I am writing this in response to the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard article that Tom posted earlier. Pritchard makes an excellent yet very disturbing observation that the left has not merely become ineffective, but has morphed into the "enforcer of the policies of the right," and those policies, which everybody knows, are the policies of plutocracy, inequality, war, an ever-expanding police, carceral and surveillance state.
Forty years ago this would have been unthinkable. Even three years ago this would have been unthinkable. After Obama's second election victory here in the United States the pundits were declaring the Republican Party as dead and the conservative movement in general as history. Yet only two years later they went on to win sweeping victories in the 2014 midterm elections.
Recent losses by the liberals in the U.S. have a lot to do with Obama, let's be honest. His embrace and protection of the corporate class, the laissez-faire attitude his administration took toward Wall Street criminality, his support of tax cuts for the rich, the lack of any real aggressive jobs program, the backing of austerity, his push for grand bargains to cut Social Security and of course, Obamacare, which was seen, correclty in my view, as a huge giveaway to insurance companies, were all at least partially responsible for extremely high levels of voter dissatisfaction on both sides that led to the violent shift to the right.
The media, partically Fox News, was also very effective in branding Obama and his policies as liberal and socialist even though they were clearly in the favor of large moneyed interests and big corporations, but the public didn't see it that way and the left and the "liberal media" (if there is such a thing) had no answer.
Even though just about every metric of middle class well-being has collapsed under Obama the decline started long ago. It has been in progress for at least forty years if not longer. You can begin by tracing it back to Jimmy Carter and his moves at deregulation, which was one of the original tenets of Milton Friedman neoliberalism.
Of course this followed with the Reagan-Thatcher era, where the doctrine broadened to include Europe. Once again these leaders and their newly created and well-endowed propaganda organizations, the "think tanks," effectively derided the policies of the left, branded them as failed and limiting and basically re-wrote history.
Bill Clinton accelerated the trend by creating the first of what was to become the "faux left," a Trojan Horse by any other name, which was "left" or "Democratic" in title only. Clinton backed with unrestricted zeal the removal of all restrictions and regulations on the financial sector, which unleashed a level of financial speculation that we hadn't seen in at least 70 years. He pushed through welfare reform, which was nothing of the sort, but rather, a redistribution of government financial support to the wealthy and big business and away from the truly needy. He introduced mandatory sentencing for many sorts of minor drug offenses and the prison population skyrocketed. His trade deals, NAFTA in particular, led to huge job outsourcing and of course how can we not forget his balancing of the budget, which caused private sector household savings to collapse and debt levels to skyrocket, something that still burdens a huge segment of the citizenry today.
Clinton was, and still is, a disaster. He quitely backs cuts to Social Security and other social safety nets by praising the crazy aims of the Simpson-Bowles commission. And, unbelievably, we may even be on the verge of electing another Clinton next year who despite her rhetoric is sure to bring the same policies her husband brought if she wins the White House. This is the left's chosen candidate!!!
FYI...Hillary was silent on the passage of fast track for the Trans Pacific Partnership, recently. What does that say about her position on trade, big business and job outsourcing, hmm? She is a consummate corporate insider and she and her husband have reaped millions in speaking fees from big business and the moneyed crowd so they're not about to shy away from them.
Pritchard went on to say this in his article:
"We Conservatives have watched in disbelief as one Socialist party after another immolates itself on the altar of monetary union, defending a project that favours the elites - a 'bankers' ramp', as the old Left used to call it."
"We have watched our friends on the Left apologise for 1930s policies. We have seen them defend a regime of pro-cyclical fiscal cuts imposed on the whole eurozone by a handful of "Ordoliberal" reactionaries in the German finance minstry."
Pritchard is speaking of Europe here, but his words ring true not just in Europe but everywhere. "Apologize for the policies of the 1930?" This is truly unbelievable that the left has run away from these policies? Why? They stopped a world depression dead in its tracks, lifted millions out of poverty and won a World War.
The left truly has "immolated" itself as he says.
I for one do not see a resurrection of the left anytime soon. It's nice that we have a guy like Bernie Sanders running for president here in the U.S. but what chance does he have? Still, you gotta respect a person that can publicly call himself a Democratic Socialist with a straight face in today's rabid conservative climate. My god, it's almost unbelievable that any serious sitting Senator would have the guts to ascribe that term to themselves, let alone run for president. It's refreshing. Even so, the left establishment bashes him. They hate him. The very people who share the same principles and ideals that he shares and which, harken back to the glory days of the Democratic Party...they despise him! Go figure.
It's true that the right must be sitting there watching in astonishment at how the left is not only self-destructing, but also how easy it is to get liberals to do the bidding of conservatives. Bernie Sanders is a breath of fresh air, but again, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.
I am afraid the left's descent into the enforcer of the conservative will, will in fact continue and that should not only be a disappointment to anyone who stands on the side of equality and democratic values, but it should also be something very scary. When there is no countervailing force anymore and when the side in control has moved so far to the extreme and has the ability to snuff out the other side's proposals without as much as lifting a finger then we are in trouble. The system has become dangerously corrupt.
34 comments:
What it shows is that the left can only exist in a sovereign nation state. They have forgotten that politics itself begins -- and ENDS -- with the power of the state.
Nothing else. The "citizen of the world" dreams of anarchists, communitarians and other anti-nationalists have enslaved all but rentier elites and international-set elites (who grow up in international schools and have no sense of place, unless it be the liberal halls of academe).
This is not a defence of nationalism, which is useless and almost by definition racist (one can love one's country without being a nationalist). Yet, it is only because so few of us really take the idea of a community of shared principle seriously that we think of it as an antidote to political exclusion and intolerance. For even a brief look at history teaches us that collective righteousness can inspire just as much violence and intolerance as mindless ethnocentrism. Bring back Hobbes, bring back Ghandi (who had the same notion of consent as Hobbes), and bring back democratic monopoly of the means of coercion.
Pierre Trudeau once wrote "It is utterly useless to preach electoral morality to a people while minimizing or ridiculing the idea of popular sovereignty. You might as well preach Christian morality after ridiculing Christ." He was, of course, afraid of tyranny, but where even are the tyrants that the people could overthrow, when the nation state has been allowed to wither?
I posted this in response to Tom's earlier post, but it is somewhat relevant here too.
I don't think the left is going to abandon its internationalism, and throw in with all the tea partiers, Birchers, "firsters" and paranoids on the nationalist and sovereigntist right. Not in Europe and not in the United States. So what that means in the immediate case of Europe is that for the European left to recover its vitality, relevance and vision, while holding firmly onto its traditional commitments to democracy and equality, it needs to relaunch the drive for the full social, economic and democratic unification of Europe.
No Financial Union without Social and Democratic Union!
The *only* thing that gives me hope is the American public is overwhelmingly center left to left. Poll after poll, issue after issue, we're liberal. We're no where near a conservative country like the media would like you to believe.
It's the Dan Kervick's of the world who are part the problem. Demonizing all those he disagrees with, even fellow leftists, as racist, sexist, climate change deniers, firsters, paranoids, bigots, etc, etc., are not arguments but ad hominem attacks that only serve the purpose of polarizing the masses further. Ironically Dan and his ilk are the very demagogues they purport to despise.
If the left and right can't learn to live together without resorting to name calling or even worse, then I suppose mutual hate will win the day. If it was up to me I'd start bridging the gap in an incremental way between the two ideological poles, where most people have something in common--work/making a living/economic life in general. The SJW stuff, especially the gender war shit, can take a backseat until then.
I didn't "demonize" anybody. But I know what side I'm on.
There hasn't been a left for at least a decade or two. Not in the global north, in the south yes, but not in the north. The US democratic part never really was on the left, has moved steadily rightward and would be considered center right by world standards. What's left of the left in europe? Not much. The PS in France has become a neo-liberal enforcer party, nothing even remotely leftist about it. And Macron is determined to take it even further right. Podemos? haha yeah right, they'll cave like syriza did. Bunch of pussies, like the rest of the left everywhere. The Irish behaved like a defeated conquered people, it sickens me... Once eu integration starts going in reverse and national sovereignty is restored, only then can workers rebuild. UKIP and FN are about our only hopes now to stop the disastrous EU project. As disgusting as the right wing is, they're not pussies, gotta give them that much.
What's really needed, is a Very Serious Person in the EU establishment to put forth serious proposals for euthanasia centers for countries to rid themselves of their surplus populations. Should be a natural fit for a German. Maybe then the world will wake up and deal with Europe.
@ Joe
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Emphasis added
UKIP and FN are about our only hopes now to stop the disastrous EU project.
The difference between the nationalist Right and the transnational oligarchs is that the nationalists Right wants a country ruled by "our" oligarchs instead of "their" oligarchs.
My earliest political heroes were Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. McGovern was simply one of the most decent human beings, political or otherwise, I've ever witnessed. Bill Buckley said McGovern was impossible to dislike, even though they were polar opposites, and also labeled him perhaps the best debater he'd ever known. It's too bad his kind wasn't around today in the political world. He could have been the equivalent of a Democratic Ronald Reagan.
@Tom - The conclusion is pretty much common sense. That's a story as old as time. You'd have to be blithering fool to actually believe in the pampeered worker theory. For f*ck's sake, the US constitution was designed to ensure elite domination and protect the elite from having the populace vote power to itself. It was baked into the cake from the get go. Sure eventually suffrage was expanded and we elected senators, but by then managing democracy had become a high art.
My earliest political heroes were Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. McGovern was simply one of the most decent human beings, political or otherwise,
And look what happened to him. Most disastrous electoral route ever. He only carried two states, IIRC.
@tom, - yup, our oligarchs. At least it's only one countries oligarchs, you have a chance at fighting against them, you can play one countries elite against anothers. You don't have much chance at fighting against an entire continent's elite banded together. I stand by my statement.
by then managing democracy had become a high art.
Exactly, and the managers are very well compensated.
yup, our oligarchs. At least it's only one countries oligarchs, you have a chance at fighting against them, you can play one countries elite against anothers. You don't have much chance at fighting against an entire continent's elite banded together. I stand by my statement.
This is a huge sticking point in Greece. They have lost control of their destiny since they have no way to control the transnational oligarchs who control the European institutions, chiefly the bankers of the core.
@tom, so we're back to what I said, really only ukip and fn stand a chance at fracturing disastrous eu. The left is just too full of idealist pussies to stand a chance against a unified european elite. So rightward-ho! The Le Pens of the world are grotesque, but pussy push-overs they are not.
That seems to be the reality, unless the Left takes a new tack.
Our oligarchs over THEIR oligarchs is a clear improvement. That is what manufacturing capitalism and the neo-classical synthesis of the post-war period was all about. THAT would provide room for a left revival. Internationalism requires relations between NATION-STATES, transnational lefty dreaming prevents that.
"relaunch the drive for the full social, economic and democratic unification of Europe.
No Financial Union without Social and Democratic Union!"
I would agree but I can't see it happening. The EU as currently setup is undemocratic, especially the SGP targets force austerity. You would need to rewrite the EU treaties.
As to the nationalist right - they are a stopped clock.
The left needs to be internationalist, you can do this via carefully crafted policies e.g. limiting *open* immigration to countries with full employmemt./JG policies and reasonable social infrastructure means those policies will be implemented as you introduce points based system that enforces "brain drain" on countries without those policies.
Expanding foreign aid is a better approach than EU fiscal union and more realistic.
This is a pragmatic way to reach open borders.
I would agree but I can't see it happening. The EU as currently setup is undemocratic, especially the SGP targets force austerity. You would need to rewrite the EU treaties.
Yes, of course. It would require a major political movement to write treaties, constitutions, etc. and create important new institutions.
Better to start from scratch IMO. And refund the IMF too.
"create important new institutions."
Right. This is important. The left are constantly on the defensive and defending old institutions. Needs new thought.
*defund* doh
There is a difference between 'politics' (national, domestic) and 'statesmanship' (international, global) and I think it is beneficial to compartmentalise the two first before considering impacts. Global 'unity' seems to have emerged in the financial sector first, to the degree control by oligarchs over both politics and statesmanship is factual. For me, Greed is the problem. Power is used in its service; the masses have little idea what is going, but they feel it. Greed is an emotional problem, with physical impacts – not a mental problem.
When Greek idealists went to Brussels with their vision they were met with stony glares. There is a difference between a mental vision based on humanitarian ideals, however imperfectly conceived, and an emotional vision based on greed. Greed does not have a mental solution: - greed is an absence of kindness. In the same way you cannot shovel darkness out of a room – but must bring in some light (and even one little candle will do) I am afraid there is no solution to greed, other than to bring in a little kindness. Because greed is an absence; hate is an absence; ignorance is an absence; prejudice is an absence etc. …
I think the best way to resolve this is with education. When people can understand the issues as they are; then the one percent are only one percent.
The Principle of Conflict allows human beings to work through these issues that are aspects of our nature. All of the turmoil, both emotional and mental happens in the mind. That little bubble we carry around with us every day, that tells us what to do from morning to dusk. We are such obedient servants to the monkey on our back. There is a dichotomy in the mind, a battle of opposites that manifests itself as conflicting ideologies (Right v. Left); or conflict between the emotional nature and the mental nature as above. All are in conflict with the heart of a human being which is where it all begins. All of this funnels into a sense of 'I' and devotion to a perceived cause; and is fought out both internally and externally, between 'I's.
The unity that people seek, I believe, in the first place is the unity of all of their warring parts. But consequently and contemporaneously, we live in a world where the parts warring are the people themselves. My understanding is that until the being human is brought back to the human being, the mind will war because that is its nature.
I disagree that greed is chief motivator for the simple reason that anyone with a basic understanding of economics and finance realizes that growing the pie means more is available and that increasing demand at the bottom grows the pie. Nothing needs to be sacrificed either economically or financially for everyone to have more. That's not really the issue.
It is relative position socially wrt status, politically wrt power, and economically wrt to control over resources, real and financial. TPTB would rather have a smaller pie wrt which they are the undisputed masters.
Many of these people have much, much more than they could ever actually use. It not about wealth, or increasing wealth.
It's the need to dominate. This is a psychopathology, which can even lead to sociopathology.
I can't remember the exact instance, but there was a factory somewhere in the US that was being closed down and the workers wanted to buy it and run it themselves. The sale of the factory would have been profitable for the corporation that owned it, but they refused to sell it to the workers. Why? Just as Tom said, it's about domination, putting workers in their place. Letting the workers try to run it was just too big of a risk to take, what if the workers were successful, can't let them set a good example. The elites would rather be in their dominate position and burn the entire place to the ground rather than lose their dominance to the mere peasants. It's sick. It's even sicker that the victims can't even see it.
Bernie is the only candidate that speaks about the things I want and support. But his chance of beating Hillary are next to nil. And, even if he did, the chance of passing any worthwhile economic program would be next to zero given a republican congress. So I agree the left will not make a dent anytime soon. Money makes the world turn and that money comes from the elites and they are for the most part on the right, very often extremely so. If it is not greed that keeps them going, it is a first cousin. It takes a crisis to make the change we want. Obama had a chance but failed.
I have to add that Obama, in the twilight of his Presidency, is trying to do the things I can support.
”It's the need to dominate”. [TomH]
Well, this got me thinking Tom (thanks for that)!
I do agree, but the significant word there is 'need'. So I dived deeper into this 'need'.
There is a hole inside of these people and they want to try and fill it. Their little formula is wealth and/or domination. That is not going to happen because of human nature (was it Alexander, who is said to have had a Great Hall built, filled with statues of all the Kings he had conquered - kneeling, humiliated, doing utter obeisance to him - left orders when he died to leave his two hands sticking out of the grave, to show all the world that Alexander the Great came empty-handed into the world, and empty-handed he left)! The hole remained and a simple human wisdom is ignored.
The world has many such formulas.
So in my 'logic' (and its just a view) Greed is just when you keep on stuffing stuff into your mouth, with no regard for the consequences because the hole is so deep. Einstein's definition of insanity prevails. The formula runs amok, a line is crossed, and harm results.
For example, bulls fight for dominance in the herd and in more gentler species the females select their mates; in so far as this preserves the integrity and health of the species all is well. If the bulls go loco and begin attacking the entire herd then nature has gone awry. Greed is the poisonous weed. Dominance gets out of hand. Perhaps I am wrong about this (?) or the viewpoint is just a nuance.
@Tom and jrbarch
I don't think there is much difference between your positions. Yes it is a desire for dominance/power that is driving these folks but I think greed is the emotion driving the desire. Being in a dominant/authority position is something all humans face from time time but some get drunk on the power and, like a coke addict, cant get enough. Their drive is insatiable. Giving people like this control over the monetary institutions is crazy. And no, a reasoned argument will not stop them, only some force more powerful.
Given the conversation here, I think its relevant to post Kalecki's "political aspects of Full employment" which is still the best summation I've ever seen of this elite desire to never, ever allow, fiscal policy and functional finance to maintain a full employment society. When we had a full employment society, workers wages kept up with their productivity and worker wages grew at the same pace as executive compensation. This is the only time in modern history this has happened. And the elites are never going to allow it to happen again because this system is way better for them. All worker productivity gains go to increasing .1% wealth. Which again is the most important aspect of the JG program, it institutionalizes a full employment economy which will guarantee that workers receive a reasonable share of their productivity growth.
"The reasons for the opposition of the 'industrial leaders' to full employment achieved by government spending may be subdivided into three categories: (i) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; (ii) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); (iii) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment. We shall examine each of these three categories of objections to the government expansion policy in detail.
2. We shall deal first with the reluctance of the 'captains of industry' to accept government intervention in the matter of employment. Every widening of state activity is looked upon by business with suspicion, but the creation of employment by government spending has a special aspect which makes the opposition particularly intense. Under a laissez-faire system the level of employment depends to a great extent on the so-called state of confidence. If this deteriorates, private investment declines, which results in a fall of output and employment (both directly and through the secondary effect of the fall in incomes upon consumption and investment). This gives the capitalists a powerful indirect control over government policy: everything which may shake the state of confidence must be carefully avoided because it would cause an economic crisis. But once the government learns the trick of increasing employment by its own purchases, this powerful controlling device loses its effectiveness. Hence budget deficits necessary to carry out government intervention must be regarded as perilous. The social function of the doctrine of 'sound finance' is to make the level of employment dependent on the state of confidence.
3. The dislike of business leaders for a government spending policy grows even more acute when they come to consider the objects on which the money would be spent: public investment and subsidizing mass consumption.
Kalecki continued:
"The economic principles of government intervention require that public investment should be confined to objects which do not compete with the equipment of private business (e.g. hospitals, schools, highways). Otherwise the profitability of private investment might be impaired, and the positive effect of public investment upon employment offset, by the negative effect of the decline in private investment. This conception suits the businessmen very well. But the scope for public investment of this type is rather narrow, and there is a danger that the government, in pursuing this policy, may eventually be tempted to nationalize transport or public utilities so as to gain a new sphere for investment.3
One might therefore expect business leaders and their experts to be more in favour of subsidising mass consumption (by means of family allowances, subsidies to keep down the prices of necessities, etc.) than of public investment; for by subsidizing consumption the government would not be embarking on any sort of enterprise. In practice, however, this is not the case. Indeed, subsidizing mass consumption is much more violently opposed by these experts than public investment. For here a moral principle of the highest importance is at stake. The fundamentals of capitalist ethics require that 'you shall earn your bread in sweat' -- unless you happen to have private means.
4. We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system."
@ jrbarch and Greg
The need for anything is the desire for fulfillment. Humans consider fulfillment in terms of being able to fulfill desires as they arise. Humans understand time and have a desire not to be limited by it. Greed is the desire for perpetual fulfillment through material things, which relates to the gross sphere.
Humans also have a desire to be able to fulfill desires that are not for sale in the gross world or cannot be fulfilled by possession of material things. This involves the subtle world, in which power is dominant. Wealth can confer power. but power is not something physical that can be bought with wealth. Power can also be acquired in other ways.
As Sartre observes in Being and Nothingness, at the deepest psychological level, which is subconscious for most., humans desire complete fulfillment —eternal and infinite. This is the desire to become God. Having analyzed this condition, Sartre concludes that humans cannot become what they most desire unless they create a religious myth, which he views as an irrational sublimation of desire that cannot be fulfilled. He concludes therefore, "Man is a useless passion."
Some of us think that this is not the end of the story, but it is a penetrating psychological analysis. Perennial wisdom agrees that this is the driving force of human unfolding of potential but that Sartre ends the analysis too early. There is more to it. There are more refined levels than the subtle dimension in which power is basic.
@ Auburn
I think this is about the relation of greed and power. Power is needed to satisfy greed.
Kalecki is writing about capital establishing and maintaining bargaining power and institutional power generally over labor.
Capitalism is about privileging capital because (you know the drill). In a modern economy capital is institutional. Institutional arrangements are about distributing institutional power. Therefore capital must establish and maintain control over major institutions in order to be able to control institutional arrangement that privilege it. This is the capitalist system.
Socialism involves institutional arrangements that favor labor. Capital is therefore opposed not only so socialism but incremental movement toward giving labor more power institutionally.
@ Greg & Tom
Greg associating the idea of force with dominance is a significant part of the human story.
Tom, I think Sartre was wrong to define the human desire for complete fulfillment as the 'desire to become G.O.D'. First of all, AFAIK, Sartre had never met GOD, so how could he make the comparison? Sartre I am assuming was a believer: - he believed that God did not exist and took exception to other believers who believed that God did exist. One can believe, but it is better to know, or admit you do not know. That is honest. Pride of intellect leads many to state God does not exist or God does exist, but they will not admit they are believers. Sartre took his belief and created his own religious myth about humans being unable to attain their inner-most desire, as an irrational sublimation, that could never be fulfilled; concluding 'man is a useless passion' which I guess was the perfect excuse to compromise his health. And as you say, the perennial wisdom records otherwise. So, it does not seem too penetrating an analysis to me (?) That the need to be fulfilled is the engine that drives a human being is obvious, long before Sartre came along. Our existence is not hidden under some rock.
And I agree power is basic – but I think we need to qualify that a little more. Love is also basic, and so is Intelligence. And these three are all aspects of the one Energy that sets everything in the universe in motion. Which brings me back to Greg's mention of force. Direction is important. Man needs a compass and a map to know where they are.
Power as energy spiraling upwards pushes a seed up out of the ground, causes evolution, unfolding, building of forms within the universe and expansion of consciousness within the forms, the unfolding of the play of Existence and all of the beings in it. Power as force destroys the forms and liberates the consciousness within them. The snake sheds its worn out skin and the crab its confining shell. Forms evolve to better house the consciousness within them. Force misused holds the consciousness imprisoned or works against the evolutionary energy, to maintain some static or regressive condition. From this POV all of the ideologies in the world can be thought of as either evolutionary and in-line with Life and universal expansion; or imprisoning, regressive, leading to death or dissolution (or a mixture of both but ultimately either negatively or positively charged) – because nothing can hold back that Energy. Whole galaxies can be destroyed. The German, British and Indian races seem to be more closely associated with the use of power whilst other races are closer to the use of Intelligence (France) or Love (USA, GB) – in both their positive and negative aspects.
Power, Love and Intelligence are useless without each other.
For me, true power is life-giving energy. The Sun can both destroy and enable. I wish people would say the oligarchs are forceful; they are not powerful. Street wise, not intelligent. They know how to use force and fear; they have no idea how to use life-giving energy. The human race is full of creative life-giving energy; just a few use force so badly it causes widespread harm. Imagine being so empty and such an idiot, with so dense a vibration with such a material potency, you have to crush a whole country in order to try and appease your appetite for dominance.
So maybe dominance is a negative attribute of power and greed a negative attribute of love, like lying is a negative attribute of intelligence - signposts along the way of the same spiral pathway down – wrong use of energy, wrong use of force, wrong direction, wrong compass (?) Dead end force eclipsing the building and evolutionary energies.
Post a Comment