Hints of a greater reality, part 3 - Review, again

Don’t really need to say review since it is all review, or going over of what I have thought till now.  Feel a little jejune looking back.  This is because I have real/listened to more and got more and more perspective.  To sum up (and hopefully my summaries have remained or grown more concise – is that needed?): something greater is going on.  By greater I mean not necessarily better, just that something that is not commonly acknowledged is going on that that presents a form of knowledge that by simply existing makes our understanding of reality more complex. 

To naysay: there is no greater other form of consciousness.  So far anything such as exists outside our material worldview has gone unmeasured.  That some people do report such encounters and interactions are experiencing something confined to their minds.  And just because similar delusions occur amongst many folks does not mean these delusions come from an outside source.  No, it simply means that the common brain structures and operating means have become similarly altered.  There is no collective unconscious or the like only a similar physical, evolved mechanism – the brain – that we are share and subject to occasionally bizarre whims thereof.

 

This . . .
 

You have to acknowledge something like the psychology of Freud at the very least and at the very most must accept Jung.  Freud talked about events distant in humanities time on the planet.  Imprints of primal reactions.  Perhaps encounters with other forms of existence are simply these primal reactions manifesting in a idiosyncratic culture ways.  While strange these experiences are shared due to the experiencers shared culture.  Or generally are similar due to a shared humanity. 

 

. . . or this?

 

The collective unconscious that Jung describes takes things to another level.  If not a higher level, then a different level.  Something “out there” that we can tap into, access.  I’m not familiar enough with his thought as to whether the collective unconscious could, like, exist if not people existed.  And I don’t know if the idea of the collective unconscious wipes out the need for Freud’s theories.  More reading required.

The point here, to conclude, is to erase a bit of that jejune feeling.  To understand the most fundamental fundamentals.  To establish an epistemology.  To see what these far-out ideas bring to the table.  Are they exceptions that prove the rule, that confirm us in a Western worldview?  Is what I take for proof merely quirks of the brain, explainable within the framework of neurobiology?  Dammit, when I say that I consider how much religion is still so common alongside a materialistic world view.  People that believe in whatever faith (am I developing my own new faith?) already have this component included in their theories of what it is to know (to their detriment say/believe the Dawkins’ and Harris’). 

However much this seems like a needless retracing of the understanding of first principles I can at least say that I have taken maybe more than a few steps down the road paved with more, for lack of a better term, spiritual dimensions.

The Timothy Good stumbling block

Okay, I’ve come to realize (in good part due to this posting’s subject matter) that my focus has shifted in recent months from thing political to things more metaphysical.  The rich vein of researcher’s material that I have recently discovered crashed into a wall of a few days ago when I heard Timothy Good on Red Ice Radio.
 

 

Timothy Good

 

For full “disclosure” I must say that T-Good is someone that helped me secure my foothold in the topic albeit a foothold in the nuts-and-bolts end of the UFO spectrum.  Early lectures of his saw a self-effacing, eloquent Englishman presenting the results of research that were astonishing even to him.

I think I may have even heard T-Good on in the past Red Ice – a show I greatly admire.  Henrik Palmgren is a tireless interviewer with an intent to expose audiences to a wide breadth of alternative research.  He’ll have an obscure researcher into Illuminati-based global financial market manipulation on day and then later in the week have a solid analyst like James Bamford on – Henrik can talk to anyone.

 

Henrik Palmgren

 

 

But with Good’s latest appearance there was an added undertone, as though Henrik was trying to call out Good on his BS and Good almost acknowledging that his work is BS by giving obviously elusive answers.  Henrik really grilled him a few times.

Held up against the work/views of Vallee/Keel/Hopkins/Mack/Bishop/Clelland listing to the Red Ice Radio interview with T-Good makes me want to drop the subject entirely.  The just mentioned researchers actually want(ed) to find out about something that may fundamentally inform us about the human condition.  T-Good just seemed to be presenting material in a stylized way, his tropes equivalent to the white make-up on Kabuki performer’s face.

But good – it has instigated some soul-searching.  Is looking into the subject as important as looking at international relations and domestic policy, foci of past posts?  Well, politics are boring – is what I would be saying in a world without a looming government default.  I still must maintain/reaffirm that the work of (in the past) Vallee and (representing the present) Bishop and Clelland help to define what ultimate reality is.  And that is pretty important.

Hints of a greater reality - Part 2, Good directions

Already going in the direction that I was headed in my last post, I subsequently hit a rich vein of resonating material.  The writers and lecturers – if not legion – turn out to be rather numerous.  Jacques Vallee, Budd Hopkins, John E. Mack, Mike Clelland, Greg Bishop, Karla Turner, Peter Robbins – and more and more who I am discovering each day who usually are associated with those just mentioned.  What is it that these new folks resonate with/what was my last post about?  To sum up, I feel that events that run the gamut from ghosts to UFOs, from psychic phenomenon to angelic visitations are perhaps (gasp!) real.

Budd Hopkins

 

Thankfully the concern with which I entered into my recent post is still valid: there is no comprehensive/definitive theory about these phenomenon.  The question as to what it means and how it relates to us remains.  My recent searchings led me to the debate between Budd Hopkins and John E. Mack terrifically presented in this video – to a large extend this debate both presents and summarizes fundamental concerns in this area of thought.  Both men agree that something is going on.  However, on the one hand, Hopkins thought the interactions to be deceptive/malevolent while on the other hand Mack finds a source of enlightenment.

John E. Mack

 

Both Hopkins and Mack are eloquent and, more importantly, passionate – they involved themselves in the issue of abduction because that was the only thing that they could do. So too Peter Robbins, and Karla Turner, and, well and everyone else on the list of names above.  I said that there is no comprehensive/definitive theory: that is not true.  There are those that do present a narrative.  The listed folks above, however, are quite willing to go ahead and say “I don’t know.”

That is an important thing in research in this field.  Sure you have to talk about what is known but a line needs to be drawn at times.  You gotta have a good Hemingwayesqe bullshit detector and the folks above of mostly getting through unscathed.

Hints of a greater reality - Part 1

Hints of a greater reality

Let’s take the claims of mystics and religion-forming revelators at their words, accept that they are being divinely inspired but that the inspiration comes not from multiple divine and seemingly competing point but from a single point catering to individual’s beliefs and customs in different times and places, the wisdom imparted sometimes amazing and true while at other times being quantifiably erroneous.  The goal of this is to encourage us humans to keep and keeping on.

Is this coming from helpers who genuinely try to help but ultimately are not perfect – their revelations do not cohere to a set morality and their predictions not coming to pass or do come to pass as described only at the wrong time?

Is this coming from a programmed intelligence that is tasked with overseeing man continue as some experiment, the helpers helping men to overcome existential ennui?

There seems to be a supernatural source that is interacting with people – their purpose: they give people a purpose and unify groups.  The inspiration may occur at the individual level and remain there – the revelation being important to that person to the extent that it becomes a guiding light if not raison d’etre.  But this person does not tell many others.  Another situation is the individual revelation that is shared.  If given to the individual, and kept at that solitary level, the purpose is to spur them on, to give them a chuck on the shoulder and an affirmation.  If given to the individual and then shared the purpose is still an affirmation only at a group level.

On the one hand you have the mystic in the cave.  On the other you have Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

And then there are the cases – call them “holy spirit” cases – where a group is contacted.  The results are the convulsionnairist Janesists of France who would engage in group glossolalia and would all see the same miraculous apparitions.  They would also balance their bodies on sword points without being driven through.

 

“Stab in the throat Monsieur? – it has no effect on me.”

 

Also in this category are the possessed dancers of the medieval ages.  From the 14^th through 17^th centuries people would at times dance uncontrollably, even to the point of death.  The famous Dancing Plague of 1518 occurred in Strasbourg, Alsace and at its peak had 400 dancers.  To this day only theories exist as to the cause.

“Dancin' in the streets”

 

 

Why do we keep on keeping on?

In our daily affairs – in our collective and individual day-to-day lives – I am struck by what motivates us all.  We all respond to challenges and what other challenge can meet the one that we all respond to, namely the will to keep living each day?  The French existentialist philosopher/author Albert Camus (1913-1960) posited that the only question is why not commit suicide?  (fyi: while he died young it was in a car wreck.)  While this makes sense to someone immersed, however cursorily, in existentialist thought, it otherwise seems an absurd thing to say.  If this is a question everyone must face then the overwhelming response is to affirm life.  Though not many delve into the worlds of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, et al. – or for that matter any level of philosophical examination of their lives – I think people do form fairly comprehensive narratives of their lives and their place and role in the world.  People keep on keepin’ on.
 

 

 

"Oh, Meursault!"

 

Beginnings

Listening to John Lash may be the primary inspiration for this work.  Sure, with our perfect hindsight history makes sense – trends, influences, demographic shifts having effects that last millennia are mapped out, correlated.  But I still find the idea of Archonic influence, which I first heard from Lash, to be intriguing.

Perhaps I’m falling prey to scare tactics or maybe there really are grave concerns – either way I think there are some (dare I say?) evil influences out there.  The quest for money is something anyone can understand whether you are trying to just survive or if you are trying to out-do your competition in the billionaires’ club.  There is also a drive for control by those that have a vested interest in keeping things going down the same track – in the directions that most benefit them.  Who are “they”, anyway?  Are they the members of the billionaire’s club?  Not necessarily – I think here in America we make personal decisions sometimes in a manner that (to me) makes us little fascists in our own right.

Is the overcompensations of an evolved psychological need solely to blame?  Can it be chalked up to a base greed?  I would say that incremental changes  may develop an inertia.  Take for instance the history of the lobbying industry presented by Robert g. Kaiser – lobbyists outnumber our congressmen now but it didn’t use to be that way.  The data show votes can be bought and the will of non-paying citizen constituents is sold out.

But before I explain the Archons as presented by Lash I must take a step and continue giving credit where credit is due and acknowledge David Icke.  A figure of no small fame/notoriety, I have appreciated much of what he has said, especially his critiques of corporate culture.  However, when he starts getting into describing how elites of a certain bloodline are really reptilians and ritual-based pedophiles my mind is forced into metaphor-mode.  Metaphorically or in a spiritual sense the actions that , say, take a nation to war which subsequently kills million while simultaneously lines the pockets of those that make the weapons – those are the base actions of people that behave like animals, whether their actions are due to viciousness, fear or whatever else.

With that concept in mind I listened to John Lash on Red Ice Radio and the influences that Icke was citing soon become more realistic.  Lash is working from Gnostic texts that describe entities called Archons.  Only able to live on a spiritual plane, they envy man-the-kind . . .

This entity which may actually lurk behind something as simple as a negative thought is terrifying.  That something like this goes out its way to contact and manipulate those in power is even more terrifying.  If these Gnostics where writing allegorically then these fears morph malignly into paranoia.

Is this something to just pause and think about, trying it for a theory one day and then moving on the next?  Say it is true, 100% correct and not metaphor.  Well, first – phew!  Bye-bye paranoia and yea! I’m not crazy.  But secondly and most importantly you are presented with a radically different way of understanding the world and your place in it.  A different understanding of a different way of life is called for.

Having come to similar conclusions via social science/dissatisfaction with the way the world is I can at least (healthily) entertain Lash’s ideas.  And when our take history/social science and combine it with the work of John Keel, Archons start to sound more and more real.

 

This is only a test

Are men in black Archonic agents?  Is every Channeler just a mouthpiece for a manipulative Archon even if what is spoken seems benign and helpful?  If we knew out of the gate they are evil then we could say all their actions are therefore evil – even seemingly pleasant , affirmative guidance.  Let’s discuss this a minute.  Some folks perhaps do not actively channel but may have heard a voice that, say, guides then on a career path that proved enlightening and rewarding.  Or a channeler may speak to as an alien who is concerned with detrimental human activities such a nuclear weaponry and environmental degradation.  How are these bad?  The one answer that I’ve heard others like Jim Marrs discuss is that some entities are simply tasked with a job keeping an experiment running with humans as the test subject.

Here that metaphysics of this argument get murky – however we can still partially hang on the Occam’s sharpened implement.  The Gnostics have done our spiritual homework for us in the sense that now we have the concept of a spiritual entity with their own interests intertwined with and put in front our ours.  From there it easy to come to various perhaps evil conclusions.  Actually the evil intent may be partially removed as some of these entities could be considered simply nothing more than elaborate recording put in place to keep humanity thinking there is mystery and purpose in the world. 

Take the case of the individual who maybe goes into a trance while a child and hears a spirit guide offer them advice.  No matter how specific or vague – “become a pilot,” say, versus “be a force for good” – the power of suggestion may put their plans successfully into action.  The subject carries forth and their behavior monitored and measured.  The anomalous suicide is duly measured and perhaps expected.  Overall though, the influence of these being provides an environmental stimulus that meets either a control condition or, conversely, adds a bit of cocaine to the lab rat’s water beaker: just to see what the results are.

 

 

The eloquent and far-out Terence Kemp McKenna

 

I admire graham Hancock and Terrence McKenna but when they see “machine-elves” while on their DMT trips the idea of a recorded message is something at least Hancock says is a possibility.

 

The experiment idea nets all kinds of theories.   Perhaps a Deistic God exists who set up creation and then left, letting things run on their own (with Archon-like stimuli?)  Or, perhaps regardless of his fudged translations, Zechariah Sitchin was right and we are genetically modified slaves created to mine gold.  Or rather yet, we are one alien student’s creation, his entry among others in some difficult to imagine science fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Military spending, peace and personal freedom - comparing US foreign aid and the NSA

As strides toward peace are ostensibly being made between Israel and Palestine I am put in mind of Ocean Colour Scene’s terrific song “Profit in Peace”:

All the people under broken homes

Don't wanna fight no more

All the people nursing shattered bones

Don't wanna fight no more

But there's no profit in peace

So we've gotta fight some more

 

In Shock Doctrine (2007) Naomi Klein posits that a previous iteration (c. early 2000’s) of the peace process was derailed not because of Palestinian bellicosity but due to Israel seeking to salvage a tanking economy (p. 435).  Indeed, ex-military and ex-military-business execs were finding their way into high places in government.  The largest recipients of US foreign military aid (2011): Afghanistan, Israel and Egypt.  And keep in mind that those aid dollars take a pit stop in those other gov’t’s hands until being spent.  Upon being spent it becomes profit for US defense contractors.

 

So too the NSA, only the money does not have to make the requisite overseas journey.  Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and in-the-news Eric Snowden’s old employers Booz Allen Hamilton all provide services for the NSA.  99% of Booz Allen Hamilton’s revenue comes from the US gov’t. 

 

Companies can then spend a fraction of their revenues engaging in free speech: lobbying politicians to approve military spending – the NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.  A recent wired.com article interestingly found that House members who voted to continue NSA funding received double the defense industry cash.  Here in Idaho, our Republican Reps. represented this trend.  Mike Simpson voted to continue funding and received $34,000.  He said, “We don’t need a thoughtless, visceral reaction that hurts our national security without protecting civil liberties.”  Raul Labrador said, “This wholesale snooping on innocent Americans is an unacceptable violation of one of our most basic freedoms: the right to privacy and the right to be free from government surveillance.”  He received a paltry $5,000 from defense contractors.

 

At least the money doesn’t have to take a circuitous route whilst supporting our economy.  And I guess I’ll take being snooped on instead of living in a war zone any day.

The DEA, ACC, ABA and Truth

            Here is an interesting tidbit about BPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).  And another and another (a Moyers report!).  There is definitely some contention involved in how BPA was introduced for public usage as well as what it’s future will be.

 

ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley

 

            If you haven’t seen this humdinger from Michele Leonhart of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) yet then enjoy.  Some of the ideas that she is espousing re: reefer are required to justify the agency’s funding.

 

Head of the DEA Michele Leonhart

 

            Check out minute 18 of this clip from the British documentary “The Men Who Made Us Fat”, with Susan Neely, President of the American Beverage Association (ABA).  When asked about the positive correlation between soda consumption and weight gain she says:

Well there’s, uhhh, the evidence, ehhh, says that obesity is caused by people consuming too many calories and not getting enough exercise to balance it up.  Certainly our full-calorie soft drinks – our regular soft drinks – are a source of calories.  I guess if you are consuming too many calories and watching too much television and not getting enough exercise then you’re going to have a problem.

 

Bizarrely enough – bizarre cuz I buy it – she also says the industry is helping to make the US healthier.

 

President of the ABA, Susan Neely
 

 

            To consider:

            All these groups are trying to protect their interests – but are their interests something that benefits all?

            Your judgment call on these issues depends on your background. 

            Does everyone have all the facts?  Definitely not.  Individuals that comprise the public do not.  As was demonstrated in the above links about BPA, the industry itself did have the facts and were the ones writing guidelines for the FDA to use.

            Should you be operating with all the facts at hand?  Yes.  For sure.  Why would you say, “I am ignorant of the facts but I still have my opinions and I am ready to make decisions”.

            The kicker is that facts are malleable – there are different pools of facts that can be drawn on for different purposes.

            The ACC, the DEA, and the ABA all are protecting the livelihoods of their members.  If adequate research on the effects of chemicals on human health were actually conducted and made know to the population at large, chemical manufacturers would see more regulation and less profit.  If there was a referendum on basing the actions of government agencies on what the majority of Americans state they believe then the DEA would have to shift its focus away from marijuana, perhaps losing funding.  As far as the ABA is concerned, dammit I want to say that individuals should be responsible enough on their own not to over-consume soda pop – if they should even consume it at all.  However, popular perception on the whole does not vilify soda pop and the ABA of course does its job and seeks to control that popular perception.

            The theory of relativity says measurements of space and time can alter depending on where the observer is.  Not to jump wholeheartedly into the moral relativist camp (perhaps just to share a campfire with them for a night) I think that truth can be altered depending on the observer’s relation to particularly strong forces: corporate interests and gov’t agencies.

Thoughts on NOVA, David Koch and climate science

             Recently watched an older Nova about research being carried out in Antarctica.  Global warming/climate change is at the forefront of this episode – but also more in the background.  Okay, let me explain why: researchers on the south continent dig out climate data that is old, like getting into geological time, i.e., tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.  Fossilized moss is found and was shown to be preserved due to rapid climate change.  So in one regard the show looked at ancient climate that could happen again.  Since human-caused CO2 was not the culprit of so ancient a change there is a decoupling of our actions today from what is going on climatically today.

 

Sweet ancient moss!

 

            Is this an underhanded tactic from Koch-funded Nova?  I mean, not to come to any steadfast conclusions about climate change, you know, let’s let science keep reasoning this out – heck, that is what more explicit Koch-funded propaganda has succeeded in accomplishing.  Sleight-of-hand delay tactics that get results.  Tactics that let folks conclude that current climate change is not actually being caused by people.  I’m all for the possibility of some black swan being the cause of climate change but also I am compelled by the overwhelming scientific consensus re: this issue.



David Koch - cancer survivor

            I’ve already discussed one man’s take on the climate issue – even if nothing is done and things get worse we will still carry on.  In the conspiracy circles I am familiar with there is a perception that climate change is just a gimmick to manipulate folks in various ways.  I accept that as an individual – if things are as dire as they appear to be and the interests sanctioning these changes are as intractable as they seem – I can’t do much.  I also accept that things won’t change even if I flip out and become a consummate activist and radically curtail my way of life. 
 

Victim of Koch-caused cancer

             Still, it is interesting to be aware of things and understand motives.  Of the scientists on the Nova Antarctica show I would guess most accept the reality of human-caused climate change.  Appearing on a show funded by David Koch is strange, though.  Scientists are providing information for people, only at this point they seem to just be making refinements.  Guess making a career out of refining knowledge – just for knowledge’s own sake – is at least interesting.  As I’ve stated for myself, just because you know it is going on – or if you are providing the data letting us know it is going on – doesn’t mean you actually have do anything to stop it.



Carpenter's They Live and the US today

 

            Carpenter’s They Live is one of my favorites, definitely top five.  Why does it resonate so with me?  It presents a world where secret, alien forces control mankind – to the alien’s benefit and mankind’s detriment.  Throw in Roddy Piper as protagonist engaging in five-minute fights and issuing declarations re: running out of bubblegum and you have stellar cinema.

“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I’m all out of bubblegum”

 

            So today, or in the Reaganite eighties that the film capped off, it is easy to image our leaders – political and from industry – being in disguise, a powerful skyscraper-top energy beam cloaking their appearance/befuddling the minds of men. 

            Now, let’s say that in our realm (i.e. non-Carpenter-scripted) there is no alien based collusion with America’s leaders.  And no leaders are really reptilians in disguise.  No, we just have naked greed for money and power operating in the world, the world of humans and human nature.  A bullet stops the mind-control machine in Carpenter’s world – what shuts off the beam in ours?

The world revealed for what it is.

            It is nice to imagine there is some beam, something out there commanding us to OBEY, WATCH TV, and CONFORM that could be shut down, revealing the world in a way to truly spark outrage and dissent.  Of course one man’s conformity is another man’s peace – who is critical of what in what way and does that necessitate action?

            Remember the Great Recession a few years ago?  With the banks and the loss of investments and the loss of real estate values and all that?  The dissent that was spurred by those times has passed, at least popularly.           

Bulldozer and cops move in on the They Live shantytown.
 

They Live riot police!

 

Police TSD@ Occupy shantytown.
 

Occupy police line.

            Bless his heart, former-Gov. Jesse Ventura has offered his explanation for why folks are not more outraged and thusly act on that outrage.  Part of the appeal of They Live is that there is a concrete solution: at least when Piper’s character John Nada caps the control broadcast-beam the aliens are revealed in all their scariness.  From there you can only imagine the reaction of the folks within the film – revolt, revolution, the OBEY and CONFORM signs written on everything revealed.  It seems like the actions of Wall Street that caused the Great Recession would have served a similar galvanizing purpose.

Why I drive - thoughts after a road trip

            Recently completed a cross-country road trip, pleasure being ancillary.  My fellow travelers and I were at times outnumbered by hurtling trucks operating under business mandates.  We cast up our exhaust naively, our relation to the greater world intangible to our minds but still deliberately obscured by those operating according to the business prerogative.  We passed or were passed by cars from distant states, the people inside sometimes engaged in happy and animated conversations.  Other outsiders we pass have grim-set faces as though travelling towards some unwanted task.

            Many of the out of state people including us are chasing opportunities, performing business only in a different way than the truckers.

            Consider what is wrought in the name of the auto.  We’ve weaved asphalt ribbons across the country, fetish objects derived from Middle Eastern tars.  The ancients in Iraq used this resource too, ruins today featuring bitumen used as a sealant.  In the open farmland of Nebraska the farms all rely on fossil fuels to run their farm equipment and fertilize their crops.  The landscape could not exist as it does without oil.

            Why question driving?  My Catholic background must bear the appropriate blame: guilt may be the result sundry actions.  The environmental movement is the updated guilt-bringer – perhaps you’ve felt it, the twinge when throwing away (like, in the trash) a plastic bottle or aluminum can.  In eliciting a response the greens are as successful as the Kochs.

            I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that imperialist hardships imposed abroad correlate to greater freedom at home.  The control and manipulation of other countries has provided an unparalleled lifestyle that feels good to live, though of course I am questioning it – founding something good on a crime is bad.  Ignorance is washed away and no foundation for an argument.  That a crime has occurred is not mitigated by degree of severity and some of the crimes are great.  How do you differentiate between a foreign policy that kills, like pre-2003 sanctions on Iraq, and policies strictly for monetary benefit – well in the case of Iraq our policy to bring Saddam to heel was ultimately related to oil, money and control.

            Driving settles down into the background of our daily lives – traffic conditions are talked about in the breath after an observation of the weather.  Drive times are calculated into many decisions.  When deciding where to work, where to live, where to recreate – perhaps the need to drive, the hassle or potential hassle of it, is an inducement to stay home and watch TV.  Houses have become our “third place” – instead of restaurants or cafes we have our well-equipped and stocked-with-brand-name-frozen-meals kitchens.  Fitness gyms are incorporated into people’s homes.  Most popular and what is most used is the home theater – trips out to real theaters just practice for the appreciation done at home.

            Who would volunteer to be car-less?  Who doesn’t have far-flung family members?  Fuel has proved to be in this case a tax on the human heart – hard to countermand something if it is right on this level.  I will not stop driving.  I will appreciate what it brings and continue to be aware of what goes on in the world to allow for this gift.

DeChristopher compared with David Icke and his ilk (but hey, I like Icke!)

   

            Could there possibly be a link between Tim DeChristopher and David Icke?  Perhaps similarities – both are fighting an organization (perhaps a loose but effective organization in TDC’s case and a concentrated and effective organization in DI’s case) that is bent on running the world while also destroying the world.  Both have clear outlines of actions needed to be done in order to stop this organization.  Both see an end game of strife and population loss.
 

             Tim DeChristopher: climate activist.

 

             David Icke: proponent of radical views that fall under the aegis of conspiracies.

            Must say that Tim D is much more rational – in the sense of the word rational intending prosaicness.  Do corporations want to reduce the population of the world in a focused and genocidal set of plans?  For Tim D and for most people if population decline happens it will be merely a byproduct of inattentiveness to climate/environmental concerns.  People will die if the too-big-to-fail food chain suffers and major disruptions occur via, say, drought or extreme weather events.  Any human misery will be the cause of corporate overreach and the collusion between corporations and consumers that sees people (right now corporations fall under this purview) not planning for the future and only thinking about their next paycheck whether it be to have money to buy that new consumer product or to have money to simply survive.  The world is a complex system run by people with an understandably small capacity for foresight and a very large capacity for greed.

            That the world is complex, perhaps David Icke would not argue.  That there is a guiding hand behind that complexity, however, is what he has staked his career and reputation on.  A DeChristopherian, prosaic worldview would posit corporate rule based on directed corporate action to raise profits/please shareholders/subvert democratic processes.  Icke sees a malign group of people associated with secret societies whom are aligned with otherworldly, demonic actors bent on evil and control.  A prosaic, but still radical view, sees corn syrup added to the food supply to boost corporate profits, the health of the consumer be damned.  On the other hand, folks in David Icke’s coterie see the introduction of corn syrup (and any other food additive – or even chemtrails) as a means of intentionally killing off a large part of the population.

            Re: population decimation, the perceived stakes of Tim and David are equally high.  But they care, both of them.  They care about the present population and care for everyone comprising it.  DeChristopher is actually going to seminary to, in part I’m sure, better understand the moral dimension of the climate argument.  David Icke has us all being connected by cosmic thread – a cosmic thread in need of defense against evil.

            Let’s take an agnostic view.  Let’s hold judgment on Tim and David’s views – chances are most Americans do this already.  The roads that these two gentlemen take are different, separate roads, neither travelled by many folks.  And understanding their views is one thing – living in a way that addresses the issues raised is another.  DeChristopher and Icke both walk the walk.  Interesting the answer to the question that will be asked of both: “Was he right?”.

Thoughts on Tim DeChristoper talking with Bill Moyers

            Was greatly impressed with Tim DeChristopher’s visit to Bill Moyers’ and Co. recently.  Hadn’t heard of his story which has occurred/is occurring on the frontlines of the climate issue.  He is passionate and articulate and speaks knowledgeably about all aspects of the climate issue.  One thing that impressed me was his speaking critically of the groups that want to work with Congress to affect change – these efforts cannot move forward without getting the corporate thumbs up and have proven to be ineffectual.  There were many parts of his appearance that are grist for thought, I recommend you watch it (link above).  Here are two directions my thoughts took me:     

            Moyers mentioned that people today are less concerned with the environment than we were after the start of Earth Day, the annual event held on April 22, which started in 1970.  Of this DeChristopher says:

One of the weaknesses of the environmental movement and parts of the climate movement [check out the interview for the sound differences between the two] is its always encouraged people to think as consumers, about what they can do in their consumer purchases – driving a hybrid, buying the right light bulb, and that sort of thing.  That is understandable because we have so many reminders of our role as a consumer.  We see 3,000 advertisements a day that all remind us: you’re a consumer, that’s who you are.  And we don’t have nearly as many reminders that we are also citizens in what was once the greatest democracy in the world. 

 

This is important because it speaks of a fundamental mold that our approaches to the climate issue are cast from.  That we are consumers must be understood in order to make sense of the issue and understand what conditions must be addressed/met in order to even theoretically approach the problem.  And as Moyers and DeChristopher mentioned, getting the “right” kind of light bulb ain’t gonna do it.

            Another question: Is it right to compare the struggle for defense of the climate with African-American civil liberties struggle of the past?  This comparison is made in light of climate activists being arrested, or, in DeChristopher’s case, being put in prison.  In asking if it is right – that is a moral question.  What are the salient facts besides the moral question?  Biggest is the economic backdrop and the correlative different time periods in which the events are taking place.  Taken from some impossible birds-eye-view, the battle against segregation almost seems blessed by the upswing in the economy that occurred in the post-WWII era.  Those economic factors may be traced to today where they represent some of the factors causing global warming (or as some have referred to it: “global death”).  Put another way, the civil-rights movement capitalized on a world where expansion was occurring in the economic sector, where there were more jobs coming online and the US was transforming into the world it is today.  That world, one of enterprise and job creation, is now the culprit – much of the energy we need to run our world coming from fossil fuels be they oil, coal or natural gas.  The conditions that helped one movement are the conditions that the other is fighting against.

            Dealing with the consumerist psyche and the historical place we find ourselves at add to the complexity of the issue. To mention one the other aspect of the issue touched upon was the idea of that no matter what, our species will carry on - only in reduced numbers.  Had to at least refer to the apocalyptic territory the interviewed entered.  In the end though, thank goodness for the Tim DeChristophers (and of course the Bill Moyers) of the world for accepting the challenge.