Category Archives: Interglobal

Ein Brief an meine Nichte

Youtube Cover  des Gesprächs

Meine Liebe,

Danke für Deine Antwort auf mein Schreiben, in dem ich die Coronamaßnahmen als unverhältnismäßig bezeichne und dass sie mehr Schaden anrichten, als der Virus selber. Ich glaube, daraus zu hören, dass Du frustriert bist und es Dir schwerfällt, zuzulassen, dass andere Leute andere Weltsichten haben als Deine im gegenwärtigen Moment. Weltsichten ändern sich mit der Erfahrung. Wenn Du zurückdenkst, als Du 5, 10 oder 15 Jahre alt warst, da hast Du über die Welt bestimmt ganz anders gedacht als heute. Und wie Du die Welt sehen wirst in 5, 10 oder 20 Jahren ist kaum vorhersehbar. Unsere Weltsichten verändern sich in dem Maße. wie unsere persönliche Entwicklung verläuft, wie wir wachsen und reifen.

Die Stadien der menschlichen Entwicklung sind reichlich erforscht und auch die Bewusstseinsebenen, zu denen die Menschen Zugang haben. Jeder Mensch kann in seiner Entwicklung irgendwo Halt machen, obwohl er weitergehen könnte, aber es gibt viele Faktoren, die eine Weiterentwicklung behindern. Momentan sind  6 Bewusstseinsebenen in der westlichen Welt bei einer größeren Anzahl von Menschen vorhanden, angefangen mit der reinen Überlebensebene, über die  egozentrische, ethnozentrische zur weltzentrixhen  Ebene. Auf jeder Ebene haben die betreffenden Menschen ganz andere Weltsichten und Werte, das, was sie für wichtig halten ist oft diametral verschieden. Je mehr Ebenen Du selbst erfolgreich durchschritten hast, desto besser kannst Du die Bedürfnisse der vorangegangenen Ebenen verstehen, denn da warst Du früher ja auch einmal, aber du siehst nicht die Weltsicht der darauf folgenden Ebenen, denn die kennst Du ja noch nicht.

Es ist charakteristisch für die ersten 6 Ebenen, dass sie voll überzeugt sind, dass Menschen, die anders denken, komplett daneben sind – weil Du selber in Deiner Entwicklung erfahren hast, dass deine damaligen Ansichten zu limitiert waren, deshalb bist Du ja weitergegangen. Oder die Menschen sind noch am Anfang des Weges und können gar nicht sehen, was noch kommen würde  für sie, wenn sie weitergingen, und es daher nicht verstehen können, was die anderen denn da so sagen und tun.

Ab der 7. Ebene kann man sehen, welche Wahrheiten die einzelnen Ebenen zum Ganzen beisteuern können. “Nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time”, mit anderen Worten: jeder hat ein Stück Wahrheit in der Hand, aber eben nur ein Stück, nie die ganze Wahrheit, die es als Absolutum nicht gibt.

Im Moment herrscht Krieg auf der Welt, der Meinungskrieg ist ja ziemlich deutlich auch unter uns. Wenn die eigene Meinung zum Fundamentalismus wird, wenn man sich nicht mehr austauscht und gemeinsam versucht, zu besseren Standpunkten zu kommen unter Einbeziehung von so vielen Perspektiven wie möglich, dann kommt es zum totalen Krieg, wie er gegenwärtig herrscht, wenn Menschen für das, was sie sagen angegriffen, verunglimpft und beruflich vernichtet werden. Leider sind da auch viele Menschen, die schon die 5. Und 6. Ebene erreicht hatten, und jetzt auf die 4 Stufe in deren  pathologischen Form zurückgefallen, in den Fundamentalismus: “Was ich sage ist richtig, alles andere muss gelöscht werden”, z.B. auf Youtube. Vor 80 Jahren hätte man die Bücher verbrannt, der Mindset ist der Gleiche.

Wenn ich also bestimmte Sachen in der Familie anspreche, kommt das aus meinem Jahrzehntelangen Wachstumsprozess durch die Ebenen, der oft sehr schmerzlich war, aber ich bin dankbar heute, dass ich gelernt habe, die DInge aus der mir maximal möglichen Anzahl von Perspektiven zu sehen. Das ist etwa so, wenn man, statt mitten im Wald zu stehen und nicht zu wissen, wohin man gehen soll, von oben herunterschauen kann und aus dieser Perspektive erst sehen kann, wo genau man eigentlich ist und wie man aus dem Wald hinaus kommt..

Dein Vater hat mir mal ein Buch gegeben über den Nationalsozialismus in Coburg, unsere Stadt, die den traurigen Rekord hat, die erste gewesen zu sein, die mit dem Nazitum ernst gemacht hat. Ich stelle mir vor, wie unsere Eltern als Kinder in dieser Atmosphäre von Unrecht, Verleumdung, Entwürdigung, Misshandlung und Propaganda hatten aufwachsen müssen. Später sagte unsere Mutter immer wieder: “wehret den Anfängen”. Wir hatten uns so sicher gefühlt, dass so etwas nie wieder geschehen könnte, wir haben daran geglaubt, dass unsere Regierungen gut seien und die Dinge schon für uns richten würden. 

Aus meiner  jahrzehntelangen Illusion über die Realität in unseren Ländern bin ich vor einigen Jahren aufgewacht durch Geschehnisse, die ich mit eigenen Augen beobachtete und durch unbezweifelbare Belege zu einigen Dingen, die passiert sind. 

Jetzt bin ich diejenige, die der jüngeren Generation sagen möchte “wehret den Anfängen” – obwohl wir jetzt die Anfänge schon weit hinter uns gelassen haben. Ihr seid diejenigen, die ihr die gegenwärtigen gravierenden Fehler Euer Leben lang ausbaden müsst. Tut alles, euch umfassend zu informieren, von wirklich allen Seiten und überlegt selber, was Sinn macht und was nicht. Schaut nach, wo Ihr ideologische Haltungen habt, anstatt nach den Tatsachen zu forschen. Sucht nach blinden Flecken in Eurer Wahrnehmung, in eurem Denken und in eurem Herzen. Glaubt nicht, was die anderen sagen, wenn ihr es nicht selber einer eingehenden Prüfung unterzieht. Und seid Euch dessen bewusst, dass sich Eure Einstellung zu den Dingen ändern wird, wenn ihr über einen größeren Weitblick und über mehr Informationen verfügt. Haltet nicht an Ideologien fest, wenn Ihr erkannt habt, dass da etwas faul daran ist. 

Habt keine Angst, Euch zu entwickeln. Die Evolution geht weiter, auch gegen Euren Willen. Aber freiwillig sich auf den Weg zu machen dürfte letztendlich weniger schmerzhaft sein als das verspätete Aufwachen, wenn die Scherben schon auf dem Boden liegen.

Wenn Du mehr erfahren willst, dann kannst Du Dich gerne an mich wenden.

Hier ein Interview mit Wulf Mirko Weinreich, das den Dingen genauer auf den Grund geht

 

Klimawandel und Bewusstsein

Beobachtungen zum Thema “Klimawandel”.

Ich gehörte einmal zu den Menschen, die “Wetter” und “Klima” nicht unterscheiden. Wenn immer es ein Unwetter gab, in der Nähe oder irgendwo anders auf der Welt, kam es mir leicht in den Sinn, dies mit dem “Klimawandel” zu begründen. Das war begleitet von einem Gefühl der Unfähigkeit, irgendetwas dafür oder dagegen tun zu können, ähnlich wie bei Erdbeben, wofür die beste Strategie ist, sich darauf vorzubereiten, damit der Schaden begrenzt bleibt. Erdbeben abstellen zu wollen durch irgendwelche Maßnahmen scheint wohl keinem eine realistische Möglichkeit. Aber die Erde aufzuhalten sich auch äußerlich klimatisch zu verändern doch schon. Oder? 

Das Klima der Erde soll mit drastische Maßnahmen beeinflusst werden, deren Folgen wohl noch keiner der Befürworter so richtig überdacht hat. Als Mir klar wurde, dass mittlerweile nicht nur ein paar Aktivisten für das Klima “kämpfen”, sondern überall Lobby dafür gemacht wird,  machte mich das neugierig, und ich begann, mich mit dem Thema näher zu beschäftigen. Bis dahin war es mir nicht wirklich wichtig erschienen, denn ich hielt das Thema “Klima” nur für ein weiteres in der Reihe der üblichen Panikmache, die ja regelmäßig in die Gesellschaft geflutet werden.

Aus der Perspektive der Entwicklungsstufen des Bewusstseins: das alte Spiel

Ich war nicht besonders gut auf der Uni, hatte nur eine zwei im Magisterexamen, aber was ich beim Mathematik Studium gelernt habe, ist logisch denken können, wenn immer es notwendig erscheint. Dazu gehört es, nachzuforschen, Beweise zu suchen, nichts “einfach so” zu glauben, vor allem wenn es erhöhte Wichtigkeit hat. Im normalen Alltagsleben kann man ja mal ein paar MIlchmädchenrechnungen machen, ohne dass eine Katastrophe eintritt, bei Themen, von denen das Wohlergehen der Gesellschaft und eventuell der ganzen Welt abhängt, ist das absolut nicht akzeptabel.

Als ich zum Thema Klimawandel erwachte, sah ich die Gesellschaft (in Deutschland, aber auch in anderen westlichen Ländern) aufgeteilt zwischen Menschen, die steif und fest glauben, wir Menschen würden selbst verschuldet untergehen durch CO2 Ausstoß, und die anderen, die wagen, das anzuzweifeln, und dann als “Klimaleugner”, kurzum als Bösewichte, abgestempelt werden – während die Befürworter der CO2 Apokalypse selbstverständlich die Guten sind.

Gut und Böse – der Weg durch die Stufen

Gut und Böse, Schwarz und Weiß, Das alte Lied:. Dies ist der  Mindset, der seit alters her Unfrieden, Spaltung und Krieg hervorbrachte. Im feudalen Gefüge bestimmte der Feudalherr, was und wer in die Kategorie “Gut” oder “Böse” gehörte, das Volk hatte nichts zu melden. Dann erklärten die Religionen, was entsprechend richtig oder falsch war. Die Menschen verinnerlichten das, dank ihres Glaubens. Man könnte auch sagen, sie kollaborierten freiwillig mit dem System.

Mit dem Aufkommen der modernen Wissenschaft wollte man endlich ganz genau wissen, wie die Dinge bestellt sind. Man stellt Hypothesen auf, die so lange als “wahr” gelten, solange sie nicht durch Evidenz widerlegt werden. So näherte man sich iterativ an immer mehr “Wahrheit” oder “Richtigkeit” an, und damit war auch “Gut und Böse” in der Form von “Richtig und Falsch” bestimmbar, jedenfalls immer bis zur nächst besseren Erkenntnis.

Dann, in der Postmoderne, tauchten die “Gutmenschen” auf, in einer Variante der feudalen Zeit, nur das jetzt nicht mehr direkt von oben bestimmt wurde, was als richtig oder falsch anzusehen wäre. Jetzt kann scheinbar jeder Mensch selber bestimmen, was gut und was schlecht ist und sich entsprechend in Lagern von Gleichgesinnten organisieren, die kollektiv ihre Weltsicht und Glaubenssysteme als die einzig richtigen darstellen, während die anderen, die “Ungläubigen”, natürlich die Bösen sind: Und das in Zeiten, wo man sich längst vom “Opium für das Volk”, von den Religionen, losgesagt hatte und man nun annimmt, dass man selber im Interesse der ganzen Gesellschaft, ja der ganzen Welt handeln würde! 

Die Glaubenskriege des 21. Jahrhunderts. – Wissenschaft als Erkenntnis-Technologie wird auf den Kopf gestellt und damit beliebig manipulierbar..

In den 60ern hieß es, an die Selbstverantwortlichkeit des Individuums appellierend: “Stell Dir vor, es gibt Krieg, und KEINER geht hin!”  Wir sind heute in einem Glaubenskrieg und viel zu viele Menschen gehen hin, kämpfen für ihre Ideale und scheinen sich wenig bewusst zu sein, was sie da eigentlich machen. 

Es ist cool in der Postmoderne, das eigene Gefühl und die eigenen Überzeugungen als das Non Plus Ultra zu sehen, als die eigentliche “Wahrheit”. Früher sagte man zu jemanden in dieser Ausdrucksform, er habe  “die Weisheit mit Löffeln gefressen”, er oder sie galt als Schlaumeier. leichtgläubig und unseriös. Heute ist die übertriebene Subjektivität normal. Wissenschaft, einstmals ein ernsthafter Versuche, mit Neugierde Dinge zu erforschen, wird heute entweder als irrelevant abgelehnt, da sie ein Werkzeug des bösen Patriarchat ist, oder sie wird manipuliert, aufbereitet, gefügig gemacht. Sie dient nicht mehr der vertieften und ständigen Suche nach Wahrheit, sondern wird selektiv eingesetzt, um “Beweise” zu finden für etwas, was man a priori für wahr und richtig hält. Statt neutral zu forschen werden zur Hypothese passende Arbeiten selektiert und die anderen, dem angestrebten Ergebnis widersprechenden, ignoriert und übergangen. 

Die neuen Religionskriege und die Bedeutung von “progressiv”

Wer eh schon ganz genau weiß, was richtig oder falsch ist, der braucht sich ja mit Gegenargumenten nicht befassen. Er braucht sich keiner Diskussion zu stellen. Er wird eher versuchen, Diskussionen zu vermeiden, denn da könnte er ja nach den Quellen gefragt werden, auf die sich seine Überzeugungen stützen. Und auch die könnten von den anderen hinterfragt werden und da müsste man stichhaltige Antworten haben, eben nicht nur Glaubenssätze, sondern Evidenz. Das scheint mir der Grund zu sein, warum heute diese so dringend notwendige Diskussion nicht stattfindet, denn Glauben kann man gemeinhin nicht rational begründen, offenbar auch dann, wenn die Themen wissenschaftlicher Natur sind.

Bedeutet heute “progressiv” sein, den Manipulatoren zu glauben, sobald es sich richtig anfühlt?

Warum sind  heute die sogenannten “Progressiven”  – von denen man immer annahm, sie befänden sich an der Vorfront der Gesellschaft – zurückgefallen auf frühere Strukturen des Bewußtseins? Warum verhalten sich so viele Menschen wie fundamentalistisch Gläubige, was wir mit dem Abklingen des Christentums im Westen ad acta gelegt zu haben glaubten? Und warum lassen sie sich von der neuen feudalistischen Herrschern einfach so bestimmen? Warum lassen sie sich vorschreiben, was sie zu glauben haben? Und warum glauben sie, aus eigener Überzeugung zu handeln und merken nicht einmal, wie sehr sie erfolgreich manipuliert und fremdbestimmt werden?

Es gibt wohl keine eindeutige und umfassende Erklärung dafür. Sicher scheint mir, dass es zur Natur des Menschen gehört, an etwas glauben zu wollen, was Sinn macht und Orientierung bietet. GOTT ist dafür ziemlich erfolgreich abgeschafft worden, nun ist auch die Wissenschaft von einem Instrument für Wahrheitssuche zu einem Selbstbedienungsladen in Glaubensfragen geworden. Spirituelle Gemeinschaften und weltliche Kulte, politische Gruppierungen, Fanclubs von was auch immer, bieten Möglichkeiten, die Leere aufzufüllen. Nur hat man heute statt dem EINEN Gott eine Unzahl von Göttern, deren Anhänger bis aufs Messer überzeugt sind, dass ihr Gott der einzig wahre Gott ist. 

Die alten Religionskriege emergieren in neuer Form, und einer davon ist der “anthropogene Klimawandel”. Oder ist es ein  “politogener Klimawandel”, unsere politischen Mächte, die ein Interesse daran haben, uns die “Wahrheit” unserer individuellen Schuld am Klimawandel zu füttern, um uns Schuldgefühle zu machen, die sie dann ausnützen können.Sie schaffen es doch tatsächlich, uns zu Ablasszahlungen zu motivieren in Form von Steuern und hohen Energiepreisen, und mit gelenktem Konsum von favorisierten Gütern  wie E-Autos. 

Cui bono? Und die Techniken der Manipulation.

Die tiefergehende Frage wäre dann: wer steht dahinter? Jemand, der Geld machen möchte, das scheint mir logisch. Und der es vermeiden will, in eine Diskussion über den Sinn der Forderungen hineingezogen zu werden. Wer immer das ist – und ich gehe nicht davon aus, dass das eine einzige Person ist -, der, oder besser: “die” wissen genau, wie sie ihre Ziele erreichen können. Aus der Psychologie wissen wir ja ziemlich gut, wie man Menschen dazu bringen kann, Gedanken und Meinungen zu haben, die von anderen stammen, aber als eigen wahrgenommen werden. Wir Menschen sind leicht täuschbar und manipulierbar, vor allem, wenn wir nicht ständig auf der Hut sind und die Dinge hinterfragen. 

Beispiel Medien

Die Medien sind ein hervorragendes Studienobjekt für gelenkte Meinungsbildung. Es ist interessant, wie Reportagen regelmäßig auf der Seite der “Klimahysteriker” stehen, bestimmte Reizwörter benutzen und gezielt Objekte und Daten auswählen, die die gewünschte Überzeugungsarbeit unterstützen sollen. Gegenargumente werden oft gar nicht erst erwähnt, geschweige denn darauf eingegangen. Ich hatte jahrelang kein deutsches Fernsehen mehr angesehen – und aus diesem Abstand heraus finde ich es jetzt besonders interessant, zu beobachten, welche dort besprochenen Themen ausgewogenen Information geben und welche eher durch suggerierende Informationen und  “weiße Lügen”, also durch Unterlassung anderer Perspektiven, manipulativ mit unschuldiger Miene an den Mann, die Frau und das Kind gebracht werden.

Das ist im italienischen Fernsehen nicht viel anders. Umso erfrischender fand ich es letzthin, als ein Meteorologe des aeronautischen Wetterdienstes  im offiziellen Wetterbericht zum “glühenden Weihnachten” Stellung nahm: Tagestemperaturen um die 18 Grad seien punktuell in dieser Jahreszeit absolut in der Norm. Aber dass diese ausgerechnet auf die Weihnachtstage fallen, ist generell nicht vorhersehbar. Dieses Jahr war es so, und ist wohl deshalb den Leuten als Anomalie geschienen, die dann in den Medien als weiterer “Beweis” für die dramatische Erderwärmung  verwendet werden sollte. Die Nachrichtensprecherin hatte offenbar eine andere Erklärung angesteuert. Es ist lobenswert, wenn sich ein Experte um die Fakten bemüht und nicht den Einflüsterungen folgt.

Ab auf die Schiene

Ach, und noch was: ein interessanter Beitrag im deutschen Fernsehen: Der Klimawandel soll mit dem Umsteigen von Menschen und Ware auf die Bahn bekämpft werden. In der Reportage wurde überdeutlich, dass schon jetzt die Bahn mit ihrer Infrastruktur völlig überfordert ist und keinesfalls in absehbarer Zeit das Doppelte an Beförderung auch nur annähernd zufriedenstellend leisten kann. Da stellt sich ja doch die Frage, ob die Menschen, die federführend solche Entscheidungen treffen, überhaupt mal jemanden befragen, der die Realität der Situationen kennt, anstatt sich von denen beraten zu lasse, die ihre Idealsituationen am Computer ausrechnen und keine Ahnung haben, ob und wie sich ihre Utopien in der “wirklichen Welt” realisieren ließen. 

Oder E-Mobilität

Und noch das Thema Elektroautos. Wie soll denn das gehen, wenn wir in Zukunft alle mit diesen Vehikeln unterwegs wären? Nach der Arbeit abends nach Hause kommen und das Auto an den Strom anschließen? Naja, vielleicht bläst da ja ein bisschen Wind, aber die Solarpanels auf meinem Dach liefern nachts keinen Strom, und den ganzen Winter über, selbst tagsüber, auch  nicht genug, um annähernd die Batterien voll zu bekommen.  Und das in einem sogenannten “warmen Land”: Italien.

Also Bahn fahren statt Auto? Nur dumm, wenn der nächste Bahnhof 15 km oder mehr entfernt ist und dann noch nicht einmal klar ist, ob der Zug auch fährt. Wer wäre dann noch fähig, täglich 8 Stunden im Büro zu verbringen? Es sei denn, man schläft gleich im Büro und macht eine Wochenendwanderung nach Hause, um die Katzen zu füttern.

Meine Erfahrung mit Solar

Und noch ein Nachsatz zu erneuerbaren Energien: Die Solarpanels auf meinem Dach waren nach 8 Jahren kaputt, Garantieleistung vorhanden, aber noch nicht einmal 10% von dem, was ich dafür bezahlt hatte. Und mein Traum von Stromautonomie ging auch schief. Wenn der Strom ausfällt, bekomme ich auch keinen von den Solarpanels. Der Strom, den ich nachts aus der Leitung hole, kostet das Doppelte von dem, was ich für eingespeisten Strom bekomme. Die Grundgebühr und Nebenkosten haben sich seit meiner eigenen Stromproduktion drastisch erhöht. Ich zahle seither etwa ¾ der Rechnung für alles Mögliche, die erhoffte Reduzierung der Stromkosten ist unbedeutend.

Naja, selbst wenn ich off grid ginge und Batterien hätte: wie lange halten die dann? Werden sie dann weggeworfen und kontaminieren die Umwelt? Ihre Produktion ist ja auch nicht gerade umweltfreundlich. 

Ist es das, was wir wollen?

Hat da überhaupt mal jemand darüber nachgedacht, wenn sie lauthals nach “erneuerbaren Energien” und auf Elektro umsteigen schreien? Solange wir nicht wirklich revolutionär neue Energiequellen haben, sind das alles unausgegorene Projekte, die aller Voraussicht nach die Menschen in unliebsame Überraschungen führen wird, wenn nicht sogar zu einem Totalzusammenbruch von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. 

Ist es das, was wir wollen? Es scheint Menschen zu geben, die das wollen. Aber gehörst Du wirklich zu denen? Und wirst du denken: “dumm gelaufen”, wenn du dich in vorindustrielle Verhältnisse zurückversetzt findest? Wenn Du das nicht willst, dann mache die Augen auf und beginne, selber zu denken anstatt dich von mainstream Protestlern verführen zu lassen (seit wann gibt es denn so etwas: “Revolution” Hand in Hand mit staatlichen und privaten Interessen?). 

Und lass Dich nicht einschüchtern und beschämen, wenn Du gegen die allgemeine Propaganda aufstehst, auch wenn sie dich in die “Klassenfeind”- Ecke schubsen wollen, wo immer auf dem politischen Spektrum. Bewahre deine Individualität und dein Recht, deine Ansichten zu vertreten und für die Berücksichtigung von allen Fakten und Daten zu kämpfen. 

Weg von jedweder Ideologie, zurück zur Vernunft!

Nachwort

Nun bin ich ja garantiert in der Ecke der Klimaleugner gelandet, denn sobald man die heilige Kuh berührt, kommt man unweigerlich dort hinein. 

Ich leugne keineswegs, dass sich das Klima wandelt, das hat es immer getan. Ich persönlich habe es gern warm, sitze gerade vor meinem Kaminofen mit Holz gefüttert aus meinem Wald,  und ich wäre froh, wenn wir eher wärmeren Zeiten entgegen gingen als einer neuen Eiszeit. Menschen, die gewohnt sind, den Temperaturregler hoch und runter zu schieben und dann für “alternativ” schreien, haben  wahrscheinlich keine Ahnung, wie anstrengend und “unbequem” das “einfache Leben” ist. Ich kann ein Lied davon singen, nach 30 Jahren Einzelkämpfer für alternativen Lebensstil. 

Die Lebewesen auf diesem Planeten mussten sich schon immer den wechselnden Bedingungen anpassen. Wir modernen Menschen werden wohl unseren absurden Anspruch auf Allmächtigkeit und die Idee, entgegen die Natur ungestraft handeln zu können, in jedweder Hinsicht, aufgeben müssen und uns an die Gegebenheiten anpassen. 

Die pseudoreligiöse Buse

Es ist eine leidige und potentiell für unsere Zukunft gefährliche Diskussion um das CO2.  Es ist wie ein neues Aufleben des Puritanismus, der Verherrlichung der Selbstbeschränkung und -bestrafung, nur das es jetzt nicht mehr Gott fordert, sondern diejenigen, die aus unserem Verzicht ihre Vorteile ziehen.  Wir sollen all das opfern, was uns das Leben erleichtert und erfreulicher gemacht hat für eine Sündenbockidee – ich glaube nicht, dass sich die Demonstranten darüber wirklich im Klaren sind.

Dabei soll alles Geld “verbraten” werden, so dass nichts für die wirklich wichtigen Dinge übrig bleibt. Es ist überhaupt nicht eindeutig erwiesen, dass das CO2 irgendetwas mit einer Erwärmung oder Abkühlung der Erde zu tun hat. Wir brauchen es zum Leben und es hat keinerlei Schädlichkeit für uns – ganz im Gegensatz von so vielen Schadstoffen in Luft, Erde und Wasser. 

Es gibt Wichtigeres als CO2 

Über die immanente, gegenwärtige Bedrohung unseres Lebens spricht plötzlich keiner mehr. Die Umweltverschmutzung, Trinkwassergefährdung (durch Fracking u.ä. und private Besitzrechte), der Medikamentenmissbrauch, Hunger und Fehlernährung, neue Krankheiten, Tiersterben, alte und neue Armut und mehr, auch die politischen Machenschaften und Kriegsgebaren sind vollständig überlagert von der CO2 Hysterie.

Da sollte doch die Frage aufkommen: Ist das CO2 nur ein einfach gestricktes Proxy, das Dinge gewollt unsichtbar werden läßt, die vor aller Augen passieren, für die aber keine Aufmerksamkeit übrig bleibt?

Waking up to climate change – or the shadow of GREEN.

How Green started

I grew up in the sixties. My mother kept a vegetable garden to feed her 5 children. Working too hard, she got a heart disease and had to stop. But the idea of connecting with nature and taking care remained. In the 70ies she founded a citizen’s movement where they collected used plastic items and tried to find enterprises for recycling. This was long before the plastic waste topic entered into public consciousness.

When I lived in Berlin I had an old farmhouse in the then so called “Westdeutschland”. My biggest joy when I arrived there, was to find what had grown in my garden while I was at University. I had started out with physics, but then I  changed the subject. Today though, I am coming back to it. For 30years now, I have been living in the Italian countryside, in close contact with nature, with solar panels on the roof and organic farming. 

Physics and climate change

Now I am keenly interested in physics and other sciences. Why? Because the climate change topic is filling up every corner and people try to tell me that my car is causing the death of our planet.

Climate change  was not in the forefront of my mind so far, as I haven’t been watching the latest news for decades. Whenever the weather is different from what we would like, I certainly started to say: “climate change?” as a possible explanation. People always complain about the weather – but, weather is not the same as climate! Before the climate change discussions we didn’t have a scapegoat, except God himself who dared to send us rain or heat when we didn’t want it. Our memories are short; every time we think: “this is exceptional, it has never been like this” etc. it is not necessarily true. It is just the way we humans deal with reality.

If you don’t go for it, you are guilty

Now, when I had to defend myself why I didn’t want to join the “Friday for Future” manifestations, I started to get interested. I get accused of being in favor of the death of future generations –

WHAT? 

If people really believe things like that, then it is time to find out what information they are fed, what myths they are believing. Such an accusation is really heavy and should have some real fundament when you utter it. 

The scientist in me woke up and together with the psychologist the integralist and the life-experienced part of me started to research.

The psychological basis

When you live in another country than were you were born and grown up, you keep the memory of your home country often, at the point where you left it. You don’t live the changes, you believe, it is like then, when you knew it. It is often an awakening in itself, when you realise that things have changed there, while you were away. But this is also a huge chance because you have the possibility to see things from a distance: you are not involved in parties and power games, preferences and dislikes. You are somewhat neutral while understanding the mentality of the people inside out.

How development works and the problem with green.

When humans develop, they naturally distance themselves of what they were and believed in the previous stage. If the development goes right, the insights and skills of the previous stages  will be integrated and used appropriately. Green rejects science and acts out of the emotional center. This is understandable, but it grows into paradoxes which people in the green mindset are unable to even perceive, let alone address. The contradictions they create in their minds and actions are huge. As long as they are not in decision power, it is no problem. Everyone has the right to get himself – or herself – into trouble. But if the political powers bring their own contradictions as guiding force into the decision making process, everyone is impacted.

The green-blue-purple potpourri is not science

The present climate debate is a strange mixture of green ideals, conventional thinking and magical beliefs. Science is used in scientistic ways: The ideological scientists start with what they want to show. Then they look for arguments, or research results, which feed their assumptions. Real science, instead, is open to the outcome. It starts with a hypothesis and tries to falsify it (instead of trying to prove it!). Serious scientists assume their hypothesis to be proven only as long as they cannot find any valid contradictory argument. They use evidence instead of purely mathematical models which can be changed at will by just changing one parameter. With the last sort of science you can create whatever outcome you want. (Read “The science delusion or “Science set free” by Rupert Sheldrake”

People’s habit of fearing death

Every generation has its version of doomsday, nothing new under the sky. But when this comes out of fundamentalist beliefs in simple causes, in the “climate” case the CO2, then it is time to rethink the story. Decisions are being made which are very likely to create real damage in the short term and for the people right now (as opposed to possible humans in decades or centuries from now),.

Fundamentalist progressives – progressive fundamentalsists?

The weirdest thing, in my eyes, is that the defenders of human made climate change believe to be progressive, at the forefront of society, while in fact they are mainstream. They have succeeded to instill their ideas everywhere and are dominating the discourse. Other voices are repressed, for instance by untruthful Wikipedia entries, which are full of not proven accusations and polemics, in which the described people have no voice at all. Scientists who try their best to give a bigger picture are insulted and accused of whatever seems to make the most effect in the eyes of the listeners.

In short: the previously liberal Germany has entered into the “politically correct” society, where people are not heard and they are fought against if they happen to speak against the ruling ideology. 

Repeating the errors of the past?

I am really wondering if we are not repeating the last century? Totalitarian societies seem to be the goal, everywhere. The idea of democracy is beautiful, its birth painful and long. And its delicate flower is very prone to be destroyed by people who are not yet ready to be responsible citizens, who need an authority to tell them what they should believe and think and do. Erich Fromm wrote a book about that in 1941, in the face of WWII. “The Fear of Freedom

We seem to be in the same situation now, again, where people prefer to live in ideologies instead of being open themselves to reality, evidence and logical empathic thinking, free of falling into the trap of the triangle: victim – perpetrator – rescuer. The climate change warriors want to “save the world” by imposing their simple and limited ideas on people of the rest of the world who are less noisy and get cut off  when they dare to open the mouth. 

The fallacy of believing in simple solutions.

The world is far more complex than imposing CO2 taxes and everything will be fine. It will be problematic, it will increase the gap between rich and poor in the rich countries and it simply cannot be followed in developing countries if they don’t want to buy into their own suicide. 

So why should we throw away our living standards for an idea which by no means is proven to be true? People are told white lies, incomplete or manipulated research data, ideological interpretations and more, they are abused like the masses who wanted the “total war” 90 years ago

We humans are not able to think for ourselves when we are caught in fear. The climate change movement is spreading fear in an unbelievable way.

Green started with the desire to protect NATURE.

 Before all that, we tried to protect nature by the justified preoccupation of losing too many species. Now the mass murder of birds and the destruction of woods and beautiful landscapes are ignored when it comes to windmills. The solar panel fields are not only ugly, but they destroy huge areas of nature and the natural habitat of many animals.

Shouldn’t we begin to think that there is something not right here? 

Do you want to protect nature now? Or do you agree to destroy it now for a completely arbitrary and insecure scenario in the future?

CONCLUSION

Having said all that I want to underline that I don’t ignore that the climate is changing. Everything in life is changing all the time and it is useless to try to keep things as they are. I am not sure that CO2 is the culprit, there are scientists who proof that our globe is living in cycles of warm and cold and the previous warm periods were certainly not caused by cars and airplanes. 

I am for unbiased research which takes into account as many factors as possible, from sun and clouds to regional differences. (The Arctic had increased in ice for a few years when already everyone spoke about global warming. Maybe it is not global? A detailed reading of data HERE).

I am for looking at the methods how the research is done and how “truth” is constructed. And I am for radical consideration of the do-ability and the impact which the decisions will have on all areas of life, in Europe and on the planet.

Bjorn Lomborg has done an extensive study on what to do to make the world a better place. How much money spent can do how much good to people in the world. Infant nutrition is in the first places in huge positive correlation, climate investments – you probably didn’t know! – have a minus correlation. He has written detailed books (one here) and has given easily understandable talks (for instance this one). Why not get informed about that when you want to be helpful for the people on this planet?

The Troyan Horse is lurking everywhere behind the corner!

Last but not least: “Follow the money”! Who is earning on the climate change fear?  And who will be paying it – or better: is already paying it? As long as we do not consider the other side of the medal we are likely to make huge and maybe irreparable errors which will be load for the generations to come – other than CO2! 

The color code mentioned in this article indicate levels of development in SPIRAL DYNAMICS

My experience with communist countries


I lived in West Berlin from 1972 to 1984 as a (West German) university student.
Life in the West of the city was very particular, you could find everything, culture and nature. Cultural experiments all over the place, experimental theatres etc. alongside with traditional rituals like the Christmas market in the (then) centre at the ruin of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche. It was exciting and rich, vibrating and colorful. An optimistic response for the fact that we were surrounded by the East.

In West Berlin you could get everywhere with public transport – although sometimes with 20 minutes or more waiting in a freezing night, and you could bike on extra lanes. And if you had a car it was pretty easy to get everywhere – except to the east part, obviously.

Two underground lines passed under the East territory and it was ghostly when the train slowed down at the closed stations. There was dimmed light and armed police wandering around. I was always happy to come out on the other side again. It was a dark feeling of danger and oppression, also when we went from West Berlin by the mandatory and guarded highways to West Germany, which we did very often.

Several times a year we went to East Berlin, mainly for attending theatres. There was the famous Brecht Theatre “Am Schiffbauerdamm” and the “Komische Oper” with his artistic director Felsenstein who experimented a new style of opera in which the singers were really actors and not just standing around singing as it was normal in the past.

It is right what other contributors said: West Berlin was shiny and tried to show up as a brillant city while East Berlin was grey and monumental in the “new center” with the ugly expression of socialist art and architecture. In those times all money was directed to the capital to give the impression to foreign visitors that East Berlin was a thriving city – and East Germany a normal country. That it was certainly not and you could see it in many ways: the full supermarket in East Berlin with dozens of shelfs of THE SAME product, the strange atmosphere everywhere, including in the almost not existing restaurants or cafés where you were treated like sheep, The big Dom (=main cathedral) without the vault and pigeons living in it and only a few meters from the main “tourist” areas: houses which were about to fall apart and full of projectile holes in the facade.

I knew also Leipzig, a major city further south and the difference to East Berlin was enormous. Let alone small cities or villages. You must have seen it to really get a feel how communism has destroyed everything. When I visited Albania in the early 90ties I knew already from East Germany how things look like in such a country. But Albania, then, was a real big shock, and East Berlin and East Germany seemed to me a paradise in comparison to Albania. The poverty and destruction was unbelievable – and what I am hearing the same is now going on in North Korea, even maybe worse, although WORSE is really hard to imagine when we are used to our 21st century civilization.

Coming back to East Berlin. Every time we went there was connected with fear: You and your car were controlled thoroughly, both ways, in and out. It could take an hour or more and you never knew if you would be back home that evening because they could find something or invent something to keep you as a prisoner. (It happened to a friend of mine who, after a year or so, was BOUGHT back into freedom by our government).

Every time when you entered East Berlin you had to pay quite a sum for the visa and you had to exchange money 1:1 (although the real value was around 1:4) which, additionally, was hard to spend in one day only as there was hardly anything to buy which you would also want to buy. I myself bought musical scores, whatever they had, not knowing if I ever would use them. Those I actually needed were not available with 95% probability.

You had to spend all the East money before going back to the West – as if anybody wanted the cheap and worthless aluminum coins on our side of the city! You could get into trouble if you had forgotten to get rid of the east-money before entering the control section. Totalitarian regimes create an intolerable climate! Anyways, I came to assemble quite a library of musical scores which, later on, I actually used and was happy about that as they cost much more in the West and also today.

Summary: It is no joke to be in a totalitarian police state, not as a visitor and not at all as a resident. Observing present revivals of totalitarian movements on the right AND on the left make me fear that the lesson of 20th century communism and its bloody and oppressive impact on millions of people is already forgotten and people who promote neo communist ideas haven’t learned anything from history. These are not situations in which ANYONE wants to live in, except the very few who are in power!

So, please, don’t adhere to totalitarian movements which see only black and white! This is the beginning of totalitarianism.

I published this article in December 2017 at Quora on the question: What were the differences between east and west Berlin during the period of the Berlin wall?

What world-changers should know if they want to find solutions instead of being part of the problem.

Good will and engagement is not enough

There are so many people in the world right now who are deeply concerned about our planetary future and who are willing to dedicate their energy into collaborating for change. They are working hard and often come up with some sort of solution, which might work, but often it doesn’t. Why?

Most people live in a preconceived idea of what reality is. Some are working on the material side of reality, others believe that spiritual work can resolve all problems, or psychological support, education, the never ending lists. We are deeply divided in our ideas what is needed, what values should be held high, in what areas we should invest energy and money. More often than not we ignore or even dismiss the attempts of others for change. The world is a mess, change makers too, unless…

The need to see more and better

What is needed is an overall view, a meta perspective, a framework where everyone can locate themselves and see and appreciate where the others are. Collaboration otherwise remains merely wishful thinking. This framework exists for more than 2 decades, but strangely remains widely unnoticed and unheard by otherwise well meaning people. They want to act their own way, they donÄt want to invest the necessary time to really understand reality in all its aspects. Wouldn’t it be helpful to know where you are and what tools you have before you blindly engage in actions of which you only BELIEVE that they are good and useful?

Beginning to understand the complexity

Whenever I talk about Ken Wilber and Integral Theory, most people listen politely but don’t get the importance of first getting involved in understanding it before acting blindly in the world. When I began to understand the map of reality provided by Ken, it felt like an enlightenment finally I could understand things which before I considered crazy, un-understandable, absurd and gave me the “right” to blame others for what they are and what they think. Today I might not like certain people or what they say and do, but I understand their way of seeing the world. I can understand that for them the are doing the right thing out of their limited way of understanding reality and I don’t need to blame them anymore – albeit I might chose to not collaborate with those whose worldview is incompatible with my values.

Will you begin?

Ken Wilber, for most of his life didn’t appear in Public very much, he was busy writing his many books and of fighting a severe autoimmune illness by which he almost died for several times. He is still alive and now is coming out to connect with the audiences. He has become more able than before to use “normal” language to explain his concepts and to be visible as a human being, not only as a very gifted philosopher who has clearly seen the complexity of the world and its problems and who has laid out a map for effectively meeting them.

You will be surprised when you begin to see the bigger picture

My message to you, all you well-meaning change-makers: Do take the time to learn about Wilber’s map of reality, learn that you cannot just consider a part and work there while ignoring the other parts. Learn what you are ignoring so far, because it won’t be obvious to you that you are missing out on some important aspects. Here is a conversation with Ken, quite down to earth and pretty understandable, if your personal journey has brought you to the edge of complex understanding. If it can lead you to explore more about the integral map then you certainly will be enabled to become part of the solution instead of perpetuating the problems by your ignorance.

Below an interview with Ken Wilber which allows you to get a glimpse of who he is and what he has created for the benefit of all who want to really live for a change towards a better world. It is long, but ever more pleasant to listen to the longer you stay!

More to Jeff Salzman’s analysis of Jordan Peterson

After having listened to part 2 of Jeff Salzman’s analysis of Jordan Peterson I want to add some more considerations.

View my considerations to the first part here

Post-Modernism

Jeff, yes, it is true that Peterson considers that what he calls “Postmodernism” is a disaster unfolding and needs to be corrected. You remark that Jordan doesn’t recognize the good developments which came with postmodernism, like the increased sensitivity to previously neglected viewpoints and ways of being. I agree, BUT: Why do we think that our understanding of the word “postmodernism” is universally agreed upon? It might just be a clash of terminology which seems to create differences where they might not be. And he certainly appreciates what has developed in terms of increased sensitivity towards Being which we connect with the word Post-Modernism, too. He doesn’t connect those two things as we integralists do. Right or wrong? Is it really important how we name things?

The Power of Words

In fact, Peterson is VERY sensitive to words. So when one of the interviewers of the clip in this analysis mentions the word “white supremacy”, he finds Peterson in complete rejection to even consider it. What if the interviewer had used less ideological colored language? I am sure there could have been a conversation about the topic.

 

Jeff, you seem to agree with “white supremacy” as a fact in our history. I guess you mean that our story unfolded as cultures in the West driven by people who happened to be white in skin color. This is no justification for agreeing with that term as it is loaded with presuppositions like: “white people are bad, they hold power and have created this horrible culture where everybody else is suppressed. They do bad things because they are white, while all others are better and need to be superior to them”. So if you use these words then you buy into the ideological game which in itself is deeply racist. Instead of helping to overcome racism, these terms and talking about them in the leftist way is CREATING a new racism and, at the end, deepening the one we have been overcoming as a society in a possible backlash.

The Danger of Backlash

Same thing with #Metoo. Starting out as a good thing it is in huge danger to play against women instead of helping them to find their place in public. The human psyche works still in the “old” ways, despite of all the beautiful developmental steps which we have done as humanity. Not even in “Integral” we are fully aware of our underlying psychological structures and drives which lead our decisions in life, every moment. I have mentioned that before: we still don’t know the waters in which we are swimming in terms of our individual conditioning, let alone of those on the humanity level.

 

Here I want to address what you said about us being in a different level of development today than we were at the beginning of the last century. This is true to a certain degree, but there is no evidence that we could not fall back into totalitarianism, into hate and wars with the blink of the eye. What makes you so confident that that can not happen? The totalitarian explosions on both sides, right AND left, are already spreading hate speech (although the leftist project the ”Hate Speech” on people they hate themselves). Strange that left extremism and violence is tolerated by us “developed” people to a far bigger degree than right extremism!

 

So when you say that Postmodernism is just a step in human development – which it is – that doesn’t mean that we should overlook the real danger which comes from there for our freedoms and democratic cultures. We shouldn’t excuse it as young people’s follies when they violently hinder people from speaking and build barriers. This happened in the 60ies and has brought us – at least in Germany – the beginning of restrictions in personal freedom in order to handle those who had become ideological terrorists.

Compelled Speech and intollerance

It is one thing if people ask you to do something which you don’t want to do and if you are compelled to do that by the reinforcement by laws. Peterson points out clearly that the changes in Canadian law can easily be used against those people who now seem to be the beneficiaries. When there is written in law that “biological gender, gender expression, sexual proclivity and choice” etc. are independent factors and vary at will. That would mean for instance that preferring men as sexual partners as a man is just a personal choice which could be different tomorrow. And if being gay legally is not bound to what you feel to be your deepest inner feeling of identity, everyone in power can just ask you to change and become bi-sexual or whatever. This is the real danger: who is interpreting these laws have the power over you?

 

So it is better not to write laws like that. The German disaster began with laws about how people should be or not be and how they should behave and speak. We don’t know how many people have survived when they refused to say “Heil Hitler”, not many, probably. And as I pointed out in part one: people who expressed their personality in terms of their ideas, of their skin color, their religion and their state of mental health could be attacked by any means, even with physical violence, without being protected by fellow citizens or the state powers. 

I was strongly reminded of that when listening to the debate at Queen’s  where protesters banged violently on the windows of the beautiful university hall for 2 hours and even breaking them. Who gives them the right to break objects which they don’t own and to tyrannise 900 people without being stopped by the forces of order? Only because they are lefties they can use violence against non-violent others while pretending to fight the violence of the far right? What a strange world we seem to live in today where tolerance is requested by those being themselves totally intolerant!

The center of gravity 

Another thing I want to bring up which seems crucial to me: Peterson, in my opinion, is not centered in traditionalism as you say. Yes, he helps people to develop healthy ways of living with other people, especially by guiding them to a healthy Blue which had been rejected as the basis of children’s education from the 70ies on and therefore has left a void in almost all of us who are living in the Western world now.

 

Peterson is a psychologist and he sees people with the eyes of someone who has deeply looked into the human soul and has understood where the lacks and needs reside. As I said before: only because we go through the stages of development a la Spiral Dynamics in a relatively short time, our souls have a different timing and hang behind, far more than we want to admit. As humanity we are still struggling with Blue – and surprisingly not only when struggling up from Red, but also when we somehow are already in those “higher levels”. We have all the voices struggling within us which were formed by both personal and collective history and experience.

 

Although we might believe to be an integrated person, we are not really. Maybe we have learned to navigate the inner competing voices, but we are far from not needing guidelines of how to live our lives in an ever more deep and comprehensive manner. With other words: we need meaning, we need religion in all stages of our development, we are not “above” religion as you, Jeff, mentioned. We might be above the past religious dogma, christian, jewish, islam or buddhist – and that would be a good idea to weed out the culture and time dependent components of those religions. But we need stories to guide our own lives wherever on the spiral we are.

The Biblical Lectures 

Here the Biblical Lectures of Jordan Peterson come in. In my eyes he is not promoting Christianity, or any other religion, as the solution for our problems. He is digging out the wisdom of these ancient stories from a psychological point of view. He recognizes in those stories the ancient predicaments of humans living their lives on this planet. And he points out that we, as humanity, are still confronted with exactly the same problems, sometimes in different disguises. That’s why listening to the lectures can help you appreciate the attempt of Christianity to help people finding meaning and inspiration in the midst of chaos and, yes, suffering.

We modern people, even integralists, have the tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially when addressing those old fashioned topics like religion which we believe to have overcome long time ago and substitute it by calling it “spirituality”. And we confuse the institution of any church with the content of the message. Dismissing Christianity which has driven our Western culture to the point where we are now, we dismiss ourselves as human beings who live, consciously or not, as the momentaneous last piece of a long chain of collective experience. We are grounded in our culture – as well as anybody else is in their culture – and we need to take good care of it, heal it where it is necessary but not allow that it gets dumped like a worthless sack of trash.

 

The stories which Jordan opens up to us with his psychological interpretation are deeply exposing human experience and that’s why so many people have these moments of recognition when they hear his explainations. It is this “AHA” when you feel you had already known all that, somehow, and now someone gives words to it so that you can understand it better. This is the same sort of recognition that some people experience when coming in contact with Integral Theory. Both “interpretations” of the world reveal a deeper truth which we humans recognise in us, probably due to our collective memory of which we are not aware most of the time – until someone comes along to open our eyes to it again. But this time it is not a memory of understanding, but a memory of experience.

Conclusion

Why do so few people understand Psychology? – Ignorance can create  disasters. How?

For instance: “Anti bias training” is now introduced and requested, by people who are super biased  themselves in a very restricted way and have no idea that “Bias” ist not equal to “bad”. Thank God we have certain biases! For instance for keeping save our children as opposed to mosquito populations.

There are psychological rules: For instance:  pressure imposed on us will create resistance which can be met either by fight, flight or freeze. In East Germany the pressure to not say or do certain things didn’t eradicate people’s thoughts and desire for freedom. So strange that these latest super leftist practices are proposed in the name of FREEDOM although it is common psychological knowledge that they lead into suppression and tyranny.

Peterson is doing great work of letting people know about their own psychology. He is not a philosopher, of which we already have more than enough. He knows the human psyche and he is a milestone on the way of people to finally get to know themselves a little better – especially before they come out with huge claims which contradict the human psyche and cannot but lead into  huge problems. With his help we might be able to avoid  in the future some of the disasters of today.

Jordan Peterson’s new book which arouses so much public recognition:12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

Jeff Salzman about Jordan Peterson – some considerations

This is an open letter to Jeff Salzman as a response to his analysis of Jordan Peterson on video at Integral Life

Hi Jeff,
We just listened to your first part on Jordan Peterson and I would like to chime in with a few thoughts.

Peterson-on-integral-life
Peterson-on-integral-life

First of all: I am happy that you took my suggestion of last summer to have a look into his work and I am very thankful that you talk about him and his appearance in public. It is really important to get him out of the corner of a “alt-right” person by which he is defamed sometimes.

Second of all: We have watched ALL his lectures on Personality, “Maps of Meaning” and the psychological interpretation of religious stories, and most of the interviews he has given. From there I want to add something to what you say.

Third of all: I truly do believe that Jordan is a thinker on the integral level and that he would hugely benefit of knowing the integral map. I actually have already written an email to him about that (when a distinction by the 4 quadrants would have resolved the seeming conflict in a conversation) and suggested a conversation with a Wilberian integral thinker, but I didn’t get any answer. I certainly understand that, as he has undergone a huge journey into visibility (and fan post) since we discovered him in October 16, a month after he did the videos you were talking about (which, btw, were NOT lectures, but just his private considerations which he recorded one night when he couldn’t sleep because of these thoughts, as he once said).

Jordan is well at home in Blue, Orange AND Green

Jordan was involved in environmentalist tasks for a while and he is well aware of the need of healthy green, but, as you said, he is not aware that this is the positive part of green. He concentrates on the pathologies and I am really glad that he does. As you might know, his main research interest was why these horrible things in Europe could happen in the last century, and propelled speech and the institutionalized equality of outcome were the main components which have led to the disaster. I am very grateful that he is pointing out this huge danger to the public and that he warns of the consequences of having these things written into law and that “special cases” can even be subtracted from the “normal” law system and given over to tribunals, as it is already written into law in Canada.

People might think that it is Jordan’s personal inclination to not use these “damn pronouns”, but it is much more than that! It is not just a personal choice, but the attempt to prevent the worst!

Stop it before it is too late!

I was grown in post-war Germany and my home town Coburg was the first which, already in 1926 or so, had a Nazi administration. Already hoards of loud young man could attack, verbally and even physically, the people they didn’t like without sanction and without many citizens standing up for freedom and personal rights of the attacked (mainly Jews, but not only, as every friend of the Jews was put into the same identity group open to be mistreated by people who had drunk Nazi ideology).

Similar things are happening now! 

I think you shouldn’t take it too lightly and really see the enormous consequences of the present tendencies to accommodate extremist ideology and to accept the fear and cowardice of most of the people who “hope for the best” but are enabling the rise of totalitarian power structures led by power driven individuals who have no respect for others.They are mainly pathological red masked as green.

Green has no idea about evil and dwells too much in “positivity”, blind to everything which doesn’t fit into the utopian picture. My awakening out of my green dreams of a good and benevolent world and people during the last 2 years where really very deeply devastating and freeing at the same time. It started before I knew Peterson, but he helped me to understand my illusions and why they had to crash in order for me to grow. It is a much deeper shadow work than I had done during the past 20 years because it was not only my personal shadow which needed to be addressed but our collective shadow as humans in this world.

You criticize Peterson’s good vs. evil position. I think he really is following the integral claim about meeting the people where they are. He is speaking to people from Blue to Green and all these stages definitely live in this polarity of knowing what is good and bad, according to their world view. So I think he is doing fine with simplifying his message into words and images which people can understand easily. I do think that he is very masterful in bringing the points across without too many “building up” explanations which intend to include everything and only after a long time come to the point – something I always get completely tired of when listening to Ken.

Spirituality: Jordan reports a few times that he has experienced deep spiritual openings that have made him understand the other reality, let’s say. His mission is to help people to live their lives better in this material reality, he is not interested in teaching them spirituality or religion.

Listening to his biblical lectures: I have understood that the Bible is not about religion although it has served to support Christianity. At that time people have interpreted it in a way that served them to construct a belief system and the Church. But because of that, it would be very shortsighted to dismiss it as “old and inadequate” for our times. When I was 14 and was “confirmed” in the Lutheran church, I decided that this is “not for me” and dismissed everything connected with the Bible, until last year, when I heard Jordan extrapolating the meaning of these stories in such a way that I could deeply relate to them and I felt reconciled with Christianity – although I still think that it is obsolete as an institution, but not as a philosophy and way of life.

I understand now that the Bible is a collection of stories which were able to transmit deep human truths in pictures, things which we now can name in psychology, biology, sociology etc., but for which were no direct words then.

Jordan explains that art and music, and especially stories being told, conceive the emerging truth long before it is visible, and they tell the story of humanity. He makes a clear case that contemporary stories and films like Harry Potter or Pinocchio have the very same function as the Bible: acting out and making visible archetypical human experience and wisdom. So why dismiss biblical stories while watching films? You love the Matrix. Same function!

Long story short: Peterson was as important for me, my insights and my development, as was Wilber more than 20 years ago. I am very grateful for that. And I am glad that he slowly is integrated in the “integral community” as someone to take into consideration. I would love to see a conversation between you, Jordan and Eugene Pustoshkin (as he is also a psychologist) and I wonder if you and Integral Life could arrange that for the fall, when all this excitement about the book has calmed down a little?

Btw: his new book is only new in terms of publication which happened this winter, mainly by chance. He said that it was distilled from answers he had given on Quora many years ago and that he was putting it into a book for the past 3 or 4 years. Serendipity!

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

Photos: Used for educational purpose. No copyright infringement intended.

Why I don’t give money to Wikipedia anymore

Last week I got a mail from Wikipedia where they asked me to send them, again, some money. I appreciate Wikipedia in many ways, but here is why I don’t send them more money.

I wrote to Wikipedia to let them know WHY I won’t send money. I got an answer to my letter in which they talk about the volunteers who contribute and edit the entries and that practically everyone of us can contribute. Yes and NO!

Here my final answer where I highlight some entries which are problematic in my opinion. “Independent board” (independent of WHOM?) is not the same as a “non-biased board”!

I wrote:

You write: “Wikipedia volunteers are strongly focused on the editorial values of non-censorship, neutrality, verifiability”, It sounds great, and that is simply not true. Who are these independent people? The scientists in the board who are known to be strongly defending the current paradigm of an material worldview and the official stories given by the official institutions?

Some examples:
Dr. Judy Wood has researched in depth, using her scientific knowledge as a (formerly) respected professor to show that the official story of 9/11 is false. She even sued the official report as scientific fraud. Well, many people tried to insert her to Wikipedia. WHERE IS SHE? Wikipedia is supporting the forces which are protecting their power and their lies, while honest dedicated people are either not mentioned or the articles on them are highly biased by giving the summary that, actually, they are all wrong or somehow weird.
 
It took many years until Ken Wilber was represented properly in Wikipedia. I witnessed the innumerable attempts of friends very literate in his work, to change the previous entries which had put him into the “new-age-fancy-stuff” edge. This has changed, thanks God. 

 

The Roswell UFO incident: You still present an interpretation of this incident which has been proclaimed as true by the military. If you, at least, could take off the suggestion that these explanations of the military are true. If at least you could speak also about the masses of documents and testimonies which tell another story! 

My conclusion:
Your decision board is deeply biased in helping those who want to hide the truth from the people and is colluding with the psychological warfare they are using against us normal people in not wanting us to know what really happens.
 
My suggestion: Allow serious people whose ideas are more advanced to sit in your boards and become a less protective institution focused on the old paradigm: Allow new findings and ideas to be listed, without negative or positive comments, just in a neutral way. Allow people to think themselves when they can get the facts.
 
In the present way of your data, unfortunately, you are judging and you are biased towards certain opinions and convictions.
 
That’s why I don’t send you money anymore, although, all together, you are doing great work. With Jordan Petersons words: “Clean your own room” before you can have a really positive impact.
 
Thanks for listening – and hopefully it will inspire your organisation to have a deeper look on itself.
 
Adelheid in Italy
(Searcher for the truth)
For you, reader of the blog, I would like to add:
Read the book of Dr. Judy Wood “Where Did The Towers Go?” (http://amzn.to/2Emdrqc) as I did. If you have a logical and scientific understanding and if you are willing to see the truth you cannot deny the evidence. I warn you, it is hard to digest and your view about the goodness of governments and other institutions will be shattered. But in my experience:
Truth sets free!

Open letter to Robb Smith and Integral Life

Integral Life had organised a big conference last weekend in Colorado/USA where people from all over the world could participate via live streaming. That’s what we did and there were some things I wanted to bring to the awareness of the Integral Community which are of concern to me.

For who doesn’t know what “Integral” is: A short introduction by Jeff Salzman in our Wisdom Factory HERE

My open letter:

Hi Robb,

Heidi here from Italy with some feedback to and considerations of the conference. First of all: THANK YOU! It was great to be able to attend from Europe via Live Streaming – one of the miracles of modern technology for which I am very grateful.

 

There was a lot of interesting content offered by many competent and interesting people, I enjoyed it greatly, even at 3 am in the morning! I especially appreciated Helen Palmer and her reminder to not be attached to what we believe what we are and what we think is right or wrong as seen by the filters of our unconscious conditioning.

We see reality through our unconscious conditioning

In the light of Helen’s talk I want to send you some of my observations: I noticed in you a strong bias to not take into account the possibility that things could be different than we have seen them so far. In a true integral setting I would love to see openness to look into those things we “traditionally” considered not valid.

Specifically I am talking about a question from the audience about Wikileaks and conspiracy theories. You quickly swept it from the table together with laughing at the topic of “extraterrestrials” as science fiction, invented for movies for popular amusement – or, if you see it from a different perspective. for instilling fear and an unconscious bias in favor of the idea of threats coming from the universe towards us on earth. And this as a justification to increase our military force.

 

Do you believe in the power of science to reveal the truth through facts?

REAL science which tries to falsify the hypothesis instead of trying to find a few good arguments for an already existing idea? (as you defined good science in the conference). If so I suggest that you read Dr.Judy Wood’s “Where did the Towers go?” And then, please, give a new response regarding “conspiracy theories”. What you find in this book is pure scientific physical evidence which defies all the official stories about 9/11 and also the counter-conspiracy movements which, themselves, where undermined by forces which didn’t want the TRUTH to be known. The book is an extended forensic study of what has been found – or not found – in connection with 9/11 and you will ask yourself: “How could I believe in the stories”, what so many of us did: preferring to keep the eyes closed and to stay attached to our fundamental belief in the goodness of the world and, especially, in the US Government.

People fear to lose their attachments and don’t want to look at what reality is.

Lately, we showed the movie “Unacknowledged” to a group of expats here in Italy and it came out that we Europeans had no problem giving credence to what the disclosed documents were saying. The Americans among us just didn’t want their belief in their government and country to be compromised. Conscious or unconscious bias?

The movie shows declassified documents about UFOs. Yes, they exist, there is a mass of evidence, and only a few days ago many thousands of documents were officially disclosed around the topic of Extraterrestrials, even mainstream media talked about it. With some probability, though,  this is a new move towards fostering the belief about a  threat from outer space with the hope of “uniting humanity” against a common but constructed enemy, in order to begin a war and justify the crazy increase in military expenses to the benefit of a few psychopaths, reminiscent of the “weapons of mass destruction”.

And again at the cost of a huge number of people, if not of all humanity this time. What the USA did to its own people on 9/11 to justify a war (a very ancient strategy btw.) is absolutely appalling, horrible and unjustifiable. The fact that people still believe in the airplane story is only understandable from a psychological perspective and is deliberately ignoring evidence and “common sense” in order to protect old beliefs from where we draw our feeling of security.

Yes, we need to focus on the positive and to give our power to that. But we also need to not be blind to what reality is in this world of samsara.

POWER

Robb, you showed a chart about the power in the various stages and its expression. This is fine. BUT WHERE IS THE ABUSE OF POWER DISCUSSED? And what we can do to stop it? In the 30ies so many people in Germany didn’t believe in what was about to come – despite all evidence. We are in the same situation today. We don’t want to see the evidence for what is really going on and prefer to wrap our minds around Trump vs. Hillary. This is a huge error and limitation which i see expressed even with we people who believe to be at the cutting edge of development.

This is very much preoccupying to me as a German woman of the post-war generation. If WE laugh about things which the psychological warfare of the past 70 years has so thoroughly prepared us to do – who else can have enough perspective to really look behind the scenes and see from a broader point of view?

BTW, Hitler’s specialists in psychological warfare have been employed by the US military and the Hollywood films about Ufos are part of their strategy.

 

My wish for Integral Life and further events would be to include those topics which are very important to address in the light of co-creating a better future. I also wish the community to become more “integral” in many ways which it is definitely not (yet).

If the main perspective is still “masculine” as expressed in the numbers of male vs. female presenters and in the structure of the setting of the event as well as in the featured topics of this conference about technology etc. then, please, consider to embrace science fully and look for those who are dismissed for doing science that threatens the official narrative – or are silenced and even killed when it comes to fields like free energy. The list of victims of doing “unwanted” science is long! Dr.Judy Wood is one of many who lost their job because they discovered the truth behind the official stories.But, at least, she is still alive probably due to the existence of the internet which makes it much more difficult to just eliminate uncomfortable people.

Integral needs to take a stand here!

With gratitude, appreciation, love and hope

Heidi

What ZEITGEIST?

A friend recommended to me that I watch the movie “Zeitgeist” – and that’s why I feel the need to write about it. Just to let you know right away: as useful as it might be in some people’s eyes, – and maybe 10 years ago it was somewhat useful – it is a perfect  expression of the “green meme”, attempting to spread information but not noticing its own strong bias in doing so. (Note: My article is based on the evolution of consciousness as outlined by Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics)

So let’s go through the chapters:

The dismissal of Christianity

The first part of the movie is a rant on religion, on CHRISTIANITY alone and in the common “Green” way of thinking: everything in ancient times was right and better. This is the first fundamental error of the authors of the film, and the second one reveals their total ignorance about the nature and purpose of religions. At length we hear that Christianity has “copied and pasted” the stories from previous civilizations. So what? YES, the underlying archetypes from the very beginning onward have developed according to the human experience on earth – and there is not much difference anywhere in the world. The outer expression might be different, but the inner experience is very much the same for all humans: fear, love, anger, all emotions which lead to specific behaviors like caring for children or murdering someone who doesn’t belong to the group.

Thank God, the power of somewhat institutionalized religions was able to tame the brutal force and power of individuals and thus allowed the survival of the species “homo sapiens”. This was the task of religions at a certain level of our development. It still would be a useful resource albeit in a positively transformed way for our advanced civilizations, while in its traditional form it would be very necessary in all those regions of the world which are still dominated by tribalism and egocentric violence. Christianity is the only religion which talks about love and service to others, so it would be the right sort of religion in our violent world.

In case you are caught within the idea that all religion is rubbish and Christianity especially: I can understand that, I was there too, when I exchanged Christianity for the “belief” in Science which, unfortunately, more often than not is just a disguised form of religion which has thrown out the window the ethical-moral component, and history altogether, to the detriment of the world. (If you want to learn about the wisdom of the archetypal stories transmitted in the Bible, do watch the “Biblical Story Series” by Dr. Jordan Peterson).

The achievements of Christianity for the world

So much for the statement of the movie that all evil comes from Christianity. No, it doesn’t! All good comes from there, it has allowed the Good, the True and the Beautiful to develop into what the Western world has become. Do you really expect that reality can be reduced to ONLY GOOD?  In a world based in duality you cannot have the one without the other, the good without the bad. And when you throw the baby out with the bathwater only because not everything was good during the times when Christianity was dominant in our world, then you are part of the destructive forces which pursue the idea of perfectionism and demolish everything which is not perfect. That, inevitably, leads to total destruction of what evolution has created in such a long time and with such a tremendous effort in going ahead and finding a practical way.

Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem! And the movie, unfortunately, is part of the problem and doesn’t offer a pathway to solutions.

The second part of the movie:

The destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Also here: what is intended as “good” by debunking the official story ends up by increasing the confusion and manipulation of beliefs. Too bad.

The movie makers doubt that a fire caused by airplane fuel can bring down these huge buildings. Right. We use Kerosene for heating our houses and we are glad that the Kerosene (which is used by airplane engines) doesn’t melt our furnace. So the story of the fires bringing down thousands of tons of iron and steel is just incredibly stupid and everyone would understand that it is not possible if they hadn’t been indoctrinated to NOT seeing what was really going on.

And here the legitimacy of the movie ends:

Further down the road it is bringing up ideas, suggesting connections and causes. It assumes that certain things happened or did not happen, but they don’t offer any trustworthy evidence. The authors accuse the state officials of manipulation and of hiding the real stories, yes, I agree. But the filmmakers themselves use the same means: manipulation and persuasion of those who watch. The audience is  pressed into believing an unfounded conspiracy theory. Without solid proof for what you state you only increase the confusion – and actually the fear of the people who, in consequence, can see now all sorts of mean forces around them. Is this the real reason for the film? To help manipulate the “advanced” people into being fearful sheep when they find the movie in search of different explanations? I hope not, but the way the movie is made actually allows this suspicion to arise.

Steven Jones and Cold Fusion.

The film shows a short clip with Steven Jones, who became famous for his “proof” of “controlled demolition” of the World Trade Center. He obviously is one of the most manipulative and evil forces in the whole story – and not only here.

How many of you know that he forced a decision-making panel of scientist to break the neck of honest scientists (Fleischman and Pons) who had discovered what was called “cold fusion”? They were not only ridiculed, but…. Like many other people working in the field of “Free Energy” they were menaced and their careers destroyed. They were fortunate enough to not be killed like many other lesser known pioneers in the field.

Only 20 years later finally “Cold Fusion” was admitted to be REAL – and even has an entry in Wikipedia, Oh wonder! But still this is not a topic which is allowed to be publicly discussed or researched. I just heard that a scientist in Naples, Italy, who had discovered cold fusion with his team had to disappear from the world and his traces are lost. ( I cannot prove this, but I wouldn’t be surprised that the suppression of people who know how to create free energy is a worldwide phenomena.)

Steven Jones knew perfectly well that the World Trade Center was not tumbled down to earth by thermite but pulverised into dust – by the abuse of what is called COLD FUSION (or a similar free energy phenomenon), the existence of which he had so eagerly fought against with unethical means. And this person is presented as an expert in the movie! This makes me doubt the legitimacy of the other sources brought forth.

Where Did The Towers Go?

In the same year as the movie, a comprehensive scientific study about 9/11 came out which thoroughly contradicts all the given stories, including those stated in the movie, by pure scientific research on what really happened – or better on what did NOT happen. The book by Dr.Judy Wood: “Where Did The Towers Go?”  shows the impossibility of what is told in the stories by watching closely and drawing logical conclusions, not just unfounded ideas like everywhere else. How come that nobody knows about that book and the talks Dr. Wood has given? How come that only few institutions invite her to talk? Why do people prefer to jump on the train of easy stories and blaming without knowing the facts?

That’s why I think that the movie is really not helpful in bringing the truth to the world, but it is another means to obscure the facts and fill people with fake news and fears.

The third part of the movie: Money and Bankers

This last part of the film is about the money system, the corruption and greed and all of that. I don’t want to go deeply into that, I am for sure not an expert in economics. But I do believe that much of what is said is true.

But again:

Why do you show that with all the vehemence of accusation so extensively in the video? To totally destroy people’s trust in their countries, in their lives, in their possibilities to lead a meaningful life? This is definitely not a good idea.

This movie is promoting victimism.

THEY” are doing all the bad things to “US” who are poor and have no power. This is not a helpful message at all!

Show ideas and pathways that people can do in their private life and in their communities to create a better world!

Big silence about that in the movie – which increases my suspicion that its intent is to collaborate with those forces they seemingly are blaming, that they are contributing to the problem instead of becoming a part of the solution.

Conclusion:

Movies which try to bring more truth and facts to the broad public are needed and helpful. If a movie really contributes to find solutions to the problem or if it is just increasing the negative state of mind of the audience depends on the knowledge, wisdom and integrity of the originators and producers. Still, in the “Zeitgeist” of our present time, you can make more money with negative excitement and fear than with truth and facts. No wonder that this film is using the old methods under a new and seemingly righteous banner. Too bad.

So what is the solution? – Maybe the only solution?

  • Each of us has to check in with ourselves and discover our tendency to avoid, to press the easy button, to believe sensational news and to not dig deeper to find out what is really going on.
  • We have the responsibility, everyone of us, to grow out of our limited patterns of thought and behavior and to stand up for the truth as we perceive it by deep introspection.
  • We might be wrong sometimes. Then we need the courage to course-correct and, again, not to hide behind a facade and lose our integrity.

It is NOT the bad society or the bad bankers or whoever does evil to us. We ourselves are part of the evil and promote it when we haven’t seen inside ourselves our own proclivity for evil – alongside with all the beautiful traits. Society is built by people like you and me. And every society is a reflection of single people forming it.

DON’T EXPECT SOCIETY TO CHANGE! Change yourself and you will change your society! Clean up your own “house” before you break down the one which “others” have spoiled!

PS: The featured image was taken as a screenshot of a moment in the youtube video  of a presentation by Dr. Judy Wood