| Subject: Re: Trance seance with Winston CHURCHILL - Part 2 |
Author:
Maryse
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:56:06 03/03/08 Mon
In reply to:
Maryse
's message, "Trance seance with Winston CHURCHILL - Part 1" on 01:53:37 03/03/08 Mon
Churchill: In premise, it is a definite possibility, but I don’t think the Russian mind is capable of such a grand scheme – a scheme that was laid out in 1950 with goals to be achieved by 1990, and everything is going according to plan. What is happening is more a step by step proposition – take an inch, then give an inch, then take an inch, and if it ever gets too hot, back off. It is a fair premise that economic interdependence is going to become more and more important. But I don’t subscribe to a theory of conspiracy; it is more a case of an unsophisticated loan shark taking advantage of every opening that comes his way. It is not a question so much of having a great deal of intelligence and savvy as it is the ability to sense an opportunity and exploit it to the fullest. Until the West – and the rest of the world – realises that it should not tempt Russia with these opportunities for the taking, this pattern will continue.
Sitter: Aren’t democracies inherently vulnerable to well-organised, dedicated dictatorships, though? For democratic societies to grow, they must often experience a period of fuzziness or mild chaos, and it seems as though these transition periods of growth are what gives Russia its opportunities.
Churchill: This is true and will always be.
Sitter: The eternal conflicts?
Churchill: Yes.
Sitter: That’s not terribly encouraging.
Churchill: Except that democracies do survive because the people have THE FREEDOM TO MAKE CRUCIAL DECISIONS when faced with crisis. A FREE PEOPLE IS STRONGER in crisis than a totalitarian society.
Sitter: Yes, this is apparent to me, that there is something deep within humanity, individually and collectively, which gets stirred up when freedom is compromised. There are hidden resources of strength that whole nations can draw upon to throw off the shackles of tyrannical despots. If you look for it, you can see signs of it already at work in Russia, Cuba and certainly Iran. If you just look at the figures of industrial and agricultural productivity in countries run by dictatorships, they fall off tremendously as soon as governmental regimentation is imposed. That indicates to me that there is something inherently incompatible between enforced regimentation and sane, human, and spiritual living.
Churchill: That’s true. You can even see that happening in free countries such as Great Britain, Germany, France, and the United States, as governmental regimentation has been imposed. As I’ve been saying, free peoples will let this sort of thing happen, without acting to stop it, until pushed to the limit.
It’s as though you start with a beautiful statue of human individuality called « Freedom », but over a century or so vandals chip away at it, defacing it. The first few chips go relatively unnoticed: the ear is chipped and the nose, too – but it’s still a beautiful statue. Our freedoms are still intact. But the chipping continues, and soon a whole finger is gone, and then a few toes and may be the right ear. And it becomes noticeable and we say. « My, this statue has really been degraded in the last twenty-five years! ». But we’re still busy with other problems, and before we know it, the left arm is completely gone, the statue is tottering, and then we discover that the head has been lopped off and the statue is not even recognisable anymore. That’s when the public perks up and says: « Hey! What’s happened to our statue? We’d better fix it up and put away the vandals who have been chipping it. »
This statue of the free man has existed all throughout history and in every country, but it has continually been chipped away at. It gets repaired periodically, but then the chipping begins again. One can judge the value of the freedoms of humanity at any point in time by counting the number and size of the chips that are scattered around the base of the statue – the more chips, the less freedom.
I’d say we’re rapidly approaching the point where we’ll have more chips than statue again, and that fairly soon we are going to have another round of « let’s fix the statue. » Unfortunately, it has to come to the point where it is hard to tell what the statue represents before the need for repairs is seen.
Sitter: That’s a very good analogy – almost Churchill in scope. [Guffawing]
Churchill: Why, thank you.
Sitter: You seem to be suggesting that it is not just despots who can tyrannise and blight the freedom of the common person, but that tyranny can arise from within – for example, in the form of a colossal bureaucracy which is determined to make sure that all wealth is shared, sends taxes sky high to support its own growth, and attempts to take over all industry and have it run by committees of bureaucrats.
Churchill: That is a much more subtle form of chipping. The mallet and chisel are put aside and replaced by very sophisticated sanders which still chip away at the statue, but so slowly and quietly that the damage is hard to detect. In fact, it is often claimed that this sanding is required in order to repair the damage done by chippers, but it’s just chipping in a different form.
Sitter: In terms of the quality of life in England today, it might be said that the socialists and communist-dominated labour unions have succeeded in destroying something valuable that even Hitler was unable to destroy.
Churchill: That is true. Nevertheless, do not discount the will of the British people. They have a tremendous ability to throw off the shackles, as they demonstrated during World War II. It may look like the battle is lost even before they begin to fight, but the inherent desire of the people is to be free.
Sitter: From what I hear, that is beginning to be seen again in England. At times when the labour leadership calls a strike, the people do not turn out with quite the hysterical loyalty they once demonstrated. And there is a growing rebellion against excessive bureaucratic regulation elsewhere – certainly in the United States. But it seems as though for every set of regulations the public manages to strike down, ten others are created by bureaucrats.
Churchill: That is a problem, yes.
Sitter: This might be a good place to ask this question. We have seen the emergence of the Common Market in Europe, and we are becoming much more aware of the potential for some form of WORLD GOVERNMENT. What is desirable in this direction?
Churchill: It is important to move in the direction of world co-operation, but distinctly undesirable to end up with universal uniformity. Homogenising the world community of nations is quite undesirable, because the different societies and countries of the Earth are at different stages of evolution, as you well know. They serve different purposes, and therefore have different needs, resources, capacities, and cultures. For a long, long time to come, there will be a need for separate countries with distinct identities and societies.
What we are hoping for in WORLD GOVERNMENT is to inspire men and women of goodwill throughout the planet to be a source of leavening in their respective countries, CREATING A CLIMATE OF GOODWILL AND COMMON SENSE so that each of these countries will better see the tremendous need for and VALUE OF INTELLIGENT CO-OPERATION. Right now, we have an international climate of selfishness, where countries are more interested in preserving their own advantages and gaining new ones than they are in co-operating with one another toward common goals. This is true even among friendly nations.
Each country will have to do a better job of identifying its national treasures and learning to invest them wisely in the world marketplace, for the benefit not just of itself but the whole planet. This is the next practical step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT, and it could be achieved within a couple of generations if people really set their sights on this goal. It is definitely achievable. You would still have individual nations and different groupings of nations allied with one another – and there would still be radically different philosophies of government and economic policy. Yet the co-operation I am speaking of would bind together common needs and interests of nations all over the planet.
This would not be some kind of « United States of the World », with a global parliament or senate and a super prime minister who was chief executive of it all. That kind of governmental structure for the world is out of the question for a very long time to come. In fact, it would be unwieldy and unworkable in anything but a world populated by saints – and if you had that, you wouldn’t need the trappings of government.
The difficulty is that today’s nations tend to behave as though they were a bunch of petulant five-year-olds playing on the school grounds. And they split up into SCHOOLYARD GANGS and raid one another, to see who is the most powerful. The seeds in mass consciousness are not really conducive to the growth of this idea of co-operation; they are much more conditioned to produce issues of greed, exploitation, and antagonism. But international co-operation is becoming more and more necessary, and it is a challenge to the men and women of everywhere to sow the seeds that will enable it to grow.
A hundred years ago, perhaps even seventy-five, the nations of the world could afford to be independent of one another to a large degree; they could be isolated. We can’t do that nowadays. For the economy and the technical growth of civilisation to unfold properly, there must be an unselfish sharing of economic resources, natural resources, and scientific knowledge. No one can afford to remain isolated and uncooperative.
Personally, however, I am rather pessimistic about this happening. One can speak idealistically, and talk about what is possible and what is necessary – and it is practical for this generation to achieve this type of co-operation – but one must also be realistic. Do I see it happening? No!
Sitter: Many of the people who will read this will indeed be men and women of goodwill. The majority of them won’t be in government, but they are citizens of this country or some other one. What can the individual man or woman of goodwill do to become this leavening factor?
Churchill: The vastness of the problem almost guarantees that anything I say will come across as simplistic. But I’ll make a few suggestions.
Ideally, it is necessary to have the best possible leaders take charge of the respective governments of the world – not simply people who can smile nicely and win elections, or be DEVIOUS ENOUGH TO MANIPULATE THEIR WAY to the top of the heap, but the most knowledgeable, intelligent, and humanitarian people in each country. That is not something the men and women of goodwill can control or dictate, of course, but there is much that can be done in terms of fostering a climate which encourages the public to elect and appoint competent and humanitarian leaders. Of course, many of the countries which cause serious problems in the world today don’t even elect their leaders, so that possible avenue of change is not available. But it is an important ideal to cherish wherever possible.
You almost have to think in terms of WORKING TO HEAL MASS CONSCIOUSNESS AND CIVILISATION. This is where it is up to that relative small segment of society to recognise that it is their goodwill, their idealism, and their leadership which must be the source of this transformation. It is up to a few people to promote and foster the concepts of goodwill, brotherhood, tolerance, fairness, co-operation, and being a good neighbour. Not everyone has the opportunity to be influential on a worldwide basis, but every single MAN AND WOMAN OF GOODWILL does have the opportunity to promote and foster these ideals in their neighbourhoods, communities, businesses, or professions. And if the seeds can be sown at those levels, they will take root and spread on a national and international scale.
That answer may sound vague and unworkable, but it is how society evolves. I suppose some of your readers might be much happier if I were to say that you should get together one percent of the population and train them to pray for A GROUP OF SAINTS to arrive on the scene and take over the government of every country. [Laughter] That is not the way society evolves, however. But it is reasonable to challenge MEN AND WOMEN OF GOODWILL to work hard to foster the ideals of co-operation, tolerance, and justice as best they can, in their own circles of influence, knowing that in this way, they contribute to a much larger effort.
You must understand that the problems we have in government are really the problems of human nature itself. They are one and the same, and this soon becomes obvious to any real student of history. Just as people have difficulties with their families and neighbours and competitors, and fight and cheat and condemn and curse one another, nations also do the same thing. Nations are just human personalities blown up to the size of several million people. There is always going to be pettiness and conflict among nations, as long as human nature itself is still childish and intolerant and petty.
The ultimate solution, I’m afraid, is thousands of years in the future. But I would not be pessimistic, in spite of that statement. There is much to be done. We each bear a responsibility in contributing to the solution, no matter how many thousands of years it may take.
Sitter: Well! To put this in perspective, so that you don’t sound too pessimistic, would you care to comment a bit about the healthy signs in the world politic? Is anything going right?
Churchill: A lot of things are going right. I’m glad you asked that question because it does give me the opportunity to tell you a little bit more about how progress is made.
Many people, unfortunately, assume that progress would be something like giant beings landing in flying saucers and enforcing peace for us. That is absurd. Others look for some kind of « deus ex machina » - a new-fangled invention that will be a cheap source of energy and food, thus removing the need for international competition. But that is not how progress occurs.
A legitimate sign of progress might be internal upheaval in a country that has abused human rights and freedom for a long time. That would be a sign that the tyrants of that country are no longer able to get away with as much as they have been. Look at what is happening in China, for example. Where they are going through the embarrassment of putting some of their former leaders on trial for what might be termed crimes against their own national spirit. That’s a sign that former nonsense is being decried as no longer tolerable, a sign that sanity is beginning to emerge at last.
Throughout the world, human rights are being allowed to a greater degree than before, and that’s a sign of progress. The welfare of the people in general is becoming a more legitimate concern; government is operating less and less as a fiefdom of the few.
A rather amusing sign of progress is that some of the countries which have portrayed themselves as « workers’ paradises » are experiencing massive strikes by their own unions – demonstrating, of course, that they have been paradises only for the politicians, not the workers. The workers have been enslaved by the system. Now, that kind of internal conflict in countries of that nature is a sign of progress. In one sense, of course, it is a deterioration of order and the systematic flow of government services. But the conflict is indicative of emerging reforms, of something good within human nature crying out for justice and for redress of sins committed by an oppressive government. That’s progress. As long as the conflict can be handled in a reasonably orderly way, it is going to be all right.
Of course, some genuine signs of progress are misread by the public and the press. As you hear about violations of human rights, for example, it often sounds as though the world is going to hell, or at least some countries are, but actually conditions are much better than they used to be.
Let me add one thought to what I said earlier to your questions about what people can do to be more of a leavening agent of goodwill. I think it will give this discussion a practical focus.
I would encourage people to think about what it would mean to be a good neighbour – such as being more tolerant and tactful and considerate. And then they should try to promote that ideal not just in their neighbourhood but in their attitudes toward the people of other nations, and they should encourage others to think and act that way too. Those are the attitudes which heal conflict between people and nations, and open up communication so that co-operation becomes more possible.
We also need to carefully eliminate from our thinking all tendencies to believe that what we really need is a strong man at the top who will handle all our problems for us and take care of all our needs. That is exactly what we do not need – and I don’t just mean here in America or in Great Britain. Even an enlightened dictatorship is not the right thing – not even if the Second Coming of Christ Himself were the dictator. Genuine growth must come from within human nature itself. It cannot be imposed by decree.
Sitter: Is it not basically true that the only way a dictatorship can arise and survive is because the mass consciousness of the country is looking for a strong leader who will make decisions for them?
Churchill: No, that’s not always true, but there is an underlying principle in what you are saying that is relevant. If this were to happen in England or Canada or the United States – which is, of course, unthinkable – yes, it would probably be because the greedy, corrupt, and aggressive elements of society finally elected one of their own. But in other countries, sometimes the political situation becomes so chaotic and confused that the wolves move in and take over. In any society, there are always a few devious, exploitative, criminal types who stand ready to take advantage of the misfortune of others. Sometimes these people rise to power even though they have no right to lead a nation – and yet, there they are. They do not serve the will of the people, they are not wanted, they have not been elected – and yet, there they are.
Nonetheless, what you are saying is basically true – that people pretty much get what they deserve. There are some countries where the people tend to be paranoid, irrational, and fanatical; they spend all their time blaming others for their problems. These countries generally put into power governments and leaders who are of their own type – often dictators. What you end up with is the equivalent of an angry, petulant child leading a whole country. Of course, you’ve seen this happen very recently in one particular country. The chaos they are experiencing was definitely called forth by the people.
Now that I am on this side of the veil, I can actually see mass consciousness working, and it’s most interesting. The collective greed and anger and resentment and prejudice of a nation freely mingle among all the citizens of that country, creating a psychological climate which determines, in effect what kind of leader will survive. Pollution is always democratic, whether it is chemical pollution of the air or emotional pollution of mass consciousness; it may be terribly unwanted, but it is shared. This is why I say that people tend to get what they deserve. Public attitudes set forth a common baseline of attitude and morality and philosophy which calls forth a certain quality of leader.
Of course, there are always a few nuts who believe that there are just a handful of key people who take advantage of the downtrodden masses, and that if these people could just be killed off, the rest of the world could get back to the business of living and be at peace with one another. This is absolutely untrue.
Sitter: Yes. Well, I asked the question because it seems to me that each individual can make a tremendous contribution by recognising that to some degree, his or her attitudes help invoke the kind of government the country gets. In this country, for example, many people will rail against the government and complain about it, but at the same time are highly dependent on it. They are contributing to the bigness of government even while protesting it.
Churchill: Yes, it would be very helpful if many, many people would simply go on retreat for awhile and contemplate what they are really contributing to mass consciousness. This is one thing I admire in the Catholic Church, by the way. When one of their kind, a monk or priest or nun, criticises the church a bit too much, they have a way of encouraging him or her to go into seclusion for meditation and reflection. It’s an excellent practice. This is just a passing fantasy, but it might be nice if citizens would encourage one another to go into seclusion from time to time when they get a bit too outspoken or overly critical. It wouldn’t do to have a government do this; a democracy depends upon intelligent criticism. It needs intelligent and dedicated servants goading the government into the proper direction. I would not want to stifle that very vital function, but it is quite a temptation to quietly encourage certain angry protestors, who have a talent only for protesting and nothing else, to take a leave of absence and reflect on their idiocy. [Laughter].
I’m not serious, of course; it’s just a passing fantasy.
Sitter: But having suggested it, perhaps it will encourage a few people to do it voluntarily.
Churchill: That would be delightful.
Sitter: Perhaps it can be recognised as a responsibility to the enlightened citizen, whenever he catches himself polluting mass consciousness.
Churchill: Maybe you can form a non-profit corporation which will strike medals to be given out to « heroes of silence ». [Laughter]
Sitter: If I might change the subject, I would like to ask something in reference to the British colonial system. In this day and age, of course, the concept of colonial powers and imperialism is a very tarnished one, but in retrospect I suppose there was something of a divine purpose guiding the British colonial system. It certainly provided better government in most of Africa than is the case today, for instance.
Churchill: Well, the colonial system was an excellent way to civilise certain uncivilised areas of the planet – a way of establishing order and providing direction in a number of primitive cultures.
Sitter: Do you think that many of the developing nations in Africa would be better off if they were still governed by the French or British or Dutch?
Churchill: No. Once it became possible for the people to govern their own countries, it was best to permit them to do so.
Sitter: Well, how many times are we going to have to watch an Idi Amin come to power?
Churchill: Ah, yes – a swell chap. (Tittering) That’s part of self-rule, but even that is preferable to imposing government where it is not desired.
Sitter: Yes – it won’t stick unless the people really want to sustain it.
Churchill: There’s a transition period from colonial rule to enlightened self-rule, a time when mass confusion is often the order of things, and the people are trying to figure out how to do it for themselves. This transition is longer or shorter depending on the wisdom of the people and the quality of the leadership which comes to the fore.
Sitter: Of course, there are some who equate the British colonial system with Russia’s effort to « liberate » Afghanistan and the Eastern European countries after World War II.
Churchill: I would never be one to say that there were no excesses during the colonial period. Even the most beneficent of systems and ideals can be warped by greedy people. There certainly were a lot of problems due to some of the people who were placed in the colonies. A system is only as good as the people managing it. There were many instances in which the Englishmen governing a colony became rather despotic, and that was not healthy. It is a good argument against the system, obviously.
After all, even though our reasons for entering into the war with Germany in Europe were valid and correct, history will show that many mistakes were made by our people who were fighting. Many of the military personnel far exceeded the bounds of propriety, as is always the case in wartime. The soldiers of every nation committed excesses, but again, this has to be kept in the perspective of the larger issues involved. The excesses were inexcusable, but the overall effort was noble. Much the same could be said for the British colonial system.
Sitter: There are those who would say that the colonial system, as established by France and Holland and others, as well as Britain, was really the initial experiment in world government, to be succeeded by other generations of world government.
Churchill: I think it did lay some groundwork for greater co-operation among nations.
Sitter: How would you contrast colonialism with Soviet imperialism?
Churchill: They are ENTIRELY different. The growth and health of a society such as Russia cannot rely on the productivity of its own people, because the system itself denies productivity and rewards sloth and bureaucracy. Therefore, in order for the government and economy of Russia to grow, it must continually seek new sources of productivity and people to draw its vitality from. The imperialistic growth of a country such as Russia today is strictly for its own health and its continual need for more factories, more crops, more workers, and more people to exploit. Imperialistic exploitation is what maintains the viability of the system.
Sitter: It’s like the Roman Empire in its heyday, then – it could not survive itself, but needed colonies to exploit.
Churchill: Yes.
Sitter: (facetiously): Of course, Britain didn’t gain any particular benefits from its colonial system.
Churchill: Of course it did – but it can also be demonstrated that Britain gave to the colonies as much or more than it took. It did not sap them of their vitality and leave them bone dry. It established thriving societies in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and many other places where there had been none, and left them greatly enriched. Britain’s motive for colonising was not that they were necessary for Britain’s survival – it was far more subtle, and I think more noble, than that. And the record showed that Britain was willing to free its colonies after a certain point – which the Soviet Union shows no signs of doing.
Sitter: As I recall it, there was a certain minor dispute over freeing the colonies in America [Laughter].
Churchill: Just a disagreement among friends.
Sitter: I think it is fair to conclude that while Britain certainly benefited commercially from the colonies, it did bequeath to its colonies a great deal of culture and civilisation, and Russia is not doing that. They may send out the Bolshoi Ballet on tour, but I don’t see the cultures of Hungary or Romania or East Germany being enriched by Soviet domination.
Churchill: Of course not. And East Germany and Poland and the other Soviet satellites cannot in any way be compared with the jungles of Africa or the wilds of America three hundred years ago. East Germany doesn’t need colonising! In many ways, the cultures of these countries are richer than the culture of the Soviet Union.
Sitter: I think this is something that the ardent materialists, who look only at health statistics or the gross national product, are missing. The fundamental basis of the civilisation is not measured in statistics, but in terms of the health of all institutions of civilisation.
Churchill: That’s very well put.
Sitter: What I can never understand is why it seems to be the intellectuals in the West who champion Marxism. They seem totally blind to its manifold faults, when applied in actual governments.
Churchill: To the uncritical thinker, Marxism seems very appealing in many ways. In its pure, idealistic form, it is the ultimate in a cooperative and productive society. If that could be implemented, it would be a very pleasurable existence, indeed. Unfortunately, what is always forgotten is that Marxism takes the ultimate in individual freedom to make it work – not the ultimate in totalitarianism. And that has never been tried – only the totalitarian version. For Marxism in its pure form to be a viable form of government, you must have millions of people who are very productive and who feel totally free to collectivise their efforts. By that I mean that the goal of the country is put far above the goals of each individual, BUT THROUGH AN ACT OF FREE WILL ON THE PART OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, not through totalitarian enforcement. That’s a major distinction, but one that is usually forgotten.
Sitter: I often notice that when Marxists champion their cause, they always discuss the theoretical aspects of Marxism, never how it is actually applied. But when they discuss capitalism, they never discuss enlightened capitalism or even the modern, democratic versions of capitalism. They talk about the robber barons of the nineteenth century and the abuses of capitalism from earlier times. It’s always an unfair comparison: the worst aspects of capitalism from one hundred years ago versus the theoretical joys of Marxism.
Churchill: Yes. I might add here that there is a major difference between working very hard, making a lot of money, and deciding to turn a position of my income over for the benefit of the whole – which is very noble – and my working very hard, making a lot of money, and having it TAKEN AWAY from me for the benefit of the whole.
Sitter: It’s is the difference between generosity and theft.
Churchill: Exactly.
Sitter: I would like to change the subject again, if we may. In reading about you, it intrigued me that you had a very fond admiration for the first Duke of Marlborough. He seemed to be something of a hero and an inspiration to you.
Churchill: He was. I wrote a biography of his life, you know.
Sitter: Yes. There were even those who said they thought you had some kind of mystical rapport with the duke.
Churchill: I did. He was a fine gentleman and I felt very close to him.
Sitter: I take it his spirit was around you from time to time?
Churchill: Why, of course. And still is. We’re still very close, and stay in communication. He was something of a model for me. I tried to look at life as he did and emulate the ideals he stood for – the way he dealt with problems and opportunities. I spent a good deal of time learning about his life and attitudes.
Sitter: Do you have any comments about heroism and the need of heroes and ideals in a civilisation?
Churchill: Now, that sounds like a question that’s just begging to be answered with a quotable quote. [Laughter]
Sitter: We have the hot line to Bartlett’s on hold. [More laughter]
Churchill: Well, let me say this. The concept of heroes has been tarnished and debased in this era of fatuous populism.
Sitter: That’s no bad. [Laughter]
Churchill: Well, what did you expect of me?
Sitter: I’m sorry, go on.
Churchill: Nevertheless, every society needs its heroes. Every age needs its heroes. We need noble examples to aspire to, models of good citizenship to emulate. We need examples of kindness, honesty, dignity, and talent. The average human being is not sufficiently creative to find his or her own genius easily, but can recognise it in others, and be inspired by it. The average person does have the ability to recognise talent and nobility in others and learn from it.
Unfortunately, having recognised genius, the average person often resents it and is jealous of it. But decent people will respond well to a good example. In fact, the way in which a society treats its heroes and heroines is virtually an index to the health of that society. I’m talking about legitimate heroes now; not some rock and roll figure or sports superstar. To me, a hero is someone who makes a lasting and enduring contribution to civilisation – a contribution which enriches life and helps people aspire to something better.
This should be respected and help up as a great example. These people do exist, and if they were more clearly recognised and honoured in the news media and books, we would have a healthier society. We would have a better government, too. This is one of the problems of government today, after all. The common man is made to be the hero – but that doesn’t give the public anything to aspire to. It strips society of one of its natural channels for generation and renewal.
It must be remembered that any productive society is a group of individuals who have their own motivations and talents and quirks, and these must be permitted to flourish. I might even say that they ought to be ENCOURAGED; it’s a mistaken notion that individuality must be subjugated to the good of the whole. I would propose the exact opposite: that individuality must be emphasised and promoted for the good of the whole.
The proper recognition and appreciation of heroes is an excellent way to encourage individuality, and give it an enlightened focus.
Sitter: But some people might think you are promoting elitism, whereas a democracy should be promoting equality.
Churchill: It should guarantee equality of opportunity – but that is a great deal different than enforcing equality of thought and attitude, where no one is permitted or encouraged to rise above a certain plateau. It is in fact a sign of decline in a society when individuality is subjugated in the name of « the good of the whole ».
Sitter: Well, in concert with your continued association with the first Duke of Marlborough, I take it there must be a large group of enlightened individuals who continue to work in spirit to oversee the evolution of the British government.
Churchill: Of course. And I might add, that is true for most of the major governments of the world.
Sitter: Yes, I’m certainly aware that it is true for the United States. I take it you continue to have an avid interest in the British Empire.
Churchill: Of course.
Sitter: Since England’s system is slightly different than what we have here, let me ask you this. What role do ex-monarchs play in helping the destiny of the nation unfold once they are in spirits?
Churchill: It’s more of a role of helping to set the spiritual tone of the country than it is a role in giving direct governmental advice. They are involved in giving direction and definition to certain subtle energies, which influence the country, rather than in knocking the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the head to make him pay attention.
Sitter: When I’ve looked into this psychically, I have been impressed that the ancient concept of the divine right to rule of a king or queen had a very sound basis to it. It is apparent to me that some of the spiritual power of the national spirit definitely is held by and distributed by the monarch.
Churchill: Absolutely.
Sitter: And that this really is one of the ideal forms of government which could exist in the far, far distant future - a monarchy which literally does rule by divine right, meaning that the king or queen is an adept who is highly inspired in directing the nation.
Churchill: Yes.
Sitter: I take it, then, that you would consider the British monarchy as an institution which deserves to continue.
Churchill: Absolutely- and I think it will. The spiritual will of the English people is focused through the monarchy. In the United States, that energy is focused through the monarchy. In the United States, that energy is focused through the Presidency, but there can be something of a problem there. In recent history, you have had such a rapid turnover in the Presidency that it is very difficult to maintain any sense of tradition in the focusing of the spiritual will. That is an advantage of constitutional monarchy.
Sitter: The monarch focuses the will of the national spirit?
Churchill: Yes.
Sitter: Can you comment some more about the national spirit of Great Britain? How much were you influenced by this national spirit while you were leading Britain? Were you aware of it?
Churchill: That is a very complex question. Let me answer it in this way.
All major nations do have the semblance of an inner spirit, although it is a little too simplistic just to compare it to the spirit of an individual human being. The national spirit comprises, in part, the collective spiritual essence of all of its citizens, but it also consists of many other elements. There is for example, a kind of miniature hierarchy of very enlightened people in spirit who seek to guide the government in an enlightened way. This is where the mystical fellowship of men and women of goodwill genuinely has its existence. These people are very much concerned with and committed to promoting the ideals of good government; they actually have meetings and discussions – very intense and practical reviews of the problems of the day, the trends of the future, and plans for working out the ideal course of growth for the nation.
But I don’t want to leave the impression that the national spirit is just a collection of spirits which meets in council chambers. There are also aspects of the national spirit which are quite abstract, and intertwined with other national spirits. At a very high level, it could be said that there is, already, a semblance of a real world government. One might even boldly make the statement that the countries of the earth are truly « one nation under God ». This is, of course, a God of light and love – not a Christian God or Moslem God or Hindu God, but the ultimate authority that we all draw our life and spirit from. And, I might add, the ultimate authority behind the ideals of any government.
The spirit of any nation therefore influences the fellowship of men and women of goodwill in spirit, who in turn seek to influence the men and women of goodwill in physical incarnation and advise the government of the country.
Was I aware of this influence during my physical lifetime? I must answer that « yes » and « no ». At a very young age, I knew I had a destiny to serve in my country’s government. During World War I, for example, it became clear to me that this role was going to become very important. As a student of history, I could see a polarisation of national interests occurring which would once again spark a major conflict; I knew there was genuine evil lurking in human nature which would pose a constant and terrible danger to us until it was thoroughly defeated and the door shut upon it. We have made great strides toward this goal, although the battle does continue in many fronts and in new areas. But I do not think we will ever see fascism recur as it flourished in the Thirties and Forties in Western Europe.
I knew these things, and responded to them, but it would not be fair to say that I was consciously aware of the abstract and spiritual force of the national spirit while I was alive. I was aware of the power, but I never tried to identify it. I always assumed it was my own guidance and intuition. After all, at a very early age I developed a good track record for knowing when to strike, what to say, and how to get things done. By the time of the First World War, I was in full stride. I did sense guidance, but I assumed it was my own common sense and good judgement. Of course, now I know differently, but it’s probably just as well that I didn’t know this then. There are only a few people who can tolerate hearing voices and speaking with spirits. Most people can’t be bothered with it.
.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
