20) The link between Iraq and Syria

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/june/13/don%E2%80%99t-compound-the-damage-already-done-in-iraq-by-doubling-down-in-syria.aspx

6) Conspiracy Theories

As I write this the United States is in the process of drumming up support for a Strike on Syria.  The reasoning offered is that the strike is necessary as a result of chemical weapons having been used by the Syrian government against it’s own people.  The difference between the few thousand dying by chemical warfare and the previous 90 000 dying by conventional weaponry isn't immediately apparent; perhaps the distinction will be clarified later. Before getting into this issue specifically or making comparison in the rhetoric used by George W. Bush previously in getting the support required for the invasion of Iraq (using non-existent WMD’s as his main selling point) I would prefer to take step back and look at the bigger picture.

The truth is that almost none of us understand what goes on behind closed doors in affairs governing world politics.  The issues themselves are certainly more complex and inter-related than the reasoning provided in the casual conversations I've been privy to. One thing does strike my as very relevant to the themes being introduced by this blog, that aspect is that many people appear very certain in their world view and align their pride and ego with a particular position.  Once the line is drawn in the sand the views and strong opinions invariably need to be defended and eyes are no longer open and free to process information clearly.  We become politically or ideologically aligned and begin to confuse our issues once we commit to a “side”.

I’m incredibly disappointed by this because I feel that the issues are not dealt with in a satisfying manner and the reporting via the already heavily politically aligned news networks reflects this polarizing stance.  Western political lobbying systems and corporate/political interchangeability have inherently built this element into the system even though no particularly sinister puppet master is required to pull the strings.

On the opposite side of the spectrum we have a collection of thematically interesting maverick perspectives that are either fervently supported or vehemently written off as crack-pot conspiracy theorists.  Many of the people or groups to get it wrong in the sense that they often claim to have all the answers or draw conclusions from incompletely formed or half true essential facts.  What has sent a chill down my spine is the fact that for every idea that turns out to be false, there is one that turns out to be true.  I have been following many of these theories for some years now, and while I am not a follower or supporter of many of these perspectives in the true sense, I have been struck by how much of it is verifiable or predicted in advance.  I lost a frustrating long argument in this vein recently with a well informed friend who predicted the “US Empire builders shopping list” as Afghanistan – Iraq – Syria – Iran – (in that order) in the early 2000’s.  He even went as far to mention political destabilizing movements in Libya, Egypt and Turkey.  It’s hard to completely dismiss the fact that something that resembles an agenda is a possibility.  It’s even more difficult to accept that the news “As Reported” is unfolding for the reasons we led to believe.

I’ll be getting stuck into some of these issues in my next post, but I’ll be following public attitudes closely to see if there is any maturing of public assimilation and processing of these ideas, and whether any balance or even perspective is appreciated over the taking of contrary positions without having all the information available to us.

As far as dismissing people wholesale as “crack-pots” or “conspiracy-nuts”, I do not, because for me some of these people do not have to be 100% on the money, just a kernel of truth is worrying enough.  There are those that have elements of such truths and the evidence is overwhelming yet pitted more often against spin and propaganda that evidence to the contrary.

In the meantime here are some links; each has something to offer, even in those cases where some have been exposed to varying degrees (often by unscrupulous attempts to discredit the sources due to the inherent agendas).  Add the awareness's to your mental arsenal without committing to them.  Use them as consideration points if you must, disagree if need. I do not advocate subscribing wholesale to any of them, but believe me, there is an important message in most of them if you are free to read and process without emotional reaction.  I must confess, have included one or two more extreme perspectives, just for fun:

• http://wikileaks.org/
• http://ronpaulinstitute.org/home.aspx 
• http://occupywallst.org/
• http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
• http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid 
• http://www.thevenusproject.com/
• http://www.johnperkins.org/
• 
  

5) RESPECT

I always thought this word described something that was earned.  A sincere and genuine sentiment inspired in us by another.  I Respect Rafael Nadals ability to hold his own, even on clay, against the rising talent of Novak Djokavic despite the latter’s apparent talent dominance in men’s tennis at the moment. I respect him because he still able to win quite often, even though arguably outgunned.  It shows a certain mental quality that I recognize, admire and possibly even envy.

I’m sure the above is a simple enough statement and an understandable sentiment.  It’s what I feel rightly or wrongly, so I can state it freely.  Nobody should be able to hold your true feelings against you, even though they can perhaps moderate how you express them if there is a danger they may harm others.

What is to be the appropriate reaction then, to a screaming politician like former youth league leader Julius Malema demanding respect but not showing it?  What about a terrorist organization demanding respect for the Prophet Mohammed, and threatening death to those daring to render his image in cartoon or otherwise?  How much respect can be shown to someone’s symbol when they have made clear their reciprocal value on your life?

Can respect be demanded or even requested?  Can it only be earned?  What is the feeling out there?

In terms of our cultural identities and the inherited ritual and ceremony inherent in them, there are two aspects to re-individualizing or freeing ourselves.  The first aspect is severing the ties that currently bind us to a value system.  The second is finding and knowing ourselves, developing the self awareness to get in touch with that part oneself that makes us an individual.

Let’s look at the first aspect, severing the ties.  What holds us back? 

I seriously put forward that respect, unnecessary respect, is corrupting our ability to recognize ineffectual and outdated value systems, and holding us tied to them because respect is seen as an absolute noble quality with context and application largely misunderstood and ignored.  

What happens if we experiment with the context and application to highlight true motives of control and hypocrisy inherent in them?

Let’s look at religion in particular, a huge cultural identifier.

I propose that you cannot possibly respect somebody if you have to pretend to respect their unrealistic beliefs in order to keep the peace.  You can only show respect to them if you feel free in front of them to express to them that you feel their beliefs are out of touch with reality, but that you respect and defend their right to believe what they want, as long it does not infringe on the rights of others, surely?

As an atheist/agnostic whatever your definition requirements are, I seldom receive this “respect” in return for my lack of belief in a supernatural creator from the religious, only requests to respect their particular deity/dogma.  I’m often called cowardly or a “Fence Sitter” (illogically if you think about it). Why respect is typically only expected to work this way around is a mystery, why can’t I be the one getting offended if I am made to say “grace” or whatever, just out of some sort of expected manners protocol?  I say poor manners the other way around rather by expecting me to do it!?

The consequence of embarrassment should be felt by person that believes in magic and want to have it seriously put forward as an option for everyone, not by the reasonable person who relies on evidence and tangible sensory perception?  Why get embarrassed by offending people who are choosing to take offence by restricting your freedom of expression?

They are free to pursue their beliefs, but I respect them too much as a person to respect their supernatural beliefs and I would rather engage in occasional healthy honest debate if they require it, than avoid them a permanent basis because I threaten their particular delusion and I have to pussyfoot around the topic in case I offend.

Nobody has the right to take offense if you speak about how you feel in a way that is not insulting.  I can think religion is absurd and still have religious friends, I can think lime milkshake is revolting and still have friends that drink it.  I do not think they are absurd or revolting.  We need to learn to not confuse our issues, that’s where respect comes into the picture honestly.

Viva la difference, lose the fear and ditch the unnecessary respect, cut the first tie that binds!

This is the first freedom we take for ourselves, nobody will give it to you, and you need to take it!  

2) IDENTITY

Here is a table showing the different religious grouping in South Africa according to the 2001 national Census.

 

SA Census 2001 

Denomination	Adherents
Dutch Reformed churches	3,005,697
Zion Christian churches	4,971,931
Catholic churches	3,181,332
Methodist churches	3,035,719
Pentecostal/Charismatic churches	3,695,211
Anglican churches	1,722,076
Apostolic Faith Mission	246,193
Lutheran churches	1,130,983
Presbyterian churches	832,497
Bandla Lama Nazaretha	248,825
Baptist churches	691,235
Congregational churches	508,826
Orthodox churches	42,253
Other Apostolic churches	5,627,320
Other Zionist churches	1,887,147
Ethiopian type churches	1,150,102
Other Reformed churches	226,499
Other African independent churches	656,644
Other Christian churches	2,890,151
African traditional belief	125,898
Judaism	75,549
Hinduism	551,668
Islam	654,064
Other beliefs	283,815
No religion	6,767,165
Undetermined	610,974

I think when this is considered, and knowing a little about South Africa’s history of oppression and our stated goal of a “Rainbow Nation” we can see the value of living in a secular society.  Secularism in essence advocates that government Institutions, political decisions, legal principles etc should be neutral on the influence of any religious group as far as possible, especially one groups interests over another’s.  It will naturally be extremely difficult to be completely secular, but from I can ascertain we do a fairly good job of that element over here along with the racial element, possibly as a result of our past and carefully considered constitution.

Some parts of the world don’t work this way, like Pakistan for example, but I’ve learned from interaction on social media sites that idea’s on free thinking are spreading, and indoctrination by one group over another seems to be on the way out.  The events in the last few years regarding Egypt, Libya, Syria etc seem to re-enforce the notion that we are moving in a general direction where dictatorships and overt oppression are no longer tolerated by populations.  The more subtle forms of oppression will possibly re addressed next.  I’m fairly sure there will be fireworks along the way, but I’m sure we will get there or thereabouts.

Most of history has been defined by the spread and clash of civilizations and ideologies, crusades have happened and wars have been fought, the dust is still settling.  The future in a shrinking world, in my opinion, belongs to tolerance and co-operation rather than to division and war.

In order to get there each group has to look at its values and be willing and open to change if needed, and this cannot always be guaranteed if some or other absolute morality is perceived to exist unchallenged from an all knowing god. That would equate openness to new ideas with going against god’s word.

The very religious also cite lack of ability to disprove the existence of god as very good reason to require no evidence whatsoever.  Here “Faith” is seen as a quality of strength rather than as a weakness and the scientific method of requiring evidence and repeatable results is regarded with suspicion.  I am typing this on a computer, so I know that works and even though religion has never offered anything provable beyond some sort of intangible emotional solace, it will persist for some time to come, possibly as long as we are around.

There are two ways around this roadblock; one is by undermining the current understanding of our translation / interpretation of the holy texts.  This will introduce an element of doubt into our version of god’s word, rather than god’s ACTUAL word.  This might provide scope for compromise where there was previously none and I will devote a section of this blog to doing precisely that in an upcoming chapter.

But what if there is another way?  What if the power to bring us together and remove unwarranted prejudice lies at the level of the individual instead of the group?

This leads me to the central theme of this blog.  How free are WE to process information, make decisions and to know ourselves?  We may be legally free, but are we really free from other influences that may use coercion or duress or enforce a sense of community identity that may have values that are at odds with our individual identity? What about exploring aspects of another group that we are curious about because it inspires some sort of passion and belonging in us?

What I am proposing is that we are finally at a stage when we have constitutional backing to be more than just our inherited identities. It will serve us well to ditch unquestioned absolute morality to get in touch with values that resound with us on a personal level, even if it is at odds with defining values that we inherited through our cultural background.

1) TRUST

Words relating to motive are very interesting because they are not communicative when the underlying principles are associated with moral judgments and values. Unlike “Chair” or “God” their application absolutely must be deconstructed into separate principles.  The principles expose deeply attached needs to control and influence, and I suspect these principles sabotage freedom to live authentically.

Let s start with a short, sweet contentious issue.  I’m going to put forward that the notion of trustworthiness as an absolutely noble quality is highly corrupting of self awareness, and is one of the subtlest mechanisms of control parading as worthiness.

Without even getting into the political reasons why trustworthiness is afforded, we can expose the control mechanism in principle, as a fundamental fraud.

Let’s look at romantic relationships, universally relatable as part of the human condition.

Scenario 1)

One partner expects a certain code of conduct to be forthcoming in order to remain part of a relationship, perhaps monogamy or certain social or family involvements.  A closed parameter is created, rules and set up and the contract is negotiated.  That is the requirement of this partner.  If the other partner values the union they will need to conduct themselves in accordance with this requirement to keep the relationship going.

With this barrier in place the second partner is no longer free to act in a way that may have been consistent with their unrestricted nature, perhaps shagging everything that moves, and the first partner has declared that their interest is not in getting to know how partner number 2 functions, but in controlling or moderating their behavior. Partner 2 has been restrained, and partner 1 will police this issue indefinitely because because a natural behavior has been adjusted.  Will partner 1 ever be able to "trust" partner 2 with this element in play?

Scenario 2)

Now let turn the approach around.  Partner number 1 meets partner number 2 and no rules are established. The objective is establishing compatibility, Partner 1 gets to observe partner 2 operating freely and is able to evaluate their natural un-moderated behavior and make a decision I consider to be well informed.  Perhaps partner number 1 decides that this aspect (The excessive need for sexual partners) is (understandably) a deal breaker and the 2 separate as a result. “We want different things”

Scenario 3)

Partner number 2 from each of the above hook up, and express mutual interest in swinging or shagging the town red together.  They get to have this relationship together and enjoy it for whatever it offers them, and deal with whatever fallout emerges.  Consequences can be freely assessed and moderation to their behaviors can be self realized rather than policed.

The same could be said for the goals, IE do you want children?  The values of finding someone who wants what you want are just as or more important except the values and judgment are less inherent.  If we are deceived here (it happens) you would have been unlikely to pose the question "can I trust you to want children" since it is recognized as a choice with slightly less judgment of right and wrong either way, which free's us somewhat to negotiate the terms for what they are rather than bringing trust into the equation.

Trust is earned, it's the product of upholding your end of the deal and delivering on promises, not a tool to get there.

These are scenarios are contrived to illustrate my point, but I see a clear case being made for the benefit of being able to truly evaluate and ascertain reality in order to best manage it, rather than live an illusion based on control and manipulation, all along feeling justified because you are in the right and as result have no understanding of the need to be free from fantasy.

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.