Moving Beyond Us vs. Them

brainpickings

By Maria Popova

Carl Sagan on Moving Beyond Us vs. Them, Bridging Conviction with Compassion, and Meeting Ignorance with Kindness

“In the course of looking deeply within ourselves, we may challenge notions that give comfort before the terrors of the world.”

“Unless we are very, very careful,” wrote psychologist-turned-artist Anne Truitt in contemplating compassion and the cure for our chronic self-righteousness, “we doom each other by holding onto images of one another based on preconceptions that are in turn based on indifference to what is other than ourselves.” She urged for “the honoring of others in a way that grants them the grace of their own autonomy and allows mutual discovery.” But how are we to find in ourselves the capacity — the willingness — to honor otherness where we see only ignorance and bigotry in beliefs not only diametrically opposed to our own but dangerous to the very fabric of society?

That’s what Carl Sagan (November 9, 1934–December 20, 1996) explores with characteristic intelligence and generosity of spirit in the seventeenth chapter of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (public library) — the masterwork published shortly before his death, which gave us Sagan on science as a tool of democracy and his indispensable Baloney Detection Kit.

Sagan considers how we can bridge conviction and compassion in dealing with those who disagree with and even attack our beliefs. Although he addresses the particular problems of pseudoscience and superstition, his elegant and empathetic argument applies to any form of ignorance and bigotry. He explores how we can remain sure-footed and rooted in truth and reason when confronted with such dangerous ideologies, but also have a humane and compassionate intention to understand the deeper fears and anxieties out of which such unreasonable beliefs arise in those who hold them

He writes:

When we are asked to swear in American courts of law — that we will tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” — we are being asked the impossible. It is simply beyond our powers. Our memories are fallible; even scientific truth is merely an approximation; and we are ignorant about nearly all of the Universe…

[…]

If it is to be applied consistently, science imposes, in exchange for its manifold gifts, a certain onerous burden: We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are… Because its explanatory power is so great, once you get the hang of scientific reasoning you’re eager to apply it everywhere. However, in the course of looking deeply within ourselves, we may challenge notions that give comfort before the terrors of the world.

Sagan notes that all of us are deeply attached to and even defined by our beliefs, for they define our reality and are thus elemental to our very selves, so any challenge to our core beliefs tends to feel like a personal attack. This is equally true of ourselves as it is of those who hold opposing beliefs — such is the human condition. He considers how we can reconcile our sense of intellectual righteousness with our human fallibility:

In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

But kindness, Sagan cautions, doesn’t mean assent — there are instances, like when we are faced with bigotry and hate speech, in which we absolutely must confront and critique these harmful beliefs, for “every silent assent will encourage [the person] next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice.” He writes:

If we offer too much silent assent about [ignorance] — even when it seems to be doing a little good — we abet a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.

The greatest detriment to reason, Sagan argues, is that we let our reasonable and righteous convictions slip into self-righteousness, that deadly force of polarization:

The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive… Whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted. If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes, or those who pin their hopes on crystals from Atlantis.

Or, say, those who vote for a racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, climate-change-denying political leader.

Sagan’s central point is that we humans — all of us — are greatly perturbed by fear, anxiety, and uncertainty, and in seeking to becalm ourselves, we sometimes anchor ourselves to irrational and ignorant ideologies that offer certitude and stability, however illusory. In understanding those who succumb to such false refuges, Sagan calls for “compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest.” Echoing 21-year-old Hillary Rodham’s precocious assertion that “we are all of us exploring a world that none of us understand,” he argues that the dangerous beliefs of ignorance arise from “the feeling of powerlessness in a complex, troublesome and unpredictable world.”

In envisioning a society capable of cultivating both critical thinking and kindness, Sagan’s insistence on the role and responsibility of the media resonates with especial poignancy today:

Both skepticism and wonder are skills that need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education. I’d love to see such a domestic felicity portrayed in the media, television especially: a community of people really working the mix — full of wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing nothing except for good reason, but at the same time, and as second nature, demanding stringent standards of evidence — and these standards applied with at least as much rigor to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to reject with impunity.

The Demon-Haunted World remains one of the great intellectual manifestos of the past century. Complement it with Sagan on science and spirituality, his timeless toolkit for critical thinking, and this lovely animated adaptation of his famous Pale Blue Dot monologue about our place in the cosmos.

..

The world will be saved by regular people, most of whom know nothing of economic theory

FEE

by Max Hill

Sorry Bloomberg, We Are Just Getting Started

Noah Smith argues in Libertarianism’s Time Has Come and Gone that while libertarianism may have been useful during the 20th century, its ideas are becoming irrelevant and anachronistic. People, he believes, may have once had a reason to be skeptical of big government, but no longer.

Well, when ideas are irrelevant, people usually don’t spend time writing articles attacking them, so I’m not sure how much I believe the author. In any case, he’s wrong.

Who Libertarians Are

As Smith would have us believe, libertarianism — at least, the kind that most economists know — takes a stark, simple view of human relations. Individuals are atomistic entities, acting in voluntary contractual relationships.

Must we really point out that Friedman and Nozick both rejected “atomistic individualism” and spent their whole careers on the complexity of human community and the tendency of coercion to shatter it? Indeed, the capacity of markets to weave beautiful human relationships – not limited to contractual ones – has been a theme of the liberty tradition for hundreds of years.

The author sets up a strawman based on nothing and then knocks it down. When they have to create ridiculous caricatures to refute you, you win.

The Long Tradition

Modern libertarianism is the latest chapter in a centuries long struggle for human freedom. Prior to the 20th century, we were called liberals. Before that we were simply called rebels and traitors. Whatever names we’ve gone by, we’ve always been around and we always will be.

The modern libertarian movement is also much more ideologically diverse than the author realizes. In fact, many newcomers to libertarian ideas are shocked to discover how much libertarians fight with each other. We draw our ideas not only from Friedman and Nozick, but also from Bastiat, Proudhon, Molinari, Rothbard, Stirner, Mises, Hayek, and hundreds of other thinkers. In fact, the “night-watchman state” libertarians the author derides as idealistic and extreme are increasingly viewed as the tame moderates in the libertarian movement.

The “new political philosophies” the author thinks people are looking for aren’t actually new except to those ignorant of history. These ideas go by many names and take many forms, but all share the common fallacy that some people know best how to live other people’s lives. Libertarianism is the unqualified rejection of this assertion. We believe that the knowledge necessary for a peaceful society to thrive is not embedded in a few wise, benevolent individuals, but in society itself.

No Perfect Society

Far from being utopians, libertarians are probably the only ones who aren’t naively trying to perfect society. Libertarians labor under no delusion that they are going to save the world. The world will be saved by regular people, most of whom know nothing of economic theory or libertarian philosophy, as they serve each other in markets and pursue their own self-interest. Libertarians understand this and want to stop anyone who would interfere.

The author rightly notes that the state does not have a monopoly on oppression. That he thinks libertarians concern themselves only with state oppression betrays a fundamental understanding of why we believe what we do. We oppose all forms of oppression; we simply see the state as the greatest source of it.

Market competition and choice does more for oppressed individuals and marginalized groups than any well-intentioned bureaucrat could ever dream of doing.

---

That libertarians don’t offer a solution for every problem often frustrates people who don’t believe people can solve their own problems.

---

The individual whose boss tasks him with menial tasks for trivial reasons would benefit more from having more employment options than he would from a bureaucrat making rules protecting people with bad haircuts. In fact, employers face additional cost (and an associated competitive disadvantage) when they discriminate on bases that don’t actually relate to their businesses success.

Our advocacy of a laissez faire regulatory environment stems not from an ignorance of social ills, but from a keen awareness of them and a belief that markets provide much more powerful remedies.

That libertarians don’t offer a solution for every problem often frustrates people who don’t believe people can solve their own problems. Look around and think about the complexity of the systems and networks that people form as they go about their lives trying to create value for others.

Even the efforts that result in a simple pencil are almost unfathomably complex and yet humans figure it out because people want pencils. Yes, the government may claim a monopoly or near monopoly on certain aspects of that system, but do you honestly believe that a species as clever as ours wouldn’t find a way to solve the same problems through other means?

You and I are the beneficiaries of millions of entrepreneurs, inventors, innovators, and problem solvers who see the world differently. Fortunately, those people will always exist and create prosperity despite the lack of imagination in those who turn to government to solve problems.

A New Era in the Fight for Freedom

I’ve had the opportunity to peruse Leonard E. Read’s journal, which contains a first hand account of the libertarian movement through much of the 20th century. The tone is always optimistic, but frequently exasperated. Until recently, the only avenues libertarians had to advance the cause of human freedom were in the halls of government. No wonder Leonard was exasperated. Heroic though the efforts of 20th century libertarians were, they made little progress in advancing human freedom through politics.

---

It is the political approach to advancing freedom whose time has come and gone, not the goal of creating a more free society.

---

But we aren’t living in the 20th century any more. It is the political approach to advancing freedom whose time has come and gone, not the goal of creating a more free society.

While we may see some targets of opportunity in the political realm, libertarians are increasingly leveraging technology to promote a freer society. Not only does social media make it much easier to spread our ideas, but the very fact that individuals can so easily network with each other undermines the state’s ability to control society, regardless of its intentions.

Justifying a war is much harder when we can communicate with and see the humanity of those the government wants to wage war against. Until war has been relinquished to the past, you can rest assured that libertarians will be loudly denouncing it and celebrating and promoting anything that makes it less likely.

Enemies of liberty have long sought to control people by controlling currency. We’ve been fighting those attempts for just as long and now we may have the technology to win that fight once and for all. Cryptocurrencies remove the need to trust others to not debase the currency. The state undoubtedly doesn’t want this competition to its currency monopoly, but in time, it will have to compete just the same.

Also gone are the days of trusting the government to respect our privacy. Encryption and other security measures are increasingly being built into the technologies we use to communicate with each other. This, like innovations in cryptocurrencies, is being done without permission from our would-be overlords.

So no, libertarianism will not be relegated to the 20th century. Our ideas are just as relevant as they have always been, and we’re more effective at spreading them than ever before. Individuals will continue to create innovative solutions to problems that slow-minded politicians preposterously believe can only be solved through violence. Our tactics may change, but rest assured, libertarians are just getting started.

---

Max is a PhD student at Georgia Tech studying nuclear engineering and a web intern at FEE. His research interests include fusion reactor dynamics, technology commercialization, and the future of energy policy.

---

..

Why Is Independence So Frightening To Some People?

twoicefloes

By Brandon Smith

(Cognitive Dissonance – I feel it is far more important to do as you say rather than say what you should do. In other words, action speaks far louder than any words could or ever will. With this in mind, the following piece by Brandon Smith posted over two years ago on September 4, 2014 never grows old and bears repeating.)

In past articles I have examined the nature of power and division in our society and have always come to the same conclusion, that there are only two types of people: the people who want control over others and the people who just want to be left alone. However, there are also subgroups that swim within the boundaries of each end of the spectrum. Often, psychologists and self-help gurus attempt to promote the idea that the defining quality of the average person’s life is whether he is a follower or a leader. I have seen this spectrum applied to every political and social organization.

Ironically, I have heard so-called “leftists” argue that the nature of their ideology makes them more adept at leadership and that conservatives are more prone to become followers (ostensibly because conservatives tend to be more religious). I have heard the same argument from people on the so-called “right,” only in reverse. The problem is that very few people in our society understand anymore what it actually means to be a leader. Most Americans today are followers, whether they know it or not.  And sadly, followers tend to also seek out control over other people, if only to make up for the lack of control they feel in their own lives.  That is to say, most followers tend to pursue petty opportunities for leadership.

The concept of leadership has become ridiculously warped. Many people feel that to become a leader, one must clamor his way through the system — be it government or corporate — and achieve artificial status, which others are conditioned to recognize and respect. One cannot become a designated “doctor”, no matter how personally skilled the individual, without earning the correct accolades from the establishment, accolades that are essentially bought at the right price or given as a pat on the head to those who excel at parroting the mainstream consensus. The same goes for scientists, economists, political authorities, etc. This creates a professional class, a percentage of the population whose opinions are treated with immediate reverence simply because of their titles.

The reality often ignored in mainstream thought, however, is that many “professionals” are actually more clueless than laymen, if only because they have been subjected to far more complex indoctrination.  How many Ivy League economists, for instance, completely overlooked the inevitable collapse of the derivatives market and the housing bubble simply because they were taught by the mainstream system that such things do not happen in American finance anymore?  The truth is, a glossy diploma from the establishment does not necessarily make one intelligent, nor does it automatically make that person a leader to be blindly followed.

Others in our culture assume that leadership is measured by level of influence. Influence, however, can be stolen, rather than earned. The number of fans and worshipers a person retains is not a measure of the real man or woman. Some people lie about who they are to gain popularity, while other people devour such lies because they are desperate for an icon to show them the path to an imaginary promised land. Celebrity — whether by aid of media, finance or bureaucracy — is almost always superficial.

Still other men and women believe that leadership requires empty gestures of cultural rebellion. Do our style preferences, body art, sexual orientations, musical tastes, obscure philosophical hobbies and elitist attitudes really make us different or unique? No, they do not. These things are an expression of our orientation to others, not an expression of our inner selves. One can live a life immersed in what we believe to be the wildly eccentric and still be an empty follower, devoid of originality and independence.  My generation in particular has become so obsessed with superficial expressions of artificial individualism I think future historians will one day avidly study this era in stupified wonder.  How many times a day do we log on to our social media website of choice or walk outside our homes only to ask other people to love and adore our looks, our cynical but smarmy sense of nihilism, or our wit, carefully crafted to please as large a portion of the collective as possible?

This article from NaturalNews.com really says it all.  Even when putting on elaborate displays of their brilliant uniqueness through “selfies” and tweets, Americans today at their darker core are desperate for the approval of others.

Carl Jung, one of the few psychologists in history I actually find useful, once said that all human beings are in search of a particular treasure, a psychological or spiritual treasure that is unique to them and makes them whole. Many people spend the entirety of their lives searching for this treasure in the world around them, rather than looking within, and they end their days feeling mostly miserable and thwarted. They look for it in politics. They look for it in religious representatives (without ever understanding their true relation to the religion). They look for it in wealth and stature. And they always come up short. This is the life of the follower, a life of endless transference in which complete happiness is always outside of oneself, somewhere over the horizon or in the hands of others.

One might ask what any of this has to do with independence and liberty? But, consider the implications…

How many socialists and collectivists in the world think THEIR happiness is dependent on the taxation of YOUR savings and labor, YOUR acceptance, YOUR submission to their ideal society. How many collectivists seek to complete themselves by forcing others to participate in their philosophical fantasies? How many of them will call you a “narcissist” or a “terrorist” because you only wish to make your own decisions free from the social pressures of their arbitrary group? They do not look within; they look without. And if you happen to be standing in their field of vision, you might become a prop in their self-serving theater.

Also consider that such collectivists will never be satisfied with the control they find in the outside world because the perfection they seek does not exist.  Therefore, their efforts to force you to conform will only become more suffocating and demeaning to your humanity as time goes on.  Followers are a cancer that never stops growing.  They well eat up the Earth in order to diminish their fears.  They’ll say they are doing it for the greater good, but in the end, they are only self absorbed brats playing at being socially responsible adults.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many within the Liberty Movement who also suffer from the follower’s disease. They are the relentless crybabies on message boards screaming: “We keep talking about the problem but when are YOU going to give us a solution!?” Or they ask: “When is EVERYONE going to stand up and do something about this!?”  Or, “When are all of you going to realize the magnificence of MY solution and follow ME?” Notice the inclusiveness of such statements.  What they should be asking is:  “What can I do myself to fix the problems I perceive?” These people are always waiting around for someone else to take action, while never taking action on their own. They are followers by default of their own apathy.

These are the folks looking for the next George Washington (or to become the next George Washington) on a white steed ready to charge into the center of D.C. like some ill fated Light Brigade.  They are the bitter pills that rage over the fact that movement activists didn’t support their favorite random silver bullet solution flavor of the week, be it Bitcoin to ‘Operation American Spring’.  They are livid because no one will march lockstep behind them into whatever halfhearted battle they envision.  They become indignant when activists move to support methods outside of their ideal. They want YOU to follow the plan and planners THEY follow, no matter how poorly conceived the plan is, and if you don’t, then you must be some kind of traitor.  They never consider that perhaps their ideal solution is actually destructive rather than practical, or that no one will rally behind them because no one has much faith in their abilities.

The point is, the fight for liberty is not a follower’s game.  It is a fight that begins with individuals taking individual measures first and foremost, and if anything, inspiring others through their actions, not demanding fealty for themselves, or their pet strategies.

What can be done to instill independence and legitimate leadership in Americans once again? The conundrum is that such values cannot be instilled; they can only be encouraged. Each individual must make the decision on his or her own to stop looking for the world to fix itself, or them. Each individual must take the first step toward the long journey of becoming a self-reliant and self-owned human being. When faced with this conundrum, I can do nothing but make suggestions:

Find a useful skill, something that you love, and master it completely. Try to become the foremost expert on just one thing — not to impress others, but to challenge yourself. When people assert the incredible effort required to master a skill, they grow their sense of self-worth instead of measuring their worth by the guidelines of hollow academia or the collective.

Never look for traditional leaders. Always look for teachers. A real teacher is someone who seeks to make each individual his own leader through knowledge and empowerment. A real teacher has no desire to rule others, only to help others so that they do not feel the need to be ruled.

Independence comes from self-leadership. As long as you are reliant on the system or its participating oligarchs to decide your future for you, you will never be anything more than a follower, even if the system has given you a “place at the table” and a title to make you feel special.  As long as you are vying for approval from the system or the collective, you will never be free.  When you can stand in front of a hostile crowd of people and give your viewpoint without fear of how they may respond, then you are on your way to self-leadership.

If you see a problem in the world, stop asking permission to fix it! Stop waiting for the establishment to police itself. Stop concerning yourself with the actions of others and take your own actions, however small they might be. Revolutions are sparked in the minds of individuals and implemented by the hands of the courageous few. There will be no mass awakening and there will be no grand march to glory, so stop holding your breath. If there is an unrelenting evil in the world, then you must fight it if you expect anything to change. If you are the only person who recognizes it, then you may have to fight it alone.  The potential for success or failure is irrelevant. It is the fight that matters.

If you are going to lead others, lead by example. Hopefully you have realized by now that true leadership has NOTHING to do with people actually following you.  Much more important is the ability to show people how to achieve something more by building something of your own. There are also far too many Americans who seek to falsely elevate themselves by attacking the achievements of others from the anonymous comfort of their computers, rather than doing anything constructive on their own merit. There was a time when Americans were respected as people of action, rather than talk. When you do talk, do so from a position of strength. Talk as someone who has actually done something worth talking about.

If you are going to join, do so with the intent to learn, and to teach. All organization must be voluntary if it is to succeed in the long term, and voluntary organization thrives when participants contribute their knowledge and skill sets without sacrificing their individual self determination.  The group does not outweigh the individual, because without the contributions of the individual, the group is meaningless.

Make a list of your dependencies. Do you have the skills to survive without a job? Without money? Without on-grid utilities? Without consistent aid from others? Can you live without modern comforts if you had to? Do you have the fortitude to endure great hardship? Have you ever endured great hardship, or have you avoided it your whole life? The more self-sufficient you are, the less you will need to look to the system or other people to make your decisions for you. You will become fearless, and fearless people cannot be ruled.

I believe independence terrifies some people because it requires a human being to challenge the unknown and take responsibility for the consequences if he fails. Followers trade in their mental and spiritual freedom to governments, oligarchs and gatekeepers so that they never have to face these difficulties. Sometimes, they are simply lazy. Sometimes, they lack confidence in their own abilities. Sometimes, they are just cowards. In any case, the result is the same: a life of relative ease riding the tides in a vast school of self-serving minnows but always prey to the ever circling sharks. I say don’t be a minnow; man-up, and build something of your own.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:  brandon@alt-market.com

..

The World Is In Good Hands

…hope everything is fine after September

..

Save

The Problem with Wanting to “Change the World”

 

Change has nothing to do with others, it is with you

---

• By Donald J. Boudreaux, fee.org

At the gym earlier this afternoon I caught a snippet of what was literally a water-cooler conversation between two women, each of whom appeared to be in her late 40s.  The subject of the conversation was one of the women’s daughters who just this week is starting her freshman year of college.

Woman #1 (to the woman whose daughter is starting college): “What’s she majoring in?”

Woman #2: “Political science.  She wants eventually to run for office.  She tells me all the time, ‘Mom, I want to change the world!’  And she means it.  She’s volunteering for the Clinton campaign.”

Woman #1: That’s so great!  You must be so proud!”

Woman #2: “I am!”

…..

Were I not a model of politeness, I would have turned to Woman #2 and said, “Ma’am, I couldn’t help but overhear your conversation.  I’ve one request: Please tell your daughter to mind her own business.  The world doesn’t need the kind of change that politicians, both actual and aspiring, want to bring.”

This “change-the-world” meme is, at best, juvenile.  At its worst it is downright dangerous.

I’m certain that there’s a great deal in the world that could be changed for the better.  But I’m equally certain that no such beneficial change will be achieved by social-engineering performed by politicians and other government officials.

The world changes for the better incrementally, bit by bit, and experimentally.  Smith opens a new restaurant in competition with Jones’s established restaurant, and consumers – spending their own money – ultimately decide if one or the other or both is to continue operating or shut down.  This competition changes the world very slightly: the restaurant scene in this town is improved.  Williams breaks his addiction to alcohol and returns to school to learn a trade; his success at getting a job as a machinist or electrician improves the world.  Johnson invents a new app to help birdwatchers keep track of interesting sitings: this advance, too, changes the world.

With rare exceptions, each world-improving event is too small to be detected in statistics.  It’s not sufficiently newsworthy to land its doer’s name in the headlines.  It’s one of millions of everyday improvements, each one small, but the sum total amounting to noticeable change indeed over time.

Most people who want to change the world seldom pause to ponder what, exactly, about the world needs changing.  After all, much about the world is pretty darn good and, hence, is likely not an appropriate candidate for the wiles of any “change-agent.”  Worse, most people who want to change the world have in mind schemes that involve forcing others to behave in ways that these others would otherwise not behave.

Our world has massively changed, mostly for the better, over the past two or three centuries.  And nearly all of this change came in doses so small that the names of those who performed each beneficial change were never widely known and are today lost forever in the thick mists of history.  Most – although by no mean all – of the “change-agents” whose names are known were human butchers (e.g., Hitler and Stalin) or arrogant ‘men of system’ (e.g., Clement Attlee and Franklin Roosevelt) who saddled others with counterproductive burdens and restrictions even if the destructiveness of these efforts is today still largely denied.

The bottom line is that attempts to “change the world” whole – to change it in a way that is noticeable and traceable to one action or small set of actions – is the height of arrogance.  No such change, no matter how well-intentioned the change-agent, will be for the better.  Beneficial efforts to change the world are almost always small, incremental, and performed in the voluntary sector of society – in the market, in families, in civil society.  Not in or through the state.  Most beneficial change occurs by adding small drops to the Prosperity Pool.  Not by making big splashes in that Pool.

..

 

The 10 Most Hated Professions in the World

Personally I agree with top four on this list, and would replace the bottom six with Doctors, Teachers, MSM Chief-Editors, Economists and Religious Gurus/priests

---

UncoverDiscover

There are some professions or occupations that just conjure up instant dislike.  Sometimes hate. These people make you jealous; they fleece you; they bully and humiliate you and yet despite this, they continue to exist and quite often, earn much more than you. So who are these unsavoury ones? Read on to find out.  The list is in reverse order… culminating in the most hated profession on the planet!

I skipped the bottom six  and you can read their details by clicking on each:

• #10 – Bouncers (doormen)

• #9 – Footballers

• #8 – Telesales Reps

• #7 – Tax Inspectors

• #6 – Traffic Wardens

• #5 – Bailiffs (debt collectors)

#4 – Lawyers

Some people would think that a lawyer or solicitor’s main role is to lubricate the wheels of justice and to ensure that equitable outcomes are acheived in human disagreement or conflict. Everyone should have rights, know their rights and have access to legal assistance when they need it. This statement may well be true in practice as well as in theory… but not always and we all know it. Lawyers are often hired by governments, corporations and individuals to ensure that their own interests and agendas are furthered. New laws are passed that help to realise these agendas and lawyers are paid handsomely in the process. And their smugness just adds to the ‘hate factor’.

#3 – Politicians

(Changed pic from original post 🙂)

Politicians have had quite a bit of bad press in recent years, from political expenses to accusations of war crimes. Trying to keep so many people happy must be stressful and for some of them it must feel like they’re being pulled from pillar to post.

So why are politicians as a whole disliked to much? Because they lie.  In fact, good liers and deceivers are sometimes told they would make good politicians. The reality is that many politicians, especially top level politicians, are bought and sold by wealthy and powerful businesses and individuals and while a majority of politicians start with good intentions to serve their communities or countries, these intentions are gradually perverted by subtle bribery and financial gain.

How do you know when a politician is lying? When their lips are moving.

#2 – Estate Agents

There’s not a great deal to like about estate agents. They’re as shark-like a sales people as you could wish to meet; they don’t seem to do much other than link up buyers and sellers of properties for their own financial gain; they hire and fire staff on a regular basis and they’re some of the most ostentatious people around.

They might like to think of themselves as professionals but the reality is, almost anyone with half a brain can become an estate agent and they often do. The over-inflated property industry may like to hand out so called qualifications and certifications to estate agents, but the fact is most of them are simply ruthless salesmen and women. All they’re interested in is a quick listing, sale and commission… and then the cycle repeats. Thank you very much.

#1 – Bankers

(Changed pic from original post 🙂)

There could only ever be one number one on this list couldn’t there? These individuals make money simply by moving it around. They might justify their role as being ‘lubricators’ of the economy, but no way will we let them off so lightly. They create money with taps of a keyboard; speculate on financial markets, making profit on the way down as well as up; create asset bubbles that can destabilise whole economies; mis-sell insurance and investment products; create and sell financial instruments that are not linked to any real value and perhaps worst of all, have become ‘too big to fail’ so that they are bailed out by tax payers when it all goes wrong.

Yes, it’s fair to say bankers are the most hated profession in the world.

..

So What?

TwoIceFloes

By Neil Kramer

Becoming intellectually, emotionally and spiritually independent is an act of power that instantly and irrevocably detaches one’s consciousness from channeling the unreality broadcast of the construct. It is a natural, beautiful and easy thing to do. So what stops so many intelligent people from doing it? There are many answers, but one that quickly rises to the surface is fear of material lack.

The need to pay the bills can keep people in a loop of self-limitation and psychic compromise. Even those apparently lucky few for whom money ceases to be a hindrance, often descend into whirlpools of egotism, self-destruction and bizarreness. If someone’s consciousness is lo-fi, wounded and cluttered – whatever they do will follow this pattern, with or without money.

 

Desires Into Flesh

So what if material lack was removed from the equation? If you could materialize any object into your hands at will, from a perfect juicy clementine, to a crisp $100 bill, the pursuit of material security and comfort would quickly decline. You could ‘image’ whatever house, car, bank balance and objects you wanted, no questions asked. It would be the things that are not material that would become most significant: the quality of your experiences; the depth of your consciousness; your relationships with people; insight, generosity, conduct, healing, creativity, love, humor, transformation. The grace and integrity of your movement through life would be the only things that mattered. Now imagine that not only you, but everyone could do this same materialization trick. Anyone could conjure up anything they wanted, anytime, over and over. What would happen if this became an actual reality right now? Absolute chaos. Supreme weird darkness.

The psychotic state of the collective human psyche, the toxic cultural paradigms into which we have been conditioned and the billions of wounded minds that roam the planet in total ignorant confusion would summon up such manner of demons, deviance and destruction as the universe has never seen. For this reason, no human entity can be endowed with this gift until they are ready for it. Until individual channels of consciousness are disciplined, clear, balanced, authentic and spiritually attuned, we have to go the long way round.

We do materialize what we want (or perhaps, more accurately, what we need), albeit within the slow, temporal cause-and-effect mechanisms of the 3D earth realm. A thought might take ten minutes or thirty years to come into physical manifestation. Usually, the more we understand the wider ramifications and lateral effects of a thought, the quicker it will appear in the physical realm. Part of this process also involves learning to appreciate that if we do not manifest from our own higher-imagination, the default setting is to channel the programming of the construct; to bring its desires into flesh and not our own.

Perhaps then, we could say that any activity, concept or knowledge that does not promote the purification and deepening of consciousness, is ultimately a diversion from the path. They might even seem like a complete waste of time, though technically, even wastes of time yield subtle lessons. So it’s more a question of speed of progress, than polarized judgments of useless or useful. The game is a spiritual game played out over many long timelines, each of which we run in parallel. Of course, it isn’t really anything to do with materializing stuff into one’s life. The game is aimed at understanding the meaning and movement of one’s own consciousness and how it interacts with the wider universe. We transmute our energy from an idea that we are creating reality, into a faith that we are, and then, a knowing.

Seeing Relevance

I am often asked how I personally approach the extraordinary torrent of esoteric information out there. What is legit? What is meaningful? What is worth spending our precious time on? Just what are we to do with the millions of pages of research on ET’s, stargates, hidden technology, occult knowledge, black ops, false flags, revisionist history, endtimes scenarios, religion, yoga, meditation, shamanism, nutrition, metaphysics and all such absorbing areas of study?

The principle for me is relevance. How relevant is a thing to oneself, at this time. Regardless of veracity, excitement, gravity or consensus opinion – how precisely relevant is it to my unique path, in this moment? I often pass new material through a few simple filters to help assess it for myself. This technique has proven highly functional in evaluating and selecting from the cascade of esoteric informational streams.

Charge. Do you feel charged or depleted after absorbing new material? If it gives energy, it is relevant at this time. If it takes energy away, it is not relevant at this time. Our energy configuration naturally attunes itself to a certain complementary array of shapes and frequencies that will either magnetize or repel incoming vectors. We open, close, attract and repulse in different ways as our consciousness deepens. It is an ever-changing energy configuration. The clearer our channel of consciousness (attunement to spirit), the more fluidly the energy configuration flows, adapts and transforms. The reverse is also true.

Respect. Is the information respectfully and conscientiously shared with due consideration to a broad range of outlooks and levels of awareness. Anyone who has achieved a basic level of intellectual maturity and spiritual attunement will not let loose with something that will unduly shock a diverse, unknown and potentially unprepared audience. This is a matter of wisdom. Only the ego seeks to impress, alarm or rattle an audience. It is a sloppy, self-amplifying route. Spirit seeks to empower, tool-up and invigorate. It is a disciplined, universal route.

Drama. Some researchers, teachers and gurus like to surround themselves with drama. They encourage it, feed off of it and even sometimes fabricate it themselves, invoking gratuitous tones of jeopardy, secrecy or disclosure. Just like sexing up a movie trailer to hook the audience. In esoteric study this is poor form. It has more to do with the researcher’s own egoic insecurities, rather than the information itself, which rarely requires any drama to properly disseminate. Emptiness loves drama. Where drama is suspected as fabrication, one must carefully isolate it from the information itself and diligently examine what remains.

So What. This incisive filter can be applied to most subjects, from minor intrigues to humongous paradigm-cracking revelations. It works like this: assess the material, establish the punch-line and add ‘so what?’ to the end of it. ET’s are here. So what? The World Trade Center was not destroyed by hijacked planes. So what? The moon is not what we think it is. So what? We live many lives and go back to the divine source at the end of the cycle. So what? In a quasi-irreverent fashion, ‘so what’ powerfully diffuses hype and helps to get to what really matters as we consider the actual answer and significance on a personal level.

Gut. Does it feel right? Does it resonate meaning without the need for too much brain churn? If it feels right and resonates clearly – it is most likely solid. Intuitive faculties like this become more reliable the more they are exercised and tested in the field. Over time, gut instinct reveals itself to be quite a magickal seeing, rather than merely educated guesswork. We just have to learn how to remove the noise of self from this natural impulse so it can become a dependable tool.

There are no hard and fast rules. These are fluid filters, moveable and adaptable. Contemplate their effectiveness, experiment with them, customize them. The bottom line is that in assessing new esoteric material through filtering against logic, spirit, psychology, emotion and instinct – we can take certain material into our hands and go with it, and more readily place other stuff to one side and maybe come back to it later.

No-one can tell you how relevant something is, except yourself. By the same token, just because you don’t give a hoot about cryptozoology, doesn’t mean that it isn’t highly relevant and important to someone else. It is unwise and unnecessary to denigrate any subject based solely on one’s own subjective focus on it. Just because I am studying German romantic landscape painting, doesn’t mean that the guy studying abstract expressionism is wasting his time. Everyone has their own focus for their own path. Leave ‘em to it. Relevance, not realness.

Nodes Of Light

Deciding to focus one’s energies onto what is personally relevant can appear somewhat selfish to some people. This is understandable if one is habituated to the proscribed definition of selfishness, that is, being concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. However, if we insert the concept of a supremely coherent and interconnected universe, one in which all consciousness is intimately bound together – the idea of acting with disregard for others rapidly loses meaning. As we are not separate, we cannot restrict our learning to our selves, even if we wanted to. Thus, when we learn, we teach; when we teach, we learn. With or without communication, clarifying one’s own consciousness positively uplifts, harmonizes and encourages everything and everybody we come into contact with. When I am in the room with someone who has a beautiful quality of consciousness, regardless of their intellect, education or background – it just feels good.

We choose what we become responsible for. Initially, we are only ever responsible for ourselves. If we choose to bring children into the world, to have a family, then this responsibility broadens. We become responsible for other life-forms too. Until they are sufficiently mature, perhaps a 20-30 year process, this responsibility is a serious undertaking. Enormous energy is required and the bandwidth available for focus on self significantly shifts. Nearly every mother or father I have ever spoken to about this, states that they underestimated just quite how dramatically this focal dynamic changes. Nevertheless, one of the hidden joys in being a parent is the stunning lessons in egoic and spiritual identity that this shift brings. I am not a parent myself, but have intimately observed this in the lives of friends. For the keen paternal/maternal mind, after initially feeling that self and identity are in danger of dissolving altogether in the wake of their ultra-demanding progeny, the realization eventually dawns that self and identity weren’t really there in the first place. Whatever does dissolve, was an artificial construct all along. Spirit cannot dissolve. 30 years is the blink of any eye. No time. Perhaps conscious parenthood represents a spectacular and compassionate commitment to explore this principle of spiritual identity within the undeniable sacredness of felt experience. Extremely empowering.

Regardless of how we focus our responsibility, we are compelled to acknowledge the need for material provision in our lives. Otherwise, quite simply, we fall over dead. Many spiritual systems observe that the higher energies of the universe (whether translated as God, higher self, spirit, atman, divine ascendance, magick, the nagual etc) provide abundantly for individuals who are tuned into its signal. A lot of brain churn and psychic noise has to be removed before we can feel it however. One has to create the space to receive the signal. Sometimes, it’s when we stand at the very precipice of physical/material security that the space naturally establishes itself. In this sense, the homeless guy on the street has a higher chance of tuning in than the Wall Street investment banker. The line attributed to Jesus which says: “…I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven,” is really stating that being wrapped up in the world of form, toil and feathering one’s nest can make it especially difficult to attain spiritual attunement.

It is true that the open conspiracy to suppress free-energy technology keeps us endlessly messing about with money, oil and violence. The private sequestering of earth’s resources and higher technology certainly keeps the human termite mound scurrying around, allowing precious little time for the real ascendant journey. The control system really would be bollocksed if we didn’t need to slave within its industrial machinery. No lack. No dependence. As material resources, technology, education, spirituality, freedom and creativity began to globally flourish once more, the population explosion would begin to correct itself and within a few centuries, humanity would be back on track, self-sustaining, conscious and harmonic.

It seems that the story must play itself out and the curtain will fall in its own time on this divine surrealist theatre. There is something very important to learn from it. For the moment, we are compelled to be astute matrix avatars, and that is the whole point of being here right now – to observe the projected shadow and it’s absurd control systems and constructs, and do our bit to dissolve it. In parallel, we can also treat this as an assault course; a unique opportunity to hone our spiritual vessel as we move through the rigors of this terrain. After all, if you can survive and thrive on earth in the 21st century – you can do just about anything.

Even in consideration of the above, many millions of people still live in a world where they can create free time, access an extraordinary amount of knowledge and choose what to do with their own minds. So perhaps today we don’t quite need to go to the lengths of living the ascetic monk vibe. We don’t need to go around in intentional poverty to create the space to receive the signal. By stilling the mind and reducing the noise of self, we create the space necessary to receive the signal. We field-uplink naturally. In merging local mind with universal mind, the manifestation of our imagination quickens. When we are on the path, growing, learning and clarifying our channel of consciousness, we can smooth the path in front of us. Synchronicities become perceptible to encourage us that we are operating multi-dimensionally, both physically and in spirit. We gain the subtle sense that the universe can see us. We re-integrate the projected shadow by owning it wholly and move one step closer to materializing that juicy clementine into our hands.

Neil Kramer

March 8,  2011

Image source: http://www.wakingtimes.com

..

Kudos to #Tesco offering shoplifter a job

TheStarOnLine

BUKIT MERTAJAM: A father of three was caught shoplifting at a hypermarket here, but instead of being punished, he has been offered a job there – and money to help him out.

The 31-year-old man, who declined to be named, said he was thankful to be given a second chance and a job instead of being handed over to the police after last Wednesday’s incident.

He said he stole some food stuff worth RM27 from the Tesco hypermarket in Alma because his children were hungry and he did not have any money.

“I had quit my job as a contract worker after my wife fell into a coma during a birth complication last week. She is still warded at the Bukit Mertajam hospital,” said the man whose family is from Kuala Nerang, Kedah.

He is currently putting up at a relative’s house in Alma. He said he was walking to his relative’s house after visiting his wife at the hospital with his two-year-old son when they passed Tesco at about 6pm.

“After walking for more than an hour, we went to the food section and I grabbed the pears, apples and a few bottles of drinks,” he said, adding he was caught on the way out.

The store’s general manager Radzuan Ma’asan, who interrogated the man, decided to take a different approach in dealing with the crime.

Warning him never to steal again, he offered the man a job at the store.

“The man’s situation really touched our hearts. We visited his relative’s house. It was so empty and poor,” he said yesterday.

Radzuan said his staff visited the man’s wife who is now out of coma. The baby however did not survive the birth complication.

Radzuan said the store had yet to decide what type of job to offer the man. “He was not a regular thief. When we questioned him, he immediately confessed, saying that he stole the fruits and drinks because his son was hungry.

“In my 23 years of experience in the retail line, I had never come across thieves who admitted their act so easily. Most would give all kinds of reasons. He also told us that he was unable to work as he has to look after his three children, aged two to seven.

“So, we decided not to lodge a police report as this was a genuine case of extreme poverty.

“For now, our priority is to ensure that he enrols his seven-year-old son in a school,” said Radzuan, who handed the man cash to cover his current expenses.

..

Latest…

And the people reacted…

Aid offers pour in for Tesco shoplifter

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/03/16/aid-offers-pour-in-for-tesco-shoplifter/

..

Malaysia – It’s now open season for Muslim-bashing

FMT

The Charlie Hebdo tragedy has sparked an outpouring of hate
within the Malaysian online community.

By Hafidz Baharom

I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo and I am pretty sure many Malaysians were also ignorant of the satirical magazine’s existence until things came to a boil recently in Paris.

However, the outpouring of hate, the siege mentality displayed by people of all beliefs and the politicisation of the event has been outstanding and, to me, hypocritical to the core.

While Muslims have been screaming out that what was done was not the Islam that they practice and preach, Malaysians of other faiths have been quick to say the religion is an instigator of violent behaviour everywhere, including Malaysia.

One such individual is Erik Paulsen, who heads Lawyers for Liberty. At this time of what can only be described as an open season for Muslim bashing, the lawyer took to Twitter to say that the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) has been equally responsible for instigating extremism every Friday.

One would think a lawyer would research his claims before such a snafu, but even more disappointing is that Malaysians were quick to back his claim.

The police are currently investigating Paulsen for his posting, but the Malaysian online community is showing the fractures already.

“Google ‘Jakim Friday sermon’ and read all the news about it. See, there is the proof!” some were quick to say on social media. They were not wrong. The search engine highlights each and every news piece from news portals which spoke of messages attacking Christians, Jews and even gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender (LGBT) Malaysians.

What many failed to notice were the dates of the news pieces or how frequent the media actually highlight these messages appearing in Friday sermons.

What many Malaysians failed to do was to open up Jakim’s web portal and read the sermons that have been delivered in federally funded mosques up to this day. There is an entire archive for everyone who wishes to read them and judge for themselves. (Link to online Jakim Friday sermon archive: http://www.islam.gov.my/en/khutbah-online)

The archive goes as far back as January 1, 2003.

What many knee jerking Malaysians failed to do was to question Paulsen’s accusation and dig deeper to empirically prove that Jakim was in fact guilty of being a purveyor of extremist thought.

Let me raise a question: Is there even a correlation between Jakim’s sermons and a tendency towards extremism?

Since we have some 65 people arrested for trying to get out of the country to join the Islamic State (IS), why not ask them? Have Jakim’s Friday sermons encouraged them to take up arms against infidels and join the global cause to set up a new caliphate in Syria?

There are about 12 million Malaysian Malay Muslims in this country. How many of them actually go about being extreme due to Jakim’s sermons?

I do agree that there are times when Jakim suddenly gets harsh and has a tendency to go to the extreme, but these sermons appear, on average, once or twice out of 52 Fridays a year, unless something happens between Palestine and Israel or some random publication decides to host a Prophet ridiculing cartoon contest.

In fact, I won’t be surprised if this week’s sermon will chastise K-Pop listeners, like the sermon before the Putrajaya Youth Festival debacle a few years back.

I am not defending Jakim. I have a lot of disagreements with the religious authorities, particular the de facto Minister of Religion. And, of course, it does not help that they vilify me because of who or what I am, which I am sure some readers would understand if they go back to January 4, 2011.

However, I am trying to get Malaysians to make their arguments from a position of knowledge because that is what we need in this day and age. We need more Malaysians to be more intellectual in their arguments instead of being reactionary sheep who have nothing better to do than to gossip and instigate other citizens into a hate filled, rhetorical, political online argument of tit-for-tats going down the long, bloody history of Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other beliefs through the ages.

It takes away time better spent discussing solutions to problems that matter to Malaysian citizens — corruption, abuse of authority from those in power all the way down to resident associations in Cheras, collapsing green lungs, natural disaster mitigation, the increasing opaqueness of corporate Malaysia. The list is rather long.

And finally, I disagree with the use of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy as an excuse to keep the Sedition Act.

Related read

A rejoinder to ‘Of Charlie Hebdo and Friday sermons’

“…there are times when Jakim suddenly gets harsh and has a tendency to go to the extreme, but these sermons appear, on average, (only) once or twice out of 52 Fridays a year.”  – The Malaysian Insider

..

 

A Christmas story – A blogger and a homeless

RT

Blogger films how homeless man spent $100 on charity, raises over $94k in crowdfunding

A blogger gave a homeless guy $100 – and filmed an unexpected twist, as the man decided to help others with the money. The video went viral, and a crowdfunding campaign to get the homeless man back on his feet has raised over $94k and counting.

READ MORE: Judge allows evicted RBS ‘love activists’ in London to serve homeless Xmas dinner

The experiment began with Los Angeles-based video blogger Josh Paler Lin giving a homeless man named Thomas $100 with no strings attached.

After getting the money, Thomas headed into the liquor store – but not to buy booze. Instead, he purchased food and distributed it at a nearby park to other poor families.

The result was so unexpected that the blogger gave Thomas another $100 and decided to set up a crowdfunding campaign to help him get back up on his feet. As of December 25, it has attracted $94,794 in funding.

The campaign still has 27 more days until it expires.

“Off camera I took him out to eat because I wanted to know more about him because he was so genuine, such a nice guy,” Lin told RT. “He told me that he wanted to get back to work, but it is so hard for people like him in that position, when you have no money, no home, no family to help you. It is hard for him to get back to what he wants to do.”

“With this campaign, I want to do three things for him. The first one is getting him a cellphone, second I want to get him a house or an apartment, maybe six months or a year — a place that he can call home, and finally I want to help him find a job,” Lin said.

Lin’s video, published on YouTube on December 22, went viral, gaining over 20 million views at the time of writing.

Thomas told Lin that he has been homeless for four months.

He quit his job to take care of his parents, who both fell ill. After they passed away, the insurance company did not cover all the medical care costs, so their condo was sold to pay the bills, leaving Thomas homeless.

“There’s a lot of people that are just victims of circumstance and they didn’t go homeless because they’re lazy or…it could be a divorce, one thing leads to another and the man sells his boat, his home, everything, and all of a sudden he finds out he’s got no money. There’s a lot of good people that are homeless,” the man told Lin.

READ MORE: Anti-homeless cages installed around benches in French city on Christmas Eve

..

 

Malaysia – ‘Amno’ think-tank platform to create alpha Malays

YAHOO | The Malay Mail Online

On heels of 25 prominent Malays, Zaid launches ‘Amno’ to create alpha Malays

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 9 — Former Umno minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has revealed plans to launch a new platform to create “alpha Malays”, a movement he said will provide an avenue for outspoken Malay youths to debate and deepen their understanding of issues like religion, politics and economics.

Called the “Alpha Malays National Organisation” or Amno, which is a clear play on the name for ruling party Umno, which stands for “United Malays National Organisation”, Zaid said the movement is a non-political one, and will first kick off with an application and a news portal.

“There’s no space here. By engaging in religious talk, you’re violating a fatwa of some sort,” Zaid, who was also the founder of the KITA political party, told Malay Mail Online yesterday.

“You criminalise discourse in this country. We have no space. The country cannot go on like that,” added the former de facto law minister who frequently writes critical pieces on Islamisation in Malaysia.

Zaid’s “Amno” comes on the heels of an open letter published Monday by a group of 25 prominent Malays, mostly retired high-ranking civil servants, who called for open debates on Islamic laws in Malaysia

In their letter, the 25 influential Malays said such discourse should not be seen as insulting Islam or the religious authorities.

For Amno, Zaid told Malay Mail Online that he plans to design an instant messaging application, or app for short, with a 40-second recording function, similar to WhatsApp, to promote discussion among Malay students especially on various issues.

He said the app would take two to three months to complete.

“Not everyone likes to read news portals. If we design our own app, people can be interactive,” he said.

The ex-politician said he was also planning to launch a news portal next month that will collate articles posted on Facebook, blogs or on other news websites, 70 per cent of which will be in Bahasa Malaysia.

“It’s not necessarily about politics. For example, if there’s a point of view that music is ‘haram’, then you can have a contrary article,” said Zaid, adding that articles written in English will be translated into Bahasa Malaysia on the news portal.

Zaid said Malays are generally reluctant to be seen as critical, but noted that their reticence could also be due to the lack of a platform for debate and discussion.

“If we allow these spaces, maybe we’ll see the real Melayu,” he said.

When pointed out that young people could use social media to express their views, Zaid said his movement was hoping to enhance interaction by providing feedback to opinions.
“For example, whether we need a Shariah Federal Court. Why? You’ll probably want the Shariah Court to have the same dignity as the civil court.

“So we’ll ask him or her how does having another layer enable parity of powers, when in the Constitution, it’s not. Perhaps by that process, you get people to understand a bit more,” said Zaid.

The Bar Council said last month that the Federal Constitution does not permit for a Shariah equivalent of the Federal Court, in response to the Malaysian Islamic Development Department saying that Putrajaya was planning to upgrade the current three-tier Shariah court system to a five-tier system, with the proposed highest court ― called the Shariah Appeal Council ― on par with the civil Federal Court.

Zaid said he hoped to recruit some Islamic scholars, possibly from neighbouring countries, adding that non-Malays are also free to contribute their opinions in the Amno movement.
On why the word “Alpha” was chosen for the name of the movement, Zaid said: “We just want to have a foreign word that depicts being independent, assertive, dominant”.

Malaysiakini reports

‘Eminent Malay’ lashes out at Perkasa, Isma

One of the 25 top former civil servants, who recently issued an open letter calling for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to show leadership in the face of intolerant right wing groups, has launched a barrage of scathing criticism against Perkasa and Isma.

..

 

..

Putrajaya claims reduced poverty but UN report shows more poor Malaysians

YAHOO | Malaysian Insider

Whether poverty has declined in Malaysia depends on how it is measured. An example is Putrajaya’s reliance on absolute poverty figures, which according to a United Nations report, results in data that does not reflect reality.

The Malaysia Human Development Report 2013 commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) instead says poverty is better measured against what households earn in general, rather than by a fixed minimum level.

The report measures relative poverty, which sets the threshold at half the national median income, and finds the number of Malaysians in this category has been rising since 2007, with one in five households considered relatively poor.

Absolute poverty, on the other hand, is a measurement based on the declared poverty line. In Peninsular Malaysia, this is fixed at RM763, RM912 in Sarawak and RM1,048 in Sabah.

But the relative poverty line in 2012 was RM1,813, or half of the household median income of RM3,626.

The report, released last week and prepared by Malaysian researchers, notes that in 2007, 17.4% of Malaysians were in relative poverty, and this increased to 19.3% in 2009 and 20% in 2012.

The figures fly in the face of Putrajaya’s claim to have successfully reduced absolute poverty to 1.7% in 2012, from 49.3% in 1970.

While Putrajaya relied on the declining absolute poverty rates, the UNDP report argues that relative poverty is “a better approach to assess inclusiveness”.

“Absolute poverty has decreased but relative poverty has emerged as a growing concern in recent years,” said UNDP while releasing the report last Tuesday.

“Relative poverty, which measures the number of households living with less than half of the median income, is a better approach to assess inclusiveness compared to absolute poverty, which measures the number of households living below the poverty line.”

“If poverty is measured using the relative poverty rate (defined as less than half of the median income) as suggested in the New Economic Model, about 20% of Malaysian households are considered poor,” reads the report.

This is not the first time a higher poverty line has been suggested by Malaysian researchers.

In 2010, Jayanath Appadurai, who has worked for the Centre for Policy Initiatives, told The Malaysian Insider that a poverty line of RM1,886 was more accurate.

The Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor government, meanwhile, recently raised the state’s poverty income threshold to RM1,500 to reflect the higher cost of living in the state.

This was made in the state’s budget for 2015, which sees about 30% of Selangor’s five million residents classified as poor.

More inclusive picture of poverty

The Malaysia Human Development Report 2013 analyses the country’s current situation to spur policy reforms to ensure inclusive and equitable growth.

Among ethnic groups, the report shows higher relative poverty rate since 1989, the highest among the Malays at 19.1%, followed by the Chinese at 17.9%.

Meanwhile, the relative poverty rate in urban and rural households has remained stagnant since 1989.

“This is in contrast to the normal convention of measuring poverty using the poverty line income, where the official data show the poverty rate decreasing for all ethnic groups, as well as among the urban/rural areas,” the report says.

It argues that broadening the concept of poverty, with more emphasis on relative poverty, is “more fruitful”.

It notes that Malaysia’s lower absolute poverty rate compared to many countries with higher income and lower inequality raised questions on the suitability and plausibility of Malaysia’s poverty line.

“Aligning (poverty) measurement to international norms will certainly raise – possibly steeply – the poverty line and subsequently the poverty rate.”

The report further points out another shortcoming in the government’s method of measuring poverty: it does not indicate the different poverty rates within an ethnic group.
“For instance, although the (absolute) poverty rate for Bumiputeras in 2009 is 5.3%, the poverty rate for the Kadazan Dusun and Murut in Sabah are four times higher at about 25%.”

Even among states, the disparity in the absolute poverty rates showed “skewed distribution”, the report says.

In Sabah, the absolute poverty rate of 8.1% was significantly higher than the state with the lowest poverty rate, Malacca, at 0.1%.

The UNDP report was written by Tan Sri Datuk Dr Kamal Salih, an adjunct professor of Economics and Development Studies at Universiti Malaya, Dr Lee Hwok Aun, from the UM Department of Development Studies; and Dr Muhammad Khalid of Khazanah Research Institute. – December 1, 2014.

 

Singapore – skyscrapers, zombies, robots and drones

RT

Nouveau riche plus social problem Singaporeans are turning fast into zombies whizzed by technology which may push them further into identity foreclosure. Having a identity crisis is one thing but with a degrading anti-social attitude and behavior will not help them to return being human again by turning to robots to serve them instead of human waiters (from foreign lands). Soon visitors to the tiny city state island will be greeted and served by robots and moved around in drones…only to bump into shiok-sendiri zombies (the locals) occasionally on the streets.

Flying robots to work as waiters in Singapore

Flying robotic waiters, known as Infinium-Serve, will be launched in a Singapore restaurant chain by the end of 2015, local media reported on Thursday.

In what is believed to be the world’s first commercial attempt at replacing humans with machines in this field, Timbre Group plans to have robots waiting tables by the end of next year, Channel News Asia reported.

Infinium Robotics and Timbre Group – one of Singapore’s most popular restaurant chains – signed a memorandum of understanding on October 31 to launch the robots in five outlets.

They are looking for productivity-related government grants to help offset development costs, which are estimated to be a “low seven-figure sum,” according to Woon Junyang, chief executive officer at Infinium Robotics.

Woon said he believes that replacing waiters and waitresses with robots would help alleviate Singapore’s labor crunch and allow human waiters to focus on more interesting higher value tasks, such as getting feedback from customers and ordering wine.

“This will result in an enhanced dining experience which will eventually lead to increased sales and revenue for the restaurants,” he said.

Singapore has been facing a labor shortage, particularly in the service sector, due to ever stricter restrictions on the number of foreign workers allowed into the island state in recent years.

Infinium showed off a prototype of the flying robot to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the inaugural launch of National Productivity Month in early October.

Singapore – skyscrapers, zombies, robots and drones http://t.co/LA3JIVWOJq via @merahza & soon AICDs, med supplies, EMS assistance

— Rafael Grossmann, MD, MHDS, FACS 🇻🇪🇺🇸 (@ZGJR) November 28, 2014

..

Singapore in identity crisis

Singaporeans seem to have no idea who or what they are, where they belong or where they want to go. One very prominent trait they have developed is ‘kiasu-ism‘ (fear of losing). Generally they’ve succumbed to intolerance and arrogantly. This is the result of living in a city state and living in high rise apartments, which throw them into rat-race-minded mentality where survival isn’t enough but to excel above everyone else. To their Malaysian neighbor across the very narrow straits of Johor, they seem to suffer from some sort of superiority complex. The children born in the 70’s/80’s labelled as the McDonald’s kids are now grown ups and are facing an identity crisis…eventually leading into a identity foreclosure

(FT) Piyush Gupta, chief executive of DBS, Singapore’s biggest bank by assets, says: “Singapore, in a way, is still going through a crisis of identity. Does it really seek to embrace being a global city or not?” He adds: “For London and New York, the answer has been unequivocal over the past several decades. In Singapore’s case the jury is out because being a global city comes with attendant pluses and minuses. If you chose not to want to be a global city, that brings into question the economic and growth model that you seek to aspire to.”

Lee Kuan Yew addresses crowds in 1964. His policies helped bring wealth to Singapore

Aside from rising living costs and a widening income gap, many Singaporeans feel that they are losing touch with a concept of national identity nurtured by the ruling People’s Action party (PAP).

Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, a local writer, says the combination of globalisation, low birth rates and high immigration has “essentially overturned the very essence of a Singaporean identity that our forefathers tried to build”.

…the price Singapore will inevitably pay for expanding financial services is that “you have more bankers, you have more McLarens on the road – and then you have the social angle”, says one
senior banker. Early this year, British wealth manager Anton Casey apologised in the face of public anger when he posted on Facebook of his relief at being able to “wash the stench of public transport” off him, having collected his Porsche from the car repair shop.

…“Because, if you’ve been so successful for so long, like any company you want to stick with your tried and tested formulas and then suddenly you have to change after 50 years of success. It’s not easy.”

Read more from the same article:

Southeast Asia: Singapore tests its success

..

!Obama Files Federal Charges Against Darren Wilson Following Grand Jury Decision in Shooting Murder of Michael Brown

UPDATE November 26

…apparently this report / article from National Report is NOT true.

The National Report‘s (since removed) disclaimer page noted that all of the site’s articles are fiction:

National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/obamaferguson.asp

NationalReport

<National Report>In the boldest overreach of Presidential power in US history, Barack Obama filed federal civil rights charges against officer Darren Wilson moments after a Missouri grand jury found “no probable cause to indict” the officer in the shooting death of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown.

Obama’s sixteen-count indictment cites “multiple, unwarranted civil rights violations resulting from harsh and excessive police tactics leading to the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, Jr.”

“I have done what the Missouri judicial system and even my own Justice Department failed to do in order to right this wrong,” said Obama, shortly after St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced the grand jury’s decision. McCulloch made a 25-minute statement debunking several exaggerated social media accounts of last August’s incident, while defending the use of deadly force by police, appealing for calm and taking questions from a small group of local media.
Reports of mounting tensions between Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder over the AG’s handling of events in Missouri surfaced over the summer, culminating in Holder’s September resignation announcement after serving 6 years as Obama’s Attorney General. Obama made no reference to Holder or to his own civil rights lawsuit against Wilson during a live statement from the White House press room reacting to the grand jury’s decision.

Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking from MSNBC studios in New York called for a protest march across the Brooklyn Bridge this coming Wednesday – the day before Thanksgiving – while making an appeal to the citizens of Ferguson for calm. The activist called McCollouch the “worst prosecutor ever” while praising Obama’s filing of civil rights charges, saying he knew “this president would ‘do the right thing,’” a reference to Spike Lee’s controversial 1989 film in which acts of violence and property destruction occurring in a largely African American section of Brooklyn were featured.

As angry Ferguson rioters incite more incidents of looting and violence – with at least one officer injured, one police vehicle and three local businesses destroyed by fire – we ask two questions of Barack Obama: Now that your legal action has flippantly tossed more fuel onto the growing Ferguson inferno, will you sleep well tonight, tomorrow and the next day, while Missouri residents wonder if they will have homes and a neighborhood to wake up to in the days to come? And secondly, when you weave this story into your carefully crafted legacy, where in your $10 million presidential library will an account of this event and your contribution to it be found?

Related

• Feds to continue Ferguson investigations despite grand jury decision

Two federal investigations into the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri continue despite the Monday announcement of a St. Louis County grand jury decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for Michael Brown’s murder.

• Ferguson mayor: Officer Darren Wilson remains on the force

Darren Wilson – the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who fatally shot unarmed teen Michael Brown – will remain employed with local law enforcement, the town’s mayor said on Tuesday.

• Grand juries rarely indict police officers who shoot citizens

Criminal defense and civil rights attorney Ron Kuby told the Latin Post that the only way for police to be held accountable for crimes they commit against the citizenry is through “an independent statewide prosecutor for police misconduct…that’s the only way you will get police accountability, because local district attorneys are locally elected, they frequently rely on many of the same police officers who are investigating other police officers, and they are very reluctant as a rule to second guess the police involving line of duty killings. Sometimes they won’t even present the case to a grand jury.”

..

#Ferguson out of control

RT

Day of Rage: Ferguson residents take to the streets amid cop acquittal in Mike Brown shooting (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

….Live streaming

The residents of Ferguson were outraged after learning of the Missouri grand jury’s decision to acquit Darren Brown of killing black teenager Michael Brown. Buildings were burnt, shops were looted, while clashes with cops were frequent.

A number of stores and cars have been set ablaze in Ferguson, in what police say is even more violent compared to the unrest in August in the aftermath of Brown’s death.

Day of Rage: #Ferguson residents take to streets after cop cleared in killing (PHOTOS) http://t.co/SlLKZI1flh pic.twitter.com/XrFx16B4Z8

— RT (@RT_com) November 25, 2014

Ferguson is out of control right now.. https://t.co/hsX08GiQfk

— Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) November 25, 2014

…go to LIVE UPDATES

https://twitter.com/FreeTopher/status/537118879055892480

..

‘West has no idea what a dictatorship is’ – Che Guevara’s daughter to RT

RT

Aleida Guevara (AFP Photo / Pool-Alejandro Ernesto)

.

The West keeps calling dictators those leaders who are raising cultural, healthcare and educational standards, Che Guevara’s daughter Aleida told RT, adding that her father would certainly give a hand to those changing peoples’ lives for the better.

RT: Miss Guevara, it’s a pleasure to see you here in Moscow again.

Now, you once said once that your father’s ideas will last as long as there is injustice in the world. If your father was alive, what do you think would upset him the most today?

Aleida Guevara: Actually, I don’t really like having to deal with this sort of question about my father, who is not with us anymore. It’s difficult for me to speak for him or say what he would be doing. But judging by the speeches he made, by his personal notes and letters, I can say that he always cared a lot for his people and for the poor in particular. And I am convinced that he would be deeply concerned over what is happening in the Arab world now. He would definitely be thinking of ways to help. He was always respectful of people. And though he criticized socialism quite heavily, he had a lot of respect for the Soviet people, too. That’s why I believe he would have been deeply frustrated over what is going on between Russia and Ukraine – after all, these people have lived in harmony for so many years… That’s why all of this aggression looks so unnatural to us. So yes, I think my father would take a keen interest.

RT: In one of your interviews with RT you said that if Ernesto Che Guevara were alive, he would be supporting Hugo Chavez in every possible way. Unfortunately, Chavez passed away some time ago. So who would Che Guevara be backing today, and in what ways?

AG: He would be backing all the revolutionary movements, I guess. He was a great revolutionary himself, and he would be helping all the men and women who are trying to change their lives. I have close connections to the landless workers’ movement in Brazil, who are fighting for access to land in order to make a living. In spite of the difficulties that the movement has faced for more than 25 years, they’ve been able to make huge progress across the continent and in Brazil in particular. And frankly speaking, I do believe that this movement does encourage Latin America to move ahead. But decisions made by Evo Morales, Nicolas Maduro and Rafael Correa are also important. My father always appreciated staunch advocates of a certain ideology who know exactly what they want in life. No matter if he agreed or disagreed with them, he would certainly give a hand to those leaders who are willing to change their peoples’ lives for the better.

RT: The West sees Cuba as a dictatorship. What would you say to that?

AG: They have no idea what a dictatorship is. No dictator would educate his people, because the more educated the people, the freer they are.

No dictator would introduce free education for everyone. All this time our government has been working on raising cultural standards. Such initiatives are at odds with the features of a dictatorship. The more people think about the world they are living in, the freer they become. They have more choice and they can understand exactly what they want. So we’re talking about an approach that is totally uncharacteristic of a dictatorship. What kind of a dictator wants his people to be healthy and have free education? What kind of a dictator would take steps to teach his people solidarity with other nations? What kind of a dictator would send sports coaches to help out in other countries? You can’t even mention those things in the same breath. But this is what’s happening in Cuba. Solidarity, respect, love for other peoples and self-sacrifice for the good of others are the principles which are Cubans taught. How can you associate that with a dictatorship? I think it’s impossible, and I can’t understand that.

RT: The majority of the UN member states once again condemned the US embargo on Cuba. However, some believe that there are people in the US who are interested in lifting the embargo in order to infiltrate Cuba and put an end to the Cuban Revolution. Is Cuba ready for the possibility of the embargo being lifted? Do you have any concerns about that?

AG: None. If the embargo was lifted today, Cuban economy would be thriving tomorrow. And if our everyday life improved, if there was affordable housing, then our public transport, diet and entertainment industry would take a turn for the better as well. More things and services would become available to our people. A time of prosperity would begin for our country. I’ll give you an example so that you understand what the embargo really means. The USSR sold and gave us a great number of trucks back in the day. But the USSR has always been an oil-rich country, so your trucks and cars were manufactured with no particular concern over fuel efficiency. We still use those Soviet trucks in Cuba, but we don’t have the oil that the USSR used to supply. We simply don’t have it anymore, so we had to try and find more fuel-efficient engines. We decided to go to Italy, a country with large-scale car production.

We contacted the Ferrari Company owners, and visited to them to discuss a possibility of purchasing their fuel-efficient engines. We were in the midst of negotiations when the FBI found out about their potential deal with Cuba. The Ferrari owner received a letter from them, in perfect Italian, which I saw with my own eyes. The letter said, ‘If you maintain trade relations with Cuba neither you nor your family members will be able to set foot on US territory. If you sell to Cuba you will not be able to sell any of your products in the US.’

As you can imagine, we never got to purchase a single engine from Ferrari. That was the end of this story. That’s the kind of blockade I am talking about – it affects the entire Cuban economy. It’s like an older boy trying to take a toy away from his baby brother. I’d go as far as to call it cruel, because the embargo affects even food and medicines. We have children with complicated pathologies in Cuba. The medication that they require is patented in the US, so no company is allowed to sell it to us. We do have the money to buy it, and we are in no way asking for it for free. Yet, as a part of this economic embargo the US prohibits companies from selling this medication to Cuba. And if they do they would face a 5 to 10 mln-dollar fine, or would be banned from selling their products in the US. Consequently, we cannot just buy it. Sometimes we have to go through five or six different intermediaries to get this medication, as it is one of a kind in the world, and we desperately need it here.

The medication is expensive as is; one can imagine how its cost grows as each of these intermediaries tries to make money off it. The medication becomes incredibly pricy for Cubans. If the economic blockade is lifted we would be able to buy it at its market price, which would mean saving the costs for people significantly. So this gives you an idea of what Cuba would become like if the embargo was lifted. The island’s economy would flourish immediately. And in view of our social benefits advantage, the situation would get even better. So my question is, how could lifting the embargo harm us?

The US has already undertaken aggressive action against Cuba. Among other things, they were trying to buy Cubans to get them to help the US subvert our government. Some people who were involved in this posed as opponents of the Cuban Revolution, while being our double agents working to protect our nation against this kind of aggression. The US has been trying to attack our youngsters as well. So we introduced Cuban teachers as double agents who were also trying to counter these hostile activities. We do have this kind of experience as well.

RT: Thank you so much for taking time to answer our questions.

AG: Thank you.

..

Kiasu Singaporean – The World Is My Toilet

FEE

Children of the Cultural Revolution have different ideas about decorum

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 by STEFAN OTTOSSON

Chinese visitors are not popular in Singapore. In fact, visitors from the Chinese mainland have a terrible reputation among the citizens of this island city-state. Is it racism? Ethnic tension?

.
As it happens, 74 percent of people in Singapore are descendants of mainland Chinese immigrants. They speak the same language and share common origins, so you might expect there to be little friction. But the stark differences between guests from the mainland and their Singaporean hosts are cultural.

.
After a frustrating encounter with a foreigner, many Singaporeans go online to vent their anger and seek the support of their compatriots. This enables outsiders like me to gauge the relative unpopularity of the various immigrant groups and to see what the typical complaints against them are.

.
Singaporeans typically use the abbreviation “PRC” for citizens of the People’s Republic of China, and ang moh for people of European origin. Using Google to search TheRealSingapore.com (a popular site for citizen journalism) gives about 400 hits for ang moh and 13,000 for PRC — 32 times as many! No other group generates nearly as many complaints.

.
A typical post of this type describes an interaction with a Chinese national in the subway (or other public space) who responds with abuse when politely asked to show more consideration for others. (Such posts are often accompanied by video footage and put on YouTube.) Similar stories are reported in Hong Kong.

.
So why is there so much friction between people who have so much in common?
One obvious difference between the two groups is that the overseas Chinese never suffered the Cultural Revolution, which had as a stated goal to destroy the so-called “four olds”: old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas — in other words, the common heritage of all Chinese people. But the Cultural Revolution only lasted about a decade, and it can take generations for deep-seated social norms and attitudes to change.

.
Three other countries have a Chinese majority population: Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The latter two have long been regarded as the freest economies in the world. And while Taiwan has had a great deal of state intervention in the economy, it has still been far freer than mainland China.

.
The People’s Republic, in contrast, abolished private property outright, and only started to embrace markets again a generation or so ago. This, I believe, is the main reason for the difference between the overseas and mainland Chinese.

.
Making nice

.
Market relationships are by definition voluntary, and thus conditional on both sides. This system promotes courtesy, since the other party could end the relationship were it no longer beneficial. A customer will not return to a restaurant where he is not pleased with the service; likewise, he knows he will be asked to leave if he strays too far from social norms.

.
Socialism, on the other hand, is all about making access unconditional. When individuals do not get to set their own conditions for participation and association, other people have less incentive to be nice. Courtesy and consideration for others become less habitual, and cultural norms formed over centuries to reduce conflict begin to erode.

.
Researchers found a similar phenomenon between East and West Germans using a game designed to test people’s propensity to lie and cheat in order to win.

.
After finishing the game, the players had to fill in a form that asked their age and the part of Germany where they had lived in different decades. The authors found that, on average, those who had East German roots cheated twice as much as those who had grown up in West Germany under capitalism. They also looked at how much time people had spent in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The longer the participants had been exposed to socialism, the greater the likelihood that they would claim improbable numbers of high rolls.

.
These results suggest it’s not just propriety but also morality that is affected by these institutional constraints and incentives.

.
Propriety and property

.
A recurrent story both in Singapore and Hong Kong is of PRCs of both sexes urinating or defecating in elevators, stairways, or back alleys, many times in full public view. There have also been reports (with footage) of parents from mainland China who let their toddlers poop on the floor at international airports, and even during flights in aisles and on seats.

.
Perhaps the crowded living conditions and poverty in China have accustomed many Chinese to a lack of privacy. Maybe the personal costs of bad smells and lost modesty are lower to them as a result. But this still does not explain the casual imposition of costs on others. Those who use public spaces as toilets or cut in line know full well there is a cost to others; they just do not care. They think they have a right to access.

.
When property is privately owned, the owners can set conditions for access and require patrons to internalize the costs of their behavior. Private owners who fail to do so will have to face the costs themselves, either directly or indirectly through lost revenue. Eventually, the costs may even cause them to lose their property.

.
Public property, on the other hand, does not have an owner whose personal fortune depends on successfully attributing costs, or on attracting revenue from individuals free to make other choices. People are more likely to get away with imposing costs on others. Eventually, the cultural norms change.

.
The longer a country has been socialist, the less benevolence and respect its people tend to show each other. This, I believe, is why overseas Chinese seem to get along better with each other than with the children of the People’s Republic.

..

 

..

 

The American Dream Is Still Possible, Just Not in the US

TheDailyBell

Editorial By Ron Holland

Although there are no firm statistics on the number of Americans living outside the US, the US State Department estimates that somewhere between 3 and 6 million Americans now live offshore. I think this is a low estimate and the number is clearly growing.

I now live in Canada but often travel back to the United States. Driving through Customs near Buffalo is usually not a big ordeal but it does involve a time-wasting delay much like visiting the post office or any other US government bureaucracy. But governments should police their borders, as this is one of the few legitimate functions of a central government.

Still, whenever I’m there I do notice the America I grew up in and once knew has really changed since 9/11. The trend toward a more militarized and aggressive police force continues to quicken. I know most Americans accept this as part of the consequences of the War on Terror just as they do the loss of financial privacy, increased fines and asset seizures.

The Canadian government recently warned citizens to be careful when taking cash to the US because of the risk of police taking their cash for hyped-up offenses. Did you know that in the last 13 years, over $2.5 billion has been stolen by law enforcement in almost 62,000 cash seizures? I have to say that as an American, I’m outraged at the situation and always on guard when in the USSA.

Continue reading….

.

 

Dangerous Words: “I Believe in Freedom, But …”

by Richard M. Ebeling October 2, 2014

One of the greatest hurdles to a successful achievement of liberty in society is all due to the little word, “but.” People will often say, “Oh, I believe in freedom in principle, but . . .” That “but” is followed by an assumed exception requiring some form of government intervention, regulation, or redistribution.

Back in the 1970s, the freedom advocate, Leonard E. Read, wrote a short article called “Sinking in a Sea of Buts.” The problem, Read pointed out, is that when everyone’s exceptions to freedom are added up freedom ends up being sunk by all the “buts.”

America’s Big “But” Problem

We still suffer today from a big “but” problem. Even many friends of freedom are afflicted with the “but” syndrome. One example of this is the welfare state. “Sure, it would be preferable if individuals planned their own retirement and health-care needs rather than having government manage and manipulate these things, but . . .”

“Of course it would be better if individuals were more self-responsible in taking care of the uncertainties and occasional tragedies that may impinge on life, but . . .” “Without a doubt it would be better if we could count on people to help their fellow men in time of need without state action, but . . .”

The “but” often arises because that person is not confident that a system of freedom would “really work” in one of these corners of social and economic life. Or it may arise because the individual thinks that in the climate of current public opinion most people will not accept a fully free system. So it is better to make the case for a supposedly partial private solution, it is said.

Part of this lack of confidence in freedom comes from the loss of historical memory. There is little understanding of how many of the “social problems” that confront members of a community successfully had their solutions either in the marketplace or through various other forms of voluntary association before government co-opted them through the modern welfare state.

Market Solutions Rather than the Welfare State

For example, in nineteenth-century Great Britain a network of mutual-assistance known as “friendly societies” provided many of these welfare state “functions”. At first they provided insurance for the cost of funerals for workers or their family members. But by the middle of the century, they expanded their coverage to include: accident insurance that provided weekly allowances for the families of workers who were injured on the job; medical insurance that covered the cost of health care and medicines for workers and their families; and life insurance and assistance for keeping a family intact in case of the breadwinner’s death. By the end of the century the friendly societies offered fire insurance and savings-and-loan services so members could buy homes.

Indeed, by 1910, the year before Parliament passed Britain’s first National Insurance Act, around three-quarters of the entire British workforce was covered by these private, voluntary insurance associations. Membership in the friendly societies covered the entire income spectrum, with those at the lower income ranges most highly subscribed. They also offered public lectures for members and their families on self-responsibility and the moral value of voluntarism over government compulsion.

What the modern welfare state did in the twentieth century was to undermine these free-market methods for providing what is now referred to as “social services.” The introduction of state regulation of the friendly societies, as well as the British government’s “free” national health and insurance services and the many new taxes to cover their cost, all resulted in crowding out the voluntary, market-based alternatives of the private sector.

Private Benevolence in Helping Others

We also need to relearn the successes of private charity and philanthropy in the glory days of classical liberalism. During the middle and late decades of the nineteenth century the state was not regarded as either the proper or most efficient vehicle for the amelioration of poverty. Especially for the Christian classical liberal in Great Britain, his faith required him to take on the personal responsibility for the saving of souls for God.

Most of these Christians also believed that to help a man in his religious rebirth, it was essential to help him improve his earthly life as well. Soup kitchens for the hungry, shelters for the homeless, job training for the unskilled, care for the abandoned or poverty-stricken young, and nurturing of a sense of self-respect and self-responsibility were all seen as complements to the primary task of winning sinners over for salvation.

By the 1890s most middle-class British families devoted 10 percent or more of their income to charitable work, an outlay from the average family’s income second only to expenditures on food. Total voluntary giving in Great Britain was larger than the entire budgets of several European governments; and half a million women worked as full-time volunteers for charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army.

A vital advantage to this world of private charity was that it enabled innovation and experimentation to discover the better means to assist people in their spiritual needs and material conditions. At the same time, the competition among charities for voluntary contributions rewarded those organizations that demonstrated the greater effectiveness of the methods they used, and weeded out the less successful ones.

As the government began to create the welfare state, many of these private charities found it increasingly difficult to compete with the “free” services supplied by the state. At the same time, the higher taxes to fund these government welfare programs reduced the financial ability of many people to contribute as much to charities as they had in the past.

Not only have we lost our historical memory about these private solutions to supposed social problems, we are ignorant about what the private charitable sector does even with the welfare state and the heavy burden of taxation. In 2013, Americans contributed over $400 billion to charitable causes. Almost 75 percent of this total amount was given by individuals (the rest by foundations, bequests, or corporations).

Americans not only contribute their money, they also give of their time. About twenty-five percent of the U. S. population did volunteer work for charitable causes in 2014, providing a total of 7.9 billion hours of service estimated to have a value of $175 billion.

There is no need for the welfare state, in any shape or to any degree. It is the market economy–– through innovation, investment, capital formation, and the profit motive––that is raising a growing percentage of humanity out of the poverty that has been man’s tragic condition during most of his time on earth.

It is the free and responsible individual who can be relied on to manifest the appropriate benevolence and the moral sense to voluntarily assist those who may need some help to become self-supporting men and women.

Coerced Charity Undermines True Benevolence

More deeply, there is the fundamental issue of freedom versus coercion. No compromise is possible with the welfare state without abridging the individual’s right to his life and property, and his freedom of choice. Government has only one means of funding the welfare state—compulsory taxation for redistribution of income and wealth. This has nothing to do with government as mere guardian of each person’s liberty against aggression.

Indeed, the welfare state abrogates the individual’s ability to act on his moral precepts by extracting from him the financial means out of which he could have made such decisions. It therefore denies him the potential of more fully acting as an ethical being, by diminishing or taking away his ability and capacity for freedom of choice over such matters. It thus prevents him from being and developing into a complete moral human being.

Equally important is the implicit premise behind the welfare state and political paternalism in general that individuals are to be forced to sacrifice themselves for others through a coerced altruism. Having earned their income and wealth through peaceful creative and productive effort, people are told that it does not belong to them.

Rather, the fruits of their mental and physical labors are treated as the common property of the collective state, to be taken and redistributed as the political authorities determine and dictate.

It is, as the philosopher Ayn Rand, often emphasized, the mentality of the tribe in which the individual is presumed to be a slave to the needs of the group, with no right to his own life, liberty or honestly earned property.

It may very well be true that many of our fellow citizens are not yet ready intellectually or emotionally for the uncompromising and principled case for liberty. They have lived too long under the self-sacrifice propaganda of the welfare state and have become used to taking for granted their dependency on government largess.

But how will the spell of welfare statism ever be broken if those who see more clearly the logic and potential of the free society do not present to the best of their ability the principles of individual rights and possibilities of personal liberty? The alternative is to continue sinking in that sea of “buts.”

.

..

Anatomy of the State

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murray N. Rothbard

Here it is in PDF

What the State Is Not

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

What the State Is

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in “capital”) into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources (“production”) and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence, the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only “natural” course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by “mixing his labor” with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man’s nature, therefore, is the path of “property rights” and the “free market” of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the “jungle” methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the “economic means.” The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed “the political means” to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the “natural” path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern “Ruritania,” a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself “King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania”; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the “family of nations,” and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

Read in full – PDF | Listen or download MP3

 

.

The Dragon – Evolution of the social consciousness, a.k.a. collective

Channeler:

Brian, the dragon

Hi everyone, this is the dragon.

In your linear time, we gave a previous message about how this event of your mass ascension was not such a rare experience that “it has not happened before”, but we also said that it is something that is not altogether common either. If you breakdown reality based on a dozen or so generations of lifetimes in linear time, then there are an infinite realities of mass ascension in the universe, and there are orders of infinity more realities where it does not occur. That is because the universe is infinite, and you can actually compare infinities to other infinities and say “it’s a greater infinity” which really means that this infinite thing is more likely to be come across. So we’re going to involve topics where we are really linearizing things that are much more complex, and this is necessary to turn things into human language in written form. Not necessary for you to understand, since your minds are capable of so much more, and can integrate energies carried on the word and not just the word itself. But language in written form as you use it, is limited. For those who can, we recommend pulling in some of the energy that goes with the message.

Before we get into anything, we think it’s all to common for people to think of ascension is a one time thing, or even a state that is achieved. It’s not quite that way. Ascension/descension is a continual process. Your entire soul has a specific vibration that it oscillates at. For simplicity, think of a sound wave or radio wave. These involve time, which is a misnomer since vibration doesn’t really include time, except at the lowest of vibrations. However, it’s still not too far off as an analogy. Within that single vibration, there are sub-harmonics that oscillate. This is part of the natural ebb and flow of the universe. If it doesn’t vibrate, it is dead. So naturally, your soul oscillates. And even the vibration at which it oscillates, which you may think of as fixed, is not. The vibration itself oscillates as well. It even goes up and down. Not only for your entire soul, but for the sub-harmonics as well, including your current incarnation. So naturally, some parts of your being are moving up in vibration, and others down.

So, with that, we get back to the message…

In your own galaxy, in the time as you see it for light to reach you from the far reaches of what you see of your galaxy, which may be in your past as you see it, there are many societies evolving even in what you see as your own timeline, or that which the light reaching you matches [Brian: 100,000 years or so, in our linear timeline]. So there are thousands becoming more self-aware, as yours has, learning to use tools to manipulate what they can see, then tools to manipulate what they can’t. There are also small groups that ascend within a larger society here and there. However, the spark to become fully aware as a collective, to transcend the physical as an entire society, to ignite into something that shines across the cosmos. Only happens usually a few times in the time we discussed [Brian: 100,000 years or so] on a single timeline. Of course, even a timeline isn’t linear, but we’re trying to do our best to limit the discussion to what makes sense, for now.

So, what is so interesting about this mass ascension? You may notice, old souls, ascended masters.. Yes, you are, and don’t let it bloat your ego… that all the stuff that worked in other lives just isn’t “working” here for some strange reason. It is borderline frustrating, and your frustration may not be as much with society as with yourselves because you have maybe ascended but haven’t broken free from the chains that bind you. What if we told you that you weren’t meant to, and put safeguards in to prevent that? “Oh, how dismal”, you may think. But it’s anything but. The reason is this: No matter how high on a pedestal you put it, breaking free individually or in small groups is really no big deal. Even for a soul with little life experience on Earth, but definitely for souls like you. It’s all about picking the right initial conditions for your birth, and then incarnating in a perfect scenario for ascension. Then, it’s more like a miracle if you fail than a miracle if you succeed, since things are already set up for success. What’s the challenge in that? It feels good, for a second, then you’re thinking have I learned enough to make this a little harder. So maybe you set up some incarnations where things are stacked against you a little more, but after a few times you have success in that as well. Now, we don’t want to give the impression that the only goal of incarnation is ascension, or growth towards ascension. Incarnation is all about experience, sometimes just for the sake of it. For smelling the flowers, feeling the breeze, and swimming in the mountain streams. However, one of the games that your souls do play to keep themselves busy is ascension. You wouldn’t be here at this auspicious time were it not for it.

So instead of going for a single ascension out of physicality, which makes you yawn, you are going for millions of souls and billions of incarnations, to do it at once. What you don’t realize yet is that it’s not only in your own timeline, but in others as well, which will come together. And all your egos, will essentially at different rates expand into a consciousness of being fledgling creators, building your own experiences, creating your own worlds. Yet, through it all, you will be birthing a collective consciousness. Essentially, a living being that is fully self-aware of itself as a spiritual being and made up of the consciousness of all those ascended beings who make it up.

Now, here’s the kicker… Many of you call this consciousness the Christ consciousness collective. The ascended masters you talk about from the past, some of them just being other incarnations of yourselves, they have already seen it. You have all already seen it. But were you part of its birth? Or said another way, were you part of its integration into this reality? In a sense, you were, because your other incarnations have helped bring this about… Yet, you get the fun now of enjoying the fruits of your labor, quite literally and figuratively. Of being thrust into it as a large group, sharing in the experience together incrementally instead of just at the very endpoint. The potentials for diversity of experience that comes with that is nearly unrivaled.

And with that, we really can’t go into much more detail. There is nothing that can really express how amazing it will feel. We could try. We could talk about things like making love, and ice cream and winning the lottery and swimming in beautiful lakes high in the mountains and traveling to other worlds and anything else you’d consider positive and then tell you to imagine doing that all at once and then multiply that feeling times 100 and let it never end… Yet we’d still fall short. You cannot possibly prepare yourself, in a life like the one you are experiencing, for how amazing it will be. And that’s part of the beauty of it. [Brian: I cried out of joy while writing it, trying to translate the beautiful feeling into words]

All we can say is big things are coming, and you’ll love it.

With love,
The dragon