Jun 5, 2013

The Lightning Bolt of Compassion


A brief ‘Prayer that Spontaneously Fulfils All Wishes’ (Sampa Lhundrupma) byTerton Jalu Dorje (Do Khyentse)

EMAHO!
O Guru Rinpoche, in your glory you embody Buddha, Dharma and Sangha,
Lama, Yidam and Khandro and all the Sugatas,
The sole refuge of beings who are without protection in this Dark Age.
Your compassion is as swift as lightning To treng Tsal
Maha Guru – wrathful Padma Heruka,
With fervent longing and devotion we pray to you:
Avert enemies, dons, obstructing forces, obstacle-makers, curses and spells,
Bring all negative forces, Gyalpo, Senmo and Jungpo demons under your subjugation
Grant your blessings so that all our wishes be spontaneously fulfilled.

May 20, 2013

Nama Amida Butsu

Always the silences push their searching
Whose eye the least star or flower is.
Always, locked and singing in the bone,
Shine the clean eyes of the tiger and the rose.
Stars only are driven through your hands.
The eyes of my people are always upon you.

How like a woman the earth is,
And how like a man the slim  green shoots,
How proud.
Without the breaking of the earth and water
There would be no shoots,
Without the breaking of the shoots, no earth,
But while they break, how the eyes of the tiger shine,
Lilies locked and singing in the bone.
The eyes of my people are always upon you.

The brilliant horses of the morning shake their clammy harness,
I see them  stamp their shining feet on the crystal floor of morning.
Bone, star, and lily locked and singing,
The armies of light hurl their lances on the green land.
The eyes of my people are always upon you.

Apr 18, 2013

News is bad for you

http://boingboing.net/2013/04/17/news-is-bad-for-you-an.html

News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier. News is bad for your health. It leads to fear and aggression, and hinders your creativity and ability to think deeply. The solution? Stop consuming it altogether

The Guardian, Friday 12 April 2013 15.00 EDT

Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life, asks Rolf Dobelli.

In the past few decades, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of living with an overabundance of food (obesity, diabetes) and have started to change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body. News is easy to digest. The media feeds us small bites of trivial matter, tidbits that don't really concern our lives and don't require thinking. That's why we experience almost no saturation. Unlike reading books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow limitless quantities of news flashes, which are bright-coloured candies for the mind. Today, we have reached the same point in relation to information that we faced 20 years ago in regard to food. We are beginning to recognise how toxic news can be.

News misleads. Take the following event (borrowed from Nassim Taleb). A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. What's relevant? The structural stability of the bridge. That's the underlying risk that has been lurking, and could lurk in other bridges. But the car is flashy, it's dramatic, it's a person (non-abstract), and it's news that's cheap to produce. News leads us to walk around with the completely wrong risk map in our heads. So terrorism is over-rated. Chronic stress is under-rated. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is overrated. Fiscal irresponsibility is under-rated. Astronauts are over-rated. Nurses are under-rated.

We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press. Watching an airplane crash on television is going to change your attitude toward that risk, regardless of its real probability. If you think you can compensate with the strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong. Bankers and economists – who have powerful incentives to compensate for news-borne hazards – have shown that they cannot. The only solution: cut yourself off from news consumption entirely.

News is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. The point is: the consumption of news is irrelevant to you. But people find it very difficult to recognise what's relevant. It's much easier to recognise what's new. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental battle of the current age. Media organisations want you to believe that news offers you some sort of a competitive advantage. Many fall for that. We get anxious when we're cut off from the flow of news. In reality, news consumption is a competitive disadvantage. The less news you consume, the bigger the advantage you have.

News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of a deeper world. Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The important stories are non-stories: slow, powerful movements that develop below journalists' radar but have a transforming effect. The more "news factoids" you digest, the less of the big picture you will understand. If more information leads to higher economic success, we'd expect journalists to be at the top of the pyramid. That's not the case.

News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.

News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: "What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact." News exacerbates this flaw. We become prone to overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Our brains crave stories that "make sense" – even if they don't correspond to reality. Any journalist who writes, "The market moved because of X" or "the company went bankrupt because of Y" is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of "explaining" the world.

News inhibits thinking. Thinking requires concentration. Concentration requires uninterrupted time. News pieces are specifically engineered to interrupt you. They are like viruses that steal attention for their own purposes. News makes us shallow thinkers. But it's worse than that. News severely affects memory. There are two types of memory. Long-range memory's capacity is nearly infinite, but working memory is limited to a certain amount of slippery data. The path from short-term to long-term memory is a choke-point in the brain, but anything you want to understand must pass through it. If this passageway is disrupted, nothing gets through. Because news disrupts concentration, it weakens comprehension. Online news has an even worse impact. In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases. Why? Because whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which in itself is distracting. News is an intentional interruption system.

News works like a drug. As stories develop, we want to know how they continue. With hundreds of arbitrary storylines in our heads, this craving is increasingly compelling and hard to ignore. Scientists used to think that the dense connections formed among the 100 billion neurons inside our skulls were largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. Today we know that this is not the case. Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. The more news we consume, the more we exercise the neural circuits devoted to skimming and multitasking while ignoring those used for reading deeply and thinking with profound focus. Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed.

News wastes time. If you read the newspaper for 15 minutes each morning, then check the news for 15 minutes during lunch and 15 minutes before you go to bed, then add five minutes here and there when you're at work, then count distraction and refocusing time, you will lose at least half a day every week. Information is no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is. You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health. Why give away your mind?

News makes us passive. News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. The daily repetition of news about things we can't act upon makes us passive. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is "learned helplessness". It's a bit of a stretch, but I would not be surprised if news consumption, at least partially contributes to the widespread disease of depression.

News kills creativity. Finally, things we already know limit our creativity. This is one reason that mathematicians, novelists, composers and entrepreneurs often produce their most creative works at a young age. Their brains enjoy a wide, uninhabited space that emboldens them to come up with and pursue novel ideas. I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs. If you want to come up with old solutions, read news. If you are looking for new solutions, don't.

Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too.

I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.

This is an edited extract from an essay first published at dobelli.com. The Art of Thinking Clearly: Better Thinking, Better Decisions by Rolf Dobelli is published by Sceptre, £9.99. Buy it for £7.99 at guardianbookshop.co.uk

Apr 11, 2013

Winner takes all

“Far from giving you a blueprint for your rise to the top, these routines will probably cause you to reconsider the whole idea of becoming CEO of a major communications conglomerate. For the most part, it sounds horrible. There is no respite at the top of the greasy pole, no finish line at the end of the rat race – it's just more of the same. What's the point of being rich and successful if you have to get up before dawn every day to answer 500 emails? There are so many other options open to you: wage slave, failed artist, cowboy plumber, petty thief, local weirdo. The money isn't good, but the hours are very attractive.” 

Guardian, 4/2/13

As demonstrated in the Cyprus situation, where the solution, of simply seizing everyone's bank accounts, in the national interest, of course, of course, has now been admitted to be the long planned blueprint for future action.  The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Finance Minister), is surely only one of many to be licking his lips at the prospect.

The main bludgeon being used is that Derivatives, (Bank gambles on future movements) and their associated Credit Default Swaps have super priority over all other creditors; they take what the banks demand as their cut (all of it) and all other creditors, (like the poor slobs who put their money in the bank) count as 'unsecured creditors' and get - you guessed it - nothing, except shares in the new bank.

The following is a short excerpt from a piece by Ellen Brown in CounterPunch of April 10, 2013 on possible alternative actions:

Putting the Brakes on the Wall Street End Game


Besides eliminating the super-priority of derivatives, here are some other ways to block the Wall Street asset grab:

(1) Restore the Glass-Steagall Act separating depository banking from investment banking. Support Marcy Kaptur’s H.R. 129.

(2) Break up the giant derivatives banks. Support Bernie Sanders’ “too big to jail” legislation.

(3) Alternatively, nationalize the TBTFs, as advised in the New York Times by Gar Alperovitz. If taxpayer bailouts to save the TBTFs are unacceptable, depositor bailouts are even more unacceptable.

(4) Make derivatives illegal, as they were between 1936 and 1982 under the Commodities Exchange Act. They can be unwound by simply netting them out, declaring them null and void. As noted by Paul Craig Roberts, “the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system.”

(5) Support the Harkin-Whitehouse bill to impose a financial transactions tax on Wall Street trading. Among other uses, a tax on all trades might supplement the FDIC insurance fund to cover another derivatives disaster.

(5) Establish postal savings banks as government-guaranteed depositories for individual savings. Many countries have public savings banks, which became particularly popular after savings in private banks were wiped out in the banking crisis of the late 1990s.

(6) Establish publicly-owned banks to be depositories of public monies, following the lead of North Dakota, the only state to completely escape the 2008 banking crisis. North Dakota does not keep its revenues in Wall Street banks but deposits them in the state-owned Bank of North Dakota by law. The bank has a mandate to serve the public, and it does not gamble in derivatives.

Ellen Brown on Counterpunch, Winner Takes All, April 10, 2013

ELLEN BROWN is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private banking oligarchy has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com,
http://EllenBrown.com, and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Mar 24, 2013

Angela Merkel - the view from Italy





Angela Merkel's desk is dominated by a portrait of Catherine II, the great German tsarina who began a written correspondence with Voltaire. Every now and then, even the German chancellor takes a break from economic relations and political advisors and gives herself some time to reflect. To this end, she occasionally brings together a few writers and academics, specialising in radically different disciplines and simply listens. Last summer, during one of these dinners, she was asked how long she would carry on demanding sacrifices from Greece. "As long as the bags under Papandreou's eyes are smaller than mine," she replied.

Regularly crowned the most powerful woman in the world in international surveys, Merkel is aware that, after her rapid ascent to become not only the first female chancellor, but also the youngest in German history, the euro crisis will be her most critical test. It is that which will determine whether Helmut Kohl's former pupil is worthy of a place in the history books, and whether or not it is adorned with flattering adjectives.

However, the future of the single currency also depends on whether Germany can maintain its leadership role in Europe. Inevitably, it has provoked distrust in the rest of the continent: in which the chancellor's costly dilly-dallying during the debt crisis, led to remarks about a third world war in the British press. Even the new stability agreement, which has been subject to rigorous German accounting, incites fears that Europe is strangling its own growth potential.

In 1990, it was Kohl who discovered the woman he called "the girl". Then a 36-year-old physics researcher, she had grown up behind the iron curtain, wore enormous skirts and sported the haircut of a medieval knight. Within a few months the chancellor had catapulted her to the top of federal politics. There, she soon showed herself to have a great capacity for diplomacy and to be an unusually fast learner. As the daughter of a protestant minister, she took advantage of the fact that parties such as the CDU/CSU were almost entirely dominated by men who underestimated her.

It is common knowledge that, on her road to victory, she even pushed aside her mentor in 2000, when she called upon the party – then crushed by allegations it had obtained illicit funds – to liberate itself from the "Father of Reunification". But from 2005, when she took over the top job, Merkel has shown herself capable of being at the helm of a country that, since its entry into the euro, has lost the only symbol of power granted to it since the second world war: the deutschmark.

The chancellor's habit of letting reason triumph over visionary impulses and Kohl-type breakaways is clear to see. It may possibly owe something to the after-effects of a motor problem in her legs, which forced her since childhood to plan the smallest of manoeuvres in advance. And, as she has herself declared, the experience of living under a communist dictatorship in East Germany has above all taught her to distrust everyone. This distrust, in turn, has fed into her proverbial caution and pragmatic approach towards European politics.

A positive side to this pragmatism is shown in her attitude towards the European Central Bank and its extraordinary transactions – which more orthodox Germans continue to brand a violation of the treaties. The chancellor, however, is well aware it continues to be the only bulwark against an escalation of the crisis.

And when Axel Weber, a candidate for the German presidency, unexpectedly withdrew from the contest in protest against the bank's new functions, Merkel backed the installation of the Italian Mario Draghi as its new head.

The accession of the other "super Mario" – Monti, in Italy, which has served to bring that country more closely into the fold – has proved something of a relief for Merkel. Even the former head of the EU's antitrust body recently admitted that Merkel's mission is to "make Italians more similar to Germans". Who knows if she will succeed. And, above all, who knows if the Germans will then like us more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/25/angela-merkel-italy-profile








Mar 11, 2013

Some little known facts about women


For Internationsl Women's Day

Women are half of world population, and put in two thirds of the working hours.

Women receive ten per cent of the wages and salaries, and own less than one per cent of the property.

Mar 4, 2013

Notes from oblivion


Notes from oblivion

Well, ‘Death sentence’ is putting it rather harshly, I guess, tho’ it happens to be quite true; kinder to say that human civilization has been found wanting as an appropriate steward and is therefore gently removed by the judge from whom there is no appeal, Mother Earth herself.

Feel any better?

No one owns the earth, she is too old. She owns us. From her we come, and to her we return.

Meanwhile, a little comparative sociology, or study of cultures, might be appropriate.

I pray to Mercury, god of thieves, also known as Hermes Psychopompos, conductor of the dead. All prayers are answered but sometimes the answer is No.

The streams of methane bubbles erupting copiously off the Siberian Peninsula in Russia, and also in the western European Arctic, as the permafrost melts, where all this methane has been frozen for thousands of years, do signal an important shift in stewardship, however. We really didn’t cut it, with all those circuses and no bread.

Hermes? Mercury? What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

Well, it’s pretty simple, actually. Thor, the thunderer, Zeus, Jupiter, the lord of hosts, they’re all models of the Thug, a fearsome figure in warm and comfortable climes where the living is easy and the women plentiful. Living in the frozen North is very different.

To understand the difference read a short story by Jack London, written with all his usual skill, ‘To light a fire.’ It’s only a few pages.

Once you’ve done that, you know without thinking about it why Hermes is now that speeding figure in winged helmet and winged sandals delivering long stemmed roses for Valentine’s Day. And why Odin himself, an old one eyed guy in a slouch hat, and Vili (Thought) and Ve (Memory) rule our icy world.

The Thug is no use in the frozen North, a permanent liability, in fact. But the guy who knows a thing or two, has some special knowledge, aha, yes!

[It’s worth mentioning, perhaps, that Uncle Sam might wonder if a white hat after all those black hats might not be a great idea.

Generations of schoolboys know, from lighting each others farts, that methane is highly flammable. Throw in Halliburton, and KBR, (and Red Whatsisname who put out the burning oilwells in Iraq)under a declared state of emergency, and start the factories mass producing flame throwers. With any luck the ascending streams of bubbles of methane could catch fire, the flames rising ever higher to burn the methane off.

A possibility, but not a very strong likelihood.]

Northerners, Scandinavians and such, tend to be scornful of Thor, the Thug, his defeat in the wrestling match against the old woman in the hall of the ice giants seen as the fate of the arrogant. That the old woman turned out to be old age, which nothing and no one defeats, is not really relevant.

But did not the poet say we must learn to laugh and to grow roses in the black stones of the meeting halls? Why not long stemmed at $25 a pop for Valentine’s? Life affirming, and they look good.

‘C’est toi, hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon frère.’

The Buddha does not strike one as a very bright guy compared to, say, Thomas Aquinas. The main reaction to any of his really illuminating statements is to clutch one’s forehead and say “My God! He’s right! It’s obvious! How come I never noticed that?” The answer is that like everybody else you didn’t start with an ingrained experience of normality, but got dropped straight into this sewer where you spend the rest of your days.

A reasonable example is his instruction to spend a year without opening your mouth, just doing your chores. At the end of the year, said the blessed Siddhartha Gautama, “You will know that there is nothing to ask, and there is no one to answer.” Indeed.

The Turks, much feared for their savagery in battle, are responsible, by the way, for a number of things we now see as distinguishing marks of Islam. Mohammed (PBUH), a junior member of a good merchant family, started life as a program manager for a company owned by a woman rather older than he was, who eventually proposed marriage to him, and he accepted. This should warn us his world was not what we’d now call Islamic.

It was the Ottoman Turks who had the custom of “hareem,” and the sultan used to wander in, when fancy took him, to the separate palace where he kept all his nookie guarded by large guys with important items of equipment removed. He might actually tell one to report for duty that night, an almost unbearable honor, but probably he’d look at a few with interest and exchange a few words. Persons thus honored got to wear a badge saying “smiled at by the sultan” and the others had to kiss their butts and make their tea and so forth.

These Turkish customs became the model of correct behavior during the hundreds of years the sultans were the head of Islam, right down to the remote and dusty province at the extreme limit of their empire called Arabia. Those in between not quite wealthy enough to afford a separate establishment and eunuchs for guards tended to adopt the Syrian habit of sticking a bag over their head if they went out, and forbidding by law contact with any male except relatives.

Still, most life went on inside, of course, and the typical Damascus house, all blank stone walls from the outside, looks terrific on the inside, all fountains, and gardens, and balconies.

Your typical bedu would be convinced you were deranged if you suggested any such thing to him, of course. “Who the hell’s going to look after the goats?” If you think the women spend all day inside the tent painting their toe nails while the lads get the work done and haul in the tucker for them, you’ve never been in a large family.

Dec 8, 2012

Envoi


"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics. You are all stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded.
Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time.

They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode. So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today." --Lawrence M. Krauss


Nov 17, 2012

Arc of a diver, effortlessly...


“Arc of a diver, effortlessly... ”

Old age, said General de Gaulle, had nothing good to be said about it. The catalogue of disasters and humiliations waiting for you at the end of your rainbow arc across the light is even more detailed in the Bible: "When your are young you will gird your loins and go wherever you want, but when you are old another shall gird your loins and take you where you would not go." "Praise therefore your creator in the days of your youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh when you will say 'I have no pleasure in them.'"

(Pretty grim, huh? What advice can we offer? Only that in the Ballad of John and Yoko, "Last night the wife said Oh boy when you're dead You don't take nothing with you but your soul."

Keep your soul in good shape, all else is shadows, and it's the only thing to go with you when you go, like a suitcase packed and ready.)


Not only do the old revert to being like babies in many ways, they also return to the animal nature and outlook of young babies. They become more sensitive to weather, to air, to other living beings in the largely unknown jungle around them. The whole process might be described as a multi colored rainbow over the light of the fire as we come out of the darkness, fly a short time across the light, and then plunge back into the darkness, with the first ten per cent and the last ten per cent of the rainbow being mirror images in reverse of each other.

The immediate question that arises in contemplating this spectacle of human existence is "Is there any point, any reason, any logic, any purpose, to this process? What's the point of the whole thing?" Well, for those like Buddhists who think the purpose of your existence (in the process of achieving, as the Lotus Sutra says, "To enjoy yourself at ease," which is why you were born) is exactly that the trials and tribulations and battles of this life are the purpose of your existence, they are what build your character, making you what you are, leading you on the path of Buddhahood. Enjoy it! say the Buddhists.

“In the "Ongi Kuden" (Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings), the Daishonin says, "One should regard meeting obstacles as true peace and comfort" (Gosho Zenshu, p. 750). You may wonder how encountering obstacles could be a source of peace and comfort. But the truth of the matter is that through struggling against and overcoming difficulties, we can transform our destiny and attain Buddhahood. Confronting adversity, therefore, represents peace and comfort.” (President Ikeda's Guidance for Aug 14.)

Indeed Buddhists tend to be much happier confronting adversity. (For those who think of Buddhists as wimpy tree huggers, remember all the martial arts were invented by Buddhist monks forbidden to carry weapons by the local warlords. The martial arts remain. The warlords are long forgotten. So it goes.)

“The German author Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) writes that the more one matures, the younger one grows. And certainly there are many people who, as they age, become increasingly vigorous and energetic, more broad-minded and tolerant, living with a greater sense of freedom and assurance. It is important to remember that aging and growing old are not necessarily the same thing.” (President Ikeda’s Guidance.)

So when the body is shoveled back into the waiting arms of Mother Earth, the corpse of the enlightened one is somehow better quality cardboard than other corpses? Pretty much, yeah. ("Heads of the characters hammer through daisies, And Death shall have no dominion." Dylan Thomas.)

The Buddhist would consider this a triviality compared to what you got done, whether you dust your hands and say “Well, that was an interesting life,” at the end of it. What do you want? We come and we go. Do your best while you’re here.

The author of the words to "Amazing Grace" is established, but the melody was written by a guy who was the master of a slave ship to the Americas, and the source of the tune, the melody, is just stated to be "Unknown." The chances that he actually used the tunes from the Africans in the hold become overwhelming if you watch a really good black singer (think Harry Belafonte, Paul Robeson, Muddy Waters,) to sixty thousand black men of the Promise Keepers in a stadium and the entire audience humming and moaning the melody with the singer.

So the only question, the only area where anyone has any choice, is what you do with this body for the short time you’re driving it?. Correct. Try to do stuff that’s beneficial to your soul, and build up your psychic bank account.

The reference to the Bible in the first paragraph signaled “Christian.” The Koran would have signaled “Moslem.” Buddhists don’t really have a “Holy Book,” just scads of writings, and are more concerned with the people who are Buddhists, and what they achieve, than in holy books. Some Buddhists, usually gurus, or teachers, rather than ordinary folks, preserve, literally embalm the living body, by switching slowly to a diet consisting entirely of the bark of a certain tree, and their mummified bodies, usually in caves, are still being found and put on National Geographic TV documentaries. For what? I dunno. Sort of a memorial for the local people, to remind them of the teachings, and maybe reassure them that there are beneficent beings around, and they’re still there looking after them?

“Life is the fool of hope, till one last morning
Sweeps all our schemes away, without a warning.”

“The soul of the dead man comes next to the realm of the wrathful deities. If he fears them they will attack him and he must seek for rebirth. But if he knows the wrathful deities as coming from himself, they cannot harm him, and he may proceed peacefully on his way.”
Bardo of Rebirth, Tibetan Book of the Dead

Oct 27, 2012

Walpurgisnacht


Christmas Eve, the e’en of Christmas, is December 24. November 1 is All Saints Day, and according to an old German superstition, on the eve of All Saints Day, the powers of darkness, the headless horseman and others, are given one last chance to riot. This is Hallows eve, or Hallowe’en.

All Saints Day, All Hallows, is calm and peaceful. The night before, October 31, the dark hour before the dawn when the evil powers are allowed one last time of liberty, is Walpurgisnacht.


New Zealand Plate Stack cloud



World map













Jane’s Fighting Ships


The three inventions that drove the engine of the western industrial revolution, gunpowder, the mariner’s compass, and the movable type printing press, were all three Chinese inventions; we’ve been stealing ideas from them since the year dot!

(If you add that China now owns the wages and salaries of our yet to be born U.S. great grandchildren, and that the Chinese citizen has enjoyed a doubling of income every ten years over the last thirty years, that supplies the outcome of the financial attacks on China.)

Among the resources of the British Royal Navy is Jane’s Fighting Ships, a record of all the world’s military vessels, their tonnage, weapons carried, home port, current location, and so forth.

At approximately the same age as the USA, of about 236 years, Jane’s Fighting Ships has a record of accuracy not challenged by the US military, whose pronouncements too often, alas, are not very accurate.


The British yellow, i.e. popular, press has already had loads of harmless fun at the expense of the know-it-all Americans, over the last couple of years, with the Chinese capability for silent running, on their batteries, a capability not available to any US or NATO nation, allowing a submarine to surface ‘coincidentally’ inside the screen surrounding a fleet, with several capital ships clearly in their sights. The Chinese laugh it off as ‘coincidence.’

Some few months ago, dear me, over a year, a Chinese Song class submarine, arrived just off the coast of California close to Los Angeles. It fired one ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) of which it carries a dozen, back to a prepared site in Western China.

It does not require in depth military knowledge or experience to notice that the ICBMs could equally well reach New York or Tampa, FL.

Jane’s Fighting Ships kindly tracked the progress of the submarine from its home port to Los Angeles. Check their web site.

Meanwhile, the Pakistanis, who have a border with China, are less and less likely to take the side of the bombers of their womenfolk gathering sticks for firewood, [it does little to endear one] and much more likely to side with their powerful neighbor; that much seems obvious.

Water


At Antarctica, yes, the opposite pole from the Arctic, down past New Zealand, lies around twenty per cent, one fifth, of all the fresh water on earth, in the form of massive ice sheets. That’s quite a lot of fresh water, by anybody’s reckoning. The Antarctic ice sheet shows distinct signs of breaking up, however. Two massive chunks, each twice the size of Manhattan, broke off a few days ago, a week ago? And the experts (cough) are unanimous that the entire Antarctic ice sheet will disappear, i.e., melt, within a single year, though they are not willing to specify which year.

The news out of Durban, which was reported in this country as, "There is no news out of Durban," is that the Antarctic Ice Mass is due to come apart within the next few years, and change the sea level by 80-100 feet within a single year. Here are a few city elevations for comparison:

Washington, D.C., elev. 72'

New York City, elev. 26'

Boston, MA, elev. 13'

Miami, FL, elev. 7'

Houston, TX, elev. 52'

New Orleans, LA, elev. 3'



Shanghai, China, elev. 17'

Mumbai, India, elev. 33-49'

Bangkok, Thailand, elev. 7'

Singapore, elev. < 49'

Hong Kong, China, elev. sea level

Dubai, U.A.E., elev. 25'

Reassuring that Washington, DC will be around longer than any one else? All of Hong Kong goes under right away; that’ll save Mr. Xi Jinping a few problems!

('Don’t worry about the Sacred Mother. She is a living entity. She will take care of herself. She has but to shrug and things will be righted.')

The TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership.)


The Trans Pacific Partnership has been developed in secret by the Obama administration over the last two years; the secrecy was necessary, explained one spokesman, because the plan openly differs from the declared aims of the Obama administration.

Briefly the plan invites countries to join the scheme, which will openly hand control of every country’s economy to the corporations, who will be able to impose huge fines on countries that put them to the unnecessary trouble of dealing with anti pollution regulations, for example.

‘Ah, a form of world government,’ someone says. Well, not really, because the rights of individual sovereign countries, to write legislation controlling, or preventing, air or water pollution, for example, will no longer exist.

(The USA may of course have claimed exemption from the strict implementation of the TPP; who knows? But as it stands the USA has no more right than any other – previously sovereign – country from making any regulation the corporations decide against, the true masters of everything, it turns out, at least in the imaginings of their own hearts. There will be no appeal. )

Now the claims of terrorist penetration emanating from Washington have become steadily more ludicrous, almost all FBI ‘sting’ operations, but at the same time the demands that this claptrap is accepted and implemented ASAP have become steadily more menacing, and are now in the terminal ‘Agree or we’ll kill you’ stage.

See ‘Right to kill anyone, anywhere’ below:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/02-10

Published on Tuesday, October 2, 2012 by Common Dreams Judge: Obama Administration Can Indefinitely Detain Anyone

Stay issued on Tuesday afternoon deals blow to civil liberties - Common Dreams staff

On Tuesday afternoon an appeals court stopped an order blocking indefinite detention, siding with the Obama administration's right to indefinitely detain terror suspects.

First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'

Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...

Last month U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest declared the law unconstitutional, giving what Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, described as "an unqualified victory for the public."

But the victory was short lived. The Hill notes that "the Obama administration responded with an emergency motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the court ruling 'threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an active military conflict.'"

The ruling today extends that temporary stay.

Note: A claim (French pretendre, to claim) is not the same as established ownership; anyone can claim anything. Under President Bush, the USA claimed ‘ownership of space,’ including one assumes the moon and stars, indeed the entire universe.

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer by Joe Vialls


Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the "Anti-Smoking Inquisition" spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment.

Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes serious harm to humans, unless consumed in truly large quantities. Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people.

Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead.

As we will find later in this report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

Not all governments around the world share the same problem.

Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer.

In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer.

This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that "smoking causes lung cancer".

The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments.

When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies. In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills.

By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost not-measurable.

Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever.

As K. Greisen recalls:

"When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave traveling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me.

After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud. "

This was the notorious "Trinity Test", the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere.

A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to super criticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT.

Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide. The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare.

In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care.

Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

Get this:

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer.

Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker.

The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed?

For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists.

First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies.

Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent (radioactive matter) caused the claimed result (lung cancer) when inhaled by mammals.

The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated.

Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere.

Because we know that less than one microgram (millionth of a single gram) of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 (4.2 Billion) lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years.

Frightening?

Unfortunately it gets worse. The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball.

These particles form by far the largest part of the "smoke" in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test. Before being banned by Russia, Britain, and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms.

There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth. Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just "fade away", at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren.

With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever.

Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity. The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs.

Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us. Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global "deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955", though no explanation was offered.

During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold.

By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945.

Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for "big government" to start taking heavy diversionary action. How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued?

The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical "researchers" suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: "Prove that smoking causes lung cancer".

Real scientists (especially some notable nuclear physicists) smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all.

The quasi-medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals. Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists.

First the suspect agent (tobacco smoke) must be isolated, and then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, "medical science" has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you. The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because "pairing" the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer.

And further, in one large "accidental" experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer. All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally "contaminated" by the real or imagined effects of another substance.

Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment "accidentally" found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles.

The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.

'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists.

Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-Inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens (anti-cancer agents) in test animals.

He continued that when known carcinogens (cancer causing substances) are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that "no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer", adding that "no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking."

It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record! Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical "researchers" into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment.

Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other "secret" ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. "Yes, that must be it!" they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same "secret" ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall.

Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer.

Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight "C" doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions.

"Smoking causes lung cancer" converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof. Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media.

Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened "smoker’s lungs", with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now.

It was all pathetic rubbish of course.

On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.

The black lungs?

From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles.

Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever.

If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers.

Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, "which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue." This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense.

Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue. All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible.

Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke.

Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer."

More research info:

Yale Research on lung cancer:

"...A similar result was obtained by Feinstein, in a study conducted at the Yale University School of Medicine, and published in September, 1986, in the Archives of Internal Medicine 26 . Researchers at Yale obtained records on 3,286 adults who had died between 1971 and 1982. 153 of these patients were found, upon autopsy, to have died of lung cancer. The researchers then went back and obtained the death certificates for these 153 patients and attempted to obtain information about their smoking habits. For 13 patients, adequate smoking information was not available, so they were thrown out of the survey. The researchers reported, however, that out of these 13 patients, seven had been correctly diagnosed as having lung cancer during life, but 6 had not.

Working with the remaining 140 cases, it turned out that there were 37 "surprise" cases of lung cancer, i.e., cases which had not been correctly diagnosed during life. 57% of these cases involved non-smokers; 30% involved moderate smokers; but only 16% involved heavy smokers. The researchers concluded that there was a detection bias; that doctors were very ready to diagnose lung cancer in a smoker; very reluctant to make the diagnosis in a non-smoker."

I know, these above not to be all documented and referenced facts as you and I would like to see. But there is enough information above to make your brain "look" at reality, at least for the time being, in a different way.

Dismissing every non-standard view of reality is antiquated as burning Giordano Bruno or Galileo as they ventured to differ in their views of how things really were.

So, the goal here, is not to uncover a conspiracy against us by world governments, but to question and challenge the assumed view we have on this reality issue from a radically different angle.

Exercising your brain and questioning your sacred and deepest mental views on reality, is always healthy. The more so, if you are trying to understand, anticipate and possibly change the future to come.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/02-10


Published on Tuesday, October 2, 2012 by Common Dreams Judge: Obama Administration Can Indefinitely Detain Anyone

Stay issued on Tuesday afternoon deals blow to civil liberties - Common Dreams staff

On Tuesday afternoon an appeals court stopped an order blocking indefinite detention, siding with the Obama adminstration's right to indefinitely detain terror suspects.

First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'

Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...

Last month U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest declared the law unconstitutional, giving what Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, described as "an unqualified victory for the public."

But the victory was short lived. The Hill notes that "the Obama administration responded with an emergency motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the court ruling 'threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an active military conflict.'"

The ruling today extends that temporary stay.


There is more reason than ever to attend to the warning of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, almost 60 years ago, that we must face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”




This too will pass