|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Noam Chomsky
RESPONDENT: (...) Richard needs to get out more and read more widely. He could read a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off for a start. RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony is such as to easily
earn him, in some quarters at least, the soubriquet ‘wankasaurus As is his contribution to the field of linguistics RESPONDENT: Just what I would expect from you, Richard. Name calling without substance. RICHARD: The name-calling without substance came from (for example) the editorial departments of The
New Yorker, The New York Times, and The Guardian For just one instance of Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony one needs look no further than, when the National Liberation Front was trying to take control of South Vietnam, him telling a forum in New York on December 15 1967 that [quote] ‘I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this – and I think we should – we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified’. [from ‘The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?’: www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm]. The all-up ‘comparative costs’ of the political terror unleashed under the leadership of Mr. Nguyen That
Thanh (aka Ho Chi Min) – which terror Mr. Noam Chomsky rationalises as being justifiable – was of the magnitude of 1,670,000
citizens of Vietnam being murdered by their government Do you really want to pursue the topic of which one of us has ‘complacent blinkers’ on ... or
would this be an opportune moment to do an abrupt about turn and discuss what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site It is your call. * RESPONDENT: (...) Richard needs to get out more and read more widely. He could read a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off for a start. RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony is such as to easily
earn him, in some quarters at least, the soubriquet wankasaurus RESPONDENT: Just what I would expect from you, Richard. Name calling without substance. RICHARD: The name-calling without substance came from (for example) the editorial departments of The
New Yorker, The New York Times, and The Guardian RESPONDENT: It was your complacency we were discussing ... RICHARD: If I may interject? It was not complacency per se being discussed but [quote] ‘complacent blinkers’ [endquote] ... and there is a distinct difference between the two. RESPONDENT: ... [It was your complacency we were discussing] not Mr Chomsky’s contribution to world peace. Clumsy side track. RICHARD: Your (unsolicited) suggestion, on a mailing list specifically set-up to discuss peace and harmony, was that Richard could read ‘a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off’ ... how staying with the raison d’être of this mailing list can be construed as a side-track (let alone a clumsy one) simply defies comprehension. RESPONDENT: Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions ... RICHARD: It is not a matter of whether or not I agree or disagree with anything Mr. Noam Chomsky has, or has had, to say ... it is a matter of whether or not I have ‘complacent blinkers’ on in regards what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly) for that is the article you are basing your critique upon. Viz.:
If you do not find what human beings have achieved physically, despite the human condition, to be truly amazing then the thrust of the entire article will elude you ... for instance (the last four lines):
RESPONDENT: [Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions] there is one thing that you cannot dispute about Mr Chomsky – he digs up unpalatable facts about this world that do not reflect well on those in power. He delves into freely available and reliable sources of information that very few people bother to look into. Disturbing facts about the abuse of power around the world emerge ... RICHARD: It is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike. It is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart. The politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry ... which is the burden of being ‘human’. They have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them. They have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. Nowhere have I been able to find Mr. Noam Chomsky addressing this, the root cause of all the ills of humankind, anywhere at all ... if you could provide a book reference, an article, a web page, or something of that ilk, it would be most appreciated. And I say this because any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges; variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change that is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on this earth, in this era. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: ... [Disturbing facts about the abuse of power around the world emerge] and you crap on about shopping ... RICHARD: What I actually talk about, in that article, is how amazing it is what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition) ... all of which seems to have passed you by. Now, I fully realise that I live in a western society – a consumer society it is belittlingly called – but even the developing countries, with assistance from the west, are usually able to feed themselves these days ... when they are not at war, that is. With this proviso in mind, it is heartening to reflect upon the great strides humankind has made this century in terms of material well-being, compared with what transpired over the tens of thousands of years that humans have been inhabiting this planet. Long gone are the days of the hunter-gatherer; days wherein the human race was at the mercy of the elements for their physical survival. Long gone are the times when humans had to eke out an animal-like existence; full bellies in a time of plenty, and starvation in a famine. Nowadays, when famine strikes one part of the world, aid in the form of basic provisions comes in from other areas experiencing plenty. In terms of the supply of goodies, I find that I am literally living in a veritable ‘Garden of Eden’. My every physical need is met with a bewildering array of abundance; it is a time of cornucopia, of which I am pleased to take full benefit as is my due ... and I am extremely happy to be here, partaking of the goods that are the result of human endeavour. RESPONDENT: ... [you crap on about shopping] with gay abandon (‘It is always a joy to come shopping, so prolific is the supply of food available to all and sundry, at a reasonable cost’) ... RICHARD: Since when has it been a crime to enjoy and appreciate what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly)? I am oft-times astonished at the lack of appreciation displayed so vehemently by peoples I meet – either face-to-face or via the internet – and articles I read about in the press. Why do the peoples of this country not realise they are well-off, luxuriating in the freedom from want? Why is there dissatisfaction, both on the faces and in the words, of my fellow human beings? Why do they have the temerity to complain when they are living in the land of plenty? Is there no way of pleasing these people? Fancy complaining about ‘having to do the shopping’ when it is such a delight to share in the benefits of human inventiveness; ingenuity in the face of the vagaries of the natural world. I am immensely appreciative of being alive now and not at some other age in which I would have had to struggle for my ‘daily bread’... those dreadful times one reads about in the history books and literary works. It is truly amazing what has been achieved despite the ‘Human Folly’. RESPONDENT: ... and imply that third world countries have themselves to blame for their conditions (‘... but even the developing countries, with assistance from the west, are usually able to feed themselves these days ... when they are not at war, that is’). RICHARD: If I may suggest? Try reading what is actually written (rather than invent implications). RESPONDENT: It’s obvious that you are cocooned in an actual bubble of your own creation. RICHARD: Hmm ... and will reading what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say about the abuse of power around the world have the effect of getting me out of this actual world, then, and back into the real-world (else why write all this)? RESPONDENT: You’ve bought into media propagated power dogma ... RICHARD: Oh? It is ‘media propagated power dogma’ is it, then, which persuades me that it is amazing what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (and not the evidence of these eyes)? RESPONDENT: ... [You’ve bought into media propagated power dogma] and you claim an actual freedom. RICHARD: I do indeed report being actually free from the human condition ... maybe, just maybe, that is why accusations of having bought into media propagated power dogma (for instance) do not deter me from staying with the subject of that article ... to wit: that it is truly amazing what has been achieved despite the human condition (aka the human folly) RESPONDENT: Africa is a basket case because of exploitation from Western powers. RICHARD: Ahh ... is this an example of how reading a little of Mr. Noam Chomsky rips complacent blinkers off, perchance? RESPONDENT: You’re still well and truly in the Matrix. RICHARD: Am I to take it you are well and truly out of the ‘Matrix’ (whatever that is)? * RICHARD: (...) Do you really want to pursue the topic of which one of us has ‘complacent blinkers’
on ... or would this be an opportune moment to do an abrupt about turn and discuss what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust
web site RESPONDENT: Nice little rhetorical gesture, Richard, but it’s a ruse. RICHARD: It is neither rhetorical nor a gesture (let alone a ruse) ... it is, after all, what this mailing list is set-up for. RESPONDENT: I’ve tried discussing with you what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... RICHARD: I beg to differ ... your whole thrust has been to dismiss an actual freedom from the human condition on the unsubstantiated grounds that it is not new to human experience/ human history (as early as only your second e-mail to this mailing list you were proposing that Ms. Byron Katie was among many such peoples already actually free). RESPONDENT: ... and you just get cut when your status as the one and only is questioned. RICHARD: And here you are again coming out with the same egocentric charges
Put succinctly: if you want to continue flogging that same old ‘one and only’ line that is your business ... all I can do is let you know here and now, up-front and out-in-the-open, that you will be wasting both your time typing it out and your bandwidth in sending it. It is your call. RESPONDENT: Noam Chomsky is disparaged on the site. RICHARD: More specifically it is Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony which is disparaged, on one particular occasion, on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... to wit:
RESPONDENT: At first glance that seems totally reasonable as he has never offered any solution to what fundamentally is wrong in my life. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike. It is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart. The politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry ... which is the burden of being ‘human’. They have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them. They have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. RESPONDENT: But is it not true that their entity causes my entity pain in making decisions that restrict my movement, my happiness? RICHARD: It matters not whether it is true, that another identity causes you pain with their decisions, or not ... the fact remains that any action, as proposed by Mr. Noam Chomsky for instance, within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges, variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change which is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on planet earth, in this era, as a flesh and blood body. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: Perhaps this ‘my happiness’ is a lie and freedom from it will also avail me of the necessity to kow-tow to absurd rules and people that the system raises to power. RICHARD: As you are your happiness (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) you can never become free from it. RESPONDENT: Should I just toss it all off and get fired, etc? RICHARD: If all you wish to do is make changes around the edges, to produce variations upon a familiar theme, then that is your business ... I can only suggest and what another does with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to them because, when all is said and done, it is they who either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction they may or may not have happen. RESPONDENT: Okay so there is no point whatsoever in reading of how the world is organised? RICHARD: No ... all I said was that it is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike and that it is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart and that the politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry (which is the burden of being ‘human’) inasmuch they have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them ... that they have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. RESPONDENT: I certainly see that nothing of use can come of it. RICHARD: I never said that nothing of use can come of reading how the (human) world is organised ... all I said was that any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure and that unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change radically inasmuch there will be changes around the edges, variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change which is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on planet earth, in this era, as a flesh and blood body ... that to remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: Is my interest in such analysis therefore fraudulent and based on a stupid desire to work out the problem from the problem? RICHARD: Indeed so ... just as Mr. Noam Chomsky has been doing/currently does, for instance, all throughout human history peoples have been endeavouring to bring about communal peace and harmony through political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on. It is vital to comprehend that one of the fundamental understandings, if there is to be radical change, is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence. In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home. RESPONDENT: If I were to actually see what I was doing, is it probable that I’d find the essay that I’m reading about what REALLY happened in Afghanistan a silly irrelevance? RICHARD: No ... more probably you would invest in a capacious salt-shaker (to save having to re-fill
so often as you read such essays). * RESPONDENT: I am quite willing to accept also that he has made questionable, or even wrong and ridiculous, pronouncements on politics and linguistics. Nevertheless much of what he says about power structures and the form and function of western propaganda I find interesting and accurate. RICHARD: It matters not whether much of what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say, about power structures and the form and function of western propaganda, is interesting and accurate or not ... any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges; variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change that is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on planet earth, in this era, as a flesh and blood body. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: Perhaps not deeply useful ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... all throughout human history peoples have been endeavouring to bring about communal peace and harmony through political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on. It is vital to comprehend that one of the fundamental understandings, if there is to be radical change, is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence. In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home. RESPONDENT: ... [Perhaps not deeply useful] but worthwhile in its sphere no? RICHARD: And just what [quote] ‘sphere’ [endquote] would that be? * RESPONDENT: 2) Related to this I notice that the conveniences and pleasures of the modern world are celebrated on the site. RICHARD: As you are referring to the enjoyment and appreciation of what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition) it is pertinent to point out that anything other than being naked in the forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/yams with same is what constitutes that achievement. In other words what is currently available, as a result of human ingenuity/human endeavour, is an extension of what the very first person to utilise a receptacle to gather in/a stick to dig with achieved. RESPONDENT: Is it not the case that such things are at the expense of the poor people who provide the raw labour and material to produce them under horrific conditions? RICHARD: All throughout human history some peoples have profited at other people’s expense – the feudal system is just one example that immediately springs to mind – and what is most outstanding about the current modern era, in regards such profiteering, is the expansive rise of a mercantile middle class ... and, of course, middle-class values/ principles and ethics/morals. RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t sensuously and guiltlessly immerse oneself in the splendid array of things at hand in our civilisation, but is there no recognition that they come at someone’s expense? RICHARD: There does seem to be something amiss with your query about whether 6.0+ billion peoples,
whom you are not suggesting should not sensuously and guiltlessly immerse themselves in the splendid array of things at hand in
their civilisation, are recognising that any such array comes at (some undesignated) others’ expense. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you mean. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it more simply (and contextualised in the terms which occasioned the disparagement of Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony): just who of us are those whom all of us may or may not give recognition to that it is at whose expense it comes that it be quite amazing what has been achieved despite the human folly (aka the human condition)? RESPONDENT: Probably this means that I don’t understand what I mean. But still, why is it ‘amiss’? RICHARD: Is there not something awry in being all-inclusive (with your ‘in our civilisation’ phrasing) yet, simultaneously, being part-exclusive (with your ‘at someone’s expense’ phrasing) ... or, put differently, are not those who only have their snout in the trough, as contrasted to those with their front trotters in as well (if not all four), participating in and partaking of what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly)? RESPONDENT: Ah – guilt. You mean that one cannot guiltlessly enjoy, say, a pair of light strong trainers and at the same time know that a starving Indonesian slave-girl made it? RICHARD: No, I do not mean that at all ... here are a few questions for you:
And:
RESPONDENT: Or are you? RICHARD: No, I am not meaning that at all ... a person obtaining food to put in their mouth by making, say, a pair of light strong trainers is participating in and partaking of what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition). Or, to put that another way, they are not having to be naked in the forest, without so much as a box of
matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/yams with same
... and it is heartening, is it not, to reflect upon the great strides humankind has made in the last hundred years or so, in
terms of material well-being, compared with what transpired over the tens of thousands of years that humans have been inhabiting
this planet. It is quite amazing what has been achieved despite the human condition (aka the human folly). RESPONDENT: Is it perfectly okay that very poorly treated people made my stuff? RICHARD: Not unless you consider it is perfectly okay for yourself to be treated very poorly for the stuff you make/the service you provide. RESPONDENT: I’m prepared to accept that it is, because I don’t actually feel that guilty. RICHARD: Probably not ... for such is the fickle nature of the affective feelings (and the middle-class values/principles and morals/ethics they can give rise to). RESPONDENT: There’s not much I can do about it. RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is the very best thing you can do about it sitting right under your nose, as it were, but you would rather fritter away a vital opportunity on changes which virtually anyone with half a brain, so to speak, can see may be made around the edges (and producing variations upon a familiar theme). RESPONDENT: But ... it’s a shame isn’t it? RICHARD: Ah, if only you meant that ... really meant that (with all of your being). * RESPONDENT: And is there no movement to help those people? RICHARD: If you were to indicate just who those (thus far undesignated) peoples are, that 6.0+ billion peoples may or may not be moving to help, the nature of your query might very well become obvious. RESPONDENT: I suppose I mean the unhappy hoards who are forced to do shit jobs. RICHARD: Are they not getting the wherewithal to obtain water, food, clothing and shelter ... rather than having to be naked in the forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/yams with same and thus being at the mercy of the elements, the vagaries of nature, for their physical survival? RESPONDENT: Like factory workers and so on. RICHARD: In what way are factory workers being prevented from enjoying and appreciating what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition)? RESPONDENT: I know that everyone is hideously unhappy really, all in the same boat. RICHARD: And therein lies the clue to the lack of enjoyment and appreciation for what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly): nothing, but nothing, can satisfy the discontent of an hubristic identity ... and more than a few identities suffer from an insolent contempt for the universe. People generally resent having to be here; they could be given whatever they demanded and they would still be not satisfied. Nothing, but nothing, can assuage the troubled identity, the psychological/psychic entity having parasitical residence within the body of virtually all the peoples inhabiting this planet. That alien entity – both ego and soul (spirit) – will spoil any enterprise, sabotage every endeavour and breed discontent and misery throughout its domain. It is the central or core reason for the human condition, sometimes more sardonically referred to as the human folly. Almost every person I meet, nearly every printed word I read, states in one way or another that ‘you can’t change human nature’ and sets about fiddling with the levers and controls in an ultimately useless attempt to ameliorate the human situation within the human condition ... with, of course, less than perfect results. RESPONDENT: But children and really helpless people ... isn’t it particularly wrong that they are shat upon? RICHARD: Not unless you consider it is not particularly wrong that adults and unreally helpful people be defecated upon RESPONDENT: I don’t know. I mean, I realise that when you do help out these people they just end up in the same boat, the same cruelty and misery. RICHARD: Indeed so ... and, given that you all-inclusively say everyone is hideously unhappy anyway, it is high time then, surely, that somebody came up with something new (rather than just try and ameliorate the cruelty and misery with variations on a familiar theme), eh? RESPONDENT: So perhaps it is pointless spending a second’s thought on them. RICHARD: Not at all ... what *is* pointless, however, is to spend time thinking on them in terms of bandaid solutions (there are already more than enough people doing just that). RESPONDENT: Unfortunately the nature of my query is still not obvious. RICHARD: Okay ... to go looking for a particular victim amongst 6.0+ billion victims is like looking for a specific needle in a haystack of needles is it not? And for what ... as a sop to a (presumably) middle-class conscience? * RESPONDENT: Again I’m not suggesting any political ‘solution’ to anyone’s problems. Absurd. RICHARD: Again ... if you were to indicate just who those (thus far undesignated) peoples with problems are, that you are not suggesting 6.0+ billion peoples provide a political solution for, the nature of your query might very well become obvious. RESPONDENT: And I’m not interested in adding a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to my personality. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding ... are you suggesting that 6.0+ billion peoples also not add a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to their personalities either? RESPONDENT: I suppose I am suggesting that. I don’t think it would help them. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding ... are you saying that all those peoples who have already added a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to their personalities are not being helped by doing so? * RESPONDENT: But I still find that, at the very least, I prefer to know where my jeans were made, and under what conditions, and perhaps even do something to make life a little better for the slaves. RICHARD: If I might point out? Unless you are currently naked in a forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/ yams with same, you have just set yourself an enormous task – ascertaining where each and every component of each and every item you either ingest or utilise is made/produced, and under what conditions, and perhaps doing something to make life a little better for (some undesignated) slaves – and for what purpose ... just so you can justify claiming that what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say about power structures and the form and function of western propaganda is worthwhile in its sphere, perchance? RESPONDENT: I don’t think I meant that. RICHARD: I only asked as that is the context in which you made your ‘at the very least’ comment. Viz.:
All I have to go by is what you choose to type out and send. RESPONDENT: Not sure, but I think I meant that it’s good to have a general idea that helpless miserable slaves (e.g. in Indonesian Export Processing Zones) produce much of what I enjoy. RICHARD: Hmm ... just for starters who made the buttons, and under what conditions, that were sown on your jeans by those peoples, for example, in the Indonesian Export Processing Zone, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who delivered those buttons, and under what conditions, to the place of sewing, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who processed the raw material, and under what conditions, those buttons were fashioned out of, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who delivered the raw material, and under what conditions, to the processing place where those buttons were fashioned, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who extracted that raw material, and under what conditions, from the ground, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and ... and need I go on? RESPONDENT: I might have suggested that I could that knowing this and acting on it would help them somehow, make their lives a little less painful. RICHARD: I see ... here is a word-of-the-day for you:
RESPONDENT: But actually I don’t think I can help them. RICHARD: Oh? Was what Mr. Noam Chomsky had to say about power structures, and the form and function of western propaganda, not worthwhile in its sphere after all? RESPONDENT: I’ve always felt it is better to know about these things though. Is that not so? RICHARD: Why not find out right now .. for instance: what benefit has accrued for those peoples in the
Indonesian Export Processing Zone (for example) from you feeling it is better to know about those things?
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
