"You can be a victor without having victims"

"You can be a victor without having victims" is what surfaced in my fortune cookie today. This presents an odd conundrum.

To be the victor, well, that implies "winning". Whenever you "win" that means someone else "lost". At least that's how it typically goes.

My first pondering about this goes ... can you be a victor without being the "winner"? Let's set aside the question of whether winning means there's a loser, and the loser has to be a victim.

What's come to mind is a way of being strong, of having power, but not using that power or strength to dominate others. That's a way of living I've been exploring for awhile. It's very clear this is a different way of having power than typical.

The stereotype for a powerful person is one who easily dominates or kills their opponents, and revels in the strength. But it seems to me the standing warrior pose, to pick an example, is meant to train one in a different kind of strength/power.

The standing warrior pose is all about presencing yourself right here, right now, being you in this moment in all that means to be you. This presencing of yourself is the you which cannot be destroyed. It's the you which can withstand the crashing of ocean waves and not be moved.

If you cannot be defeated, aren't you a victor?

Which gets us back to the other half of this. If you are a victor, does that make someone into a loser/victim?

So, if you cannot be defeated, and your victorhood came through not being defeated, then what happens to the person who wanted to defeat you? It seems they would not have been vanquished, because all you did was to be the part of yourself that you cannot be defeated. Being undefeated does not require that the other lose.

Being undefeated simply means you weren't defeated. No victims or losers are needed in this picture.

Establishing control over a society

I want to share a realization that recently came to me. It is a way of establishing control over a society, allowing you to bend them to your will. However in practice this will take generations to really lodge into society, so you probably won't have direct benefit but your heirs will.

Step 1: Beg, borrow, steal or forge a set of spiritual writings

Step 2: Present those writings as the Word of God

Step 3: Present the writings as being the infallible source of truth

Step 4: Appoint a group of people as the official interpreters of Gods Infallible Words as written in those writings

It helps to have an authentic spiritual guru deliver the writings you are going to start with. That's not an absolute requirement. The other steps serve to separate the individuals in the society from their own authentic ability to determine the truth.

The other steps make it so Truth is determined only from the spiritual writings, and that Truth is so difficult to understand that only the select anointed ones can tell what's right or wrong. Hence when someone has a question, they won't be able to answer it for themselves but instead have to turn to the official interpreters of Gods Infallible Words to tell them the truth.

Once the official interpreters of Gods Infallible Words are established with credibility, then can claim literally any idea as being Gods Infallible Truth. Of course this assumes the official interpreters become corrupt, and no longer be serious students of spiritual truth.

In the ideal the priesthood's role is to explore the divine and to have the freedom to devote their lives to authentic spiritual practice. But we can think of dozens of religions throughout history where it began as an authentic spiritual practice, then devolved into corruption and power mongering.

I believe we all have access to divine truth. There are many spiritual teachings which say so, and which say we can look within for the divine truth. They tend to encourage us to explore and experiment for ourselves divine truth. In my experience the confidence this gives is stronger than "faith".

Be in command of your life

A SPAM email I just received had the title "Be in command of your life, process judgements...". Hmmm... I thought, their appeal is for independence. But what kind of independence are they offering? Just another job, "processing judgments".

I didn't read the SPAM but there's a million offers like that. Some kind of "earn megabucks working from home" which often turns out to be a job stuffing envelopes, or door-door sales, or maintaining marketing materials in stores, etc. A lot of us want more money and it's that desire these offers are exploiting.

But ... stop and think about this. Is it money that's desired or freedom?

Speaking for myself, the dream I hold is being able to travel regularly, to see the world, greater ease, etc.

Do these get-rich schemes offer a way to be in command of ones life? I don't think so. The offer tends to make one just as beholden to some activity that earns money. What would change is the activity to which one is beholden.

Typically people hold a job and that job provides the money with which they live, and if they want to continue living they must continue holding that job. Hence, the typical person is beholden to their job and they could not live without that job. Is that typical person in command of their life? Nope, because to a large extent their life is dictated by the job.

Here's a great question to ponder ... What would it be to be in command of ones own life?

I think that to be in command of my life, I would be choosing for myself my daily activities. Rather than having to go to the office every day, I could choose from a whole pallette of possibilities.

There's a couple ways of approaching this ...

For example if one were to be independantly wealthy then one wouldn't have any required activities. The independantly wealthy don't have to work, and hence aren't beholden to a job to provide their living. They have more freedom than the typical person to choose their life.

It's possible for the "typical person" to develop independance. I wrote up a personal finance plan which nearly anybody could use to build up financial stability and freedom. The key to the plan is for your spending to be less than your income, and to salt away that difference into investments. It's called "living beneath your means" and it's the opposite of the Keeping Up With The Joneses which ties most of us into the rat race.

I think there's another way of being in command of your life. Question: What is it you most wish to do in your life? What would you do with your life if you had the freedom?

In other words, why do you need to stay in the job you are in? You could be in a job you would enjoy, one where you believe fully in the results of what your job has you do, etc.

In such a scenario you would still be working to earn the money you live on. The difference is your work would be more in alignment with your values and desires.

"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country"

"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country.." - G.W. Bush in the wake of an unexpected landslide victory by Hamas in the latest Palestinian elections. Hamas has been a bloody terrorist organization, but has recently turned to political action and has now won the elections in the Palestinian territories.

It seems the U.S. is two-faced about wanting democracy. We say we want democracy, but then when democracy turns up an unwanted result then there's only complaints. In this case the election chose Hamas, but no sooner than the results were in than the complaints began. President Bush, I label you HYPOCRIT.

In case it's not obvious -- what's really galling about the above quote is that GW Bush himself laid out a call for the destruction of another government. Which? Iraq's government under Saddam Hussein. That's what the phrase regime change means, the destruction of another government. Further the NEOCON strategy for the middle east is to destroy not just the Iraqi government, but also that of Syria and Iran.

Oh, and apparently the U.S. government was meddling in the Palestinian election by giving huge funding to Hamas opponents:

Palestinian Groups Accuse U.S. of Meddling in Elections: And in the Occupied Territories, the Bush administration is being accused of meddling in this week's Palestinian parliamentary elections. On Sunday the Washington Post reported the U.S. has clandestinely funneled $2 million into public service projects ahead of the elections in an effort to increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority and its governing Fatah party. Officials from Hamas have questioned whether the aid violates rules barring Palestinian political parties from receiving funds from foreign sources. Independent candidate Mustafa Barghouti warned the Bush administration's efforts could backfire and end up helping Hamas in the elections. Barghouti said, "Every time the United States says it doesn't want Hamas, they boost Hamas. Let us do our elections entirely on our own. These interventions run counter to our efforts, and they hurt the Palestinian people. This effort was completely counterproductive." -- Democracy Now, Jan 24, 2006

But the Bush administration has demonstrated anti-democracy tendencies in the past. For example all the actions taken to undermine Hugo Chavez's rule in Venezeula, including a U.S.-backed coup attempt against the Venezuela government. For example the U.S. backed coup that tossed Jean-Bertrand Aristide out of Haiti. In both cases it's a democratically elected government that wasn't to U.S. liking. But this isn't new to the Bush administration, as the U.S. government has been toppling democratically elected governments for decades.

Bush sees vote proving 'power of democracy' But he urges Abbas to stay in chief post (Boston Globe, By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff, January 27, 2006)

Hamas invited to form government (BBC, Jan 27, 2006)

Hamas’ victory upends Israeli politics Opposition politicians blast government for failing to stop group's ascent (By Scott Wilson, The Washington Post Updated: 5:29 a.m. ET Jan. 27, 2006)

Hamas victory explodes Middle East peace plans (theage.com.au)

Voters did not elect Hamas because its charter commits it to the destruction of Israel; indeed, that goal was dropped from its election platform, an implicit acknowledgement of public opinion by an increasingly pragmatic political force. Hamas has observed a ceasefire for the past year, after carrying out about 60 suicide bombings since the second intifada began in 2000. Only a minority of Palestinians subscribe to its hardline Islamic ideology; instead, they rejected Fatah because of its divided and ineffective administration and its entrenched corruption. Hamas has quietly attended to the practical side of community politics, providing services to the poor and building a reputation for discipline, efficiency and integrity. Its officials in Gaza, where Hamas first won municipal elections, have even co-operated with Israel on administrative matters, out of necessity. Hamas has sent out mixed signals on broader co-operation, and even the taboo matter of peace talks, which it may decide to let President Abbas pursue, as this was the platform on which he was elected.

All politics is local, eh?