Opposition (12:34)

[Jeremy Weiland]

> Those countries who oppose the war-mongering US
> government must know that the people in this country

> are in solidarity with those who oppose the war, but

> because of the media-wide blackout on the opposition

> to the war, the perceptions of the decision-makers
> in France, Germany, Russia, etc, are distorted in
> the sense that they think that most Americans are as

> dangerously belligerent as the illegal/unlawful
> Shrub.

I disagree with this - though I understand and
sympathize with the motivation. I have no faith in
the gov'ts of either Russia, France or Germany; both
gov'ts would love to jump into unneccessary,
imperialisitc war and have done so in the past. There
are very few gov'ts in existence right now that can
legitimately bear the anti-war standard. I believe,
as somebody else said earlier, that France and Germany
oppose U.S. military intervention in Iraq for more
self-serving reasons than merely matters of principle
(certainly not to represent their citizens'
interests).

I don't deny that there are millions upon millions of
people throughout the world - probably a majority -
who would rather this war be averted. I just question
that their gov'ts have the people's interests in mind
when they take their respective stances. If they did,
they would not seek to perpetuate the generalized
demonization of the "other sides'" citizens, the
hallmark of emotional patriotism and polarizing
propaganda. I would happily show solidarity with the
citizens of the world, but I don't want my opposition
to war to be used as a political tool for the
Europeans to plot and scheme with, just as the
Republicans at home use the honest patriotism of its
citizens. ***For those who understand, remember that
we're dealing with two branches of the same tree, with
the same roots, and the same goal.***

I've long been of the impression that the foundation
on which this entire world order has been laid cannot
be "opposed" - it must be displaced, and that requires
positive action, not negative action such as protest
and resistance. Opposition to a certain action or
idea only legitimizes the polarization and false
dichotomy that has been thrust upon us. We need not
accept the dichotomy. This war is a diversion from
the true power grab going on. Once again, people are
used as pawns of the elites in their game of world
domination and intrigue. The elite of France and
Germany are just as guilty of this as any other gov't.

I don't intend to depress people with my words, but to
try to share my perspective that this war is not the
true battle to fight. You voice may not turn the tide
of violence, but your energy can. Let not desperation
and fear rule our thoughts - for who else will lay the
energetic foundations of a new human civilization?
Remember, the world as it now is ***cannot*** be
sustained, even if such dire and urgent peril were not
upon us. Know that though the transient may pass, it
will leave us with a more accurate picture of that
which is truly real. It is high time we looked upon
and acknowledged reality.

L/L

Jeremy

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

[bob_dunham]

> Remember, the world as it now is ***cannot*** be
> sustained, even if such dire and urgent peril were not
> upon us.
___________
Yes, I really agree with this statement. Plus why would any one want
to sustain it?? What if we do avoid this war? I beleive most people
are happy with the way things are right now - and just oppose war
becasue it threatens their sense of security and normality. Even if
this war doest happen - There is still a "war" taking place on Earth
right now. We are all apart of it. Something has to give, something
has to change in a dramatic way - And this will happen soon - It may
be through this war - Or change may come in another form - Possibly
throguh economic chaos - But changes are on the way that will casue
chaos and discontent for a lot of people. Hopefully not
you........But nonetheless, change cannot be protested against.

[Zoe]

I have no faith in
the gov'ts of either Russia, France or Germany
I've long been of the impression that the foundation
on which this entire world order has been laid cannot
be "opposed" - it must be displaced, and that requires
positive action, not negative action such as protest
and resistance

I think you are very smart, Jeremy. There's not one govt on the planet that I
trust because they all are based on self-interest without regard to others, nor
do they notice that, like Karen pointed out, we are all one.

But I have a problem with this resistance thing. Maybe you can give me some
insight. Most of the people I know where I live are totally swept up in
protesting the war, or, as I like to put it, "demonstrating for peace." The
latter seems more positive. I do believe and have experienced that rule: "What
you resist, persists." And yet I feel I cannot -- indeed, have no right to --
simply stand by and say nothing about my govt (one part of me) who is about to
bomb innocent people (another part of me). So what shall I do? Sure, I can
meditate, send love, attune my own heart and mind to peace, and I feel confident
this will have its beneficial effect. But when I told a friend about this, she
commented: "If you twisted your knee, so that every time you took a step, your
right foot kicked your left foot and left a bruise, wouldn't you speak up to
your body and restrain your right foot from harming your left foot?" She
pointed out that even if I believed we are all one, that it was nececessary
nevertheless to do what I could to prevent one part from harming another part.
What do you think about this?

Zoe



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jeremy Weiland]

> There's not one govt on the planet that I trust
> because they all are based on self-interest without
> regard to others, nor do they notice that, like
> Karen pointed out, we are all one.

Not to get too political, but when are people going to
realize this, and that it applies equally to welfare
as to warfare? Notice that Bush pronounces a huge
foreign aid package in the same breath as a war of
aggression. They both stem from the same principle.
We rely way too much on our gov't to do stuff for us,
because it NEVER does it for the reason that it is in
our interests.

> And yet I feel I cannot -- indeed, have no right to
-
> - simply stand by and say nothing about my govt (one

> part of me) who is about to bomb innocent people
> (another part of me).

Oh, no - I didn't mean that you should not speak out
if you feel so moved. Like I said, this is my
perspective, not a mandate or a manifesto. You do
what you feel is right, and if my words do not
resonate, forget 'em!

However, I think that there are a lot of people out
there who need to talk and share about this issue, no
matter where they're coming from, and it's important
that when life brings you into contact with these
people that you talk to them about this, if they want
to. The media is shoving down people's throats the
idea that *everybody* is into this war and everybody
is scared. Thus every person is made to think that
everybody *else* feels one way, and that not
supporting the war will be very lonely. But this is
not neccessarily how people truly feel, even if they
claim to support the war, so to reach out and accept
people is most important, especially those who are
understandibly upset about present conditions. This
is a positive, healing experience of solidarity.

But notice that this is not political. It is sharing
a message with people who are receptive - giving
service where it is desired, as Ra would say.
Protesting is sharing a message with people who are
not receptive - resulting in further polarization.
Some people see this as good, that the lines be drawn
clearly between the two camps. But I see these lines
as largely the mechanations of those who always play
against the middle, because they frame the very debate
on which these lines rest. Through the media they use
our own bias towards unity and collectivism against
us, by isolating the "unbelievers" with the image of
national unity - scaring people into accquiesence. It
is a false dichotomy, and is more effectively
supplanted than opposed.

> So what shall I do? Sure, I can meditate, send
> love, attune my own heart and mind to peace, and I
> feel confident this will have its beneficial
> effect.

Yes. Whether it be through action, intention, or
simply countenance, you affect the way this situation
plays out energetically. If we are satisfied with our
energetic contribution, then the physical outcome is
unimportant. However, I see these protestors as
fixated on one outcome, which is unlikely. This
breeds disappointment and dispair, the very lifeblood
of the negative path.

> But when I told a friend about this, she
> commented: "If you twisted your knee, so that every
> time you took a step, your right foot kicked your
> left foot and left a bruise, wouldn't you speak up
> to your body and restrain your right foot from
> harming your left foot?"

I don't believe that this is a very good analogy.
Your knees do not have independant minds - they are
under your conscious mind's complete dominion, and
rightly so. Your knees cannot take responsibility for
themselves; only you can. You as a whole are the
smallest unit of sovereignity, and therefore the only
one that can take responsibility for your or any
parts' actions.

In the case of other people, however, they can and
must take responsibility for themselves independant of
coercion. The human being is both the smallest AND
the largest unit of consciousness that can take
responsibility *in 3D*. We are one, ultimately, but
it is only as free and actualized individuals, using
our full potential as fragments of the creator, that
we can realize our destiny as a collective, and thus
move to a more collectivized density (4D). A person
cannot be forced to join the collective, or the very
essence and spirit that constitutes that person's
contribution to the collective is lost (at the risk of
being too poltical again, this is why communism cannot
work).

> She pointed out that even if I believed we are all
> one, that it was nececessary nevertheless to do what

> I could to prevent one part from harming another
> part. What do you think about this?

I would argue that there is extremely little you can
do *physically* to prevent one part from harming
another on the world political stage. The only reason
one would believe this is if one believed we lived in
a functioning democratic republic, which by now should
be a totally shattered myth. I mean, IMHO it's kind
of senseless to claim our leaders don't listen to us,
and then resolve to counteract that deafness by
shouting louder. :-)

Plus, if we are going to look at humanity from the
unified perspective, then we are just as responsible
for the harm as the other side - it is all part of us.
It cannot be hated or fought without perpetuating
divisiveness, but it can be integrated, understood,
and forgiven. That is the true power of unity, not
the achievment of specific outcomes in physical
reality.

L/L

Jeremy

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

[Olga]

>But nonetheless, change cannot be protested against.

Your'e right Bob :))

CHANGE is one of the ONLY constants in the Universe -- Besides LOVE

Blessings,

Olga


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Johnny]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ZZNDSWJFQMy6_gFh-9b670Mr2ZLcEcNoJ4-LubJ1VC4Wd9bFqewxuKyy4Ms3ERe9_ymSYVzYqjO0OaXxwCI), "Zoe" <zoe313@p...> wrote:
> But I have a problem with this resistance thing. ... Maybe you can
give me some insight. ...So what shall I do? Sure, I can meditate,
send love, attune my own heart and mind to peace, and I feel
confident this will have its beneficial effect. But when I told a
friend about this, she commented: "If you twisted your knee, so that
every time you took a step, your right foot kicked your left foot and
left a bruise, wouldn't you speak up to your body and restrain your
right foot from harming your left foot?" She pointed out that even
if I believed we are all one, that it was nececessary nevertheless to
do what I could to prevent one part from harming another part. What
do you think about this? >

Zoe,

The above comment by your friend is fascinating! On first reading, I
thought she was mocking those who advocate war on Iraq, since I find
that a favorite mantra of warmongers is to point out the need to stop
Saddam from inflicting further harm on others. That's not who\what
she's talking about, though, is it? (I'm still not sure.)

IMHO, what you advocate seems best: "meditate, send love, attune my
own heart and mind to peace." Perhaps one might add, "& be forthright
in expressing my self."

Peace & Love, John