IN SPITE OF GREAT ADVANCES IN FORMAL METHOD IN SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUCH OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF PERSISTING AND GENERAL RELATIONSHIPS DEPENDS UPON A GRASP THAT IS TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF SOME FORMAL METHOD. IN ADVANCING SOCIAL SCIENCE, WE INVENT AND PRACTICE TECHNIQUE AND CULTIVATE A HUMANISTIC ART. (Robert Redfield)
This program is part of the popular series from the History Channel that investigates some of civilization's unsolved mysteries and controversies. This episode goes deep inside the American government's intelligence operations to investigate its secret studies and experiments in mind control. Much information was gleaned from documents accessed under the Freedom of Information Act. An interview with John Marks, author of In Search of the Manchurian Candidate, adds many facts that he believes the government does not want its citizens to know.
For a concise summary of CIA mind control with links to declassified documents, click here.
Notes on the end of the news businessas we know it. It's personal.
This article goes to many places. I think you'll find a place that works for you.
I've been investigating and reporting on deep medical fraud for 29 years. I've been around the block a few hundred times. I've spoken with scientists who work for the government and universities, and the media operatives who support them. I know the game.
If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is, indeed, given the green light by President Trump to investigate vaccine safety, he's going to need a truck and a chain and DOJ threats of prosecution to drag key CDC scientists into the light and elicit specific statements from them.
Even then, the odds are these scientists will keep repeating the party line:
-vaccines are overwhelmingly safe
-they have no connection to autism or other neurological damage
-the science is settled
Kennedy could run up against an organized wall of silence - scientists refusing to speak with him, on the basis that he isn't qualified to make judgments in their "field."
In that case, he will need subpoena power, for starters.
Many years ago, I interviewed Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He had been trying to obtain medical-research information from the federal National Institutes of Health.
He told me he was given the absolute cold shoulder:
"If ever I've been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it's their show. They just assume it."
Arrogance par excellence. Scientists rebuff the White House with a yawn.
Fortunately, Kennedy is a relentless investigator. He understands how science is corrupted and paid for.
And the ace in the deck is this:
there is already enough evidence in the open record to refute the CDC's claim of vaccine safety.
Trump has blazed a trail of rejecting major media.
As a result of his merciless attacks, press outlets are going mad pushing numerous outlandish fake stories. They're ripe for further incursions on their territory.
In the past, this was the pattern:
-an outsider enters the scene and accuses the government of vast fraud
-media operators assemble their usual cast of sordid characters, who dismiss the charges
-everybody goes home and the story dies
But that's not working anymore. Media pomposity is exposed as fakery. Millions of people see through the ruse.
The media emperor is naked. He can prance around and around, but his fundamental nakedness keeps compounding the joke. Truth be told, as their financial positions sink into dire red ink, press operations are trapped.
Why...?
Because they are partners with the high-level criminals whose activities are the very stories the public wants to know about.
Reporting on these crimes in great depth, day after day, would resuscitate the newspapers and broadcast networks. But that will never happen.
Expose these down to the core, and people would buy newspapers off the rack like they buy coffee and beer and video games and cell phones and gasoline and underwear and toilet paper and lipstick and fast food.
The Times would have to schedule extra press runs just to keep up with the demand. Its financial bottom line would soon look like Christmas.
You could talk to the publisher of the New York Times and present him with an ironclad plan for pulling his paper out of its deep financial hole, based on covering true stories like those above, and you would find no joy, because he would rather go down with the ship than go up against The Matrix.
The Times and other hoary media outlets live by the rule of limited hangout. In intelligence parlance, that means admitting a small piece of the truth in order to hide the rest.
"We'll show you a tree in the forest, but not the forest."
I know how it works, because as a reporter I've been there. I've approached editors of various media outlets with stories that crack the trance, and I've had those stories tossed back at me.
"We're just not interested," they say.
"This isn't our kind of piece."
Or: "Well, we already covered that."
But they didn't cover it...
They did a limited hangout on it. They ran a story that exposed one tiny corner of a whole bloody mess.
I say this - as simple fact - if any intelligent, aggressive, truly independent investigator were the managing editor of the New York Times, and if he were given free rein, he would have that paper back in the black in a year.
He would have it roaring on all cylinders. He would have people fighting each other in the streets to grab the last copy off the newsstand.
Journalism schools all over the country would close down in shame. Because he would be running stories that would crack the whole rotting edifice of cartel-control along many fronts, and he would be filling up a planned vacuum of truth with fire.
A decade ago, here is what a working reporter for a major paper told me:
"We know what stories we can't cover. Nobody needs to prep us. Our editors know, too. Otherwise, they'd never get to be editors."
A player in a non-profit group once told me I could have a job with a paper on the east coast.
In a roundabout way, he hinted at what they were looking for. In five minutes, I saw the handwriting on the wall. Essentially, the editor was searching for a reporter who would cover politics in Central America.
The stories would have to favor the repressive governments in power.
The basic cover was:
these leaders were fighting the good fight against Communism. The death squads they were sending out, in cooperation with the CIA, were freedom fighters.
And of course, any mention of cocaine trafficking as a means for obtaining weapons was off-limits.
None of this was spelled out. But the message was clear. They wanted a propaganda specialist. If I, as an up and coming reporter, decided to play ball, I could advance up the ladder.
Apparently, some travel was necessary. But I knew I could turn out reams of copy without ever leaving my apartment, because I grasped the fundamental angle I was supposed to pursue. Needless to say, I turned down the offer.
It was the first time I fully realized how easy the job of reporting could be. Assemble a list of reliable sources (who would support the mandatory point of view), walk right into a prepared group of corporate and think-tank allies, pull down copy from wire services, and re-write stories in a way that bolstered the idea that American Empire was really "spreading democracy" to the less fortunate.
A walk in the park...
Twenty years later, I saw the same overall pattern in hundreds of major-media stories - but the point of view and the mandate had changed. Now it was all about Globalism.
The covert op was the takedown of America, in order to squash the last vestige of political freedom and integrate the nation in "a new economic order."
However, over the mountains, a new dawn was rising: the Internet. Independent media outlets. The resistance.
It was immediately obvious that, unless someone could shut this new creature down, major media would have no way to challenge the invasion. Independent news sources would gradually wreck MSM financial bottom lines.
Fronting for Globalist princes, Big News would see their bias exposed time and time again. The blowback on them would be enormous.
Trapped and corned like rats, they would attack, but their efforts would only compound their problem.
Then a populist named Donald Trump strolled on to the scene. He knew major media were suffering great losses. He knew online media were in the ascendance.
He had people like Steve Bannon (Breitbart) who were bringing him up to speed. He saw how Matt Drudge was obliterating traditional news sources, even while (selectively) linking to them.
A revolution was in progress...
Trump had the right stuff for this situation, because he didn't care about offending people. He was mercurial, reckless; an opportunist. He could fly by the seat of his pants. He realized where and how, in America, the Globalists were causing great damage.
Trump accelerated the fall of major media from their thrones.
People around the world, untold millions, thought to themselves,
"Trump is finally giving major media what they deserve."
Giving the major media what they deserve is a force to be reckoned with, because there is no effective response to it. Nothing works.
Who can lead the fight to preserve mainstream news? Answer: mainstream news.
That isn't going to go anywhere, because more and more people are rejecting the mainstream wholesale.
Think of major media as a ship. In full view of the passengers, the captain has just steered it into a shore of high rocks. The craft is beginning to tilt, and it's taking on water.
As the passengers scramble to safety on the beach, the captain is yelling,
"Don't leave, come back, everything is all right, I didn't do anything wrong, it's your fault, you're too stupid to understand the correct principles of navigation!"
Translation:
"I'm committing suicide. Go down with me."
As a reporter starting out in the 1980s, one of my first glimpses of trouble involved a few of the papers I was writing for:
they were definitely on the political Left, but at the same time they were businesses. You only had to look at the ads choking the pages to see that.
They were capitalist enterprises. But they would never fully admit that. They were operating under a self-induced, self-serving delusion about fundamental economics.
Eventually, larger publishers bought them out, and a few of the old guard made significant dollars on the deals.
It was an old story about socialists getting rich.
This contradiction plagues every major media outlet today. They claim to serve the public interest, but they want to be rich. Their reporters want very nice salaries. And this is all in the service of Globalism, which aims to bankrupt economies and drive populations into the arms of technocrat planners of societies.
It doesn't add up. It doesn't work.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rich and working hard to achieve it. But claiming, at the same time, that you want the government to run the economy is a sick joke. A transparently sick joke, on the order of wealthy celebrities stumping for socialism, while they hire more armed security and dig bunkers on their walled properties.
Suppose you could approach a well-known and well-paid reporter for the New York Times.
And suppose you said this:
"For years, you've been writing about the less fortunate and giving back and more government support for the downtrodden and humanitarianism and so on...
So I want to know, would you be willing to donate two-thirds of your salary, for the sake of equality, to those who need the money? Would you be willing to sell your co-op and give the money to the poor and move into a small apartment?"
The duplicitous and slimy major media are obviously engaged in a long con.
They want their cake, they want to eat it, and they also want to appear as architects of "a more humane planet." They care about a more humane order in the same way an ant cares about space travel.
They care about serving their bosses, and those bosses have other bosses who are engineering a future of poverty for all, as a mechanism of control. That's who's paying reporters their salaries.
Do you know what a tired rich media liberal (fake socialist) looks like? Of course you do.
You can see one every night anchoring the national news. Over the years, I've spoken with a few of these types. In every case, I've gotten the impression they're sitting on a keg of dynamite. They know how precarious their position is. They're surprised they've lasted as long as they have. Their spouting of liberal homilies is transparent.
Where did they go wrong?
Answer: the first day they accepted their first job as a reporter. That's when they sold out. They knew it then, and under cheesy layers of vast pretensions, they still know it now. But they can't turn around. They've made a commitment.
They tell themselves:
"It's business. It's not personal. This is the business I'm in."
But of course, it is personal. Everything is personal. We're talking about lives and minds and souls.
That's what these reporters traded, in the perverse corner of the marketplace. They chose the rackets, the information mafia, the law of omerta, the dishonorable underground that lives in the highest penthouses.
Whatever gloss they lay on, the trap they're in stays in place. And now, they're sinking and sinking.
I could try to work up pity for them, buy why bother?
Damage is damage, and they've done a great deal of it. A full confession would make a start, but that's not going to happen.
They're in a race with themselves. How long can they keep erecting delusions about their work, vs. their growing realization about those delusions?
It's inescapably personal. It always was.
The night is falling on them, and the rain is coming down, too. Their mandate is to be on the Inside, but they're on the Outside now. They're the walking dead. They'll keep walking, but things will never be the same.
The best film ever made about television's war on the population is Paddy Chayefsky's scorching masterpiece, Network (1976). Yet it stages only a few minutes of on-air television.
The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image.
Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:
"So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television's a god-damned amusement park.
Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players.
We're in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know.
You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you.
You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs.
In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion."
Beale, coming apart at the seams, is a mad prophet.
And because he shines with brilliance and poetry, he can affect minds. Therefore, the television network can make use of him. It can turn him into a cartoon for the masses.
It is Beale's language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.
Television's enemy is the word. Its currency is image.
Beale breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.
The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.
Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.
Knowledge, once established, is external to, and independent of, the viewer. Whereas the impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen.
Images… plus, of course, in the case of the news, the narrative voice.
A basic premise of New Age thinking is:
"everything is (connected to) everything."
This fits quite well with the experience of watching film or video flow.
Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky.
Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.
A flow of consecutive images...
The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn't aware of that. They're watching the "interconnected" images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image.
Viewers thus believe they know something. Television has imparted that sensation to them. That's what news is all about: delivering a sensation of knowing to the audience.
There is no convenient place where the ordinary viewing audience can stop the flow of images or the story being told. They are inside it. They don't have the leverage of a crystallized idea or the power of reasoning to get out.
They are inside the story. Knowledge thus becomes story.
The viewer is transfixed by the sensation that he is "inside" watching/experiencing story. This fixation produces a short circuit in his reasoning mind (if he has one). No time to stop, no time to think; just watch the flow.
When you take this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which "knowledge" is gained.
"Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons."
"Really? How did they show that?"
"Well, I don't exactly remember. But watch it. You'll see."
And that's another feature of the modern acquisition of knowledge: amnesia about details.
The viewer can't recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can't describe them, because he was in the flow. He was inside, busy building up his impression of knowing something.
Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual references. And lines of reasoning? To the extent they exist, they're wrapped around and inside the image-flow and the narration.
Ideas aren't as interesting as images. That's the premise.
To grasp the diminishment of language, consider the current use of the word "text." Suddenly it's become a verb; it means a process of sending words. It also refers to paragraphs or pages of writing, as opposed to pictures.
"Text" makes "writing" seem like nothing more than one functional (and machine-like) method of delivering information.
And since bone-dry information (e.g., "genetic sequences") these days is practically considered a synonym for life, when a writer infuses his words with passion, they automatically become a "rant."
"Rant" was formerly applied to describe what a person did when he was totally unhinged to the point of making no coherent sense.
Image, not the word, is the now preferred means of acquiring what passes for knowledge.
Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me in an interview:
"If you wanted to try a real revolution, you would produce thousands of videos consisting of written words on screens, with someone speaking those words.
You would try to reinstate language as a medium. Poetry, formal arguments and debates, great speeches, dramatic readings.
You would go up against image and try to relegate it to its proper place…"
In the American colonies of the 18th century, several hundred thousand copies of Tom Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense, were distributed among a total population of only 2.5 million people, and the earth shook.
When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.
Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop. Willing devotees of the image want images, food stamps of the programmed society.
But now, something is happening. Something different.
It is to be fervently wished that the revolution against major media will also result in a revolution against knowledge as nothing more than image.
Kanyini is best expressed in English as the combination of the two words ‘Responsibility’ and ‘Unconditional Love’, but it is actually a relationship; it is an enormous caring with no limit – it has no timeframe: it is eternal. – Uncle Bob Randall
In our modern times, we are faced with the greatest challenges in human history. Never before has our conscious evolution been so required. There is growing consensus that we need to change and learn to work together for the solutions to address these challenges.
We know in our hearts that technology is not the sole solution. Somehow, we understand that a much deeper shift is needed, and sometimes we can feel this as an aching pain in our hearts and sorrow in our minds. Many of us do not feel whole and it may seem difficult to even experience a sense of peace in a world that demands us to constantly divide and be fragmented.
It is difficult for us to feel whole in a world that demands us to constantly divide.
Many of us feel trapped in social-economic systems that give no meaning to the quality of our life or our intrinsic worth. It is not surprising that so many of us burn out; our inner flame slowly fading, lost in systems that compromise the very nature of our being and our relationships.
False Dream of Progress
By living in a world that designs its activities around clock-time, reducing natural cycles and rhythms to linearity, the pressure of this societal ‘dream of progress’ becomes unbearable.
In this constructed promise of ‘progress’, we are supposed to be better people, with more income, more social status, more achievements, more development, and more success in the future. And yet, deep in our hearts, we know that this dream is crashing.
Life is not linear; much of what we aim to achieve in this world of ‘progress’ has little meaning in the bigger context of life as a whole. And worse, this kind of progress has come at the expense of so many beings that were sacrificed for our pursuits for a ‘better life’.
Are we losing our connection to the natural world at the expense of progress?
This kind of ‘progress’ cannot fill our hearts with the sense of home that comes naturally by realising our communion with life and nature, in each of our relationships.
When faced with problems we often look to the future for answers in terms of new technologies and new inventions. Yet it is those very technologies and inventions that have trapped us. Perhaps our challenge today is to stop looking forward and, instead, look back to see the wisdom of the past? There we may find some of the answers we need.
Living Kanyini
Through this article, I would like to share with you some of the deep wisdom that I received from one of the oldest continuous living cultures: the Australian Aborigines. I had the great fortune to learn from, and about, them during my eight years of living in Australia from 1998-2006. Those years became the foundation for everything I do and share today.
Learning their ancient wisdom brought me back to my heart and gave me a sense of acceptance and love that I never experienced before in this human-made world of ‘progress’. It restored my sense of humanity and purpose and gave me strength to stay true to myself and my direct relationship with life.
Australian Aborigines hold deep wisdom as one of the oldest continuous living cultures.
I realised then that the solutions we seek are already within us. These solutions and medicines of the soul will only unlock when we come back to our connectedness with nature and life. We tend only to care for the worlds we feel a part of, yet how can we expect people to care for our natural world if we don’t experience our belonging and kinship with nature?
Living Wisdom
The Elders shared with me that they understood long ago that their purpose was to sustain the transmission of this living wisdom to the rest of our human family, until the time for the remembering and reconnection was called for, as it is now.
One of the Yankunytjatjara Elders and Custodian of the Uluru Sacred Heritage, also called Uncle Bob Randall, explains in this video below what it means to live from a deep sense of connectedness and relatedness with the whole ‘family of life’. This sense of connectedness is the foundation for Kanyini – unconditional love with responsibility.
The purpose of being on this Earth plane is to be of service to all that will be. Be willing to care for all things equally. – Uncle Bob Randall
Bob Randall explains what it means to be connected with the whole ‘family of life’.
Kanyini is based on four principles:
Ngura – A sense of belonging to home and land.
Walytja – Family connecting with life.
Kurunpa – Psyche, spirit or soul.
Tjukurrpa – Creation period, or also called the Dreamtime, and the right way to live.
Disconnection from Life as Family
When we look at the way humans have developed our modern societies, we can see how far we have moved away from these principles. To start with Ngura – many of us no longer feel like we belong to the natural world. Instead, we feel more and more divided, internally and externally.
It is becoming harder and harder these days to feel a sense of home and belonging where we can relax into the wholeness of our being. This madness of modern life emphasizes our worth only in terms of what we can produce and achieve, and not by who we are intrinsically or the land that supports us.
Many people are suffering from depression, and the trend for this is increasing. One of the Elders, who I met during my time in Australia, explained to me that many of our ‘modern’ mental diseases and other diseases are something they never had in their traditional life. This same Elder explained to me that they see the root causes of these dis-ease patterns stemming from the disruption of ‘oursness‘ and disconnection from ‘life as family.’
Many of us feel disconnected from the natural web of life. Image by Christian Sasse.
Spirit Nourishment
Walytja, reminds us that if our sense of kinship with life erodes, we lose our sense of connectedness and we can no longer receive Spirit nourishment directly from the land. It is this spirit nourishment, also called Kurunpa, that provides inner peace and sustainability for our whole self.
Kurunpa refers to psyche, spirit and soul, it is our spirituality, our true spiritual nature. Through our spiritual connection with life and each other we can draw deeply from the living wisdom of nature that can guide us through the darkest of times. When we experience life as family, irrespective of whether we are living in nature or in the city, our heart is sustained by a deep unconditional love that is always here for us.
If we only connect with life materialistically; devoid of any spiritual connection to home, land and other living beings, we are blocked from receiving this love. Our hearts need this inner nourishment, it provides our sense of connection and oneness. Without this nourishment we feel lost, lonely and without a sense of sacred purpose.
Our sense of kinship with life gives us spirit nourishment directly from the land.
The Whole of Life
By relating with all expressions of life as expressions of this larger Spirit that connects us all, it changes the way we relate with the natural world and restores our sense of wholeness. For many people, nature is now only a source of food and materials for things to make, own and consume. In that concept, there is no sense of sacredness and no gratitude for the sacrifices made by our living relatives of the natural world, like the animals, plants, trees, and insects.
When we have gratitude and deeply care for all living things, as shared by Uncle Bob earlier, we no longer just consume our relations. Instead, we honour our relations for their intrinsic worth by appreciating deeply the spirit of life that is also within each of them and their right to live.
It is by this gratitude and appreciation that we heal our own emptiness and restore our inner wholeness. This is the real food and nourishment that our souls and psyche long for.
Reconnecting to the Spirit that connects us all restores our sense of wholeness.
The Dreamtime
The beauty of Kanyini is that it reminds us that there is nothing we need to do or prove in order to gain acceptance from this unconditional love. Every day is another opportunity to restore and appreciate our connectedness with the wholeness of life. This love is not withheld from us when we move astray or lose our way. It embraces everything and everyone unconditionally.
The Aboriginal Elders teach that this deeper understanding of psyche, spirit and soul comes from Tjukurrpa. In English, Tjukurrpa has been translated as ‘the Dreamtime’. This refers to the teaching that creation is an ongoing process in a multi-dimensional universe based on sacred principles; laws, by which we remain connected through all time and space while changing form.
Tjukurrpa relates to the invisible world behind what we see and know as the created universe. From this comes the understanding of the right way to live in accordance with these universal Laws and principles. The Elders believe that this sacred knowledge was passed on via a process of transmission from the Ancestral beings to humanity, to guide us as custodians for this world.
The Dreamtime teaches us to live according to sacred Laws. Painting by Colleen Wallace Nungari.
We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love…and then we return home. – Aboriginal Proverb
Sacred Law and Universal Principles
In our modern societies, the concept of ‘sacred law’ and the right way to live is not taught and transmitted to our children. Accordingly, many people do not know what it means and how to live their life by these core universal principles.
Yet the consequences of our modern ways of life show that whether we believe in Tjukurrpa or not, the effects of our actions on the web of life and our own sense of happiness and purpose is real. By becoming aware of these universal principles we learn how to balance, heal and restore our sense of inner worth and sacred communion with all life.
These sacred laws and universal principles of Kanyini can be observed in the way things unfold. We start to experience this directly by listening closely to nature, and by allowing our heart to guide our knowing. These principles were not created by anyone, they are not mental constructs. By living in close relationship with the wholeness of life we start to see these laws and principles as a foundation for all that is unfolding within our created worlds.
Become aware of Kanyini and restore your unity with all life. Painting by Jandamarra Cadd.
You are All That
You may ask, but how do I live in close relationship with the wholeness of life? This starts simply by remaining attentive to your whole self: your feelings, thoughts, dreams, desires, the quiet voice within, the spiritual presence both within YOU and all around you. By becoming aware first that you are ‘all that’, you can then start to see if there is any way that you divide, suppress, control or fragment these various qualities of yourself.
If you do notice inner division, gently ask yourself, why? What do you believe is so important that you need to do that to yourself? Then consider, why you would do this if life does not ask you to compromise your inner being, nor does it ask you to compromise the inner being of others. Through these inner enquiries, gentle observations, and deep listening, you slowly become aware of the universal wisdom principles of Kanyini that restore our wholeness, and our perception of unity with all life.
Human-animal mutant creatures make for great material for science fiction writers, but we aren’t supposed to be creating them in the real world. In so many ways, the technological advancements that we have made as a society are outpacing our ability to handle those advancements, and this field is certainly a glaring example of that reality. Just because we can create human-animal hybrid chimeras does not mean that we should. Genetic modification is a particularly dangerous science, because we are literally tinkering with the future of our planet. And when it comes to humans and animals, those are two things that definitely should not mix. Unfortunately, they are being mixed, and this could have enormous implications as our society plunges into a very uncertain future.
During all of the chaos surrounding the 2016 presidential election, a stunning announcement by the National Institutes of Health went unnoticed by almost everyone. The following comes from a Huffington Post article entitled “The Island of Dr. Moreau For Real“…
In August 2016, the National Institutes of Health announced that it was lifting its ban on research that introduces stem cells from humans into animal embryos. Stem cells have the ability to evolve into any human cell and can grow into any human tissue. The goal of this type of research is to grow human tissues and eventually human replacement organs in animals. What an innovative way to improve upon transplantation medicine! But to realize this potential, we would create an organism that is part animal and part human! These hybrids are the stuff of ancient mythology. These mixtures of different animals are called chimeras after the mythical ancient Greek creature that was part lion, snake and goat. One goal of today’s research is to produce tissues and organs for experimentation that will improve our understanding of human disease. An alternative and longer term goal would be to produce organs directly for human transplantation. Imagine an infinite source of human organs – one wears out and you produce a new one as a replacement.
When human stem cells are introduced into an animal embryo, that creature becomes part human.
So does a part-human creature have rights?
If so, how do those rights differ from those of a full human?
These are the kinds of questions that ethicists are starting to wrestle with.
The thought of creating human-animal hybrids just for the purpose of growing organs which will be used for medical transplants is beyond disturbing. But this is what our scientists actually intend to do.
And just this week, the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine has released a brand new report that endorses the genetic modification of humans. The following comes from a Gizmodo article…
Today, the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine released a major new report and recommendations to ensure any such research done stateside in the future is performed responsibly and ethically.
The implicit message is that whether we like it or not, a future of gene-edited humans is on its way.
Messing around with the genetic material of humans means that you are literally messing around with the future of the human race.
And once this genetic material starts being passed from generation to generation, it will literally be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle ever again.
“The recommendations and conclusions of this report are unsettling and disappointing,” said Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society. “Although they’re couched in apparently cautionary language, they actually constitute a green light for proceeding with efforts to modify the human germline — that is, to engineer the genes and traits that are passed on to future children and generations.”
Hopefully the scientific community will listen to people like Dr. Darnovsky before things get wildly out of control.
There are some scientists out there that actually want to “enhance” humans by introducing genetic material from animals. The theory is that introducing genetic material from animals could give us “super sight” or “super strength” or other extraordinary powers. This is the kind of thing that researchers such as Steve Quayle and Tom Horn have been warning about for years. In the future we could literally have a creature that is 60 percent human and 40 percent bear for example. How would we treat such a creature?
And as such creatures became more numerous, how would they treat us?
If you think that such a thing could never happen, just consider ten examples of creatures that are already being created by science…
How human does a creature have to be before it has a human soul?
Somebody better start asking questions like this, because we are “playing god” and we are tinkering with things that we do not fully understand.
We have already gone way too far, but scientists all over the globe continue to press on even farther. Even if we were to completely ban this kind of “research” in the United States, it would still progress in other industrialized nations all over the planet.
The genetic modification of humans and animals is part of a larger trend that we are currently witnessing. In the scientific community, there is a tremendous amount of excitement about the fact that humans can finally “take control of their own evolution”. There are many scientists that believe that we can use various forms of technology to give ourselves superhuman powers and radically extend our lifespans. And as technology continues to increase at an exponential rate, these scientists believe that we will be able to ultimately create a “post-human society” where all sickness, disease, poverty and war are eradicated.
So they aren’t concerned about the potential dangers of these new technologies because they believe that we are right on the verge of achieving immortality and transforming this planet into a technological utopia that will be perfect in every way.
In other words, they believe that humanity will no longer need “god” because we will be our own gods.
Unfortunately for all the rest of us, in their relentless pursuit of this very foolish dream they are racing toward genetic Armageddon, and they are opening up a Pandora’s box of horrors that they simply do not understand.
This site affirms the right to believe, not what we are told to believe, and not what we blindly consent to believe, but what we determine to be true and worth believing. It presents a way to undertake that “tedious and daunting task” by which we make ourselves accountable to truth itself.
Most often, making of a documentary is akin to the process of feature filming in the sense that ideas are preconceived, scripts are made in advance, shooting and editing are done accordingly. Most of the documentaries are meant to generate messages serving the ideologies of the funding sources. It is no surprise that the masses are averse to these packages of propaganda.
Ethnographic film as a genre seeks to reveal one society to another creating an environment for trans-cultural understanding. It is loosely bound by perspectives in anthropology and supposedly far from ethnocentrism and propaganda. Here, the camera becomes an instrument of observation and record in the hands of an anthropologist. Events and social cultural phenomena are candidly recorded and interpreted with knowledge gained from participant observation.
Visual Anthropology admits the validity of different documenting styles and objectives for a variety of purposes like research, teaching, broadcast etc. There is a tremendous need for the potential use of film and photography in anthropological research. Also, there is an urgent need to document the rapidly vanishing diverse tribal cultures.
A picture contains thousand words. It might represent an aspect of reality.But it is only a construction. A word is not the thing. It is only a representation. Symbols are not the things which they represent. And realities are relative. Absolute reality is beyond our intellectual enterprise. Physics proves that the deeper we penetrate the matter the far are we from the truth because our instrument of observation intrudes and alters the spontaneous behavior of the subject. As long as the observer is separate from the observed, the paradox remains. It is only when the observer ceases as a separate entity, the total understanding is possible.
It is evident today that ethnographies are not considered as scientific studies. They are also not fiction. These are the times when determinism in science is paving way to probability. As Nietzshe put it – there are no facts, only interpretations. Facts or symbols or representations – they never make sense when are in isolation. Integrating them is a creative process. Ethnography and art are creative constructions. They need not claim scientific objectivity. As Robert Redfield put it – in advancing social science, we invent and practice technique and cultivate a humanistic art.
Anthropology thrives on cultural relativity and holism. If not a "science" in traditional sense, it is a rational enterprise. It aims at uncovering the governing principles underlying human diversity. It seeks to comprehend the unifying features that constitute human nature. Visual Anthropology blurs the distinction between science and humanities. It paves way to an understanding of human cultures in a holistic way.
Many works of art are anthropological in this sense.
Aboriginal Tribes of India - Ethnographic Films
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. MARGARET MEAD (Anthropologist)
NOBODY STANDS TALLER THAN THOSE WILLING TO STAND CORRECTED. (William Safire)
A moving point generates a line
A moving line generates a plane
A moving plane generates a volume
A moving volume generates a hypervolume
The threshold movement is attained at the speed of light
At the speed of light mass becomes infinite and time ceases to be
A timeless, mass-less entity can travel to any point in the universe instantly
A timeless, mass-less entity can manifest to all points in the universe instantly
The mysterious aspect of a human, electromagnetic-ethereal, travels at or beyond the speed of light
Posts
