YES! ... To all these layers of nuts (i.e., crunchiness that sometimes get stuck between the teeth) and honey (i.e., delightful sweetnesses that beckon-to-linger-here) of this baklava offering. A particular favorite layer for me is "To ask questions rather than provide answers. To tell stories rather than to make arguments. To empathize rather than to persuade. To hold space for evolution rather than to try to force change."
That being said, I am left in deep satisfaction and heartfelt gratitude with the savoring of the last paragraph.
I have said to myself and sometimes out loud which others can hear, all wars start within me. I used to be, and still occasionally am, a believer in pushing boulders. I thought my shoulder to that huge rock could send it toppling down into a ravine and prevent it rolling the other way, crushing many people.
I don't start wars by picking up a gun, or by pushing a button that releases a nuclear warhead, I do it a very different way.
To continue Charles Eisenstein's analogy of how huge forests are destroyed, I start my own little pile of tinder. I stockpile little twigs and small branches in my stash which sit waiting for the spark which will inevitably ignite the flames that burn down the whole forest. If instead, I allow the dry leaves, twigs and little branches to fall to the forest floor, the earth will use them as food for small insects and worms which will chew them up and through their digestive systems create wonderful casts of nutrient enriched soil which will keep the huge trees properly nourished creating a strong healthy forest.
So my time is better spent learning how the deep wisdom of nature works organically to prevent the destruction of huge forests.
When I see or hear an argument that I decide I can pick up and resentfully store, I have a choice which allows it to remain & become food for worms to do their magic. Not as elegantly written as Charles has done in his missive, but an analogy which stops me building little piles of tinder which facilitate massive destruction.
I examine what is it that first ignites my anger and resentment or creates a threat response. I work out if I can refrain from condemnation and judgement and instead build a small flame of compassion for those who I decide are stupid, wrong headed idiots.
When driving my car someone might forget to indicate and pull into my lane too quickly causing me to break. This might cause me to sound my horn indignantly letting them know they've done something wrong. That's a little branch I can add to my tinderbox stash or I can think about what may have caused them to forget to indicate; maybe they're on their way to the bedside of a dying relative or hurrying to witness their child being born. When I think like this it creates a little stash of compassion in my heart for them and it doesn't matter if it's true or not. I might as well take this action which creates compassion rather than a resentment.
It may seem small and insignificant but it stops me adding to my tinderbox stash which maybe will eventually burn down the whole forest.
Hmmm, thanks for sharing. I like your analogy and I will adopt it. So many little piles of tinder stockpiled waiting for spark. I tend them instead by taking many long walks in the forest and scattering the debris along the way to feed and renew rather than to anticipate destruction.
In a sweet way you and I are connected now and thanks to Charles.
When staying in the analogy of forest fires one needs to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact the a healthy forest sometimes needs local fires to cleanse itself from dry tinder and thicket overgrowth. Every environmentalist will welcome such natural course of things and will agree that this is nature's way of healing itself. After all, it is amazing what abundance of new beautiful life emerges in a previously burnt down patch of forest, sometimes even just a few months after the fires.
Taking the macro-perspective, it is straight forward to root for "indigenous forest tending practices" which sounds all fuzzy and wholesome. However, these "indigenous forest tending practices" necessarily involve dozens of rabbits, birds and frogs and probably billions of ants, bees, beetles and other lovable innocent creatures perishing in the the process of properly managed local fires.
That may sound cruel or evil, but to a neutral onlooker it appears to be a morally acceptable trade off for the overall greater good of the whole forest ecology. Caring for every single beetle sounds considerate and ethically imperative superficially but in the end it would stymy the whole cleansing process leaving the forest again in danger of eventually burning completely to the ground, killing all the precious beetles anyway.
Now, that does not mean that one should tacitly accept or even cheer on innocent people on every side being caught up in violent geopolitical altercations. But I would argue that precisely the over-caring and conflict avoiding approach that some seem to favor lead to more disastrous conditions down the road.
So, what is your constructive contribution other than advocating for inevitable suffering in the micro-level you might ask? I think one of the useful ways forward is affording everyone more agency again - agency for themselves, for their immediate surroundings and for their own destination in life.
As far as I can tell, agency has severely eroded in some of the most critical domains: communicative agency, financial agency and governing agency. The circle of people in effective control of the spreading of information and narratives, of the distribution of money (or similar currencies of outsourced trust), and of the possibilities to shape the rules of local communities has grown way too small. Enlarging that circle again through measures of de-censoring, decentralization of stores of accrued trust and subsidiarity of political decision-making to local levels would eventually get us back on track to what Charles is aiming at.
Your essay is beautifully written Charles. I agree with everything you have offered. I pondered how I wanted to respond on my morning walk. Now, sitting at my desk, I began to type only to realize that I do not hold a paid subscription to your stack and cannot comment.
I have rectified that (obviously)...
In our face to face conversations in your home and ours I have brought up what I believe is the missing factor in your calculus several times. My impression is that you have a polite and sincere curiosity about what, in your metaphor would be the spark that leads to the conflagration which is war. The situation is urgent, perhaps more urgent than ever. Perhaps you would be willing to revisit this topic now.
Yes. The forest fires are inevitable because we have not tended to the forest properly, but a forest, no matter how dry, cannot erupt without a spark, an ignition source. I speak of inciting the events which are used to justify a response either on moral, ideological or security grounds.
The public has been told that the aggressors are morally bankrupt and hateful of our way of life. They attack us, the good guys, out of desperation knowing that the response will be exponentially more destructive. We have the bigger sticks. We have the nukes and they don't. They not only show up to a gun fight with a knife, they pick the fight to begin with. They must be crazy. You can't reason or negotiate with crazy. You have to disarm them, imprison them with economic sanctions and no-fly zones.
Here are some of the sparks in our history:
The sinking of the Lusitania which led to our involvement in WWI.
The attack on Pearl Harbor by the empire of Japan.
The Gulf of Tonkin attack which led to the Vietnam "conflict"
The events of 9/11
October 7
Are they really what we think they were? Or more specifically, are they really what they public was told they were?
You have beautifully laid out the problems with speaking your truth. In this hyperpolarized environment one must declare allegiance to one political or ideological "side" or another to be accepted by one while simultaneously be rejected by the other. Omni partisan support is impossible.
However there is something that all can agree upon enough to mobilize a coming together: we don't like to be lied to.
Coming together is a necessary step. If you/we are truly interested in ending this insanity perhaps it is a time to dig a little deeper into our own understanding of what leads us to the never ending series of conflict. It's about what you wrote. And there is more...
Without going into specifics and details which can rightly be challenged and, sadly, be prematurely discarded I suggest we ponder the nature of conflict and its relationship with authority.
How could the kings of yesteryear raise taxes and conscript armies if those ruled are living hand to mouth? You could deploy your tax collectors but how much blood can you squeeze from a stone? What would motivate the serfs to part with what little they had to fund your desire for a bigger wall around your castle and more guards to protect your kingdom?
Wouldn't be convenient if one of your towns was attacked by the "enemies" across the river in an overnight raid?
That's not so hard to "arrange". As the king you could send secret correspondence to your rival despot, hinting that defenses would be down and an incursion would not be met with resistance. You could repay the favor at a later time when he needs to hike up taxes for some more soldiers.
If he/she is unwilling to play this nasty game you have another option: use your own loyal soldiers to attack a village under the guise of night and appropriately fashioned garb. It would be hard for the people to detect the deception. Accusing your own king of such an act would be a risk to begin with.
These kinds of games (also effectively used by mafiosos) are "false flags". The first is a LiHOP (Let it Happen On Purpose). The second is a MiHOP (Make it Happen on Purpose). Both can be effective. LiHOPs carry less risk to the king as plausible deniability exists.
MiHOPs are more egregious. The despot (or government) runs the risk of being dethroned or decapitated if the people can see the deception. Control of the narrative is essential to stay in power and keep your neck away from the chopping blocks.
Of the "ignition" events from our own history listed above, some are undeniably and universally accepted as LiHOPs. We sent the Lusitania into waters infested with German U-Boats without any flotilla of destroyers to protect it after openly loading it with armaments (and American citizens).
Then Secretary of Defense, Robert McCnamara admitted that the USS Maddox was not attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats in the South China Sea. The admission came, of course, well after the blood bath that ensued from this supposed attack.
Just days after the atrocities of October 7, ex-IDF soldiers tried to let us know that things just didn't add up. Yes, innocent Israelis were killed and taken hostage but it was inconceivable that arguably the best intelligence agency on the planet couldn't have seen this coming. Reports from folks manning the highly defended walls that were breached said they tried to warn higher-ups but shockingly, nobody picked up the phone on the other end. Defensive forces at the Gaza border were redeployed in the West Bank just days before. Why exactly does the Israeli government fund Hamas?
And finally...
If one accepts the fact that pilots who could barely pass their single engine flying tests could man the cockpits of multiengine jet planes and fly complicated maneuvers into what was supposed to be highly defended areas on suicide missions, how are we to contend with the fact that over 3000 trained structural engineers and architects are on the record saying that the twin towers didn't fall down, they blew up?
This isn't some complicated and scientific counterargument. Show the North Tower coming down to a group of ten year olds. They haven't been programmed. They will tell you what your eyes can see but your mind cannot accept. It isn't falling down. It is being blown to smithereens with a large fraction of the building being expelled outward and upward. How can it crush the bottom part if its mass is being thrown all over lower Manhattan?
How did the "terrorists" get into the buildings to plant explosives? If they could pull the plunger, why fly planes into the buildings too? Why did our authorities not examine the dust for incendiaries when over 100 firefighters testified that they were witness to explosive events during the "collapse" of the towers? Why did the three dozen mainstream media sources who reported massive explosions in the buildings not speak up when our own government stated that they were unaware of any reports of explosions so there was no reason to look further?
These are the questions we are not allowed to ask. That should be of some concern to those of us who want the peace you speak of.
Finally, I leave you with an essay penned by a thoughtful and intelligent friend in the "9/11 Truth" movement. She voices the very same struggle she has with walking and speaking outside of any political affiliation these days. I suggest that the foundation of the movement towards peace has been laid already, but is being kept hidden by a campaign of misdirection which drives the public to condemn anyone who asks questions in the name of resolution and future peace.
"Shattering the Mold. A call to the Bold" by Sandra Jay:
Fully agree that 10/7, 9/11, and many other events were LiHOP at the very least, and possibly crossing the boundary into MiHOP. The London Subway bombings are another. This was a standard play in the CIA playbook as well. Operation Northwoods. However, none of these would work if the public and generous consciousness were not already primed for us-versus-them narratives.
Charles, I read your essay and these comments with great interest. i am not only a victim of the (engineered) California fires but also someone who has studied the events of 9/11 very thoroughly for a decade, since the event. A former member of my family divulged to me that it was an inside job, he having taken part in massive insider trading that was directed, he told me, by the private intelligence firm Stratfor. Eventually when you study this subject it becomes perfectly clear that there is a very strong negative correlation between one's acceptance or belief in the official story and one's knowledge about it. In other words, the only people who believe the official account know comparatively little about it. Alternatively, people who have studied the event, use critical thought, are disbelieving what the government asserts. Also, more than anyone I know I have studied what is generally known as MKULTRA, which stands for Ultra Mind Kontrol, a plethora of applied psychological research o the American population in the post war period by the CIA, which is the phoenix of the third reich. RFK touches this third rail in his brilliantly courageous book on Fauci, noting that the CIA funded the infamous Stanley Milgram experiments at Yale, on obedience to authority. The ultra mind control project is far more extensive and devious than is easy to imagine for an unschooled person. Psychedelic drugs were deployed in the 1950s and 60s by the CIA to distract from their political advances upon the American democracy... So I just want to congratulate you two for beginning the conversation that is long overdue. Funny, in a way, Daniel Pinchbeck wrote a piece last week calling for a new social and political movement, but that will be hard, he says, because Americans have been subject to layers and layers of deception in the realm of politics. I commented that unless, and until these most fundamental deceptions, ie, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 are dealt with squarely, nothing will further. Daniel, who I like and respect, not surprisingly continues to dodge the subject.
Wouldn't the most important step to undo the priming be to expose the lies behind the events that primed us in the first place? How else can this be done? What would be the harm in starting there anyway?
One thing about 9/11 is that it goes from opaque to obvious with just a little concerted, disciplined, intelligent analysis. Like children who believe in Santa Claus finally wake up to the many flaws in the story. Flaws that are obviously impossible, but we believed them anyway, when we were five years old.... Dr. Setty, your book, WOKE, is a major step forward in this regard....
An addendum to my previous comment (pasted below):
I agree, the large-scale problems we face cannot be solved by us individually. When thinking about these problems, it's easy to fall into the trap of making these situations all about ourselves. It's not all about me, or you Charles. You don't have to solve the world's problems. You are not Atlas or Sisyphus. Taking on their burden will continue to lead you to burn out.
I also notice, once again, your anger with the Democratic party seeping through. It's hard, you say, to work with those who have betrayed you. Yes, it is. But maybe we can find some common ground in that we all want peace, even if we disagree about how to achieve it.
Please be gentle with yourself, Charles.
------------
I noticed an interesting phenomenon when I was participating in your online community during the "Sanity" Project. I notice that there was always some "crisis" that the group seemed to be reacting to, and that this "crisis" demanded an inordinant amount of the group's energy and attention, and if any member attempted to discuss anything else or question the group narrative around the "crisis", they were ignored, dismissed, or "corrected", sometimes harshly. As I recall the sequence of "crises" that summer/fall were the Canadian wildfires, the wildfire in Hawaii, and finally the Israel/Palestine incident.
What struck me was that these incidents really didn't have any direct impact on the day-to-day lives of most people in the community. I wondered how much focusing on these incidents was distracting people from participating in their own local communities. I also wondered if these incidents, as well as any of the thousands of unseen situations in everyone's local communities, were really manifestations of the same larger issue. Sort of separate "heads" of a hydra-headed problem.
I suspect this Israel/Iran situation is similar. Yep, it could get bad - really bad. But there's really nothing any of us can do about it. Worrying doesn't help. We can only do what we can do in our own communities. So I think rather than spending a lot of energy on worrying about this latest "crisis", maybe our collective energy would be better spent getting to know our neighbors, planting a garden, loving on our dogs and kids, taking care of an elderly friend or relative, etc. These are positive, peaceful, productive things we can do. Who knows the larger implications of such actions if enough of us do them.
A Response to Charles Eisenstein: Awakening at the Edge of Creation
Charles Eisenstein's reflection on the war with Iran, and the deeper forces that shape it, resonates powerfully with the foundational insight behind Adventure at the Edge of Creation: that real change begins not with frantic resistance, but with a conscious shift in how we see, feel, and relate to the world around us.
In Adventure at the Edge of Creation, we remind ourselves and one another that our outer experience is a reflection of the stories we hold within—stories about who we are, what we’re capable of, and how the world works. Charles names it well: the “Story of Separation.” It’s the same myth that breeds conflict, fuels fear, and reinforces division. And no amount of reactionary effort—no matter how well-intentioned—can shift a story still rooted in the same soil.
Instead of rushing to douse the latest fire, we ask:
“What dream are we nourishing? And are we feeding the future we want—or energizing the one we fear?”
Like Charles, we understand the seductive urgency that says, “Act now or all is lost.” But in the Magic Forest of the soul—in the deep quiet places where real transformation begins—we hear a different call:
🌿 Be still. Listen. Imagine. Connect.
From that sacred attention, a new story can begin to form. One rooted in interconnection, wholeness, and the radical power of love.
🌀 Peace as a Practice of Presence
In our story, young adventurers like Willow and Birdie don’t stop the tides of change by opposing them. Instead, they learn to ride those tides with awareness. They become Designers of Reality by shifting their focus from fear to faith, from chaos to creative clarity. They discover that peace is not the absence of war—but the presence of purpose, compassion, and vision, lived moment by moment.
Just as Charles proposes “peace consciousness” and a “peace narrative,” Adventure at the Edge of Creation offers an embodied path for this practice. We don’t teach young minds to escape reality—we teach them to engage it differently:
To see every challenge as a mirror and every emotion as a compass.
To realize that attention energizes, and that wherever they place their focus, they plant seeds of the future.
To live in a way that models the world they wish to see—not in defiance of the old, but in devotion to the new.
🌎 Building a Peaceful World from the Inside Out
Charles says we don’t have the power to stop this war. Perhaps not. But we do have the power to stop believing in the inevitability of war. That is no small thing.
Because once enough of us stop feeding the story of separation, we begin telling another:
A story where humanity is one family.
A story where the Earth is sacred.
A story where peace is not won, but remembered.
This is the real revolution. It is slow, yes—but it is also unstoppable. Like the roots of a great tree, it moves quietly beneath the surface, anchoring the future in the wisdom of the present.
And it begins with each of us choosing, again and again, to live as though the dream is already real—to love, to imagine, and to act from a place of deep coherence and faith.
As we say in Adventure at the Edge of Creation:
“You are not here to fix a broken world. You are here to dream a new one into being, and to walk it into form with every step you take.”
We thank Charles for his courage and clarity. And we offer this response not as a counterargument, but as a harmony—a companion thread in the tapestry of transformation he’s helping to weave.
Let us continue, each in our own way, to become peace.
To embody the narrative we want the world to know.
To walk, even in urgency, with the patience of the forest.
And to hold the deep knowing that we are never alone.
Alleluia….i mean GOD.. I mean LIFE be praised, for giving us Charles Eisenstein and all who sail with him! Remember, Omnia Vincit Amor. It is must be so, otherwise we would not still be inhabiting this beautiful ( but unfathomable Earth.)
Relax everybody and read ‘The Wellspring’ by Lorna Howarth.
"the mindset that looks first for “which side are you on” is the opposite of peace consciousness." - So deeply true ...
YES! ... To all these layers of nuts (i.e., crunchiness that sometimes get stuck between the teeth) and honey (i.e., delightful sweetnesses that beckon-to-linger-here) of this baklava offering. A particular favorite layer for me is "To ask questions rather than provide answers. To tell stories rather than to make arguments. To empathize rather than to persuade. To hold space for evolution rather than to try to force change."
That being said, I am left in deep satisfaction and heartfelt gratitude with the savoring of the last paragraph.
Once again ...
Thank you, Charles,
Marianne Rowe
I have said to myself and sometimes out loud which others can hear, all wars start within me. I used to be, and still occasionally am, a believer in pushing boulders. I thought my shoulder to that huge rock could send it toppling down into a ravine and prevent it rolling the other way, crushing many people.
I don't start wars by picking up a gun, or by pushing a button that releases a nuclear warhead, I do it a very different way.
To continue Charles Eisenstein's analogy of how huge forests are destroyed, I start my own little pile of tinder. I stockpile little twigs and small branches in my stash which sit waiting for the spark which will inevitably ignite the flames that burn down the whole forest. If instead, I allow the dry leaves, twigs and little branches to fall to the forest floor, the earth will use them as food for small insects and worms which will chew them up and through their digestive systems create wonderful casts of nutrient enriched soil which will keep the huge trees properly nourished creating a strong healthy forest.
So my time is better spent learning how the deep wisdom of nature works organically to prevent the destruction of huge forests.
When I see or hear an argument that I decide I can pick up and resentfully store, I have a choice which allows it to remain & become food for worms to do their magic. Not as elegantly written as Charles has done in his missive, but an analogy which stops me building little piles of tinder which facilitate massive destruction.
I examine what is it that first ignites my anger and resentment or creates a threat response. I work out if I can refrain from condemnation and judgement and instead build a small flame of compassion for those who I decide are stupid, wrong headed idiots.
When driving my car someone might forget to indicate and pull into my lane too quickly causing me to break. This might cause me to sound my horn indignantly letting them know they've done something wrong. That's a little branch I can add to my tinderbox stash or I can think about what may have caused them to forget to indicate; maybe they're on their way to the bedside of a dying relative or hurrying to witness their child being born. When I think like this it creates a little stash of compassion in my heart for them and it doesn't matter if it's true or not. I might as well take this action which creates compassion rather than a resentment.
It may seem small and insignificant but it stops me adding to my tinderbox stash which maybe will eventually burn down the whole forest.
Hmmm, thanks for sharing. I like your analogy and I will adopt it. So many little piles of tinder stockpiled waiting for spark. I tend them instead by taking many long walks in the forest and scattering the debris along the way to feed and renew rather than to anticipate destruction.
In a sweet way you and I are connected now and thanks to Charles.
Take good care 🙏🏼
When staying in the analogy of forest fires one needs to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact the a healthy forest sometimes needs local fires to cleanse itself from dry tinder and thicket overgrowth. Every environmentalist will welcome such natural course of things and will agree that this is nature's way of healing itself. After all, it is amazing what abundance of new beautiful life emerges in a previously burnt down patch of forest, sometimes even just a few months after the fires.
Taking the macro-perspective, it is straight forward to root for "indigenous forest tending practices" which sounds all fuzzy and wholesome. However, these "indigenous forest tending practices" necessarily involve dozens of rabbits, birds and frogs and probably billions of ants, bees, beetles and other lovable innocent creatures perishing in the the process of properly managed local fires.
That may sound cruel or evil, but to a neutral onlooker it appears to be a morally acceptable trade off for the overall greater good of the whole forest ecology. Caring for every single beetle sounds considerate and ethically imperative superficially but in the end it would stymy the whole cleansing process leaving the forest again in danger of eventually burning completely to the ground, killing all the precious beetles anyway.
Now, that does not mean that one should tacitly accept or even cheer on innocent people on every side being caught up in violent geopolitical altercations. But I would argue that precisely the over-caring and conflict avoiding approach that some seem to favor lead to more disastrous conditions down the road.
So, what is your constructive contribution other than advocating for inevitable suffering in the micro-level you might ask? I think one of the useful ways forward is affording everyone more agency again - agency for themselves, for their immediate surroundings and for their own destination in life.
As far as I can tell, agency has severely eroded in some of the most critical domains: communicative agency, financial agency and governing agency. The circle of people in effective control of the spreading of information and narratives, of the distribution of money (or similar currencies of outsourced trust), and of the possibilities to shape the rules of local communities has grown way too small. Enlarging that circle again through measures of de-censoring, decentralization of stores of accrued trust and subsidiarity of political decision-making to local levels would eventually get us back on track to what Charles is aiming at.
Your essay is beautifully written Charles. I agree with everything you have offered. I pondered how I wanted to respond on my morning walk. Now, sitting at my desk, I began to type only to realize that I do not hold a paid subscription to your stack and cannot comment.
I have rectified that (obviously)...
In our face to face conversations in your home and ours I have brought up what I believe is the missing factor in your calculus several times. My impression is that you have a polite and sincere curiosity about what, in your metaphor would be the spark that leads to the conflagration which is war. The situation is urgent, perhaps more urgent than ever. Perhaps you would be willing to revisit this topic now.
Yes. The forest fires are inevitable because we have not tended to the forest properly, but a forest, no matter how dry, cannot erupt without a spark, an ignition source. I speak of inciting the events which are used to justify a response either on moral, ideological or security grounds.
The public has been told that the aggressors are morally bankrupt and hateful of our way of life. They attack us, the good guys, out of desperation knowing that the response will be exponentially more destructive. We have the bigger sticks. We have the nukes and they don't. They not only show up to a gun fight with a knife, they pick the fight to begin with. They must be crazy. You can't reason or negotiate with crazy. You have to disarm them, imprison them with economic sanctions and no-fly zones.
Here are some of the sparks in our history:
The sinking of the Lusitania which led to our involvement in WWI.
The attack on Pearl Harbor by the empire of Japan.
The Gulf of Tonkin attack which led to the Vietnam "conflict"
The events of 9/11
October 7
Are they really what we think they were? Or more specifically, are they really what they public was told they were?
You have beautifully laid out the problems with speaking your truth. In this hyperpolarized environment one must declare allegiance to one political or ideological "side" or another to be accepted by one while simultaneously be rejected by the other. Omni partisan support is impossible.
However there is something that all can agree upon enough to mobilize a coming together: we don't like to be lied to.
Coming together is a necessary step. If you/we are truly interested in ending this insanity perhaps it is a time to dig a little deeper into our own understanding of what leads us to the never ending series of conflict. It's about what you wrote. And there is more...
Without going into specifics and details which can rightly be challenged and, sadly, be prematurely discarded I suggest we ponder the nature of conflict and its relationship with authority.
How could the kings of yesteryear raise taxes and conscript armies if those ruled are living hand to mouth? You could deploy your tax collectors but how much blood can you squeeze from a stone? What would motivate the serfs to part with what little they had to fund your desire for a bigger wall around your castle and more guards to protect your kingdom?
Wouldn't be convenient if one of your towns was attacked by the "enemies" across the river in an overnight raid?
That's not so hard to "arrange". As the king you could send secret correspondence to your rival despot, hinting that defenses would be down and an incursion would not be met with resistance. You could repay the favor at a later time when he needs to hike up taxes for some more soldiers.
If he/she is unwilling to play this nasty game you have another option: use your own loyal soldiers to attack a village under the guise of night and appropriately fashioned garb. It would be hard for the people to detect the deception. Accusing your own king of such an act would be a risk to begin with.
These kinds of games (also effectively used by mafiosos) are "false flags". The first is a LiHOP (Let it Happen On Purpose). The second is a MiHOP (Make it Happen on Purpose). Both can be effective. LiHOPs carry less risk to the king as plausible deniability exists.
MiHOPs are more egregious. The despot (or government) runs the risk of being dethroned or decapitated if the people can see the deception. Control of the narrative is essential to stay in power and keep your neck away from the chopping blocks.
Of the "ignition" events from our own history listed above, some are undeniably and universally accepted as LiHOPs. We sent the Lusitania into waters infested with German U-Boats without any flotilla of destroyers to protect it after openly loading it with armaments (and American citizens).
Then Secretary of Defense, Robert McCnamara admitted that the USS Maddox was not attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats in the South China Sea. The admission came, of course, well after the blood bath that ensued from this supposed attack.
Just days after the atrocities of October 7, ex-IDF soldiers tried to let us know that things just didn't add up. Yes, innocent Israelis were killed and taken hostage but it was inconceivable that arguably the best intelligence agency on the planet couldn't have seen this coming. Reports from folks manning the highly defended walls that were breached said they tried to warn higher-ups but shockingly, nobody picked up the phone on the other end. Defensive forces at the Gaza border were redeployed in the West Bank just days before. Why exactly does the Israeli government fund Hamas?
And finally...
If one accepts the fact that pilots who could barely pass their single engine flying tests could man the cockpits of multiengine jet planes and fly complicated maneuvers into what was supposed to be highly defended areas on suicide missions, how are we to contend with the fact that over 3000 trained structural engineers and architects are on the record saying that the twin towers didn't fall down, they blew up?
This isn't some complicated and scientific counterargument. Show the North Tower coming down to a group of ten year olds. They haven't been programmed. They will tell you what your eyes can see but your mind cannot accept. It isn't falling down. It is being blown to smithereens with a large fraction of the building being expelled outward and upward. How can it crush the bottom part if its mass is being thrown all over lower Manhattan?
How did the "terrorists" get into the buildings to plant explosives? If they could pull the plunger, why fly planes into the buildings too? Why did our authorities not examine the dust for incendiaries when over 100 firefighters testified that they were witness to explosive events during the "collapse" of the towers? Why did the three dozen mainstream media sources who reported massive explosions in the buildings not speak up when our own government stated that they were unaware of any reports of explosions so there was no reason to look further?
These are the questions we are not allowed to ask. That should be of some concern to those of us who want the peace you speak of.
Finally, I leave you with an essay penned by a thoughtful and intelligent friend in the "9/11 Truth" movement. She voices the very same struggle she has with walking and speaking outside of any political affiliation these days. I suggest that the foundation of the movement towards peace has been laid already, but is being kept hidden by a campaign of misdirection which drives the public to condemn anyone who asks questions in the name of resolution and future peace.
"Shattering the Mold. A call to the Bold" by Sandra Jay:
http://www.thechillpill.ca/blog/shattering-the-mold-a-call-to-the-bold
Fully agree that 10/7, 9/11, and many other events were LiHOP at the very least, and possibly crossing the boundary into MiHOP. The London Subway bombings are another. This was a standard play in the CIA playbook as well. Operation Northwoods. However, none of these would work if the public and generous consciousness were not already primed for us-versus-them narratives.
Charles, I read your essay and these comments with great interest. i am not only a victim of the (engineered) California fires but also someone who has studied the events of 9/11 very thoroughly for a decade, since the event. A former member of my family divulged to me that it was an inside job, he having taken part in massive insider trading that was directed, he told me, by the private intelligence firm Stratfor. Eventually when you study this subject it becomes perfectly clear that there is a very strong negative correlation between one's acceptance or belief in the official story and one's knowledge about it. In other words, the only people who believe the official account know comparatively little about it. Alternatively, people who have studied the event, use critical thought, are disbelieving what the government asserts. Also, more than anyone I know I have studied what is generally known as MKULTRA, which stands for Ultra Mind Kontrol, a plethora of applied psychological research o the American population in the post war period by the CIA, which is the phoenix of the third reich. RFK touches this third rail in his brilliantly courageous book on Fauci, noting that the CIA funded the infamous Stanley Milgram experiments at Yale, on obedience to authority. The ultra mind control project is far more extensive and devious than is easy to imagine for an unschooled person. Psychedelic drugs were deployed in the 1950s and 60s by the CIA to distract from their political advances upon the American democracy... So I just want to congratulate you two for beginning the conversation that is long overdue. Funny, in a way, Daniel Pinchbeck wrote a piece last week calling for a new social and political movement, but that will be hard, he says, because Americans have been subject to layers and layers of deception in the realm of politics. I commented that unless, and until these most fundamental deceptions, ie, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 are dealt with squarely, nothing will further. Daniel, who I like and respect, not surprisingly continues to dodge the subject.
Wouldn't the most important step to undo the priming be to expose the lies behind the events that primed us in the first place? How else can this be done? What would be the harm in starting there anyway?
One thing about 9/11 is that it goes from opaque to obvious with just a little concerted, disciplined, intelligent analysis. Like children who believe in Santa Claus finally wake up to the many flaws in the story. Flaws that are obviously impossible, but we believed them anyway, when we were five years old.... Dr. Setty, your book, WOKE, is a major step forward in this regard....
An addendum to my previous comment (pasted below):
I agree, the large-scale problems we face cannot be solved by us individually. When thinking about these problems, it's easy to fall into the trap of making these situations all about ourselves. It's not all about me, or you Charles. You don't have to solve the world's problems. You are not Atlas or Sisyphus. Taking on their burden will continue to lead you to burn out.
I also notice, once again, your anger with the Democratic party seeping through. It's hard, you say, to work with those who have betrayed you. Yes, it is. But maybe we can find some common ground in that we all want peace, even if we disagree about how to achieve it.
Please be gentle with yourself, Charles.
------------
I noticed an interesting phenomenon when I was participating in your online community during the "Sanity" Project. I notice that there was always some "crisis" that the group seemed to be reacting to, and that this "crisis" demanded an inordinant amount of the group's energy and attention, and if any member attempted to discuss anything else or question the group narrative around the "crisis", they were ignored, dismissed, or "corrected", sometimes harshly. As I recall the sequence of "crises" that summer/fall were the Canadian wildfires, the wildfire in Hawaii, and finally the Israel/Palestine incident.
What struck me was that these incidents really didn't have any direct impact on the day-to-day lives of most people in the community. I wondered how much focusing on these incidents was distracting people from participating in their own local communities. I also wondered if these incidents, as well as any of the thousands of unseen situations in everyone's local communities, were really manifestations of the same larger issue. Sort of separate "heads" of a hydra-headed problem.
I suspect this Israel/Iran situation is similar. Yep, it could get bad - really bad. But there's really nothing any of us can do about it. Worrying doesn't help. We can only do what we can do in our own communities. So I think rather than spending a lot of energy on worrying about this latest "crisis", maybe our collective energy would be better spent getting to know our neighbors, planting a garden, loving on our dogs and kids, taking care of an elderly friend or relative, etc. These are positive, peaceful, productive things we can do. Who knows the larger implications of such actions if enough of us do them.
A Response to Charles Eisenstein: Awakening at the Edge of Creation
Charles Eisenstein's reflection on the war with Iran, and the deeper forces that shape it, resonates powerfully with the foundational insight behind Adventure at the Edge of Creation: that real change begins not with frantic resistance, but with a conscious shift in how we see, feel, and relate to the world around us.
In Adventure at the Edge of Creation, we remind ourselves and one another that our outer experience is a reflection of the stories we hold within—stories about who we are, what we’re capable of, and how the world works. Charles names it well: the “Story of Separation.” It’s the same myth that breeds conflict, fuels fear, and reinforces division. And no amount of reactionary effort—no matter how well-intentioned—can shift a story still rooted in the same soil.
Instead of rushing to douse the latest fire, we ask:
“What dream are we nourishing? And are we feeding the future we want—or energizing the one we fear?”
Like Charles, we understand the seductive urgency that says, “Act now or all is lost.” But in the Magic Forest of the soul—in the deep quiet places where real transformation begins—we hear a different call:
🌿 Be still. Listen. Imagine. Connect.
From that sacred attention, a new story can begin to form. One rooted in interconnection, wholeness, and the radical power of love.
🌀 Peace as a Practice of Presence
In our story, young adventurers like Willow and Birdie don’t stop the tides of change by opposing them. Instead, they learn to ride those tides with awareness. They become Designers of Reality by shifting their focus from fear to faith, from chaos to creative clarity. They discover that peace is not the absence of war—but the presence of purpose, compassion, and vision, lived moment by moment.
Just as Charles proposes “peace consciousness” and a “peace narrative,” Adventure at the Edge of Creation offers an embodied path for this practice. We don’t teach young minds to escape reality—we teach them to engage it differently:
To see every challenge as a mirror and every emotion as a compass.
To realize that attention energizes, and that wherever they place their focus, they plant seeds of the future.
To live in a way that models the world they wish to see—not in defiance of the old, but in devotion to the new.
🌎 Building a Peaceful World from the Inside Out
Charles says we don’t have the power to stop this war. Perhaps not. But we do have the power to stop believing in the inevitability of war. That is no small thing.
Because once enough of us stop feeding the story of separation, we begin telling another:
A story where humanity is one family.
A story where the Earth is sacred.
A story where peace is not won, but remembered.
This is the real revolution. It is slow, yes—but it is also unstoppable. Like the roots of a great tree, it moves quietly beneath the surface, anchoring the future in the wisdom of the present.
And it begins with each of us choosing, again and again, to live as though the dream is already real—to love, to imagine, and to act from a place of deep coherence and faith.
As we say in Adventure at the Edge of Creation:
“You are not here to fix a broken world. You are here to dream a new one into being, and to walk it into form with every step you take.”
We thank Charles for his courage and clarity. And we offer this response not as a counterargument, but as a harmony—a companion thread in the tapestry of transformation he’s helping to weave.
Let us continue, each in our own way, to become peace.
To embody the narrative we want the world to know.
To walk, even in urgency, with the patience of the forest.
And to hold the deep knowing that we are never alone.
Blessings and thanks,
John Ashmead Brodie
The Adventure at the Edge of Creation team
www.EdgeOfCreation.info
Alleluia….i mean GOD.. I mean LIFE be praised, for giving us Charles Eisenstein and all who sail with him! Remember, Omnia Vincit Amor. It is must be so, otherwise we would not still be inhabiting this beautiful ( but unfathomable Earth.)
Relax everybody and read ‘The Wellspring’ by Lorna Howarth.
Thank you Charles for your voice which helps make sense of this fracturing world.
https://substack.com/@wdlady/note/c-127630617?r=jx6c3&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action