• Selfishness or Fear: using selfishness or people’s fear of paying for others. • Resentment: using resentment or hatred towards illegal immigrants, which can also involve racism. And using these two emotions or feelings to attack Health Care Reform. • Selfishness or Fear + Resentment = Attack on Health Care Reform
********************************************************************************
I voted for the President but what he said regarding the disabled community was a non-traditional symptom of Cultural Poisoning that should be looked at closer.
As a matter of Cultural Health we should always endeavor to reduce Cultural Poisoning of all types. Normally I do cultural commentary on Cultural Poisoning as it relates to Black and White ethnic group issues. Cultural Poisoning as it relates to the disability community is a reality that is even less known and understood then Black/White issues.
For the first time, a sitting President appeared on the Jay Leno Show, where President Obama unfortunately referred to bowling and the “Special Olympics”. See the video on YouTube.
First let me say that anyone can, and most of us do, exhibit a symptom of Cultural Poisoning (CP) from time to time. for instance, Dr. Martin Luther King used the “N” Word (Negro) as common parlance. I have watched the President closely and I have not detected any inter-ethnic Cultural Poisoning yet so, why this odd off hand disrespect of the disability community. Was it competitive arrogance?
If you have ever been in a Gym locker room and heard the trash talk, you might suspect that the President probably picked up this CP in such and environment. Whatever the case, the good news is that unlike Bush and the forty thieves, this President immediately acknowledged the mistake and apologized. Now, that is change, and a good example of how to cure a specific symptom of Cultural Poisoning. Amen!
Related articles by Zemanta
We have been holding on eight long years for the opportunity of this day. Be sure to vote twice during this election: once at the polling stations, and then again with your state of mind.
Recall the disappointment in 2000 when Al Gore lost to G.W. Bush? Can you imagine what it may have been like to have had Gore as President instead? Despite Gore's loss, look at the tremendous good Gore has done to bring a great deal of awareness to global warming over the past few years. On the contrary, Bush started his eight year run as the worst President in American history at a time when the world needed that the least.
In 2004, we had the opportunity to exit Bush out of office, yet Bush won again against John Kerry. The suspected voting suppression, manipulation, and fraud of 2000 (which many just could not quite believe could be true at that time) disuaded voters in the 2004 election, some complacency set in--and in any case, the election was stolen again. With Bush's regime, the world has been changed forever.
Now here we are in 2008 with an opportunity to exit Bush (and the policies and thematics that McCain would appear to carry forward), and more, to bring in Obama: perhaps the most progressive and liberal President any of us have seen in our life times so far. Personally, I see that Barack Obama is the best realistic candidate for American President since JFK, perhaps even Abraham Lincoln. We are blessed to have this opportunity.
Yesterday, while browsing through FaceBook.com, I was shocked to see someone in my own personal network posting a status note that made the assertion, "In this election do not vote." Complacency is one thing, yet I'm highly perplexed why anyone would make an assertion against voting. I made a reply comment, saying that this is like saying, "IN THIS MOMENT DO NOT BREATHE."
Aside from politics, candidates, and the issues--the right to vote, and the initiative to take personal action to vote--is the core and fundamental component of democracy. Each individual vote comprises a piece of the total collective body. Together we vote, together we forge our collective shape, and move forward in social evolution. While it is true that the political landscape has turned vile nearing the cusp of the 21st Century, and real crimes are being committed to deter and alter votes--we simply cannot afford to allow ourselves to become further deterred as individuals locked in complacency, depression, denial, or ungrounded idealism. If we lose our will to vote, we are losing the breath to keep our collective body alive.
The origin of the word "vote" comes from the Latin "vovere" which means "to vow". When we vote, we literally vow to participate in animating the collective spirit by our own action, and define the collective body by our individual perspective and choice.
It can be helpful and true to think about the mass population of America (and of the world) as having similar psychological and energetic constituents as an individual human being. Psychologist Carl Jung describes the fundamental psychological concept involved with the dynamics of the conscious and unconscious, which can be applied to either the individual or the collective psyche:
"The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves." (AION: 126)
The notion of the collective unconscious was introduced by Jung as a "reservoir of the experiences of our species." And Eckhart Tolle, in his book A New Earth, speaks about the "collective ego":
"A collective ego manifests the same characteristics as the personal ego, such as the need for conflict and enemies, the need for more, the need to be right against others who are wrong, and so on. Sooner or later, the collective will come into conflict with other collectives, because it unconsciously seeks conflict and it needs opposition to define its boundary and thus its identity. Its members will then experience the suffering that inevitably comes in the wake of any ego-motivated action. At that point, they may wake up and realize that their collective has a strong element of insanity."
Clearly, what we have been largely observing for the past eight years are various manifestations of the collective ego struggling against the evolutionary tide of the collective conscious as we move into higher human potentialities of a 21st Century global society. We have witnessed the collective ego emerging with it's shadowy type of power in the events around 911, the wars in the Middle East, the surmounting economic crisis, partisan politics, voting fraud, and more. The old structures do not want to give into the new change. The extremism of McCain's campaign very well characterizes this egoic manifestation by it's harsh partisan division, aggressive attack ads, impulsive recklessness, contradiction, deceit, slander, and, even in the last few weeks, the internal dissension among key members of the Republican party itself. This CNN video report of Peruvian Shamans (in majority favor of Obama) reflects a traditional awareness of the fundamental energy dynamics going on around the representatives of Obama and McCain.
The origin of the word "conspiracy" comes from Latin "con-" which means "together with", and "spirare" which means "to breathe". Although the common taken meaning of the word "conspiracy" is heavy with the extreme power dynamics of the collective ego in action, what it literally means is "to breath together". I propose that this is the true meaning of conspiracy, and that we have an opportunity to reinterpret and deepen our understanding of the greatest conspiracy that is occurring upon the cusp of the 21st century. After thousands of years of our collective's noble struggle to know ourselves within the massive backdrop of the cosmic unknown--we have come very far in our collective evolution, and are now becoming self-aware of ourselves, beginning to make a clearer distinction between our collective conscious and unconscious, our collective ego, and our collective superconscious. Yet the task is not to attempt to banish the collective ego by lashing out at it; that is simply more collective ego. As is recommended in the psychological process of individuation, the goal is to integrate and transform the ego with the authentic self. As a collective, we must recognize our collective shadow as ours, consciously and with wisdom utilize the resource of it's energy and power, and consistently aim with our highest consensus intentions to create a world that can harmoniously orchestrate all of our diversity, and continue along our pathway toward the stars.
So at this moment in history, among the shadow of the collective ego struggle--occurring right now as voter suppression and fraud--be certain to follow thru with your vote (vow) to breath into our collective body, participate in the new pronoia conspiracy to evolve everybody. If you think you may choose to not vote, consider that perhaps you are playing into subtler levels of the voter suppression dynamics that have been set forth upon the collective body. When you do vote, you are taking responsibility in activating your own individual conscious evolution, and participating in the conscious evoltion of the collective.
Psychologist Carl Jung says, "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." And spiritual pioneer Andrew Cohen reminds us that "You Are It".
No matter what happens with the results of this election, there is always the golden opportunity to choose to be present, to maintain equanimity, and to be rigorous with oneself as a conscious individual upon the collective path of evolution. This is the divine vote, your reverent vow to persist with the inherent quintessential nature as a conscious being. Above all, breathe ...
[This blog article is also posted at Michael Gaio's blog here ]
I am going to simply add material here in this blog and in the Resource Website that I created, http://forteplan.com/obama so that people on the Campaign (including David Plouffe and Pete Rouse and several others) can make use of this.
Now what's so special about some of this stuff coming my way from various McCain-Palin supporters?
First of all, there is a lot of raw anger and hate in some, and I am sparing you those. All the same, I have been surprised by some, like the very nasty and vulgar, low-class response from someone not only working inside Dept. of Homeland Security but using his @dhs.gov email to broadcast negativity and partisan politics to others (in response to my polite essay).
Second, there are a lot of persons who are: professionals, educated, not the type that M-P and especially Sarah Palin try to pretend (convey, mislead, convince) are the main part of America, the main segment of the voting population. And they are saying very much the same thing, these people that have responded to my essays and letters on behalf of Obama+Biden And CHANGE. It is something you ought to know more about, in their actual words, in order that You can counter those arguments and hopefully convince some of the people who have allowed themselves to be fooled and deceived.
This constant type of response can be summed up as: We don't believe that Obama will be a good President, and we wil not believe, because we are Afraid, Afraid of someone and something that will do things that we don't understand, and maybe the right-wingers are right, and he will (create a socialist-communist, give all the power to black people, let in millions of illegal immigrants, etc., etc., etc.). Their Main Motivation to being Against Obama is Fear of the Unknown.
And you know what? That is at the root of the racism, the ethnocentricity, the xenophobia, the religious fundamentalism, the extreme-nationalism all of that which drives people to love to give up their power and rights to despots and totalitarian authority figures and regimes.
Read through parts of the book, "The Authoritarians" which is online and in http://forteplan.com/obama/documents. It is by Robert Altemeyer, a professor of psychology at the University of Manitoba in Canada. You will understand the McCain-Palin supporter much better.
The campaign has shown McCain as an over-reactor and....a bit odd.
He cancels Republican convention, cancels campaign, cancels debate, after marrying one beauty contest...divorces and marries another beauty contestant..then picks a former beauty contestant for vice-presidential running mate...eventhough she is unqualified to replace him as President, pushes Palin into Intensive Presidential Preparation Camp, refuses press to have access to Palin, turns his teeth to bright white (from initial deep yellow).
I think McCain would confuse the whole country with his bizzarre and hyper-reactive antics.
Psyche meds please......
Please vote for Obama!!!
Dr. Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University, has written, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” (457 pp. PublicAffairs. $26.95) in which he offers explanations for the Democrat’s relatively poor performance in elections.
On Aug. 26, NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote “Stop Making Sense” a derogatory review. In his review Brooks asks several snide questions. Here are those question and my snide answers:
“First, why did someone with so little faith in rational inquiry go into academia . . .?” THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE ELECTORATE IS NOT RATIONAL, IS POORLY INFORMED AND IS RECEPTIVE TO SUPERMARKET-TABLOID-TYPE JOURNALISM DOES NOT DEVALUE RATIONAL INQUIRY.
“Second, the states of upper New England and the Pacific Coast regularly used to vote Republican in presidential elections but now they generally vote Democratic. Did people in those states become less emotional, and therefore more amenable to the Democrats’ rational appeals over the past few decades?” NO, THEY REALIZED HOW MUCH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS FUCKED UP THE NATION!
“Third, how did John Kerry beat Howard Dean in the Democratic primaries? Was it because of his Oprah-esque displays of emotional intensity?” DEMOCRATS WERE OVERWHELMED, PANICKED ACTUALLY, BY THE REPUBLICAN-STOKED WAR HYSTERIA. THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED A GENUINE WAR HERO WHO HAD, AT THE TIME, SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ.
“Fourth, is it possible that substance has something to do with the political fortunes of parties?” NO, IT’S NOT SUBSTANCE THAT’S PROPELLING THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN. “Could it be that Democrats won in the middle part of the 20th century because they were right about the big issues — the New Deal and the civil rights movement?” ABSOLUTLY! “Is it possible Republicans won in the latter part of the century because they were right about economic growth and the cold war?” NO. CARTER WAS INEFFECTIVE. REGAN COULD SELL SUGAR TO CUBANS, AND REPUBLICANS HAD PERFECTED THE TECHNIQUES THAT WESTEN COMPLAINS ABOUT. “Is it possible Democrats are winning now because they were right about whether to go to war in Iraq?” THEY’RE NOT WINNING LATELY! “And if substantive policies correlate with political fortunes, what does that say about the human mind?” THERE’S LITTLE CORRELATION ONCE CAMPAIGNING BEGINS, NONE AT ALL IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.
“Finally, if voter decisions are driven by the sort of crude emotional outbursts Westen recommends, and if . . . “a substantial minority of Americans hold authoritarian, intolerant ideologies driven by fear, hate and prejudice that are fundamentally incompatible with Democratic (and democratic) principles,” then shouldn’t we abandon this whole democracy thing?” NO, WE MUST HOPE THAT ONE DAY REPUBLICANS WILL STOP PANDERING TO THE LEAST INFORMED AND MOST GULLIBLE.
“It’s rare that one comes across a book that raises so many questions.” BUT NOT THE ONES BROOKS ASKS. HE IGNORES THE OBVIOUS. HIS QUESTIONS ARE EXAMPLES OF THE VERY THINGS HE SEEMS TO SAY DO NOT EXIST. “Of course it’s rare that one comes across a book that so avidly flatters the prejudices of its partisan readers.” WHAT NONSENSE! NEW ONES ARE COMING OUT ALL THE TIME, MOSTLY, BUT NOT EXCUSIVELY, BY REPUBLICANS.
“The core problem with Westen’s book is that he doesn’t really make use of what we know about emotion. He builds on the work of Antonio Damasio, without applying Damasio’s conception of how emotion emerges from and contributes to reason.” REALLY?? MOST EVIDENCE INDICATES OTHERWISE.
“In this more sophisticated view, emotions are produced by learning.” RIDICULOUS! IT’S MOSTLY BY BIOLOGICAL IMPERITIVES AND ACQUIRED PREJUDICES!
“ . . . It’s not necessary to dumb things down to appeal to emotions.” BUT, IF YOU DO, YOU GET MORE VOTES! “ . . . “The best way to win votes . . . is to offer people an accurate view of the world and a set of policies that seem likely to produce good results.” THEN, WHY DO REPUBLICANS PEDDLE BULLSHIT A LA CHENEY & ROVE?
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT AT ALL AS BROOKS IMAGINES. HE REALLY NEEDS TO GIVE UP POP-PSYCHOLOGY.
This article is a publicity stunt, by Karl Rove, to accomplish at least three things:
1. Make it look like the GOP really is at odds with McCain, and therefore McCain really will bring change to Washington.
2. Truly warn McCain to tone down the negativity of his adds because they are making him look bad.
3. Scare Obama away from being more aggressive, which he actually needs to be.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGNS_NEGATIVITY?SITE=CARIE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I love this article. It is so well spoken and hits so many of the key points. In fact, the points made in this article dovetail very nicely with why I chose to vote democrat in the 2008 elections. This is why I will soon author my own piece discussing why I made the choice to support Senator Obama and why I became involved in his campaign. In it I will also try to detail what I have learned along the way...since I began getting involved with the campaign.
Stay tuned...
This is from Deepak Chopra:
"Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses . In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision. Look at what she stands for: --Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism. --Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad. --Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded. --Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree. --Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war. --"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology. Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness. Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise."
"Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses . In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision. Look at what she stands for: --Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism. --Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad. --Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded. --Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree. --Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war. --"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology. Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness. Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise."
Sensitivity Training: How To Talk To Hillary's Voters
My name is Jarrett. I am a life-long Democrat who campaigned and voted for Hillary Clinton in the highly contested swing state of Florida. Once again, Florida will decide the Presidential Election for the year 2008/09.
I have now switched my support to Barack Obama because his policies and outlook are far closer to my ideals than those of John McCain. The decision was easier for me than it will be for many Hillary voters because I am more familiar with the cut-throat nature of politics.
What I've noticed, since joining the Campaign for Change, is that many long-time Obama supporters don't really know how to effectively communicate with Hillary's supporters. Without further delay, I will explain the "do's and dont's" concerning the way we should solicit support from a Hillary Clinton voter like myself:
Remember H.I.L. (Humility, Interest, Love)
Humility - Hillary voters don't want to hear about you are the best and you beat them... They don't agree. We know that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote in swing states that will matter later on... If Obama supporters seem unaware of this inconvenient fact, they will appear foolish and egotistical to a Hillary supporter. The best thing you can say to a Hillary voter is "We REALLY need your vote/help in this election... We can only do it with support from motivated and knowledgeable folks like yourself."
Interest - Take a moment to hear what Hillary voters have to say and brace yourself... They might want to talk about how Hillary was railroaded by the media, about how sexism prevented her from winning, or about how she had the right idea concerning Universal Healthcare. You must NOT take these statements as a threat to the Obama campaign, but rather assume that these statements are a SUPPORT for the Democrats as a whole. Show the supporter that you agree with their concerns and that is why we need to stick together... Just remember that letting a Hillary voter do the talking will satisfy them - they want to educate YOU, not the other way around. The only thing they want to hear from you is that you are against Bush/McCain.
Love - Hillary solicited votes from Women, Young People, Gays and Lesbians and African Americans by speaking gently and lovingly about how much she cherishes each and every supporter. She speaks at great length about how amazing and inspiring each and every supporter is. You probably missed this if you were watching the mainstream media - but her supporters got wonderful HTML emails expressing gratitude and gifts and warm wishes. At her rallies, Hillary spent hours waving and smiling and shaking hands, and LISTENING to others. Quite frankly, this seems missing from the Campaign For Change because we are approaching crunch time. We need to always keep in mind that these are our neighbors, grandmothers, best friends, classmates and teachers. We have waited our whole lives to see a Female President of the United States of America and we are VERY concerned about Healthcare for our loved ones. Hillary voters WANT to support Barack Obama, but any percieved insult or indifference to Hillary as a person will steer them FAR away from that goal. Do not distract us with old arguments from the past. This is the NOW and we are all friends again.A good thing to say regarding this might be, "Gosh, it's really unfortunate that they wound up running against eachother in the primary because they are both such wonderful candidates."
Hillary voters MUST be reassured of the following things:
Thank you for taking the time to read this and please forward it to only your friends who are active in the campaign so we can continue to Ba-Rock the Vote together.
- Jarrett For Obama/Biden '08
PROFESSOR HOVHANNESS I. PILIKIAN, B.A. in Eng. Lit. (American Uni of Beirut),
B.Sc. Hons. in Psych. (Open Uni), M.A. in Soc. Anth. (Sch of Oriental & African Studies),
Gulbenkian Foundation Scholar in Econ. (LSE) (London Uni),D.A.A.D-Fellow (Uni of Munich),
D.G.G.B, Dip. Th. Pr. (R A D A), Cert. Hum (Open),
Adamian Award (Ministry of Culture – Armenian S.S.R.), F.R.A.I.,
Contributor to Encyclopaedia Britannica
10th August 2008
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Dear Senators Clinton and Obama,
You may like to know that my personal letter (dated 1st July, copy below) to your good selves is now an Open Letter published on the Web on
http://www.gibrahayer.com/index.php5?&page_id=21&path=29,21
My letter contains (1) A new Theory of History – that History advances by mindset-shifts,
(2) A radical historical interpretation of Warmongering – that it manifests masculinist obsessions contingent on the rape of women and the murder of ‘their’ children, and finally
(3) A proposition for a new socio-economic paradigm – universal CHILD-WELFARE, for all, to achieve global peace... with the sound-bite;
All For Child-Welfare and Child-Welfare For All
Yours truly
Professor Hovhanness Israel Pilikian.
***
Initially Exclusive to the Addressees 1st July 2008
Entirely Private and Totally Confidential
713 Hart Senate Office Building
District of Columbia 20510-1305, Washington DC
780 Third Avenue Suite 2601
New York, NY 10017
Senator Obama is absolutely right that America is ready for change – and Senator Clinton has the right idea for that change – hence this letter to provide the clinching philosophical argument and deep conceptual grounding of your cause to make it irresistible for the whole world to adopt.
I think Human civilization evolves by paradigmatic shifts in Mindset – by which I mean that a nation’s mind – meaning the communitarian-brain – is re-wired through the processes of social relations and modern communications-media into certain ways and patterns of communal thinking.
Mankind’s History hitherto, alas, has manifested the Primates’ barbaric survivalist mindset of crude brutal power for its own sake. It took millennia for the parochial Italian Renaissance humanism to follow, and several centuries for the French Revolution to reflect and universalize by then the re-wired mindset of the Renaissance humanism. The American Revolution earlier for the first time in history had affected an ethical mindset shift by exemplifying the concept of Power-To-do-Good, and not for its own crude sake. Unfortunately the neo-Con Bushites wished to revert to the Malthusean-Hobbsean Jungle Law, demeaning the principles of the American Revolution. Thus, overall, human history hitherto (even at its best with the American Revolution, never mind now in the genocidal dumps with the Bushists) has manifested the humanoid Darwinist mindset of the proto-fascist (and Nazi) masculinist brain-wiring, set on the oppression and rape of women and children, and the elimination of ‘useless people’...
I shall propose to you a new paradigm to wire-up a new mindset to evolve in our post-modern human brain, if only the United States of America, as the dominant world-power, would agree through yourselves to pioneer its globalization ... Like a panacea, it shall solve all socio-economic problems, including all dangers from Climate change, which must be turned into the single most important issue of international politics. And it is this, and where Mrs Clinton already possesses the inkling by virtue of her maternal instinct – CHILD-WELFARE – pure and simple, it must be made the single slogan, the cornerstone of ALL complex policies held together in consistency. In the immortal words of Britain’s Silver Poet, Alexander Pope – “The Child is the Father of Man”.
History hitherto has been the ruthless product of bi-gender competitiveness, the male always oppressing, dominating and ultimately raping the female – well-proven by antique myths – females, be they divine or mortal, are always ‘ravished’ against their will – and endless modern warfare – even today, now, women are being raped in ... Zimbabwe, and everywhere else where genocidal wars are active, stretching back in time to Herodotus – the first Historian who lived in the 5th c. BC, and whose very first paragraphs record the gang-bang by Phoenician sailors of the free ‘feminist’ women of Argos – thus, according to the Herodotusean historical record, the very first of the countless series of world wars have begun with a ... gang-bang, literally, a group rape by foolish men of a group of innocent women!
The only way this awful bi-polar human stupidity can be eliminated once and for all from the disturbed human psyche and sexualized Freudian mindset is by creating a focus on a deeper perspectival third-dimension ; the child-and-its-welfare.
Both genders must focus all life-force on tending a healthy child, literally and metaphorically, in a healthy geophysical and social environment – it can become the measuring stick and guideline for all ethical human behaviour and action, individually, on the micro-, and politically on the macro-levels.
Marriage throughout history and in all cultures is played out as a power-game for the benefit of the adults in the game – Divorce in the West consequently, has been riddled with adult partners’ power-obsessive narcissism – their children as mere inconvenient extensions of their egos. In Britain, child-welfare is a byword for corrupt legal practices, and serving equally as political football for governmental publicity stunts.
A new categorical imperative in the style of Emmanuel Kant, one of the great thinkers of all time, in my proposed new paradigm would be – Do nothing that will shame your children, and you in their eyes - Adopting this as the cornerstone of all social and couple relations – it may reduce Divorce, one of the great Western social ills hitherto based on parental narcissism and gratification rather than the needs of child-welfare. And Hollywood film-industry shall produce less public nudity, if actors considered the shame of their children felt at their parental pornographic exposure.
Thou shalt not do anything that harms a child – which ensures that paedophilia for example, never takes hold of society – there are serious high-powered post-modern attempts in Anglo-America to render it acceptable ... And the British American Tobacco (BAT) company would be stopped immediately from the crime of selling tobacco to African children!
Thou shalt not kill children, or their mothers, can serve as grounds for all wars all over the world to be stopped – a good reason to dismantle globally the military-industrial complexes, against the inhuman dangers of which President Eisenhower first of all so wisely warned the American nation back in the 1950’s. A very simple undeniable post-modern historical fact is that America is armed to its teeth and ... toes with thousands of nuclear bombs - it simply does not need more of any ordenance! You need not waste a cent more on further armaments - instead, release all those trillions onto societal health and well-being!!! According to the Bible, Peacemakers are the children of God – I can never understand how and why an American Christian can ever be a warmonger.
Child-welfare must force the realization of Mrs Clinton’s humanitarian policies of universal health-insurance for the people of America – the first and only one of its kind (overdue) in American History. And according to the new paradigm I am proposing, Thou shalt not kill children and their mothers, now add to it – and their fathers, and grandparents – We all are the children of God!
And now to the ultimate problem of all global problems – Climate Change, which is a deceptive turn of phrase to camouflage the horrendous evil truth of destroying the very Oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere we need to breathe second-by-second ... Never mind polar ice-caps melting, oceans rising, we are (like the foolish individuals who smoke cigarettes on the micro-level) as nations destroying on the macro-level by-the-second the very Oxygen we need to survive and live by! Such destruction is evidence of sheer human cultural stupidity – dumping each year 7 billion tonnes of pollutants in the atmosphere of this sweet little child-planet.
Even the Nobel-prize winning Mr. Al Gore won’t dare speak the truth – the global car and aviation industries are satanic evils that need be controlled, transformed and absolutely rationalized, not-expanded. There can be no stupid glee and Big Business hand-rubbing in the lunatic economic predictions that China shall be helped to have ... 900 million cars in the next decade.
Hitherto, the planet Earth was conceived as a ‘mature woman’ – Mother Earth/ Mother Nature – and messed about, abused and finally ‘proudly’ raped by the Macho-male-warmonger-idiot. At the odd occasion in history when a Woman had acquired such power – Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain, and Catherine the Great of Russia – they have strangely morphed into the macho-male paradigm – with Ms Madeleine Albright, the elder Bushite lacking any female nurturing instincts, declaring infamously to the world that the death of half a million Iraqi ... children is a price worth paying for the discomfiture of one male idiot – the banana-tyrant Saddam Hussein, ex CIA operative and ordained murderer of Abdul Karim Kassem, his predecessor.
If one conceives of this planet – a grain of dust in the vastness of the universe – as yet another little child of the great Creator – then the politicians must do EVERYTHING to save it from the violent stupidities of bi-gender power-obsessed politics, as my noble wife Clarice puts it, “child-planet is precious, in need of care and protection, like all children”.
All for child-welfare – and Child-welfare for all should be the hub of the new neural network out of which the new mindset of the future mankind can and must be wired before we destroy ourselves through sheer stupidity – narcissistic greed and waste of our planet’s resources.
Only thus, dear ... President Obama, and Vice-President Clinton, can you change America, and the rest of the world, into a new order and Pax Americana, not by genocidal warmongering all over the world that is reducing day-by-day the very Oxygen we need to breathe merely to live as God’s little children!
8th July 2008.
P.S. Please forgive me for the awkward lay-out, as I do not know enough computers to have done a better job ...
Gary Hart: The Perserverance of Idealism - Politics on The Huffington Post The Huffington Post
June 3, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-perserverance-of-idea_b_104560.html
As many people seem to be born either liberal or conservative, so many also seem naturally inclined toward either idealism or pragmatism. Overly simplified, the pragmatist says "tell me how the system works and I'll do my best within it," and the idealist says, "let's change the system."
Though this dichotomy doesn't seem to work very well in Republican party politics (where those claiming idealism invade foreign countries), it plays a striking role in the Democratic party. In modern times Democrats find themselves choosing between an idealistic candidate, usually younger, and a pragmatic candidate, usually more seasoned in Washington politics.
This year this pattern is compounded by the idealist being African-American and the pragmatist being a woman. This startling dual breakthrough has blurred the idealist-pragmatist choice to a large degree. But it is a powerful choice none the less.
Pragmatists rarely campaign as pragmatists because who can get excited about someone who says, "I know what the deal is and I am prepared to work within the deal"? Rather, a pragmatist candidate campaigns on themes of experience, toughness, and scars of battle. Idealistic candidates have a different, some would say dreamy or unrealistic, view. The idealist says, "we've tried the old ways and they are not working." The idealist campaigns on themes of new voices, new ideas, and new leadership, that is to say a break with the past, with tradition, with conventional wisdom, and with an old and often corrupted system.
There is a strong strain of idealism even in a 220 year-old nation. It is based on hope and longing for something better. But it is also based on practical (possibly pragmatic) reasons. Power corrupts. Those accustomed to working within a system soon find it increasingly easy to game the system, to favor friends, to place personal interest above the national interest. Hence, Jefferson's radical notion of generational revolution: saddling a person with the practices and policies of the past, he argued, is like asking a man to wear the coat he wore as a boy.
Though most people who start out as young idealists become more pragmatic with the weight of years, some of us do not. Some of us cling to the hope that America can do better, that public service can be noble, that equality and justice are achievable. We don't want to settle for past policy frameworks or for half measures. We would prefer to set a higher standard and to challenge the political and social systems to struggle upward. These feelings are not voluntary. They are part of one's very character.
I hope to live to see the first woman president. But I also hope she will be an idealist, not only a gender pioneer but a bold, brave, and innovative leader who is not part of a flawed Washington system. I want America to send a powerful signal to a watching world that we have now taken a giant step into the global culture by electing an African-American. But my hope and dream also is, and has been since the days of John and Robert Kennedy, that this president will call us to a nobler mission and a higher goal, that he will remind us always of our Constitutional principles and ideals, that he will place us back on our historic path to the establishment of a more perfect union and a principled republic.
Ever an idealist, I therefore place my hope in Barack Obama. It is time for the idealists, even the aging ones, to raise the flag again.
An excerpt from the full entry:
It is also worth point out that neo-liberals believe that you can simply show people the logic of your position and they'll come over to your side. This is how the Clinton campaign has been run. Furthermore, Clinton has occasionally activated the strict father model in this race--particularly with the notorious red phone ad, but also with discussions of experience.
Obama has demonstrated much more effective handling of frames. Not only does he rely solely on the nurturing parent frame, but he uses positivity ("hope") to overwhelm the more negative ideas associated with the strict father model. He also successfully re-framed race in the eyes of many Americans in his recent speech.
Ursula K. Le Guin understands the two family frames a priori. I didn't understand until I read Lakoff and then thought for a good long time--probably because I didn't have the right frame for understanding what Le Guin was telling us.
The day after Barack Obama won the Iowa primary, something happened in America. The age-old "distance" between American whites and American blacks began to close. I felt a shift in my own subconscious: I was able to speak with my black friends without having to repress the ancient racist cultural stigma against blacks in myself. I was able to focus on the things that really define their person: their psychology. I asked myself why this was so, after a lifetime of being nervous about how to deal with blacks. After all, I was white, and they were black.
I realized that it must not have been a problem in me, necessarily, because I was myself dismissive of race. I realized that what must have changed was how my black friends -- indeed, blacks across America -- felt about themselves. I attribute this to the primary win because of the statements by columnists the morning after talking about how Obama had already made history by it. Obama had, they asserted, all but eliminated the judgment of race from American politics. Later, the Clinton campaign's self-immolation would demonstrate just how eager Americans were to not to turn back this watershed moment in American history.
Obama has proven that a black man can run for office in America without being judged for his race. If a man can run for office without being judged, can't he get a job without being discriminated against? Day by day that answer is drifting closer and closer to a unequivocal yes. As blacks begin to gain confidence in their status as equal citizens in the minds of whites, the ancient spell cast over the United States by the unscrupulous slave trade will continue to unravel. If Obama becomes president, it will unravel all at once: the sight of Barack Obama giving his inaugeral address will cut the fuel from the id's hate, and free America's future from the slave-trader's sociopathic spell.
Martin Seligman is a behaviorist. He is best known for his experiments exploring the idea of "learned helplessness." Dogs were exposed to repeated, unescapable electric shocks. When they were given the opportunity to escape the shocks, simply by leaping over a barrier, they did not. They simply stayed there and took it. They had learned to be helpless. I've seen it often enough in the eyes of people who come in to my office to talk, to pray, to cry.
WebMD (1/23, Mann) reports that political "candidates vying for votes would be wise to tap into" the public's "emotions, and not just drone on about the issues and their policies," according to a study presented last week at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Drew Westen, Ph.D., of Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues, "conducted a study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans on the brains of staunch Democrats and staunch Republicans." The scans "showed that the emotional areas of participants' brains lit up when they read articles suggesting their favored politician was dishonest." Moreover, "there was a decrease in activity in the parts of the brain that deal with reasoning when" the participants read that information. The researchers found that "all participants appeared to find ways of ignoring this negative information, holding on to their previous beliefs." But, "[w]hen their emotion eventually overcame the reasoning, it stimulated the brain's reward system -- similar to what happens to drug addicts when they get their fix." According to Westen, "This is why speaking with emotion matters."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1b353e07-6beb-491a-b4c2-e3cd95e5b930)
