View Single Post
  #2  
Old 12-24-2005, 03:21 PM
SeC SeC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default Re: Synarchy vs. Anarchy

Synarchy vs. Anarchy II

It is perfectly true that we are living in a society in which a great many things need to be changed, but this must not be achieved by violence. In any case, violence never brings about true change; it only makes things worse. How, then, can we transform society? By our own way of life. If we begin by changing ourselves we shall end by changing the whole world. This is why, in the Brotherhood, we are working to become a tangible example of a better kind of society. We are endeavouring to become a solid core of highly conscious, resolute men and women who will prove that mankind is capable of becoming one family, one brotherhood. Our first task, therefore, is to transform ourselves into living examples and even, one could say, to impose this example on others, not by physical force, of course, but by the nobility, magnanimity, light an spiritual beauty emanating from us. The need to feel their own strength and power drives too many young people reckless actions. They don't realize that true strength is inner strength, the ability to control an master themselves, to show themselves to be noble, great-hearted, perfect. Initiates, too, want to become strong and powerful but they know what true greatness and true power are, whereas so many young people, by ginving way to their instincts and seeking power through violence and destruction, merely wearken themselves and become the slaves of their own base instincts and vices.

I am completely impartial: I love all these young people and I love their elders, but believe that both are at fault: the adults because they have not known how to educate the young and, especially, how to give them a good example, and the young, because they think they can settle all their problems through revolution and violence and by destroying everything that adults have done.

I readily admit that there are a few real revolutionaries such as Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Fidel Castro. But people like that didn't destroy everything. Besides, can you say that things are really better since their revolutions? No; nothing is really different except, perhabs, that the man at the top has disappeared and someone else has taken his place. The rhetoric has changed a little, the slogans are not the same, the songs are new, but the vice and crime, the fear and corruption are still the same.

Anarchists are incapable of doing anything constructive. some revolutionaries can be constructive, perhabs, if they are very intelligent and generous and work to improve the situation rather than making it even more intolerable. History shows that tyrants come and go: they may rise to power and liquidate their enemies, but they cannot stay on top for long. For this, too, is a law of life: a tyrant, by his very tyranny, attracts others of the same kind who end by destroying him. You know the saying: 'They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind'.

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov
Reply With Quote