Here is a 1 hour 40 minute debate on the issue of whether Britain should have stayed out of the First World War.
I'm very surprised by this outcome. British people, apparently, can be moved by debate. This is in contrast to my own hypothesis that debate accomplishes nothing. What is also interesting is that 10% of the audience did not vote the second time.
Proposition----------------------------Before---After
Britain should not have fought------19-------27
Britain should have fought-----------40-------62
Don't know--------------------------------41-------1
The speakers who thought Britain should have fought constantly made reference to WWII and tried to conflate the Kaiser to Hitler and the Nazis, because the position would have been untenable otherwise. They say that the Germans executing 7000 Belgian civilians was the worst atrocity ever until the Holocaust and was more than enough justification for Britain to go to war, but ignore the millions of Congolese the Belgians murdered under King Leopold's reign. I have no sympathy for the Belgians. They were horrible people in 1914 and they're still the absolute moral anus of the entire universe in 2016. The Belgians are the most immoral people who have ever lived, and if 7000 had to die to assure a quick, largely bloodless war between Germany and France in a repeat of 1870, then so be it. Had the BEF not stepped in at the Marne in 1914 there would have been no WWI. The Ottomans and Italy would not have entered, France would have been defeated in a few months (the German army was very close to Paris in September), and Russia, having lost all its allies, would have sued for peace.
France and Russia have always been the historical enemies of Britain. Russia, in particular, under the Tsar, was the most repressive state in Europe at the time. They were much worse than the Germans, who had the highest standard of living, the highest concentration of scientific and artistic geniuses, and the most freedom of any of the peoples on the continent.
The only allegedly bad thing the Germans did was engage in a very brief arms race in the building of warships, with an explicit goal of far less than the British navy. The Germans never wanted to be a threat, and they quickly abandoned the aim of expanding their own navy. Really, Germany just wanted its own place in the sun. The ancient regimes of Europe had already established their own global empires, and Germany, barely 40 years old by that point, wanted a little something for itself. They didn't want to conquer the world, or even Europe, they didn't want to depose Britain's rule of the sea, they didn't want lebensraum or to exterminate people, the Germans were not a threat to Britain. And if the Germans had political domination Europe in 1914, would that really be such a bad thing? Not for Britain. Germany would have in a stroke defeated Britain's two chief rivals. France would no longer be posturing in Africa, and Russia would no longer be trying to make inroads in Afghanistan. Britain would have come out on top had Germany won a brief European war in 1914!
Furthermore, had Germany won in 1914 the great problems of the 20th and 21st centuries would likely not have happened, certainly not to the scale that they did. The collapse of the European colonial empires led to massive problems that continue to this day. You can't expect to introduce cavemen to the 20th century and have them become modern people in a single generation. Because the colonies in Africa had lasted for such a brief time there was no chance for the African peoples to modernise sufficiently to allow for self-rule in a modern global society. You give modern weapons to cavemen you're going to have a bad time. The Europeans introduce guns and a global economy and then after a generation they leave. It's no surprise Africa is so fraught with corruption and genocide today, the natural violent tendencies of peoples who have been slaughtering one another for millennia had now been given geopolitcal legitimacy and modern weapons.
The partition of India was a disaster. The British knew it would have happened, and they just drew a line on a map, threw up their hands, and left. For 500 years the Muslims had brutally subjugated the Indians. In a free and democratic India, with Muslims outnumbered 10 to 1, their grip on power would evaporate and fear of reprisal loomed. Rather than take responsibility like adults, the British instead split India into Muslim Pakistan, and Everyone else India, and then left knowing 2 million people would be killed in the mass exodus that was to follow.
And let us not forget Arabia. You kick the Turks out and promise the Hashemite dynasty self-rule and then you stab them in the back, give half the land to the French who did absolutely nothing to deserve it, and renege on your promise to defend the Arabs from the vicious, repressive, theocratic Saudi clan who swept in and took control, introducing Wahhabism to the region, creating the second moral anus of the universe and sewing the seeds of global Islamic terrorism.
And that's just the colonies! Had Germany won in 1914 there would never have been a Holocaust. The Nazis would have never taken power and Hitler would have starved on the streets of Vienna. Lenin would have never escaped his exile and communism would never have taken hold in Russia, leading to the disaster of tens of millions of dead and the terror of Stalin. There would have been no Second World War that left 60 million dead if Germany had won in 1914. Without communism in Russia there would have been no rise of Mao in China, with the 500 million dead in the wake of the most repressive regime in human history. Tibet and Turkestan would be free. There would be no Cold War, no divided Korea, no Vietnam, no war in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. Had Britain stayed out of the war and allowed Germany to have a quick victory hundreds of millions of people would not have been murdered and the world would be a far safer place today.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Sri Sathya Sai Mobile Hospital
Sathya Sai Baba created a mobile hospital unit as an extension of his free health service to the poor. They travel around Andhra Pradesh to serve villagers who cannot travel to brick and mortar hospitals.
Runs 15 minutes.
Runs 15 minutes.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
CDC Whistleblower Ordered to Cover Up Vaccine-Autism Link
A generation ago autism rates were somewhere around 1 in 30,000, today it is 1 in 80. Think about that. That is epidemiologically impossible. The genome of 100 million people could not disintegrate in a single generation like that. There must be some artificial factor involved, and it's staring us right in the face. The quantity of vaccines babies are getting has skyrocketed, and those vaccines contain toxic chemicals.
When fuhrer Angela Merkin and other high government officials in Germany needed vaccines during a 2009 flu epidemic the drug company made a special batch just for them that didn't have any additives in it like the vaccine the commoners got. If the common vaccine is so safe why did Merkin get a special ultra-pure government-only vaccine?
2014 CDC whistleblower William Thompson came out and admitted that studies demonstrated a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism and the studies were ordered to be destroyed, but he leaked them instead.
The only way for the catastrophic collapse in human fitness we are seeing with this autism epidemic to happen is if an outside agent is being introduced to our children. And the government knows about it and they are deliberately covering it up, either for short-term gain in billions of dollars from drug companies, or because they are trying to exterminate us. Think of it. If things keep up the way they are going there will come a time soon when everyone in the US either has autism or is caring for someone with autism. At that point the country collapses totally.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield talks about his new film Vaxxed that exposes the coverup of this most pernicious crime against humanity. Interview lasts 34 minutes.
When fuhrer Angela Merkin and other high government officials in Germany needed vaccines during a 2009 flu epidemic the drug company made a special batch just for them that didn't have any additives in it like the vaccine the commoners got. If the common vaccine is so safe why did Merkin get a special ultra-pure government-only vaccine?
2014 CDC whistleblower William Thompson came out and admitted that studies demonstrated a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism and the studies were ordered to be destroyed, but he leaked them instead.
The only way for the catastrophic collapse in human fitness we are seeing with this autism epidemic to happen is if an outside agent is being introduced to our children. And the government knows about it and they are deliberately covering it up, either for short-term gain in billions of dollars from drug companies, or because they are trying to exterminate us. Think of it. If things keep up the way they are going there will come a time soon when everyone in the US either has autism or is caring for someone with autism. At that point the country collapses totally.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield talks about his new film Vaxxed that exposes the coverup of this most pernicious crime against humanity. Interview lasts 34 minutes.
A Very Brief Introduction to Dragons
Were dragons real? Think about it, virtually every culture on earth, throughout all of history, has spoken of giant flying reptiles. All these stories can't possibly trace back to a single source. There has to be something deeper going on here.
The obvious problem is we don't find dragon bones. But we don't find the bones of lots of things. The number of unique human fossils could fill a bathtub, and a great many dinosaur species are known from a single bone (including the largest dinosaur ever discovered, which was identified by one bone that was destroyed in WWII in an air raid, and no other bones have been discovered since). Since fossils of anything are very rare it is not at all surprising that dragon fossils are rare, or non-existent.
What if we are looking in the wrong place?
People from all over the world who take certain hallucinogenic plants report seeing the same beings. One commonly encountered being is a man with an alligator head, and this alligator headed man says the same things to everyone. It can't all be a case of suggestion, where people encounter what they expect based on second-hand sources. What I suspect is that these are real non-physical beings who don't look like anything, being non-physical, but they assume a certain form in the mind of the person having the experience out of convenience.
What if dragons are like that? Dragons are not flesh and blood reptiles, they are non-physical beings encountered in altered states. That would explain why they can live for thousands of years, why they are wise beyond the limits of human intelligence, and why they are only encountered at the end of an arduous quest undertaken by an individual who has had specific preparation. What if going out to slay a dragon did not involve a knight suiting up in armor and riding off to battle a dinosaur, what if it involved fasting, and sensory deprivation, and ingesting certain hallucinogenic plants, and then the knight doesn't kill the dragon, the knight's encounter with the dragon allows him to eliminate negative qualities within himself? That is why only particularly pure knights of great spiritual fortitude could go out to meet with dragons, because the psychic shock would be disastrous for a lesser mortal (like a very bad trip). In that sense then dragons are not the enemy, they are the ally.
The obvious problem is we don't find dragon bones. But we don't find the bones of lots of things. The number of unique human fossils could fill a bathtub, and a great many dinosaur species are known from a single bone (including the largest dinosaur ever discovered, which was identified by one bone that was destroyed in WWII in an air raid, and no other bones have been discovered since). Since fossils of anything are very rare it is not at all surprising that dragon fossils are rare, or non-existent.
What if we are looking in the wrong place?
People from all over the world who take certain hallucinogenic plants report seeing the same beings. One commonly encountered being is a man with an alligator head, and this alligator headed man says the same things to everyone. It can't all be a case of suggestion, where people encounter what they expect based on second-hand sources. What I suspect is that these are real non-physical beings who don't look like anything, being non-physical, but they assume a certain form in the mind of the person having the experience out of convenience.
What if dragons are like that? Dragons are not flesh and blood reptiles, they are non-physical beings encountered in altered states. That would explain why they can live for thousands of years, why they are wise beyond the limits of human intelligence, and why they are only encountered at the end of an arduous quest undertaken by an individual who has had specific preparation. What if going out to slay a dragon did not involve a knight suiting up in armor and riding off to battle a dinosaur, what if it involved fasting, and sensory deprivation, and ingesting certain hallucinogenic plants, and then the knight doesn't kill the dragon, the knight's encounter with the dragon allows him to eliminate negative qualities within himself? That is why only particularly pure knights of great spiritual fortitude could go out to meet with dragons, because the psychic shock would be disastrous for a lesser mortal (like a very bad trip). In that sense then dragons are not the enemy, they are the ally.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Post Economics
Here's my take on the issue of capitalism versus socialism. Neither of these systems are ends in themselves, only means to an end, and that end is what I'll call "Post Economics". Post economics is a social order that has no economic system at all because people have evolved beyond the need for one. That may sound like fantasy, but there are examples of post economic societies that have existed for thousands of years. They are called monasteries.
The monastery is an enclosed society with very little contact with the outside world. Many are completely self-sufficient. They may start out with donations from outside, from a parent monastery or whatever, of things like building supplies and tools, but from then on everything they need is manufactured within the monastery itself. Food is grown, sheep might be raised for wool to make clothing, trees planted to supply wood, and so on.
Some people might fear losing things they value in a monastic society, but nothing of any value is lost.
Ambition. Monks have no ambition! Yes, yes they do, otherwise they would have never joined the monastery in the first place. The ambition of the monk is the supreme ambition of enlightenment (Kenosis in the Christian tradition, Moksha in Vedanta, Nirvana in Buddhism). All earthly ambitions are but pale reflections of the supreme ambition. On the relative side there is the fulfillment of perfect morality. What is missing is the ambition to collect stuff. Instead of buying new chrome hubcaps or building a gazebo or whatever, you would rather spend that energy helping the less fortunate, the sick, the disabled, the homeless.
Individuality. Well, certainly monks lack individuality! Not true. They may dress the same, and eat the same food, but they do that by choice. Individual monks still possess their individual talents, and it is part of the perfection of morality to develop those talents to their utmost for the benefit of others. If someone is good at medicine that person serves as the doctor. If someone is good at smithing that person maintains the metal tools, monks who can sing serve in the choir, scholars can become experts in particular fields.
Science is not lost in the monastery. The opposite is true, monasteries saved science from being destroyed in the West, and most of the great scientists of the past 500 years started out as monks. It is only very recently that the religious institutions of higher learning have secularised and a small group of atheist scientists have began saying science and religion are incompatible.
Neither is art, or music, or literature lost in a monastic society. Monks still produce great art and great music, they just don't put on a concert to get a lot of money, score some coke, and bang some groupies in a different city every night.
Hedonistic pursuits are lost, but they are also lost in communism since communism sees work as its own reward and wanton sex and drug use as a waste of energy that could be used to work, so the loss of hedonism would only be a problem as far as capitalism and European socialism are concerned.
The primary thing that is lost is selfishness. The thought "What's in it for me?" is the primary casualty of the monastic system. Monks don't ask "What's in it for me?" they do their work out of a sense of duty, to help others and to glorify God. If it's your time to scrub the floors or wash the dishes you don't complain how you would rather listen to Metallica or chopping fire wood. Monks do not act to see what they can gain, they act to see what they can give. Farmers grow crops, doctors heal people, tailors sew robes, and carpenters build things not because they can get money to buy a new Lamborghini (or Toyota), or ridiculous outfits that will be worn once and then put in the back of a closet, monks work because it is what is right.
For most humans, throughout history, this is a truly alien concept, but it is a human concept that has been embraced voluntarily by millions of people over thousands of years.
So about capitalism and socialism? We need to view the debate about reaching the ultimate goal of post economics. Which system will bring more people to eliminating selfishness within themselves? Which system will bring about the desire to glorify God and serve our fellow man? It is a decision that cannot be forced upon anyone. Coercion won't lead anyone beyond economics. Right off the bat we can eliminate European socialism, which is cultural Marxism or social justice warriorism or whatever you want to call it. That's the exact opposite of morality and enlightenment. Soviet socialism is a lot closer to post economics, but it is also entirely authoritarian and centrally planned, so there's that whole issue of coercion. The bad form of capitalism, that I call crapitalism, with billionaire CEOs who run AIG into the ground and get golden parachutes, and celebrities making obscene amounts of money and buying fleets of Maybachs and chopping down a whole acre of mahogany to put in the mansion you never live in, or that allows Apple or KFC to carve their logo on the Moon because "They paid for it," that's pure selfishness, so that's no good either. There has to be something, a healthy, gradual system that will take us to post economics eventually, but we'll never figure it out if we're arguing about economic systems as the end and not the means.
I suspect that that system lies somewhere in a much smaller state, with more freedoms, where like-minded people come together to achieve a common goal. Big huge states of tens or hundreds of millions of people must be broken up into much smaller poleis, because if there is one thing that kills compassion and breeds selfishness and indifference, it is large agglomerations of people. The brain can only associate with so many people, and only so many groups of people can associate with one another before groups of total strangers no one cares about start appearing. Plato said that 5,000 was the ideal number of people for a city-state, and research from modern neuroscience and sociology tells us he was right. Now, that's not a first step, but it is an intermediary goal to work toward. The first step, I would say, would be reducing the size of government, because the present system is not only unsustainable, it was known to be unsustainable 80 years ago. Now it is rapidly collapsing. We must begin to act, and we must keep the ultimate goal of the post economic system in mind when we act so we know which direction to go.
The monastery is an enclosed society with very little contact with the outside world. Many are completely self-sufficient. They may start out with donations from outside, from a parent monastery or whatever, of things like building supplies and tools, but from then on everything they need is manufactured within the monastery itself. Food is grown, sheep might be raised for wool to make clothing, trees planted to supply wood, and so on.
Some people might fear losing things they value in a monastic society, but nothing of any value is lost.
Ambition. Monks have no ambition! Yes, yes they do, otherwise they would have never joined the monastery in the first place. The ambition of the monk is the supreme ambition of enlightenment (Kenosis in the Christian tradition, Moksha in Vedanta, Nirvana in Buddhism). All earthly ambitions are but pale reflections of the supreme ambition. On the relative side there is the fulfillment of perfect morality. What is missing is the ambition to collect stuff. Instead of buying new chrome hubcaps or building a gazebo or whatever, you would rather spend that energy helping the less fortunate, the sick, the disabled, the homeless.
Individuality. Well, certainly monks lack individuality! Not true. They may dress the same, and eat the same food, but they do that by choice. Individual monks still possess their individual talents, and it is part of the perfection of morality to develop those talents to their utmost for the benefit of others. If someone is good at medicine that person serves as the doctor. If someone is good at smithing that person maintains the metal tools, monks who can sing serve in the choir, scholars can become experts in particular fields.
Science is not lost in the monastery. The opposite is true, monasteries saved science from being destroyed in the West, and most of the great scientists of the past 500 years started out as monks. It is only very recently that the religious institutions of higher learning have secularised and a small group of atheist scientists have began saying science and religion are incompatible.
Neither is art, or music, or literature lost in a monastic society. Monks still produce great art and great music, they just don't put on a concert to get a lot of money, score some coke, and bang some groupies in a different city every night.
Hedonistic pursuits are lost, but they are also lost in communism since communism sees work as its own reward and wanton sex and drug use as a waste of energy that could be used to work, so the loss of hedonism would only be a problem as far as capitalism and European socialism are concerned.
The primary thing that is lost is selfishness. The thought "What's in it for me?" is the primary casualty of the monastic system. Monks don't ask "What's in it for me?" they do their work out of a sense of duty, to help others and to glorify God. If it's your time to scrub the floors or wash the dishes you don't complain how you would rather listen to Metallica or chopping fire wood. Monks do not act to see what they can gain, they act to see what they can give. Farmers grow crops, doctors heal people, tailors sew robes, and carpenters build things not because they can get money to buy a new Lamborghini (or Toyota), or ridiculous outfits that will be worn once and then put in the back of a closet, monks work because it is what is right.
For most humans, throughout history, this is a truly alien concept, but it is a human concept that has been embraced voluntarily by millions of people over thousands of years.
So about capitalism and socialism? We need to view the debate about reaching the ultimate goal of post economics. Which system will bring more people to eliminating selfishness within themselves? Which system will bring about the desire to glorify God and serve our fellow man? It is a decision that cannot be forced upon anyone. Coercion won't lead anyone beyond economics. Right off the bat we can eliminate European socialism, which is cultural Marxism or social justice warriorism or whatever you want to call it. That's the exact opposite of morality and enlightenment. Soviet socialism is a lot closer to post economics, but it is also entirely authoritarian and centrally planned, so there's that whole issue of coercion. The bad form of capitalism, that I call crapitalism, with billionaire CEOs who run AIG into the ground and get golden parachutes, and celebrities making obscene amounts of money and buying fleets of Maybachs and chopping down a whole acre of mahogany to put in the mansion you never live in, or that allows Apple or KFC to carve their logo on the Moon because "They paid for it," that's pure selfishness, so that's no good either. There has to be something, a healthy, gradual system that will take us to post economics eventually, but we'll never figure it out if we're arguing about economic systems as the end and not the means.
I suspect that that system lies somewhere in a much smaller state, with more freedoms, where like-minded people come together to achieve a common goal. Big huge states of tens or hundreds of millions of people must be broken up into much smaller poleis, because if there is one thing that kills compassion and breeds selfishness and indifference, it is large agglomerations of people. The brain can only associate with so many people, and only so many groups of people can associate with one another before groups of total strangers no one cares about start appearing. Plato said that 5,000 was the ideal number of people for a city-state, and research from modern neuroscience and sociology tells us he was right. Now, that's not a first step, but it is an intermediary goal to work toward. The first step, I would say, would be reducing the size of government, because the present system is not only unsustainable, it was known to be unsustainable 80 years ago. Now it is rapidly collapsing. We must begin to act, and we must keep the ultimate goal of the post economic system in mind when we act so we know which direction to go.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Was the Remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still About Colonialism?
One thing to note at the beginning, the aliens in the original were very liberal. They don't care what any species does on its own planet as long as no one tries to initiate violence between planets. They set up, in Klaatu's words, a police force of robots to kill anyone who tried to initiate violence, and that was the entire scope of the galactic government. The government doesn't care what you do as long as you don't try to hurt anyone else (you can hurt yourself all you want). The supreme directive of the aliens is that interpersonal violence is the supreme evil. And all involvement in the galactic government was voluntary. You didn't have to abide by the interplanetary law if you wanted to keep to yourself on your own planet, but if you did decide to join the galactic government there was no way to go back on that decision.
The aliens in the remake are authoritarian, if not outright genocidal. They glorify violence if it achieves their goal of protecting barely sentient life like bacteria or moss. Interplanetary law is imposed on all planets without any warning or announcement. Not only can you never leave, you don't even get to decide whether you join or not, you are born into the legal system and there are no alternative systems to escape to. The galaxy is a prison and you're stuck in it.
Now to think about colonialism you have to think about how the message from the aliens in the remake does not make any sense.
Planets that can support complex life are so rare in the universe that the aliens have to kill all humans because humans are polluting the Earth. And to do this the aliens don't use some hi-tech weapon that will kill ONLY humans and spare everything else, they release an exponentially expanding plague of robots that eats absolutely everything, including rock, erasing completely a biosphere that took millions of years to develop, and then they will re-seed the now totally barren, lifeless Earth with animals they saved from their zoo. And they think this plan can actually work. You strip the planet down to bedrock, cover that with a blanket of gazillions of dead robot bugs, and then place a small handful of plants and animals rescued from the handful of ships, and hope that the one pair of elephants doesn't eat the one grove of trees that gets planted and dooms all life on Earth to extinction permanently because now not only has the biosphere been wiped clean but all the zoo animals have died.
This plan can never work. Raising endangered animals in captivity and releasing them into the wild only works because there is a wild to release them into. If the wild is destroyed completely and the endangered animals are released into barren rock then the released animals will die too because there's not enough food to go around.
What if the aliens terraform the Earth again over millions of years? Maybe they will, but that still sets life back millions of years. They still have to keep the elephants alive on the tiny little ships for millions of years, and they clearly didn't bring enough plants with them to do that, unless the aliens feed all the animals the magic placenta material until new forests have developed. You can't have terraforming and Noah's Ark at the same time. If the aliens want to terraform the barren Earth then they'll have to accept that all the complex life they claim to cherish so much will go extinct, by their own hand, and evolution will have to start over again from bacteria. If the aliens want to preserve complex life they would have developed a human-specific virus that would have spared all other species. The aliens want to do both at the same time and would probably end up achieving neither.
So, since the alleged motivation and plan of the aliens makes absolutely no sense then we can suppose one of two things: 1. The writers never bothered to think things through and just got drunk and slapped a CGI-crapfest together in a weekend, or 2. The aliens are lying.
We're rational beings here, we know 1 is the correct answer, but just for fun let us assume the writers were intelligent and what they really intended was 2.
The aliens were hostile from the beginning because they wanted the Earth for their own use. They come to Earth and tell a couple of humans "You are not using your resources efficiently enough. We can use them more efficiently, so you must die." Mind you the aliens can control all electricity and all electronic devices, they have an unlimited power source, are capable of faster than light travel, and they can cancel inertia, they could easily transmit a signal to TVs, radios, and computers simultaneously without needing to physically meet at the UN building. This fact alone makes it look like a setup. The aliens could warn the planet but they decide to warn a handful of military personnel instead?
The aliens are classic invaders, and they are justifying their invasion in colonialist terms. The Chinese are not "invading" Tibet, they are "peacefully liberating" it, because the Tibetan people do not know how to live properly and must be "educated" and freed from the "oppression" of their government. Meanwhile half the population is "liberated" from living, all the Tibetan resources are extracted for Chinese use, and all the Chinese nuclear waste is dumped in Tibet.
Similarly, the aliens are not "invading" the Earth because they want to exploit it for themselves, they are "peacefully liberating" the Earth from the human "infestation".
Think about it. What is the difference between what humans are doing and what all other species do? Contrary to what Agent Smith said in the first Matrix, animals do not seek equilibrium, equilibrium just establishes itself naturally because the exploitative capacity of any group of animals is finite and is usually in line with the capacity of other competing species to avoid exploitation. When all the restraints are removed any species will use up all available resources until nothing is left. This is seen in every situation with an invasive species. Rats accidentally land on an island and within a few years all the native ground-nesting birds are extinct. The rats were not seeking equilibrium, they were following their biological directive to seek out resources and use them to make more rats. At the very least one can say humans are no more selfish than any other species, just that human capacity far exceeds that of all other species, so there is no competition, humans completely dominate in every environment, in every sphere of activity. In that sense humans are the most animal-like animals on the planet.
The one thing Humans have beyond other animals is rational intelligence. As smart as they are, chimpanzees and dolphins not only don't care about the environment, they do not know what an environment is. Not too long ago, in the grand scheme of things, humans developed the concept of an environment and realised "If we follow our biological directive and eat everything then there won't be anything to eat in the future, so if we want to survive we have to put limits on our biological directive and utilise the available resources in a more efficient way." Humans are the only creature on Earth that has ever had that thought. Humans are then, simultaneously, the only creatures capable of destroying the biosphere, the only species capable of preserving the biosphere, and the only species that knows what a biosphere is.
And in 4 billion years that thought has only arisen ONCE. The very same thought the aliens claim to profess only ever arose in ONE species on the Earth, and the aliens want to exterminate the ONE species like themselves, the ONE species that had moved beyond instinctual selfishness to rational selfishness and, in some cases, rational altruism. (It is mysterious to note that the event that led Keanu to spare humans was a single instance of a mother comforting her child, which is something most mammals do to preserve their own genes and is thus an instinctually selfish act, rather than, say, agriculture, or treaties limiting fishing or pollution, or the whole concept of protecting endangered species, or nuclear nonproliferation treaties that have done more to protect the environment than anything.)
The aliens, then, are more selfish than the humans. The aliens are not more moral, they just create moral-sounding language to justify their selfishness. This is the same thing all colonial powers do. The natives are too ignorant, or to racially inferior, or they are simply being oppressed, and so the moral colonialists must move in and take over, kill the ruling class (the humans) and use their technological, intellectual, and moral superiority to uplift the lives of the oppressed natives (other animals and plants). Not enough is known about the aliens' culture to say for certain which mode of colonialism best applies, but they seem very similar to Communist China to me.
Was that what the writers intended when they came up with this remake of the great sci-fi classic? Not a chance, they were just making a popcorn flick, but it certainly has been entertaining to over-analyse the film.
The aliens in the remake are authoritarian, if not outright genocidal. They glorify violence if it achieves their goal of protecting barely sentient life like bacteria or moss. Interplanetary law is imposed on all planets without any warning or announcement. Not only can you never leave, you don't even get to decide whether you join or not, you are born into the legal system and there are no alternative systems to escape to. The galaxy is a prison and you're stuck in it.
Now to think about colonialism you have to think about how the message from the aliens in the remake does not make any sense.
Planets that can support complex life are so rare in the universe that the aliens have to kill all humans because humans are polluting the Earth. And to do this the aliens don't use some hi-tech weapon that will kill ONLY humans and spare everything else, they release an exponentially expanding plague of robots that eats absolutely everything, including rock, erasing completely a biosphere that took millions of years to develop, and then they will re-seed the now totally barren, lifeless Earth with animals they saved from their zoo. And they think this plan can actually work. You strip the planet down to bedrock, cover that with a blanket of gazillions of dead robot bugs, and then place a small handful of plants and animals rescued from the handful of ships, and hope that the one pair of elephants doesn't eat the one grove of trees that gets planted and dooms all life on Earth to extinction permanently because now not only has the biosphere been wiped clean but all the zoo animals have died.
This plan can never work. Raising endangered animals in captivity and releasing them into the wild only works because there is a wild to release them into. If the wild is destroyed completely and the endangered animals are released into barren rock then the released animals will die too because there's not enough food to go around.
What if the aliens terraform the Earth again over millions of years? Maybe they will, but that still sets life back millions of years. They still have to keep the elephants alive on the tiny little ships for millions of years, and they clearly didn't bring enough plants with them to do that, unless the aliens feed all the animals the magic placenta material until new forests have developed. You can't have terraforming and Noah's Ark at the same time. If the aliens want to terraform the barren Earth then they'll have to accept that all the complex life they claim to cherish so much will go extinct, by their own hand, and evolution will have to start over again from bacteria. If the aliens want to preserve complex life they would have developed a human-specific virus that would have spared all other species. The aliens want to do both at the same time and would probably end up achieving neither.
So, since the alleged motivation and plan of the aliens makes absolutely no sense then we can suppose one of two things: 1. The writers never bothered to think things through and just got drunk and slapped a CGI-crapfest together in a weekend, or 2. The aliens are lying.
We're rational beings here, we know 1 is the correct answer, but just for fun let us assume the writers were intelligent and what they really intended was 2.
The aliens were hostile from the beginning because they wanted the Earth for their own use. They come to Earth and tell a couple of humans "You are not using your resources efficiently enough. We can use them more efficiently, so you must die." Mind you the aliens can control all electricity and all electronic devices, they have an unlimited power source, are capable of faster than light travel, and they can cancel inertia, they could easily transmit a signal to TVs, radios, and computers simultaneously without needing to physically meet at the UN building. This fact alone makes it look like a setup. The aliens could warn the planet but they decide to warn a handful of military personnel instead?
The aliens are classic invaders, and they are justifying their invasion in colonialist terms. The Chinese are not "invading" Tibet, they are "peacefully liberating" it, because the Tibetan people do not know how to live properly and must be "educated" and freed from the "oppression" of their government. Meanwhile half the population is "liberated" from living, all the Tibetan resources are extracted for Chinese use, and all the Chinese nuclear waste is dumped in Tibet.
Similarly, the aliens are not "invading" the Earth because they want to exploit it for themselves, they are "peacefully liberating" the Earth from the human "infestation".
Think about it. What is the difference between what humans are doing and what all other species do? Contrary to what Agent Smith said in the first Matrix, animals do not seek equilibrium, equilibrium just establishes itself naturally because the exploitative capacity of any group of animals is finite and is usually in line with the capacity of other competing species to avoid exploitation. When all the restraints are removed any species will use up all available resources until nothing is left. This is seen in every situation with an invasive species. Rats accidentally land on an island and within a few years all the native ground-nesting birds are extinct. The rats were not seeking equilibrium, they were following their biological directive to seek out resources and use them to make more rats. At the very least one can say humans are no more selfish than any other species, just that human capacity far exceeds that of all other species, so there is no competition, humans completely dominate in every environment, in every sphere of activity. In that sense humans are the most animal-like animals on the planet.
The one thing Humans have beyond other animals is rational intelligence. As smart as they are, chimpanzees and dolphins not only don't care about the environment, they do not know what an environment is. Not too long ago, in the grand scheme of things, humans developed the concept of an environment and realised "If we follow our biological directive and eat everything then there won't be anything to eat in the future, so if we want to survive we have to put limits on our biological directive and utilise the available resources in a more efficient way." Humans are the only creature on Earth that has ever had that thought. Humans are then, simultaneously, the only creatures capable of destroying the biosphere, the only species capable of preserving the biosphere, and the only species that knows what a biosphere is.
And in 4 billion years that thought has only arisen ONCE. The very same thought the aliens claim to profess only ever arose in ONE species on the Earth, and the aliens want to exterminate the ONE species like themselves, the ONE species that had moved beyond instinctual selfishness to rational selfishness and, in some cases, rational altruism. (It is mysterious to note that the event that led Keanu to spare humans was a single instance of a mother comforting her child, which is something most mammals do to preserve their own genes and is thus an instinctually selfish act, rather than, say, agriculture, or treaties limiting fishing or pollution, or the whole concept of protecting endangered species, or nuclear nonproliferation treaties that have done more to protect the environment than anything.)
The aliens, then, are more selfish than the humans. The aliens are not more moral, they just create moral-sounding language to justify their selfishness. This is the same thing all colonial powers do. The natives are too ignorant, or to racially inferior, or they are simply being oppressed, and so the moral colonialists must move in and take over, kill the ruling class (the humans) and use their technological, intellectual, and moral superiority to uplift the lives of the oppressed natives (other animals and plants). Not enough is known about the aliens' culture to say for certain which mode of colonialism best applies, but they seem very similar to Communist China to me.
Was that what the writers intended when they came up with this remake of the great sci-fi classic? Not a chance, they were just making a popcorn flick, but it certainly has been entertaining to over-analyse the film.
Monday, April 11, 2016
20 Things Wrong with The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)
1. The kid was super annoying.
2. Gort was in 2 scenes, and he turned into a cloud of little bugs that ate everything in the second scene, for no reason.
3. The CGI Gort looks totally fake. They could have shot an actor on a green screen and made him look 20 feet tall like Xerxes.
4. Klaatu has magical powers that fluctuate depending on what the plot calls for at any given moment.
5. Klaatu has magical powers, full stop.
6. Klaatu kills people to show how violent and destructive humans are?
7. Life is so precious that the super advanced aliens need to abduct animals on an ark because they plan on killing every living thing on the planet?
8. The super advanced aliens invented a weapon that eats absolutely everything, including rocks, because they wanted to wipe out the humans. Why not just engineer a human specific virus and spare all the other creatures?
9. The alien super weapon can convert any random matter into more copies of itself regardless of the chemical composition of what it eats, and it can apparently generate a limitless supply of energy out of nothing.
10. If the aliens have free energy and they are so worried about humans polluting the Earth why not just give humans the free energy technology and solve the problem without killing anyone?
11. Klaatu makes one half-assed attempt at contacting all the world leaders and then decides "To hell with it," and releases the super weapon to destroy the planet.
12. Klaatu's people are hypocrites, as John Cleese points out. Klaatu's people DID destroy their home world, and in a fit of desperation developed free energy, and instead of giving other species the same opportunity, they decide to wipe them out instead.
13. Klaatu's people can cancel inertia, so why does he need the password to escape the government prison? Why doesn't he just blast his way through the walls?
14. The size of the killer bugs Gort transformed into varies depending on the scene. In one scene they are microscopic, in another they are clearly the size of common garden ants.
15. Klaatu DOES say "Klaatu barada nikto" but super loud "dramatic" music drowns it out.
16. Why did Klaatu's ship land on Earth in 1928 to pick up Keanu Reeves' body and then decide to come back in 2008 to kill all humans when humans were clearly making progress in saving the planet by that time. The worst time for ecological destruction was in the 1950s when thousands of open air nukes were being detonated. Pollution and environmental destruction have decreased since then, so humans are making progress, if at a somewhat slow pace. Klaatu should be able to appreciate that more people care about the environment now than ever before.
17. Klaatu destroys Gort in the end.
18. The device Klaatu uses to destroy Gort not only destroys all electronics on the planet, it stops everything mechanical, whether it is electronic or not!
19. Building on the horror from 18, think of all the people who died when all machines were destroyed? Every plane in the air fell to the ground, all submarines sank and were crushed in the ocean, everyone in an elevator is trapped and will suffocate, everyone on a ship is permanently stranded at sea unless they can paddle to shore, everyone who requires insulin will die now that there is no refrigeration, ALL vaccines and medicine will be wiped out, food production will decrease dramatically, 5 billion people, at least, will die. The annoying kid and the suspiciously attractive scientist will almost certainly die within the year. Rather than saving humanity, Klaatu has pretty much doomed humanity to the iron age permanently, since all the scientists and engineers who will be needed to rebuild the Earth's infrastructure will almost certainly die. It would have been a lot more merciful just to wipe everyone out rather than let billions of people starve to death.
20. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T KLAATU JUST GIVE HUMANS THE DAMN FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY?! That would have solved every single problem with the story. None of this makes any sense. That's why changing the story doesn't work. The 1951 story was perfect. "Humans have developed nuclear weapons and rockets and the aliens don't want humans to spread war to outer space so they quarantine the Earth." Works perfectly. The 2008 story makes no sense. "Humans are polluting the Earth so aliens who completely destroyed their home planet with pollution will completely destroy the Earth and remake it without humans." That makes no sense. Just give humans the free energy and no one will ever pollute again! Then no one needs to die! It only takes a few seconds to think this through. The writers could have come up with something just as relevant to the 21st century as nuclear weapons were to the 1950s, but NO, they came up with something incredibly stupid with more plot holes than Swiss cheese! It does not make sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
2. Gort was in 2 scenes, and he turned into a cloud of little bugs that ate everything in the second scene, for no reason.
3. The CGI Gort looks totally fake. They could have shot an actor on a green screen and made him look 20 feet tall like Xerxes.
4. Klaatu has magical powers that fluctuate depending on what the plot calls for at any given moment.
5. Klaatu has magical powers, full stop.
6. Klaatu kills people to show how violent and destructive humans are?
7. Life is so precious that the super advanced aliens need to abduct animals on an ark because they plan on killing every living thing on the planet?
8. The super advanced aliens invented a weapon that eats absolutely everything, including rocks, because they wanted to wipe out the humans. Why not just engineer a human specific virus and spare all the other creatures?
9. The alien super weapon can convert any random matter into more copies of itself regardless of the chemical composition of what it eats, and it can apparently generate a limitless supply of energy out of nothing.
10. If the aliens have free energy and they are so worried about humans polluting the Earth why not just give humans the free energy technology and solve the problem without killing anyone?
11. Klaatu makes one half-assed attempt at contacting all the world leaders and then decides "To hell with it," and releases the super weapon to destroy the planet.
12. Klaatu's people are hypocrites, as John Cleese points out. Klaatu's people DID destroy their home world, and in a fit of desperation developed free energy, and instead of giving other species the same opportunity, they decide to wipe them out instead.
13. Klaatu's people can cancel inertia, so why does he need the password to escape the government prison? Why doesn't he just blast his way through the walls?
14. The size of the killer bugs Gort transformed into varies depending on the scene. In one scene they are microscopic, in another they are clearly the size of common garden ants.
15. Klaatu DOES say "Klaatu barada nikto" but super loud "dramatic" music drowns it out.
16. Why did Klaatu's ship land on Earth in 1928 to pick up Keanu Reeves' body and then decide to come back in 2008 to kill all humans when humans were clearly making progress in saving the planet by that time. The worst time for ecological destruction was in the 1950s when thousands of open air nukes were being detonated. Pollution and environmental destruction have decreased since then, so humans are making progress, if at a somewhat slow pace. Klaatu should be able to appreciate that more people care about the environment now than ever before.
17. Klaatu destroys Gort in the end.
18. The device Klaatu uses to destroy Gort not only destroys all electronics on the planet, it stops everything mechanical, whether it is electronic or not!
19. Building on the horror from 18, think of all the people who died when all machines were destroyed? Every plane in the air fell to the ground, all submarines sank and were crushed in the ocean, everyone in an elevator is trapped and will suffocate, everyone on a ship is permanently stranded at sea unless they can paddle to shore, everyone who requires insulin will die now that there is no refrigeration, ALL vaccines and medicine will be wiped out, food production will decrease dramatically, 5 billion people, at least, will die. The annoying kid and the suspiciously attractive scientist will almost certainly die within the year. Rather than saving humanity, Klaatu has pretty much doomed humanity to the iron age permanently, since all the scientists and engineers who will be needed to rebuild the Earth's infrastructure will almost certainly die. It would have been a lot more merciful just to wipe everyone out rather than let billions of people starve to death.
20. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T KLAATU JUST GIVE HUMANS THE DAMN FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY?! That would have solved every single problem with the story. None of this makes any sense. That's why changing the story doesn't work. The 1951 story was perfect. "Humans have developed nuclear weapons and rockets and the aliens don't want humans to spread war to outer space so they quarantine the Earth." Works perfectly. The 2008 story makes no sense. "Humans are polluting the Earth so aliens who completely destroyed their home planet with pollution will completely destroy the Earth and remake it without humans." That makes no sense. Just give humans the free energy and no one will ever pollute again! Then no one needs to die! It only takes a few seconds to think this through. The writers could have come up with something just as relevant to the 21st century as nuclear weapons were to the 1950s, but NO, they came up with something incredibly stupid with more plot holes than Swiss cheese! It does not make sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Reincarnation Questions and Hypotheses
There are a few reasons I suspect reincarnation is both possible and exists:
1. As a child I had past life memories (I don't remember anything now). I stopped talking about it when no one believed me.
2. It is the best explanation for other children who have veridical past life memories.
3. It explains certain things about human development that we don't understand.
4. It makes sense mechanically, working as a sort of metaphysical version of gravity.
5. It's fair.
6. Pretty much everyone believed in reincarnation in some form until the 14th century. (Reincarnation, of at least certain individuals who suffer traumatic deaths, is still a part of orthodox Judaism today.)
The main questions that exist surrounding the idea of reincarnation are as follows:
1. Which of the two suggested mechanisms for reincarnation is accurate, the individual soul coming back life after life as all the world's religions suggest, or the new age model where different souls incarnate that are connected through an "over-soul"?
2. How long is the typical duration between successive incarnations on Earth?
There seems to be a great deal of leeway with this, depending on the belief of the person. Some people who believe in instantaneous reincarnation may indeed instantaneously reincarnate. In the Tibetan model rebirth takes place after 45 days, ideally, though with reincarnated lamas it looks like it usually takes 2 or 3 years. With a lot of people from the Second World War and the Holocaust they seem to have started coming back after 50 or 60 years. Yogananda suggests 200 years is a normal time. I suspect that people wait to reincarnate until after the whole family has died, so they can all meet up again before departing once more for Earth, although with sudden horrific deaths the wait time seems to be a lot shorter.
An enlightened being can reincarnate at will, but with the average person I suspect something akin to the Hindu system is in place where a person spends time in one of the astral heavens until the merit they accrued in the previous lifetime has expired (which may take hundreds or even thousands of years) before having to come back. This makes sense, metaphysically.
3. How many souls are there that are incarnating? Let's for the moment just talk about humans. (I suspect more advanced animals like apes and dolphins also reincarnate like humans, but we can't ask them so it's impossible to know. Also animals who have spent a great deal of time with humans, like pets, also may have individual rebirths. Generally it is said that wild animals, and I suspect plants too since recent studies with tomatoes and trees reveal that at least certain plants are conscious too, tend not to have individual souls, but I have no idea.) There are at least 8 billion human souls, and since the maximum number of humans possible on the Earth is assumed to be about 12 billion let's say that's the minimum number of individual souls. That would mean that the time between incarnations would necessarily be very short. If, on the other hand, there were 100 billion souls then the time between incarnations would be very long, since there have only been 108 billion people who have ever lived, so only a handful would have ever reincarnated. If there are 1 trillion souls then no one will ever need to reincarnate because it will take millions of years to run out and hopefully humanity will all reach enlightenment before then and we can be done with the Earth permanently.
4. Why are all, or most, of the faculties lost in the interim between incarnations? Babies, even of enlightened beings, still have to learn to walk and talk all over again, and very few people come here knowing calculus (reincarnation is, I think, the only explanation for genius as seen in people like Freeman Dyson who knew more about mathematics as a very young child than most people ever learn in a lifetime). You would think someone like the Dalai Lama who has come back 14 times now would be born knowing how to walk and talk, because he has that much more experience than an ordinary mortal.
It does seem that some memories sneak through, at least at the beginning. Young children exhibit xenoglossy, speaking languages they never learned, but they knew from a previous life. This universally disappears after 4 or 5 years. And with genius and rapid development of certain faculties there seems to be some degree of anemnesis at play. If you learned something ten times already then relearning it in your next life will be very easy.
These lists are in no way exhaustive. Rather, they serve as a useful summary of the situation.
1. As a child I had past life memories (I don't remember anything now). I stopped talking about it when no one believed me.
2. It is the best explanation for other children who have veridical past life memories.
3. It explains certain things about human development that we don't understand.
4. It makes sense mechanically, working as a sort of metaphysical version of gravity.
5. It's fair.
6. Pretty much everyone believed in reincarnation in some form until the 14th century. (Reincarnation, of at least certain individuals who suffer traumatic deaths, is still a part of orthodox Judaism today.)
The main questions that exist surrounding the idea of reincarnation are as follows:
1. Which of the two suggested mechanisms for reincarnation is accurate, the individual soul coming back life after life as all the world's religions suggest, or the new age model where different souls incarnate that are connected through an "over-soul"?
2. How long is the typical duration between successive incarnations on Earth?
There seems to be a great deal of leeway with this, depending on the belief of the person. Some people who believe in instantaneous reincarnation may indeed instantaneously reincarnate. In the Tibetan model rebirth takes place after 45 days, ideally, though with reincarnated lamas it looks like it usually takes 2 or 3 years. With a lot of people from the Second World War and the Holocaust they seem to have started coming back after 50 or 60 years. Yogananda suggests 200 years is a normal time. I suspect that people wait to reincarnate until after the whole family has died, so they can all meet up again before departing once more for Earth, although with sudden horrific deaths the wait time seems to be a lot shorter.
An enlightened being can reincarnate at will, but with the average person I suspect something akin to the Hindu system is in place where a person spends time in one of the astral heavens until the merit they accrued in the previous lifetime has expired (which may take hundreds or even thousands of years) before having to come back. This makes sense, metaphysically.
3. How many souls are there that are incarnating? Let's for the moment just talk about humans. (I suspect more advanced animals like apes and dolphins also reincarnate like humans, but we can't ask them so it's impossible to know. Also animals who have spent a great deal of time with humans, like pets, also may have individual rebirths. Generally it is said that wild animals, and I suspect plants too since recent studies with tomatoes and trees reveal that at least certain plants are conscious too, tend not to have individual souls, but I have no idea.) There are at least 8 billion human souls, and since the maximum number of humans possible on the Earth is assumed to be about 12 billion let's say that's the minimum number of individual souls. That would mean that the time between incarnations would necessarily be very short. If, on the other hand, there were 100 billion souls then the time between incarnations would be very long, since there have only been 108 billion people who have ever lived, so only a handful would have ever reincarnated. If there are 1 trillion souls then no one will ever need to reincarnate because it will take millions of years to run out and hopefully humanity will all reach enlightenment before then and we can be done with the Earth permanently.
4. Why are all, or most, of the faculties lost in the interim between incarnations? Babies, even of enlightened beings, still have to learn to walk and talk all over again, and very few people come here knowing calculus (reincarnation is, I think, the only explanation for genius as seen in people like Freeman Dyson who knew more about mathematics as a very young child than most people ever learn in a lifetime). You would think someone like the Dalai Lama who has come back 14 times now would be born knowing how to walk and talk, because he has that much more experience than an ordinary mortal.
It does seem that some memories sneak through, at least at the beginning. Young children exhibit xenoglossy, speaking languages they never learned, but they knew from a previous life. This universally disappears after 4 or 5 years. And with genius and rapid development of certain faculties there seems to be some degree of anemnesis at play. If you learned something ten times already then relearning it in your next life will be very easy.
These lists are in no way exhaustive. Rather, they serve as a useful summary of the situation.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
The Working Class Will Elect Trump
The average person is fed up with cultural Marxism, "safe spaces", speech policing, and other policies that allow hundreds of radical Muslims to infiltrate their countries and murder thousands of people.
Donald Trump is the only candidate who challenges cultural Marxists. He is the only one who threatens to burn the whole system down, to end the corrupt political establishment. Trump is the only outsider in a race full of career politicians. And he is waging total war.
Cultural Marxists will destroy the US if they are not stopped, just as they have destroyed most of Europe. And then people like ISIS and MS-13 will take over. They will slaughter all the pussies demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings as easily as the Mongol hordes conquered half the world. Then the West will become as Syria or Afghanistan. Civilisation will be reduced to tribalism. The tough people, the last surviving veterans, bikers, football hooligans, they will have to take back the world and rebuild civilisation maybe 500 years in the future. But the West will never rise again once it is killed. The easy oil and coal needed to spark the industrial revolution will be gone, space travel will be impossible, technology will be reduced to the age of sail.
The working poor, the people most at risk, won't stand for it, I pray. They will turn out in droves to support Trump and kill cultural Marxism while it is at its zenith of power. The working class is fed up. The proletariat, the people who usually stay home on election day, will rise up and crush the political elite. They are the key to Donald Trump's strength. They are the key to saving the West.
Runs 24 minutes.
Donald Trump is the only candidate who challenges cultural Marxists. He is the only one who threatens to burn the whole system down, to end the corrupt political establishment. Trump is the only outsider in a race full of career politicians. And he is waging total war.
Cultural Marxists will destroy the US if they are not stopped, just as they have destroyed most of Europe. And then people like ISIS and MS-13 will take over. They will slaughter all the pussies demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings as easily as the Mongol hordes conquered half the world. Then the West will become as Syria or Afghanistan. Civilisation will be reduced to tribalism. The tough people, the last surviving veterans, bikers, football hooligans, they will have to take back the world and rebuild civilisation maybe 500 years in the future. But the West will never rise again once it is killed. The easy oil and coal needed to spark the industrial revolution will be gone, space travel will be impossible, technology will be reduced to the age of sail.
The working poor, the people most at risk, won't stand for it, I pray. They will turn out in droves to support Trump and kill cultural Marxism while it is at its zenith of power. The working class is fed up. The proletariat, the people who usually stay home on election day, will rise up and crush the political elite. They are the key to Donald Trump's strength. They are the key to saving the West.
Runs 24 minutes.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
My Problems with Spiritualists
I usually have two problems with most spiritualists. First to clarify, when I say "spiritualist" I categorically DO NOT mean people who say they are "spiritual but not religious." I've already written at length my distaste for those people. Spiritualism is the belief that spirit exists distinct from matter (or within some realm of more rarefied subtle matter or etheric or astral matter) and can be contacted through mediums. And this has been tested scientifically and there are really only two possible options to explain the data:
1. The Survival Hypothesis. The minds and personalities of people survive death of the body in pretty much the same state as when they were alive and they can communicate, at least at a rudimentary level, with the living.
or
2. The Super-ESP Hypothesis. The minds of certain living people are capable of extraordinary feats of ESP bordering on omniscience, whereby they can access information about the deceased by reading the minds of multiple living people all over the world simultaneously and access other information through remote viewing of locked drawers, diaries, or other varied sources, often coming up with information that is not known to the bereaved person or persons and not verified until much later, all this coupled with a subconscious dissociative personality disorder that the medium believes with absolute conviction is a real deceased individual they are communicating with.
And that's it. And after 150 years of testing no one has devised an experiment to distinguish between the two conclusively for the unfortunate reason that all the scientists working on the problem are stuck trying to convince die-hard atheist materialists who serve as the gatekeepers of what is and is not officially sanctioned science that real information is being attained through psychic means.
You might think that's a false dilemma and decide to take the third option, but, to be honest, if you take the third option I question your intelligence and would be surprised you would even know what a false dilemma is or that you had the capacity to fully comprehend the issue.
3. The Demon-Haunted World. A class of non-physical (or astral) beings called demons exist and they are omniscient, or at least as intelligent as necessary to trick humans that they are deceased humans because God is an asshole and filled the universe with billions of demons who trick people because God is an asshole and wants to send 99.999% of people to suffer in Hell forever.
If you accept options 1 or 2 you are a rational person who has examined the evidence. If you accept option 3 you are a moron. If you reject them all and accept option 4, that it's all deliberate trickery from often Nobel Prize winning scientists who want to ruin their reputations by studying ghosts, you're either ignorant of the data or a cynical asshole and most likely never even bothered looking at the data because you reject it a priori.
As a side note, we can get into metaphysics, with astral and etheric and subtle energies and all that stuff some other time, and I know Ken Wilber has talked down the issue and has promoted his "Integral Post-Metaphysics" and Kant's critique of metaphysics, but if you read Excerpt G (page 46), Ken does admit to true metaphysics within his model:
" The fact that the subtle (and causal) bodymind can transmigrate the gross bodymind is indeed metaphysical; but the fact that these subtle energies are postulated as real, concrete, detectable, often measurable—if subtler—energies, stops the whole conception from spinning off into the vaporware of pure metaphysics. If you read hypothesis #4 in conjunction with the first three hypotheses, I think you will see that they are at least consistent with each other; and thus I believe that an integral theory of subtle energies can accommodate the existence of transmigration, if we decide, on other grounds, that there is enough evidence to conclude that transmigration occurs."
It's a good read, but if you're in a hurry you can watch this video.
Getting back to the central issue of what my problems with spiritualists are.
The first problem is the denial of the good that other religions (specifically Christianity and to a lesser extent Buddhism) have and continue to bring to humanity. I wouldn't say this is the hatred of religion, as we see in the "spiritual but not religious" people (except Islam, which they adore), and it probably is not cultural relativism either that says "all religions are equal" or some such nonsense. It might be a sort of spiritual myopia. They are so invested in the truth claims of their own beliefs – the messages delivered by spirits – that they reject out of hand the truth claims of opposing beliefs. So, for example, if spirits say reincarnation does not exist they will believe it without hesitation even though the spirit they are communicating with might be lying or ignorant or both. A second possibility is similar to when you're a teenager and you're embarrassed by what you did as a child, which is basically how climbing the developmental ladder works all through first tier. First tier stages (archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, or egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, or any other conceptions) are all exclusive in their thinking. Someone who is ethnocentric looks down on someone who is egocentric (and on someone who is worldcentric), just as someone who is worldcentric looks down on someone who is egocentric and someone who is ethnocentric, even though they themselves necessarily had to pass through all the lower stages to get to where they are. This continues, quite naturally, until one reaches second tier – integral – and can appreciate that all levels have truth and utility appropriate for people at that level.
So, someone who is a spiritualist would reject the truth and utility of organised religion even though for the vast majority of people who have ever lived organised religion is the only thing keeping them from stealing and killing and raping. Religion not only serves as a social glue, it serves as the only affective social glue that has ever been discovered. And since everyone starts out at square one when they are born and has to learn reason and morality, eliminating religion is a particularly bad idea because until people mature to the level where they can apply reason to appreciate natural law and morality (which for most people is never), religion is necessary to keep people from becoming monsters.
Sometimes, yes, religions do influence people to become monsters, particularly lower level religions, but certainly Christianity has had its reformation and the worst Christians you will ever likely encounter are assholes who protest soldiers' funerals.
Aside from legitimacy, religion provides the only affective means of bringing people enlightenment. This ties into the second problem I have with most spiritualists, which is something I'll call subtle reductionism, what Ken Wilber calls the Vishnu Complex. I'll get to that in a minute.
One of the central beliefs of spiritualists is the extreme gradualist approach to development, that spirits develop astronomically slowly, though inexorably, over gazillions of years to reach ultimate perfection. If I could spend fifty trillion eons in an astral heaven where my thoughts instantly manifest my desires I'd say that's a pretty good deal. The general idea is that it gets boring after a time and then you decide to progress. And I'll admit, after the hell and hardship of this life I might look forward to some downtime.
The classic counter to this, which makes sense to me, is the argument of reincarnationists that once your merit is worn out you have to come back here, so the astral worlds are temporary. The only way out of the cycle is enlightenment. The idea of progression through infinitely more rarefied realms does have somewhat of a parallel with the idea of a pure land in Buddhism or Sri Yukteswar's Hiranyaloka from Autobiography of a Yogi. You can progress to a special astral world where the infinite merit and compassion of an enlightened being permits you to progress spiritually without the need to reincarnate.
Now you might not want to believe in reincarnation, and I think most spiritualists don't, for the pretty thoughtless reason "Who would want to come back?!" Very few people, I suspect, would want to come back, but the traditions maintain that it's more like jumping off a cliff. Once you jump you don't get to choose whether you fall down or not, gravity will take over automatically. You don't get to choose whether you reincarnate or not, unless you're already enlightened, your spiritual gravity pulls you unconsciously where you are most suited, and for most people that's back here on Earth. Even if you don't believe in reincarnation, and I think it makes a certain degree of sense, there's still one more reason to see the gradualist approach as not all that's great.
The gradualist approach really does not solve the problem of suffering in this life, it defers it to the next. There is a bit of an inherent laziness to it. "If I'm going to get there anyway I might as well take my time." That is very similar to the traditional religious approach of suffering through life with the knowledge of a reward in the afterlife. The idea of a metaphysical safety net is certainly comforting and has served humanity very well for millennia, but it does not bring about true transpersonal development. Even in an astral heaven there is still self and other, there is still separation, and where there is separation there is suffering. That is why spirits choose to leave the lower astral heavens, often called "Summerland", where thoughts manifest instantly, because it gets boring after a while. The types of suffering in astral worlds are radically different than in the physical world (and in the astral hells are much worse), but as long as separation exists suffering necessarily exists. Enlightenment is the only way out, and religion provides the only door to enlightenment.
That brings us to my second objection, subtle reductionism, which is nothing other than the denial of the causal. Subtle reductionism is nowhere near as disastrous as the gross reductionism of fundamaterialists, it is definitely a step in the right direction, but in denying the existence of the causal one is also denying the ultimate end of suffering.
Basically the subtle realms work like psychotherapy. One reaches an end of psychotherapy when one realises that one can go on forever. The subtle realms are like that. You ascend higher and higher, into ever more subtle planes of illumination and bliss, and it just doesn't stop. There is no upward limit, there is no ultimate end. In meditation people can spend a lifetime just getting to more rarefied states and just bliss-out and as soon as they come down and have to go to work they are the same jerk as they were from day one. You can certainly gain psychic powers through forms of meditation, but if you just keep ascending through all the essential lights and sounds you will not reach enlightenment. This inertial desire to keep ascending through the subtle is what Ken Wilber calls the Vishnu Complex. You are so enamored with God you don't want to seek your true identity. And since you have to stop meditating eventually you will suffer when it ends. As long as separation exists suffering necessarily exists. And that's all the gradualist approach of most spiritualists promises, ever higher states of lights and sounds.
This denial of the causal is wonderfully presented in Greg Stone's book Under the Tree. It's a pretty obscure book, so I'll explain it a little. This man with a punny name encounters ice on the highway and runs his car off a cliff and goes into a coma. He has a near death experience that spends a great many pages just trying to convince him he really is dead, since he doesn't believe in an afterlife, and then it goes off into explaining how the universe works.
Mr. Pun's spirit guide explains to him why all the religions are wrong when they say that we are all one. You see, we really are all separate, but when you incarnate on the Earth you have to pass through a filter, and that filter only lets one soul through at a time, and since we all have to squeeze through that filter we think, "Oh, only one can fit, so there must be only one of us," but that's just faulty logic.
Except that's not what any religion says at all. Remember, you do not automatically become enlightened upon death. If you did there would be absolutely no point to life here on Earth at all. It would all be a waste of time and you could be a child rapist or an axe murderer and it wouldn't matter because we all go up into light and bliss when we die anyway. That's exactly the same horrible belief as the materialists who say you die and rot, just in the opposite direction. If nothing you do in this life has any impact on the next, and we're all just here to learn lessons, or to experience suffering, or because it's rousing good fun, then life truly is meaningless and you might as well just shoot heroin all day, because it won't make one bit of difference. If Hitler and his victims go to the same place after death then the universe is completely lacking in justice or compassion and was created and run by Satan.
Since you do not become enlightened upon death (and we know this because spirits coming through mediums admit to it; they admit to not knowing everything), then anything you hear from spirits about anything other than their particular state of being is just their own guess. If spirits tell you they enjoy coffee and cigars and fine velvet arm chairs on the other side, then you can believe them. If spirits tell you what is happening at the ultimate level, and that they know with absolute certainty how everything works and the mechanisms of reincarnation or whatever, they're either outright lying or they are guessing. Since the personality remains intact then a liar on the Earth is a liar in the afterlife, and subconscious biases and fears still cloud one's thinking.
One group of people we can believe are enlightened individuals on this Earth, because they all say the same exact thing. There is no guessing with enlightenment, there is just experience, or more accurately lack of experience. In the causal there is nothing arising. There are no separate things, just consciousness as such. Nothing bad arises to torture you and leave, nothing good arises to torture you when it leaves, there are no others, there is no you, there just is. And they all say this, for the past 3000 years, they all say this. No one is guessing since this is not speculation of what is happening at higher levels because all levels have been left behind. You step off the ride completely.
Ramakrishna explains this beautifully. He was a life-long devote of Kali, and he would go into spontaneous ecstasy and be engrossed in her image. When he met the naked swami Totapuri and tried to learn Advaita he kept seeing Kali when he meditated. Furious, Totapuri stuck a piece of broken glass between Ramakrishna's eyes and admonished him to meditate on that spot. The next time Ramakrishna meditated he says "As soon as the gracious form of the Divine Mother appeared before me, I used my discrimination as a sword and with it clove Her in two. The last barrier fell. My spirit at once soared beyond the relative plane. I lost myself in samadhi." (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, page 49)
You can see a wonderful depiction of this from the 1955 Bengali film biography of Ramakrishna.
And it's like that for everyone. Ramana Maharshi, Richard Rose, Ken Wilber, everyone. You too can check it out for yourself. I did. You do not need to take anyone's word for it, you need accept no beliefs handed to you from spirits, you can meditate for a really long time and see for yourself if enlightenment is all it's cracked up to be. You don't need to consult mediums, you don't need to wait countless eons to ascend higher planes in the afterlife, you can do this right now, in this lifetime, and it is the single most important thing you ever will, or can, do.
There is nothing in the causal. It is completely empty. If ascending higher subtle realms is like climbing stairs to higher and higher floors in a building, then the leap to the causal would be like going from the third to the fourth dimension. It's not higher than the highest floor in the building, it bypasses height all together. It is not getting to the next level in a video game, it's shutting the game off and realising that it was a game all along and not real. It's not that there is no you, there is only me, there's no me either. You step into the causal and no one is home, there is just consciousness as such. There is awareness but it is in no way tied to any identity, and you realise that any identity you held was just a contraction of all that is, no more real than the characters in a movie are to the actors who play them.
All that said, spiritualists are leagues ahead of the average person in the world today, and light years ahead of the fundamaterialists who are the elites who run the world and act as gatekeepers to what is and is not science. I would love for all the world to adopt the beliefs of spiritualists, I would love for mediumship to be taken seriously, for psychical studies to become the paramount branch of science. It would solve very nearly all the world's problems. At the same time it is imperative to realise that mediumship can only take one so far, and that we all must take up the discipline and strive toward enlightenment, whether now or in some future life. The comfort value of survival wears off once you survive death. Then a whole new set of challenges arise that you must face. Psychological challenges from all the subconscious baggage you have accumulated over this and possibly other lifetimes. All that needs to be worked through eventually. The choice is yours to deal with it over the next gazillion years or right now, all at once, in this lifetime. Most people can't, but you definitely should try. Try as if your life depended on it.
1. The Survival Hypothesis. The minds and personalities of people survive death of the body in pretty much the same state as when they were alive and they can communicate, at least at a rudimentary level, with the living.
or
2. The Super-ESP Hypothesis. The minds of certain living people are capable of extraordinary feats of ESP bordering on omniscience, whereby they can access information about the deceased by reading the minds of multiple living people all over the world simultaneously and access other information through remote viewing of locked drawers, diaries, or other varied sources, often coming up with information that is not known to the bereaved person or persons and not verified until much later, all this coupled with a subconscious dissociative personality disorder that the medium believes with absolute conviction is a real deceased individual they are communicating with.
And that's it. And after 150 years of testing no one has devised an experiment to distinguish between the two conclusively for the unfortunate reason that all the scientists working on the problem are stuck trying to convince die-hard atheist materialists who serve as the gatekeepers of what is and is not officially sanctioned science that real information is being attained through psychic means.
You might think that's a false dilemma and decide to take the third option, but, to be honest, if you take the third option I question your intelligence and would be surprised you would even know what a false dilemma is or that you had the capacity to fully comprehend the issue.
3. The Demon-Haunted World. A class of non-physical (or astral) beings called demons exist and they are omniscient, or at least as intelligent as necessary to trick humans that they are deceased humans because God is an asshole and filled the universe with billions of demons who trick people because God is an asshole and wants to send 99.999% of people to suffer in Hell forever.
If you accept options 1 or 2 you are a rational person who has examined the evidence. If you accept option 3 you are a moron. If you reject them all and accept option 4, that it's all deliberate trickery from often Nobel Prize winning scientists who want to ruin their reputations by studying ghosts, you're either ignorant of the data or a cynical asshole and most likely never even bothered looking at the data because you reject it a priori.
As a side note, we can get into metaphysics, with astral and etheric and subtle energies and all that stuff some other time, and I know Ken Wilber has talked down the issue and has promoted his "Integral Post-Metaphysics" and Kant's critique of metaphysics, but if you read Excerpt G (page 46), Ken does admit to true metaphysics within his model:
" The fact that the subtle (and causal) bodymind can transmigrate the gross bodymind is indeed metaphysical; but the fact that these subtle energies are postulated as real, concrete, detectable, often measurable—if subtler—energies, stops the whole conception from spinning off into the vaporware of pure metaphysics. If you read hypothesis #4 in conjunction with the first three hypotheses, I think you will see that they are at least consistent with each other; and thus I believe that an integral theory of subtle energies can accommodate the existence of transmigration, if we decide, on other grounds, that there is enough evidence to conclude that transmigration occurs."
It's a good read, but if you're in a hurry you can watch this video.
Getting back to the central issue of what my problems with spiritualists are.
The first problem is the denial of the good that other religions (specifically Christianity and to a lesser extent Buddhism) have and continue to bring to humanity. I wouldn't say this is the hatred of religion, as we see in the "spiritual but not religious" people (except Islam, which they adore), and it probably is not cultural relativism either that says "all religions are equal" or some such nonsense. It might be a sort of spiritual myopia. They are so invested in the truth claims of their own beliefs – the messages delivered by spirits – that they reject out of hand the truth claims of opposing beliefs. So, for example, if spirits say reincarnation does not exist they will believe it without hesitation even though the spirit they are communicating with might be lying or ignorant or both. A second possibility is similar to when you're a teenager and you're embarrassed by what you did as a child, which is basically how climbing the developmental ladder works all through first tier. First tier stages (archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, or egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, or any other conceptions) are all exclusive in their thinking. Someone who is ethnocentric looks down on someone who is egocentric (and on someone who is worldcentric), just as someone who is worldcentric looks down on someone who is egocentric and someone who is ethnocentric, even though they themselves necessarily had to pass through all the lower stages to get to where they are. This continues, quite naturally, until one reaches second tier – integral – and can appreciate that all levels have truth and utility appropriate for people at that level.
So, someone who is a spiritualist would reject the truth and utility of organised religion even though for the vast majority of people who have ever lived organised religion is the only thing keeping them from stealing and killing and raping. Religion not only serves as a social glue, it serves as the only affective social glue that has ever been discovered. And since everyone starts out at square one when they are born and has to learn reason and morality, eliminating religion is a particularly bad idea because until people mature to the level where they can apply reason to appreciate natural law and morality (which for most people is never), religion is necessary to keep people from becoming monsters.
Sometimes, yes, religions do influence people to become monsters, particularly lower level religions, but certainly Christianity has had its reformation and the worst Christians you will ever likely encounter are assholes who protest soldiers' funerals.
Aside from legitimacy, religion provides the only affective means of bringing people enlightenment. This ties into the second problem I have with most spiritualists, which is something I'll call subtle reductionism, what Ken Wilber calls the Vishnu Complex. I'll get to that in a minute.
One of the central beliefs of spiritualists is the extreme gradualist approach to development, that spirits develop astronomically slowly, though inexorably, over gazillions of years to reach ultimate perfection. If I could spend fifty trillion eons in an astral heaven where my thoughts instantly manifest my desires I'd say that's a pretty good deal. The general idea is that it gets boring after a time and then you decide to progress. And I'll admit, after the hell and hardship of this life I might look forward to some downtime.
The classic counter to this, which makes sense to me, is the argument of reincarnationists that once your merit is worn out you have to come back here, so the astral worlds are temporary. The only way out of the cycle is enlightenment. The idea of progression through infinitely more rarefied realms does have somewhat of a parallel with the idea of a pure land in Buddhism or Sri Yukteswar's Hiranyaloka from Autobiography of a Yogi. You can progress to a special astral world where the infinite merit and compassion of an enlightened being permits you to progress spiritually without the need to reincarnate.
Now you might not want to believe in reincarnation, and I think most spiritualists don't, for the pretty thoughtless reason "Who would want to come back?!" Very few people, I suspect, would want to come back, but the traditions maintain that it's more like jumping off a cliff. Once you jump you don't get to choose whether you fall down or not, gravity will take over automatically. You don't get to choose whether you reincarnate or not, unless you're already enlightened, your spiritual gravity pulls you unconsciously where you are most suited, and for most people that's back here on Earth. Even if you don't believe in reincarnation, and I think it makes a certain degree of sense, there's still one more reason to see the gradualist approach as not all that's great.
The gradualist approach really does not solve the problem of suffering in this life, it defers it to the next. There is a bit of an inherent laziness to it. "If I'm going to get there anyway I might as well take my time." That is very similar to the traditional religious approach of suffering through life with the knowledge of a reward in the afterlife. The idea of a metaphysical safety net is certainly comforting and has served humanity very well for millennia, but it does not bring about true transpersonal development. Even in an astral heaven there is still self and other, there is still separation, and where there is separation there is suffering. That is why spirits choose to leave the lower astral heavens, often called "Summerland", where thoughts manifest instantly, because it gets boring after a while. The types of suffering in astral worlds are radically different than in the physical world (and in the astral hells are much worse), but as long as separation exists suffering necessarily exists. Enlightenment is the only way out, and religion provides the only door to enlightenment.
That brings us to my second objection, subtle reductionism, which is nothing other than the denial of the causal. Subtle reductionism is nowhere near as disastrous as the gross reductionism of fundamaterialists, it is definitely a step in the right direction, but in denying the existence of the causal one is also denying the ultimate end of suffering.
Basically the subtle realms work like psychotherapy. One reaches an end of psychotherapy when one realises that one can go on forever. The subtle realms are like that. You ascend higher and higher, into ever more subtle planes of illumination and bliss, and it just doesn't stop. There is no upward limit, there is no ultimate end. In meditation people can spend a lifetime just getting to more rarefied states and just bliss-out and as soon as they come down and have to go to work they are the same jerk as they were from day one. You can certainly gain psychic powers through forms of meditation, but if you just keep ascending through all the essential lights and sounds you will not reach enlightenment. This inertial desire to keep ascending through the subtle is what Ken Wilber calls the Vishnu Complex. You are so enamored with God you don't want to seek your true identity. And since you have to stop meditating eventually you will suffer when it ends. As long as separation exists suffering necessarily exists. And that's all the gradualist approach of most spiritualists promises, ever higher states of lights and sounds.
This denial of the causal is wonderfully presented in Greg Stone's book Under the Tree. It's a pretty obscure book, so I'll explain it a little. This man with a punny name encounters ice on the highway and runs his car off a cliff and goes into a coma. He has a near death experience that spends a great many pages just trying to convince him he really is dead, since he doesn't believe in an afterlife, and then it goes off into explaining how the universe works.
Mr. Pun's spirit guide explains to him why all the religions are wrong when they say that we are all one. You see, we really are all separate, but when you incarnate on the Earth you have to pass through a filter, and that filter only lets one soul through at a time, and since we all have to squeeze through that filter we think, "Oh, only one can fit, so there must be only one of us," but that's just faulty logic.
Except that's not what any religion says at all. Remember, you do not automatically become enlightened upon death. If you did there would be absolutely no point to life here on Earth at all. It would all be a waste of time and you could be a child rapist or an axe murderer and it wouldn't matter because we all go up into light and bliss when we die anyway. That's exactly the same horrible belief as the materialists who say you die and rot, just in the opposite direction. If nothing you do in this life has any impact on the next, and we're all just here to learn lessons, or to experience suffering, or because it's rousing good fun, then life truly is meaningless and you might as well just shoot heroin all day, because it won't make one bit of difference. If Hitler and his victims go to the same place after death then the universe is completely lacking in justice or compassion and was created and run by Satan.
Since you do not become enlightened upon death (and we know this because spirits coming through mediums admit to it; they admit to not knowing everything), then anything you hear from spirits about anything other than their particular state of being is just their own guess. If spirits tell you they enjoy coffee and cigars and fine velvet arm chairs on the other side, then you can believe them. If spirits tell you what is happening at the ultimate level, and that they know with absolute certainty how everything works and the mechanisms of reincarnation or whatever, they're either outright lying or they are guessing. Since the personality remains intact then a liar on the Earth is a liar in the afterlife, and subconscious biases and fears still cloud one's thinking.
One group of people we can believe are enlightened individuals on this Earth, because they all say the same exact thing. There is no guessing with enlightenment, there is just experience, or more accurately lack of experience. In the causal there is nothing arising. There are no separate things, just consciousness as such. Nothing bad arises to torture you and leave, nothing good arises to torture you when it leaves, there are no others, there is no you, there just is. And they all say this, for the past 3000 years, they all say this. No one is guessing since this is not speculation of what is happening at higher levels because all levels have been left behind. You step off the ride completely.
Ramakrishna explains this beautifully. He was a life-long devote of Kali, and he would go into spontaneous ecstasy and be engrossed in her image. When he met the naked swami Totapuri and tried to learn Advaita he kept seeing Kali when he meditated. Furious, Totapuri stuck a piece of broken glass between Ramakrishna's eyes and admonished him to meditate on that spot. The next time Ramakrishna meditated he says "As soon as the gracious form of the Divine Mother appeared before me, I used my discrimination as a sword and with it clove Her in two. The last barrier fell. My spirit at once soared beyond the relative plane. I lost myself in samadhi." (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, page 49)
You can see a wonderful depiction of this from the 1955 Bengali film biography of Ramakrishna.
And it's like that for everyone. Ramana Maharshi, Richard Rose, Ken Wilber, everyone. You too can check it out for yourself. I did. You do not need to take anyone's word for it, you need accept no beliefs handed to you from spirits, you can meditate for a really long time and see for yourself if enlightenment is all it's cracked up to be. You don't need to consult mediums, you don't need to wait countless eons to ascend higher planes in the afterlife, you can do this right now, in this lifetime, and it is the single most important thing you ever will, or can, do.
There is nothing in the causal. It is completely empty. If ascending higher subtle realms is like climbing stairs to higher and higher floors in a building, then the leap to the causal would be like going from the third to the fourth dimension. It's not higher than the highest floor in the building, it bypasses height all together. It is not getting to the next level in a video game, it's shutting the game off and realising that it was a game all along and not real. It's not that there is no you, there is only me, there's no me either. You step into the causal and no one is home, there is just consciousness as such. There is awareness but it is in no way tied to any identity, and you realise that any identity you held was just a contraction of all that is, no more real than the characters in a movie are to the actors who play them.
All that said, spiritualists are leagues ahead of the average person in the world today, and light years ahead of the fundamaterialists who are the elites who run the world and act as gatekeepers to what is and is not science. I would love for all the world to adopt the beliefs of spiritualists, I would love for mediumship to be taken seriously, for psychical studies to become the paramount branch of science. It would solve very nearly all the world's problems. At the same time it is imperative to realise that mediumship can only take one so far, and that we all must take up the discipline and strive toward enlightenment, whether now or in some future life. The comfort value of survival wears off once you survive death. Then a whole new set of challenges arise that you must face. Psychological challenges from all the subconscious baggage you have accumulated over this and possibly other lifetimes. All that needs to be worked through eventually. The choice is yours to deal with it over the next gazillion years or right now, all at once, in this lifetime. Most people can't, but you definitely should try. Try as if your life depended on it.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming
Freeman Dyson speaks about anthropogenic CO2 and its negligible effect on the Earth's climate.
Humans are affecting the climate, the questions are how much and is it a bad thing.
Increased atmospheric CO2 is leading to a greening of the Earth, with an increase in agricultural yields and wild plant growth, as revealed by satellite data.
It is interesting to note that the same phenomenon was seen in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago, where atmospheric CO2 was twice what it is today (800 PPM) while mean global temperatures were the same as today. The Carboniferous is named for the proliferation of plant life around the planet that led to the formation of coal deposits. Increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased plant growth, which sets up a negative feedback loop whereby the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 are negated.
The aptly named Cryogenian period, the coldest time in Earth's prehistory, also saw the highest concentration of atmospheric CO2, several hundred times what it is today.
The whole CO2/warming correlation is a dead horse, and while there's no point killing it anymore, it is entertaining, so let's listen to the brilliant physicist, co-inventor of Orch-OR, and the visionary behind the Orion nuclear powered rocket. Runs 22 minutes.
Humans are affecting the climate, the questions are how much and is it a bad thing.
Increased atmospheric CO2 is leading to a greening of the Earth, with an increase in agricultural yields and wild plant growth, as revealed by satellite data.
It is interesting to note that the same phenomenon was seen in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago, where atmospheric CO2 was twice what it is today (800 PPM) while mean global temperatures were the same as today. The Carboniferous is named for the proliferation of plant life around the planet that led to the formation of coal deposits. Increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased plant growth, which sets up a negative feedback loop whereby the warming effects of atmospheric CO2 are negated.
The aptly named Cryogenian period, the coldest time in Earth's prehistory, also saw the highest concentration of atmospheric CO2, several hundred times what it is today.
The whole CO2/warming correlation is a dead horse, and while there's no point killing it anymore, it is entertaining, so let's listen to the brilliant physicist, co-inventor of Orch-OR, and the visionary behind the Orion nuclear powered rocket. Runs 22 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
