Psychoanalysis and therapeutic effects.

Departing from Freudian analysis, I shall mainly take a more bioneural approach to the brain. Not disregarding concepts of the mind, as stablished by C.G. Jung and partners; this will be my main focus.

Sigmeund Freud has to be placed in historical context. In a time when fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes were hailing the use of cocaine, it did not take long for Freud to look at it as a “wonderous medicine”. He, of course, explains his increased libido as a central enforced personal trait. In patients, he sees it makes them “more normal” and administers it if they feel depressed. After some research is done on this chemically refined use of coca leaves, he is devasted by the scientific consensus: It’s highly addictive and worse than a cup of coffee (which were the effects when chewed as done by native americans for millenia). He goes on to work with C. G. Jung, who places emphasis on the collective consciousness. We have evidence from 5000B.C. that mushrooms were used in Central and South America were reverence. The molecular biology of
and deserves attention at this point.

These subjects are controversial because they were outlawed (but recreational users and medicinal research) during times of racism. A class of people was seen as not being able to control themselves. ‘Crazed negro’ with a ‘bullet to the heart…in self-defense’ would not stop a cocaine pumped agent of that class. This would leave a scar on our social consciousness and psychological freedom restricted to an irrational degree. After alcohol and opium, cocaine was pronounced as the third scourge of mankind. Pemberton treated his morphine addiction with a cocaine drink to provide an alternative to an alcoholic beverage (outlawed during the latest dry era). However in 1970 through the controlled substances act, research on psychedelics and cannabis (still described as marihuana to link it with mexicans rather than the industrial crop hemp) is prohibited. However, psychedelics are by definition:
From Greek psykhe- “mind” (see psyche) + deloun “make visible, reveal,” from delos “visible, clear.” Psychedelia is from 1967. Earliest in 1956, of drugs, suggested by H. Osmond in a letter to Aldous Huxley and used by Osmond in a scientific paper published the next year.
Fitting into a larger criminal market for over 300 billion dollars and over 200 billion euros a year, it remains outcast to the darkest corners of society.
Unlike coffee, alcohol in most countries and tabacco; these products are doomed to make profits near the size of oil revenus of users and addicts, none of whom receive any honest help from their government of social milieu. Most is based on myth and tradition, being biased one way or the other, without relevant data or educational information explaining levels of dependency, mortality rate and so forth.
This is part of the grander setting in which the Self must seated. The set, the internal framework of those who would use a substance to alter their state of mind and thereby enhance the effects of psychoanalysis and/or therapy. The id, ego and superego would in a freudian framework be connected to the set. The ego would be unable to reconcile with the superego on the basis that reality is slanted and only Id could possibly arise from such an irrational disaster.
In other words, the experience becomes tainted. Tryptamines are associated with trips, which are in turn associated with the possibility of a bad trip. In the free associations game that goes on during synaptic free firing neurons, such a view of reality is skewed and causes baseless conceptions of the world to enter what is essentially, a very delicate moment. In other, more ancient, cultures, traditions and rituals would do the same by declaring these as sacred. To view perceptions as real, say gods or aliens; would be to miss the point. Psychotherapy and sjaminism deserve no greater place on the cast system of society than mechanics and mathmeticians.
A lot of energy must first be invested in fixing such a society, which must divide and structure so competitivly.
No one occupation, status, class or use of leisure time should define a person in its entirety. I say it, because it’s a conceptual structure. This abstract person extends to all categorical aspects of life (social, political, economical, territorial, structural). The biological perspective has a lot of evolutionary twists and turns, so for now I’ll leave this page as it is. All of this should be part of the educational system. We ought to learn the basics of food. Nutrition and toxins for the body and mind.

Journal of a law abiding citizen

In Confoederatio Helvetica, a utupic future (and not so distant past), might look like this.
Morning, get up. Wash with water.
Need soap and shampoo from pant H. It grows on the mountainside and requires no maintenance.
Just water. Which flows because of global warming from our precious glacier.
I like the smell, so I made deodorant (also made from H) also smell like it. I´m not a lavander person.

Time to eat something. Ate last of my personally slaughtered chicken yesterday. Time for something less meaty today. Let´s see. Tomorrow I might eat soy, but for now, something more digestable. I´ll just take some seeds from plant H from the near brook. It´s got energy (567 calories/100g), Protein (30.6/100g), Carbohydrate (10.9) Dietary fiber (6), Fat (47.2), Saturated fat (5.2), Oleic (18:1 Omega-9, 5.8), Polyunsaturated fat (36.2), Linoleic (18:2 Omega-6 27.6), Linolenic (18:3 Omega-3 8.7), Linolenic (18:3 Omega-6 0.8). And zero cholesterol. About 5grams will be water from the near brook, but I’m cool with that.
It’s got Vitamin A, Thiamine (Vit B1) , Riboflavin (Vit B2), Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Calcium and Iron. So that’ll be enough for breakfast. Save some of the seed oil for treatment of eczema.
Also no gluten in it, so I can share it later with people who have celiac disease.

It´s noon. I just worked in the barn, feeding the animals with plant H I brought back from the mountainside. What they don´t eat can be used as hay. I´m exhausted. Still have a long day. Better eat something made of plant C butter. Can´t swallow the painkillers because they have too many side-effects on my stomach.

Evening. Just looked to see if plant C was doing fine. I try to keep it seperate from plant H. Otherwise it all turns H. Far relatives of hop, which I don´t brew. I don´t need to have an industrial only variety to make of for this lacking thirst as they call it. I harldy use Fords T-model. Made it after his and diesels design myself. Same fuel source and all. Made from, mainly plant H and runs on it too.
Time to relax. I eat some more butterscones from C. I throw some of the outdoor variety on the campfire, it was growing too close to H and might start mixing. I take some more blankets to keep warm, also made from H, as are my clothes.

As I write this down on paper made from H, I take some plants C and vaporize it to fight the depressing and grim reality. This isn´t utopia, this is the real world.

My plant H is of course, Herbicide. Plant C, Change.

Update: I couldn´t stop nature from crosspollinating. The plant spreads like a weed. Growing in all climates and deserts. Withstanding the conditions of central asia. Even though it originated from the rainforest. Started growing the domisticated variety, tribes used it a couple of thousand years in this manner. The molecule with medicinal values reaches 8% which is sufficient.

Congo

Did you know that the Congo has one of the oldest mathematical artifacts in the World? It is believed to be one of the first calculators and a lunar calendar. It is dated 20,000 BC.

This concludes the nightly session of
The More You Know

Violence as legitimate means

I just saw the clip “Rise Against – Re-Education (Through Labor)” and it reminded me of Fight Club. But also of 24 and Xe.
The clip started with a quotation from John F. Kennedy:”Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Now, if all of us (wealthy worldcitizens, access to internet etc) were to adopt this principle; the world would be an ugly place.

Don’t get me wrong, I like JFK. But the (cold) war rethoric bothers me. If anarchists (meaning people who identify themselves with the anti-authoritarian tradition) were to use the ‘propaganda of the act’ as it were, we’d all be terrorists.

If ANYBODY, starts adressing their grievances (such as state terror on a massive scale) by mimicing the abhorrent behavior, we’re in for a very long and destructive circle (if not spiral, but I doubt cycle) of violence.

Imagine, the anarchist cookbook and the destructive nature of such literature being applied by all extremes of the political spectrum. From left wing commies, claiming all private property is theft, to right-wing contractors who feel the only way to keep order is to do it themselves.
That doesn’t include the people desecrating public property because they feel what one arm of government does, they should annihilate its legs.

The logic is destructive. Meanly because it’s war logic. If you look at this as a war, we’re all going to be fucked.
But as george carlin points on (on education -must see!-), the owners of this country won’t allow us to learn anything. So if we (the masses) can’t think (if that’s reserved for elites), we’ll have to act. Without rational thought I feel this could easily lead into harsh situations.

However, if one (leftist) would replace say, class warfare with class cooperation, he’d quickly have a fundamental change of position (even it’s its only implemented after nationalising the collectives’ wealth); we’d end up with fascism.

Which is a difficult position to maintain. Of course, if you WANT power and you want to achieve your OWN political agenda: Fascism is the way to go.

It is the only thing that does not tolerate anarchy. It doesn’t even tolerate the mob. CIA had to rebuild that with the french connection (drug money, prohibition excluded liquids again). There was order in the streets. The manifesto had been somewhat realised. People listened, and the ones that didn’t were dealt with.

If I lived in the world wars, I hope I’d have been a pacifist. Maybe I’d had joined the resistance, because there was so much suffering around me and no wealth.

But right now, even if I were to -for the sake of argument- think of the current world regime/empire is more totalitarian than it could have been over 50 years ago, I’d still use non-violent means to address the issue.
Like say, words, ideas, concepts, etc.

There was a massive movement, even followed by the Czar (because his poor weaponry) leading up to the Great War. In the Second World War, it becomes hard to repeat Dwight on the american version of The Office and say that “it was a war we never should have gotten involved with”.
Even Einstein and Chomsky thought fighting it was right, and I kinda look upto these guys. But winning a war never determines who’s right, only who’s left.
In this case, the guys with the nukes won. Thank you a lot, Einstein!
And then there’s an MIT (pentagon budget) professor who teaches linguistics who can’t decide on paying taxes or not (or any other act of civil disobedience) because it might lead to fascism.

Of course, I don’t live in a country with the same budget lay-out (military is lik 15% here and most of it goes to social security and health, my region gives most its money away on education and health), so I pay my taxes (well I don’t because I’m a student and I hardly work, when I do the tariff is low and I give most of it away on causes so I get a refund). So even non-violent oppossition isn’t really an option for me either, either by voicing my opinion (because it’s easier to encounter people who might actually recognize me then in such a small country as mine) or by not paying taxes (even though 147 dossiers of 100000 known fraudulents cases are handed over to the justice department of further selection).

As for violence as legitimate means…To what? For what? What’s the end? In my world view it’s peace and non-violence. It’s dialogue, reason, and above all freedom and justice. The first two being the means. The latter two the goals, incompatible with legitimating violence.

For the ends are the means, and anarchism ought to be about deconstructing institutions of power (when classified as illegitimate), not about repeating mistakes of the past.

Make new ones. Do anything, try anthing. Just try not to infringe on other people’s right to do the same. And violence tends to target the weak. You may feel strong knowing that information is free and it’s surprisingly easy for any individual to destroy a lot of infrastructure, human lives, systems of dominance and whatnot.

If not, I’m sure EVERYONE will be able to find SOMETHING they’d be willing to burn, pillage and rape over.
Albeit, most might not abide by that order.

Overview

Geopolitical powers

comprehensive1

Work work

In welfare states; the working man’s outcry to stop having to pay for the lazy bums causing the electorate to hit the right. Of course one does not “want to work for the sake of someone who does NOT want to work”, because this diminishes the effort somehow.

It doesn’t feel right. If I were to give you one dollar and 99 to another person; you would rather have me give you 10 dollars and 10 or 20 to someone else. Even if I burned everything else; even tough we’re talking about ME giving it away. We look into ourselves and care little for others.

But why is this the case? Is it the case? If I were to give you 2 dollars and someone else 3000; you would, even tough you don’t know the person, feel inclined to do the ‘right’ thing, rather than avenge yourself.

Who cares about the rich not wanting to work for their money? Hardly anybody it would seem. Who cares that the poorest of the world work the hardest for the least money? A few more people, but most feel overwhelmed by feelings of powerlessness. If they weren’t, they’d have to get off their arse and do something about it.

We’re not looking at life as a human endeavor. We’re looking at ourselves as pieces of the economic pie to be distributed. And whomever works, will produce and deserves piece of the pie. But that’s a pre-1930′s mentality. The problem of our society has become overproduction, not scarce resources. Being a commodity on the market to be traded is something most people aspire to, and labor should be sold without concern of human concepts such as freedom or justice.

At least, when you’re bought; there’s a willingness to invest and sell you when you’re truly worth more. But since slavery ended and we stuck to wage slavery, people can just stop hiring you when productivity increases. This means, less people needed for the production of just as much or more wealth. This causes unemployment. Because we don’t NEED to people to WORK to have the same luxeries.

So we don’t work because we want to do the manual or mental labor. Not as an exercise in creativity or freedom. No, we want to be payed more. The work takes second place. Money as a means has become almost a goal. We can’t sit at home all day because most feel inclined to start consuming (24hour shopping stations and malls might have something to do with that), rather than learning a new skill, instrument, or language.

If it is truly possible NOT to go to work and not get eaten by predators, survive comfortably, eat and drink healty, exercise regularly, get medical attention when needed, even get some electricity. Well then, I think the caveman in us should stop hunting. If you don’t want to work for those people who refuse to, than don’t. Stay at home, or go out and help other people; volunteer. Help the rest of the world so they may be able to help you. Or kill them all if you think they’re all compitition.

Mankind could evolve either way, we’ve been on the planet with a thousand people; near extinction. The last 200 years we’ve gone to 1 billion and increased exponentially ever since. If you honestly don’t think the industrial revolution can meet our automatisatoin requirements, that we can’t think of certain machines and computerized processes to replace human labor with; tell me, what makes a human human?

Is it reproduction (because overpopulation or famine, human/food) is not a problem. It is consciousness? Because nobody seems to be willing to rethink our current paradigm. Is it something else? Please comment.

Confidence

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
William Butler Yeats wrote that.

When capitalism was in competition with communism, and consequently embellished. Equal voting rights, minimum wage, pensions, education and pensions were established as part of the welfare state. These marxist principles were adopted without the slightest hint of hypocrisy. Social democracies such as the ones in scandinavia thrived, canada and europe lagged behind.

However, the financial and banking elites remain to rule the regulators. Liberal democracy is as fragile as the next idea. With recession which reminds us of the years running up to another world war, and prohibition of alcohol and the main crop the US since the 1600′s.

Change is not impossible, it’s inevitable.
So is death.

Before you die, don’t you want to be confident enough for a spontanious uprising?
To do, what has not yet been done. To know what has been and to acknowledge that redefining democracy can exist within our lifetime. Participatory democracy, deep democracy, including the economy. That includes the distribution of land. The whole idea that some people ought to be homeless and others ought to have several houses has already been dampend by taxing the inheritance of land (100% in marxist conditions)
and social housing. Taxing goods (flat-tax) is something freemarket proponents like, taxing labor (50% in say belgium) is ineffective and would fuel labor being done without the social benefits (such as ensurance) this implies. Smuggling goods could perhaps be dealt with with capital punishment (together with adultery and thievery this is the main use of it when its particulary brutal).

To steal with your hands is filthy, to do it with a keyboard and a cell phone; it’s white collar crime and should be fined. But not too much, these people are the engine of our economy. I suggest another economy. If you produce with manual labor or with intellectual contributions (this excludes setting up complex systems to funnel money through credit into your pocket). Credit should be given on an individual scale, not to banking institutions such as the Federal banking institutions, in America OR in Europe (ECB).

“The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on — and even precedent value for — other parts of the world, especially in Italy,” the memorandum warns Nixon just hours before a critical National Security Council (NSC) meeting in which Kissinger urged his boss to reject the ”modus vivendi approach” recommended by the State Department.
They were calling for real socialism. Not communism. Dispersed where it was centralised. Participatory where it was bureacratic.

The ability to have a democratic system, rather than a totalitarian one. To be cooperative, rather than competitive. To have the total sum grow, rather than relying on stealing what’s already there (or made by those who would work the most for the least money). To have the confidence to chose for different, like the voters of Indonesia voted many years ago. This is something we should all strive for.

Because if we don’t make the decisions, someone else will. Somebody who is above you, above the law, above justice. Solidarity with all of humankind can set us free. We can have a freemarket. Free of the, mandatory by law, profit-seeking corporation. NOT to be owned by its employees. Banking institutions and schemes like Enron did pay in shares, rather than inflated money.

Jeffrey Sachs likes Poland, with its 40% unemployment rate. But who cares if you can buy the land and the institutions? People are starving to death, have to migrate all over europe, but prices are stable. The economy is ready to be taken over.

Another historic moment of possibility is the end of apartheid in South-Africa. We can end slavery, racism, unequal wealth distribution. You may end in whatever condition, but the starting conditions have to be equal for all. They’re not yet, let’s fix that first. For all of the human race.

NATO Mission Afghanistan and Obama

It seems clear now that Europe may rebuild Afghanistan escorting military operations conducted by US troops and contractors. NATO will continue to turn over people to the regime which will torture them in many cases (and who knows, maybe before it’s all over, he’ll be a terrorist). Basically, NATO will have to join the fight to control the mass population. This is a mixed strategy because the european army is still more or less mixed. The variants that come into play are along very nuanced and interacting paths. Belgians way of training troops (military or neighbourhood cop) will define the post-revolution (1979) landscape and shape the future junta. Civics lessons are nice idea, law and order is currently the talibans monopoly.
If post-colonial powers cannot succusfully install a stable oilpipeline, there’s no telling what Russia will do. Their willingness to make sacrificies is equalled only by the largest empire history has ever seen, funded by the chinese.
If India gets its tech people to run the japanese fighterdrones (they’re decades ahead, don’t tell me they don’t have transformers fully functioning), there’s no predicting how this will end.
Europe will be sick of getting a lousy oil/gas deal from its Ursidae second-world, almost complete capitalist third-world (those are the only ones that AREN’T protectionist, are weren’t because they were raped and pillaged on a metaphysical level) country.
Seriously, there’s nothing there but rocks. Leave it alone, a good part of the 20th century were moderate. Giving women the right to vote that is, maybe that’s too radical.
Exactly what kind of reaction are we trying to provoke with locals?
“Hello, I’m white and well armed. I’m here to help,”?
The Fundament (Al Qaida) is likely to hold a firm ground where the biggest army decides to draw lines in the sand.
Obama’s adviser (from Carter era) still wants a capitalist state of whatever regime, despite what the populations’ desire for afghan democracy and independance. The Mujahedin were his doing and Bin Ladens’ CIA training was hybris in the making. Breeding this medieval environment is manifest doom.
We will not win. Winning has no parameters, they’re infinite. The afghan civil war has to be thrown aside for securing oil and gas. The history of this region has only one, dominant lesson. It has huge blowback. In the long run, the gorilla movement has owned those caves. Even if we end up nuking every square inch (I think there are enough nukes for that on the planet) of that state, we’ll still end up with radiated oil.
So, what ARE we doing there?

Obama is which mythological president?

Personalities of past presidents have been intertwined with, amongst other things, their death. Lincoln was shot, FDR died in office from polio. Which you would like to see Obama end his career with?
Or is it Kennedy’s escalation in around Vietnam. The middle-east will be the new Indochina. Then again, that guy got shot too. So maybe another policy or charismatic option is required for hopefull change.
Now they(Robert Gates and alike) want to do the same thing to afghanistan as they did in Iraq.
Obama doesn’t want to get into the medical marihuana debate (states allow it) because it would waste political capital. Joe Biden and Clinton are allowed to run affaires that are abroad. How is he going to respond to the very real fact that cannabis has replaced opium as a crop. This major cash crop also has a low THC-variant, hemp. Industrial use of this was common for centuries, many taliban tribes haven’t evolved either the last couple of centuries, mind you. Making the plant illegal has been an on again, off again relationship. The use of any substance that can impair judgement is considered haram, forbidden. Then again, when fighting infidels, Al Qaida and other extremists find no fault in allowing production and storage of opium and cannabis (the variant that can also be used for medicinal purposes) to skyrocket to unseen heights.

Only in being realistic about the facts on the ground can you make adequate decisions. What kind of change will he bring after 72 years of prohibition (wood pulp and corn methanal could be ecologically and economically replaced in a sound manner)? Is there a scientific aspect that ought to enter the dialogue? It is time to reach beyond faithfulness and platitudes.
It is time, for change.

So maybe, Obama is Ron Paul.

Just kidding, unless Obama allows a viable, pluralistic, multi party system to take root; Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and sorts don’t stand a change in hell

Aliens visit our planet:

Disclaimer: Narrative may vary in time according to your place in the Universe. General and special rules of relativity apply.

“Look, lifeforms on the dry part of a watery celestial body.
They seem to multiply quite hastely. Oh look, they’ve developed a hierachic structure. Oh no, the top is inbreeding.
Let’s see what the masses are doing. Oh no, they’ve even more narrow sighted. Whatever instantly satisfies is chosen. The surving specimens are rather happy, the sad ones die quickly. The sad ones die quickly. Cognitive abilities are hampered due to massive consumption of dehydrating liquids.
Look at their habitat, this mammalian creature will probably have to evolve to adapt to such a drastically altering environment. The radiation might speed up the process. Then again, after growing thumbs; what’s left?