For some reason it's important to me that I not come off as sounding like an uneducated, Philistinic (?) goon when I talk about science and my objections to it.
I do presume to push the envelope on this topic, as I think challenging fundamental assumptions requires a little extra "umph" to budge the complacent mind. And unfortunately the scientific group-mind is more complacent than it is billed as being.
I'd like to reference the last few chapters from my old mentor, Robert Anton Wilson's magnificent book, "Quantum Psychology." Wilson was a huge influence on me back in the day, even before I cared that his initials were RAW (see here for an explanation).
Wilson was a hard-core skeptical rationalist, though he was as perturbed about scientific fundamentalism as he was about any other sort of fundamentalism. His play, "Wilhelm Reich in Hell," was his creative take on the subject. The references is to the burning of Reich's library after his incarceration by the US government in the 1950's. Reich's scientific studies were considered too controversial, and so it was deemed that no record should be left of them. Reich's work would be resurrected by dedicated students not a generation later and then bolstered by the entire modern yogic movement in America as well as by the entire field of mind-body medicine, somatics, and tantra. Hooray.
As far as expending our own views of science, the subject litters much of Wilson's oeuvre, but towards the end of "Quantum Psychology," he makes, I believe, his densest contribution. To summarize, he contends that for modern science, there is no "one" model for explaining the universe. There are only many. And, as one explores, it turns out that the "correct" model for structuring the universe turns out to be whichever one is most appropriate for the particular question you're asking of the universe. This means that the person asking the questions is as much a part of the answer as the answer itself is.
I like this. I like this a lot. It underlines my argument for Geocentrism in Astrology as the one accurate means of locating oneself in the cosmos- that is, in oneself. It gives due value to the subjective, personal experience and puts the systemic perspective in his or her individual service rather than he or she in its (the far more common version). In other words, we get to choose what questions we ask and therefore what models we use to answer those questions. This is as close to scientific "fact" as we're likely to arrive at.*
It also undermines one of our most insidious of biases in the modern west- that for something to be "true" it has to be consistent. The assumption that the universe is consistent is really an appalling projection of our own mortal insecurities onto the world around us. Consistency is something desired by humans for the purpose of predicting and therefore controlling outcomes. It is a fear-based impulse to order, based around what our limited minds can comprehend. And it is utter nonsense.
Thus the search for "one consistent model" will always elude us. Such a unified theory would be the externalized, crystalized projection of all of our fears into a system which would have the authority to dictate to us what we can and cannot do, what we must and must not do. And it would carry the full weight of that authority in punishing any deviants (which, in theory, there should be none of if the system is perfectly consistent). This is, in our hearts, what we are looking for in science. A grand master of truth whom we can slavishly follow, trusting in its eternal, objective accuracy- its consistency.**
But why would the world agree to be consistent? If you were the universe, what joy would you find in being utterly predictable, the same in every way? You wouldn't, because then you would be static and unchanging, and therefore devoid of purpose. After all, if you were consistent, once you "got it," the rules, the order, etc., there would be no reason to continue existing, no purpose. You will have been completed.
Creativity, inconsistency, leads to motion, to the endless question of "what's next" that keeps the storyline of life suspenseful and intriguing. Inconsistency is Scheherezade's 2nd night which leads all the way to her ten thousand and first. It is the tipper of the scales that keeps the game of life unfolding.
The presumption, then, of consistency is founded in the human ego-based drive for security against unpredictable threats. Fair enough. But we shouldn't imagine that the whole world is as fearful as we are- or at least that if they are, they would respond to that fear in the same way. The Lion in the jungle, after all, is just as desirous of eliminating threats to survival as we are. He simply goes about it differently.
I use this example, of course, deliberately, as the Leonine principle is opposed to the Consistency principle in astrology. Why should we, then, as astrologers look at the universe only from the perspective of 1/12 of the zodiac? Because we are humans and not beasts (supposedly)? Maybe that is the cause of the bias, though I suspect it is simply the first churnings of the Aquarian Age, regulating and fixing our minds. May I say, Oy.
My point here is that when we look to "explain" events, we ought to fight off the urge to disprove our explanations if they diverge from other "facts" and therefore seem "inconsistent." There are varied sorts of truths, and the adoption of any one of them is the native's choice, based perhaps on their archetypal disposition.
But the ignorant pygmy in the forest who sees the lightning strike as a message from a deity of sorts rather than the result of alternating currents generated by the cycles of precipitation should not be dismissed as "wrong" simply because the two views appear to be inconsistent. Each is consistent within themselves, because the experiencer is asking a certain set of questions.
The scientist declares that the pygmy is "merely" finding superstitious means of controlling his fears of the unknown. But is science doing anything different? Why do we chase after our formulae, after all, if not for exactly this reason of eliminating fear of the unknown?
Whether we have more success in controlling the outcomes than the pygmy making sacrifices to his god can not be objectively measured, because success can not be objectively measured. The pygmy may make his sacrifice and live out his days content that he will never be struck by lightning. The modern my spend several generations, untold quantities of money, and enormous amounts of anxiety in the mere hope that at some point deep in the future, someone may learn how to control the weather.
Who is better off? It depends who you ask. The modern does not believe in that animist rubbish, and so he would be just as anxious after the sacrifice as before. The pygmy might say, why would I want to live in a constant state of suspense for 400 years until somewhere there's a breakthrough to control what I've just controlled through killing my little bunny? (A modern person might add that there was no guarantee that the pygmy would be able to afford the benefits of the scientific breakthrough technology anyway or that local politics wouldn't interfere with his access to same.) One's definition of success is as much a product of one's environment or culture as anything else- that is, the answer to what is success depends on the questioner.
So this brings us back to subjectivity. Who is asking the question? What does each one want? And therefore what models will be most appropriate to fit which desires? These desires will, mercifully, be as inconsistent as the days.
*When I was researching this stuff myself, I realized that the top 10 best minds in science would offer at least 10 differing theories of how the cosmos works (forget about why it works). If this were the case, then how were we, the laity, to make up any sort of informed decision for ourselves? It seemed fruitless to me and confirmed my suspicions that nobody knew what they were talking about. Therefore alternative strategies of living would be required apart from trusting some expert to tell me what was truth. It is us who whose which experts to listen to, after all, and this confirms the model described above in which the subjective experiencer is as much a part of the equation as that hich is being experienced.
**What I'm describing here should sound awfully familiar to anyone who has lived in the West over the past 2000 years or so. It is the monotheistic worldview disguised as science. I have written elsewhere about this link and the search for the one "true" (i.e. consistent) truth which has plagued the world since Abraham. The scientific revolution was meant to correct many of the problems of Christianity, but, in keeping with the old maxim that 'what we fight, we become,' the modern scientific culture has all the trappings of monotheistic dictatorialism, only with much more sophisticated gizmos.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Collections
Last time I was on the train, the friendly, automated voice came over the speaker, "Soliciting charity on the subway is illegal. We ask you not to give. Please help us keep an orderly subway, and have a nice day." Or something to that effect.
It struck me that if they were serious about stopping begging in the subway, the MTA would consider setting up an alternative for people right there in the subway station. They could have little "donation hubs" where people could slip their loose change into a permanent bin and the money could be distributed to shelters or other charities benefiting the homeless.
If people knew they could make a difference while it was on their minds, they would be less likely to give to panhandlers on the subways themselves, thus discouraging panhandling as a whole.
An alternate collections measure (if they could find someone to design the software) would be to allow riders the option of tacking on 50 cents or a dollar to their metro card purchase at the kiosks. This could be done for every, say, 100 transactions per machine so that every time you refilled your card you wouldn't be bombarded with charity advertising. But it would give everybody a chance to do something for the homeless without encouraging subway panhandling.
Speaking as a New Yorker, though, and despite the unpleasantness I associate with subway panhandling, it's kind of comforting in a strange way to know that the City hasn't been completely sanitized. Maybe NIMBY will eventually move back to the suburbs where it belongs.
It struck me that if they were serious about stopping begging in the subway, the MTA would consider setting up an alternative for people right there in the subway station. They could have little "donation hubs" where people could slip their loose change into a permanent bin and the money could be distributed to shelters or other charities benefiting the homeless.
If people knew they could make a difference while it was on their minds, they would be less likely to give to panhandlers on the subways themselves, thus discouraging panhandling as a whole.
An alternate collections measure (if they could find someone to design the software) would be to allow riders the option of tacking on 50 cents or a dollar to their metro card purchase at the kiosks. This could be done for every, say, 100 transactions per machine so that every time you refilled your card you wouldn't be bombarded with charity advertising. But it would give everybody a chance to do something for the homeless without encouraging subway panhandling.
Speaking as a New Yorker, though, and despite the unpleasantness I associate with subway panhandling, it's kind of comforting in a strange way to know that the City hasn't been completely sanitized. Maybe NIMBY will eventually move back to the suburbs where it belongs.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Culture of Life
So we have created an ingenious system in which power is pitted against power for the benefit of the masses. This deconcentrates power from the centralized monarch and therefore (ostensibly) removes the corruption that has been the mother's milk of tyranny for centuries. Marvelous, truly marvelous.
But in a closed system - and the human psyche remains a closed system until we decide to "open" it - the energy for tyranny has to go somewhere. The founders remind us that tyranny does not only lie without - in the monarch - but more insidiously within, in the desire for servitude and the certainty a powerful Patriarch provides. In many instances they urge constant vigilance against one's own inner laziness and cowardice that would sacrifice Freedom for Surety. But even by the presidency of Quincy Adams and Jackson, it must have been clear to them that the virtue they sought in their countrymen's hearts had waned. By Johnson, it would be all but extinguished.
Vigilance is an uphill battle, and whenever we turn our vigilance too far outside of ourselves, we leave our minds and hearts vulnerable to the infestation of sloth. Yes, we are vigilant against our government (some of us still), but what, again, of that inner slave/tyrant? Where does he go?
I spoke of the human psyche as a closed system. By that I mean that all of the biological elements remain in force regardless of our efforts to squelch or suppress them. Therefore, the mammalian desire to be led by an alpha-species leader does not disappear just because we form an ingenious system of government. It simply must find another avenue to express itself - only, since we have suppressed it, the avenue to submission will not be the obvious one, but will rather sneak up on us as if from behind.
That which we tame, that which we control, does not simply disappear, it rather morphs into shapes that we do not recognize. This is the true danger of "repression." Not that it is amoral to suppress biological needs (the liberal perspective) but simply that it is ineffective and dangerous. Better the Devil you know than the Devil that walks around disguised as your buddy.
And for every suppressed impulse, we 'create' a buddy who is in fact a hidden devil.
So what, I ask again, has become of that basic human urge to follow? Where has our inner serf turned for enslavement? Who is our latter-day Devil disguised as friend?
Well, the mammalian impulse that creates the alpha-leader is, quite simply, the fear of death. We pack-animals fear the invasion of neighboring packs and so look to the biggest and the strongest to protect us. We gladly give up our women and our best food for the dominating strength the alpha has proven, as it is our best hope of survival against our enemies.
So protection from death is our primary concern, and it is hard wired in people as it is in animals. But where are those enemies today? Who are the alpha-males we have given our food and our women (and our money which may buy both) over to?
Well it is obviously the doctor class.
We have created an entire caste of high-tech warriors to defend us not from the Scots or the Turks, but from an even more insidious foe- an invisible one! The swarming herds of unseen microbes lurking behind every lamp post. The rogue germ just waiting to attack us from any corner - these, these are the new terrorists, and they are everywhere!
Orwell, Huxley, and Gilliam postulated a constant state of warfare against political terrorists as a fabrication to maintain centralized control over the people. The constant threat of terror and sabotage by socialists, communists, and Jews have held potentates in place for centuries. But having de-potentated out potentates through adversarial democracy, we leave a vacuum to be filled for those who wish to manipulate power to control us.
It used to be that any time a prince would need some extra funds to pay for his extravagances, he would gin up some conflict with the neighboring country and send his armies over there, effectively, to loot. This would not be the stated purpose of the war, of course. That would always be the mammalian watchword of "national security," or "keeping us safe." But it was rather understood by the princely caste that this is how you made money- a kind of back and forth of conquest.
Well the Medical class does the same thing for us moderns. New terrorists are discovered every day. Avian flu, human papilloma, ovarian cysts - all of these mysterious killers threaten to destroy you and your loved ones. But no need to fear! The magic pill, injection, or "procedure" has just been discovered to fend off these impending disasters. Just thank heaven for the new warriors with their scalpels at the ready.
Now I am not saying necessarily that it is the doctors who are conjuring up this rouse to keep you in fear and to take your money. Just as the patriotic, well-intentioned army solider is the unconscious agent of a deceptive tyrant, the modern doctor - usually earnest in his desire to help - is the stooge of a larger industry who controls him. The modern doctor has no time to do rigorous research of the drugs he peddles, the procedures he endorses, or the equipment he prescribes. Just as the soldier is too busy doing push-ups to study geo-politics, the doctor simply has too much to do to really check if what his masters are telling him is true. He simply goes along with it.
As futile as the Hippocratic oath may be, it must be stated that the executives - to say nothing of the shareholders - of giant pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies do not take it. They are under no obligation to serve the interests of the patient. In fact, they are explicitly in business to serve the financial interests of the shareholders. This is business, and it's a good one- even better than looting the neighboring kingdom.
The human desire for protection - like the human desire for sex - will never disappear. By denying people access to their sexual feelings, a massive underground industry of pornography and prostitution is created- wholly disproportionate to actual need. By denying people access to their desire for monarchical daddying, an enormous medical-industrial complex emerges, most of it entirely unnecessary. Both are huge earners, as they exploit a never-ending sea of desire for sex and safety. You will never make a bad bet on either.
Is there a solution to this problem? Some may not conceive it to be a problem at all. After all, yes the doctors are controlling our lives, but still, aren't they at least keeping us safe?
I highly dispute this. First of all, I don't believe in germs. I know that makes me a philistine to some, but I am generally unimpressed with the idea that the human system is so weak that it must live in an entirely sterile environment. I do believe, however, that through vaccination, massive ingestion of chemicals, and lack of exposure to challenging environments that the human system can become this weak.
That our medications make us sicker is something we would rather not think about. Nobody studies it, since the people who have money to do the studies are the people hawking the drugs- so why would they question their own monopoly on truth?
The answer to the problem is the same answer that we have found to deal with overweening government, and that is self-rule. In much of rural America, gun-ownership is still seen as the antidote to too much government. As nuts as you may think these people are, they have decided to take alpha-male protection - once the monopoly of the state - back into their own hands. They have accepted responsibility for their physical safety, and therefore enjoy the freedom of living unencumbered by princes and potentates. I salute them.
Well the same thing can be done for health. It is simply a matter of taking responsibility for it and therefore enjoying the freedom that good health has to offer. For me, nutritional healing has been the most effective way to accomplish this. There are simple, relatively inexpensive and permanent ways to undue the harm caused by a toxic society and establish a pattern of health that will not only extend your life quantitatively but will increase the qualitative enjoyment of the life you are living today. This is the promise of natural medicine, and it has fulfilled that promise since time immemorial.
The germ theory of Pasteur - which he recanted on his death bed as a hoax - leads to endless struggle and endless fear. The ecological approach, which balances the body's natural ecosystem with its environment makes any kind of microbial "attack" a moot point. A healthy body will not be hospitable to "invaders." In fact the alkalinity model has it that microbes are actually generated within our own tissues as a response to acidic environments in our system. An acidic condition is naturally produced in the body when the body dies and is ready to decompose. That is the signal for the fungus and bacteria to start breaking us down. When we produce these toxic conditions while still alive, however (through toxic chemicals and cooked food), we send mixed signals to our environment- it is time to break down, and yet we are not dead yet, so we must fight off the "pathogens." It's like the US drug war in which we are funding both sides of the battle with our own resources. It is an enormous waste of energy and will make us twice as sick with half the energy.
Nutritional healing solves this problem by eliminating the circumstances that create the "disease" and therefore eliminating also the wasted energy we spend in fighting the disease. It is a holistic, win-win solution for the body. The subjective experience of alkalizing in this way is that one wonders what one was fighting with one's whole life. Everything just seems so much easier.
But perhaps this is too simple for our culture. We believe in progress and so we must continue the fight to advance medicine - indefinitely.
But before we get there, medical "advancement" will kill this country as surely as the lust and greed of a prince will destroy his own kingdom. They will both bleed the state of money until it is dry.
Universal health care, having the stated purpose of protecting us, will seal us all in our graves. The medical industry is profit-driven, not health driven. And the sole arbiters of what makes us healthy will be the medical industry itself. Describing this as the fox guarding the chicken coop is the understatement of the new century.
Once they are given full power to control, diagnose, and prescribe to all of us, their power over the country will be complete, and they can start sucking the wealth out of us - with our own willing consent - until we are bled dry, the industry having turned itself into the very leeches they have disowned as quackery.
What new forms of quackery await us? Only the imaginations of the Medical Industry will tell. But understand this: that as long as Americans are unwilling to die - or to be born - naturally they will keep wanting more- more props in old age, more promises of longevity, more easement from suffering, more, and more, and more, and more. Our desire for immortality will be insatiable so long as we fail to live fulfilling lives with the days we are already given. And so the research into new gizmos and new pills will be literally endless.
Will health care costs ever stop rising? No. Because who on earth would want to stop cancer research, AIDS research, Alzheimer's research? We're just "one breakthrough away" from a new discovery that could add years of life to someone with Parkinson's. How can we stop now? And we won't. So like a hopeless gambler, plugging away for that next big win, we will spend every last penny of our grandchildren's money to stay alive just a little bit longer and with a little bit less distress, forgetting what our own grandparents taught us- that the house always wins.
If Americans could ever say "Enough. I'm healthy enough," we might be able to stop the ship from sinking. But the medical people make us unhealthy from birth- through unnecessary interventions, vaccinations, and food additives, that we never really "get here" in the first place. The American work ethic undermines our enjoyment of the life we have, and the chemical-foods we eat numb us to our real life experience. Death, then, is an endless terror in this supposed "culture of life," and so like our mammalian predecessors, we will fight it off at all costs. And for us, unfortunately, it will truly be at all costs. "Think health care is expensive now?" wrote George Will last year. "Just wait till it's free."
Indeed.
But in a closed system - and the human psyche remains a closed system until we decide to "open" it - the energy for tyranny has to go somewhere. The founders remind us that tyranny does not only lie without - in the monarch - but more insidiously within, in the desire for servitude and the certainty a powerful Patriarch provides. In many instances they urge constant vigilance against one's own inner laziness and cowardice that would sacrifice Freedom for Surety. But even by the presidency of Quincy Adams and Jackson, it must have been clear to them that the virtue they sought in their countrymen's hearts had waned. By Johnson, it would be all but extinguished.
Vigilance is an uphill battle, and whenever we turn our vigilance too far outside of ourselves, we leave our minds and hearts vulnerable to the infestation of sloth. Yes, we are vigilant against our government (some of us still), but what, again, of that inner slave/tyrant? Where does he go?
I spoke of the human psyche as a closed system. By that I mean that all of the biological elements remain in force regardless of our efforts to squelch or suppress them. Therefore, the mammalian desire to be led by an alpha-species leader does not disappear just because we form an ingenious system of government. It simply must find another avenue to express itself - only, since we have suppressed it, the avenue to submission will not be the obvious one, but will rather sneak up on us as if from behind.
That which we tame, that which we control, does not simply disappear, it rather morphs into shapes that we do not recognize. This is the true danger of "repression." Not that it is amoral to suppress biological needs (the liberal perspective) but simply that it is ineffective and dangerous. Better the Devil you know than the Devil that walks around disguised as your buddy.
And for every suppressed impulse, we 'create' a buddy who is in fact a hidden devil.
So what, I ask again, has become of that basic human urge to follow? Where has our inner serf turned for enslavement? Who is our latter-day Devil disguised as friend?
Well, the mammalian impulse that creates the alpha-leader is, quite simply, the fear of death. We pack-animals fear the invasion of neighboring packs and so look to the biggest and the strongest to protect us. We gladly give up our women and our best food for the dominating strength the alpha has proven, as it is our best hope of survival against our enemies.
So protection from death is our primary concern, and it is hard wired in people as it is in animals. But where are those enemies today? Who are the alpha-males we have given our food and our women (and our money which may buy both) over to?
Well it is obviously the doctor class.
We have created an entire caste of high-tech warriors to defend us not from the Scots or the Turks, but from an even more insidious foe- an invisible one! The swarming herds of unseen microbes lurking behind every lamp post. The rogue germ just waiting to attack us from any corner - these, these are the new terrorists, and they are everywhere!
Orwell, Huxley, and Gilliam postulated a constant state of warfare against political terrorists as a fabrication to maintain centralized control over the people. The constant threat of terror and sabotage by socialists, communists, and Jews have held potentates in place for centuries. But having de-potentated out potentates through adversarial democracy, we leave a vacuum to be filled for those who wish to manipulate power to control us.
It used to be that any time a prince would need some extra funds to pay for his extravagances, he would gin up some conflict with the neighboring country and send his armies over there, effectively, to loot. This would not be the stated purpose of the war, of course. That would always be the mammalian watchword of "national security," or "keeping us safe." But it was rather understood by the princely caste that this is how you made money- a kind of back and forth of conquest.
Well the Medical class does the same thing for us moderns. New terrorists are discovered every day. Avian flu, human papilloma, ovarian cysts - all of these mysterious killers threaten to destroy you and your loved ones. But no need to fear! The magic pill, injection, or "procedure" has just been discovered to fend off these impending disasters. Just thank heaven for the new warriors with their scalpels at the ready.
Now I am not saying necessarily that it is the doctors who are conjuring up this rouse to keep you in fear and to take your money. Just as the patriotic, well-intentioned army solider is the unconscious agent of a deceptive tyrant, the modern doctor - usually earnest in his desire to help - is the stooge of a larger industry who controls him. The modern doctor has no time to do rigorous research of the drugs he peddles, the procedures he endorses, or the equipment he prescribes. Just as the soldier is too busy doing push-ups to study geo-politics, the doctor simply has too much to do to really check if what his masters are telling him is true. He simply goes along with it.
As futile as the Hippocratic oath may be, it must be stated that the executives - to say nothing of the shareholders - of giant pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies do not take it. They are under no obligation to serve the interests of the patient. In fact, they are explicitly in business to serve the financial interests of the shareholders. This is business, and it's a good one- even better than looting the neighboring kingdom.
The human desire for protection - like the human desire for sex - will never disappear. By denying people access to their sexual feelings, a massive underground industry of pornography and prostitution is created- wholly disproportionate to actual need. By denying people access to their desire for monarchical daddying, an enormous medical-industrial complex emerges, most of it entirely unnecessary. Both are huge earners, as they exploit a never-ending sea of desire for sex and safety. You will never make a bad bet on either.
Is there a solution to this problem? Some may not conceive it to be a problem at all. After all, yes the doctors are controlling our lives, but still, aren't they at least keeping us safe?
I highly dispute this. First of all, I don't believe in germs. I know that makes me a philistine to some, but I am generally unimpressed with the idea that the human system is so weak that it must live in an entirely sterile environment. I do believe, however, that through vaccination, massive ingestion of chemicals, and lack of exposure to challenging environments that the human system can become this weak.
That our medications make us sicker is something we would rather not think about. Nobody studies it, since the people who have money to do the studies are the people hawking the drugs- so why would they question their own monopoly on truth?
The answer to the problem is the same answer that we have found to deal with overweening government, and that is self-rule. In much of rural America, gun-ownership is still seen as the antidote to too much government. As nuts as you may think these people are, they have decided to take alpha-male protection - once the monopoly of the state - back into their own hands. They have accepted responsibility for their physical safety, and therefore enjoy the freedom of living unencumbered by princes and potentates. I salute them.
Well the same thing can be done for health. It is simply a matter of taking responsibility for it and therefore enjoying the freedom that good health has to offer. For me, nutritional healing has been the most effective way to accomplish this. There are simple, relatively inexpensive and permanent ways to undue the harm caused by a toxic society and establish a pattern of health that will not only extend your life quantitatively but will increase the qualitative enjoyment of the life you are living today. This is the promise of natural medicine, and it has fulfilled that promise since time immemorial.
The germ theory of Pasteur - which he recanted on his death bed as a hoax - leads to endless struggle and endless fear. The ecological approach, which balances the body's natural ecosystem with its environment makes any kind of microbial "attack" a moot point. A healthy body will not be hospitable to "invaders." In fact the alkalinity model has it that microbes are actually generated within our own tissues as a response to acidic environments in our system. An acidic condition is naturally produced in the body when the body dies and is ready to decompose. That is the signal for the fungus and bacteria to start breaking us down. When we produce these toxic conditions while still alive, however (through toxic chemicals and cooked food), we send mixed signals to our environment- it is time to break down, and yet we are not dead yet, so we must fight off the "pathogens." It's like the US drug war in which we are funding both sides of the battle with our own resources. It is an enormous waste of energy and will make us twice as sick with half the energy.
Nutritional healing solves this problem by eliminating the circumstances that create the "disease" and therefore eliminating also the wasted energy we spend in fighting the disease. It is a holistic, win-win solution for the body. The subjective experience of alkalizing in this way is that one wonders what one was fighting with one's whole life. Everything just seems so much easier.
But perhaps this is too simple for our culture. We believe in progress and so we must continue the fight to advance medicine - indefinitely.
But before we get there, medical "advancement" will kill this country as surely as the lust and greed of a prince will destroy his own kingdom. They will both bleed the state of money until it is dry.
Universal health care, having the stated purpose of protecting us, will seal us all in our graves. The medical industry is profit-driven, not health driven. And the sole arbiters of what makes us healthy will be the medical industry itself. Describing this as the fox guarding the chicken coop is the understatement of the new century.
Once they are given full power to control, diagnose, and prescribe to all of us, their power over the country will be complete, and they can start sucking the wealth out of us - with our own willing consent - until we are bled dry, the industry having turned itself into the very leeches they have disowned as quackery.
What new forms of quackery await us? Only the imaginations of the Medical Industry will tell. But understand this: that as long as Americans are unwilling to die - or to be born - naturally they will keep wanting more- more props in old age, more promises of longevity, more easement from suffering, more, and more, and more, and more. Our desire for immortality will be insatiable so long as we fail to live fulfilling lives with the days we are already given. And so the research into new gizmos and new pills will be literally endless.
Will health care costs ever stop rising? No. Because who on earth would want to stop cancer research, AIDS research, Alzheimer's research? We're just "one breakthrough away" from a new discovery that could add years of life to someone with Parkinson's. How can we stop now? And we won't. So like a hopeless gambler, plugging away for that next big win, we will spend every last penny of our grandchildren's money to stay alive just a little bit longer and with a little bit less distress, forgetting what our own grandparents taught us- that the house always wins.
If Americans could ever say "Enough. I'm healthy enough," we might be able to stop the ship from sinking. But the medical people make us unhealthy from birth- through unnecessary interventions, vaccinations, and food additives, that we never really "get here" in the first place. The American work ethic undermines our enjoyment of the life we have, and the chemical-foods we eat numb us to our real life experience. Death, then, is an endless terror in this supposed "culture of life," and so like our mammalian predecessors, we will fight it off at all costs. And for us, unfortunately, it will truly be at all costs. "Think health care is expensive now?" wrote George Will last year. "Just wait till it's free."
Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
