Is there One Solution?

[thoughts from   ~burning woman~   ]

This isn’t a new question but… has the world gone mad or was it always more or less the way it is and it’s me who has had a shift in awareness, making me either utterly mad in a sane world… or vice-versa? 

For some time now I’ve been hearing about this story of a dystopian future called “The Hunger Games” so I’ve started reading.  I wasn’t too deep into the story when I realized this is basically the reality for many already today.  We know of places where men hunt down young girls to rape them, sell them or turn them into sex slaves.  Young boys are captured and turned into child soldiers.  We know of places where one’s family can be murdered in an instant by bombs dropped from planes that have no pilot called drones: execution by machine.  And we know that those responsible for these kidnappings, rapes and murders are the elites of the Hegemon: primarily seated in the United States of America and its well-funded military machine that lives at the expense of homes, food, schooling and health care of children living within the borders of the Hegemon.

We know this.  Well, many know this and a tiny minority actually acknowledges this is going on.  The rest live in denial pretending with every ounce of zombie imagination that there’s nothing going on, and if there is, it can all be justified by those responsible. The tiny minority that admits to itself this mass murder is going on, and funded by their tax dollars (I can see the really big MIC [military-industrial complex] billboard at the Iraqi, Syrian, Afghanistan, Yemeni, Palestinian borders: “YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!”) is convincing itself that if its dissent and dissenting comments can get a thousand hits on Facebook they are effectively protesting.

I don’t know about you, but my only – yes, only – purpose for being here; for writing on a blog, is to not only call attention to civilization’s plunge into dystopia but of course to find solutions to the problems.

No, that’s not it: not “solutions” but a final, a total, solution.  One single solution.  Solutions are a dime a dozen and each one just creates more problems when enacted.  No, I need to be able to describe for myself, in my own mind, one all-encompassing solution to all of man’s problems, thus saying that all of man’s problems aren’t plural, but that there is really only one problem to be dealt with. 

A couple of “essays” ago I wrote about an about-face that would take us back to a time before we accepted the gift of civilization which turned out to have been a Pandora’s box.  Back to a time when we lived as natural beings in a natural world ostensibly made for us, or for which we were made, designed, evolved, created: who cares how we came about as long as we remained in our normal, natural environment as free or/and as constrained by it as the rest of nature.  As you can imagine, that’s a long step back and without being struck by total species amnesia it’s not a step that man could, or would, make successfully in any case.  Any latent memory would destroy the effort in very short order.  Somebody would remember eating meat and look upon deer as prey rather than as neighbours and family.  Someone else would remember how to make a spear or fashion a bow and flint-tipped arrows.  Hell would reappear, open its doors wide to a “new” future and man would start civilizing again, just like Cain who has the questionable reputation of being the first murderer and appropriately the first builder of cities: the “inventor” of civilization. 

So we’re not going back.  And we’re killing innocents by the millions yearly in the name of $$$ and power.  And we’re basically ignoring the fire eating what’s left of man’s moral sense with the few screaming about the pollution caused by the smoke called climate change. 

Here’s a quote from the latest article by George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2016/09/22/carmageddon-beckons/) – The number of cars on Earth is expected to rise from 1.2bn to 2bn by 2035. Carmageddon beckons: a disaster for the climate, public health and our quality of life. Yet it is still treated as an indicator of economic success.

So while the planet is burning, man in his inimitable wisdom wants more cars, an abysmally stupid mode of transport designed for only one purpose: to enrich the oil lobby; to make billionaires from a substance belonging to no one which all should know by now should have remained where it was.  Well, that’s just one horribly stupid move that has brought this particular civilization teetering on the brink of complete collapse.  And make no mistake, deny all you want: this civilization is collapsing and with it dragging down into a terrible death the vast majority of Earthians.  But let’s be proud: what other civilization before us could boast of so many accomplishments before its downfall?  How many could have boasted the power to destroy an entire planet in a few hours?  And as the kid gladiators in the Hunger Games Hegemon, let’s keep our hope that “we” will be of those who survive.  Some always do don’t they, and in this case it could be anyone since it will have nothing to do with valour or courage or survival skills or righteousness, or race, or creed or gender, just blind luck if such as this survival is going to be can be called a lucky break. 

A quote from the book of Revelation: During those days men will seek death, but will not find it;  they will long to die, but death will elude them.”  Not to dwell on the contents of that book but there are quite a number of interesting statements about how mankind will die “in those last days” – food for thought, perhaps?

So, back to the point: what could be the one solution so effective as to reverse most, if not all, of man’s increasing stupidity?  What solution could stop this civilization from plunging to its death?  I believe I have it, in its very crude sense, or essence, like the as-yet unformed pearl developing inside the oyster.  It exists.  The potential for its application increases with each increase in population.  All of mankind, bar none, has access to it.  And it is in a sense, free, for it cannot be either bought or sold, thus stating that it cannot be “faith, hope or love” for these are the three main prostitutes in the Power markets of the earth.   

Doesn’t that make you a little bit curious? 

 

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Is there One Solution?

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      But if madness is the “normal” then doesn’t sanity become the mad? I’m thinking here of witch burnings for example. Utterly mad, yes, but it was how that world operated at the time; that was its normal. The world had to change for people to see the madness, the sickness, of it. But only some parts changed. There are more people today, and more madness, a madness that the majority accepts as normal – war for example, and the murder of black people by police: insanity but the majority obviously goes along with it, therefore the mad is considered sane, the sane, mad, or at the very least, guilty enough to be executed without trial or judge or jury, and the perps get away with it. So even if some of us who see the world as mad, are sane, in actual fact, we are the ones who are mad and the world, since it accepts its own madness as its normal, is sane. An endless circular argument, it would seem. In the end, One makes a choice and lives by it, whether it’s considered sane or mad.

      Reply
  1. franklparker

    I’ve been thinking along similar lines. However, I must challenge your perception that all evil emanates from the West. Have you listened to any of the rhetoric coming from those in the Middle East who commit atrocities against their own people as well as against the West?
    The way my thinking runs at present is that history is littered with stories of one group overcoming a neighbouring group in the constant search for food and other resources. Of course ‘The West’, starting with the nations of Europe (Britain, France, Spain, Germany) and their explorations and conquests, has been the worst practitioner of this. But they are not alone in seeking dominance. It is, as I think you are saying, part of the human condition: when a group has sufficient resources to sustain its existence the population increases, driving the search for more. There have been and will be many famines and wars. Now it is not just pockets of civilisation that are overcrowded. The whole planet is. There is nowhere else to go, Earth’s capacity to provide for mankind’s needs is over-loaded. If there is a solution it must be via a collective agreement to limit the number of births each year to a level sufficient only to replace those who have died. I can’t see that happening, can you?

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I was careless, Frank, and sorry I made it look as if it was solely “the West” responsible. I was focusing more on the legacy of European “Empire” that became US empire that has shaped the modern world through force of propaganda, economic oppression backed by a ruthless military. Yes, overall people are the same, and their leaders are, generally speaking, all corrupt to the nth degree. Conquest and dominance for exploitation is a global horror.

      I foresee no possibility of any collective agreement succeeding in changing the path taken by this civilization. Why? Because history clearly shows that no collective agreement stands the test of time, and why fix something we know is going to break down again sooner than later? We need something new to us, something we’ve never tried seriously before, if at all. Though we have paid it lip service enough time: we need to become compassionate beings. Not practice compassion, that’s not good enough: we need to literally change ourselves into compassionate beings, individuals who can no longer consider any relationship, any approach to someone else other than through innate compassion.

      I have been taught that when we seek to become compassionate in NATURE, we will develop the sense of empathy. That is our next level of spiritual-mental evolution: becoming empathetic beings. Empathy is a wonderful state to be in if you’re in a kind and compassionate environment, but to be so on earth today would be worse than living in hell. So we must change our environment BEFORE we can become empathetic, or such a sense will kill us as surely as a bullet to the heart.

      Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I let the cat out of the bag in my reply to Frank. The One Solution is elegant by its simplicity and the most difficult thing we could ever think of entering into. It’s a covenant we make, as an individual, to change our very nature into a compassionate one. This cannot be done collectively. You can’t create a power group, or a society of committed people to practice compassion. It can’t have leadership, or external guidance. This is strictly an internal choice of self-empowerment that says, “I” am compassion – and proceed to live that way, come hell or high water. It means self-judgment moment by moment for each failure, and I can tell you that when you fail your new nature it will be like failing to feed your new baby: it will scream at you. It means vigilance and a deep willingness to practice the art of humility – not ostentatiously, but out of dire necessity. And it means ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT ONLY YOU WILL SEE ANY RESULTS of your changes and sacrifices. The world will continue blindly on and ignore you and however much you want to protest, you can’t join this or that change-making group to help push society in a certain direction: that’s all counter productive and your compassionate inner self will tell you so. Once entered upon the path of compassion what the world does to solve its problems… isn’t your concern. You may judge it historically futile, destructive or pointlessly extending the life of a dying monstrosity but you won’t participate unless its acts impact your life and your compassion calls you out into the streets or homes to provide assistance, help, healing, comfort according to your ability to give. And, you will have no expectations that your acts will be well received or understood, nor will you hear praises or curses. You will be solely motivated by your own choices and act solely on the availability of personal resources. You will continue to suffer angst, fear, anger, pain – but you will be self-empowered to overcome those and continue on a life of service, never seeking anything for yourself, always giving, never taking. This then becomes the path of joy… and sorrow as the normally shallow life of the pseudo-human or Earthian so full of itself, of desires for safety, comfort, rest, ease, or self-satisfaction. The basic selfish nature, the root-cause of all of man’s problems is pushed out and replaced with the new.

      This is the One Solution that can save “your” world.

      Reply
      1. Sha'Tara Post author

        correction: self-satisfaction. The basic… should be one sentence, “self-satisfaction, the basic… “

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thank you for your respect; it’s not an easy or comfortable viewpoint and if I wasn’t involved in walking the talk I would be so “consistent” about it either… 🙂

  2. Maria Wind Talker

    If the Rothchilds get there way then we will be depopulated to 50 million by 2020, they only need enough docile worker ants to serve them, the rest are surplus to requirement.

    The only way i can see to pull the planet back is by doing away with the elite, though that still would not wake up half of the zombies out there already too far gone with the chemical warfare already inflicted on us daily.

    On a more positive slant though, there is a mass awakening happening and I for one still hold faith in humanity. We are the way showers, the next generation will be the ones to make a real difference. 🙂

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Maria, I withhold comment on the mass awakening or what it will entail. Whatever generation brings this about will be the inheritance of the next. The projection “we” did of what population would remain after the collapse of this morally bankrupt and environmentally, socially unsustainable civilization will be around a billion individuals give or take a couple hundred millions either way, living in conditions much worse than a new stone age, haunted by radiation poisoning, mutations, plagues, leprosy, tuberculosis and new types of sicknesses caused by contaminated food and water, plus mutated insects. But these will survive, the species will not die out. And there is light at the end of that tunnel. Your Power people, your Rothschild type, will not succeed as their reach will exceed their grasp and they will fall. Everything has its limits, including evil. It will seem as if they are succeeding, but they too are dependent upon the natural environment and having poisoned that, they too will become victims. Their supporting technology will fail and the remnant of people will find those rich who survive and destroy them. It’s the way of things.

      The alternative, I have explained in the comments to Frank and Lisa. The funny thing is, if one can find humour in all this, is that this “One Solution” is eminently practical and totally possible since all it requires is a personal commitment. The rest follows, just as a stream finds its own passage down a mountain side. We’ve been so carefully brainwashed into thinking that power comes from collectives we are blind to the historical fact that collective type of power always fails. Well, we cannot afford failure this time, if we’re to avoid the dystopia I just mentioned. So, I, and each individual, has a choice to make, a real, positive, guaranteed to succeed (for the individual) choice. It is the choice that will change the world if entered into with covenant-type commitment, i.e., irrevocably.

      Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      As explained in my comments to Frank, Lisa and Maria, the One Solution is simply to become a compassionate being as a personal, irrevocable choice. What happens around that choice is background. Each and every individual has to enter into this covenant with the self to live this way; to give without expecting anything in return; to trust without trusting “in” anything or anyone; to inure oneself to praises or curses, to live life as if it is to end today, yet has no end. This isn’t love, this isn’t happiness: this is compassion, the path that describes what it means to know joy and sorrow and the nature that knows how to live in both, in perfect balance. Yes, it does mean a life of constant self-denial and self-sacrifice, but what person doesn’t possess at the core of her, or his, being a call to that kind of life? What person living in this consumer society doesn’t to some degree long for something more meaningful than getting another toy, another fix? What I’m saying, writing about, isn’t new, it’s just that we’ve never been at a juncture where it becomes our only choice as we are poised so precariously “on the eve of destruction.”

      Reply
      1. Robert A. Vella

        The problem with your “One Solution” is that it is strictly a matter of personal choice, and that there would be – and is – great variability in people’s choices. To get all or enough people to adopt any philosophy, even one as altruistic as yours, is a practical impossibility as well as running contrary to the concept of spiritual freedom.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for your reply, Robert.

        Yes, it is as you say strictly a matter of personal choice. The ultimate freedom: no force applied. What appears a practical impossibility may actually be a deliberately imposed false sense of perception. Take for example the belief that Jill Stein cannot be elected president of the US because she is not one of the “approved” candidates. A simple observation says that in a democracy that is exactly what makes her the candidate of choice. That is why there is so much done to “hide” her from the public. On a smaller scale Jill Stein is your One Solution – simply ignore the others knowing already that they will not “work” to accomplish what needs to be done.

        Either we’ve reached a crisis point which requires a whole new revolutionary approach, or we have not in which case we can go on playing with same old, same old and satisfy ourselves with the lack of results.

        This I don’t get: “running contrary to the concept of spiritual freedom” – ??? What is spiritual freedom and how could one becoming a compassionate being possibly violate anyone else’s freedom, however you define it? Did you read in my comment that I was advocating some sort of brute force or doctrinal pressure to force people into becoming compassionate? Wouldn’t that be a complete contradiction, never mind that such an approach could never accomplish anything? My “solution” is not meant to be written down as a legal constitution or law to be enforced by a morality police… 🙂

        As I said, what I “propose” is nothing new, and we know it’s the path we must eventually all take in order to progress and not regress into a world of brute force and unchecked lusts as a dystopian “Geidi Prime” Harkonnen world (c.f. Frank Herbert’s Dune books). Of course I’m always open to a counter-offer as long as it isn’t one of those tried and failed approaches.

      3. Robert A. Vella

        You’re correct that a widely held philosophy of compassion is necessary for our species survival; however, many people wouldn’t agree today – and, that’s precisely what I meant by “spiritual freedom.”

      4. Sha'Tara Post author

        I think I get it… but I don’t see people having much “spiritual freedom” (which I would call “mental freedom” myself) in the current system. Everywhere you turn someone in power is telling, forcing, you how to think and act. Brainwashing of propaganda, religious indoctrination, public and private education, political parties – join this, believe in that, vote for him, vote for her. There is no mental freedom, or real freedom of choice when the “choices” are given to you having been designed to benefit only those who design them. However, in re-reading your last sentence, if “many people would not agree” that seems to mean that by exercising the freedom to disagree they are exercising their own “spiritual freedom” in that disagreement. An analogy: if I warn someone ready to leave on a long drive where there are no gas stations that his gas gauge says his tank is 3/4 empty I’m not impinging upon his rights when I suggest he gas up before leaving town. His choice remains and he will have to bear the consequences of running out of gas halfway to his destination. But I can say to myself, I warned him.

      5. Sha'Tara Post author

        I should have added, the point is NOT to get all, or enough people to adopt a particular philosophy. I think Gandhi put a “don’t work” on that concept. I’m not talking about force here, not from numbers or any other forceful methods. This isn’t a revolution or a democratic process. This is “me” taking advantage of a global crisis to make what I see as a purely logical move for any individual in the circumstances; saying that yes, I’ve done it. Now my own crisis is over, the choosing is done for me. The process is in place because I’m irrevocably in the process, a “majority” of one. Now I use whatever method available to me to send out a signal through space: We’re doing it! That’s it. And in the unforgettable words of the Teacher YLea, “Nothing is impossible.” I don’t particularly want to move mountains but if they’re in the way…”you can say to this mountain, ‘Go throw yourself in to the sea’ and it will obey you.” What I’m talking about is the power of one expressed through compassion. The only Power who should fear such a thing is the very Power that is destroying this world.

      6. Robert A. Vella

        Understood, but unless a sufficient number of people adopt such an altruistic philosophy then how can it possibly be considered as a societal solution?

      7. Sha'Tara Post author

        It’s basically a “new” approach since collective efforts have all failed. I call it the power of one. The only person involved in the process is me. This applies to every other person who chooses a similar path. As I said, it has nothing to do with numbers. Society is made up of individuals but what it has never been made up of is free individuals, but basically sheeple who believe that “together… together… together we make a difference.” (Remember the frightened and confused men gathered in the bowling alley in Pleasantville?) That is group think and always manipulated by those who hold power over it – in the case of Pleasantville, the mayor. Group think is what has to break down so the power holders that are causing so much havoc today can no longer find anything to grip to and their own power then fails. The future Earth world, beyond the collapse of this New World Order, will be made up of individuals working together to achieve whatever they need to achieve. They will do this without guidance or leadership and without the need of bureaucracies or middlemen. They will speak a common language and understand each other perfectly. They will be empaths and will do no harm, focusing always on healing and building up. But this state of consciousness isn’t going to happen miraculously, it will develop gradually through awareness and sheer necessity, necessity being the mother of invention. Self empowerment through compassion (hence eschewing the lure of violent revolution) draws power away from all those who hold it illegitimately. Such a process must seem ridiculous to those used to forcing change through elections, the enforcing of fiats and finally the jack boot of the military. But I would remind anyone that such force has never worked either. Is there something else available to us we could use to force change in the usual fashion and having it stick?

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Ahhh, so we’re in the shutting down stage then and man, as the deadly virus, will be flushed out before the re-boot? I can go with that, but not all of “man” will be terminated. Some will pass through and reappear in the re-boot. Then they will be forced to learn, and practice, what they refuse to now.

      Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Dear Parijat, thank you for your comment. I have an “about” page that says I don’t like talking about myself, but I can make exceptions. What do you want to know?

      Reply
  3. Phil Huston

    Things were mad before communication of crazy events was delivered in real-time. Bombs, shootings, rich people’s wars…Same thing, different day. We are simply allowed to watch madness unfold half a world away or in our own backyards while it happens. What would Gutenberg have thought of that?

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your comment Phil. Truth there! I guess it’s the kind of show I’m tired of watching, or reading and hearing about. I guess all those problems are grist for the mill as $$$ profits come tumbling off from causing the problems, and from presenting or applying solutions that have never worked and can never work. And as long as the vast majority is unhappily happy living in the shit they’re being handed down, nothing new can happen. How the elites with their fake power must laugh every day as they pull off their dog and pony show and pass it off as reality. People are even watching the Trump-Killary “debates” and commenting on there was an iota of meaningful substance in there.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s