The Love of Power

Jimi Hendrix once famously said “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace”. I can see how this sentence became popular but it is inconsistent and inaccurate, repeating it only reinforces misconceptions. Here’s why.First of all, among the world leaders, there are very few who are motivated by the love of power. The rest is groping around blindfolded, led by greed, lusting for and abusing power. These aspects represent very low (by low I mean unconsciously animalistic) levels of human psyche. All rather far removed from love. These actions stem from insecurity, lack of internal strength and false self-identification and contribute to the theatre of illusions rather than magnificence of creation. Love on the other hand stems from maturity of the heart and manifests in responsibility, growth, nurturing, support, understanding, communication, respect and inclusion. No one who truly loves power would ever use it for their sole benefit and discrimination of others. They would seek opportunities to ask advice, communicate and understand, to delegate and empower others on all levels of social and political structures. The current world leaders cannot real-is-e the responsibility that comes with their position – it’d crush them. To avoid that realisation they need to objectify by crushing ‘the weak’. None of those currently holding ‘power’ is really empowered.

There are of course plenty of examples of wise leaders who led from love. One of my true inspirations has always been Ewa Letowska, the first Polish Ombudsman (1987-1992) who took the opportunity to manage a department which at the time others believed impossible to sort out or lead. She not only used her education, social status and the ‘political weather’ to bring true changes but was also sensible, grounded, radical and objective in how she proceeded to implement them. Recently my hopes raised Nicola Sturgeon, the current leader of Scottish National Party. She has had an excellent start as a leader and if she remains true to her values, her focus and dedication might steer Scotland to totally new waters.

Coming back to the quote we started with: “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace” – certainly appeals to us. It gives us permission to spit at politicians and see ourselves as loving innocents. As much as I’d like to believe it, this is one of the most deluded phrases we could be feeding ourselves with. Love doesn’t do anything – it is sustainability itself, the connector, the transformer. Yes, it is powerful but without the discernment of intellect (as opposed to mind) and direction of intelligence this power cannot ‘do anything’ – it itself has to be directed towards the target of transformation or empowerment, either within or without. By the law of transformation the only lasting and sustainable change will flow from within towards without. Once this is understood and applied by each and one of us, this mechanism can also inform and instruct our institutions and international relations.

I’d rather say that for the peace to flourish the love of power has to be in balance with the power of love. These two aspects have to feed each other to remain strong.

Related posts: Love. Apparently. 14 Sep 2014   Boundaries 30 Nov 2014

Boundaries

This week Mr Cameron introduced what might be one of the healthiest and most progressive policies of his reign thus far. In his statement on 28 November 2014 he declared a number of planned restrictions for the migrants to Britain. What motivates Mr Cameron, whether it is upcoming elections, his or Britain’s reputation in EU or genuine interest in matters of the country, is of little importance at this stage. If his rhetoric is followed by carefully implemented policies, they might initiate a restoration of balance between countries of Europe and beyond.

Cameron’s insights however come a decade too late and it’s optimistic or naïve to say that perhaps the statement given is a way of reflecting back on Britain’s own arrogance. Germany, together with other countries, ensured restrictions on free movement of migrants and ‘buffer’ period for the newly joint EU members in 2004. Britain hadn’t. It has now paid a fair price for its own short-sightedness and greed – in benefits. I’d call it mutual, if unequal, exploitation. For maybe that was the initial premise, to let migrants fill the economic gap at the lowest level, at which the Brits were too lazy or ‘educated’ (but not skilled) to perform? Or perhaps just a slice of grandeur, convoluted generosity of a wealthy Western country which today, Britain had ceased to be.

I’m writing this from a perspective (aka identification) of a white, educated migrant who arrived in England even before her native country was part of EU. I took full advantage of the opportunity and it served me well. In the meantime I observed workers in factories working for less than a minimum wage, disadvantaged because they could not communicate in English, reliant on manipulations of one manager who could. Alongside I experienced the other side of the coin as a public service interpreter and watched how the system was abused by those who came to UK, sometimes 6 months before, without a word of English but high expectations of the state to provide for them. That goes for people from non-, old- and new-EU member states and many from the ex-Commonwealth countries. Britain had to become a host for parasites before it finally looked at what’s going on in its insides. About time. That is why I welcome Mr Cameron’s proposal. The move, if it goes ahead will not only let Britain learn its own, true boundary but could also improve opportunities and conditions for those who work in this country, both migrants and natives.

How Scotland and Wales participate (or not) in the immigration game might define their future. These two are very different from what is represented as England, in mentality, geopolitics, attitude and social make up. It seems that Scotland was not serious enough about Independence but it is within Divine law that no Dream will ever descend on Earth if practicalities are not prepared. On the ground, in administration and infrastructure Scotland was not prepared to go it alone without substantial damage to itself. Mr Salmond’s bravado failed to convince the Cosmos his intention of independence was indeed a dream, not a fantasy.

However, it will now become clear if Scotland has what it takes to keep going and inspiring others or if Referendum 2014 was just a pre-mature ejaculation of enthusiasm. Fireworks are spectacular but short-lived; the real work is to keep the fire burning until enough of Spirit gathers to birth an independent thought which will then sponsor Its country on every level, practicalities first. Then asserting boundaries, not division, will become relevant.

Related post: Political Projections 10 August 2014, Systemic Balance, 24 August 2014

 

ID-entity. Part 1.

I had the privilege to live in Scotland when the Referendum on Independence took place. Apart from illuminating milliard of issues, from social, political and structural to psychological, the process inspired some insights on identity and how, through it, our lives, most often unconsciously are being shaped every single day. Very rarely our choices are founded on a truly independent thought, a thought that is independent of identity.SNP pressed the identity button very hard, alienating to some extent the No vote supporters who were after all, also Scottish. Or were they? Were we voting for values or some sort of ‘idea-l’ of Scottishness, rather removed from reality but certainly heavily shaped by historic sentiments. I observed that some natives did not know the difference between their values and ideals when in fact there is a significant discrepancy between the two. But perhaps this is only obvious from an ‘outsider’s’ point of view.

The Referendum was an excellent playground to tease people’s nationality based identities. It drew nicely from two other major social forces claiming rights to our ‘selves’ – family and religion (in form of economy which feeds of religious indoctrination). Try and identify (!) a thought that is not based on some sort of pre-conceived idea about yourself, the world, universe, spirituality, previously read book or your own work – you name it. Regardless of whether we are all for a concept/ group or against it – we are in the grips of hierarchy that pulls our strings right, left and centre. Not only are we puppets to these masters of manipulation but we will fervently defend and protect what we identify with; we will fight for it regardless of how dysfunctional, destructive or life inhibiting the source of our identity. is We cannot know it is happening – it is us! the hierarchy became us, we have created ID-entity especially for the benefit of a family, nation, religion. It is in our blood – becoming aware of it means separation, pain and death. Indeed – death of an identity. Death of an ego.

Awakening is a sticky affair. Perhaps that’s why nations and religions are still going strong, each in deep, self-destructive fight for its own identity. All underpinned by cult of a family, a clan, church  or workplace community. Can we see our own entanglement without leaving the family, country, religion? Can we see what identity our own thoughts are based on without going beyond that thought? And reaching into the safe haven of Love can we remain unidentified with it, not claiming any rights to it or shaping it according to our imaginings; raping it of its power before it had a chance to touch us? Would our world be different had we identified with Love, not its forms?

Please enquire within.

Related posts: Ancient Scripts, 20 Jul 2014

Political Projections

I’ve been recently inspired by an article, Re-Thinking Middle East written by Avi Melamed. Although Melamed writes about media (which in my view have no moral backbone documenting only what fits and by lack of objectivity contribute to the escalation of conflicts) his article reminded me of a phenomenon I had been observing almost since my emigration to UK in 2003.

In psychology projection is a “theory in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. In my experience projection happens also with the positive attributes (but to a lesser degree) to everybody and every day. In politics however this can take a form of an open or secret bullying of nations which are perceived as lacking something or needing correction by the West (here I mean US and UK). Needless to say it happens within societies and ethnic groups of the same country also.

Now, we have countries like the USA, considered the leading world economic power when in fact the country is in the unrecoverable debt, telling other nations what to do and how to govern. Democracy is failing or is absent altogether in a lot of states yet the USA insists on imposing the system onto countries of a totally different inheritance, culture, mentality and capacity. The arrogance, lack of respect, education and integrity (while waving a flag of a peace-bringer) in this behaviour are soul-cringing. Unable to look at their own mess Americans with obedient poodles from UK go and create mess elsewhere. See Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. It seems post-WWII reputation of the USA has never been properly investigated or re-evalued.

The West had always been aggressive, I sometimes wonder if what is happening right now is not a projection of its impotence over and lack of understanding of the old cultures. The cultures that had created the British Empire and are the roots of a modern American society.

That said, I am a biased European.

Further reading: Noam Chomsky. Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy