This is a brief examination of the essence of the concepts of egalitarianism and socialism. While capitalism is mentioned, I think most people are all too aware of what capitalism is and how it is playing out in our world. I am very confident that, in the world today, there are many people who claim to want a socialist society when, in reality, the concept they have in their mind is of a more egalitarian society. In 20/20 hindsight, I know I have made that semantic error. Words are powerful. Using the correct term to accurately express the concept we have in our mind is important. I think we often fall into the error of the misuse of a term, especially when that misuse is common around us.
“1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people”
I think, when a lot of people use the word “socialism”, the above qualities are actually what they have in their mind. One other notable aspect which I think often accompanies the use of the word “socialism”, is that when thinking of increased equality, it is common for a person to be thinking only in terms of the rewards, the benefits, available within a society. True equality also means sharing in the work involved in developing and maintaining a society. There is much needed, in many different areas, to maintain a healthy society. Everything from picking up the trash on the side of the road, to brain surgery. It all matters. There cannot be viable equality in a society in which some only receive, or in which some only give. The imbalance will cause the society to topple. It’s such a simple principle, yet one that is so often overlooked: imbalance engenders instability which can, and will, result in a toppling.
All that being said, Merriam-Webster’s definition of socialism is as follows:
“1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done”
I do not believe that this is what most people today who are using the term “socialist” or “socialistic” have in mind. I have a great deal of confidence that most people in the United States who use this term do not have “no private property” in mind. I know I don’t. I want to be able to leave my home in the morning and return to find it is still my home. The same with my car, tools, and essential personal property. On the other hand, sometimes working and contributing together to see that essential goods and services are available to all is a very good thing. Such a method is used widely to provide schools, police, fire fighter, and emergency response services. There are more essential goods and services which using a similar societal/cooperative approach in the provision of, could stand to benefit humanity greatly. That is another topic, not for this article.
It seems to me that the common use of the term “socialism” in the United States is a reaction to the extreme economic imbalance which is only increasing under the current capitalistic economic system. In every city, I venture every town, in the United States today we see people being marginalized. People are experiencing their needs going unmet, often not for a lack of actively contributing to the wellbeing of their community. We are seeing the end result of allowing the predatory reality, which is a purely capitalist system, to determine our economic reality. However, in contrast to egalitarianism, socialism opens the door just as wide as capitalism does to an extreme imbalance in economic reality and political power. I recommend those using the term “socialism”, as an alternative to “capitalism”, more closely examine it’s definition. Then examine the definition of “egalitarian”. Words matter. What term more accurately describes the reality you want to see emerge in the world?
I just looked up “socialism” in a copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1991. It does not have the same definition as what I have above which came from the online version of Merriam-Webster. Most significantly, it does not include the idea of no private ownership. It does include the phrase “…in which the private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.” I cannot help but wonder if the more extreme version has something to do with weaponizing the word? We live in a world in which we are seeing our language altered, definitions changed, sometimes clearly to benefit one group or another. We need to have greater reverence for our language, which is a significant part of our cultural, intellectual, environment.
Over the past 6+ decades “our” Federal Government has lied to us about the JFK and RFK assassinations. Also, the Vietnam war, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the first WTC bombing, MK Ultra, UFO’s, 9/11, WMD’s in Iraq, and more. Why are so many people so willing to blindly accept that we are getting the truth about COVID and the “vaccines”?To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time, nor a set of issues, when so many qualified, independent, professionals have felt compelled to speak out against what the Government and media are presenting to us. Professionals from various medical, biological, other scientific and legal disciplines. They are putting their professional credibility, their livelihoods, on the line to speak out.
What is the reason for the “tunnel vision” that has gripped so many educated, caring people? The “masses” have blindly followed the directives to destroy livelihoods, to impose isolation, to deprive youth of educational opportunities, to witness dramatic increases in poverty, depression and suicides. To be complicit in coercing neighbors to be injected with a known hazardous substance which those people did not want inside their bodies. All this based in fear of a disease, which, if left totally untreated, has a 99.9% + survival rate. If the WHO had not unilaterally redefined the term “pandemic”, from it’s traditional meaning, during the time of the Swine Flu, what is going on would not be a “pandemic”.
It is time to remember our humanity, our individuality. It’s time to stop trying to force our own health care decisions upon everyone. The value and necessity of individualized care has been a standard within the medical field for some time. Right now, are people which the data shows to be highly susceptible to adverse reactions to the vaccines being truly given the benefit of informed consent? Again, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time when those at the top of the pyramid of the medical, political and media establishment in the United States have so diligently kept accurate information about a disease, and about treatments, away from the general public. And there has never been a time when the American public has been so amenable to such censorship.
Much of what’s taking place in the world today has been made possible by amazing communication technologies. While these technologies bring much of positive value to the world, as with so many other developments, they also offer those with dishonorable motives new avenues through which to prey upon communities. The latter application of these technologies has reached such proportion, If I wasn’t seeing it happen, I’m not sure I would have believed it to be possible. I grieve that it is.
I was born in 1950. I remember the U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. I remember what I saw as a child of life in those times. I remember the post WWII mind set which was predominant in those days in the midwestern United States. There was an undercurrent of optimism, positivity. Diseases were being conquered, diplomacy, rather than war, occupied the headlines. People felt good that tyranny, authoritarianism, genocide, had been defeated. As is all too clear now, the world wasn’t as free of some of these human problems as many believed.
It’s not that everything was ideal, not at all. There were (and sadly still are) issues of ignorance, misunderstanding, fear, hatred, between people of differing races and religions. There were the major rifts between the nations identifying with capitalism and those identifying with communism. However, during WWII, people from many nations, nations with histories of distrust, antagonism, had pulled together to defeat a common enemy. There was optimism that the common values which had surfaced during the war could be built upon to establish lasting peaceful relationships. It was a time of the belief in unlimited possibilities for a better world.
What is absolutely apparent now, is that those who perceived the possibilities for improving the conditions of life for all people, weren’t the only ones seeing unlimited possibilities. There were those who saw the potential of using the new technologies, the developments in transportation, communication, psychology, medicine, and other disciplines, as tools for plunder. Rather than embracing the opportunities to engage in massive development, to facilitate improvements for the common good, they saw, and continue to see, human deficits through the lens of exploitation. Not as areas of need to be addressed with pervasive development and education, but as openings to be exploited in order to establish themselves in predatory positions of power within the systems of the world.
It is apparent now, that post WWII, those seeking personal wealth and power have been working, manipulating public perception. Often co-opting the very symbols which had represented the defeat of tyranny, authoritarianism and inhuman behaviors. They employ words and symbols which once stirred the most positive motives within people to obfuscate and shield their predatory agendas. One of the first major coups these people won was, via magazines, television, and other media, establishing the idea of unrestrained pursuit of personal wealth as a positive primary value in the psyche of people around the world. Once that lie, a lie which ignores basic values necessary to maintaining both healthy individuals and healthy cultures, was pervasively established in the minds of the population, the door to pandemonium was opened.
Competitive economics establishes a system in which those at the top have the distinct advantage. The oppressive, sometimes murderous, methods used to maintain and expand the wealth of those at the top become just the methods of “business as usual”. After all, it’s what you would do if you had all that money? Isn’t it? It’s the value system the media repeatedly portrays as the way of the world. And many, especially those who have never been exposed to something different, simply assume that impression to be the global, inescapable reality.
Abraham Maslow provided us with a working framework, a skeleton, within which it is possible to “flesh out” not only healthy, thriving individuals, also healthy, thriving cultures.
How do we know what is needed to “flesh out”, to establish a viable, worldwide, thriving human culture? We have the findings of the work done in many scientific disciplines over many centuries to guide us. Psychology, sociology, medicine, agriculture, engineering, all of these disciplines, and more, hold information which provides the necessary answers. There are the developments in science and the arts which provide much instruction for the establishment and maintenance of a healthful, thriving human culture. There are answer available to us to the problems of housing, health, energy, pollution, and more. Sometimes these answers go unused because they interfere with the profit motive of those in positions of power. And we accept it because the culture of competitive economics has become normalized.
The thing is, we have got the tools we need to establish a world in which people of many different backgrounds can live together as vital aspects of our world ecology, interacting and enhancing each other’s experience of life. What is missing is the focus to make it happen. I would have said the “will” to make it happen, but I believe that will is present, inside every living human being. Sometimes it is dormant, sometimes it has been covered in so much pain and trauma, so many lies and misdirections, that it expresses itself in twisted, destructive ways. But it is there.
As a teacher of mine once said: “Life takes work, it’s death that’s easy. Just do nothing and you will die.”
All people emanate from and are inextricably a part of the Divine Creative Spirit. This aspect of our existence is represented by the golden circle in the center in the diagram above. The next area, the circle which surrounds the center circle, is the “Worldly Persona” which is the identity the rest of world knows us by. It is defined by our words and deeds which are observable to the rest of the people in the world. It is this persona that is the product of the process described below. Our persona reflects the sum total of our worldly experiences, desires and decisions.
There are no “bad people”, there are no “good people”, there are only people. What makes the difference between tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Mary I of England, or Pol Pot and revered personalies such as Gautama Buddha, St. Teresa of Calcutta, or Martin Luther King Jr.? It is not some mysterious, unknown variables. The difference lies in the sum total of their individual experiences (education, indoctrination, relationships, interactions), their desires, and their decisions. It is important to note here that the “sum total” may include the experiences, desires and decisions of many lifetimes. Also that biology and/or injuries can play a major role in the development of an individual’s persona.
However, we are thinking beings with free will. We have the potential to change. We can mold not only ourselves, but the world we live in. If we decide we desire a better, more harmonious, world, and we act upon that desire, we can bring that vision to reality. It may take time, but the sooner we start, the sooner we arrive.
With the determination to do so, bitterness can be transmuted to understanding. Fear and hatred can be transmuted to caring and love. However, we must stay aware that the opposite is also true. Caring and love, with enough abuse and trauma, especially when accompanied by input and reinforcement to do so, can be replaced with hatred and cruelty. We must end the mistreatment, the cruelties we impose upon one another. We must see each other as being the children of the same Creator, which we are. As we now know, we are all inextricably interconnected. Isn’t it time we established the positive, harmonious, joyful, reality we all, at the core of our being, long for?
In summation, while we all can, at times, be negatively affected by the world around us, through enlightenment, education, understanding, we can transmute negative impulses into constructive actions. We can play a more positively determinate role within our own lives, within our relationships, and within the world around us.
At this time, around the world, we are being advised by individuals and agencies, which wield substantial worldly power, to be fearful. We are being urged, coerced, to be compliant, to follow the instructions we’re being given. Instructions which appeal to the fear the media and corporate powers are largely responsible for instilling. In their positions of power within the media, the corporate powers are wielding an incredible ability of censorship over information. They routinely do not publish truths which disagree with, which dispute the predatory agendas they are implementing. A predominant one at this time is the COVID/”vaccine” agenda. Any information which contradicts the fear based agenda they are pushing, is either censored in corporate media, or, if it is referred to, it is done so in such a way as to discredit that information.
A collection of various and sometimes overlapping people have introduced a previously unknown disease into the world apparently in the pursuit of a homicidal, special interest, agenda. And they may introduce more. They are offering toxic, death-dealing treatments and doing all they can to repress the knowledge of the existence of safe, effective treatments. And throughout it all, they are engineering the flow of vast amounts of the world’s wealth into their hands. Yet we can make the decision to comply with this heinous agenda, or not. We have the final decision in whether or not to allow the pollution of our minds and spirits with the fear and hate they are promoting. And, we have the final decision whether or not to allow the pollution of our bodies with the toxic substances they are pushing.
Changing the focus back to our inherent divine origin and heritage, even when we are being motivated by fear, anger, hatred, even then, through the filters of our mind which are active at that time, we are expressing the innate desire for life which is present within all of us. However, if we desire a more harmonious, healthful, joyful life, we need to discipline ourselves to refrain from expressions which lead to more harm, more trauma, more fear, anger and hatred in the world. While we cannot ignore such emotions when they are present, we must learn to see through to the primary, underlying reality of the desire for life which is there. We must learn to see it not only within ourselves, but in “the other”. When we can do that, and when we embrace the values of negotiation, understanding, mutuality, and the desire for resolutions which enhance the harmony of human interactions, we can have a genuine heaven on Earth.
All through my life I have heard skeptics, cynics, say that such a thing is “too idealistic”, not practical, not possible. Even they, in doing so, inadvertently acknowledge the ideal nature of such thinking. If we aren’t devoting our time and energies toward seeking and establishing the ideal, what are we spending them on? Seeking and establishing the mediocre? The dysfunctional? Or are we just letting entropy, the slow slide into dissolution, be our guiding motive?
Ultimately, whether in the United States or someplace else in the world at large, the term coined in the U.S. by the authors of the Declaration of Independence, “We the People“, represents a reality which can stop tyrannical abuses andelevate humanity. It is within our individual decisions, that we collectively possess the ability to determine the direction this period of history will follow.
Most anyone who has taken a Psychology 101 course is familiar with Pavlov and his dogs. He taught them to salivate when he rang a bell. Such a simple thing, such profound implications. Over one hundred years since Ivan Pavlov and his assistant, Ivan Tolochinov, did their work on conditioning of reflexes, we find ourselves facing an application of the principles of his work in the most massive, and heinous, assault on humanity in recorded history.
For those who didn’t have the pleasure of taking a Psychology 101 course, what Pavlov did was to ring a bell before he gave food to the dogs that were in his experiment. He had surgically implanted a device to measure the dogs’ salivation. He found that, after repeating this sequence a number of times, the dogs would begin salivating after they heard the bell ring, before they received their food. The dogs had been taught to so closely associate the bell with the arrival of food, they now had a “conditioned reflex”. The dogs would even salivate when no food followed the bell.
In summary, a conditioned reflex is when a living thing, a dog, cat, bird, human being, has learned, or been taught, to respond in a certain way in response to a stimulus. A common example of a conditioned reflex in humans is, when driving a car, stopping for a “STOP” sign. Especially in those situations in which it may be perfectly clear there are no other cars on that section of road to worry about.
In Pavlov’s experiment what he didn’t have to teach the dogs is their reaction to food. That is a reaction they had learned, developed, from countless encounters with food. Pavlov just trained (conditioned) them to reacting the same way even when food wasn’t forthcoming.
Fast forward to the present.
There is no question that one of the major benefits societies today have experienced, over decades, is the ability of vaccines to protect individuals from certain diseases. The polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, in Europe the tuberculosis vaccine and some others. Of course any good thing can be overdone, but that is another topic. The point is vaccines are most widely associated with saving lives. People have been conditioned to trust the word “vaccine”. Not as part of some diabolical plan, but just as a function of what most people’s experiences with vaccines, either directly or indirectly, has been. When I grew up I can remember two individuals in the small town in which I lived who bore the crippling after effects of having had polio. I venture there are many reading this who have never seen such effects. The reason for that is commonly attributed to the advent of the polio vaccine.
Just as having learned to salivate when given food was a reflex learned by Pavlov’s dogs simply by the reality of food, trusting vaccines is something that most people have learned from visits to benevolent doctors and nurses who oversaw the administration of them. I will qualify that generalization by saying that has not been everyone’s experience, even with polio vaccines. However, for the vast majority of people in the world, we have become conditioned, via decades of life experiences, decades of positive associations, to regard vaccines as a good thing. A great number of people on the face of the Earth have, via these experiences and associations, developed a conditioned reflex to “vaccines”.
What many may not stop to think about is that, along with the development and proliferation of vaccines, a definition of what a vaccine is and how a vaccine is made has been established. The following is direct quote from The CDC’s website. This is what was on the site on 8/13/2021 under the heading “Vaccines; The Basics“: (I have added italics.)
“Vaccines contain the same germs that cause disease. (For example, measles vaccine contains measles virus, and Hib vaccine contains Hib bacteria.) But they have been either killed or weakened to the point that they don’t make you sick. Some vaccines contain only a part of the disease germ.
A vaccine stimulates your immune system to produce antibodies, exactly like it would if you were exposed to the disease. After getting vaccinated, you develop immunity to that disease, without having to get the disease first.
This is what makes vaccines such powerful medicine. Unlike most medicines, which treat or cure diseases, vaccines prevent them.”
This definition of vaccines accurately describes every product defined as a vaccine which has ever existed, up until now. This definition does not describe the products which are being presented to the public as “COVID vaccines”. The COVID vaccines are not what is described in the CDC’s longstanding definition of a vaccine. None of the COVID “vaccines” have been made in the manner described and none of them function in the manner described. As anyone who has ever worked in a modern medical and/or technical field knows, accurate, reliable, terminology is essential. For centuries scientists have regarded the process of correctly, appropriately, classifying a new discovery as of the utmost importance. To try to inaccurately, inappropriately name a thing, to try to pass it as something it is not, is contrary to the entire concept of an orderly, reliable, scientific system. Which brings us to the question: why would the companies who have developed the mRNA injections want to call them a vaccine? If bringing a new treatment method to the world, why not celebrate it for what it is? Why try to pass it as something it is not?
There are some glaringly obvious answers to those questions. And, regrettably, none of them have to do with the health and wellbeing of the American citizenry or of any other nation’s citizens. Here are three of them:
The process of bringing a vaccine to market is much less complicated, much less expensive than bringing an entirely new treatment method to market. There is a less rigorous demand on safety testing. After all, vaccines are widely accepted as being generally safe. We know that, in reality, vaccines do have their fair share of problems which are too often cavalierly overlooked, however,that is another topic for another time.
The U.S. government has seen fit to grant vaccine manufacturers immunity from prosecution for adverse effects resulting from the use of their products. No other pharmaceutical nor treatment method of any kind has such a blanket absolution from any injuries which might result from their use. I’m sure every developer of a new pharmaceutical or treatment method would dearly love to be able to claim such immunity.
The word “vaccine” carries with it a conditioned reflex, a conditioned acceptance. A new vaccine, in general, do not evoke the appropriately circumspect attitude that people would have toward a new, particularly a new and not thoroughly tested, treatment method. A treatment method which has never been widely used on human beings, ever. A treatment method with virtually unknown long term effects.
If you think about those three benefits from being able to call the mRNA injections “vaccines”, it should be apparent to you that every shady operator dealing in any questionable product in the world, of any kind, would dearly love to have such advantages going for them. Call your product whatever you want. Don’t worry about penalties, liabilities. Capitalize upon a widespread trust that another product has established. Wow, it’s a charlatan’s dream come true.
How does a new product get away with calling itself something it is not, bypass stringent testing and safety protocols such a product is supposed to follow, and gain complete immunity from liability for whatever is going to happen when it is released upon an unsuspecting, and misled public? The only possible answer I can think of is “connections”, that’s how. Knowing the “right” people in the “right” places. Possibly having those same people beholden to you. And, possibly, by being involved in the pursuit of covert agenda which those in positions of power happen to also be involved with.
In closing, such a thing would not be possible without the conditioned reflexes which have been established, over decades, within peoples’ psyches toward “vaccines” and the entities responsible for public safety, such as the FDA. What is going on with how the mRNA injections are being depicted within the media and by public health officials. and in the push to see as many people as possible injected with the mRNA treatment, is a deliberate, glaring and unconscionable abuse of the public trust.
The media’s use of descriptors such as “surge”, “breakout”, “runs rampant”, would lead a person to believe that people are succumbing to COVID in incredibly large numbers.
Take a breath.
Here are some figures from the mainstream sources who claim to be tracking COVID. Let’s start with getting some perspective, the population of the U.S. is officially, as of today, August 31, 2021, is 328,240,000. That is three hundred twenty-eight million, two hundred and forty thousand people. That is us, the residents of the United States of America. Among us, cumulatively from the beginning of COVID hitting our shores, 39,343,501 of us are confirmed as having, at some point, contracted COVID. That is 0.1198% of us as a whole. In reality, a very small percentage of us. Further, this isn’t the number of people who got so sick that hospitalization was needed, this is just confirmed cases. Of this small percentage of us who did contract a confirmed case of COVID, just slightly more than one/tenth of one percent, 1.647%, or 648,051 of us, officially died of COVID. That means that out of the entire population of us, 0.00197% of us have died of COVID. Or less than two one-thousandths of a percent. When it comes to the media’s sensationalism of COVID, we are being sold a tempest in a teapot.
Are around six hundred and fifty thousand deaths from COVID a good thing? No. But is it a catastrophe that warrants closing small businesses, does it warrant millions of people losing jobs, incomes, housing, educational opportunities? Does it warrant the rise in depression, addiction and suicides which are taking place in the nation? Does it warrant the loss of individual rights which is taking place throughout the U.S.? I don’t think there’s any question that countless more lives have been hit with tragedy due to the mandates which President Biden, Anthony Fauci and numerous Governors have waged than have been tragically affected by COVID.
Time to get some perspective and restore the freedoms, of livelihood, of education, even of the ability to choose the medications we, as individuals, would like to use if we face infection. Right now the U.S. has the highest mortality rate, small as it is, from COVID from than most, if not all, other countries in the world. Many other countries, India for one, have benefited greatly from the use of Ivermectin, others are reporting positive results with Hydroxychloroquine. In the U.S. it seems these effective medications are being withheld. Recently I calculated the mortality rate within ten countries using the official figures. I see very little difference in the rate whether a country has vaccinated a lot, or a little, of their population. As mentioned above, the U.S. has the worst rate of those I checked. I invite you to check a few more. Post your results in the comments to this post.
So here we are, the good news is we’re facing a very beatable challenge. The bad news is we’re being misled into believing it’s much more virulent than it is and that it is an all but unbeatable challenge. The draconian measures being put forward by those in positions of political power like being (figuratively) asked to cut off our limbs as a precaution, and we’re doing it. This is much more related to the power of the press than the reality of COVID.
I am realizing that many of us, me included, have a tendency to readily notice and respond to the things in the world that are blatantly wrong, or problematic, and that this may consequently mean we simultaneously are not giving enough attention to the things that are right.
I first became aware of this tendency decades ago when I worked a couple summers as a lifeguard. When I found myself in the lifeguard chair, looking at a large, crowded pool with lots of noise and activity, I had a moment of doubt. I wondered how in the world am I going to see someone in trouble in this chaos? I asked an older lifeguard that question and he replied that I just needed to keep my eyes on the pool and if someone got into trouble, I’d see it. Sounds too simple, right? It isn’t. As it turns out our attention is drawn to the things that aren’t right. Whether it is inconsistencies, differences in movement, sometimes the obvious shout for “help”, or some other more esoteric phenomenon, it is a reliably real thing. I would always find my attention drawn to someone in trouble. Sometimes a few seconds before they were actually experiencing the distress. Of course it is also true that my mindset, my internal desire, was to see such occurrences. That may be a part of the function at work. I began calling this tendency to have our attention drawn to what is wrong “the lifeguard principle”.
While paying attention and looking for trouble was an explicit part of that job, I think it is something we all do to a greater or lesser extent. It definitely is a survival trait in times of threat. Maybe it’s a carry over from the days when we were walking through forests or jungles and we had to be aware of our surroundings to avoid being eaten. It definitely is a behavior that is necessary in times of warfare, one person, gang, tribe, nation, attacking another. I believe it is universal among humankind. For those interested in looking into such things, there is some correlate in the functioning of our “exciting” and “calming” neurotransmitters. Our bodies have evolved in a way that we deplete our “calming” neurotransmitters well before we are in danger of running out of “exciters”. I suppose that would help keep us from just lying down and being eaten when being chased by a tiger. But now, in the year 2020, for many if not most of us, the dynamics we face in our day to day lives are not quite the same as they have been through much our existence.
It’s not that there still aren’t some acute dangers in the world; in some places much more than others. However, the dangers most of us face in developed nations are more of a chronic nature. We don’t get pounced on and quickly killed and eaten by a tiger, we get killed more gradually by being slowly consumed by worries, fears, anxieties, and insecurities. Just as the nature of the threats has changed over time, our reactions to the threats we’re facing needs to change also. A sudden, pervasive startle, fight or flight reaction to all the, sometimes subtle, threats an average person may face during their day would certainly result in a person becoming overly stressed, burned out, and significantly more at risk for a plethora of diseases.
Sometimes we need to intervene in what direction our “autopilot” chooses and become more reasoned with our reactions to life’s events. Having an innate sensitivity to things that are “wrong” in our environment can be part of an important survival system. Our “lifeguard principle” exists for just that purpose, to help guard our lives. This brings to my mind a book by Gavin De Becker: “The Gift of Fear”. It addresses the important role fear can and does play in our lives. However, with both the “lifeguard principle” and “The Gift of Fear”, whether or not these innate aspects of our being serve us or sabotage us depends entirely on how we react to the input we receive from them.
In our complex, more populated, human culture primitive responses to what are often sophisticated situations become less and less viable. As a culture, we need to get way more invested in learning more about what it is to be human and what we inherently, and universally, require to establish and maintain healthy, vital, lives. When we learn to respond to human, social, problems in a manner based in seeking to solve those problems on by seeing needs met and lives stabilized, it will benefit us greatly. We are going to find ourselves in a thriving, vibrant world such as we have only had glimpses of, during a few periods of time in the past 150 years.
Within the current available knowledge from the fields of psychology, sociology, physiology, and spirituality, we have all we need to have more than a good start. It only requires our will and determination to do so.
In almost every discussion I have had regarding covid-19 and the various governmental responses to it, one of the first issues that comes up are all the inconsistencies and contradictions in what we’re being told and what we’re being told to do. But before I get into that, I want to look at one other aspect of the covid-19 picture that we in the U.S. are hearing and reading about every day: the growing number of “cases” being found every day.
One of William Shakespeare’s most well-known questions is: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” However, it is also well known that names, words, can and do make a great difference in how we perceive a thing. The noun “case”, especially when relating to illness/disease is one of these words. We have to be aware that sometimes a word means something in common usage, and also, within the specialization of one discipline or another, that word may have a particular meaning. For example, we all know what the common usages of the word “head” are. Either a body part or possibly the boss, or leader of something. However, in the Navy, the word “head” can and often does refer to the toilet/WC. Sometimes it all depends on the context the word is being used in. The word “case” has some similar usage issues.
In common usage I venture to say we usually think of a “case” as being something that holds something else, like a cellphone case. Or, when speaking about illness, a case is commonly thought of occurring when someone is actively ill with something. We’ve all probably heard about someone coming down with a case of food poisoning, or, heaven forbid, a case of cancer. The fact that someone ate some food which somehow, later, turned up as tainted, means that maybe the person might “come down with a case of food poisoning”, but not necessarily. With cancer I have heard that at any given time most (all?) of us have some cancer cells in our body, however that doesn’t mean we’re suffering with a case of cancer. A “case” of something commonly means someone is actively suffering, ill, with whatever it is. The CDC and other public health related people and agencies however, seem to have a different meaning for the word “case” within their technical jargon. In that usage a “case” can evidently mean simply a positive test result.
So when we hear about all the new cases of covid-19 turning up, what does that mean? Does that mean all the people represented by that number are actively suffering from the severe ravages of covid-19, which we’ve heard so much about? If we’re thinking in common usage terms, the word “case” tends to lead our minds down that path. However, the reality is that in terms of the daily covid “scoreboard”, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means more people have been tested and some of the test results are positive. Kind of like someone eating some food with some unwanted bacteria growing on it. Does that necessarily meant they are going to come down with a case of food poisoning? As with exposure to just about every potentially harmful substance on Earth, there a few other variables involved such as the amount of the “dose” of bacteria and the person’s pre-existing state of health. I think that the robustness of the human immune system is being largely ignored as the covid scenario progresses. Which brings us back to: will someone who tests positive for covid become ill, develop symptoms? Maybe. I’m not sure there are any reliable numbers on the relationship between testing positive and becoming symptomatic. But even if odds are that an infected person will develop some symptoms, as the World Health Organization states: “COVID-19 affects different people in different ways. Most infected people will develop mild to moderate illness and recover without hospitalization.”
At this point I find myself asking, would the daily news have the same quality of sensationalism if what is reported are “positive test results”? As it is, while typical pornography titillates feelings of lust, what is being titillated by the current media onslaught is fear. I don’t think it’s inaccurate to call it “fear porn”. So, imagine the headline: “Today an additional 1,000 people tested positive for covid.” After a few weeks, how many people are going to be on the edge of their seats waiting for the latest tally? But if they say there are 1,000 new cases of covid, especially without any qualifying explanations, our minds, our imaginations, tend to take us down the path of common usage to a forest of doom and gloom, don’t they? So, are we being misled? I think so, I think the folks putting the words together know exactly what picture those words are likely to conjure up in the minds of the general public. However, are they lying? I think it can be easily argued in a court of law that, no, the health officials are merely reporting the facts as they define them. And the media is just parroting what they’re being told.
I think the reporting which is taking place around covid by the mainstream media in the U.S. begs the question: is it okay to shout “fire” in a crowded theater?
Getting back to the matter of the inconsistencies, I probably don’t need to go much further, if you’ve been paying much attention to the claims about covid and the various orders coming from the various levels of government you could probably enlighten me about a few notable inconsistencies. However, here are a few I’ve encountered:
One major inconsistency I’ve heard more than once is that while the State Legislature in Washington State is still meeting online, the State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is looking at, at least some, students being back in the classroom.
Another I’ve heard a couple times is: if covid is so contagious, why aren’t cities, or whoever, prescribing safe methods, or providing receptacles, for disposing of all the used facemasks and gloves? Personally I’ve seen quite a few discarded masks and gloves on the street or in parking lots.
If gathering in large numbers inside enclosed spaces is not okay, why is it okay to shop in large numbers at Walmart and other “big box” stores but not okay to shop in smaller numbers within smaller, local stores?
However, one I find most notable is: with all the expressions of danger and concern coming from the CDC, State governments and the Federal government, why aren’t our leaders showing the will and wisdom to use the same medicines and methods which are being used in the countries which have already been able to return to functioning for the most part as they were before the virus showed up?
With all that is at stake, with all the losses, of jobs, homes, and lives that have taken place and will take place around the covid scenario, there possibly has been no time in modern U.S. history in which it is more important for average citizens to be diligently seeking information about the situation facing us from all sources offering such information. Then the task we face is to sort through that information, seek what bits and pieces from the various sources hold up to scrutiny and fit together with other bits and pieces which we have confidence in the reliability of. We must also factor in motives of individuals or groups which want us to do, or not do, something or another. Are we “all in this together” or are there winners and losers? Why? When a relative few of the richest are becoming richer and millions are losing significantly, when those in seats of power are obviously garnering more power through their manipulations of the situation, there obviously are some personal interests being served. What’s happening isn’t all about health. It’s also very much about economics and power. We should be looking into every nook and cranny that presents itself, then, with thoughtful analysis, we can begin to see the “big picture” of what is actually taking place. Sometimes we may not like where our own observations and conclusions may take us. Sometimes the truth is not the reality we want to acknowledge or have to deal with.
I have practiced neurofeedback therapy for a few decades. I have seen the power that altering brainwave activity can have upon individuals. Depending upon the dominant frequency active in our brains we are asleep, relaxed, content, busy, anxious, angry, panicked. I have also seen how susceptible our brainwave production is to “suggestion”. Our brainwaves can be pushed toward one frequency or another via external stimulation. I’ve used this technique, successfully, in therapeutic situations. However, the outcome being sought by those utilizing such methods is not always benevolent.
In general, the lower the dominant frequency our brain is operating at the closer we are to the sleep state. Delta brainwaves, around .5 to 4 hz, are the lowest and are most often associated with sleep. Conversely, the higher the frequency of the dominant operating brainwaves we are operating at the more “high strung” we often become. We tend much more to anxiety at a higher (say, 20 to 30 hz) level of brainwave activity than we are at the lower frequencies.
The higher frequencies we’re being subjected to via 5G are not pushing us toward relaxed contentment. It is pushing, with however much subtlety, toward anxiety, tension. 5G, with it’s high frequency, power and dense mast and satellite distribution can easily affect the electromagnetic workings within people within the broadcast areas. This does not necessarily mean those employing the technology are intending whatever effect the technology is having upon people. But it does mean that the technology has the potential to be deliberately used to affect people in whatever way those manipulating the technology have in mind.
This impingement upon our biological reality is the reason we need to wake up and start taking all the microwave towers going up around the world very seriously. Technology can be wonderful or technology can be a horror story. It all depends upon the wisdom and the agendas of those utilizing the technology. As we have seen in our other industries, manufacturing, banking, media, those controlling things at any given time may, or may not, have the public’s best interests at heart.
As I read the articles about the experience and expressions of anger that are taking place in the U.S. I find myself wondering how much the public’s predisposition to anger is being heightened by the microwave activity in our environment. The influence of this technology can be mitigated to some extent with meditation, centering, focusing on positive values, positive thoughts. This isn’t an ultimate answer, but it can genuinely help. It is certain that in the face of such a real and pervasive environmental influence toward anger, we all should be doubling and tripling our efforts to relate and act toward each other with care and civility.
Many scientists with knowledge of the technology being employed, and medical/healthcare practitioners from around the world have called for a moratorium on 5G. In his book “The Invisible Rainbow”, Arthur Firstenberg has given us a researched look at the history of the effects of technology upon humankind since the late 1800’s. As is the case with the methods of a lot of other industries; the telecommunications industry’s use of microwave transmission brings with it a danger of pollution. In this case, of polluting our environment in a harmful, even potentially deadly manner with microwave radiation. We need to very deliberately examine the potentials of this relatively new industry and see that our communities, ourselves, do not become collateral damage in someone’s rush to riches.
To learn more about humankind’s relationship with electricity and electromagnetic radiation read Arthur Firstenberg’s“The Invisible Rainbow”.The link is to a 17 page summary of the book.
Added July 4, 2020, quote from Albert Einstein: “We are slowed down sound and light waves, a walking bundle of frequencies turned into the cosmos. We are souls dressed up in sacred biochemical garments and our bodies are the instruments through which our souls play their music.” Einstein also said: “Future medicine will be the medicine of frequencies.”
We know, via our increasing understanding of our physical reality, that the first quote is absolutely true. The second is a prediction not yet fully realized, however, the truth of the first definitely implies credence to the second. If vibrational frequencies can heal (and it is known they can), they also have the potential to harm. This is why we must wake up and demand greater accountability from those who are filling our environment with powerfully broadcast frequencies. To think they are of no consequence is to be in denial of the foundational reality of our existence.
I began studying psychology in 1969, as a Freshman in college. I had a predisposition to being interested in human behavior. I felt the same about psychology as I imagine a lot of people do about chemistry, engineering, nutrition, or medicine. I felt psychology held the keys to understanding and improving the quality of life for everyone. During my Sophomore year I changed my major to psychology (it had been music).
As time went on, I found myself in a wide range of environments, exposed to just about the full gamut of human behaviors. All through this time I have had the good fortune to be exposed to instruction ranging from the cutting edge, the esoteric, the eclectic and the classic trains of thought. My life has pretty much revolved around working to understand why we humans do what we do. I am happy and grateful to report that, on the whole with information coming from a plethora of fields of study, we humans have garnered a very great deal of knowledge about ourselves.
We know much about what we need to have healthy, full, wholesome, complete lives. However, as a race, there has possibly been no other time in recorded history, in which we, as a species, have ignored so much available information. I would add: not only are we widely ignoring so much available knowledge, some working to advantage their own wealth and power, around the world, are perverting and abusing much of the knowledge that we do have. I don’t think there’s any field of study more widely abused right now than psychology.
The “powers that be” within industry and government, very early on recognized the potential the information coming from the field of psychology offered for manipulating people. Not for informing and leading people to understand ourselves, make wise decisions, and have healthy, full lives. But for manipulating people to do the things “they” want to see people doing. Buying things “they” want people to buy. Believing things “they” want people to believe. Behaviors that enrich their lives, not ours.
The contemporary, industrial use of psychology as a tool for manipulation of the public began manifesting as: advertising, which evolved into public relations, which has evolved into engineering consent. Engineering consent is currently the art of controlling what people perceive so that their/our reactions will pave the way for the fulfillment of the controllers’ agenda(s). We used to simply call it “lying”, and that definition still applies. But the current manipulative efforts are happening in such a sophisticated and technological manner, being done in service of people whose agendas are so totally based in egoism, so devoid of consideration for those who are the targets of the manipulation, that merely calling it “lying” doesn’t do justice to the depths of depravity these manipulative efforts emanate from.
Back in the early twentieth century, one of the seminal people in this dark trend was Edward Bernays. A nephew of Sigmund Freud, His efforts contributed heavily to women getting into smoking tobacco and fluoridation of public water. He is often referred to as “the father of spin”. I would say his title should more appropriately have to do with mastering the art of betrayal of trust.
What began as, and still is, a science with so much promise for improving the quality of life for humanity (which is how most sciences get started) is going through a time of profound perversion. Mental health services are, I think, the most common interface between the general public and psychological expertise. However mental health in many cases has become just another sales outlet for the pharmaceutical companies.
The reality of the evolution of the science of psychology is that what we have learned can show us much of what is needed to establish personal and sociologic well-being. One example is Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” which provides a basic template for personal and collective well-being. But these aspects of the science of psychology, the aspects relating to the general population becoming healthy and whole, seem to be truly frightening to those who have been using psychology for manipulation and exploitation.
Restating the situation briefly: the science of human behavior contains great deal of understanding of what we need to be whole, as individuals and as a culture. What we know about what we need to be whole and healthy, as individuals and as a culture, is often directly contradictory to what many in positions of industrial and political power, around the world, want us to believe. What we need for health and wholeness often informs us to behave in ways those currently holding the reins of industrial and political power do not want to see us behaving in. Ways that do not primarily serve them and their egoistic agendas.
Very often today the field of mental health is viewed with skepticism. The results frequently experienced by those accessing mental health services, and seen by those around them, tends to cast mental health services as a marginally effective service at best. To a very significant extent, this is a result of what I call the unidirectional nature of how mental health knowledge and services are most often applied. Every challenge to our mental health is occurring within a context. To try to resolve the issues by only addressing the dynamics within the person experiencing the challenges (mental-emotional distress, maladjustment, mental illness) without simultaneously addressing any pathological dynamics within the context, the society, the person lives within, is to simply ask a person to be healthy within an unhealthy culture. It is a unidirectional approach to mental health.
(There is a similar unidirectional phenomenon happening with laws and law enforcement in the U.S. But that is another story for another time.)
There is a saying: “Culture is to people as water is to fish.” The fact is, a human being cannot be whole and healthy within an unhealthful culture any more than a fish can be whole and healthy within a polluted lake.
The best that can be hoped for is to compensate as well as possible until the challenges with their accompanying stress finally take their toll. Physical illness, and/or mental illness, and eventually a hastened death are not an uncommon result. One coping option, one which some have been using for centuries, is that an individual, or a group, can try to escape the hellish dynamics too often present in society at large by attempting to live in a self-contained society. Monks and Nuns have sought refuge in such an attempt at controlling a micro-environment for centuries. In the U.S. small communes have experienced varying degrees of success. However, such efforts come at a price. That price is the seclusion itself. While those opting for such a lifestyle may genuinely feel that the benefit is worth the cost, such a system is not a viable answer for everyone.
So where does all this leave us? Exactly where we are right now. We are a species too often turned upon itself. Narrowly defined self interest expressed in predatory financial practices, an absence of consideration for others and even an absence of consideration for our natural environment itself, is genuinely threatening to extinguish us as a species. We are on a spaceship called Earth. You would think that even the most narrowly self-centered among us would have consideration for the natural life-support systems we all rely upon. But, as widespread pollution and destruction of essential habitat and species shows, that isn’t the case. Right now, the fact is, there are some extraordinarily short-sighted, narrowly focused, inconsiderate, egoistic, ignorant (by default or by design) people running too much of what is going on. And we’re letting them.
As I’m writing this, April 1, 2020, much of the U.S. and the world is quarantined due to the coronavirus pandemic. As someone has put it: It’s like mother nature has sent us to our rooms to think about what we’re doing. Will we? Will we, across the globe, use some of this time to consider our own thinking, our own behaviors, and rejoin the world at large better for it? Will our individual and collective well-being be prioritized higher than corporate profit, corporate well-being? We’ll see.
Will we, can we, as a species, realize our interconnectedness (as demonstrated graphically by the current pandemic) and apply this awareness to the betterment of our collective well-being? It’s all up to us. Part of what a genuine recovery will entail, is the realization of how pervasively our cultures have been being manipulated by those with narrow, self-serving agendas.
Too often we are being manipulated to hate and fear those who are different in some way from ourselves. We are being manipulated to believe that pursuing narrow self-interest is what we should be doing. We are being manipulated to believe that those who are the most successful at narrowly pursuing their own self-interest are the successes in life. That we should look up to them, emulate them.
As a species, ultimately, we cannot survive, we absolutely cannot ever thrive, with such a mindset. But if we truly grasp our interconnectedness and act in ways which, in every way, further our personal well-being and our collective well-being, we have the potential to experience a quality of life beyond what many have imagined.