It is not for me to say what the demands of the Occupy movement should consist of. But if it was up to me, this is what I would say.
To the mainstream media, acting governments, and TPTB,
You say you want to know what the occupiers' demands are. Fair enough. Here is one:
We demand that you respect the rule of law, and apply it fairly. The following persons stand accused of crimes against humanity and numerous other sickening transgressions: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Stephen Harper, Queen Elizabeth II, Henry Kissenger, Joseph Ratinger (aka, Pope Benedict XVI). The evidence against these persons is more than sufficient to convict them. We demand that they be arrested and prosecuted. They must be tried publicly and by jury. This is not a complete list, but you can start with these, and more names will follow. This is not the sum of our demands. Honouring this demand will not end the occupation. However, if you fail to honour it, we will not disperse willingly, or consider any other solutions that you propose. Yours
I would like to ask the Occupy protesters, "Who are you trying to influence?" It's not a rhetorical question. I hope it's not your governments. They are working for the 1%. They knew you didn't want them to give all your money to the IBCS (international banking crime syndicate). They knew, but they didn't care, because they don't work for you. They work for them. Surely their actions have proved this. Your governments have also used violent force to suppress your protests. By their actions, they have made their true loyalty abundantly clear. They couldn't address your grievances without condemning themselves, so it isn't going to happen.
I hope you're not pleading your case to a criminal justice system. The judges and prosecutors were appointed by your governments to serve their common masters. They have made it very clear that the 1% are above the rule of law. The 1% brazenly admit their crimes in public, in print and on camera, and nothing happens. The inexcusable inaction on the part of prosecutors and judges has made them directly complicit in these crimes. Don't expect any of this to change from within.
I really, really hope you're not appealing to the 1%, because they truly don't give a shit about you.
None of these groups can fix what is wrong because their survival depends on preventing it from being fixed. Any solution they offer is a trick. Don't even speak to them. There is only one source of power that can respond to your legitimate demands, and that is the 99%. The message has to be intended for us, not them. We need to talk to each other. We need to decide what is important and valuable to us, and then work out how we are going to act on that.
If there is an award category for "worst invention of the year", it should go to the "human microphone". What a terrible idea! Why would you do that? Whoever came up with this is working for the enemy (or might as well be).
First of all, it sounds awful. It ruins the flow of spoken communication, making its content difficult to follow. Everything takes at least twice as long to say and, it's just plain creepy. I can't be the only one who finds it extremely unpleasant.
So what if there's a bylaw against using microphones without a permit? I'm pretty sure the Occupiers are already violating several other bylaws. I suppose the police could battle their way to the microphone and try to take it, but not without it being widely viewed on You-tube. The movements could organise a microphone replacement fund if necessary.
It shouldn't just be assumed that amplification is needed, or even good. Is it really preferable that a single voice should be heard by everyone at the same time? Consider that all other conversation is made difficult, if not impossible. Might it not be better to have multiple speakers' places, conveniently spaced so as not to overlap? Natural consensus is best achieved through dialogue, in small scale discussions. People should mill around and talk to one another, consider many different ideas. There is time for that. And consensus should take some time to develop if it's going to be wise consensus.
These protests sweeping the globe today, what are they about? I've heard a number of different answers. Some say it's the greedy bankers, some the corporations, or the corrupt government officials, or the monetary system, and these are all part of the problem. There is a more basic culprit, though. Failure to address this underlying cause will, in time, nullify any other gains. It always has before.
Essentially, our enemy is the tyrant. A tyrant is one who rules others by force, or the threat of force. You can't fight tyranny by opposing it. The only way to be free of tyrants is to remove the conditions that support their existence. The existence of the tyrant depends on that of the slave. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither can be without the other. It is a mistake to believe that the tyrant is guilty and the slave blameless. Living under tyrannical rule doesn't make you a slave; your willing cooperation does.
If we wish to be free of tyrants, we must cease to be slaves. It's the only thing that will serve. It should be our foremost concern as individuals. If you have lived your whole life under the rule of tyrants, your mind is full to brimming with slave-programming. You need to become aware of it in order to remove it. The following are descriptions of slave-programs, which you may, or may not, be conscious of.
One justification for money is: "Those who contribute most to society should receive commensurate rewards." I refuted this belief on the grounds of morality in "The Way of the Gift". It is also an example of slave-programming in that it disguises awareness of the socio-economic injustice of the tyrant/slave relationship. In practice, it is very, and increasingly, unlikely that you can ever become wealthy enough to comfortably stop earning an income. The main way you become rich is to have rich parents, or marry a rich person. Alternatively, you could be a genius, or a psychopath, or the winner of a lottery or a large legal settlement. None of these is within your control, and even if acheived, your wealth would be peanuts compared with that of the top tyrants on this planet. And it is frankly insane to argue that anyone's contribution is that much more valuable than anyone else's.
Another belief that justifies money is: "People won't work unless they have to. People won't do anything beyond what's barely necessary without "incentives". That belief is also slave-programming. It is very widely believed because it appears to be true within any society based on a tyrant/slave dynamic. Most people can recall instances where irresponsible members of a group became a drain on the others, causing resentment and disharmony. If you train a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, it does not logically follow that it is in the nature of dogs to salivate when they hear a bell. If you condition a human being to out-source responsibility to an external authority, which you must do with slaves, he will behave irresponsibly. That doesn't mean all humans are naturally like that. Sovereign human beings, meaning those who choose to be neither slaves or tyrants, are aware of their responsibilties as well as their rights. (Too bad libertarians aren't.) The effect of this programming is to get the slave to believe he needs the tyrant.
This so-called summer has been the worst I can remember. Ever. Chris has started calling it "sum-week" because we've only had that many warm (not hot, mind you) days. Global warming, my ass! These pictures were taken in mid-April:
This is Port Hardy. Snow is normally rare here in the winter.
By the middle of August, the blackberries are usually ripe to bursting. Here they are as of today:
Every time we do have a sunny day, we get this:
See how they spread:
WTF! And less than an hour later, we've got this:
This happens all the time. It's not like Port Hardy has a big, busy airport. It is puny. It can't even accommodate a jet. Yesterday, Chris saw chemtrails in the sky at 5:00 AM. It was still dark. I find it hard to believe that commercial flights out of Port Hardy would start so early. This sucks.
"Every man and every woman is a star."
- "The Book of The Law", by Aleister Crowley.
Visual metaphor: Imagine an opaque, hollow sphere, it's surface covered with billions of holes of various size and distribution. The holes are not static. They open and close and move around. There is a single source of light. This light is everywhere and goes on forever, outside the sphere.
This image came to me years ago, as a way of visualising the identity of the One and the many. The light represents infinite awareness, or the One, (God by my definition). As the light, or awareness, passes through the holes of the sphere, it perceives itself in the form of all the other light-emitting holes. In this way, the One becomes the many. Each of the holes provides a unique perspective on the whole. The light passing through a hole corresponds to the experience of individuality.
Today, I was pondering what stars are, not so much physically, but in the sense of energy and awareness, which are probably the same thing. It occured to me that the above visual metaphor could be taken in an interesting new direction. The sphere's interior, when viewed through a hole, would look exactly like a clear night sky. (Please note that this is a symbolising, right-brain exercise and I am not suggesting that we really live in a physical hollow sphere.) Maybe the stars we see, are our real bodies, and this world, as well as the forms we appear to inhabit, are virtual simulations. Perhaps the entire simulation is generated by one star, the one we call Sol. Maybe this is not the only simulation we, as stars, participate in. Maybe our star-selves can visit any or all of the star-generated virtual worlds...
Looking the other way is harder than it used to be. The fascist, psychopathic pedophiles who rule the world don't even bother to hide their crimes any more. On the other hand, they probably feel pretty secure in the knowledge that most people would rather not see them. This refusal to see is no different from the attitude of the German people who failed to notice the Nazis' attempted genocide, or the woman who looked the other way while her husband was fucking the kids. The psychological maneuver known as denial isn't the same as total ignorance. Denial is when we avert our eyes to avoid acknowledging what we know. It is a form of consent.
A close relative of mine is like this. I asked her why. She said, "I don't want to know this stuff because there's nothing I can do about it". I suspect her answer is very typical. What these human ostriches don't seem to understand is: if everybody knew what was going on, it couldn't. That's all I would ask of any one. Just see. You don't have to martyr yourself. That wouldn't help anyway. It would just deplete our collective strength. It's true, one person alone can't free the world from the clutches of the control system. (That's a good thing actually.) But...
One person can free their own mind. One person can make a choice to withdraw their loyalty to the system, to refuse to lift a finger to defend it, to stop policing their fellow humans on it's behalf. One person can psychologically prepare themselves to let it go. One person can stop parroting MSM propaganda and start telling the truth in public. One person can choose to become a responsible and sovereign being, an adult in a meaningful sense. One person can begin to imagine a better way.
No one else can do these things for you. Only you can. When enough of us do, things will change for the better. TPTB could never rule us through force alone. Of course, the first and absolutely necessary step in solving any problem, is seeing that there is a problem and figuring out what it is. It is up to the individual to face the need for change. In a very real way, only you can save the world.
There is reason for hope. People resort to denial because it is too painful for them to give conscious consent. That means, if they knew the truth, they couldn't willingly serve the control system anymore. That's why they avert their eyes. It's not because they haven't got a conscience; it's because they still do. Yes, it hurts when you realise what foul abominations your ignorance has made you party to, past and present. I know it hurts your pride to have to admit that you have been, and still are, enslaved. But your willingness to face that pain is the sole thing that can end the horror show.
There is something you can do, something only you can do. You can look and you can see. Then you can search your own heart and make an inner choice. Please, please, please. It's all I ask.
I haven't paid much attention to the question of ETs until recently. It's just a subject where too little is definitely known, including whether or not the entities in question are really coming from outer space. There is also a huge amount of disinformation and wild speculation on the topic. It is impossible to rely on the testimony of whistle-blowers. Some are certainly lying and others may have been unknowingly fed wrong information. It just makes my head hurt. So I've chosen to devote my attention to more promising areas of investigation.
My position on the subject of ETs is necessarily vague, but here it is. Something is definitely going on. Our species is being interfered with by something that isn't human. It's behavior is secretive and dishonest. The powers that be on this planet are controlled by, or acting in collusion with it. (I favour the theory that what we call "ETs" are one of the many agencies of the Archons, but not synonymous with them.) Whatever it is, it wants us to either disregard it completely, or believe that it is an advanced extraterrestrial species. It's this last aspect that's gotten my attention recently.
I don't have television. TV is the most dangerous form of mind-control ever conceived, not least because it is believed to be harmless. Even people who know better than that, overestimate their own immunity. After only a few minutes of TV viewing, the brain begins producing mainly Alpha waves. You, the viewer, are now in a highly suggestible state, similar to a hypnotic trance. While in that condition, you are given programmes to watch. As an aside, have you ever wondered why they are called "programmes". The actual definition of the word "programme" is: a plan or list. "Programmes" should properly refer to the schedule of shows, not the shows themselves. It's actually confusing to call the shows "programmes". The modern use of that word, to refer to the shows, is itself a subliminal suggestion. Think about it. The producers of TV shows (and even more so, the ads) have access to psychological research far in advance of mainstream knowledge. This research is not in the mainstream because much of it is military, and therefore secret, and the rest is privately paid for by corporations and advertising firms, and therefore proprietary. The sheer amount of money spent on such research should make you think twice about watching TV.
OK, it might seem like I've gone way off topic. What does TV have to do with the "ET" agenda? Well, it makes sense to me that whatever beliefs and attitudes TPTB want to encourage in society will be reflected in the TV programming. In fact, they'd be crazy to pass up such a powerful tool. That being the case, knowing what TPTB want you to think can be very useful in predicting their intended direction. Which brings me back to "ETs". Since I don't have TV, I mainly glean my info about it from people who do. I especially take notice of shows that everyone is watching and talking about. Case in point: The History Channel's "Ancient Aliens".
This show is two entire seasons featuring six one-hour episodes. Wow! "Ancient Aliens" is now in continuous rerun mode and available for free on the Internet. Hmmm. I've only watched three episodes of the first season, but an ideological agenda is already clearly visible. It is suspiciously similar to the narrative advanced by Zecharia Sitchin and many of the channelled entities claiming to represent "The Galactic Federation", not to mention the Yahwist religions. It's a creationist/salvationist narrative, and seeing it pushed so hard by the MSM does nothing to ease my suspicions about it.
I have a big problem with the idea that the ETs, or gods, or whatever, created us. It's only a small step from there to, "they own us". If we assume that TPTB are taking their direction from these entities, one would expect their beliefs and attitudes towards genetic engineering to be fairly similar. If we look at the genetic engineering that is currently and openly being done, we find that no life-forms have ever been created from scratch. It's all mixing and manipulating what was already there. Yet, the "new" organisms so produced, are being patented and are considered by law to be the property of whoever owns the patent. The developers of these GMOs are unanimous in their assertion that their alterations are an improvement. I suppose they've got a point, if the only criteria being used is corporate profit. When these points are considered, doesn't it make you wonder if the "ETs" think along the same lines?
I prefer "fucked with", but in their minds, they may have "created" us. Do you trust that their intervention was an improvement? Or, isn't it more likely that the alterations they made were of benefit only to themselves? Evidence of highly advanced prehistoric civilisations would appear to refute the idea that our would-be creator gods originally found us in a condition much like that of chimpanzees. And then there's the fact that we, as a species have been systematically driven to the brink of insane, suicidal destruction by the very same entities who are now proposing to save us from our evil selves. I can hardly imagine anything more abusive and dis empowering. I wouldn't want to be saved by such beings, any more than I would want to be saved by the Yahwist's Jesus.
After I posted this yesterday, I watched the 4th episode of Ancient Aliens. It was focused on speculations about the "why" of ET visitation. A lot of material was presented, but it's relevance was never established. The majority of it had no real connection to aliens at all. Most importantly, no plausible reasons were suggested. Some reasons were proposed; they just weren't plausible. One was: they came to mine gold but they didn't want to do it themselves, so they genetically engineered a slave race (us). Really? They could manage interstellar travel, but they couldn't build robots? Then there was the theory that the ETs came all this way to have sex with us because Earth women are so irresistibly hot. Hmm, maybe burqas are a good idea after all. There was no mention of what I consider the most likely motive: the vampirism of consciousness. They are mind-parasites who feed on fear.
I have a hard time understanding why, if there are ETs out there, we aren't being contacted by any benevolent ones. If we're under some sort of quarantine, shouldn't we have been spared the predations of hostile ETs as well? Also, one would expect that civilisations advanced enough for interstellar travel would be predominantly, if not exclusively benevolent, since any who weren't would probably have destroyed themselves before they ever made it into space.
So, one of the darlings of the truth movement has switched sides. Charlie Veitch of the Love Police has publicly renounced his belief that 911 was an inside job after spending a few hours with experts representing the official narative, courtesy of the BBC. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that he was pre emptively arrested and held in police custody only a few weeks ago in connection with the royal nuptials. He spoke to Adam Davis and Max Igan in this series of videos. It's disturbing, to say the least.
Charlie makes some bizarre and self-contradictory statements in the second video segment, at about 7 minutes. When Adam asks him to account for the speed of his mental conversion, Charlie responds that he has to "stand by what he believes, currently believes". Then, in the next breath, he points out that beliefs are dangerous and says he no longer believes in belief. He also claims that his former conspiratorial view was based on nothing but belief. Yet, in the absence of positive proof supporting his new view of 911, he's just swapped one set of indefensible beliefs for another. So why the 180? Why not just say that he doesn't knowwhat happened? We don't get to find out because Charlie changes the subject and starts comparing the truth movement to a cult. Something stinks.
Something smells like decomposing fish. What the hell is it? Oh, of course, it's the BBC. This is definitely the most interesting aspect of the story in my opinion. Charlie admits that he's "going to get in trouble" for mentioning the BBC's involvement. Nothing sinister, they just wanted it to be a "nice surprise". He tries to distance himself from the BBC by stating that they contracted another company to produce the show. The BBC are still the ones who conceived and are paying for it. So, this other (nameless) company contacts Charlie, invites him to participate in the show, and Charlie agrees, even though he knows it will be a hit piece. Next, this company (who aren't the BBC) foot the bill to fly Charlie to America and take him on a guided tour of the WTC site in New York, the Pennsylvania crash site, Washington DC, and Baltimore, but not the Pentagon or NORAD. He can't tell us what they said that changed his mind because "it would spoil the fun".
I listened to the whole interview twice, and the only new pieces of information Charlie offers are as follows:
1. Charlie says he now believes WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint at free-fall speed because chunks of concrete and steel hit the basement, partially hollowing it out, and then the building fell into the hole. How did debris hit the basement? Oh, never mind.
2. The reason there is so little debris at the Shanksville, PA crash site is because the plane hit an abandoned mine shaft and the debris got embedded up to 40 feet underground. Other pieces, including the engine, "shot into the forest".
3. Charlie doesn't think powerful people would risk getting caught, because of the awful consequences they would face. Seriously? They get caught doing horrible crimes all the time and are never held to account. At worst they have to sacrifice a few of their minions.
4. Charlie says that there are 1,500 architects and engineers who publicly state that controlled demolition was responsible for the WTC collapses, and since there are approximately 1.7 million architects and engineers in the USA, that means 99.9% believe the official explanation. What?! No it doesn't. It just means that very few professionals in those fields are prepared to risk their reputations and careers in defense of the truth. We don't actually know the true opinions of the remaining 99.9%.
5. Charlie says he doesn't now think a false flag was necessary to justify the invasion of Afganistan, and later, Iraq. The PNAC group thought otherwise, as Charlie well knows.
I find it extremely hard to believe that such flimsy explanations could account for Charlie's massive cognitive dissonance and belief-transplant. I'd say there's a very high probability that Charlie Veitch was threatened. If so, he deserves our sympathetic understanding. We should not condemn his actions. Why should he sacrifice himself, or those he loves, to protect the beliefs of people who can't be bothered to think for themselves? I wouldn't. The evidence we already have refutes the official story. What Charlie Veitch believes, or says he believes, is truly irrelevant. If the 911 truth movement stands or falls according to the belief system of Charlie Veitch, or anyone else, then it really is a joke. Adam raises the concern, probably shared by many, that Charlie's about-face will discourage people from looking into the events of 911. I very much doubt that. Anyone who still hasn't questioned the official story, isn't open to doing so.
For me, it hasn't changed anything. I don't believe the official story because it's provably bullshit. I remember 911. I was suspicious right away because, in the week prior to the attack, while channel-surfing, I came across two programmes dedicated to Osama Bin Laden. One was "America's Most Wanted" and I think the other was "Biography". I thought it was odd at the time because I'd never heard of the man before, and then, only days later, America was attacked and Osama Bin Laden was immediately blamed, long before any evidence of his involvement could have been available. Nothing Charlie said addressed my reasons for concluding that 911 was a false-flag operation. Some of those reasons are as follows:
1. Osama Bin Laden personally denied involvement and specifically condemned the attack as morally wrong. There is no point in committing a terrorist act (assuming it isn't false-flag) unless you take credit for it. Real terrorist organisations always claim responsibility.
2. Evidence was manufactured. What kind of an idiot could believe that the passport of one of the alleged hijackers floated out of the plane, undamaged, and landed in the street, where it was found almost immediately and reported by the MSM.
3. Evidence went missing. Security cameras failed to operate. Air traffic control tapes were destroyed before they could be collected as evidence. If there is any video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, it has never been shown. Are we supposed to believe that only two security cameras recorded the impact (from the exact same angle) and both failed to show a plane? The person who posted this clip thinks he sees a plane, but I don't. Most chain-stores have better security than that.
4. The aerial maneuvers executed by the alleged hijackers would have taxed the skills (at least) of experienced pilots, and yet flight school reports show the accused were incompetent to fly single engine Cessnas.
5. NORAD possesses state-of-the-art capabilities for monitoring North American airspace, yet somehow, even after two planes had hit the WTC towers, they were helpless to prevent a third from crashing into the Pentagon. The Pentagon!
No doubt, the BBC's new hit-piece will answer all these questions, and it's equally certain that monkeys will fly out my ass.
If I don't write something today, who knows when I will. It's difficult. Pluto is transiting conjunct my natal Descendant (7th degree, Capricorn), and simultaneously opposing my partner's natal Venus. That's as much as I'm prepared to share about it in this place. But it occupies my mind, and I'm well enough acquainted with Pluto to know that he won't just go away if you ignore him.
I'll have to change the style of my blogs if I'm going to keep writing. I just don't have the sustained concentration needed to develop ideas in essay form. Unfinished drafts are piling up. So I'll try sharing ideas and observations in a less formal way.
One of those abandoned posts was about online identities and their relationship with the "real world" incarnations that create them. The title of this post: "multiple personality disorder as a life-style choice", is a phrase in "The Invisibles" graphic novel series by Grant Morrison. It referred to a trend of the future (circa 2012). It occurred to me though, that that phrase would also describe the adoption of online identities.
I know some people get all bent out of shape over the use of screen-names. I've heard it said that screen-names reflect a lack of courage or integrity. Apparently the people who say those things have never had to deal with stalkers, (my reason, initially, for not using my "real" name). But aside from that, what makes the name your parents gave you more real than one you gave yourself?
It's been my experience for quite a while that 13 Muluc isn't Amanda, in much the same sense that Thomas A. Anderson isn't Neo in "The Matrix". Have you ever noticed that in the movie, Neo has no close friends or family? 13 Muluc doesn't either. 13 Muluc and Amanda do occasionally stray into one another's territory, but they're definitely not the same person. It's only proper that they should have different names. I couldn't even say which of the two incarnations is more real. They both are. Sometimes one is ascendant, sometimes the other. Right now, it's Amanda. Perhaps she needs a blog of her own.
Lots of people will tell you that money isn't a bad thing, just a tool that can be used for good or ill. I don't agree with them. I don't think they've really thought it through. You see, money, all money, is the representative symbol of a belief system, and that belief system is toxic, in and of itself.
It's true that the monetary system currently in use is an especially virulent version of the disease. It is a pyramid scheme and it will end the way all pyramid schemes do. Thus far, that collapse has been deferred only by increasing it's scale. That's what is behind the push toward a centrally controlled global economy. Some people will tell you that debt-based issuance of money is the cause of our trouble. Some say that a return to the gold standard would suffice as a solution. They don't seem to understand that evils such as debt-based and fiat monies are implicit in, and inevitable developments of, the belief system that money represents.
The most important question that needs asking in order to see the truth about money is: "Why do I believe that money is necessary?" It's fear of scarcity, isn't it? We think that, without money, we'd have no way of demanding that our needs and wants will me met by others. We don't feel secure in simply asking. What if the answer is no? With money, we don't have to ask. We can instead present the other with enough magic tokens, and then they will have to give us what we want. This is assuming that you have some magic tokens. Money makes interpersonal trust irrelevant and unnecessary. The primary, bottom line tenet of the religion of money is: Other people can't be trusted and shouldn't have to be.
This is an incredibly destructive belief. All by itself it is sufficient to condemn the use of money. We see the result of it everywhere. Our societies don't expect, much less require, any sort of communal responsibility or standards of fairness on the part of individuals. They allow predatory psychopaths to flourish without fear of repercussions from the saner majority. Provided only that they have enough money, they can do as they like. This is freedom, according to those who own the system.
What if all the money disappeared? What if, for instance, a massive EMP burst were to wipe out all electronic records so no one knew who owned what anymore? What would we do? Sit around with our thumbs up our asses while we starved to death? Maybe we would, given the level of idiocy that Money-anity has reduced us to. Then again, we might have a collective epiphany and decide to do what people did for untold ages before money existed. We might decide to voluntarily cooperate for our mutual benefit. We could raise our children to be responsible, trusting, and trust-worthy.
Socialisation is a powerful force! Just look at all the irrational, crazy shit we've been socialised to accept. If children were daily witnesses to their elders' voluntary participation in the common good, they would copy that. Of course they would. The best evidence now indicates that psychopathy is largely biological, caused by injury or malformation in certain parts of the brain, so such individuals will probably always exist. But they are rare, and without the protection of money, the harm they could do would be small. In a society of mutual trust and responsibility, they would stand out as the moral cripples that they are.
Another belief implicit in the use of money is the legitimacy of assigning relative value to human beings. In other words, some people are worth more than others. What I find really horrifying is that this belief is presented as a justification of money. It's apologists claim that money serves to reward those who contribute to society and penalise those who do not, and that this is a good thing. For one thing, it doesn't work that way in practice. For another, they are wrong to assume that they know what counts as a "contribution". A person who has disabilities that make them dependent for life is simply assumed to offer no benefit to society. I would argue otherwise, since that person serves to teach others about compassion, generosity and responsibility, and those lessons do benefit society.
Money is just not benign. The only way it could be, is if it's use were confined to trade in inessentials. Current monetary policy is demonstrably heading in the opposite direction. As I write, the would-be rulers of the world are meeting to design a new economic system to take the place of the one that is about to collapse. It won't really be new. It will be same system, only global and centrally managed. Either the IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, or some combination of those, will be given the power to issue the world's new reserve currency: the Bancor. After that, all nations will have to hold Bancors in order to trade internationally in certain essential items. If the issuers of the Bancor do not like the policies of a government, they will have the unchallengeable power to impose economic sanctions unless it's demands are met. Expect global austerity and the privatisation of everything.
Those in charge of fixing the economic crisis are the last people we should entrust with it. They were the ones who presided over the failure and profited from it. They failed to predict this crisis. Why? I predicted it. I told people ten years ago that this would happen. I even told them when it would happen: now. I didn't have to be psychic to know what was coming. I based my warning on the realisation that the system is a pyramid scheme. Those who designed this system knew what they were doing. The evidence is right there on the American dollar (present reserve currency of the world), a pyramid with a capstone not yet in place. The Bancor is that capstone. Either the masters of the old and new financial order are incompetent, or they are liars and thieves. In neither case should they be trusted.
The good news is, we can end their predation any time we choose, if we act in solidarity. We don't even have to do anything! We can accomplish it by not doing something: not supporting the banks. If enough people refused to pay their mortgages, loans and credit-card debt, the banks would fall, just like that. I've been telling as many people as I can about this option, planting seeds in their minds for the inevitable future time when the status quo is no longer tolerable for the majority. In my estimation, that future is not far off, because the global elite have no self-restraint. They will never decide that they have enough power. They'll just keep pushing and pushing, and their arrogance will make them overstep the limit of human tolerance. The tipping point will come when the imagined burden of adult responsibility becomes less than the experienced cost of childish submission.
Any theory is only as good as the assumptions it rests upon. Almost every theory of evolution I've heard or read has produced an intellectual abortion by beginning with a false assumption: that evolution is driven by survival. It isn't.
Part of the problem is the use of the word, "evolution". It has been assigned to two completely different processes that are assumed to be the same thing, but are not. On the one hand, it refers to genetic adaptation, gradual changes in response to changing and/or specialised environments. On the other hand, it signifies the tendency of life to produce ever more complex forms with novel abilities and greater information processing capability. In the first case, survival is a driver, but in the second, it is not. Only the second process actually deserves to be called evolution. The first should be called what it is: genetic adaptation. For clarity's sake the remainder of this blog will employ that distinction.
To say that survival drives evolution doesn't make any kind of sense. The most evolved life-forms are also the most vulnerable in the survival stakes. For example, plants would survive just fine without mammals, but the reverse is not true. Greater complexity = greater vulnerability, as a rule. It pains me to have to say something that should be so obvious. I spent some time visiting "evolution" websites such as this one. Nowhere is this problem addressed, or even acknowledged. It certainly isn't in the FAQs. In fact, that site doesn't talk much about evolution at all. It focuses on adaptation, presumably because there is evidence for that. And what is the evidence that this complexifying trend is a survival strategy? I don't know. I couldn't find it. It's just assumed. Why would something like that be assumed without challenge? I'd suggest that the assumption that survival drives evolution derives from another assumption: that the universe is accidental, not intentional. The subconscious mind has here engaged in a maneuver to defend a belief system from threat.
To reject survival as the motive force behind evolution, is to raise the question, "If not survival, then what?" A dangerous question indeed, and one that must be asked, (unless you decide that there's no such thing as evolution, but that would open an equally ugly can of worms for materialist scientism). If evolution does exist, what function could it serve? What could be behind the tendency of life to produce ever more complex forms with novel abilities and greater information processing capability? The observed pattern of evolution tends toward an increasing range for consciousness. Stating the obvious again, if that's what evolution does, maybe that's what it's for. But that would suggest that evolution is meant to serve something, consciousness, that isn't supposed to have existed until very late in the process. Awkward? It isn't hard to understand why such speculations would be avoided by some.
It's note-worthy that the whole subject is painlessly bypassed through simply equating evolution with genetic adaptation. As long as that yoke is in place, there's no need to think about evolution or it's inconvenient implications. This is a deliberate trick and a very effective one. Other examples of it are spirituality = religion, morality = law, and individuality = false ego. People are taught to believe that such pairs must stand or fall together. To accept that belief is to be deceived no matter what. For example, if spirituality = religion, then should religion be seen as false, spirituality is rejected also. If religion is seen as true, it then stands in spirituality's place, substituting it's hand-me-down, pseudo-experience for the real thing. In either case, spirituality is prevented from calling attention to itself and thus causing trouble.
On Thursday morning, something very strange happened. I had just woken but hadn't got up yet, when I experienced a state of mental clarity unlike and discontinuous with normal waking consciousness. In that state, I knew exactly what was going on in the world and why. I knew precisely what to do and how. Had I been able to hold on to the state, I could have explained it with no trouble at all. Unfortunately, it lasted for a few seconds only, and then it was gone. I knew that I'd had the experience, but that's all. I couldn't remember what I had known.
It was not the first time this has happened. There's never any warning, but it usually happens when I'm in a contemplative frame of mind or shortly after waking. In retrospect, it feels very much like a period of weeks before I left Vancouver. Almost every day, I woke up with the certainty that only seconds before, I had known the answers to all my most important questions, but I had zero recall of what they had been. It was intensely frustrating.
This most recent experience was the most dramatic. I was fully awake when it occurred and I have absolutely no doubt that it was real. It occupied my mind for most of that day and the next. The most striking thing about it was it's discontinuity with waking consciousness. The best analogy my intuition could provide was, that it was to waking consciousness as waking consciousness is to dreams.
It is not unusual to remember one's dreams when awake, but one never remembers one's waking life while dreaming. The memory traffic goes in only one direction. Still, it sometimes happens that waking consciousness manifests within dream reality. That would be the definition of a lucid dream, and that's very much what this was like, being lucid while awake. Another difference between waking and dreaming is their relative orderliness. From the perspective of waking consciousness, dreams appear very disorderly, chaotic and unstable. And yet, once awake, it is possible to make sense of the dream's meaning and see the source of it's contents in one's waking life. A sense of transcendent orderliness was present when I was in the state I experienced as well.
I'm starting to strongly suspect that there is a third state that is to waking as waking is to dreaming (and maybe others beyond it). What I find funny is, if there is such a state, then we've been living in it all our lives and just don't remember. Also, if the analogy to dreaming is sound, we probably spend far more "time" there than we do here. I haven't got as far as knowing what to make of all this. I would greatly appreciate any ideas and input about it and it's implications. I hope it happens again. It was a beautiful experience, even though it's specific content was lost. If it does, I'll post an update in the comments.
Suppose you were given a gift, something that couldn't be depleted but would actually be increased or become more valuable each time it was used? Would you think it reasonable or just to demand compensation for the sharing of that gift? I'd say not. If any compensation is required, it is owed by, not to, the gift's recipient.
People with unusual talent are called "gifted", and that is exactly what they are: gifted. And yet talented people are taught to expect compensation. The more valuable their gift, the more compensation is demanded. This is very backwards. If talent had not been given to you, you couldn't earn it or buy it. It isn't evenly or fairly distributed. If you have it, you didn't do anything in advance to deserve it. The only way you could make yourself worthy of such a gift would be to share it as generously as possible. In short, the more you have been given, the more you should give.
Not only are gifted people conditioned to expect superfluous rewards, but those who are not gifted are penalised for their lack, as if they'd had some say in it. They're pretty much told, "Sorry buddy. You got passed over in the talent lottery, so now you've got to suck it up and pay a penalty for what you weren't given." It shouldn't be hard to see how this reversal of reason might lead to unnecessary scarcity. How would it be if we turned it around? If we all started giving as much as we could, instead of taking as much as we could, no one would want for anything. It would be a lot like a pot luck feast. I've been to several of those, and not a single one where there wasn't enough food. Even if some guests don't bring anything, it's always more than enough, and the host ends up wondering what to do with all the left-overs. Not only that, but the quality of the dishes is usually very high, since most people will bring what they do best.
I've heard a number of people complain that they participated in a gift economy and it failed because the contributions of those involved were unequal. It wasn't the unequal contributions that made it fail; it was the score-keeping. Gift economies don't work with score-keeping. Those who have more, give more: those who have less, give less. It is important to remember that the "more" that you have to give was itself a gift. Every valuable quality you possess was given to you, either by nature or circumstance. Keeping score is meaningless, harmful and petty. It's a poverty mind-set. If universal abundance is what we want, we have to let go of the compusion to keep score. (And yes, that does mean abolishing everybody's favorite score-keeping tool: money.) What is wealth really, if not the ability to give more than you take? Nature gives everything and asks for nothing. Is she poor?
I was having lunch with my mother recently, and I was trying to explain to her how the control system operates and expose the criminal and unnecessary harm it does. When I'm talking to people who get all their information about the world from television, I present evidence that comes from mainstream sources such as Reuters or AP because they can't dismiss those sources as "Internet conspiracy theories". I thought I was starting to get through when she changed the subject. "Do you lose sleep over this stuff?", she said. "Yes. Some days I can't stop crying.", I replied. To which she responded, "Why do you let it upset you so much?" What sort of a question is that? It upsets me for the same reason that my being upset bothers her. If more of us let the crimes of the control system upset us, wouldn't we demand that it stop? How the hell did we become so morally insane that millions of our fellow humans being impoverished, enslaved, poisoned, and blown to bits is not a problem but being upset by it is?
What would you think of your doctor if every time you saw him about pain in your body, he simply wrote you a prescription for pain-killers and sent you home? What if he told you that there was no need to set a bone or treat an infection so long as the pain was gone? If you had any sense, you'd report him for malpractice and find another doctor. Pain isn't an illness; it's not a dysfunction; it's your body's way of letting you know that something is wrong. There is a very rare condition called congenital analgesia and it is extremely dangerous. Those who have this disorder can't feel pain. As a result, they may sustain life-threatening injuries and infections without noticing. Fortunately, most of us realise that physical pain is important, necessary, and perilous to ignore.
For some reason, emotional pain is not treated with the same respect. If you go to your doctor and tell him that you are in emotional pain, he will write you a prescription for an emotional pain-killer and send you home. Most psychiatrists apparently believe that emotional pain serves no purpose and that it's causes can be safely ignored. They will tell you in all seriousness that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. WTF!? That's the same as saying that physical pain is caused by electrical signals sent from nerve endings. Such an "explanation" takes no account of the injury that prompted the nerve endings to send the message. Chemical imbalance isn't a cause, it's a mechanism.
Antidepressants were one of the worst inventions of all time. They are so widely used that everybody knows somebody who is taking them. And we are asked to believe that what we're seeing is an epidemic of chemical imbalance that has nothing to do with real world conditions. It's a brave new world, baby. Pretty soon we'll be free of unpleasant emotions altogether. Scientists are close to developing a vaccine for stress. Sounds great, doesn't it? Soon we'll be able to live utterly inauthentic and meaningless lives in nearly unlimited squalor and it won't bother us a bit. There'll be no need for TPTB to lie about their crimes anymore because we just won't care. And imagine the military applications; TPTB have.
We need our emotions, all of them. We would lose our humanity without them. They are our moral compass. We need to be able to feel emotional pain. It lets us know that something is wrong and requires healing. There is a very rare condition called psychopathy and it is extremely dangerous. Those who have this disorder cannot feel emotional pain. As a result, they may inflict serious injury on others without emotional consequences. Is that really what we want for ourselves? Will we really trade empathy for comfort? I can only speak for myself, but my answer is NO! I don't care if I'm the only one, it's still NO! I understand that if empathy goes, love goes with it. Love is too valuable to lose, no matter what it costs. Love is worth more than life itself, because life isn't worth shit without love.
I wish people would stop saying or insinuating that there's something wrong with me because I feel this way. I'm not the one who is emotionally crippled. I am simultaneously aware of a higher metaphysical reality in which all is as it must be, but I arrived at that perspective through accepting the importance of all my experience, including the painful parts. It's a contradiction to say that "everything is perfect as it is", and then deny your authentic emotions their (perfect) place. Telling sensitive, empathic people that they shouldn't let the suffering of others bother them is invalidating. It adds injury to injury. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. Many, if not most, of the people who read this blog know exactly what I'm talking about. I want you to know that there is nothing wrong with you. Your willingness to feel isn't weakness; it is strength. The world needs you just as you are. And I want to thank you for it from the bottom of my heart.