Gun Violence and the Spell Cast by Santa Cruz “Government”

Graphic for blogOn Tuesday, Feb. 26, the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors met to deliberate on the second phase of John Leopold’s initiative to, as he claims, protect the people of his County from the dangers presented by gun stores. While there was a storm of interest in the Jan. 15th initial unanimous passage of Leopold’s proposed Moratorium on gun store permits, on Tuesday by the time the Supervisors had conducted a lengthy County Workers’ Awards ceremony and a presentation on solid waste management, along with a lunch break, there were only a handful of people left to observe the vetting of the proposed new ordinance.

The ordinance had been brought to the Board by County Counsel Dana McRae on a tight timeline to meet with the deadline on the soon-to-expire 45-day Moratorium. Along with the Supervisors’ approval for moving forward on the new ordinance, they also approved an extension on the Moratorium. This will essentially end the hopes of the applicants who’d applied for a permit to open their gun store in Live Oak.

The ordinance text from McRae includes many provisions culled from other counties’ gun-safety ordinances, most of which are common-sense and general standard practice for gun stores. However, it also includes mandatory “set-backs” requiring that stores be sited varying distances from Schools, Day-care Centers and Parks. A map on the wall of the Chambers showed the impact that these set-backs would have on available locations for new gun businesses in Live Oak. These showed that approximately half of the area would be off-limits under the proposed ordinance.

When comments were allowed from the very few remaining onlookers, I pointed out that the set-back provisions had no reasonable effect on public safety, and merely interfered with their constituents’ freedom to govern their own lives. However, as if to underscore the Supervisors’ power to control peoples’ “land-use,” when instructing Counsel on the language to bring back to the Supervisors the next week for a first-reading of the new ordinance, John Leopold asked that an additional set-back of 300 feet from any areas zoned as residential be added to the ordinance. I suspect that this will not leave much of Live Oak available for siting gun stores.

What (or who) is benefitted by these provisions of the proposed ordinance related specifically to places associated with children? The primary effect I see is that guns are again associated in the public mind with a need to “protect the children” from “gun violence.” The Supervisors deny that this initiative by them has anything to do with the anti-gun hysteria sweeping America. The upshot is a continuing amplification of a push from a nationally Federalized governmental administrative structure (including the corporate media) to manage the American people using duplicity, public relations and fear.

It’s highly synchronous that this meeting took place on the same day that Santa Cruz had both an anti-gun demonstration at the Town Clock (at which Supervisor Leopold spoke) and the brutal murders of two police officers by gun-fire. The dramatic shootings, unlike the many recent incidents in which women, men and even young people have defended their lives and families with guns, became national news, adding to a general perceived urgency to “do something NOW to end gun-violence.” While such feelings are understandable, there doesn’t seem to be much, if any, informed discussion of the situation around our Constitutional possession of arms, particularly in the context of a Federal government which uses its military might to murder children around the world for political expedience. The policies recently announced by Sec. of State John Kerry, among others, to directly provide weapons to the “rebels” in Syria who are murdering Syrian civilians wholesale, are one example of the ongoing hypocrisy which is not mentioned. Most people who seem unconcerned about the possibility of malfeasance by a government that purports itself to be responsible for protecting us, are not aware of the concerted effects of encroaching surveillance, militarization of our police under Federal command, and “laws” like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the NDAA and Barack Obama’s 1,000 over-reaching Executive Orders which seem to outline the structures of something that resembles a dictatorship.

It’s perhaps also synchronous that the Feb. 26 Supervisors meeting also included the unanimous approval by them of the Santa Cruz County Climate Action Plan, a 158 page document that will cause unknown impacts on Santa Cruzans’ way of life for years to come. The origins of this plan are shrouded in obscurity, while County planners claim that it is in response to California mandates designed to take action on “climate change.” They say the science is not subject to debate. As the Supes voted to make this unwieldy document County policy, Board Chairman Neal Coonerty said something to the effect that “Even if the (climate) premises of this are wrong, it’s better to err on the side of caution” – even if the well-being of the people they purport to represent is violently compromised.

In the cases of the upcoming gun store ordinance and of the Climate Action Plan, we have been given almost no information about what is being done in our names. If you choose to take a half a day out of your busy life to attend a semi-weekly Tuesday morning meeting, you may be given three minutes to respond to the business of “your” county government. Almost no one was there to do that this week when these important measures were rubber-stamped.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

We’ll Just Have to Agree to Disagree

I recently received the email directly below from an acquaintance who sends out articles and newsletters to a list I’m on. During the (I think ridiculous and pathetic) election, he was sending out email extolling Obama and excoriating Romney. After one particularly trying exercise which tried to create the impression of a big contrast between the candidates, I wrote him a comment on the basic “responsible” homogeneity of them, focusing on how Obama is institutionalizing and expanding Drone Murder, whereas Romney was saying that he would simply do more of it.

In response, my acquaintance wrote back, not only avoiding any comment on what I’d written at all, but closing with the comment “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”  The exchange below occurred about a month later:

<Name Redacted> wrote:

Title: Surprised at lack of response

Dear Friends and Readers, I am surprised that I didn’t get more of a response on the article I wrote in <my last newsletter> on the biggest threat to the democratic process in the US. It was about the GOP House intentionally filibustering congress with pre-arranged pledges to take a hard line and ignore the debate and compromise process. Such seemed mean-spirited, reckless, unconstitutional, and maybe even illegal. And then for Romney to blame the president as not being able to work with the GOP…ahh!  Were Romney’s Democrats so dead set against him in Massachusetts? I don’ think so. Even the  jury-selection process cannot get away with such openly stated prejudiced mind sets.

All this seems pretty obvious to me, maybe too obvious for others to respond and that I’m just beating a dead horse, but the silence worries me. Maybe  people and friends I love and respect are just too tired, depressed, or jaded to respond. Tell me it isn’t so, tell me you are fired up, tell me you are passionate, tell me you still believe, and that you still have hope.  Let us stoke each other’s flames in the last hours of the most important election in our lifetimes, and maybe the renewed chemistry will carry us as it did our SF Giants to a much more important victory, bringing about a change of heart for the survival of the planet.
Is this too much to ask or am I off base?
Peace, passion, and love,
<Name Redacted>

And my response:

Hi <Name Redacted>, Thanks for your continuing outreach with information and your newsletters.

Of course, Norquist’s pledge is ridiculous and potentially very harmful grandstanding. It’s force is almost exclusively in the realm of public relations, having, as you point out, no force of law. It continues to demonstrate the shambles of Congress’s lack of management of our country and, in particular, its economic underpinnings.

But that said, our Constitution has demonstrably become, as W is reliably quoted as saying “A God damn piece of paper.” We could discuss such things as the hidden creation of a separate corporate state with its own “Constitution OF the United States of America” in Congress’s Act of 1871 which created a “government for the District of Columbia.” That’s probably a little bit complicated for most to delve into.

However, how about the institutionalization of the “income” tax? The 16th Amendment supposedly gave Congress the right to tax “incomes” regardless of the sources from which derived, without apportionment. However, this amendment does not repeal the language in the TWO places in the Constitution where direct taxes are prohibited.

Though the government (and we could talk all day about exactly what that is) now represents that the framers of the Constitution were talking about something extremely limited in the way of direct taxes, the document specifically names “Capitation” as one form of them not to be permitted. Nowadays, spokespeople for the U.S. gov’t. maintain steadfastly that by Capitation the framers were referring to some arcane form of tax they call either a “head tax” or a “poll tax,” which they labor strenuously to define in impenetrable ways.

However, in 1787 when the (unlawful) Constitutional Convention was convened, one of the most widely read books in America, which at the time was vastly more literate than it is today (for which we can partially thank the wide-spread apathy that you cite in your email) was,  for the previous two decades, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, in which he very specifically describes capitation as exemplified by a French tax system that is basically identical to the “income” tax as practiced in the U.S. today.

The development of the income tax has been well documented by careful research to have included ever-more deceptive language in the U.S. “tax code” (Title 26 U.S.C). This language is, to critical thinkers, obviously designed to contribute to the impression that average Americans within the 50 States who exchange their labor (described unequivocally by key figures in the founding of the U.S. as the fundamental property of the average members of society) for compensation have a liability to pay a portion of that revenue to the Federal gov’t.

Careful analysis of Title 26 has revealed that nowhere in it is any such liability laid out. This is as it must be, because the income tax, as practiced today, directly violates the clear language of the Constitution. This leads to the reasonable conclusion that the laws have been drafted to conform to the Constitution while creating the false impression of liability. The IRS, challenged very directly for almost two decades to do so, has so far refused to reveal any statutory language authorizing their actions to extort revenue from average Americans.

In fact, the Supreme Court, when it still had some vestiges of integrity, ruled on at least three occasions that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new powers of taxation, and merely moved certain Constitutional taxes from the category of duties to that of imposts. “Income” is now a Constitutionally defined word describing revenue from certain Federally privileged activities.

Yet, with the creation of the unlawful processes of withholding of “income” in the workplace at the end of WWII, the arcane Income Tax became an institution enabling what has become a rogue Federal administration to literally steal from the entire population it claims to hold authority over. Up to the “financial crisis” of 2008, this was the greatest fraud in world history, and has enabled our government to become the Empire that it is today.

Finally, in what has become a much longer email than I had any intention of writing, I will again commend your attention to the Fed’s now-institutionalized drone assassination program. And, with their so-called campaign of “signature strikes” (how Orwellian can we get?) this has become out and out murder base on highly suspect circumstantial evidence from remote observation. How does this line up with the core guarantee of western justice since the Magna Carta, as made binding in the U.S. by the fifth Amendment: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

I think the argument that this unprecedented violation of due process is excused because we’re at war is entirely indefensible. The “war” we’re currently involved in, the untenable “war on terror,” has been variously stated by U.S. “officials” as extending ten to thirty years into the future, against shadowy enemies that we are creating daily as we go due to the grisly inhumanity of our actions.

The “government” has now made clear that it hopes to be flying 30,000 drones over the U.S. by 2014 (it’s now admitted that there are more than 60 active drone bases on U.S. soil already). It’s impossible for me to imagine that our escalating movement toward this nightmarish and technocratic form of now-institutionalized violence can have any reasonable or workable ending other than the ultimate destruction of our society. Are we truly a “nation of laws” at all?

I’m more than willing to have a discussion with you on these issues, and anything else you care to write about. But, it seems to me that any discussion ends when anyone steps back to say something like “we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

Kind regards,

Postscript: <Name Redacted> did not respond

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Come and See WHY

The Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference ( took place August 17-19 at the Wilshire Ebell Theater in Hollywood, and streamed live around the world. It featured fascinating, information-packed presentations by most of the key American researchers into the Geoengineering program that’s hidden-in-plain-sight over our heads much of the time. The center piece of this display of evidence and analysis was the World Premiere of Michael Murphy’s hard-hitting and eagerly awaited Chemtrails sequel film, WHY In The World Are They Spraying?

The movie screened after dinner on Saturday, following a day of great live and recorded lectures and star-quality turns by Peace and Freedom Party Presidential Candidate Roseanne Barr and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. However, the excitement and anticipation peaked for the film’s debut, as Murphy’s first Chemtrails documentary, What In The World Are They Spraying?, was probably one of the main factors driving the creation of the Conference. According to Michael Murphy, What In The World has now been seen by well over 10 million people. It’s single-handedly responsible for raising many peoples’ awareness of Aerosol Geoengineering from the netherworlds of “conspiracy theory” into solid conspiracy fact.

Where What In The World was a somewhat rambling effort, with much speculation among the factual content and a loose narrative that outlined its making, WHY is a taut set of interviews, supported by superb visuals. It documents the aerial assault against nature and humanity represented by Geoengineering being done with, literally, megatons of nano-particulate toxic metals. One of the main themes of the movie is uncovering the weather-modification aspects of these covert programs that have dominated our skies since at least the late 90’s. The U.S. Military’s own papers state that for them weather is a “force multiplier.” In WHY we’re shown how relatively modest inputs (considered on a global scale), particularly over the U.S. Northwest, are leading to weather disasters across the Midwest that are creating financial chaos and threatening our food supply. Masterfully edited interview segments unveil the deep background complexities that explain why elite interests might invest in such audacious and secret agendas.

In his introduction to WHY at the Conference, Murphy presented his “Buy One and Share One” ethic for distributing it massively, urging us to “burn as many copies as possible” and get them into the hands of anyone who will watch. You can buy the DVD online from the production team at

Or, come to see WHY In The World Are They Spraying? and pick up a copy of the DVD, at the Freedom Forum meeting Sept. 19th, 7 pm at the Live Oak Grange, 1900 17th Ave, Santa Cruz. On the cutting edge as usual, Freedom Forum was planning to show the film for this meeting even before it was released. As always, attendance is free of charge, come at 6:30 for the social hour.

If you find yourself still undecided on the truth about chemtrails and the elite planning underlying the global program, why not take a look at the clearly presented, highly documented information about this ongoing impact on our lives? If the information presented at CBC2012 is accurate, the effects of this ongoing assault are mounting rapidly, and planetary healing MUST begin as soon as we can make it possible.

(to be published in Connection Magazine, Santa Cruz, California, Sept. 2012. Note: WHY In The World Are They Spraying? is also available on YouTube.)
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Off to “Conscious Beyond Chemtrails Conference”

Cynthia and I leave tomorrow morning, very early, for the Conscious Beyond Chemtrails Conference at the Wilshire Ebell Theater in Los Angeles. The conference runs from 1 pm Friday to Sunday evening.

Along with watching the many lectures from veteran Chemtrails researchers like Clifford Carnicom, Sofia Smallstorm, and Dane Wigington, Alternative media luminary Kerry Cassidy, outspoken celebrities Rosanne Barr and Cynthia McKinney, the conference will show the World Premiere of Michael Murphy’s chemtrails sequel film, Why In The World Are They Spraying. The film is slated to be available on YouTube after the screening.

We’re going with audio and video recording equipment to document the event to the extent possible, and hope to be able to do pocket interviews with some of the presenters.

After wrapping up around 5 pm Sunday, we’ll hit the road again for the trip home. We look forward to an exciting (and challenging) three days!

Do check out the possibility of watching the streaming video online (only $40 for the 3 days, with a 10% discount with the discount code “Connection”). The link for the event is

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Thrive Controversy: What On Earth Will It Take to Have a Conversation?

In the wake of the official Santa Cruz premiere of Foster and Kimberly Gamble’s movie, Thrive, in the middle of March, and the venomous (not too strong a word, I think) review by Eric Johnson in the Santa Cruz Weekly (online at seemingly prompted by it, a controversy about Thrive is exploding across a small sector of the Internet.

Local Santa Cruz celeb John Robbins, who is featured in Johnson’s second attack on Thrive published in Santa Cruz Weekly, “Author John Robbins, Other Progressives Denounce Thrive,” has now written an 11-page  PDF diatribe – “Humanity and Sanity – Standing for a Thriving World  (and challenging the Movie Thrive),” in which he details why he finds his former friend’s encyclopedic film “dangerously misguided” as it’s described in a statement (drafted by John?) signed onto by nine of the interviewees included in Thrive.

To dip a toe into this fascinating and potentially quite significant battle of ideas and values, I recommend a perusal of the comments to Johnson’s second “Denounce” article on the Weekly’s website. It’s difficult to avoid the glee with which some of the commenters taking exception to Thrive seem to take this dissociation by some interviewees. The people doing this dissociating are generally identified as “Progressives.” This is a nebulous political label, but whatever it means, they are apparently for “progress,” so I guess those they oppose are not.

One link in the comments on the “Denounce” article is to a 56-page PDF created by the “Think Tank” of the Praxis Peace Institute entitled “Deconstructing Libertarianism – A Critique Prompted by the film Thrive.” Edited by Georgia Kelly, founder of the Institute, it asserts that “The Thrive message must be forcefully and publicly repudiated,” as it could otherwise, as Kelly claims, dissipate our “revolutionary energies” from the serious “political struggle,” as the New Age movement did in blunting the “Awakening of the 1960’s,” as if that was what really did the blunting.  How we’re going to struggle against the current system without understanding its real nature is not made clear.

Robbins, Kelly, Johnson and other liberal/progressives have many complaints about content in Thrive that varies from their opinions about what they think is right. However, they pointedly do not dispute the accuracy of the information presented in Thrive. They attack the film for having high production values, for being “libertarian,” for being idealistic and naive. But mostly, they seem to reject it for its world view. Thrive presents a big picture of the world situation. I think that it is this wide-open window on “reality” that is at the root of the arguably orchestrated attacks against it. The Progressive “Leaders,” as characterized by Robbins, who have flourishing careers within the context of what so many of us experience as a deeply pathological world order, seem to want their followers to not pay attention to Thrive.

Are we really going to do what these denouncers see as the serious work of revolution by remaining a responsible loyal opposition, wearing blinders? Why aren’t they willing to talk openly about ideas in Thrive that many people (like dozens who stood up and enthusiastically thanked Foster and Kimberly after the Del Mar showing) are obviously excited about finally seeing acknowledged in public? How are we going to generate the political will, from the grassroots up, to change the course of what we’re creating together if we can’t have a conversation, in good-faith and with compassion, with deep listening, and find a workable common ground that might lead to real solutions?

Note: The Gambles have written a response to some of this criticism at:

There is a new Thrive Meetup in Santa Cruz:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2/10/12 – Comment on Foster Gamble’s Thrive Movement Blog

Reply to Foster Gamble’s video blog on his experience at the recent Occupy Solidarity Social Forum. His theme is “Liberty, Democracy and Occupy,” and he links to a document titled “Unanimous Declaration of Independence,” available HERE. I put the link below to my post on this blog of Core Values and Mission Statements for Occupy Santa Cruz from last October:

I think the word “Liberty” is also problematic. It’s not equal to “Freedom.” Freedom is at the core of our unalienable rights, the radical term arising from political philosophers of the early 1700’s, that truly made the rest of the world respond to the American Revolution as something new.

Unalienable rights don’t appear in the Unanimous Declaration of Independence, nor does Jefferson’s (I suspect) masterful “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, governments theoretically are a creation of human society, whose legitimate purpose is to secure rights, not “govern.”

Liberty is something that’s granted (like rights supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights), begging the question “by whom.” It presupposes a hierarchy, which would seem to be anathema to the concept of the kind of radical equality hinted at in the “Unanimous Declaration.” One of the great questions facing us at this time is whether we can really create governing systems that don’t include assumptions of hierarchy or rank (which devolve from the concept of personal identity, a psychological sense of being a separate self truly distinct from the All-That-Is). There is a contradiction between this sense of what Adyashanti calls the Imaginary Self, and the growing realization of our interconnectedness within the web of life.

The defensive responses by world hierarchical systems at this time, which seem to be leading inexorably toward a prison-planet, scientific (technocratic) dictatorship of a hidden oligarchy, are, I would argue, being triggered and accelerated by the awakening of the so-called 99% to this ineffable interconnectedness (which Brzezinski chronically characterizes as an “inconvenient” Global Political Awakening). If we want to realize a new social contract based on this interconnectedness, it’s incumbent on each of us to see our own defensive responses, which constantly work against the radical (not sovietized) cooperation and openings that will make the arising of the much-touted New Paradigm possible.

And I will point out a crucial distinction about “The State.” “It” doesn’t ever do anything. It is clearly a conceptual artifact, with existence only in human minds. The evils ascribed to it are from the actions of those who use the conceptual structure to promote what they see as their own strategic advantages. “It” is, literally, an instrument of mind control.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On the High Strangeness surrounding Andrea Rossi’s e-cat technology

On 3/2/2012 12:54 PM, John wrote:

Bruce, can you help me understand this:

Hi John,

Actually, I don’t understand it myself, from a quantifiable, linear approach. We have here the writer from Forbes, Mark Gibbs, producing a steady stream of articles questioning the reality of e-cat with high skepticism and damning speculation. He states in one place that Rossi, who had announced that his “mystery customer,” who he’d announced had accepted the evidence of the vaunted 6-hour demo and taken delivery of one of 14 rumored 1 megawatt steam systems he supposedly had tentative orders for, and had accepted delivery, now has not accepted it or agreed on payment. This I had not heard. There could be a number of explanations.

Gibbs says he simply does not believe in any conspiracy theory that suppression is taking place, with a caveat that it is conceivable that there could be a “push back” where “known principles (sic)” are called into question.

What is not mentioned anywhere is that such a technology, if real, would threaten not only the sacred laws of thermodynamics and the revenues of Big Oil (which Lovins says are unreal and no-doubt shortly doomed), but the entire control system of the oncoming Technocratic order, which plans to make energy the basis of its economic system, and, therefore, necessarily scarce. From my perspective, the signs of a major damage control and information-muddying operation from the outset of the emerging publicity about Fleishman and Pons’ work are easily apparent.

text below from: Dick Smith: “Rossi E-CAT … too fantastic to be true”:

“I said to my friends at the time, “if Mr Rossi is genuine, he will jump at this chance of proving that his equipment works, however I think it’s most likely that he will answer by saying, ‘this is just a joke, I don’t want to be involved in circus activities’”.  I predicted this because this is what has happened with other scamsters who have tried to get money from me when I have come up with a very fair offer to check that their claim actually works.

“I predict that Mr Rossi will delay and delay in producing machines or in getting a proper scientific test done, while behind the scenes more and more people will be investing.

“In many years to come we will hear from Mr Rossi that he is still trying to have the unit finalised, but “big business” has somehow managed to hijack his efforts.  This, or other similar excuses, will be used by him to ‘explain’ why his device doesn’t appear on the market.”

(and below from same article, from Forbes’ Mark Gibbs: “Smith’s letter raises some interesting questions including why has Rossi set up an investor trust if he’s not taking any money?

“Moreover, at what point will Rossi have made us wait too long? When do you think that will be? And will we just forget about Rossi and the E-Cat whenever that point comes to pass?”

“Will we just forget?”… Well, so far, in the face of what seems to be some convincing anomalous evidence, we have. Ten years ago, as evidenced by legacy YouToobs, there were several systems ready for market that disappeared without a whimper. What’s up with that?

Even the guys at MIT, who held a “funeral” for cold fusion in the year after Fleishman and Pons announcement, did not dispute that people repeating their experiment were getting heat and molecular evidence that something inexplicable was happening in 10% of the experimental runs. How is that insignificant? Mark Gibbs rails that “The scientific method demands verifiable results…” – Well, why have multiple companies gone to the extent of major investments, tooling up for production, doing marketing promotion, etc., only to “make us wait too long?”

Gibb wonders “…how so many people are convinced that the device really works despite anything that might be considered evidence.” I guess they’re (I am) just too credulous, wanting to believe in something that can’t be evidence because it violates one or other of the laws of thermodynamics.

The Japanese water car (one of two that had seemingly convincing YouToobs up promising upcoming production) that used a catalytic converter to run an electric motor, also vanished, taking down their website with an unexplained demurer that anything further was happening – Like the Australian manufacturer of the scalable magnetic motor system that was soliciting investment before their website went dormant with a cryptic notice that a “technology transfer” was in process. Now, there are rumors that the aforementioned water car is actually delivering product quietly behind the scenes. Wars and rumors of wars.

This is from the article linked to regarding “the demos have, so far, been inconclusive:”

I find the Big Business conspiracy theory to be unconvincing. No one can show any evidence as to which organizations might be involved and it’s hard to believe that, for example, the oil companies or the power utilities would have that much fear of something that has never been proven to actually work on a commercial scale (some would go further and argue that cold fusion never been proven to even work at all).

“As for the idea that Big Science is protecting the status quo, well, sure, of course there will be push back when something comes along that defies all known principles. But if someone was to produce a demonstration that could be reliably replicated by others or, at the very least, could be evaluated by independent observers to perform as claimed, then there would be something the scientific community couldn’t ignore. Such demonstrations have yet to appear.

“One of the most persistent claims by CF believers is that cold fusion has, in fact, been duplicated thousands of times and that the perceived problems with reliably reproducing the results is due to subtle and poorly understood aspects of the materials used. These people could well be right but what they refuse to recognize is that the scientific method matters.

“The scientific method demands verifiable results so if you haven’t got any then all you do have is, at best, a theory and the problem with a theory is that if you want people to believe it, it has to extend observable facts into the realm you’re trying to explain.”

So, I will indulge in my own speculation. What if this whole process of shifting the human paradigm around scarcity vs. plenitude of energy is surrounded by a mysterious veil which makes any firm Cartesian fix on a certain “truth” largely impossible. Perhaps the world-views of different perceivers governs what each of us sees about it.

Perhaps this area of inquiry comprises such a massive third rail that the sovietized, compartmentalized elite consensus understands either directly or through the grapevine that whatever needs to happen to obscure the possibility of the new paradigm must not fail come about. The tipping point must be staved off at any cost, until the eternal incontestability of the new feudalism is firmly in place.

It is about the hearts and minds, only in sense of the magic that informs the consensus reality. Back in the late 70’s I had the intuition that the new, game changing technologies will not emerge until we collectively make a quantum leap spiritually. More than ever, this makes the best sense for me.

The great shift is not going to come until there is a ineffable change away from what I see as a general state of unending, implacable egoic struggle, amounting now to a state of eternal warfare. When peace begins to have an unquestioned place in our hearts (a new heaven), solutions we can taste and see emerging (a new earth) will manifest.

My 2 cents,

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Two Online Comments on UN Agenda 21

Agenda 21 Earth MotherThese are comments that I made to a post on Joshua Hart’s – – and to Foster Gambles’s Thrive Movement blog at – – both of these comments are made in the hope of enrolling these people, who are working influentially to bring about shifts in human society,  in spreading the word about the global control program represented by Agenda 21. If you’d like to follow the link to Foster’s blog, you can register a “like” for my comment…

Hi Josh,

I’m including a link to what is a sort of review of a YouTube video I wrote – “The Cloud Mystery.” In the light of this research, which was recently confirmed by work of scientists at CERN, and the correlated research, it no longer makes any sense, in my opinion, to speak of carbon footprints and often-draconian green house gas mitigations.

I would urge you to do some research into U.N. Agenda 21 – “Sustainable Development” and, among other things, on its self-expressed goals of developing massive data files on everyone under the administrative jurisdiction of what is rapidly taking shape as global governance. The Smart Meters are an essential part of this information-control  system. It is spoken of, unequivocally in such sources as Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Between Two Ages – America in the Technotronic Era” where he says bureaucrats will have instant access to detailed files of the common citizens.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – “Local Governments for Sustainability,” which Santa Cruz City and County were charter members of, having joined under contract something like fifteen years ago. ICLEI’s principle activities with their hundreds of member cities and counties in the U.S. involve helping them with “green house gas inventories,” and with planning for reducing carbon emissions. It’s now mandatory under federal programs that cities, counties and “regions” in possibly most of the U.S. have these kinds of initiatives, in order to receive federal funding at a minimum.

ICLEI works with numerous associated NGO’s, which are accredited with the U.N., for which Agenda 21 is official policy since it’s highly manipulated “adoption” at the Rio Summit in 1992. Incidentally, there was a co-conference to the Rio Summit attended by government and corporate representatives, including among them PG&E.

You may want to consider the possibility that not only corporations and corrupt governments, but the United Nations are part of an increasingly seamless system of administration and control that is hidden from the average human-being, is not subject to any transparency to us, and is certainly not accountable to our input. Much of the information given out by main-stream and even by often NGO-influenced alternative media is driven by strategies that promote the largely obscured objectives promoted through the U.N., which is often extolled as a democratically responsive force for peace.

I posted this as a comment on your article on the Silver Spring Networks IPO.


Hi Foster, my partner Cynthia and I met you briefly at the screening of Thrive in Half Moon Bay last month, and my intuitive sense is that you’re totally sincere and committed to helping us make the transition we’re facing in a good way. I want to bring your attention to the following post on the Project Avalon (Bill Ryan sponsored) forum, which is linked on the Homepage “Quicklinks” of Red Ice Creations (….

In the top post on the linked page, a forum user, user name Maria Stade, correctly points out that on the Thrive Movement “study” page you’re endorsing the services of Gaia University for education on the issues brought forth in Thrive. The post then links to the “founders” page at, where in the profile of Andrew Langford, it states “He is the author of Designing Productive Meetings and Events, a field manual for UN Agenda 21 facilitators.”

This book, a pdf version of which is available at the Gaia University website – (… – was created in collaboration with Heather Saunders, who is identified as a “Local Agenda 21 co-ordinator.” It covers what are clearly techniques for running meetings designed to achieve a manufactured consensus, often called the Delphi Method, which is frequently used by people promoting initiatives under U.N. Agenda 21 – “Sustainable Development.”

I have looked through the Thrive Movement website for any mention of Agenda 21, and though you feature many perspectives on the generic Global Agenda of Control, there was no mention I could find of A21. Are you familiar with it? If not, you may find it to be of great pertinence to understanding how the Agenda of Control is being implemented today all over the world.

It seems obvious to me that Agenda 21 in an extension and implementation of the elitist control philosophy called Technocracy, which originated in the U.S. in the early 1930’s, around the same time that Franklin Roosevelt was overseeing an administrative overhaul of the U.S. government under which the U.S. Constitution was essentially superseded.

This is at the heart of a very long-term plan for changing human society worldwide in radical and shocking ways. Almost every aspect of life, banking, our food, education, where we live, where we work, whether we can travel, and, critically, energy, which you cover so thoroughly, are to be decided for the common people by a “soviet” style consensus top-down process by technicians and bureaucrats for the ultimate benefit of a very small group of elite insiders.

I’d also be interested to know what Gaia University’s thinking about this is – are they committed to Agenda 21’s goals, which are under the auspices of the U.N.? Do they believe in consensus management as an educational technique? When you advance the primacy of the principle of non-violation of others, the ethics of managing meetings to overcome the objections of “stakeholders” who might see problems with your (radical) program and to maneuver attendees into a pre-determined consensus might seem to violate that principle.

That manipulation is what we face on an epic scale with Agenda 21. People have no understanding what is behind the warm and fuzzy language and the administrative soft-law under which A21 advances. The true goals are hidden in plain sight, however. I urge you to read the documentation in Agenda 21 (300 pages) and the UN Convention on Biodiversity (1992), the Global Biodiversity Assessment (commissioned by UNEP 1996), The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, “Our Common Future” – the report of the Brundtland Commission in 1987, the report of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in 1976, etc. Also, the ways that Agenda 21 has been and is being implemented are completely undemocratic and hidden from view. The violation of the will and of the well-being of the mass of humanity has been dressed up in emotionally ambiguous, sweet-sounding rhetoric, much of it passing now for our childrens’ education. It has to be camouflaged, because if people had an idea of where the agenda wants to take us they’d never stand for it.

I think this would be worthy of coverage in the Thrive Movement and the website. There is a lot of great coverage of Agenda 21 at:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Proposed Core Values and Mission Statements for Occupy Santa Cruz

These documents I composed were intended to work together to give OSC some kind of real sense of purpose and scope, something it lacks, in common with much of the seemingly co-opted Occupy movements. After the formation of a Mission Statement Committee by Occupy Santa Cruz, these documents were passed over in the creation of a “consensed” (sic) non-offensive and non-descript statement.

Proposed Statement of Our Movement’s Core Values (revision of existing statement by OSC Philosophy and Strategy Committee)

We each address this statement to our Self.

I accept responsibility to open my awareness to the interconnectedness of all life, observing that nothing manifested in the world of form is separated from the Whole, and that every apparently distinct being, from the Universe down to subatomic particles and the ethereal realms, affects every other aspect of the Web of Life in the process of living and fulfilling its essential needs.

I see that my happiness and well-being are dependent on the well-being of all that is, and I therefore commit my Self to nurturing all living systems, to honoring the sacred space of every member of the human family and of all living things, to not doing anything that might harm other beings, and to keeping my heart open to all others despite any fears that may arise.

Our observance of these principals, as it spreads by attraction through the whole of humanity, will bring about a shift in the basis of all human affairs at every level of society, and will naturally and non-violently bring about a new social ethic that supports the well-being and freedom of all.

Proposed Mission Vision Statement for Occupy Santa Cruz (rev. 1.1, Oct. 19, 2011):

Our worldwide movement* is the response by humanity to the widespread perception that something has gone very wrong here, and that to avoid further degradation of our lives and society a new, clear and transparent social contract is needed.

In order for our local movement* to grow and thrive, and contribute to the larger movement*, we need a clear statement of our core needs and values, and these must be values that are fundamental and universal enough to include all people, including the marginalized and disenfranchised who are suffering without recourse for their grievances, under a system that is falling into corruption and invading the lives of the common people.

We invoke the language of the Declaration of Independence where it expresses its revolutionary principals of Freedom. In particular, the idea that humans are endowed with unalienable rights simply by being present in the unified living field of existence, which idea absolutely nullifies the legitimacy of any government that acts without recognition of the peoples’ innate sovereignty, and of the people’s inviolability whenever they are not violating other beings and, specifically, other humans.

We assert our freedom from illegitimate authority, unequivocally and non-violently. In this, we have the right to make our own determinations of what is illegitimate based on our own reason, intuition and understanding.

We recognize the right of anyone to be heard, and for their grievances to be recognized and heard with deep listening. We recognize the right of any member of society to know the truth about any matter or so-called contract that affects them. We resolve that our movement* will remain open and transparent, and that no secret agreements or hidden leadership will be tolerated.

We recognize that world society is now under tremendous stresses, and look to and support a transformation of society to a new model of organization based on our sovereignty, on non-interference by anyone through manipulation and fear, and on equal justice.

We support the development and implementation of unbiased communications media, that are accessible to all, as a fundamental requirement of informed decision-making by society.

If we do nothing in the face of increasing tyranny, we and the generations to come will live in slavery. It is our sacred charge to chart a course to a world that works for all and allows all humans to express themselves fully without being suppressed. We don’t now know how this will unfold, but we pledge ourselves to each other in support as we find the way ahead, in peace.

*We may want to consider substituting  “the Occupy Movement” or “Occupy Santa Cruz” in these places to benefit from the worldwide recognition of these names and added attention and publicity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Skill of a High Quality “No.”

I don’t think that many people today have ever been trained in the skill of stating a High Quality “No.” We don’t even have much of a clue of how to do such a thing, politely but firmly.

In about a hundred years, the United States population has been transformed from being extremely diverse and self-reliant to being very similarly conditioned and dependent on experts and managers for nearly everything in our lives, including what to think. We tend to believe what is presented to us in the corporate media. We consign our children to an “educational system” that has more and more obviously failed in preparing us to be responsible stewards of our communities and lives. We accept without questioning the legitimacy of governmental systems. We send our children off to wars we don’t understand, where they kill people for reasons they don’t understand. And we accept, even worship the authority of Medical Professionals.

Almost all of the doctors practicing today have been trained in the modern educational system, where they are made to endure tremendous stresses, memorize a lot of “facts,” and constantly demonstrate their adherence to Allopathic methods and acceptance of conventional medical wisdom. They pledge to work within the constraints of a medical toolbox which, just for starters, has accepted the removal and prohibition of the use of Hemp Medicine, a principal remedy in every pharmacopoeia in recorded history. Now medical professionals, who you would assume were well-trained scientists, are acquiescing to, even participating willfully in, the suppression of simple and powerful substances and methods, including the potential banning by the FDA of MMS/Sodium Chlorite Solution.

I have a friend who is in the last stages of becoming a Veterinarian. When I showed her “anecdotal” evidence in the form of two very similar testimonials describing how MMS had, within about 48 hours, cured cases of Parvo in unimmunized puppies, she flatly said that she would never use it because it was essentially “bleach,” one way the FDA labels MMS. Now, MMS, because it’s a weak oxidizer and will bleach fibers without damaging them, is used as a bleach. But a scientist would know this is about a molecule that, like any molecule, has unique properties that extend far beyond use as a bleach. You’d think that would raise questions.

Though Big Medicine is composed of people who, like all of us, have feet of clay, we’ve elevated them to a godlike status and given away our power over our own wellness. New ways of supporting our health are emerging, but to use them we need to reclaim our responsibility. When offered sure-fire symptom relief from pills and technology, we need to start learning to say “No.” It’s not personal. We don’t need to fight, but we do need to step up to our power.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment