When All is Said and Done

I’m copying below, verbatim, an essay I posted 9 May 2012. I’ve added a few introductory words and an embedded song. Please note the new classified ad at the bottom of the post, which is also copied atop the CLASSIFIEDS page. I’ve also included links to recent interviews.

“The feeling about a soldier is, when all is said and done, he wasn’t really going to do very much with his life anyway. The example usually is: he wasn’t going to compose Beethoven’s Fifth.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut

The situation has worsened considerably, on every front, since this essay was posted four years ago. The trend will continue, on every front, until we gleefully grind the remaining shards of the living planet into dust.

Contrary to my previous writings, patriarchy apparently is the only way to live. This most horrific of civilizations is the only approach we’re willing to tolerate.


Fascism has come to the industrialized world, and the evidence is particularly clear in the United States. As I wrote in a book published in 2004 regarding the executive branch of the U.S. government:

[The administration] is characterized by powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism, identification of enemies as a unifying cause, obsession with militaristic national security and military supremacy, interlinking of religion and the ruling elite, obsession with crime and punishment, disdain for the importance of human rights and intellectuals who support them, cronyism, corruption, sexism, protection of corporate power, suppression of labor, control over mass media, and fraudulent elections. These are the defining elements of fascism.

The situation has progressed, and not in a suitable manner from the perspective of the typical self-proclaimed progressive. Along with fascism, we’re firmly ensconced in a totalitarian, surveillance-obsessed police state. We’ve been in this state for many years and the situation grows worse every year, but most people prefer to look away and then claim ignorance while politicians claim we’re not the people indicated by our actions. As long as you’re not in jail (yet) or declared a terrorist (yet) and subsequently killed outright (yet), you’re unlikely to bring attention to yourself, regardless what you know and feel about the morality of the people running ruining the show.

But why? Is fear such a great motivator that we allow complete destruction of the living planet to give ourselves a few more years to enable and further the destruction? Is the grip of culture so strong we cannot break free in defense of planetary habitat for our children? Have we moved so far away from the notion of resistance that we can’t organize a potluck dinner without seeking permission from the Department of Homeland Security?

I know many parents who claim they can’t take action because they want a better world for their children. Their version of a “better world” is my version of a worse world, as they long for growth of the industrial economy at the expense of clean air, clean water, healthy food, the living planet, runaway greenhouse, and human-population overshoot. I’ve come to call this response “the parent trap.” Trapped by the culture of make believe, these parents cannot bring themselves to imagine a different world. A better world. A world without the boot of the police state on the necks of their children. A world with more carnivores every year, instead of fewer. A world with less pollution, less garbage, and less lying — to ourselves and others — each and every year.

All evidence indicates we prefer Fukushima forever, if it means we can have electric toys. We prefer near-term extinction by climate chaos, if it means we can cool the house to 68 F in the summer. We prefer genocide, if it comes with a milkshake and an order of fries. Henry Ford was wrong when he pointed out, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” On the other hand, General Omar Bradley’s sentiments from 1948 ring true: “The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.”

Even though we’re willingly tapping six scary extreme energy sources to fuel the post-peak oil industrial economy, power outages have become exponential within the last decade, as indicated in the figure below. We clearly don’t care about the environmental consequences of our greed, so we keep soldiering on, wishing for a miracle and ignoring the evidence for imperial decline, human-population overshoot, runaway climate change, and a profound extinction crisis. Will the final power outage come in time to save us from our unrepentant selves?

Ultimately and sadly, I suspect it comes down to this: When all is said and done, a lot more is said than done. We simply can’t be bothered to contemplate a single issue of importance when the television calls or the shopping mall beckons. Political “activists” spend hours every day elaborating the many insignificant differences between the two dominant political parties in this country, but they cannot bring themselves to throw a wrench into the gears of industry. They continue to ignore the prescient words of Desmond Tutu long after the consequences of inaction are obvious: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

The only reason I can imagine wanting to retain this horrific system for a few more years is to safely shut down the nuclear reactors that are poised to kill us. But increasing the number of these uber-expensive sources of electricity, as President Obama desires, means shoving more ammunition into the Gatling gun pointed at our heads. One bullet does the trick. In classic American style, we prefer more. Always more.

How much of this is too much? When have you had enough?


McPherson was interviewed by Rick Chicago for The People Speak radio on 31 May 2016. Details and audio are available here.

McPherson was interviewed by Michael Welch for the Global Research News Hour on 2 May 2016. Download or listen here.

Comments 138

  • This ones for your Guy.

  • … something worth saying … especially those who have paid attention to the predictive statements of dedicated scientific researchers Igor Semelitov & Natalia Shakhova.

    Temperatures above the Arctic Circle hitting 80 degrees F.

    The sudden Arctic heatwave and rapid related melt involvement of the ESS and Laptev is just the most recent melt spike in a polar ocean that sees ice extent levels hitting new record lows with each passing day.

    As of June 2nd, the expanse of Arctic Sea ice only measured 10.37 million square kilometers. This is about 430,000 square kilometers below the previous daily record low set just last year and fully ten days ahead of the record sea ice melt year of 2012.
    Arctic sea ice extent new record lows.

    search; Robertscribbler


    “We lose those we love
    when they fail to let go
    of the lies they believe.”

    By John Kaminski

    When you tell the truth, you risk losing everything you have, including those you love.

    This is the curse of recognizing truth, and acting on it. Blowing the whistle jeopardizes everything you have accumulated in this life, your relationships, your possessions, your reputation. It can get worse if you offend the wrong people. As it has for so many, it can cost you your life.

    We live in a world constructed on a giant pile of lies. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. If you just say the right words you will live forever. Good always wins out in the end. None of these things are true, yet we believe them, and ostracize those iconoclasts who deny them.

    Northerntruthseeker: Newest Article From John Kaminski: The Curse Of Knowing

  • Does anyone even read and understand what Guy”s essay is saying. On not being called a terrorist (yet). All… and I mean all of the people who post here besides hubbard are listed as terrorist whether you speak militantly on the current predicament are not. Are you all so incredibly naïve that you don’t know that the lovely humans at homeland are champing at the bit to torture you all in the most horrific maximum security prisons they have for only discussing the truth here at NBL. They HATE,HATE,did I say hate you for challenging their worldview. This is a culture of death and hate only waiting to exercise its psychotic dreams of pain. Even a superficial reading of history proves my point. So go on and whiningly protest against the more militant views here and rest assured that you will be raped in a cell next to the most tepid among you.

  • We’ve ‘painted ourselves into a corner’ (as it were), Guy.

    Stopping Industrial Civilization should have been the order of the day in the early 1800’s, or even further back, but won’t help now, even if it were possible (due to all the damage already done).

    The Structure of Collapse: 2016-2019

    Leaders face a no-win dilemma: any change of course will crash the system, but maintaining the current course will also crash the system.

    The end-state of unsustainable systems is collapse. Though collapse may appear to be sudden and chaotic, we can discern key structures that guide the processes of collapse.

    Though the subject is complex enough to justify an entire shelf of books, these six dynamics are sufficient to illuminate the inevitable collapse of the status quo.

    [i’ll only highlight the numbered points, read the article for complete analysis by Mr. Smith]

    1. Doing more of what has failed spectacularly.

    2. Emergency measures become permanent policies.

    3. Diminishing returns on status quo solutions.

    4. Declining social mobility.

    5. The social order loses cohesion and shared purpose as the social-economic classes pull apart.

    6. Strapped for cash as tax revenues decline, the state borrows more money and devalues its currency as a means of maintaining the illusion that it can fulfill all its promises.

    [ends with]

    Since real reform would threaten those at the top of the wealth/power pyramid, fake reforms and fake economic data become the order of the day.

    Leaders face a no-win dilemma: any change of course will crash the system, but maintaining the current course will also crash the system.

    Welcome to 2016-2019.

  • Here is a line from Gerald’s great essay suggestion.

    “Lately I’m seeing families torn apart by the recognition that 9/11 was a lie, that Hitler was the good guy, and that Jews control the world.”

    Gerald, I bet you only promote this trash on line eh? I say that because I bet you don’t have the balls to speak it in publicly. I know of at least 1 person who would put your stupid fucking head through a wall if you said your verbal diarrhea while in the same room with him and it would not have anything to do with defending empire.

    You’re a fucking piece of shit Gerald. And so is NBL for letting you spew your vile.

  • 9/11 was a lie? Correct.
    Hitler was a good guy? Wrong.
    Jews control the world? An exaggeration, but they do have a surprisingly big clout in places like the US government.

  • .
    Yeah I had a buddy who liked to put folks head through walls when they told him stuff that upset him.
    He was big, strong and ignorant of any truth but his own.

  • Daily CO2

    June 3, 2016: 408.25 ppm

    June 3, 2015: 402.90 ppm

    Up 5.35 ppm (versus 2005-2014 average of 2.11 ppm)


    Andrew Little, leader of the NZ Labour Party, with whom 5 years ago I started to discuss the details of our collective collision course with reality before he suddenly pulled the plug on discussion of reality, recently gave a speech in which he outlined how Labour would work with the Greens ‘to build a better New Zealand’.

    My response is below. And I must say that that at least TDB does not indulge in the kind of censorship we are witnessing in many places these days:

    ‘Little’s speech sounds impressive if you don’t examine the details and recognise that it is full of mutually exclusive concepts. But that is what politics has degenerated into over the past couple of decades, hasn’t it? -a whole load of drivel that sounds impressive but completely lacks substance and is full of mutually exclusive concepts.

    Little tells us: ‘We support an economy that creates the next generation of jobs, which adds to the nation’s wealth, which modernises our economy and improves our standard of living.’ and ‘The government I lead will make our country a leader in the fight against climate change.’

    Sorry Andrew, these are mutually exclusive concepts: choose one or the other. All jobs (except peasant farm work) are dependent on burning fossil fuels and destroying the future.

    By the way, there is no ‘add wealth’ -that is yet another delusion: all wealth is generated by nature; humans just convert natural wealth into stuff and waste using fossil fuels, and assign numbers (nowadays computer digits) to the processes. Indeed, most human activities destroy wealth.

    ‘We’ve worked closely on issues like our Manufacturing Inquiry and the future of our education system.’


    ‘And we know that development that contaminates the air we breathe, that chokes our lakes and waterways, or that damages our planet doesn’t serve our people and that we can and must do better.’

    ‘do better’ Really? Like what? All industrial activity contaminates the air we breathe and ‘damages our planet’. So which is it, Andrew? Manufacturing and development or a planet for your son to live on?

    ‘Our government will back people to get ahead, and reward their effort and ambition.’ So what does ‘get ahead’ mean Andrew? Acquire more material possessions manufactured at the expense of your son’s future? Or does it mean have more fraudulently created fiat digits in bank accounts?

    When it comes to the detail we see that it’s all bollocks but Andrew Little’s bollocks is not quite as socially destructive bollocks as the bollocks National and the other fascist parties have on offer.
    Obviously the game will continue until the players can’t keep up their misrepresentation and lies any longer.

    That point is approaching fast.’


  • “We’re on a runaway train, scientists are blowing the whistle, but politicians are still shovelling coal into the engine.”


  • @Andrew Taylor

    ” 9/11 was a lie? Correct.
    Hitler was a good guy? Wrong.
    Jews control the world? An exaggeration, but they do have a surprisingly big clout in places like the US government.

    Would have said the same, if you’d find out, that blond people or people with medium shoe size or people who prefer tea instead of coffee have a surprisingly big clout in places like the US government? RACE, RELIGION, NATIONALITY, HAIR-COLOR, SHOE-SIZE ECT IS NO ARGUMENT FOR CHARACTERIZING OTHER PEOPLE’S INTEGRITY.

    Your comment is demagogic, because you pick out some RACIAL FEATURE and put it in your trojan horse of racism and hatred against a race, a nationality, a religion. That’s a quite common behaviour nowadays in the End Times of Empire. It’s an ugly and mean behaviour.

  • While the masses fly with ease into the Abyss, a few crawl as survivors at pains on the floor to freedom and wisdom most of their life. Swimming against the current is pain, jumping into the Abyss without a second thought is rather easy.

  • Thanks nemesis, I can’t fight all the battles here. Goddam…, I am too emotional and greviously lacking in linguistic grace. And bob s and the rest of you patriarch fucks you will love this. By none other than Lierre Kieth. “The end of the world is a mass circle jerk of auto-erotic asphyxiation.” And so many, many, many, many, many morons that read and post here that don’t believe this whole industrial paradigm is not about my male genitalia is bigger than your male genitalia should ponder these words. Or “patriarchy would be boring if it wasn’t so destructive” Lierre Kieth . Yes ,yes all your sick scientific analysis is driven by what is between your legs and not by what is in your heart. And how would I know? Well after all I am “tiny whitey” Tiny mind ,freakishly small genetalia!

  • even the greatest are mortal. rip, champ

  • “The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.”
    Anyone paying attention can see we have surfed off the precipice whilst taking billions of ‘selfies’ the cognetive dissonance defies belief.
    We walk headlong into the abyss, eyes wide shut.
    As Michael C. Ruppert used to say ” Pass the Popcorn”
    Another great interview that Kiwi’s will be able to hear live in NZ in November when Guy will be touring with me in a vain hope to wake people up.

  • Howdy!

    “every living creature is a subject”
    There is only one subject; all others are apparent objects: “every living creature” is a perception, or a concept, and therefore an object. The creature is the subject only if I am that creature and I am doing the perceiving. It is a very basic prirciple in the Vedic and Buddhist traditions.

    Reality is the foundation of the subject; all objects are appearances within the subject.

    “extremely well versed on the history of world religions”

    Doesn’t count for diddly squat. There is physical knowledge (pratyekshagnyana) acquired through one’s senses, indirect knowledge (parokshagnyana), built up through inference or deduction, and direct knowledge (aparokshagnyana) such as “I am”. It is not dependent on perception or intellection, and is the only kind of awareness that counts.

    Consciousness cannot be researched: it is the researcher. Any entity separate from one’s self that is deemed to have consciousness and subject to study is an object of study: its presumed awareness is its own and is not experienced by the researcher. Until a “consciousness researcher” can directly experience another’s awareness, it ain’t consciousness research at all.

    Objects (prameya) never become the subject (pramatha) and vice versa. All objects are at best within a realm of conditioned and apparational reality (vyavarika satta). There is only one subject, just as there is one sun with with myriad reflections in dew drops to ocean waves.

    Consciousness is neither complex nor functional, just as the night sky remains black while sunlight streaming past earth on all sides does not illuminate space until it is reflected off some object such as a satellite, a planet or an asteroid. Consciousness without an object is the Void, as in Buddhism and in Kabbalah. Complex phenomena are within consciousness, not the other way around.

    Subjectivity cannot be known. The Knower (gnaani) cannot be the known (gneya). A knower is not functioning as a knower when it is the known. No one needs subjectivism, just as water does not “need” wetness.

    The Field and its Knower

    Science is a subset of knowledge; knowledge is a subset of awareness; awareness is a reflection of consciousness in a suitably configured reflecting medium (the neurochemical networks of the brain). For science, the configuration has to be adjusted to allow knowledge and then science.

    Ethical infants…

  • great essay, guy. good as anything derrick jensen’s written of comparable length, reminiscent of his writing. praise can’t get much higher.

    i wrote some lengthier replies earlier, but my damned computer’s giving me all kinds of grief, bottom line being i have to do things quick and get them sent before i have another freeze and have to shutdown and lose the work. oh well. my writing’s not nearly as good, so no great loss. one thing worth repeating is another quote from the great muhammad ali: ‘don’t count your days, make your days count’.

    kevin moore, good work as always, appreciated by me for what it’s worth.

  • Thanks for the Buddhist and Vedic traditions. I love them. And thanks for elaborating on them in the way you do.

    I do disagree about the prevailing definition of science being both the process and the knowledge that is established through the process. Science is a human construct, as is its definition. Consciousness is not a human construct, even if the word used to symbolize it is. Consciousness is an experience.

    Knowledge is not a human construct, either. Other animals possess knowledge, including knowledge that is learned from generation to generation. So, knowledge cannot be limited to science, a human construct, in the same way that math cannot. And I agree that the idea that knowledge is only valid if it is obtained through a scientific process has things quite backwards. That is not a realistic understanding of science or knowledge.

  • .
    Thanks for your comment Robin. And your picture … nice beanie cap, and you have wires coming out of you, like you really are Datta.

    That’s exactly why James Randi can’t possibly be doing experiments to falsify the things he claims to be falsifying. All he can be doing is validating his own experiences and perceptions, but he can’t rationally be using science to falsify another person’s experiences and perceptions. We can never be another persons experiences and perceptions, only our own. (I’m going to say that this is so, at least in terms of this conversation … I actually think deep empaths can and do experience parts of another person’s perceptions somewhat, but that’s beyond the scope of this comment.)

    The point being, I agree, another person’s consciousness cannot be studied, not directly. However, I think consciousness can be studied somewhat by using the self as both the subject and the observer, and by making the self a sort of laboratory for consciousness research. The trouble is … the results aren’t something easily shared with others. Nobody can really ever observe the experiments, or observe the results … only the self will have proof of what has or hasn’t been accomplished. But it can be discussed and shared with open minded and interested parties. Ideas can then be shared and taken into the lab of the self and experimented with, and in that way the observations can be experienced by multiple parties, though that’s a rare occurrence in today’s ‘externalized’ scientific world (at least that’s been my experience as a consciousness researcher.)

    That’s how I’ve conducted my research on consciousness, by experimenting on myself. An important aspect in my research was to never let outside opinions (such as those of science) dictate to me what was or wasn’t possible. I’ve had many experiences, sustained ones too, that defy what science says is possible. So much so that I’m not really on the same page as most other humans I meet about how our world is constructed. Trouble is, it’s not knowledge I can easily share. Most people just believe what the scientists say, which is very limiting in my view. My personal course in miracles has been useful only to myself mostly. I have been able to get others to repeat some of my experiments to a certain degree, and with success … but usually they are too busy to turn that into their own field of consciousness study, one applied to themselves. They’re too busy being certain about other things to really bother it seems. It’s made for a rather lonely field of study.

    I imagine the vedics as a bunch of people exploring their own consciousnesses, and then verbally sharing their discoveries with each other in order to organize a bigger picture view of reality. However, we just don’t live in that sort of a society anymore, at least I don’t. Oh well … I try and live without absolute certainties and without defined expectations … so it just is what it is. It’s been a fun lab to mess around in though, I’ll say that much. Better than working for a living, lol. :)

    One of my motto’s is, “my internal quantum research is not dependent on your external beliefs.”

    Thanks for your comment Mr. Datta … me likey the vedic stuff … from the land before time, before we got stupid.

  • LWA: “A Christian opens his bible, a literalist … and the scientist turns to his cited publications, a literalist. Both have cemented beliefs..”

    This is only true when people are doing science wrong; it is not at all part and parcel of science to have “cemented beliefs”, rather a “defect” in human nature that better scientists try to work against regardless of the degree to which their chances of success are limited.

    The way science works is to propose an hypothesis and then test it in a way which is repeatable and the results reproducible. That is it; that’s all “science” is. The way science works is to always be questioning; whereas the way religion works is not to question at all. 180° opposite, really, and presenting them as anything similar is misleading to say the least.

    It may well be more correct to say that humans highjack the process of science to religious ends (as a means of power, control, subjugation, and energy extraction). So what else is new? Humans have done the same thing with every technology they have come across: from sticks and rocks to language, religion, and now science. Because science and language are used to the same ENDS as religion and all other tools (increasing human biomass) does not make those processes identical, anymore than a sweater is identical to a fireplace is identical to a warm dog, except to the extent that it is all in the service of US. As things always have been and always will be for ourselves until the demise of our species. Just as beavers endeavor to create a beaver universe and ants go about trying to create an ant universe (my many itchy welts can attest to this).

    Ogf wants a harmonious planet, but also to have access to modern medicine. Oops, it doesn’t work that way. I recall reading that earlier peoples made up stories that such-and-such animal “gave itself up” to nourish a human, as though that “self-sacrifice” (koff, koff) might imply a higher destiny than in not doing so. And yet it’s only modern westerners who have a messed-up worldview? Whether your chicken is served up by Tyson or whether it just jumps into your pot of its own spiritual accord.. it’s still in service to furthering an increase in human biomass, an energetic process which goes ahead in exponential fashion until it reaches physical limits, as with every other earthly process.

    Those crazy scientists: “‘An important implication of these findings is that we need to protect large-brain mammals,” Gonzalez Suarez said. “These species are more vulnerable, and losing them means losing unique creatures that can learn from each other, develop culture, use tools, and form complex social groups.’ The scientists detailed their findings online May 9 in the journal Evolution.”

    A real scientist wouldn’t use the word “need”, I don’t think. There is no inherent “need” for any being to use tools, or to form complex social groups (smaller-brained species do both of these things anyway..).

    It’s easy to see why perceptive people might get fed up with “science”. But blaming science for people’s mistakes is like blaming physics for Bill Buckner’s losing the World Series. We don’t want to lose, but the cards are what they are. What is the point of imagining human #winning, when that was never in the cards to begin with?

  • If Scientists are soooo smart, then why cant they save us from destroying ourselves. They say we evolved and Life arose spontaneously. Then create it in a lab ! Scientists got us into this mess and we are relying on them to get us out ? That is insanity ! Humans lived in harmony with this nice planet Earth until the idiot scientists came in and made sure we would all kill ourselves and every other living thing that our wonderful God created. Now we are going to witness God Himself come and clean up this mess we made and He will dwell here on Earth and in our hearts for the next 1000 years. Amen, Come quickly Lord Jesus !

  • @ogf wrote, “I do disagree about the prevailing definition of science being both the process and the knowledge that is established through the process. Science is a human construct, as is its definition. … Knowledge is not a human construct, either. Other animals possess knowledge, including knowledge that is learned from generation to generation. So, knowledge cannot be limited to science, a human construct, in the same way that math cannot. “

    But why would you insist on the distinction between human and non-human, if not for political reasons? If other beings can explore their environment, test hypotheses, and carry knowledge on to their offspring, are they not doing “science”?

    I would think so.

    Why limit the practice of science to humans?

    Isn’t knowledge the product of science? I.e., the product of testing reproducible hypotheses until arriving at a workable and reliable basis of understanding? If I build nest at height X, I have a greater chance of avoiding predator Y… It doesn’t matter whether you think animal/plant intelligences are deterministic or not.. I would argue that one still has to put them on the same level as any sort of human “intelligence”. I “believe in” a process of biological evolution, but I think organisms have a degree of innate “intelligence” that tends to make their chances of reproductive success higher than 50/50. (Which “intelligence” is likely driven by thermodynamic factors, is my current belief: the more success at amassing power, the more procreative efflorescence.)

    Species which lack written language are likely to be at a certain disadvantage as far as passing on their knowledge. Also, knowledge is only contextually valid: what worked in wet years doesn’t work in drought years… Seriously, ogf, all beings are subject to the same issues and constraints, whatever the origin of said beings, issues, and constraints, don’t you think?

  • “Ogf wants a harmonious planet, but also to have access to modern medicine.”

    That’s a misrepresentation of me. I don’t know that I’ve ever stated that I want a “harmonious planet.” And for the record, in my view the planet is harmonious enough. People aren’t harmonious if the destruction of the planet is any indication, but I think the planet is works just fine. I wouldn’t change it, myself. But people aren’t “the planet,” are they?

    I do have access to modern medicine. I don’t just want it, I have it.

  • In the Land of Oz, we live in a nanny state; the excuse is they are trying to “Protect us”! “From ourselves”! laws for everything to protect us from our intelligence, common sense and creativity.Dont plan step outside easily, the costs are crippling with council fees and red tape, insane laws abound about owning a piece of land for the bush escape lifestyle, and the construction industry wants their piece, to do it their way with concrete. And each year a new more “important officer” is installed to add his new laws, to the already overcrowded bureaucracy and bullshit.
    The bureaucracy protects the system, propped up by the myths we are expected to all believe…to get ahead is to be in DEBT. The bubble in Sydney is beyond belief, every new corner has a HUGE block of units going up with no infrastructure to support the community .the Mantra is “Get an asset and you will be moving forward getting a future for your kids”. “Jobs and Growth’ The debt trap/myth is reinforced by the estate agents/ developers obscene in their command of this, propped debt from the Chinese/American debt ,house prices have gone up 200% in the last 10 years.Fucking dream world. Nobody can buy a home without the bank owning them past their death. Or the self-important baby boomers who bought houses 40 years ago when it was dirt cheap, parade around arrogant in their fancy cars living on the back of luck, and believing it was self-made. Or the workers and families on the bottom line to buy a house, who move out of the city and travel 2 hours to their new outer suburbs, built each month, to commute to work each day each person will need to be burning more fossil fuels, poison more rivers, soils. The governments pat themselves on the back because they have built a bus line and new rail line. Nobody mentions the discarded that get sick and the people forced out, or the ones that just go crazy as their burden was too high
    The developers should be the ones in Goal, what they are doing to those outer suburbs building, miles and miles of the same cheap horrible houses crammed in like sardines is criminal. They are creating hollow, lifeless, ghettos
    I live in the inner city, most parents I know are totally entrenched in the debt system and industrialised living, they have to believe the lie harder, the stress is so great, and repayments so crippling and they have to hold on to their jobs to keep up the myth alive. The kids are laden with shit they don’t need, living into some sort of dream word that exists with consumerism and gadgets busy within the system so they have a future.
    You need a stupid doctor’s certificate for each day our child is sick or department of community services will pay a visit. You can’t just pack up for a few days and go away as we did as kids. Nobody seems to challenge this, and other countless crap. As Guy says we live in a growing fascist system, and it gets worse and worse each week. For myself and my family we “stay out of debt!” make it important to see the bullshit, live with simplicity, get out and appreciate and engage with nature ,music and the arts, love family friends and be there for the people on the same page. Most of all challenge Fascism and the lies of industrial civilisation.
    But the traps abound all around, and it is hard work to doge them, but we must! I have no problems offending someone with the truth. If that helps? I don’t know, the bottom line is I can make changes in my life to free myself and family as much as I can and the biosphere where I can.


  • mod note

    Lidia ~

    I’m not making exceptions for those overposts. you know where the basement is. please use it as necessary. thank you.

    ~ mo

  • .

    Where we seem to get on different pages is that you assume humans have always operated from their ego self … seeking dominance and supremacy (for whatever reasons you imagine that to be the structure and path of all life on the planet.) I happen to have a perspective of both experiences … first one from the ego dominated perspective … and then eventually from the perspective of having had the ego self somewhat restrained, which allows for a whole other set of perceptions to enter into the consciousness.

    Once you view some of this very old knowledge, like the vedic knowledge, or shamanic knowledge, with the ego self slightly restrained, it becomes clearly recognizable knowledge demonstrating that humans have not always been on this path of self glory and greed like an automaton. But to speak to someone about this who has only ever had, and still maintains, the perspective of a mind dominated by the ego self, it’s impossible to even have the discussion … you only know what you know, and you only see what you can see from your perspective, and it’s impossible to talk to you about what you simply can’t perceive. It’s like you have a limited view of reality from my perspective.

    I used to think like you too Lidia. Then I raised my consciousness. You don’t accept there is such a thing. So, how can we ever relate? We can’t I don’t think. The whole problem with science is exactly that it’s whole requirement is that the only things it accepts are the things that are 100% repeatable on command, and 100% reproducible every time reproduction is attempted. The fact is, there are things going on around us that don’t fit into this category, so that makes science a pretty limited belief system for organizing reality with. And when it becomes god, like it has, we get the sort of world we see … a very limited and dysfunctional one (at least as far as humans are concerned.) The scientific method is flawed, plain and simple. It’s only useful if you want to use it to study rocks and a few other things that show absolute constancy at all times. It’s plainly too limited, yet scientists have upheld it as the only path to what is real. That’s a big problem. It excludes a lot of things that do in fact exist, just not with as much constancy as a rock.

    Science uses its method for falsification to liberally … that’s a race to the bottom, by exclusion of many a thing that are indeed very real. It was a bad system, and just as inflexible as the empire religions … it’s in that regard that I call them the same. They are the same expression of hubristic certainty, and of an inability to reflect on it’s own limitations. It’s the same behavior as the false religions of empire … rigidity and absolute certainty, with an inability to see how it’s ideas are limited. That’s how I consider them to be the same.

    If science truly remained open to new ideas … Einstein wouldn’t have stopped the double slit experiment the way he did. Instead, he religiously refused to accept a new idea, a new paradigm … even with solid empirical proof. Dawkins won’t examine his own positions either. It’s the same behavior as a born again fundamentalist Christian exhibits. That’s why, from my quite different perspective from either position, that I call them one and the same … because of the behavior being identical … forget the ‘knowledge base.’ It’s the behavior that makes them the same pattern of thinking. Closed minded and hubristic. I guess they call that dogmatic.

  • 9/11 was a lie? Check plus, and Guy agrees!
    Hitler was a good guy? Moronic. Hitler was a front man for the German capitalist class and in fact his regime cooperated with international finance via the BIS, multinational banks such as Union Bank (run by Prescott Bush, father of president Bush I, grandfather of W) and W Averell Harriman, a key architect of the New Deal), Texaco Oil and GM/Dupont. Read “Trading With the Enemy” by Charles Hingham, 1982.
    Jews control the world? ASSHOLE! Some people in the ruling elite are Jewish by background, most are not.
    John Kaminski started off in 2001 writing some good dissenting stuff. He went off the deep end. I was in communication with him, could see the swerving towards the edge. This society tends to drive people who are not 100% numbed towards the edge, either because they become aware of how perverse it is or because they get frustrated with the overwhelming numbness on the part of the populace.

  • sometimes it good to know when the odds are stacked against you, one benefit of media and internet is the ability to enjoy some old footage, which I do, of comedy routines and a recent penchant for 50’s country music. Of course I miss the ideals of what could be, but am not wasting time lamenting or energy trying to affect some troglodytes mentality to a proactive strategy to preserve nature, thus habitat. Rather, I’m just letting the chips fall where they may and readying to be useful as situations emerge. If there is a god, and he created human beings in his image, and allowed them to wreak havoc in this way, then He is an asshole.

  • The idea that one person can directly experience another person’s awaroness, if promoted seriously in modern times is a ticket to the loon bin. It cannot effectively be discussed or brought up except amongst those who have themselves completely sloughed all sense of a separate, discrete (not discreet), constrained self, and have thereby become unrestricted, universal empaths.

    Yes, for such beings there is no boundary between self and other, but one would have to have unusually good karma to come across such a being in one human lifetime. And then one would have to be such a being oneself to recognise other such beings for what they are.

  • The important distinction between religious scripture and a hypothesis
    in a scientific paper is that the hypothesis is testable and will be tested. It will not be accepted ‘on faith’. Some scientific papers (in theoretical physics)will contain hypotheses which cannot be tested,but the line of demarcation between testable hypotheses and theoretical conjecture
    is always understood by the scientists working in that field.

    Nice rant,Henry Holt.Crazier each year.

    A society going insane? Sounds about right. Matt Taibbi’s ‘The Great Derangement’ was interesting reading.

  • What’s happened to the megacancer site,James?

  • “I know many parents who claim they can’t take action because they want a better world for their children. Their version of a “better world” is my version of a worse world, as they long for growth of the industrial economy at the expense of clean air, clean water, healthy food, the living planet, runaway greenhouse, and human-population overshoot. I’ve come to call this response “the parent trap.” Trapped by the culture of make believe, these parents cannot bring themselves to imagine a different world. A better world. A world without the boot of the police state on the necks of their children. A world with more carnivores every year, instead of fewer. A world with less pollution, less garbage, and less lying — to ourselves and others — each and every year.”

    Well said, Guy. The “parent trap”… I see it all around me.


    Lidia said: “The way science works is to propose an hypothesis and then test it in a way which is repeatable and the results reproducible. That is it; that’s all “science” is. The way science works is to always be questioning

    If that is all Science is, modern man has no monopoly on Science. The scientific method has been in use for much longer than a few hundred years. But somehow, perhaps because “The way science works is to always be questioning”, we haven’t come to an agreement yet on what exactly constitutes the proper scientific method:

    The history of scientific method is a history of the methodology of scientific inquiry, as differentiated from a history of science in general. The development and elaboration of rules for scientific reasoning and investigation has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and many eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of one or another approach to establishing scientific knowledge. Despite the many disagreements about primacy of one approach over another, there also have been many identifiable trends and historical markers in the several-millennia-long development of scientific method into present-day forms..

    This Wikipedia page is edited some 80 times per year so can we assume this is as much agreement as can be reached by Scientists from a variety of camps? Which is to say, not a whole lot of agreement?

    When we say, “That is it; that’s all “science” is”, we’re working hard to come up with a workable definition of the thing (and that’s a worthwhile effort), but we are also putting this thing on a pedestal, dissociating it from the way humans who practice this thing actually behave, purifying it and protecting it as a first principle that is not subject to real world road tests and ultimately relegating it to an island where it exists all by itself, unsullied by the sometimes-irrational nature of the scientists who are supposed to apply it in the real world. Any misapplication then would be the fault of the scientist and Science itself retains its halo of purity.

    This is a good example of how modern man strives to attain clarity of mind. Dividing things up into islands of conceptual purity and ultimately, when things don’t work out as planned, chalking it up to those irrational and stupid human beings who simply don’t get it. It would seem eminently rational to deduce that any workable and sustainable culture necessarily takes into account the proclivities and predispositions of its participants. But modern technological culture fails at this and the consequences of the reductive approach have been disastrous. A study of indigenous societies would reveal that they have been adept at understanding human psychology and have successfully built their cultures taking into account man’s propensity to be somewhat unpredictable, somewhat moody and emotional, occasionally petulant, envious, jealous and yet generally reasonable, appreciative of justice and equality, by and large seeking beauty and harmony in relationships with each other and the natural world they are part of. This is how human beings have thrived for 99% of our history on the planet.

    It’s become quite fashionable these days to talk about the irrational behavior of man. Yes, man is sometimes irrational but man is generally rational. A man is not a machine. In the age of the machine, the word “irrational” has acquired such a negative connotation that we have become such self-loathing participants in a culture that seeks to point out to us how we are not “perfect” little machines ourselves. A Martian anthropologist passing by planet Earth and looking at what goes on here would laugh at how we dole out Nobel prizes to Economists who after much diligent scholarly research and field studies conclude that we are not consistently rational, narrowly self-interested agents whose behavior is predicted by statistical models! A 12 year old child could tell us that. Homo Economicus is a bust!

    Even so, when we did finally admit to ourselves that we are not rational, how come those of us that are the most rational failed to create a workable and sustainable culture that successfully takes into account man’s irrationality? Any rational culture-maker would have quickly and surely figured out a long time ago that his fellow men were not so rational after all. We have known that for a long time despite pretending otherwise every now and then over the last few hundred years of the machine age. These are rhetorical questions. We know the answers. Hint: TPTB

    It is no wonder that the propensity to see the creation around us in deterministic terms, as a vast machine where outcomes have already been long-established according to the principles of Physics… it is no wonder that such a propensity leads to defining Science in ways that are unrelated to the psychology of the participants that are tasked to apply it and draw conclusions from it. Is that how we build a repository of knowledge these days?

    Let’s go back to that definition of Science: “The way science works is to propose an hypothesis and then test it in a way which is repeatable and the results reproducible.”

    At some point, after we have paid our obeisance to Science defined as above, it would be instructive to look at what goes on in the name of Science… what actually transpires in the laboratories where Science is “carried out”. It’s one thing to study the motion of physical objects to establish laws of motion or derive formulas for acceleration, it’s one thing to drop a ball repeatedly from the top of a building to study the law of gravity and determine the standard acceleration due to gravity , but it’s a whole another thing to repeatedly torture a dog, a living breathing being, a fellow earthling, and starve it while collecting its saliva in a test tube. Apparently the volume of the saliva so collected leads to important discoveries about the behavior of dogs. Is that Science? What’s absent from the (metaphorical) equation here?

    Or take “Citizen Science”, popularly exemplified by the weekend expedition to one of the last remaining marsh lands just outside the city where a group of amateur “citizen scientists”, young and old, would be herded around by “real scientists” as they identify the species and count the number of birds and enter it all into a smartphone app to be later updated into a database. If you can’t identify a bird, no problem, just take a picture with the smartphone and it will tell you. A couple of hours of such “bird watching” and the group disperses, having participated in Science!

    Or take this editorial in the esteemed journal “Science” – Protecting isolated tribes, written up by two so-called anthropologists. Here’s their conclusion on the question of whether civilized man should make contact with the last remaining uncontacted tribes in the world:

    “Given that isolated populations are not viable in the long term, well-organized contacts are today both humane and ethical. We know that soon after peaceful contact with the outside world, surviving indigenous populations rebound quickly from population crashes, ,with growth rates over 3% per year.”

    What matters is the growth rate and survival of the physical bodies of the natives, it doesn’t matter if their culture is destroyed, doesn’t matter if their stories and traditions are disrupted, doesn’t matter whether they even want contact or not, it’s about numbers, the growth rate. Notice the deterministic viewpoint at play here: “Given that isolated populations are not viable in the long term”. This too is Science! The obsession with measurable aspects of reality and the dismissal of all other aspects is evident. More here

    Let’s go back again to that definition of Science: “The way science works is to propose an hypothesis and then test it in a way which is repeatable and the results reproducible.”

    That is the way Science is SUPPOSED to work. That’s not how it actually works. The failure to make this distinction, again, is a result of striving to maintain the purity of this thing called “Science”. It’s done by keeping it simple and ignoring the question of the scope of Science. Little debate exists around the domains and fields of study where the method is applicable and where it is not. It’s generally assumed in our culture that Science is applicable everywhere and anywhere. It’s hard to say what the word “Science” really means anymore to the lay person when he hears Matt Damon say, “I’m gonna have to Science the shit out of this” in the blockbuster Hollywood drama, The Martian. It’s not by accident. Those who shape this culture have made Science into a catch-all buzzword. Magazine covers shout out, “The New Science of blah blah blah”. The word wears a veneer of authority that is seldom questioned. Some of these are the same characteristics displayed by organized religion.

    Science, like religion, as actually practiced, irrespective of their purist definitions, have been used to further the spread of the cancer called civilization. As long as we deny this, we are only fooling ourselves. As long as we refuse to consider what goes on in the name of Science and look away from the suffering and dying lab animals, the human subjects and other victims that are at the receiving end of Science, we’re only denying our own humanity, and hence reality itself.

  • If they made it a crime to question the official 911 story would you believe they did it to preserve the truth or protect the lie?

  • @Sir Henry Holt

    Hah, we have Music, we can leave room to the mystery and just ride the mystery through our instrument whenever we want to. And we don’t need science or religion to do that, muhahaha. We JUST DO IT.

    Man, thank you so much for all your highly inspiring comments!

    @Sir Satish Musunuru

    You carry the REAL Fire, yeah! Carry on, carry on, just carry on!

    I dedicate this tune to all science afficionados, to all all-knowing materialists and rationalists, have an inspiring day, an inspiriring life of joy, freedom, Music and mystery- enjoy!

  • Ooops, THIS is the tune I wanted to dedicate to all science afficionados, to all all-knowing materialists and rationalists- enjoy!:

  • kind of hard to imagine…earth was once a virgin. thats why people start selling themselves. if love does not exist, there’s not enough energy to preserve the eternal virgin. without love there is only degradation.

  • entropy. the center is missing.

  • @ Tom: “Leaders face a no-win dilemma: any change of course will crash the system, but maintaining the current course will also crash the system.”

    I think there is a third option: Reducing the human impact and number on the ecosystem, i.e. by a “one-woman-one-child” program all over the world.

  • If you say mediocre in a French accent, it sounds better.

    A Symphony Of The Mind

    Scientists try to tell you that you can someday live forever by uploading your mind to a supercomputer or that medicine will discover immortality.

    Religions tell us we can live after we die.

    Little creeps like Jensen tell us violence is the answer.

    What a sick bunch of fucks.

    Both money and god are believed all around the world since history began.

    Both money and god are human constructs. They are not real. We made them up.

    It’s rich versus poor, all rich people are Jews in that they believe they are special.

    Science is the religion of conservatives.

    Technology is the religion of fools.

    Religion is venal stupidity of idiots.

    Racism is as normal as breathing.

    Race hatred is not.

    Words are wasted on the wind if the mind cannot hear.

    Nothing will stop collapse. It is our destiny.

    You don’t need to be a seer to see the simple truth.

    We are selfish pigs.

    If you ask a pig whether he wants oats or barley,

    he’ll say, “Boofofem”

    Fly little white pig fly,

    way up high, spread your wings across the universal sky

    and watch out for the moon jumping cow and fiddle playing cat.


  • Fascism, indeed. Sieg Heil, y’all. This year’s clown show, as US America turns itself into a TV show version of Mussolini’s follies, is the final chapter to its ongoing corruption. History appearing first as tragedy, then as farce.

    I’ve now got two of Harald Welzer’s books to read. Purchased “Climate Wars: What People Will be Killed for in the 21st Century.” I’m impressed with his command of writing in English (or his translator’s contributions) and his lectures appearing on YouTube. A very intelligent analyst of our condition to watch going forward.

    And from the library, a most horrific book “Soldaten”, a unique inquiry into the psychology of the Wehrmacht soldiers, as they were listened to — bugged — as POWs by Allied intelligence. Over a hundred thousand pages of transcripts declassified in 1996, and discovered by Welzer and a co-researcher in 2001.

    “Unique” is really the understatement of the year. We have Hannah Arendt, Milton Mayer, Daniel Goldhagen, and others chiming in on just how this Evil came about. But those speaking candidly, to their fellow soldiers, is the “fly on the wall” we have often wished to be.

    The takeaway is that people grow accustomed step-by-step to horrors they would not have brooked in “normal” life. They do what is expected of them by their peers, and they do their “jobs”, as they have been ordered to do.

    Those expectations, and those jobs, can shift rapidly from “normal” “peacetime” (ignoring the war against Nature for a moment) activities.

    The more than 100 million who were slaughtered in the last century indicate that the human population in this century will be reduced by at least 90%, and it won’t be only from lack of food and water.

  • HITLER’S WAR – What establishment historians refuse/neglect to say.

  • .
    Henry, don’t take it personally. I think there are maybe a few words that are moderated here for their usage. Also, and probably what is happening here to you, if you use the name of someone who is on the mod list, then using their name in your comment will result in your post being held for perusal as well. It’s because that’s how a mod listed person is held back for moderation … by filtering for their name.

    Maybe try not using the persons exact moniker in your post, and then it will get through the filter. Be creative, we’ll know who you mean. Don’t take it personally … you just used a filtered word, and probably a moderated person’s name. :)

    mod – you can delete this too if you like after Henry sees it.

  • Re: Derrick Jensen interview

    These plants have to be “taught” to dance. At first, they don’t respond much to the music, but after repeated exposure, they learn to dance. The exact reason for this adaptation (if there is one) is unknown, but the tropism is co-opted from the plant’s phototropism. (A tropism is a plant or other non-animal response to a stimulus).

    Best Wishes

  • @ Lydia
    So much right, so much wrong’

    In classical neurology, learning occurs as new connections are grown between neurons. Instinct is when an organism is born with those connections already in place;–the organism is born knowing stuff. A bird never saw its parents build a nest, but it is born with the instinctive knowledge of how to build one. If, because of variation in brain structure or genetics, the bird places its nest in the wrong area, natural selection will solve the problem. As far as I know (and please show me the evidence if I’m wrong), the bird doesn’t “learn” from it’s mistake. And don’t give me warblers and cuckoos; that’s instinct also.

    @ LWA

    In your explanation of subjective non-rational experiences: these experiences inherently defy being put into words, hence the zen “finger pointing at the moon” metaphor. Lydia, did you ever have a dream in which you felt or experienced something that you never experienced in “normal” life, and that you couldn’t put into words, or that defied explanation? It’s kind of like that, only “subjectively” real (you are aware that you are not dreaming).

    @ LWA

    You’ve got me defending Dawkins again. In his criticisms of religion, he explicitly makes an exception for (you guessed it) Buddhism, which he characterizes as a philosophy or discipline. He mainly attacks the bad acts done in the name of the Abrahamic religions (just like Bill Mahaer). He criticizes Hinduism because of the caste system which caused (and still causes) so much suffering in India. Just because he can be a jerk doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point.

    By the way, for you “rabid” atheists out there (not you LWA–I know better) Hitchens was a war-mongering asshole.

    Best (non-theistic) Wishes

  • Sadly, this Forum has gone from sharing views of Abrupt Climate Change, discussion of the best available data and its impacts, and initial discussions of how Homo Saps go itself into this collective “predicament”etc. If it was suddenly disclosed by the MSM that “The Newsroom’s” Climate Change episode was indeed telling the facts as “true”, I doubt if most here would even notice.

    I’ll be off now to get some pizza and beer, the best way to enjoy St. George Carlins “freak show”…as this now reminds me way too much of the ending of Orwell’s Animal Farm.


    …”But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.

    Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”.

  • @ John Lynch

    “Now we are going to witness God Himself come and clean up this mess we made”

    That is why humans are such spoiled brats. God is a bad parent and a bad example.

    I know this not because I am a parent, but because I am a spoiled brat whose parents always cleaned up after him.

  • Feed Jake, some old stuff, I think I helped proof/foof in 2006.

    Life Movements in Plants, Volume I by Jagadis Chandra Bose

    Vol. 2

    was pretty good combo of biology and new methods of analysis for being 100 years old.

  • Satish, have I mentioned lately how brilliant I think you are, and how very much I appreciate you? A great post, with wonderful understanding. You are a real human being, Satish.

    “That is the way Science is SUPPOSED to work. That’s not how it actually works. The failure to make this distinction, again, is a result of striving to maintain the purity of this thing called “Science”. It’s done by keeping it simple and ignoring the question of the scope of Science. Little debate exists around the domains and fields of study where the method is applicable and where it is not. It’s generally assumed in our culture that Science is applicable everywhere and anywhere.”

    Same as religious individuals who want to insist on the purity of the knowledge contained within their holy books, while recognizing the shortcomings of the human adherents to the belief system. Just because humans fail to be as good as their religion demands, it doesn’t mean the religion is at fault.

    Just because humans fail to understand science, fail to live up to the reasonableness, the rationality that is presumed to be science, doesn’t mean “science” is as fault.

    This is true. What is at fault is elevating any human construct to the degree that humans do both science and religion. And that’s because both are based in humanism, in the belief that humans can capture reality in words and processes and systems and models and other human creations. The same fantasy, new process.

    Yes, Native American cultures very much did take into account how people are, not how native people thought they should be or could be, or might be if only. That is why I say this culture creates an alternate reality through which all perception is forced, the alternate reality of how things should be as conceived by them. The “ideology of the ideal,” Ward Churchill called it.

    That’s what is occurring right in this discussion. Only one side is arguing the reality of human-science, and the other is arguing the ideal of science as a separate thing in and of itself.

    Satish, you are the best engineer ever.

  • Mod note:

    tinywhitey, discuss or attack views or ideas, not people. Comment deleted.

  • R.I.P. Muhammad Ali.

  • Yes, I believe I speak for all sane rational discourse here at NBL that Satish truly is the most competent among us! By the way lidia we are all waiting for your scathing intelligent rebuttal to Satish. Where are you lidia.Please come and enlighten us with your brilliant discourse. You intuitively know Satish is your intellectual inferior. OH, i’m sorry intuition doesn’t work for patriarchs does it. And Callaghan,To define violence as the destruction of inanimate manmade artifices is the truly sick perception inculcated by the penis loving patriarchs. Now I have upset the moderator by too many mentions of male genitalia.

  • @moderator, Do you not know that what defines people is their views and ideas and that it is impossible to attack a worldview with out that reflecting on the person who holds that worldview. Lydia cleverly attacked indigenous world view in the most belittling manner and yet you cannot see that that was a personal attack on me! Are you really so blind!

  • re: Animal Farm redux

    It seems that what we now see is what comes in to fill the space once the original thesis has more or less exhausted itself. Not because it’s untrue, but because the basic validity is obvious. The message has been delivered. So on to the the intramural hair-splitting and squabbling.

  • .
    @Satish … I would also like to say how I thought you summed that up very well. Thank you.

    @Mike D.

    You didn’t finish your sentence … “Sadly, this forum has gone from [blah, blah, blah] …”

    To what? You forgot to add in the ‘to what’ part of your assertion there.

    To views that don’t agree with your personal worldview and beliefs? Tough beans.

    initial discussions of how Homo Saps go itself into this collective “predicament”etc.

    That’s exactly what is being discussed here Mike, so what’s the problem? Maybe it’s just not in the way you want to hear it expressed?

    What was going on here before was group think. Now we just have some different perspectives is all. Sorry if that’s alarming to you, or if you’re unfamiliar with that.

    This isn’t the space shuttle program, and we’re not installing o-rings here, so I think we can dispense with the homogenized group think and hear some different opinions, can’t we? Without whining about it like sore losers?

    @all … Is this whining going to start up again? This place was nothing but squabbling when I first arrived here last year … constantly. And that was perfectly fine when it was certain views that were constantly prevailing. Now that some other views are being expressed here (finally) … it’s suddenly called squabbling? That’s what I call pathetic whining … or being a sore loser … or just plain being a loser period. Waaaaa … waaaaa … waaaaa.

    That’s so like America … the need for absolute homogeneity with zero tolerance for a diversity of views. That’s what brainwashed xenophobic minds behave like. I know … let’s build a wall around NBL so we can keep those ‘others’ from ever speaking opinions that don’t match our special brand of homogenized group think. Pathetic. Waaaa … waaaa … waaaaa. And what is complaining going to get you? Go tell your congressman … I’m sure he’ll get right on it.

    An alternative point of view from your personally held beliefs is not squabbling. I call reacting in that way just being an entitled baby who isn’t getting his or her own way.

  • I want to add that when devotees of science-as-a-thing-itself wish to criticize religion, they never allow the ideals of religion to be the determination of religion’s overall value. They ALWAYS, and I mean without exception, insist on evaluating religion as it is associated with human expression, and it is invariably the bad human-religion reality they use to rightfully support their criticisms. I never hear mention of Martin Luther King, Jr., nor Francis of Assisi, nor Gandhi’s Hindu traditions when the atheists are criticizing the human-religion reality. It’s always the Inquisition, the Crusades, the hack and lowbrow evangelists and fundies, and their laughable fairytales. Religion never gets to be a separate thing out there somewhere in the cosmos, separate from human expression, no matter how much insight and wisdom and beauty the human-religion reality can and does offer.

    But science does get that special sweet spot in their worldview. People want force a science-out-there-in-the-cosmos false reality, instead of the human-science reality that exists. It’s the intentions of science that are to be respected. If that were some religious person using that argument, we might think they were extremely wishful thinkers.

    Neither the science-human reality nor the western religion-reality are very pretty at the moment in the world out there. They look a lot alike because this science-is-the-determining-Truth attitude is a rebellion and reaction to the psycho religious attitude that it discarded. They are from the same culture.

    Native Americans didn’t have organized religion at all. There was nothing written down and repeated to crowds of people century after century after century. You can see the difference when you compare Lidia’s assumption that I want a “harmonious planet” (plainly inferring that a harmonious planet is something that doesn’t exist, part of the real religion of the European culture), when in my view the “harmony” of the “planet” is just fine. I have a harmonious planet. So does everyone else.

    The planet is dying right now because of what humans have done, but that’s not the planet being inharmonious. Language confuses us so much sometimes.

    I agree again, LWA, and you are very polite to point out how devaluing – personal attacks – are very commonplace in the discussions here. Characterizing comments so very generally as “squabbling” is a failure to address the comments themselves, while lobbing a personal attack. We all know that squabbling, whining, complaining, and other comparable personal behaviors mean the person’s points are inferior.

    You were very polite. No one ever seems to listen, however, and I never see most people who behave this way consider that you are polite in the face of plain old meanness and bigotry when you point out that expressing a differing point of view or opinion isn’t low-minded “squabbling.” They just seem to glide straight past your valid point and right into the future issuing one personal attack after another, apparently unaware that they are creating the reality they want to see, not the one that’s in front of them.

    It’s difficult and sometimes painful to deal with. But imagine how difficult and painful such a mind is to have.

  • .
    **That’s so like America … the need for absolute homogeneity with zero tolerance for a diversity of views. That’s what brainwashed xenophobic minds behave like. I know … let’s build a wall around NBL so we can keep those ‘others’ from ever speaking opinions that don’t match our special brand of homogenized group think.**

    WOW what a hypocrite –

    What you just described above is exactly what you, Satish, moflow, artleads and others discussed at Koo-koo — how to convert, or silence Lidia and her *gang* members here at NBL so the *harmful* views could be silenced.


    What’s with our angry new members obsession with asses and genitals ?? How low they can drag NBL before there is no-one left but their own echo chamber?

  • Bob S ~

    please leave me out of this. this is what I wrote on Kuku on April 6, 2015:

    “I actually think Lidia is an extremely sensitive, intelligent and kind being. one of my favorite posters on NBL, tbh. frequencies travel on all kinds of levels.”

    See for yourself.

    I have also said the same things to her privately, more than once. if I have ever tried to silence Lidia, I would immediately apologize. that’s not my style, as much as I can possibly strive for.


    I genuinely strive for three things in this regard:

    1. total respect for the God or Goddess in all beings.

    2. allowing all beings to be themselves.

    3. seeing the deeper truth of what is going on, whatever surface appearances may be.

    there is a great deal about various things people do, and ideas people have, that I may disagree with, sometimes vociferously. sometimes extremely. that is my right.

    that never changes the fact that all beings are the One, and deserve my ultimate respect on that level.

    ~ mo

  • LWA — Thanks, and I think you’re right. It’s that historic greeting that millions used to thoughtlessly, and many years ago, I added our Southern appendage to it, thinking that American fascism would come from the willfully ignorant in that region who switched from Democrat to Republican (and from public schools to private “religious” schools) so they could practice racism into eternity. (Guess they just might be able to do that.)

    Now, the irony is that the danger comes from either of two New Yorkers (if Hillary ever actually was, she made the Senate, at least, but NY is so cynically corrupt, they didn’t care where she was from), and Southerners must be in anguish now, hating them both.

    The South is still convinced it was NY (Yankee) banker money that ground their armies to defeat in 1865. This year’s politics has so many inversions of the usual dynamics in it. Yes, it’s St. George Carlin’s freak show, all right.

    I think I’ll go off now and watch Gerald’s movie, may have seen it already, but I’ll know in a minute or two. An observation I make more and more these days is that the farther I get along from my birth in what was left of the 1940s, the more horrified and astounded I still am from the worldwide mobilization of force and slaughter that took place just before I arrived.

    We have retreated far, far into “normalcy bias” today, and events like these are the farthest from our thinking of as possible.

    And yet “we” (what do you mean “we”, Kemo Sabe?) humans are no more mature today than then, even less, IMO. A fragile calm over everything.

    The Green Revolution and developments in oil technologies allowed a tremendous overpopulation, and the extent of the total human occupation of increasingly small and overcrowded spaces argues for what Wall Street would call a “crowded trade.” Everyone’s on one side of the boat. Meaning, things are just about to turn in the opposite direction.

    Have you ever heard anyone describing their experience escaping the Killing Fields in Cambodia? Our entire office was spellbound for a half hour one Friday afternoon as our co-worker told her story as a 9-year-old girl fleeing village to village, rice paddy to jungle, betrayal by relatives, and sleeping between dead bodies in case of discovery. “The Horror…”

  • Satish Musunuru Says:
    June 5th, 2016 at 5:01 am .

    “Science, like religion, as actually practiced, irrespective of their purist definitions, have been used to further the spread of the cancer called civilization. As long as we deny this, we are only fooling ourselves. As long as we refuse to consider what goes on in the name of Science and look away from the suffering and dying lab animals, the human subjects and other victims that are at the receiving end of Science, we’re only denying our own humanity, and hence reality itself.?

    Exactly, “Science” is ven more a tool of missionaries for the Western Industrial Monotheistic-Based “Civilization” than religion ever was.

  • Should be “Science: is *even* more a tool…..

  • Some here might be interested in this video of an airhead TV host
    here calling M.Ali ‘Boy’. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/15/when-muhammad-ali-visited-fitzroy

  • Sorry folks! Even with all the discussion, I’m still not convinced that religion and science are even remotely on the same playing field. Case in point:

    “The world was created 6,000 years ago, in 6 days, by a giant Space Man.”

    “The Universe is approximately 13.799 billion years old, with an uncertainty of 21 millions years. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the Universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.”
    – Science (admittedly, this definition was lifted from Wikipedia)

    If you’re really saying that there’s no difference between “believing” in one of these statements over the other, then there’s not much more I can say here about this.

    Also, a big THANK YOU to whomever posted the link to Deb Ozarko’s essay about collapse (sorry, don’t remember who it was). Great (if not sobering) read!!

  • Since I struggle to place any comment here I am never going to get involved in any lengthy discussion to any extent, but I do have a couple of questions.

    Did any of those long,well thought out and erudite comments ever produce an ahah/omg she/he is right! I never considered that?

    Secondly, did the authors of the comments get real pleasure and satisfaction from the time spent working on them.

    If the answer to the second is yes then I guess the answer to the first is irrelevant.
    If it’s no,here’s a couple of books that I will never read, but sound interesting.

    The Power Paradox by Dacher Keltner and Throwing Stones at the Google Bus by Douglas Rushkoff.

    A beautiful still sunny winters day here,after frost.

  • It is possible for a person to be an atheist without being ‘rabid’.
    Christopher Hitchens had opinions about religion. He also had opinions
    about the Iraq war. It is possible for someone to agree with his opinions
    about religion,without agreeing with his opinions about the Iraq war.

  • Related to the recent discussion, I thought this was an interesting read for anyone interested in consciousness. Would love to hear anyone’s thoughts!


  • @david higham
    the Mohammad Ali with Norman Gunston is worth a watch too..
    Along with these 2 classics

  • Peak Oil and Climate Collapse: Can Society Make the Transition in Time?
    Global Research News Hour
    Episode 145

    Dr. McPherson’s segment starts at 45 min. 55 sec.

  • @ Nemesis
    I hereby… Give Sir Nemesis (somewhere in Germany)… Full authority to give me a good prod in the ribs. if I “ever” take myself too seriously(which i often do) If I post anything that resembles a seriously self-obsessed, or long winded response to no ending question
    If this does not work,.. please proceed to tickle me to death, I would prefer to die laughing
    I really appreciate your posts mate,your humor really works for me.Go forward Sir Nemesis
    I probably wouldn’t know anything of Science, Philosophy, and Religion if it was not for Monty Python

  • Another positive feedback

    Spike in Alaska wildfires is worsening global warming, US says

    Report from US Geological Survey says northern wildfires must now be seen as significant driver of climate change, not just a side-effect


  • Because more is said than ever done and nothing done was ever said.

    Sexual, racial identity is irrelevant with extreme income disparity.

    Understanding Collapse from collapse

  • When I was a kid my dad told me I lived in the best country in the whole world.

    The rest of the world is going up into blood red orange explosive orgy of violence desperation and greed.

    The west and east coasts are toast as mega storms hit the east and the west dries up and blows away before the Cascadia fault plate pops. Super Tsunamis are slated to happen on both coasts leaving a bunch of white trumpeteers to survive in the fly over states. Meanwhile the refugees keep on coming.

    By 2025, the tropics and south Asia will be uninhabitable.

    Russia and China will race to Siberia.

    While the U.S. attacks from Canada.

    The new middle earth map will be centred are the north pole.

    While the magnetic pole swings down the Atlantic.

    From a cabin in northern Canada. adios.

  • Waterfront homes owned by the wealthy being pounded by storm and tore into beaches along Australia’s east coast.


  • .

    Unfortunately (at least from my perspective) you’ve chosen an article on consciousness from a site called ‘scienceandnonduality.’ Which means it’s presenting someones opinions from the materialist perspective … that humans are machines and that consciousness is produced from the brain (usually stated as ‘consciousness is emergent‘.) That’s stated right in the url of the website too … non-duality (meaning consciousness is not separate from the machine that contains it.) Duality … is a word used to describe consciousness and the machine body as being separate things.

    You may think the proposition of consciousness being separate from the body comes from the religious loonies that science is trying to refute … but it actually comes from the philosophers and thinkers trying to tackle this ‘hard problem’ that the author referred to (but didn’t elaborate on enough to even be clear about … why it is even considered to be ‘a hard problem.’)

    The ‘hard problem’ is that despite being able to already map and pretty much fully understand every aspect of the physical brain and what body functions connect to what parts of the brain … they can’t find any connection to consciousness in there whatsoever. Thus it’s called the ‘hard problem.’ That author answers it by waving his hand and saying it’s not a hard problem at all, that it’s obvious … it comes from brain function. But he only says so because he is a committed materialist … a non dualist. However, his claim is no different than me saying the moon is made of cheese … why, because I said so, it’s obvious it must be made of cheese based on my beliefs … there, hard problem solved. He’s making the claim that consciousness is emergent because it simply MUST be, that’s the only place it COULD come from. That’s his claim here. However, he’s a materialist … he has a whole site dedicated to this assertion. But it’s nothing more than an assertion, like me claiming the moon is made of cheese without providing any proof. whatsoever for my claim.

    The reason it’s called the ‘hard problem’ is because science (neuroscience) has already mapped and quite effectively understands all bodily functions, and where they reside in the brain quite well … yet it can’t find the seat of consciousness whatsoever, not even a little bit. They are stumped. They can see your brain light up in various places on MRI when you wiggle your toe, or when you taste or see or hear, and even when you think of math as opposed to language … but they see no matching activity in the brain for that activity you call ‘being me … being aware you exist … being the observer you call “I.”‘

    Further to that, through studying brain injury victims for many decades now (longer even), they quite well understand how when a certain part of the brain gets damaged … you stop tasting. And, when another certain area gets damaged, you can’t move your arm anymore … or maybe do math, or lose some of your memories, etc, etc. Yet … and this is why it’s called the ‘hard problem ‘… no matter what part of the brain gets shut off by injury, they can never shut off that “me, I am in here” thing we call consciousness … the observer you call ‘I or me.’ Not until you are dead does it go away. No matter what portion of the brain gets shut off, and they’ve seen every portion be shut off now by studying many brain injury victims and the associated crippling physical and psychological effects, independent of that, the consciousness is always still in you somehow … perfectly functioning (until you are dead or rendered unable to let them even know if you’re still in there and never return to such a state of communication.)

    That’s why they call it the hard problem. Consciousness actually scientifically doesn’t appear connected to the brain at all, this observer in there you call ‘being me.’ The part of you that is ‘aware and observes.’ It’s baffled the greatest neuroscientists and still does to this day. They understand quite well everything else about the brain. That’s why it’s called ‘the hard problem.’ So, I don’t think your author gets to just proclaim … ‘it does come from the brain because I SAY it does, because it just HAS TO … I said so.’ Ya, and I say the moon is made of cheese because I said so. See how very simplistic and actually sort of incomplete regarding the real reality of this conundrum your author was being? You don’t get to just say … ‘because I said it does, end of discussion, it simply MUST, because I’m a materialist and that is my belief.’

    He even went as far as to say at one point “the fact that our conscious experience is brain activity.” Sorry, but it’s not a fact to competent neuroscientists at all … and after finding everything else there is to find in there … they simply can’t find your awareness, your consciousness … or connect it to your brain in any way whatsoever, not even a little bit. Moving beyond all that while I wrap this up … people who are not at the infantile stage of all this like that author is … they can take their awareness of ‘being me’ and literally experience it from their foot, or their knee … and not from their ‘head’ like most of us do by default. Then, with much more practice and some rare natural ability, they can even take that awareness eventually right out of their body and fly it around in their neighbors house, and then verify later what they saw by physically visiting their neighbors house and investigating. I’m one of those people who has done those things … so I don’t claim that from some book I’ve read either … I’ve actually done it. Moving your awareness around to different places in your body than your head is actually quite an easy and elementary exercise for people that bother to try with some time and effort invested.

    Your author had all sorts of twisty ways of describing why he’s convinced consciousness is emergent … even saying that “we don’t know the intrinsic nature of physical stuff in spite of all that physics tells us.” That’s a nice logic trick, but sorry … in the end he’s just saying he’s convinced consciousness is emergent because he’s convinced himself that consciousness is emergent. That’s just a wild guess. No, the neuroscientists take this ‘hard problem’ much more seriously than that, and they aren’t willing to say the moon is made of cheese because they really want it to be that way. The real fact, quite suspiciously glossed over in your speculative and simple article, is that for all they know (and that’s almost everything there is to know about how the brain connects up to all the other parts of your physical and psychological makeup) … that your consciousness, at this point, really doesn’t appear to be connected to your brain activity at all … like how they can see the way all the rest of you clearly maps out in the brain. Take any part of the brain away with a severe injury … and the ‘awareness we call being me’ is never affected, not at all, it’s not even impaired.

    That’s why neuroscience calls it the hard problem, which is something your author skipped over explaining to you.

    And since people will whine about self indulgent conversations and piss and moan here at NBL for me posting this long reply to you babajingo … yes, this has everything to do with what’s going on currently with climate disaster and civilization collapse. It matters very much to it, regardless of how people here at NBL can’t for the life of them fathom why or how it relates. That, however, is beyond the scope of this already non-tweet. Thanks for having an interest baba … no, I wasn’t very impressed with your article and the way the author said … ‘because I SAID SO’ … and left out explaining what the hard problem is even really all about, and why it’s considered ‘the hard problem’ in the first place. Even the neuroscientists that study this are more honest than that about the real mystery of what they see going on there (or don’t see) … that our consciousness doesn’t really appear to be operating from the brain at all like how they can now see all the rest of us clearly is. In fact, the more they map the complete brain and every aspect of it in detail, the more of a ‘hard problem’ this has become to them. They are baffled by it. Thus, it’s ‘the very, very hard problem.’

    Peace baba.

  • Phlegm theory or not, this approximates what a void experience taught me.


    “Some scholars retreat to the position that consciousness must be a primary property of information that cannot be explained. If information is present, so is a primordial, conscious experience of it. The more information that is integrated together, the richer the conscious experience. This type of thinking leads straight to a mystical theory called panpsychism, the claim that everything in the universe is conscious, each in its own way, since everything contains at least some information. Rocks, trees, rivers, stars. This theory is the ultimate in phlegm theories. It has enormous intuitive appeal to people who are prone to project consciousness onto the objects around them, but it explains absolutely nothing. One must simply accept consciousness as an elemental property and abandon all hope of understanding it.”

    Best Wishes

  • Lots of pain, suffering, & death coming …

    Global Heating goes exponential.

    Those who paid attention knew that this was coming.

    FACT; All the excess heat generated from the industrial revolution (1880 – September, 2015) raised global temps ONE DEGREE C.

    In the next few months (FOUR – SIX MONTHS) after September 2015 our continual burning of fossil fuels raised the global temp an additional .57 degrees C.


    What will the temperature be at your home in September 2016?

    Prepare for hell on earth … soon!

    Storms, pestilence, & corruption for all.

    Netanyahu, continuing his quest for a life of excellence, will become de facto president of the U.S. no matter who wins the bullshit election.

    at Youtube; From Abrupt Climate Change to Climate Collapse

    Guy McPherson Presentation CA 3 May 2016

  • Babajingo, I looked at your link. I would like to respond to your request for comments.

    Re Strawson’s essay, this one is shoddy. I more than don’t like it. I think it is a bad piece of thinking and writing, very sloppy. First of all, the author changes the definition of the “hard problem” of consciousness, which is his entire point – “Consciousness isn’t a mystery . . .” is the title. He says there is no hard problem in connection with consciousness, but he is also limiting his definition of consciousness to subjective experience, and not including the neurophysiological system.

    I just quoted J. Allan Hobson who does hold that consciousness is the “hard problem in science.” When a neurophysiologist like Hobson makes that statement, he isn’t talking about the experience of consciousness, he’s talking about correlating consciousness with the physical neurological system in ways that can be measured and replicated through experiment. Hobson and others do say that consciousness is the hard problem “in science.” Strawson skips over the “in science” part to argue that consciousness is not hard to understand, and he dispenses with all that difficult measurability stuff that the scientists are discussing.

    I’m not sure that as a philosophy professor he gets to decide that consciousness is not the hard problem in science if scientists who specialize in that field say that it is. He’s not talking about consciousness the same way they are. If he wants to say that consciousness is not the or a hard problem “outside of science,” then he’s having a different debate altogether and he needs to use different terms. This is really bad to do in writing and in thinking. Unfortunately, it is the norm for most people.

    Also, he makes very, very simplistic statements about how little humans know about matter. He never really supports this opinion that he establishes as a premise in his argument with any evidence. He claims that humans believe they know a lot about matter because they’ve been told that they know a lot about matter. He says the same is true of consciousness, and people think that consciousness is a mystery because they’ve been told it’s a mystery. This is actually quite terrible so far as logic and argument go. Where does it come from, and how does he conclude this?

    Unfortunately, his assertion that we can fully understand consciousness simply because we are conscious leads me to question how he concludes that matter is such a mystery. Not only are humans and other sentient creatures comprised entirely of matter, and according to him, our consciousness itself is matter. So, why don’t we understand matter as well as we understand consciousness like he says? We experience matter all the time. Isn’t that the criteria for “knowing” consciousness in his argument? Why isn’t that criteria as valid for knowing matter?

    I think he’s a pretty awful writer and thinker. Maybe beyond awful.

    The information on LeBerge’s work farther down the page is better. LeBerge knows about consciousness as it is defined by experts in science fields. This piece establishes separate definitions of consciousness and awareness. The words, the labels he uses, are actually arbitrary, and they could be reversed and be as valid insofar as the argument goes, we would just have to agree on the definitions. But LaBerge provides a model where the sense of “I” has at least two levels, and he is much, much closer to reality than Strawson,in my opinion. Waking consciousness and dreaming consciousness and non-dreaming sleep states are all different states of consciousness. And lucid dreaming is also different from the other states. Now that LaBerge has proven lucid dreaming is real, the current consciousness model that recognizes three states of consciousness may need to be changed to include lucid dreaming.

    I have an argument regarding how to choose between “science” and “religion.” One of the ten commandments, thou shalt not kill (murder), represents “religion.” This one example represents all of the entire human-religion reality.

    Nuclear waste represents “science,” including all the leaking storage sites, all the sunken, leaking submarines humans have left in the oceans, Fukushima and Cherobyl and all the Fukushimas to come in the near future, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and all the hubris of creating it. This one example represents all of the human-science reality.

    Now, which one do you want to “believe” in, religion or science?

  • @ digixplor

    I think we’re all trolls on this bus. I got called a troglodyte!

    Best Wishes

  • The Tragically Hip Canadian supergroup`s lead singer has terminal Brain cancer was recently announced he looks are making now amends himself .. Good Job

  • Some new ugly numbers from Robert the scientific scribbler.

    “Extent of Ocean Surface Above 86 Degrees (F) Hits New Record During May of 2016.”

    Carumba amigos, fookin prickly Patriarchy with or without spirituality & wet bulb heat death at the same time.

    Ain’t his some crazy shid & crazy numbers, Mama?

  • At NBL there are two camps.The first camp of poet-philosophers promotes the idea that universe is a living being full of beauty and harmony. The second camp of patriarchs promotes the idea that the world is a dead machine consisting of explosions chemical processes and little else. And then there is a background noise, a myriad of cranks, misogynist, anti-semites and conspiracy theorists. Where do you fit in?

  • @ tinywhitey

    There are two kinds of people: those that divide people into two kinds, and those that don’t.

    Best Wishes

  • @ feedjake Always always blame the messenger. I did not divide them. Their fervent promotions of two diametrically opposed philosophies divided them. I mean really, you cannot see that their understanding of reality completely puts them at odds no matter if I even exist are not. That is all I have to say. Fucking amazing what passes for astute analysis here at NBL. And the incredibly sad part is you are intelligent.

  • Taking Jungian collective consciousness & Joe Campbell’s fashionable foo foo about myths to the next level.

    We could include Carlos Castenada too.

    More extensive consciousness studies, feminist studies, patriarchy studies, art history studies, the rule of lawyers using dalaw for whatever they please studies, & holy spirituality studies are funded.

    There are more than one million trained lawyerfish dressed up in fancy suits in the US of A. – plus tens of thousands of pompous law professors hauling down big buck salaries.

    We get them all to put their expensive legal training, emphasizing the sacred adversarial masquerade, to the test

    The legal suits, robes, & lit crit academics proceed to lie, guffaw, double-talk, play charades, & obfuscate about global heating, abrupt methane release, wet bulb temps, & NTE.

    His Holiness-the-judge, another lawyer in a preposterous black robe, pronounces that all is well & business as usual must proceed –
    because there are Holy laws that must be obeyed, as in the continually expanding economy.

    Everybody dies.

  • @tinywhitey
    i cannot see the difference.
    If you believe the universe is alive and all in it is alive than you are eternally alive.
    Well, untill the next big crunsh anyway.
    If you believe the universe is just a chemical machine, still the components that make up your body,this planet,our solar System will be an eternal part of it.
    Well, untill the next big crunsh anyway.
    Eternal cunsciousness is a detrament not a bliss.
    I’m overwhelmed by the little bit of consciousness i was forced to witness.
    All the best.

  • This is what I think is interesting. tinywhitey made a statement *about the posters at NBL.* Period.

    The the first three responses to his post (and others in Gerald’s case), is to elevate the discussion immediately into some universal, general Truth about How Things Are Everywhere that have no bearing on tinywhitey’s comment. Instead it becomes a discussion about the whole universe, from a god-like omniscient perspective. From there are prominent perspectives here at NBL, to two kinds of people that exist everywhere, to discussing consciousness as a subject in and of itself without responding in any meaningful way to tinywhitey’s point.

    Where did we all learn to think and act like that, and to believe that it is intelligent to do so? Because it’s really quite weird, I think, to feel the need to interpret everything through this omniscient framework. Especially when a person does it in response to another person’s quite specifically defined meaning, and does so in a way that changes that specific meaning.

    It’s very similar to my criticisms of Strawson above. He’s having a different conversation, but he presents his argument as if it’s a valid response to concepts that are used quite differently than he is using them. He has lifted the term “hard problem” and redefined it. That’s not to be admired. On the contrary, that is a sign of a limited intellect, maybe really limited. It’s also the sign of someone without the ethical substance to respect anything outside his own beliefs, and he’s going to distort meaning if he has to in order to convince others of the validity of his argument. Sleezy.

    But that’s the pattern for discourse among ordinary people pretty much throughout the culture. It’s not intentional, either; it’s knee-jerk. It has less to do with the subjects being discussed than it does with a deeper and primarily unconscious worldview that underlies dictates an individual’s values and beliefs.

    If I wanted to argue tinywhitey’s assertions regarding the posters at NBL, I would need to do an analysis of a reasonable sample of the posts here, and see if the two categories of perception that he has identified as dominating the posts do in fact dominate the posts. That’s all. It’s not about the validity of either point of view. If I were to do that, I might find that tinywhitey is correct, or I might find that he is not correct. It doesn’t matter. Whatever I find, I won’t find the correct answer in discussing the views themselves.

    Some of us are trying to discuss existence from the pretty realistic perspective that we don’t have to issue these great, cosmic assertions about how things are. Some of us don’t know any other way to express ourselves. I see a strong understanding of this propensity in Marshall Rosenberg’s work regarding the three basic ways humans communicate “reality.” We (1) observe without judgment, we (2) judge/evaluate, and we (3) express our personal subjective experience and feelings. This is actually in interesting understanding of communications.

    The omniscient framing, the great generalizations, the need to reject any opinion that isn’t true everywhere at all times that so many of us prefer to use in debate is the judgement/evaluation way of communicating. It has many, many weaknesses in most communications, but not all.

  • forgive my poor grammar in a couple of places.

  • Daily CO2

    June 5, 2016: 407.51 ppm

    June 5, 2015: 402.63 ppm

    Up 4.88 ppm

    Also an update here:


    Arctic ice isn’t looking quite so bad at the moment.

  • last night i invited an ally who knows a lot more about computer ops than i to come by and take a look at my problem. it seems the mice i had been using were technologically dated and causing most of my problems. i got a new one and it’s working much better.

    i don’t know how old the old mice were, but they had out-dated plugs. they might be less than 10 years old. i’m told my computer, also likely less than 10 years old is getting obsolete. apparently internet technology is rapidly changing, and the computer stuff one owns must be new enough to be functionally compatible. maybe i’m wrong. i’m not much into tech. assuming i was correct and it’s necessary to rather frequently get new computer gear and discard the old, considering the rare earth metals and environmental destruction involved in their mining, it seems that information technology is as wasteful, destructive, and unsustainable as the rest of the technological culture it’s a part of. anyway, i’m happy with the new mouse. if u’re having computer trouble, using outdated tech. of some sort might be your problem, in my possibly worthless opinion.

  • .
    Further to Satish’s thoughts on grade one computer programmers … this is what happened when science minded engineers took over the arts with their digital technology. De-evolution. Ha … reductionism, lol. “Let’s break this down too!”


  • No civilization has ever existed, or ever will exist that does not exploit the life carrying capacity of their space rock until they cause all life thereon to be extinct forever. Not one. Ever.

  • Gerald Spezio writes:

    “America is the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

    More like: America is the land of the incarcerated and the home of the coward.

  • “Daily CO2 June 5, 2016: 407.51 ppm”

    As long as you don’t regard this kind of information real, you are fine. Physicists now very strongly believe that there is no space-time.

  • In a few days, the Arctic sea ice extent is going to fall behind the loss rate of 2012 unless something changes its current course (NSID).

  • @ogf I was making a broad generalization of what goes on here last post.I was trying to distill all comments here into something fairly accurate. I believe that I did. You would be correct that everyone thinks they are privy to omniscient knowing. Esecially those who zealously defend the patriarch worldview that the universe is mechanical and driven by physics only. I am certain that 90% of the people that post here have never experienced wild nature……alone. That is why they think the world is dead. A quote by a late 19th century european naturalist while alone in the davis mountains of big bend reveals a lot, “It is that time of day when inanimate objects gain a consciousness” I experience this consciousness in huge water worn stones playing in the raucously dancing currents of the richly alive river. And I was raised in academia completely metabolized by patriarchy. They are all so completely inculcated in the patriarchal paradigm, that for them, the river is only a gravity forced liquid. And I assure all of you that words are a very lame set of symbols to describe consciousness. You should make an attempt to experience consciousness by leaving your dead house getting in your dead car driving on a dead road till it comes to its ultimate dead end. Get out walk into the few remaining wild areas left that patriarchy has not relentlessly MURDERED. And once that incessant mindless worded patriarch induced crap in your mind fully abates then maybe just maybe you will experience the profound beingness of every forest participant along with ancient singing stones. And then and only then can you truly appreciate what a complete mindfuck you have been subjected to. And then and only then will you ever understand the rage at those who would destroy the earth.