Peace Is Sustained Only by Loving, Peaceful People Who Freely Choose It
Greetings, my friends. When I arose this morning, I did not intend to write on the subject of lasting peace, but my attention has now been drawn to a need to do so. I came across a publication of the Keshe Foundation called “The Peace Roadmap.” Immediately after reading it, a rhetorical question leapt to mind: Can peace be forced upon us? It is a rhetorical question because I do not ask in order to receive an answer. I already know the answer. The answer is “NO !”
The absence of war is not the equivalent of the presence of peace. If the absence of war is merely the result of a people who have been rendered unable to wage it, this is not peace. It is disempowerment. It is not the peace many of us desire if it is sustained only by a real or perceived inability to behave otherwise. We can see this on a large-scale, as we do in international and inter-ethnic violence. We can also see it in our everyday lives on a smaller scale, as we do in interpersonal relationships in which no one complains or resists, not because they are at peace with their partner, but because they are too fearful or too thoroughly controlled to express their differences overtly. The absence of war or other forms of overt violence does not, in itself, tell us whether we are observing a peaceful relationship or one in which it’s absence has been masked by other means.
Several years ago, in my effort to understand why so many of our violent conflicts have endured for centuries, I coined the term “cagebuilding” to describe any technique which attempts to control our behavior through means that incapacitate without truly changing human desires and tendencies–techniques which put us in cages, figuratively or literally, which reduce our capacity to behave in harmful ways without effecting more profound changes in our freely exercised WILLINGNESS to do so. In an article titled “Northern Ireland: Corrupt Ideologies and the Failure of Government Cagebuilding,” I expressed my discontent with such approaches using an analogy:
If a caretaker must deal with vicious dogs, he may devise a variety of restrictive cages into which the dogs may be placed. Some structures will no doubt hold better than others. But if in fact the dogs must hunt together in order that they and the caretaker may prosper, cagebuilding is no solution. The dogs will continue to tear and bite at each other no matter how cleverly their cages are constructed. Only when the dogs themselves have been civilized can they prosper. Admittedly, until the dogs are civilized, cages are necessary. But a caretaker who knows only how to build cages will always need them and will never be delivered from the poverty that is a consequence. (in Ireland’s Terrorist Trauma, O’Day and Alexander, eds.)
This is in fact why we have been given millions of years to learn through experience and to ascend to a level of spiritual growth in which many of us freely choose to live in peace. We CAN behave otherwise. Yet, we live in peace, not because we are fearful, incapacitated, or without power, but because it is consistent with our fully empowered evolved nature to make, and to continue to make, this choice. Any program or roadmap for peace which purports to offer peace through technological manipulation of our capacity to choose, circumvents the process of our spiritual evolvement and will not succeed. Neither is it consistent with the process that has brought us this far. Ours is a process of development which does not impose upon our freedom. We are even allowed to choose behavior which brings us and others much distress. But it permits the emergence of a population which can learn from its choices, even from those which are distressing. It is only when we have learned the wisdom of making the less distressing choices, that we can live in both freedom and peace.
A passage in Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul tells of a civilization, the Lumanians, who attempted to circumvent the process of spiritual growth by directly altering human biology to render their population INCAPABLE of violence, an approach that sounds very similar to that proposed by the Keshe Foundation as expressed in it’s Peace Roadmap:
“Thus with the release of this new universal science and technology we have been and are taking step by step the essence of killing and destruction out of the RNA and DNA of the Man..”
“…we are setting the following roadmap for the coming months, and if it fails we have our means to enforce the will of the majority of the race for peaceful co-existence amongst men and other creatures of the universe.”
“If within the first three months we do not see any movement with this process amongst the world leaders, we will begin the process of showing the power of the technology and our wish to start the process of peace, as one nation, one planet, and one Keshe Foundation family…”
“…we will stop warships on the high seas, and decommission fighter planes of all nations on the runways, we will erase the memory of so called men of arms, that they shall not remember why they are carrying arms and what they were fighting for. “
“…more and more new knowledge, science and technologies shall be released into the public domain through daily teachings at the Spaceship Institute, that these actions force the disarmament and the unity of Man, and the end to all wars.”
The Keshe roadmap includes alteration of RNA and DNA, the erasure of any memories which might support further resistance to the Foundation’s agenda, total disarmament of the nations and armies of the planet Earth, and, if necessary, the forced “unity of Man and the end to all wars.” If successful, the result would look like peace, if peace is (erroneously) defined as the absence of war. From another point of view, the results also look like complete submission of the people’s of the earth to the goals and ideals of the Keshe Foundation– the absence of overt resistance brought about by superior technology.
Yet, just as Keshe avows is his intent, the Lumanians justified their use of technology to alter human biology as being a means for ensuring peace. The Lumanians would have no choice. Their biology would be altered to make even the slightest tendency toward aggressiveness very distressing:
They were particularly concerned in the beginning with developing a human being who would have built-in safeguards against violence. With them, the desire for peace was almost what you would call an instinct. There were changes in the physical mechanism. When the mind signaled strong aggression, the body would not react.
Roberts, Jane (2012-04-27). Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book) (Kindle Locations 4001-4003). Amber-Allen Publishing. Kindle Edition.
In an effort to ensure peace, the Lumanians had been deprived of their ability to FREELY CHOOSE peace. And what was the result of pursuing the praiseworthy goal of peace but doing so through the technological manipulation of human biology which rendered humans incapable of acting violently or even with non-violent aggression? Seth continues,
Now psychologically you can see vestiges of this in certain individuals, who will faint, or even attack their own physical system, before allowing themselves to do what they think of as violence to another…The energy, often in your time given over to violence, went instead into other pursuits, but began to turn against them. They were not learning to deal with violence or aggression. They were attempting to short-circuit it physically, and this they found had complications… [emphasis mine]. The built-in inhibition resulted in a tied-up system of mutual controls in which the necessary thrusting-out of action became literally impossible. An overly conscientious, restrictive mental and physical state evolved, in which the organism’s natural physical need for survival was in every way hampered….Mentally, the civilization progressed….Physically the civilization simply died out.
Roberts, Jane (2012-04-27). Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book) (Kindle Location 4028). Amber-Allen Publishing. Kindle Edition
…because their purpose was so single-minded — the avoidance of violence — rather, say, than the constructive peaceful development of creative potential, their experience was highly one-sided. They were driven by such a fear of violence that they dared not allow the physical system freedom even to express it. (10: 33.) The vitality of the civilization was therefore weak — not because violence did not exist, but because freedom of energy and expression was automatically blocked along specific lines, and from outside physically. They well understood the evils of violence in earthly terms, but they would have denied the individual’s right to learn this his own way, and thus prevented the individual from using his own methods, creatively, to turn the violence into constructive areas. Free will in this respect was discarded. [emphasis mine]
Roberts, Jane (2012-04-27). Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (A Seth Book) (Kindle Locations 4032-4038). Amber-Allen Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Let us learn from our past experience as members of an evolved human population. We cannot succeed in forcing peace upon people who are not peaceful. In order to achieve and sustain the peace that we desire, we need peaceful people, but we do not get peaceful people by taking away their capacity to choose peace. The process which has given us our true spiritual growth has allowed for the emergence of humans who freely choose peace out of an abundance of experience in which they and others have chosen otherwise. This choice is made freely and is not imposed through biological or other means of manipulation which short-circuit the process of our learning how to deal with conflict without doing violence to ourselves or others. The only way to learn how to deal with conflict in a peaceful manner is to experience it. This way of learning has served us well.
Do not make the Lumanian Mistake. Do not mistake incapacitation for empowerment nor the absence of overt violence for peace. They may look the same, but they are not. Understand the difference between free choice and forced submission.