A “crazy” person turns everything into opposites. Both on a personal and collective level when he, or she act this out on other people. Anyone may be turned into an opponent which has to be confronted as part of an opposite. In politics, it is believed that this is for the good of all. But it only serves its own self-interest, or the preferred “good” side of an opposite to which we want to identify ourselves with. This is repeated almost everywhere in today’s society. People become addicted to self-interest. But our personal qualities, both what we like about ourselves that we relate to in others, and our own unavowed mistakes that we reject in them, are not to be found there. This is us embodied in them. They are our makeup mirror. And if we really look into it, we can see ourselves, how this works, and what excess of ourselves we transfer to others to carry around for us. Whether we like it or not, it’s really there. That’s the nature of the evil we let go of in the world. It is what we are.
Kategori: Miljö
about our psychological survival
If people could only conclude that what we call culture has always been a world in which our individual imagination creates our social reality, and that our personal experience of what we are, creates a perception of our being out of this in itself. And that this distinction between the two, is about the survival of both our inner and outer world. From all of the reality that we can choose to create, we choose the one with a distorted view of how our source of raw nature is related to culture.
We seem to have lost contact with this, and the primordial ancestors we carry within us as a psychological reality. And that has become our social reality.
about the eternal child
Wthin our mind this child form is with us all the time. It is part of what we are. And he or she, is the one to bring us to the source of our being. To handle its messages. This is its true function after adolescence.
In this place we can also sense its absence in all directions, everywhere and in everywhen. We cannot disregard its mental form when we sense it without severe punishment from its objection to our ways, and a constant feeling of it being a disturbance to our normal patterns of behavior when we are not paying attention to its activity.
In its externalised form our senses constantly bring repulsive evidence of how the relation to it works in the world. Don´t take my word for it, words are always insufficient to experience. They can never describe the absolute immediacy of this relationship.
But true to this pre-formed beingness, I am deeply convinced that it is by a loss of this relationship we have come to shape the present day world around us.
the aftermath of being born
I almost can’t remember the last time i experience myself as having a cohesive personality.
Being constantly tested and pushed forward by this nature of primitive energy make me appear quite different to myself than before, and also so intimately associated with others, that it shatters my boundaries. Its a maddening experience only my inner child experience of my birthplace can resist.
I am not talking about any intellectual confinements in philosophical contexts or clinical terminologies, but of a human condition. Some of which we all suffer at different times in our life. And some of us suffer these more than others.
Out of this then, emerges my own small personal version of it.
We fall into it and it tears us up.
There are no labels attached to experiences like this. That kind of judgement only shatters and make things worse. Being judgemental is just bizarre and brutally pointless. We are intruded upon and there is no rest for us anywhere. We are in it, and that is in us. It is not a theory, theorizing will only distance you away from it.
There is a space between us that we inhabit together. It is about what is not in there. And for some obscure reason it has become a personal task to bring some of it back again.
About the voice of Greta Thunberg
The political and collective reaction to the phenomenon of the young girl Greta Thunberg often seems to me to be out of focus. For the most part, the reaction to her voice of inheritance is squabbling rhetorics of personal views and political ideology.
Here is a girl, soon to become a young woman about to enter into an inherited world that has lost its responsibility to this heritage. She uses her natural voice of this inheritance. And by staying true to that, she really shows what we have lost, what her generation is about to enter into. They do not see a world concerned about the responsibility of taking care of what is ours to protect and treat with care for the next generation to come.
Is this world really what we think our children want to inherit?
By now it should be apparent that what she also represents, is that non-conforming strength that most of us abandon at her age as we become completely anesthetizised by our adaption to a basically unhealthy society. A society with an often questionable and morally inferior decision making policy. Which is what we hand over as this world together with some of the responsibility that follows in just being that next generation.
Everything is connected
The original flow of ethics
If you take the manifestation of a personal experience from its local and individual context and make it a truth applicable to all time and places, you have what politics and religious psychology have of trying to imprint experiences on people and cultures where it doesn’t make any sense.
This is feudalism of thought.
Instead of relying on the purity of expression as revelations within a living structure of recognitions, of relationships from people and their immediate environment, we endlessly repeat some historical significant dictates of past experiences with no connection to the present. And we try to permanent them. But universal time is something to be interpreted as a continuous communication with insights of additional knowledge about the nature of the world. And our ethics flow from that.
It does not flow from trying to permanent historical ideas or events.
The secularisation of any society is always this. The secular doctrine of permanency.
Humanity and the Deep Ocean
The whole talk here: Humanity and the Deep Ocean
About being a ”civilized” being
There is always going to be an opposition in us between our ”civilized”, rationalized academic way of life, and our ”indigenous” or uncivilized anti-intellectual way, where our nature, when not given proper attention, will turn us into dumb compulsive and irrational beings. Not really relating our psychic experiences to life and to other people. Because when we surpress that life, as we have done for such a long time by desecrating it in our collective life, and in favour of civilization. We have created a completely conceptual religious and materialistic reality which have not only distanced us from our selves, from our nature and moral responsibility, but it has also distanced us from our experience of immediate knowing and the validity of paradoxical thinking. Booth of which are just opposite parts of any personal make up.
From our ”indigenous” side we can experience the immediate knowing of the oracular, revelatory and ancestral resources of the mind that are shut off from us by conditioning and upbringing.
But we defend against it with our conventionality.
About our cities and rural life
Every major city with its population is in itself a contradiction to life in balance with its immediate surroundings. No city can ever be made self-sustanable, and it can never provide for the needs of its population unless it is provided for by using up the existing resources obtained from somewhere else.
They are completely dependent on the subordinate behavior of other regions to provide them with what they need. This is also the dominating mindset that characterizes our decision makers.
The burden of urban survival is to be carried out by regions further and further away from the cities themselves to cope with the necessities of its ever growing populations.
Our cities have not only become a threat to their surrounding nature, and to the regions that provide them with existing resources. They have become a threat to Earth itself, and it is now our Earth who will suffer the consequenses.
The destruction and exploitation of our rural areas is the forgotten other end of every major city’s carrying capacity.
The entry of my being
We all belong to a place. We can feel it in our bones, when on vacation. Or watching a sunset. When we are ovewhelmed by a landscape. My sense of identity is related to such a place as a lineage to its metaphysical origin. As being part of that which has existed before me, I am this place of origins unique entry in time and space.
I am also this origins particular set of qualities and characteristics.
A collective source, like a pattern of coded forms organized in a specific expression of life.
That is the essence of my personality.
And if something in that place somehow get transferred, exploited or in any way treated in a destructive way.
It is done to me too.
Issac Cordal
The effects of life
Every one of us are both descendants to our ancestors as we are ancestors to our descendants. What we do here and now will have an affect on them both, because we are them. We embody them.
If we don’t take care of the effects our collective life has on them now, this is what it’s going to be.
It does not go anywhere.
It is us. Our life.
The world we live in
We all have a unique and individual expression of our being embedded in our dna. And some part of it is also inherited from a cultural conditioning behaving as a connection to a cultural past. When it unfolds in our spontaneous expression of being it will have its own pre-established way of presenting itself as imagination.
Its in our blood. And it is really not in the physical world. The struggle we have with this are within ourselves.
It also constitutes an individual form of danger when we by a collective, by corporations or governments, without a connection to our being allow ourselves to live out all kinds of interior worlds of imaginative self interest onto other people. We will then become a danger both to people, and to the world.
What we are doing to each other then, to this otherness, is trying to mirror and replace the within in other people, with that of our own, and then try to morally justify our actions by the submission of other people. As if a loud voice or forcefulness was an argument in itself.
And if they do not agree to this. We bring our war to them.
This will now become our world.
The father of our civilised world
Imaginary speaking, I find myself living in a society which is compelled to act this figure in the cloud out with the ruling it has over everybody´s apprehension. They don´t seem to know it, but they are supporting him by continuing his old formal character, making his outworn presence felt in everyday life in terms of rules and regulations, in dogmas, and in a distant dead behaviour coming out of it. They are upholding a system of absence in their lives by trying to fill themselves up with a sense of responsibility and duty towards social and religious convention. Which they also force onto others. They believe in some principles of normality. Not in the experience of transpersonal reality. And nobody seem to be questioning this cloud figure rulings there. They just see themselves as a single part of his organisational maintenance.
It is almost incomprehensible what this is doing to them, and to our environment.
His tyrannical madness is what makes them all crazy.
Inequality creates crime, not poverty
And if you look at it the other way around, this will show that where crime rate is high, there is a lot of inequality.
Globalisation
Globalisation is the word we use with corporations and banks to get to exploit every local resource available at no cost, to maximise the profit where it is not responsible to no one, anywhere.
It is the ultimate disconnection from earth.
About good and evil
If we are lucky with our parents we get to grow up in the garden of eden. We will get close to earth.
But at some point we have to leave it. And we have to bring some of it with us because it is us.
Again, if we are lucky, we get initiated by our parents or some other elder when its time.
To be initiated will make us bring eden with us, that which have been given to us before we got dressed up in the generalisations of a collective personality and become that narrowness of a cultivated ideal.
Even without luck we have to find eden anew. It is not a question of good and evil.
It is both. A condition of life.
Everyday we can watch what happens when some part is preferred for the other. Our ego loose sight of right and wrong, and starts looking after itself in a forced, one sided and opinionated way. What once was eden has now turned against us.
Our moral sense is lost and we become num to the views of others and to life. We will try to force our one sidedness onto others, and pride ourself of becoming insensitive, primitive and ugly.
Without this moral conditioning from life itself, we will become a danger to life.
And believe me,
by being that person, we will also make ourselves a bloody bore.
Democracy and how to go about it.
Maybe it is our parliament, and our gouvernment itself who need some adjustment.
What we see right now is that one part is missing in that equation. When considering the present situation, it is obvious something in our gouverning is not there, the parliament do not really answer to no one. The people they are responsible for is not really there, so they don’t have any real counterpart.
Just think about that for a moment.
Because right now they just answer to themselves. And this is not good democracy.
Who is taking care of our wealth. Were is our leadership of wealth. Who is taking care of our water. Our nature. Who is looking after our common good. Obviously, wealth is very much dependent on how new money first should be spent into the economy. But there is no true counterpart in parliament for that.
Our leaders badly need this. They should have to answer before the leader of wealth to be able to make good decisions for the people.
Right now, our parliament here in Sweden, as in many other countries, are divided among themselves, and arguing full time about who should be its leader. How parliament should be led, and in what direction. And with our media fully occupied by reporting on this disagreement, good decisions going out the window.
And this is currently built into the system by the absence of a real working counterpart.
For that to change, we need them to answer to someone on the basis of a working democracy, and that should be accomplished through a leadership of wealth.
With such a counterpart, our parliament then have to change its priorities to be only of concern to the wealth and wellbeing of its people.
We should even consider having a pre election on candidates where only women can vote. And after that we can all vote on the outcome of their election.
Our ambassador on Island suffered heavy criticism for it, but he is not too far from the truth, intuitively thinking democracy is being “dismantled” by its current constitution in Sweden.
By thinking about it anew, we may actually adjust our parliament closer to its original vision, and maybe, we can then make our parlament the true working heart of democracy we want it to be.
About leadership today
Being directed by, and unaware of the patterns of behaviour that flow from the organizing structure of a certain collective itself, rather than the individuality of its members,
is getting us very close to how people have come to appreciate the political, financial and corporate leadership of today.
Artificial states of the market
If our banks are allowed to create the money supply and use this in a way that drives investors and entrepreneurs, and if this money at the same time is spent into the economy outside the real demand in a market economy, it is going to create an economic state of the market that depends on artificial demand, and thus an artificial price will then follow where this money is first spent into the economy. The housing market is one example.
We will have economic cycles that do not always depend on were the market economy pricing and demand truly is by its own means, and it will not be based on its own regulating mechanisms.
It will instead reflect were the banks believe that their interest on capital management is best served, and this will run an artificial economic upturn in those parts of the economy. But in the end, reality catches up with these artificially inflated economic upturns and we get a recession with less money in circulation instead, because of the banks now reduced ability to lend, but with the cost of the money created as debt by the private sector to the banks, remaining in the economy.
In this way, businesses and individuals are together paying for our banks speculation on the financial markets using our gouvernments main asset having the right to create and spend new money into the economy for its own purposes.
Should not money be spent into our economy to be used for the society as a whole first, and for our common good as a priority, and as payment for real goods and services in the real economy?
This is actually the case when the gouvernment spend money into the economy to be used in the private sector by individuals and business, it constitutes our total asset of paper and coin money, and this supply is regulated by taxes.
We do not want inflation, do we?
So what about bankmoney ..
Whats all this talk about a budget?
A balanced budget means no new injection of money into the economy.
The financial year looks the same at the end as it looked at the beginning.
No change has occurred.
There is only one reason to have such a limitation of wealth, that is if inflation threatens the economy as our gouvernment has charged too little tax out of it.
A budget surplus means that the government has managed to spend less money in to the private sector than they have taken out in tax.
This means that the private sector now has a deficit of money in it.
The financial year ends with the fact that there is less money in the private sector than there was in the start of the year.
This means that households and firms has to borrow or use their savings to maintain their consumption of goods and services in order to maintain the existing level of revenues and living standards.
This is also occurs when our banks are aloud to control the money supply.
If the surpluses are retained for a long time the whole of the private sector has to reduce their expectations and their economic activity, and we get a recession with unemployment as a consequence, or it has to try to compensate by putting itself into (more) debt. Which was the case leading up to the bank crisis in 2008.
A follow up to this happens when loans cannot be repaid, which later turned out to accelerate and spread the banking crisis.
With a budget deficit the state has charged less tax out of the economy than it has spent into what we use in the economy. There is a general financial prosperity and employment increase because the supply of money increases to come in line with the existing resources.
The macroeconomic terminology thus have an opposite impact on the real economy than household thinking because households and firms use the money. Gouvernments have the constitutional right to create and spend them for us to be able use them in the economy.
A budget then has nothing to do with ideology, an -ism or any doctrin. But it has all to do with who controls the money supply.
How our thinking can make things go wrong
In most budgetary discussions, it is erroneously assumed that the national government has a financial constraint and has to budget like a household.
The analogy most of us draw between household budgets and government budgets is false. Households use the currency and must finance their spending.
However, government issues the currency and must first spend (i.e. credit private bank accounts) before it can tax (i.e. debit bank accounts). The claim that governments must tax or borrow to ‘finance’ its spending is false under a fiat-currency system.
And a growing economy cannot be an end in itself – it’s the means to improving people’s lives and take into account a responsible global citizenship while doing it.
Thinking is just one way for an individual to organize his or her impressions. For good and for worse, an economic theory, or an ideology, or -ism, does that for you. But this will not replace the nagging sense that something very important is missing in our current budget thinking.
How to Capture the minds of a Continent
Europe has become a ruled by neo-liberal economists and ideas who play with models that have no relation to the real world and when they are applied to the real world, they fail badly.
It is no less than a nightmare.
Austerity politics in Europe is not simply a short-term conflict between the surplus countries like Germany in the center and the deficit countries like Greece, Finland, Portugal, Spain and Ireland on the periphery.
Deficit countries is a balance effect in the eurozone, and at least one country must incur deficits for every other nation that runs a surplus. It is an unknown fact for these contries that this is simply a logical consequence of a macroeconomic balance sheet with sectoral balances, which applies to all nations, monetary sovereign or not.
But here it i used to inflict terrible hardship on people, and it is done in sovereign countries too.
For sovereign nations like Sweden this is an almost incomprehensible self inflicted injury.
Austerity is not how to bring new money into the economy, its about scarsity and more of a long-term political agenda that privileges lenders over debtors and capital over labor.
What this is doing is to create great difficulties for the local domestic markets, our domestic companies and our small cities in rural areas. All which are being replaced by global supply chains. And global corporations. Promoting export is being thought of as the “brokers” of all the money that’s available to us.
Its all about governments looking after themselves and allowing their citizens to go down the drain. Domestic companies will not invest when the domestic sales environments are weak, and investments are weak because companies do not see any substantial changes in monetary policy.
Right now, money in the current system is debt, and the only way that we can bring new money into the economy and to provide companies with cash is to borrow it from our banks.
We do not need austerity to create savings which we then can use to make investments to create wealth and restore our welfare.
This is household thinking. Households do not create any new money. Therefore we cannot actually save or make cutbacks if we also want to invest.
The money must first be spent into the economy before they can be saved!
And contrary to common belief, corporate economy itself is NOT the “broker” of the money that’s available to be used in the world.
The only way for our governments to deal with this in our current financial system, is either to create the conditions for everyone to be able to take on more debt, or to reclaim its constitutional control over the money supply including digital money or deposits.
The importance of the latter is that all new money is first spent for the interests of society as a whole, and first used for our common purposes.
This is why austerity is such a nightmare. Its an ideological choice, not an inevitability.
Det är konstigt hur vi ser på ekonomi
Så länge vår regering och riksdag inte kontrollerar penningmängden så påverkar den heller inte vårt välstånd eller vår sysselsättning i någon större utsträckning.
Ingen regering har någon finansiell kraft i sina beslut utan dess konstitutionella rätt att ge ut och styra hur våra pengar först ska användas.
Vi får vänja oss vid att våra banker, eftersom de tillåts kontrollera och ge ut nästan hela penningmängden, kommer att fortsätta finansiera sin egen likviditet och spekulera i en finansiell sektor som ökar 3 gånger snabbare än ekonomin i övrigt.
Så länge vi samtidigt också föreställer oss att det är dom globala exportföretagen och deras ekonomi i sig, som är mäklare av de pengar som finns tillgängliga för att användas i ekonomin, och att dom på ett indirekt sätt får styra en omvandling av självförsörjande lokala ekonomier till beroende konsumenter av globala försörjningskedjor, så skapar vi svåra förhållanden för de inhemska företagen, för den gemensamma inhemska ekonomin, och för människorna i dom glest befolkade områdena i vårt land.
Vi kommer därför fortsatt att ha en liten gemensam penningmängd, låga löner, låg konsumtion och långa köer på arbetsförmedlingarna. Vi kommer att fortsätta skylla detta på varandra, på våra olikheter, på idéer och politiska ideologier, och ingenting kommer därför att förändras.
WHO-rapport om rött kött, charkprodukter och cancer
WHO och Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) visar på ett samband svenska läkare varit medvetna om länge.
En rapport har kommit som gör den samlade bedömningen att det är aktuellt att ändra rådet vad det gäller konsumtionen av rött kött och chark, och redan idag rekommenderas en begränsad konsumtion på grund av risken för cancer.
En hög konsumtion av rött kött är därför jämställt i hälsofara med rökning, asbest och hög konsumtion av alkohol.
Konsumtionen av rött kött och charkprodukter bör begränsas till max 500 gram i veckan och endast en liten del av dessa 500 gram bör vara charkprodukter.
Till Livsmedelsverkets hemsida »
Om Köttindustrin och Klimatpåverkan på Jordbruksverkets hemsida »