family contribute trillions of $ of the most individually appropriate goods, services, sharing caring/year as Turtle-Island, N-America's largest essential Economic sector, albeit unrecognized by government, education & institutions. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/1-extending-our-welcome-participatory-multihome-cohousing
The Axis nations were brutally crushed & are still occupied & parasited in standing up to the brutally cruel extractive & exploitive Allied worldwide Empire nations (Britain, USA, Canada, France, Belgium, Netherlands), who have a billion people killed through war & genocide over the past 500 years. Its unfortunate that the Axis didn't understand all humanity's ancient full indigenous interdisciplinary program referred to as the Circle-of-Life, in order to overcome the still belligerent murderous Empire which destroys people & biosphere &. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
Hi, Douglas! You're someone who has a well-articulated, highly developed plan for the change you'd like to see in the world. And, as I've said before, I don't think our systems are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd love to see you apply my economic system to your social system as we go through this next year.
To clarify, let's say there's a person in the US who wants to make the individual choice to join this movement. What would s/he do? Would they move to an indigenous community in the US or the world and ask them to take them in? Would they find others in their own community and convince them to collectivize their property?
My system scales down to put decisions at the lowest possible level, of the family or household, or the neighborhood block of a dozen households. It doesn't take away anything that's working but it distributes the mortgages pro-actively as targeted dividends to be determined by the group for what you want to incent. I think our plans are very compatible, and mine is looking at the means to accomplish yours.
Thanks for pointing out the parallels in the Axis countries. I've been doing more reading about that. I always appreciate your knowledge, Douglas.
Teresa, Thanks, Our concepts are similar. Can you provide me with some web-links to your "economic system" dozen-households, mortgage dividends etc.? I've listened to over a dozen of your videos & read some of your material, so am interested, but not seen this focus yet. Perhaps, can we connect via Skype, ZOOM etc. after I've seen or read these materials?
My comment was to provide Mohandas Gandhi's interpretation of 'Become-the-change' as more than "Chump-change". I have recorded, just a couple of actual 'Become-the-change' quotes referenced to Gandhi, slightly different.
Our 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture') program is a recall for all of us, to the livelihood system's knowledge of all humanity's worldwide ancestors & 1st Nations here.
I go back 60 of my 71 years of age in indigenous solidarity living & working with 1st Nations & indigenous peoples worldwide being informed by indigenous friends & elders. The work has involved implementing participatory investment programs in industry, commerce & the domestic economy, starting & operating businesses etc. according to 1st Nation/indigenous economic traditions. I've sent you various web-links over the last year with precision on Participatory Accounting, time-based equivalency Accounting on the String-Shell Value system, governance systems, Share-based String-shell attributes etc. but realize these among your many 1000s of web-comments, emails & other communications are difficult for most people with western worldviews to understand.
We're all originally indigenous, so our approach is to help all people rediscover their own indigenous roots & heritage for peace & abundance. Elders have helped me understand the universality of humanity's indigenous heritage as well as the problem of putting existing 1st Nations on pedestals or treating 1st Nations as separate. About 70% of North American people have 1st Nation blood & 85% of 1st Nations have blood from around the world.
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” Albert Einstein. Rather than 'reinventing' ourselves out of the problems we have created, only to find ourselves in bigger trouble, I suggest starting with reflection on our heritage, both indigenous & exogenous.
We all need in our time, to transcend Oligarch imposed 'exogenous' (L. 'other-generated') institutional indoctrination, which limits our worldview. While you have called the indigenous program as "social", what I've described with Mohandas Gandhi or the AXIS powers are practical 'economic' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'), which are do-able in our time starting at the individual level, collectivization & systems implementation. Our 'Do-we-known-who-we-are-?' Community Economy web-software is designed for simultaneous implementation by people in the Multihomes where 70% of people live today & particularly among the 20% of Multihome-Dwellers who are extended-families, performing the most essential economic functions as the greatest economic entity contributing 2 trillion dollars per year to the North American economy per year.
Hi, Douglas. Yes, I have read some of the links you've sent and they're very impressive. I guess I'm still confused, though, about how someone could choose to BE the change if they weren't already part of an indigenous infrastructure in your system. Can you explain that?
I have some reservations about Gandhi. I've read that the victory against the British was won by the militant leader but cleverly attributed to Gandhi by the British in order to substitute economic rule for rule by force. Arundhati Roy writes about the 'Gandhification' of international NGOs who, funded by Big Philanthropy, refuse to recognize the right of armed defense. I have another Roy on my shelf called The Doctor and the Saint on Ambedkar, who wrote Annihilation of Caste, debating Gandhi. And India under Modi doesn't seem like a successful model to emulate.
I think the best approach would be to see if any of my posts on this topic over the next year engage you. I'll be continuing to link past episodes. The most thorough explanation of my system is in my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607.
I think you've found the solution for you, and I have no desire to change that. I don't think that choice is available to most people without tremendous sacrifice, but please explain if I'm wrong. I'm looking at a system that involves no sacrifice, except on the part of the bankers, but gives more choices to get back to the world you and I want.
Tereza, You're helping me understand your perspective. Indigenous only means 'Self-generating', so my use only considers whether actions, programs & processes are self-generating or other-generated. Are you aware of the 110 1st Nations organized into 23 Confederacies across Turtle-Island/N. America, who in many aspects consider themselves as one integrated people, all using Wampum, formed into the ~100 person multihome & keeping Council-Process? as were our ancestors worldwide?
Like you, I am focused upon economic aspects of programs which organize people's existing resources & attributes. I refer to time-based equivalency accounting from my own background, but more as Human recognition, celebration & empowerment of contributions, experience, expertise & decision-making acumen. The Indigenous Circle of Life which is described by peoples worldwide describes some of the basics of the interdisciplinary indigenous program. This chart helps people understand humanity's pre-invasion indigenous system as a set of working principles & practices, which can be applied in all our lives & communities. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
I agree that; there is lot's I don't know about the forces who boosted Gandhi, but am more concerned with the indigenous nature of India & Gandhi's 'Swadeshi' program & its unfolding over 30 years to 'Swaraj' (Hindi 'Self-rule') however imperfect that is.
Yes, we are responsible for our own happiness. However we are social creatures and it's hard to be happy if you are around unhappy people. So making others happy is a way to make yourself happy!
As for not shopping at Amazon, I don't think it's wise to try and punish Amazon by not giving them ANY business if that is going to hurt you! "Voting" with your dollars is the most important form of voting, but it doesn't have to be 100%. If everyone cut back their spending on Amazon by 25% or 50% then Amazon would "feel" that and it would motivate them to change.
So I'm constantly looking for alternatives for when I need / want to buy something so that I am shifting away from supporting tyranny. But that doesn't mean I refuse to shop at Amazon at all.
I used to have an Amazon Prime account, but Amazon changed the terms of service and added advertising to their video. That wasn't what I paid for when I paid for Prime. So I complained and obtained a refund (which they say they won't do but they will do it) while I canceled my Prime account.
Can you 'make' someone happy or, conversely, 'make' them unhappy? What I taught my daughters is that no one can 'make' you feel anything, your feelings belong to you. You always have the choice of how to respond. It's served them well--maybe a little too well. They're all women who know how to make themselves happy without 'needing' a partner.
And I agree completely about not trying to punish Amazon by punishing yourself. But I'm not concerned about what other people do and whether they cut back or not. Consumer activism seems a contradiction in terms. What I'm arguing for here is that it's not the right time for activism at all because we have no strategy for what we want, only what we don't want.
The calvary will not be riding over the hill anytime soon to solve today's problems. Nope 95% of the time that problem will be there tomorrow unless we get off our pretty little asses and solve the problem our selves!
Is 'Free Palestine' an individual solution? I would call that a system change. In fact, I think it's going to precipitate the biggest system change of all, in exposing those who've been manipulating all of us through the economic system (hence gov'ts, media, 'healthcare,' education, etc) for the last 3500 yrs.
Those advocating individual solutions, as I understand them, say that we should ignore global issues and concentrate on growing our own food, things that we can control. I don't think that 'waiting for the cavalry' is a fair characterization of the system changes in my book.
I'm feeling like a blue-skinned oracle with six arms when you say, "TALK to me, Tereza." So happy to be fulfilling that role and I hope the wheel is pointing to whatever you need right now, with one of those six arms ;-)
I don't remember which video that was, but you're reflecting back something I needed to remember. My brother-in-law is in his final days. I just sent a note to my ex's sister that I am thinking of him and sitting vigil from a distance. I'd like to believe that's a connection.
And aw, the story of the tissue. You're the first to comment on it. We really don't need any more judgment right now, imho. Love your oldest's phrase.
Interesting that we've both spent 20 yrs doing what Corbett recommends. It's a fine way to live. I really treasure my relationships with farmers and ranchers, that I've been cultivating for forever. But I no longer think it's really going to change anything. I still do what makes me happy but I'm also VERY happy to not have chickens for the first time in 15 years!
No offense taken but, having made this video mere hours ago, I'm still figuring out what exactly you mean. On the relationship advice, do you mean 'take responsibility for your own happiness'? It isn't to say that you shouldn't do nice things for your partner. There's a 'happiness hygiene' though, I find is helpful. Saying, "What do I want right now, to eat, to do, to wear? What will give me joy?" It doesn't take away from anyone else but it also doesn't expect your partner to read your mind.
Explain more about the male thinking and hierarchies, please? I'm not sure what that's responding to. Thanks, Decoy.
Thanks for the explanation, Decoy. On the hierarchy, I'm still confused about what I said that indicated a desire to 'bond by looking into each others' eyes and sharing our feelings.' I'd say that's the opposite of my economic plan, which is a rule-based system of distributed anarchy. That's something Corbett and I share, as I talk about in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/multipolar-vs-micropolar. Hierarchy, which is rule by rulers (archons) or power over others vs. fuzzy feel-good rule by consensus (shudder) is a false dichotomy, imo.
Hi Tereza, i don't want to mess up your postings but since you seem to read them all, i thought it might be the best way to communicate with you further about those tunnels. I read Don Jeffries regularly and have found him to reliable. His latest might be of interest to you. Maybe you can let me know if you think he's on track.
https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/p/of-secret-tunnels-and-fake-lists
Mess away, Specie! Anytime I'm talking strategy or philosophy, it's a slower comment thread than controversies on politics or religion, but I never mind new info about things I'm missing.
Don Jeffries is hilarious! I haven't read him before. He's astute and is pointing out all the contradictions in those stories, and what the media response would be otherwise, if it was anyone other than orthodox Jews.
I'm still unclear on whether this was real or a staged exposure. Did you notice the little jiggly dance one Rabbi does, maybe with his hands cuffed, on the side of the police with the other rabbis turning over tables (to barricade themselves in?) The rabbi emerging from the grated hole seemed cartoonish, running to draw attention to himself rather than blending in. And why the big ruckus? Why would NYPD bring cement trucks to fill them if something nefarious was going on? Why would the rabbis object to this, if something nefarious was going on? It doesn't make sense.
I don't have enough of a coherent opinion to do a post on it, but I'm glad you're keeping me abreast.
I love Don Jeffries!
Thx, Tereza! Amen to stop judging other people and to being responsible for our own happiness. Even the concept of self love is often thought to be selfish. I couldn’t disagree more. What makes me happy these days? Wandering in the woods for hours on end. Blissfully alone. Well…I’m not really alone. 🐻 🫎 🦌 🌲🌲🌲💚
Love the emojis, they made me feel like I took a little virtual walk in the woods with my eyes ;-) Speaking of which, between my Amazon purchase of honey eyedrops and the Ayurvedic rose drops that just came in the mail, I'm feeling bright eyed and bushy tailed, thanks to you!
Glad to hear! I didn’t know they had ready made honey eyedrops. I’ve always made my own! Good find! 🥰
Oh you sent me the link! As you said, they burn so good! OptiMel, I think it's called, after miel I'm sure. Curiously I'm reading a book in which there are women covered with bees, all called the Melissas ;-)
Hmm...well if I did it was a. mistake! I've never heard of them. I thought I sent you a link of. my Ayurveda teacher, John Douillard, describing how to make them! I hope they're pure without any junk added. I just boil distilled water, let it cool and add the Manuka honey. Book sounds good! 🐝🐝🐝
↑ What she said!🌿
Hola, Tereza.
A fun and interesting discussion, one in which I find myself agreeing with the argument and disagreeing with it at the same time.
It seems to me the agreeing part is that often (usually/always(?)) the small changes don't work to a significant extent because we are working from a outwards perspective that is a form of avoiding changing within: aka spiritual by-passing. The most egregious examples of that are the virtue signalling totalitarianism of groups like the contemporary climate-change activists, gender dysphorians and a significant portion of militant vegans. (I just read an egregious self-so smug totalitarian vegan FB post so that came to mind easily tonight.)
The society we live in ultimately reflects we the people that collectively comprise it, and that their constitution in totality will be how the society manifests. In our time, right now, we are seeing the expression of that bully culture coming to a kind of apotheosis, perhaps, because we have been embodying it for a long time. Most of the so-called medical freedom movement genres/sects are comprised of the exact same fear-based authoritarian bully mentality they are 'fighting.' Filled with the invisible bully language built around 'have to' and 'should' mandates exacerbated with the assignations of the deserving and the undeserving that are connected to 'have to' and 'should' and 'deserve'.
And so long as that is the dominant mode of contemporary internal psychological structure, expressed mostly unconsciously with the bully language we do not see and continue to use, that will continue to be made manifest as the truth of our totality within totalitarianism. When I want to know what my psychology is, in it's totality, I need only look into my life for it is telling me who I am and what I am a part of. Am a filling my internal dialogues with internal mandates and debasing judgments? And are those the kinds of people I find myself consorting with?
It seems to me that likely most people have used the Corbett's 'chump-change' methodology to avoid the deep shadow work that we are seeing clearly made manifest in the shadowy ptb structures. Our entire cultural zeitgeist, heightened to an incredibly toxic degree by 'New Agism', is all about by-passing our shadow work and projecting it onto the 'bad' guys, those ones there on the other side.
On the other hand, when 60 Tibetan monks did meditation for a month in Washington DC to reduce crime the police were shocked (horrified that they would be put out of work, maybe?) that there was a very big reduction in the violent crime. That 'experiment' has been duplicated.
I've joined Tessa Lena's 'philosophy club' zoom meeting she recently started up. And a few of us are noticing the signs of an authoritarian structure sliding into it on kitten feet. Last week me and someone else talked about the normalisation of the authoritarian structure we saw happening there. And proposed alternatives. The biggest response, at least spoken, was that without the authoritarian structure there would be chaos. The Chomsky Affect and Paradox, which I recently wrote about and which your topic here is moving around.
Again this points to the shadow work not being done and being projected out. You're right, the methods being done aren't working because they have become, in general, a way people have of by-passing their deep work. It is the same as what I mostly see in the people becoming things like a certified yoga-teachers, Buddhist, born again Christian, vegan or any other '-ism': -isming allows us to avoid the reality of the pain of our existence and the real limitations of who we are. I discuss some aspects of that in an early stack when I responded to a reader's dismay that her Buddhist temple was closed to her, as was 'my' yoga community closed to me, with convidiana's injection mandates. It began as a response to Steve Kirsch's dismay at his inability to red-pill people. If curious, read 'Steve Kirsch asked "What are the best ways to red-pill someone?" My answer.' https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/thoughts-covid-reset-yogic-and-uncategorised/. And the follow-up essay 'Q: '"I agree that [yogic calmness] is important, how do we account for all the yoga teachers who fly Ukraine flags and require masks in their studios?" A: "Yoga as drug."' https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/q-i-agree-that-yogic-calmness-is/comments.
And as a kind of mild synchronicity with my delayed response, I listened to a short discussion of spiritual bypassing as a common analgesic drug here: "SPIRITUAL BYPASSING – A GUIDE TO SPOTTING IT AND STOPPING IT | TCM #123 (PART 1): THE COSMIC MATRIX PODCAST".
https://veilofreality.com/2024/01/17/spiritual-bypassing-a-guide-to-spotting-it-and-stopping-it-tcm-123-part-1/
And I'll end with two great quotations from Jung, not because I 'need' his authority to bully you. Nope. Simply because he describes our 'state' with clear, concise, and powerful language that has resonated powerfully with me and so I like to share them:
1) The Western superciliousness in the face of these [East] Indian insights [into man's shadow] is a mask of our barbarian nature, which has not the remotest inkling of their extraordinary depth and astonishing psychological accuracy. We are still so uneducated that we actually need laws from without, and a task-master or Father above, to show us what is good and the right thing to do. And because we are still such barbarians, any trust in the laws of human nature seems to us dangerous and unethical naturalism. Why is this? Because under the barbarian's thin veneer of culture the wild beast lurks in readiness, amply justifying his fear. But the beast is not tamed by locking it in a cage. There is no morality without freedom. When the barbarian lets loose the beast within, that is not freedom, but bondage. —Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. Princeton: Princeton University Press, par 357.
And:
2) Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed, and educated as a social unit, and amused in accordance with the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses...(par 499).
But if the individual, overwhelmed by the sense of his own puniness and impotence, should feel that his life has lost its meaning – which, after all, is not identical with public welfare and higher standards of living – then he is already on the road to State slavery and, without knowing or wanting it, has become its proselyte (par 503). —Jung, C.G. "The Undiscovered Self," CW 10, cited in C.G. Jung: His Myth in our Time by Marie-Louise von Franz. New York: G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1975. Tr. by William H. Kennedy, p 254-5
Thanks for this thoughtful and thorough reply, Guy (which doesn't rhyme ;-)
You've taken the question in a different direction, both valid, and I appreciate you giving me the chance to sort my thoughts out. Let me rephrase them and see if we agree or disagree.
The organization of my exploration for this year is into socio-spiritual solutions and subversive scripture studies. On the first corner post, taking a hard look at the reality IN the world, I think we're in agreement. You're always clear-sighted about the social issues (and militant vegans is a great way to put it, regarding that particular self-righteous faction!)
On the second post of spirituality, I think we disagree, which we've explored elsewhere. And I think we've gotten beyond labels to perhaps the core of our disagreement (please correct me if I'm wrong): you see inner work as dealing with the shadow self or barbarian nature, I see inner work as questioning the Reality of the world through forgiveness of others. We both see BEing the change in this sense as changing the outer world, so we agree on the method if not the goal.
On the third post of solutions, which I was setting the foundation for in this episode, I might be addressing Jung's concern in the second quote. Rather than the false dichotomy of individual development vs. social welfare, I'm looking to present different problems in society and ask how you would address them using the economic tools of my caret system. It's an act of practical imagination, of thinking in ways that take responsibility.
And the last cornerpost I didn't think would apply until I changed 'Bible' to the more generic 'scripture' (thanks for that realization!) I'm looking at the Bible as an encoded strategy based on the divine right of some to rule over others and have them be their slaves. There is no scripture in which this is more blatant than the Hindu. And I've been curious to present On the Annihilation of Caste vs. Gandhi, so maybe I should move that up.
In any case, Jung has a lot of nerve, imo, castigating the West for not following Eastern insights into facing 'the beast within.' Religion and laws work together in India, it's my understanding, to keep people in their appointed roles. But correct me if I'm wrong. And I realize I'm reading Jung out of context and don't know which Indian insights he refers to.
Thanks for reading and responding Guy!
Hola, Tereza. I've been looking forward to the time to respond and it seems that that time has opened up. I've found your exploratory response around my observations very interesting. (Glad I helped with a scrap of script clarification.)
The nuanced distinction you elaborate between you and I found particularly interesting.
"And I think we've gotten beyond labels to perhaps the core of our disagreement (please correct me if I'm wrong): you see inner work as dealing with the shadow self or barbarian nature, I see inner work as questioning the Reality of the world through forgiveness of others. We both see BEing the change in this sense as changing the outer world, so we agree on the method if not the goal."
Again, you have helped me to see 'things' lost in the sea of thought-fragments, mostly unconscious, more clearly by helping them become conscious. And so now with you having helped me, here is more elaboration of what I think I saw. The *method* you suggest being the same with us is to change the outer world, if I've understood your point correctly. This has confused cause and effect, imo, in that we both want to see the suffering reduced. (I think that is the common element.) Although our methods of doing that are subtly different. In my case, that comes, by your observation of my expression, from shadow work. And that is substantively correct, although in recent years not its totality by far.
And in your case it arises from forgiveness of others. That was a new understanding for me. I've not had that idea come to mind before as your method of reducing suffering and confess to being a little surprised at how directly you stated it here as if I would naturally have known it and didn’t. And this is the sticky wicket for me: I am stopped there with the question of 'forgiveness for what?' Having hurt us, directly or indirectly? Then that raises the question of: those who we know who hurt us in most cases didn't know they were hurting us. And certainly the factory worker in China doesn't know s/he is hurting us personally
Now to look at the other shoe: What about those we have and are hurting unknowingly? What is our responsibility for that? Or do we continue to unknowingly hurt them and infer by our own virtuous forgiveness that we will get from them their forgiveness when they see the true reality and power of forgiveness? Before or after we have been able to teach them that forgiveness is the 'right' thing to do? Hmmmm. Tough call, I think. And the under understood presence of narcissists who have hurt us will not forgive us add a curious bump in the reduction of suffering challenge, period, full stop, end of story. Or are we forgiving that *them* for being in the world without questioning its validity? Again, I think this is basically untenable and not practical in reducing the suffering.
If anything the closest to what might work in line with my understanding of your point would be the practice of Ho'oponopono SITH - 'Self Identity Through Ho'oponopono’. https://hooponopono-asia.org/en/reading/about-sith-hooponopono/ It may be significantly more powerful at creating this ostensibly desired reduction of suffering than forgiveness, because instead of forgiving those who we perceive as having hurt us, we take responsibility for how we have hurt others either knowingly or not.
And then it comes back to how can I ask someone to forgive me if I have not taken responsibility for how my shadow has hurt the other, the community, and the environment? If I don’t see how my shadow has blackened my heart I will continue to blacken the hearts of the other with it and, with just enough learnèd authoritarian virtue, will practice forgiving the others for the black hearts that they don’t know they have and by-pass my own.
And the third solution pillar you cite is also problematic in my imagination, depending on further clarification of my (mis)understanding of what I think you mean. It seems that you are suggesting a tertium quid (third paradigm) into a to-be-imaginatively determined non-dichotomous solution that doesn’t contain either the individual or the community. Have I understood you correctly? I like the Gnostic idea of using lots to determine the structure of the day’s meeting by having trusted that ‘God’ has directed the lot assignments. For the Gnostics this is predicated on a level of ‘enlightenment’ of personal responsibility for their shadows within the individuals of the sacred and select community before such a lottery system could be utilised. That may be correct, and goes to Jung’s comment about our barbarian nature requiring restraints of rule. And that ‘issue’ was, of course, the very thing that the church fathers authoritatively cited as chaotic and leading to the total annihilation of order. (That was the sentiment that came up with Tessa’s group when two voices suggested that an authoritarian structure was unconsciously being evolved into the group. That group was formed, ostensibly, to examine and perhaps implement in our own individual ways ways to disassemble the authoritarian structure of the group-behaviour that brought us to our current state.)
As to your castigation of Jung for his (misplaced) praise of eastern insight. It is both justified and not at the same time. Within the context of this short citation justified. His praise was really for the a-religious yogi who takes to heart the shadow as the true practice of the individuated, ie fully adult, human. The yogi is really a-religious, which is often misunderstood, it seems to me, and has fully recognised that the world is a kind of dream imagery of projection from the Self.
And Gautama was adamantly opposed to the caste system, to which you are inferring, here. All people including women people and the castaways were welcomed by him. He was looking to restructure India, is how Stephen Batchelor puts it, after Batchelor’s research into the life of Gautama. It didn’t work, and Buddhism evolved outside of that goal into what you have (mistakenly) castigated for being extremely elitist. *That* isn’t really a problem, that there are distinctions between the levels of awareness of ‘truths’ between people. So that kind of disdain of that part of Buddhism is a kind of false flag critique. Where Buddhism mostly went against Gautama’s teachings was to not take personal responsibility for reducing suffering except as it is used as a spiritual by-pass of the shadow work. Tibetan Buddhism is perhaps the acme of that by-passing method (in my limited view of the breadth of Buddhism to date) and ignores most egregiously much of the subtlest teachings of Gautama. And at the end of the day, on his death bed, Gautama said to his life-long companion ‘Ignore my life-time of teaching. Trust your Self. Don’t trust the sangha or the dharma.’ That trust in ourselves, in our Self, doesn’t come until we stop blaming others for our own blackness. Forgiving others and asking them to forgive ourselves doesn’t go far enough. It can be (and often is) like the militant vegans or posturing yogis and yoginis sitting on a zafu, a proviso that allows for the perception of doing the right thing and not seeing the shadow being projected into the black hearts of the others. Alice Miller talks about an aspect of this ‘problem’ in an interesting way in her excellent book ‘The Body Never Lies: the Lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/386697.The_Body_Never_Lies
Hello, Guy. I'll just clarify a couple of points here. When I said that we agreed on the method if not the goal, I meant that we agreed that inner work was the real way to BE the change. The goal of the inner work is different, for you working on the shadow self, yes? For me, forgiveness.
How I define forgiveness is giving forward the benefit of the doubt that everyone's doing the best they can. We don't need to agree on this, it's just my goal. To use forgiveness as a way to first confirm the wrong that someone has done to you and then, from a position of moral superiority, forgive it, would be contradictory.
Jung says, " The Western superciliousness... is a mask of our barbarian nature." The definition of superciliousness is 'haughty disdain, arrogance, behaving as if you're better than other people.' It's not Jung's praise that I'm 'castigating', it's his disdain. And I think that's not just for the West, it seems like he's saying that human nature is 'barbarian.' That's a word I define in my book as coming from 'babbling' for the lower-class or foreign Greeks who didn't speak the proper Greek. From its etymology, it would mean our non-hierarchical nature that doesn't oppress others, but that's not how Jung is using it. I'd guess he means brutal, primitive, animalistic, un'civil'ized. I don't share his bias on human nature and my subheading on Greek subjugation is "Will the Real Barbarians Please Stand Up?"
And it's Gandhi, not Guatama, I meant for praising the caste system. I leave all speculation on Guatama to you, since I know next to nothing about him.
Thank you, Tereza, for the clarification.
As to Jung, I understand your perspective. It comes from a piecemeal knowledge and not from his broader and wholeness of his view. The challenge comes down to language and differentiation. How do I describe the elephant in the room to people who don't see it. That differentiation of awareness creates distinctions. And new-ageism refuses to acknowledge these things as important. I disagree. If we are unable to describe our natures accurately, which includes the nature of sociopathic/psychopathic narcissism that wants to kill the world, from those who don't, then we have a problem.
Thank you for the dig into the nature of things. You certainly are helping me to look at those things more deeply and broadly.
Yes, happiness is an inside job. But being in service to others also makes me happy. :)
Late night here down East & an early up in the morning, but I scanned and caught "Bucky", so I thought you might like a couple of geometric dance numbers I've had stashed in the back pocket of my 'dome' for a few years.
Short dance by a devotee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HefLC3PW8XQ
Pavane with the composer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcq_Hzo8PC8
Erstwyla geometry? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzvDdbDBZ_I
Couldn't find a clip for Unsquare Dance, so maybe make do with this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifoOO5ZEC9g
G'night, TC
Thanks and I enjoyed those last dance pieces from Reefer Madness to the Go-Go's, I haven't had a chance to dance to them since the 90's! G'night!
Teresa, You & many others confuse "individual solutions" as separate from all other levels of collective action & organization. "Become the change, you want to see in the world" was coined, exemplified & advocated by Mohandas Gandhi is a 'fractal' ('fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole') program. Gandhi as part of India's ancient & current 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'Indigenous' = 'Self-sufficiency') helps us understand; not to pretend System-Change, without our personal example, commitment & 'participatory' (L. 'part' = 'share')-involvement in our own life as the cultural fractal basis. This personally rooted system change or 'Organizing from the Tree-roots' enables people to re-assert their personal & collective sovereignty without waiting for captured governments, corporations & institutions.
'Swadeshi' is the economic-engine, wherein individuals, families, 'Ashrams' (the ~100 (50-150) Multihome-Dwelling-Comp[lex (eg. Apartment, Townhouse & village) organized Circular Economy as the base cultural 'fractal'. Indian people animated these local intimate, intergenerational, female-male, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale to produce their own food (from Polyculture Orchards), shelter (100 person Ashram), Khadi clothing, warmth & Ayurvedic medicine & health right across the whole of India. Confusion is from 7000 years of western Oligarch controlled institutional 2-D linear thinking rooted in top-down fake 'money' (Greek 'mnemosis' = 'memory'). Colonized people with institutionally reduced capacities often don't understand 3-D cultural 'fractal' human mathematics in Relational Economy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy
As India in the midst of violent British, US, Canadian, Australian empire parasitism, re-animated their own resources & 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'), Indians re-gained self-confidence. By the time just 5% of India's import & export economy had been recaptured, many 100s of the empire top-down inefficient companies went into bankruptcy.
Gandhi expressed the ancient 'indigenous' (L. 'self-generating') time-based equivalency accounting practice in a letter to a British governor, as "Regard human labour as more even than money & you have an untapped & inexhaustible source of income, which every increases with use"
ECONOMIC ENGINE Example of 'Becoming the Change' from Tereza's research: What distinguished the 8 core Axis Nations (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Romania, Ukraine, Korea & Japan) & another 6 nations who supported the 'Participatory' system is the system of laws requiring all companies over ~30 employees to convene participatory progressive share ownership among Workers, Founders, Managers, Suppliers. Townspeople & Consumers stakeholders. Participatory accounting recognized the varying contributions of each. Germany's system of Labour Certificates (time & task based accounting) enabled Germany & its axis partners to be the 1st to recover from the Oligarch imposed Depression. Invested interest by progressive ownership stakeholders creates the decentralized trust of participants in each department & division of enterprises. Axis nations are still renowned for their excellent product & process engineering because of these same laws in effect to some degree still. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/2-participatory-accounting
AXIS nations being products as well of western exploitation only understood part of all humanity's worldwide ancient indigenous economic practice, which centres economy in the collective Domestic labours of the ~100 person Multihome. Industry & Commerce are considered as subsets of the Domestic. Women (& some men) often take a greater role in the essential Domestic economy. All collective Domestic labours recorded on the time-based String-shell Accounting system (integrates Capital, Currency, Condolence, Collegial mentored-apprenticeship Education, Communication & professional Costume) & fully organized into personal progressive ownership within specialized Production-Society-Guilds. Hence women were fully empowered in local & national decision-making. Multihome-extended-family contribute trillions of $ of the most individually appropriate goods, services, sharing caring/year as Turtle-Island, N-America's largest essential Economic sector, albeit unrecognized by government, education & institutions. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy/1-extending-our-welcome-participatory-multihome-cohousing
The Axis nations were brutally crushed & are still occupied & parasited in standing up to the brutally cruel extractive & exploitive Allied worldwide Empire nations (Britain, USA, Canada, France, Belgium, Netherlands), who have a billion people killed through war & genocide over the past 500 years. Its unfortunate that the Axis didn't understand all humanity's ancient full indigenous interdisciplinary program referred to as the Circle-of-Life, in order to overcome the still belligerent murderous Empire which destroys people & biosphere &. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
Hi, Douglas! You're someone who has a well-articulated, highly developed plan for the change you'd like to see in the world. And, as I've said before, I don't think our systems are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd love to see you apply my economic system to your social system as we go through this next year.
To clarify, let's say there's a person in the US who wants to make the individual choice to join this movement. What would s/he do? Would they move to an indigenous community in the US or the world and ask them to take them in? Would they find others in their own community and convince them to collectivize their property?
My system scales down to put decisions at the lowest possible level, of the family or household, or the neighborhood block of a dozen households. It doesn't take away anything that's working but it distributes the mortgages pro-actively as targeted dividends to be determined by the group for what you want to incent. I think our plans are very compatible, and mine is looking at the means to accomplish yours.
Thanks for pointing out the parallels in the Axis countries. I've been doing more reading about that. I always appreciate your knowledge, Douglas.
Teresa, Thanks, Our concepts are similar. Can you provide me with some web-links to your "economic system" dozen-households, mortgage dividends etc.? I've listened to over a dozen of your videos & read some of your material, so am interested, but not seen this focus yet. Perhaps, can we connect via Skype, ZOOM etc. after I've seen or read these materials?
My comment was to provide Mohandas Gandhi's interpretation of 'Become-the-change' as more than "Chump-change". I have recorded, just a couple of actual 'Become-the-change' quotes referenced to Gandhi, slightly different.
Our 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture') program is a recall for all of us, to the livelihood system's knowledge of all humanity's worldwide ancestors & 1st Nations here.
I go back 60 of my 71 years of age in indigenous solidarity living & working with 1st Nations & indigenous peoples worldwide being informed by indigenous friends & elders. The work has involved implementing participatory investment programs in industry, commerce & the domestic economy, starting & operating businesses etc. according to 1st Nation/indigenous economic traditions. I've sent you various web-links over the last year with precision on Participatory Accounting, time-based equivalency Accounting on the String-Shell Value system, governance systems, Share-based String-shell attributes etc. but realize these among your many 1000s of web-comments, emails & other communications are difficult for most people with western worldviews to understand.
We're all originally indigenous, so our approach is to help all people rediscover their own indigenous roots & heritage for peace & abundance. Elders have helped me understand the universality of humanity's indigenous heritage as well as the problem of putting existing 1st Nations on pedestals or treating 1st Nations as separate. About 70% of North American people have 1st Nation blood & 85% of 1st Nations have blood from around the world.
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” Albert Einstein. Rather than 'reinventing' ourselves out of the problems we have created, only to find ourselves in bigger trouble, I suggest starting with reflection on our heritage, both indigenous & exogenous.
We all need in our time, to transcend Oligarch imposed 'exogenous' (L. 'other-generated') institutional indoctrination, which limits our worldview. While you have called the indigenous program as "social", what I've described with Mohandas Gandhi or the AXIS powers are practical 'economic' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'), which are do-able in our time starting at the individual level, collectivization & systems implementation. Our 'Do-we-known-who-we-are-?' Community Economy web-software is designed for simultaneous implementation by people in the Multihomes where 70% of people live today & particularly among the 20% of Multihome-Dwellers who are extended-families, performing the most essential economic functions as the greatest economic entity contributing 2 trillion dollars per year to the North American economy per year.
DO-WE-KNOW-WHO-WE-ARE-? http://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/9-do-we-know-who-we-are web-based Community-Circular-Economy software:
A) CATALOGUE intake form. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/7-membership
B) MAP local proximal collaborative relations for complementary economic concertation. Baseline mapping of 105 Mohawk, Wendat & Algonquian Placenames in the Tiohtiake (greater Montreal archipelago) region https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/5-tiohtiake-mohawk-placenames
C) ACCOUNT for collective contributions, buying, selling & co-investment from the Bottom-up accounting within the ~100 person Multihome & Production-Society-Guilds. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/c-relational-economy
D) COMMUNICATE such as formally through ancient indigenous COUNCIL PROCESS for creating Constructive Agreements & for Conflict Resolution. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
Hi, Douglas. Yes, I have read some of the links you've sent and they're very impressive. I guess I'm still confused, though, about how someone could choose to BE the change if they weren't already part of an indigenous infrastructure in your system. Can you explain that?
I have some reservations about Gandhi. I've read that the victory against the British was won by the militant leader but cleverly attributed to Gandhi by the British in order to substitute economic rule for rule by force. Arundhati Roy writes about the 'Gandhification' of international NGOs who, funded by Big Philanthropy, refuse to recognize the right of armed defense. I have another Roy on my shelf called The Doctor and the Saint on Ambedkar, who wrote Annihilation of Caste, debating Gandhi. And India under Modi doesn't seem like a successful model to emulate.
I think the best approach would be to see if any of my posts on this topic over the next year engage you. I'll be continuing to link past episodes. The most thorough explanation of my system is in my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607.
I think you've found the solution for you, and I have no desire to change that. I don't think that choice is available to most people without tremendous sacrifice, but please explain if I'm wrong. I'm looking at a system that involves no sacrifice, except on the part of the bankers, but gives more choices to get back to the world you and I want.
Tereza, You're helping me understand your perspective. Indigenous only means 'Self-generating', so my use only considers whether actions, programs & processes are self-generating or other-generated. Are you aware of the 110 1st Nations organized into 23 Confederacies across Turtle-Island/N. America, who in many aspects consider themselves as one integrated people, all using Wampum, formed into the ~100 person multihome & keeping Council-Process? as were our ancestors worldwide?
Like you, I am focused upon economic aspects of programs which organize people's existing resources & attributes. I refer to time-based equivalency accounting from my own background, but more as Human recognition, celebration & empowerment of contributions, experience, expertise & decision-making acumen. The Indigenous Circle of Life which is described by peoples worldwide describes some of the basics of the interdisciplinary indigenous program. This chart helps people understand humanity's pre-invasion indigenous system as a set of working principles & practices, which can be applied in all our lives & communities. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
I agree that; there is lot's I don't know about the forces who boosted Gandhi, but am more concerned with the indigenous nature of India & Gandhi's 'Swadeshi' program & its unfolding over 30 years to 'Swaraj' (Hindi 'Self-rule') however imperfect that is.
Yes, we are responsible for our own happiness. However we are social creatures and it's hard to be happy if you are around unhappy people. So making others happy is a way to make yourself happy!
As for not shopping at Amazon, I don't think it's wise to try and punish Amazon by not giving them ANY business if that is going to hurt you! "Voting" with your dollars is the most important form of voting, but it doesn't have to be 100%. If everyone cut back their spending on Amazon by 25% or 50% then Amazon would "feel" that and it would motivate them to change.
So I'm constantly looking for alternatives for when I need / want to buy something so that I am shifting away from supporting tyranny. But that doesn't mean I refuse to shop at Amazon at all.
I used to have an Amazon Prime account, but Amazon changed the terms of service and added advertising to their video. That wasn't what I paid for when I paid for Prime. So I complained and obtained a refund (which they say they won't do but they will do it) while I canceled my Prime account.
Can you 'make' someone happy or, conversely, 'make' them unhappy? What I taught my daughters is that no one can 'make' you feel anything, your feelings belong to you. You always have the choice of how to respond. It's served them well--maybe a little too well. They're all women who know how to make themselves happy without 'needing' a partner.
And I agree completely about not trying to punish Amazon by punishing yourself. But I'm not concerned about what other people do and whether they cut back or not. Consumer activism seems a contradiction in terms. What I'm arguing for here is that it's not the right time for activism at all because we have no strategy for what we want, only what we don't want.
That last sentence is critical.
We all need to give a whole lot more attention to thinking about solutions, not just making noise about the problems.
"why individual solutions don't work"
Really?
The calvary will not be riding over the hill anytime soon to solve today's problems. Nope 95% of the time that problem will be there tomorrow unless we get off our pretty little asses and solve the problem our selves!
Happiness? Bah Humbug! Free Palestine!
Is 'Free Palestine' an individual solution? I would call that a system change. In fact, I think it's going to precipitate the biggest system change of all, in exposing those who've been manipulating all of us through the economic system (hence gov'ts, media, 'healthcare,' education, etc) for the last 3500 yrs.
Those advocating individual solutions, as I understand them, say that we should ignore global issues and concentrate on growing our own food, things that we can control. I don't think that 'waiting for the cavalry' is a fair characterization of the system changes in my book.
I'm feeling like a blue-skinned oracle with six arms when you say, "TALK to me, Tereza." So happy to be fulfilling that role and I hope the wheel is pointing to whatever you need right now, with one of those six arms ;-)
I don't remember which video that was, but you're reflecting back something I needed to remember. My brother-in-law is in his final days. I just sent a note to my ex's sister that I am thinking of him and sitting vigil from a distance. I'd like to believe that's a connection.
And aw, the story of the tissue. You're the first to comment on it. We really don't need any more judgment right now, imho. Love your oldest's phrase.
Interesting that we've both spent 20 yrs doing what Corbett recommends. It's a fine way to live. I really treasure my relationships with farmers and ranchers, that I've been cultivating for forever. But I no longer think it's really going to change anything. I still do what makes me happy but I'm also VERY happy to not have chickens for the first time in 15 years!
No offense taken but, having made this video mere hours ago, I'm still figuring out what exactly you mean. On the relationship advice, do you mean 'take responsibility for your own happiness'? It isn't to say that you shouldn't do nice things for your partner. There's a 'happiness hygiene' though, I find is helpful. Saying, "What do I want right now, to eat, to do, to wear? What will give me joy?" It doesn't take away from anyone else but it also doesn't expect your partner to read your mind.
Explain more about the male thinking and hierarchies, please? I'm not sure what that's responding to. Thanks, Decoy.
Thanks for the explanation, Decoy. On the hierarchy, I'm still confused about what I said that indicated a desire to 'bond by looking into each others' eyes and sharing our feelings.' I'd say that's the opposite of my economic plan, which is a rule-based system of distributed anarchy. That's something Corbett and I share, as I talk about in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/multipolar-vs-micropolar. Hierarchy, which is rule by rulers (archons) or power over others vs. fuzzy feel-good rule by consensus (shudder) is a false dichotomy, imo.