global parliament

Share

the global parliament, or Earth Forum, is an idea I have entertained for a few years. In 2012 I called it World Council, which in brief was an idea to centralise a fact-gathering of global worries as topics for locals, professionals and other interested to comment on.

I realise I am not the only one speculating in the direction of a community driven council to the people of Earth, but with recent and sudden changes in global stressors I was inspired to finalise a framework comparable to community service.

Læs videre “global parliament”

Why Are We Here On This Planet?

A question that begs answering.

Share

Everything to humans is language.

WHY – the ability to distinguish and care about future outcome, ie. weigh memories and desires, is one mark of a highly functional survival instinct

ARE – the re-affirmation of the concept of historical plurality implies both trust in the pattern of plurality as stable system AND conscious will for it to remain so.

WE – relating to your own species in terms of self including plurality marks you as a sensitive and caring individual capable of existing as individual in a community

HERE – the spacial destinction, whether it springs from accurate astronomy or not, implies a great sense of identity, ie. Me vs. Not-Me, which by way of physical identification contains the unconditionality of existential loneliness that has often been described as a Human Driving Force towards mergence into safe communality

ON – a subset of “here”, but by implication the demonstration of astronomical awareness, and as such an underlining of trust in the existance of the human form and its difference from everything not human

THIS – another subset of “here”, but easily the essence of the totality of the question, showing the capacity for projected thought that shines the light on what is and the functionality of what is, which marks the clear distinction between simple survival AND creating life

PLANET – a word simultaneously describing the concept of “rock existing in nothingness, preferably with the ability to sustain life, preferably human life, but not necessarily”, AND the mental understanding of the totality of the human habitat with all of its complexity and challanges. Used in this context it also implies an uncertainty of “home”, ie. “possibly we can do so much better for our selves that Earth as “home” for all humans becomes a natural thing”.

And all put together it forms an image of self aware existance capable of projecting itself to a future of better conditions for all members of its species. Emphatically speaking this projection is its own fuel, and the simple frasing of the question nothing but the hose that goes into the tank: Don’t expect the question answered by anyone but yourself, but always keep it warm and in the spotlight.

Before, there was an Internet; now it’s a “legitimate library”!

The book industry CAN win over the whole globe.

Share

 

The English speaking Book industry centered in USA – “a coalition of the world’s largest book publishers including Cambridge University Press, Harper Collins, Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons” – has managed to shut down possibly the largest private book repository in the world with public access, containing among its 400.000 downloadable books enough copyright violation works to have a court judge warrent an order of closure.

The Publishers cheered. “It is a victory”, said  Stephen M. Smith, President and CEO of John Wiley & Sons. “This action reflects our commitment to protecting secure, safe, and legitimate use of the Internet”.

Legitimate use of the Internet! Are they crazy? Or plain stupid!?

Their BS-spin is cooking up pretense agendas – as if the internet was a road and it had been taken over by robbers stifling progress for all and the way forward was to rid the road of robbers.

It’s quite the reverse, actually! The Publishers acting on behalf of everyone become the robbers, wanting to hold back natural evolution, and the road connects everyone with everyone.

The Internet is the World, brothers and sisters. The Internet is the world speaking to itself, and the powers that be are doing their damndest to stop the World from developing.

The world is not just using the Internet,

the World is being shaped by the ability of people to communicate instantaneously, and it is happening fast.

Yes, you are afraid, and naturally so:

Everything is verging towards a massive change – what doom sayers need call “a collapse of the old ways”. The natural response of government and real power is to try and stall the progress, to give businesses time to adjust – have the economic structure invent itself to retain a high motivational factor in order to keep the wheels turning, even if there is not much hope. Then war will step in, or famine, or natural disasters, or TV, or plain threats of loss of more jobs, or food (food is not quite an issue yet in the western world), something will come about, which will be aided, orchestered in the desired direction by the Powers that be, towards a retention of stability – by shifting the world’s attention to easy, understandable, physical occurances, and away from abstract change in the freedom of expressing needs and opinions.

Yes, yes, yes, you are right. Lack of cohesion IS setting in. And the fault is in communication – in your blatant disregard for what communicative desire IS:

We all create with our minds. Creation in a human being is a communication process adjusting inner needs and talents to outer needs and limitations. Creation means acknowledging both needs and change. Creating more ways to hang on to power and earn more money IS creation in the sense of the word, you could say. All creatures resist death, in any way possible, by shedding all factors of existence that present themselves as burdens.

Same with big business. Big, old mono-businesses have no momentum to be inventive players like all small businesses rushing to accommodate change, and begin the process of dieing, which to some is a horrible thing, while to others just the balance ever so slowly shifting towards an inner collapse. And in that process  the old ones stand in the way of the creativity and devolopment of the rest.

Such refusal to roll over and die is very well, and even encouraging too. But when dinosaurs of the book industry refuse to change, refuse to invent technology and go first, refuse to accept other people doing it for them, and when they can have the power to turn the global network into a pet from their own fear, lazyness and lack of flexibility in a changing world, and when they present their refusal to neither die nor change by claiming moral superiority over the rest of the world, as in “our commitment to protecting secure, safe, and legitimate use of the Internet”, its time to

STOP THIS NONSENSE

There are many ways to affect change. People could be guided, but nobody powerful wishes to guide them. People could be consoled, but nobody powerful possess neither sufficient heart nor responsibility or means of consolation. The empowerment is coming from below instead. Call it “a revolution”, if you will, but just remember: A revolution is not always a succes. A revolution, a turning of the cards, can lose by succeding. It can die in the instant the troops (i.e. people) start poring in. And become mainstream, and nobody sees or notices it. And all the industries will rush to exploit its present potential of momentum.

The right word in this regard is evolution. And that just happens, no matter what. It counts the factors of every action, every opinion, every occurrence, every shift in the equilibrium. But what is inside this is freedom to shape the future from your own needs and regard for necessities, quality and essence. Except you are bound by law.

The book industry, along with all the other copyright moguls, have the law on their side. The law of ownership keeping the world economy and industry stable. They CAN win over the whole globe on the pretext of protecting stability.

IF that happens, they themselves will wish that they had been able to pull out of their abject refusal to step down and let flexible initiative take over. The consequences of the refusal to die of all the old World right-owership coalitions are that monitoring and privacy violations will see a marked increase in stress related deaths. Lowered life expectancy in the western world, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the arab world. A brief new flood of physical mail as a way of retaining privacy. Then illegal subnets. Then back to status quo. There is NO way of stifling communication and creation that has tasted the freedom of access to a bigger world.  Only misery will follow from trying to stop individuals’ need for expansion into the minds of everyone else.

Ahead lies only total monitoring, or letting go. Demand for security converging with rising desire of privacy. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg, and flocks of anti-restriction memes will soon inhabit the space of “Free Will”, if nothing is done about this habit of trying to control the masses.

We are the masses. The Earth. The 99%.

Un-controling the masses has never been done, I think. Letting go of the leash, after the fact of control. Not in any age. So, history serves as no indicator of un-controlled masses, other in a very limited fashion – in times of war and civil disturbances.

The future in that regard is a blank slate, and the economy and thus personal empowement springing from capitalism demand it stay relatively blank for the masses. And the only way to that goal is through control. Control on a global scale makes the future predictable, for the select few to benefit from, and everyone else to fall in line behind. On a moral high ground to protect the world from itself…

Is this better than the freedom to fail?

Inspirative source: http://torrentfreak.com/book-publishers-shut-down-library-nu-and-ifile-it-120215/

Breiviks frihed og fængsel.

Siger jeg, at jeg forstår? (Ikke mig. En anden.)

Share

 

Siger jeg, at jeg forstår?

Problemet med at fatte Breiviks handlinger er ikke, at de ikke er til at forstå, men at vi ikke må. Forstå. For hvis vi forstår, hvad gør så dét ved vores egen såkaldte menneskelighed, vores fordragelighed, vores stærkt indprogrammerede grænsesætning, der forhindrer dyret i os i at rage til sig på primitiveste manér? Der vil ikke være nogen hindringer.

Vi må ikke forstå hans handlinger, vi har ikke lov, tør ikke tillade os selv det, hverken ved identifikation med hans ønsker eller hans midler eller hans skævvrednede fortid eller hans neurokemi. Er vi ikke sikker på vores egen, sørger de andres civilitet* for, at vi ikke gør. Enhver samtale om emnet skal i dag ende med ”men jeg ved i virkeligheden ikke”, for hvis vi synes, vi ved, hvem er vi så? Hvem er så vi, der kan identificere en del af vort indre med en massemorder? Er vi så ikke én, der skal passes på? Måske præventivt isoleres blandt menneskene eller helt væk og ude af syne og tale? Men var det ikke netop sådan, at Breivik kunne blive til dét, han blev, og er, og endnu ikke er færdig med at blive?

Vi må selv vokse i forståelse for at kunne udholde så mange måder, dyret i os kan vende sig i sin dyriskhed og kræve at komme til udtryk. Vi må gå en lille smule tættere til afgrunden, ikke væk fra den, som præster og medier og alle andre vil have, at vi gør. Vi må se ned i afgrunden for at se os selv. Vi må vinde over mediernes skræmmekampagner med grædende, sørgende, chokerede mennesker. Vi må have lov til at komme til forståelse, vi må have lov til at kunne forstå. Hvis blot et lille bitte hjørne af vores hjerte eller rationale eller sjæl kan rumme forståelsen af det ikke-civile menneske. AF, ikke FOR. For vi skal ikke anerkende handlinger, der skader os som individer eller vores opfattelse af samfundet som et hele, men betragte mennesker som Breivik som lærere.

Hvordan tager man imod læring fra dem, der ikke underviser? Man studerer sig selv ved at mærke og tænke efter. Man spørger sig selv, hvad man vil betale for sin civilitet*, for sine børns civilitet, for klodens civilitet. Man spørger, hvad prisen for fred i lokalt, nationalt og globalt FÆLLESSKAB må være.

I dag er prisen for fred stadig en høj grad af udnyttelse af diktaturstaters naturressourcer. Og at lov- og paragrafryttere kan fortsætte med at risikere verdensøkonomien for egen vinding. Og at naturkatastrofer i uuddannede lande kan få lov at udrydde lokalbefolkningerne. Og at flertallet af mennesker i verdens rige lande kan vende ryggen til det hele. Prisen for fred er, at kun rationelle og/eller ekstreme minoriteter forsøger at lave det globale samfundsmaskineri om. Prisen for fred er, at vi, det stærke flertal, afviser at forstå og overlader ”såkaldte” kompleksiteter til ”eksperter”. Prisen for fred og forståelse er, at vi undlader at se og føle og tænke. Prisen for fred og stabilitet og forudsigelighed og relativ ro på pengemarkedet og i jobsektoren og i uddannelsessektoren og i fødevaresektoren og i transportsektoren og i energisektoren er, at vi undlader at indrømme, når vi forstår, at noget er forkert.

Problemet med at fatte Breiviks handlinger er således ikke, at de ikke er til at forstå, men at jeg ikke må. Forstå. For så modarbejder jeg mit eget behov for fred og stabilitet. Jeg lever jo så kort, ikke? Det skal ikke være mig, der sætter liv og fred og fremtid ind på at betale prisen for at være ærlig, vel!? Ikke mig. En anden!


* Civilitet: Indplacering som eller opdragelse til bevidst medborger blandt medborgere; balancen mellem personlige og fælles behov; “en høj (eller lav) grad af civilitet”.

Dit forbrug betaler for dit forbrug

I den nuværende markedsøkonomiske model er alles forbrug nødvendig for at fortsætte med at skabe penge til forbrug. Det er en i stigende grad usikker platform at stå på, som vil ramle. Vi har muligheden for at ændre det bevidst, få det til at ramle, men gøre det vel vidende hvorfor.

Share

Det meste af verdens økonomi er skruet sammen som et lukket kredsløb. Eneste undtagelse er små, lokale naturalieøkonomier og fiktive nationer, hvor alle har “samme indtægt”.

I det lukkede kredsløb er det forbruget, der afgør statens indtægter – i kontrollerede økonomier sættes skat, moms og afgifter så højt, at disse indtægter kan betale for vedligehold af infrastruktur, uddannelse, sociale ydelser, sundshedssektoren, plejesektoren, renovation, energi og varme, forskning osv osv osv. I ukontrollerede økonomier med lav skat og tilsvarende lav indkomst er mange områder på mere eller mindre private hænder, og staten får i bedste fald sin indkomst fra salg af råstoffer og/eller energi til højestbydende, i værste fald er der ikke mange penge til skabelse og vedligehold af infrastruktur.

I dette, enorme lukkede kredsløb kan det ekstremt svært lade sig gøre at lave om på præmisserne, dvs. for én nation at standse op og lave en nationaløkonomisk struktur om til anden/andre indtægtsmodeller, der 1. ikke er ris til egen røv, 2. ikke bliver skudt i sænk af resten af verdens nationers fastholdelse af den gamle model, som man ikke skal få dårlig samvittighed over at opfatte som et komplekst Ponzi-system. Læs videre “Dit forbrug betaler for dit forbrug”

DR’s nedlægning 1

Share

Når du køber tomater, køber du altid dem, der er helt smattede og ikke holder længere end 10 minutter. Ikke? Og når du indgår et parforhold, vælger du bevidst en partner, der er utiltalende, løgnagtig, utro og aldrig nærværende. Ikke? Og hvad som helst du beskæftiger dig med er altid det mest kedelige, uinspirerende, tomme, åndsforladte, du kan finde. Ikke? Og i næste uge skal du ind og have lavet din årlige lobotomi, bare for at være på den sikre side. Ikke?

Ikke nikke nej, vel!?

Skal dårlig forvaltning og en ultra-højredrejende regering have lov til at lukke munden på alle i DRs radio, som har en selvstændig mening, mener noget med det de gør, tør forfølge historier ingen andre gør, tør risikere at være kedelige for at komme i dybden, og informerer fra HELE Danmark og ALLE steder i verden, snarere end blot fra Københavns pop-overgrund og politisk sanktionerede demokratier?

Vi bliver alle sammen fattigere for hvert et kulturprogram, der forsvinder fra DRs radio. På alle måder. Man kan ikke, efter at have klippet den historiske tråd, uden videre tage den op igen og spinde videre – ikke bare vente til de politiske vinde skifter – ikke bare håbe, at det går væk af sig selv. Undertrykkelse går ikke væk af sig selv.

SKRIV UNDER på en fredning af DRs radio – og kan du gøre mere end det, skrive og debattere, begræde, harme! på din egen blog eller i læserbreve, så gør dét! Men GØR noget:

Sig nej til ødelæggelsen af danskernes Daglige Realitet – vi har intet andet medie, som på samme måde forbinder os alle sammen. Tænk over dét: Intet andet fællesmedie, som taler til os alle, uden at tale ned! Uden reklamer! Danmark, Døgnet Rundt!