Witchcraft

here's a nice subject. Al Jazeera is quite constantly campaigning against the belief in witches, as it is still rather common in central africa. Ofcourse i support that fully, the reason they do , i think, is to fight superstition amongst muslims. Koran disallows superstition, denies the existence of anything but the forebearer of science: religion.

I belief only in science and proofs, for the same reason (that one truth can be handed but two are allways unworkable) religion believed in 'god'.
Religion is, 'starting to get the clue science exists' wich makes it funny and paradoxal at times, because the natures of it's universal truths so often contradict reality.

It is a philosophical realisation at the bases of science, that at some point of deduction , your finest resolution, there is only one truth in material matters.
Judaism, protestantism and islam encouraged reading, and thus science, it may even be that among all this superstition the jewish catalogue is still dearest to science.

I don't think they did that as a matter of religious doctrine, (altho perhaps in judaism) , the idea was not to get people to science through religion.(1) Altho in humane and social matters similar moves were made sometimes with more conviction then that. Usual persona in religions or beliefsystems (budhism), tend to be great instigators of scientific advance of the social norms.

Personally i consider that common brilliance. Anyone brilliant would do that.
A lot of geniuses as well, but they tend to be more occupied.

Now what is the funny thing about this story and witchcraft?

that in all these religious doctrinations a fight against superstition was perceived as just.
For that there were two oxymoronic reasons, like more often in this story:
firstly the witchcraft, the collective resource of ancient 'magical' 'etherical' 'spiritual, 'psychological' and jurisprudential knowledge was the enemy of the 'new relighion' that aimed for wordly as much as spiritual power (one reason a modern progressive islam would be so feasible so much of it's target is a political realisation that you might as well politicise the concept muslim),

the other reason is the actual uncontrollable practice of witchcraft has allways scared the enlightened spirits of this planet, and as such influenced religious doctrine. That argument is bit doublehearted tho, it is no doubt only the interaction with religions and technological society that turns traditional 'witchcraft' into the scary fairytale thing priests etc. turned it into.

In dutch witching translates into , doing things very fast and efficiently, the original essence of witchcraft may have been close to that, the best, only, most easy way to do a thing became part of the collective resource of witchcraft.

As such it was a valuable psychological tool indeed , and any missionairy stage had strong reasons to assume these bearers of knowledge had the psychological capacity's to outclass them, preventing their religion to imperialise those masses.

This lead ofcourse to prosecution, eg. of the druids in europe, but famously of healers etc. in colonised nations.

The spanish would kill anyone that disagreed their theology in europe and they made no short work of any other culture. This european tradition was rudely followed by other christians. In principle the koran has similar fundaments for persecution of the native belief laid. If not only through adaption of judaic text.

So you can see for the actual historical powers of that what the perceivedly monotheist churches called witchcraft we have no reference. And that situation is also apparent in the african former colony's.

This is the history of witchcraft, and now i will try to explain how witchcraft cannot be used to the bad of people, the real craft, the ancient one, or the one we reinvent because the ancient one was extinguished, is based on truth, often direct science in fact, more then with any religion. All religions produce a scarier witchcraft then the original one, because they deny the 'craft', the power in people to be so enlightened, to be the truth.

When u see an old man in a reet hut using the same old (christian) words, you should realise that 3000 years ago, he could be an international diplomat, a respected international contact. His relation to his people has not been natural for the past century's because he had not the organisational(social) reward to offer. Like with all people he'd still struggle for dignity, and willing or not, selfinterest.

Ofcourse he knows 'witchcraft' exists, used to exist, he is a part of that tradition,
but the tradition is dead, there was never a big struggle between 'good and bad' witchery in the ancient tradition. When he accuses someone of witchcraft it shows he does not know anymore what it is.

Because every aspect of the human psychology is apt for analyses witchcraft , ancient mystics, people with great talent, i think basically very intelligent, can understand a lot about another person, and that is the only real source of power any witch could have over any other person.
For example, when you understand someone well you may know what they like and take care they meet someone to love. "you made them fall in love".

This can go quite far, the natural evolutionairy cause for witchcraft (and perhaps that is one reason there is so much confusion) is that the community needed a psychological tool to analyse and cope with digressions. If you don't know what is sane, you don't know what is insane.

So you can see in spain, many old lady's sitting in the street taking great care everyone meets somebody to love. Not completely without any selfinterest.
The man tell you they are all witches, and if you ask them why? they will tell you it is because they are smart.

That was the natural situation, everyone is a witch.


(1) It is actually strange about islam that where it is so obvious in all muhammeds intentions he wants to lift all the masses, that the religion as a whole so much embraces the folkloristic arabic aspects that are definetly an adaption both to the local circumstance and the political situation. The message is, even mohammed couldn't say all that he wanted to say, in the ways he wanted to. And with a lot of it has probably been tampered. In fact it is not so hard to reconstruct his real persona and intentions, because most if not all of the influences that shaped the koran can now be historically isolated, and analyses of the person of muhammed is many times more easy (and historically fascinating) then of say Jessayah, or Petrus, Jezus.

yrianoitulover evitcepsrep

Where are we heading. Topics are.. Moldavia,Madagaskar,Taiwan,Georgia.

Not much good news, politics depends on the same old methods. Madagscar is a good illustration, but so is the pro rascism block outside the UN anti racism conference,
last but not least the former popular movement popularly called sect in kenya turned into a sect called maffia, where will it lead. It just shows you should be serious about problems when they pop up, not try to change them in something worse.

India fired the mumbai-1 a spy satelite uniquely quickly prepared by israel.. my my that could have been controversial.. reminds me of georgia.

thats 2 of the subjects. Taiwan. A cry out loud, ridiculous situation, it has a terrible lot of people, well not to many or so, but just that you can predict how
whole classes of oldfashioned oppressors move back to their niches to the cost of the good name of the king, altho apparently it cleans that of thaksin,
i just want to say we need a juridical framework for our revolutions, one btw, that makes they only move forward constitutionally.

Ask Zuma or any other random victim after their career. Not that it shows so nice to be open to the kind of business ..
Well there is allways an other side, that noone cares as much to check. I think they might be people fighting for a cause without the means to really alter the structure of their nations economy, society, relations etc. At least one good reason to be corrupt.

very complicated all. reminds me of taiwan.

Last known subject, Moldavia, at moldavia i think of georgia, because in georgia the left vainly protested against the illigitemate election of saaskvilli. It appeared somewhat illigitemate at the time. However the percentage appeared less off then with the usual elections overhere, or at the time, somewhere else. I really can't remember where allthough i think that protest lead to a situation favourable for 'our side'. Anyway, did i know the man was a sociopath and half a megalomaniac,
no i trusted the georgians to make sense, collectively , to keep some control.

well i think i was wrong in that. And now again i don't like the protests much, i fear they are so to say.. of the saaskvilli side. I would say, for s moldavian this should be susceptibly put.

kind regards to all.

islamania

or is that islamology, i remember i have seen a few islamologists, or their likes, interviewed when sth. was 'hot', i also remember i was not very impressed.

I don't think i remember 1 thing they said. Like most 'specialists' i ever seen on dutch, and with some nuances any yurpean (let alone usian) channel, they were eurocentric without exception. Not surprising perhaps if you see how unique is someone like Noam Chomski. They also seemed obsessed with projecting their version of history upon the other culture. Quite sincerely thinking that what they 'knew' moved the people overthere.

A bit like that man on tv yesterday, that had been measuring Papua's in Nazi style 50years ago, "i was young and 'innocent' then" is what he thought. It shows when you start out without thinking, chances you change that aproach are minor.

He did slip of tongue into the racist jargon of old tho.

The title i choose is because i am an opponent of religion, any, and that alJazeera definetly likes the least in my comments. I really despise religions in most respects.

Simply put i think they served only 1 good cause somewhat,(the moral/social one) and every bad cause there ever was.

The reason for that are both complex and simple. Complex because they are many, and because they pop up evrywhere through history in slightly different situations.
Simple because in essence they are only based on one thing: power.

worldly power, social power, power to instill privilige.
the sociopathic aspect of the individuals in the priest classes is another complication, the power to cure , forgive, and comfort is taken from the individual,
telling people they are basically 'good for nothing' , once you believe that, you will believe evrything.

The authority of the person to provide moral change, is limited by the church since ancient days, with mantra's claiming their truth, their justice or good, is the sacred, even only one.

That is because the church does not serve moral advance.
It serves basically her own interest, survival, the priest class, the authority's that depend on the priest and ceremonial wonderdoers, and in all a system that delivers as much of any power it can to the priest class and what has allways been the fertile mix of the upperclass and the priest class. (perhaps jewish can claim cultural coherence but so can gipsy's, judaist system was (for) the exact same purpose))

It used to be many not inheriting nobles went priest, and something of the kind is still happening, fallible upperclass weirdo's need human sheep to make a living.

Some people will scrye for they cannot without faith, but they are without faith?
what do they hope?

Here the christian dominance failed, altho like half of the ppl still knows like whole of the bible to the boring point of being able to deliberate on peculiar detail, just like me, there are also a load of people who rili have no idea,
for whom maria and eve are contemporary's in a cheap SF or fantasy story.

Thats pretty refreshing btw i find. Also we have a great diversion between roman katholics and protestants. The younger generations of protestants , i think deliver the most atheists, even the most budhist, and probably even more muslims then the roman katholics.

The reason is quite simple, katholics belief in devils and a load of other stuf no protestant ever seen or believed in. For them islam or budhism is something from hell. For some odd reason they think their God created most people to live in hell.

anyhow on with the subject, because i think we protestants are the heathens right?
That is the traditional dispute of the savage against the culture btw. for scientific referral.

well in my case it is personal. My grandmum was an ultrastrict ultrareligious 19th century protestant renewer in all her humbleness for the church. (she was absolute in all of that)

oh i remember the antiracism discussion with her emotionally was at the primitive level of religion..at first..

she was so old fashioned that when i think of church i think like the protestant:
burn the catholic churches, burn the idols and the institutes of the pope. But after two century's, i realise not only their holy wickedness, but also the protestant insanity should be critically watched.

unhypocritically regarded. I had that as a child, and it was quite a shock, i didn't like the single bit of it. bah.

I was a spiritual and curious child, so i looked on a lot, what i came to like was zen budhism, because it goes back to the essence, wich is nothing, and that is still the prettiest relation i have with religion.

i also liked bhagwan, for his sincere attempt to transmit what enlightenment begotten
the betrodden path of western lady's and laddy's. I don't doubt he was a light himself. His attendance of the scene on the planet has allways meant a pleasure to me. I hate it he was killed and sincerely suspect the CIA. He had become a very rich and powerfull person, and he was slowly turning into the usian dali lama himself, so i think this is why:

Rather then having a dalai lama and a recognised spiritual leader compromise their state they crucified him. Bhagwan was anti-impi avant la lettre.

His spirit is called osho, but with budha at the table, einstein, obama and kim il sung in mind i don't really need him much. I always went for my own enlightenment, with plenty disregard for any spiritual lead that was recognised.

Honestly i never found enlightenment hard to achieve, i think i was 13 or so when i thought i had it done mostly, ofcourse it kept occupying me for much longer.

for example i remember how carlos castaneda first book strongly structured my spiritual development for years. the 3 enemy's.. i still live like that. so i will tell you.

the idea is the writer, carlos meets an indian spiritual leader, he is a scientist, cultural anthropologist, and fascinated with hallucinogens.
It is known he has done interviews and took trips with several old native americans.
he had to go much down south to find enough cultural coherence to still come in touch with the old story's.

anyhow wether this inspired him, or he really put together this much of the story as he could i cannot judge very well. I think he has allways remained it was rather authentic. The old indian, don juan, tells the following:

to be a free human, so to walk the spiritual path to where the responsibility and sometimes the will of the individual is to walk it, well there are different ways,

Here is the point to stop when you don't. If it is not within your own idea, to
pursue spiritual growth, you don't need to read what follows.(1)









this is a rather dreamy way to put it, you might also say to try to get a maximum practical spiritual reward of your attempts to do the sane thing,

it would be practical wouldn't it? to have a little more of these special powers many of us at least now and then experience. And when you are moreless 'enlightened' anyhow not bothered much by anything, terribly zen, because there is nothing, specifically nothing worth to be bothered about.

okay so this is how you do it.
in 3 simple steps. however, you have to really take these 3 steps.

you have to beat 3 enemy's that is all. It is really easy if you really try.

The first enemy is fear.
listen, because it not just 'fear like that' as if you are watching a horror movie or so. It has a little to do, because it is the fear that would stop you from helping someone who is terribly wounded.
in budhism it is also the first rule,

budha studied totemism, (like i practice islam here;) totems where the better binding aspect of the pashtun at the time. Actually totems still were what kept the pashtun in pakistan, but that besides.

so i figure he came to these 3 rules in the same way as carlos castaneda, he interpreted the old story's in his own words.(without much of the hocus pocus)
at least it was the problem he used to have with tribalism.

in budhism it is called 'expectation'

now u can see fear and expectation have a lot to do with another can you?
if you fear something will happen, it means you are seriously expecting something will happen.

and indeed budha continues to tell that after you conquered your expectations you will stumble upon the next issue.

well so does don juan, and since i remember what he said, but forgot the teachings of budha i think the version of don juan is more comprehensive and to the person.

Budhism these days is also associated with cults, although the whole philosophy is one that stresses the individuals development.
When i was told the teachings of budha i hated religions enough to try and forget them still.

so the enemy that is called fear, is also doubt, will i do this or do that?
the same question is expectation, (either one of the things will happen, but you can also regard it as fear, what will happen if this or that happens.

Now there are two ways to counter fears, The first thing is to think out the line of thought clearly either way. Analyse how each is influenced by fear or expectation.

But this is difficult, you have to be done with prejudices, make beliefs, lies, truths , and a whole lot of things before you can, so similar to budhism tribalism hand s the method.

Fortunately there is a simple and effective method within reach for every human to stop fear . We are not really talking treatment finalised old age chronic patients here, because most people will only learn this with some help of a spiritual leader,
it would require extensive guidance.

But for yourself as an individual you can do a lot if you get the grasp of the story so far.

The method is silencing your internal dialogue. Now most of you, because, will want to , oh i remember how budha calls that now. he calls it 'doubt', go..
i don't have an internal dialogue. you say you don't think at all? (yes../no..)


your internal dialogue is not your second enemy, it's just a hindrance on the path,
the path to 'clear thinking' because that is what happens when you manage to silence your internal dialogue, you will still be able to think, but you will not be influenced by fear (or confusion, doubt, the internal dialogue).

That is a different way of thinking, and allthough the spiritual path allows for illogical steps, these are not something that can't be done without.
So it is a pretty clear way of thinking. i have no way to proof that, except perhaps by attempting to show some clarity of my mind of myself here and there, wich i try.

So how do we stop this internal dialogue? in fact it is by meditation, it is a very easy and unchallenging meditation though, you could do it driving in a bus or train, or sitting anywhere.

It is not advised to do it while driving, because when you are not used to these things they can be quite surprising and it's a bit of a waste when it works well for you if you have to pay much attention to anything else.

i think i could do it on a bicycle tho, when you know yourself a bit better it's not surprising anymore at all, would you have some 'true vision' or so , but perhaps these things can still be shocking when u are unused to it.

the thing is allow none of your own voice. pay attention to your thoughts, unless you practised this before, (eg. through zen budhist meditation) and even then if you are unfamiliar with the method, do you think?
people usually think all the time (i don't think i do). obviously when you think all teh time you have not silenced your internal dialogue. But the best way to clear it, is to recognise it is a dialogue, so that must be the obsession. see that it is a dialogue,

do i do this right? that is a question to yourself, what follows is the other part of your internal dialogue, but because you haven't practised this, it will be confusing at first.

the parts of the dialogue will tell you they are the other. It is because they are based on fear, and you will be inspired by fear to think you can't do without.

anything that is based on fear solely is misleading, there must allways be more,
it is not harmfull at all to quieten your own internal dialogue. It is relaxed.

Do you think because you don't doubt anymore, or because you are not bothering yourself with futile questions anymore you can't think anymore?

one problem with those teachings is any disbeliever can be so ridiculous;)

well succes with that, in the book don juan tells when it works, when u managed, it comes with an audible pang in the neck, and for me it did.

In principle after that you will be different you don't have to quieten your internal dialogue anymore, because you did. Funny but true. You will allways be with the truth. Because you learned to do without the dialogue your thoughts will be clear. In budhism it is called enlightenment, and it is only the first step.

the proces of stopping your internal dialogue doesn't come without stopping your fears. fears include, shame, prejudice, common fears, faillure, your own limitations, looks, modes, other people, evrything.

Think of it this way,

if something is the matter and you (still, accidently , it happened to me i am very non-violent) feel fear, ok no problem, think straight and find a clever way out, don't get overcome with fear it is not about scary or frightening. The method works quite ok with danger, yet that is not how or why you spiritually beat the fear inside your thoughts.

But if you are at home, or at some fine place, why would you bother about for example what other people think? that is definitely fear. That is why looks are more important here then they seem. Caring about looks pretty much means you surely know fear in your thoughts. Wich is one reason why so many of you are far beyond. (and why sanyas wore orange)

oh well
tell me if you had the peng in your neck, and i'll tell you what is your next enemy,
or read those 'lessons of don juan'.



(1) It will not do you any good, it would be 'to much asked' of a usual person, and it is very hard if it is not within the scope of your personality anyhow. I can't imagine i could have done it without the yoga i did between i was 10 and 13 for example, or without my complete hermitism most of my life, the 'stoa' , otoh, there used to be stoicans (omg they are secret..) in greece 3000 years ago, so i am not alone.


i guess they are secret "confidential" because stoa, exactly like al queda is supposed to, means 'base', yeah it's anticapitalist and i suppose as such antizionist but still..
what fucked up. (online dictionairys are still more zionist then the encyclopedia's)

The bright side

There is plenty of topics, i guess the alJ yourviews forum is so slow because it got to hear it serviced as a spokes channel of the maffia or some such, in any case it is not hurrying to satisfy my eager for international discourse.

Perhaps i should blog more, but blogs tend to depress me as much as anything.
I love them for actuality check, reality check, and sometimes i abuse a friend online who blogs, just to cheer up.

The forum is more clear, it got at least two kinds of visitors, those who think and try to use the maximum nr of parameters, and those who hate and make propaganda and try to use the maximum nr of lies.

AFter a while you get used to it, and you can just skip 90% of the hate posts by looking at the hateposters name, and still have acces to all these diverse insights that sometimes pop up.

A few times they may even be interesting, whats the introverted hate guy saying about this or that? What say the 'believe everything bush said' usians?
whats the zionist prop people ranting?(a lot of that on alJ)

such things can be usefull even if they waste the pleasure of reading through all more often.

well this is boring. it may be relevant to a lot of us, if we are looking for a forum kind of exchange.. like me, i wish i knew more multicultural forums with topical focus, that can also be read by people of every nationality.

love alJazeera there. Love a load of it's contributors.(and some of it's moderation)

I think i just post this and restart another.

20 billion pillars of economy , g20

(3 big meetings at once btw at least, doha g20 the hague afghanistan)

hi ppl. this must be a special day. i mean, i am the kind of person that would doubt should i protest around the hypokrit krisis at all? because that is just natural, what else had you expected from kapitalism? going there and getting told you are all about finances , no thanks.

It is about peace only. what does it cost not to have peace?

The people on the G meeting will want to appear generous afterwards. Scarely often that means just another, sometimes very obvious, rip-off. However there is some light.

there is china, that calls for monetairy regulation but still wishes to abide social principles, human standards. (prolli they use the word standards traditionally over rights).

There is latin amerika that found quite some internal solidarity and prefers a social and carefull economic course over a wild and adventurous capitalist hunt for the top.

There is Russia that maintains a luxuruous set of anti-interventionist aproaches.

Well afrika might just not be there, or perhaps the ANC is. The ANC is quite a modernist movement. There could be a clue even here, because that is a lot at the same time, when you also cope with pan-african attempts, i love what i see from there usually. They are not allways left and then sometimes wrong ofcourse, but they are pretty ok informed and think about a lot of things.

ok. pluche seats also there. Why don't take people democracy a bit more anarchist?

democracy is there ONLY to be ruled by different people all the time.

so take care you do that whenever you can, just allways keep putting other people in these pluche seats, in the end we will get used to it and it will work.

( that is why they invented blackboxvoting, power to the people!)

Really true, all of us, the real people, the ones not in pluche seats, or in magistrate position, we took care for change, blindfolded and mislead sometimes,

all we did was take care for change. That is why they invented blackboxvoting, and a system that guarantee's they are the ones that count the votes.

So whatever corporate interests these 'G20"s represent, it is usually not :

our "legitimate" government.

sad but true.

From my mal-educated western pov. i know that people like the pakistani, or the chinese, even a lot of the russians, can also be fooled by fake 'democracy'.

so that is why i am never safe with anything.

structural support for chavez here who has to fight election after election under the strongest scrutiny of a prejudiced world-opinion. well chavez is nto there perhaps, though he sits on rather a lot of oil. I just say it because a it would immediatly be their propagandist course.


mh. problem is, what could i say more. I have been bleating the obvious solutions all the time,

perhaps point by point.

get out of afghanistan,

problem : how are we going to interfere with anything we want to interfere in the future.

pluche seat solution: like the african union(USA) does.


how do we cope that we will loose our pluche seats?
ntty obama, natm.

well throw out hillary first my first thought still, who wrote that dumb text?
get rid of him as well.

Find someone with decent intentions to write your texts hillary.
my thought was, she is nothing smarter then my brother.
okay the intentions may be okay, but the brain to settle peace and humane solutions is not really there and you have to influence the 'thing' with complicated means to do the right thing. with insecure and obscure results.

Rice never lied about ducking a bullet is the problem. Ya know, that is quite so military.

there is only peace and war, there no such thing as peace and still war.
if there is civil war in afghanistan? there should be civil war, and once again you should not train army's when you want to be credible about how to duck the bullet.

so that is terrible.

The G-20 should declare a complete embargo on weaponseports.

see where is the real obsession with all that export??
weapons. if there would be limitations on exports, how about weapons?

Usia (united states in america) is lost there, before they get rid of saying "weapons aid" , any of them in a pluche seat is an utter disgust.

poor obama , he still has to clear his name. (I think maybe he can.)

done with weapons exports. all. in principle.
it is about speaking the truth.

none from israel.. so we can finally liberate the hyacked palestinean harbours.
none from Usia. no new weapons.

better support your draglines with that.


well i am done.
no weapons.
no.
no extra army's.
civil works.
thatchers money..
get the international finance working

do the (my) international standards of justice.
get that dope regulation round.

we have ourselves so much more damaged by medicins and pollution then drugs and even alcohol it is really not your thing to worry about, bunch of illiterates.
And that is about our children, not ourselves.

rule in the profit based pharmaceutical industry as well,
make sense

it is not that hard.

oh,
you can go to any of my friends for a bunch of the details.