Ed's political rant

dayan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Do you understand what the word 'peace' means? You say you want peace but yet you call for war. If you really wanted peace then you don't want to attack others, especially not preemptively. If you want peace badly enough, you do not put it second to killing others before they can you. That is the way of war.

I'm sorry but that is just non-sensical. Peace should not come second to survival, otherwise what's the point? Peace doesn't do you much good if you're dead. I mean maybe if you're a buddhist monk attaining nirvana and a complete pacifist then you let yourself be killed rather than commit violence yourself, but if you value your life I think that sometimes you just have to fight because you've been left with no other choice.

monkey spanker

dayan wrote:

but if you value your life I think that sometimes you just have to fight because you've been left with no other choice.

nah, you're supposed to just sit back and die and then these pacifists will absolutely love you.

dayan

angelica wrote:

The way I see it, we each have the amazing ability to create/bring forth/produce beautifully and responsibly with our each act. We are empowered to cultivate peace, love and forgiveness within ourselves and by doing so, we radiate it to those around us. On the other hand, when we allow our anger and lack of problem solving ability to radiate around us, we create/bring forth/produce hatred, separation and pain.

They key here is our amazing power to choose in each moment. This is the power of our will. We reap what we sow. We get what we create. When we support violence, killing and war, that's exactly what we are jointly creating. When we're ready to en masse create peace, that's what we'll jointly create.

That is very poetic, and quite a nice thought, and I don't mean to be crude here, but try going to Iraq right now, or Afghanistan, or Chechnya, and telling that to some of the people there. The fact is there are people who are religiously devoted to killing me and you, and probably everyone else on this thread if they could. And I don't think that is an overstatement. Such people are not going to be moved by your "production" and bringing into the world of peace and happiness. And frankly we who value peace need to stand up already and realize that sometimes peace must be fought for, and now is just such a time.

angelica

dayan wrote:

That is very poetic, and quite a nice thought, and I don't mean to be crude here, but try going to Iraq right now, or Afghanistan, or Chechnya, and telling that to some of the people there. The fact is there are people who are religiously devoted to killing me and you, and probably everyone else on this thread if they could. And I don't think that is an overstatement. Such people are not going to be moved by your "production" and bringing into the world of peace and happiness. And frankly we who value peace need to stand up already and realize that sometimes peace must be fought for, and now is just such a time.

It looks like you see things a certain way and you envision the "fighting" way to "peace".

I see things very differently.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

Again, we are sowing the seeds over and over. And we reap what we sow. We get exactly what we seek. When we as a people are aligned with creating peace for the future of the world, the picture will look very, very different.

Again, it's clear we are not anywhere close to being ready to create peace.

This view is not consistent with history. History is not linear, it's cyclical. We have had periods of war - then periods of peace.

I think that it's all about competing ideologies. They grow, build momentum - and then clash. Depending on many variables, they spill over into conflict.

Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, Dictatorship - all of these ideologies have proven bankrupt, but it has taken war to discredit those views. Most of the time, it is the leader of a regime of a before-mentioned ideology that plunges his country into conflict.

For instance, I doubt seriously the people of Iraq want another war there - but they were subjigated by Saddam Hussein. This is unlike democracies where there is basically a referendum on going to war.

Basically, I am saying that war can prove to create peace. That is a totally valid thought. It is true on a small, individual scale and it is true on a large, international scale.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

This view is not consistent with history. History is not linear, it's cyclical. We have had periods of war - then periods of peace.

I think that it's all about competing ideologies. They grow, build momentum - and then clash. Depending on many variables, they spill over into conflict.

Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, Dictatorship - all of these ideologies have proven bankrupt, but it has taken war to discredit those views. Most of the time, it is the leader of a regime of a before-mentioned ideology that plunges his country into conflict.

For instance, I doubt seriously the people of Iraq want another war there - but they were subjigated by Saddam Hussein. This is unlike democracies where there is basically a referendum on going to war.

Basically, I am saying that war can prove to create peace. That is a totally valid thought. It is true on a small, individual scale and it is true on a large, international scale.

Are you talking about our history as patriarchally based people?

Eva7

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I say this with utmost respect for eddie. he has shaped my worldview and inspired me musically and politically. He isn;t one of those meatheaded rock stars who thinks they are the greatest. He is humble. However he is wrong in terms of what he said in relix mag.

He said, something along the lines of that, "there will be an antiwar leader who comes along, only when the polls show that people will support one". Ed seems to me to be a intelligent and very aware guy, the article in relix confirmed this, however, how could he say such a quote!

Since last year, same time, the same time the Karl Rove/CIA leak story heated up, the american public started souring big time on the war in iraq. Until then, the war was somewhat popular, lukewarm popular basically. Last year in the summer it became unpopular in terms of popular opinion of it. Doesn't matter the source, ABC, NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Fox news, Ny Times, La Times, all have taken polls fairly regularly, and again since July of last year, the war has been extremely unpopular. All the polls point this out. But oddly enough dems (senators, or congresspeople) arent popular either.

The polls have asked what would americans rather do: put more troops in, stay indefinitely, withdraw some, or withdraw all immediatly. The most popular choices since last year have been the latter two, withdrawing.

Granted americans dont want to pull out immediately, but americans seem to want to pull out of iraq soon, within a year or so. This isnt just a blip or because of some news in iraq. It has remained constant for a year.

Getting back to the point of the post, ed suggested americans aren't antiwar and that the polls don't reflect an american public that is antiwar.

I beg to differ. Americans overwhelmingly are antiiraq war and want troops out. Its surprising ed seemed to suggest otherwise. I mean look at the websites and reccomended websites on the ten club site. They are independent news sources who arent curropted by mainstream influence. I visit them daily myself. Which makes it all the more strange ed wouldnt be aware of said polls.

The war started out popular 70 percent were for it in the months leading up to the start of the war. Now the war is almost flipped in terms of support with nearly that amount 55-60 percent against the war and a majority of americans for withdrawing of troops in a year.

Hi Che! I think Ed is right. The antiwar people you mention are a minority in the US, and all those who have become anti-iraq war are doing so because the public opinion changes direction like a flag in the wind, according to what the media decide to tell them or not tell them. But to be a people OF PEACE means something different. The US people are not, their culture is not. In other parts of the world the situation is totally different, and if you were here in Italy when first the Afghanistan and the Iraq wars started, you would have seen the difference.

polaris

Eva7 wrote:

Hi Che! I think Ed is right. The antiwar people you mention are a minority in the US, and all those who have become anti-iraq war are doing so because the public opinion changes direction like a flag in the wind, according to what the media decide to tell them or not tell them. But to be a people OF PEACE means something different. The US people are not, their culture is not. In other parts of the world the situation is totally different, and if you were here in Italy when first the Afghanistan and the Iraq wars started, you would have seen the difference.

yup ... the fact that bush is STILL president just goes to show how useless public opinion is ... the power is no longer in the hands of the people ... it is centred around people with influence and power ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

yup ... the fact that bush is STILL president just goes to show how useless public opinion is ... the power is no longer in the hands of the people ... it is centred around people with influence and power ...

I think the power is centered in the people, and the people are speaking loudly and clearly by actions, saying: "we support war". It takes good concerted effort before the words and wishes: "we want peace", become aligned in thought and deed as well. Actions end up speaking the loudest.

polaris

angelica wrote:

I think the power is centered in the people, and the people are speaking loudly and clearly by actions, saying: "we support war". It takes good concerted effort before the words and wishes: "we want peace", become aligned in thought and deed as well. Actions end up speaking the loudest.

i will agree that actions end up speaking the loudest ... but we are talking about the most apathetic society around (i include canadians as well) ... politicians only seem to get in trouble if they are found with prostitutes but lying about war and violating civil rights and human rights codes is nothing ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

i will agree that actions end up speaking the loudest ... but we are talking about the most apathetic society around (i include canadians as well) ... politicians only seem to get in trouble if they are found with prostitutes but lying about war and violating civil rights and human rights codes is nothing ...

Oh, I completely agree. That's what I'm saying--our apathy is speaking louder than any words. By being apathetic and throwing our power away, we are choosing. I agree, too, that Canadians are in the same boat.

polaris

angelica wrote:

Oh, I completely agree. That's what I'm saying--our apathy is speaking louder than any words. By being apathetic and throwing our power away, we are choosing. I agree, too, that Canadians are in the same boat.

do you really think its a conscious choice? ... i half agree with it in that i think many people absolve themselves by choosing to be ignorant on things but some people really just have no clue ... almost brainwashed in a way thru popular culture and media ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

do you really think its a conscious choice? ... i half agree with it in that i think many people absolve themselves by choosing to be ignorant on things but some people really just have no clue ... almost brainwashed in a way thru popular culture and media ...

No, I don't think it's a conscious choice for most. It's often an unconscious choice. Yet it's a choice nonetheless. If people realised what they were really accountable for they would choose very differently. Most people believe that the way it is is the way it has to be. By believing they are powerless and that war has to happen, they just sit back and support what happens while justifying why it has to be about that. It's not that they can't choose differently, they just don't realise they are the main character in their very own lives. They look around and expect everyone else to do it for them.

We are brainwashed to a degree, and yet, all it takes is a willingness to start thinking, choosing and acting for one's self that makes the difference. The brainwashing does not keep us locked in. Our choice to believe the brainwashing and to believe in the lies and the limits locks us in. We can simply step beyond accepting the idea of victimisation any time we choose to do so. We can come to believe in the power of our own actions, thereby becoming authentically empowered.

polaris

angelica wrote:

No, I don't think it's a conscious choice for most. It's often an unconscious choice. Yet it's a choice nonetheless. If people realised what they were really accountable for they would choose very differently. Most people believe that the way it is is the way it has to be. By believing they are powerless and that war has to happen, they just sit back and support what happens while justifying why it has to be about that. It's not that they can't choose differently, they just don't realise they are the main character in their very own lives. They look around and expect everyone else to do it for them.

We are brainwashed to a degree, and yet, all it takes is a willingness to start thinking, choosing and acting for one's self that makes the difference. The brainwashing does not keep us locked in. Our choice to believe the brainwashing and to believe in the lies and the limits locks us in. We can simply step beyond accepting the idea of victimisation any time we choose to do so. We can come to believe in the power of our own actions, thereby becoming authentically empowered.

yeah ... well ... where does that leave us besides royally screwed??

angelica

polaris wrote:

yeah ... well ... where does that leave us besides royally screwed??

It is what it is. It's not a pretty picture, that's for sure. For myself, I'll gladly detach myself from the insanity, the lies, the deception and the chaos that's being created. There is no way I'll support one more moment of that. This way I'm freed up to do my part.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

Are you talking about our history as patriarchally based people?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I was speaking in broad terms about the history of the human race in general.

angelica

NCfan wrote:

I'm not sure what you are asking. I was speaking in broad terms about the history of the human race in general.

For how many years are you talking? Hundreds? Thousands? Are you referring to history of this century? Are you speaking of history of 5,000 years ago?

NCfan

angelica wrote:

For how many years are you talking? Hundreds? Thousands? Are you referring to history of this century? Are you speaking of history of 5,000 years ago?

Oh, I think it goes back to the begining when humans first started walking the earth. It is our nature to improve our circumstances and lives - to better our civillization.

It started out in search of things such as how to feed ourselves better, how to shelter ourselves better. And as society has progressed and gotten more advanced, the initiatives have changed somewhat. But fighting amongst ourselves has always been a part of the dynamic.

When it comes to the ultimate goal of lasting peace, I think those in the lazy, affluent West are on a totally different wave-length than others. And this disconnet is one of the biggest reasons we cannot achieve peace - we don't understand each other's view of the world.

We sit around and play on our laptops, fly across the country, listen to our Ipods and eat ourselves into oblivion. We wonder why anybody would need to fight.

But many other societies are much less fortunate than us, and they do not see the thearputic world that we have built around ourselves. They see a much harsher reality than we do. They understand life and death in a way we do not.

I've often wondered while looking at old black and white photographs, seeing portraits of families where everybody has a stone cold look across their face. I think that expression speaks of their life-view. I could be dead wrong, but I see it as a reflection of a group that is proud to be here in an unpredictable and unfair world. As just one example of the difference, they were used to the fact that one or more of their children wouldn't make it to adulthood. And this was merely 100 years ago, or less.

I feel that one day there will be world peace, but that it will come all at once. It will be as if all the people of the world are holding hands at one time, and we collectivelly decide to "jump" if you will.

I think thoughout history, a thousand years ago - people understood how stupid we are to kill each other. But the reason we have continued to do it, is to preserve our civilizations, self-preservation.

You, me and a ten million others in our country could hold the non-violence view - but that isn't going to bring about peace when our adversaries aren't "holding hands too".

So it has to start somewhere, but I believe other cultures have to progress hundreds of years and evolve before they are willing to join hands with us.

Until then, I'm going to support the idea of war in self defence. I want to make sure that the day will come where we can all hold hands. And I think without the US leading the way, it would only set world peace back - maybe even derail it entirely.

Remember, there are people like Hitler and Stalin roaming the world - now and in the future. If we are not armed and prepared to kill off these pathologies, then their ideologies will spread and take over the earth....

In the begining of the 21st century, war is unfortunately a very real and needed part of our existence.

surferdude

angelica wrote:

In your opinion, can man create happiness?

create: bring into being.
To give rise to; produce

produce: To bring forth

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/produce

I think happiness and peace are natural states, and cannot be produced or created by humans. They do require that we accept them. It is only our meddling that disturbs these natural states.

angelica

I appreciate your thought out response, NCfan.

NCfan wrote:

Oh, I think it goes back to the begining when humans first started walking the earth. It is our nature to improve our circumstances and lives - to better our civillization.

It started out in search of things such as how to feed ourselves better, how to shelter ourselves better. And as society has progressed and gotten more advanced, the initiatives have changed somewhat. But fighting amongst ourselves has always been a part of the dynamic.

I agree that conflict has and will continue to be a part of the dynamic. We have choices on how to deal with our conflicts, though. Do we want to subscribe to a hierarchal view--where one must dominate and the other must lose/submit? Can we envision ways to solve our problems that allow each person to win? Ideas of win-win are rapidly permeating the core of our society throughout businesses far and wide. "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come"! (Victor Hugo quote)

Psychology has designed the ways to resolve our problems. The methods are there for when we are ready to look to problem solve in conflict. That includes for our leaders. They have these options readily available to choose from.

Escalating violance and "one-upping" the other is a power play seeking dominance, not resolution. We're clearly choosing one over the other. By seeking dominance, we seek to make another lose and therefore we guarantee "payback" for ourselves. The other is completely responsible for their violence and actions. And we are fully responsible for the payback we create for ourselves. Our own choice dictates the inevitable consequences we ensure for ourselves when we implement imbalanced methods of coping (dominance at the cost of problem solving). When we solve our problems, they go away. When they do not go away, we are not solving them. It's pretty simple.

When it comes to the ultimate goal of lasting peace, I think those in the lazy, affluent West are on a totally different wave-length than others. And this disconnet is one of the biggest reasons we cannot achieve peace - we don't understand each other's view of the world.

We sit around and play on our laptops, fly across the country, listen to our Ipods and eat ourselves into oblivion. We wonder why anybody would need to fight.

But many other societies are much less fortunate than us, and they do not see the thearputic world that we have built around ourselves. They see a much harsher reality than we do. They understand life and death in a way we do not.

I agree that others understand life and death in a way we do not.

I see what you are saying about our therapuetic world. At the same time, I think we cushion ourselves with our disorders and dysfunctions. We keep ourselves numb and fuel the disconnect. We lose touch with our own wisdom while "imagining" we have it all. When we don't have connection to life, and truth, we have very little.

I feel that one day there will be world peace, but that it will come all at once. It will be as if all the people of the world are holding hands at one time, and we collectivelly decide to "jump" if you will.

I agree for the most part. This peace will appear to come at once, but to those who work tirelessly to bring it into being--our frontrunners and visionaries, they will know otherwise. Those in the 60's who sang and talked about it, they will know otherwise. Our silent angels and others around us who are operating on principles of building up and constructing responsibly while shunning destruction will have full awareness of the perfection of the process. The masses who are not so visionary will see such change as happening all at once. Once the ideas of peace permeate our societies from the fringes, and the ideas resonate and take root within the collective unconscious of humans, times will change.

You, me and a ten million others in our country could hold the non-violence view - but that isn't going to bring about peace when our adversaries aren't "holding hands too".

The reason peace will eventually happen is because worldwide enough people will have bought into the idea in thought, word and deed. When enough of us are willing to support it, others will fall into step. There will be little to hate for fringe hate-groups when problem solving and fairness is the name of the game. When people's hatred is dealt with and resolved it will go away. Contrarily, while we support escalating power plays, we continue to create the violence that echoes back for our children to "inherit".

Until then, I'm going to support the idea of war in self defence. I want to make sure that the day will come where we can all hold hands. And I think without the US leading the way, it would only set world peace back - maybe even derail it entirely.

You are entitled to your choices. You are also 100% responsible for your choices.

Remember, there are people like Hitler and Stalin roaming the world - now and in the future. If we are not armed and prepared to kill off these pathologies, then their ideologies will spread and take over the earth....

In the begining of the 21st century, war is unfortunately a very real and needed part of our existence.

When I see a hint of psychological awareness of how the problems of mental pathology arises, when I see an iota of awareness on how to resolve such problems, I will take heart in knowing we are truly creating constructively.

As I look around and see us continuing to create that which we fear, I don't buy that we are being constructive. Destruction is not peace. Destruction is not a preventative measure. That's the illusion we sign up for, my friend. We're merely clinging to the hook, the line and the sinker.