Viser opslag med etiketten New Age. Vis alle opslag
Viser opslag med etiketten New Age. Vis alle opslag

fredag den 18. november 2016

Noter Om Positiv VS Negativ Tænkning



En model som differentierer positiv vs negativ i 4 kategorier:



1. Positive former af 'positiv tænkning'
 
2. Negative former af 'positiv tænkning'
 
3. Positive former af 'negativ tænkning'
 
4. Negative former af 'negativ tænkning'
 

Det er mit bud, at nummer 2 og nummer 3 ikke eksisterer på de fleste folks radar.

Ønsketænkning, normalcy bias, konditionering, investeret interesse, er meget større end (>>) reality check.
 


De som kan differentiere mellem alle 4 kategorier, vil derfor vil kunne foretage flere valg i enhver given situation, mens de som kun kan se to former (når der i virkeligheden er mindst 4) tænker i et falskt binært skema, som virkeligheden ikke afspejler. Modellen som følger af enten/eller mister nuancer, opdeler virkeligheden falskt, og kan have dramatiske konsekvenser:

Her er nogle eksempler på  3'eren (positive former af 'negativ tænkning') som blev fejlbedømt som 4'eren (negative former af 'negativ tænkning')  - i sig selv pga. af fiksering på 1'eren og 4'eren - og af samme grund ønsker jeg ikke at være blandt kollektivister når the shit hits the fan (som nogen har sagt;-), ej heller de typer af New Age folk , som  Debbie Ford har kaldt 'the Dark Side of The Light Chasers':





●  "Little Sioux Scout camp in June 2008. Despite being in the middle of "Tornado Alley," the campground had no tornado shelter to offer protection from a strong tornado."Ønsketænkning, investeret interesse, normalcy bias er meget større end (>>) reality check.


● New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina. Inadequate government and citizen preparation and the denial that the levees could fail were an example of denying the 'negative', as were  the thousands of people
who refused to evacuate.


Ønsketænkning, investeret interesse, normalcy bias er meget større end (>>) reality check.


● Members of the Bush administration have repeatedly chided journalists for failing to focus on the positive aspects of America's role in Iraq. The consequence of such positive thinking have been notably highlighted by journalists and commentators.


● Rumsfeld had become one of the chief engines of the notion that insisting on belief in a particular version of reality in Iraq would somehow cause that version to be manifested. It was the power of positive thinking, as applied to geopolitics, and by 2005 it had gone too far for a slew of retired generals, who joined the call for Rumsfeld to resign.


● Clearly the world would never have been exposed to the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison had it not been for whistleblowers. Those with secrets to hide would consider it "positive" that exposure to such "negativity" should be avoided.


●  As a physician concerned with cancer, Jimmie C. Holland (The Human Side of Cancer, 2001) writes with concern on The Tyranny of Positive Thinking and the unreasonable expectations it places on people struggling with the disease -- to the point of believing they are dying because they are not being positive enough.


● Tsunami disaster: A more dramatic example is that of the head of  the Thai meteorlogical office who was forced in 1998 to retire under a shadow for having warned that the coast was dangerously vulnerable to the effects of tsunami. He was accused of scaremongering and jeopardising the tourist industry around the island of Phuket. After tens of thousands of deaths in the tsunami of 2004, he was reinstated in 2005 -- as minister in charge of the Thai disaster warning office.

 


Challenger disaster: NASA suffered a highly publicized disaster on 28 January 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven astronauts on board. The extensive analysis of the problem thereafter determined that the engineers had endeavoured to report the nature of the problem (inadequate sealing rings, called O-rings) to the NASA council responsible. They had however been informed that negative feedback on such matters was both unwelcome and inappropriate. A positive approach was required by NASA authorities to ensure the planned launch and the desirable public relations coverage. Some of the engineers were much sought out thereafter as speakers in management schools.


● Avianca disaster: In 1990 an Avianca flight was in a holding pattern in the New York area for 77 minutes awaiting clearance to land. Realizing that the aircraft's fuel supply was dangerously low, the pilot informed the control tower that it was nearly exhausted: "I think we need priority; we're running out of fuel." Hearing the pilot's calm positive voice, the controllers did not react and authorize an immediate landing. Fatally, the pilot had not used the prescribed "negative" terms "emergency" or "minimum fuel". Minutes later the aircraft crashed. An investigation concluded that the pilot neglected to use the prescribed terms, and the controllers had also failed to ask how much fuel remained, or to request clarification.
- fra meget interessant omfattende filosofisk og avanceret artikel jeg har refereret til mange gange over årene, som giver in-depth analyse af problematikken: Being Positive Avoiding Negativity

Se også:10 simple bedrag i New Age bevægelsen -- Åndens Videnskab




______________________________________________________


PS: Min kritik af positiv tænkning, filmen 'The Secret', m.m. i 2007;


1. The Secret tager ikke højde for fra HVILKET niveau man ønsker sig
fra. The Secret kan altså bruges af både psykopaten eller altruisten,
etc. Som vist satirisk her af Stuart Davis (vildt sjov fætter)
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm0fRKiQ7jU

2. The Secret bruger tankerne! Den dybere del af det spirituelle arbejde består i at TRANSCENDERE tankerne, idet tanker selv ikke udgør spiritualitet. At tænke i sprituelle modeller er ikke spiritualitet. Det er et landkort, ikke selve landskabet.

3. Egoet har ikke nødvendigvis visdommen til at ønske sig det, det har
brug for, men kun det som det begærer. Hvis 'egoet' ikke har forbindelse og perception af Natural Law, er dets 'postive tænkning' afsporet!

Derfor ordsproget: pas på med hvad du ønsker dig, for det kan være at du
får det.

Desuden beskytter vores højere selv vort ego fra at få det, som vi ikke
har brug for, men uheld sker. Og derfor, at der i den okkulte skole var advarsler om magi.


4. The Secret tager ikke højde for skyggen, den manglende skyggeintegration (som bl.a. kan være den skjulte årsag til, hvorfor egoet overhovedet ønsker sig de ting som det
gør)

5. "You can have what you want" siger The Secret, positiv tænkning,
magi, etc.

"You can want what you have" siger Byron Katie, Eckhart Tolle, etc. At
acceptere det som er (og derefter får du ofte det du vil (paradoksalt)

En af Byron Katies venner har formuleret det således:

The Secret: "You can have whatever you want."
The Work: "You can want whatever you have."

The Secret: "My will be done. I know what's best for me."
The Work: "Thy will be done (=Thy will is done). What's best for me is
what actually happens."

The Secret: "You can control your thoughts."
The Work: "You are not the thinker"


____________________________


 

Stuart Davis om "The Secret":

 

As with most things, The Secret is a Good news / Bad news scenario.

 

The secret is (partly) true. Our thoughts and feelings are of

consequence, and positive thinking and feeling can significantly

characterize our experience of reality, even influence the way reality

unfolds.

 

The Secret bruger gyldige (men delvise) antagelser såsom:

 

Our thoughts and feelings are powerful

 

Og puster dem op til en kosmisk (og falsk) skala: "Our thoughts are the

most powerful things on Earth"

 

The secret takes a statement like

 

"Thought can influence reality"

 

og forstærker den til : "Thoughts create reality." Not just any

thoughts, but YOUR thoughts.

 

(By the way, are you a rape victim? I guess you created that reality

with your thoughts. Was your family member killed in Iraq? I guessed you

created that experience for yourself so you could learn from it. Wow.

You are one sadistic cat.)

 

The Secret takes a truth like:

 

"The Self is one with the Universe"

 

and then immediately inserts the wrong self; The Ego.

 

 

The ego is defined by preferences, identified by desires, determined by

boundary.

 

The Self has no preferences, no desires, no lack, no inside, no outside.

It includes all preferences, but is not defined by them. Desire arises

within it, but it is not identified with it.

 

I also have to say: The ego is not the Self.

 

The Secret is selling tools that supposedly fulfill wishes, dreams,

desires. But WHOSE wishes? What LEVEL of desire? What DEPTH of dream?

 

Before you think I am positioning myself as some spiritual

fundamentalist who thinks materialism is bad and "spirituality" is good,

let me set things straight. Me, Stuart Davis? I LOVE money. I LOVE sex.

I want a new house. I'll take a shiny red bike. I want to be rich,

powerful, and successful. And I do not apologize to anyone for that. I

think the ego is good, I think it's games are legitimate and should be

engaged. You know what else? I want YOU to be rich. I want YOU to be

successful, powerful, and have every wish in the circus of your

imagination brought into reality. As long as we're not hurting anyone

else, I say let's go to town. I am the first to stand up and shout "THE

EGO IS NOT EVIL!! THE EGO IS NOT BAD!! IT HAS GOTTEN A RAW DEAL FROM

SPIRITUALITY! LET THE EGO BE WHAT IT ITS!!!" In fact, the ego is quite

literally one of the most astonishing miracles to occur in the history

of Universe. No joke. Celebrate it. It's time we ended the spiritual war

with the ego, include it as another facet of the Beauty in our Being.

Why would we leave anything out? The self counts. The ego matters.

 

I also have to say: The ego is not the Self.

 

The Secret is selling tools that supposedly fulfill wishes, dreams,

desires. But WHOSE wishes? What LEVEL of desire? What DEPTH of dream?

 

Well, here's what sucks about The Secret: There are many levels of self,

but only one which THINKS, and that's the Ego. Thinking, feeling,

thinking, feeling, these two conductors are the hub for all The Secret

espouses, and sadly thoughts and feelings (while important and valid)

come from an extremely shallow dimension of the self. Because of this,

the Secret deeply, sadly, entangles us further into suffering instead of

liberating us from it. The source of suffering is delusion -the illusion

of separateness. It gives rise to craving, longing, desire. It's the

illusion that we lack something that sends us on the Odyssey of

Acquisition.

 

http://stuartdavis.com/node/1138

søndag den 1. februar 2015

New Age versus Spirituel Activism

by morton_h, the blogger 

New Age. We heard and learned the word 40 years ago.
How much does New Age differ from Old Age? New Age worldview is basically a clone of Christianity and serves as its 'hearse for the apostates'. Christianity was always control tool as much as true faith, and the super-users of these tools seem pretty much satisfied with the result.

There are three kinds of New Age modified Christianity.

A direct translation, an aggravation / overhauling on the inside and a turning upside-down.

In the following, I will use Mark Passio's 10 New Age Deceptions - the Ten Commandments for the New Age'er.

Directly translated:
Everything is good, because everything happens by the will of God

Here Islam sings the hymn too. New Agers just replace God with the fluffy concept of Oneness. When everything is equally good, indifference prevails. When everything is indifferent, nothing is different and nothing has value. Nihilism slipped in through the back door.

You must turn the other cheek
This is unmodified Christianity. It is a verbatim copy of the Roman perversion of the Messianic movement, which certainly did not turn the other cheek - and therefore the rebellious hordes should learn it. And while they were doing it, the rest of the Roman Empire as well should learn it too. This teaching of rebellious and potentially rebellious crowds are what we today call Christianity. The current New Age philosophy is an extension of this philosophy.

This leads directly to
Accept everything, do not resist
It was called Pax Romanorum and 'Peace on earth among people who have God's good pleasure' (Christmas Gospel). Those who did not have God's good pleasure went to Hell, especially in Christianity's first millennium. You may ask yourself, whether God is with a capital W og a small w?

It is one thing to be a true pacifist by refusing to perform military service for an aggressive, despotic state apparatus. It is a highly activist action, and in some communities it will have severe consequences for the passifistic activist. But it is something else to to witness assaults and injustice without saying NO! This kind of false pacifisme is found in New Age.

One can never really know
Solipsism is genuinely Catholic. It is equivalent to the Great Mystery or 'The ways of the Lord are inscrutable'. It should however be said that in all the three Abrahamic religions can confidently ask the priest, pastor, imam and rabbi, for they happen to know what they say can not be known. The New Age'er asks his/her oracle for advice by a channeling of an alien from the fifth dimension and the Pleiades. The common denominator between rabbis, oracles, prophets and channeler and media are: non-verifiable. Believe it or not. When God's intermediaries presents itself, you are not supposed to question. 

You should be afraid of chaos
It is the Christian piety and fear of the devil. One wonders again about whether there has been a mixture or confusion going on? If God is such a hell of a good guy, why must we constantly quiver at the thought? Was it perhaps Prince John, who slipped in while King Lionheart was on holiday with his horse? One can really distill the tender to: Thou Shallt Fear - period! Whether it is death, chaos, al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, global warming, financial crisis, your neighbor or reptiles in flying kitchen tools is completely irrelevant. There is fear in you cup - suck it up!

The aggravation:
Ignore the negative, go into the light
This is a New Age worsening of Christianitys '.. and deliver us from evil' - 'Depart, Satan!'. New Age'ere afraid of the dark. It is spiritually incorrect to deal with spiritual dirt. I have met several of these - excuse me - especially women in white angle gowns, always with a crystal pendant necklace and distant look having one orgiastic experience after another in guided meditation sessions. They almost battle to outdo each other in picturesque descriptions of their total out-of-body experience 5 minutes ago, while their side-woman bakes at an even more spectacular version. It is a kind of holy spirit harem where the concubines elbows his way to first place in the spiritual sultan's attention. And I know what I'm talking about, because I've had my New Age period.

Do they actually have these experiences, or are they merely types, for whom imagination is uncontrollable? They do have an erotic experience, though. Dare we say spiritual masturbation? It is a kind of updated neo-pietism. See the picture of the female Spanish saint, Theresa of Avilla for you (google it if necessary). Does she have sex, or is she in devotion? A form of sado-masochistic disorder-eroticism. Rejoice, thou Bride of Christ.

Look into the light and be blinded. Did you think you were going to enlightened?

Never get angry. Anger is a forbidden feeling
It is an extension of the concept of forgiveness and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. Forgiveness is the opposite of revenge. The Romans were shit scared of revenge, for revenge was an integral part of both Germanic and the Judean tribes outlook and basically: all the peoples they had subjugated. For neo-Romans, the Christians, it was paganism in a nutshell. Have you committed misdeeds, you put your ass smack in height and has exposed itself for revenge. Forgiveness was hogwash in the Old World. The romans saw the fall of the Empire coming and had very much need of forgiveness for their destruction and plundering of cultures. A so aggressive approach as the Roman was only possible for a certain period, for it was enormously costly. Just ask neo-Romans aka the Americans about what it costs to maintain a giant army, a corrupt state apparatus, a totally branched listen-and-subvert set and a feet of clay mythology through a 24/7/365 campaign apparatus.

For New Age anger is sinful feeling. They practice darkness denial. The warrior is not welcome in their universe. Could it be, that they compensate for the rulers of the world being so very much into dark occultism? Thou Shallt Not See what is going on in the dark.

It leads directly to: 
The truth does not need to be defended
It is also a deterioration of a Christian thought. Christians were at least willing to stand up for their beliefs, even with their lives. New Age'ers just do a jellyfish. I had a meeting with one of New Age gurus, Johan Oldenkamp and one of his female 'students' and admirers - there was harem again - where I reactionary and spontaneously was called a fanatic, then later to be addressed to 'a warrior' (warrior). But it was only after the guru had to admit that anger was not an illegitimate feeling but an impetus for action. The guru came in a dilemma and was very 'human' - today this word strangely enough is a synonym for 'flawed', probably due to the Christian 'we are all sinners' - since he had started his three-day seminar with proclaiming that he was not a guru and he was opposed to New Age. And then sits one of his female admirers and says Fukushima leak is irrelevant for Nature heals it again. OK, also the Americans when they can no longer eat fish caught in the Pacific Ocean, and where their authorities now completely omits to record and publish measurements on radioactive content in foods. Tell that to the people in remote world where the Americans and NATO have used smart bombs with depleted uranium and where women now give birth to 'funny' children while dying of cancer. Just tell them that 'mind is over matter'. Tell that to all the victims of Chernobyl ... 'Well, there are only 63 who have died ..' the woman replied. NO, you un-educated moron! 2000 Russian reports have been done on the consequences and an American newspaper last year quoted a translated summary: 1 million dead since the accident!

New Age contains a horrid, good portion cowardice and stupidity
To be fair, Johan Oldenkamp in principle recants guru status. He tried, but he failed. It was in this case as most other student needs a guru, the archetype 'Big Daddy' that struck through. See me Daddy, hear me Daddy, love me Daddy!

Turning upside down:
Suffering should be avoided, we must feel good all the time

According to Christianity you suffer. You are sinful, guilty, and you should fear. Next, you must confess your guilt and your sins so that you can be saved from you sins. This whole life is a valley of tears, but in life after death you either smoke the bowels of Hell or go to Heaven if you have piety. The more you have suffered, the greater the chance for a place in the first class compartment on the heavenly train.

In New Age worldview be suffering avoided at all costs. This is done by denying all suffering, darkness, abuse, enslavement, mutilation and death and just 'go into the light'. Think positively, avoid negative thoughts. Avoid attachment (attachment), a simplified representation of a Buddhist concept.
If there is anything that makes you disgusted look the other way. If you see suffering, it is because of bad karma, meaning: it's their own fault and certainly not due to abusive powers creating a whole lot of un-necessary suffering.

The Law of Attraction in diluted form
The Law of Attraction has become the new big New Age concept, especially after the movie 'The Secret'. You create your own reality, you get what you give meaning you get all you want as long as you wish it well enough. Think only positive, and the universe will besmile you with good fortune.
There is a deeper core of truth hidden in the concept, but in New Age version, it easily turns into self delusion.

It is only in the worst kind of Catholic medieval theology, this makes sense. Blessings can not be earned through good deeds as a form of investment. You should act out of goodness, if you are a person of conscience, but you should do it with no claim to profits. So: 'Dear God, if I will help 15 old ladies across the street and donate all my money to the Church, so you have to promise that I will not go to Hell?' It does not play that way. And, by the way God responds: 'You are in Hell!'

I should be fair to say that many of the favorite topics of New Age can be particularly interesting. I grind of course all with the same brush and stereotypes the lot. Oversimplification promotes understanding. It just seems as if they have forgotten to bring the bag of salt, as they can sprinkle on their excesses. They simply lack humor. And humor is means self-criticism.

Weaponized anthropology 
C. G. Jung said, Christianity had failed to renew its myth. Was he quite right in his assertion?

I would say that Jung was right. But New Age was in a way a kind of mythological renewal. Or rather: it looked alike. It was a patchwork of everything exotic and unconventional for a westerner. It poured old and strange traditions into the same pot, a little bit of that and a little bit of a lot. Some could go deep into the exotic and end up as experts yogis, buddhists, organic farming, which could be very interesting. But for most who ran along it was just flirtation, a surface, a series of attitudes.

In retrospect, we know that there was something quite different under the radar. The phenomenon was studied. The New Age movement was exposed to weaponized anthropology, as with all mass movements. When masses move there will be wolves and shepherds in the neighbourhood. New Age arose out of a time with intense activity from the American secret services to detach a real activist movement against the US war in Vietnam. CIA infiltrated all of the protest movement and pumped drugs into the social space. It was ironically the same drugs, which were the main reason for US starting a war in the Golden Triangle, that now flooded the domestic market. The Anglo-Saxon two-headed Impere had a centuries-old practice of poisoning entire nations with opium. First of all the Empire states, that is their wealthy elite, made an humugous fortune - and still do with the CIA and NATO presence in Afghanistan - and secondly drugs are weapons of mass destruction that only destroy the software / the human beings and not the hardware / the material ressources. The weapon can be used to frame and paralyze nations out there and own your people back there.

At the same time arrived the synthetic designer drugs. Who invented LSD? Again we see the CIA fingerprints. In their infamous - and never finished - great mind-fucker project, MK-Ultra, they studied diligently how both soldiers and civilians responded. Soon the entire music industry and its consumers swam with LSD and heroin. CIA handlers poured it out at Grateful Dead concerts. Legendary musicians died either form an overdose (Joplin, Morrison, Hendrix + a few hundred others) or were taken out because they had discovered what was happening and began to comment on it (Lennon, Marley). Drug users and addicts do not have a long life.

We saw quite clearly the result in the '70s of a PSYOP (psychological operation). In the beginning there was a real anti-war movement with a lot of substance, and there was a genuine anger against the government's misdeeds. After the infiltration and the anthropological attack vaporized movement, and its members began to misbehave with psychedelia: drugs, music, porn, Buddhist Hinduist-flirtations, narcissism ... Those who did not gave up, because you can not talk politics with people on the acid and dope. Or people stoned on Krishna and Buddha. Or who had resigned from the society, as it was called, and cultivated eco beetroots and played shaman drum while they made crystal healing and free sex in the collective. Gone was the anti-war movement and al indignation against the Empire went up in funny hats and coloured spectacles. Hippie culture was one of the 20th century's most effective CIA operations and no one discovered the underlying operation before it was too late. 

Spiritual activism
It is far from obvious that spirituality and false passifism / New Age is the same. Spirituality is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this sword in hand on the right person can be liberating. In the hands of a person without the manual for the sword is opium or stesolid. I'd be reluctant to use the term 'opium of the people', since communism was the most violent peoples opium itself in the 20th century. It sold itself as liberating but in reality was massively enslaving.

Two figures from the Indian spiritual tradition on the other hand, Sri Aurobindo and Mahatma Gandhi, was both spiritual political activists. Satyagraha is truth seeking, non violent civil disobedience, it is not being passive. Passiveness is obedience. It is totally wrong to call Gandhi for a passifist, he was a non-violent activist. Gandhi's life and philosophy is fairly well known in the West, Aurobindo less.






The activist in his old days 
Aurobindo was deeply involved in the Indian nationalist movement under the imperial yoke. Today our updated British post-empire aka the Anglo-Saxon double empire is very fond of the word terrorism, and we should make ourselves clear that both of these deeply spiritual men undoubtedly would be called terrorists. As a basic rule the terrorist state always names its opponents as terrorists. But both practiced political and social resistance without terror. Perhaps this is why they and the Indian nationalist movement came out victorious against the mighty Empire. Both had understood the enormous force that can be mobilized with a grounded spirituality that was understood by people.

Aurobindo writes in 1903 a pamphlet called Bhavani Mandir designed to guide in the revolutionary struggle. It is quite a different revolutionary tone, we find here than in contemporary communist lingo in the West:
'Is it love, enthusiasm, Bhakthi that is wanting? These are ingrained in the Indian nature, but in the absence of Shakthi we cannot concentrate, we cannot direct...Bhakthi is the leaping flame, Shakthi is the fuel. If the fuel is scanty, how long can the flame endure?...Many of us, utterly overcome by Tamas, the dark and heavy demon of inertia, are saying nowadays that it is impossible, that India is decayed, bloodless and lifeless, too weak ever to recover. It is a foolish and idle saying. No man or nation need perish unless he deliberately chooses extinction... For what is a nation?...It is not a piece of earth, nor a figure of speech, nor a fiction of the mind. It is a mighty Shakthi composed of all the millions of units that make up the nation.'

A little glossary:Tamas is one of the three gunas, the universal life forces: Tamas, Rajas and Sattva. They are parallels to the Taoist Yin, Yang and Tao - with a twist. Tamas is darkness, inertia, inactivity and materialism, the introvert / astringent. Rajas is energy, action, change and movement, the extrovert / expanding. Sattva / Dao is balance, harmony, joy and intelligence.
Shakthi is a parallel to the Daoist primordial chi. It is the universe's fundamental energy and dynamic force.
Bhakthi is devotion.

Aurobindo gives his country men and the nationalist movement a kick in the ass with terminology that is rooted in the Vedic understanding of the world. The essence we can find in the Bhagavad Gita, where the archer Arjuna is in a dilemma while he sees the two armies drawn up. In his dialogue with Krishna, he learns to understand why he should not refrain from playing a role in this struggle.

When the British came to India, they were especially excited about the Indian caste system. They saw a direct parallel to feudalism and the British class system, and it became part of their administration of the Imperial Crown Jewel, India. The nationalists stroke of genius was to go deeper than the caste system, which over time had degenerated. In the distant past, it has given full meaning, but in 20th century India, it was just a repressive apparatus.

Aurobindo writes in a letter to his wife about his three forms of 'madness'. The first is to give it back to the universe, you you do not need. The other is his desire to speak directly with God, which he knows is possible, but only with complete dedication. That he did in the second part of his life after his time as a political activist.

The third madness is the concept of India as the great mother:
'My third madness is with regard to Mother India. I look upon India as my Mother, I am devoted to her, I worship her. If somebody mounts on the chest of his mother and to drink her blood, what does her son do? Does he sit down for meals and settle down with a calm and a quiet mind to enjoy life with his wife and children? Or does he run to the succour of his suffering mother?' 

He chose the latter. And was thrown in jail for it.
Aurobindo engagement with the militantmovement


This is usually a stupid move of the Empire, for it simply creates a martyrdom and gives the oppressed momentum. It was, therefore, that the British colonial chose to fight back through the Indian police, who were trained by them. In this way they sought to avoid 'we-they' confrontation. But it failed. That is also why the Empire our time uses terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIL to do their dirty work, as was the practice in the Empire's early days to take advantage of 'privateers', pirates for plunder and murder, so the crown was not defiled and had to explain her crimes. Today's Empire do not want 'boots on the ground', as they have to explain the flow of body bags to their own people, AND why it was even necessary to attack and destroy other nations.

New Age versus spirituel aktivisme


New Age. Den nye tidsalder. Vi lærte ordet for 40 år siden. 
Hvor meget adskiller egentlig New Age fra Old Age? New Age-verdensbilledet er stort set en klon af kristendommen og fungerer som dets 'ligvogn for frafaldne'. Kristendommen var altid lige som meget kontrolredskab som den rette tro, og superbrugerne af disse redskaber, det nye som det gamle, virker stort set tilfredse med resultatet.

Der er tre slags New Age-versioner af kristendommen

En direkte oversættelse, en forværring / en overhaling indenom og en bagvending.
I det følgende tager jeg udgangspunkt i Mark Passio's 10 New Age-bedrag (deceptions). Altså de Ti Bud for New Age'eren.  

Direkte oversat:
Alt er lige godt, for alt sker efter Guds vilje
Her synger Islam med på salmen. Newagerne erstatter bare Gud med Oneness. Når alt er lige godt, hersker ligegyldigheden. Når alt er ligegyldigt, er intet gyldigt. Nihilismen har sneget sig ind ad bagdøren.

Du skal vende den anden kind til
Det er umodificeret kristendom. Det er en ordret kopi af den romerske bagvending af den messianske bevægelse, der bestemt ikke vendte den anden kind til - og netop derfor skulle de oprørske horder lære det. Og mens man var i gang, kunne resten af Romerriget ligeså godt lære det. Denne belæring af oprørske og potentielt oprørske menneskemængder er, hvad vi i dag kalder for kristendom. I gængs New Age-filosofi glider den rent videre.

Det fører direkte videre til:
Accepter alting, gør aldrig modstand
Det hed Pax Romanorum og Fred på jorden blandt mennesker, der har guds velbehag (Juleeangeliet). De, der ikke havde guds velbehag, røg som bekendt ad helvede til, især i kristendommens første årtusind. Det er også her, man kunne begynde at spørge sig selv, om gud mon skal staves med lille eller med Stort.

En ting er at være ægte pacifist ved at nægte at gøre militærtjeneste for et aggressivt, despotisk statsapparat. Det er en særdeles aktivistisk handling, og i visse samfund får det alvorlige konsekvenser for den passifistiske aktivist. Noget andet er stiltiende at være vidne til overgreb uden at sige højlydt NEJ! Det er denne falske pacifisme, som findes i New Age. 

Man kan aldrig rigtig vide
Solipsismen er ærkekatolsk. Her hedder det bare Mysteriet eller 'Herrens veje er uransagelige'. Det skal dog lige siges, at man i alle de tre abrahamiske religioner trygt kan spørge pateren, præsten, imamen og rabbien, for de ved dét, de siger ikke kan vides. New Age'eren spørger sit orakel til råds, der ved det hele fra en kanalisering af et rumvæsen fra 5. dimension og Plejaderne. Fællesnævneren mellem rabbinere, orakler, profeter og og kanaliserende medier er: ikke-verificerbart. Tro det eller ej. Når Guds mellemhandlere byder sig til, er du på Herrens Mark. 

Du skal være bange for kaos
Det er det kristne Gudfrygtighed og frygten for Djævelen. Man spekulerer igen over, hvorvidt der er sket en sammenblanding eller forveksling her? Hvis Gud er så fandens god, hvorfor skal vi så konstant bævre ved tanken? Var det måske prins John, der smuttede ind, mens kong Løvehjerte var på ferie med hest? Man kan egentlig destillere budet til: Du skal frygte, Basta! Om det så er døden, kaos, al Qaeda, Vladimir Putin, global opvarmning, finanskrisen, din nabo eller reptiler i flyvende køkkenudstyr er fuldstændig underordnet.

Overhaling indenom:
Ignorer det negative, gå ind i lyset
Her er New Age en forværring af kristendommens '.. og fri os fra det onde' - 'vig bort, Satan!'. New Age'ere er nærmest mørkerædde. Det er spirituelt ukorrekt at beskæftige sig med spirituelt snavs. Jeg har mødt adskillige af disse - undskyld mig - især kvinder, der går i hvide bomuldsgevandter, altid med et krystal-halssmykke og fjernt blik, som får den ene orgiastiske oplevelse efter den anden i guidede meditations-seancer. De kæmper nærmest for at overgå hinanden i maleriske beskrivelser af deres totale ud-af-kroppen-oplevelse for 5 minutter siden, mens side-kvinden småsurt bager på en endnu vildere version, når det er hendes tur. Det er en slags helligåndens harem, hvor konkubinerne albuer sig frem til førstepladsen hos den åndelige sultans bevågenhed. Og jeg ved, hvad jeg taler om, for jeg har haft min New Age-periode.

Har de reelt disse oplevelser, eller er de blot typer, for hvem fantasien er ukontrollerbar? De har i hvert fald en erotisk oplevelse. Tør vi sige spirituel onani? Det er en form for opdateret neo-pietisme. Se billedet af den kvindelige spanske helgen, Theresa af Avilla for jer (google det om nødvendigt). Har hun sex, eller er hun salvelsesfuld? En form for sado-masochistisk lidelses-erotik. Fryd dig, du Kristi brud.

Du må aldrig blive vred. Vrede er en forbudt følelse
Det ligger i forlængelse af tilgivelsesbegrebet og 'Du skal elske din næste som dig selv'. Tilgivelse er det modsatte af hævn. Romerne var hunderædde for hævn, for hævn var en integral del af både germanske og de judæiske stammers livssyn eller for at generalisere: alle de folkeslag, de havde underkuet. For neo-romerne, de kristne, var det hedenskab i en nøddeskal. Har man begået udåd, lægger man sin røv i klaskehøjde og har blottet sig for hævn. Tilgivelse var noget pladder i den gamle verden. Romerne forudså tilbageslaget i rigets forfald og havde vældig meget brug for tilgivelse. En så aggressiv fremfærd som den romerske var kun mulig i en vis periode, for den var enormt ressourcekrævende. Spørg blot neo-romerne aka amerikanerne om, hvad det koster at opretholde en gigant-hær, et korrupt statsapparat, et total-forgrenet lytte-og-subversions-apparat og en mytologi på lerfødder via et 24/7/365 kampagne-apparat.
For New Age'erne er vrede en syndig følelse. De praktiserer mørke-fornægtelse. Krigeren er ikke velkommen i deres univers.

Det fører direkte til:
Sandheden behøver ikke at blive forsvaret
Det er ligeledes en forringelse af kristendommen. Kristne var i det mindste villige til at gå i brechen for deres tro, også med livet som indsats. New Age'erne gopler bare helt ud. Jeg havde et møde med en af New Age guruerne, Johan Oldenkamp og en af hans kvindelige 'elever' og beundrere - der var haremet igen - hvor jeg reaktionært og spontant bliver kaldt en fanatiker, for så senere at blive rettet til 'en kriger' (warrior). Men det var først efter at guruen måtte indrømme, at vrede ikke var en illegitim følelse med et afsæt for handling. Guruen kom i et dilemma og blev meget 'menneskelig' - i dag er ordet sjovt nok blevet til et synomym for 'fejlbehæftet' - da han havde startet sit 3-dages-seminar med at proklamere, at han ikke var en guru og at New Age var ham imod. Og så sidder en af hans kvindelige beundrere og siger, Fukushima-lækken er uden betydning, for naturen helbreder det igen. OK, sig også det til amerikanerne, når de ikke længere kan spise fisk fanget i Stillehavet, og hvor deres myndigheder nu helt udelader at registrere og publicere målinger om radioaktivt indhold i fødevarer. Sig det til befolkningerne i udkantsverden, hvor amerikanerne og NATO har brugt smart bombs med afberiget uran, og hvor kvinderne nu føder sjove børn og selv dør af cancer. Sig det til samtlige ofre for Tjernobyl ...'Jamen der er kun 63, der er døde ..' svarede konen. NEJ! der er lavet 2000 russiske rapporter om følgerne, hvor en amerikansk avis citerede et oversat sammendrag: 1 million døde siden ulykken!

New Age indeholder en fæl, god portion fejhed og dumhed
Det skal retfærdigvis siges, at Johan Oldenkamp i princippet fraskrev sig guru-status. Han prøvede, men det lykkedes ham ikke. Det var i denne sag som de fleste andre elevens behov for en guru, arketypen 'Big Daddy', der slog igennem. Se mig Far, hør mig Far, elsk mig Far!

Bagvending:
Lidelse skal undgås, vi skal føle os godt tilpas hele tidenIfølge kristendommen lider du. Du er syndig, skyldig, og du skal frygte. Dernæst skal du bekende din skyld og dine synder, så du kan blive frelst fra disse. Hele dette liv er en tårernes dal, og i det næste liv efter døden ryger du enten lukt i Helvede eller kommer i Himlen, hvis du har være from. Jo mere du har lidt, jo større chance for en plads på 1. klasse i toget.
I New Age-verdensbilledet skal lidelse for enhver pris undgås. Det gøres ved at benægte lidelse, mørke, misbrug, underkuelse, død og lemlæstelse og 'gå ind i lyset'. Tænk positivt, undgå negative tanker. Undgå tilknytning (attachment), en forsimpling af et buddhistisk koncept.
Hvis der er noget, der får dig til at væmmes, se den anden vej. Hvis du ser lidelse, så skyldes den dårlig karma. Den skyldes i hvert fald ikke din mangel på medfølelse.

Tiltrækningens lov i udvandet form
Law of Attraction er blevet det nye store New Age-begreb, især efter filmen 'The Secret'. Du skaber selv din virkelighed, du får, hvad du giver, du opnår, hvad du ønsker, blot du ønsker det godt nok. Tænk kun positivt, og universet og forsynet vil tilsmile dig med gode gaver.
Der er en dyb kerne af sandhed gemt i konceptet, men i New Age-versionen bliver det meget nemt til en gang selvbedrag.
Det er kun i den værste form for katolsk middelalder-teologi, at dette giver mening. Man kan ikke gøre sig fortjent via gode gerninger som en form for investering. Man handler ud fra godhed, hvis man er et menneske med samvittighed, men man gør det uden krav på fortjeneste. Altså: 'Kære Gud, hvis jeg nu hjælper 15 gamle damer over gaden og forærer alle mine penge til Kirken, så må du love, at jeg ikke kommer i Helvede?' Den spiller ikke.


Det skal dog igen retfærdigvis siges, at mange af deres favorit-emner er særdeles interessante. Jeg skærer selvfølgelig alle over én kam her og stereotypéer dem. Forsimpling fremmer forståelsen. Det virker bare, som om de har glemt den dér pose salt, som de kan strø ud på deres udskejelser. De mangler simpelthen humor. Og humor er selvdistance og selvkritik.

Det antropologiske våben 
C.G. Jung sagde: Kristendommen har forsømt at forny sin myte. Han havde ret, men havde han helt ret i sin påstand?

Jeg vil sige, at Jung havde ret. Men New Age var på sin vis en form for mytologisk fornyelse. Eller rettere: det lignede. Det var et patchwork af alt, der var eksotisk og utraditionelt for en vesterlænding. Man rørte uddrag gamle og fremmede traditioner ned i samme gryde, en lille smule af det og en lille smule af en masse andet. Enkelte kunne gå dybt ned i det eksotiske og ende op som eksperter yoga, buddhisme, økologisk landbrug, hvilket kunne være særdeles interessant. Men det meste forblev en flirt, en overflade, en serie attituder.

Set i bakspejlet ved vi, at der foregik noget ganske andet under radaren. Fænomenet blev studeret. New Age-bevægelsen blev udsat for weaponized anthropology, som man gjorde med alle massebevægelser. Når menneskemasser rykker på sig, holder ulve og fårehyrder til i nærheden. New Age udsprang af en tid med heftig aktivitet fra det amerikanske efterretningsvæsens side for at afmontere en egentlig aktivistisk bevægelse mod USA's krig i Vietnam. CIA infiltrerede hele protestbevægelsen og pumpede drugs ud i det sociale rum. Det var ironisk nok de samme drugs, som var hovedårsagen til, at USA absolut måtte starte en krig i Den Gyldne Trekant og som nu oversvømmede det hjemlige marked. Det angelsaksiske to-hovedede Imperium havde en århundreder gammel praksis med at forgifte hele nationer med opium. For det første tjente de kassen - og det gør CIA og NATO stadigvæk i Afghanistan - og for det andet er drugs et masseødelæggelsesvåben, der kun ødelægger softwaren / mennesket og ikke hardwaren. Våbnet kan bruges til at ramme og lamme nationers befolkning derude og egen befolkning derinde.

Samtidig ankom de syntetiske designerdrugs. Hvem udviklede LSD? Igen ser vi CIA fingeraftryk. I deres berygtede - og aldrig afsluttede - store mind-fucker-projekt MK-Ultra, studerede man flittigt, hvordan både soldater og civile reagerede. Hvad kunne man ikke få folk til at gøre? Hele musikindustrien svømmede snart med LSD og heroin. CIA-handlere delte det ud ved Grateful Dead-koncerter. Legendariske musikere døde på stribe enten af en overdosis (Joplin, Morrisson, Hendrix + et par hundrede andre), eller fordi enkelte af dem havde opdaget, hvad der foregik og begyndte at udtale sig om det (Lennon, Marley). Bevægelsen masseproducerede narkomaner, og narkomaner har ikke et langt liv.

Vi så ganske tydeligt resultatet i 70'erne af en PSYOP (psykologisk operation). I starten var der en reel anti-krigs-bevægelse hvor der blev talt substans, og hvor der var reel vrede mod regeringens ugerninger. Efter infiltrationen og det antropologiske angreb fordampede bevægelsen, og dens medlemmer begyndte af skeje ud med psychedelia: stoffer, musik, porno, buddhist-hinduist-flirten, narcissisme ... Dem der ikke skejede ud opgav ævret, for man kan ikke tale politik med folk, der er på syre og dope. Eller som stener med Krishna og Buddha. Eller som har meldt sig ud af samfundet, som det hed, og dyrkede økogullerødder og spillede på shamantromme mens de lavede krystalhealing og fri sex i kollektivet. Væk var anti-krigs-bevægelsen og al indignation mod Imperiet gik op i hat og briller. Hippiekulturen var en af det 20 århundredes mest effektive CIA-operationer og ingen opdagede operationen, før det var for sent.

Spirituel aktivisme 
Det er langt fra en selvfølge, at spiritualitet og falsk passifisme / New Age er det samme. Spiritualitet er et tveægget sværd. På den ene side kan sværdet i hånden på den rette være frigørende. I hånden på den forkerte eller personen uden manual til sværdet er det opium eller stesolid. Jeg vægrer mig ved at bruge udtrykket 'opium for folket', da kommunismen var det heftigste folke-opium i det 20. århundrede, der solgte sig selv som frigørende men i realiteten var massivt slavebindende.

To skikkelser fra den indiske spirituelle tradition derimod, Sri Aurobindo og Mahatma Gandhi, var begge spirituelle politiske aktivister. Gandhis liv og filosofi er ret kendt i vesten, Aurobindos i mindre grad.Aurobindo var dybt involveret i den indiske nationalistbevægelse under det britiske imperiale åg. I tider, vor det opdaterede britiske post-imperium aka det angelsaksiske dobbeltimperium slynger om sig med ordet terrorisme, bør vi gøre os klart, at begge disse dybt spirituelle mænd uden tvivl ville blive kaldt for terrorister. Som grundregel kalder terrorstaten altid sine modstandere for terrorister. Men begge praktiserede politisk-social modstand uden terror. Måske netop derfor vandt de og den indiske nationalistbevægelse over det overmægtige Imperium. Begge havde forstået den enorme kraft, der kan mobiliseres med et grundfæstet spirituelt afsæt.

Aurobindo skriver i 1903 en pamflet kaldet Bhavani Mandir beregnet på at træne i revolutionær kamp. Det er en ganske anden tone, vi finder her, en de samtidige kommunistiske i vesten:

'Er der kærlighed, entusiasme, Bhakthi, der er brug for? Disse er integreret i den indiske folkesjæl (nature), men i fraværet af Shakthi kan vi ikke koncentrere, vi har ingen retning ... Bhakthi er den springende flamme, Shakthi er brændstoffet. Hvis der er mangel på brændstof, hvor længe kan flammen da brænde? Mange af os, der er overmandet af Tamas, den mørke og tunge inertiens dæmon, siger i dag, at det er umuligt, at Indien er forfaldet, blodfattig og livløs, for svag til at komme sig. Det er tåbelig og unyttig tale. Intet menneske og ingen nation behøve at forgå, medmindre han selv vælger at lade sig udrydde. For hvad er en nation?...Det er ikke et stykke jord, det er ikke en tale-floskel ejheller en fiktion i sindet. Det er en mægtig Shakthi sammensat af millioner af enheder, der skaber en nation.'

Lidt ordforklaring: 
Tamas er den ene af de tre gunaer, de universelle livskræfter: Tamas, Rajas og Sattva. De er paralleller til det daoistiske Yin, Yang og Dao - with a twist. Tamas er mørke, inerti, inaktivitet og materialisme, det indadvendte/sammentrækkende. Rajas er energi, handling, forandring og bevægelse, det udadvendte/udvidende. Sattva/Dao er balance, harmoni, glæde og intelligens.

Shakthi er en parallel til det daoistiske chi (primordial chi). Det er universets grundlæggende energi og dynamiske kraft.

Bhakthi er hengivelse.

Aurobindo giver sine landsmænd og den nationalistiske bevægelse et spark i røven med terminologi, som er rodfæstet i den vediske verdensforståelse. Essensen findes i Bhagavad Gita, hvor bueskytten Arjuna befinder sig i et dilemma mens han ser de to hære opstillet. I sin dialog med Krishna lærer han at forstå, hvorfor han ikke skal afstå fra at spille en rolle i denne kamp.

Da briterne kom til Indien, var de især begejstrede for det indiske kastevæsen. Her så de en direkte parallel til feudalismen og det britiske klassesamfund, og det blev en del af deres administration af Imperiets Kronjuvel. Nationalisternes genistreg bestod i at stikke spaden dybere ned end det kastevæsen, der over tid var degenereret. I en fjern fortid har det givet fuld mening, men i det 20. århundredes Indien var det blot et undertrykkende apparat.

Aurobindo skriver i et brev til sin kone om sine tre former for 'galskab'. Den første består i at give det tilbage til universet, man ikke har brug for. Den anden er hans ønske om at tale direkte med Gud, hvilken han ved kan lade sig gøre, men kun med fuldstændig dedikation. Det brugte han den anden del af sit liv til efter sin tid som politisk aktivist.

Den tredje galskab er begrebet om Indien som den store moder:

'Jeg betragter Indien som min moder. Jeg er hende hengiven (devoted). Jeg tilbeder hende. Hvis nogen sætter sig på hendes bryst og drikker af hendes blod, hvad gør hendes søn da? Vælger han i ro og mag at indtage et måltid, sætter han sig ned med stille sind for at nyde livet med sin kone og børn? Eller iler han for at hjælpe sin lidende moder?'

Han valgte at ile. Og blev smidt i fængsel for det.
Aurobindos involvement with the militant movement
Det kommer der som regel ikke noget godt ud af for Imperiet, for det skaber blot et martyrium og giver de undertrykte vind i sejlene. Det var derfor, at den britiske kolonimagt valgte at slå igen via det indiske politi, der var trænet af dem. På denne måde søgte de at undgå 'vi og dem' konfrontationen. Det lykkedes ikke. Det er også derfor vor tids Imperium benytter sig af terrorgrupper som al Qaeda og ISIL til at lave deres beskidte arbejde, ligesom det var praksis i Imperiets tidlige dage at benytte sig af 'privateers', pirater til at plyndre og myrde, så kronen ikke blev besudlet og blev nødt til at forklare sine ugerninger. Nutidens Imperium ønsker ikke 'boots on the ground', for så skal de forklare strømmen af body-bags overfor deres egen befolkning - OG hvorfor det overhovedet var nødvendigt at overfalde og ødelægge andre nationer.

mandag den 15. december 2014

The War of the Worlds


by morton_h, the blogger
H. G. Wells and the promiscuous
What is the relationship between a culture that gleefully indulge tits, cock and porn, pop stars, bling, hookers and ridiculousness? A culture of adultery, divorce, broken families, gender war between men and women and abusing children as hostages for the same purpose is the order? A pornofied culture where children buy likes on Facebook by selling selfies of themselves without clothes? A culture of chemically-psychologically efeminised men and masculinised women? A culture where people masturbate with smartphones every minute of their so-called waking life and sleep with their mobile dildoen under the pillow ... AND the man that some call the father of science fiction, HG Wells and his time machine? It sounds like a pensive enigma - What is the similarity between a cucumber and a penguin?



[scroll ned for at læse på dansk]
On the contrary, there is a directcorrelation. Wells had such a culture on the wish list. A promiscuous culture of sensuously anesthetized, amoral and weak individuals. A culture in which the family is devastated and where selfishness has divided the community right down to the atom, the isolated individual - the ultimative divide-and-conquer. Has his wet dream come true? In deed it has! An event in England recently show the style of isolated, narcissistic immorality and dehumanization: A man was shot in the neck in the street, where there were lots of people. None of them responded, no one raised their eyes from their smartphones. All corresponded to the description of the species of the New World according to H. G. Wells.

Like his associatives in the Fabian Society, Aldous Huxley and Bertrand Russell, he was never read correctly.Their readers thought these people warned against the dehumanized society of control with zombies at the bottom and technocrats at the top. Nothing could be more wrong, for they all described the very future society, which the elite, that they were an intimate and understanding part of, had on the drawing board. Science was already science faction.

Wells
War of the Worlds is none other than the two world wars, which he described as necessary to ensure that people would be able to give up their sovereignty. When he saw that WWI in all its contemporaries of incomprehensible cruelty had not completed this piece of work, he advocated WWII as necessary. The two world wars were deeply planned, and Wells knew it. He was not anything near to a prophet, he was just a man who indulged in his drunkenness of being a part of the elitist ilk who created the 20th century and its War of the Worlds. An NWO lackey, who among other peculiarities praised Stalin to the skies. A prophet is a beholder of intuitive visions from his higher self. Wells had just browsed the storyboard in the back room of the gallery, and then he made a writing career out of it.

Wells wet dream of a New World Order is most alive is today in all its morbidity.

H.G.Wells: Prophet of the NWO 

Bertrand Russell and The Educated
We like to believe that the highly educated in society are those best able to distinguish lies from truth, and thus will be most the difficult to control because they will opposite injustice. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The higher the education, the less likely that you will be a burden to the control system. The higher the status, the heavier the peer pressure. The more gross knowledge, the less resistance to knowledge uniformity and the indoctrination, that you are willing to subject yourself to. The more copy-paste-knowledge, the less likely you want to challenge the premise of this knowledge by asking: is this really true, or is it a structure with a purpose. The system has provided your education. The system is maintained by peers who, like you, have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being genuinely creative and performing actual thinking. The system makes you compromised, and a compromised person will have something to hide and protect, living a life in low boiling fear.

A further division arises. There is the intellectual robotnik who knows absolutely nothing about system duplicity and firmly indulges its rules praising its excellences. But there are also those who have come to open a door to the basement or attic and know that there is a hiding agenda. Quiestion is: how do you react? Some immediately close the door again and swallows the blue pill. Others, by contrast, elated at the idea will gain further ambitions to get a key to all floors. How compromised should you be? How great a career hooker will you be? Can you get an invitation in the gallery? Others will on the contrary start to develop scruples.

The system generally does not fear the class of intellectual fools. Academia is a great club that is held in place by guilt, shame and fear. Guilt to the system for giving them a place in the sun - although only rationed sunlight is offered - and fear of losing the career that they had to sit lifelong debt to get by playing the game of the system, losing their economic foundation and the opportunity to live in a certain degree of luxury - even if only offered rationed luxury. You would have to obtain two academic / upper middle class salaries to get what one salary could provide half a century ago, and you will constantly live with the fear of being expelled from from the academic community ... and end up as a taxi driver, forever!

What the System fears is one of the intellectual fools begining to acquire a taste for morality and empathy. It can happen, but it is not likely. The moral disappeared already on the way up through the System. Empathy could be suffocated in cynical career greed - welcome to the club of sociopaths! - but more probably it was redirected by someone waving the intellectual fool on the nose with opportunities to atone for his bad conscience: Give a goat, adopter a brown child, pay for a tsunami, help the world's poor people by supporting a war against their government - the latter really makes sense ... so it seems to the intellectual fool with the bad conscience. Even the most cynical atrocities can now be sold as humanitarian aid.



When does it happen, and for whom is it happening? H.G. Well's colleague in the Fabian Society, Bertrand Russell, said it straight out - just as he said a whole lot straight out arrogantly exposing The Agenda. Strangely enough, he slid down in history - that is, mind you, the Empire, its own history - as peace-loving tribunal-inventor. That this was a scam we see in statements like:



We take the brightest school children from an early age and test them. They will be taken away from their background, so they forget it and become one of us and do our bidding. We then make sure that they have lost touch with where they come from.



If there is such a child with such opportunities, it could become a spokesperson for us in the future.



If this child as an adult on the other hand exceed these powers and begin to think for itself, then it at all costs must be eliminated! (paraphrased)



The British elite stood in a certain antagonism to the Jesuits. But nonetheless diligently studying the Jesuits method:



Give me the four-year-old child, and I will give you the adult.



The Master Project of Immorality
There is a remarkable similarity in the methods. In the 70s, the Frankfurt School copied both Jesuits methods and The Fabian Society's program. If people did not fall into one of the trenches, then there was the second, the third (Zionism), the fourth (Venetian faux diplomacy), the fifth (New Age), the sixth (drug culture), the seventh ... The common denominator is corruption and demoralization of man.

When H. G. Wells talks about promoting promiscuity, it is on the basis of the 'Roaring Twenties', the unrestrained sociopatic trip after World War, when jitterbug was the escapists dance with death.

When Zionists practice promiscuity, it is based in the interwar Berlin. The Germans / National Socialists tried to stop it, but because the Zionists 'good friends' won the war and because they managed to über-demonize all Germans and stage the victim role-playing game called Holocaust, the promiscuous project had another boost through Hollywood (Holly-caust, Holo-wood).

When Jesuits cultivate corruption, it is based on an ancient Roman tactics, where the black adder, the confessor, the Prince's counselor, the ever present Grima Wormtounge adheres to the prince, the prince will soon sit like a pale, helpless zombie brain dead abolishing his own power.

When Fabians grow promiscuity, it is the basis of Trotskyism, Bolshevism, Stalinism, Communism, Socialism. They saw just how Stalin and the Bolsheviks ultra-violence, their promiscuous mass rapes during WWII and their bloody 'Mongol' revolutionary practice was too transparent. Therefore, their long-term-oriented insidious poison which people would learn to love their own corruption and slavehood. People would do it all to themselves, so that their masters would never have to get dirty fingers.


When the Frankfurt school Culture Marxists exercise promiscuity, thay call it 'subversive perversion. You find it in feminism, the LGTB-agenda, multiculturalism and mass immigration. And every time you meet political correctness, it has the imprint of Culture Marxism. They even spell it out themselves! The goal is the destruction of Western Civilisation.

When Drug-culture cultivate promiscuity, it is based on ALL of the above. CIA funded, promoted, organized, transported and distributed it. There goes the anti-war-movement getting stoned.


When New Age religion fucks with your mind, it is based on the bad-old religion in a new, exotic container. Anger is now a forbidden sentiment, a New Age sin - think positively, mind-over-matter, spiritual dope. AND all the genuine spirituality and insights will be corrupted. It smells like the real stuff, but it is often a worthless surrogate.

When Trotskyists cultivate corruption, so ... and who are they? They are really no one other than the neo-cons, the parasitic dwellers of Deep State who took over the US government with an invisible coup following the assassination of JFK and has run this country and its warfare ever since. By what means? By the character JFK himself, who was a deeply corrupt and promiscuous person, a womanizer and cocaine addict. In fact, Richard Nixon was in spite of his bad reputation in several ways a much more integrated moral person than JFK. But the lesson had then been learned in the Deep State, so when Nixon stepped out of line and out of the script for the American selected, not elected precidency, he was 'gamed'. We know the game as Watergate.

Trotskyism today is represented by the mulatto doll with the many names and fake citizenship: Sortero / Obama. Corruption is the middle name of the teleprompter dummy, that facilitated what seems to be the final stages of the Murder on Democracy and utmost perversion of the human society.


Wells, Russell og War of the Worlds


H.G. Wells og de promiskuøse
Hvad er sammenhængen mellem en kultur, der lystigt hengiver sig til patter, pik og porno, popstars, lir, ludere og latterlighed? En kultur, hvor utroskab, skilsmisse, kønskrig mellem mænd og kvinder og gidseltagning af børn til samme formål er dagens orden? En pornoficeret kultur, hvor børn køber likes på Facebook ved at sælge selfies uden tøj? En kultur af kemisk-psykologisk efeminiserede mænd og maskuliniserede kvinder? En kultur, hvor folk onanerer med smartphones hvert minut i deres såkaldt vågne liv og sover med mobildildoen under hovedpuden ... OG the father of science fiction, H.G. Wells og hans tidsmaskine? Det lyder som en fortænkt gåde - hvad er ligheden mellem en agurk og en pingvin?

Der er en direktesammenhæng. Wells havde en sådan kultur på ønskelisten. En promiskuøs kultur af individer, der er sanseligt bedøvede, amoralske og svage individer. En kultur, hvor familien er ødelagt og hvor egoisme har splittet samfundet helt ned til atomet, det isolerede individ. Er hans ønske gået i opfyldelse? Det må man sige! En hændelse i England for nylig er billedet af isoleret, narcissistisk amoral og umenneskeliggørelse: En mand blev skudt i nakken på åben gade, hvor der var masser af mennesker. Ingen af dem reagerede, ingen løftede øjnene fra deres smartphones. Alle svarede til beskrivelsen af Verden iflg. H.G. Wells.

Ligesom hans associatives i The Fabian Society, Aldous Huxley og Bertrand Russell blev han ikke læst rigtigt. Forstå dette ret: deres læsere troede, at de advarede mod det umenneskeliggjorte kontrolsamfund med zombier forneden og teknokrater foroven. Intet kan være mere forkert, for de beskrev alle et kommende samfund, som den elite, de var en intim og indforstået del af, havde på tegnebrættet. Science fiktion blev til science faction.

Wells War of the Worldser i virkeligheden de to verdenskrige, som han beskrev som nødvendige for, at folk vil blive i stand til at opgive deres suverænitet. Da han så, at WWI i al dens for samtiden uforståelige grusomhed ikke havde fuldført arbejdet, advokerede han for WWII som nødvendig. De to verdenskrige var dybt planlagte, og Wells vidste det. Han var ikke en skid profet, han var bare en mand, der talte over sig i sin beruselse over at være en del af det elitære slæng, der skabte det 20. århundrede og dets War of the Worlds. En NWO-lakaj, der roste Stalin til skyerne. En profet får intuitive visioner fra sit højere selv. Wells havde bare bladret i storyboardet i baglokalet i logen, hvorefter han lavede en forfatterkarriere på det.

Wells våde drøm om en Ny Verdensorden er i dag lyslevende i al sin morbiditet.

Bertrand Russell og de uddannede
Vi holder af at tro, at de højtuddannede i samfundet er de, der bedst er i stand til at skelne løgn fra sandhed, og dermed også er de, der vil være sværest at kontrollere, fordi de vil sige fra overfor uretfærdighed. Er det sådan?

Inter kan være fjernere fra sandheden. Jo højere uddannelse, jo mindre sandsynligt er det, at du er til besvær for kontrolsystemet. Jo højere status, jo tungere gruppepres. Jo mere bruttoviden, jo mindre modstand mod denne videns ensrettehed og den inddoktrinering, du udsætter dig for. Jo mere copy-paste-viden, jo mindre er sandsynligheden for, at du vil anfægte præmissen for denne viden ved at spørge: Er dette egentlig sandt, eller er det en konstruktion med et formål. Det er systemet, der har betalt for din uddannelse. Systemet vedligeholdes af ligesindede, der ligesom du har alt at tabe og intet at vinde ved at gøre sig ud til bens. Systemet gør dig kompromitteret, og en kompromitteret person har noget at skjule.

Måske skal der gradbøjes. Der er den intellektuelle robotnik, der absolut intet aner om systemets dobbeltbundethed og fuldt og fast hengiver sig til dets spilleregler og tilsyneladende fortræffeligheder. Men der er også de, der er kommet til at åbne døren til kælderetagen eller loftet og ved, at der gemmer sig noget. Her skiller vandene sig først, for hvordan forholder man sig til det? Nogle lukker straks døren igen og æder en blå pille. Andre bliver derimod opstemt ved tanken og får yderligere ambitioner om selv at få en nøgle til alle etager. Hvor kompromitteret skal man være? Hvor stor en karriereluder skal man blive? Kan man få en invitation til i logen? Andre vil begynde at udvikle skrupler.

Systemet frygte generelt ikke klassen af intellektuelle fjolser. Akademia er en stor klub, der holdes på plads af skyld, skam og frygt. Skyld til systemet for at give dem en plads i solen - selvom der kun tilbydes rationeret sollys - og frygt for at miste den karriere, som de var nødt til at sætte sig livslangt i gæld for at få, knokle sig til ved at spille i systemet, miste deres økonomiske fundament og mulighed for at leve i en vis grad af luksus - selvom der kun tilbydes rationeret luksus. Man skal være to akademikerlønninger til at skaffe det, som én løn kunne skaffe for et halvt århundrede siden, og du vil konstant leve med frygten for og skammen i at ryge ud af det akademiske selskab ... hvorefter du ender som taxachauffør, forever!

Hvad systemet frygter er, hvis en af de intellektuelle fjolser begynder at tilegne sig noget, der ligner moral og empati. Det kan ske, men det er ikke sandsynligt. Moralen forsvandt allerede på vej op gennem systemet. Empatien blev i visse tilfælde kvalt i kynisk karriereliderlighed - velkommen i klubben af sociopater! - men nok snarere omdirigeret ved at vifte det intellektuelle fjols om næsen med muligheder for at sone sin dårlige samvittighed: giv en ged, adopter et brunt barn, betal for en tsunami, hjælp verdens stakler ved at støtte en krig mod deres regering. Især det sidste giver rigtig god mening ... synes det intellektuelle fjols med den dårlige samvittighed. Selv de mest kyniske grusomheder kan sælges som humanitær bistand.

Hvornår sker det, og for hvem sker det? Well's kollega i The Fabian Society, Bertrand Russell, sagde det lige ud - lige som han sagde en hel masse lige ud, der eksponerede agendaen. Underligt nok er han gledet over i historien, altså vel at mærke Imperiet, egen historieskrivning, som fredselskende tribunal-opfinder. At dette var ren svindel ser vi i udsagn som:
Vi tager de mest opvakte skolebørn ud fra en tidlig alder og tester dem. De må tages bort fra deres baggrund, så de glemmer den og bliver en af os og lyder vores bud. Vi sørger for, at de ikke længere har kontakt med, hvor de kommer fra.
Hvis der findes sådan et barn med sådanne muligheder, vil det kunne blive en talsmand for os i fremtiden.
Hvis dette barn som voksen derimod overskrider disse beføjelser og begynder at tænke selv, da skal det for enhver pris elimineres! (parafraseret)
Den britiske elite stod i et vist modsætningsforhold til jesuitterne. Men samtidig studerede de jesuitternes metode:
Giv mig det fire-års barn, og jeg skal give dig den voksne.

Det store demoraliserings-projekt
Der er en bemærkelsesværdig lighed i metoder. I 70'erne har Frankfurterskolen kopieret både jesuitternes metoder og The Fabians Society's program. Hvis folk ikke faldt i den ene grøft, så var der den anden, den tredje (zionisme), den fjerde (venetiansk fake-diplomati), den femte (new-age), den sjette (drugkultur), den syvende ... Fællesnævneren er korrumpering og demoralisering af mennesket.

Når H.G. Wells taler om at fremme promiskuøsitet, så er det med baggrund i de 'brølende 20'ere', det løsslupne sociopattrip efter 1. Verdenskrig, hvor jitterbug blev dansen med døden.

Når zionisterne dyrker promiskuøsitet, er det med udgangspunkt i mellemkrigstidens Berlin. Tyskerne / nationalsocialisterne forsøgte at stoppe det, men fordi zionisternes 'gode venner' vandt krigen og fordi det lykkedes dem at über-dæmonisere alle tyskere og iscenesætte offer-rollespillet Holocaust, fik promiskuøsiteten endnu et boost via Hollywood (Holly-caust, Holo-wood).

Når jesuitterne dyrker korrumpering, er det med udgangspunkt en ældgammel romersk taktik, hvor hofsnogen, skriftefaderen, fyrstens rådgiver, Grima Wormtounge klæber sig til fyrsten til han sidder som en bleg, viljeløs zombie, der hjernedødt afskaffer sin egen magt.

Når fabianerne dyrker promiskuøsitet, er det med udgangspunkt i trotskismen, bolsjevismen, stalinismen, kommunismen, socialismen. De så blot, hvorledes Stalins og bolsjevikkernes ultra-vold, deres promiskuøse massevoldtægter under WWII og deres blodige 'mongolske' revolutionære praksis var for gennemskuelig. Derfor deres langtids-orienterede snigende gift, hvor mennesker skulle lære at elske deres egen korrumpering.

Når drug- og new-age-kulturen dyrker promiskuitet er det med udgangspunkt i alt det ovenstående. CIA finansierede, promoverede, organiserede, transporterede og distribuerede det.

Når trotskisterne dyrker korruption, så ... hov stop, hvem er de? Det er såmænd ingen andre end de neo-cons, der overtog den amerikanske regering med et usynligt statskup efter mordet på JFK. Med hvilke midler? Bla ved, at den ofte højt besungne JFK selv var en dybt korrumperet og promiskuøs person, en 'womanizer' og kokain-narkoman. Richard Nixon var på trods af sit dårlige rygte på afgørende måder en langt mere moralsk integreret person end JFK, men man havde lært lektien i the Deep State, og da Nixon rokkede med ørerne, blev han 'gamet'. Vi kender det som Watergate.

Trotskismen repræsenteres i dag af mulat-dukken med de mange navne: Sortero / Obama. Korruption er teleprompter-dukkens mellemnavn.