Samizdat reflections from a lonely soul as the world goes on its wicked way

31 01 2010

This is the Dscape.


If your reading this, you are the resistance


Possession, reproduction, transmission, excerpting as evidence in court, and all other uses by any government, corporation, law enforcement agency, security organization or similar party of evil intent are strictly prohibited under natural law.

Your potential inconvenience,



Have a blessed 4/20!

21 04 2011

Allegedly on this day, a group of teenagers in San Rafael, California who called themselves the Waldos, because “their chosen hang-out spot was a wall outside the school,”[4]  hatched a fall 1971 plan to search for an abandoned cannabis crop that they had learned about.[5] The Waldos designated the Louis Pasteur statue on the grounds of San Rafael High School as their meeting place, and 4:20 p.m. as their meeting time.[4] The Waldos referred to this plan with the phrase “4:20 Louis”. Multiple failed attempts to find the crop eventually shortened their phrase to simply “4:20”. For some reason this has evolved into a counter-cultural byword for cannabis culture in general, with thousands gather on April 20 all over the world to both enjoy the herb and protest its criminalization.[5]

I find it interesting that many Christians oppose this unique plant which Jesus created and even worse, pledge their support to an ever expanding war on some drugs in the name of which governments increasingly deprive their citizenry of privacy and civil liberties. So I’m going to take this opportunity to examine some of the grounds on which these Christians base their stance on “marijuana” and see just how much truth there really is to it.

Below I will attempt to address, as honestly and comprehensively as I am able, the most common objections to the Christian ingestion of cannabis. Note that while I believe from my research there are many beneficial uses to the cannabis plant, such as for industry or medicine, in this post “use” will refer to the “therapeutic or relaxationally inebriating use of the resin”.

An individual may disobey the authorities if she has warrant from the Word of God to do so, and does so in a way that honors the gospel if she has warrant from the Word of God to do so, and does so in a way that is an honor to the gospel. Outlawing the use of marijuana is not an assault to Scripture.

This seems to be a fairly mainline position. We know from Acts 4:19, that the second point is reasonable. But can we really biblically say that a government which takes it upon itself to think they know better than God by prohibiting the creative use of what was created by Him to grow on this planet is not assaulting the Word of God? Was it not the “Word of God” which brought cannabis into being in the first place? “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds” (Genesis 1:11) and later, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth… They will be yours for food” (Genesis 1:29).

Paul of Tarsus wrote in his First Epistle to Timothy (4:4), “…everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected it if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” In fact, he expressly warned about those who would, through false piety, command us to abstain from this or that. It also might be prudent to remember that cannabis, in the United States, has only been criminal for a few decades. It was legal and socially acceptable to enjoy from time to time even when Ronald Reagan was a boy. It was sold as potent tinctures to treat, for example, nausea, migraines and insomnia, grown to furnish the mooring of ships in the world’s navies, sold to children as a tasty treat and smoked in pipes in plush gentlemen’s clubs and jazz bars.

Counter-argument: What about the corruption of God’s creation after the Fall? Would you recommend that people eat poisonous plants on this same basis?

Response: The fatality of poisonous plants obviously excludes them from things we should be consuming if we wish to remain alive. Cannabis has no such ‘poisonous quality’ and in fact has been shown to be quite beneficial to the body. This argument is like saying that since a shark is a fish and is dangerous, we cannot have a pet fish.

It is sinful to ingest marijuana to any extent that alters the chemistry of the body and causes a physiological response of any magnitude. People take it for the effect, and it is a sin to seek this effect, even getting a pleasant, euphoric buzz.

But what then of Jesus radical statements in Matthew 15:11-20 that “There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him…because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.” The stringent claim that Jesus is only referring to ‘food’ is contradicted by Jesus’ own use of the word “nothing.” Also, to really press the issue: cannabis foods (salads, drinks, or baked goods) should be permissible, according to the argument, regardless.

The point is that drinking alcohol or smoking cannabis cannot make someone sin. But this is not to say, that the use of inebriants does not lower inhibitions when consumed to the point of excess.

Marijuana users frequently lose their motivation to work.

Without dismissing the testimonies of former users who sincerely believe that this indeed occurred in their lives, it should also be noted that from 1916-1929, the U.S. Army sponsored the Siler Commission to determine if off-duty cannabis smoking in Panama made officers lazy and unmotivated and determined that “no ill effects from smoking mariajuana for several days in succession were observed even when the soldiers were given mariajuana ad libitum” and “no mental or physical deterioration effects of smoking mariajuana could be demonstrated”, concluding that “no recommendations for further legislative action to prevent the sale or use of mariajuana in the Canal Zone, Panama, are deemed advisable under existing conditions” (1, 2).

Additionally, it is known that many hard-working Orientals and Jamaicans consume cannabis in cigarettes, pipes and even teas, to relax in the evenings without the threat of an alcohol hangover during work in the morning(3).

It seems far more honest to blame such laziness, not on a simple plant, but on the sinful and excessive indulgence of an individual with no self-control, particularly in the modern U.S., where people grow up worshipfully seeking pleasure and instant gratification. It is just as Jesus said: “But the things that come out of the mouth and the heart; these make a man ‘unclean'” (Matthew 15:18). This argument is shifting the blame and turning it the other way around. Cannabis doesn’t make people lazy and unmotivated. People make people lazy and unmotivated.

Someone who is affected to any extent by marijuana is not sober (which it says in 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 that we must be!). To smoke marijuana to get any level of euphoria from it is clearly a sin, therefore.

Why then do they think Christians most commonly drink alcohol, if not to experience the pleasant and relaxing feeling derived from it (‘euphoria’) or as the Scriptures say to “gladden the heart of man (Psalm 104:15)? Be honest. Scripture freely admits this and nowhere condemns this effect as sinful. It does condemn, however, the immoderate and excessive abuse of that effect. Many Christians agree that the required Christian attribute of sobriety is consistent with the occasional drinking of alcohol in moderation. So, what is the difference between ingesting cannabis in moderation and ingesting alcohol in moderation? The answer to that question can only be arbitrary at best.

The moderate drinking of wine, or other forms of alcohol, cannot be compared to the immediate intoxicating effects of marijuana.

This one is interesting. So, the difference for its proponents is that the smoking of cannabis results in an immediate effect whereas alcohol takes some time to set in. There is an obvious reason for this: simply that any substance, when smoked, passes straight through the brain-blood barrier and is thus metabolized very quickly. If this is the problem, they should have no grounds whatsoever, therefore, to prohibit the oral consumption of cannabis, mixed into drinks, salads or baked into goods, the effect of which takes about the same amount of time to appear as drinking alcohol. My point is that it seems silly to think that it matters to Jesus if it takes a couple minutes or a half an hour to take effect. What matters to Him is whether or not we have foolishly consumed so much that we are no longer in our right mind or physically incapacitated, and therefore unable to hear from His Spirit, faithfully serve others or be an honorable witness for Him–i.e. “drunk” or “stoned”.

The current evidence indicates that the proposed therapeutic value of marijuana is greatly overrated.

This is contrary to the facts(4), which reveal that cannabis has been used for centuries as an effective analgesic (pain killer), anticonvulsant, appetite stimulant, hypnotic (sleep aid), antipyretic (anti-inflammatory), antiemetic and muscle relaxant. The U.S. DEA’s own administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, when shown these facts, ruled “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man“(5). Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications.(6) These include pain relief — particularly of neuropathic pain (pain from nerve damage) — nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders.(7) Cannabis is also a powerful appetite stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia.(8) Emerging research suggests that its medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors(9) and are neuroprotective against toxicity.(10) In fact, on October 7, 2003, patent #6,630,507, entitled “Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants” was awarded to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, based on research done at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), claiming that cannabis is “useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia”(11). The medicinal value of cannabis is still being rediscovered in this century and it bears further investigation.

Cannabis has no culinary application—except for “Oreo’s and mustard”, and therefore has no legitimate use.

Cannabis, as mentioned earlier, can be mixed in salads and grain alcohol, boiled in milk and tea or baked into brownies, cakes, biscuits and such. These creative preparations are enjoyed by a variety of cultures worldwide and have been for centuries.

The cannabis plant should not be included in the Hebrew word eseb and so is not within the scope of Psalm 104:14.

This is an unprovable argument. The word eseb simply means “herb”. Except for the sake of carrying the argument that cannabis ‘does not serve man’, there is no given reason to assume that the cannabis plant, being an herb after all, would for some reason not be considered part of the herb family in the Hebrew language.  In fact, linguistic research indicates it may well have been a very well known and important herb. In 1936 by Sula Benet, a little known Polish etymologist from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw, posited that the word cannabis, thought to have been of Scythian origin, has a much earlier origin in Semitic languages like Hebrew, and that it appears several times throughout the Old Testament. Benet explained that “in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament there are references to hemp, both as incense, which was an integral part of religious celebration, and as an intoxicant.”

Benet’s assertion is that the word for cannabis is kaneh-bosm, also rendered in traditional Hebrew as kaneh or kannabus. The root kan in this construction means “reed” or “hemp”, while bosm means “aromatic”. This word appears five times in the Old Testament; in the books of Exodus, the Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The word kaneh-bosm has been mistranslated as calamus, a common marsh plant with little monetary value that does not have the qualities or value ascribed to kaneh-bosm. The error occurred in the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint in the third century BC, and was repeated in the many translations that followed.”

In fact, according to The Living Torah translation by Aryeh Kaplan, what appears to be cannabis is a major ingredient of the sacred Holy Anointing Oil recipe in Exodus 30:22-33. For further speculation regarding this connection, see this.

Similarly, the linking of the Greek term pharmakeia used in Revelation 9:21 applies to, among other things, cannabis ingestion.

No, in the New Testament, the Greek meaning of pharmakeia is the mixing of various oft poisonous substances for magickal purposes. It does not appear that they were actually ever intended to be ingested by anyone or that they had what we would call today ‘pharmacological’ properties. Thus the most accurate translation of this word into English is indeed “sorcery” not “drugs”, as most versions render it. However, if we are to assert that it simply translates as “drugs” or “pharmaceuticals”, then it presents a serious problem: which drugs? Penicillin, ethanol, aspirin, morphine, echinacea, placidyl? Obviously, Christians are not prohibited from taking drugs to cure or relieve their various ailments.

In conclusion, I propose that cannabis ingestion for its pleasurable effect, in moderation, is not biblically prohibited anymore than alcohol ingestion for its pleasurable effect, in moderation, is biblically prohibited. What is prohibited is the immoderate and excessive abuse of any substance–be it alcohol, cannabis, caffeine, tobacco, sugar, etc.

Incidentally, this same conclusion was reached in the massive, 3,000+ page Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4), published by the Honourable W. Mackworth Young, British governor of India, the first official and most complete unbiased systematic study of cannabis consumption undertaken to date which states, “the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all”, including “no appreciable physical injury of any kind”, “no injurious effects on the mind”, and “no moral injury whatever“, concluding that it should continue to be permitted, albeit “with a view to check immoderate consumption” (and “at the same time to augment the public revenue”).

The common response to this information will likely be: Nevertheless, whether we debate it or not, cannabis is, in fact, criminal. First of all, however, there actually are places where cannabis consumption is permitted, like the Netherlands (which officially allows the possession and sale of up to 30 grams of quality “marijuana” or “hashish” in coffeehouses), places where the medicinal use of Cannabis is becoming widespread as in California and places where cannabis cultivation for industrial purposes is common, like Canada, France and Russia. Secondly, the fact that it is criminal in the U.S. should therefore either motivate us to politically call for its legalization** or disregard the statutory law, as many Christians would support if the government prohibits the use of wine or tomatoes and therefore sets itself against the clear teaching of the Bible.***

**See Economics of Cannabis Legalization, A Detailed Analysis of the Benefits of Ending Cannabis Prohibition by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D., 1994

***Some food for thought: if certain individuals had not disobeyed the statutory law and preserved the cannabis plant by growing it illegally, the corporations and governments of the world would likely have already eradicated this remarkable plant from the face of our world.


(1)”Marihuana Smoking in Panama”, The Military Surgeon, 73, 1933

(2)”Army Study of Marihuana Smokers”, Newsweek, 1945

(3)Working Men and Ganja Marijuana Use in Rural Jamaica by Melanie Creagan Deher, 1982

(4)”Marijuana As Medicine, A Plea For Consideration” by Dr. Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar, J.D., Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1995

(5) In the Matter of Marihuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket 86-22 Opinion, Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, 1988.

(6) Several books explore this issue in further detail. These include: A. Mack and J. Joy. 2001. Marijuana as Medicine: The Science Beyond the Controversy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; L. Iverson. 2000. The Science of Marijuana. New York: Oxford University Press; B. Zimmerman et al. 1998. Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You?; C. Conrad. 1997. Hemp for Health: The Medicinal and Nutritional Uses of Cannabis Sativa. Rochester VT: Healing Arts Press; L. Grinspoon and J. Bakalar J. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine; E. Rosenthal et al. 1997. Marijuana Medical Handbook. Oakland: Quick American Archives; and R. Mechoulam. (Ed.) 1986. Cannabinoids as Therapeutic Agents. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

(7) NSW (New South Wales) Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes. 2000. Report of the Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes. Sydney: Parliament House; J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence. London: The Stationary Office; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. New York: Lindesmith Center; Grinspoon and Bakalar. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine.

(8) Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base

(9)I. Galve-Roperph et al. 2000. Antitumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation of ERK activation. Nature Medicine 6: 313-319. See also: “Anticancer activity of cannabinoids”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1975); “Antitumor effects of THC”, Environmental Health Perspectives (2000); and “Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ‘74” by Raymond Cushing, AlterNet (2000)

(10) M. Van der Stelt et al. 2001. Neuroprotection by delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity. The Journal of Neuroscience 21: 6475-6479; J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base

Our civilization is unstustainable

14 03 2011

If you look around what’s really happening in our world today, there’s an inescapable pattern that curiously emerges: Much of what’s going on is simply unsustainable. It can’t go on for much longer, in other words. And it must collapse due to the laws of economics or physics.

Here is a collection of twelve systems that are utterly unsustainable on our planet. Each of these twelve is scheduled for some sort of collapse or shut down in the coming years. They range from economics to medicine, population and the environment. And interestingly, the collapse of just one of these twelve would have devastating consequences across human civilization. What happens when two, three or ten of these things collapse?

This doesn’t even begin to cover the consequences of the collapse of these unsustainable things, however, but here are the twelve:

1) Debt-based banking and economic systems

There’s little question that our global fractional reserve banking system is headed for a catastrophic collapse. It’s a system based on debt rather than sound money principles, and the laws of economics dictate that the global multiplication of money and debt is entirely unsustainable.

This system will collapse, and when it does, it will be so large that the economic devastation will be global. Governments have actually made this worse, of course, by bailing out the dishonest investment institutions that have made the situation worse. The coming financial collapse will teach humanity some hard lessons about honest money.

2) Conventional agriculture and “rape the planet” farming

The current agricultural system that feeds the planet is simply unsustainable. It is a “rape the planet” model that clear-cuts forests to grow GMO soybeans that feed factory cattle which are turned into processed meat. All the while the government suppresses proven alternatives to deforestation such as cannabis. Even the plant crops grown through conventional agriculture depend on chemical fertilizers from sources that are running out (fossil fuels, phosphate mines, etc.).

Furthermore, the mass application of chemical pesticides, fungicides and Monsanto’s Roundup chemicals is destroying the viability of soils while polluting the world’s farms, rivers, streams and oceans. This system is unsustainable. When it collapses, humanity will learn (the hard way) that only sustainable agriculture can sustain human life on our planet.

3) Mass-consumption economies based on buy-it-and-trash-it behavior

When children are raised to be good citizens, they’re taught to consume more stuff. In the U.S., it was even called “patriotic” by former President George Bush. To support your local economy, you’re supposed to go out and buy stuff that you don’t need, then chuck it into the trash after you use it, then go out and buy more!

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That’s what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

4) The accelerating loss of farming soils

There’s a documentary on this called Dirt ( It explains the value of soil and why conventional agriculture methods are destroying the literal foundation on which our civilization stands.

No dirt = no food. And the dirt is disappearing at an alarming rate, thanks to the unsustainable practices of conventional agriculture, with all its tilling, soil destruction, poisons and GMOs. I wonder what the people will plant their seeds in when all the cropland dirt is either dead or gone? Perhaps NASA will mine dirt from other planets or, *shudder*, create synthetic soil.

5) The mass poisoning of the oceans and aggressive over-fishing

Oceans ecosystems are collapsing. This isn’t some future prediction, it’s happening right now. Ocean acidification is destroying the coral reefs and mollusks all across the globe. At the same time, human civilization treats the oceans as giant planetary toilets into which all the toxic chemicals of modern civilization are flushed: Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, hormone-disrupting chemicals and a whole lot more.

Massive fish die-offs are becoming increasingly common (…), and fish populations are plummeting across several species. We are beginning to see the results of mankind’s ongoing poisoning of the oceans.

6) Mass genetic pollution of the planet through GMOs

It will be the great, dark legacy of our modern civilization: The widespread genetic contamination of the planet through the use of GMOs.

Genetically engineered seeds are spreading their altered genetic code all across the world. The DNA of GMO crops is now detectable in soils, foods and water systems. What’s the upshot of all this? It’s a big unknown, of course, and that’s the frightening part: No one before has ever “played God” with the planet, right out in the open, and then observed what happens after a few years (or decades). Thanks to companies like Monsanto, we are the experiment, and no one know if it might ultimately lead to something like a widespread crop failure or even the alternation of natural web-of-life interactions across multiple ecosystems.

And if genetic pollution causes problems, how do you “clean” that pollution? You can’t! Genetic pollution endures. Once crops become infected with GE seeds, it’s all but impossible to eliminate the DNA contamination unless your willing to exterminate your own supply.

7) The drugs-and-surgery conventional medical system

Big Pharma’s days are numbered — based on economics if nothing else. The monopolistic pricing, the deadly side effects and the corrupt, criminal operations of the industry make it all utterly non-sustainable.

Big Pharma and the whole chemical approach to medicine is bankrupting companies, cities, states and nations. No nation can economically survive in the long run if it keeps spending its money on Big Pharma sick care schemes. Ultimately, those nations that hope to survive will need to ditch Big Pharma and return to natural medicine and preventive nutrition.

That day is coming. Sooner that you think, probably.

8) Widespread pharmaceutical contamination of the human population and the environment

Until the day comes that Big Pharma collapses into ruin, the pharmaceutical pollution of the planet will continue. Right now, pharmaceutical factories in India (which export their pills back to the states to be sold as brand-name drugs) are dumping untold thousands of gallons of dangerous chemical drugs into the waterways there

Many major cities are heavily contaminated with pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, and outright poisons.

Fortunately, this sad chapter in human history will soon come to an end.

9) Runaway human population growth

Here’s the one nobody wants to talk about. But make no mistake: The human population growth we see right now is entirely unsustainable. The available of cheap food and fossil fuels over the last century has contributed to an unprecedented population explosion that is now nearing its end. There are only so many acres of farmland, after all, and only so many acre-feet of water to irrigate it.

Don’t misinterpret this, however, of thinking that I support some sort of population reduction measures a la Ted Turner and Bill Gates (…) or the secretive, sordid history of eugenics sponsored by the world’s elite.

Unlike the world’s leaders, I don’t believe in killing off human beings just to reduce global population. Rather, it makes more sense to teach sustainable living practices along with good parenting.  But realistically, even this will not suffice eventually. People concerned with this issue need to start reconsidering space colonization in the vein of T.A. Heppenheimer and his Colonies In Space. There is no need for everyone to stay on this planet if we can find somewhere safe and sustainable. And considering some of the aforementioned crises and the individualistic youth who are fed up with conforming to the tyrannical dictate’s of society’s corrupt leaders, many would probably voluntarily take the trip.

10) Fossil water consumption for agriculture

In one example, the Ogallala Aquifer is running dry, threatening the agricultural output of Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and even parts of Colorado and Texas (…).

This is a global issue, affecting India, China, North America, South America and nearly every nation that produces any significant agricultural yields. Fresh water is running out all across the world, and while additional water supplies can always be created through desalination, for example, that’s a very expensive way to replenish the water, and it’s almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels (see below). Even if you could build enough desalination plants to irrigate the world’s croplands, the resulting food prices would still result in mass starvation by those who couldn’t afford the food which might cost ten times the current price.

Imagine paying $20 for a loaf of bread and you get the idea of what’s coming. But that’s only to pay for the water, then add the hyperinflation from the devaluation of the currency and it becomes a literal nightmare.

11) Fossil fuel consumption

I realize this is a highly contentious issue, with some people claiming that there’s an “unlimited supply of oil” in our planet because it’s replenishing itself all the time. This idea simply doesn’t square with what we know: The Earth is a finite object, occupying finite space. Inside it can only be a finite amount of fossil fuels. The recharge rate of fossil fuels is on the scale of millions of years, meaning we can’t simply wait around for more fuel to reappear if we use up the current reserves.

There is convincing evidence right now that Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, has been lying about its output capacity for at least the last decade. It can’t reach its production targets, and there is reasoned speculation that its own best-producing oil wells are approaching their end. Even if oil remains available for a few more decades, it still becomes increasingly expensive oil, meaning that everything else down the supply chain becomes more expensive, too: Food, fuel, consumer goods, etc.

The era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end. Although fossil fuels will no doubt be around for several decades more, the cheap stuff is long gone, it seems. The citizens of Earth will soon need to find an alternate way to power their cities, cars and businesses in the 21st century.

Solar probably isn’t the answer, as solar panels depend on rare earth metals that are entirely dependent on Chinese mining operations. Wind energy also hasn’t panned out as it should have. And the governments of the world continue to suppress all kinds of so-called free energy experiments and technologies, some of which have been proven to work by even the U.S. Navy.

12) The widespread destruction of animal habitat

Here’s one that makes a lot of people really made. What? We can’t keep clear-cutting the rainforests to plant genetically engineered soybeans?

Not if you want the planet to survive, actually. There’s a delicate web of life on our planet upon which human life ultimately depends. The more animal habitat we destroy, the more it ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Now, I’m not in favor of the insane fascist “green police” and the UN’s freedom-stealing efforts to pigeon-hole human beings into centrally-controlled behavior boxes. The key here is finding ways for people to voluntarily live in balance with nature while still maintaining their freedoms. This requires education, not more government.

We need to continue to teach people how to make sound decisions about where they buy their wood furniture (to avoid the slashing of old-growth forests). We need to teach people who eat meat to buy truly free-range, grass-fed meat rather than factory-farmed meats that depend on disgusting corporate mega-farms. And of course, we also need to make people aware of the benefits of getting more plant-based foods into their diets where possible, because when properly prepared, plant foods provide a lot of nutrients with less waste than most meats.

I just think that people need to consider where their food comes from no matter what they’re eating, and then take steps to reduce the waste of the food they’re choosing to consume. The best answer to this is to buy local food. In fact, I would argue that eating some beef steaks from a local farmer is more ecologically sound than juicing up organic fruits and vegetables grown and imported from Chile (unless you live in Chile, of course).

That’s an arguable point, of course, and opinions differ sharply on this, but I believe that we really need to focus on eating local foods just as much as we do on what we’re eating.

While we’re at it, one of the best ways to reduce the destruction of animal habitat is to grow your own food by turning your yard into a garden. Reduce your demand for store-bought food.

The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.

Those are 12 of the biggest things that are entirely unsustainable on our planet right now. Human life depends on most of them. It makes you wonder: How will humans survive when these systems and resources upon which we depend have run out or collapsed?

That is a question we’d all better be asking ourselves right now. Because the age of cheap fuel, cheap money, cheap water and cheap food is fast ending. The future of life on our planet will require something far more evolved than the infantile, selfish and self-destructive mindset that humanity has so far demonstrated.

Debt-based money systems don’t cut it. Burning up all the fossil fuels is only a fool’s abundance. Medicating the humans and animals with toxic, synthetic pharmaceuticals is a form of medical insanity. These things will all come to an end.

The question is: Who will survive the end of these things and be around to help shape the next society which must operate with far greater humility and wisdom?

Happy Angstgiving!

25 11 2010

Stripped of propaganda, hypocrisy and historical revisionism, the story of “thanksgiving” is thus:

European pilgrims came to this nation looking for a place filled with opportunities. Some came for religious freedom. Some came to start over. But all came with the hopes of prosperity. Upon arriving, the pilgrims found an abandoned village which soon became their own settlement. It was hard work building a new life and their Calvinistic work ethic wasn’t enough to carry them through. Thankfully, they made friends with a local who already spoke English (Squanto) because he had learned the language while serving as a slave to Europeans abroad. Squanto helped these early colonists survive.
As time passed, the settlers formed an uneasy peace with the Wampanoag nearby, who at that time numbered at least 12,000. But in the years that followed, they were almost wiped out,, like many other peoples, suffering genocide under self-proclaimed “Christians” who longed to fulfill their “Manifest Destiny”. As their numbers increased, the Native population decreased. Our “blessings” came at great price for those who previously dwelt these lands.

The Thanksgiving holiday, although held for many years, was popularized in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln.

According to Lincoln:

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

However, truth be told, when we believe that such abundance comes from the will of God, rather than through our own sins, we sanction our evil. Now, that isn’t to say that we should not be thankful for the blessings we have received. It is to say, however, that if we are going to be thankful, we must also be angstful. We must lament and repent for the ways in which our affluence has come unjustly. If we believe that the various empires who oppressed the Israelites deserved their judgment, yet overlook the same abuses by “America”, we are living in a double-standard that God, immutable as He is, does not share.

In the writings of the early disciples, blessing is rarely ever tied to material wealth. In fact, it is often the poor who are called “blessed”. We are told to be content because of things such as suffering and persecution and salvation.

So let this day be one where we see without illusions, where we lament the sins of the nations in which we reside as we honestly thank Jesus for those things that are truly blessings from Him.

Manufacturing Dissent

23 09 2010

In the modern system of democracy, the ruling class use two key methods to control the populace. The former, termed “manufacturing consent” has been widely discussed and vilified. However there is another tactic being used less overtly, loosely defined as “manufacturing dissent, the process whereby the elite carefully control their own opponents and detractors. While Jesus was right when He said that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, it seems that apparently a house whose leader cunningly renders the division harmless, can stand. It is a very insidious phenomenon with a rather colorful history.

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))

“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” (Paul Kivel, You call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )

“Under the New World Order, the ritual of inviting “civil society” leaders into the inner circles of power –while simultaneously repressing the rank and file– serves several important functions. First, it says to the World that the critics of globalization “must make concessions” to earn the right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global elites should –under what is euphemistically called democracy– be subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it says “there is no alternative” to globalization: fundamental change is not possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an ineffective “give and take”.

While the “Globalizers” may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not challenged. And what this “civil society mingling” does is to reinforce the clutch of the corporate establishment while weakening and dividing the protest movement. An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City [1999-2001] are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a few may get richer.

This rank and file and some of their leaders as well, are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the right of the “Globalizers” to rule. This requires that we rethink the strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they are the force that must be mobilized to challenge those who plunder the Globe.” (Michel Chossudovsky,  The Quebec Wall, April  2001)

“Manufacturing consent” describes a propaganda model used by the corporate media to sway public opinion and “inculcate individuals with values and beliefs…” It was initially coined by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky:

Read the rest of this entry »

People Who Have Questions About 9/11 (3)

11 09 2010

The rest of the people who have officially questioned the state publicized account of the events of September 11, 2001, including victims’ family members, first responders and relief volunteers, psychiatrists and psychologists, and many more…

Read the rest of this entry »

People Who Have Questions About 9/11 (2)

11 09 2010

More people who have questions concerning the officially publicized accounts of the attacks of September 11, 2001, including scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars...

Read the rest of this entry »

People Who Have Questions About 9/11 (1)

11 09 2010

The following people have questioned the government’s credibility in its rendering of the September 11 attacks, including 9/11 commissioners, U.S. Congressmen, military leaders, and intelligence professionals.

Read the rest of this entry »