Posts Tagged ‘neuro-linguistic’

raw milk and defining government relationships

April 28, 2012

raw milk and defining government relationships

“Now, I know that for millions of years various organisms have been eating raw fruit with no concern for the extreme threats to their health posed by eating unpasteurized fruits. I think we should ban the criminally dangerous activity of primates eating bananas in particular. We need to properly educate infants about the dangers of eating any banana mush that has not been heated to at least 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and made in to a pile of  smoldering ashes.” – Louis Pasteur, Jr., 1776

A bottle of green-top (raw, unpasturised) milk...

A bottle of green-top (raw, unpasturised) milk, showing the required health label: "this milk has not been heat-treated and may contain organisms harmful to health". (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Below is my response to this recently published letter of Dr. Aajonus Vanderplanitz, which may no longer be accessible after a few days:

In an individual’s lifetime, one may be blessed with a basic foundation of nutrition. One may be blessed with the physical development and functionality that corresponds to nourishment obtained during both the pre-natal and the later periods of life. Whatever nutrients and physiological development are present now, that is what is present now.

Physiological development does not exclude neuro-physiology and such amazing developments as the neurological capacity to hear sounds (and even read letters) and then to form symbolic sequences in to meaningful language. On this planet, one of the most unusual “technologies” is language. Creatures without language (or with only rudimentary language, such as infants), could not understand this sentence, even if it were translated in to their native language. The vocabulary I have used is already far too advanced for most infants, who would not recognize terms like functionality or neuro-physiology or even “other foreign languages.”

Now, why would I take the time to state all of those obvious facts? I was setting up an analogy.

Imagine now that I am planning to go to speak to an infant that has only rudimentary language development. Further, imagine that the infant is in a state of whatever severe medical diagnosis we might add: autistic, full of various toxins, eating a diet heavy in refined grains (cooked- obviously) and modern fried oils from grain seeds like soy and corn, plus maybe they were a “crack baby” who was born premature, underweight, and undernourished and is only alive because of a bunch of expensive medical interventions. In other words, they are at least “a little slow.”

Newborn child, seconds after birth. The umbili...

Newborn child, seconds after birth. The umbilical cord has not yet been cut. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, imagine that I want to explain to this infant why fresh raw milk from a healthy source is so wonderful (such as breastfeeding) and then explain why governments can be so, um, autistic and why the word organic is actually just a linguistic code such that when different people use that code, they actually might functionally mean “mostly organic, like around 85%.” It’s like if I have a shirt that is 85% red and I refer to the shirt as red, most people will understand that I am talking about the 85% of the shirt that is red even though there is another 15% that is not- maybe the fabric is red but there is some embroidery or graphic design screen-printed over the red, right?

So, we have here an infant that is, for sake of argument, approximately 85% intelligent, according to whatever standards we might use. The infant also has a slight hearing problem, so it properly hears about 85% of the sounds I say and then mistakes the other 15% of the sounds that I make as sounds that I actually did not make. Plus, I have a thick accent and I use a lot of unusual ideas and unusual terminology.

So, now I am ready to tell this infant how raw milk is wonderful and some other things like how mitochondria are not only good bacteria, but the absolute very best. I may even make a lot of references that are far beyond the infant’s current MODELS OF REALITY or even completely contrary to them (contradictory of them), right?
Further, the infant may not be especially interested in the subject at all, right? Then, they are these huge issues regarding the infant’s processing of the actual communication I am offering.
Ok, so that is a metaphor about a jury (or registered voters). If you want to go to trial (or ballot) about an issue such as raw milk, be cognizant of the reality of the jury (voting public) that would be there.

That is also a metaphor about the mainstream media. Some people may have an attraction to widespread fame and the stated appreciation from the CDC, and from CNN, and so on. It is natural enough to want validation and respect and admiration, right?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Photo credit: Nrbelex)

However, there is also the matter of priorities. When I suddenly lost the ability to walk at age 36, it was not a priority to me to get fame or to educate others. Once I spoke with someone who indicated to me some competence relating to the issues at hand (who I think is the lady who helped Aajonus to originally set up the Rawesome Club in Los Angeles), I obtained a pint of raw cream (produced by grass-fed cows) and I consumed it one evening and could walk the next morning- literally an overnight recovery.

That pint cost me about $4.50. Did it “cure” my paralysis and remedy the issue of the poor insulation of nerve signals through my myelin sheaths? Close enough for me!
Did I break any laws to get it? I really did not care and I really do not care still! Have you ever heard of a police officer stopping someone who is speeding and then, when the officer realizes that there is a medical emergency and they are rushing to go to a medical specialist, the officer does not arrest the driver or give them a fine, but escorts them with the siren to help them get there as fast as possible?

To elaborate on my acquiring of the raw cream, I would not want to be charged with a crime of course, but my point is that if it were a violation of any law or regulation, I would have no guilt or shame about it- no argument either. I might maintain my privacy (secrecy) about the details, but not from guilt or shame- only from the modesty of a practical preference to avoid complications involving any court system.

So, my perspective is that the CDC may be one of many operations which REGULATE the health of the US population, “intentionally or otherwise.” Again, in certain ways, the CDC may be rather like a bunch of autistic infants.

Shiny and colored objects usually attract Infa...

Shiny and colored objects usually attract Infant's vision. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What I mean by regulate is that the CDC discourages extremes, promotes uniformity. They MIGHT take actions that improve the health (or at least delay the deaths) or various portions of the population. They also “MIGHT” take actions that reduce the health of some of the healthiest portions of the general public. They might “normalize” or make uniform or make regular or regulate, yes.

But so what? We might pause here to review a functional definition of government and consider what priorities we might have available as options of how we relate to governments.

Governments govern. That is what they do.

They all systematically redistribute wealth. They punish certain things (such as by taxation) and they reward certain things (such as with government contracts).

They all use organized violence (like armies and squads of law enforcement officers). Organized violence is how they GOVERN their systematic redistributing of wealth.

blason du governorats

blason du governorats (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That is the nature of their business, right? So, how might I choose to relate to governments?

This gets back to the issue of neuro-LINGUISTIC development, like what do I say about this: what do governments have to do with me recovering the ability to walk? Not much? Only a little?

Let’s say that governments were relatively irrelevant to me getting that pint of raw cream and recovering the ability to walk. Maybe they helped in 402 ways (building roads and so on) and harmed in 372 ways (collecting taxes to build the roads). I’ll leave those computations to people more interested in the computations.

So, it is natural for me to value the respect and admiration of others, right? Well, I can also empathize with the employees of the CDC in that regard- like their valuing of respect and admiration. They do not want to be humiliated or publicly shamed, right? In the case of a racketeering scheme, the beneficiaries of the scheme may prefer to avoid  any publicity that they think might interfere with or even threaten the very existence of their scheme, right?


Health (Photo credit: 401K)

They are just operating a business (called “the government”) and they want to keep the inequitable economic redistribution flowing toward them, right? They do not want any interference with their organized coercion “protection rackets,” right? They may not want competition, right- like they may want to discourage other protection rackets of organized violence, as in by criminalizing any “unauthorized” protection rackets of  organized violence, right?'s not Extortion! HA!'s not Extortion! HA! (Photo credit: Instant Vantage)

So, what if I was not ashamed or guilty in general? What if I was not reactively afraid of governments, but also was respectful of their vast military potency? Would I shame them? Would I crave their validation and respect from the perspective of a whining pesky outraging indignant (undignified) protestor?

Or would my priority be to value maintaining a dynamic of minimal cooperation (or even maximum privacy)? I might not want to “DEFEAT” or “REFORM” the government because I might not want to enter their jurisdiction at all.

What do I mean by “jurisdiction?” Their jurisdiction is the defining of words. That is what courts and statutes do: they create and reform the “legal” definitions of words. They define what is legal and how. Then they use organized violence to enforce their legal definitions.

They are the functional masters in the art of language (and all forms of warfare including psychological warfare). It may be practically valuable for me to understand and respect that, at least as a possible reality and a way for me to relate to their programs.

Government Poster, Mandalay, Burma

Government Poster, Mandalay, Burma (Photo credit: racoles)

Now, if I want to “go to war” with the commercial interests of the USDA and the AMA (etc) over the court-room definitions of words like “organic,” it is relevant for me to know that I am addressing a matter of great financial importance to those commercial interests. Consider, on the other hand, a term like “Kosher” which is an entirely distinct linguistic category from “Organic.”

If breast-feeding was defined as a ritual sacrament (when conducted in private), would courts interfere with it? If consuming the fresh raw milk of humans by infants can be a protected ritual sacrament, then what about the consuming of various others things- could those be a sacrament?

People have sacraments to eat Eucharist wafers and unleavened bread (at passover?). Yesterday, I had some “high fish” (fish that is very high in bacteria and produces a variety of results including one that is similar to drinking fermented fruit juices such as wine). Eating something like that involves a ritual.

Why not openly use terminology (symbolic CODES called words!) that are not within the jurisdiction that courts have defined for themselves? Why argue with them over their use of words? Why not just use other words?
I invite you to RESPECT organizations like the Jesuits and Freemasons and “the branches of their tree,” by which I mean central governments like the US and the EU. If you do not understand the detail of what I just said, I will rephrase like this: how about *respecting* the functional authority (and potential for intense violence) of the UN/US/USA and it’s branches: such as the USDA, the USDC (court system), the DOJ, and the CDC?

Mother and infant

Mother and infant (Photo credit: kibuyu)

“Now, I know that for millions of years various organisms have been eating raw fruit with no concern for the extreme threats to their health posed by eating unpasteurized fruits. I think we should ban the criminally dangerous activity of primates eating bananas in particular. We need to properly educate infants about the dangers of eating any banana mush that has not been heated to at least 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and made in to a pile of  smoldering ashes.” – Louis Pasteur, Jr., 1776

By the way, that was a joke. If you did not know that the first time around, well, now you do.

So, want to change public opinion? Do not go to court – or do not just go there. Go to comedy clubs and make fun of the insanity- but gently. Cultures can shift. In fact, they always are already.

“Note that the calf in the image below is endangering it’s life by consuming fresh raw milk directly from it’s own mother. It is our responsibility to protect calves like these from negligent mothers who do not know the extreme dangers posed by such activities as consuming fresh raw milk, breathing, and smiling.”

Get Raw Milk

Get Raw Milk. (Photo credit: On Bradstreet)


benefit by accepting change

March 27, 2012
A boy riding a bicycle with training wheels

A boy riding a bicycle with training wheels (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you accept change, benefiting from changing developments in economics and society?

by Cal Euphoria,
of the Accepting Beneficiaries of a Changing World

Conditions are always changing- even while we sleep. We may notice some changes very suddenly- and those we may call “surprises” (and then we may look back and call some of the surprises pleasant or exciting and call others unpleasant, disappointing, or frustrating). We may notice many changes very slowly, calling them developments or trends. We may even notice changes just as they begin- long before others may notice them or may even be willing to accept them. We may call them intuitions or forecasts or prophecies or revelations or even revolutions emerging.

Any change- even just a possible change- may also be rejected, denied, and resisted. We could judge against a certain possible change as personally threatening or repulsive and then complain about it, protest against it, protect against it, campaign to reverse or “fix” it, or just try and try to prevent it simply by sustaining something else. Plus, we may just focus compulsively on what we hope may still be true.

Two men riding one bicycle in Paris, France.

Two men riding one bicycle in Paris, France. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of that can be quite exhausting, plus eventually it just does not work. Whatever we do or do not do, life always changes anyway- breathing in only for a while, then breathing out only for a while, and so on.

However, accepting change is essential to responsibility, functionality, and leadership. Rejecting anything is a symptom of dis-ease, or a lack of adaptability… in that one can be so attached to a certain possibility that the absence of that possibility would result in the experience of distress or suffering. If we focus on anything that we believe would or could result in distress, that is already distressing or agonizing.

Mental dis-ease or distress or suffering or agonizing (which, by the way, always has physical consequences) is not the inherent result of any particular external change or development. (Note: I am not talking here about a lack of physical development due to undernourishment- such as the “modern epidemic” of undersized jaws and crowded teeth due to diets of refined, processed,
“convenience” foods. See or In contrast to organic nutritional deficiencies (or physical injury- which is highly correlated to undernourishment), mental dis-ease or “disorder” is always an interactive response in which some possible development may be filtered through some neuro-linguistic patterns and then those patterns (or beliefs) may delete, distort, or otherwise decode the particular possible development, then – in the case of a responding of dis-ease – interpret that development or perception as “a threat, a problem, or a worry.”

However, what exactly is threatened? If the development is not inherently threatening, but only perceived as a threat from the context of a certain specific belief system, then perhaps it is only the belief system itself (the neuro-linguistic pattern) that is threatened by a particular development.

For those who are not familiar with the term neuro-linguistic pattern, consider that all beliefs are made up of words (language). Beliefs are inherently linguistic. Life (and experience) is not inherently linguistic, except for language itself.

Using language is like trying to describe a dream- the words are always related to the dream, but never replicating the actual experience of the dream for another. For instance, if two people both have direct experience with riding a bicycle, then they can linguistically refer to the direct experience of riding a bicycle and no beliefs need be involved.

Because their neurology has direct experience with bicycle-riding, the words about bicycle riding simply prompt a triggering of the associated neurology. The bicycle riders have direct experience patterned in to their neurology, and are not especially prone to argue with other people about any particular beliefs about bicycle-riding. Bicycle riders know bicycle-riding, and they know when other people know from personal experience or when other people merely are operating or talking from presumptions or concepts or beliefs or theories about riding a bicycle.

Any particular concept may be instantly recognized as a misconception, at least, by an experienced bicycle rider. Only for those that are not experienced bicycle riders, theories and arguments may be very interesting about what bicycle riding would be like, could be like or should be like. All of those intellectual conversations may lead someone to eventually experience bicycle riding- or may primarily have a social value, as in when people go on for years or decades about something and how it may be attractive or repulsive- yet never experience it directly. Notice that while bicycle riders may reminisce and discuss bicycle riding, they are not likely to argue about it, especially not arguing about how it should or should not be done.

They may share their experiences of how they did it as distinct anything else that they may have also explored. They may offer instructions or guiding questions, but would an experienced bicycle rider ever argue about what bicycle riding would be like?

Now, I did not select the analogy of bicycle riding because it is particularly important. However, it is common. Most children I know have seen bicycle riding and will eventually do it.

Further, there are many different variations of riding a bicycle. There is riding a bicycle up a mountain… or for hours in a highway

An ordinary bicycle. Man riding the bicycle in...

An ordinary bicycle. Man riding the bicycle in the centre of Kraków, Poland Polski: Bicykl. Mężczyzna jadący na bicyklu po krakowskim rynku, Polska (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

race… or in very different weather conditions- like during a snowstorm, hailstorm or on a muddy dirt road. I am clear between which types of bicycle riding are personally familiar to me from direct experience, and which ones I could imagine with my neurology and describe with words speculatively, but that I do not actually know.

However, some people may not be so clear about their own direct experience and what may ultimately be merely their opinions. Anyone who argues about politics or religion or economics… or human relationships or ANYTHING at all may be quite confused about language itself, that is, about the social function of arguing.

What do I mean by the social function of arguing? Arguing about bicycle riding is never really about bicycle riding. Arguing about bicycle riding is really always about the personalities doing the arguing. The social function of arguing is for people to test who actually knows what they are talking about from direct experience and who is just exploring concepts and theories and beliefs and words.

People who know the social function of arguing do not argue about arguing- nor about anything else, at least not other than in humor. People who argue do not know about the social function of arguing are the ones who argue RELIGIOUSLY. Arguing may be the central quality of their personality. They may argue about certain things in particular or about anything in general.

Arguing is always supposing as in speculating– and supposing or speculating certainly can have value. However, arguing is merely supposing or speculating WITHOUT recognizing that whatever is supposed to be is merely whatever is speculated to be.

Anything is possible- but supposing without knowing that one is merely speculating: that just may not work well, if at all. So, the social function of arguing is to identify – for all the rest of us – those of us who do not know that they are merely speculating about what is supposed by them personally to in fact be, but actually may not be… or even may be.

So, this article is not particularly about arguing (or bicycle riding). However, distinguishing what arguing is may be essential to what this article is particularly about. This article is about accepting the changing world- as distinct from arguing about it. In accepting the changing world, one may personally adjust to any changes such that one benefits from those changes.

It is possible for someone to benefit from changes that they argue against, but that benefit may be quite temporary. To reliably benefit from however the world is changing, one MUST accept however the world is changing- like not accept a certain set of changes, but accept any possible change- absolutely ANYTHING! If one is attached to arguing against (or for) ANYTHING, than one rejects what is already possible now as the world. If one rejects the world now for one’s personal attachments and opinions, the world may reject that one.

That is, the benefits of this changing world- benefits that I could otherwise be experiencing now- may instead just flow through my hands as I may try to grab the flowing water. I cannot grab the water- though I can exhaust myself trying- but I can cup my hands and allow the water to collect in my hands and to benefit me, to quench my thirst.

A famous man once said that one can drink from a well and remedy one’s thirst temporarily- but that there is also a drink that will cure one’s thirst forever- removing all possibility of the dis-ease of agonizing over the changing world, cleansing one of the rusty accumulations of obsolete belief systems, giving one a direct experience of something profound and unspeakable, something beyond the reasoning or speculative mind, something that the famous man called the peace beyond understanding, the peace of God. Another famous proverb says that the meek shall inherit the earth.

The vain may argue over what they suppose to be more important than what actually is. They may seek approval and glory.

The meek or humble recognize the glory of God in all of God’s works, that is, in everything and everyone. Because of their accepting the changing world just as it is, rather than exhausting themselves by condemning how the world may or may not be and should or should not be, struggling against the changing world, rejecting it and rejecting God, those who accept the changing world just as it is naturally and automatically go with the flow and adjust themselves into positions and relationships and patterns that bring to them benefit from the changes of the world. In other words, the humble inherit the changing world while the vain or arrogant reject and argue about it.

Notice (Photo credit: Squirmelia)

So, I have been accurately forecasting various major global changes for the last 7 or so years. Many of those changes have manifested since then, surprising much of humanity, such as the rise and then fall of commodity prices, especially fuel and oil, as well as the changes in lending markets, real estate markets, financial institutions, stock prices, and rates of unemployment, delinquency, foreclosure, and bankruptcy. However, the changes that I began publicly forecasting 7 years ago have not competed, and with each new development, I can update my forecasts to be more specific about the near future. Knowing how to recognize changes before most others even have a chance to reject and argue about them, I can adjust to benefit from them. I can also help you to do the same.

What I did not know 7 years ago is the extent to which not only other people but the extent to which I had learned to reject the changing world, condemning it and many of the people within it, most particularly, myself. Those who reject themselves and the changing world seek to prove themselves, to enter and win arguments, and to earn approval and love and rescue or salvation. Those who accept the changing world and themselves AUTOMATICALLY align and attune and adjust, thus benefiting from the changing world, inheriting the future.

I invite you to contact me for either or both of the following explorations: not only how to adjust economically and financially to accept the benefits offered by the changing world, but also how to open one’s heart to accepting all that is possible for this changing world and for each of us. I look forward to hearing from you and from benefiting along with you.

“Lest ye humble yourselves like children, ye shall not enter….” Seek first to accept this world as already heaven now, be redeemed from judgment against it… into innocence, and then all else shall be added unto you- fountains of blessings that will overflow like a gushing spring or geyser.

Receive the spirit and character of the Holy One as your own, and accept that you are made in the image of the Holy One, exactly according to God’s will, as an expression or form of God- just as is everyone else. So, if the beam in your own eye offends thee, cast it out! If you judge another as wrong, just forgive them and the error shall be corrected. However, if you are unwilling to forgive, error shall persist- within you as resentment and perhaps even within them as guilt.

You who have known what it is like to wallow in guilt and resentment and dis-ease and generally to make life hell, how dare you allow others to suffer when you could end the suffering now just by your blessing the changing world and everyone of us here, including yourself…. How dare you arrogantly reject the benefits that the changing world is offering you? Would you rather complain and protest and struggle against the changing world- condemning God indirectly- or accept the blessings which God offers generously, reliably, predictably, faithfully?

First published: October 3, 2009

Related articles

%d bloggers like this: