There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood

by TDoS

Cross posted from

“He said that men believe the blood of the slain to be of no consequence but that the wolf knows better. He said that the wolf is a being of great order and that it knows what men do not: that there is no order in this world save that which death has put there.”
― Cormac McCarthy, The Crossing

In Theodore Kacynski’s manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” he lays out many premises concerning the existence of man in relation to technology and technological societies. One of these premises is that modern people in technological societies are afraid of death because they have never lived. They have not used their bodies, minds, and souls to their full potential, and thus even in old age, feel like they are yet to begin. Kacynski writes about the primitive man who in his sixties, having seen the successful life of his child and feeling the weariness in his muscles and bones, does not fear, but welcomes his turn to sleep. Where these intuitions were passed on, cultures of indigenous peoples were able to form warrior societies whose success rested on the fact that individual braves had no fear of death. They viewed themselves as one with their people and their land, both of which were timeless, granting them strength of conviction when the situation called for it.

When we hear of people dying in our culture, such news is often quickly followed with statements about the unfairness of one dying so young. Even a fifty-year-old heart attack victim will generally be granted laments and declarations that their passing was too early. While of course the loss of a loved one is saddening, there does appear to be a trend throughout this culture that seems to speak of death as if it is not the ultimate outcome of every life. Death, like the environment, is but another inconvenience to be conquered by our cleverness.

In this culture, there is language of “rights” concerning life. It is said that individuals have a “right” to life, meaning then that death is some violation against the individual. There are even those who would like to extend such rights to animals. No one, according to modern people enculturated by the dominant dogmas, is supposed to die. Ever.

Of course, every living being is only so for a limited time. Death and birth are two phases in the same biological process, and where there is the latter, inevitably we will come to the former. What I find so maddening, is that this culture, so lacking in its ability to confront death, let alone to create and support the psychological and emotional infrastructure to deal with death, is such an efficient bringer of death. How a people so vocally dedicated to peace and the preservation of life can then unflinchingly create nuclear and biological weapons, institute economic castes which immiserate the majority to establish the privilege of the minority, and daily exterminate upwards of two hundred species is possibly the grand irony of our time.

The mind reels.

When just last month, the study “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet,” was released, it got a lot of traction across the internet. The study, prepared by eighteen scientists from various international universities, grabbed headlines by claiming that human civilization had crossed four of nine environmental boundaries.

Of course such studies digitally shared from hard drive, to hard drive, to hard drive have never served to accomplish much in the way of real world action towards deindustrialization, and likely this one was and will remain no different. The trend seems to be that alarming data confirming that human industrial civilization is driving the global ecology to ruin, likely even to the near term detriment of this very civilization, only ends up spurring on those who believe that human industrial civilization can be done in a less harmful way, perhaps with the addition of more solar panels or the subtraction of capitalist motives.

Those who dare argue that civilization, and industrial civilization in particular, is the root cause of the destructive habits which are bringing all living beings to a point of potential collapse or extinction, are routinely dismissed as extreme. Such critics, before dismissal, are reminded of the dominant culture’s primary directive; “We cannot go backwards.” Suggestions that we must, in order to maintain a survivable habitat, drastically reduce reliance on industrial methods, products, and infrastructure are waved off as impossible, insane, or even genocidal. Defenders of the dominant culture and systems of industrial civilization claim that such reductions in technological application will axiomatically mean reductions in human population, and thus are off the table. These claimants are either oblivious to the fact that “going forward” with the methods and practices of the dominant culture would be at least equally genocidal, if not more so, or they harbor a quasi religious belief that human invention will save us from every single problem caused by previous scores of human invention. Always ignored is the clear fact that so called “going forward” will mean an increase in human population before the ecosystems which support them collapse, meaning there will be more humans to die when drought, famine, sea level rise, resource scarcity, and every other calamity currently rising to crescendo ultimately manifest in a symphony of systemic failures that existing political, technological, and economic structures are incapable of mitigating

And then there are the non-human genotypes that most defenders of the dominant culture refuse to ever enter into their calculations.

When someone refuses to acknowledge a solution to a problem because it will indirectly involve death – even when the solution in question is attempting to select fewer deaths sooner as opposed to a great many more deaths later – this person is inserting hidden premises into the discussion, the most obvious of which is that people alive now have the right to exhaust the health of the land which people not yet born will need to rely on in the future. If upon the suggestion that we must globally act to deindustrialize in order to prevent overwhelming climate catastrophe, a person floats the counter argument that such deindustrialization will result in a reduction of currently available medical technologies, and is therefore an unacceptable proposition, this person is inserting into the discussion a premise that the lives of those who would no longer have access to the medical technologies they require are more valuable – this is to say, they have more of a right to survival – than the lives that will be lost – human and non – when industrial civilization fails and brings down with it the functioning ecology of the planet.

Such premises, to me, seem insane. A patent refusal to acknowledge the bare reality that all life, including human life, requires as a foundation a healthy and viable habitat is either obstinacy or a shameful level of ignorance. Claiming that one group of humans has more of a right to survival than others, or that humans have more of a right to survival than the rest of the web of life, is doubly insane.

At the end of it all, defenders of the status quo are not defending life, they are defending lifestyle. Proponents of the dominant culture and its myths of progress are really arguing for their own comfort, of both body and mind. Changing nothing presents no difficult ethical questions or messy physical conflicts. Going forward is the easy choice. This fact alone should ring alarm bells.

Why is death so unacceptable? If we cannot come to grips with death, then we will find ourselves collectively at an impasse where no necessary action will be taken, and industrial civilization will continue unimpeded on its course devouring forests, wiping out species after species, washing away topsoil, and rendering the oceans a lifeless acidic soup of plastics in various stages of photo decay. Somewhere buried in all of this is yet another premise; that to elect the death of even one is unacceptable, but to remain passive while existing systems dole out death to many is forgivable. Human agency seems to be the determining factor. The people who own and operate chemical plants that cause regional cancer clusters in children are forgiven. The death of one million pinpricks is too diffuse to assign blame. On the other hand, to intentionally kill the CEO of such a chemical company would be an outrage. It would be a tragedy. People on TV would say he died too young.

The dominant culture not only protects those high on its hierarchy, blurring lines of responsibility for the actions they take in the name of progress, but it also blinds every day people from the realities of just how it is they come to have the things that they do. Major systems of production and distribution that segregate individuals from the sources of their food, their clothing, the materials that built their homes, the fuels that power their cars and gadgets, create an illusory sense of existence. If a person perceives that food comes from a grocery store, gasoline from a pump, shoes from an online retailer, it is reasonable to believe then that this person’s perceptions have been skewed into believing that nothing must ever die for us to consume whatever we want in whatever quantities we desire. As long as the blood is on someone else’s hands in some other land far from sight, then there is no blood at all. It is this willful blindness to the day to day functioning of industrial civilization on the part of the world’s wealthier populations that allows a people draped in slave made textiles who are kept fed by the mechanistic rape of stolen land powered by stolen oil to stare up with their doe eyes and without a hint of irony ask, “But why do they hate us?”

So it is that so often we hear the claims of “green” capitalists who declare we can have our planet and kill it too. We are to shut our eyes and believe that solar panels, electric cars, fair trade mocha lattes, soy burgers, iPads, internet service, and all of the pills and processes in a modern hospital all just manifest from the ether. The rainforests clear cut, the oceanic dead zones caused by agricultural run off, the open pit mines, the oil spills, the nitro-tri-fluoride and other greenhouse gasses, and all of the whips and prods physical and not that herd about the masses of humans who do all the lifting, stitching, assembling, dismembering, and dying to bring such wonders to our shopping carts just don’t add up to dry shit.

That is how the dominant culture deals with death. It hides it. And when it can’t hide it any longer, it calls it “business.”

Various indigenous tribes have been able to maintain steady populations. In fact, for millennia, a handful of commonplace practices aided in keeping a tribe or band’s numbers in check. Breastfeeding infants until they were four years old helped prevent mother’s menstrual cycles from resurging, thereby keeping birth numbers down. The use of abortifactant herbs also helped women in the event of untimely pregnancies. When a group’s population was at a point where another child would bring great hardship, some tribal people would turn to infanticide. Picture the heartbreaking scene, as a mother lays a newborn infant on a cold hillside to freeze as the sun sets on a winter day. On the other end, tribes would at times decide not to work to heal ailing elderly members, and instead would begin ceremonial death rites when an older person fell ill.

This is the cultural imperative I am interested in. The ability of a people to confront the hard reality of their lives, and to make the soul wrenching choices that they must make in order to survive is not present in the civilized paradigm, not when it comes to allowing death. This is a delicate topic, to be sure, but one of necessary import as the world now hosts almost eight billion people, while conversely non-renewable resources are consumed at increasing rates, and the ecology is pushed beyond the breaking point.

Cultures that accept the inevitability of death create ceremonies and social forms for processing death. This is not to suggest that these people do not feel the pain of loss when a loved one passes, but rather to highlight that they develop a maturity surrounding death. They can talk about it. They can incorporate it into their survival strategies. They do not treat it as a cosmic betrayal of the individual’s right to exist for seventy-five years before a midnight expiration in a beach condo in Florida. Most importantly, cultures that make room for death do not become locked into a suicidal social paradigm, refusing to veer in their direction because doing so would result in the death of some, even when going forward would result in the death of all.

In my last essay I spoke of needing a new cultural ethos in order to prevent the wanton annihilation of the Earth’s life giving systems. This psychological and spiritual evolution must include maturity in the matters of death. Culturally, we must not shun death from our view, for when we do, we push his presence beyond sight, but not beyond efficiency. Beyond the hedge where death lurks ignored by modern man, he does his work still, and he plots against those who believe they have banished him with their cleverness. He plans a great party indeed.

My daughter is nearly a year old. She is my connection to the future, as my parents and ancestors are my connection to the past. I love her to my core, each cell in my body resonating with an urge to guard her, protect her, and to see to her survival. I think about the emptiness that would devour me if she were to die, so I do have a sense of the gravity concerning that which I have written. I look at my little girl, and the truth of life comes to me plain as the new day: we cannot banish sorrow. Heartache is the handmaiden of joy. The history of our species is the history of finding the strength to endure when it seems that all is lost, and when we see no reason to go on, feeling that the ground holds us still.

The complex problems we face require sober, adult analysis, but here and now we lack the methods and ceremonies necessary to act as a mature culture. Our unwillingness at all levels to confront uncomfortable realities has made dangerous adolescents of us, as our orgy of consumption and self aggrandizement has pushed the planet to the brink. There are tasks which demand our collective attention, and undertaking them, while necessary, will not be without consequence. There are few good options on the table before us. Meeting such difficult questions head on, with humility and grace, is the mark of greatness.

It is time to ask, “who are we?” and “who do we want to be?” As we stand right now, we are a belligerent cult of ego, drunk on the self, screaming our greatness as we charge forth trampling everything underfoot. We have a lot of work to do, and not nearly enough time to do it. Death rides whether we call for him or not.

Comments 85

  • Good points in this piece if we are listening.

  • So…I don’t get it.

    If you knew “there will be blood”, why have you elected to bring your daughter into this world, where there is a great and terrible chance she will grow up in a hell realm that will ultimately consume her, along with everything else.

    This kind of reminds me of Pat, who writes to us through his/her computer, telling us to “drink from the river”. No doubt at some point, she/he gets a nice cold glass of water (or better yet) a beer from the fridge, and then avails himself/herself of the handy indoor water closet a few feet away.

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

    We’ve got some big minds here. Really, really BIG minds. (grin)

  • Dave Thompson

    I picked up this quote from Zero Hedge yesterday:

    André Gide, the French Nobel laureate in literature, once said, “Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.”

  • Hi guys — just came across this. That website Ed linked to above (Pointless Planet) is mine. Glad you liked the “Doomsday Preppers” post — it does seem especially apt here. This site looks really interesting. I enjoyed today’s article, and I plan on reading more.

  • red fox,

    Thanks for your February 14th, 2015 at 3:17 response. You wrote “I shall ignore your valiant efforts to make it personal.”

    I feel surprised by this statement because I have not made any effort to make anything personal. Will you help me, please, to understand what I wrote that led to your writing this sentence? My comment that “The only evidence that matters involves that written by humans over about the past 5,000 years in some parts of the world? This statement, it seems to me, serves as an excellent, emphatic example of an arrogant, human-centered philosophy.”? If someone believes that the only evidence that matters involves that written by humans over about the past 5,000 years in some parts of the world, would you not agree that that amounts to an arrogantly human-centered philosophy? If not, why not? How does discussing the nature of this philosophy amount to making “a valiant attempt to make it personal”? We supposedly cannot discuss the nature of, pros, and cons of various philosophical views in a rational, civil way? I confess that I do not follow your reasoning here. Please clarify.

    You wrote “However, I refer you back to my original comment with regard to there being no written record. This is FACT-there is no written record before approximately 5000 years ago because there was no writing. Hence my statement. Simple.”

    So what? As I tried emphasize, neither do we have any written records concerning all of astronomy, geology, evolution, archaeology, and anthropology, among many other fields of scientific inquiry. Since when do we require records written by a few humans in order to construct and verify scientifically valid and powerful models? On the other hand, since when does someone having written something make it either valid or meaningful in some scientific way? People often write myths, fantasies, and lies, for example.

    You wrote “It strikes me, and apologies if this is incorrect, that you have a desperate need to keep to one particular view of humanity.”

    No. I do not “have a desperate need to keep to one particular view of humanity.” On the other hand, I DO wish strongly (not “desperately”) to change and construct my beliefs based on good reasoning about the best, most up-to-date evidence available. I work hard to construct my thinking about the world to the greatest extent practical NOT based on my wishful thinking about how I would strongly, emotionally prefer the world, and humans within it, to work.

    You wrote “I will however continue to point out that certain statements incorrectly clothed as FACT are not that at all, but opinions.”

    Great! I wonder: Will you also change your opinions based on the weight of the evidence and good reasoning about it? Or will you, as most people seem most often to do, carefully select only those “facts” that support your preferred, emotion-based beliefs about how the world supposedly “must” work, and how early humans supposedly lived in noble, peaceful, ecologically friendly ways?

  • Related to the Alan Watts video that kill switch posted February 12th, 2015 at 11:37 am, it strikes me that, perhaps, far more destructive than people commonly confusing our symbols (for example all of our thinking, all of our beliefs) with the realities that the symbols only “represent”, we have most people, most of the time, very strongly, rigidly, and demandingly HOLDING ON TO their thinking, their beliefs, often despite massive and compelling contradictory evidence and reasoning about it. We have people narcissistically and compulsively demanding many variations on the theme of “The world HAS TO work as I believe it does!” and getting very angry, or in a rage, if someone else disagrees, whether the disagreement occurs just through personal opinion, or via the best possible evidence and reasoning about it. I think a very high probability exists that, next to our inability from our beginnings as a species to manage our population within the carrying capacity of our local land bases, this has served as our second most fundamental, fatal flaw. I think that these two processes, these two variables working together, probably account for over 90% of the variability that has produced our Earth-killing self-annihilation trap.

  • NO BLOOD, but plenty of really pissed off pilgrims & preverts wid boomsticks, etc.

    Laugh while you can.

  • Good quote Kevin.

  • Staring at video-screens 8 hours per day and thinking big thoughts is great, but it doesn’t actually do anything real. Communication is not organization. Carbon-tax dividends will be taken away from you if you don’t act. All this culture stuff is fine and dandy for the non-physical working class, but there comes a time when you put your mouth where your shovel is and start carbon-charring soil. If everything doesn’t change, nothing will.

    the race is on here comes heartache
    disco inferno

  • @ Robert: Pointless Planet—hilarious! :D

    At NBL, TDoS says: “habitat”


    Humans are losing their habitat
    ‘Cause nature’s the last one that’s up at bat;
    There’s no more to say
    Except have a nice day,
    It’s the end, it’s all over, and that is that.

  • ed sez:
    February 14th, 2015 at 9:07 am

    So … I don’t get it.

    Quite obvious (You Are Here).

  • hi BtD!


    there was a man from nantucket
    thinking what a harrowing job
    to blow all that snow
    Brace for “12 hours of hell”
    followed by even more snow

    a very warm atlantic is aspiring heat into the atmosphereric column and dumping, dumping, dumping

  • TDoS

    This was a well-written and powerful essay. Much food for thought. Thank you for sharing.

  • Once-in-a-Thousand-year drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains

    We have demonstrated that the mean state of drought in the late 21st century over the Central Plains and Southwest will likely exceed even the most severe megadrought periods of the Medieval era in both high and moderate future emissions scenarios, representing an unprecedented fundamental climate shift with respect to the last millennium. Notably, the drying in our assessment is robust across models and moisture balance metrics. Our analysis thus contrasts sharply with the recent emphasis on uncertainty about drought projections for these regions (21, 27), including the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report (28).

  • Somehow, the traditions of an eternal soul in an eternal heaven seem to have some difficulty addressing mortality here and now.

    The non-dual traditions including Kabbalah recognise no entity or individuality as lasting: everything with a beginning has an ending. All apparent and transient entities derive existence from a Reality that has been referred to as the One witnout a second. It is the basis of recognising all as oneself, the supreme solitude in which there is no “other”, and of non-attachment – there being no “other” to attach to.

  • For all you Wizards, Necromancers and Webmasters out there:

    AMERICA – YOU CAN DO MAGIC 1982 (Audio Enhanced)

    2nd post, but what a way to go in the woods on a snowy evening. 8-)

  • Tom-

    As a fellow UFOnut divorced from the news cycle while working madly to get the various private and public interests of the same mind to establish a new 12,755 acre reserve established in Colombia, I greatly appreciate the information. I have discovered that to be successful in putting together new reserves, a flawless reputation is essential for without credibility the suspicion that one party will gain the advantage of another causes the entire process to flounder. Fortunately, I have been here long enough that people know I am not here for personal enrichment and I have no interest in selling out one side to the other.

    Two nights ago I was unable to sleep and awoke around 3:00AM to a beautiful night with the sky illuminated by a 1-4 moon. I was staying in a local hotel that is perched above a small river running through a valley. Without any warning, a UFO passed not more than 100 meters directly in front of me and traveling at an unimaginable speed, but with no noise not even air rushing by.

    These mountain people are true salt-of-the-earth types who live for their families and their Catholic faith. No internet. No TV or radio. Not even a newspaper. So when people who are stone cold serious and not influenced by modern culture share with me their up close and personal sightings of UFOs, the fact that they exist is w-o any question. Like them I too worry about the intentions of at least some of our ET visitors when people go missing for no reason, some found later mutilated by a captor that has disection abilities and equipment not found in the best hospitals. I worry when domestic and wild animals are cruelly mutilated then discarded like refuse.

    As the article you posted alludes to, the fact that the government refuses to be forthcoming about the UFO enigma means that these privledged parties are aware of information that they believe if made public would be of such a shock that the information must be locked down more tightly than all other secrets.

  • @ milendia, hahaha! Now, if I may please rip off your idea:

    Nantucket Prepper

    There once was a man from Nantucket
    Who saw doom, and thought he could duck it;
    Bean, Band-Aid and gun,
    He stored by the ton—
    Then saw he’d still lose, and said, “Fuck it.”

  • Nice quote Kevin. Copied it to the forum.

  • Nothing is written in stone. Never give-up hope. Keep fighting until your last breath.

    In my estimation, the reason why the information contained within NBL does not get widely disseminated is due to the certainty that all is lost and nothing can be done. This is a deal breaker. I mean how does someone remain engaged when being told it will all be over by 2035? This may become a reality, but it is not an absolute. If I were Guy, I would modify my message to say that if we continue forward with a business as usual mindset, than we are rapidly sealing our fate along with much of Earth{s biodiversity.

    Also, why limit the message to climate change only? We are also living in the midst of a mass extinction crises as well as a pollution crises and human population crises and, and….any of which may be the proximate cause for the end of life.

  • @ed, yes.. that is the first thing I thought. People who don’t know what is going on.. ok, they don’t know. How can you KNOW and then intentionally bring a child into this world?

    These sorts of data points, the Chris Hedges and the Naomi Kleins breeding despite what they know, just underlines the sheer determinism behind the biological and thermodynamical machine.. that it is impossible to stop.

    The author asks poignantly, “who are we?”, and the answer is, “mindless machines of energy breakdown”. “Who he wants to be” is one who self-replicates. You can’t look at what people SAY, you have to watch what they DO. That goes for all of us.

    @Friedrich, do you ever consider that these unusual sightings may well be government, rather than extra-terrestrial craft? When I think of governmental and military technological power, it always turns out to be some order of magnitude greater than what is initially revealed.

  • I blame Marconi for the influx of competing Aliens, each of them harvesting DNA from every species before they become extinct, and at the rate of two hundred per day, it takes not much of a leap in imagination to understand the urgency.

  • @ Lidia pertaining to UFO’s

    If you’ve a couple of hours to kill and want to seriously mess with your head in the most confounding way, watch this:

  • FriedrichKling,

    Your post about a near certainty position about our probable extinction in very short order resonates with me. I very much harbour the same thoughts as you have expressed in your post… just for your info. Actually, and probably not surprisingly, I asked the same question regarding the certainty of the time-tables when I first joined the chorus and received very different answers than you did. No big deal! As you infer, the very nature of our ball game, i.e., Nature Bats Last, may not yet have been played out. Although my knowledge about baseball is sketchy at best, didn’t Yogi Berra say: “It ain’t over till it’s over”, a game rule under which the human species has always played?

  • Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change

    The United States produces 41% of the world’s corn and 38% of the world’s soybeans. These crops comprise two of the four largest sources of caloric energy produced and are thus critical for world food supply. We pair a panel of county-level yields for these two crops, plus cotton (a warmer-weather crop), with a new fine-scale weather dataset that incorporates the whole distribution of temperatures within each day and across all days in the growing season. We find that yields increase with temperature up to 29° C for corn, 30° C for soybeans, and 32° C for cotton but that temperatures above these thresholds are very harmful. The slope of the decline above the optimum is significantly steeper than the incline below it. The same nonlinear and asymmetric relationship is found when we isolate either time-series or cross-sectional variations in temperatures and yields. This suggests limited historical adaptation of seed varieties or management practices to warmer temperatures because the cross-section includes farmers’ adaptations to warmer climates and the time-series does not. Holding current growing regions fixed, area-weighted average yields are predicted to decrease by 30–46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63–82% under the most rapid warming scenario (A1FI) under the Hadley III model.

  • I would like to hear responses to the 13 points in this link.

  • This comment is for those who are interested in animal behaviour.We live in a forest block in north Queensland,Australia.One of the macropod (kangaroo relatives) species here is the Rufous Bettong,a small nocturnal species which builds a nest of dry grass,in clumps of grass or low shrubs,where it spends the daylight hours.When walking through the forest,if one walks too close to a nest,Which are normally impossible to see,the resident Bettong will sometimes rocket out of the nest,and continue for a hundred metres or more.There are several nests around the house here,and over the years they have realized that we are not a threat,and will remain in the nests,or jump a small distance away.There are occasional disputes between individuals,and we are sometimes woken at night ,as the growling they give at those times is surprisingly loud.When a dominant male meets a smaller male it will thump it’s feet loudly on the ground,and the smaller male will crouch low to the ground to indicate that it doesn’t intend to fight.
    A quite funny incident occurred when a bettong decided to build it’s nest under a polystyrene box near our shadehouse.It was accustomed to us moving around there, but when Joanna picked up the box, it shot out and stopped a few metres away.Jo got a fright when the bettong shot out,and yelled and stamped her foot.The bettong evidently recognized the ‘foot stamping’ behaviour,and no doubt thought ‘There is no way I will be messing with a bettong that size’,and immediately crouched low to the ground . Jo moved a couple of metres away,and the bettong ,after about a minute,returned to the nest.

  • Re my comment above,Jo has just corrected me.She didn’t step away from the nest, but remained near it,and the Bettong,which become surprisingly unconcerned by our presence,went over her foot to get back to the nest.

  • “I would like to hear responses to the 13 points in this link.”

    Plow through the archives of NBL. It’s all been discussed at length. No need to repeat it here. If the liking is not enough, the plowing will not be done. Since it is not indexed, there is no quick way to find the discussions.

  • @Lidia: @ed, yes.. that is the first thing I thought. People who don’t know what is going on.. ok, they don’t know. How can you KNOW and then intentionally bring a child into this world?

    These sorts of data points, the Chris Hedges and the Naomi Kleins breeding despite what they know, just underlines the sheer determinism behind the biological and thermodynamical machine.. that it is impossible to stop.

    The author asks poignantly, “who are we?”, and the answer is, “mindless machines of energy breakdown”. “Who he wants to be” is one who self-replicates. You can’t look at what people SAY, you have to watch what they DO. That goes for all of us.


    If I was looking to do some thesis work rather than just get a chuckle out of my observations of the behavior here, I’d ask Mr. PrayForApocalype TWO QUESTIONS to try to get a handle on his fascinating thinking.

    One, how do you hold the NTE position and yet CHOOSE to bring a child into the world (as we both said). I know that if I was at that stage in my life right now, I couldn’t, and I wouldn’t – even though raising my children was the great joy of my life.

    And two, how do you create that mashup in your head right now where you hold your precious infant in your hand, and at the same time PRAY FOR APOCALYPSE?

    Frankly, I think the mystery goes way deeper that just the biological imperative. To borrow from Freud, there’s a serious mashup here of EROS and THANATOS…and it seems endemic to this particular little corner of the internet.

    And I do get the sense that most here are in deep denial about the THANATOS part, even though it is as plain as day to any reasonably unbiased observer.

  • Oh dear, it seems I got kicked off of xraymike’s site. Could I really have bugged him more than Gail!? He thinks I am a “blowhard” and a “bitch”.

    I will dearly miss Apneaman and James, I must say, as I miss Gail’s contributions here.

    Post more here, y’all!

    I think Denninger has an enormous vested interest in the existing mechanisms playing themselves out according to his internalized schema. This post of his is purely emotional. He has no interest in entertaining what the majority of scientists confirm.. it doesn’t fit his libertarian worldview. He’s not a scientist, or anywhere near to being one. All his word salad here seems to be taking definitions out of context and flinging them around like poo.

    @TR, Why a scientist should respond to the claims of a random financial blogger is not clear. McPherson is not asking that Denninger accept his conclusions… most likely he has never heard of the man.

    I’ll tackle just one bit of Karl’s arglebargle, though:
    “6. The largest “greenhouse gas” in terms of actual absorption spectra is in fact di-hydrogen monoxide. In fact nearly all of the absorption of solar heat that takes place in the atmosphere does so by di-hydrogen monoxide simply because all the other gasses involved are trace gases by comparison.”

    Heh. And what brings more water INTO the atmosphere? Well, that would be WARMING. Warm air holds more water vapor! This is becoming a big issue not least because storms are able to dump more water from on high than previously… amirite?

    You can tell Karl loves that term “di-hydrogen monoxide”. All the tea party folks think that is the funniest shit evah…


    He has no idea what the effect of any atmospheric gas is.. just so he can call it a “trace gas” and minimize its importance. Gas is gas is gas… koff. Helium and fluorine and radon are all the same, right?

  • Mr Nye, it seems you havent actually understood what I said previously with regard to interpretation of material remains. I was trying to highlight the fact that archaeology in particular relies on interpretation via a modern lens (obviously). Therefore, it is not a “hard” science unlike, imo, chemistry, astronomy and so forth; it is a social study as is anthropology. As you know, I never said that anything not written down is unimportant; I was highlighting the fact that because there are no surviving records then very obviously, what remains there are from the Paleolithic are subject to very many different interpretations and opinions as is evidenced by the regular change in the dominant theory of the day in both disciplines.

    You may be interested in this essay that thoroughly deconstructs Mr Keeley’s and others , like Mr Le Blanc whose work is derivative. It is long and in 2 parts but I’m sure that will not present a problem. enjoy! :)

    Interesting that such an august journal as The Economist finds Mr Keeleys theories resonant with their own viewpoint, ha ha!

    Oldgrowthforest; thank you very much for your kind comments. I dont really visit the blog much, preferring the forum, which unfortunately is very quiet now that Ulvfugl has “retired”.

    Lidia, thank you for your considered reply to me. A rant? Shurely shome mishtake :)

  • Bud,

    You and Red Fox will never agree, I think because of a fundamental difference in viewing what science is. People like you apply the same scientific rules to every field, not just the classic sciences like physics, chemistry astronomy etc. You include the “social sciences” in this, as do all social scientists of course. Red Fox would probably agree with me when I say that the “social sciences”: economics, anthropology, sociology, history etc. are scientism. Measuring against a theory, as you do with classic science, doesn’t give reliable answers. Nothing to work with. Just look at the world!

    This is the basic difference in the world view between somebody like me (and Red Fox? sorry to speak for you here) and you. We don’t start from the same base.I accept that,therefore we can never find a compromise.
    Social theories can only ever inform about an averages and come up with statistical information (IMO).And people, all living beings, are unique, always have been. For me, this is a daily experience which does not compute with your theories.
    I’ve read some of the books you’ve recommended and looked into some of the theories (Kahnemann etc.). I’m naturally curious and have some time on my hands now. I’m also educated to a high enough standard to be able to grasp theory or what might be called looking at something objectively, at least on an intellectual level. But I must say that none of it chimed with be, with my experiences, the way I feel the world because to me the intellectual, reason, is naturally balanced by feeling, experiencing. What else can I say? I’m just trying to explain to you how different the experience, and therefore the effect, of our shared world can be. You will probably think that I’m not trying hard enough, that I’m mislead or haven’t read enough. If you do, that’s OK.

    To me your recommendations felt as if it were aimed at a different species. Maybe I’m not evolved enough (I mean that without irony).

    So, to conclude, shall we just agree to disagree? That would be nice.

  • “Why is death so unacceptable?”

    This pops up from time to time here at NBL.
    I can only assume the question is being asked
    by people who are not paying attention to our

    So here’s the breakdown:
    1) Death is okay, as long as the right people die. Those people tend to be non-white and not Americans, but it’s okay if non-white Americans die too.

    2) Then only thing that is unacceptable is aging. Old people suck.

    The American Dream is only good if you’re under 40. If you’re over
    40, there are a host of products that you can buy that will make you look under 40. Having enough money to have a wife half your age is almost as good as a fountain of youth. Barring that, money cures all ills. Having a shit ton of cash is more important than anything else.

    Hope that helps.

  • Grant: Having enough money to have a wife half your age is almost as good as a fountain of youth. Barring that, money cures all ills. Having a shit ton of cash is more important than anything else.


    Even though he apparently never did brush his teeth, Mao had 1000 or more beautiful, young women on call and available for him at all times.

    Of course, we all know he was the consummate marxist-leninist, and so he had no money of his own, per se. He wasn’t one of those new-fangled Chinese billionaires like Jack Ma.

    So this is obviously not about America, or about cash. It’s about something much more fundamental to human nature, of which “America” and “cash” are simply instantiations of some object (if you know the object oriented programming reference) or some archetypal jungian/platonic form (if you don’t).

    Making this about “America” and “cash” is just more of the low level, lazy thinking that seems to pervade this space – and really with even a little effort people can do better than that.

    But why bother…eh? Let’s just bitch and moan until night falls once and for all.

  • UFO’S bullshit! Abrupt Climate Change SERIOUS ! jUST hopium I’m wrong and they save us

  • Lidia,

    I really like the insightful, incisive quality and evidence-based nature of your reasoning!

    More generally,

    I have copied here two paragraphs from Ernest Becker in The Birth and Death of Meaning for those among us with naïve anarchist tendencies, as well as pointing to the nature of early humans, partly accounting for the large size of brains, and reinforcing the importance of attachment theory (emphases Becker’s):

    “The basis for this kind of alertness is probably laid down in the dominance-subordination hierarchies characteristic of vertebrate society—of fish, birds, wolves, baboons: some animals are larger, stronger, or more energetic than others, and they bluster around and enjoy the advantages of unconditional dominance. This means that all the animals have to be most sensitive to interindividual signals and cues. This sensitivity allows each animal to be cognizant in some way of THE PART HE IS TO PLAY in the life of the group—that is, the extent to which he will assert himself, insist on his prerogatives in food monopolizing, mating, and so on, toward certain others in the group. Each individual knows how, in other words, to maintain a delicate balance between self-assertion and the demands of living in the group, and he has an implicit awareness of his status vis-à-vis one or more others. Thus, man’s acute sensitivity to his fellows was foreshadowded in the earliest development of vertebrate interindividual stimulation.”


    “And so we can see how primate living laid the basis for the nervous complexity of man. It almost seems as if the man-apes had to make new social inventions to order the environment, if they were not to bog down from nervous exhaustion. On the humanoid level the organismic environment must have already represented a crucial problem of adjustment. Some way had to be found to give an ORDERED SIMPLIFICATION OF THE INTERINDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENT. Among the lower primates this simplification is decided by strength and energy differences; man needed a schematization that was symbolic and psychological. It is by means of ‘status’ and ‘role’ that each individual is given a position and a part to play in the social circus, so that no one is left in the anxiety of guessing who is going to act how, when approached. Coming of age in any society is basically a matter of learning how to act in a massively unpredictable environment, where each marvelous face, each gleaming pair of eyes, each temper, seems an inscrutable world in itself. The only way to control it in some measure is to play one’s part correctly. To the infant reared in a family, the world that opens up to him is a mysterious panorama of aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, and so on, the he has painfully to learn. This is why the concepts ‘status’ and ‘role’—to get a bit ahead of our story—assume such a central place in sociology: they describe what is most necessary for human behavior, the real and basic step that man took beyond the subhuman primate band.”

    In summary, for sure our big brains in many important ways freed us from many biological imperatives in comparison with other animals. Even so, far more likely than not cultural experiments that clash with our fundamental biological nature have failed, and will fail. We find social hierarchy with related behavioral rules built deeply into our biology. Flouting these biological principles courts disaster just as surely as flouting the principles of physics.

  • Lidia-

    Certainly I have carefully reviewed all options, but all have been ruled out but one. Take the 1989 Belgium UFO flap during which thousands saw the triangle, military radar confirmed, and the object was sighted by fighter pilots; however, the craft moved in a manner that defied our understanding of physics, stated Belgium Air Force Chief. Normally, a 15 year lag time exists along with lots of leaks before an INCRIMENTAL advancement in aviation technology is made known to the public. This incident occured 26 years ago. No leaks and we still have nothing that can match the perofrmance characterisitics of the flying triangles.

  • Sabine,
    I don’t mind you speaking for me; your intuitions are correct, that is pretty much how I feel.
    I dont mind at all agreeing to disagree with people with whom it doesnt seem possible to meet half way. My only issue is (sorry for repeating myself) with how opinions and interpretations are put forward as facts when in actuality they are neither facts nor truth but quite often, although not always, agenda driven theories/opinions.

    Speaking of this, I just found this interesting article picking apart one of Stephen Pinker’s skewed presentations citing Keeleys book. It seems that “evidence” is not all that it is cracked up to be…

  • Dear TSoS,

    What can I say? I’d like to quote every one of your sentences and say “I agree”! No truly sane, mature and insightful person could argue with you. You’ve said it so well. Thank you. You’ve summed up what’s at the heart of our industrial delusion and also talked about a solution. The right solution, but for very few of us. And so it should be. That’s alright with me, I’ve always felt the same as you about death and his denial in our culture.
    I remember a time when this denial was not so pronounced, in the 60s. People couldn’t be kept alive at the beginning and the end of life as well as it’s possible now. Many people still had to die a “natural” death. People would sit with the dying and wait for them to die at home. At least that’s what it was like in the community where I grew up. Therefore, attitudes were more realistic and mature. Now, we’ve reached insanity with our denial.

    You must be still young, you say that you have a small daughter, but how mature you are. And thanks for mentioning your little daughter. She’s added to your credibility because you talked about loving her so sensitively. Nobody will be able to tell you that “you don’t know”.

    Take good care of yourself and you loved ones!

  • Sabine,

    I expect that in your February 15th, 2015 at 7:08 am comment that “You and Red Fox will never agree, I think because of a fundamental difference in viewing what science is.” you may have this right, and possibly for the reasons you described. I do disagree with you strongly in your insistence that fields such as psychology, anthropology, archaeology, behavioral economics, and so on, presumably “doesn’t give reliable answers”. Based on about three minutes of observation, John Gottman, and colleagues, can predict with 96% accuracy the long term future of any given marriage! If that does not qualify as a “reliable answer” from a social science, I do not know what does. I expect that you probably have it correct in stating that you and Red Fox, on one hand, and I on the other, have quite different views on both what qualifies as reliable knowledge and how we best construct it.

    Regarding your statement that “Social theories can only ever inform about an averages and come up with statistical information (IMO). And people, all living beings, are unique, always have been. For me, this is a daily experience which does not compute with your theories.)” Certainly “all living beings are unique”, but that no more need stop us from developing deep understandings of these beings and developing our abilities to predict their behaviors than it stops us from understanding and predicting the behavior of so many other things, from atoms to galaxies—ALL of which remain UNIQUE. Regarding the social sciences, I think you might well change your opinion about much of this if you read some of John Gottman’s work, for example Principia Amoris.

    On one hand, as I have emphasized several times before, emotion plays a critically important role in our thinking and judgment, and John Gottman and Susan Johnson emphasize this in their work. On the other hand, if you wish to believe that your personal experiences provide you and others with more reliable knowledge about how the world, including other people, works in comparison with the knowledge generated by natural science, as your statement “But I must say that none of it chimed with be, with my experiences, the way I feel the world because to me the intellectual, reason, is naturally balanced by feeling, experiencing” seems to suggest, then I do disagree. Given that Kahneman argues at length against such “affect heuristics”, such emotional reasoning, I can understand how you would not care for much that he writes even though it remains based on a sound foundation of experimental natural science—sound enough that it won him a Nobel Prize in economics.

    Probably far more often than not people OFTEN insist on imposing their maps onto the territory instead of revising their maps based on experience within the territory over time. I strongly prefer to revise my map, my models, based on experience in the territory, in other words based on the most compelling evidence and reasoning about it. Meanwhile, you and Red Fox appear, if I have understood you correctly (and I may not have), to prefer the former approach when you experience any significant cognitive dissonance. We can certainly agree to disagree about these epistemological and other issues! AND, in my opinion, we can present our evidence and reasoning about various subjects in calm ways or passionate ways, but also in respectful ways.

  • red fox, you are more than welcome but the thanks is all for you. Thank you again for your posts and the links. I really, really appreciate how you avoid making the conversation personal, and the difference is clear and easy to see. I also like your name a lot. :O)

  • Firstly, apologies to Dr.McPherson and MoFlow for this post (it is the 3rd). Please hold it back until tomorrow if necessary. I should have added it on to my previous comment.

    You stated this in the post above:

    “I have copied here two paragraphs from Ernest Becker in The Birth and Death of Meaning for those among us with naïve anarchist tendencies, as well as pointing to the nature of early humans…”

    You know, why was it necessary to include that jibe about “naive anarchist tendencies?” Who exactly are you referring to? To use your phraseology, please help me and others to understand who you are talking about? Who is this “us”?
    Also, can you please explain to me and others what is so naive about having an anarchistic perspective? As opposed to what other kind of perspective; a reductionist, materialistic, scientistic one perhaps?

    The quote you have pulled from the book is a fine example of the latter. At the end of the day, the chap is trying to talk about relationship and kinship, or so it appears.
    The quote ,of course, does not point to the nature of early humans at all but points to the notions of a modern human on what he theorises that nature to have been.

    On a side note, I read recently, something that questioned the oft touted numbers of the optimal amount of members of a band. It seems the band was possibly not the smallest unit of human society but was in fact comprised of a number of “satellite” groups comprising very small numbers, certainly less than 10. For the life of me I cant remember where I saw it but have a feeling that it was on a link that Lidia provided, maybe the leavingbabylon one?

  • guyo smith-

    I know the mentality of debunkers. I would bet any amount of money that you have never spent any significant amount of time couducting a serious UFO investigation. Instead your position is formulated based on a ´personal opinion of what is and what is not possible.

  • UFOs.. One is as likely to see a UFO as one is likely to see Leo the Lion captain the U.S Enterprise.

  • Lidia-

    Lastly, I served in the army with a Top Secret security clearance for six years. While military advancements in technology may be impressive, I never saw an instance where the new development represented anything more than an incrimental advancement. Finally, even the military must produce systems that conform to basic natural laws.

    No doubt about it……….

  • FriedrichKling,

    The mentality of ‘debunkers’ has nothing to do with the odds that a UFO would come shopping on Earth. If one considers the apparent distances involved with any alien being searching for adventure in the Great labyrinths of space, even at the speed of light which is approx. 20,000 times faster than our fastest rocket ships (25,000 MPH) it would take 4 years to reach the nearest star, never mind a star in which a species would have been advanced enough to reach planet Earth. If such a craft would only fly at the speed of our fastest rockets, it would actually take about 100,000 years to reach the nearest star.

    Moreover, there seems to be a likelihood that there exists more than a hundred billion earth-like planets in our galaxy alone, never mind that there are a few hundred billion galaxies to go around, if not a few hundred billion universes as yet undetermined, and so on. So the chances that an alien would even consider visiting a planet on which everyone is at war with each other are slimmer than none.

    We don’t need aliens to ruin our day. All we need is each other.

  • Anarchy is the abjuration of initiating violence against non-violent non-compliers to coerce their compliance. It is the absence of ruleRs, not the absence of rules.

    Statists give their sanction to such violence committed in their name and ostensibly on their behalf. Anarchists decline to give their sanction to the violence, or its claim to legitimacy.

    Once you see the threat, there is no unseeing it. There can thes be no basis for further discussion until the weapon is holstered – until all parties to the discussion agree that initiation of coercive violence against non-violent non-compliers is unacreptable.

    Attachment – even the slightest trace of it – has to be eliminated if mortality is to be dealt with. That’s attachment theory from several millennia ago, and it is still valid today. And it does not In any way imply a wooden or stony demeanour.

  • to BtD: more Nantucket stuff for you

    The Coast Guard said it rescued an Australian father-son sailing team whose boat lost power and had its sails torn in 60 mph winds about 140 miles southeast of Nantucket.

  • @Robin: There can thes be no basis for further discussion until the weapon is holstered – until all parties to the discussion agree that initiation of coercive violence against non-violent non-compliers is unacreptable.


    So…are you trying to say that Unibomber Ted Kacynski’s blowing people up wasn’t a GOOD idea?

    You should tell that to Mr. PrayForApocalypse, who seems to be gaining currency here as a wise person.

  • Lidia,
    Re your 1.27 am comment.I have just read all the comments on the Collapse of Industrial Civilisation site.Mike did not call you a ‘Bitch’
    Why post falsehoods about Mike here?
    Also,is it correct that you have been banned?I will ask Mike this as well,as I don’t think you should have been banned.

  • Since NBL has just become a free for all, why not………

    As a devout empiricist, I believe we must remain mindful of not conflating UFO’s as evidence of extraterrestrial life. Because all the available evidence can only conclude is that there is overwhelming confirmation of unidentified flying objects being seen around the world. Extrapolating these sightings as evidence of alien life is difficult to resist, and only confounds the observable evidence. What they are is still widely open for debate, but the sheer number of observations is indisputable nonetheless.

    I, probably like many here, once thought that UFO’s were just some kind of silly hoax, not unlike seeing the image of Jesus on a slice of toast and concluding it an act of divine intervention. I have spent most of my life thinking the whole UFO phenomena was just another modern day metaphysical schism completely fabricated by those who just desire to believe in something greater than ourselves, for I am also an outspoken atheist.

    I have also long thought that of course there must be life elsewhere in the universe, but the sheer expanse of space/time makes interstellar travel highly improbable if not impossible.

    But honestly, I never really gave it much serious thought. That is, until several events occurred that completely changed my perspective……and not for better.

    I very much wish I could return to how I once thought, because for me, I find the whole UFO phenomena to be extremely maddening. If you want to experience a personal cognitive dissonant event, delve into ‘The Disclosure Project’. The implications are quite disturbing regardless of whatever conclusion you come to.

    No matter what you think about UFO’s, if you invest just a couple of hours with an open mind, your opinion of the UFO phenomena will be forever changed. The list and number of credible witnesses is absolutely mind bending.

    Aside from having witnessed an event myself–along with about a dozen others—where three unexplainable glowing orbs hovered in broad daylight over a city I once lived moving in unison about a quarter mile from us, I have three close friends who have all had independent experiences themselves, as well as several acquaintances.

    My oldest and closest friend, along with a friend of his, experienced a UFO many years ago, and he still is quite disturbed as to what they saw.

    Imagine someone you trust more than anyone, tells you something you naturally find very hard to believe. What do you do?

    How many here, have actually directly experienced something that defies all logical explanation? Trust me; it’s not comforting in the least, it literally forces you to rethink everything you’ve ever known.

    There are many parallels between NTE and the UFO phenomena, simply because they are both nearly impossible to accept, though an overwhelming amount of evidence exists to support it. If you are someone who is just reacting to UFO’s without actually having spent any time honestly researching it, then you are only repeating the same denial of those who deny NTE. Enough evidence exists to seriously change your perspective; you just have to be willing to look for it.

    As someone who has no desire to believe UFO’s signify extraterrestrial life, I have long thought the UFO phenomena as being “anti-science”, but I was mistaken.

    Again, invest just a few hours in listening and watching the testimony provided by ‘The Disclosure Project’ alone, and you will never think of UFO’s the same again, regardless of whatever conclusion you come to.

    Whatever it is that tens of thousands of people are observing is obviously something. What it is, I do not presume to know, but as strange as it still sounds to me, I can no longer honestly deny its existence.

    Something “we” can’t yet explain exists, and that is very difficult to accept. I would say it’s even harder to live with than NTE………and that’s saying something!

  • Daniel,
    Thanks for your comment.I will have a look when our download allowance allows it.

  • @David Higham, hi… I haven’t been back there. Maybe he deleted his comment. I guess I should have taken a screen capture. He wrote something to the effect of “I’m going to ban that bitch” and that “other people” were sick of me, too… I certainly didn’t imagine it, nor would I make up such a thing. I did write a couple of sarcastic things I could have avoided.. I just wasn’t in a nice mood last night. The host does appear to have a thin skin, though.

    I was just telling Gail Z. that it’s probably best to spend less time on the internet, anyway.

    I appreciate your speaking up on my behalf.

  • Second post I think I just saw a ghost,kidding! Just a rant from a total atheist OK ? The bible a book of fairytales, The climate mostly a methane vail Now dying when it about to fail, Who’s at fault mostly white males,What to do, no UFO’s to hail,Shoot me it’s better than jail, If only we could fix it with something that sells,But no, so it make me just want to YELL,help! and love and peace and thanks !

  • @ed, I like the definition of money that Nicole Foss repeats: it’s a claim on future resources. Obviously with a shrinking amount of future resources, the money system becomes utterly broken, but most people haven’t really figured that out yet.

    IF you can make claims on future resources without resorting to money, that can certainly work, too, but money has been a clever sleight-of-hand trick to alienate resources from their “rightful owners” (whether they be a tribe, a peasantry, kings, native species, or the whole planet)!

    I think I have referred before to *technologies*, religion being one, IIRC. Money is a technology that allows for greater waste and energy throughput than would have occurred otherwise. Without money, you could never convince people to take spring water from town A, make bottles and ships and burn fuel so that they could send the bottles to town B, where town B is bottling its own water to ship to town A. This is the kind of “economic activity” that economists and politicians love, of course, and similar non-essential processes make up most of what we call GDP. Take the money out of the equation and people would immediately see that most of what they have been doing is insane and irrational.

    So while you are right that there are underlying forces that express themselves even without money, money is a fascinating conceptual tool that leverages consumption to new levels.. don’t you think?

    @Bud Nye, thanks for that interesting citation. I don’t have a lot of energy to put into this new (for me) aspect of study, but I will re-read those bits another time or two.

    @Friedrich, you say “even the military must produce systems that conform to basic natural laws.” but then the implications are that extraterrestrial craft are somehow exempt from these laws.. they move in ways that cannot be explained/don’t make sense? I have to say I have given the matter almost no thought at all in my lifetime, although I will watch the video Daniel linked to.

  • guyo, old boy! How are ya? I’m not religious, but I got to tell you that the Bible is a lot more to it than fairy tails.

    I’m finishing up reading a book I heard about here called Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. It has an interpretation of the Adam and Eve, Cain and Able stories from Genesis that about blew my socks off.

    Anyway, to illustrate my point I’ll just explain who Cain and Able really are. This is sooooo cool! Actually, around 8,000 years BC, when farming was begun in the Tigris and Euphrates valley, by Caucasians, no less, they started killing anyone and everything that stood in the way of their exponential growth. They represent Cain, the murderer. The Semites, herders to the South that later became the Hebrews, resisted the Caucasian planters and fulfill the role of the murdered son, Able. They were the only local people whose story of these beginnings survived, apparently. Turns out that the ‘Mark of Cain’, is a white face!!! I laughed my ass off when I read that, it’s just sounds so freakin’ like old whitey (us, lol!)!!! After old whitey started scarfing up everybody’s land to grow rich and ruin the planet with, that face became feared far and wide for its fierce violence and revenge! Sure as shit does sounds like us, kill-crazed scum that we are!

    Imagine, whitey’s precious Bible has his condemnation written down in the first couple of chapters. It’s a 600 pound gorilla that’s been sitting in the middle of the room all along.


  • Lidia,
    It was my mistake.I should have reloaded the site before I read it.

  • @david higham, please check the Forum for a PM from me.

  • Jean

    The obvious fallacy with your reasoning is your assumption that an ET civilization is limited by our primitive understanding of physics. I suppose you never considered the possability that the vast distances of space are reduced by traveling through worm holes. Further, they may be time travelers.

    Nevertheless, I have no interest in converting people, particularly not irrational debunkers.

  • How can the adjective naive be attached to Anarchism when it was Stephen J Gould himself who penned the tract “Kropotkin Was No Crackpot”? (lookitup) Kropotkin naive? Gould naive?? Huh? Anyone who thinks that the term “Naive Anarchism” pertains, needs to read at least one book by each of the following:

    Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Luigi Galleani, Edward Abbey, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin, William Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Blake, Jean Paul Marat.

    Read up. Then get back with me. Absent that, I’ll assume that “naive” is further psychological projection indicating one’s relationship to understanding of Anarchismus.


    Am troubled as well by the further bashing of “rights”. This rings a bit too close to the right wing discourse of “entitlements” being used to trash populations designated for de-humanization and institutional exploitation.

    If that was not the intention in bashing “rights”, then the nuance needs to be pointed out and explicated. Not just tossed off as a so-called “common sense” throwaway from the heart of imperium to smear unfortunate people who are wanting a fair shake in life. If that was not your intention, then take an extra ¶ and explain it. Break it down. Do not be shy.

    To whit, I have seen the historical western liberal discourse turned on its head in recent days to rationalize the rise and support of non-democratic authoritarian fascism. You, tortured, disenfranchised and enslaved, what do you want? Rights? What a joke! How naive! Snark Snark.

    How about people I see every day who claim a right not to have to have their kids starving or growing up poisoned by global capitalism? How about Native Americans who claim a “right” to their very own lands? A right to justice, to fairness? A right, to quote George Jackson, not to live “poor butchered half lives”? Is that a joke? Is that naive?

  • Daniel,

    Well done…I saw your name at the top of the post and got out my green eye-visor-thing, ready to read carefully and probably fire off a post staking out an adversarial position.

    When, not exactly ‘suddenly! outa nowhere’ (although it’s always a good feeling to imagine hearing that out of Cosell’s voice box back in the day), here comes a whole buncha sensible stuff about UFO’s. My kid brother turned me on to the Disclosure Project’s looong video back when it was (it might still be) streaming on his Netflix service. I haven’t witnessed one up close, but I have a couple of sober friends who have witnessed something while in the presence of many other people who saw the same thing (as much as that can be said, given what we more or less know about the reliability of the testimony of multiple witnesses).

    One serious question that occurred to me some years (decades?) ago when the X-Files was being broadcast and which seems even more interesting considering what we seem to know about CO2, methane, habitat destruction, etc. is:
    Are we (humans) terraforming our planet to meet the environmental spec sheet of some other species ? What if the probes & di/vivi-sections are being done just to find out if there is anything that could survive once the optimal chemical mix is reached ? (I’m guessing whoever shows up won’t mind the tube creatures growing on the sea floor near volcanic vents.) Who knows…maybe some billionaires are planning on leaving before the whole scene here goes nova, but not on their own craft?



    Basic natural laws is what (as far as we know) our terrestrial militaries have to contend with. If UFO’s are ET, then it’s possible that they are working within the parameters of advanced natural laws. They (the advanced laws) might seem perfectly obvious to us if we were looking at things differently. Of course, looking at things differently can get you labeled as a kook (or whatever marginalizing term is being used this week) – and it can get your life’s work burned or put under lock & key for a decade or so – just check out Wilhelm Reich and Nikola Tesla.

    There are some non-kooks who have pointed out similarities between artifacts discovered in the USA post-WW2 and projects being run in Germany during the war based on a different perspective on gravity. Like the old maps cautioned, though…Beware, there be rabbits! (as in rabbit holes, easy to get into, but…)


    Jean Turcot,

    Your questions make sense ? But you are assuming that such travel would be within the confines of the 3-D+1 or 4-D universe that most scientists work with at the moment. Suggest you grab a copy of Harvard physics professor Lisa Randall’s Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions. Sorry, no DIY schematics for Buck Rogers stuff, but a very readable explanation of what might be true for the literate non-scientist. But, if the work done by her and her primary research colleague turn out to be correct, the sort of travel you mention might be as easy as online shopping is for internet users today…probably not for us humans…travel kinda has existence as a prerequisite, and we’re on the bubble on a good day.

    I think we need Sissy’s thumbs for this…

    OK, so they’d update it to 10,000 years if writing today?

  • Just to make it clear to everyone,my 2.46 pm comment to Lidia was incorect and should be ignored.I made the mistake of reading the comments on Mike’s site without reloading it,so I didn’t read comments that were posted in the previous 12 hours.My apologies to Lidia.

  • “At the end of it all, defenders of the status quo are not defending life, they are defending lifestyle. Proponents of the dominant culture and its myths of progress are really arguing for their own comfort, of both body and mind. Changing nothing presents no difficult ethical questions or messy physical conflicts.”

    I’m not sure change has to be mostly based on conflict and incrimination. (Not saying there aren’t extremely bad actors out there to be dealt with.) But as an old person who for decades has been a voice in the wilderness, I see signs of change that I could never have anticipated.

    I’ll list just one. I’ve long been interested in the Tiny House movement, in how it can save money, and how it can save space by using it more creatively. Twenty years ago, I came across a book–Tiny, Tiny Houses I think was the name–but I doubt there was a great deal of small house promotion then, apart from a very few books like that. Now, without even searching, I can watch a great quantity of small-house projects on TV.

    Today it was Small House Builders. The head honcho (very much in charge) was close to the age of my grandchildren. The depth and diversity of his knowledge was astonishing. He knew all about regular house construction, while being able to apply that knowledge to small-houses. True, he and his cohorts were considerably more rah rah (sp) than I would have liked, but I was able to get past that. Everybody used power tools. Not to my liking, but I could overlook that. What struck me as profound was the coming together of mainstream godawful industrial technology with a change-consciousness that respected (significantly) pristine surroundings, including the towering trees to which their tiny house was tethered.

    They knew how to stagger the connecting bolts so that the trees could move as needed. A bunch of different-size antique windows, which the boss guy picked out and had assembled, comprised an entire wall of the under 200 square foot house. An antique metal milk crate functioned as a chandelier. Old hinges were preserved. A glass panel was installed to allow a floor view of the creek the house was suspended over. Here was somebody with a great eye and sensibility; yet he was 100 percent hip with the Home Depot way of doing things. An ordinary electric heater served as the fireplace (I didn’t see what powered it or anything else–there was a compost toilet, however) which was framed by a commercial faux rock wall as light as a feather. I wondered about the ghastly processes that produce such thing. And I made the balancing assumption that combining things industrial in minute quantities with scavenged material, like in a favela, might well be near-term sustainable. It struck me as a case of selectivity, practicality, technology, preservation, environment coming together. The emphasis might be on distributing small amounts of “good” and “bad” in smart combinations so as to end up with the most good and the least bad.

    This isn’t to promote interfering with third world people who are managing quite OK by their own terms. It doesn’t mean trying to keep everyone alive everywhere. But it might be indicative of options yet to play out for mainstream industrial society.

  • Ed: so Mao, who was in control of an entire country with 1/4 of the world’s population wasn’t rich? He was a commie? Next you’ll be saying the Soviet Union was Red because that’s what you learned in High School. And never forget George Bush was a Christian because he mentioned Jesus more than once.

    Some ideas die harder than others, don’t they?

    Pissing and moaning ain’t necessarily a bad thing either.
    But pissing and moaning about other people pissing and moaning seems like a huge waste of time.

    Everybody: don’t forget to have a great death!

  • “they” are here. they have been for a long time – whatever they are.

    as Daniel says, anyone who cares to look into this with an open mind will have a genuinely uncomfortable experience.

    and as Daniel and other atheists may discover, depending on just how deeply they probe into these realities, the overlap between the UFO enigma and countless things that are considered “spiritual” happens almost instantaneously – *IF* – you want to look even a fraction of a second past the surface, and start really looking into, and digging into, all the reality of what is out there to be found.

    and yes, it is all there to be found, just keep looking – as utterly uncomfortable as this experience may be.

    that is the most amazingly crazy and uncomfortable thing about this stuff. it is all right there in plain sight! you cannot, and will not, see it, unless you look. no one is going to force anything – unless you have agreed to be part of this on another level – and yes, whatever “they” are – they are perfectly fine doing what they do without our overt consent, because we are able to give our consent on other levels.

    this is only one small facet of why this is all incomprehensibly hard to grasp, and radically hard to deal with.

    we operate on our everyday conscious ego level. they operate on the level of what we really are.

    they – whoever they are – are as familiar with what we now call “spiritual” things – and what I call Total Reality – as modern humans are with the properties of say, basic chemistry.

    they are, in fact, so wrapped up in this stuff, that those people who are already struggling with intense close encounters, frequently also have to struggle with extremely clear visions into various spiritual realities that happen simultaneously with their close encounters.

    that is the nature of the beast. it is screamingly obvious how much “spiritual” stuff is involved in the UFO/close encounter enigma, if one has a truly open mind.

    I personally feel it is vitally important, and in our absolute best interest, to start coming to grips with these things. but it can only happen on an individual level – that much is clear.

    and that is the entire reason that the UFO enigma is unfolding on an individual level – “person to being” if you will – in the most intimate, mind-blowing-heart-excruciating, and sometimes deeply traumatizing, ways imaginable.

    slowly, inexorably.

    there will never be a “mass disclosure” by these beings – not until we are at the very end of what our human experience is right now. it will be essentially a “deathbed revelation,” when it comes.

    but that is all they can do, as we would immediately destroy ourselves if they revealed themselves with undeniable certainty now.

    they have to wait until we have done the job ourselves, and then the final death of this epoch, and whatever is after, can unfold.

    it is all radically hard to accept. NTE, the UFO phenomena, and so much more. this difficulty is completely to be expected when coming face to face with the everyday limits of conditioned “ways of thinking and being” within the kind of “reality” where retirement funds, Starbucks, and the standard grade school curricula are par for the course.

    and yes, if anyone cares to honestly ponder, even just for a few minutes, what our current level of technology and understanding of physics is all about, compared to, say, intelligent beings that have been actively investigating (and sharing with each other!) this stuff for possibly hundreds of millions of years – it seriously does not take much of a leap to realize humanity is not just “primitive” on this scale: we don’t even rate!

    I’m not sure I would rule out FTL travel, interdimensional gateways, time jumps, dimensional hops, holographic holidays, or anything else, to inconceivably ancient beings – or whatever they are – that have completely figured out:

    – “physical reality” is another form of Consciousness.

    – Consciousness works on multiple levels of Total Reality, and laws on one level do not apply to other levels.

    – Consciousness is free to transcend “physical laws” in the dream levels that it creates, moving from level to level, whenever it wants to.

    – one can plug into this dream of Consciousness in various ways – mental, technological, spiritual, and who knows what else, and change things oneself. this may simply be thought of as moving from level to level.

    – and one has had a very long time to mess with all kinds of techno wizardry that can make all of this kind of jumping around in the hyper-dimensional holographic multi-leveled dreamworld of Consciousness a zillion times more reliable than even electricity from a socket or water from a faucet.

    then one can get together with one’s buddies, along with who knows how many other cultures-groups-whatevers from who knows what parts of the rest of this galaxy-Universe-dreamworld-hologram, and watch some humans squirming around in a petri dish of a backwater planet, just coming to grips with basic conscious self awareness, and realizing the good sugary energy stuff is going bye-bye, and, boy, it really smells like a toxic waste crapfest around here.

    “Everybody: don’t forget to have a great death!”

    or a happy, even if occasionally uncomfortable, awakening.

  • @Grant: Ed: so Mao, who was in control of an entire country with 1/4 of the world’s population wasn’t rich?…


    Precisely so.

  • Resource Insights
    Kurt Cobb
    Sunday, February 15, 2015

    William Catton’s warning

    “Perhaps the single keenest insight Catton had is that humans have become detritovores, organisms that live off the dead remains of other organisms. By this he meant the human dependence on fossil fuels which are the ancient dead remains of organisms transformed into oil, natural gas and coal.”

  • Here’s wishing you all are warm (it’s 0 F here right now, but with the wind it feels like -24).

    Spy agencies could be funding geo-engineering research in pursuit of weaponising the weather, scientists claims

    A senior American climate scientist has spoken of the fear he experienced when US intelligence services apparently asked him about the possibility of weaponising the weather as a major report on geo-engineering is to be published this week.

    Professor Alan Robock stated that three years ago, two men claiming to be from the CIA had called him to ask whether experts would be able to tell if hostile forces had begun manipulating the US’s weather, though he suspected the purpose of the call was to find out if American forces could meddle with other countries’ climates instead.

    During a debate on the use of geo-engineering to combat climate change, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Prof Robock said: “I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we know about it?

    ”I told them, after thinking a little bit, that we probably would because if you put enough material in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the equipment that was putting it up there.

    “At the same time I thought they were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else’s climate, could they detect it?”

    Professor Robock, who has investigated the potential risks and benefits of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects of volcanic eruptions, said he felt “scared” when the approach was made. [there’s more]

    dutchsinse has been investigating this for years now:

  • one more before a new post is launched:

    You’ve likely heard about our ocean’s methane plumes – dangerous greenhouse gases being slowly released from their icy seafloor prisons. Now a new study of the seafloor off the West Coast of the United States has revealed that these gaseous “leaks” are already escalating to a full blown jail break, with methane escaping at 500 times its average rate of natural release.

    The study, recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), details how waters off the coast of Washington are gradually warming at a depth of 500 meters, about a third of a mile down.

    That just so happens to be the same depth at which methane transforms from a solid into a gas, helping to facilitate the release of the most powerful of greenhouse gases – capable of trapping heat in our atmospheres with 20 times the efficiency of carbon dioxide.

    It should be noted that methane is naturally released by the ocean all the time, either from natural seafloor vents or in a simple cycle of freezing and melting, as part of the Earth’s greater carbon cycle.

    However, experts have recently expressed concern that methane (CH4) is seeing more release than ocean carbon sinks can make up for. This may be due to uncharacteristic warming of the sea – an argued consequence of climate change and human influence. These warm currents could be melting through frozen water on the ocean floor, collapsing pockets of gas called “methane hydrates.”

    “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d,” Jason Box, a widely published climatologist, tweeted back in August, when it was first revealed that this could be occurring in the East Siberian Arctic Ocean.

    Box, like many experts, is most concerned about the concentration of these releases, as they can speed up climate change well beyond standard projections.

    “Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change,” Evan Solomon, co-author of the GRL study, explained in a recent statement. “I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it’s significant.”

    How significant? Try some four million metric tons of methane since the 1970s. That’s more than 40 times the carbon equivalent of all the methane released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.

    “We calculate that methane equivalent in volume to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is released every year off the Washington coast,” said Solomon.

    The researcher and his colleagues say they are still shocked at these results, because the great majority of these kinds of methane releases were expected to occur in the Arctic. However, other recent studies have found that there are more than 500 active methane vents along the US East Coast as well, spiking carbon release from the Atlantic Ocean by 90 metric tons annually.

    Still, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the West Coast’s releases.

    So how was this all determined? Co-author Una Miller first collected thousands of historic temperature measurements in a region off the Washington coast as part of a separate research project. Once she realized what she was seeing, she took her work to Solomon and his colleagues.

    “Even though the data was raw and pretty messy, we could see a trend,” Miller said. “It just popped out.”

    “We began the collaboration when we realized this [ocean warming] is also [at] the most sensitive depth for methane hydrate deposits,” added co-author Susan Hautala.

    She believes ocean currents could also be warming intermediate-depth waters spanning from Northern California to Alaska, where frozen methane deposits are also known to exist.

    The researchers are quick to add that while this paints a bleak picture for the future of climate change mitigation, they still don’t know where any of this released methane gas will end up. The majority of it could be consumed by bacteria in seafloor sediments or in the water, effectively halting its release into the atmosphere. However, a consequence of this, one we are likely already seeing, would be increased ocean acidification.

  • I need warp speed now Scotty!

    At this juncture I personally wanna thank all the miltarists and their supporters for their dedicated service to empire and for vigorously promoting the Fourth Reich. Coming soon. Murka’s new look police force. The more things change the more they stay the same. I see I-S-I-S has become the new Emmanuel Goldstein.

    Whatever y’all decide to do when the grocery story shelves are empty and the electrical grid has failed with no hope of restoration, please don’t venture into the hinterlands looking for life’s essentials. Everyone out here is armed, crack shots and can always use the compost. 8-)

    Stay warm (that is if you know how to dress appropriately). Around -20° F. this morning. That ought to kill a few bugs.

  • Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs
    I was raised on Edgar Cayce, Pyramid Power, UFOs, Reincarnation etc. etc.
    I rebelled by embracing science, when I quickly realized it was largely full of shit too. I absolutely love Nantucket limericks. I had no idea “To Whit” had an “h” in it. The pope also says it’s bad not to have kids — idiot. People are addicted to large rewards for high risk. Gotta a good laugh at the Mark of Caine thing. Comments here are fun and funny.

    The UFO thing is largely a desire for a savior. I have no doubt about the evidence, but I would sooner believe they are us, than aliens. Life is precious. The habitable zone also applies on the galaxy scale. Not only are we in that zone, but our peculiar moon, along with Jupiter and Saturn help protect us. Earth is just right in so-o-o-o many ways. So is water. I now realize, there are no answers, only questions. Physicists finally admitted recently that they don’t have a clue.

  • Chimps kill, when a bad leader takes over, they kill more.
    Bonobos are chimp cousins, who are way more peaceful.
    Neanderthals — if you can’t fight ‘em, fuck ‘em, they didn’t kill themselves off.
    We believe in Life After Dearth because, we are smart enough to know we will die.
    Since we can’t function day-to-day knowing we’ll die,
    we have become crazy with a high degree of functionality.
    Indigenous tribal harmony is directly related to their ecological-energy balance.
    You don’t need too much energy or work to survive in equatorial regions.
    Whitey is fucked up because of the harshness of their ecological-energy heritage.
    If I were smart, i would publish. Most PhDs are so specialized they have little to do with practical life. Knowing why ants always twitch to the left when they fart doesn’t necessarily qualify you solve humanity’s problems.
    There is no life after death because it makes zero sense.
    There are no multiple parallel universes.
    We cannot travel through black holes.
    Evolution is an inadequate theory of life.
    Our planet has many unique characteristics for life to evolve.
    Most of the universe is too high energy for life to exist.

  • I’ve posted a new guest essay by a first-time author in this space. There’s more, too, of course. It’s here.

  • Although the UFO existence quandary always seems to bring an intriguing side dish to our menus, I for one can’t knock them for beating us to the intellectual punch. But if aliens can travel at Warp speeds through time waves and bypass black holes and F15s by cloaking themselves from view, they can surely help us resolve our Earthly problems.. … ET, if you’re here, I’m all ears. We need you asap! LOL

    Robert: “Physicists finally admitted recently that they don’t have a clue.”…. I just knew it! Actually, speaking of travel to the stars, some of them have been lost in space ever since Hawking’s ‘Brief History of Time’, but since the worm hole has not yet closed, they can always return to Houston.

    infanttyrone, Your proposal: ” Suggest you grab a copy of Harvard physics professor Lisa Randall’s Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions.”… MMMMMmmmmm? Thanks…. I have a first cousin who teaches at Harvard and so I’ll ask her if she would recommend Lisa’s ‘Warped Passages”… but since I have a reluctance to believe what most people believe anyway, I will have to go the extra mile to believe that someone with a human mind could actually unravel the Mysteries of the Universe (the concept of a single universe is as oxymoronic as it gets) and its hidden dimensions with any sense of credibility beyond that of my 10 year old flashlight batteries. Sorry….

  • Callaghan-

    A savior??????????? YOU are the first person in this conversation to raise this. DO NOT infer YOUR reasoning onto others when it has no bases to the discussion.

    Your comment is typical of debunkers who attempt to discredit UFOs by throughing in a bunch of other garbage. Sound familiar? The same tacit is employed by the climate change deniers.

    Same shit just a different day.


    Well done.

    I concur with the conclusions reached by Dr. David Jacobs and Dr. Ron Westrum.

    In the not too distant future we will discover the answer to all this high strangeness, and it does not bode well for humanity.

    MESSAGE to the skeptics and debunkers:


  • FRIEDRICH KLING, DANIEL, SABINE, OLD GROWTH … Although I have been reading ALL of your posts for over a year, I’m going to dare to make my first comment here ever.

    I’m a bit afraid because I am not a good writer. Besides, almost everything I would like to express has already been done here by better voices. I see and admire all the past thoughts even when they conflict with each other. On this brief time scale it seems many humans have been evolving with various expressions at different rates?

    Is my Mayan maid an alien? Am I illegal to an Inca? Is a non carbon based life-form only A.I. or could it be allowed the consideration of understanding electromagnetic energy fields that carbon humans are only beginning to tap at CERN & Fermi labs.

    Does only human scale awareness count when it comes to understanding the full spectrum of invisible light waves? Can you allow forms of life to co-exist on earth that do not share your same frequency? Did you move into their frequency with radio waves sporting news, twitters, ultra sonic communications, microwaves, brand new invasive 4-G networks?

    You use photon dimensions and call them “yours”? Is that why “others” who share the bio-sphere do not exist in your reality? Denial of other levels because all energies are your to use? Why all the questions & fear when no real harm has been done to humans by the possible co-existance of something in “your” space? Such limits in a virtually unlimited multi-verse? You have seen inside every single grain of sand on the beach? You have explored every corner of every galaxy? From microscope to telescope is it even distantly possible to fathom you might not have seen everything yet? Dare to share bio-space with some that came from nowhere? Going nowhere? Doing something other that what you do in your realm. Staying mostly out of the way. Silent. Careful. Sometimes even helpful? You expand eagerly on technology but G-forces forbid if any other sort of intrusion disturbs the mental solitaire. Be aware, far beyond any and all passing rates of extinction there is much more to reality than you may care to admit.

    For those like Morganne Picard & Jon Crossen who did encounter an orb of light, they know it was not man-made. Neither DARPA nor Biogen do the sphere of transformation. Of course you have to truly encounter it to begin to accept that it is not a blue beam projection. It helps when the expirence takes place in a natural setting. Far from lazers or anything of human origin. Swift. Soft. Friendly. Pura Vida creation. Live, transform, learn ? return?

    … get out there …then you will probably know a bit more in the boundless spectrum of probability fields. An asteroid, Methane burp and Yellowstone eruption are all factored in your actuarial tables. Anything you might not have yet included in your data base of destruction? Are you sure you know every single factor of what might happen next?

    Is your reality so out of control that nothing from NOWHERE can possibly change it? A singularity to human ego above all? Nothing else can possibly interact with your current consumer track? In that case, it was still interesting sharing space. I bet some of your species might have already gone to where most think it is impossible to go.

    Go as you will. Even a stupid nuclear war is a way of facing extreme transformation. Entropy is a powerful energy cycle. Atoms are always flowing somewhere. Some are so sure of exactly where everything going they are welcome to get there…or at least that a temporal concept of their…but of course each fingerprint & snowflake are unique…No reason you can’t learn something from this time here. No matter what strikes some impressions survive. Sort of like your computer records are stored in the i-cloud. The Quantum is a fact. Positive & Neg. Dark Matter & light. It’s what every particle of your body is composed of. Trust us, the ultimate Dept of Energy has been around for awhile. Tune in. Drop out. Laugh. Dismiss. Forgive? let go…”only love survives”.. now that’s exacytly where you had me at hello.

  • There are signs in space pointing to earth & families from other planets come here often.

    The signs say,ZOO.