I very much appreciate the long, deeply felt and considered note Jean Haines wrote to her readers early today re: her hesitations about the actual value and veracity of the redefininggod articles she has been posting, one after another.
I also appreciate Ken of redefininggod.com, his unusually strong focus on looking below the surface to see “what’s really going on.”
Jean and Ken’s conclusions appear to contradict each other. As usual, when this happens, we are conditioned to ask, “which one to believe?” — and to come down on one side or the other. Or of course, to look for — and find — other options.
However, in this case, I did find myself nodding as I read through Jean’s notes, and I did find myself wanting to challenge Ken: Is the world really divided into good and bad guys, with the bad guys always making sure they look like good guys to dupe the (actually) good guys? And even though this may sometimes be “true,” is it always true? I.e., is cynicism the best — or even the only — “default” position in this tipsy-topsy world which is, admittedly, getting more and more surreal by the day? Or does he, and anyone else who uses this ploy of continuously seeking the perfidy behind even the most innocuous of events or situations, really just consciously or unconsciously attempting to both separate and elevate themselves above others. To say, “you are all fools and I alone am wise.”
Jean, on the other hand, seems to be pondering Ken’s relentless claims, and trying, and failing, to make sense of them in view of other background material to which she personally is privy. That’s a very different psychological attitude. I do prefer hers.
Meanwhile, here’s another interesting piece that opens the need for discernment on my part, especially since it came in from F. William Engdahl, an investigator whom I tend to respect. He claims that he’s coming to the reluctant opinion that Varoufakis is a Trojan Horse for the Troika. Why? Well, because of where he went to school and the circles he runs in and the fact that he didn’t counsel Greece to take the Iceland option in the first place.
But somehow, Engdahl’s analysis and conclusion just didn’t cut it for me. So when I put up the piece this morning, V for Varoufakis!, I didn’t mention it.
Then reader Doreen Agostino commented that Engdahl offered another perspective. Which brings me, once again, to this same place, where I ask myself, what am I going to focus on and what am I going to share.
Because more and more it seems to me that though the identical “form” of something may “logically” be interpreted in at least two, and perhaps many more ways, how that “form” actually functions in practice may ultimately depend on just how powerfully we focus the energy of our own perspective, and thus intent, into that particular form. How we breathe into it leans it in one direction rather than another.
So, we can see Varoufakis as a trojan horse, cleverly leading the Greeks off the cliff, or we can see him as a loud bell ringer for democracy who woke the Greeks up to their own inherent power before stepping down.
Likewise, with the original subject of this post: We can see every geopolitical situation in the world as necessarily playing out to benefit the coming NWO using conscious or unconscious controlled opposition and people pretending to be what they’re not in order to fire up the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis that will lead in the one predetermined direction that the PTB have already decided in advance.
Or not. Instead, we can appreciate a confusing, infinitely complexifying, interpenetrating, chaotic concatenation of more and more surreal events and situations, all bleeding into and ramifying with one another in so many many ways that no one, but no one, can see clearly what lies ahead.
And so, in conclusion, let me just say that I’m inclined to assume that yes, in the summer of 2015 we have reached a critical defining moment in human and planetary history. And that this moment simply cannot be fully caught with any of our maps, no matter how penetrating, expansive, or multi-layered, or clever — or scientific! That this moment either opens us up to our intense, decentralized, creative possibilities everywhere, or this moment clamps us down as anonymous pawns in the clanking centralized, anonymous, mechanical, robotic unity of the global fascist corporatist bankster state which then, sooner or later, will blow us all up.
Which shall it be? Heaven or Hell on Earth? It’s up to us. And I repeat: even though we may correctly identify and describe any of the same “forms” (situations, events, people, organizations, etc.) in different ways, we need to recognize that this means those same identical forms can be filled with either the mysterious infinite breath of fresh air or with the old stale outgassing of the toxic industrialized state.
We need to choose, and choose wisely.
Let us intend the more beautiful world that our hearts know possible, the one we can actually, yes, see in our imaginations; and then let us center ourselves, take a long deep breath, and set out, one foot after another, in that direction.