Power Struggles

This is some very interesting reading I saw one day in alt.consciousness. More or less unrelated to my site, but well worth the read.... Soon I might break it up into secions, to make for easier reading...

"Everything you've been told about left versus right is a lie. The only power
struggles that matter are between top and bottom. Life and death is the
ultimate power struggle in the universe, and for us, that's a matter of
being above the ground or under it.

Okay, so hopefully that got your attention! Now the idea is for you to keep
reading this so that next time you see Candidate Left versus Candidate Right
on TV, you'll understand what's really going on, and that, actually, they're
both pretty much just the same guy in a different suit.

There was a lot of history in the world before the twentieth century, but,
odds are, since no one who is reading this was alive before then, that's a
good as place as any to start. There were plenty of left and right power
struggles going on during the last century, but basically there were always
two issues opposing each other from top to bottom: the physical and the
abstract. Now maybe this seems like too much of an abstraction in itself, so
read on as I break it down into examples everyone can relate to.

First of all, there were a lot of wars that caused a hell of a lot of death
and destruction. For the first half of the century, these were basically
fought over land. WWI and II were basically left and right fights over
territory, hence the physical part. Sure there was a lot of lip service paid
to concepts such as nationalism and ideology, but these abstract priorities
were clearly on the bottom of the physical demands. Odds are neither of
those wars would have happened if someone hadn't tried to grab a piece of
someone else's territory. But by the second half of the century, ideology
took over as the prime motivation, and we had the left versus right struggle
of the cold war.

Now don't get me wrong, there was still a hell of lot of physical suffering
and dying resulting from these clashes as well. The difference was that in
the places where there was fighting, the struggle was for dominance of a
system over the combatants home turf. In terms of national politics, the
abstract started to dominate the physical. Fewer and fewer countries were
sending their armies into their neighbors yards. By the end of the century,
physical and abstract started to mare together, and the ultimate union of
land and ideology emerged in the form of the economic nation state. Use of
the military came to be frowned upon, and considered not a good way to win
friends and influence voters. But, more importantly to the folks in charge,
it was really expensive and not very conducive to lining their own pockets.
The unquestionable currency of power ceased to be territory or political
recognition, and became, well, hard currency: Money.

Money became the universally regarded end-all-be-all foundation of human
society. In fact, everything from religion and art (televangelism and mass
media entertainment are two good examples) to sex (the booming Porn
industry!) also got snowballed into one big all encompassing economic
system. Anything and Everything became up for sale. As the glorious
twentieth-century came to a close, there was a left and right power
struggle being waged by the people on top who controlled economics over the
majority of humanity, who found themselves on the bottom, but things change
fast. While all of this was going on, there was a new even more important
currency of power coming out of the mint.

Now I said I'd come up with something everyone can relate to, and since most
of us aren't really controlling players in the grand economic struggles of
the world, lets talk about something more basic: sex. During the twentieth
century, there were basically two types of sex symbols: the physically
exquisite and the powerful. Now when I say powerful, I'm talking about the
trump of the times and tastes. Early on, it almost always came down to
money, religion, politics, intellect, or artistic ability, but that changed
later. Now physical beauty was the usual turn-on for the men, particularly
at the beginning of the century, and women were normally hot for power.

But by the end of the century, there seemed to be a bit of a mix-up, not
only did a lot of girls start finding looks on a boy more important than
power, but more boys started to dig women on top. Now for the most part,
this was all just the pretty healthy result of women entering the workplace
and becoming more self-sufficient, but then things started to get strange.
As time went on, more and more girls started checking out girls, and a lot
of boys were digging boys!

Now don't get me wrong, you've always got a certain percentage of folks who
will fall into this habit (and that's just the way it is, deal with it), but
in the popular consciousness, romantic relationships started getting really
confusing. Yet populations kept growing, so this was probably a pretty good
indicator that most of us knew which way to swing our partners, even as the
infamous gay/straight (again left-right) quandaries continued to dominate
the TV talk show circuit. The real confusion occurred over roles in affairs
like dating and marriage, and these relationships on the whole started to
become less and less stable.

So why did all this happen, you ask? Well, it all comes down to the fact
that the two ideals of physical and abstract got squashed into one big ball
called economics. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not into communism. I'm
basically a capitalist. I like having my own stuff, and the general
consensus around the world seems to indicate most folks agree these days.

The problem is that we essentially have a bipolar nature. You could say it's
as basic as male/female, but I prefer to go a step further and say it's a
matter of life and death. When you get right down to it, that's really
what sex is all about (and why it's really everyone's favorite subject).
Whose genetic line lives on, and whose line dies out. Okay, sure there's a
lot of fun stuff in between! But essentially, that's what it comes down to:
life and death. This basic paradigm is what defines us as living beings
(because the other option is to be dead not-beings).

For those of you who are out of practice, sex as a matter of life and death
works like this: boy meets girl, they hit it off, they get busy, and
together they create a new generation of living beings. From two comes a
third (or more, but don't get technical!) This basic formula is the essence
of all human concepts of creation. Not only of actual babies, but all
creative endeavors in life. Two things, groups, or ideas are put together,
and from this a new unique third thing emerges. And by the way, this is also
the essence of the concept of trinity found in just about every religion.
Trust me, it was there originally in all of them, only the later day
followers just mucked it up eventually in every one.

So back to the problem of economics and sex. With the physical/abstract
mishmash of modern capitalism basically running amuck all over the globe in
the twenty first century, there's no essential duality in our nature
anymore. On the sexual side, men and women tend to get lumped into together
as interchangeable economic units. Sure, there's nothing at all wrong with
either one being able to take care of the financial or social duties of the
other, but that's not the problem. The issue is that men and women each have
a unique perspective in the creative/procreative process by virtue of the
equipment they're born with. This is really what determines their roles they
each have to play. Boys ain't girls, and girls ain't boys. You can cry about
this being unfair and old-fashioned all you want. But the fact is men don't
get preganant, and women don't impregnate them.

The instability in male-female relations caused problems because a lot of
kids started coming up in this chaotic environment confused and uncertain
about their own roles in life. (And remember, kids are the naturally
intended end product of the whole sex thing regardless of if you go lubed,
ribbed, natural, or really natural style!) As the children grew up their
confusion about their roles in the grand creative process of life, and the
lack of stable guidance on this matter from their parents caused them a
great deal of self-doubt, self-loathing, and just generally self-destructive
behavior. But of course, kids don't stay kids forever. Eventually they
become adults.

Meanwhile, in the big social/political mishmash of modern economic theory,
we still come up short on necessary dynamism too. Oh sure, you've got the
classic struggle of the haves versus the have-nots, but everyone knows which
side of that divide they want to be on, so that really doesn't count as
motivation in the "dynamic opposition of two lives creating a third" sense.

Ah, but you see, No matter how a culture defines itself, there are always
two elements of power in opposition, regardless of whether the society
recognizes it or not. There is a real up and down opposition, and economics
has already dropped to the bottom. The top element is definitely there, it
just hasn't been clearly defined yet because of it's very nature, and the
fact that the top left-right players want to control it for as long as
possible.

What's the one thing today that is most likely guaranteed to get you money
and influence (and laid)? Fame. The word conjures up dreams of unlimited
power in the modern world. But what is it based on? Physical beauty? (Hmm,
think ofsome of the ugly mugs that show up on the Ricki Lake Show.) Not
just. Is it abstract stuff like brains or talent? (Again, think the Ricki
Lake Show!) Obviously not always (or even very often for that matter)!
Economics? Well, as any one with stock in a dot-com knows, fame (or infamy)
and reputation are more important than economic soundness. So what is the
power of fame based on then?

What it all comes down to is this: COMMUNICATION. The ability to present
yourself effectively to a large number of people is power. Power enough to
oppose the combined territorial/ideological economic might of any nation,
and power enough to put you on the top of their economic food chains.
Political candidates, Hollywood stars, and terrorists-turned-politicians all
know this is true, yet their public discourses are still framed in outdated
terms. Why? Because the guys who are out there stumping are on top because
they control the channels of communications. They have the power, and they
want to keep everyone whose still thinking in terms of economics or politics
on the bottom, and that includes you!

Okay, so I'm sure you conspiracy nuts out there are really slobbering all
over yourselves right now, but I'm afraid I'm going to squash you X-files
style conspiracy fantasies here. You see, the truth is, it's not a simple
matter of "us" versus a "them" that consists of a bunch of guys in a secret
boardroom somewhere, but "the People" (which includes pretty much all of us)
versus a system that we ourselves inadvertently built up around our most
beloved icons, cherished notions, and revered personalities.

Notice before that I started out talking about fame, but ended up saying
that it all comes down to communication. Fame is just a byproduct of being
either really good at what you do in any field (which is becoming the root
of fame less and less), or just simply being able to communicate effectively
to a large number of people (which is the main source of fame these days).
While it is not a real tangible quality, we still have an elaborate "Star"
system in everything from sports and entertainment to national and
international business and politics which seems to based on nothing more
than fame itself.

Generally speaking, I have nothing against famous people. In fact, many of
the most positive influences in my life came from famous individuals I never
met. I'm not saying, however, that we need to go out and string em all up!
Far from it. This is the danger of taking an "us against them" attitude. I
genuinely like many of the people who are, through no harmful intention of
their own, actually contributing to the very system that is destroying our
society. Everybody knows the old truism that fame is fleeting, right? Yet
our culture presents it as the ultimate reward. The question is why?

The answer is twofold. The first is that with the global nature of
communications technology and media, small groups of individuals can have an
enormous impact on the rest of the world. This is in and of itself not
necessarily a bad thing. People are generally smart enough to know what's
good and what's bad. As long as someone is just communicating, no matter how
wacky their point of view is, that's fine. Different strokes, right?
However there is a problem when deceit and manipulation become the basis of
the entire system that people are brought up in, and that's the case with
the mass media culture we have today. And this brings us to the second part
of why fame is the ultimate reward in our culture: commercialism.

Commercialism should not be confused with capitalism. There are plenty of
hemp wearing, dope smoking, neo-hippies out there shouting rallying cries
(and making really nifty papier-mâché effigies) against capitalism. But no
one really takes them seriously, because we all know that most of them go
home to a place full of lots of mass produced stuff they themselves bought
and enjoy. (Okay, maybe they got it with their parents money, but still.)
No, Consumerism is not the same thing as capitalism, which is essentially
the system the guarantees one the rights to own property and buy and sell
services freely. Consumerism is capitalism's evil twin brother that took his
place and has been masquerading as him for years.

Consumerism is a system based on selling by psychologically manipulating
people into buying things they don't need. The key word here is "need." What
the system of consumerism does is trick you into thinking you want
something, and the most prevalent and insidious method of doing this is
commercial advertising.

No one really likes intrusive commercial, and every one hates getting junk
mail and calls from phone solicitors, yet we put up with it. Why? Because we
're told it's necessary to prop up our economy and support the media we all
read, watch, and listen to. We're lulled into a false sense of security by
the purveyors of it, and by ourselves, in to thinking that it's not harmful.

We all reason that one commercial doesn't necessarily make us want to run
off and buy something if we don't want to, and that's true. What we tend to
underestimate, however, is the overwhelming cumulative effect the constant
bombardment of ads and manipulative images has on our collective psyche. For
one, it creates trends and fads that force people to conform or feel
socially cast out, often for no good reason other than a brand name. And
this habit isn't just confined to kids either. Adults do it too on a daily
basis, they just don't realize it. Fads that result from commercial
marketing aren't just confined to so-called consumer products. They are also
regularly applied, and socially enforced, in the areas of politics,
ideology, and standards of social behavior every day.

Everyone says that commercials are necessary for business to get the word
out about their products and services, but this is true only to a certain
degree. The issue is not that companies are out there telling about what the
have to offer, but the frequency and emotional pitch most of them are doing
it at. Repetition and emotional and physiological manipulation are the
hallmarks of a conditioning system. Back in the old days when governments
(and other institutions) did this in backrooms it was called "Brainwashing."
But now that they do it out in the open, it's called "paid political
advertising."

And if what politicians are doing seems manipulative and harmful, then when
commercial institutions are doing is a thousand times worse by virtue of
volume alone. Flip on your TV or open up a magazine and take a good look at
the advertisements you see. Think about it. Are the majority of them really
trying to tell you something about the quality of a good or service, or are
they just pitching an image?

The vast majority of commercial advertising is put out there to effect how
you think about products or companies you already know exist. They want to
keep a positive image of whatever it is they're selling fresh in your head,
so they keep hammering you with slick words and images over and over, until
your brain becomes numb and accepting. They know you may or may not like the
way they do it, but they don't care as long as you let them get away with
it. There are certainly legitimate needs and ways for businesses and
institutions to inform you of what they have to offer, but there are better
ways then a constant, brain-bashing, repetitive and manipulative barrage
that ambushes you every chance it can.

We're told that we need to commercials and advertising to support the media,
but we don't. Take movies for example. There are no commercials in the
middle of a movie because you paid your seven-plus bucks to see half-naked
teenagers getting slashed up by a quotable psycho, not some idiot talking
about the brand of hemorrhoid cream he's getting paid to shill! You paid for
the service up front. With the way communication technology is developing
today, you could put the same sort of system to use in broadcast and print
media too, and still guarantee basic accessibility to everyone. This is
basically the same way we pay for cable and phone lines now or buy a
newspaper.

"But then the quality would go down!" shout the reactionaries, but that's
not necessarily true. The cost of creating quality media is rapidly coming
down to the point where almost anyone can produce and/or record something
with money from their normal wages. There are six billion people currently
on the planet, and I can't believe that the only one's talented enough to
create something entertaining and/or informative are a few thousand
self-congratulating jerk-offs in LA and New York! ("And the winner for Best
Acceptance Speech on an Award Show in the category of film or TV goes to.")

Lets face it, the real winners of the commercial advertising system are a
relatively small number of talent, business, and political players who make
their living from the media, and fatten their pocketbooks with what you pay
them for. It supports a "Star" system of people who gain their power,
wealth, and prestige with fame. Even those with the best of intentions still
end up doing more harm than good by capitalizing on their fame for their own
advantage. It doesn't matter if they're artists, businessmen, or
politicians, anyone who binds their identity and livelihood to the star
system becomes both it slave and yet at the same time, master over all those
who pay them homage.

As a writer, I consider myself to be a artist. As such, I would like to be
paid a fair wage and be appreciated for it. To me, if I work on a book for a
year that people enjoy, a fair wage is at best commensurate with what any
skilled professional would make. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a
million dollar book advance, but not at the expense of squashing the chances
of other talented authors being read, and that's exactly what I'd be doing.

If a book publisher knows they have a guaranteed million copies sold going
with a star writer, why would they bother to give ten unknown writers a
chance? This is exactly the sort top down corporate system we currently have
now, not only in publishing, but in every other media as well. The good
news, however, it that this is changing thanks to technological advances
like the Internet and electronic publishing. Other medias are experiencing
the same trend as well. I'm enough of an artist to know that there will
always be lots of creative people out there with the need to express
themselves, and I'm enough of a capitalist to know they'll find some way to
do it, and make a few bucks in the process too.

Which brings us to the current debate over services like Napster. The issue
here is that in the twentieth-century, the abstract concept of art and ideas
got combined with the more physical concepts of property. The problem can be
summed up with a common phrase of leagalese: Intellectual Property.
Copyright laws essentially say that you can own an idea. But how can anyone
really claim that?

A simple example. If a comedian tells a funny story, and you hear it and
tell it at work the next day, should he be able to sue you? Of course
conventional wisdom says no on this, but if you write that joke down or tell
it in some way that could be carried across a communications medium, the
originator could legally file suit against you. Does the comedian deserve
credit for originating the joke? Most definitely. But once it's out there,
it's out there. How can he change that? Does he have the right to tell you
what you can and can't say? According to copyright law, the answer is yes.

Here's another example. When VanGogh painted a masterpiece, he sold it, got
his money for it, and went on to his next work. He didn't then tell the new
owner that he expected to get a commission from every person who showed up
to look at it! In the twentieth-century performers and artists got away with
getting commissions from recordings and reproductions of their works because
they were so difficult and expensive to produce and distribute. But now in
the twenty-first century, that's rapidly changing.

All creative energy is sexual energy. Ask and artist, and they'll tell you
that creating a true masterpiece is just as good (if not better than) any
orgasm. In a way, they are giving birth to new life because, if it really
moves other people in some way to be more creative themselves, life itself
is enriched and renewed. Many artists say that their works are like their
children, and children in a way are much like a piece of art in that they
are basically reproductions of their parents (hopefully with improvements)
to send out into the world. Expecting to get money every single time someone
copies an artist's work is like being a parent who expect a payoff every
time someone screws their daughter! ("Thank you mister Johnson, here's a
twenty. Your sperm and upbringing contributed well to your daughter's
wonderful vagina.")

Another excuse for the Star System is that stars receive such outrageous
salaries because their careers are often relatively short. (This is a common
cry of pro athletes.) So what happens if an engineer spends years learning
and working in a particular field only to have it rendered obsolete by
changing technology. Should we give all engineers big fat salaries with six
zeroes behind them in case something new comes up? Hardly!

If someone can't support themselves throughout their life with one career,
they need to find another one, or make some other arrangements (a rich
widow, maybe). With technology and society changing as rapidly as it is
today, most people can expect to work in a few different fields. Why then,
should entertainers and athletes be any different. Just because they got all
the perks of being famous once, do the deserve to get an early retirement
and be treated like prima-donnas for the rest of their lives?

With entertainment, the influence of commercial influence has an
unprecedented effect within the communication media, and this has a really
nasty effect when we expect to be provided with valuable information like
news and the facts of what's going on in the world. Lets be honest, which
would you rather watch? A segment all about the issues of health care in
Peoria, or a story about Pamela Anderson's breast implants? Now, which may
possibly have a bigger impact on your life? The problem is that the news
industry is now run by people who are much more concerned with getting
ratings or selling copy to get their advertising dollars than informing
people about what's really going on. Entertainment sells better than
information.

There is also an unfortunates but natural human tendency to relish hearing
bad news and about the misfortune of others. This probably stems from the
natural relief one gets when, for example, one hears about a plane crash and
thinks "Hey, I survived because my plane landed safely, and those poor
bastards didn't." But since suffering sells, the news media is always ready
to display as much of it as possible to make a buck, regardless of if the
overall flood of images is an accurate portrayal of the world or not. And
when so much suffering is broadcast, it reaches a level that would overwhelm
any individual if they tried to take it all in at the rate it's being put
out. It all starts to take on an unreal quality to the point that it becomes
a distant dream like thing, not really worth even thinking about because it
all seems so far away.

There is also a very legitimate need for people to hear about potential
threats to them. The News media knows this grabs people's attention, and so
they intentionally magnify and exaggerate threats to get you to buy what
they're sponsors are paying them big bucks to sell. ("Tonight: Sure, Grandma
may seem sweet and nice. But can she snap at any moment and turn into a
raging psychotic cookie pushing fiend?")

Sell, sell, sell. Be it an episode of "Friends" or "Sixty Minutes", that's
really what it's all about. The real message they're giving you is "Buy,
buy, buy," and you're expected to work, work, work, so you can do just that.
Gotta keep the system going. They can't sell and get rich if you're not
working yourself to your grave to buy as much as possible. And the more you
buy, the more they sell. And the more they sell, the harder and harder you
work like a good little slave to buy more and more.

When you get right down to it, the problem is really not so much a left wing
media conspiracy or a right wing one for that matter, it's all controlled by
commercial interests motivated by rampant consumerism. Again, all real power
struggles are between top and bottom, and everyone who monopolizes the news
hour, going back and forth about left and right, are already on top because
they collectively control the mass media already.

So far, It seems I've been picking on entertainers (and lets face it, that's
exactly what most news-hams are now), but they're only the most obvious
examples. There is a star system in the Business world too. There are people
who make ridiculous money based on reputation alone. If communication is a
key to a person's position (and in modern management, this is usually the
case) then fine, pay them a reasonable salary for it. For the most part, all
exorbitantly fat executive salaries really do in the end is drive up
expenses and prices, artificially inflate stock values, and force out less
glamorous workers, all to ensure that the same greedy, self-serving,
mediocre bosses and tyrants float from corporation to corporation.

There are a lot of complaints about the heartless practices of big corporate
business, and most of them are legitimate. But there's one thing that can't
be denied. In a world with billions of people and a globally marketplace,
large monolithic business institutions are just an inescapable fact of life.
That doesn't mean that they should be the only choice, or justify the way so
many corporate bosses exploit the people and resources under them. But
rallying against big corporations as a concept is just pissing in the wind.

The problem again is one of communication. Big corporations control the flow
of information, and until this changes, the real facts about there abuses of
power won't ever get out. And slick propaganda campaigns against slick
corporate propaganda is not the answer either. Manipulative BS is BS no
matter what cause it serves. Every time I see one of those damned so-called
"Truth" anti-smoking ads, I want to take up the dirty nasty habit myself!

And speaking of propaganda, that brings us to politics! How is it that
pretty much every nation in the world has embrace the ideal of democracy,
and yet we still have governments run by people no one really likes, who
spend most of their time (and the tax payers money) in petty squabbles and
debates that are all really only about how rich they and their buddies can
become, while most of the long term issues which governments were formed to
deal with in the first place, loom larger than ever? If you're thinking it's
because the guys who run the governments control the media, you'd be on the
right track. More to the point, those who can most effectively present
themselves and manipulate and control the media, control government.

It used to be that governments and politicians often used draconian measures
to directly control what the people heard. But by late in the twentieth
century, people everywhere came to see this for what it was. Ah, but the
lure of political power is too sweet a prize for crafty self-serving types
to ignore. Today, governments manipulate public opinion by researching what
they want to hear, and soothing them with that. If they're doing something
the people don't like, they just flood the airwaves with irrelevant but
entertaining news to distract their attention away long enough for them to
loose interest.

And when it comes time for elections, particularly on the national level,
that's when it really gets deep! The only politicians that can realistically
get into office are the ones that spew out enough BS to make them the most
popular, or in most cases, the least unpopular. Liberal or conservative, it
doesn't matter. In fact, when you peal away their suits of rhetorical
threads, and look at how national governments actually handle the real
problems of the world these days, the differences are insignificant. What
both sides unconsciously conspire to do, however, is frame their debates in
such a way that new ideas that might threaten their popularity never get
through.

Okay, so I said this all comes back to something we can all relate to, which
of course means more sex! Here's the thing. The Left versus right debate
that's goes on about sexual attraction is essentially framed as style over
substance; Looks versus brains (a common standard issues lamented by brainy
women against their physically sexier competitors) or a fashion sense versus
the ability to provide (a conventional complaint of "stable" men against
the club dogs out there). These again are basically the physical versus
abstract issues. But wait, these two got together and gave birth to a new
third option: communication, right?

Well, the ability to express one's self, be it by dressing well to enhance
your physical assets, or having a snappy patter at the bar, is not just
empty headed fluff or "style over substance," it is the practical
demonstration of a valuable quality for a mate to have (and be able to pass
on): communication. But don't despair geek boys and girls, because this
doesn't mean that you're still destined to loose the girl or guy of your
dreams to the same jerks and bitches as always. Now you know their secret.
Once we become aware that this is what we are looking for, or trying to
express to, the opposite sex, we can better spot the deceivers and more
effectively concentrate our own efforts.

Now I'm not saying that if you sit at home in front of your computer screen
with a bag of Cheetoes all day downloading porn you have the secret to
dating success! Odds are, if that's the case, you need to work on your
interpersonal skills a little more. What I am saying is that we shouldn't
look down on the folks scoring their life partners in the clubs any more
than they should look down at those who meet their perfect someone on the
net. Those that operate better in face-to-face situations are prone more
towards the physical side of relationships, while those who do better
indirectly are prone more towards the old abstract. But again, the key to
success at the dawn of the new millennium is communication, be it in
professional and economic fields or the bedroom. Don't forget, all
creativity basically comes down to a matter of sexual energy. The proof of
what gets you ahead in life is basically what scores you the babes.

And speaking of porn, here's another perfect example of how the greed of
commercialism manipulate people into self-destructive behavior. First of
all, I have no prudish tendencies about people saying and doing explicit
thing or recording them. If someone wants to show their ass on film, I have
no problem with that. (Especially if it's a nice ass!) The problem is the
prime motivation behind porn is not so much sexual as it is commercial. Porn
and the sex industry manipulates people's desires not to turn them on, but
to get cash. Porn manipulates both the buyers and the performers and
ultimately degrades both.

Call me old-fashioned, but I firmly believe that sex is for the intimate
expression of love between a man and a woman. When it's done only for money,
be it the form of prostitution or porn, it devalues real love and cheapens
the experience for everyone. The solution to this problem is not in any sort
of legal action, but in communicating what's real and worthwhile about sex
to everyone. There will always be people who get off on watching or on
exhibitionism, and as long as everyone involved doesn't mind, that's
alright. Whatever gets 'em through the night. The trick is to minimize the
harmful effects so that it sucks as few hard-up people as possible into
giving up their basic human dignity for a few easy bucks.

When you get right down to it, sex in it's purest form is really about
communication. It's a way of expressing love and unity, and from this can
come creation. Now I'm not saying it's the only way to love and create. You
don't have to jump on anything and everybody just to express your love for
them! ("Gee, I really loved that ham sandwich. No I mean I REALLY loved
it!") And when I say sex in it's "purest" form, I'm not talking about some
missionary position only Victorian ideal of purity, I'm talking about what
two people are feeling. If sex about love and giving of yourself completely
to someone so that together you both become something more, then it's pure.
There's a reason they call it "make'n love".

It doesn't matter how you do it, where you do it, or what accessories you
use (if you're into having that sort of thing into you), as long as the love
is there and given freely. In fact, you could say that about pretty much any
activity in life. Love is something that you can give away that will always
come back to you. But if you do it for any other reason like greed, vanity,
or anger, well then these things will come back up on you too.

Love in every form is a way of bringing people together. This is the essence
of communication, real communication. When you talk with hate and
destructive intention behind your words, it's really not much different than
actually acting on those feelings. This is not communication, this is
deceitfulness. You're lying to others, and you're lying to yourself, because
you've somehow tricked yourself into believing you're better then them, or
that somehow you're separate from the rest of the human race. We're all
together in this thing called life regardless of if you want to see it or
not. Communication is only really communication when it creates togetherness
and helps people to realize and achieve a great unity of individuals,
peoples, ideas, and ways of life. When the purpose of a message is to divide
people or get them to do your bidding, it's deceit.

And believe it or not, communication is the essence of all religion. Oh sure
when you hear the fiery rhetoric of a lot of preachers out there, this may
be hard to swallow! But the guys who founded all the great religions of the
world knew what they were talking about and how to say it. The problem was
that, over the ages, their message of love got garbled by the normal changes
brought about to society by time, and also by well meaning people who knew
what the Religious founders were talking about, but not how to say it. Then
of course there were also a lot of people who didn't know what their
supposed teachers were really talking about, but knew how to say what was in
they're own devious little hearts. These folks weren't well meaning at all,
but downright deceitful and self-serving.

But no matter how screwed-up the message has gotten, every true religious
pronouncement is true if you understand the context it was made in. Take for
example a religious refrain that everyone's heard, and possibly rolled their
eyes at: Masturbation is a sin. But you know what, there's a really good
reason for saying this.

Now don't get all red faced on me, I pretty sure we've all stroked the
bishop at some point. Sometimes you just gotta test out the mike before you'
re ready to start the show! I'm not going to tell you some crap like if you
do it again you're going to go blind or burn in Hell, but what I am going
tell you is that there is a good reason why the holiest of holy guys say you
shouldn't do it. When you masturbate, you're wasting creative energy that
could be shared with someone else just to get yourself off.

In a way, saying "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" is (in
addition to being a nice little slogan on treating others well) another way
of saying "It's better to play with others than to play with yourself!"
Again, I'm not saying you have take the sexual references literally all the
time. believe me, you don't have to be handling your own equipment to be
masturbating. There are plenty of ways of jerking yourself off that don't
involve the removal of your pants!

Whenever you do something for yourself alone and no one else, there's a good
chance you may be stroking your way to hairy palms! Don't get the wrong idea
here, though. Sometime you just gotta do something for yourself alone for
the sake of relaxation, recharging your batteries, or even for self
improvement. But the eventual (if unspoken) intention should always be that
you come out in better shape to be with others again.

Sometimes people jerk each other off without even realizing. You ever see a
conversation where two people are talking to each other without any
intention of listening to what the other person is saying, or giving
something back to them at all? Some people call this talking to hear your
own voice. I call it verbal masturbation. (For an example of what I mean,
watch a political debate sometime!) But this isn't limited to just talking,
it applies to any form of communication or expression. Often people have sex
with each other who don't really give a damn about what the other person is
feeling, and when two people do this, it amounts to little more than mutual
masturbation.

Everything we can do together or give to each other that isn't hurtful is
about sharing love and expressing unity. It's all about communication:
speaking, writing, building, designing, sharing, growing, loving, all of it.
And it doesn't matter if it's about friendship, dating, marriage, art,
technology, science, service, religion, government, or whatever. If it's
really creative in that it renews life in some way, it's real communication,
or to put it another way it's communion. Again, this is a basic concept of
all religion that has, for the most part, been lost over the ages. Communion
with your fellow man and woman is communion with the essence of life itself.
And the essence of life is nothing more or less than what a lot of folks
like to call "God."

All creativity is meant to influence people and further human development.
The opposite of creation is destruction. Creation versus Destruction is what
the old battle of "Good versus Evil" is really all about. Hurting, hating,
killing, lying, stealing, raping, these are the things that destroy. It may
sound corny, but people really do these things because they're afraid,
afraid of love. They're afraid of being hurt themselves, so they try to hurt
others first. More often than not, they don't even realize why they're doing
it. But those of us who know why and know what real love is have an
obligation to help them if we can. And if all our love and helpful attempts
can't get them to change their ways, then we have an obligation to stop them
when their hurtful ways become a threat to others.

If you know there is fear and destruction in the world and you also know
there's something you can do about it, you have a sacred obligation to do
what you can. You do this through creation and through communication. If you
let destructiveness go unchecked, you're no better then those you could have
helped or stopped but didn't. We're all in this together. Whatever you do in
life will come back to you. We're all One. In the end, we either all move
forward together or we all go down together. It's that's simple.

It really is a constant power struggle, creation versus destruction, life
versus death. One's always on top, and the other's always on the bottom. In
the big cosmic scheme of things, there's an eternal and constantly revolving
balance, but I've got news for you, in this life, you ain't eternal! We've
all only go some much time in this world to do what we can. Don't waste it.
Don't choose the road to destruction. In an infinite universe there may be
life without end, but in you're finite lifetime you're going to die, and if
you live to destroy, you're end will probably not be a pleasant one.

Many religions talk about Heaven and Hell to try to motivate people to do
what's right. But if you're really doing the right thing, you don't have to
worry about eternal reward or damnation. You'll get what you deserve. We all
will. When we die we become part of something bigger. The whole world we
leave behind becomes a part of us just as when we we're here, we were a part
of it. If it's a better place when you're gone, you'll feel it in the old
hereafter. If all you're life amounts to is screwing people over, believe
me, when you're number is up (if not before then), you'll feel what that's
like too!

So now you may be saying to yourself, "Okay, but what's all this got to do
with Candidate Left and Candidate Right?" Absolutely nothing. Not a damned
thing, and that's the point! Life over death, creation over destruction,
these are the struggles that really matter. Look at what politicians and
so-called world leader say and what they actually do. Now compare that with
the power and potential they have to help the people they're supposed to be
serving. Look at the world around you. There's certainly a lot that's good,
but can it be better? Could our supposed leaders be doing something more
creative with the resources and power we've given them. The answer to that
is a big definite "Hell yes!"

The question then is why do we let them get away with it? The world has
supposedly seen the light of democracy, and governments belong to the
people, right? You know, "We the people" and all. Remember that? Well, the
reason they do whatever they want is because we let them deceive us with
what they know we want to hear. They play on our fears and appeal to our
greed, vanity, anger, and most of all, laziness. They do this by
manipulating how we communicate. They trick us into thinking in the terms
they want us to: left or right, choice A or choice B. They keep us from
realizing that there might be more than just two sides to the story. ("We
got both kinds of music, country AND western")

What they're all really saying is "Yeah, we could help our fellow citizens
more and alleviate suffering better. But hey, if we do, you know you might
have to give up some stuff, and you really don't want to do that, do you?
Wouldn't you really much rather get rich so you can buy more stuff that will
make you even cooler? Instead of us spending your money to develop things
that will free more people from the servitude of poverty or working on cures
for their suffering, wouldn't you much rather we develop a potion that will
get your dick harder and a remote control that works by voice so you don't
have to get your fat ass up off the couch and stop jerking-off to the porn
we sold you? Wouldn't you much rather have a million more shades of lip
gloss than more than two political candidates to choose from? Wouldn't you
much rather change the channel than have to watch our boring old asses going
on about issues that are really irrelevant to anything besides making us
richer while we get ourselves off in the seats of power? Don't look at me it
's the other guys fault! Instead of questioning us, wouldn't you much rather
express yourself and your individuality by buying the fashionable stuff that
we crank out for you by the millions? Wouldn't you much rather hear what
hilarity will come out of the mouths of those darned old Budweiser frogs
next?" Or just do it? Have a coke and a smile?"

That's it. That's the real message that we're being bombarded with everyday.
You're being told that if you just buy what there're selling, you won't get
hurt. And if someone else is getting hurt, hey, why worry about it? It's the
other guys problem, right? And if what was happening to them was really
relevant to your life, you'd hear more about them, right? If you believe
that, fine. Enjoy your latest copy of the Victoria's Secrets catalog, and
don't come whining to me if everything "suddenly and unexpectedly" comes
crashing down around you. You're just my other guy, right? And if I see your
face on the six o'clock news, I can just follow your example and change the
channel to tune you out.

So if you're still with me this far, the question you're now asking is
probably "Okay what can I do about all of this?" Well the first step before
any of us can really tackle the problems of the world is to take a look at
our own lives. Observe how you act, and think about how you think. Try to
detach yourself from all the rhetoric and doubletalk your being hit with
from all sides. Don't live your life for the acquisition of more stuff. In
our consumer driven society this is a hard mindset to get out of, but just
remember, sometimes there's a difference between what you want and what you
need.

And don't be fooled by anything they say in a commercial. No matter what,
all they really want to do is sell you on something. The Sprite commercial
may tell you that image is nothing, yet they're still paying good money to
sell you an image aren't they? That cute little talking dog may make you
chuckle, but all he's really there for is to make you like the company that
keeps him in kibbles a little more. Think about it, are you really going to
have a better chance with the hot starlet in the commercial if you buy what
she's selling, or are they just giving you a fantasy to jerk-off to while
you're thinking about their product? Just think of how rich she's getting by
teasing you!

It's easy to say that commercial advertising doesn't effect you. It's easy
to believe that it's all for nothing because people aren't that
impressionable, but think about it. Would the big penny pinching,
bottom-line watching corporations of today really dump billions of dollars
into advertising if it didn't have a demonstrable effect on their profits?
Listen to the rhetoric of politicians and other so-called leaders, and then
take a look at the message in commercials. Which more accurately reflects
the world around you? There are a lot of people talking with good intentions
and good ideals, but look at what they do. Look at what values their
actions really reflect. When they say "we can make a difference" are they
really acting to change things or to just get you to buy and consume more
stuff?

So now you're thinking about all these issues, and you realize there really
is a problem. "What next?" you ask. "Do I give up all my worldly
possessions, go live in a shack in Montana, and blow stuff up?" No,
definitely not!

Hey, I'll be honest here ('cause honest communication is what I'm talking
about), I enjoy the occasional Quarter-Pounder as much as the next guy. Just
because I hate Ronald McDonald suckering little kids into wanting happy
meals so they can get a chinsey toy and go play in the ball-tank, doesn't
mean I want to cut off the world's supply of greasy burgers forever. And I
certainly don't want to blow off the hands of some poor bastard who runs a
fast-food joint!

The solution is definitely not about causing death and destruction, and it's
not about living some puritanical ideal of a good and pure life without
possessions. It's about freedom, real freedom. The freedom to really choose
and make a difference, and not just pick from the handful of options someone
else is force feeding you. It's the ability to express ourselves without all
the pressures of constantly feeling like we have to buy more or fall behind.

Real freedom is the ability to see past fear and greed and pride to see what
the people on the other side we used to think of as right or left really
have to offer without being told how we're supposed to think about them. If
you make an effort to really explore alternative ways of thinking and doing
from what your used to, you'll find that no one has a monopoly on common
sense or good ideas. You don't necessarily have to latch on to what others
say and believe as gospel, but you should try to learn from them. You'd be
surprised how much more there is that's worthwhile in this world besides
what you've become accustomed to.

People are people, and we've all got a lot more in common with each other
then those whose profits and corporate and political identities are on the
line would have us think. If we really communicate with each other openly
and honestly, we'll learn it's a lot easier to get along with each other and
help each other along than it is to try to screw one another over. Once you
get into the habit, it really is easier to (and yes I will dare to be cheesy
here) love one another than to live in constant opposition. When you're
convinced everyone is out to get you, you've always got to watch your own
back. And when you expect the worse, the way you treat people will reflect
your expectations, and eventually you'll get exactly what you expected.

Sure in order to change the world for the better we'll have to give up some
things we want and make some sacrifices along the way. Yes it's more than
likely that no matter how hard we try, some people aren't going to give up
their comfortable notions and positions of power easily. Some of them may
even come after us with threats of force and violence. Some of us will get
hurt in the process, and there's really no way to sugarcoat that. The path
to truth is not an easy one. If it was, we wouldn't have to struggle to
realize it. If there was no resistance to making the world a more loving
place, there would be no suffering. If there weren't people who gained from
others sorrows, there wouldn't be so much pain (or so many lawyers either!)

 

I really wish everyone could "just get along" and be willing to help one
another, but unfortunately in the real world, people aren't all like the
tellytubbies. I sincerely believe and know in my heart that most people will
always choose creation over destruction once their really given a choice and
understand the alternatives, but we may have to fight to give them that
chance.

It's not so much a matter of fighting individuals as it is a matter of
tackling systems of thought and organization that keep us all down.
Consumerism and everything it represents is probably the most all
encompassing and most destructive system in our society right now, and it's
choking the life out of all of us. I can tell you one thing, Ronald
McDonald, the Energizer Bunny, the Democratic Donkey, and the Republican
Elephant are not really people or living things, they're just symbols. And
if we kill them off, we're really not hurting anyone, and the world will
probably be a better place! But it's not enough to just take out the
messenger if you can't change the message, and that's what we've really got
to do.

We live in a society that has always prided itself on freedom. The problem
is we all got complacent, and just assume that if there are no obvious
enemies out there waiting at the gate, we're all automatically free. But
there are still real enemies, but they're not so much out there as they are
with us everyday. For the most part, the people who are bombarding us with
the wrong messages aren't two dimensional movie villains, they're real
people like us. Hell, they are us! They just got lazy like we did and
assumed that if they just took care of themselves, everything else would
somehow magically fall into place. They just focused too much on their own
views and lost sight of how the actions that seem to be helping them along
may also be hurting everyone else (and in the long run, them too).

We really can change things for the better so long as we don't get too
wrapped up in patting ourselves on the back, stay focused on what really
matters, and always consider others with honesty and compassion. Try it in
your own life with the people you know, and see if it works. I guarantee it
will most of the time.

The next step after that is for all of us compassionate and honest folks to
get up off our collective asses and get together and start communicating
with one another. Don't just look for people like you, seek out anyone and
everyone who's got something to share. And be willing to share something of
yourself too. This message is intended as a step in that direction. Hell, if
you're thinking along the same lines as I am, great, contact me, lets start
working together. And even if your not, contact me too. Maybe I'm wrong, and
you've got better ideas. After all, everything I'm saying here is only one
way of looking at things, not the final word. If you disagree, maybe we can
find some common ground and still work together.

And once we all start getting together and really communicating, we can
tackle the big issues together. There is a common refrain that says "there's
nothing I can do about the problems of the world because I'm just one guy."
And you know what, that's true. But if you make an effort to start working
with others who have the same goals, you'll soon find you're not just one
guy anymore. That's why the first priority for all of us is to free up the
channels of communication.

With new technologies that are developing like the good old Internet, it's
getting easier and easier for people all around the world to talk to one
another. But that's not enough, there needs to be more. We have to work
together. Talking and doing are not the same thing. The system of that
currently controls the channels of communications has to be changed, and
that won't happen with us just saying we want it to. We have to take action
against that system.

We have to be willing to stop worshiping the stars whose presence on our
screens and on our pages tells us who we should be. We need to turn our
attention away from them, and be willing to appreciate ordinary folks just
like us. When you get right down to it, even the stars would seem ordinary
if it wasn't for the image all the hype around them creates. We need to stop
paying them for the hype, and start treating them like mere mortals again.
Again it's not the people who are the problem, it's the system of
consumerism that compels us to buy what they're selling. We only think we
want them because we're lead to believe that they're something more than
they really are.

Yep, it's a power struggle, and it's not just about physical stuff or
abstract ideas anymore. It's a new world and a new millennium, and in this
age it's all about communication. Right now, we're pretty much all on the
bottom of a system of lies. But there's something out there that can give us
the edge to get back on top, it's called the truth. (And no I don't mean
those damned anti-cigarette ads!) Real truth comes with honest
communication, love, and unity, and from that comes creation. Lies are all
about destruction.

Never forget, it all comes down to life and death in the end. Creation is
life, and destruction is always about death, no matter what the purveyors of
it would have us believe. We're all alive right now, so you decide, which is
it? Truth and life, or deceit and death? Do you want to be with the living
on top, or with the dead six feet under?

The system of consumerism is keeping us down with paid commercials and
rhetoric. Free communication is the means to real freedom. The future
belongs to the Communicators!"

 

- JP George
30 June, 2000