(Spirit Eugenia) – Now, I would like you to receive a collective message.
(Benjamin Teixeira) – Do you want a dialogue?
(SE) – Yes, it can be. It is an interesting system.
(BT) – What do you want to talk about?
(SE) – I would like you to touch ground with the situation in Iraq.
(BT) – Iraq, Eugenia?
(SE) – Yes.
(BT) – What do you wish to say about it?
(SE) – What is a surgery, in more direct terms? A vivisection, with aspects of mutilation; a violent invasion of the body’s functions, with a long period of recuperation ahead, but with the intention to cure, partially or even fully, the lost or seriously compromised functions of the body, isn’t that so? What is anesthesia, before you even get to surgery, if not an under control poisoning, leading you to the brink of death, so that you can return more replenished into life – through surgical intervention? This is what is happening over there.
(BT) – But Eugenia… the counter-reactive effects are horrid. Iraq is on the brink of chaos.
(SE) – Imagine a body in the midst of a medical operation: open, innards exposed, bleeding, sometimes unable even to breathe by itself or under a cardiac arrest. What would someone say, if he did not know what was happening, when seeing a body in these conditions, being cut, bled and mutilated? That, indeed, it would be on the brink of death. Iraq, my son, together with many nations, to be rescued from the their great evolutionary deficit, in relation to the level of organization and social and political development of the planet, will have to undergo interventions, crises and collapses. Not all of them will require such a dramatic procedure, as a military intervention, but many will suffer crises, if not in their meanders, at least in their civilizational implications, as deep as those suffered by Iraq today. In a certain way, the United States are exerting democratic ideas, respect to minorities and equality of gender, modernity and continuous pursuit of progress, in the primitive Iraqi society.
(BT) – But, with these statements, do you endorse the American imperialist posture, their policing position when dealing with other peoples and their lack of respect, in many aspects, to the international community?
(SE) – I do not intend here to evaluate the American posture in the concert of nations, nor am I interested in the defense of war or any draconian procedure for the evolution of peoples. I am just drawing attention to the fact that, if something is permitted by God, who is infinite intelligence and wisdom, it is necessarily good and useful.
(BT) – Since you mention this, I ask you directly: do the United States overstep their limits over there?
(SE) – Yes, this is clear to anyone with common sense. But police also step over the limits, as justice can be too harsh in some circumstances. The International Community, the International Law, the treaties and agreements made among nations must be more and more strengthened towards the common good. However, it was natural to happen a certain setback in the sympathy of the U.S. to the dictates of the community of the world’s most democratic and mature nations. They were cruelly hurt in their national dignity, they are a warrior people, determined and, above all, they have an ideal that has always valued the “self-made-man” style. Hence: they are isolationist by a fundamental philosophical and political definition. In general, they expect no one’s approval to their procedures and objectives, if they find them righteous. It is obvious that such position can become dangerous, but they are indeed a christian and democratic nation. Within their own social segments of opinion and internal pressure, they already suffer enough restraint in order to not go beyond the strictly necessary. They should not inspire fear to any nation. They’re not exactly invaders or imperialist, as were empires of the past. They have features of empire today, given the enormity of their economic success in comparison to all other nations, with powerful implications in areas, such as culture and politics. On the other hand, those who rise against the U.S., this can be clearly observed, are not imbued with good intentions, as it may seem at first glance. They are nations with a dubious past, in terms of moral and spiritual quality. History reveals that these peoples have always been very self-centered and nothing suggests that they have abstained from this primary level of consciousness, this one dangerous indeed, if they had in their hands the economic and military power of the American empire. The European pride and its penchant for bestiality have been documented for millenia and it is not by chance that the Divine Providence has withdrawn their power and transferred it the United States, in order to keep relatively under control, its instinct to submit the world according to its will.
(BT) – Although I agree with what you say, Eugenia, I would like to relativise an aspect of what you said. Wouldn’t Europe have been sanguinary because of historical and circumstantial issues, rather than a cultural and collective temperament?
(SE) – If that was so, would they have betaken to two outbreaks of genocidal slaughter, such as the two Great World Wars? The United States, at that time, entered both wars to hinder the murderous rampage of the European pride. The rage that reappears with the “skin-heads”, more recently, and in every movement averse to immigrant communities, also confirms what we say. This is unthinkable, in the same extent as it happens in Europe, in the United States, a nation constituted of immigrants, a patchwork of diverse ethnicities and cultures. No matter how many social and economic elements exist behind the initiatives of war of the U.S. (please, we are not a community of angels), the core motivations of this great nation have always been noble ones. They were not disputing pieces of land at the expense of blood, like in Europe, but great ideals and achievements for the whole of humanity, as the War of Independence (1776), which anticipated and surpassed the French Revolution (1789) in its postulates, especially in the application of its assertions, and the Civil War (1861 – 1865), both in search of the freedom and respect to equality among human beings; the first war battled for these ideals, for every people; and, the second, for part of it: those of african origin.
(BT) – What a beautiful picture, Eugenia! I share it with you, wise as you always are. However, don’t you agree that many will find it rather romantic, if not naïve?
(SE) – It is naive to assume that, because they are the greatest empire in the world, they would not be tempted to abuse their limits. It would be naïve to assume that there were any economic interests embedded in all of their initiatives. The point is that, they don’t exclusively focus on these issues, they have values, moral and spiritual principles, as imprinted in their own currency with the mystical symbol of the all-seeing eye and the infamous phrase “In God we trust”, while hegemonic nations of the past only sought to invade and dominate. The United States never fought a people to conquer it. They don’t need this and they know it: they’re too good with trade and pragmatic relations to resort to violence in order to affirm themselves as a nation, furthermore, as I said, they have no vocation to violence, for they are a Christian people – aggressive, but truly Christian. Some people suppose they are smart, by realizing the obvious: that they always intend to take advantage, economically. Honestly, it sounds suspicious and demagogic to hear someone saying this, because it seemingly implies that other nations have no concern over their interests either. Which other nation in the world, however, would continue so democratic and pragmatic like the United States, with the power they have at hand?
(BT) – I agree, Eugenia. Brilliant, thank you so much. Do you wish to say anything else about the subject?
(SE) – Yes. There are always more effective systems, or more diplomatic and humanitarian ones, to undertake any initiative; war, therefore, must always be seen as the last resource alternative. However, just as negligent and permissive parents can corrupt the character of their children, because they intend to pass themselves off for very modern (better if they were overly severe and excessively disciplinarian, because at least they would have emotionally and morally strong children), the same applies to relations among nations. Better the reactions that are bitterly harsh, than no action at all, when one deals with uncivilized people who intend to submit the world to their whims. Terrorist communities, thus, deserve every vehement criticism and not the USA. There are deep strategic reasons to be solved, such as poverty and all forms of social injustice within nations and among peoples, however, it is not by attacking those who have more that one will conquer the right to obtain something. This is the culture of envy, not progress. May the rich become more conscious, as we slowly begin to notice improvements in this direction (what indeed will need to happen fully, with the “incentive” of terrorism, or human civilization as a whole will be in danger). Nonetheless, may the poor not to assume that the “easier” way of armed robbery and kidnapping is the suitable route for general happiness. When we see a rich man being kidnapped or having his children killed after an armed robbery, nobody blames the millionaire for it. Likewise, if the man who saw his children being murdered, in one of these attacks, soon after, pulled out a gun to react, even if ignoring the justice system, everyone would understand. The same pattern of reasoning should apply to the relationship among peoples. The USA are this rich parent who “lost his mind” and, instead of appealing for justice, decided to make justice for his children with his own hands, indifferent to the litany that the “poor kidnapper is the son a prostitute or a thief”. Poverty does not justify violence, as much as a furious reaction is not the best method to resolve the violence practiced by a wretched individual. However, to condemn who reacts violently to violence, more than those who took the first initiative, is, the least, illogical and incoherent, a distortion of correct thinking, usually motivated by an unspeakable envy of the most powerful country on the planet, that has reached its current position through its own merit, at the expense of the hard work and discipline of a people that, in general, is dilligent and honest.
(BT) – So, are there nations that are more honest than others, as well as more hard-working, etc?
(SE) – Undoubtedly. There are good and “bad” people everywhere, but nations have collective traces of character and personality, like individuals, attracting to their human conglomerates, spirits that are in tune with this general pattern. This is self-evident.
(Mediumist dialogue held on July 13, 2004.)