If we use Ken Wilber’s definition (see below), are Raw Foodists more Right Wing or more Left Wing???

In "A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality" Ken Wilber has done an incredible job of indexing or mapping the various worldviews, philosophies, religions, and sciences that have been offered over the years.

“…when it comes to the cause of human suffering, liberals tend to believe in exterior causes, whereas conservatives tend to believe in interior causes. That is, if an individual is suffering, the typical liberal tends to blame external social institutions (if you are poor it is because you are oppressed by society), whereas the typical conservative tends to blame internal factors (you are poor because you are lazy). Thus, the liberal recommends exterior social interventions: redistribute the wealth, change social institutions so that they produce fairer outcomes, evenly slice the economic pie, aim for equality for all. The typical conservative recommends that we instill family values, demand that individuals assume more responsibility for themselves, tighten up slack moral standards (often by embracing traditional religious values), encourage a work ethic, reward achievement, and so on.” p. 84

“So here is the truly odd political choice that we are given today: a sick version of a higher level versus a healthy version of a lower level—liberalism versus conservatism.” p. 88

Peace and Love..........John

Here’s some more information to help us decide whether Raw Foodists are on the Left or on the Right based on this Version of the Left versus the Right…

100% Government --------------- Political Center ---------------- 0% Government
Nazism/Fascism ------- Democratic Party ----- Republican Party ----- Anarchy
Communism
Socialism

Now to help us understand the true meaning of Anarchy, here is a scene from the movie V for Vendetta…

“Eve: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please?

V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age of ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.”

So Anarchy is the Ultimate Solution - Anarchy is where we no longer have a Subsequent Need for Government because we no longer have a Weak Connection to everything around us, which only comes when we Return to a Raw Vegan Diet. In other words, a Raw Vegan Diet is as far Right as one can get!!!

Peace and Love..........John

John, thanks for sharing this information. I never heard that analysis, but it makes a lot of sense to me - about the external vs. internal. I do find it interesting how the Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian minds work. And I think some people are born that way and even have certain physical characteristics - maybe I'll study it and write a book on it one day. When you go to Whole Foods, you can observe Liberals - they're very different than Conservatives. They do dress better and are in better shape, just for starters. The other day I saw a middle-aged couple come into Whole Foods and they were dumpy looking and he had on old jeans and she had on some baggy shorts and a T-shirt and I knew right away they were Conservatives, because they were dressing to be comfortable. Whereas your Liberal ladies dress all spiffy, because they're dressing to try to look good, even when they're older, which to tell you the truth, I don't always like to see older women dressing up in fancy clothes that look like they belong on a young hot girl, but that's just me.

I'm pretty sure most Raw Foodists and True Health Seekers, those into Alternative Health and against "Big Pharma" are 'left wing'. That's just one of the many issues where we Ron Paul supporters/Libertarians are aligned with the Liberals.

<<<I think some people are born that way>>>

Hey KidRaw,

According to James Nolan, what we inherit from our parents is purely Emotional and Political Views, in my mind, are more Cerebral, so I don’t think anyone is born that way and it reminds me of what Dr. Joel Furhman wrote about “obese families tend to have obese pets.”

“People whose parents are obese have a tenfold increased risk of being obese. On the other hand, obese families tend to have obese pets, which is obviously not genetic. So it is the combination of food choices, inactivity, and genetics that determine obesity." -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., “Eat to Live” pp. 15-16

<<<I'm pretty sure most Raw Foodists and True Health Seekers, those into Alternative Health and against "Big Pharma" are 'left wing'.>>>

I think that most Raw Foodists are a lot like most people and they just haven’t spent much time thinking about these things. However, if people understood that Government was a Subsequent Need from having a Weak Connection to everything around us, then I think everyone would embrace Anarchy.

As James Madison once said, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The problem with the concept of Government is that if no one among us is capable of Controlling themselves because we are no longer Angels, then who among us has the capacity to Control someone else?

So the Ultimate Solution is for all of us to Play our Individual Role and Strengthen our Connection to everything around us so we become the Angles we were meant to be and the only way to Strengthen our Connection to everything around us is to Return to a Raw Vegan Diet.

Peace and Love..........John

Most people are poor because of both reasons that Wilber mentions. They are not suited (internal) to thrive in our current set-up (external). Within the next 20 years, becoming sensitive to and making accomodations for neuro-diversity will be a primary way in which we eliminate poverty. Defining mental health relies far too much on whether or not a person can tolerate a 40 hour week (minimum) of pushing pencils and commuting. Not having what it takes to endure that makes a person neither lazy nor insane.


I feel that those definitions are a bit narrow. (Neo?) Conservatives have plenty of external scapegoats; abortion, gays, immigrants, Muslims, and illegal drugs are only a few. Liberals also point to what they see as internal factors that drive conservatives. For example, the oft-spoken "You're a conservative because you're unhappy" line.

KR, the people you describe as conservative sound like your average folks from your average Democratic strong-hold like Cleveland or Pittsburgh. The liberals you describe are probably limousine liberals, i.e. liberal because they're well off and sheltered enough to be liberal. As the old saying goes: "Every conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." They simply haven't been metaphorically or literally mugged yet. At the very least, once they have kids they'll do everything they can to send them to schools with limited problems. They'll assuage their privileged guilt by eating organic foods and donating money to PETA. So many alleged liberals live conservative lives that they mask with liberal affectations. Nothing wrong with having plenty of cash.

Health is supposed to be a conservative value when you take the term conservative at face-value. You're conserving your health by eating conservatively (not liberally) and doing wholesome (another term once associated with conservatism) things like exercising, getting plenty of rest, abstaining from alcohol, and being monogamous. We obviously see a lot of this type of conservatism in alternative health.

Liberals do share a lot of values with Libertarians. The same can be said of conservatives. I don't want either of their modern incarnations anywhere near Libertarianism unless they fully convert. I'm not even sure if I'm 100% sold on Libertarianism, but on the surface at least it appears to be the purest political sect.

<<<I feel that those definitions are a bit narrow.>>>

Ken Wilber did a great job of mapping the Wrong Path, but he is clueless about the Right Path and has fallen prey to the Eastern Philosophy that there is No Right or Wrong.

When it comes to the Right Wing and the Left Wing, I love what Herbert Shelton wrote on page 375 in “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene”…

“Neither of the parties of capitalism - two wings of the same old vulture without both of which it cannot fly - can perform a miracle and make the collapsed and dying system function again.”

Peace and Love..........John

John,

You should give some thought to contacting George Noory & getting your message out to the masses via Coast to Coast. Do you think that would be a good idea? With the number of affiliates he has, you would get quite an audience.

Hey veganjuice,

That’s a great idea!!! I like George Noory’s style because he knows how to listen and respects his guests, as opposed to someone like Alex Jones who has to interject so often that his guests many times never get a chance to finish their point. He also has a much bigger audience as you mentioned and I don’t think he’s part of Controlled Opposition or a Disinformation Agent like Jones is either.

I actually tried to get on Coast to Coast back in November of 2001 when Art Bell was running the show, but I never heard back from them. Today would be a whole different story since I’ve been focusing so much of my research on the forces that don’t want us to be Healthy in that last two and a half years so now I can connect my original story to something more and more people can relate to - Tyranny! Indeed, he’s going to be the first guy I contact when I finish my latest approach. Thanks to everyone here on this website, I’m almost finished with a YouTube Video that will feed into my book and my website.

Thanks again for the suggestion!

Peace and Love..........John\

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> “Neither of the parties of capitalism - two
> wings of the same old vulture without both of
> which it cannot fly - can perform a miracle and
> make the collapsed and dying system function
> again.”



The problem I have with that statement is that it demonizes "Capitalism", like Capitalism is a bad thing. As I've said a million times - "Crony Capitalism" is Bad and "Corporatism" is Bad, but Free-Market Capitalism is great and what made America the best most prosperous country in the world. Corporations in bed with Government, which is Fascism, is what is wrong with America today.

One group thinks Corporations Control Government and the Corporations are EVIL and that Government should be Controlling Corporations (more Regulations)and that we should have more Fascism and More Government. The other group thinks Government Controls Corporations and that the Government should stay out of Corporations and we should have Less Governmental Regulations (less Fascism), and Less Government. That would be me.

What would America be like today with no Capitalism? What would America be like with no Corporations or Companies or Businesses?

“Neither of the parties of capitalism - two wings of the same old vulture without both of which it cannot fly - can perform a miracle and make the collapsed and dying system function again.” Herbert Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 375

“...capitalism degrades everything that it touches.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 375

“...capitalism is still unable to function in a peace-time economy.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 374

“An economy that can function only under conditions of scarcity, that collapses under abundance, cannot be expected to provide for all of the people all of the time.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 374

“...the economic system under which we live is evil, anti-social, inhuman and universally degrading.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 375

“Based upon the profit motive and competition, it quickly brings out all that is low, mean and selfish in those who indulge in it.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 371

First of all, the first quote above was by Herbert Shelton, so I followed that up by other quotes from Shelton to help you understand where he was coming from. I agree with much of what he had to say, but Shelton was missing too many Pieces to the Puzzle, although, he understood this Piece a whole lot better than most people.

<<<but Free-Market Capitalism is great and what made America the best most prosperous country in the world.>>>

Actually, “what made America the best most prosperous country in the world” was our Freedoms, which are slipping away and so is our Wealth. Mexico could be Wealthier than America, but they don’t have any Freedoms.

<<<One group thinks Corporations Control Government and the Corporations are EVIL and that Government should be Controlling Corporations (more Regulations) and that we should have more Fascism and More Government. The other group thinks Government Controls Corporations and that the Government should stay out of Corporations and we should have Less Governmental Regulations (less Fascism), and Less Government.>>>

Have you ever heard of the Three-Legged Stool Analogy?

If you use a Three-Legged Stool Analogy, the Three Legs are the Corporate World, Government and the People, and we become the fodder that makes the other two run, and unless we organize ourselves, the other two will organize us.

<<<What would America be like today with no Capitalism? What would America be like with no Corporations or Companies or Businesses?>>>

I have 2 better questions…

What would this world be like if we didn’t have a Subsequent Need for Money?

Why do we have a Subsequent Need for Money?

The reason why we have a Subsequent Need for Money is because we have a very Weak Connection to everything around us and we have a Weak Connection to everything around us because we’re Cooking our Food, which Destroys a Nutrient that Feeds 1 of our Senses and as a result, we have Lost 1 of our Senses, which allows us to Feel one with everything, as a result, we have the Wrong Mentality, as a result, we have an Exchange Mentality instead of a Gift Mentality where we Compete for Resources on an Abundant Planet instead of Cooperate and Share the Abundance this Planet has to offer. As long as we have the Wrong Mentality, we will Never be able to solve any of our problems and all we have to do to Change our Mentality is to stop Cooking our Food which Destroys a Nutrient that Feeds 1 of our Senses.

So, what would this world be like if we didn’t have a Subsequent Need for Money?

We would return to the Paradise that this planet once was before the Fall of Mankind, which is when we Polluted our Food with FIRE!!!

Peace and Love..........John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2013 02:56PM by John Rose.

Blaming capitalism for society's woes is like blaming guns. Capitalism doesn't kill people, people kill people. If capitalism is used correctly it should benefit society greatly. It relies on morality and restraint to perform at its best. The greedy, corrupt people under it have let capitalism down, not vice-versa.

<<<Blaming capitalism for society's woes is like blaming guns. Capitalism doesn't kill people, people kill people. If capitalism is used correctly it should benefit society greatly. It relies on morality and restraint to perform at its best. The greedy, corrupt people under it have let capitalism down, not vice-versa.>>>

Yes, those are valid points, but the same reason why we have a Subsequent Need for Money is the same reason why we have a Dark Side to our Behavior and “greedy, corrupt people” has nothing to do with Money, it has to do with the Dark Side to our Behavior - it has to do with the fact that we have a very Weak Connection to everything around us.

Peace and Love..........John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2013 03:07PM by John Rose.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Neither of the parties of capitalism - two
> wings of the same old vulture without both of
> which it cannot fly - can perform a miracle and
> make the collapsed and dying system function
> again.” Herbert Shelton, “The Science and
> Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 375
>
> “...capitalism degrades everything that it
> touches.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science and
> Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 375
>
> “...capitalism is still unable to function in a
> peace-time economy.” -Herbert Shelton, “The
> Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 374
>
> “An economy that can function only under
> conditions of scarcity, that collapses under
> abundance, cannot be expected to provide for all
> of the people all of the time.” -Herbert
> Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural
> Hygiene” p. 374
>
> “...the economic system under which we live is
> evil, anti-social, inhuman and universally
> degrading.” -Herbert Shelton, “The Science
> and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene” p. 375
>
> “Based upon the profit motive and competition,
> it quickly brings out all that is low, mean and
> selfish in those who indulge in it.” -Herbert
> Shelton, “The Science and Fine Art of Natural
> Hygiene” p. 371


***********************

OK, so from the Herbert Shelton Quotes you posted, John, it looks like Herbert Shelton hates Free-Market Capitalism, Corporations and Evil Profits and Competition, which is what the Free Market is all about - the total opposite of Libertarianism, Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, and many of us on the board - at least myself - we hate Fascism, Corporatism and Crony Capitalism. There is a difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2013 03:09PM by KidRaw.

Once again, I agree with Peter Joseph…

“Whether you are dealing with the philosophies of Milton Friedman, F.A. Hyack, John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig von Mises or any other major market economist the basis of rationale rarely leaves the money sequence. It is like a religion. Consumption analysis, stabilization policies, deficit spending, aggregate demand, it exists as a never ending, self-referring self-rationalizing circle of discourse where universal human need, natural resources and any form of physical life supporting efficiency is ruled out by default, and replaced by the singular notion that humans seeking advantage over each other for money alone, motivated by their own, narrow self-interest, will magically create a sustainable, healthy, balanced society.” -Peter Joseph
[www.youtube.com]
ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

Peace and Love..........John

HH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blaming capitalism for society's woes is like
> blaming guns. Capitalism doesn't kill people,
> people kill people. If capitalism is used
> correctly it should benefit society greatly. It
> relies on morality and restraint to perform at its
> best. The greedy, corrupt people under it have let
> capitalism down, not vice-versa.

Yes, I totally agree with you, and it's wonderful how articulate you are in framing this and other issues.

John, Capitalism works best when it's not captained by psychopaths. You and your references seem to believe that capitalism breeds psychopathy. I question that. It hasn't been studied much, but there is evidence that genetics play a large role in psychopathy. Those people would be wreaking havoc in any system and making it look bad.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again, I agree with Peter Joseph…
>
> “Whether you are dealing with the philosophies
> of Milton Friedman, F.A. Hyack, John Maynard
> Keynes, Ludwig von Mises or any other major market
> economist the basis of rationale rarely leaves the
> money sequence. It is like a religion. Consumption
> analysis, stabilization policies, deficit
> spending, aggregate demand, it exists as a never
> ending, self-referring self-rationalizing circle
> of discourse where universal human need, natural
> resources and any form of physical life supporting
> efficiency is ruled out by default, and replaced
> by the singular notion that humans seeking
> advantage over each other for money alone,
> motivated by their own, narrow self-interest, will
> magically create a sustainable, healthy, balanced
> society.” -Peter Joseph
> [www.youtube.com]
> ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE |
> 2011
>
> Peace and Love..........John

Thanks. I know that Banana Who questions my credentials, but if there's one thing that writing papers and teaching classes taught me, it's the ability to say things as effectively and succinctly as possible. I don't always succeed, but I try my best.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Blaming capitalism for society's woes is like
> > blaming guns. Capitalism doesn't kill people,
> > people kill people. If capitalism is used
> > correctly it should benefit society greatly. It
> > relies on morality and restraint to perform at
> its
> > best. The greedy, corrupt people under it have
> let
> > capitalism down, not vice-versa.
>
> Yes, I totally agree with you, and it's wonderful
> how articulate you are in framing this and other
> issues.

What did you teach, if you don't mind my asking?

My first Master's was in Literature and linguistics. My minor focus was on Aldous Huxley and dystopian futurism with a major focus on language acquisition. Taught that and freshman composition for a while. Got a second Master's in History where I used my linguistics training to study the historical use of language in war propaganda. Also studied and proved that significantly more white antebellum Americans opposed the institution of slavery than condoned it with Christianity being the primary medium for active white abolitionism. That got me a lot of praise and a lot of trouble. In History, I only taught introductory level courses in American history and World Civ but covered the entire historical spectrum of both topics. Also "taught" in some 3rd world countries, primarily the former Soviet Union, through the US embassy. I was literally driving to my new town to pursue a doctorate when I decided that I wanted to live a different life and that I could always return to academia after I had experienced more. There was also the not so small matter of me having to deal with a personality disorder or two, some of which I attribute to the madness and intensity of my career choices. I'll be turning 46 soon and might be feeling adequately ready to do it.

People always ask me "why 2 Master's?" Vanity? Career student? Neither. After I had received one I was perfectly happy teaching at a small university with no doctoral programs. One of the perks of the job was free tuition for any program that would accept me. I took advantage of it. I also love learning and doing it with a community of people.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but I know that details help to curtail doubts in reasonable people at least.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2013 01:02AM by HH.

Wow, that's interesting, all right. Your impressive college education, academic career, Soviet Union and the UN. And you gave it all up to be an organic farmer. How long has it been since you left the university atmosphere and do you miss the Education field? Do you think the Universities have become more Liberal these days than when you were part of it?

Amazing that you're so knowledgeable, a History expert, historian. I don't even know what Aldous Huxley and dystopian futurism is all about. I'll just ask you questions instead of looking up stuff on Google and be more careful in my writing and stating facts and expect to be corrected.

My daughter just finished taking English 101 - which was a lot of literature, poetry and writing - and Political Science at the local community college, where she was able to take her three core courses for her high school senior year and get college credit, so we (I did most of the work) had to write a lot of papers for both classes. I found out I'm not a good writer, although we got A's on the government class papers even though her professor was a liberal. We got a B in English.

In Political Science, we had to do a book report, so chose (most of the choices were Liberal books) Barry Goldwater - "Conscience of a Conservative". So speaking of history, war propaganda and linguistics, I found it interesting that Barry Goldwater's political aspirations were ruined when he was demonized as being a war hawk via the advertisement of the little girl and the daisy petals, and so LBJ became president and then got America into the Vietnam War. That scenario seems to have happened often in History - the Dem portrays himself as anti-war and makes the Republican out to be a warmonger, and so the Dem is elected and then goes to war. (Is that a true statement? I did look that up once and had the details written out, but I don't know where I put it)

[www.amazon.com]

[www.livingroomcandidate.org]


Thanks for sharing, HH. It's cool reading tidbits here and there about someone's personal life/background, but nobody likes to pry, of course. Like the personality issues you mentioned would be cool to discuss, and give our opinions on, but then we none of us like to let it all hang out, because then we feel vulnerable, etc. I give out too much personal info about myself and then feel stupid about it, or we feel like people think less of us or maybe we feel like we're letting others see the real us and we feel that it's not pretty - something that I can't put into words. Maybe we open ourselves up to those energy vampires

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, that's interesting, all right. Your
> impressive college education, academic career,
> Soviet Union and the UN. And you gave it all up
> to be an organic farmer. How long has it been
> since you left the university atmosphere and do
> you miss the Education field? Do you think the
> Universities have become more Liberal these days
> than when you were part of it?

*****Regarding universities and liberalism, that's a hard question to answer. I'm sure that they're still very liberal, but with the unveiling of fraudulent liberalism and the growing presence of things like men's rights, I suspect that there might be a transition going on. By transition I don't necessarily mean a shift away from liberalism, but instead a correction away from the harshly discriminatory and closed-minded character of the liberalism that I had to negotiate as a student and teacher. On my first day of grad school, a female prof told one of my classes that when men and only men converse, they turn it into a competition, whereas all women are giving and sharing in conversation, always willing to listen while being equally considerate of everyone's point of view. Yeah right! I like to think that no one takes this sort of liberal caricature seriously anymore and that people of all persuasions are prepared to challenge it. That sort of thinking, which is mostly based in that one person's biased and personal experience, is what has made academia a joke. Entire libraries of books have been written from the same basic theoretical premise: white man bad in every way everyone else angels and victims of white man. When I was in grad school, my research which inevitably claimed that most whites were good people when it came to the morals of slavery, was absolutely hated by some academics. They couldn't handle hearing that whites as a mass are actually exceptionally decent people. Fortunately, the truly accomplished and serious scholars loved my work and appreciated my "courage" in not tarring all of the white community with the same evil brush. If that makes me a racist, so be it. The intent was to actually bridge the gap between the races that this system foments.
>
> Amazing that you're so knowledgeable, a History
> expert, historian. I don't even know what Aldous
> Huxley and dystopian futurism is all about. I'll
> just ask you questions instead of looking up stuff
> on Google and be more careful in my writing and
> stating facts and expect to be corrected.

*****Dystopian futurism just means assuming a bleak perspective on the future. It's negative, but it's also stuff that keeps people aware and is sadly too accurate at times. Books like Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's "1984" are the most common examples.
One of the real misunderstandings about historians is that we're walking encyclopedias who can reel off dates and all kinds of events. That's not how it works. What we're mainly expected to have is excellent research and writing skills plus the ability to piece history together by looking at primary sources. One day I decided that the NY Times has always manipulated language to falsely convince people that wars are righteous and worth fighting. In order to prove this, I had to gather evidence and present it in a convincing way. It's actually a lot like being a lawyer and why a lot of History students go to law school. Of all the history courses I taught, not once did I make the students take a test where they had to memorize dates. They always wrote papers, not where they simply regurgitated, but also where they worked with the information and tried to create original perspectives on history. Our perception of history is forever evolving as new evidence and new takes emerge. The key is to allow room for different takes, something we haven't been good at for a while. Historical consensus can be a good thing, but taken too far it becomes detrimental. Liberalism has a achieved a sort of authoritarian consensus by intimidation in academia. In other words, toe the left line or perish.

> My daughter just finished taking English 101 -
> which was a lot of literature, poetry and writing
> - and Political Science at the local community
> college, where she was able to take her three core
> courses for her high school senior year and get
> college credit, so we (I did most of the work) had
> to write a lot of papers for both classes. I
> found out I'm not a good writer, although we got
> A's on the government class papers even though her
> professor was a liberal. We got a B in English.

*****I did my undergrad in PoliSci. My undergrad thesis was on the de-centralization of the animal rights movement in Chicago and how that was detrimental to its effectiveness. I've graded thousands of papers and will look at your any time you want. Just let me know and I'll drop my e-mail into a thread.


> In Political Science, we had to do a book report,
> so chose (most of the choices were Liberal books)
> Barry Goldwater - "Conscience of a Conservative".
> So speaking of history, war propaganda and
> linguistics, I found it interesting that Barry
> Goldwater's political aspirations were ruined when
> he was demonized as being a war hawk via the
> advertisement of the little girl and the daisy
> petals, and so LBJ became president and then got
> America into the Vietnam War. That scenario seems
> to have happened often in History - the Dem
> portrays himself as anti-war and makes the
> Republican out to be a warmonger, and so the Dem
> is elected and then goes to war. (Is that a true
> statement? I did look that up once and had the
> details written out, but I don't know where I put
> it)

*****Well, you've got 2 examples right there, so I guess it is true. I think that would make an interesting paper if you can find more examples and evidence to prove it. Most liberal profs will not give a student a hard time if their work is well written, well documented, and uses legitimate primary sources. That's all they really want unless they're insane and abuse their position which unfrotunately is a bit too common.
>
> [www.amazon.com]
>
> [www.livingroomcandidate.org]
> 4/peace-little-girl-daisy
>
>
> Thanks for sharing, HH. It's cool reading tidbits
> here and there about someone's personal
> life/background, but nobody likes to pry, of
> course. Like the personality issues you mentioned
> would be cool to discuss, and give our opinions
> on, but then we none of us like to let it all
> hang out, because then we feel vulnerable, etc. I
> give out too much personal info about myself and
> then feel stupid about it, or we feel like people
> think less of us or maybe we feel like we're
> letting others see the real us and we feel that
> it's not pretty - something that I can't put into
> words. Maybe we open ourselves up to those energy
> vampires

*****I tell everyone about my mental struggles. If it makes them uncomfortable that's their problem. For the most part, people usually say "Oh me too!" or "My relative deals with the same thing!" It would be very lonely if no one ever opened up about it. I deal with anxiety disorder and manic-depression. Both are much better now after using alternative diet plus allopathic medicine, therapy, and in general disciplined living habits like getting plenty of exercise and going to bed early. I don't even see my issues as diseases. People are just born with different neurological profiles. Mine happens to be more atypical. As a result, people like me tend to struggle amongst the "normies." My manic-depression just makes me feel everything 100 times more than the average person. It's something that most truly creative people have to deal with. My anxiety disorder at least partially results from being surrounded by people who appear like zombies to me. It can get lonely and scary to feel like a beautiful sunsets sets you on fire (in a good way) while everyone else is like, "Yeah, that's nice. Let's go inside and watch tv."

That's me, "That's pretty. Ooh, I'm cold, let's go back in the house."

When you were growing up, like a teenager, did your parents give you ADHD medication? Are you allergic to dairy or gluten? I know when I stopped those, especially gluten, the weirdness in my brain that I had since a teenager disappeared. Also, do you drink coffee because that messes with your mood. Most people just feel kind of blah all the time instead of the highs and lows. Also, do you or did you have panic attacks? Because I read about something that works to stop those. I just have to remember what it was.

No, I never had any medication until I was well into my adult years. People here will hate this but it helps. I have abused a lot of street drugs in an attempt to self-medicate. I eat a 100% whole foods diet and never touch things like dairy, gluten, soy, or grains. My body can tolerate processed food for a couple days but then it starts rejecting it. My diet is heavily weighted toward raw and plant-based, but I believe that cooking certain vegetables gives me a fuller compliment of nutrients. I've never been into caffeine. I had it for the first time in Coca-Cola as a kid and hated it. Tried coffee a couple times as an adult with the same result. I wrote a few responses to an anxiety thread started by clanker in the raw foods forum. That should shed some light on my anxiety situation. My anxiety is a product of my manic-depression. A holistic health protocol (including allopathic medicine, meditation, exercise, good sleep, diet, fresh air, positive thinking, etc.) is the best way for me to control it. Still, there's a potent genetic component to the disorder. When my brain has been MRI'd, it lights up unlike so-called "normal" people's. So much about me is atypical that sometimes I honestly start to believe that I'm an alien. It's not delusional because I'm still in touch with the possibility that I'm just another human, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm an extra-terrestrial. The work of Dolores Cannon and volunteer souls interests me a lot.

But a plane needs both wings to fly.

it's not very clear. we just have posh boys pretending to be middleclass boys and middleclass boys pretending to be working class boys and some women and also some mentalists trying hard. give me a proud whipping tory or a donkey jacket and i could tell you.

Man made 3 efficient systems, capitalism, communism and socialism. Then he put people in charge...That was the beginning of the end.

Bill, what are YOU trying to say?

[www.dogsonacid.com]
Rogue Ai
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2013
Age: 22
Posts: 63
06-23-2013 01:31 AM

But a plane needs both wings to fly.


neepheid
maybe posting

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
06-23-2013 01:47 AM

it's not very clear tbh. we just have posh boys pretending to be middleclass boys and middleclass boys pretending to be working class boys and some women and also some mentalists trying hard. give me a proud whipping tory or a donkey jacket and i could tell you.
[www.dogsonacid.com]

Once again, when it comes to the Right Wing and the Left Wing, I love what Herbert Shelton wrote on page 375 in “The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene”…

“Neither of the parties of capitalism - two wings of the same old vulture without both of which it cannot fly - can perform a miracle and make the collapsed and dying system function again.”

NGU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man made 3 efficient systems, capitalism,
> communism and socialism. Then he put people in
> charge...That was the beginning of the end.

I like that! They say we've never really tried pure capitalism - it morphed into Corporatism and Crony Capitalism.

Here's a good book that I read to my daughter a few years ago - an allegory like Animal Farm, but different, not too long, especially good for students -


Animal Colony: A Cautionary Tale for Today

"At the dawn of a killer colonial winter, starving and desperate to live, a brave band of animals escape the tyranny of their human masters. Led by a visionary stallion, they brave miles of wilderness and a treacherous river crossing to start a homeland of their own--Animal Colony. There, they find freedom and prosperity...for a while.

But a strange new belief system invades Animal Colony. The humble beasts must then learn to tell truth from enticing lie, or risk losing everything for which they've fought and bled.

Over fifty years ago, Animal Farm used a story of animals on a farm to almost single-handedly discredit Soviet Communism for an entire generation. Borrowing the same powerful technique, Animal Colony utilizes a collection of animals in an early American colony to illustrate what happens when a society turns to socialism.

Animal Colony highlights the dangers of collectivism and socialism in a way that is both entertaining and informative. This little book is a powerful tool that cuts through media bias and makes a compelling argument for individual freedom and limited government. Brilliantly executed and concisely stated, Animal Colony is a must-read for every United States citizen concerned with the future of his country."

[www.amazon.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2013 06:02PM by KidRaw.

<<<John, Capitalism works best when it's not captained by psychopaths. You and your references seem to believe that capitalism breeds psychopathy. I question that. It hasn't been studied much, but there is evidence that genetics play a large role in psychopathy. Those people would be wreaking havoc in any system and making it look bad.>>>

Yes, Psychopaths make everything worse!!!

As far as my references, the guys from the Zeitgeist Movement are missing too many Pieces to the Puzzle. The Zeitgeist guys know that a Resource Based Economy could solve our Economic problems, but they don’t understand how to achieve a Resource Based Economy or a Gift Mentality, just like they didn’t understand what created an Exchange Mentality.

In contrast, Shelton had a better understanding of the Dark Side to our Behavior and to really understand Shelton’s views on Capitalism we have to have a better understanding of Shelton’s views on Socialism. I was going to just cut and paste my notes from Shelton’s book in my file on Socialism, but I decided to read that part of the Chapter which I hadn’t read in about 20 years and then, update my file on Socialism with more of my notes from Shelton and then, share it with you guys. I’ve learned a lot since I read this book 20 years ago and I was quite surprised to see Shelton say that, “The true socialist is an ultimate anarchist.” No surprise that we’ve both come to similar conclusions.

The quotes I used above from Shelton on Capitalism came from the same Chapter that I’m going to post below on Socialism. Shelton had an interesting perspective on Socialism and he looked at it in the way you would think a Natural Hygienist would look at it - is it Natural or is it Unnatural - are we Cooperating or are we Competing and since Capitalism is determined mainly by Competition in a free market, it is Unnatural. The only problem that Shelton had when he talked about Capitalism and Socialism is that he didn’t reference to the First Cause (Cooked Food), which is what created an Exchange Mentality and the Dark Side to our Behavior, although, it is pretty much understood from Shelton’s writing that he understood the First Cause.

The Symbiotic Society
Chapter XXIX

“The “struggle for existence” is normally no selfish, tiger-like struggle for self alone, but involves a “struggle” for the life of others, for Nature makes a claim for reciprocal service. The truly “fittest” have survived through love and sacrifice, sociability and cooperation. These are the aristocrats of creation who do not depend on mere bulk of numbers (mass reproduction) to keep the species alive.

Darwinism condoned the grab spirit, hence its ready acceptance in a society based on competition and exploitation. Just as in the body, loyal cooperation of all parts is essential and each and every part depends greatly upon this beneficence, so in society, socio-economic reciprocity is essential to social integrity and economic health. In symbiosis are the primordial of a socio-economic system that will truly serve man.

It is a sociological principle that the union of individual forces engenders great advantages. Symbiosis is the application of this principle in Nature. Socialism is its application in society. It is the principle of cooperation instead of competitive struggle in human affairs. We cannot go on forever interpreting Nature in terms of chaotic, diabolical and abnormal—the Devil must be dethroned from biological and sociological overlordship.

Cannibalism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and every form of parasitic or non-symbiotic exploitation is socially and economically, as well as biologically, bad. Chattel slavery is the ownership of man by man; Feudalism is the private ownership of land on which men work; Capitalism is the private ownership of the machinery of production and distribution. The essence of all three is exploitation—the exploitation of the many who work by the few who own—those who work the workers, farm the farmers, mine the miners and milk the milkers. We have a large class of people who think that they are entitled to certain luxuries, that these luxuries are theirs by right, that is, without them having to perform useful service to earn them, and that is right and proper for the “common people” to do without these luxuries and even, in large numbers of instances, to get along as well as they may without many of the necessities of life, even though these “common people” are busy producing the luxuries that belong “of right” to the former class.

Morality is action for the sake of social ends rather than for personal gratification. Socialism is the only true form of morality possible—all forms of exploitation are immortal, both in principle and in fact. They are forms of robbery. A social and economic system that is not based on symbiotic cooperation cannot be permanent.

Socialism is the social ownership and democratic control of socially used properties. It does not destroy private ownership, but confines it to those properties that are privately owned. Railroads, telephone lines, telegraph systems, etc., that are socially used would be socially owned. Homes, automobiles, etc., that are privately used would be privately owned. Thus, socialism is not communism, which demands the abolition of all private property.

State ownership, state control (bureaucracy), state planning, state medicine, etc., giving us the so-called “welfare state,” is not socialism, but stateism. It may properly be called state capitalism, it may easily evolve into an industrial feudalism with the state as the lord. It is almost certain to degrade into dictatorship. It should be known that neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever made any effort to inaugurate socialism in this country. It is also well to understand that no socialism was attempted in England.

Socialism is not a form of government, but it cannot exist under a dictatorship, as true socialism requires the democratic control of the socially owned properties. It necessitates the freedom of the individual with no regimentation of thought and action. The true socialist does not expect to violently overthrow the state; he does not expect to see it suddenly destroyed, but he does expect it to slowly wither and perish, as its exploitative function is taken from it. The true socialist is an ultimate anarchist.

Socialism is not a religion. It will not outlaw religion. It will merely put an end to the use of religion as an agent of exploitation. When this is done, all that is sound and good in any religion will be automatically separated from that which is not sound and not good, and religion will be purified and refined. Religious people, themselves, will do the refining and purifying. Any religion that dies under socialism will die because there is nothing in it that is sound and good.

Our present competitive system—a system in which the big fish eat the little fish; where every man’s hand is against his neighbor—breeds evil that no amount of reform can remedy. Parasitic and predatory wealth must be restored to its symbiotic producers and the robbers dethroned.

Symbiotic cooperation is the source of the wealth of the world. Individuals who have “sticky fingers” and take unto themselves unearned shares of the produce of the collective efforts of the workers, weaken the whole social body. In their struggle for more trade, more territory, more oil fields, more coal mines, etc., they produce wars and fill the earth with suffering.

…

Modern business is carried on for private gain rather than for public service. Goods are provided for profit—not for use. Business is wasteful, inefficient, cruel and opposed to all that is highest and best in man. Based upon the profit motive and competition, it quickly brings out all that is low, mean and selfish in those who indulge in it. There can be no brotherhood of man in a competitive world, and religion, instead of serving its professed purpose in meeting the emotional or spiritual needs of man, must remain the class instrument it now is.” -Herbert Shelton, Vol. I pp. 369-371

Jumping ahead to the next page…

“The four fundamental necessities for the production of plenty for all are: (1) Natural resources; (2) Machinery and tools of production; (3) Man-power-labor; (4) Technical and Engineering knowledge.

The struggle of man in the past has been against scarcity. For the first time in the world’s history we have the means of providing plenty for all, and can at the same time, shorten the hours of labor so that those who have been overworked and denied the advantages of the outdoors may have these advantages and no longer overworked. As examples of our present productive possibilities a few years ago, we had need for a little over 300,000,000 pairs of shoes a year in this country; we had shoe-making machinery enough to produce 900,000,000 pairs of shoes, or three times as many as we could use. Our present productive capacity is much greater.

Today we have the mills, machinery, tools, forests and farms, the technological knowledge, the skill and labor to produce abundance for all. …” -Herbert Shelton, Vol. I pp. 372

Now let’s go to the very end of the Chapter and most of those quotes about Capitalism above are in between pages 372 and 376.

“We are a nation of bluffed slaves; afraid of the parasites that prey upon us and suck our lifeblood. We are bluffed by the private owners of our industries; bluffed by the police; bluffed by the militia; bluffed by the courts; bluffed by the politicians; bluffed into a timid submission to hunger and rags. America, who proudly boasts that she is the land of the free and the home of the brave had become the land of the craven and the home of the slave, where men, starving, seedy and afraid were seen timidly whimpering for “aid,” for the cold crumbs of capitalistic charity.

Under private ownership of industry there is a great waste, much unnecessary duplication of effort and many kinds of superfluous work. There is neither system nor order, but chaos. There is no remedy for this thing until the producing millions, fully aware of where the real source of trouble lies, arise in their collective might and forever destroy all systems of exploitation and build a cooperative commonwealth. In the not distant future society will be forced to take over our present industries and dispossess their idle owners and collectively exercise the power of producing, exchanging, transporting and distributing wealth. This will forever put an end to industrial crises with their accompanying misery and starvation.

When human society collectively owns and masters our jobs, there will be no profit takers to filch from us what we produce and own. This means industrial democracy instead of capitalistic autocracy; freedom instead of slavery; plenty for all instead of misery and starvation for the masses; social and economic planning instead of social and economic disorder; socialism instead of capitalism; life instead of death.” -Herbert Shelton, Vol. I p. 376

Peace and Love..........John

It looks like Vegans are definitely 'left-wing' Statists - making lists and intimidating those who dare to question the ideology of the collective or who will not fall in line, like our present administration is doing now -

Finally: Vegans willing to call out the traitors by name

[hotair.com]

[www.exvegans.com]

"Our Mission."
If you’re no longer vegan, you’re going on the list.

"Submitting Ex-Vegans" where you can rat on your neighbor.


"Send Hate-Mail" where you get to intimidate and assassinate the character of the dissenter.