Open finding

There are many political (and other) topics that people are sure of, where I am not.

Many things I return an "open finding" on, either because I find the evidence unconvincing either way, or because I haven't studied the topic in enough detail to be sure.

I don't place my convictions on any authority, because I don't know any that are 100% reliable, (although I do know some who have proven to be very accurate, over many years, which I do rely on, but never to the extent of passing them off as unequivocal truth).

I also don't place my faith in popular opinion, whether amongst the general population or amongst experts. Neither can be fully trusted to be 100% correct on complex issues, as systemic (often unconscious) bias is often at play. History bears this observation out.

I need to look into things deeply myself to feel sure of them. Otherwise I tend to return an "open finding".

Meaning "I don't know."

It would be wrong and dishonest of me to pretend otherwise!

The origin of the soul

Some spiritual teachings say that the soul is created at the moment of physical conception, when the egg and sperm combine, while others say it is a spiritual birth that occurs before any living physical form is created.

This relates to belief in reincarnation but is not limited by it.

The notion is that the soul is created by a spiritual being, possibly God, the creator of all, and then joins with the developing fetus at an appropriate time in the womb.

The other notion is that it is the combination of the egg and sperm in conception that begins the process, even when it is believed the new life has a physical, as well as non-physical, or spiritual, dimension that continues on after the death of the physical body.

Bodily sovereignty, externalities and vaccines

The existence of externalities (physical and psychic interconnectedness) means that the approach of "live and let live" is not a complete political philosophy to hold.

A farmer or factory upstream can poison the water that is needed by those living downstream. This is unacceptable and why we have environmental agencies.

But when it comes to our bodies we should never force a product or practice on someone who doesn't want it.

It may be argued that doing so results in a positive externality for society, as in the case of "herd immunity" used to promote vaccines, but I don't think this argument is strong enough to override the individual's right to sovereignty over their own body.

If we do accept that the state owns our body then we are on a slippery slope, indeed!

A note on propaganda and mind control

The terms "propaganda" and "mind control" have negative connotations of fascist and totalitarian regimes, but it should be remembered propaganda and mind control can be used to convince people as easily to love their neighbour as to hate them.

So the terms don't refer to the morality of the goal, but rather, to the technique used to achieve it!

Propaganda, war and vaccines

1. When enough people come to the conclusion that war is a con they bring in conscription, so people are forced to go. Now that many people are questioning vaccines they are bringing in mandates.

2. The ruling powers really have no respect for the free will of the individual.

Their only concern is increasing their own wealth and power at any cost, and to achieve it, they convince the population that it's in their best interests to submit to their plans.

3. This is achieved by the use of (i) propaganda, (ii) rewarding compliance and punishing non-compliance, and (iii) by mobilising the population against dissent - i.e. by encouraging "the mob" to attack and vilify any who resist.

It's the same process used to convince people to support and fight wars, as it is to convince them to support vaccine mandates, or anything else that is an important part of the agenda of the power elite.

Mind control and mobilise "the mob" against those who resist, or against any group that are seen as an obstacle to the ruling powers achieving their goals.

A note on criticism

It should be remembered that criticising something doesn't make you an enemy of it. In fact, in just shows your appreciation, by illustrating that you care enough to want to see something improved. Others who don't care, don't care about improvement, or what could be done to fix a situation, because they're not even looking at it with a discerning eye.

The law prohibiting idolatry

The law prohibiting idolatry refers to as much to ideas and practices, as it does to objects of worship. Nothing should be seen as infallible. Everything important needs to be closely examined and not taken on blind faith. To do otherwise is to cede responsibility of our lives to others, which is a primary sin.

Medicine is a reflection of society

The idea that the medical industry is being driven by an impersonal force called "science" is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

Health science could look entirely different than the world of medicine we see today.

The medical industry is as a result of our society, with its unique perspectives on life, its technologies, and its overwhelming financial pressures, rather than as an inevitable result of some mystical process called science.

Is life inherent in all matter?

It seems the reason why the boundary between life and non-life is unclear is because life is somehow inherent in even the most inert seeming substance.

I mean, look how crystals naturally form. They are not thought of as alive, and yet they exhibit the character of life which is organised growth.

With more complex forms, like viruses, it is not clear whether they are alive or not.

After all, they do not reproduce themselves, but instead program living cells to do it for them.

It seems irrational for life to appear from non-life, but this may be because there is actually no such thing as non-life, rather just the appearance of it.

Perhaps all matter is alive with living consciousness, as the mystics tell us.

Agriculture, environment, sustainability

With all the talk of climate change, and with the supposed recycling of waste that now gets done, we think we are environmentalists now.

The reality is many of our industries as literally at war with nature.

Agriculture drenches the environment in poisons, slaughters wild animals by the million, ruins waterways, and destroys native bushland.

Other resource-based industries are similarly brutal and destructive.

This is justified under the banner of necessity. But is it really?

Do we really need to be at war with nature to live comfortable and fulfilling lives?

I would like to think not.

There are far more efficient ways that are more nurturing to the earth than current techniques.

Permaculture is one example of a far more efficient food producing system, than the current petrochemical model, in terms of land use and such.

Vast areas of monoculture crops are just unsustainable, no matter how you look at it.

It's just not in harmony with the ways of nature, which none of us are above.

When industries investigate their own products systemic bias will usually be in place...

... blinding investigators to the negative qualities of their products.

Truth just angers those enamoured with the lie.

The Dark Side is brilliant.

The dark side is brilliant.

Their traps, if not invisible, are well-hidden, if not actually attractive to many people, offering something THAT APPEARS to be worth having.

They may even appear to be essential.

But ask yourself this: are they natural? Are they REALLY essential? Do they come from a pure heart? Or is there something perverted about their use?

The dark side takes a good thing and twists it, to serve its own purposes. It has no respect for persons. They are all disposable. A means to an end. Not valued in and of themselves.

Get to the bottom of it.

Is the system set up or twisted by darkness, or is it a pure, untainted process?

Trust your heart.

It is the ONLY pure guide you have.

The mind has been corrupted by the world.
That's just life.

Without bringing the heart online we have no true compass of what is good and noble and what is not.

Is the belief that biological processes are purely deterministic based on knowledge...

or is it purely an assumption of a mechanistic view of life?

I would prefer governments did not herd people...

But rather, gave them choice.

"Anti-science" decoded

"Anti-science" generally decodes as "anti- corporate interests dressed as science", except in the case of climate change, where it refers to a different kind of skepticism. A broader distrust of everything promoted by the establishment.

That's what you get for lying so much, people start to disbelieve all of it, whether it be true or not.

A bit like religion, I guess.

Folks throw out the baby with the bathwater. Assuming there is any baby in the bathwater, of course!

My view on hate speech

I don't usually like to address hate speech directly, because I don't like to promote those who use it, but it is prevalent on the internet.

It seems to mainly be used by ignorant people attempting to slander another group, or by those overcome with heightened emotion, who lash out wildly.

In either case, it results in a high noise to signal ratio, and repels even-minded folks.

I don't think hate speech can possess much sustained value, like reasonable statements by balanced people can.

It's just a phase a disgruntled person goes through, and at the end of it, there will only be shame.

Matthew 15:

17 "Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man."