Positive thought is about the recognition that we are empowered with a degree of control over our destiny. It is the realization that by doing our best along a pathway that is right we achieve as much as we possibly can. Doing this brings the knowledge and satisfaction that we could have done no more.
Positive thought is not about optimism or pessimism. These are related to future expectation. It’s easier for an optimist to think positively; but even a natural pessimist can adopt a positive attitude, though they expect the worst they can recognize that a positive approach in the here and now will affect the future and make it not so bad as it might have been.
Neither is positive thought about unrealistic expectation or denial of that which should be addressed. It is about making the best of what we can change and accepting what we can’t.
There are two kinds of events in life. Those we can control – or at least influence – and those we can’t.
Obviously it’s natural to be more positive about things we can influence. First we must identify how we’d like that event to turn out. This is not always as easy as it sounds as we ourselves may be subject to numerous external influences. We may need to visualize ourselves in a range of outcomes of the event in question. We should listen to our head and our heart but ultimately we should be true to our own essential, instinctive feeling. That which simply feels right probably is.
Having actively decided how we would like an event to turn out we can apply ourselves completely positively to making our desire into reality. Of course we may not always be completely successful, but in making our best effort along a path we know to be right we shall achieve the best outcome possible.
Events we cannot change (often because they’ve already happened) must be accepted. That which is, is! We should not give way to negative thinking over them, eg bitterness, anger, resentment, regret… for negative thinking is not only pointless but also distracts and wastes valuable energy. Much (if not all) of what happens to us occurs for a reason. We may even have chosen it before incarnating into flesh, or it may be presented as an opportunity to learn and grow. Either way there is no point resisting the irresistible. Far better to focus one’s energy towards what can be positively influenced.
Suppose a person loses their job. It would be too easy to sink into despair. But that is unlikely to find them a new job as well as overpowering the positive thought essential for moving forwards. A better approach is to accept the situation. On the one hand unfortunate, but on the other a challenge and an opportunity. Perhaps the chance to try something different, to stretch one’s capabilities in new ways and in so doing to fulfill our true purpose in being here, the growth of the Spirit. A side effect of positive thought is absolute freedom from regret.
The biggest obstacle to positive thought is fear of failure, or rather, fear of the disappointment of failure. But disappointment is a human emotion of no Spiritual significance. Expect nothing, but know that anything is possible. And in this knowledge pursue your life path(s) with energy, confidence and focus.
If you believe and know something is right and possible for you positive thought will keep you progressing relentlessly towards that goal, even when it’s against the odds and contrary to the well-meaning but ill-informed advice of negative naysayers. Where there is will there is way. It is from this true positivity that that which is really special can, and often does, arise.
Many people find it comforting to believe that someone else is looking out for them, watching over them, and guiding them gently through the path of life. Indeed, life would be so much simpler if someone else were responsible for our destiny, for countering evil with good, and for ensuring that caring people enjoy a comfortable afterlife.
Many well-intentioned but misguided people will tell you prayer is the answer to the problems of the world. They’d have you believe that if only you pray often enough and hard enough, you can realize your most precious goals. Unfortunately, this is not reality.
The untold suffering throughout the world should be evidence enough that no benevolent creator is watching over us, helping justice and fairness to triumph. People start wars, people abuse children and animals, and there’s no deity to prevent that.
You are responsible for your own happiness, and you alone are responsible for your own successes and failures.
Be an honest person for its own value – not from fear of spending an eternity in hell. Success in life requires hard work and logical thinking, and these are the values you must strive for.
To begin with, let us dispense with all preconceived notions we may have. Let us, for a few minutes, disregard Adam Weishaupt and his Bavarian creation. Let us cleanse our minds of any ideas placed there by Dan Brown or other fictional authors. Freemasonry, the Bildeberg Group, Bohemian Grove, The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and all other associations we implicate upon the word "illuminati", cast aside for just a few minutes, I beg of you. Just so we can approach these ideas with a clear head and without prejudice... and let's just look at the word for a minute:
illuminati (ih-loo-muh-nah-tee, -ney-tahy)
— pl n , sing -to a group of persons claiming exceptional enlightenment on some subject, esp religion
[C16: from Latin, literally: the enlightened ones, from illűminâre to illuminate
From the route source - literally "The enlightened ones". Now let us look at the word "enlightened":
enlightened (en-lahyt-n-deh)
— adj 1. factually well-informed, tolerant of alternative opinions, and guided by rational thought: an enlightened administration ; enlightened self-interest 2. privy to or claiming a sense of spiritual or religious revelation of truth: the search for an enlightened spiritual master.
enlighten (v.) late 14c., "to remove the dimness or blindness (usually figurative) from one's eyes or heart;" see en - + lighten. Old English had inlihtan. Related: Enlightened; enlightening.
So, cobbling this together a bit, I arrive at the following deductive definition of "Illuminati": Those who seek to be factually well informed, tolerant, guided by rational thought - to remove the dimness or blindness from one's eyes or heart".
That doesn't sound malignant or evil at all!?! What gives here? This sounds to me like a good thing! This enlightenment. In point of fact, aren't we all here trying to accomplish just that? To either become enlightened or to try and enlighten others with the bits and pieces of knowledge that we've managed to come across?
In fact every single person I can think of, from the totality of history, that I respect, admire, look up to, idolize, or hold in regard are people who did exactly this... enlighten. From Sun Tzu,and Socrates and his student Plato, through Euclid, Archimedes, Niccolò Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and into modern personal heroes such as Thomas Edison, F.D.R., and J.F.K.... And many more... All minds that I see as trying to move humanity forward... to make things better.
How did this all end up so twisted? Wanting to be informed and caring turned into a synonym for pure, unadulterated evil? Well, truth be told, it was probably because knowledge is power. Villify it and you've created a taboo against the very thing that might empower the masses to make a stand. Old school psyops. Reverse psychology.
It's hard for some of the younger folks to conceive of but, even a hundred years, or so, ago, literacy was the exception - and not the rule. People relied upon experts to instruct them, as necessary, and relied heavily upon others ( scribes or scriveners ) when they needed something written. Therefore the average person, anywhere in the world, only really knew what they'd been told - and the ones doing the telling had some very vested interests... such as the the Church or the servants of ones Monarch or landlord. We were told what to think and information was not only controlled... it was monopolized by the few. Knowledge that had been discovered by the ancients in Greece and in Rome was now, by chance and by malice, locked away and only allowed to the few.
A quick study of just one branch of this "tree", if you will, of hidden knowledge - a study of the schism - also called The Reformation shows that, at one point, laypersons were not allowed to even touch the bible, the Mass was, in some places, and at some times, given facing away from the congregation - and in Latin, a tongue mostly foreign to the people of that time... As if just reading the lips of the Priest might accidentally allow for some sort of revelatory learning. All the participants were really allowed to do was recite passages, in a tongue not their own, on cue. Information was totally controlled.
Books were uncommon, and were largely written in Latin until a guy named Johannes Gutenberg perfected a method of mass producing information quickly and economically by use of printing - thus opening the flood gates for the average person not only to have access to information, but also to have a strong motive to learn the, heretofore rare art of literacy ...
Score another point for medical marijuana advocates: a new study shows that smoking pot is much less harmful to users' lungs than smoking tobacco.
When researchers studied 20 years of data from more than 5,000 adults, they predictably found significant lung damage in the tobacco smokers: the more they smoked, the worse their air flow rate and lung volume became. But those who smoked up to one joint a day aced a lung function test: air flow rate actually slightly increased in the marijuana users, up to a certain level.
“We found exactly what we thought we would find in relation to tobacco exposure: a consistent loss of lung function with increasing exposure,” said the paper’s lead author, Mark Pletcher, MD, MPH, associate professor in the Division of Clinical Epidemiology at University of California, San Francisco. “We were, however, surprised that we found such a different pattern of association with marijuana exposure.”
The NIH-funded study, published in the Journal of American Medical Association, measured air flow rate (how fast you can blow out air) and lung volume (how much air you can hold) in 18- to 30-year-old adults from Oakland, Chicago, Minneapolis and Birmingham.
Researchers caution that the findings don't point to the health benefits of heavy marijuana use.
“Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana for these or other purposes may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function,” Pletcher said. “On the other hand, our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavier use – either very frequent use or frequent use over many years – and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered.”
Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.
Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public health.
But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.
Research out of Egypt finds similar results - GMOs cause severe, long-term health damage
As reported recently in Egypt Independent, similar research by Hussein Kaoud from Cairo University's Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene also made some fascinating, though politically incorrect, discoveries about the effects of GMOs on the body. After feeding nine groups of rats varying combinations of GM soy, corn, wheat, and canola, Kaoud and his team observed that these genetic poisons clearly obstructed the normal function of the animals, affirming Pusztai's research.
"I recorded the alteration of different organs, shrinkage of kidneys, change in the liver and spleen, appearance of malignant parts in the tissues, (and) kidney failure and hemorrhages in the intestine," said Kaoud about the effects of GMOs as observed in the test rats. "The brain functions were touched as well, and the rats' learning and memory abilities were seriously altered."
In Kaoud's case, his groundbreaking findings will soon be published in the respected journals Neurotoxicology and Ecotoxicology. But it remains to be seen whether or not the scientific community at large, which is heavily influenced by biotechnology interests, and the political structures that control it will accept the results as valid, or pull a similar character assassination on Kaoud and his team as punishment for defying the status quo.
What all this clearly illustrates, of course, is that modern science can hardly be considered the independent, truth-seeking, "gold standard" of interpreting and understanding reality that many people mistakenly think it is. The truth about GMOs, as uncovered by mounds of independent research, is that they are inadequately safety tested, at best, and deadly at worst. But this fact remains shrouded in deception, thanks to the corporatized, pro-GMO culture of mainstream science.
Parents of elementary and middle school students in a small California town are protesting a tracking program their school recently launched, which requires students to wear identification badges embedded with radio frequency, or RFID, chips.
School superintendents struck a deal with a local maker of the technology last year to test the system to track attendance and weed out trespassers.
But students and parents, who weren't told about the RFID chips until they complained, are upset over what they say are surreptitious tactics the school used to implement the program. They also question the ethics of a monetary deal the school made with the company to test and promote its product, using students as guinea pigs.
"This is not right for our kids," said Michele Tatro, whose daughter received a badge. "I'm not willing for anybody to track me and I don't think my children should be tracked, either."
The InClass RFID system was developed by two local high school teachers in Sutter, California, who helped found the company, InCom, that markets the system. Last year, the company approached the principal and superintendent of Brittan Elementary School District with the idea of testing InClass. The company offered the elementary school a donation of "a couple thousand dollars," according to the school's attorney, Paul Nicholas Boylan, as compensation for possible inconveniences caused by the test.
Boylan said the plan seemed like a good idea at the time and that the outcry was "completely unanticipated."
"But these issues are far more complicated than they first looked," he said, admitting that "this is a test of something new. No one knows whether this technology is going to work or not." The system consists of a photo ID card affixed to a lanyard and worn around the neck. Embedded in the card is an RFID chip that contains a 15-digit number assigned to each student. As students pass beneath a doorway scanner on their way into a classroom, the scanner records the number and sends it to a server in the school's administrative office. The server translates the digits into names and sends an attendance list to the teacher's PDA, identifying all of the students who walked through the door. The teacher then visually verifies that the names on the PDA list match the students in the classroom.
The company installed the scanners and server last summer, but students only recently received the badges. InCom didn't return a call for comment, but according to a press release (PDF) on its website, the company plans to market the product nationwide next week at the American Association of School Administrators conference in Texas. Attorney Boylan said the school district stands to earn a royalty on future sales, and InCom has promised to install a schoolwide system at Brittan free of charge after the test is completed.
Brittan is the first school in California to use RFID, but not the first in the nation. Spring Independent School District near Houston, Texas, recently gave 28,000 students RFID badges to record when students get on and off school buses. The information is monitored by the police and school administrators to prevent child abductions and truancy. A handful of other schools have tested similar projects.
"The proliferation of RFIDs and their use in identity documents is of serious concern," Ozer said. "Not just for people with children but for all of us in terms of monitoring."
Last December, when her 13-year-old daughter, Lauren, mentioned that students at her school would be getting "nametags," Michele Tatro thought nothing of it.
"They've always had student IDs to get into dances and get discounts at football games," Tatro said. "So I didn't even fathom the tracking (aspect). I had never heard of RFID until it came to my doorstep."
Then, when Tatro collected Lauren from school a few weeks ago, her daughter was furious.
"She shoves (the badge) in front of me and says 'Look at this!'" Tatro said. "She's mad and exasperated because someone has forced this upon her, and she feels like she can't do anything about it."
The Tatros and the parents of another student told the school, which includes grades kindergarten through 8th grade, that their children wouldn't participate in the project. The school sent a letter threatening disciplinary action if students didn't participate. So the parents contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and other civil liberties groups. A handful of other parents have withdrawn their children from the test project as well.
"We tried talking to (the school superintendents) twice," Tatro said. "They didn’t see our concerns."
Parents and civil liberty groups are also concerned about who has access to the collected data.
Boylan said the system offers security advantages since administrators would immediately know if a student didn't show up for class and could notify parents quickly. School officials could also quickly identify anyone who didn't belong on campus if they weren't wearing an RFID badge. But the main draw is a more efficient and accurate way to track and verify attendance in order to receive state funds.
"In California, the funding of schools is based on attendance," Boylan said. "Therefore we want (attendance) to be as accurate as we can. If we are wrong for whatever reason, it means we are getting less money than we should be getting." The system provides an audit trail to back up the district's claims if the state questions their numbers. Boylan couldn't say how scanners above bathroom doors would help track attendance. InCom installed scanners outside 7th and 8th-grade classrooms at Brittan and above bathroom doors in a cafeteria. But Boylan noted that the bathroom scanners never worked properly anyway, and the school has since asked InCom to remove them.
Boylan said the school properly notified parents about the test, as the law requires, and got no complaints. He said the school held an open board meeting to discuss the test and posted public notices describing the essence of the test, but could not say where exactly the notices were placed.
"At the office, possibly in town," he said.
On Jan. 12, Brittan did announce in its weekly newsletter (PDF) that the school would soon require students to wear ID badges, but didn't mention RFID chips or scanners in classroom doors.
It said only that the school would soon issue "new safety ID badges" that students should wear "at all times" during normal school hours. The announcement also said students would be held accountable for the cost of replacing lost or destroyed badges.
Lauren Tatro said that when principal Earnie Graham distributed the badges, he didn't mention the RFID chips in them or give students a choice about wearing the badges.
"Students asked questions," Tatro said, "but they couldn’t really be answered very well. We got just the basics of what they were but nothing about the tracking."
A week after receiving parent complaints, the school scheduled a gathering to demonstrate the technology and answer questions, but notified parents only a day in advance.
"We're not opposed to technology," Tatro said. "We’re opposed to the way they're applying the technology. This is a test bed (to gauge) public acceptance of this. If they get away with it here, somebody else will try something even more invasive somewhere else."
Boylan said the school is currently discussing with the company how much data it needs to test the system. And the school has decided to allow students to opt out of wearing badges until it makes a formal decision about the status of the project next week.
But Tatro said that even if the school modifies or cancels the project, they plan to lobby schools to abandon such plans nationwide.
"We feel a bit of responsibility that we have to make this known," Tatro said. "We don't want to deal with another application of it somewhere else. Even if they retract, we will press forward in any lobbying to the appropriate people that we don't want this technology used in this application in society."
Statele americane Colorado si Washington sunt primele care vor legaliza posesia si consumul de marijuana în scopuri recreative, dupa ce electoratul a votat aceasta masura.
"Credem ca voturile din Colorado au decis o abordare mai sensibila pe aceasta tema", spune Mason Tvert, liderul miscarii care este în favoarea legalizarii marijuanei. Doua posturi TV din Denver au confirmat deja optiunea electoratului.
În Colorado, dar si în alte state americane, marijuana este legala, daca aceasta este folosita în scopuri medicale
Cei care au votat în Oregon, au trebuit de asemenea sa raspunda daca sunt de acord cu legalizarea marijuanei, dar rezultatul chestinoarului de marti nu este pentru moment clarificat.
Cei care sustin aceste masuri spun ca "legalizarea ierbii" ar scadea semnificativ puterea cartelurilor de droguri si ar creste venituri substantiale la buget, provenite din taxele de comercializare. Cei care se opun acestei initiative spun ca este o masura ridicola, care ar atrage traficanti din alte state si s-ar încuraja astfel consumul în rândul tinerilor.
Noua lege din Colorado va permite persoanelor, care au împlinit 21 de ani, sa cumpere maxim 28 de grame de marijuana, din magazine speciale. Adultilor din acest stat li se va permite sa creasca maxim sase plante în propriile locuinte.
Statul Washington va pune la punct o licentiere a cultivatorilor, procesatorilor si magazinelor de marijuana, iar conditiile de consum sunt aceleasi cu cele din Colorado.
Guvernul Federal al SUA nu a fost niciodata de acord cu legalizarea stupefiantelor la nivel de stat. Procurorul General, Eric Holder, a spus în repetate rânduri, ca Departamentul de Justitie american va "pedepsi viguros" persoanele care poseda, fabrica sau distribuie marijuana în scopuri recreative, chiar daca acestea vor fi permise în unele state de pe teritoriul american.
The unlucky few who do end up on a downward spiral of economic, social and physical disadvantage.
While we don’t know why some people don’t recover from an acute episode of pain, we do know that it’s not because their injury was worse in the first place. We also know that it’s not because they have a personality problem. Finally, we do know that, on the whole, treatments for chronic pain are not particularly successful.
This sobering reality draws up some interesting reflections on pain itself. What is pain? Is it simply a symptom of tissue damage or is it something more complex? One way to approach this second question is to determine whether it’s possible to have one without the other – tissue damage without pain or pain without tissue damage.
“Pain is usually triggered by messages that are sent from the tissues of the body when those tissues are presented with something potentially dangerous.” Image: grafvision/iStockphoto
And you can answer that one yourself – ever noticed a bruise that you have absolutely no recollection of getting? If you answered yes, then you have sustained tissue damage without pain. Ever taken a shower at the end of a long day in the sun and found the normally pleasantly warm water, painfully hot? That’s not the shower injuring you – it’s just activating sensitised receptors in your skin.
Such questions and their answers are of great interest to pain scientists because they remind us that pain is not simply a measure of tissue damage. What is pain? The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as an experience. Pain is usually triggered by messages that are sent from the tissues of the body when those tissues are presented with something potentially dangerous. The neurones that carry those messages are called nociceptors, or danger receptors. We call the system that detects and transmits noxious events “nociception”. Critically, nociception is neither sufficient nor necessary for pain. But most of the time, pain is associated with some nociception. The exact amount or type of pain depends on many things. One way to understand this is to consider that once a danger message arrives at the brain, it has to answer a very important question: “How dangerous is this really?” In order to respond, the brain draws on every piece of credible information – previous exposure, cultural influences, knowledge, other sensory cues – the list is endless. How might all these things modulate pain? The favourite theory among pain scientists relies on the complexity of the human brain. We can think about pain as a conscious experience that emerges in response to activity in a particular network of brain cells that are spread across the brain. We can call the network a “neurotag” and we can call the brain cells that make up the neurotag “member brain cells”. Each of the member brain cells in the pain neurotag are also member brain cells of other neurotags. If we have the phrase “slipped disc” in our brain for instance, it has to be held by a network of brain cells (we can call this the “slipped disc” neurotag). And it’s highly likely that there are some brain cells that are members of both the slipped disc neurotag and the back pain neurotag. This means that if we activate the slipped disc neurotag, we slightly increase the likelihood of activating the back pain neurotag.
Using this model, thinking that we have a slipped disc has the potential to increase back pain. But what if this piece of knowledge we have stored is inaccurate, just like our notion of a slipped disc? A disc is so firmly attached to its vertebrae that it can never, ever slip. Despite this, we have the language, and the pictures to go with it, and both strongly suggest it can.
When the brain is using this inaccurate information to evaluate how much danger one’s back is in, we can predict with confidence that, if all other things were equal, thinking you have a slipped disc and picturing one of those horrible clinical models of a slipped disc will increase your back pain. Self-perpetuating pain This is where our understanding of pain itself becomes part of a vicious cycle. We know that as pain persists the nociception system becomes more sensitive. What this means is that the spinal cord sends danger messages to the brain at a rate that overestimates the true danger level. This is a normal adaption to persistent firing of spinal nociceptors. Because pain is (wrongly) interpreted to be a measure of tissue damage, the brain has no option but to presume that the tissues are becoming more damaged. So when pain persists, we automatically assume that tissue damage persists.
On the basis of what we now know about the changing nervous system, this presumption is often wrong. The piece of knowledge that’s turning up the pain neurotag is actually being reinforced by itself! I think it goes like this: “more pain = more damage = more danger = more pain” and so on and so forth.
The idea that an inaccurate understanding of chronic pain increases chronic pain begs the question – what happens if we correct that inaccurate piece of knowledge?
We’ve been researching the answer to this for over a decade, and here’s some of what we’ve found: (i) Pain and disability reduce, not by much and not very quickly but they do;
(ii) Activity-based treatments have better effects;
(iii) Flare-ups reduce in their frequency and magnitude;
(iv) Long-term outcomes of activity-based treatments are vast improvements.
There’s compelling evidence that reconceptualising pain according to its underlying biology is a good thing to do. But it’s not easy. Our research group is continually looking for better ways of doing this, and we’re not the only ones. The idea of explaining pain has taken off in pain management programs and outpatients departments the world over. Clinicians need to rethink too What we know about how pain works is not just relevant to how we teach it to patients, we need to base our clinical decisions on it. This means abandoning Rene Descartes famous model of 1654. His drawing depicts a man with his foot in the fire and a “pain receptor” activating an hydraulic system that rings a bell in his head. Of course no one believes we have hydraulics making this happen, but the idea of an electrical circuit turning on the pain centre is still at the heart of many clinical practices across professional and geographic boundaries.
The type of thinking captured in Descartes’ model has led to some amazing advances in clinical medicine. But the evidence against it is now almost as compelling as that against the world being flat.
Of course, those sailors who never leave the harbour might hang on to the idea of a flat world. And, in the same way, there are probably clinicians who hang on to the idea of pain equalling tissue damage. I suspect they either don’t see complex or chronic pain patients, or, when they do, they presume that those patients are somehow faulty or psychologically fragile, or, tragically, are lying.
Perhaps they can continue to practice without ever leaving the harbour. The problems I want to solve clearly exist on the open seas.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by The Conversation here ,and is licenced as Public Domain under Creative Commons. See Creative Commons – Attribution Licence.
Once society developed past the clan stage, when barter, trade and so forth arose, it became the practice to place value on the products of human energy expended.
If one used one's energy to build a bow, go out hunting, kill an animal, process the carcass, and transport the meat back to be traded or bartered for, this gave that meat value. The bow components were free, as was the animal. The same was true for the farmer, who expended meaningful energy in tilling, sowing, tending, harvesting, and, if need be, transporting what that farmer produced.
The produce had value. Even the gatherer expended meaningful energy in seeking things to gather, then transporting the find back to be used as "money" for other things. The miner expended the meaningful energy to find the (free) ore, hew it out of the earth, and transport it.
From these beginnings, the practice of using coin and other objects arose to represent this meaningful energy expended when transporting large amounts of goods, as well using to acquire something another had but not having the specific thing the other wanted.
And from this, humans went on to bills when coins and jewels and other objects became too cumbersome.
And, lately, we have added electronic funds, as even bills are cumbersome in million unit, billion unit and trillion unit transactions. But the foundation of all these monetary units is the meaningful energy expended, whether human or resource-based (oil, coal, nuclear, etc.) energy.
Given this, it becomes clear that an addition of abundant energy - in the form of overunity ("free energy") and robotics (to replace human energy in necessary work nobody wants to do), the need for money in any form - barter, trade, work exchange, coin, bills, electronic funds - becomes unnecessary.
If one removes the cost of the energy - human and external - all down the line, what is left is freely given by this planet we inhabit.
Now, of course, many would say, "But there is no 'overunity' to be had!" And in that, they would be incorrect.
There have been many solutions to energy production and distribution which have been avidly suppressed and hidden by the power elite. They are fully aware that by adding energy which is free, their power over others, in the form of money, will dissipate, leaving each to control oneself but no others.
Though there are examples of things such as cars that run on water, extracting energy from the planet's magnetic field, and so on that have had patents bought and buried, or threats to lives (of the inventors themselves as well as their families), to actual murders, I know of one such technology that not only offers overunity, but also gravity control.
And, unlike most of these other examples, is negentropic (negative entropy) in its function. Cooling is seen in this technology, as opposed to heating.
That science/technology is electrogravitics.
Back in the 1950s, electrogravitics, with the Biefeld-Brown Effect as its foundation, was being pursued at all the major aerospace companies: Lockheed, Boeing, Convair, Lear and many others were excitedly exploring what electrogravitics had to offer.
Sometime, around 1959 or early 1960, this work became highly classified and, though ostensibly for its "weaponization" concerns, the true reason it became highly classified was because of its overunity capabilities. The power elite grasped that that was the biggest threat to their continued control.
As a source of energy, electrogravitics is ideal.
From it, we can have energy that is free of pollution, is easily constructed, and does not contribute to the entropy of the universe. Because it is so ideal, and because the power elite seem bent on Naziesque control of the planet - with "Patriot" Acts, NDAA's, TSA's, and other fascist enactments - it is vital that the awareness of such technology spread to the tipping point.
If we can achieve that, Humanity will demand this tech and free itself from:
Poverty
Hunger
Slavery (outright or wage slavery)
War (most wars are incited to ensure profit for the war suppliers and "infrastructure rebuilders")
The control of the many by the few
The love of money (the root of all evil)
The need to pay for education (going deeply into debt or forgoing education)
Products made to fail so as to ensure future sales
Hidden cures (cures are not a money-maker in the long run; sick People keep paying)
Corporate "farmers" paid to NOT produce food (so as to keep the prices inflated through supply and demand)
Doctors who are more interested in money than patients
Bankers
Insurance
Internet takeover
"Voting" machines with proprietary software (why would a simple vote-counting program need to be proprietary? Why do we accept such things?)
Waste (presently supermarkets alone throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food a month, distributing by profit and not need; other waste such as packaging can virtually be eliminated, products will not be made to break so as to ensure future sales)
There's more, but as one can see, just this list is an elimination of most of the problems we presently are beset with.
To the end of achieving the tipping point of awareness, I am offering a petition to the US Military (which presently controls the science of electrogravitics) to release this information.
I offer it here in the hopes that you sign - and not only that, spread the awareness of what I have presented and of the petition itself.
Uh wait a minute there sporto, studies have shown that at best, there may be some psychological dependency but in the true definition of “addiction” marijuana doesn’t even come close.
2. It leads to addiction to other drugs
Well, if you mean the gateway theory, that has been thoroughly debunked by modern science and what’s more, studies prove that the very black market nature of marijuana’s criminalization are the reason people are exposed to drugs that really are dangerous.
98% of all Cannabis users are dead end users, meaning they never move on to any other drug.
3. Marijuana is dangerous
Every dangerous drug has an LD50. This is the amount of drug that would be enough to kill 50% of the test subject population.
There is NO SUCH THING AS A LETHAL TOXIC DOSE OF MARIJUANA!
4. Marijuana has no accepted medicinal use
Really? Why then has it been used as medicine since the dawn of time? Why is there no treatment to keep a glaucoma patient from going blind apart from marijuana? The burden of proof is on you, not proponents of MMJ, history and science supports that position well.
5. Todays marijuana is stronger than it was in the 70’s
Your point is? Coffee is much better today than it was back in the days of percolators too? That doesn’t mean it is necessarily bad for you.
You use less. In the same way an espresso does not come in a regular coffee cup, it is a dosage matter.
6. Marijuana use is a barrier to success
Tell it to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Carl Sagan, Richard Branson, Sir Paul McCartney... Shall I go on?
7. More teens are in drug rehab for marijuana dependency than any other drug
What you have here is the classic mistaking correlation for causation. When you factor out teens who have been herded there at the point of a drug sentence from a Judge, then the argument falls on it’s face.
8. Smoking marijuana causes lung damage
On the contrary. Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA found that not only did smoking marijuana not cause lung damage, but among people who smoked cigarettes and marijuana, the marijuana mitigated lung damage caused by cigarettes.
9. If marijuana was legalized, more people would use it
You would think that but the truth is, in Countries that have legalized any drug, use has actually gone down.
10. If marijuana were legalized, there will be an increase in highway fatalities
In Colorado, after they made marijuana available over the counter under state law, drunk driving arrests went down 50%.
Give people a safer alternative and they will use it. People who use marijuana do it and drive now, marijuana is already here.
11. Buying marijuana supports terrorism
Prohibition of marijuana supports terrorism. No one is killing people in the streets of Chicago anymore because we ended alcohol prohibition. Marijuana prohibition is no different that the previous ill advised and unworkable policy.
12. Children will be exposed to marijuana more easily if it is legalized
When was the last time a drug dealer carded a buyer? They do not, but in a legal and regulated market such as alcohol or tobacco, access to marijuana is limited.
13. Marijuana is the “Devils Weed”
I give you Colossians 1:16: “ For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”
And just for good measure, how about the Apostle John?
John 1:3: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
Uh yeah so much for that one...
14. Marijuana is the most widely abused drug in the world
I would substitute “the most popular natural substance in the world” if you don’t want to sound like an “earth is flat” type...
People choose. When we have decided as a Country that alcohol is ok and that a certain amount of mind alteration is allowed as long as it is confined to lawful behavior, substances are just a choice.
Most rational people in the world understand and maintain that marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol.
15. Marijuana decreases sexual potency and arousal
Got a cup and girly mag, let’s see?
16. “Smoking one marijuana joint is more harmful than being at the Bikini Atoll during nuclear testing.” Ronald Reagan
Sorry Gipper, ol pal, but “There you go again” with the rhetoric. Either that’s patently untrue or I am a medical miracle crossed with a super hero, because I have smoked around 3500 joints and I’m still smarter than that.
17. Only lowlifes use marijuana
Go back to #6. 17+6=23 or what I consider to be your IQ Didn’t see that coming did you?
18. Marijuana causes black men to crave white women
You live in a cave don’t YOU? That is called “Reefer Madness”
19. People on marijuana are violent
Ask any cop which house he wants to go to, the one where people drink alcohol or the one where the people use marijuana! They will always pick the marijuana users because they are NOT violent.
20. It has always been illegal
Wrong, marijuana prohibition is a relatively new phenomenon. Thousands of years of use by humans compared to 75 years of prohibition.
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
