Tuesday, October 15, 2013

why western political and financial elites absolutely hate vladimir putin...,


ICH | The election of Barak Obama to the White House truly was a momentous historical event.  Not only because a majority White population had elected a Black man to the highest office in the country (this was really mainly an expression of despair and of a deep yearning for change), but because after one of the most effective PR campaigns in history, the vast majority of Americans and many, if not most, people abroad, really, truly believed that Obama would make some deep, meaningful changes.  The disillusion with Obama was as great as the hopes millions had in him.  I personally feel that history will remember Obama not only as one of the worst Presidents in history, but also, and that is more important, as the last chance for the "system" to reform itself.  That chance was missed.  And while some, in utter disgust, described Obama as "Bush light", I think that his Presidency can be better described as  "more of the same, only worse".

Having said that, there is something which, to my absolute amazement, Obama's election did achieve: the removal of (most, but not all) Neocons from (most, but not all) key positions of power and a re-orientation of (most, but not all) of US foreign policy in a more traditional "USA first" line, usually supported by the "old Anglo" interests.  Sure, the Neocons are still firmly in control of Congress and the US corporate media, but the Executive Branch is, at least for the time being, back under Anglo control (this is, of course, a generalization: Dick Cheney was neither Jewish nor Zionist, while the Henry Kissinger can hardly be described as an "Anglo").  And even though Bibi Netanyahu got more standing ovations in Congress (29) than any US President, the attack on Iran he wanted so badly did not happen.  Instead,  Hillary and Petraeus got kicked out, and Chuck Hagel and John Kerry got in.  That is hardly "change we can believe in", but at least this shows that the Likud is not controlling the White House any more.

Of course, this is far from over.  If anything the current game of chicken played between the White House and Congress over the budget with its inherent risk of a US default shows that this conflict is far from settled.

The current real power matrix in the USA and Russia

We have shown that there two unofficial parties in Russia which are locked in a deadly conflict for power, the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and "Atlantic Integrationists".  There are also two unofficial parties in the USA who are also locked in a deadly conflict for power: the Neocons and the "old Anglos imperialists".  I would argue that, at least for the time being, the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and the "old Anglos" have prevailed over their internal competitor but that the Russian "Eurasian Sovereignists" are in a far stronger position that the American "old Anglos".   There are two main reasons for that:

1)  Russia has already had its economic collapse and default and
2)  a majority of Russians fully support President Putin and his "Eurasian Sovereignist" policies.

 In contrast, the USA is on the brink of an economic collapse and the 1% clique which is running the USA is absolutely hated and despised by most Americans.

After the immense and, really, heart-breaking disillusionment with Obama, more and more Americans are becoming convinced that changing the puppet in the White House is meaningless and that what the US really needs is regime change.

The USSR and the USA - back to the future?

It is quite amazing for those who remember the Soviet Union of the late 1980 how much the US under Obama has become similar to the USSR under Brezhnev: internally it is characterized by a general sense of disgust and alienation of the people triggered by the undeniable stagnation of a system rotten to its very core. A bloated military and police state with uniforms everywhere, while more and more people live in abject poverty.  A public propaganda machine which, like in Orwell's 1984, constantly boasts of successes everywhere while everybody knows that these are all lies.  Externally, the US is hopelessly overstretched and either hated and mocked abroad.  Just as in the Soviet days, the US leaders are clearly afraid of their own people so they protect themselves by a immense and costly global network of spies and propagandists who are terrified of dissent and who see the main enemy in their own people.

Add to that a political system which far from co-opting the best of its citizens deeply alienates them while promoting the most immoral and corrupt ones into the positions of power.  A booming prison-industrial complex and a military-industrial complex which the country simply cannot afford maintaining.  A crumbling public infrastructure combined with a totally dysfunctional health care system in which only the wealthy and well-connected can get good treatment.  And above it all, a terminally sclerotic public discourse, full of ideological clichés an completely disconnected from reality.

I will never forget the words of a Pakistani Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 1992 who, addressing an assembly of smug western diplomats, said the following words: "you seem to believe that you won the Cold War, but did you ever consider the possibility that what has really happened is that the internal contradictions of communism caught up with communism before the internal contradictions of capitalism could catch up with capitalism?!".  Needless to say, these prophetic words were greeted by a stunned silence and soon forgotten.  But the man was, I believe, absolutely right: capitalism has now reached a crisis as deep as the one affecting the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and there is zero chance to reform or otherwise change it.  Regime change is the only possible outcome.

13 comments:

ken said...

When I saw you bringing up "prerequisites for work" going back to Gurdjieff would be where this is headed. The fourth way and the fourth dimension are not the same thing.. correct?

CNu said...

http://youtu.be/MIA_-HgugAI

ken said...

Heavenly Glory...what's that? And the person nods and understands... weird. The Christian version from this clip even has your 4d trees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO4uIyz_d90

CNu said...

The fourth way and the fourth dimension are not the same thing, though the former is as direct a path as possible for meaningfully coming to terms with the latter. Oh, and, that's not a path back to Gurdjieff, rather, it's Ouspensky's very own interpretation of the import of Gurdjieff's Great Work.

CNu said...

Now how can we tell whether you're specifically struggling with Bruce Lee's simple lesson on how to kick, or, whether you're just a more generally reflexive bundle of buybull-buddy non sequiturs?

ken said...

Have you ever read a good explanation why Ouspensky discontinued association with Gurdjieff? I get the feeling if it weren't for Ouspensky organizing Gurdjieff's thoughts, the thoughts would have been obscure even more than they are today, that he probably would only have a small fraction of a following he does now.

ken said...

Nope.not.one.little.bit.at.all....,

How can you say Nope.not.one.little.bet.at.all, All the 4 d's or 4th ways you have linked to around here include taking foreign substance to realize or experience these realities. Just because a guy tells of his experience and new awareness with the help of meds in written word you all the sudden get a little week kneed about what this is talking about. Clearly Gurdjieff used it in his classrooms as part of the curriculum.

http://starvethematrix.com/esoterica/fourth-way/critical-appraisal/80-gurdjieff-drugs-alchol-and-food

Like the guy above..With these women, he carried through for two or three years a very intensive and extraordinary experiment, making use of methods that brought them into remarkable psychic states, and developed their powers far more rapidly than had been the case with the pupils who had been with him during earlier years . . . it throws a very vivid light upon Gurdjieff’s methods as a teacher and upon his use, for example, of drugs as a method of developing not only psychic experiences, but also opening the hidden channels of the human psyche.



The guys experiences above are not as far off as your reaction seems to imply.

CNu said...

Yes.

CNu said...

lol at "week kneed"....,


I'm not "implying" anything. I'm flatly stating that you've drawn a false equivalence between incompetent abuse leading to permanent delusion and methods rooted in deep psychological knowledge and understanding.

ken said...

What do you consider delusional with the man above in comparison to the powers Gurdjieff's pupils acquired from the mind altering substances? Isn't this what the man above was describing to a degree with "very aware of my immediate surroundings and of an interpenetrating spiritual dimension"

" According to Gurdjieff, certain drugs are sometimes employed in esoteric schools to separate personality from essence as a method of self-study:


If personality and essence are for a time separated in a man . . . two beings, as it were, are formed in him, who speak in different voices, have completely different tastes, aims and interests, and one of these two beings often proves to be on the level of a small child . . . Certain narcotics have the property of putting personality to sleep without affecting essence. And for a certain time after taking this narcotic a man’s personality disappears, as it were, and only his essence remains. (8)



It's not that the narcotic creates permanent delusion, as you say, it gives the individual a chance to see his essence and then when coming back from the altered state a chance to better posses the essence, like the guy finally did above.

ken said...

The guy above seems to have accomplished the desired conscious level "Now—very aware of my immediate surroundings and of an interpenetrating spiritual dimension, but very out of touch with my past and a normal sense of self." as Gurdjieff sets out to accomplish with his use of narcotics:

According to Gurdjieff, certain drugs are sometimes employed in esoteric schools to separate personality from essence as a method of self-study:

If personality and essence are for a time separated in a man . . . two beings, as it were, are formed in him, who speak in different voices, have completely different tastes, aims and interests, and one of these two beings often proves to be on the level of a small child . . . Certain narcotics have the property of putting personality to sleep without affecting essence. And for a certain time after taking this narcotic a man’s personality disappears, as it were, and only his essence remains.



This is the same idea as the guy above seemed to have practiced, the use of the drugs creates a pathway or mindset of the new possibility of consciousness that the individual can realize when he or she is not in the altered state. I wouldn't think from your perspective you would call this permanent delusion.

CNu said...

What do you consider delusional with the man above in comparison to the powers Gurdjieff's pupils acquired from the mind altering substances?

I've never seen a single claim of powers acquired by even one legitimate student of the work. Your delusional burnout on the other hand:

Infinite consciousness into which he was merging...,

Hearing an inner voice..., (that he was once capable of transcribing)

Telepathy and precognition...,

Plugged into a universal mind...,

Visions of blue and red energy....,

Cosmic consciousness and psychic powers five times stronger....,

Ken, this man is either delusional, or, a liar and a charlatan. You need only read Ouspensky's account of Experimental Mysticism (a whole chapter is dedicated to this in New Model of the Universe) to get a sense of how outlandish Mr. Miller's claims are relative to the vastly more modest claims made for altered states experiencing by Ouspensky.

Alternatively, you might read Ouspensky's single and life-altering account of a single episode of induced telepathy in In Search of the Miraculous to again get a comparative sense of the outlandishness of Miller's claims.

" According to Gurdjieff, certain drugs are sometimes employed in esoteric schools to separate personality from essence as a method of self-study: Certain narcotics have the property of putting personality to sleep without affecting essence. And for a certain time after taking this narcotic a man’s personality disappears, as it were, and only his essence remains."

Gurdjieff most frequenly used hypnosis to achieve this end. Alcohol can produce this effect if you drink to the point of black-out, i.e., where thje personality is turned off and your left under the control of the "essence", a very intoxicated and unpredictable "essence". The most clinically effective means of inducing this effect is the anaesthetic use of pentathol - a nearly perfect example of which went viral just a month or so ago.

It's not that the narcotic creates permanent delusion, as you say, it gives the individual a chance to see his essence and then when coming back from the altered state a chance to better posses the essence, like the guy finally did above.

Elliot Miller didn't finally do anything except suffer a mental collapse and become a bible buddy.

CNu said...

The guy above seems to have accomplished the desired conscious level
"Now—very aware of my immediate surroundings and of an interpenetrating
spiritual dimension, but very out of touch with my past and a normal
sense of self." as Gurdjieff sets out to accomplish with his use of
narcotics:


Let's pause a moment and level-set, shall we?

It goes without saying that you've never read a single book written by either Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Collin, or other which details any of the ideas or methods of the work. Further, and equally clearly, you've never met a single individual involved in study with a legitimate group.

I'm baptized, catechized, recently re-catechized, and in possession of nearly 50 years of up close and personal acquaintance and study of most every flavor of bible-buddy professing Christian belief and praxis in the U.S. today - and - routine active involvement in the Roman Catholic church over this past year. Not only am I qualified to comment on any aspect of Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant doctrine and practice, I'm pretty sure I can hold my own at an academic or ecclesiastical level of rigor.

Separate from my unavoidable involvement with bible-buddyism - I've got 30 years of intentional active study of the material in question, coupled with involvement with legitimate groups, and buttressed by years of meticulous experimental mysticism, one might say I'm unusually experienced.

Ken, what exactly are your qualifications for critically commenting on this topic?