•TPC•

By Michael Goodspeed

6/12/07

“To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of all creation as oneself.”

—Mahatma Gandhi

Late last week, I returned home to Portland, OR, after attending a three-day conference on the Electric Universe in Las Vegas, NV. The event brought together an impressive array of scientists, authors, and independent researchers from many different disciplines and walks of life, all unified in their quest to develop a better understanding of the cosmos and our place in it.

Throughout the event, I had the privilege of interacting with some very accomplished scholars in such seemingly disparate fields as electrical engineering, physics, plasma physics, geology, and comparative mythology. In every instance, I was very pleased to find that I was treated as an equal, even though I claim no special expertise on the topics discussed. This lack of pretension on the part of the “experts” enabled a very free and comfortable flow of ideas amongst all participants, specialists and laymen alike.

In Wallace Thornhill’s introductory presentation, he repeatedly used the word “convergence” in describing the interdisciplinary nature of much Electric Universe research. Specialists with very different areas of expertise have found themselves growing increasingly DEPENDENT on one another, and of each has been required an openness to previously unconsidered ideas, and a willingness to be proved “wrong” on many points.

In my own intellectual and spiritual endeavors, I have sought convergence, or a unified perspective that can be applied to most every problem the world seems to face. In examining current events presented in both alternative and mainstream media, I see recurring themes and patterns that seem point to a fundamental, underlying cause of human suffering and insanity in its every form. Consider these recent news items, which at first glance may not seem to have any direct relation to one another:

In Knoxville, Tennessee, a white couple named Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were carjacked, abducted, sexually tortured and murdered by a band of criminals who are black. The case itself garnered no immediate “mainstream” media attention, and in fact, one prominent black social commentator, Leonard Pitts, argued that the case should be completely ignored nationally. “It always amazes me when white people put on the victim hat,” wrote Pitts in his syndicated column. Pitts described whites’ outrage over the case as “mewling noises from that subset of my white countrymen who feel put-upon by big, bad racial minorities.” Pitts went on to directly equate “white supremacists and conservative bloggers,” making no attempt to delineate the two.

On May 24, 2007, the Associated Press reported there have been at least six attacks against homeless people in Cleveland, Ohio since February of this year. According to one homeless advocate, “…there have been bands of males carrying baseball bats and pipes confronting homeless people.” These attacks could be viewed as part of a national trend of increased violence against the homeless. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, there were 142 attacks against the homeless, 20 resulting in death, in 2006 in the United States. That is a 65 PERCENT increase over the total in 2005.

On June 8, in Selmer, Tennessee, a woman who blasted her husband in the back of the head with a shotgun was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to three years in prison. However, she must serve only 210 days before she can be released on probation, and she receives credit for the time she has already spent in jail (five months). According to news reports, the remaining 60 days of her sentence may be served in a mental health facility.

On June 10, 2007, a leading proponent of the Anti-Zionism Orthodox Jewish Movement, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, attended a rally on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol, voicing his support for the freedom of the Palestinian people. In an interview now posted on You Tube, the Rabbi stated, “We are forbidden to oppress another people, to subjugate, to make another people suffer. Just as God is compassionate, we have to be compassionate. So what is being done in the name of Judaism, in the name of the Torah, the occupation of the whole of Palestine, the Zionists…don’t represent the Torah, they don’t represent Godliness, they don’t represent the Jewish people. They have stolen our name, we our humiliated by what they’re doing with our name…(W)e suffer with the Palestinian people.” (The interview may be viewed here: )

On June 8, millionaire heiress and national icon Paris Hilton was ordered back to jail to serve the remainder of her sentence for violating probation on a reckless driving case. Hilton reportedly screamed and cried for her mother while being escorted from the courtroom. The celebrity court drama has been the overwhelmingly dominant “news” story of the last week.

An apparent black-on-white “hate crime.” Attacks on the homeless. A man shot to death by his wife. A rally against the Israeli occupation of “Palestine.” Paris Hilton.

Do you see the common thread in each of these stories? If so, I will shake your hand and buy you a beer over a lengthy discussion on the meaning of life. Give up?

From my perspective, each of these items reveals the ongoing denial by human beings of intrinsic equality with one another. Popular media in the U.S. is governed by the principles of “political correctness,” but the self-styled PC arbiters seem to have no true idea of what they stand for. One would think that in a climate of “tolerance,” the unconditional recognition of human equality would be the most PC position a person could take. It isn’t. In fact, the opposite is presently true. It is not politically correct to argue that all human beings are created equal, irrespective of race, nationality, religion, creed, and/or sexual orientation. Rather, the popular culture in the U.S. at every level — media, academia, religion, and government — attempts to instill in us values of preferential hatred. Equality is not part of the picture.

Consider the story of the Tennessee murders. Political correctness dictates that racially motivated white-on-black crime is somehow worse than racially motivated black-on-white crime. This bias is supposedly justified because the ancestors of white people mistreated the ancestors of black people, and whites still experience an overall better quality of life today. As illogical, inhuman, and overtly bigoted as this position is, it is the one adamantly argued by most self-styled “civil rights” advocates in the U.S. today (including the aforementioned Leonard Pitts). And it is the unspoken position of mainstream “news” media, which alone explains why stories like the Tennessee murders receive little or no national attention.

A person who believes in intrinsic equality (as I do) can only feel outrage over racial double standards, “reverse” bigotry, and racial violence. All human beings are created equal, and are deserving of equal rights and protections under the law. Period. Racial vengeance can never be condoned within this paradigm. What does it say about the tenability of “political correctness,” that those who believe as I do are frequently branded as “racist,” while the Leonard Pitts of the world are presented as champions of “equality”?

These same bigoted double-standards are seemingly revealed in the Selmer, Tennessee case. A woman shot her husband in the back of the head as he lie sleeping in bed, and a jury ruled it “voluntary manslaughter.” It now appears that she will serve no significant jail time at all. She was purportedly “driven” to the crime by her husband’s physical abuse. But we must ask ourselves, how might we interpret the case differently if the respective genders of killer/victim were reversed? Uncounted men suffer physical and verbal abuse at the hands of their spouses. At what point does abuse justify a husband killing his wife?

Remember Lorena Bobbit, anyone? A woman cut off her husband’s penis and threw it out a moving car, then claimed abuse as her defense. Instead of outrage, the national response — largely evoked by PC media coverage — was amusement, and occasionally even approval. Now imagine the media coverage if a purportedly “battered husband” cut out his wife’s sex organs and tossed them on the side of a road. Uh…not too funny, is it?

Consider also the recent trend of increased violence against the homeless in the U.S. This pathetic phenomenon is possibly being fueled by such underground videos as “Bum Fights,” and “Bum Hunts,” which feature homeless men and women being violently targeted for the viewers’ amusement. Perhaps not coincidentally, in major cities like Las Vegas and Orlando, FL, it is now considered a CRIME to be homeless — police regularly arrest people for “vagrancy” if they have no money in their pocket and no valid I.D. Of course, nothing in natural law requires any human being to have legal tenure on his person at all time. But this blatantly illegal and unconstitutional practice is viewed with little apparent outrage in the United States. In fact, in Las Vegas, the city’s Mayor, Oscar Goodman, is an extraordinarily popular figure, despite (or perhaps because of) his refusal to recognize the right of homeless citizens to exist.

Why do Americans increasingly hold the homeless in contempt? I think the answer is obvious. The homeless represent a “threat” to the ideals that Americans have been programmed to value for the last hundred years or so. In our media/celebrity dominated culture, “success” is measured in terms of personal wealth, social stature, and physical attractiveness. To achieve the American Dream is to rise above the unwashed rabble and be judged by society as a Very Special Person. The homeless are defined by their LACK of specialness — no money, no stature, and overt physical decay. So of course we hold them in contempt. They embody everything we have been trained to fear and avoid at all costs.

This human need for individual and collective “specialness” — racial, geographic, and spiritual — is the undeniable taproot of the endless Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Undoubtedly, many will label Rabbi Weiss an “anti-Semite” or a “self-loathing Jew” for his adamant criticism of the Zionist State of Israel. But what does the Rabbi stand for that any sane person could find objectionable? He has very humbly (and correctly) stated that as a Jew, he is not superior to Palestinians, nor does he have any special claim to ownership of a particular geographic region. Of course, he is correct. Jews are not special.” Neither are Christians, nor Muslims, nor Hindus, nor Buddhists, nor Sufis, nor atheists. But in our present “politically correct” environment, those who question the tenability of Zionism (i.e. imagined Jewish racial supremacy) and the Israeli occupation of Palestine are routinely labeled “bigots” and “anti-Semites.”

This is not to suggest that Judaism is the only religion to be corrupted by ideas of Divine exclusivity. Far from it. In our purportedly “Christian nation,” the mainstream Church doctrine has strayed so far from the actual teachings of Jesus as to boggle the mind. Self-styled pious leaders inform their flocks that a day of Terrible Judgment is rapidly approaching. Only the few who repent their sins and beg God’s forgiveness have the chance of eternal reward. But one is very hard-pressed to find support for this weird picture in the words of Jesus himself.

In addition to being an unconditional pacifist, Jesus spoke for a spiritual path that is pleasant (MT 11:30: “For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”), uncomplicated (MT 11:25: “…You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants”), and undemanding of personal “sacrifice” (MT 11:28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”) Jesus never spoke for the vengeful god of the Old Testament, nor did he speak of original sin, or bizarre and frightful concepts like “hell” and “satan.” And he repeatedly emphasized the need of the individual to recognize the intrinsic equality of all his brothers and sisters. What else could he have meant when he advised to “love thy neighbor as YOURSELF”?

If ours was truly a Christian nation, the name Paris Hilton would not be on the lips of every American man, woman, and child. Nothing in our culture is a more obscene denial of equality than the national obsession with celebrities. What makes Paris Hilton more “special” than you or me? Nothing. And surely, the unraveling of this illusion contributed to Paris‘ own great trauma over her confinement. Poor Paris Hilton, and I do not say this the least bit sarcastically.

The myth of celebrity has been mercilessly drilled into your mind from the day of your birth. This phenomenon is clearly reflected in the reported growing “narcissism” amongst American youths.

See Young People More Narcissistic Than Ever:

http://www.rense.com/general75/more.htm

Should it surprise us that hordes of young American men are picking up baseballs bats and hunting the homeless for a bit of “sport?” We have all of us been programmed to live in active resistance to the principle of equality — a principle so inarguable that our forefathers deemed it “self-evident.” In the popular culture, the only way to win love and admiration is to stand out from the crowd and achieve personal “specialness.” Fundamentally, this is the belief that superiority over others must be achieved as a defense against inevitable defeat, inferiority and aloneness.

This human error has been rampant for thousands of years, and its source has been widely debated. Why is human consciousness dominated by a thought structure that seeks to conquer, defend against, place blame, and inflict guilt? This question was briefly discussed at the aforementioned Electric Universe conference. Some suggested that the celestial and global catastrophes first proposed by Velikovsky embedded in the collective consciousness a terrible trauma from which we have never recovered. We still fear the angry god that reigned in the heavens, and imagine that we must win “special favor” to avoid his frightful wrath.

A purely spiritual perspective, one presented in many religions and teachings, is that mankind (or human consciousness) existed in an original state of grace from which it has fallen. What precipitated this fall was a single incorrect choice, the consequences of which have yet to be corrected. Some imagine God “rejecting” the human family out of disapproval and disgust over our “wickedness.” But I prefer the notion that we created for ourselves a thought structure that made the experience of heaven impossible (this concept probably has its origins in Eastern teachings, and is the basis for the contemporary spiritual manual, A Course in Miracles). Somehow, the soul’s natural inclination toward inclusion, unity, sharing, and harmony, was replaced by a belief in competing interests. Maybe a single mind introduced this belief by simply pausing to wonder, “What if?”

What if…I can be worse than, or better than?

If it’s possible to be “worse than,” then the natural impulse of any consciousness is to FIGHT to be “better than.” The key to becoming sane is to recognize that the fight itself is unnecessary and harmful. One need not be superior to find safety and love, because the threat of inferiority is a fiction of the mind.

At the level of appearance, there is no equality and never will be. But so what? We don’t need a world of human beings who are all physically and intellectually “equal” — a grotesque and bizarre science fiction fantasy. And we cannot reasonably expect a world where everyone lives with equally evolved integrity and morality. But we can strive to correct within ourselves the fallacious perception that equality is fearful, and must be raged against. And this is a great challenge, because it goes completely against the thought structure that has dominated humanity for eons.

We wondered, What if I can be better than, or worse than, and the result has been endless human suffering and death. Perhaps it is time for each of us to wonder over new questions, ones that challenge the very premise of the initial doubt. These questions might be, What if I have nothing to fear from my brothers and sisters, because their interests and mine are one and the same? What if winning and losing are both impossible, because peace and safety are already mine? What if giving and receiving are truly the same, and to deprive my neighbor is to deprive myself?

If a question based on fear was enough to drive us from heaven, perhaps one based on love will be enough to lead us back.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS