charter.rights

See you are stuck in a 6th grade history text. If you had read anything post 6th grade by any history scholar on the subject you would have found out different. The Europeans demonized the Indians because they would not accept Christianity and because they wanted land and resources. The easiest way to that avenue was to demonize them and identify them as sub-human. Sub-human peoples had no rights. Yet through-out the Jesuit Relations - the authority on early history contact - there are reports of highly organized communities people. There are letters that talk about the abundance of food and generosity, so much so that one Jesuit posited that this must be "Paradise" and the natives were God's angels. There are no reports of mass wars and conflicts, or demons or savages. It is deluded and blind to hold onto the idea that people here were savages and backward, in the face of so much written text to the contrary. You just have to learn to read beyond the comic books and primers. Ah, but past agreements are relevant. In fact since the Royal Proclamation 1763 is included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an aboriginal right, it is legally and constitutionally relevant. Once the law is complied with, I'm sure natives will work towards better solutions. But as long as we continue to make promises, contracts and agreements and not hold them, we are untrustworthy to them. Why would they make another agreement with us when we have not upheld the previous ones? No I support them going it alone, and taking their land and resources with them. I've learned that I can be accepted as their equal, and benefit from their economic development as an outsider, as their partner. What I have learned is that new agreements can be forged but that we have to do the bending. Many First Nations have bent so far they are nearly broken. The first place to start would be for people like you to learn our real history. Our European ancestors were not the noble saviors you think they were. Once you start on your clearing up your ignorance, then you will be able to see the greater picture. Native people then and now are much more intelligent and socially and culturally sophisticated than you could understand in your current closed-minded perspective.

It won;t even be interesting. He is a no body trying to act like a somebody. My bet is that he won't even be invited to a debate between the candidates.

Where did you get this stuff from, bubble gum cards? In the same 40 years I was taught that Indians were savages and killed anyone they came across. They were uncivilized and we had to educate them about hygene. In contrast and in truth, the Iroquois had (and still have) a sophisticated government system, with full representation of all people (including children) and a constitution that guarantees their freedoms that is more than 1000 years old. In contrast when the Europeans first arrived here they were accustomed to bathing once a year, and had so contaminated their drinking water from human waste that they were regularly drinking wine and beer as a replacement. And the truth is that since European infection among the natives, our colonial government has been on a determined and extensive plan to wipe them all out of they didn't act like us. The Ontario Lake shore was a Confederacy Iroquois stronghold long before the French came and long after they left. There were about 8 major villages and each had a number of farming communties attached to them along Lake Ontario and Erie. The British often held over winters in these villages and trade there to receive furs. The French along with their Wendat allies were forced to travel the northern route into the west because the Lake Ontario portages had been guarded by the Iroquois from more than a century before. No Brant did not sell land. He leased it and settlers have refused to pay. Whether some money was transferred is irrelevent since the transactions were illegal and are still illegal today. Six Nations has always taken care of its business. The Canadian government displaced the Confederacy because they wouldn't stop complaining about the land thefts that took place. Trust me....hah! I work with Six Nations and other First Nations on a daily basis and there are no factions struggling for control. What there are, are groups of people coming at their issues from different positions. Their end purpose is all the same - to get control of their lands and resources and replace the Canadian government and the imposed policing with systems of their own making and under their own control. Red Jacket said it best in 1811: “Brother! – If you wish us well then keep away; don’t disturb us.”

re-copied Opening Post deleted by moderator I wonder. Do the "guides" include the sordid and violent past of the Christian religion? The dark ages, the witch burnings, the pedophilia? Or perhaps it touches on the violent beginnings about how Christians murdered Jesus on the cross or perhaps it describes the ritualized cannibalism or eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood. Where can I get a copy?

Talking truth to some of the posters here is like talking to a tree. They are so adamant that what their 6th grade teacher taught them about history is the truth. And when you give them references they skip over them. The must be afraid of finding out that pretty Miss Little was all wrong.....

Oh look! The troll just woke up and wants to play!

Good! Hit the ignore button all you want. You weren't keepoing up anyway. Real history involves extensive research of the archives and documentation that was never included in elementary grade history. You really should advance beyond the 6th grade if you want to know the truth about our relationship and legal obligations to Six Nations. And no, I haven't contradicted myself. I've been playing the same song for ages because it is based on factual history. Try following the links I have provided or alluded to, starting with the Mitchell map 1757. It all moves forward legally from there.

You are still full of embellishments, inaccuracy and bullshit B.G. Maybe you should learn a few more facts before you come back to the discussion. I would not considered Hazel Hill a young foreigner, would you? And the majority of the people that first occupied DC were grandmothers, mothers and children all from Six Nations. Most of the younger men and outside supporters didn't show up until AFTER the OPP raided the site and tasered and clubbed those grandmothers and children. There was a general call by the Confederacy that warriors were needed to defend Kanonhstaton against colonial attack. (The same type of call BTW that went out from Oka AFTER they were raided by the SQ). Six Nations objections to the site were documented more than 5 years before the reclamation and they were ignored by Haldimand County council. Council has taken the position that lands claims are a federal issue and therefore they absolved themselves of having to pay attention to objections and demands for construction and development to stop. Legally, however, they are wrong. As corporations of the Province they are bound by the laws of the land. Since it is the law that the Crown must consult and accommodate BEFORE development, Haldimand is bound to delay development until that consultative process is complete. They have been on notice for 20 years that lands claims to the entire Haldimand Tract were on the books, and saying it is not their problem is no excuse. The natives did exactly what they had to do. Stop construction and further development on their land. "Proprietary estopple" is the legal term that allows the first party to stop an action by a third party, in order to ensure that the terms of an agreement are upheld by a second party. The government and all its branches and corporations - including development corporations - must consult and accommodate. Six Nations IS within their rights to stop all development, regardless if permits and development agreements are in place. That is the law. Six Nations had no involvement with Caledonia until the clowns and racist morons started marching the streets. By way of injecting themselves into an issue that is none of their business, these clowns brought it upon themselves.

Myths. They are pervasive and inclusive in your mind. Maybe if you explore the real history and not the "British are the heroes" kind of fluff we teach in school you might be able to get past the myths and fabrications you think equates to history. No, the Ojibwa and the Iroquois were not "enemies". There are a number of treaties (or wampum) that both hold sacred. During the beaver wars there were skirmishes and disagreements, but they were minor in nature and mostly instigated by the French trying to dislodge the Iroquois / British alliances that controlled southern Ontario trade. If you look at the Mitchell map 1757 you will see where the Mississauga were identified as the 8th nation of the Confederacy. Yes my friend the British had colonies along the Lake Ontario shoreline in 1764. The British occupation was just beginning after the French were defeated. The Quebec Act 1774 was issued to protect those colonies and to further entrench the rules under the Royal Proclamation 1763 by saying that certain colonies, settlements and townships in Ontario and Quebec were under the domain of the Crown. Again just so you don't get this wrong, Brant couldn't sell the land except to the Crown. This was never done and the 1844 purported surrender is bogus. It doesn't matter what you ~think~ was done, it couldn't be done. Period! No. Six Nations does not "mismanage" their affairs now or ever. The fact is that the as recently as this past summer the Auditor General Sheila Fraser stated that First Nations are generally over-audited, and that the flaw is in Indian Affairs where paper reports gets lost or stalemated on bureaucrats' desks. For the most part the corrupt government system is responsible for all mismanagement. As well, First Nations are general under-funded by more than half of what municipalities are AND are responsible for things that municipalities are not such as their own health care system and education. There is no more internal fighting and power struggles at Six Nations than there are at a typical town council meeting. Reaching consensus takes opposing positions and tries to find solutions. So divergent opinions are welcomed and embraced in a participatory democracy. You mistake is thinking that any of the sound bites the media grabs from different groups of people at Six Nations represents a split in opinion. In a participatory democracy the sum of all the parts equal the whole and so opinions capture by the media are just personal aspects of the overall opinion that is constantly developing and changing under their constitutional system of law. That is why no decision - including land surrenders - can be made without first asking the people what THEY want. The Chiefs are there to enforce THEIR wishes, not make their own agenda and then tell the people, like our politicians do.

No. The land was not "given" to them. It was theirs free and clear long before the Royal Proclamation 1763, or the Nanfan Treaty of 1702. Mitchell's map of 1757 proves it. The map establishes that Six Nations' territory extended to the south shore of the Ottawa River from the St Lawrence to the west shore of Lake Huron through North bay and Nippissing, south to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. The purchase from the Mississauga (at that time they were part of the Confederacy's Eighth Nation) was for relocation back to north of Superior (having been caretakers of the land through a previous Treaty with Six Nations). The Royal Proclamation 1763 was prescribed to protect Six Nations Territory from settlers and squatters, and from foreign entities trying to lay claim to it, in return for Six Nations alliance in defense of British colonies along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Neither did Joseph Brant "sell" the land. He couldn't because the buyers (the settlers and colonists) could not legally purchase anything. That was the law (then and now) and if any transaction was not in accordance with the law then it becomes null and void. The Royal Proclamation 1763 requires: "...but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie:...." There is plenty of evidence that proves not only that the Chiefs and principles of Six Nations were against any surrender (they wanted leases) but that there was no public meeting held at Six Nations for this purpose. The government has suggested that after about 4 years of refusing to surrender land the Chiefs (who were not condoled Chiefs under Haudenosaune law) suddenly changed their minds and signed the surrender, despite the fact that historical records presented to the government prove that over half of the men who purportedly signed the surrender were on business in New York. Regardless, unless the public meeting is held and the community agrees, there can be no surrender. That's the law. I'm assuming that you mean this: "In 1924, the rule of the traditional confederacy chiefs was terminated/forcibly removed in favor of an elected municipal government on the reserve." Previous to this gunpoint removal by the RCMP, the Chiefs at Six Nations had petitioned the government and demanded that the law (the RC1763) and other agreements they ahd made be honoured unequivocally. After years of letters and demands, the Canadian response was to attack Six Nations, close the Council House and install a band government without community consent. To this day there are only 300-400 people out of 22,000 that vote in the band elections. The Confederacy government still operates and in fact they are currently leading the negotiations at Six Nations. Last year the council house was reopened and Confederacy meetings are held there on a regular basis. The band governments imposed against the will of the people, are the problem we often hear about. They are full of the same types of corruption and nepotism that we hear about in our own government. If you are implying that Six Nations is better because of them, you had better rethink that position. The fact is that if not for the Confederacy being a watchdog, there would be far more corruption at Six Nations. The Confederacy is the only full participatory democracy in the world. With our Canadian oligarchy, we can't even come close to their freedom.

The 1844 surrender is bogus. It does not meet the test required under the Royal Proclamation 1763.

Hey B.G. you are so full of exaggerations and rhetoric. 1. Caledonia started with a reclamation of the land at Douglas Estates that was taken over BECAUSE Six Nations jurisdiction was ignored for nearly 5 years previously. The last straw was the construction of new homes on their land. 2. Caledonians injected themselves into the foray as if they had some rights surrounding the issue. They didn't then and they still don't. DC has nothing to do with Caledonia citizens and if not for the racists and rioters that love to stir up shit, it is highly unlikely that it would have made the news. 3. The did not tear down a transmission tower. The hydro towers were laying disassembled on the ground waiting to be erected. The transmission line is delayed indefinitely across Six Nations lands at least until there is some land claim settlement. 4. There has been no finding of fact on WHO set the transformer station on fire. I remember reading in the media that there was an eyewitness that said it was someone who ran towards town that set the fire but there has been no one found that did it. However, given that there were some arsonist attacks on Six Nations buildings since, it is just as likely that someone from Caledonia did it. 5. The Caledonia folks are NOT fed up. Only a few stupid instigators continue to push buttons and rally whenever anything "native" shows up. It is clear that these people are not politically motivated but racially motivated and have from time to time invited skin heads and known white supremacists to their rallies. The majority of Caledonians sit at home and look forward to the day that their Six Nation friends, family and clients can walk freely into town to shop, and enjoy each other's company. 6. Once the racists and agitators started hitting golf balls, assaulting old people and creating havoc in town, Six Nations people stopped shopping there. The actions of those few pathetic morons that continue to harass, and speak negatively are what is killing the economy in Caledonia. Until the good people of the the town stand up to those morons, it will remain that no one will come to shop. Basically, they got what they deserved. 7. No one really cares what your emotional attachment was Six Nations before or after the reclamation. This is a legal and sovereignty issue that is not only morally correct action under the circumstances, but has its basis in law - locked into the supreme law of Canada - the Charter. There was good reason for King George to declare in 1763 that all Indian lands were off limits to settlement or encroachment. Yet the governors and settlers ignored the law. We continue to ignore that very same law today. 8. The fight for land is not a provincial issue, since the province is merely an administrative branch of the federal government, who is merely an administrative branch of the Crown. The Sovereign, the Crown made agreements that all administrative branches MUST comply with. Six Nations has territorial jurisdiction to all of southern Ontario and that is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which exceeds even the federal government's authority. 9. You may decry the tactics but the sad reality is that they work. In 20 years the federal government has finally taken them seriously and will continue to take them seriously or suffer the same on-going tactics. There is no doubt that this is one of the toughest negotiations in history with many other issues complicating the discussions. However, it has nothing to do with Caledonia or Haldimand County. And as long as Caledonians continue to let the racist morons represent them in the media, they will continue to be lost in all of this. Six Nations took a powerful and well calculated step. Perhaps Caledonians should the same and force the government to negotiate in good faith andin good time.

First of all there hasn't been "large amounts of land and money" handed over - not nearly. The cash in lieu of land settlements are for a fraction of what the land and resources is worth. Yet the government can (and do deliberately) prolong negotiations in order to wear the First Nations down, exhaust their financial resources to negotiated and bully their partners into submission. The return of land in any negotiated settlement is against government policy and where it has happened in some cases it is mostly out of the worthless way plots under 100 acres - hardly enough to sustain a community. The Supreme Court has ruled that First Nations have an inherent right to be consulted and accommodated over the use of land that is their traditional territory. This should mean meaningful negotiation, but to the government it just means more bullying and letting corporations get away without even so much as letting the First Nations know they are exploring and working on their lands. You suggest that we move on. Should we continue to run roughshod over First Nations' Charter rights and ignore SCoC rulings? Should we continue to steal their children and place them in foster care far away from their homes and into non-culturally appropriate homes? Should we continue to ignore their cries that our dumps and mining habits have poisoned their drinking water and contaminated their food sources? Shall we move forward with demanding that natives become Canadians against their right to chose? What I suggest you are saying is that we are to forget about what what we are doing to native people in this day and age because to settle up might cost us more than we are willing to share and through our collective greed it is better to kick natives when they haven't got the legal clout to fight back. What you are really suggesting is that we return to the patterns of the last 400 years and stop acknowledging rights and property issues so that we can do whatever we want without opposition. Six Nations - the focus of this thread - have stated they are NOT Canadians and that they refuse to join Canada. Legally and constitutionally they right. In our history - especially since 1763, which is the beginning of our law and order society in Canada - Six Nations have never accepted, capitulated or treatied to become Canadian citizens (or British subjects). And in doing so they hold sovereign title over most of southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River and east of Lake Huron. If you truly want to move forward then we have to stop the charade that we know what is best for them, accept their autonomy and sovereignty, quit the myths that we somehow gain authority over their lands and then negotiate in good faith to find a way to live harmoniously with them. If we can't do that or are unwilling to do that then we deserve all the future disruption to our economy and development that they can muster. We are after all, breaking our own law and no one seems to be concerned with it. It is a myth to believe that Canada, or its mother corporation - The Crown - hold legal title to any land. The legal reality is that Canada does not have a land base. It was formed as a confederation of business interests and in its inception never had land title to any part of the country. Treaties and surrenders only gave the Crown rights over some lands, but left the real title in the hands of the original peoples. By the way, to correct another myth you seem to espouse....Six Nations and most other First Nations are hardly playing the victim. Instead, the result we are seeing that is spreading across Canada is the result of a secure resolve not to accept the continued manipulation of their lives and be ignored when developers and corporations steal what belongs to them. That isn't victimhood. It is power.

Legally, from 1763 there was a process that had to be followed for the Crown to purchase land from the natives. Individual settlers are prohibited from obtaining land from First Nations AND the Crown had to hold a public meeting of the natives before they could purchase land. Low and behold the law was never followed. It would be easy to argue that since the law was never followed that civil law prevailed EXCEPT, the Royal Proclamation 1763 is entrenched in our supreme law today. In essence all land title defaults to First Nation possession unless and until the Crown can prove that the the surrender was legal, that the terms of any surrenders or treaties wee fulfilled (as in consideration) and that a surrender or treaty was agreed upon by the community via a public meeting. None of the treaties or purported surrenders meet this test. So you are correct in a way. But since we aren't legally entitled to their land in the first place, we don;t have to give it back. We never owned it or held title to it ever. As well those lands that have been illegally occupied, and stripped of resources make us not only responsible for the damages but also for loss of use. Unfortunately that is the rule of law in Canada. Now no one is suggesting that we should not abide by the rule of law, are you? Or are you only interested in a law of convenience that benefits us and not them?

Funny....I certainly expected AngusThermotroll to show up and you certainly didn't disappoint. Perhaps you missed it but development on Six Nations land is illegal in the first place. Six Nations has a constitutional right to protest against anyone moving construction equipment onto their land. Of course we don't have OUR property rights entrenched in the Charter, but they do.

Well first of all B.G., there were not "some 60 natives closed Argyle street". From all reports it was started by a few disgruntled youths taking out their frustrations after Steve Powless was arrested. This picture was taken shortly after 10:00 am and if you can count as well as I there might be a total of 15 people. I for one would appreciate if you didn;t embellish the facts to suit your bias'. However, at the same time this picture shows that there were about 20 Caledonians already at the scene. By noon when the native barricade was removed and the town clowns decided to put up their own blockade there were about 100 people assembled behind the police line. It is interesting who the OPP see as the real threat, now isn't it - see picture here. But in any case you can't be racist for asking a sincere question. You can be racist however, when you fill the question full of rhetoric and innuendo. I find your question is legitimate, when the facts are not embellished. Why didn't they block a road into Brantford? It is a good question. Quick events usually happen because the opportunity is there, and the equipment needed to make a point are readily available. I would bet that the most important reasons (if not the only reasons) the blockade happened on Argyle would be because the hydro tower was readily available, and the land is part of the territorial lands Six Nations reclaimed over 2 years ago. When one blocks a road that belongs to Six Nations (in their mind) it is more a statement than an act of civil disorder. Since Steve Powless was removed from a construction site under protest in Brantford, I would guess that standing up on land already reclaimed would be a statement they are not going to take it anymore. Of course this is mere speculation and we'll all have to wait until the real facts come out.

Of course I can see how you would come to this conclusion using a limited perspective. And THAT is where your problem lies. You confuse the limitation of "ego" awareness with eternal intelligence. And while our awareness of a state in thinking terms might be limited to physiological responses, intelligence thrives well beyond the limits of the chemical and physical brain functions you seem to worship. In fact just in physiological terms, cell intelligence responds to injury long before the brain has recognized the problem. As well, intelligence can be realized within the plant world, within the movement of particles through space and in universal science. Time is an intelligent construct that was not invented by humans. Our discovery of time or awareness as a concept does not replace it as a brain function. Even the bending of time is not invented in cortex region but is merely observed there. Energy is intelligent. An overseas flight from say New York to London might be predicted to take 8 hours. Yet halfway through we fall asleep and only awake once we arrive for landing. The 4 hours are not simply lost because we were not aware of them. However, when we arrive we postulate that we consumed the full 4 hours in travel even though we are not awake. Those kinds of assumptions are what limit our thinking to perceptions of the ego. When we remove ego awareness from our minds, we can shave hours off a trip. When we perceive things through the ego we can make a 4 hour trip seem like 10 -especially if the ego is not stimulated into its usual expectation of excitement. You position - that thought originates inside the mind and therefore inside cerebral chemical interaction is far from reality. Intelligent energy, carries intelligent thought through us and we are simple vehicles in which it is realized. Life goes on well beyond the cessation of brain function, or death of the physical body. As it is with intelligent design the energy which not drives us becomes something else to arise as a new entity whether we are embedded in the energy of the wind, or our old physical vehicles become worm food. Just like birth is not a beginning, we exist as part of the universal Creation. ~Awareness~ of birth or of death processes is not a certification of physical morphology. It is simply an observation of ~some~ stages of energy. God "could be" all that intelligent energy which binds the universe and beyond. The experience of God is not that same thing as the rationalization of God, the latter being drawn from ego's limited knowledge and projecting it in perception. The latter is why many religious people appear hypocritical. They try to rationalize the belief without the experience. As such they are incapable of replicating the experience as proof. Thus "...faith without words is dead..." (James 2:20) Until you have had the experience you cannot know or understand the extent to which the Is exists. Cause is ALWAYS preceded by effect. No one needs to rationalize that, one just needs to have faith it is true. James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." This isn't religious mumbo jumbo, it is real-life application. Just added in edit: It isn't necessary to become dogmatic about the cause of every event and thougth. One need only understand that we humbly do not know the reason and accept that things happen because we asked for them. There are no other reasons.

NO one says that a gay and disabled are equal. What THE LAW says is that gays and disable MUST be treated equally under the law. Their sexual orientation, or their disability cannot be used to deny them equal access to services, jobs or justice.

Ah again you miss the point. "spiritual" is neither supernatural, nor personal. It is the connection between all things material and ethereal, both hard and soft etc. It is understanding that there is a connection between us that does not require the brain to cognitively rationalize. You might call that intuition, or "intention". These influences don't control us since we are always prone to our own free will. But when harmonized they increase in power and in influence. Take a soccer team for example. When players have trained together over long periods of time in many situations it becomes unnecessary to call for the ball, or direct someone to receive a pass in a certain position. Instead even though the game is dynamic and cannot be predicted with any certainty, one intuitively knows where the other player is, and then feeds the ball threading through a number of players to reach its target. Repetitive training doesn't generate this skill. It is in the player already and if the coaches are smart, they help players retrieve it and use their intention as a means of communication. On the other hand, spiritual can also mean the root of our selves - beyond the physicality of our bodies or the chemical reaction in our brains. It is the whole of self, including all things that make us up - from experience to understanding to knowing to being. When one is prevented from acknowledging their own soul (as they always are in the control of the ego) there is a persistent internal struggle that takes place. Trying to be someone you are not - such as in role playing as fathers, husbands, sons, co-workers, business leaders etc - just makes you a "trying" person. The societal roles placed on us through ego rearing, are not who we are. However, our caregivers have conditioned us to believe that is all we are, when in fact these are nothing but relationships and things we as soulful people choose do. We are only successful in these relationships because someone else (another ego) confirms it for us. These limitations produce minimal-thinking lemmings who might take a different turn now and then, but for the most part are nothing but predictable obsessive-compulsives. In many cases within the struggle of the ego, a deeper psychosis becomes the only visible escape. Yet deeper psychosis is nothing more than a stronger hold by the ego. If intellectualizing were an answer to mental illness, then once on drugs it would be easy to assume that a mental patient could think her way out of schizophrenia. However that very attempt by a schizophrenic simply leads to a deeper psychosis. The reality is that no one can retrieve themselves out of mental illness or even depression on their own. Instead one must first surrender to the illness and let those who have been provided to the patient help out in their own ways. If they were successful through drug therapy alone then the patient would be restored to the lesser psychotic where the ego is once again in control and the patient becomes a servant to the masters in role playing. Only when one is empty of the ego (this is a huge and risky step) can fear be removed and the mind opened to its potential. On a smaller scale this might be equated to learning calculus where at first we are taught the simple equations where calculas rules. In order to understand that derivatives can be used just as effectively we must free our dependence on the long equation and open ourselves to see that there are easier ways to understand complex problems. And then again math is an abstract concept that cannot explain a simple word like"no". The simple equation does not and can not explain the universe. And even though there is a method to explain a great many parts of it, the parts do not equal the whole. And while science will eventually catch up to explain a great many wonders, it is still behind because those who want to question it are confined to limited and prescribed answers within the restrictions of their knowledge, perceptions and time-constrained agendas. The ego is a constraint and a commonality in all limited thinking. Philosophical questions are not posed to answer the whole of the universe. They are presented to challenge the limited thinking of the ego and expand one's intuition about the world we believe we see. In essence our physical bodies are a sum of our parts - individual in nature with a collective knowledge of history and connection to the Source of all knowledge. Each part is then subdivided into smaller and smaller parts down from cells to DNA to molecules to atoms to neutrons, electrons and protons all the way down to the empty space that resides between each bit of energy. Limiting that knowledge because one intellectualizes from the confines of the ego, does not equate to defeating God (although that may be what you believe you are doing). You are thinking that the physical is more important than the unseen and the micro, yet you cannot detach one from the other. They co-exist, being reality on one plain and changing knowledge and perceptions on another. Once one understands that it is possible to see from an alternate place in the universe and interact on yet another different plain, it becomes clear that the ego's intellectualizing and rationalizing is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Intention and will have more influence on life and the physical world than all the understanding gained through a controlled and limited education. But again, if mental illness is categorized as a spiritual problem, where does that leave someone who cannot be treated by some spiritual practice alone? Just as mental issues have a spiritual root problem, so does a physical symptom have an emotional root, and an emotional symptom have a mental root. Since symptoms of mental illness occur on all levels treating the symptom while healing the spirit are equally important. The ego operates through clues. If it recognizes a certain feeling, or obsesses on a particular thought, it will continue to believe it is unwell. The interconnection of illness must be treated at each level until restoring spiritual health is made possible in order to challenge the ego's control of self. As long as a symptom presents itself a spiritual remedy is not possible. Those who would try to go directly to a spiritual cure are fakes and shamans. Only relieving the fear of illness at each state can accomplish a lasting release from the spiritual problem.

I've never read Eckart Tolle..... and I'm not familiar with his ideas or assertions. ALL mental illness is rooted in a spiritual problem. The mental illness along with its physical and emotional issues are but symptoms of the greater problem. Medication works? Well partly, but not without also treating the emotional and mental symptoms simultaneously. It is the "spiral" of depression of which brain chemistry plays only a role. At the end of the day until one recognizes what the spiritual problem is, it is bound to reoccur - perhaps over decades. Simply intellectualizing (again) doesn't permit you to understand the "connection" that everything has to any other thing. The ego uses over anal lies ing as a shield to protect you from exploring a place that would see its demise. Your patterns are clear and I would suggest that you have pretty much come to the end of your understanding. Perhaps you will revisit this when you get a revelation? BTW WIP....You do realize that intellectualizing mental illness is part of the reason people end up in depression.....?

Ah dude. There are lots of ways to communicate with YOUR toaster without talking to it. A control panel or a spring-based lever instructs the toaster to turn bread into toast. Man are you ever slow! Boinggggg! Toast is ready.

I am an advocate of following California on this one..... Manufacturers through their retailers should be made responsible for all recycling and excess packaging. When it starts to cost the source more money (and less profits) then they will get smarter with their packaging. In California it reduced landfill waste and recycling by something like 40% when the manufacturers did an about face. That would be 40% less going into our waste collection program, saving tax dollars that could be put to much better use.

Except for trolling - your favourite past-time - why did you even bother to respond? If you had nothing relevant to add you could have easily kept it to yourself. No one said anything about being able to talk to YOUR toaster. But we have influence on everything and everyone we have contact with. By the way it is all proven. You just can't see it for your own fear.

Because their fear of reality is more threatening to them, than their fear of being deluded. Choosing delusion over reality is an act of insanity, and being wholly insane they cannot (and will not) understand they are cause of all their misery.

Of course. And we do subconsciously. You miss a very important fact: Cause ALWAYS precedes effect. One cannot ~find~ what one does not expect, first. Astronomy is advancing because scientists "expect" that there is something more. While they generally theorize that there are boundaries to the universe, or that the universe is expanding it could not be UNLESS someone wondered about the possibility and investigated it. "Anarchy" in its truest definition is our "true nature" - to be self-regulating and self-fulfilling. Conformity imposed on us from birth is meant to limit the caregivers inconveniences, not the subjects. They impose ego because to do so creates in the image of God and maintains The Separation the is necessary for it to exist. The ego could not exist in a state of public thought and so it hides in the belief that it can hide thought from others. You are very much "stuck". First of all the ego cannot be "suppressed" until one understands where it comes from, what kinds of control over our lives it presents and how powerful we have made it. Trying to suppress it is like pounding your fists against concrete - the harder you pound the more resolved the concrete is to just "be there". While many ~peaceful~ religions have a sense of "being" there are some who "get It". As such many of the ancient teachings - including those preserved in the Bible - are meant as a guide to access our "true nature" beyond the control of the ego. While religion can impose, oppose and oppress, faith releases and forgives. Understanding that everything that happens to us is because we choose it leaves us with the question "Why would we want it?", instead of "Who is to blame?" (the usual question of the ego) The chemical xhaos that show us in the brains of depressed or mentally ill patients is an "effect", not a "cause". The cause is the internal struggle between the ideas imposed on us and our true nature to be self-full, literally a struggle between our ego and our eternal presence. Love....and Joy... are not emotions. They are states of being! While you are trying to intellectualize this discussion, you are not only missing the points, but are exemplifying the control and tactics of the ego. You denial is a shield the ego uses as defence. Equating God as only the universe is limited thinking. The universe is a creation of the Is, being energy, being more. Limiting God to a beginning and an end - the Alpha and Omega - suggests that you think that energy can be created and destroyed, in defiance to the laws of physics as we currently understand them. And even though scientists think the universe has an end it is only a theory based on limited thinking. Cause is always preceded by effect and even an apparent "end" is followed by an eternal effect. Just as our birth seemingly leads to the beginning of our life, we begin as nothing more than a "cause" from something else. I would suggest that from a thought perspective there was never a time in anyone's life where they could remember being "unborn". And it is just as feasible that we will not remember dying, or passing on to the next realm even though both are absolute components of "cause and effect". However, our loss of memory or brain function never diminishes the effect we have had on the universe. Nor can it limit the effect to the time between birth and dying - both of which are ethereal effects of a greater cause. And so in terms of God or the Is, neither cause nor effect can be created or destroyed, since it occurred in the beginning of all time and will continue for all time. (I'm sure if God had a watch it would be an Omega) However, through the ego we can emulate an "effect" through dreaming that has no real effect on the micro or macro causes. By dreaming we forget who we are and in the protection of sleep we can jump from planes and fly high above the clouds without even worrying about the physics or limitations of the physical world. In the world of the ego we are merely dreamers in our own consciousness and the dreamed in others' consciousness. And when we "wake up" we are merely dreaming another dream, unless we have recognized the ego for what it is not- a creation of the Is. When we wake up to the Presence, we are going beyond the ego, capturing the dream and the dreamer simultaneously and releasing Self to connection with the Is. When we awake spiritually we awaken to "potential" and reject limitation. We become the creation of the Is and reject the creation of the ego through our caregivers. We are. I Am. There is nothing more that matters except the Joy and Love we share.