How and Why “Conscious” Festivals Need to Change — video and documentary included
by Humberto Braga II
LVX
May 22, 2014
Wouldn’t it be great to have a lifestyle where you didn’t have to bounce between “making a living” and enjoying your favorite festivals? Then I have a proposition for you all.
Now, before you get your fuzzy, pink glitterboots in a dusty uproar, rest assured that I’m not just going to bash the beloved Burn. I’m just going to use it as an example since it’s the biggest “conscious” festival of its kind (like Lightning in a Bottle, Wanderlust, Lucidity, etc…). I appreciate much of what Burning Man does as an experimental temporary society. I’ve been to Burning Man, danced my butt off in the dust storms, and I have many good friends who go each year. I’ve seen and heard firsthand both the amazing positive side and the disturbing dark side of Burning Man. Despite the darker side, I appreciate the possibilities for healing, creativity, and camaraderie that Burning Man provides. My intention in writing this, however, is to propose an inspiration for a greater vision that lasts 24/7 for all 365 days.
On the surface, I understand the appeal of Burning Man: take a brief vacation, have an adventure in to the middle of nowhere, be creative, have a gift-economy, and let loose with fun-loving strangers in an attempt to get away from the pressures and constraints of everyday life (never mind the groups of police constantly patrolling the campgrounds).
Well, even though Burning Man is supposedly “counter-culture” on the surface, underneath it still endorses the exact same mentality that the “Powers That Be” feed off of in the mainstream culture. Burning Man, with respect to its positive aspects, is essentially a huge, extremely expensive, unsustainable, ‘flash-in-the-pan’ 1-week party in the desert where vanity and escapism are rampant. Sounds pretty similar to the image Hollywood sells as “cool”, doesn’t it?
In that respect, Marianne Williamson dropped an awareness-bomb, speaking powerfully and poignantly about the self-defeating trap of “conscious festivals” at Lightning in a Bottle (another smaller festival akin to Burning Man) which must be taken in to consideration for creating a greater paradigm in light of the global situation.
So, with Marianne’s message in mind, one has to ask themselves, “What is it all building toward? And can it be improved?” …I think it absolutely can, and it must.
From looking at the expenditures of each year, it’s clear that Burning Man has pulled in well over tens of millions of dollars in each recent year. Combined with the amount of money each of the 50,000+ annual festival-goers spend on gas, food, art supplies, and other preparations, the amount of money and resources spent on this 8-day festival of Burning Man is ASTONISHING… But then what? Could it be put to better use?
What if, instead of one short-lived, albeit generally well-meaning, annual party, that money was put toward creating a progressive, technologically sustainable community that could sustain numerous festivals? What if this community operated with open source information/collaboration technology, green tech designs with little to zero ecological footprints, scientifically optimized products for sustainable solutions coming in to greater balance with nature, free innovative education, spiritual and psychological awareness, and free, clean energy? Imagine what could be accomplished if all that money, utilized in a non-profit capacity, was put towards assembling a cutting-edge team of engineers, manufacturers, information technology experts, permaculturists, teachers, holistic doctors and therapists, and land management specialists on an optimal private property that could create a model community! The resources are obviously available! Thousands of volunteers would gladly help! Why WOULDN’T we want that?
Looking at the financials, it’s VERY possible that by foregoing ONE Burning Man, enough revenue will generated from “ticket sales” (I.O.U. tickets for when the groundwork for the “New Burning Man” project is established), crowd source fundraising, and donations from progressive companies to pioneer a better way of living that could be replicated around the world! Taking a sober look at the world, it’s evident that experimenting with these sort of projects is an evolutionary necessity. We cannot depend on corrupt, corporately controlled governments and fraudulent, privatized economic systems to fix the very problems it has created and continues to perpetuate. We all must take responsibility in working toward a greater future. And if the 10 Principles of Burning Man are anything more than just paper-thin, hypocritical lip-service, then it is incumbent upon all Burners to strive for greater Radical Civic Responsibility, Inclusion, Communal Effort, Participation, and Immediacy toward a greater cause that would be greater than anything anyone could imagine.
Take a good look at the lives we lead. We lead lifestyles that were once was the privilege of emperors, kings, and great courts, yet we all too often squander our creative and intellectual potential by conforming to a fetishized culture of escapism, superficial gratification, drugs, and a bombardment of feel-good disinformation that distracts and holds us back from truth and empowerment.
Rome distracted its citizenry with games, drugs, and gaudy spectacles. Religion sold lies to profit while keeping people from rebelling against government. Now, as Jan Irvin illustrates in the video below, the CIA has co-opted the counterculture movement with the same old methods. History repeats itself until we learn the lesson.
The bottom line is this: We are capable of SO much more, and time is precious.
You want to “raise your vibration” and help the world? Here’s the chance.
What are you going to do with it?
PODCAST — Remedy Roundtable 01- with Joe Atwill, Bill Joslin, Ryan Gilmore and Jan Irvin – “Navigating the world of Sophistry” – #205 | Gnostic Media
Gnostic Media
Aug 6, 2014
This episode is our first edition of Remedy Roundtable, titled: Navigating the world of Sophistry.
Released on Wednesday, August 06, 2014, and was recorded on Monday, August 04, 2014.
In this series we’ll be have an international team with the Joe Atwill – the author of Caesear’s Messiah, who’s been on many times before; Bill Joslin from Canada – whom we introduced a few weeks ago with our video Meditation: Deconstructing Nonsense; and also Ryan Gilmore – host of Inside Out Asylum, in the UK. Both Joe and I are in Southern California.
Joe Atwill’s websites:
www.caesarsmessiahdoc.com
http://caesarsmessiah.com/
http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/
Ryan Gilmore’s website:
http://insideoutasylum.com/
Trivium Education:
www.triviumeducation.com
Send Bitcoin donations for this episode to:
12EQTDMzU5mxtEd8ZfyrHrxABZi3jtaCCo
Please make other forms of donations here:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/donate/
Donations. This episode is brought to you by:
Fouzi
Dylan
William
M&A
BTC:
1GmTf7
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:41:27 — 92.9MB) | Embed
MUST WATCH — Mark Passio – New Age Bullshit Revisited – Asheville, NC
This is part 1 of 2 of a seminar which Mark Passio presented in Asheville, NC on March 22, 2014.
In this seminar, Mark explains how the “New” Age Movement is a Religion that has been purposefully designed to stifle Right Action by manipulating people into believing that we change our reality by thought and emotion alone. During the course of the seminar, Mark breaks down 15 “feel-good,” pseudo-spiritual “New” Age Deceptions which masquerade as spiritual teachings. After each deception is exposed, Mark balances each deception with a Correction which espouses a street-wise approach to true Spiritual Wisdom.
This is part 2 of 2 of a seminar which Mark Passio presented in Asheville, NC on March 22, 2014.
VIDEO — Obama Says the “T” Word
The Eyeopener
Aug 13, 2014
Language is the great tool of the tyrants. It always has been, and always will be. Patriots are expected to abide by a PATRIOT Act that destroys their Bill of Rights, support “surgical strikes” against “enemy combatants” by the Department of “Defense,” and cheer the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to those who wage war.
Find out more about the doublespeak that underpins our political unreality on this week’s edition of The Eyeopener report.
SUPPORT BFP: http://ur1.ca/hi0ua
SHOW NOTES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=11789
The Music Industry Is Literally Brainwashing You to Like Bad Pop Songs — Here’s How — video included
Canadian Awareness Network
Aug 13, 2014
By Tom Barnes August 4, 2014
Last summer it was “Blurred Lines.” This summer it’s “Fancy.” Every year, there’s a new song that we all hate until we don’t anymore (see: playcounts). And it turns out that’s because we were brainwashed to like them.
Research suggests that repeated exposure is a much more surefire way of getting the general public to like a song than writing one that suits their taste. Based on an fMRI study in 2011, we now know that the emotional centers of the brain — including the reward centers — are more active when people hear songs they’ve been played before. In fact, those brain areas are more active even than when people hear unfamiliar songs that are far better fits with their musical taste.
This happens more often than you might think. After a couple dozen unintentional listens, many of us may find ourselves changing our initial opinions about a song — eventually admitting that, really, Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” isn’t as awful as it sounds. PBS’ Idea Channel‘s Mike Rugnetta explains, it’s akin to a musical “Stockholm syndrome,” a term used originally by criminologist Nils Bejerot to describe a phenomenon in which victims of kidnapping may begin to sympathize with their captors over time.
The elite television anchor: center of the psyop
by Jon Rappoport
August 6, 2014
“In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” (George Burns)
Reality is a psychological operation.
Socio-political reality basically means some group has force, money, and access to fawning media. They can define what exists.
A psyop depends on being able to engineer one story line.
A psyop depends on selling one centralized story.
If, magically, overnight, you found yourself in possession of overwhelming force and a direct pipeline to elite media anchors, you could tell your story about what exists, and you would find millions of people believing you.
What would happen if the three major networks, each with considerable power, had come up with three vastly different versions of the Boston massacre?
CBS: “FBI and local police killed one terrorist and captured the other in what observers are calling one of the bravest days in the history of law enforcement in America.”
NBC: “After a violent gun battle on the streets of a great American city, during which a suspect in the Boston massacre was killed, an FBI source stunningly revealed the Bureau had shifted the blame on to their own cooperating informants. The source put it this way: ‘The Tsarnaev brothers were recruited by a secret Bureau unit to plant the bombs. The plan was to blame the bombing on so-called patriots, but that fell through, so the Bureau exercised their only option. They put their own informants front and center and called them terrorists…’”
ABC: “Today, the tragic loss of life and wounding of more than 180 persons at the Boston Marathon were partially redeemed, when, amazingly, Boston police traced three pipe bombs to a CIA storage locker in Maryland…”
Suppose, in the midst of an uproar heard and echoed around the world, the networks stood by their contradictory versions of events and wouldn’t back down?
A massive blow would hit psyop-land. Centralized story? Poleaxed.
People wouldn’t know what to do. They expect one story line and they get three, from the highest hypnotic and influential media giants.
In a literal, though unconscious, sense, familiar time and space begin to fall apart.
But actually, it’s far more surreal for the three major television networks to agree on the substance of every significant event than to come to radically different conclusions.
Unfortunately, people don’t see it that way. They don’t see that three behemoths dispensing the same information are key elements in thought-police fascism. They don’t see that the consensus is arranged.
“Bargain price! We’ll shave down your perceptual field so you can fit in with eight billion androids. You’ll never miss what you can’t see. On a scale from 0 to 10, your creative impulse will be coming in at about .06. That’ll cement you right into the limited spectrum, where all the action is. Yes, folks, there really is a sense of family in this reality. People liking people. We’re all in this together. Remember, life is better when you see what we want you to see! It takes the pressure off. Do you really care about what you think? Don’t you want to be fixed, so you can think what everybody else thinks? Now that’s a real program. Once we lock you in and reshuffle your electromagnetic fields, you’ll emerge with our new Sameness system. You’ll see what your friends see with just a bit of difference, to make it interesting…”
In a country in which art has little or no perceived value, there’s a sucker born every millisecond. Why? Because when consciousness of art is nil, people accept official art, which is always present, as the guiding and only reality. And of course, they don’t see it as art.
“Things can’t be any other way. This is it.”
Nowhere is this truer than in television news.
It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.
The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.
Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.
That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.
The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.
The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.
The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.
The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.
The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.
The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, the audience can remain content in its own related role: watching the actor.
The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.
Night after night, the anchor, working from a long tradition, confirms that he is delivering the news as it should be delivered, in both style and substance. The audience bows before the tradition and before him.
From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.
But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”
This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.
The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.
With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.
The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.
The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.
Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, that means there is news to report.
What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?
On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.
This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.
Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?” And the public buys it.
All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it’s Brian Williams.
The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.
The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news. When Diane Sawyer goes too far and begins dribbling (alcohol? tranqs?) on her collar, that’s soap opera, and the audience loves soap opera, too.
The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.
There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”
Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control. And neutrality implies: the nation is so powerful we don’t need to trumpet our facts; we don’t need to become excited; our strength is that secure.
Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).
Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.
The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?
The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.
The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.
“Well, folks, our top story tonight…it turns out that IG Farben, a famous chemical and pharmaceutical octopus that put Hitler over the top in Germany, was instrumental in planning what became the EU, the European Union. In other words, today’s United Europe is World War Two by other means.”
I don’t think Williams, Pelley, or Sawyer could deliver that line without going into a terminal paroxysm.
At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made at the top. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.
It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.
These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.
By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.
In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).
Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.
If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world, and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists, and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals, and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope, and if the Pope has just issued a missive warning that anyone with a lung infection can be isolated and quarantined, the Program is working.
Reality is a psyop.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
VIDEO — What is Mind Control? by Jan Irvin – Paranoia Conference, 2014
Gnostic Media
Aug 4, 2014
Presented on August 2, 2014, San Diego, California at the Paranoia Conference by Paranoia Magazine.
This presentation is brought to you by:
John
Elliot
Patricia
M&A
Luis x2
Alain
William
Eve
Randy
John
Nicholas
Lee
Louis
Carlos
Bill
Simon
Casey
Tino
Rodger
Jeremy
Steven
Paul x2
Thomas
Andreas
Joseph
Oscar
Jeremy
BTC
2 donations
Camera Man #1: Casey P.
Camera Man #2: Andrew G.
With special thanks to Bill Joslin.
PN 