Beyond Belief

The US Election: Enough Already

At last this election is nearly over. It is simply beyond comprehension that this is the way the most powerful man in the world is selected. Why does everyone just accept the idea of democracy without ever wondering whether it really is the best approach? In reality this is just another of those "beliefs" that no one ever seems to question.

Right to the end of this campaign, the crude play on people’s fears of being attacked by terrorists has continued. As has the constant implication that Kerry was somehow short on the kind of patriotic vigor to fight the good fight to the end.

Just today, The New York Times opens a lead article on the election with the words: “The campaign is coming to a close in an epic cacophony of advertisements striking notes of hope and fear, patriotism and betrayal.”

Now what does that remind you of? The quote below perhaps?

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)

And "lest we forget...." In the democratic Reichstag elections of July 1932, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party emerged as the largest political party in Germany, obtaining nearly fourteen million votes (37.3 per cent) and 230 seats. Six months later, Hitler became Reich Chancellor of Germany. Hitler then gained a majority in the democratic elections held on 5 March 1933.

The rest, as they say, is history!

More US Presidential Election Debatery

The Republican Party is naturally raising the specter of what would happen if a President John Kerry were to die in the White House. This is clearly designed to scare people about the possibility of the young, less experienced, John Edwards then being president. Compared with the obvious gravitas and experience of Dick Cheney...who hardly bothered to mention young George at all during his debate with Edwards on Tuesday.

But perhaps everyone should consider what would happen in a Bush/Cheney White House if Dick Cheney died! Now that could be even scarier!

But on a more serious note, there was one thing no one seems to be commenting on. That during this debate we heard, perhaps for the first time in this election, more than a passing mention of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And only then because the candidates were actually asked about it. (Bush, during the first debate, did add to his list of justifications for the war on Iraq that it would help "secure Israel.")

Given that Israel has been the most painful thorn in the side of the Arabic-Islamic world for nearly half a century, and this whole election is meant to be about making America safe from Islamic fundamentalists…. The response: Edwards and Cheney both repeated Israel’s right to protect itself, while the only mention of the Palestinians was when Edwards blamed them because the Israelis, “don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.” You could almost hear Osama clapping his hands in glee.

It is so clear how “democracy” and its inevitable by-product ― the need to beg for money so you can afford to beg for votes ― this time the US-Jewish vote, produces such a miserable and self-defeating outcome.

In reality, there is an army of well-informed people who really do understand the issues and could provide intelligent proposals, and do. Tom Friedman, just as one example, is one of those people who actually try to look beneath the surface at the root causes of Islamic anger. He wins the smart-quip-of-the-week award, by the way, for a comment in his piece, "The Battle of the Pump," in The New York Times. He contrasts Bush’s under-funded, “No child left behind” program with the current US policy in the Middle-East, including the related energy issues, which he describes as their fully funded, “No Mullah left behind” program.

Democracy may have been a great advance on tyranny two or three hundred years ago, but can’t we come up with something better after all this time? Replacing “the divine right of kings” with “the divine right of the lowest common denominator” may work for the election of the local dogcatcher, but is it really the best way to deal with complex, inter-dependent global issues? The result speaks for itself.

Is democracy or any alternative even discussed? Like a meritocracy for example? Imagine a world without politicians! Now there’s a thought.

The Most Poetic Moment of the First Presidential Debate

From National Public Radio's, "All Things Considered," a poem by Calvin Trillin, author of Obliviously On He Sails: The Bush Administration in Rhyme.

Why did the president look so angry?
Plain pleasantness has been his stock in trade.
From privilege, he cleverly remade
Himself into a NASCAR type of guy.

The sort of guy who’s happy to supply
Cute nicknames all bestowed
With charm and grace.
So how come Bush had such an angry face?

On NBC or Fox or Time and Warner
He looked just like a kid sent to the corner.
Made petulant with thoughts all dark and grim
Like why the teacher always picked on him.

It's possible the president had sensed
This wasn’t Gore whom he was up against.
Or saw his repetitions would betray
He hadn’t really quite enough to say.

It's possible that he still thought it wrong
They hadn’t let Dick Cheney come along.
Perhaps, behind those podiums they got
His pants had gotten twisted in a knot.

To listen to this segment of the program, including the author reading this poem, click here.

Or if prose is more your thing, try this withering piece by Ron Reagan…from one president’s son to another as it were.

The Worst Moment of the First Presidential Debate

The worst moment in the debate was during the discussion about North Korea and its nuclear weapons program, which has advanced significantly, and has become considerably more dangerous, in the four years of the Bush administration.

Bush ridiculed the idea that Kerry put forward that the US should actually engage North Korea in negotiations. Bush's reason was that this would somehow play into the hands of North Koreas and would exclude the other four countries currently involved in the multilateral process. That China in particular would then "be happy" to leave these crucial negotiations, as if they didn't really care about the outcome.

Kerry said that in contrast to the Bush administration, he would "immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea." Jim Lehrer then asked President Bush, "Your response to that."

Bush said:

"Yeah, I -- I -- again, I can't you how big a mistake I think that is -- (laughs) -- to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It'll cause the six-party talks to evaporate, it means that China no longer is involved in convincing the -- along with us that -- for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves. And the -- if you enter bilateral talks, they'll be happy to walk away from the table."

It later turned out that all the other four members of this group, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea have all specifically asked this administration to negotiate directly with North Korea as part of the overall negotiations.

Either Bush was lying, or to use the fashionable Washington euphemism, “misspeaking,” or is simply uninformed about critical details of perhaps the world's most dangerous nuclear stand-off.

While the Bush faithful dutifully chant their "Four More Years," they better wake up or there may not be four more years!

The Best Moment of the First Presidential Debate

Did you catch the best line in of the debate? It was from President Bush, questioning the leadership qualities of his opponent:

"How can you lead if you send mexed missages?"

The Democrats' Secret Calculation

Overheard in a Washington bar: The reason the democrats are not worried about the opinion polls in the US presidential election is the following:

They know that President Bush is an Allahsend for Osama bin Laden. First he goes on vacation even when he is told Osama’s team is coming and wants to use airplanes as weapons, just as was tried a few years earlier in Paris. Then he kicks off his whole “war on terror” by calling it a “Crusade.” And since then, things have only got better. His policies have put the US into the same situation as Israel is in: firing missiles into crowds of Muslims, killing women and children in the process, inflaming Muslim opinion in ways Osama could only pray for.

In addition, in the old days, al-Qaeda had to build their own training camps, but now George Bush has built one for them in Iraq. Offering a much better training than anything they could ever manage. In the course of this current presidency, Osama has been delighted to note a massive swing away from the US and towards Islamic Fundamentalism.

Clearly, the democrats calculate, Osama will do anything to keep George Bush in power. Osama doesn’t want his guys affected by any of that “sensitive” stuff, promises of respecting Islam, of pulling troops out of their holy lands, promises of settling the Arab-Israeli conflict or any of that other leftie stuff. Hey, that would be really bad for bin-ness. The current US “bring ‘em on” foreign policy works a treat.

It is just too perfect to have an administration that assumes that Iraqis are really Texan’s in turbans, who just need a “How y’ doin’ today,” a slap on the back and the promise of a few dollars, then they will be “good ol’ boys” in no time. Bound to offend anyone and everyone.

The other thing about George Bush, as the democrats see it from Osama’s point of view, is that George is just too good at upsetting all the rest of his potential Christian allies. Of course the French and Germans don’t like Islam, but lining up with George is impossible.

First he pisses everyone off by dumping the Kyoto Treaty, then the International War Crimes agreement, land mines…a whole list of stuff…. Osama understands only too well the value of patience and intelligent subtlety in the game of religious politics, and so knows an ideologue with blinders on when he sees one.

Then George blunders into Iraq like the bully on the block, even when his own State Department was telling him they had no evidence for much of his rationale for war, and most of his Christian friends abroad needed more time and more political cover. And then Abu Ghraib. Too perfect. From the party of “The Great Communicator,” we bring you, “The Great Polarizer.”

George is an own-goal wizard, unparalleled in modern times.

For Osama, it makes schlepping that dialysis machine around those mountains all worthwhile.

The democrats reckon that if Osama thought that a more thoughtful, sensitive Kerry might get into the White House, he would have to try some terrorist attack before the election: calculating that a good dose of fear will have the folks running back to the "Commander in Chief,” thus keeping George at the wheel.

Finally, the democrats also have concluded that the voters aren't stupid and have worked this out for themselves, and so are busily telling the pollsters that they support Bush, hoping that Osama doesn’t do anything nasty. Then, at the last moment, they will suddenly jump on the Kerry bandwagon, when it will be too late for Osama to do anything about it.

Just don’t tell Carl Rove. No telling what he might do!

Sex and the Single Planet

I often wonder what we earthlings must look like to an imaginary Martian anthropologist. He must be impressed by how we two-legged creatures zap about doing some really wonderfully creative things. At the same time he must also be very puzzled how such apparently smart creatures would at the same time risk trashing out the only planet they have to live on.

Perhaps from his astronomical perspective he sees us like a group of people on a little raft stranded in shark-infested waters, busily chopping the raft up into little pieces while struggling to cling on to whatever remains.

Trying to unravel this dilemma perhaps he looks at the way we bring up young people. He would then discover that in order to be “acceptable” each young infant has to go through some kind of “brainwashing” process where he or she is taught that certain unmentioned parts of the body are “forbidden territory.” He or she is told not to use “dirty” words that refer to those unmentionable parts of their anatomy. And for sure, being seen to actually dare to touch those “naughty bits” brings a sharp, if not violent, rebuke. In short, the lesson is clear: sex is bad.

Then as he watches these youngsters move into puberty, he sees the physical effects of testosterone and estrogen coursing through their veins. He watches how these young people struggle to reconcile the power of these hormones to energize their bodies, their thoughts, and their emotions, with the indoctrinated “belief” that whatever this is, it is “bad.”

Perhaps at that point, he gets it. If all the children on planet Earth are forced to go through this ritual of being taught to believe that this perfectly natural phenomenon is bad, that they have to deny their own natures to be "ok," is it any surprise that the trees down there on planet earth are having a problem?

The US Presidential Election Testosterone Versus Estrogen

At each twist and turn of this fairly bizarre spectacle, I hear the echo of those right-wing voices ring in my ears as they flip flop, dare I say, about the justifications for the Iraq war…and end up with suggesting that the “occupation” is there to impose “freedom” and “democracy.”

The first thing that jumps out at you about the US presidential election is that the next president is marketed like any other product. With flags and bunting and cheering crowds…. it all seems like the reality TV show, American Idol.

It is clearly all about “image” and “packaging.” Budweiser versus Miller beers, Republican versus Democrat politicians – and the recently concluded four-day “Conventions” are really a prolonged commercial break.

Or, as Micah Sifry and Nancy Watzman, authors of Is that a politician in your pocket? New York on 2 million dollars a day describe it, simply a trade show.

The money-political nexus is so blatant that no one even cares if the press is there to document the luxurious convention cocktail party held by this company or that in honor of (or is it gratitude to) this politician or that. To get elected you need a ton of money, much of which goes to the media. Politicians can get the money from people who have a ton of it, in return for….

Hey, if this is democracy, perhaps with their experience of the ultimate wheeler-dealer, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqis won't find democracy so difficult after all.

It is all a terrible reminder of that perceptive Osho comment that “democracy will be possible only when there are no politicians.”

The next thing that jumps out about this process is that it is dirty. The Lee Atwater/Carl Rove how-to-win-at-all-costs approach has clearly moved on from the Nixon days of clumsy break-ins linked to the White House. Let’s privatize that shit!

The use of whispering campaigns or rumor and innuendo to blacken the opponent has reached a new art form in recent times. Scary stuff when middle-aged establishment figures like Sidney Blumenthal begin see these activities as “the whiff of fascism” and reminiscent of “the McCarthy era.” The author of The Clinton Wars, Blumenthal also outlines the efforts (zillions of dollars of effort) made to discredit the Clintons over Whitewater, where they lost $65,000, and compares it with the kind of stuff getting scant attention by the media now. (Like the Bush-Saudi connection…$1.4 billion earned by friends of the presidents to date!)

Talking of Whitewater, when Bill Clinton spoke to a top Senator and asked what this was all about and said, “You know we didn’t do anything wrong.” He was told, “Of course we know that, this is about health care.” Uh? Translation: we blackened your name so you couldn’t get your health care legislation through.

Oh, and by the way, about the Saudis and those infamous flights out of the US immediately after 9/11. If you have found yourself getting swirled by the “did the Saudi’s get a special deal to leave the US quickly” issue, the facts seems to be the following. Yes, US airspace was open on September 13th, when the Saudi’s left by plane, but not for private flights as theirs was.

The current Republican dirty tricks department – now a private network of course – most famously whacked John McCain, so Bush would win the Republican nomination; then Ambassador Jo Wilson for daring to expose the White House for lying, sorry “mis-speaking” is the new euphemism in Washington, about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions. (At least there is an official investigation into this with both the President and Vice-President hiring lawyers to defend themselves against the federal crime involved in the retaliation. By the way, John Dean’s new book, Worse than Watergate is apparently quite a shocker.) And now they are whacking John Kerry with the “Swift Boat” ads.

Dirty tricks might be another bit of democracy that the Baghdadis may not need much help in understanding!

At a deeper level there is the testosterone factor. Angry, white males, and others, thumping their chests, usually with a Bible close at hand, denouncing anyone who disagrees with them, irrespective of the facts. As Bill Maher put it: “There are two kinds of people in America. Those superstitious, religious people who think we should decide things like we used to five hundred years ago, by looking at chicken entrails, and those who prefer to use a compass. I am with the compass folks.” These testosterone-poisoned guys are definitely not into compasses.

Take a look at a stomach-churning article by Joe Bageant to get a sense of how the compass-free, testosterone factor plays out in the heartland!

No wonder that Arnold is given such a free ride for his potentially humorous but actually quite insidious “girlie man” stuff. Or Bush landing on the aircraft carrier deck in a jet with his “mission accomplished” claims. Or the rapes, beatings, and killings that took place in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in the “war on terror.” Or actually, the same thing that goes on throughout the huge prison industry on the US mainland. At least according to The New York Times, Abu Ghraib was really business as usual. Cheney’s latest salvo warning people that a vote for anyone but his team means Osama will get you again is just the latest in this machismo appeal to the fearful voter. Didn’t 9/11 happen during Bush’s presidency?

Whenever people seem to be relaxing enough to make a rational choice for a more thoughtful and a less “bar-room brawl” approach to international politics, the Justice Department can be relied upon to discover “reliable and credible intelligence” about some new terrorist attack or other. Think of the scorn Kerry received for using the word “sensitive” about his approach to the world. But that is the key to testosterone. It was never about being “effective,” it was always about being “right” or “dominant”… at least being seen to kick ass.

So, what was meant to be a somewhat shocking comment about the relationship between US citizens and their foreign policy representatives – that it was like being “married to Don Corleone” – which we quoted before, see below, has now become a virtue. And to help all this along the media have now invented “Security Mums” to replace the “Soccer Mums” of old.

But all is not lost. What goes around comes around. Take a read of this interview with Chris Hedges, author of War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, where he "unravels the myths and dysfunctional nationalism that grip nations heading to war; the intoxicating effect of these causes and rhetoric; and the terrible costs that soldiers, victims and societies pay – when the realities of war – not the rhetoric – are experienced."

Or hear even arch conservative, Pat Buchanan, author of Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency declare very loudly that, "terrorism is caused by empire." So eventually, "Bring 'em on" won't survive as a foreign policy for the "war on terror." A little more nuance required perhaps?

The wonderful thing about America is how transparent things are. Politicians everywhere have only one real interest: to get reelected. Kissing babies and pretending to care about people is just the means. In America, hardly anyone even suggests otherwise. No wonder more people don't vote than support either candidate.

The two big party machines just roll into action, choose the best “face” to put up front, and then sell him or her with whatever it takes. Money, lies, innuendo, smear tactics…. And it is all done so openly and shamelessly. It is simply about posture and persuasion, speechwriters, delivery, and tactics. But if the Republicans can boil the whole campaign down to the testosterone versus fear factor, then they will contrive a win. It just isn’t the Democrats’ stock in trade. As Bush put it, "Some people may call it an arrogant swagger, but in Texas we call it walking." Which is bullshit by the way. The people coming out of Fahrenheit 9/11 in downtown Dallas, Texas were as moved as people anywhere, and none were swaggering.

Then finally, there are the issues. Forgedaboudit. For that you need the media. These mainstream media "experts" are often more concerned with being “important personalities" with “opinions,” scoring points in shouting matches with clever sound bites rather than establishing the facts. So it’s pretty hard to find out what the real issues are or who is saying what. Global Warming? Everyone shouts at once for a minute or two followed by "We need to take a break. We will be back after these messages...." Next. At least there is Comedy Central and C-SPAN, but I don't think it touches the NASCAR nation.

And in any case, no one with two grey cells to rub together could possible know what the smart thing to do will be in six months time on practically any issue. So “nuance” is just about all there is to go on, despite the attempts to ridicule Kerry for actually seeing the subtlety of things. But that doesn’t fit the required “Me Tarzan, you Jane” style of today’s campaigning.

Nuance? Come on you Iraqi Mullahs. If this is democracy? No worries. Nuance is one thing there is no shortage of in Baghdad, Inshallah – as they say on the dollar bills, in English of course.

So, the whole thing is really a mad vicious circle. The media are in the entertainment business. The politicians are reduced to selling their “product” just like any regular washing powder. The world is an ever more complicated place with each issue being subtly intertwined with every other. And most people are busy. Not to mention the fact that given the average IQ is by definition, 100, not many people are going to be able to understand the issues, even if they cared. And this is how we decide who is to be the most powerful man in the world? Anyone for a meritocracy yet?

The strange thing about this universal “belief” in democracy is that nothing within America, except these votes to elect politicians every few years, even pretends to be democratic. The Bush Campaign? The Kerry campaign? The White House? Microsoft? GE? The US Army? The local fire department? The local hostpital? I mean if you were sick, you find the best expert opinions, or three. And then decide what to do. You wouldn’t put the options up for a popular vote of hospital staff! So why would we treat a sick planet any differently?

In case the reader feels this article is just part of the “Why Do They Hate Us” category of writing, that is not the idea, which is to support America in ways that will be beneficial to all, both inside and outside these borders.

And just to reiterate that point, where else in the world could Bill Maher end his weekly TV show with this wonderfully funny Bushwhack: Bush is pictured in heroic mode standing over the remains of the World Trade Center in a fireman’s hat hugging a real fireman, and Maher says, “When will George Bush realize that 9/11 was not his finest hour, it was a fuck up by a guy on vacation.”

As Osho says, in spite of everything, "Bravo America."

The End of Oil?

Every day now, the headlines report the record price of oil with the usual list of “causes.” Iraq…Yukos…Venezuela…security concerns…. The one “cause” that no one is mentioning is that world demand for oil has finally started to outstrip the supply.

Anyone interested in the story behind the story might want to take a look at the website of Matthew R. Simmons of Simmons & Company International, (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches).

A company that offers management and financial consultancy to the energy industry, with head offices in Houston, Texas, may not be where you would expect to find an energy maverick, but Matthew Simmons seems to be one.

In the mid-1990s, Simmons realized that so many of the accepted figures about oil reserves – on which everyone was relying to make their predictions – were so questionable, he decided to research the subject himself.

What he has discovered is that we are flying blind. No one really knows what is going on. And what we do know isn’t close to what people generally “believe” to be the case.

Essentially, Simmons is saying that no one really knows how much oil there is in the ground in the world, or how easily (and cheaply) it can be extracted. Moreover, what we do know suggests that we don’t have as much oil available as most experts had assumed up to now.

His main point is that it seems quite possible/probable, depending on which facts are correct, that oil production in the world is peaking, or is about to peak.

For Simmons, the recent case where Shell had to reduce the estimate of its reserves was just symptomatic of the fog.

The results of his work have staggering, long-term implications, which each headline after another tries to conceal. But for how long?

It is as if, suddenly, the whole world is about to understand exactly what Simmons has been saying: that there is so much unreliable data out there that anything could be going on and we wouldn’t know we had run out till the tap ran dry. Hello?

Basically the world appears to be consuming about 82 million barrels a day, and producing about the same quantity. So, when OPEC recently admitted it couldn’t increase production very much, it made you think of Simmons.

Each mention of “Yukos,” or “Iraq,” or “security concerns” in association with “today’s new high” is just evidence we are not seeing the big picture. The real story is not that there are some glitches somewhere in the world oil business today, but that supply and demand are now so finely balanced that even small disruptions in the supply push the price of oil up. “Yukos” is not the problem. Excess demand over supply is the problem.

And “the big picture”?

Consider one of Simmons’ sample scenarios: For China and India to reach the per capita oil consumption of a country like Mexico today, itself a modest per capita user by international standards, world oil production would have to be 50% higher than today! Just as world production is, or soon will be, falling.

Anyway, the drift is pretty clear. The new era may have begun at last: we are running out of oil. Or perhaps more accurately, we are running out of affordable oil.

And as one humorist put it: the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

So the inevitable move into non-oil energy sources can only accelerate. All of which will be good for limiting climate change.

Meanwhile the effects on the world economy could be severe. When you are flying blind, who knows who is going to get hit.

Another long-term development will be political. Once the US bites the bullet on its oil dependency, the changes could be extraordinary. Can you imagine the US Middle East policy with no oil interest? “What Middle East?”

And who will put a price on the “War on Terror”? A war that was declared against the presence of Western Culture in the Middle East? Anyone short of sand?

Then who defends Israel? Is that why Iran is now talking about its own Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes to defend its nuclear program? Might sure speed up a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On a lighter note, there was a great interview on the BBC recently about the alternatives to fossil fuel for energy.

Solar is the answer, said the professor being interviewed. When you do the math there is no doubt that the endless flow of the Sun’s energy far outstrips all other renewable options. And luckily, he said, the sun tends to fall abundantly on the poor parts of the globe that really need the energy. Right, said the journalist, solar panels are clearly the way to go.

No, says the professor. Using technology to turn sunlight into energy is very inefficient. By contrast, biology is wonderful at this. Think of what trees do with sunlight in terms of converting solar energy into different chemicals. So, very simply, we will be able to genetically engineer trees that will use the sunlight to provide the energy sources we need.

I couldn’t work out whether we would just take our cars up to the tree and “fill ‘er up” from there or what? The mind boggles. Then again, we are just entering some mind-boggling times.

And why are we flying blind…at “the controls” of Planet Earth? Wouldn’t it be smart to be conscious of the effects of our own actions on the only planet we have?

The end of oil, climate change, economic stagnation… you would imagine this list should be at the top of any and every agenda.

And why isn’t it? Just listen to the media debate currently going on for President of the USA – or perhaps for any political office anywhere for that matter. It is like watching a crime in slow motion to see this trivialization of “the news” – while Rome burns.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Right now, the US is in a fair degree of turmoil. People are getting quite emotional. Anger and polarization are very evident. The “War on Terror” in the US is everywhere and nowhere, so far.

The 9/11 commission’s report has just been published and details a horror story of incompetence. It comes on top of a sense that whatever is going on in Iraq is a similar tale of ineptitude.

One of the big questions you hear a lot is, “Why do they hate us?” And this is not referring to Islamic fundamentalists, it is about the rest of the world.

There are basically two kinds of reactions that you see. One is of sadness, and the other is anger. Both are tinged with incomprehension. For a land obsessed with “self-improvement,” the land of the perfectly white teeth, the perfect abs, the perfect home, the prefect children, the perfect life…. For people who see their mission on earth is to share this perfection with the rest of the world…. And be hated for it!

When I see the discomfort that comes with this question, I am reminded of a beautiful Osho story, excerpted here from the book, Zarathustra: A God That Can Dance.

It is part of human psychology that you want to be a giver; you don’t want to be a receiver….
They may give you tremendous treasures, but you will never forgive them, because they are the givers and you are the receivers. You are a beggar. How can you forgive someone who has made you a beggar?
I have a friend who was born poor, but was adopted by one of the richest families in India. He is a very generous man – he has made all his relatives rich, comfortable. He goes on giving to friends, to relatives, even to strangers. But he confessed to me once, while traveling with me in the train: “I have always wanted to ask you something, but I could not gather courage to expose myself. I have given to all my relatives who were poor, and now they are rich people. I have given to my friends, I have given even to strangers who have asked; I have never said no to anybody – I have so much that I can go on giving. But they are all angry at me; they talk against me.”
I said, “It is very simple: have you ever allowed them to give something to you?”
He said, “I don’t need anything.”
I said, “That explains everything. But small things... for example, you can phone a friend to whom you have given money, a factory, and made a rich man, and say: ‘Just passing by your house I saw beautiful roses in your garden. Will you bring a few roses to me?’ And the friend’s attitude towards you will change.
“You are sick: you can phone somebody and say: ‘I am lying in bed, with a bad headache and fever, and a great desire has arisen in me for you, that you should be close to me. Just come here, hold my hand and sit by my side.’ That will be enough.
“You have many cars, but you could have told any of your relatives: ‘I need your car for one day.’ You don’t have to use it. Just keep it in the garage and by the evening return it. But your relative or your friend will think he can also give something to you. He is also needed.”
He said, “I will try, although I am very reluctant. I have made them whatsoever they are. Why should I ask anything? I have roses in my garden. I have my own cars, and their cars I have given to them; their houses I have given to them.”
I said, “It is up to you. It is your ego that is hurting them all ― that you are the giver, and they are always the receiver. If you want to change their attitude towards you, you have to become in some way a receiver. Let them enjoy for some moments the ego of giving.”
He tried, and next time when he met me, he said, "It works, it works miracles! I had never seen...those people are so happy with me. They are talking about my generosity. Now that I am taking things from them, I have become generous; otherwise they were always saying, ‘He is just an egoist; he has given to us not because we needed anything, he has given just to humiliate us!’”