EVERYTHING IS ON ITS WAY TO SOMEWHERE

[thoughts from ~burning woman~ by Sha’Tara]

“Everything is on its way to somewhere” (Movie ‘Phenomenon’)
“Things change and they don’t change back” (Nemesis Games, James Corey)

On the other hand and interestingly, when it comes to the people of Earth, there are never new starts – every start packs something of the old within itself and it all turns to shit again. The older one gets, the closer one comes to that “place” of final change, the more the above reminders become true and undeniably accurate.

None of us knows much about ‘Life’ in general. We call one physical passage on this world a ‘life’ from which we gain a few experiences which serve no purpose whatsoever because it’s followed by either permanent lights out or the unknowable endlessly speculated and pontificated upon eternal.

When we’re dying, do we know for a fact who we are? Are we something that’s finally run out of fuel to simply fall by the wayside or something propelling itself into the unknown star fields as a star ship pushed by  its “warp” drive?

At death’s door, what ‘thing’ part of us is on its way to somewhere? Who or what determines if there is a somewhere to go to, and if so, how is that somewhere chosen? Or is it arbitrary? Is it a direction or a place, like a huge bubbling recycling vat from which pieces are taken as building blocks for new words, new universes, new extensions and additions to existing constructs and new experiments?

A shift in thought:

Decades ago I grew tired of being told how to live my life, whether the instructions came from God, bosses, political or religious leaders, corporations, bankers or a sex partner. I got tired of being told what I should or should not believe; how I should worship; what I should or should not eat or drink or buy or wear; what sort of people I should associate with or not and what constituted my family; my “home” and my “people.” “Enough!” I heard myself scream in my mind one say and everything turned on its head.

While so many of these controlling people around me were busy building and rebuilding walls to try to make themselves feel safer and happier I found myself tearing mine down. I was pretty sure that freedom was unattainable on earth but at least I wanted openness. I wanted to be able to see the horizon in my mind. I didn’t want to be staring at blood-stained walls of arrogance, bigotry, racism and misogyny.  I was through trying to fit in.

How can you be going anywhere when surrounded by walls of exceptionalism; of exclusive belief; of oppression and extortion; of self-protection? Walls made of greed, fear, hate and paranoia? The caterpillar doesn’t go into a cocoon for self-preservation but in the hope of breaking forth as a butterfly. Do man-made walls ever turn anyone into a butterfly?

Across the international border a few miles from this town is a nation that is closing in on itself, helplessly it seems as, if it was entering into a cocoon. But this is not a life-changing cocoon, it’s a strangling prison. It wants a wall on its southern border because it fears its neighbours but if that wall is built, it won’t stop there. The wall will continue to grow, partly in a physical way but mostly in the imprisoned hearts. Unseen and untouched the neighbours behind the wall will grow horns and forked tails, morphing into demons and monsters. The wall won’t be enough to guarantee safety. In all likelihood the monsters and their children will have to be nuked. But that will only amplify the threat.

That’s where we come face to face with all our new starts and realize how true it is that there have never been any such on this world, or at least for as long as this patriarchal civilization has existed. Walled in, repetitive, entropic, too weak, too ignorant, too closed-minded to make that jump into the new.

What somewhere would you want to be heading for, people of Earth? What sort of change that doesn’t change back would you like to see happening?

How would you propose entering into a new start that packed nothing at all of the old so you would not condemn yourselves to repeating it?  Could you even imagine such an event?

50 thoughts on “EVERYTHING IS ON ITS WAY TO SOMEWHERE

  1. franklparker

    I have too be honest when answering your last question: no, I can not imagine such an event. No doubt that means my imagination is limited – by the very things you abhor. I can only imagine things that are somehow related to what I have experienced. It is, for example, why I read but can not write Science Fiction, although SF inevitably does relate to terrestrial experience in many ways – how could it be otherwise? Readers would have no point of reference from which to understand what had been written.
    Having said that, I think you might gain some enjoyment from reading a book written by an acquaintance of mine – he is someone who has immersed himself in the works of Samuel Beckett and the book seeks to demonstrate how Beckett’s writings are an attempt to disassociate language from experience. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empty-Too-Language-Philosophy-Beckett/dp/1443854026

    Reply
    1. Phil Huston

      Language is already disassociated by experience, subcultural vernaculars (vocational and avocational) and verbal shorthand demonstarte that every day. I walk behind people on their phones, speaking a version of English, and have no idea how their half can be related to any conversation. However a pure language, free of anything but equitable mental imagery (red is red and everybody understands). That would not eliminate creativity because the assembly of words in such a language could tell different stories but would we all grasp them the same way? Fishing may be fishing, but is your imagery the same as mine or the person next to us? Interesting proposal…

      Reply
    2. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for commenting, Frank and your honest response. Point of reference: yes, it seems that is important even if it means, as the bible says (!) that “a pig returns to his wallowing in the mud.” Maybe it’s shortsightedness. Maybe it’s fear. Maybe it’s programming, the insistence upon tradition – whatever it is, we cannot see a future without looking at the past; cannot built an entirely new house without digging in the rubble to pull out ‘useful’ bits with which to construct the new. We dovetail old with new; we reshape but we cannot create. Society is built of tradition and that’s a force to contend with. How difficult it is to eschew family relationships, even to children in order to embrace inclusive relationships that ask no question of belief, skin tone, gender, age, language, relying instead on one aspect: basic morality. I will have a look into the book title you reference here, thanks.

      Reply
      1. rawgod

        Just as a point of interest, basic morality is one of the biggest walls fencing humans in. Which is why I have rejected it.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        rg: on basic morality, I think it’s a matter of interpretation here. What is morality to you? Do you reject it because you link it to religion? I’m thinking that without morality we are simply animalistic, amoral creatures which automatically removes us from the human level of development. Basically that is what capitalism has done anyway: turned people into amoral brain dead consumers glued to their technological toys.

      3. rawgod

        I have to link morality, because that is our main source of right and wrong. I base my choices on situations, and choosing the response that best aligns to the situation at hand. I do not lock myself into any rule or interpretation of a rule that is written in stone. To this point in life the closest I have come to anything like that is that I am not allowed to commit suicide, but given my aging body there may come a time even that might change. Other people can believe as they like, as long as they let me believe as I choose.

  2. Akhila

    Creativities are rooted in connections..how you connect things and experiences… so there can not be an absolute change in this relative world..

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Quote: “there can not be an absolute change in this relative world…” While I hadn’t even thought in terms of “absolutism” regarding such change, I see how you (and others) are right, that change as we understand it currently means to move gradually, building from the past so we can see some kind of future. The challenge would be to make a jump rather than a change so we do not drag our failures into the new. If we are to survive as a species, a big ‘if’, we are going to have to face that choice. For example, why are our democracies failing? Because they were infected with the greatest fallacies and ignorance of the past. Royalties were kept. Women were inducted without political voice, choice or power. Slavery was dovetailed in. Imperialism was accepted as the norm for those with military and financial power. Elites remained ‘superior’ and in control of the masses. Exploitation and oppression continued unabated. Therefore and inevitably we must return to the evils of the past because they were legitimized within the ‘change’ which wasn’t really a change but more of a temporary hissy fit against some of the worst aspects of autocracy and plutocracy.

      Reply
  3. Lisa R. Palmer

    I agree with you here, Sha’Tara. And no, I cannot imagine any change that is pure and untainted by the past. The very notion of “change” ties both times together.

    Birthing something entirely new and unimagined? That would be a challenge worth undertaking, even if the results would be totally unpredictable. (With no past, no future trends could be predicted.). But I am so on board with that! Lol!

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Quote: “Birthing something entirely new and unimagined?” But what’s imagination for? Imagine being transported to an alternate universe unto a world similar to earth, peopled with humans who somehow manage to live very good lives without any resort to violence or injustice of any kind. It’s a simple jump. Imagine living in a world rife with all sorts of violence and evil, diseases rampant, war on every corner and an angel, a spirit guide, a teacher, appears before you and points to a wall you never saw before and says, “Beyond that wall is peace, health, safety and full physical comfort. I can show you a door in the wall by which you may enter under one condition: you must be willing to abandon everything of your past up to this moment in order for the wall to allow you in and you must cross alone. There is no turning back once inside and the door has closed.” How long would you deliberate before saying yes, or no?

      Reply
      1. Lisa R. Palmer

        Hmm… I know I would hesitate, but only because of the family I’d be leaving behind. How long? Depends, I guess. Is there a time limit on the offer?

        I would eventually cross that threshold, that much I know. But it might take me a few minutes to remember that I can (and should) only “save” myself. Lol! Some habits are so deeply ingrained, you know?

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Lisa: We can only “save” ourself. I mean yes, we can talk about stuff and explain what we are up to as best we can, but change is entirely personal. That is why civilization is actually imploding: all the change made within it and to it has been collective and that simply never works with intelligent, sentient, self aware beings. Our experiment with massive collectivism which has grown it include all of the planet was a mistake from day one. We are designed to be self empowered and to make all our own choices. We are not machines or ants or androids, we are supposed to be human beings and contrary to popular belief, we do not “need” to have, create or be in any special relationships. The only way out of our current mess is through total detachment.

      3. Lisa R. Palmer

        Doesn’t sound “utopian” when you say it so bluntly, but ultimately I think it is. Lol! And I am grateful as ever for your straightforward, honest and wise assessment. 😁

      4. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks Lisa! (With over 50 emails to respond to today I’m going to have to be brief and ‘generic’ – sorry!)

  4. Phil Huston

    What you’re saying is this should be the new American national anthem? Ask France and Germany about that…Maybe we should take that wall money, send it back with them to make their own countries livable. Nah…Makes too much sense.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Quite certain I don’t follow here, although if I remember, you do like to “shift” the issues away from the good ol’ USA to other countries. Well, I was born in France, so I know a bit about it. Germany I know little about and I don’t trust history so I’ll let that go. What I will say though is that imperialism, mostly American style, but some of the old European as well, has caused a mass of refugees to seek asylum in European countries. This has created a difficult and tense political situation particularly among the middle class who were so sure their EU was to way to counter the pressures from the rest or the world they used to rely upon for raw materials and slave workers and perhaps continue the exploitation. America has a similar (though much less intense) problem of refugees also caused directly by US imperialism in Central and South American countries. Both imperial entities are in the same boat and for the same reason. Deal fairly, stop interfering in the politics of nations, see how quickly things resolve themselves. Unfortunately “manifest destiny” is a difficult lie to let go of, especially at a time when the infrastructure on the home front is collapsing and all the money is being funneled into more oppression and extortion abroad, for that’s where the profits for the billionaires still can be scraped off what’s left of the old colonies.

      Reply
      1. Phil Huston

        Whoa – Arabs hating on different Arabs, religious persecution and despots running people out of their own country is America’s fault? Fuck that. Bush should have turned that whole part of the world into a giant piece of glass when he had the chance.

  5. rawgod

    Get rid of god, gold, and government. Each person with no ties to anything (except growing children, but only until they are grown). Imagine!
    (On the radio today some religious freak basically called John Lennon’s anthem a song from the devil, because of the line: “no religion too.” He did not have the ability to imagine the harm religions do.)
    You want to change the world, get rid of everything that divides one person from another, one group from another, one sex from the other, one race from another, one language from another, one … from … ad infinitum.
    You cannot imagine how to make fresh starts with no ties to the past? To me that is the easiest part, it is what I have been talking about for 30 years. The hard part is convincing people this can work. But if people want a new way to live, they have to start believing the changes have to be world-changing, and life-changing.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      rg: logically, a making a total and clean break with the past is the only way I see change working to push us into a truly new way of life and thinking pattern. Unfortunately I know enough about Earthians to realize they aren’t going to go that route, choosing instead to continue their rat race to “Armageddon” while fully convinced that either Jesus or Science is going to save them.

      Reply
      1. Sha'Tara Post author

        rg: yes it will change, of that there is no doubt. But who will direct the change and how will it affect the world and the majority of the people on it? Who’s in charge, ultimately? If no one, then we can all do ourselves a favour by shutting up, closing down these blogs, continue our rat race to the end and don’t bother even saying good bye because if it’s all luck of the draw then it’s all pointless, meaningless and really, really stupid. I don’t see things that way because I know better. There is a point, a purpose, and any intelligent, sentient, self aware entity can fully participate in the process of change, or creation. Knowingly, intelligently, forcefully. We are neither puppets of uncontrollable forces, nor accidents of evolution. Believing that is exactly what the current puppet masters want us to do.

      2. rawgod

        That is not what I was suggesting. In fact it is pretty much the opposite. How, I don’t know yet. Who, they aren’t with us yet, or at least not known of yet. Directing, no one person or group in particular, maybe not even humans. But, it will need beings all over the earth with a vision of what is, and what can be. If humans have to go extinct, or at least on the endangered species list, so be it. Something is going to happen, everything will change. I guarantee it. However, I doubt it will happen inour current incarnations.

      3. Sha'Tara Post author

        rg: At the risk of misunderstanding again (I do a lot of that on the blogs due to being quite often in a different space of awareness – no apologies, it’s not deliberate nor attempts at one-upmanship, I just know what I know and that’s that) you are allowing for the change to be somehow “directed” then at this point we’re on the same page.

        A longish interpretation of the future and how it will be ‘directed’:

        How this “directed” mega change takes place will require coordination from nature and a human change of mind. Nature takes care of its own so that should not be a problem we need to worry about once our greedy paws are pried off and can no longer access nature’s wealth to feed Earthian greed. What should/must happen for mankind to join in this coordinated effort at guiding change to create our new world (new understanding) is a complete die-back to allow a mutation to take over. This will be necessary so that nothing at all of the old manages to sneak into the new and corrupt it in time.

        The current Earthian pseudo-human species cannot comprehend the need to cleanse itself entirely from its past/present, nor is it likely to “get it” even if given more time, which it isn’t going to get: there will be no second chance for this civilization – it’s done for. A new species will arise from the old, mutated to the point that it will not be able to cross-breed with the old. We foresee massive suppression of these new people in the beginning. They will be blamed for everything that keeps going wrong within the downfall of civilization and they will be hunted down, killed, tortured and used in horrific experiments in attempts to find a “cure” against this viral mutation.

        All the while the die back will continue exponentially and the mutants will gain the upper hand, not through counter violence or numbers (the mutants will be much less procreative than Earthians) but through avoidance and separation. They will not attempt to ‘save’ the old species as they will know that all of it must perish so the old patriarchy and associated evils are utterly destroyed. I’m talking about hundreds of years here; the mutation to become obvious only after maybe half the current population of Earthians has died off, from internecine warfare, genocides, famine and assortments of diseases with no known cures. We’re already well into this irreversible downfall and no matter how far back I look into this current history, there is no point in it I can find where it could have been prevented. This civilization’s seeds of destruction were in its inception. Earthians did not plant those seeds originally but made little effort to eradicate them, instead using them to expand and sate their own lusts. Could they not have foreseen that following the slogan, “We came, we saw, we desired so we enslaved and killed them.” would eventually spell the necessary end of such a system?

      4. rawgod

        I kind of agree with that, but even though it may come to pass as you describe it, I am not going to go as specific as you have. A mutation may have to take place, but it need not be unbreedable with our present humanity, and in fact interbreeding would help it happen faster. The main thing that needs to happen is a change of consciousness. This is doable without mutation, though if the mutation is consciousness-driven instead of physically driven that would be okay too. Just in our little Word Press group there are a number of people who are moving towards this new consciousness, some already there, which points to this change not being biological, but rather what I call spiritual. Others may call it what they want, labels are not needed.
        And, yes, it is probably going to involve a a wholesale dying off or killing off of a huge part of humanity, if only to show humans how serious is the need for change. We don’t have hundreds of years anymore to get this change to happen, we’re lucky if we even have decades. Our next generation of young people, those ‘teen-born kids (2013 -2019), and the millenials (2000-2012), those are our biggest hopes right now to buy us the time we need but do not have. I hope they do not disappoint!
        This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, and we damnwell need it.

      5. Sha'Tara Post author

        Bitchin’? That’s me. Thanks for the encouragement and challenges, rawgod. I’ve made some good friends through this blogging experience, honest friends, that’s most important.

  6. adamspiritualwarrior

    I love the Antierra posts
    This is past life recollection stuff from shatra that makes it gripping amazing. Not some boring fiction invented from someones mind. So vivid and real and transporting your writing is Sharara!
    Transporting

    Reply
  7. franklparker

    “We are designed to be self empowered and to make all our own choices” What if your choice impinges on mine? 7.5 billion people all doing their own thing is a recipe for chaos of gigantic proportions. I’d say that is part of what is wrong right now.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Frank: You need to rethink that. You don’t have 7.5 billion people doing their own thing. You have, first of all, a tiny elite of powerful moneyed individuals who control the entire planet. Under them comes the many bureaucracies of religion, military, governments, supra-government (the UN and such) and of course corporations and banks who all severely dictate and control what the majority does, or can do. The chaos you see is created by this vast bureaucratic network that keeps on pushing people one against the other, for example, Brexit. Or Trump’s manipulation of government. The US meddling in Venezuela and Syria. The people aren’t doing any of this, the System is and all for power over, and out of greed gone off the rails.
      We are taught to believe we are the cause of our own social/environmental problems but we are victims of the puppet masters, make no mistake. Now, to break free and become ‘real boys’ instead of puppets, we need to gain our own empowerment. First point is, no matter what, as fully empowered individuals we could never achieve the kind of destruction and criminality our “leaders” openly unleash upon the earth. Our “vision” would be for ourselves and our immediate neighbourhood. Gone would be “globalism” and control of other nations. We’d learn to make do with what nature gives us and our localized smarts allow – we wouldn’t be launching wars against nations far away to grab their resources even if we thought about it because as in the long ago days we couldn’t reach them and we would not have more ‘force de frappe’ than they had. If there were local problems such as slavery and genocide between groups, such would have to be resolved between such groups, case closed. Ultimately of course, if the responsible self empowered individual awakened to compassion as the way to make choices, the world would change in very short order. Compassion doesn’t allow any room for evil to fester and grow, it absorbs it and destroys it. So that remains the bottom line: do we choose self empowerment through compassion, a strictly personal choice, or do we continue to destroy our world and ourselves for no good reason except to empower our predatory elites? Do we choose to use our intelligence intelligently or do we continue to choose slavery to illegitimate rulers and regimes?

      Reply
  8. franklparker

    As soon as you mention “your immediate neighborhood” you are contradicting (my understanding of) your OP in which I understood you to say we should care only for ourselves (although this also seems at variance with your espousing of empathy and compassion.)
    My point is that someone has to point a way through the noise of competing ideas. You (and many others) might think it’s the wrong way, in which case its up to you to make out the case for taking a different direction. You seem to be saying “a plague on all your houses, I’m going my own way.” If everyone did that there would be innumerable fatal collisions. There have to be traffic lights and/or roundabouts to keep the traffic moving!

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I’m sure we could counter-argue our personal points ad infinitum and get nowhere. I look at what doesn’t work; what is currently demolishing all the hope of mankind and I look for a way through. Your point about traffic lights is good, there has to be some system, but having a local democratic central to take care of such things isn’t the same as having military empires crushing the lives out of millions of people if you get my drift. We could have hospitals, schools, roads and traffic lights, even sidewalks without invading the Middle East! Without meddling in other nations’ affairs.
      If individuals were truly left to their own devices (the hope of the first Europeans to disembark in North America!) what would they choose? Would they immediately choose to oppress their neighbour, or would they choose cooperation? I was raised in a tiny Catholic hamlet in N. Alberta, Canada. We were pioneers in a wild land quite cut off from the rest of the world and our only road out of the village was often blocked for weeks on end due to either drifting snows or flooding. Without police or “security forces” or any of the bureaucracy now considered necessary, (we did have a priest but he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer) we didn’t go at each others’ throats, quite the opposite. We had a community support of people with skills and resources who were relied upon to be there when needed day or night. When I got old enough, since I had access to reliable transportation (my Clydesdale!) I became part of that group. We took care of each other, food was distributed, and firewood when needed. Even in the most difficult times no one died from not being looked after. That’s what small autonomous communities do. Cities and their centralized services (infrastructure) turn it all upside down while claiming to be an improvement.
      What made us choose cooperation rather than competition? To some extent it was compassion. Maybe that’s where I got the idea and it grew as I watched the System grow to swallow up the planet and eat it up as if it was a peach in a bowl of cream. Think compassion, Frank and you will realize how quickly greed, competition, bigotry, exclusiveness and exceptionalism make absolutely no sense. Instead of being slaves of capitalistic propaganda we can choose to become human beings. Human being care for one-another, doorstep to doorstep.

      Reply
  9. franklparker

    I do appreciate that point Sha’Tara. But in an over-crowded planet you were and are fortunate. What happens when the autonomous community grow so large that it needs the resources presently in use by a neighboring community? You talk about the first American settlers as though their lives did not interfere – in an extremely violent and oppressive way – with the people already living there. When a nation attempts to survive outside what you call “the system” with the result that it’s people starve, does compassion not demand that you ‘interfere’ to help its inhabitants?
    As for the middle east, we have a situation where some nations believe they have a historical right to continue to inhabit lands they conquered centuries ago, exterminating the previous inhabitants. Again, what is the compassionate human supposed to do about that?

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      OK, quote 1: “What happens when the autonomous community grow so large that it needs the resources presently in use by a neighboring community?” Your question answers itself: something is wrong with the autonomous community in that it is no longer autonomous, as in, self supporting. The problem, as we can see now with a bit of intelligence, is not resolved by attacking the neighbouring community by killing or enslaving its members and taking its resources. This is the standard modus operandi of this civilization, how it allowed itself to overflow its natural boundaries and grow out of control. The problem of unchecked growth versus a finite environment was first broached, I believe, in a computer simulated study done by the Club of Rome in 1972. For those of us immersed in the early days of environmental awareness that was an scary eye opener, especially when we realized no one would pay it much attention except predictably to deride it. Now that unchecked growth is becoming severely limited, the powers that be are concentrating on attempting to lock up remaining reserves of necessary resources to maintain their capitalistic expectations. Again, predictable results: wars, massacre of civilians, refugees and spreading famine along with global militarization.
      Quote 2: “You talk about the first American settlers as though their lives did not interfere – in an extremely violent and oppressive way – with the people already living there.” Yes I’m only too well aware of that fact, but it wasn’t part of the mindset of those who landed here. I was talking about their personal dream of fierce independence with a minimum of government. Had they peacefully melded with the existing people, they might have achieved that goal… but they were Europeans, and as such, they simply had no understanding of peaceful cohabitation: not in the blood. They were first of all racists and bigots. European wars bear witness to that sad fact, to this day.
      Quote 2 and 3: “When a nation attempts to survive outside what you call “the system” with the result that it’s people starve, does compassion not demand that you ‘interfere’ to help its inhabitants?
      As for the middle east, we have a situation where some nations believe they have a historical right to continue to inhabit lands they conquered centuries ago, exterminating the previous inhabitants. Again, what is the compassionate human supposed to do about that?
      The two questions blend into one, actually. Any nation can survive outside the system quite nicely, thank you very much, if only the System keeps its hands off and does not oppress in order to suck away resources. As to the Middle East, surely you are not going to insult my intelligence and expect me to believe that every “intervention” in that area by the USA, Canada and certain European nations is done out of compassion? I hope I don’t have to go into the whole horror of intervention by British, French and American forces on behalf of major oil corporations, since, let’s say, the days of Lawrence of Arabia and the Balfour Declaration. Is it compassionate to arm Saudi Arabia so it can bomb Yemen into the stone age and starve over a hundred thousand babies as a side line? Is it compassionate to support apartheid Israel militarily and economically? Is it compassionate to have killed over a million Iraqis presumably because we were pissed at Saddam Hussein? Is it compassionate to have killed Qaddafi of Lybia to impose regime change, turning that well-behaved nation into a shit hole, and to be doing the same in Syria? Is it compassionate to impose deadly sanctions against any regime one doesn’t like to create fear, anger and hunger as the US is doing to Venezuela after creating the crisis as they did in Chile in 1972? You tell me if just staying the hell away wouldn’t be more compassionate. But it wouldn’t be as profitable would it.
      Bottom line though Frank is we cannot speak of compassion within the existing system – it’s oil and water.

      Reply
      1. franklparker

        What I’m trying, with difficulty, to say is that what you are proposing is an impossible dream. You are right – and I have said it before – that human nature is the problem. I certainly remember the Club of Rome report. The problem was identified 150 years before that by Malthus. My question to you is how do you stop a population out-growing it’s immediate environment without restricting the rights and instincts of at least some off its members? And that takes you back to some form of controlling “system”.
        As for international relations – of course I agree with you that the military interventions by Europeans and their descendants in North America are anything but compassionate. But aside from militarism a common form of “control” is trade boycotts and sanctions. These too are deplored by Liberals because they impoverish the population of the “rogue” state. And yet, if you are correct and populations should be self supporting, boycotts and sanctions would have no effect. Like it or not, we are interdependent, as individuals and as a global village.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for your comment Frank. I have to make this brief so… first our “interdependence” is a manufactured condition based on capitalist control of invented “nations” with arbitrary borders, as in, divide and conquer. Remove the borders and the “nationalistic” aspirations of power seekers and allow the real people to find their own way through. If they cannot sustain themselves – and by the way no nation today can because of manipulation of money and trade – then they will have to cut back on their populations by choice and voluntarily… or die. In the case of non-sustainability, a die-back is nature’s way of speaking with the big stick and in a natural system no one is immune. Yes there has to be a controlling system, so let nature be that system, not the elites, the bankers or the ones with the biggest guns. I could say a lot more but it’s nothing you don’t already know as well as I.

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I have a hearing disability that keeps me from grasping sung lyrics in English, so I checked the written lyrics of her song and I’m like… what’s the connection? She seems to imply that “staying on the ride” is the way to go, or she could imply it’s not the way to go… I guess I miss her point entirely. Maybe if you have time you can explain?

      Reply
      1. adamspiritualwarrior

        Your hearing disability might actually be a focussing energy concentrating gift that’s freed your senses, perceptions, and well as powerfully focussed forwards your expressive abilities, not just sensory but outwards too. Though im sure there are much more deeper bigger picture things going on , with you.

        BTW im at an interesting juncture point with my question to the Thomas Williams THI show. About memory wiping between lives from now onwards Shatara. It is said the memory wiping after death stopped a few years ago now

        Any interesting developmets realiations I will report back about memory wiping, either here or a hyperlink or on Loublog.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thank you for that intuitive comment. I won’t argue against it, that’s for sure. If the memory wipe did stop then it means the TL (Time Lords) soul programming is breaking down and their stranglehold on power systems is weakening. “A few years ago” – that should mean the results will show up in the next generation. It will be interesting to see what they do with their new-found freedom to explore past (and future!) lives.

  10. Hyperion

    I am benevolent, altruistic, and a warlike egalitarian. I dont want that to change because then, I wouldn’t know who I was. Sadly, that is an example of bringing the old forward. But, under the right circumstances beyond my control, I’m quite adaptable and so with the proper catalyst, I could move forward without all those negative traits mentioned before. I accept condemnation as praise and validation and I’m good with being who I am. Sad, I know but, it’s all I got until It changes for better or worse.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      That’s how it should be. When I came to the place where I realized I did not like me, I changed me. Then I learned to live with that new creature. Still learning.

      Reply
      1. Hyperion

        It’s a process. I’ve not witnessed instant change in people although external stressors can get people to chance quickly.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        In my personal experience, stress can induce a quick change but it isn’t deep or total. Either there is a return to the “normal” when the stressful situation is removed, or the change goes in deeper and continues on (as in my case) where there is no turning back. If it’s a positive or good change then after a while you work to promote it and you would never – EVER – go back!

      3. Hyperion

        Yes, that seems to be the way things work mostly. Generational changes seem more permanent than individual change. We settle back into our true nature quickly.

  11. franklparker

    You seem to be saying the UK government was right to let the Irish starve between 1845-52 because their reliance on the potato was unsustainable – at least once the crop was repeatedly destroyed by blight? It was not, as some Irish historians assert, an act of genocide?

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for commenting and sticking with it, Frank. Let’s see if I can put this cart back on the road.
      Ireland was a harshly administered colony of Britain. The Irish did not have access to their own land in order to grow diversified crops. The best lands were owned and controlled by British aristocracy and banned to the Irish peasants. Let’s be fair and look at the picture as I presented it to you: no outside interference. Ireland’s potato famine was an imperialist cooked-up job. I have heard that the blight was in fact introduced to cause a massive genocide because the British wanted to own Ireland, lock, stock and barrel, the Irish wiped out or forced to emigrate from their homeland, except for the few ‘serf’ families to slave for their British owners. That was the British way (and the way of all European empires) in all of their colonies – again, history.
      Back to my original argument: it begins with a hands off condition while maintaining a compassionate overview. It may be that at the beginning, the most well-off groups may have to help out, though that is always a dicey situation. We know how UN convoys of food aid to starving countries in many instances created more harm than good. Short term: people killing each other and convoy security and drivers to get to the food. Long term: deadly dependency.

      Caution: Everything I say about changing the world is weak to the point of impossible simply because it all hinges on individual human beings tapping into their innate compassionate nature using that and only that, in their interaction with “others” – from a love partner, to children, to neighbours, to fellow country people to… everyone. That is a tall order, from personal experience. We do have compassion but it is not a natural state of beingness for us. We must choose it and then grind out our own private life with it, refusing all other ways when they would be so much easier.

      To discuss with me using standard arguments based on current social interaction is pointless: I don’t use tools that have never worked, do not work, or are obsolete, however embedded into the mindset, accepted by the majority or traditional. If, as human beings (I hate to use that term as the people of earth are not human beings but pseudo humans) we cannot volitionally choose to use compassion as our ONLY modus operandi relating to others, we are doomed anyway. We will destroy each other, our civilization and our world in exponential fashion until there is hardly anything left. At this point in my own life (couple of years behind you there!) I don’t even know any longer how I truly feel about any of it. I still feel the fire but I’m getting tired, feeling burned out, or as Tolkien said of Bilbo Baggins… I feel like too little butter spread over too much bread.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.