Here and Now...What's Happening?

[TargeT]

Rode my leg shattering motorcycle for the first time today since my accident.


It's funny how it feels like it's made out of paper mache and hope now, but I suppose a bit of anxiety is to be expected.

Posted by dan33 (here)
Another day at the vet. "Rambo" has an infection. It is a Peruvian guinea pig. I wonder, Micromat work with animals ?. I'm not kidding.

What kind of infection? if it's topical I use Cold pressed Coconut Oil; the stuff is amazing & I haven't seen a vet for wound infection in over 4 years since discovering this (I run a horse/dog/cat rescue... I have two pigs and two sheep too, but they don't count).

Just clean the wound then liberally apply the coconut oil, getting it into and around the infected area as much as possible then just leave it, re-apply once or twice a day depending on the wound's location, cover if needed (depending on the wounds location).

[dan33]

Rambo has a lump of pus in his neck. He is improving. Ana, the veterinary, she is an expert in this type of animal.
Thanks a lot, Target!

[TargeT]

Posted by dan33 (here)
Rambo has a lump of pus in his neck. He is improving. Ana, the veterinary, she is an expert in this type of animal.
Thanks a lot, Target!

the key to Abscesses (lump of puss) is to drain them & keep them draining while they heal (pick off the scab & keep it draining); it's very possibly due to a bite. Do those two fight at all?

[ulli]

Posted by dan33 (here)
Another day at the vet. "Rambo" has an infection. It is a Peruvian guinea pig. I wonder, Micromat work with animals ?. I'm not kidding.

Works with my cats. Not kidding, tampoco.
Regeneration, pain, vitality, nervous system.
My older cat arrives whenever I have a session.

[Violet]

Found it.




Time weighs down on you like an old, ambiguous dream. You keep on moving, trying to sleep through it. But even if you go to the ends of the earth, you won't be able to escape it. Still, you have to go there- to the edge of the world. There's something you can't do unless you get there.

Haruki Murakami

[Ewan]

So can we just pop in here and ask questions?

That's what is happening with me right now, I'm trying to remember the name of a film. (I have a hankering to watch it again). It was a youngish Charlie Sheen, I think, working as a geoligist or scientist in Sth America. He discovered power stations there pumping out methane gas and uncovered an alien conpiracy to terraform the planet. Anyone?

Well guess what, I used my brains (for once) and searched his appearance list on IMDB. The film was called The Arrival.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Wj3xn-8y0Q

And I'll leave this up so if anyone didn't know it they can check it out.

[ulli]

Posted by Ewan (here)
So can we just pop in here and ask questions?

That's what is happening with me right now, I'm trying to remember the name of a film. (I have a hankering to watch it again). It was a youngish Charlie Sheen, I think, working as a geoligist or scientist in Sth America. He discovered power stations there pumping out methane gas and uncovered an alien conpiracy to terraform the planet. Anyone?

Well guess what, I used my brains (for once) and searched his appearance list on IMDB. The film was called The Arrival.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Wj3xn-8y0Q

And I'll leave this up so if anyone didn't know it they can check it out.

A good example of how a question is always more important than the answer.
Once the question has been formulated, the answer appears, and usually out of thin air.

[ulli]

Earlier last night, while unable to sleep, I came across a statement which I have been mulling over now.
The thread where I had read it was "Dead Man Walking" and the poster stated that the term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.

But is it really? Isn't it the ideal, to strive for. The truly integrated individual is both...
alternating in his/her roles as sovereign, and also as citizen.

As a sovereign attending to personal goals and affairs,
and as a citizen submitting to the greater good of the society.

One without the other can never bring a better world.

Musing, here and now.

[araucaria]

Posted by ulli (here)
Earlier last night, while unable to sleep, I came across a statement which I have been mulling over now.
The thread where I had read it was "Dead Man Walking" and the poster stated that the term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.

But is it really? Isn't it the ideal, to strive for. The truly integrated individual is both...
alternating in his/her roles as sovereign, and also as citizen.

As a sovereign attending to personal goals and affairs,
and as a citizen submitting to the greater good of the society.

One without the other can never bring a better world.

Musing, here and now.

Sovereigns – kings and their money – stuff at the top; citizens at the bottom. How do you reconcile the two? There is the familiar scatological connection: The word sovereign, from the French ‘souverain’, is derived from the Latin superanus, hence the colloquial use of the ‘throne’. The idea is to view it from the opposite angle. If we value the one over the many, the king over the common people we may be making the same mistake when we each value our uniqueness. We are all unique, of course, but let’s not make such a big deal of it. Uniqueness has to become diluted when you are talking in terms of billions of such unique beings. Seen from this angle, anything you can put a name and place and date to (our history books are full of it) is no more than a microscopic detail that fades into near non-existence within the bigger picture. The purpose of growth is to become something much bigger than that, and the purpose of growing consciousness is to realize that we are already something so much bigger than that. Claiming personal sovereignty then means we can’t all be kings, we become primi inter pares exercising collective authority on an altogether less puny scale.

[ulli]

The other thing I wanted to address for a while is system change.

It is impossible to change the shape of a crystal, once it has taken form, unless it is smashed and reduced to a pile of powder, from which it can then rise and build itself anew.

So in a political system that has become totally corrupted, you can't expect to see change unless you bring in a force that will reduce that structure to powder. And I was thinking that Donald Trump would be qualified to do that rampage.

But his supporters will later down the road still have to face a tough lesson, which is to not look outside themselves for leadership.

Germans were once in a similar position, and while the promised greatness was of short duration the resulting decimation of their country meant in the end that all had become equals at the grass roots level and had to start over, with each person receiving 40 DM as their starting capital.

And then the globalists moved in and the whole game started over anew.
And now we are witnessing it at the highest level, since the US is in reality already a reflection of the global superstate.

[Calz]

Posted by Nora (here)

I have a stelium of eight planets in Pisces transiting my 8th house opposite my 2nd house which has a stellium of five planets in Virgo and I'm a Leo.

Hi Nora,

Say it has been years (and several computers) since I was running charts so I pulled up one of the freebie online software sites and ran the day of your post.

There was only 1 planet (Sun) in Pisces. Not sure an 8 planet stellium is even possible .... most I remember is 6.

Can you clarify?


*** adding ***


Ooops ... make that two ... Neptune is in Pisces as well.

[ulli]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
Earlier last night, while unable to sleep, I came across a statement which I have been mulling over now.
The thread where I had read it was "Dead Man Walking" and the poster stated that the term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.

But is it really? Isn't it the ideal, to strive for. The truly integrated individual is both...
alternating in his/her roles as sovereign, and also as citizen.

As a sovereign attending to personal goals and affairs,
and as a citizen submitting to the greater good of the society.

One without the other can never bring a better world.

Musing, here and now.

Sovereigns – kings and their money – stuff at the top; citizens at the bottom. How do you reconcile the two? There is the familiar scatological connection: The word sovereign, from the French ‘souverain’, is derived from the Latin superanus, hence the colloquial use of the ‘throne’. The idea is to view it from the opposite angle. If we value the one over the many, the king over the common people we may be making the same mistake when we each value our uniqueness. We are all unique, of course, but let’s not make such a big deal of it. Uniqueness has to become diluted when you are talking in terms of billions of such unique beings. Seen from this angle, anything you can put a name and place and date to (our history books are full of it) is no more than a microscopic detail that fades into near non-existence within the bigger picture. The purpose of growth is to become something much bigger than that, and the purpose of growing consciousness is to realize that we are already something so much bigger than that. Claiming personal sovereignty then means we can’t all be kings, we become primi inter pares exercising collective authority on an altogether less puny scale.

But, araucaria, we all CAN be kings; we just have to be aware of where our domain begins and ends.

For a teen it may just be the size of his bedside drawer, and for a young couple it is the size of their apartment, where the front door is where their private domain ends and the shared domain, of the public arena, that of the collective, begins.

I was once trying to explain this concept eight years ago to a neighbor, who was Aries, and new to Costa Rica, and who had a predatorial personality.
She would knock on our door and ask to use our phone (as she had none), at 5:30 am when my husband was doing his morning routine, trying to get to work on time. She would then sit there, in our living room, with her long list of phone numbers and make a dozen or so calls.
She was totally surprised when after her third attempt I explained to her that this was not on.
That she had to get herself organized. That our cabin was our domain, and not to be taken over as she wished.

My husband, a polite Costa Rican, who is culturally not equipped and socially unable to withstand the advances of Americans who see this entire country as their domain, in this case needed to use me as his body guard/ protector, to point out to this woman what our boundaries were.

And that's how this issue had come up, that question of individual rights and sovereignty, and collective responsibility.
The need for private domain, and also for a public arena of shared appliances, like public phone boxes.
Soon after that things changed and we are now seeing cell phones being owned even by migrant coffee pickers, while public phones have disappeared for good.
What does this tell us about the direction individual sovereignty has been taken?

[araucaria]

Posted by ulli (here)
The other thing I wanted to address for a while is system change.

It is impossible to change the shape of a crystal, once it has taken form, unless it is smashed and reduced to a pile of powder, from which it can then rise and build itself anew.

So in a political system that has become totally corrupted, you can't expect to see change unless you bring in a force that will reduce that structure to powder. And I was thinking that Donald Trump would be qualified to do that rampage.

But his supporters will later down the road still have to face a tough lesson, which is to not look outside themselves for leadership.

Germans were once in a similar position, and while the promised greatness was of short duration the resulting decimation of their country meant in the end that all had become equals at the grass roots level and had to start over, with each person receiving 40 DM as their starting capital.

And then the globalists moved in and the whole game started over anew.
And now we are witnessing it at the highest level, since the US is in reality already a reflection of the global superstate.

Maybe the crystal is no longer the appropriate analogy. David Wilcock is one who writes about DNA as ‘a wave structure that can be re-arranged’. Maybe the political wave structure can be re-arranged as well. Anthony Trollope writes, “A man can’t govern well simply because he is genuinely anxious that men should be well governed.” The current problem is that the governors are not genuinely anxious in this way; some I believe are, and this side has tended to become less visible; but too many others are either not genuine enough or not anxious enough. The solution has to be a broad coalition of genuinely anxious “genuinely anxious”, which could conceivably be achieved by tweaking the political DNA rather than a drastic change of personnel, which has been tried and has endlessly failed. But somehow Donald Drumpf doesn’t fit in with this picture.

[ulli]

Posted by Calz (here)

Posted by Nora (here)

I have a stelium of eight planets in Pisces transiting my 8th house opposite my 2nd house which has a stellium of five planets in Virgo and I'm a Leo.

Hi Nora,

Say it has been years (and several computers) since I was running charts so I pulled up one of the freebie online software sites and ran the day of your post.

There was only 1 planet (Sun) in Pisces. Not sure an 8 planet stellium is even possible .... most I remember is 6.

Can you clarify?


*** adding ***


Ooops ... make that two ... Neptune is in Pisces as well.

Sun and Neptune were conjunct.
That will mess up anyone's ability to count to three, even.

[Calz]

Posted by ulli (here)

Earlier last night, while unable to sleep, I came across a statement which I have been mulling over now.

The thread where I had read it was "Dead Man Walking" and the poster stated that the term "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.

Village is my preferred rest and relaxation thread (as well as the music threads).

[araucaria]

Posted by ulli (here)
But, araucaria, we all CAN be kings; we just have to be aware of where our domain begins and ends.

For a teen it may just be the size of his bedside drawer, and for a young couple it is the size of their apartment, where the front door is where their private domain ends and the shared domain, of the public arena, that of the collective, begins.

I was once trying to explain this concept eight years ago to a neighbor, who was Aries, and new to Costa Rica, and who had a predatorial personality.
She would knock on our door and ask to use our phone (as she had none), at 5:30 am when my husband was doing his morning routine, trying to get to work on time. She would then sit there, in our living room, with her long list of phone numbers and make a dozen or so calls.
She was totally surprised when after her third attempt I explained to her that this was not on.
That she had to get herself organized. That our cabin was our domain, and not to be taken over as she wished.

My husband, a polite Costa Rican, who is culturally not equipped and socially unable to withstand the advances of Americans who see this entire country as their domain, in this case needed to use me as his body guard/ protector, to point out to this woman what our boundaries were.

And that's how this issue had come up, that question of individual rights and sovereignty, and collective responsibility.
The need for private domain, and also for a public arena of shared appliances, like public phone boxes.
Soon after that things changed and we are now seeing cell phones being owned even by migrant coffee pickers, while public phones have disappeared for good.
What does this tell us about the direction individual sovereignty has been taken?

I don’t disagree Ulli. Simply, kingship and personal sovereignty are two different things. Your individual sovereignty is subject to a king’s overall sovereignty; your domain is a part of his kingdom. Your public property is his private property, and historically your private property was also his private property, he could help himself as he saw fit. It’s not very different today. Your American was practising kingship and you were explaining personal sovereignty.

[Mark]

Posted by ulli (here)
So in a political system that has become totally corrupted, you can't expect to see change unless you bring in a force that will reduce that structure to powder. And I was thinking that Donald Trump would be qualified to do that rampage.

But his supporters will later down the road still have to face a tough lesson, which is to not look outside themselves for leadership.

I think this is exactly it. Be careful what you vote for ... you just might get it.

[Calz]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
So in a political system that has become totally corrupted, you can't expect to see change unless you bring in a force that will reduce that structure to powder. And I was thinking that Donald Trump would be qualified to do that rampage.

But his supporters will later down the road still have to face a tough lesson, which is to not look outside themselves for leadership.

I think this is exactly it. Be careful what you vote for ... you just might get it.

What about decades of having to chose the lesser of two evils???

The system *has* to fall.

This simply cannot continue ...

[araucaria]

Posted by Calz (here)

Posted by Rahkyt (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
So in a political system that has become totally corrupted, you can't expect to see change unless you bring in a force that will reduce that structure to powder. And I was thinking that Donald Trump would be qualified to do that rampage.

But his supporters will later down the road still have to face a tough lesson, which is to not look outside themselves for leadership.

I think this is exactly it. Be careful what you vote for ... you just might get it.

What about decades of having to chose the lesser of two evils???

The system *has* to fall.

This simply cannot continue ...

Here in France we have an interesting wraparound situation. We have a guy who, in the presidential primaries in 2012, gathered just 5% of his own party vote, equivalent to less than 2% of the overall electorate, and who is the current prime minister of two years standing. His government is now introducing policies to which the most vehement opposition was expressed by none other than themselves when those same policies were presented by the previous administration. Things have changed, they say, for we are now in a state of emergency decreed by themselves. We are surely in a state of emergency of some sort when successive governments are all aligned against the people, who are disenfranchised by having practically no one they can vote for who is not a part of this little game. As Ulli’s mention of the precedent of 1930s Germany suggests, voting for the Trumps of this world really doesn’t bear thinking about. The rest of this post is about something that has been on my mind for some time.

It would appear that this government wishes to treat so-called conspiracy theorists like terrorists, and that Project Avalon features among those websites of concern, membership of which in this twisted thinking might constitute an act of terrorism. For such an eventuality ever to materialize would be, depending on your standpoint, the ultimate proof either that the world is even crazier than we thought, or that people like myself are indeed a danger to society in its current form — or both (makes sense). All of my posts in five years have sought as far as possible, usually implicitly, sometimes (as here) explicitly, to distance themselves from terrorism, which amounts to making a case for the defence. Let me do a little more of that here.

Some astrophysicists admit that barely 5% of the universe is potentially accessible to them. Following the scientific axiom that this part of the universe is basically similar to any other, this ballpark figure ought strictly to apply to everything occurring on this planet, including such things as the rest of science, historiography (where we come from), and politics (where we are at and where we are heading). No need for conspiracy: we are focussing on a narrow band of roughly 1/20th of what is actually going on. This 5% is the “box” in which we are mostly confined. While there are different categories of people thinking outside that box, Arab terrorists are furthest from belonging to one of those categories.

When politicians try to administer to our needs in terms of jobs, income, health, education, security, disposal/recycling of garbage etc. these are 5% notions that get the 5% treatment. Why? Because they are hidebound by the rule of money. A minister measures his influence by his budget: the more billions he gets to distribute the more powerful he is. But of course, his government only gets to handle something like 5% of the money supply. The rest is in the hands of private corporations. You get fascism when these corporations are in charge, as they surely have to be today on grounds of financial clout alone. Even the 5% treatment you get from the mainstream media tells us that some corporations are already bigger than some national economies. In a sense then, they are operating outside the box; such operation will of course be invisible to anyone stuck without knowing it in the box. The broader spectrum outside-the-box view of this situation that one gets from certain elements of the alternative media merely takes the tiny logical step of suggesting that some corporations are (getting) bigger than all the national economies. This tiny logical step involves supposing that these people do not pay all their taxes, on the basis of the established fact of thriving tax havens around the world. In case anyone was naive enough to think otherwise, there was a French minister (Jérôme Cahuzac) specifically appointed to deal with this issue. What happened to him? He was sacked and sent for trial for tax evasion of his own. While of course by definition we don’t know exactly how big the problem really is, at a conservative estimate we could say that it is much worse than we thought.

The French writer Jean Cocteau said, “Quand les bornes sont franchies, il n’y a plus de limites”, which roughly translates, Anything can happen when you step out of the box. That is why there is so much crazy stuff in the alternative media: some of it is garbage to be sure; much of it is just garbled. This is understandable: it is like a young person walking away from their bedroom bookshelf into a national library and trying to find something to make sense of. But quite clearly, the medium- and long-term solution is not in the bedroom. And yet that is what the politicians (who write the laws that they want the courts to apply to upstanding citizens) are trying to do to us. You have conservative governments that are thrown out because they apply policies favourable to the corporate elite, against the public interest. They alternate with “left-wing” governments that are thrown out because... they always end up applying those same policies favourable to the corporate elite instead of their own – thereby demonstrating how governments are indeed beholden to capitalist corporations. When was the last time anyone had effective government? With a few minor exceptions, not in living memory. There comes a point however when the electorate has run out of personnel to vote in and the whole system has become all too obviously unsuitable for purpose. This is something many people have known for quite some time; but where terrorism comes in is that it brings home to politicians something else that has been known for some time to the rest of us, namely that in all this ineffectual government people are getting killed. The terrorists themselves are not thinking outside the box: they are not thinking at all in fact; they have shrunk down from 5% to 0%, where there is no hope and the death wish reaches the nihilistic point where they want to take others with them.

As an illustration of this desperate mindset, let me quote this post:

Posted by araucaria (here)
I have been reading a huge novel by Anthony Trollope, Can You Forgive Her?, published in 1864. One of the characters is an utter scoundrel who tries to get into politics. Winning a seat in Parliament is presented as almost exclusively a matter of raising vast funds to pay for the services of a professional campaign manager, another scoundrel. He claims the money from a rich cousin whom he wants to marry for that purpose; she eventually turns down marriage but supplies the funds anyway, at least up to a point. When he runs out of cash, he is defeated in the election, and feels suicidal and murderous towards the entire universe in general and several individuals in particular, actually carrying out an attempted murder. But instead of committing suicide, what he does – on page 666 of my edition – is to... sail off to America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_You_Forgive_Her%3F

The point that I would pick out in the contrast with the gentleman has nothing to do with the corrupt method of entering Parliament, but simply the way certain things are done and not done. The rich cousin has in fact jilted a gentleman, who wins her back notably by behaving as if the thing never happened. But by the end of the tale, he himself enters Parliament, the only difference being that he does so with his own money, and it works out considerably cheaper owing to his having friends in high places. The ‘bottom line’ – the basic subordination of the exercise of power to mostly inherited unearned income – is the same: the haves are gentlemen, the have nots are villains. Nowadays nothing has changed, except that the ‘gentlemen’ are paying villains to do the work of government for them.

So what we find, a century and more after this story, is America – which is several times bigger than Western Europe, but in a very 5% rags-to-riches sort of way (closer to 0% in fact) – coming home to roost...

Hence to equate the activity of forums like Avalon with terrorism is the exact opposite of the truth. Terrorism is the degree zero of what we already have. What we are trying to do is grow beyond the 5%, to 6, 7, 8...% and eventually a whole lot better than that. We know for a fact there is much more to our reality than our comfortable little box, because we regularly operate outside of it ourselves. Our brain capacity, at present underused by 90% or more, is already there to deal with it if only we plug it in. What makes this potentially threatening for some is that it is coming from their blind side, out of their box; so perhaps what is needed is an ordinary explanation of what is actually going on that can make it understandable that the old formula “if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear” applies not just to us upright citizens loyal to We the People but also to politicians fast becoming unelectable and who no longer have an America to flee to. We are all in this together, and are all disenfranchised until we devise a system that is going to work. Simply, we lie at different places along the same spectrum of the disenfranchised on which, moving further along the axis of desperation, we find those tempted to experiment with the far right (as if that had never been tried before), and beyond them all the way to terrorist sympathizers with seemingly nothing to gain and nothing to lose.

[ulli]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
The other thing I wanted to address for a while is system change.

It is impossible to change the shape of a crystal, once it has taken form, unless it is smashed and reduced to a pile of powder, from which it can then rise and build itself anew.

So in a political system that has become totally corrupted, you can't expect to see change unless you bring in a force that will reduce that structure to powder. And I was thinking that Donald Trump would be qualified to do that rampage.

But his supporters will later down the road still have to face a tough lesson, which is to not look outside themselves for leadership.

Germans were once in a similar position, and while the promised greatness was of short duration the resulting decimation of their country meant in the end that all had become equals at the grass roots level and had to start over, with each person receiving 40 DM as their starting capital.

And then the globalists moved in and the whole game started over anew.
And now we are witnessing it at the highest level, since the US is in reality already a reflection of the global superstate.

Maybe the crystal is no longer the appropriate analogy. David Wilcock is one who writes about DNA as ‘a wave structure that can be re-arranged’. Maybe the political wave structure can be re-arranged as well. Anthony Trollope writes, “A man can’t govern well simply because he is genuinely anxious that men should be well governed.” The current problem is that the governors are not genuinely anxious in this way; some I believe are, and this side has tended to become less visible; but too many others are either not genuine enough or not anxious enough. The solution has to be a broad coalition of genuinely anxious “genuinely anxious”, which could conceivably be achieved by tweaking the political DNA rather than a drastic change of personnel, which has been tried and has endlessly failed. But somehow Donald Drumpf doesn’t fit in with this picture.

Ok. No more smashing crystals.
How's this then?