Once you have identified with some form of negativity, you do not want to let go, and on a deeply unconscious level, you do not want positive change. It would threaten your identity as a depressed, angry or hard-done-by person. You will then ignore, deny or sabotage the positive in your life. This is a common phenomenon. It is also insane.

Negativity is totally unnatural. It is a psychic pollutant, and there is a deep link between the poisoning and destruction of nature and the vast negativity that has accumulated in the collective human psyche. No other life forms on the planet knows negativity, only humans, just as no other life form violates and poisons the Earth that sustains it.

Climate change or consciousness change?

I freely admit that maybe I spend too much time writing about Climate Change, reflecting the popularity of this fear-meme and reacting to the overload of propaganda in all forms of media. The chemtrails season has restarted, another obvious reminder that no matter how much I would rather not interact with this meme and its manifestations, it affects my daily life.

Like any fear-meme it traps lots of energy in the mind to engage in a lost battle. The denier try to protect themselves from paying for the other sides paranoia, the fearmongerers feed their fear even more by failing to convince the other side of 'scientific truths'.

Meanwhile, our dominators can rub their backs for another cheap trick to distract from their parasitic existence. Our species is relatively young, and most likely only for a short period infested by the meme of government. It's ability for fast meme creation and distribution contributed to its evolutionary survival. It's easy to forget our natural inheritance in man-made environments. Other forms of life are mostly pests or pets, some foods successfully disguise any origin of formally living matter.

The currently dominant evolutionary strategy, being a ruthless master of this planet, mirrors this disassociation from life. This has not only destroyed other species and ecosystems, it also contributes to an increasing level of insanity within our own species. Obesity, autism, allergies, death by suicide, death by violence, schizophrenia, fear-related disabilities blossom in the 21st century.

So if mankind acted as one organism, interested in general health of it whole self, what challenge would need tackling first? Global warming?

Mankind has experienced some different climates in its about 200,000 years presence on this planet. Our adaptability created colourful varieties of how to live together in all sorts of environments, from tropical forests via scorching deserts and moderate climates to arctic regions. As traveller we might experience this amazing fact for ourselves, yet we might realise at the same time our own inability to survive under conditions which differ too much from our usual habitat.

Even though our planet would change its face when some of the current horror scenarios become reality, mankind would have a fair chance to survive. Whether I could still publish a blog, or if the rising sea levels and so on would destroy human global communication infrastructure I don't know. The world game would certainly change, maybe even to the better. If enough artefacts survive the cataclystic climate catastrophe, maybe the next generations fight off governments better, and enjoy sustainability instead of manic power games.

A future with these changes would be a motive for action today. But there's much more urgent action needed, to stop wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Chechnya, Tibet and countless other places. The amount of physical and psychological damage produced right now exceeds most likely the current capacity of worldwide healers of all kinds, the amount of teaching capacity required to resocialise politician, bankers, bureaucrats and other parasiticly feeding humans is not there yet either.

If we'd compared the evolution of mankind to the development of a human being, it would be just about the age for kindergarten. Don't be fooled by the lack of expression, the emotional game play looks just the same. The most favorite toy is oil, unfortunately it's not a harmless sand pit squabble but the end of the current human existence for millions.

The collective human body undergoes some chemo-therapy right now, and invasive surgery is next on the list. Once the cancer government is gone, healing can commence.

I can't promise that our climate won't kill us once we stop killing each other. I call it hypocritical to want to save the planet's life and do nothing to stop the useless daily deaths.

Consciousness (or just personal responsibility) are not yet part of the political and economical game that produced this crisis-meme. A carbon tax for carbon based life demonstrates the level of unconscious sanity politics suffers from.

change climate current death dominant existence game general global government human kill level life mankind matter maybe meme planet produced species stop survive

created at TagCrowd.com

Countless people in East and West throughout the ages have tried to find God, salvation, or enlightenment through denial of the body. This took the form of denial of sense pleasures and of sexuality in particular, fasting and other ascetic practices. They even inflicted pain on the body in an attempt to weaken or punish it because they regarded it as sinful. In Christianity, this is called mortification of the flesh. Others tried to escape from the body by entering trance states or seeking out-of-body experiences. Many still do. Even the Buddha is said to have practiced body denial through fasting and extreme forms of ascetism for six years, but he did not attain enlightenment until after he had given up this practice.

The fact is that no one has ever become enlightened through denying or fighting the body or through an out-of-body experience.

Viruses of the mind are not some far-off future worry like the sun burning out or the earth being hit by a comet. They are here with us now—have been with us since before recorded history—and they are evolving to become better and better at their job of infecting us. We are being infected in some new ways—television, popular music, sales techniques—but also in very ancient ways—education, religious teachings, even talking to our closest friends. Our parents unwittingly infected us when we were kids. If you have children, chances are you are spreading the viruses to them every day.

Read a newspaper? Catch a mind virus. Listen to the radio? Catch a mind virus. Hang out with your friends and shoot the breeze about nothing in particular? Catch one mind virus after another. If your life isn’t going the way you would like, you can bet mind viruses are playing a large part. Having relationship problems? Mind viruses take over parts of your brain and divert you from what would give you long-term happiness in a relationship. Having trouble in your job or career? Mind viruses cloud your future and steer you along a career path that supports their agenda, not your quality of life.

Cult religions are springing up everywhere, the result of more and more powerful mind viruses. These cults take control of people’s minds and make members engage in bizarre behavior ranging from odd rituals to mass suicide. If you think you’re immune, remember: nobody ever set out intentionally to join a cult and have their mind taken over. It’s the work of tricky and pernicious mind viruses. And once the founder of the cult starts the process, the virus of the mind takes on a life of its own.

... if your destination, or the steps you are going to take in the future, take up so much of your attention that they become more important to you than the step you are taking now, then you completely miss the journey's inner purpose, which has nothing to do where you are going or what you are doing, but everything to do with how. It has nothing to do with future but everything to do with the quality of your consciousness in this moment.

Authentic spiritual teachings are teachings from direct experience devoid of prejudice, provincialism, or predilection. That is based on eternal living tradition motivated and animated by a living truth. Compare that to dead teachings, rote memorization, conformity, and mechanical obedience to external authoritative systems and one can easily understand human history and its discontents. The champions of institutionalized tradition only create prisons and traps, because their own egos and and prideful identities live in a mental prison. They become jealous and scornful of those who have escaped.

This remark holds good, whether we believe that the various qualities of the voice originated in speaking under the excitement of strong feelings, and that these qualities have subsequently been transferred to vocal music; or whether we believe, as I maintain, that the habit of uttering musical sounds was first developed, as a means of courtship, in the early progenitors of man, and thus became associated with the strongest emotions of which they were capable,—namely, ardent love, rivalry and triumph. That animals utter musical notes is familiar to every one, as we may daily hear in the singing of birds. It is a more remarkable fact that an ape, one of the Gibbons, produces an exact octave of musical sounds, ascending and descending the scale by halftones; so that this monkey "alone of brute mammals may be said to sing." From this fact, and from the analogy of other animals, I have been led to infer that the progenitors of man probably uttered musical tones, before they had acquired the power of articulate speech; and that consequently, when the voice is used under any strong emotion, it tends to assume, through the principle of association, a musical character. We can plainly perceive, with some of the lower animals, that the males employ their voices to please the females, and that they themselves take pleasure in their own vocal utterances; but why particular sounds are uttered, and why these give pleasure cannot at present be explained.

Worst Journalist ever

The name George Monbiot sounded familiar to me, and I might have read some of his columns in The Guardian before. Maybe journos of the writing profession don't need any interview skills, or they are not used to TV interviews. However, if Mr. Monbiot represents a well acclaimed journo I'm more than happy that I trashed my idea of a degree in Media.

The self-confessed 'evangelical atheist' has embarked on a crusade against 'climate skeptics', and was given the chance to debate one in person. His believe system could not cope with disagreement, and his assumptions about the world around him sounded amazingly naive.

'Science has to be be open and tranparent'. Now that's interesting. I have to pay to see scientific papers, and any paper touching anything that's potentially related to 'national security' is most likely out of bounds. Most security, however, lies in the obscurity embedded in academic language, which makes most 'scientific findings' incomprehensive. No, Mr. Monbiot, that's lousy preparation, on a global scale, most officially done scientific research is neither open nor transparent. As evangelical atheist you might believe that scientists generate the truth religions don't want to admit, but sorry, that's just your personal believe.

The next faux pas happened when Mr. Monbiot talked about 'unequivocal opinion' of the scientific community, something fairly unfamiliar in scientific history. Science has some amazing theories on offer, which still haven't pervaded the mainstream myth about reality. According to physics, matter is highly elusive, and composes only a minor fraction of our perceivable universe. Einstein's relativity theory is hard to swallow in its original language, but translates easily into Hopi language.

Omg, I did the Alex Jones disgression. Not too surprising, considering how the interview played out. The 'climate skeptic' (professor sound-and-so, he didn't have much time to talk over the restless interruptions of an overeager evangelist) mentioned that the scare about climate change was basically a scam to feed bureaucracy without another scheme to collect taxes.

Of course, this had to be immediately classified as conspiracy by Mr. Monbiot. The myth about the impractibility of conspiracies, reiterated by a smirking journo, didn't enhance his performance or the flow of the debate. Kudos for Terry Jones, who stayed pleasantly neutral and called Mr. Monbiot to order several times.

Unless I assume that scientists find nothing but the 'truth', I wonder about the background of things like the Copenhagen conference. I think it's quite retarded to assume that the cause of the created climate crisis can be the cure as well. So if I go with the idea that the CO2 balance as main culprit for global warming, especially the surplus coming from burning fossile fuels, than it's out of the hands of government anyway. Energy companies have a higher annual budget than most governments, and most governments released corporations from any social obligations.

Witnessing the permanent attacks on nature made with imbecile excuses here in Australia doesn't give me any trust that the 'elected leaders' in this country give a damn about this planet. Having lived in other places convinces me that this is rather typical, and it doesn't even surprise me. Their actions create sufficient individual wealth for them and their offspring, and their influence on the 'lead' societies is rather symbolical.

Our spaceship Earth has too many captains, and only violence keeps most of them in power. The transition from the industrial to the information age seems so superfluously brutal. Obedience trumps empathy, rules relieve from responsibility. Gaia seems to have a little fever. I wonder if she would suggest carbon trading to cool her down, or if a bit respect and less rape could help.

'climate assume atheist believe climate conspiracy create debate give global governments interview language monbiot mr open paper person scientific seems sounded surprise talk

created at TagCrowd.com

Merry Kill-mas

The world has changed on 9 11 -
it has turned into a fascist heaven.

Soon, the coalition of the willing
started their useless killing
with an incredible haste
to dispose their nuclear waste.

Life has gotten so much rougher
with generations bound to suffer
while the spy agencies dragnet
extends to the whole planet.

Reason has lost its place
as motivator for our race
it all went terribly wrong
since only fear moves us along.

War is just temporary insanity
and will not last until infinity,
yet blind trust in war government
prolongs this cruel predicament.

Human rights no longer count,
the prison industry profits abound.
You have to be real brave
not to become the state's slave.

The prize of freedom is vigilance,
but it's less sexy than ignorance.
Lulled into a virtual reality
individuals enjoy lots of cruelty.

Fascists are in power again,
and it drives me insane -
yet it solved a personal mystery,
whether we're doomed to repeat history.

O, how much I'd love to hear
people speaking up without fear.

When we frame the inquiry "how did human languages originate?" in terms not of adaption but of living bodies, we are necessarily confronted with the creation of meaning, a creation that did not arise de nove but was grounded in an already present semantic repertoire, itself grounded in archetypal corporeal-kinetic forms and relations that, as suggested, follow along biological family lines. Accordingly, we should take not only gestural systems of communication seriously: we should take movement seriously, all the more so in view of the fact that in the bisocation of modalities, the kinetic modality is always primary: it is the source of meaning.

Global Whining

Our planet offers an amazing abundance, basis for all sort of life. All these life forms have co-evolved with their Umwelt, the climate being part of this Umwelt. Simply being alive means altering the enviroment, transforming food into energy for movement and into various metabolic byproducts.

The abundance of life-sustaining 'stuff' becomes fairly obvious when one considers the amount of energy currently used to propagate a global scare campaign about the climate. It's quite amazing to see how much pollution is created to squabble about global warming. If someone believes strongly that Co2 is the culprit for seemingly catastrophic climatic changes, why don't they use modern technology like video conferencing instead of physically traveling around, creating masses of Co2 in the process?

Which logic dictates that it's okay to destroy old growth forests, which are nature's carbon dioxide traps, when 'climate change' is of such importance? But logic and reason, so it seems, are not part of any proposed solution to the perceived problem.

Rhetorics dictate the media discourse, the old meme 'us vs them' makes 'climate change deniers' to Holocaust deniers, all the while none of the participants of official talks shows any sign of personal responsibility. Politicos claim scientists have found the truth, citizens trust into their politicos, especially if those don't follow their own opinion, but those of impeccable and infallible scientists.

That's right. In any given time of history, scientific knowledge was incomplete, and most assumptions and conclusions wrongly oversimplified. But now, in the 21st century, thanks brilliant fundamentalists like Dawkins, that has changed. Scientists stopped to err, like the Oracle of Delphi they cannot but tell the 'truth'. In earlier times of history saints channeled divine truth to their communities, now scientists are blessed with this job. Hurray, finally I can stop to think for myself, I just find a scientist to answer all my questions.

One of the factors that taints the credibility of contemporary science is the idea of causation. Let's take a simple example, a man stabbed with a knife in his heart. Obviously, the knife caused the death of the man, but it's not weapons, but people that kill people, so the 'cause of death' is the stabber. The 'stabber', however, is not primarily a cause of death, any investigator would look for a motive.

Neither the knife, nor the stabber, nor the combination of knife and stabber suffices as 'cause' for death. The amount of detail about the circumstances of that killing event is theoretically limitless, a judge would certainly require lots more than I made up on the spot to determine whether the deed will be penalised as murder, as man slaughter or as act of self-defense.

Any credible scientist will avoid stating any definite causal chain, as our planetary climate is a highly complex system. System theory as a discipline of science is less than a century old. Chaos theory, an offspring of system theory, became popular during the 1980s, and most definetely deserves consideration when attempting to make predictions about the climate. A 'young' science like that is highly prone to be wrong, new territory needs time for exploration before usable pathways are found.

Mankind is part of the 'finite' system planet Earth, and its activities, especially the technological aspects, affect the entire system. The pollution of man made industry spread through the atmosphere around the globe, it sounds retarded to deny human influence to its environment. Many cultures in history ended in ecological desasters, the lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of nature doomed many civilisations.

If mankind would want to learn from history, than treating nature with more respect must be the consequence. Indigenous people managed to survive for centuries, until globalisation destroyed the balance of their Umwelt. Only sustainable approaches to live with the natural environment succeeded, imposing control over nature with anthrocentric approaches always ended in doom.

It sounds quite hypocritical to claim that controlling CO2 emissions will avert an almost certain catastrophe. Most contemporary species have survived for millions of years on this planet, with about 30,000 years we have just started to use our survival potential as species on this planet. The thought of us (mankind) wiping ourselves off the planet in maybe only a century is way too pessimistic for me to buy into, although I certainly believe that we have the technological capacity to exterminate all human life on this planet.

But okay, let's assume for a second that reducing Co2 in the atmosphere will safe the planet. First priority then should be the preservation of existing 'carbon sinks', which is good old rain forest, saved from activists around the planet since the 1970's, nevertheless shrinking at an alarming rate. Instead of getting hyperactive simply doing less. Less rain forest killed means less heavy machinery running on fossil fuel, less global transport of those goods, and mainly a living ecosystem binding massive amounts of Co2.

And course, reducing emissions at the same time, or at least, not increasing them. Although I'm not a friend of nuclear power, generating energy in this way certainly wouldn't contribute to more Co2. Instead of hailing Iran for its nuclear program as spearhead for non-carbon based energy production, she is demonised. Instead using Australia's sunny predisposition to become world leader in solar technology, sun-deprived Germany, smaller than Victoria, generates more solar energy than entire Australia.

O wait, there's a catch. In global fascism nobody beats its own drum, all march in step. Those hippie ideas of saving forests and green technology creates too much autonomy, and require different solutions for different areas. Once the sheeple have grazed the idea of Co2 causation, their next meager meal is a hidden tax to finance a trading scheme.

The fear mongering in the name of science is already hard to swallow, but a positive influence of trading on the climate sounds like a pretty drug-crazed idea. It's a bit like reinventing the rain-dance, just in a suit, without music, dance and others to pick up the bill. Please, my local politico-parasite, present me a scientist to prove that trading cools this planet, and until then, stop the systematic rape of nature in this country.

century climate co2 death energy forest global history idea instead kill knife life man mankind nature planet science scientists sounds system technology umwelt

created at TagCrowd.com