Beyond Evolution

At the risk of being called obsessive – but lets face it, as you'll see I’ve been called worse – the evolution of the Boycott continues at a staggeringly dull pace, and I simply feel compelled to update those of you who may not give enough of a “monkey’s bumhole”, (a phrase carefully constructed by one of the Beyonders with an IQ slightly higher than the average on that page of 74) to go have a look.

And evolution might be the right word. As many believe that slugs crawled out of swamps, put clothes on and started calling themselves homo-sapiens, a similar dynamic has been taking place on the Beyond the Boycott page (whose principle members hijacked another Boycott page). Out from the swamp of hypocrisy and delusion, not a few slugs have crawled. They have put on the robes of judge, jury and executioner and called themselves righteous.

“Beyond” is a great epithet, too, because to the casual observer the members have indeed moved “Beyond” caring about the Kahui twins, if that ever was what they really cared about. Rarely are the twins mentioned. Now the hard core page members prefer to share stupid pictures with even stupider clichés printed on them, stolen, no doubt from the toilet walls of cyberspace; stroke each others egos with exclamations of praise when all they’ve done is managed to pull a few posts out of the SPAM folder or hurl particularly nasty abuse at Ian Wishart’s daughter; or giggle and hee hee at how clever they think they are because they only have “intelligent conversations” on their page.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen anything clever on either page that wasn’t written by a book supporter.

But apparently there are now grander issues to posture over. Like a few dead birds on the Bay of Plenty coast, or whatever other trendy outrage is circling Internet chatrooms.

And, of course, the favoured pastime of calling the book supporters' names continues. They have a special talent for vilifying the author of the book, Ian Wishart, but in their hypocrisy seem to ignore the fact that they are themselves guilty of the things they claim he has done. And the fact that he hasn’t actually done half of what they say he has makes them twice the children of hell they think he is.

Now, lest I be further accused of any bias, we book supporters continue to give what we get with the name-calling, finger-pointing and the giggling. But some have likened reading the Beyond pages to staring into a cage of monkeys at the zoo. It’s disgusting and it smells bad, but you just can’t help taunt the imbecilic creatures playing with their privates and staring blankly back at you.

And lest I be even further accused – as accusation is the hallmark of the paranoia that now seems to pervade nearly every thread on the Beyond pages…everyone’s facebook account is being hacked, threads and comments are being reported or sent to the spam folder, every profile is fake – of being one-sided and partial, let me dispel any speculation. Of course I am!! It’s my blog. Blogs like this are supposed to be one-sided and partial. I’d LOVE to see one of the Beyonders blogs. I’m sure it would be just as one-sided (unless it was some attempt at PC bullshit, as is common on the Beyond page). But I won’t hold my breath as most of them struggle to put full sentences and thoughts together. That’s my impression. But I have been told many times that my writing sucks. So, who knows.

Of course, some of them are handy with Google. It didn’t take them long to track my blog and websites down. Perhaps if I had known early on that I would be targeted by such nasty angry people, I would have done as many of them have done and set up a few fake profiles and pages, just to avoid having to deal with the threats and the attempts to have my blog shut down and the stalking and harassing behaviour some of them have exhibited. Oh well. Hindsight eh? Who knew there were unbalanced nasty people still allowed to live freely in society?

I was going to put up a whole string of screenshots of posts. There was some talk of the legality of such a thing, but I had a lovely chat with a lady at the Privacy Commission who assured me that, basically, if it’s in the public domain it’s fair game.

So I wasn’t really surprised when something from my personal Facebook wall turned up on the Beyond pages. For a while there seemed to be an unwritten rule that personal walls were off limits, but as with any war someone eventually gets around to breaking those rules in the hunt for whatever they can use to gain some advantage, even if it’s just to feel better about their sad, lonely lives.

Ironically, it was an “anonymous” page administrator (even though we all know who it is) that took one of my posts and circulated it round the Boycott pages. For all their crowing about fake and anonymous profiles, they sure have a few themselves. But hypocrisy and irony are generally lost on them as one rule for them but not us is the prevailing governing ideal.

Anyway, I was going to put up another list of the most abusive posts, but I really couldn’t be bothered (there are so many). So I thought I’d concentrate on one thread, the one focussing on the quote pinched from my personal Facebook wall. It exhibits a slice of what we've had to deal with from time to time. They didn't like my personal belief and reacted angrily and nastily. The thing book supporters have been accused of time and time again. 

                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        Hypocrisy much?

To be fair this comment seems to have been deleted.
But that could only be because I reported it as abusive

I apologise if this refers to someone else
who should also be thrown into the oil slick

Occupy Christchurch - The Beginning is Nigh

For a large part of my working life, I stood at a counter or sat at a desk earning (most recently) about 20 bucks an hour. In a lower-middle-class daze, I regularly pondered the reality that the CEO of the same company for which I toiled earned somewhere in the region of 2000 dollars an hour. And something about that just didn’t sit right.

Sure, it has to be said, he’s clearly a lot cleverer than me. He’s done the hard work, studying the right thing at University (business studies as opposed to my now-useless religious studies) and climbing the dog eat dog ladder in the corporate world. It’s those tenacious tendencies that get rewarded financially in this world. And surely one’s income is the most accurate standard by which we should judge our fellow human beings’ total value.

Isn’t it?

When I heard about the Occupy Wall Street movement, something resonated within me. I really had no idea what the details were; I simply heard that a bunch of people were pissed off about corporate “greed” and something long-buried in my psyche said “Right on!” And when I heard about its evolution in New Zealand, I thought I would at least give it a look.

The temptation was to dismiss the “movement” as one more tree-hugging, Greenpeace supporting, weed-smoking, dissent-loving, Leftist leaning commie uni-student special interest pressure group driven by the extreme liberal wimps in this, (in New Zealand) an election year.

But perhaps that might be a bit harsh. As protestor John Campbell (yep, that’s his name – and no relation) says “when you take a movement like this and try to describe it, you limit it.”

It’s all about freedom. Maybe that should be FREEDOM!  “An ethereal concept,” according to Campbell. And that it is. Too big to deal with in one blog entry and how it applies to Occupy.

But our own Occupy movement is encamped in the corner of Hagley Park, opposite the hospital. They are there, according to Robert Read for “as long as it takes.” As long as what takes is a little more vague, however. But the principle on which the protest stands is sound. Something is wrong. As Read correctly points out, you know something is wrong when (sleepy, apathetic New Zealand) stands up to protest.

Freedom Fighters? John Campbell, Jesse, and Robert Read occupy Hagley Park

It is glaringly obvious that the corporatisation of the global economy has left 99% of average Joes out in the cold (literally). Of course, it could be argued (as I have before) that that is how it’s been since the beginning of human endeavour. An elite few have subjugated the masses for their own profit. And those same elite few have manipulated the democratic, or any other political process to cement their positions.

But it can also be argued that never has it been so pervasive. It’s one thing to decry a landlord who dominated a few hundred peasants on a few hectares of land during the middle ages. It’s another thing when a modern international corporation has its fiscal fingers in a million pies including banking, insurance, core local services, and most dangerously government to the point that that same corporation can manipulate politicians and law-makers to satisfy its own greedy intentions, controlling literally millions of people world-wide, forcing them into poverty so its directors can live lives of luxury and excess.

Something is indeed wrong, but that something has always been wrong. Things have been changing in a pattern of social punctuated equilibrium. Is NOW the time for another level of change?

And then there’s the “media”? In the beginning of the Occupy movements there were media blackouts. Robert Read would like to think it’s not true, but just how under the corporate thumb the mainstream media is is blatantly obvious, and it’s certainly not a large step to make correlations between the two. The “media” has abandoned its fourth state ideals and bought into the “greed is good” mantra. Sure, they still crow about their important role in international affairs, and of course they get it right sometimes. But is their bias counter-intuitive? The mainstream media is now as much or more about making money than actually reporting the news (truthfully).

Stuff.co.nz reported 30 people making a stand in Christchurch. THIRTY? What hack reported that? Did they drive past Hagley Park at speed as the event was setting up and do a quick count? Did they not go back later and check out the march on which at least 300 people walked through the Park and down Riccarton Road?

30 indeed! Is that the level of accuracy the media thinks is appropriate for a movement that is determined to bring down its financial friends? Isn’t it then only another small step to suggest a deliberate campaign of misinformation so the public (who generally believes everything they read in the newspaper) underestimates the importance of the movement?

Sure, even 300 is only a very small percentage of the population of Christchurch. But to suggest it was 30 is insulting and not a little disingenuous. The number of toots received while on the march might suggest that there are more supporters in the general population that don’t have the time or the inclination to make a more committed stand, but at least appear to support the principle.

So it’s understood that “the media” is in fact one of the largest global corporations, and it stands to reason it would not want to report truthfully on a movement designed to bring down large global corporations.

So what difference can a rag-tag gathering of dissidents camping out in Hagley Park make? Maybe none. Maybe a little. Maybe a lot.

“I’m looking to events overseas,” says Campbell.

It’s clear that the Occupy movements overseas are getting attention. The media, who love violence and conflict more than truth or human interest cannot ignore the riots in Rome, or, now, the demonstrations in London, New York, San Fransisco, Sydney, Hong Kong or Auckland (even if The Press can largely ignore Occupy Christchurch – until some violence happens or one of the protesters is caught with some weed).

And neither can Campbell.

New Zealand is not immune to the global corporatisation that has a stranglehold on the average Kiwi. Chief protagonists are the banks, and those organisations that hold the global purse strings. Cash flows in abundance for 1% of the population, while the other 99% are faced daily with mortgagee sales, insurance claim bureaucracy (surely we in Christchurch understand that one), unemployment, sky-rocketing food prices, rising energy costs, increased government “levies” (a nice word for taxes), and tightening legislation restricting and/or compromising fundamental freedoms. The rich are getting richer, more often than not on the backs of the poor who are getting poorer.

Exorbitant salaries for the elite few, and massive profits by global organisations that have reneged on their trickle-down promises can only be described as corruption of the worst kind.

And don’t forget just how deeply in the pockets of the corporates are many (most?) western governments. Sure they need corporate money, but at what price? Freedom? Democracy? Truth? Such things matter little to the people who define them (the 1%), but to the 99% they mean everything, and aren’t governments supposed to be of and for everyone, not just their favoured few?

So the rag-tag gathering in Hagley Park that is there “for as long as it takes” is doing us all a service. They are representing every Joe who ever got screwed by the government, an insurance company, a bank, an employer or anybody else with ties to the global plutocracy. Instead of telling them they are not wanted in Christchurch (as many of the commenters on the Stuff article/s have done), we should at least be encouraging them, if not joining them in their community (more on community next post). 

4 Things I Learned in a Cult

I think it's a hoot that recently I was flippantly accused of belonging to a cult, a cult of personality. Which is a bit ironic because I was involved in organised religion, the biggest cult of all, for 20 years. But for a couple of years, I was associated with an actual cult (one that most would recognise as such, as opposed to the more subtle [but more dangerous?] cultness of all religions).


There are many cults, and as many types of cults. By and large, reasonably intelligent, self-aware people know what a cult is and can recognise the characteristics of one long before they get caught up in it. Which is why cults mostly prey on the vulnerable and those desperately seeking something "the world" cannot provide.


I do, however, have a lot of respect for the people I met in the group. They would deny being a cult. They were simply seeking enlightenment, and in my honest opinion, doing a damn fine job of finding it. I would say that, in the end, my decision to not be part of the group came down to one relatively simple concept.


They lived communally in two houses, about 20 people. They taught and practised personal development. They were vegetarian. They taught and practised self-awareness. They were "spiritual". They taught and practised authenticity. Though the "leaders" were intense, stand-offish people (the supreme leader wouldn't even meet the students until they were worthy), the other members were charming, intelligent, articulate, beautiful people.


It's been 15 years, and I often wonder where some of them are now. There were two levels happening for me. At one level there was the proverbial "searching" for something. Meaning. Enlightenment. Acceptance. At another level I was looking for me. I'd surmounted a couple of personal milestones. I'd begun to put my past into perspective, and I'd realised that for me organised religion and "God" was hypocritical and pointless. I was looking for what was next for me. What else was there? Or was this it?


In the time span since I'm sure I have manipulated thoughts to suit myself and my beliefs, but I genuinely believe I learned much in my time with the group. 


And don't get me wrong, I was never part of the inner circle, or even close. I was fascinated by their lifestyle and their openness. But there was also a lot of mystery. It may be highly prejudicial to say I was dating one of the members, but I was. But had I not been I would still have been keenly interested in their universe. Whether I was "flirty fished" or not still remains a question in my mind. I would say no, but, I will probably never know. I don't need to. I honestly believe I can compartmentalise all of that and enjoy the things I genuinely learned in the classes.


Clarity. It may be causative or coincidental that this song was hot at the time.





It was, and still is, one of a number of songs I can listen to over and over. And over. I used to drive to the classes with it blaring and on repeat.


Some people seek Damascus Road events. I'd had a couple already, and wondered if there were any more. 


Clarity is by definition being able to see clearly. But by a more ethereal definition it refers not to the world we see around us (okay, maybe a little) but rather to the Universe around us that most rarely or never see, which has nothing to do with anything touchable.


I think it's just one of those things you either see or do not. This world and the entire known physical universe is just a drop in the ocean of what really is. A common refrain in organised religion is that human minds are too small to understand "God". I never believed that. In the back of my mind was always the thought that it seemed to be the mission of organised religion to close human minds so that they could not see beyond "God".


Clarity is an ability to see. Clarity is an opening of the mind to possibilities and probabilities beyond the ends of our noses. Clarity is knowing that "this" is not all there is. Clarity in understanding the limitless nature and influence of the Universe. Clarity is knowing that "life" is not limited to one blip on a watery radar in the darkest corner of the Milky Way. Clarity is knowing that the "greatest minds" telling us what reality is may be just as small as those telling us what reality is not.


Of course, arguing that the "greatest minds" are wrong won't win you any favours, and might see you consigned to the whacko fringe and easily dismissed (by small minds).  Hence, another thing I learned in the cult is of value.


Authenticity. We all like to believe we are living authentically, but we're probably not. As a compromise, it may be acceptable to believe in authenticity while not actually living it. As hypocritical as that sounds, is it enough to just know that one is a hypocrite?  


For many - okay, for me - by the time you have the realisation that authenticity is a desirable goal, life has you entrenched to the point that authenticity becomes nothing but a series of conflicts of interest, because "we have learned how to exploit life, but not how to gently, tenderly love life" (Vimala Thakar). Once you get a taste for exploiting life, it's near impossible to break free from its grip without making significant sacrifices. And sacrifices may be honourable, but when your sacrifices hurt and destroy others, does authenticity become evil?


Perhaps it is enough to pursue authenticity within the framework of the choices you have already freely made. Which is a nice way of saying you made your bed, now you have to lay in it. Perhaps that's the greatest authenticity of all.


I believe that at this moment in time and space, authenticity is beyond my reach. Authenticity is a small light in the distance, one towards which I am heading. But there are other things to do on the way.


Continuity. I don't believe in heaven or Hell. But nor do I believe this is it. Life in the cult enhanced my understanding of just how small our reality is. And back to the "greatest minds" thing. Is it arrogant to suggest that even the "greatest minds" on this rock have it wrong? So much of what they're saying seems like grand speculation to me. Can't I speculate a little?


Freedom. "Freedom is not a speculative, romantic game of imagining something which is not. It is simply comprehension of what is" (VT). There's a difference between believing something and living it. It's just the nature of this world that often the two do not marry. We may have an ideal about relationships, but how often does that ideal eventuate? Rarely? Never? It doesn't mean the ideal is meaningless, or impossible.


We are free. Sometimes we think "freedom" means the freedom to do something, or to not do something. But I don't think it's that simple. Freedoms intersect. I am indeed free to jump from a high roof-top. But there are consequences. So, too, am I free to drive through a red light, but there are (potentially) consequences to that, too. I am free to punch you in the face. But you are free to punch me back, or have me locked up because the law of the land backs up some freedoms and curtails others.


Which is why I could never understand the "Free Tibet" posturing. The Tibetans are already free. We are all free. Sometimes, we just don't like the consequences of our freedom.


One of the most important things I learned in the cult was that everything - and I mean everything - is driven by an intense, underlying, powerful energy. Good and bad. Physics teaches us about "energy", but (of course) only in a "physical" sense. There's a whole universe that science won't, and can't, touch. It's often said that science can explain the "how" - most of the time - but can't explain the "why". But the "why" is so much more important to us.


I decided not to go deeper into the bowels of the cult. Ironically, the chief reason was summed up in a book that the girl I was dating gave me (Vimala Thakar's book). It's a principle I try to follow still, and one she - and a lot of other people - could not and can not see.


"If I want to discover the truth of life, the meaning of life, I will have to begin learning and discovering for myself without the authority of another person. If I accept the authority of a person, dogma, or ideology, I lose freedom at the very first step of the inner voyage."