THEODOR AND US
ON THE GIFTS
The art of compromise may be manifested in different ways. Starting from the premise that we aim for a win-win outcome, regarding the stake-holders’ needs, rather than a win-lose one.
We can compromise as follows:
-If you’ll do one thing for me, I’ll do another one for you.
The French called that Noblesse Oblige. However, another understanding of this is that if one is in a superior dynamics than the other stake-holders, he should actually do more than his equal share, since he can do more than others.
One such example was the case of pilots during WWI, who would shoot each other with the intent to kill their opponents. However, if they would notice that the opponent would run out of bullets, they would often salute their enemies and fly away sparing the opponents’ lives, expecting a similar treatment if the situation were reversed.
It should be said that the pilots at that time, had come from cavalry and that cavalry was the military domain of the aristocratic stock. Therefore, the pilots would use the same “noblesse oblige” ground rules in the air, which they were accustomed to use in duels, or during cavalry charges. Following WWI, all these mannerisms gave way to sheer destruction of the opponents, regardless of the circumstances.
The Romans’ understanding on this theme is called Quid Pro Quo. It had the same meaning in Latin, as it has in today’s English language.
In the vindictive sense the expression “an eye for an eye,” is the principle that a person who has injured another person, is to be penalized to a similar degree. In the reparatory sense, the expression “pay it forward,” advocates acting preemptively by doing a good deed, so that it will come back to the originator, in one form or another, at a later time.
The Christian “turn the other cheek,” dictum, is actually a paradoxical approach to conflicts, where by virtue of forgiveness and love, the individual is invited to follow the Messiah’s example of personal sacrifice, as opposed to demanding that others (people, animals) be sacrificed to Him (as Deity).
The other forms of compromise are:
-We’ll combine some of what I need, with some of what you need.
-My way when I do it, your way when you do it.
-My way this time, your way next time.
We should clarify here that these are possible win-win compromise solutions, when the “business model” is used, i.e. the “give and take paradigm.”
In relationships however, such as spousal, parental and generally speaking, where the reptilian-selfish brain gives way to the mammalian-selfless one, of the “give and be given paradigm,” compromise is not quite as mercantilist and in fact, what we work on is the antipode of balancing needs; it’s all about submitting one’s selfish needs, as secondary to the needs of the loved one.
In that case, what insures that one’s needs are met is not the actual individual, but the person who loves him. And when there is a fair amount of unrequited reciprocity, due simply to the mutual submission of personal needs for the loved ones, then the ‘balancing’ happens from the other, not despite the other.
The art of compromise between human rights and human responsibilities has been addressed also, in how we see justice. Raymond G. Helmick and Rodney Petersen, have summarized in their book, Forgiveness and Reconciliation (Templeton Foundation Press, Radnor, Pennsylvania, 2001), some of these attempts as follows: distributive (fair outcome), procedural(fair treatment), a sense of justice (experienced), moral justice (universal), and restorative justice (integrative).â
Equity (economy): production equals consumption. Equality (social harmony): same rights for all members. Need (special groups focus): needs-based. Team spirit: player helps team and is rewarded.
Fair treatment and procedures, “innocent until proven guilty”.
A Sense of Justice
Victims and victimizers have been living in the same reality, but have also been experiencing it differently. Very often the victimizers will justify their oligarchy by using logical fallacies such as: either/or; ad hominem attacks; all/none, band wagon, other generalizations, stereotypes and absolutisms.
Why fight atrocious conditions and power imbalances, and maintain an integral self, including when it leads to one’s ultimate sacrifice?
Lynne Mc Taggart considers the existence of a strong, unbreakable life and energy-giving spirit and explained it as: “an energetically fundamentally living and intelligent field, and that this is a scientifically proven phenomenon” (The Field Harper, New-York, 2002 p. 15).
Her book, The Field, tells the story of a group of ingenious scientists who discovered that the Zero Point Field connects everything in the universe, much like “the Force” in the movie Star Wars. The Field offers an avant-garde view of the way our living world and our bodies work and gives both meaning to suffering and motivation to the oppressors to transform themselves into nobler beings.
The human mind and body: “are not distinct and separate from their environment, but a continuum of pulsating energy, constantly interacting within this vast energy sea” (Mc Taggart, L. p. 19).
The Field illustrates an interconnected universe and a new scientific theory which makes sense of supernatural phenomena. It talks about the juxtaposition of the Newtonian views on the world based on materially separated and distinctive particles, with the quantum physics paradigms, based on the Zero Point (e.g. the ocean of microscopic vibrations which is between and within beings). In other words, at our most basic essence, we are not a chemical reaction, but an (intelligent) electric charge (Mc Taggart, 2002).
These paradigm distinctions are important for psycho-political purposes, because according to the Zero Point perspective, there is a living conscience which observes, modifies and is modified, based on the intentions and actions being present. While many basic processes-such as feeding, digestion, sleeping, sexuality-, remain regulated by physical laws, it is the quantum physics perspective of the interrelationship between living beings, that offers a more integrative view on consciousness (e.g. that each living being has a field of influence over the world and vice-versa).
According to Communist prisons’ survivor and researcher, Romanian-born, Richard Wurmbrand, in his book Marx & Satan(Crossway Books, Westchester, Illinois, 1990), Karl Marx justified violent overthrow of societies (e.g. revolution) by blaming specific ethnic groups (false biology) and specific economic groups (false sociology) for the misery of another specific group of people, the working-class (Wurmbrand, 1991). This in turn allowed for the Communists and the Nazis to create aggressive blanked demonization of various nations’ civilians, based on social class and ethnicity respectively, which afterwards were subjugated, exploited, tortured and decimated in the name of “justice”.
Whether it is a pick-pocket thief, a gang of Nazi and/or Communist revolutionaries, or a country taking over other countries (Germany, Russia), the first step in conflict resolution is to make the culprits accountable for their actions and return the stolen property (lands). Therefore, both the Marxist theories that justified aggression, and their subsequent resulting criminal actions, need universal condemnation, in order to create a basis of discussion for aggression, its elimination, reparations and the peacebuilding achievement and maintenance.
With Nazism already being deemed as a criminal and illegal system, should the much awaited condemnation of Communism not happen prior to mediating between former victims and their persecutors, the mediator herself may look favorably to Communism, as a legitimate governing force and therefore, may interpret the Communist crimes as negligible, or as a necessary evil. Instead, one should strive to create reconciliation between the abuser and the abused, from the solid foundation of the condemnation of Communism, a priori of these discussions.
The three subclasses of societal reduction of unforgiveness from the victims are: punitive justice; economic justice; and restorative justice (Hemlick, and Petersen, 2001). Recommended is the restorative approach, due to the fact that punitive justice only continues to present a history of tit for tat crimes (such as in post-Communist societies), and because economic justice alone, would bring no attempts of the parties to re-create a relationship of mutual accord and respect between these parties.
Restorative justice however, in addition to addressing the material needs of victims and/or of their families, also creates an environment for both of the stake-holders’ unanimity of sincere condemnation of the injustices, from victims and perpetrators (or their representatives), without turning a past abuser into a future victim.
The goal of restorative justice is to establish a relationship of mutual dialogue and societal partnership in a more equitable society for all involved.
While the South African Mandellian views of restorative justice involved bringing in some black figure heads into politics and eliminating all apartheid laws, the actual victims nevertheless, didn’t receive appropriate restorative compensations and the white corporations and the status-quo injustices remained in the reality of South Africa, from the diamond and gold industries to the gated white communities (Hemlick, and Petersen, 2001). There was, in other words, a moral sentiment of justice achieved for those victimized by whites, but this was mostly symbolic in nature and the commission was arbitrarily conducted (and terminated) by Bishop Tutu’s overseers (Hemlick, and Petersen, 2001).
The rule of thumb here is that if an individual is happy with his station in life, because of the gratitude based paradigm on his perspective about himself, he will want to ‘contaminate’ others as well, with these feelings. Similarly, if an individual is miserable and acts miserably, because his feelings are miserable, due to his perspectives about himself, he will try his best to influence the world towards destruction. Regardless of the narrative presenting often praise-worthy goals, behind the need for that destruction, destruction remains just that: destructive.
One case in point is Karl Marx, who describes quite honestly, in his satanic play Oulanem, such deteriorating connection of corruption, mind, feelings, words, actions, which he expanded on, in a poem called The Player.
Characteristically for Satanists, Oulanem
is an inversion of a holy name. In this case, it is the desecration of the name Emmanuel, a Biblical name of Jesus, which means in Hebrew "God with us." Such inversions of names are considered effective in black magic.
We will be able to fully understand the drama Oulanem only in the light of a confession that Marx made in a poem called The Player, later downplayed by both himself and his followers. In it, he stated:
“The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain, / Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed./ See this sword? /The prince of darkness sold it to me. /For me, he beats the time and gives the signs. /Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.” (Wurmbrand, 1991, p. 8).
From within such an unhappy heart, misery and destruction is wished upon the others. Karl Marx voices this in Oulanem: “Yet, I have power within my youthful arms, / to clench and crush you [i.e., personified humanity] with tempestuous force, / While for us both, the abyss yawns in darkness. /You will sink down and I shall follow laughing, / Whispering in your ears, ‘Descend, come with me, friend’” (Wurmbrand, 1991, p. 9).
How much more telling is then the statement of a little boy named Takashi Tanemori, who, at the age of 9, had witnessed in Hiroshima the obliteration of his city, family and friends, essentially of his whole world, following the Atomic bomb attack and who engaged for the rest of his life in the peacebuilding process of world healing movements, starting with his own forgiveness of the American attackers of his city. He stated: “Without forgiveness, the heart will either wither, or it will destroy” (Halliman, Perry, Return to Hiroshima: Family Bonds and the Atomic Bomb,” Documentary, 2014).
If Karl Marx had only heeded to this precept…
Instead, from Karl Marx’s vitriolic socialistic writings (The Capital,The Communist Manifesto), came the manifestation of the National-Socialism (Nazism) and Communist-Socialism (Bolshevism), two faces of the same coin, which killed tens of millions of innocent victims, in the first case, and over 250,000,000 (two hundred fifty million) innocent victims (and still counting) in the second case, all in less than 100 years from these political movements’ inceptions (all these hate crimes being done of course, “in the name of social justice”).
The definition alone of Socialism should send chills of concerns on the free persons’ spines: “a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government, rather than by individuals” (Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary). In other words, socialism is about monopoly and therefore, dictatorship.
Karl Marx and his dictators, Hitler, Stalin, Horthy, Mao Tse-Tung, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Ir Sen, Kim Il Sung, Fidel and Raul Castro, Nicolae Ceausescu and others, were in fact bullies. Bullies, in both dysfunctional thinking and aggressive actions, are essentially cowards who are bluffing with their aggression, an inner sense of fear and insecurity.
Whether they are dictators, abusive neighbors or school yard hoodlums, they bank on the fact that their aggressiveness will mask who they are, what they’ve been through, what they’ve done and their hope is that the bullied person would back up rather than fight, because he/she may have more to loose from a confrontation, than the bully himself.
In reality, it is the bullies themselves who could lose just as much, or more than the attacked person; they just hope that nobody will call their bluff. We see how animal or human bullies also carefully tend to attack weaker individuals than themselves (the macho approach), in the hope of finding minimal resistance if challenged. Conversely, the strong individuals would make it a point to refrain from attacking the weaker individuals (the gentleman’s approach). That’s why the macho man is weaker than the gentle-man, despite the apparent contradiction between the words and their actual meanings. So in the end bullies are very scared cowards and parasites who front as the alpha-males in the hope that simply by saber-rattling, their safety will be insured.
|ALTERNATIVA / THE ALTERNATIVE / L'ALTERNATIVE - Politica, cultura, stiri, publicitate|