Oct 12-18 2014

[last-minute insertion:] This abnormal and mindless fear of the Ebola — seemingly being hyped by mis-informed and “zombie” authorities and loved by Big Pharma and Big Vaccine — is driving the world down a slippery path to global hysteria and “apocalypse”.  What with all the panic in disinfecting everything and short of completely isolating oneself from the world, it is paranoid for people to follow the allopathic protocol of total and absolute disinfection of everything.

First, it cannot be denied that bacteria and viruses (and other microscopic life forms, though viruses are not considered living) are (literally) everywhere.  It is said that millions of them are taken in with each breath we take.  Moreover, it has also recently been found out that 3 to 5 pounds of our body weight are that of bacteria (or intestinal flora) which are responsible for many things: (1) our ability to digest or break down food to make the nutrients bio-assimilable; (2) as primary immune defense line against non-beneficial pathogens, producing much of the antibodies and immune responses needed; and, (3) for many of our food cravings and probably a significant portion of our personality or behavior as well.

It has also been found out that there are 99 beneficial or benign bacteria for every 1 non-beneficial one and that non-beneficial bacteria multiply faster.  It would appear that it is the huge population of the beneficial bacteria that is keeping the non-beneficial ones in check — in other words, the non-beneficial bacteria are being crowded out and preventing from spreading by the sheer population size of the beneficial bacteria.

Assuming that these latest are factual, it would be foolish to disinfect and kill all bacteria in a mindless effort to eradicate a specific target bacteria.  This would give the non-beneficial bacteria an advantage to repopulate — because they multiply faster — and gain a larger foothold.  In turn, this means that there will be even more non-beneficial bacteria to contend with — not to mention that the chemicals used will likewise be toxic to us and has a great probability to mutate and produce “superbugs”.  The only ones who will profit from this is Big Pharma — and that is precisely what they want and we are playing right into their greedy, grubby, filthy hands.

Finally, the only true and sure way of addressing this Ebola issue is to teach people how to strengthen their immune system.  It has been shown — please refer to http://naturalnews.com/z047216_Ebola_contamination_Xenex_ultraviolet_light.html, among other articles in NaturalNews and other alternative (non-allopathic medicine) health sites — something as simple as exposure to the UV (ultraviolet) component of sunlight for a certain duration is enough to combat Ebola.  But government and conventional mainstream physicians — under the “constant guidance” of Big Pharma — would not want us to know it and, instead, recommend that we just keep washing our hands and (paranoidically) avoid contact with others.  After all, there is no profit to be made from sunlight, not like the toxic medicines that are being rushed (without much long-term safety trials) to the market, as we speak.

TaN: Global violence is the main driver for the boost in the USA economic recovery.  Among the primary beneficiaries are: the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Banks, private security contractors, and privatized military logistics contractor, among others.  Among the secondary or collateral beneficiaries are: Big Biotech (mainly Mosanto and its cohorts, like Sygenta, DuPont, and Bayer), Big Food, and Big Chem, (again) among others.

Ironically, the USA accuse its “enemies” of things that itself is guilty of — like the case of accusing China of human rights violations but totally neglecting its own human rights records, especially during the current Obama regime.  It accuses ISIS of terrorism but conducts and even cajoles its (unwitting) coalition partners to attack and bombard ISIS (into oblivion).  How does the USA (aka Obama) differetiate between ISIS’ brand of beheading (mostly humanitarian aid workers) and their own version of mass killings and “surgical” drone strikes of schools, hospitals, public social gatherings, religious building structures, and even a UN office.

Global violence is very profitable.  As mentioned in earlier blogs, there is no (worldly material) profit to be made in peace, order, and harmony — only in disorder, in conflict, in violence, and in maliciousness.  Furthermore, global violence is the fastest and easiest way to amassing vast profits by the mere fact that the whole world is the market.  The “delivery mechanism” is by way of the “classical” route — through the sowing of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).  FUD may be achieved via secrecy (entering into trade agreements that are binding, lop-sided and within closed doors), coercive “persuasion” (using coaltions and alliances to drag others into conflicts), and monopolization (patenting pathogens (like the Ebola virus by the USA CDC) and “supposed” cures (vaccines and pharmaceuticals) and nature (like DNA or deoxyribose nucleic acid)).

TaN: Cars today are equipped with a disabling device (that prevents them from starting) by car dealers when payments are delayed – please refer to: http://www.naturalnews.com/z047240_debt_collectors_subprime_loans_disabled_vehicles.html.  At first glance, it appears that it is beneficial, especially to the car dealers, but there are ominous and dire consequences which are detrimental to the consuming public.

Since I am (for the moment) quite ignorant as to the specific workings of the device, my first impression is it is dangerous, especially when the vehicle is already in motion and the car dealer decides to disable the engine.  Imagine what happens when the engine stops as the car is going up or down an inclined road.

Moreover, according to NBC News aired last week (locally, where I reside), the car dealer interviewed would disable the car when payment is three days late.  However, there is a suit being filed by a single mother against a car dealer regarding the three-day limit for missed payment citing a state law that permits a leeway or grace period of 30 (and not a mere 3) days to be considered a delinquency.

This technology lends itself to another hidden danger — hacking or, more aptly, cracking (because cracking is the dark side of hacking, which is how the World Wide Web was created: by hackers).  This is not a remote possibility, given the numerous (reported) incidents of hijacking that has been occurring repeatedly (to the point of being routinary) — the latest of which has been the cyber attack of the cloud.

As to the hijacking, there was an unconfirmed account, according to a video some years ago, where a couple died under suspicious circumstances after the husband testified before a state inquiry panel that tried to block the testimony but was out-maneurvered.  It was suspected that the car’s electronics was hijacked and taken over; the electronics was over-ridden and commandeered to cause it to crash, fatally killing all occupants/riders.

At the end of the day, old school cars are still better, where the driver has (absolute) control and is responsible for the vehicle.  I may be paranoid but I would rather be paranoid than to cede control over to some total stranger or criminal mind.

TaN: Traffic congestion in most urban areas are primarily caused by either not enough drivers (because most are only vehicular operators who know how to manipulate vehicles but not how to drive) or plain too many vehicles that have no business being on the road.  For the first, it is a matter of ensuring that only real drivers are permitted to drive cars — i.e., they know how to obey traffic regulations, how to maintain a vehicle (in good working condition and up to emission standards), and practice road courtesy.  For the second, it is a matter of ensuring that there is a (dedicated) garage for every car sold.

Because it is admitted it would be rather difficult to determine whether traffic regulations (and road courtesy) will be observed once the license is issued, a three-strike policy can be established — where a first offense would mean a suspension of the privilege for a month, a second offense would mean a suspension of the privilege for six months, a third offense is a revocation of the privilege.  As to the problem of violators “buying” their way out, one possible remedy would be to rotate traffic enforcers assignments — it is no guarantee but it could mitigate the possibility.  Moreover, the person who endorsed the license for issuance should likewise be held responsible and liable every time there is a violation committed by a driver.  Furthermore, the frequency of involvement in traffic accidents (where the driver is at fault) can be another basis for revocation of the driving license.  This can be assisted by the card insurance industry, to provide the needed information regarding a vehicle’s involvement in accidents where the said vehicle is at fault.

The other proposal is to ensure that every vehicle sold will have a dedicated garage.  This is being practiced in several Asian countries.  To guarantee that there will be (reasonable) success, the licensing agency must assign an inspector to verify and confirm that such a dedicated garage exists and its exact location — i.e., precise address, capacity, and parking spot (in case it can accommodate more than one) — is registered in a database (which must be updated on a periodic basis, to ensure that the dedicated garage still exists).  This policy must be strictly enforced — i.e., no matter how wealthy the vehicle purchaser is, no garage means no car (sale).  If and when the dedicated garage becomes non-existent whie the vehicle is still in service, the license plates of the vehicle — and consequently the vehicle itself — shall be revoked.

In connection with the proposal to phase out vehicles beyond a certain age, this is unfair to vehicular owners who are able to maintain their vechicles in good working condition (and not to mention owners of vintage cars) — especially if the vehicles are able to comply with all the safety and operational standards and requirements, as well as conform to other requirements set forth by government, such as emission standards.  In addition, phasing out of vehicles should be based on merit — i.e., its current working condition (where to qualify as being road worthy, the vehicle must (1) maintain a minimum traveling mileage of 15 km per week, (2) consistently pass annual emissions testing, (3) not be involved in more than 3 road mishaps or incidents a year, and (4) pass a biennial road safety test to be conducted by an accredited motoring association).

Another, though a bit less significant, cause is the slow response by the authorities (usually traffic enforcers or traffic accident officials) in arriving at an accident scene and resolving the case.  In the first place, the traffic jam is a common excuse.  While the accident is waiting to be addressed, all the vehicles have to flow around the traffic accident site and kibitzers and curious onlookers — many of them the drivers themselves — do not help.

And this brings us to the proper practice of road courtesy.  If drivers learn how to observe proper traffic rules and regulations and to be more considerate of fellow drivers, even with a large volume of behicular traffic, there would still be a comfortable flow.

Finally, it is a common, though not excusable, alibi to blame the system, whereas people frequently fail — whether deliberately or not — to understand and remember that no one is to be blamed but ourselves.  No matter how bad a system is, if people know how to behave, everything will be alright.  No matter how perfect the system is, if people choose to ignore the procedures and regulations and go about in total anarchy, nothing will work.  It all depends on us.  As they say, Nothing is impossible if we want it badly enough; everything is impossible whenever there is a reason (i.e., an excuse or an alibi).

TaN: Entrepreneurship should not be a course or major offered in tertiary or even higher education.  There is no requirement that an entrepreneur must have a degree in order to set up an entetprise; seminars and the determination or resolve to put up an enterprise is more than adequate.  A non-degree program will suffice.

It makes no sense that people undergo years of formal education to obtain a degree before establishing an enterprise.  Has the situation gone so demanding that one must have a degree before an enterprise may be put up?

All these entrepreneurship programs in formal education are but scams to profit from people desperate and trusting enough to believe that a degree is a pre-requisite to going into business.  What about all the so-called self-made business people who not only did not have a degree but even started with nary a cent in their pockets but are now running one (or often more) business enterprises?  There was no entrepreheurship program back then, so…?

To be an entrepreneur only requires one to know that s/he wants to be an entrepreneur and is determined to become one — by all means necessary (but moral).

TaN: Poverty is not a problem of wealth but of readiness or comprehension of the use of wealth.  In the recent article in NaturalNews, dated October 4, 2014 and titled “$22 trillion spent on failed ‘War on Poverty’ over the last five decades” by a J D Heyes, it was discussed that even after half a century of squandering an estimated $22 trillion in hard-earned taxpayers’ money in eradicating it — assuming that eradication is still the goal and not alleviation, as what the United Nations have reportedly change the slogan to — the “War on Poverty”, as began by former USA President Lyndon B Johnson sometime in the mid 1960s, has not even come close to mitigating it but even made it worse.

One of the principal reasons for the failure is the misconception that poverty is a problem of having little or no wealth.  In trutg, poverty is a failure or an inability of the poor to appreciate the value and potential of wealth and their unpreparedness to handle it.  A very good case in point is one related to me when I was with the Social Research Center of an academic institution I have since been retired from.  The case goes…

An ex-priest wanted to improve the lives of an indigenous tribe in one of the island provinces in an archipelago nation in South East Asia.  He inrtoduced to and taught the people how to plant coffee trees, harvest them, prepare them, and sell them to a local coffee trader.  The tribe was successful in the endeavor but the project, as a whole, was a disaster.  As a result of the wealth (money) the tribe received, they became gamblers and drunks.  This was because they were not prepared to handle money.  They did not really need money because they were blissfully ignorant of modern ways and were perfectly happy living off the land as their ancestors have long been doing.  They did not know what to do with the money, so someone thought of introducing them to gambling and drinking.

The tribe did not consider themselves poor.  We, in the so-called “civilized and modern” world, seem to take in upon ourselves that everyone is like (most of) us who have become so materialistic and consumeristic that we look upon people with meager belongings are poor.

There is no — nor has there ever been a — need to amass wealth to be considered “unpoor”.  If poverty, as most understand and perceive it, is to be “eradicated”, the so-called poor people must (without undue interference or influence by and from business): (1) sincerely want to improve their lot; (2) comprehend and properly appreciate the potential and value of wealth and how to take advantage of it (and not the other way around); (3) be prepared to recognize when they are being disadvantaged or manipulated and realize that wealth is only a means to an end and not the end itself; and, (4) must cooperate or work together (with others of similar plight and/or objective) to achieve a common upliftment for all.

In truth, there is actually very little poverty in the world if only people are left to decide for themselves what they truly want (in life) and not being manipulated by Big Business (via Big Government and Big Media).  Most people are content with what “little” — as defined by Big Business — they possess and have no intentions of amassing vast wealth (usually at the expense of others).  So what if I do not have as much possession as the others.  So what if they are able to travel and buy things and have many servants and enjoy all the comforts of modern living.  So what?  I am content with what “little” I have.  After all, when I pass on, I cannot take it with me anyway.  What is the whole futile point of going to all that trouble to get things which I will never be able to take with me when I die.  All that time, effort, and stress for nothing (in the end).

If we honestly stop and think about it, who are the ones who are really poor?  At this point, I am reminded of the proverbial and famiiar story of the “Is it full?”  The story goes…

A large empty transparent jar is placed atop a table and a container of tennis balls is poured into it, filling the jar almost to the brim.  The audience is asked if the jar is full, in which they said “yes”.  Another container of marbles was brought out and its contents poured into the jar, shaking the jar every now and then to let the marbles fall into the spaces between the tennis balls.  Again the question was asked, “Is the container full now?” and the audience replied again “yes”.  Next, a container of sand was brought out and its contents was poured into the jar, filling it almost to the top.  The audience was asked the same question a third time and the resounding “yes” was not so resounding anymore.

The moral of the story is that the tennis balls represent those things in life that are the most precious (family, friends, values, etc).  The marbles represent the less important things, like career, house, car, etc.  The sand represent the least significant, such as parties and good times.  If we put the sand in first, there will no longer be any room for the marbles and the tennis balls.  We have to learn to prioritize things in life.  Moreover, we must be able to realize what are the important things.  Finally, we must learn how to be content and be in harmony or at peace with the world.  Remember: Happiness is not having what you want but wanting what you have.

Others may look at me and say I am poor, but if I have all that I need, I am not poor.  To paraphrase Uruguay’s President Jose Mujica, People say I am poor but I say I am not poor.  I already have all that I need and want.  Those who keep on wanting more and more are the ones who are poor because they still do not have all that they want.  So, who is poor?


About anotherworldispossibleforall

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s