Humans and gorillas in the DRC
A few weeks ago I received a letter from Henry Chiruza. He is Programme Manager of the Gorilla Organisation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It was a circular, not personal correspondence, but I keep in touch for my own reasons. 'Dear Friends' the letter began. 'This year was the worst I have experienced at the Gorilla Organisation. Last November we faced war just 15 km away from Goma. Rebels started to fight with government troops. We didn't know if we would need to cross the border to become refugees. Bombs were falling on our heads. I was about to give up. I saw my kids. They had so many questions. What is there to look forward to? Will we go to school today Daddy?.......We have no idea where or when a bomb is going to go off....' And so it goes on.
An estimated five million people have died as a result of the ongoing conflicts in the DRC (this figure includes casualties from war-related poverty and disease), making it the biggest bloodbath on the planet since WW11 (the figure has recently been challenged, and revised down to a mere three million people - which makes it OK , I suppose).
The African carnage in the Heart of Darkness - you just don't hear about it.
In contrast, there's Syria. Over the past year, the populations of the west have been subjected to a constant barrage of 'news' and images from the country, living rooms saturated with pictures of children and babies with blood dripping down their faces, limbs missing, and the rest. Horrific stuff. Until recently, day after day of bombings, chemical weapons, displaced mums and children. Reporters and journalists flown in from all over the world to bear gruesome witness. Meanwhile, in the African Heart of Darkness, all is quiet. So what is going on?
Should anyone still require persuading that 'news' is not an objective appraisal of the international state of affairs dished out by some all-seeing and benevolent media guru, then this example should make it crystal clear. And if it is not an objective appraisal, then what is it? Well, it is in large part propaganda; we could call it 'mind control', an attempt to shape public opinion. It has already been decided which issues should concern you. What opinions you should hold. What you should fear, and who the goodies and baddies are. A child in pain in Syria (or Egypt, Iraq, wherever things need to happen on the current political chessboard) has more political currency than in the DRC. So roll her out.
A very simple yet effective exercise when presented with any item of 'news' by the mainstream media is to ask yourself the question 'Why am I being told this?' Or, conversely, should you stumble upon something of apparent import that you knew nothing about 'Why am I not being told this?' It's a method that works a treat.
The strategy is especially significant when a story is relayed into your home day after day after tedious day. Syria, Egypt, the Arab Spring is one such example from recent times. Another is the so-called 'phone-hacking scandal'. While I'm sure that the Murdoch Empire is full of not-particularly nice people, it seems obvious that there is a sub-text to the way that the story ended up full-frontal on BBC's 'Newsnight' for weeks on end. This involves state interference (read 'control') in the media. 'You naughty boys and girls in the media can't be trusted to look after yourselves, so we're going to have to bring in Big Daddy State to ensure you behave.' Which the BBC, in its coital relationship with Big Daddy State, will be only too happy to help chivvy along.
In similar vein is one of David Cameron's many caring and compassionate masterstrokes: protecting our dear uncorrupted children through internet filters on pornography. This is fuelled by trying to befuddle the population into mixing adult porn, child porn, and paedophilia into the same poison chalice. Do we really believe that Uncle Dave cares what little Billy in his Huddersfield bedroom is watching on his tablet? Of course not. The subplots involve quietly filtering material other then pornography, trying to remove 'esoteric' websites from the easily-accessed public domain, for example. And, further, acclimatising the public to the idea that complete freedom of the internet no longer exists. Sowing the concept which, in time, becomes the default setting for the unaware human being. 1984 unravels quietly, surreptitiously, in our modern times.
For those who would control us, the internet has become a real headache. It is increasingly difficult to lie or pull the wool over everybody's eyes; the puppets of domination look more and more pathetic and foolish. Making it difficult to access certain sites and info is one ruse to help maintain control over that unruly mob known as humanity. Another is to invoke the thought police on various forums etc. One such example is Reddit where, I learned recently, they have banned comments written by 'global warming deniers'. This is the trendy, lefty, liberal form of free speech. Dangerous people. The Golden Age of the internet is, I fear, at an end. However, it may be that too many people's eyes have been opened for a complete turning of the tide to be possible.
In the face of all these efforts to deceive and pervert the human species, the question remains: what do we do? How to respond? It's a conundrum that I have grappled with for forty years now. In the early 1970s I wrote an article entitled 'The demonstration or Zen?' in which I concluded that neither political action nor purely personal enlightenment do the business. In response to my observation that 'people are getting killed all over the place' I commented 'The thing is: is it worth trying to stop them getting killed? If you don't try, you feel bad and apathetic; if you do try, you're wasting your time and you know it.'
Two small incidents in my own life have served to concentrate my mind on this issue. Both involve windfarms (yes, I know they haven't turned up on this blog for a while.....). Back in early spring I was invited to help set up an anti-windfarm political party in Highland Scotland. The idea was to provide candidates in selected constituencies, targeted the big windfarm boys like Salmond and Ewing. I dutifully attended the inaugural meeting, and met some good people. Yet I knew before I entered the door what my personal decision would be. You can't stop turbines like that: things don't really work that way. It's not how the Control System does stuff. To repeat what I said way back: you're wasting your time and you know it.
The second incident occurred just last week. Walking along the high street, I noticed a little stall with a couple of guys collecting signatures for a letter. I recognised one of them from five years ago, when the shameful Lochluichart windfarm project was being promoted. Yes indeed, they were back with the same old game: signatures in favour of some Highland windfarm proposal. These people are predators pure and simple, playing upon the fears of young mothers: 'You don't want the lights going out for your kids, do you? You don't want them to inherit a world of climatic disasters, do you? Be a responsible parent: sign on the dotted line, then.' One of the archons - sorry, men - approached me about his bloody letter. 'I completely disagree with you' I blurted. 'You're not saving the planet. it's all nonsense and all total crap.' I believe I then said something that I shall not include here. Invited by the windfarm ideologue to be civil, I retorted 'I don't want to be civil' then walked away.
I have reflected on these incidents, particularly the latter. I am not in the habit of speaking to total strangers in that way. What was going on? There is a profound truth hidden therein. As the Buddhist story says, you find the jewel in the middle of the dungheap. These windfarm guys are ideological zealots, compared to which a meeting of rabid Jehovah's Witnesses is a picnic. Most significantly, their views - their being - is totally embedded in what Neil Kramer refers to as the Construct. Put briefly and simply, life demonstrates two aspects: reality, embodied in personal authenticity; and the artificial, the constructed, designed to confine and control us. The mainstream media, as discussed above, is a major expression of the Construct. The lesson from my windfarm-related encounters is that it is not possible to work within the confines of the Construct, whether it be through the political system or arguing the point with some windfarm people. The Construct provides the framework, the points of reference - that's part of how it works. Anything outside that is either taboo or ridiculed. It is not possible within this context to talk the real issues surrounding windfarms: destroying the power of the land, something our ancestors knew about intimately; power spots and sacred places; the suppression of free energy knowledge; disempowerment of the individual.
So, as a start, I propose that disengaging from the Construct is a great step on the way forward. This is why immersion in the mainstream media is fatal. Someone else is creating the narrative for you, and that person ain't very nice. You can't do it and be authentic, simple as that. I have little patience for anyone thinking otherwise nowadays, the evidence is all around. Whatever we do or don't do, at least do it from our authentic self. Listen to our heart and our instinct above all. Listen carefully, then act. That's all.
'The demonstration or Zen?' 'Dealing with the Construct.' Work in progress...............
