My Guess is that you will wake up tomorrow and instead of Tonglen, you will hit the delete button on your post out of embarassement.

MM was making a case for Leibermen being second tier and backing that up with evidence. Personally, I was enjoying this debate. 

You on the other hand, just wrote one of the most...well, take a second look at it. If you disagree, back up your opinion with reasons, not a temper tantrum. Nothing wrong with emotion, but you have to have reasons or nobody can have a discussion with you.

Your last paragraph makes it obvious you are not in a good place at the moment (uninspired, feel dumber, never comment again) so I feel some sympathy for you. Still, you polluted this thread and hope you will clean up your mess.

There is no Love in your post so your last sentence rings absurd.

"Have any of you seriously read a Ken Wilber book?" 

Wilber? Never heard of him.

 

Yeah, and something I am wondering about these days: the whole idea of calling people 2nd Tier without distinguishing "2nd Tier how?"

I am not talking about "calling people" anything. I am willing to call people things - when the ideas make sense. This is not my problem.

My problem is this - the colors reflect stages of development. But development happens along different lines.

Yet, we talk about amber this and orange that and we are not even distinguishing the lines that are at issue. Does this make any sense?

Lieberman, for example, can have teal cognition. I suspect he does. I suspect that he long ago transcended the belief in a single set of rules that apply universally and understands intellectually the green position of plurality and has probably transcended that into a view that sees green and orange et. al. as equally right and equally limited.

But ... that does not mean he is teal on the values line or the self line. I suspect he is very much identified with his Jewish heritage. He does not see himself as a human being, a member of mankind. On a self line he is likely quite amber.

As for whether he can sing, or feel prana, or whether he has spiritual insights, I have no way of knowing. Like Kaspan mentioned, the political arena demands that these players keep a lot hidden from us.

So, have I made my point yet? Don't we need to start being clear about what line these colors we are tossing around is being applied to? To say that someone is green seems almost like saying that "there are 5." Five what??

Obama? I think he is just as amber as Lieberman is on the self line. He sees himself as part of an ethno-group. Cognitively, I suspect he is teal as well. Values-wise, I see him as solid green. He is smack in the middle of the Ivy League intellectual green value flattening.

As for McCain, I suspect he is solidly orange on the cognitive, self, emotional, and value lines, and has to speak as amber a lot on those lines to keep his Republican backing.

 

Wow! What an exciting thread!

Schalk, good to see you back. I was about to declare you AWOL and bust you down in rank.  :)

Rocco, glad to see you, the thread starter, back in the game too.  I certainly never thought that you or anyone else thought that Obama was thoroughly Teal by Wilberian standards. You saw the things that a lot of people have been seeing in Obama--including me--that suggest Teal, and you started a thread about it. That's great.

Kaspan, I am really glad to see you here. Your comments are not only deeply integrally informed but very wise and mature.

Kaspan in blue:

My view currently is that Obama is a mature Green, possibly emerging Teal.

I agree with this assessment. I would like to begin looking at the things that indicate that Obama is showing signs of Teal. Of course there has been a little bit of that already, but it might be nice to go over that again. I may not get to that in this thread, however, as it requires going through a speech or two, but I may mention one or two things. One thing I will mention right now is his support of the new FISA bill, which ex-Clinton-supporter-now-Obama-supporter Lanny Davis rightly commends him for here. Of course it may be political posturing, but it looks to me like some of the--dare I say it?--integral common sense that I believe we can occassionally see in Barack Obama. It's hard to tell, really, given that he had to act really progressive to win the Democratic primary. At least it seems to be evidence that he's not really Green or is, as Kaspan put it, "mature Green" rather than early or unhealthy Green.

If he is elected, I feel that the pressure cooker that is the Presidency could accelerate that ascension.

Yes, I agree. I felt the chances of this would be greater if Bill and Hillary Clinton, being consciously integral (Ken Wilber fans no less), were there with him, but I think there are other integral-level voices around, though perhaps not many who are particularly conscious or ordered about it.

As it happens we might try to differentiate carefully between responses that are truly integral and responses that are just expedient politically and simply have an outward appearance of integral. At times a poltician can simply cave in to political or economic pressures rather than integrate their interests in a healthy way, which will often require standing up to some group and incurring some political damage, as Obama did with the FISA bill.

The democrats aren't owning this war as Americans, this is Bush's war. Instead of looking forward to success and victory, they look backwords and just want to "get out". 

I agree with this completely, as with your other Iraq comments. Obama has not been as bad as this as some--say, Edwards and Kerry, who wanted to set dates for withdrawl--but he hasn't been very good either. Edit: I found out, however--in checking that Edwards set a date for withdrawl( he didn't and then he did)--that Obama at one time set a date as well. He sure is a chameleon on some of these issues. It's that kind of thing that makes me not trust him. He backed off that completely not long after that. A quote from the article: "Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2024."

As for McCain, I think Leiberman would be a excellent choice as a running mate.  Both he and McCain have the courage to go against the party line, and courage goes a long way in my book.

Right!

  I think this would free up his energies and he would express himself much better.

I agree with this also. If he were elected we might see something closer to the old McCain very quickly. If a person does what others tell him to do for long enough, they will lose themselves. I think this happened to Al Gore. Al Gore was much more powerful and self-assured as a senator than he was as a presidential candidate or a vice president, and I think it's because for so many years he had to, or for whatever reason decided to, listen too much to other people.

I think we are fortunate to have two very good candidates running in 2024.

I agree with this as well. The vice presidential choices will also be very interesting and perhaps telling. Lieberman would be my first choice for sure for McCain. Romney, I suspect, is the front runner.

 

Schalk in navy:

 

Yet, we talk about amber this and orange that and we are not even distinguishing the lines that are at issue. Does this make any sense?

Yes, very good point. We could get a lot more precise about that. It seems to me that you hit on the major ones we need to differentiate between: cognition, values, and self-sense. Are there any others?

But ... that does not mean he is teal on the values line or the self line. I suspect he is very much identified with his Jewish heritage. He does not see himself as a human being, a member of mankind. On a self line he is likely quite amber.

Have to disagree with you here, buddy. First of all, we would need to be careful not to think that someone had an ethnocentric self-sense just because they had become a spokesperson for or were looking after the interests of their ethnic group. For example, I don't believe that Ghandi and Martin Luther King had a Red or Amber self-sense, even though Ghandi was working for the Indian people and King for African Americans. Of course some ethnic leaders do have an ethnocentric self-sense, but certainly not all.

That Lieberman as the most powerful Jewish-American politician is taking a lead in looking after Israel's interests is not proof in itself that he has an Amber self-sense. He was also an advocate for military intervention in Kosovo and has long been a supporter of military projects, so he has been consistent--it's not as though he is a "dove" on some foreign policy issues and a "hawk" when it comes to Israel. I see a lot of consistency there, though of course the ethnicity does make things interesting.

Self-sense--Susanne Cook-Greuter has done the best work here that I am aware of. I am going to quote you a few things from her discussion about Amber-level self-sense from this article of hers (she calls it in this article "The Conformist Stage 3 (Diplomat)").

"Their self-identity is defined by their relationship to a group."

"Being part of this larger entity allows one to be protected and share in its power. The price for inclusion is loyalty and obedience."

"There is total acceptance of the family and in-group (such as peer groups in adolescence) and blind rejection of deviance and out groups."

"Conformists are quintessential conformists and do not want to rock the boat, be singled out, or take initiatives other than for the benefit of their group."

"The self is defined by and generated by the expectations of those others to whom one "belongs." Conformists tend to accept norms without questioning or introspection."

"Conformists are identified with and bound to those with the same tastes, attributes, beliefs and expectations, and confused or threatened by differing demands, perspectives, diversity, and complexity."

"To summarize, the self does not yet have a self in the sense of a separate adult identity. Instead, he or she is defined by others. . . . Relationships have a "sticky, I-need-you" or co-dependant quality."

"Because conformists want so desperately to belong, they will conform to the rules and norms of whatever desired group, gang, political party they belong to."

 

Okay, Lieberman does not have the self-sense of someone at the rule/role level (Amber, "conformist"). Maybe we'll look later and see if we can determine where his self-sense really is.

I think it's natural for people, even at very high levels, to look after their own "group" in a way that is consistent with their altitude. They will likely feel it when their ethnic group's interests are threatened just a little more and feel just a little more inclined to do something about it. When African Americans are threatened, African Americans from all structures--Magenta to Clear Light--will likely lend a hand, though in different way depending on the altitude (check out this cool video of MLK Jr responding to criticisms of his approach from Malcolm X). Same with Jews, Wasps, etc. Obama is probably interested in looking after African American interests a little more than, say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards because he is half African American, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has an Amber self-sense, though in particularly stressful moments he could (as just about all of us could).

Lieberman has also stood up against various instances of genocide--in Darfur, Armenia, and Kosovo-- oppression in Burma, as well as for people with disabilities, asylum seekers, refugees, gay rights, victims of "human trafficking," So it's not just his ethnic group that he is looking after. He also includes this in his policy on Iran:

"Second, the Senator believes that the U.S. government has an obligation to engage in a more vigorous, sustained, and effective outreach to the Iranian people, who are ultimately our most important allies in the struggle against the fanatical and repressive regime in Tehran. The Iranian government is deeply unpopular with the Iranian people because of its human rights abuses, endemic corruption, and restriction of political and cultural freedoms. Consequently, the Senator strongly believes the United States should provide both moral and financial support to peaceful, pro-democracy dissidents inside Iran, much as we did for dissidents behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War."

 

Cognitively, I suspect he [Obama] is teal as well. Values-wise, I see him as solid green.

I think you're right about this, though I'm not sure he has stable Teal cognition, which I may addresss later. But values wise he does tend to feel Green, and all the Green progressives seem to feel the same way. There are exceptions, however; there are moments when I think he may have a Teal self-sense, which we might also talk about later.

As for McCain, I suspect he is solidly orange on the cognitive, self, emotional, and value lines, and has to speak as amber a lot on those lines to keep his Republican backing.

McCain's interesting. I'm not going to go into it much now, but I do agree that Orange altitude is probably a fair assessment, though I think he may be pushing higher on some lines at times (as well as perhaps lower at times if you believe the stories about his temper). What's particularly interesting is his dedication to living for a cause higher than one's personal interests. We can see this at different levels, I think, but he seems to demonstrate this at a fairly high level. It must stem from his years as a POW. He seems to be just about without a peer in this category among American politicians that I know of.

 

mm

 

Someone with an Amber self-sense would look more like this.

MonkMonk:

Your insights are consistently valuable!

Seems like this topic is a really mature and useful perspective on what is happening on the big stage.

What I find most valuable about the political process right now is it provides each of us with a very useful mirror to learn about ourselves.

What I am really unsure about is this: are we better off with a President that is high altitude on a number of lines or with one that is at a concentrated altitude smack in the middle of the people?

There can be a lot of experimentation and tendencies to lean toward pathology and unhealthiness when we are first pushing into a new stage on various lines. Are we better off with this or with a really solid and known stage of stability.

What I keep coming back to is my strong feeling that America is suffering from an excess of lying, deceit, false signals, prevarications, and like an organism that gets bad signals from mixed up wires, there is an illness or pathology that sets in. So, I keep feeling that with McCain we get one single quality that is most needed and that is - the courage to address issues based on principle, the willingness to invite criticism as long as the underlying integrity of the position is defendable.

Obama is miles beyond McCain in cognitive and probably emotional altitude. He brings so many admirable qualities. But he also brings one quality that I do not like and am afraid we do not need and that is - the con artist, the waffler, the crowd pleaser, the enabler, the expedient, slick, flat, oversophisticated, pluralist.

America in every one of its corners, from Wall Street to a bait shack in Key West to a farm in Kansas needs a huge and sustained dose of integrated information from its President which is backed by a firm believe in the rightness of being courageous and not rounding certain corners to accomodate others. We need a message that being principled, firm and fair, courageous, generous, and unconcerned with crowd pleasing is the way to live a good life.

I said:  "But ... that does not mean he is teal on the values line or the self line. I suspect he is very much identified with his Jewish heritage. He does not see himself as a human being, a member of mankind. On a self line he is likely quite amber."

You said: "Have to disagree with you here, buddy. First of all, we would need to be careful not to think that someone had an ethnocentric self-sense just because they had become a spokesperson for or were looking after the interests of their ethnic group. For example, I don't believe that Ghandi and Martin Luther King had a Red or Amber self-sense, even though Ghandi was working for the Indian people and King for African Americans. Of course some ethnic leaders do have an ethnocentric self-sense, but certainly not all."

I now say: yes, amber self line is probably a lot more rare than we like to admit. The self line is one's core identity, right? Not a predisposition to help a certain ethno-group. As Cook-Greuter points out, most adults have a self sense that is separate from their group, and so they are no longer amber at that point.

So, if would be extremely rare to find an amber or red self line adult.

There is a strong sense that survival or resurgence is up for grabs right now. All over the world. History is being made. Some groups are pulling ahead, others are losing ground. And from an Integral perspective, what is most ripe is to graduate from this concern for "groups" and toward a concern for "principles" or "laws" or "governing models." Who is going to help with this?

The Chinese will do and say anything that benefits China. The Jewish in America will do whatever benefits Israel. The blacks in America will generally do what promotes the blacks, unless the need to promote oneself (Wright) is stronger. Hispanics are concerned about Hispanics. And on and on.

And this is the test for us. To start seeing the world in terms of principles that mean more than the survival or advancement of a group that is based on skin or geography or language. We have to get to the point where we are aware of principles of Integrality that make us willing to not support our own skin group or territorial clan.

I think our ways of teaching history have injured us. The whole hero, conqueror, dominator, survivor, model of talking history is so old and sad. And we all think this way. Will my group win? Will I get to name a street after my father?

When do we start to act based on something more than skin/territory/culture?

What we need to start hearing from politicians is this - what principles, what rules, what abiding values, are driving the decisions they make?

Obama seems to be driven by one abiding value and that is winning the election through whatever accomodation it takes. McCain seems to be driven by a mix of winning the election but also taking stances that have an ethical or moral ground. What concerns me is that the discussion surrounding both of them does not focus on the underlying principles.

So, what exactly do we need? Which principles need to be given full play by our next President? Which practices will be harmful to us? In which areas is the US or the world ripe for insertion of certain principle-based actions?

Do we simply need a refreshing gust of enthusiasm that gives a frisson of joy to the rainbow of values in America? Or do we need a sterner, disciplined diet of messages that health and growth depend on rubbing two sticks together?

I don't know the answer. But I am wondering - what are the basic principles that we need and where do we need them to be applied?

We can talk about support for Israel. OK. So what? Why support Israel? What does that do or not do for any of us?

Immigration. What is the principle at issue here? Are we simply twisting knobs endlessly on a machine, more here, less there, etc?

The war. What is the principle? What is the rule that should be governing here? What exactly is happening with this war? What is it doing?

I think that America is ripe for dialogue that exposes the underlying principles at work. We get just so much banter without the underlying assumptions being made clear. And it does not help us live well. We all lie to each other and hide our motives.

Remember high school politics? School council? There was almost nothing of real power involved. It was a purely kuntu-based event. Don't we all still see the world and accept the world this way? This struggle to predominate simply to predominate?

 

 

 

 

 

Always great to talk to you, Schalk.

Schalk in navy:

There can be a lot of experimentation and tendencies to lean toward pathology and unhealthiness when we are first pushing into a new stage on various lines. Are we better off with this or with a really solid and known stage of stability.

That's an interesting question. My feeling is that we would be fine with a second tier president, though there could be a mistake or two based on uncertainty about what it is. With third tier it could get a little wierd or even dangerous. It would have to be someone like Ken Wilber, very emotionally stable, not much shadow, very good interpersonal skills.

So, I keep feeling that with McCain we get one single quality that is most needed and that is - the courage to address issues based on principle, the willingness to invite criticism as long as the underlying integrity of the position is defendable.

I basically agree with this--that we need honesty and that McCain is generally very honest--but still he is not the straight-talk express any more. Not really. It's the straight-talk in express in name only now. Now, ironically, we actually hope he is lying half the time, right? And will go back on campaign promises to push the far-right agenda? His platform is probably about 50% different than it was in 2024 and all because he has to shore up far-right support.

Obama is miles beyond McCain in cognitive and probably emotional altitude. He brings so many admirable qualities. But he also brings one quality that I do not like and am afraid we do not need and that is - the con artist, the waffler, the crowd pleaser, the enabler, the expedient, slick, flat, oversophisticated, pluralist.

Yes, I agree with this, and I especially felt this way during the primary when this aspect of his campaign was being ignored, and often projected onto Hillary. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps he is just a really good actor, and other times I wonder if he is just not too sure about what he really believes and that makes it easier to act out a certain position.

I like it how he is talking interior-causation now, and getting criticized for it (by Jesse Jackson and others), and saying he will continue. I like some of his centrist positions--economics, for example. On other positions I think he's taking it a little far, like the death penalty. He's come out now for child rapists and Osama Bin Laden to be exectued. That's a little ridiculous.

But what I've wondered is: If this is how he solves his political problems now--playing the race card against the Clintons, for example--won't he solve his political problems the same way in office? It could work to our advantage in some areas, internationally, for example, but perhaps not in all domestic areas.

I think we could count on McCain dealing with his political problems in a much more straightforward way. The media should straighten out Obama a little more; they probably have already, but not all the media seems to be aware of these things. Obama would get a lot of slack around the world, though, just as he does here. For example, if military action were required in, say, Iran, who could get away with it better? Obama for sure. It's sort of like how it took a Democrat to reform welfare. (Obama, by the way, is preaching Bill Clinton's integral-sounding "opportunity and responsibility" mantra a little bit, but it's still not clear whether he thinks it is a good campaign slogan or whether he really believes in it.)

I now say: yes, amber self line is probably a lot more rare than we like to admit. The self line is one's core identity, right? Not a predisposition to help a certain ethno-group. As Cook-Greuter points out, most adults have a self sense that is separate from their group, and so they are no longer amber at that point.

I think the self-line has to do with what one identifies with, yes, but it seems that there are a number of things people can identify with (emotions, morals, needs, aspirations, etc.), so I've had a bit of a hard time finding a definition for self-sense. It seems that self-sense is what one identifies with in a psycho-emotional way, UL, where as values are LL.

Cook-Greuter seems to discuss self-sense in an intraracial way. I think interracial relations would be more of a vmeme discussion. Maybe what you meant originally was the moral line. At any rate, Lieberman clearly has a high level of cognition and psycho-emotional development (he responds to attacks with great equanimity and precision) and then we could debate about what he values and his level of morality.

If the Iraq war had never happened people would not be trying to drive Lieberman out of committees, which I bet they will eventually (especially in an Obama administration--I wonder how good he will be with power; there are a number of things he has done that should give one pause). A lot of people (Green vmeme in particular) assume that not invading Iraq was the morally superior stance, but it is not so simple. They just simply can't imagine that there was an integral argument for the invasion (such as Tony Blair's), so Lieberman is a neocon in their eyes.

Obama seems to be driven by one abiding value and that is winning the election through whatever accomodation it takes.

That's quite true, and he has always behaved this way. "The new politics" was a very successful ad campaign, but it was not based on the truth. Their primary campaign was just about as dirty as any Republican campaign. The most remarkable thing, perhaps, is that they managed to portray the Clinton campaign as the dirty campaign at the same time (and while it wasn't perfect it was certainly not worse than the Obama campaign and probably cleaner). They haven't accused McCain of being the father of his adopted black daughter yet as the Bush campaign did in 2024, but give them time.

What concerns me is that the discussion surrounding both of them does not focus on the underlying principles.

Yes, it's about appealing to different interest groups and value spheres to win as many votes as possible. Not many candidates say what they truly believe. McCain did in 2024; Jerry Brown did. Also Green vmeme types like Nader and Kucinich, but of course they will never get anywhere. An Orange vmeme candidate could probably talk about Orange values throughout the campaign and have some shot at getting elected, but that's about it.

 

So, what exactly do we need? Which principles need to be given full play by our next President? Which practices will be harmful to us? In which areas is the US or the world ripe for insertion of certain principle-based actions?

We need more of everything in such a way as only integral can deliver: more traditional values (Amber) in the right places, more modern values (Orange) in the right places, and more postmodern values (Green) in the right places. If done in the right way, then we could say that relfects integral values. 

We can talk about support for Israel. OK. So what? Why support Israel? What does that do or not do for any of us?

I think there are strategic reasons to support Israel and also moral reasons. If Israel were not to survive--which of course is the aim of the Iranian goverment, Hamas, Hezbollah (something Green overlooks)--I think it would be a big blow to Orange and Green values worldwide.

 

mm

Schalk:"We can talk about support for Israel. OK. So what? Why support Israel? What does that do or not do for any of us?"

MM:"I think there are strategic reasons to support Israel and also moral reasons. If Israel were not to survive--which of course is the aim of the Iranian goverment, Hamas, Hezbollah (something Green overlooks)--I think it would be a big blow to Orange and Green values worldwide"

I little histroy on Isreal is in order. How did the nation of Isreal come about? The Zionist movement. A movement to take land from another nation and give it to another ethnic group. A ethnic group who's DNA does not come from the middle east but Eastern Europe and Russia. This is a human injustice at its inseption. Does Isreal have the right to exsist when it was made in crime? Like China taking over Florida and putting north Koreans there and then the koreans with the backing of China start to take land and kill people till all that is left is 1/10th of what the US was before. How would you feel? How would you feel about China? And what if there is a global black out of the truth and blackmail from China and Koreans. Thats the quick story on Isreal. Is it a strategic allie? Well yes when you look at it from OIL. This is an empiral agenda. Good job MM in promoting the myth of premptive self conforming ethics. How due you handle to truth of Isreals beginnings and not acknowledge its unethical origins? Which changes the current debate on Isreal in the public sphere completely. If this had its day in court, Isreal would be on par with SS Germany. They have killed alot of people under the banner of security. Are amber islamic veiws dangrous to the US. Yes if we mess with there development. And that the crux of this. The history of US intervention is a horror story to behold. And it is a long history. You leave these countries alone and we have no problems. We have messed with them so much that we now are in danger and its not because of them but our foreign and secret intervention in their country. It does not come from the culture specifically. It is more like a natural response to insane power grabs of the US and its Allies. Something americans would not tolerate on their soil but hypocritically condone for other countries. To get to the bottom of Isreal is to see the thoughts and engineering of the power elites. The middle east would be way more unified and developed without Isreal. Ahh, Isreal is their to keep the middle east undeveloped to be able to take their resources when need be. This seems like what the game is about. But thats a big change in understanding Geo-politics. Many Jews understand what I am saying and have the same veiws as muslims on Isreal and the US. When I say Isreal I mean the nation state, not the people. Maybe we should take a field trip to brooklyn and ask the jews what they think. I think you will be very suprised. Or ask the jews in Isreal, you will be very suprised. Americas minds have been successfully propagandized on this. Of course!!

Hey, innerline. Nice to see you.

Innerline in purple.

 

I little histroy on Isreal is in order. How did the nation of Isreal come about? The Zionist movement. A movement to take land from another nation and give it to another ethnic group. A ethnic group who's DNA does not come from the middle east but Eastern Europe and Russia. This is a human injustice at its inseption. Does Isreal have the right to exsist when it was made in crime?

 

This is a good question, innerline, and I'm glad you brought it up. The land has shifted hands many, many times throughout its history. Actually, the DNA of a large percentage of Jews can be traced back to this area, though certainly not all of them. There were times when Jews were forcibly expelled from the area or murdered. At any rate, the British, the League of Nations, and the United Nations have all tried to establish a Jewish state there. The Arabs have objected on ethnocentric grounds.

It's a messy business for sure. The way I figure it, the land changed hands over the course of many centuries, but at some point we have to say these people are there now (the Jews) and so rather than kick them out or let them be overwhelmed by an unfriendly ethnicity better to try to help the two live side by side.

Some people make the same arguement you made about Texas, New Mexico, California. "The U.S. stole this land from the Mexicans. They had no right to do that. It was a crime." Yes, but the Mexicans stole it from the Indians, murdering the men, raping their wives, and teaching their children to speak Spanish. This is the way different ethnicities related to one another for many centuries. But there comes a point where we have to say, "What is done is done. Now is the time to establish the rule of law."

So the Jews were murdered or expelled from Palestine; they fought their way back, bringing with them some people who did not share their DNA; the UN approved, for what it's worth. I wish they had settled in some other location--apparently other locations were discussed--but now that they are there and have been for so long, I don't think it would be right to kick them out. If you think they should be kicked out or allowed to be overwhelmed, then you must think the U.S. and Canada should give back its land to the Native Americans and the same with Mexico, Gautemala, Colombia, Peru, etc.

At any rate, even if it were wrong for the Jews to move back in the first half of the twentieth century (with some moving there for the first time, DNA wise), I don't think it would be right to kick them out now.

 If this had its day in court, Isreal would be on par with SS Germany. They have killed alot of people under the banner of security. 

They have done some wrong things for sure, but they are not worse than their adversary. In fact you can make a good argument that the Arab states and Palestinian terrorists have been far worse. The Arab states could have accepted the UN partition from the beginning and accepted some refugees, but they chose to fight. Palestinian terrorists have specifically targetted Israeli children time and time again. They have hardly been trying to make peace in a rational manner.

It is absurd to compare Israel with the Nazis.

 

The history of US intervention is a horror story to behold.

You're evidently missing a lot of perspectives here. I know what you're saying, though. I studied U.S. foreign policy in school and for many years held the same view you hold now.

 You leave these countries alone and we have no problems.

I don't know which countries you are referring to, but in most cases it is a lot more complicated than this. It sounds like you are missing some important perspectives.

The middle east would be way more unified and developed without Isreal.

I don't believe there is much truth at all to this perspective. And to the exceedingly small extent it is true it is the fault of Middle East leaders, who have distracted their population with this holy war in an attempt to maintain power in their country. It's just silly to blame Israel for the state of development in the rest of the Middle East. And it sounds a little like the same old scapegoating Jews have had to put up with for centuries.

Ahh, Isreal is their to keep the middle east undeveloped to be able to take their resources when need be.

And the Jewish bankers are the true rulers of the world? We are creeping into that twisted conspiracy-theory territory again, innerline.

Many Jews understand what I am saying and have the same veiws as muslims on Isreal and the US. 

Yes, I know, I have a Jewish friend who continually gives me the anti-Israel position like any American or European liberal, but it is only one half of the story.

 

mm

Hi MM, I believe the time line here is what makes a difference with Isreal. Isreal was an international creation, before this it was who ever conqured who. The winners of WWII, based on simpathies, created Isreal. I agree with you on, so what do we do now? Well what happened since 1948. Wow, Isreal is out their being antagonistic in its engagements with other countries. What about all the land they took and still take. A map of this is very telling. Do we know the story from the Palistinian side. I believe the ratio of Palistinians killed to Israelies is 10 to 1 and that has nothing to do with destruction of property and livelyhood. So how to we go foward from here. To have capacity takes integrity, and integrity takes honesty, and getting honest about this story should make it a balance dialog not one were Isreal has a right to protect itself in anyway it wants cause terrorists are evil. Thats a very small understanding of terrorism, and is being given validity, but does not know what creates terrorists in the first place. And it always comes down to sovreignty, not beliefs. And we have been involved in backing dictators. How do you handle the truth that the US CIA has been backing dictators around the world. How do they do that? create a conflict between cultures. Divide and conquire at any level, including green.

The question for a solution to Israeli Palistinian conflict is if Isreal was given land, why did they conquire more. You will see a defense position argument but defense is not taking over others land, but we westerners swollow it, do to the hypersensitivity that surrounds Isreal do to the holocust. Isreal has a natural identity crisis and ascerts its rights at any chance even at the expense of  another culture. It has been a very one sided dialog as far as I have seen. Talk only about those aspect that strengthen Isreals image.

Hey MM, You had troubles with 9/11. Isreal is way more complex and dark then 9/11. Can we see how they are connected? As if it was all planned. A big conspiracy that is totally out of our control, headed for Iran unless Obama saves the day, or we have another hoax and Obama totes the line. Who's pulling the strings in the circle of chance. I study power and how it flows. That connection between thought and action. Its tough trying to dicipher between the thoughts and actions of others. The real world has been modelled by those who acted and not just thought. Who are the ones who have the pulse on the action of the world? The bankers, unless we act beyond their influence which is direct living( or the art of living). My integral dream. The WE is integral to this. How does our culture go from nation states to local communities connected in a global community. The nation state would have to become a shell to the global body and local body. A possible nightmare or the next golden age. Universal ethics would have to be the standard of the global body. I wish we had this but instead we have the World bank, the IMF, the ISSC and a weak UN. Looks like bankers are the molders of the world. Talking about politics without understanding money is like talking about physics without understanding math. You can do it with only so much clarity. So, MM help me with the half of the story that you think I am missing. I hope you underrstand the money half cause you could just have a quarter at that point. Its getting regressive.

Some video on conspiracy and Isreal. I wish it was not true.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420590771746662384

 

This is interesting.

Raising jewish awareness of the nakba

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/raising-jewish-awareness-of-the-nakba/

Monkmonk in black; Innerline in blue.

 

Wow, Isreal is out their being antagonistic in its engagements with other countries. What about all the land they took and still take.

Israel hasn't always been perfect; that's true. But the land they took was taken after they had been attacked in 1967, for security reasons. They had a right to take some temporarily for security reasons, and they might be justified in keeping the Golan Heights, for example, until their security is really assured, until their neighbors aren't so hostile (which might take decades). It would surely have to be a part of a peace plan to return most or all of that land, perhaps keeping some a while longer if it's crucial for security. Palestinians may have to give some of it up, and it might be right that they should pay a price for attacking.

Do we know the story from the Palistinian side. I believe the ratio of Palistinians killed to Israelies is 10 to 1 and that has nothing to do with destruction of property and livelyhood.

That ratio sounds like a reasonable average considering what I have read. That is lamentable. However, I still consider the Palestinians more in the aggressor role than the Israelis. These terrorists groups have as their objective not some two-state solution, not living peacefully side by side but destroying Israel. Israel understands this and understands that the only thing they will respect is force. That cycle has to be broken somehow, but the culture of the Palestinians, particularly within groups like Hamas, needs to evolve to the point where they no longer simply want to destroy Israel but agree to living side by side with them. That cultural development takes time. To a lesser extent the same thing needs to happen with Israel; they have a lot of traditonal Amber that thinks it is in a holy war as well and simply wants to grab land. But Israel is much more ready for peace than Palestine, generally speaking.

 

Thats a very small understanding of terrorism, and is being given validity, but does not know what creates terrorists in the first place.

This is an interesting question: What creates terrorists? As we wait for Ken's new book (The Many Faces of Terrorism) I think it's safe to say that there are both interior causes and exterior causes. Interior causes would include ideas like Jihad and that Jews are "Other" and that they don't want to live with Jews or want Jews on "their" holy land. Exterior causes would include things like overpopulation in Palestine, a lack of services, Israeli occupution, Israeli counterattacks, etc. But both interior causation and exterior causation need to be considered. We could pour a lot of money into Palestine, and many would still simply want to kill the Jews. They would take the money and buy guns and bombs. So that attitude (in their collective and individual interior) needs to change before we can have peace there.

How do you handle the truth that the US CIA has been backing dictators around the world.

I think we can make the case it has been wrong in some instances and right in other instances, likely right in most case, because what is the alternative? Dictators are appropriate for countries at a certain level of development. They will simply not do well with Democracy. Look at Iraq right now if you don't believe that. Look at Palestine when they elected a terrorist organization, Hamas. Democracy doesn't work that well when people don't have Democratic values. Also in some cases there is a choice between a friendly dictator and an antognistic dictator (who might have supported the Soviet Union, for example), and so supporting the friendly dictator is justifiable. There has surely been some callousness here and there (or better put simply an Amber or Orange worldview in the White House, both of which can be a bit callous), but we should be careful not to fall into the fallacy of blaming Washington for every problem in other country as some do.

 

 Isreal is way more complex and dark then 9/11. Can we see how they are connected? As if it was all planned. A big conspiracy that is totally out of our control, headed for Iran unless Obama saves the day.

If you mean that part of what angered the terrorists was the U.S.'s support for Israel, yes; I can see how they are connected. If you mean that there is some conspiracy linking the two, no; I do not see a connection.

 Who are the ones who have the pulse on the action of the world? The bankers.

I don't see this. Just in case, though, I'm going to start acting nicer to my brother. He's rising pretty fast in a big bank . . .

:)

 

mm

 

PS. I'm sorry, but I don't find those films a credible source. Julian Walker wrote an excellent blog about Zeitgeist that you can read here that more or less covers my feelings about them. Do you know who made those films? They appear to be made by the same people. Some have suggested Lyndon LaRouche. I also highly recommend Mr. Teacup's superb comments on that link.

"Some video on conspiracy and Isreal. I wish it was not true. "

 

Your wish has been granted.

Sorry if I offended with suck junky info. It puts me in th position of needing to get into this global conspiracy info in a more complete fashion. If you want a good source of global finacial history start with :

Tragedy and Hope

A History of the World in Our Time

By

Carroll Quigley

http://www.alexanderhamiltoninstitute.org/lp/Hancock/CD-ROMS/GlobalFederation%5CWorld%20Trade%20Federation%20-%2098%20-%20Tragedy%20and%20Hope.html

Carroll Quigley (November 9, 1910 – January 3, 1977) was a historian and professor of history at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976.

Quigley was born in Boston, where he attended school and later received both undergraduate degrees and a doctorate from nearby Harvard University.

At Georgetown University, Quigley joined the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, where he taught the course, Development of Civilization. Quigley's lectures would leave a strong impression on many of his students. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who studied under Quigley at Georgetown University, named Quigley as an important influence on his political beliefs.^[1]

In addition to his academic work, Quigley was a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, which went on to establish NASA

 

I hope you understand you might not be the same if you take the red pill. I wish this junky stuff I have been giving you was not true. Have fun reading a great historian.

Yes, Quigley was an enormously influential teacher.

Let me ask you:

just speak completely off the cuff. What are 10 of the most dire things you see happening to us in the next year? I mean really specifically?