Jan

28

Wishful Thinking about John Hopkins Cancer Center

Filed Under Philosophical, Wellness | Leave a Comment

Today I got an email claiming that John Hopkins changed his mind about cancer treatment.

First of all this email talked about John Hopkins, implying that it was taking about the John Hopkins University and its medical and cancer center - but notice it did not say that, so it could be any John Ignatius Hopkins living in Idaho.

So, let’s see first - here is that email…

News from John Hopkins

AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY (TRY BEING THE KEY WORD) AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHN HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY.

Cancer Update from John Hopkins:

  1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have m ultiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
  2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.
  3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
  4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
  5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
  6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
  7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
  8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
  9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
  10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
  11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.
  12. CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
    • Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg’s amino or sea salt.
    • Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soya milk cancer cells are being starved.
    • Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a litt le chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
    • A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
    • Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water- it is best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
  13. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.
  14. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
  15. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor ssence,Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
  16. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
  17. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

PLEASE READ ON

  1. No plastic containers in micro.
  2. No water bottles in freezer.
  3. No plastic wrap in microwave.

Johns Hopkins has already sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well. Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don’t freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.

Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin.

So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn’t bad but you don’t know what is in the paper. It’s just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.

So, there you have it!

If you are aware of bad things in your environment, this might resonate with you and you will feel relieved that John Hopkins - whoever that may be - is finally coming to his senses and sees the light.

Only problem here is that this is a hoax. It feeds on the inability of many people to question something they like. Easy to reject something you dislike, sure, but something you wish was true…

Thanks to the internet I can now take my trusty Google and search for a phrase of this email and see what comes up. Wow, nearly 14000 matches for “Cancer Update from John Hopkins” with wild discussions about the subject on some of those sites. I guess not many have confirmed with the alleged originator of that article.

If you do you will find the following statement of the John Hopkins Cancer Center…

HEADLINE: Email Hoax Regarding Cancer

Lohns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center
Office of Public Affairs
March 2007

EMAIL HOAX REGARDING CANCER

An email falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins describing properties of cancer cells and suggesting prevention strategies has begun circulating the Internet. Johns Hopkins did not publish the email, entitled “Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins,” nor do we endorse its contents. For more information about cancer, please read the information on our web site or visit the National Cancer Institute’s web site at www.cancer.gov.

Another hoax email that has been circulating since 2004 regarding plastic containers, bottles, wrap claiming that heat releases dioxins which cause cancer also was not published by Johns Hopkins.

-JHM-

I think many of the points in the hoax email are very valid, but it does a great dis-service by trying to appear something it is not. It’s the old ‘cry wolf’ story. When you find out that the email lied about the origin, then the rest must be a lie too, right?

I myself fell for something like this before and it took me years to recover. You might have seen that email that claims that canola oil is better used as a machine oil than as food. I took this at face value and was for years surprised that Whole Food Markets sells so many products with canola oil. I was about to write to them and ask why the heck don’t they do some research into this before they sell it. Fortunately I did the research myself before I wrote this letter and so spared me a deep embarrassment - because that letter was a hoax as well.

I learned a very good lesson that also good news need to be verified, so I don’t complain that I fell for that letter initially.

Jan

24

John Lennon: You are the Government

Filed Under Inspiration, Larken Rose, Philosophical, Politics | 2 Comments

With the battle for the presidential nomination raging it is interesting to gather some opinions about those who strive to be our rulers, those who want us to vote for them so that they then may tell us what to do and think.

Yoko Ono, late John Lennon’s wife has a great website Imagine Peace. On it I found the following video…

YouTube Preview Image

It struck me as fascinating how John Lennon assessed the situation with government and politicians - The people are the government, they have the power.

And isn’t he right?!

I might have mentioned once or twice on this blog (yeah, right - once or twice!) that I am working on the understanding of “The World IS as I see it.” Thus John Lennon’s statment was right on the money for me. He described the only one little thing that needs to happen to change the world, and that is seeing it differently - namely realizing that we do have the power. A requirement for this realization would be to stop blaming others for non-optimal situations.

A nice exercise on the way to reach that goal is to play ‘pretend.’ Thanks to Larken Rose I have a nice example for that. If we take back all the power we think we have given to the government, we can easily imagine what he describes in one of his latest letters to his mailing list.

Dear Subscriber,

This message needs a very prominent disclaimer. This is because the federal control freaks and their hired thugs, who don’t hesitate to resort to overt oppression and violence themselves, are scared to death that one day their victims will decide to do a little “enforcement” of their own. You see, “government” folk can kick down doors, taser people, drag people away, shoot people, imprison people, steal property, and otherwise harass and intimidate the peasantry as often as they like, but if you happen to make some comment about the purpose of the Second Amendment, well then, you’re a TERRORIST! (The feds accusing someone of being a “terrorist” is a little like Hitler calling someone an anti-semite.) So I want to make this perfectly clear, so that even a hired federal goon or a judge can understand it: I am NOT advocating the following scenario. Far from it. I am pointing out how irrational and thug-minded the feds’ method of “debate” is, by seeing what their rationale would look like in the other direction. So, with that being said, imagine the following story appearing in “Domestic Terrorist Weekly”:

TAX EXTREMIST APPREHENDED
April 15, 2010
(c)2010 Associated Militant Press - Washington, DC

This week the Militia Department of Justice announced the arrest of another in a long line of “freedom protestors” who have been thumbing their noses at the American public, duping people into handing over money they didn’t owe. “This should send a strong message to any other freedom protestors that their lawlessness will not be tolerated,” said Militia Attorney General Trooth D. Fender, after the arrest of so-called “district judge” Powe R. Happee, adding that “These scam artists are duping the public and defrauding innocent people, and must be held accountable.

Last month Common Law Court Justice B. Dunn issued an injunction, barring an extremist cult publication called “The New York Times” from printing any more tax-related articles. “This abusive extortion scheme is an affront to all law-abiding citizens,” said Judge Dunn in his ruling, before imposing a ten-year prison sentence on David Cay Johnston, the leader and head guru of the “freedom deniers” sect at the “New York Times” cult.

“If you tell Americans that they owe the tax, you can expect to be forcibly silenced,” said tax expert Ikan Reed. “Even the few judges and IRS agents who have been found not guilty of fraud have had all their money stolen and their houses burned to the ground, as a warning to others who might be considering taking their advice.” Mr. Reed also added, “I mean, if we all owe the tax like they claim, why do these guys keep getting captured and locked up?”

Commissioner of Liberty, Propper T. Wrights, said that he is asking the Militia Congress for more powers to fight against the freedom protestors, including the ability to impose more severe fines and penalties against the promoters of the “61 fraud scheme”–a frivolous argument in which proponents claim that Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code means that all income is taxable for all Americans. “These frivolous scams must be stopped at all costs, to protect the innocent,” said Mr. Wrights.

Aside from a little pointless “turnabout-is-fair-play” daydreaming, what’s the point here? It is this:

Would kidnapping a few dozen IRS bureaucrats prove that we don’t owe the tax? No. Would hanging a judge or two prove us right? No. Would forcibly silencing opposing views show the validity of our position? No. What proves someone right is EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Any bozo should be able to understand that.

So why is it that the government, and its lapdog media, constantly harp on how much the feds have HURT people who say “861″? (And they’re hoping to do the same to Wesley Snipes.) What kind of moron thinks that THAT is proof that the 861 evidence is invalid? “Hey, we locked some people up, stole lots of money and property, and silenced a bunch of web sites. See? We told you they were wrong!” Nice mentality.

Luckily, most of us outgrew this outlook on life at about age three, when we realized that smacking our sibling in the head didn’t actually prove that we were in the right. Trouble is, neither federal judges nor IRS and DOJ thugs have figured that out yet. They still think locking people up, issuing injunctions and swiping property is an adequate substitute for rational discussion. Or rather, they think it’s okay for THEM to use violence instead of words; but if they even suspect for a second that WE might resort to violence, they run crying to the nearest armed federal thug. What a bunch of hypocritical, spineless cowards.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

What I want for Larken is that he will take more John Lennon’s viewpoint. I can understand his grudge against the government that put him in jail for a year, but I think once he succeeds in owning this fact as his own creation, all this will go away. We might lose his sharp pen, which I enjoy a lot, but this will be worth the price to pay for his peace and happiness.

Jan

23

Haanel’s Master Key System

Filed Under Inspiration, Philosophical | Leave a Comment

It is a few month now that I work myself through Haanel’s Master Key System, and it has been a very interesting trip.

Many of you know by now the idea of the “Law of Attraction,” made very popular through the movie “The Secret.” This movie, released just a few years ago, created the impression that this law of attraction was something brand new - not quite so! It is commendable that this movie brought the idea to a lot more people than Haanel’s book would have ever done, but this book pre-dates the movie by nearly a century.

The book is a series of weekly transmissions, or lessons, to the student. Principles of changing your world are introduced, then followed by an exercise to be done during the following week.

If you are used to just consume knowledge and wisdom by being impressed by some writer or movie maker then this is not the right venue. This is a book written in a language that you have to get into to understand. In my mind it seem to reflect the fact that education  a century ago appears to have been better, that people were able to understand more involved written concept. There has been no effect of the tube yet - it had not yet been invented.

But if you are eager to get more than a fleeting WOW! then this is the right book to work through. If you really work with a subject it just sticks better.

My book goes with me all the time, just in case I have some time to read or re-read something - and it shows…

The Master Key System - Charles F. Haanel

Dec

26

The US One Century Ago - Statistically

Filed Under History, Philosophical | Leave a Comment

statistics 100 years agoThat was interesting! I ran into some statistics that somebody had collected with the intend to awe us all when we compare these numbers with the numbers of today.

The most intriguing aspect of these numbers is to try to interpolate what we will see in the days of 100 years from now. Looking at Ray Kurzweil’s Book ‘The Singularity is Near’, we can safely assume that the speed of development will increase. Mr. Kurzweil even expect the speed to increase exponentially.

When I look over only my own lifetime I have to admit that that assumption makes sense, but this also means that I don’t have a chance in the world to predict how our world will look in one hundred years.

Now, in order to bend your mind a bit, here are the statistics from 1907:

    • The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years old.
    • Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.
    • Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.
    • A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost eleven dollars.
    • There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S. , and only 144 miles of paved roads.
    • The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
    • The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower.
    • The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.
    • The average U.S. Worker made between $200 and $400 per year .
    • A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist made $2,500 per year, a veterinarian $1,500 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.
    • More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at home.
    • Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had no college education.
      (Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and the government as “substandard.”)
    • Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
    • Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from entering into their country for any reason.
    • Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
      1. Pneumonia and influenza
      2. Tuberculosis
      3. Diarrhea
      4. Heart disease
      5. Stroke
    • The American flag had 45 stars.
      (Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska hadn’t been admitted to the Union yet.)
    • The population of Las Vegas, Nevada , was only 30.
    • Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea hadn’t been invented yet.
    • There was no Mother’s Day or Father’s Day.
    • Two out of every 10 U.S. adults couldn’t read or write.
    • Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
    • Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacists said, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind,regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”
    • There were about 230 reported murders in the entire U.S.A.

    What struck me as notable was the fact that hundred years ago 20% of the adult US population could not read or write. Looking at todays numbers that was pretty good, even though we are supposed to come to the opposite conclusion.

    I found the following quote:

    According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, released by the National Institute for Literacy (NIL), there has been a significant growth in illiteracy in America. Over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate, without the minimum skills required in a modern society.

    Dec

    5

    Dear Teenagers of Stupid Parents…

    Filed Under Fun Stuff, Philosophical, Thoughts | 4 Comments

    I am still a bit away from having a teenager, but this picture here still resonated - maybe because I did not look forward to the future with a teenager with me, but instead back and remembered how I totally had agreed with this message.

    Teenagers Act Now!

    Nov

    1

    Did you wash behind your ears?

    Filed Under Fun Stuff, Philosophical, Video | Leave a Comment

    When our son gets a big stream of orders for all the things he still has to do I often can not hold on and have to ask him also this important question: “Did you wash behind your ears?” - because in his modern training this is mostly left out in his education.

    After so many years I still remember this from my own training and I certainly know the value of washing behind your ears. Or did I never see the value of that? I donno - but it was one of the two.

    Anyways I got pretty old by now and don’t remember every washing behind my years consciously (and I never grew any moss behind my ears) so I guess it must not have been that important. It might cost me a few years towards the end of this lifetime - but hey - we can always do another one if we really enjoyed it that much.

    But the whole point of this tirade is expressed by Ping Floyd in their epic “The Wall”

    Teachers - leave us kids alone!

    and I am sure that parents are included in the term teachers.

    This has been nicely presented in this mother’s parody of parental guidance - enjoy!

    YouTube Preview Image

    And never do this again to your child.

    Oct

    13

    Fear and Create

    Filed Under Inspiration, Philosophical | Leave a Comment

    Joyful WomanI ran across a little thought here and wanted to see what we can do with it.

    That quote is from the course in miracles and for all fast readers of this course here is the location of the quote: T-9.I.13.5 and the quote itself i…

    “As long as you believe that fear is possible, you will not create.”

    When I first read this I was about to read right past it because it is kind of self evident, right?

    But then I had the thought if it is possible to make the conclusion also the other way: if my creation I intend does not work, does that mean I have fear?

    And I had to answer that with a resounding YES!

    In other words I found myself a nice meter with which I can easily and without fail evaluate my fear level. Want to know if I am fear-free in an area - just create something and see if it comes to be.

    If not, then back to the drawing board, so to speak.

    Just the viewpoint alone of using the failure of a creation to measure remaining fear brings such a nice exterior viewpoint that makes creation a lot easier and nicer.

    Sep

    25

    The Advantages of Being Evil

    Filed Under Larken Rose, Philosophical, Politics | 1 Comment

    Reality is a funny thing.

    It is something that you are supposed to share with others. And for the most part it does work. We all agree that if we walk into that table we’ll hurt and will develop that nice and colorful bruise. OK, admittedly, there might be some that don’t get stopped by a table and walk right through it, but then we have probably so little reality in common with them, that we will not even see them. As a matter of fact, as we probably can’t see them they might be more numerous than we are.

    But I digress - this is not really the level of reality I want to scrutinize today. I want to look at that reality where we are perceiving each other still very well, but where one displays a behavior that the other just can not imagine to be possible.

    For me that would be a person with ambitions to tell others what to do. I have a little son and I would really like him to make his own decisions. Only out of pure self-preservation do I have to tell him what to do or not do - like NOT watching TV all weekend. But I don’t like it.

    But then there is this group of people who just can’t help telling others what to do and not to do - and not only that, also punishing them if they disobey. You already know, what’s coming, right - it’s the P-word - - Politicians - my favorite people. Favorite, because there is something for me to learn. Not necessarily to practice myself, but something to wrap my mind around, to fully ‘get’ it.

    My favorite anarchist, Larken Rose, has an interesting take on this and helped me to ‘get’ it better.

    Doctor Evil

    Being evil has its advantages, one of which is that good people, who don’t think like deranged psychos, can be taken off guard because they imagine others to be like them. For example, consider the ever-popular plot for a horror movie: the kind-hearted soul who, out of pity, picks up the rain-soaked hitchhiker (who also happens to be an axe murderer). Us good folk don’t WANT to suspect everyone of being a villain, and we don’t EXPECT them to be, either. And when you’re talking about “respected” people in positions of great power, then we REALLY don’t want to consider the possibility that they may just be well-dressed axe murderers. But if we are incapable of considering the possibilities of what evil people might do, what kinds of things they are capable of, then we allow ourselves to be vulnerable.

    “The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” [J. Edgar Hoover]

    As a result, when someone brings up some “conspiracy theory,” suggesting that people in “our” government have committed theft, torture, murder, etc., part of us doesn’t WANT it to be true. We WANT to be able to dismiss it as nonsense, rather than face the possibility that there are some people with a LOT of power who don’t at all mind torturing and killing other people.

    Recently a story broke - though not very loudly in the mainstream media - that six nuclear warheads had been “accidentally” flown from North Dakota to Louisiana. (”Oops, how did that get in my suitcase?”) Some have argued that that simply can’t happen “accidentally,” and have gone on to suggest that the nukes may have been intended to be part of a surprise nuke-attack on Iran. (The feds say the nukes were about to be “decommissioned.”) Well, someone in the Air Force spilled the beans, and the military higher - ups feigned shock and outrage, and said the matter would be “investigated.”

    By itself, that story could be a toss-up: was it something devious or was it incompetence–each of which the government has plenty of? However, several air force folks from the two involved bases (Minot in North Dakota and Barksdale in Louisiana) have since turned up dead. Oh, and that was all “accidental” too. The following link lists those who have died, with links to the “mainstream” stories about the deaths.

    http://cryptogon.com/?p=1299

    Now, there are two ways people can react to all this:

    1. Um, it must just be coincidence–are you alleging some sort of conspiracy!? Are you saying OUR government would kill Air Force people!?!!?!
    2. There is no way that’s a coincidence, but what does it mean?

    The second is the rational response, while the first is wishful thinking bordering on insanity–and it’s probably how most Americans would react. If those in power can kill off several people with obvious ties to a recent, serious “incident” WITHOUT causing widespread public suspicion and outrage, well, then this country deserves to be enslaved.

    If people won’t LET the rational part of their brain function, because of what it might conclude, we’re in really bad shape. I’ll give an example, which is pure speculation. I’m not pretending to have a shred of proof or evidence that the following happened; my purpose is merely to suggest the possibility, so you can see how YOU instinctively respond.

    PURE SPECULATION:

    In an unheard-of “mistake,” several nukes–warhead and trigger together (though not “armed”)–get flown across the country. Shortly thereafter, several Air Force personnel from the two bases involved then die in different “accidents.” If they were killed - which seems pretty likely–WHY were they killed? Well, it could be that it was for exposing a blunder - moving the nukes improperly - but that seems pretty unlikely. What’s the point of killing people AFTER they spill the beans, especially if they can be identified as the ones who did the bean-spilling?

    It seems more likely that folk would be killed to STOP them from saying something. But saying what? It can’t just be the “accident,” because someone already exposed that. Might it be that the Air Force folk were about to publicly complain about the U.S. planning to nuke Iran? It’s possible, but really darn unlikely. First of all, the possibility of an attack on Iran is being widely discussed already. Exposing such a plan wouldn’t surprise anybody. Second, it would be a huge “breach of national security” for a soldier to release such information, and he would be locked up for a very long time (or possibly executed for treason). Third, folks in the military believe in chain of command, and pride themselves on their loyalty to “authority”–it takes a LOT to have them disobey orders. Would they do it to expose a possible strike on Iran, which would probably just happen anyway?

    So what would make several Air Force folk say something the powers that be REALLY didn’t want said–something serious enough that the “government” would murder its own to keep it quiet? And remember, it wasn’t just ONE guy, and to make a bunch of different military folk publicly “squeal” would take something pretty darn bad.

    How about plans to nuke a U.S. city? That’s pretty bad.

    Like I said, I’m making a wild guess here, for the purpose of testing what YOU are willing to consider, and what you dare to think about. So I’ll leave you with two questions:

    1. On a scale of one to ten, how likely is it that U.S. officials would be willing to nuke a U.S. city to get public support for another war, declaring martial law, or something of that nature?
    2. What is the basis for your answer to the first question?

    Too many people throughout history have naively declared, “That can’t be happening in MY country! MY government - my countrymen - wouldn’t do THAT!” And so they chose to remain blind to the horrors of “authority” in action. And, in all likelihood, the American public will do the same.

    Sincerely,
    Larken Rose
    www.larkenrose.com

    Aug

    27

    Anarchy and Owning Yourself

    Filed Under Larken Rose, Philosophical, Politics | Leave a Comment

    I have the idea that anarchy is a scary thing for many people. But if we look at some of the dictionary definition we are getting a bit smarter.

    One definition we find here is simply “a state of society without government or law.” This is pretty neural.

    But the we also have “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.” This is a rather interesting definition for a dictionary because it packs the conclusion that there will be disorder if there is no government control. But this definition surely reflects the idea of many members of our species, so maybe the definition has a place in a dictionary.

    Another definition is a bit more matter of fact: “a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.”

    The wildest one, and the one that probably most of us have in mind: “confusion; chaos; disorder.”

    As my son is growing up fast and it seems time to put this seed of criticism of government into his heart, I had noticed the need recently to really question what this government is actually good for.

    Do I need it to put up stop signs on each intersection in our very quiet neighborhood with no accidents? No, not really, it just makes me use more gas because I have to stop the car completely and then accelerate again while before I could just roll slowly by that intersection. But then again, I suppose somebody had some money left in his budget and needed to get rid of it otherwise it would be cut the next year - or something to that effect.

    And when I was thinking about all those interesting aspect of government or no government, who comes to the rescue?

    Larken Rose!

    I have posted several of his email letters here on these pages (with his permission) and I just have to do this again. It will be lengthy as even Larken had divided his thoughts on the subject into three parts, but I will put them all together here in one post for you to enjoy.

    The series of his email letters carries the title:

    Opening the Cage - Part 1:

    Dear Subscriber,

    If one accepts the fundamental truth that each of us owns himself, and ponders all the things which logically follow from that simple concept, the way the world looks suddenly changes drastically. Concepts like “government,” “law,” “authority,” “countries,” and so on, fall apart like a house of cards. Because that scares the heck out of people, however, many go to great lengths to DENY that they own themselves. The ramifications are just too weird, and too scary, for most people to even think about.

    Here is just one example:

    I own me. Imagine that the me I own is standing ten feet south of the border between Montana and Canada, looking at the nifty scenery. While I stand there, some people way over in Washington think they have the RIGHT to rule me: to impose taxes, regulations, commands, requirements, prohibitions, and so on, which (they think) I am obligated to obey. But I own me, and they don’t, so I have exactly ZERO obligation to obey any of their proclamations and legislation.

    (I do, however, have an obligation to refrain from doing anything which would impinge upon someone ELSE’S self-ownership, such as robbing, defrauding, murdering, vandalizing, assaulting, and so on. But that obligation does not come from any “legislation,” nor could any “law” or “rule” alter that obligation one bit.)

    Now, if I step over that imaginary line, into Canada, then a DIFFERENT set of megalomaniacs imagine themselves to have the right to tax me, regulate me, command me, control me, and so on. (In fact, they also think they have the right to prohibit me from stepping over the line in the first place.) Their claim is equally bogus: I own me no matter where I am. What I am obligated to do doesn’t depend one bit upon who thinks they have the right to rule me. None of them do.

    That being the case, what is the significance of that border to me? What difference is there between one “country” and the next, if I actually own myself? Yes, what might HAPPEN to me in different places will be different (many foreign megalomaniacs are a lot more overtly vicious to the noncompliant than the ones here), and what the people there will think, and how they will behave, will be different, but what I am OBLIGATED to do, and obligated to REFRAIN from doing, doesn’t change one bit.

    Some people have asked me, without borders, how could we have a country? I gave them the disturbing answer: we shouldn’t have a country. No one should. (Please don’t be so silly as to read that as an agreement with the “New World Order” fascists.) Today, “countries” are defined solely by WHICH group of megalomaniacs claim the right to rule a certain piece of dirt. Sure, cultures and places are real, and I can see feeling a loyalty or attachment to that. But imaginary lines drawn by people who believe they own me? Why on earth should I care about that?

    When I walk from the place in Montana, to the place that looks exactly the same in Canada, what did I leave behind? Why should I feel any differently? What actually changed? Did morality CHANGE, because a different set of tyrants claim to be in charge here? Unless you think that politicians outrank nature, the universe, or God (or whatever you believe to be the origin of right and wrong), the “law” cannot possibly ALTER morality. If I still own me, what difference does a “border” make?

    Again, people often go flying off to all sorts of tangents when faced with these concepts. They start pontificating about what we need, what works for society, all the nasty things that will happen if we don’t all bow to an authority, and so on. But again, I’m just talking about what IS. If I own myself–and I do–what possible meaning can “countries” have to me? I might like a group of people, or a place, or a culture, but that is NOT what a “country” is. (I bet everyone on this list can think of a LOT of places in the U.S., and a LOT of people in the U.S., who they feel no attachment to and no comradery with.)

    The path to accepting freedom is really disturbing to almost everyone (it sure was to me), which is why most people desperately fish for an excuse for NOT going down that path. “THERE WOULD BE CHAOS! WE NEED GOVERNMENT! DEATH, MAYHEM, ANARCHY!” But no such dire predictions or emotional tantrums can alter the painfully simple logic involved: either I own me, or I am the property of someone else. And if I simply accept that I own me, the world looks like a VERY different place.

    The feeling is exactly like that of an animal that has been in a small cage all its life, suddenly being shown a vast expanse of open wilderness (like Montana, for example). Unfortunately, most caged animals, when they catch a glimpse of freedom, cower into the back corner of their cage, and snarl and whimper until the door is shut again.

    How about you?

    Part 2:

    Once again, let’s peek out the open door of the “authority” cage, and see what there is to see out in the world of “I own me.” It’s drastically different from how the world looks from inside the locked cage. “Countries” are but one concept that falls apart once we accept that we own ourselves.

    In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass (former slave) described how a lot of slaves back in those days were completely convinced that slaves are what they SHOULD be. Many, if not most, would even look down upon any slave who would be so despicable as to try to run away. To the radical like Mr. Douglass, however, who realized that no amount of whips, chains, or cages could change the fact that he rightfully owned HIMSELF, the world looked drastically difference. To him, the supposed “owner” was the enemy–an evil thief committing both assault and theft on a daily basis.

    The world looks very different depending upon one’s ideas about who he belonged to: himself or someone else. In hindsight, most of us look back at that time and sympathize with the lawless, disobedient “slaves” who were willing to break the LAW in order to assert their rights to be free. But most people refuse to accept the same principle as it applies today.

    It was not too many years ago that, when I heard the term “law enforcement,” it had a positive connotation for me. The cops were the good guys, enforcing “the law” against those nasty criminals (defined as anyone who disobeys the “law”). However, now that I realize that I own myself, and that the same is true of every other individual, “police” appear to me as what they really are: people who commit evil far more often than they commit good. I’m not talking about when they break the law, which happens often, too– I’m talking about when they enforce an immoral, unjustified “law,” which is MOST of the time. The number of “laws” which simply formalize the use of inherently justified defensive force (such as “laws” against theft, murder, assault, etc.) are far outnumbered by the so-called “laws” which ADVOCATE theft, murder, and assault.

    (Warning: If you like your view from inside the cage, you may not want to continue reading.)

    I own me. You own you. Every person owns himself. If some guy wants to fry his brain, it is HIS to fry. So long as he doesn’t go around messing with someone else’s self-ownership–whether out of malice or negligence–NO ONE has the right to use force to stop him from frying his brain (though we have every right to try to talk him out of it, to call him a moron, etc.). And calling violence “law” has NO bearing on whether it is justified.

    When someone hiding behind the label of “authority” or “law enforcement” forces his way into someone’s home, with the intention of catching the homeowner with an unapproved LEAF (e.g., marijuana), in order to drag that person away and put him in a cage for several years, the leaf-smoker has the absolute right to use any means necessary, including killing the intruder (the “cop”), to protect himself.

    The same holds true of the victims of ALL non-defensive “law enforcement.” For example, Ed and Elaine Brown up in New Hampshire have the absolute moral right to use any means necessary, including deadly force, to prevent the authoritarian thugs from taking them hostage and putting them in cages. Even if they were guilty of the “crime” of “tax evasion,” which I believe they are NOT, the Browns would still own themselves, and still have the absolute right to defend their self-ownership from thieves and terrorists, regardless of whether the theft and terrorism is “legal” or not.

    Surely I’m not defending the “cop-killer” mentality?! Actually, I am doing precisely that, when the so-called “cops” are the ones doing the robbery, assault, or kidnapping. Despite how radical that may sound, it was not at all an usual attitude among those who started this country. The Declaration of Independence says that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the individual, and when it “becomes destructive of those ends,” it is both the right and duty of the people to overthrow it and start over. Here are a few other radical things Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, also said:

    “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”

    (In other messages I’ll explain why even “legitimate government” is impossible.)

    And when “government” force is used, not to defend those rights, but to infringe upon them, then what? Then, according to me and Thomas Jefferson, we have the right to FORCIBLY RESIST. Oddly, almost everyone agrees, when they’re talking about some “authority” they DON’T worship, but they believe it’s the ultimate blasphemy to suggest the same regarding the “authority” THEY bow to. For example, it was ILLEGAL in 1940’s Germany for the various “undesirables” to hide from the Nazis. Those who did were law- breakers; those who found them and dragged them away were “law enforcers.” And those “law enforcers” all deserved to have their damn heads blown off. And us modern Americans don’t mind saying that out loud, and in public. How about Stalin’s “law enforcers”? How about Mao’s? How about the “law enforcers” of King George III? We dang near deify the lawless, traitorous rebels who resisted George’s laws, and don’t mind at all the idea of his “law enforcers” getting gunned down. Heck, we have a big celebration about
    it every July 4th.

    How about today? When thugs and terrorists put a MILLION people in cages for possessing a SUBSTANCE, who should we be cheering for? It depends who owns the individual. If each individual owns himself, then those horrible “drug dealers” are the GOOD GUYS, and the “cops” are the BAD GUYS. (If the drug dealers happened to also have committed a REAL crime–the kind with an actual victim–like theft or murder, then they are the bad guys, too, but NOT because they had some “illegal” stuff.)

    I warned you, if you accept the idea that you own yourself, the way the world looks changes drastically. Most people don’t like to think, and don’t like to face disturbing truths, so they look for excuses to REJECT the idea that they own themselves. They revere “authority” and “the law”–superstitions which serve as a sort of philosophical crutch to help people not have to think and judge for themselves. Again, they see the open cage door, and they back away from it, thus guaranteeing their perpetual enslavement, in body and mind. (Those people then vigorously and passionately argue in favor of their own enslavement, which I find rather depressing.) But some of us choose something else. It’s called freedom.

    Part 3:

    (Note: Regarding my last message, don’t confuse rights with abilities. Even when completely justified, having a shootout with the cops is almost always hazardous to one’s health. My prior message wasn’t a suggestion; it was a statement about moral justification. As long as most people insist on believing that the collective owns them–via “government”–it will be really dangerous to be one of the crazies who thinks he owns himself. The other sheep don’t take kindly to those who resist being fleeced.)

    Almost everyone is a part-time collectivist. Most people have a few things which THEY want imposed on everyone else via “authority,” but when something they don’t like is imposed upon THEM, they get all self-righteous and indignant about it. Well, to paraphrase (and slightly mangle) the “golden rule,” if you don’t want other people doing it to you, DON’T DO IT TO THEM!

    If I go around randomly killing people, others have the right to stop me by force, not because they own me, but because they own THEMSELVES, which logically implies the right of self-preservation. But if I’m not stomping on someone else’s self-ownership, NO ONE has the right to use force to control me. If I want to smoke pot (I don’t), have a rifle (I do), wear women’s underwear (I don’t), eat cheeseburgers (I sometimes do), marry an aardvark (I don’t), say nasty things about politicians (I do), or hit myself in the head with a baseball bat (I’ve felt like it on occasion, but haven’t yet), no one has the right to forcibly stop me. And calling the control “law” makes exactly NO difference to whether the control is justified. If the “government” doesn’t OWN me, it has exactly ZERO right to do a thing to me, unless it’s defending someone ELSE’S self-ownership (in which case, anyone would have the right to stop me).

    “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” [Thomas Jefferson]

    Sadly, people rarely think from principles, so they play both sides of the fence. Your average “liberal” will holler about his rights to smoke pot if he wants to, and then turn around and advocate the robbery of almost everyone in the country, in order to fund things HE likes (art, welfare, whatever). Meanwhile, the average “conservative” insists that he has a right to own firearms and drink his beer, but wants the “law” to forcibly stop someone else from doing LSD.

    “Boo hoo! My rights are being infringed!” Well, if you’re advocating that anyone ELSE’S rights be infringed, serves you right! If you think it’s just fine for the “legal” thugs to kick down doors, drag people away, and put them in cages, because they had a LEAF the politicians don’t approve of, then when those same thugs rob and control YOU, don’t whine about it. Or, to quote a far more eloquent expression of the same sentiment:

    “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” [Frederick Douglass]

    Sadly, things are discussed in terms of legislation so often these days that most people have a hard time differentiating between “That’s a bad idea” and “That should be illegal.” There are LOTS of choices people make that are stupid or dangerous (physically or otherwise)–everything from eating too much junk food, to snorting coke, to skateboarding, to sitting in front of a computer too much (that’s me), to sleeping around, to watching too much TV, to drinking too much beer–the list goes on and on. Acknowledging that you have no right to use VIOLENCE to stop those things is worlds away from saying you CONDONE such choices. But if you want to be allowed the responsibility to make your own choices, and you don’t want to be a complete hypocrite (and a fascist), you have to also allow other people to make choices you think are stupid.

    My advice: Treat everyone as if he owns himself. Because he does. Don’t advocate that he be forced, “legally” or otherwise, to do ANYTHING, except for refraining from infringing on someone else’s self-ownership. And if you do advocate using non-defense force, don’t pretend to believe in freedom; and when you then find such unjustified force aimed at YOU, you damn well deserve it.

    Sincerely,
    Larken Rose

    Aug

    1

    Whispers

    Filed Under Inspiration, Philosophical | Leave a Comment

    “The man whispered, ‘God, speak to me’
    And a meadow lark sang.
    The man did not hear.

    So the man yelled, ‘God, speak to me!’
    And the thunder rolled across the sky
    But the man did not listen.

    The man looked around and said,
    ‘God let me see you’ and a star shone brightly
    But the man did not notice.

    And the man shouted,
    ‘God show me a miracle!’
    And a life was born but the man did not know.

    So the man cried out in despair,
    ‘Touch me God, and let me know you are here!’
    Whereupon God reached down
    And touched the man.

    But the man brushed the butterfly away
    And walked away unknowingly.”

    Author Unknown

    « go back — keep looking »