As always, I appreciate your fine, insightful writing.
Here's a question - no, really a request. I think it would be interesting, though challenging, to explore the mindset of those who make excuses for Russia.
Now, I have absolutely no interest in exploring the mindset of authoritarian, far right populists who support Russia. For me, at least, it's quite transparently clear that this support comes from individuals who live very much in a part of the vital ego that does not require much insight to understand.
What I find baffling is people who appear to share many of the ideals of neo-idealism, like reporter Chris Hedges, who make excuses for Russia (fear of NATO expansion, for example) that to me are SO utterly in conflict with the rest of his writing.
I'd love to see a deeper, IY-inspired analysis. I suppose one parallel might be the IY disciples in the 1930s and 40s who initially supported the Axis powers because they were enemies of Britain (fortunately they appeared to accept Sri Aurobindo's explanation that it was not about all good vs all bad but the usual human mixture and that the larger picture was, the Allies were on the side of the evolution)
I don't see any equivalent exploration, from an IY perspective, of those who one would think would support Ukraine yet make excuses for Russia. I think you would have some quite profound insights on this and look forward to reading them.
I took a glance at Chris Hedges’ Salon article of Jan 31. The lies, the inconsistencies! His initial strategy is to arouse fear: “We will have ignited World War III, which could result in a nuclear holocaust.” Then he attributes fear to the governments of the US and other NATO countries as motivating their military support for Ukraine: “So why all this infusion of high-tech weaponry? We can sum it up in one word: panic.” He invokes Ukraine’s civilian casualties and the damage to the country’s housing and infrastructure without a moment’s thought of who is responsible for it. No mention of the 40,000 documented war crimes or the genocide perpetrated by Russia — not only of Ukrainians but also of its “own” minorities, which are being dispatched in the thousands as cannon fodder.
All of this is clearly Russian propaganda and indicative of a sad truth: Russia may have lost the cold war, but it’s winning the disinformation war hands-down. In this context, Hedges plays no greater role than that of a useful idiot, just as Walter Duranty (another erstwhile NYT correspondent and Pulitzer recipient) did in the 1930s (watch “Mr. Jones,” if you haven’t yet).
Hedges’ plays on fear (both evoking and misattributing it) are quite suggestive of the Force behind. Here are two relevant quotes, the first from the Mother’s Questions and Answers (of 24 June 1953), the second from her Agenda (dated July 3, 1963):
(i) Fear is the prettiest gift these [anti-divine] beings have given to the world. It is their first present, and the most powerful. It is through fear that they hold human beings. First of all, they create a movement of fear; the movement of fear weakens you, then hands you over little by little into their power.... [E]ven if there is a danger, to face the danger with fear is the greatest stupidity. If there is a real danger, it is only with the power of courage that you have a chance of coming out of it; if you have the least fear, you are done for.
(ii) Fear is not a negative thing: it's a very positive thing, it's a special form of power that has always been used by the Asuric forces — it's their greatest strength.... Whenever people are defeated, it's ALWAYS through fear, always.
This is really helpful. I had a similar sense about his article but it helps to hear another perspective.
I am always interested in understanding "both sides" (without of course necessarily agreeing).
But I've found this Russian invasion to be so OBVIOUSLY black and white (as with so much of the "alternative facts" world of Trump and his followers and Qanon) that I've found it difficult to understand the views of those making excuses for Russia.
That Trump and his followers would is actually quite easy to understand since it's the same Asuric forces behind both. But I've followed Hedges career since the 90s, when he wrote an astonishingly insightful book called "War is the Force that Gives Life Meaning" - insightful, that is, to the lower self's attachment to violence and conflict.
My sense (many others have observed this as well) is somewhere along the line, Hedges' own ambiguity regarding his attraction to the "glory" of war "turned" into anger - which was really a kind of anger at himself turned outward. And it seems that being consumed with rage and depression in the way he has been has made him a target for those Forces who want to use such a mouthpiece to reach many.
I wish I were influenced by Mumford, like people say they have been moved by this or that author. Instead of this, unfortunately, I have been rather influenced by how things turned out to be.
It just happens, historically at least, that he did predict it all quite accurately, for his own credit, and that has saved him the embarrassment of us having to write those damning words he prophesied on his grave. But this should not be taken neither as a consolation on his part nor as a victory on our end, because as I said: we have been influenced by how things turned out to be.
Maybe the problem is not how THINGS turned out to be but how YOU turned out to be.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean how you turned out to be objectively or factually. You well know that there is no unadulterated objectivity or factuality. How people see you is to a considerable extent due to how people are. If there is such a thing as the world-in-itself, we know precious little about it. What we know is the world as we experience it, and this differs between experiencers. As Sri Aurobindo stresses in this post, there are no two completely identical things (excepts for electrons and such, but these aren’t actually things but illegitimately reified structures that are instrumental in the manifestation of things).
What I mean is that how things turned out to be depends on how things turned out to be experienced by you, and this depends on how you turned out to be. Saying, as you do, that “we have been influenced by how things turned out to be” is only half of the story. The other half is that how things turned out to be is influenced by us, and this not in the sense that our objective actions contribute to determine the objective world but in the sense that our subjective perceptions largely determine the world as it is for us — and differently for each one of us.
Thank you, Ulrich.
As always, I appreciate your fine, insightful writing.
Here's a question - no, really a request. I think it would be interesting, though challenging, to explore the mindset of those who make excuses for Russia.
Now, I have absolutely no interest in exploring the mindset of authoritarian, far right populists who support Russia. For me, at least, it's quite transparently clear that this support comes from individuals who live very much in a part of the vital ego that does not require much insight to understand.
What I find baffling is people who appear to share many of the ideals of neo-idealism, like reporter Chris Hedges, who make excuses for Russia (fear of NATO expansion, for example) that to me are SO utterly in conflict with the rest of his writing.
I'd love to see a deeper, IY-inspired analysis. I suppose one parallel might be the IY disciples in the 1930s and 40s who initially supported the Axis powers because they were enemies of Britain (fortunately they appeared to accept Sri Aurobindo's explanation that it was not about all good vs all bad but the usual human mixture and that the larger picture was, the Allies were on the side of the evolution)
I don't see any equivalent exploration, from an IY perspective, of those who one would think would support Ukraine yet make excuses for Russia. I think you would have some quite profound insights on this and look forward to reading them.
Thanks, Don.
I took a glance at Chris Hedges’ Salon article of Jan 31. The lies, the inconsistencies! His initial strategy is to arouse fear: “We will have ignited World War III, which could result in a nuclear holocaust.” Then he attributes fear to the governments of the US and other NATO countries as motivating their military support for Ukraine: “So why all this infusion of high-tech weaponry? We can sum it up in one word: panic.” He invokes Ukraine’s civilian casualties and the damage to the country’s housing and infrastructure without a moment’s thought of who is responsible for it. No mention of the 40,000 documented war crimes or the genocide perpetrated by Russia — not only of Ukrainians but also of its “own” minorities, which are being dispatched in the thousands as cannon fodder.
All of this is clearly Russian propaganda and indicative of a sad truth: Russia may have lost the cold war, but it’s winning the disinformation war hands-down. In this context, Hedges plays no greater role than that of a useful idiot, just as Walter Duranty (another erstwhile NYT correspondent and Pulitzer recipient) did in the 1930s (watch “Mr. Jones,” if you haven’t yet).
Hedges’ plays on fear (both evoking and misattributing it) are quite suggestive of the Force behind. Here are two relevant quotes, the first from the Mother’s Questions and Answers (of 24 June 1953), the second from her Agenda (dated July 3, 1963):
(i) Fear is the prettiest gift these [anti-divine] beings have given to the world. It is their first present, and the most powerful. It is through fear that they hold human beings. First of all, they create a movement of fear; the movement of fear weakens you, then hands you over little by little into their power.... [E]ven if there is a danger, to face the danger with fear is the greatest stupidity. If there is a real danger, it is only with the power of courage that you have a chance of coming out of it; if you have the least fear, you are done for.
(ii) Fear is not a negative thing: it's a very positive thing, it's a special form of power that has always been used by the Asuric forces — it's their greatest strength.... Whenever people are defeated, it's ALWAYS through fear, always.
This is really helpful. I had a similar sense about his article but it helps to hear another perspective.
I am always interested in understanding "both sides" (without of course necessarily agreeing).
But I've found this Russian invasion to be so OBVIOUSLY black and white (as with so much of the "alternative facts" world of Trump and his followers and Qanon) that I've found it difficult to understand the views of those making excuses for Russia.
That Trump and his followers would is actually quite easy to understand since it's the same Asuric forces behind both. But I've followed Hedges career since the 90s, when he wrote an astonishingly insightful book called "War is the Force that Gives Life Meaning" - insightful, that is, to the lower self's attachment to violence and conflict.
My sense (many others have observed this as well) is somewhere along the line, Hedges' own ambiguity regarding his attraction to the "glory" of war "turned" into anger - which was really a kind of anger at himself turned outward. And it seems that being consumed with rage and depression in the way he has been has made him a target for those Forces who want to use such a mouthpiece to reach many.
Thanks for your consistent insight and clarity.
I wish I were influenced by Mumford, like people say they have been moved by this or that author. Instead of this, unfortunately, I have been rather influenced by how things turned out to be.
It just happens, historically at least, that he did predict it all quite accurately, for his own credit, and that has saved him the embarrassment of us having to write those damning words he prophesied on his grave. But this should not be taken neither as a consolation on his part nor as a victory on our end, because as I said: we have been influenced by how things turned out to be.
Maybe the problem is not how THINGS turned out to be but how YOU turned out to be.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean how you turned out to be objectively or factually. You well know that there is no unadulterated objectivity or factuality. How people see you is to a considerable extent due to how people are. If there is such a thing as the world-in-itself, we know precious little about it. What we know is the world as we experience it, and this differs between experiencers. As Sri Aurobindo stresses in this post, there are no two completely identical things (excepts for electrons and such, but these aren’t actually things but illegitimately reified structures that are instrumental in the manifestation of things).
What I mean is that how things turned out to be depends on how things turned out to be experienced by you, and this depends on how you turned out to be. Saying, as you do, that “we have been influenced by how things turned out to be” is only half of the story. The other half is that how things turned out to be is influenced by us, and this not in the sense that our objective actions contribute to determine the objective world but in the sense that our subjective perceptions largely determine the world as it is for us — and differently for each one of us.
Thanks for the additional article on nuclear war. Quite brilliant and insightful; one hopes many will take heed!