Only the Poor would Survive

I’ve been raised in the belief that in order to survive, I need to have a good education, so that I can get a good job, a lot of money and from there I’ll be able to take care of myself.
Having moved to South Africa, this belief of mine has been challenged.
In coming to live on a farm, I quickly realised that all the knowledge I gathered over the years through schooling, had become completely useless – none of it was able to be applied or used in this new environment. I had to learn how to do everything as though I had never done anything my whole life.
All that I was able to do, was limited by that which I had learnt and studied in school. Anything outside of that was ‘unknown territory’ and I believed that it was ‘not for me’ because I hadn’t prepared myself through schooling/education to participate in that.
In my stay on the farm and in South Africa, I have met several people who have done a whole range of things during their life and who seem to be able to take on any challenge, no matter in which ‘field’ or of what ‘type’. This is in sharp contrast to the (adult) people I knew in Belgium: they had a stable job, which they had been doing for years and which they would probably continue doing for years. They had studied to ‘become something’, then they became it and then they simply remained as it. They have one profession and that’s it – one profession that requires a certain kill-set. Anything outside of this profession and skill-set, is ‘unknown territory’ and should be taken on by people who have educated themselves/ specialised in different fields, professions or skill-sets.
What I see here, is that the overall economic situation in Belgium is simply ‘more stable’ than in South Africa. In Belgium, you can afford to study just one profession and remain as it, because you’ll probably be able to keep that particular job for a very long time. In South Africa, however, the economic situation is not as stable and one requires to continuously look out for new opportunities or jobs in order to generate an income. Here one requires to adapt to the environment. “These are the available jobs/opportunities at this time: either adapt yourself to these jobs/opportunities, or suffer.”
Therefore, in general, people here are better at adapting themselves to change and if ever world war III breaks out, or a world-disaster occurs – it is those people who will be able to survive – as they will simply adapt to the situation and become whoever they require to become – not defined by any education or studies. Whereas, in a country like Belgium, people are so used to everything remaining the same, that if a war breaks out or a world-disaster occurs, they won’t know what hit them and they will literally be like fish on the land – because they didn’t ‘design themselves’ to adapt to change effectively.
And so, again, all is in reverse. Those countries with high levels and standards of education believe their population to be superior to countries with low levels and standards in education. But the result is that if you train yourself really well and really long in one thing, you are excluding yourself from everything else. In terms of living-skills and survival-skills – you’re useless if you cannot adapt to change. It is those who live in countries where the economic situation is unstable and the education standards are low – who are superior human beings.
Within designing a new, Equal, Money system – we require to re-design our education systems as well – because, you won’t require to study really hard to become very good at one profession, to get a ‘good job’, to have a lot of money in order to survive. Money will be here, will be provided unconditionally.
Education should train a person in a wide variety of skills. In school, I chose to study Latin-maths – and the only ‘skill’ I learnt here, was to study something by heart. In other studies, one learnt how to cook, in another one learnt how to work with engines and so on. Why are those classes not available to everyone? And why are all classes where someone requires to make their hands dirty, seen as ‘less’ and ‘for dumb people’?? With all my knowledge, I wasn’t able to do anything when it came to practical living!
If money and income don’t determine the value of a certain job, profession or skill-set anymore – people will actually be willing to develop all kinds of skills, whereby we are no longer limited and completely dependant on others to ‘get things done’. Each one can then explore themselves into various different applications, fields, skills and professions. Herein, the focus of education will shift from survival to life. Education should not exist for the purpose of survival – survival should be a given – education should focus on life and how to live effectively.
Currently – with all the education in place – still no-one knows how to live. How to live is not something that you learn in school, it’s something you have to apparently ‘figure out’ in your ‘spare time’. If education were to actually focus on Life and not Survival – what would the world look like?

Global Sustainable Development – No more Empty Promises

A 'new concept' I'm being taught about, is 'Sustainable Development'.

The Brundtland Commission defines 'sustainable development' as 'development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.'

So – in other words, 'sustainable development' refers to meeting everyone's needs (= no more poverty and starvation) and not exploiting Earth/nature/the environment in a way that causes long-term damage.

What do we know about the world we live in today?

That we have a third of the population starving of hunger with a whole lot more being poor (they cannot provide for basic necessities). And we have depleted (and continue to deplete) the Earth's resources whereby we extract more than the Earth is able to replenish.

So – those two aspects of our world is what humanity has been trying to tackle through applying principles of 'sustainable development'. That humanity has failed is quite obvious – look around – there has been no change whatsoever with regards to poverty or care for the environment if you compare present day to 20-30 years ago.

People are still starving and companies are still wasting resources.

It's not that we didn't have 'good intentions'. Just have a look at a few of the conferences and agreements that took place with regards to sustainable development:

Rio Earth Summit 

With 172 governments participating in the Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 – this conference was deemed as a 'milestone' in the history of sustainable development.

The two-week Earth Summit resulted in the adoption of 'Agenda 21', a wide-ranging blueprint for action to achieve sustainable development worldwide. The Agenda consists of 40 chapters, which are divided into 4 main sections:

1. Social and Economic Dimensions
   (deals with combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, change population and sustainable settlement)
   
2. Conservation and Management of Resources for Development
   
3. Strengthening the Role of Major Groups
   
4. Means of Implementation

After these two weeks, everyone was very excited, very proud and very happy – we had a PLAN!

The United Nations Global Compact 

Though, as it turned out, barely anyone implemented Agenda 21 within their corporations: Lots of talk, lots of expectations, lots of energy – little actions – no results.

Because of the major flop Agenda 21 turned out to be – a new initiative was started in 1999: the United Nations Global Compact.

Now – you'd think that they would've 'learned something' from the Rio Earth Summit and Agenda 21 disaster – but nope:

The essence of this new initiative is that

"the UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption."

Sure, the principles sound nice, but what's the point in even mentioning them? The fact that they merely ASKED companies to participate and that they counted on the people's 'good-will' to CHANGE THE WORLD (!!!) already predicts that this initiative wasn't even worth implementing and was just another waste of resources.

I mean – unless you give people speeding tickets, they don't want to adhere to the speed limits – and even then they take their chances. Did you really think that if you nicely ask people to please adhere to the ten principles of the UN Global Compact and change their companies – that they would do so? That's just dumb. 

The Millennium Development Goals 

Needless to say that, again, countries and companies didn't deliver, didn't follow through.

Then – suddenly – they had this amazing idea!

 
"Why don't we – instead of writing out 10 principles – formulate 8 GOALs! "

Yeah – that's definitely a huge difference – 'now we're getting somewhere!'

Yes – of course it's the same story, same problem, but they thought they had invented the wheel, so they went ahead and formulated 8 goals, 8 very ambitious goals, and they threw a deadline on-top!

In the year 2000, at the Millennium Summit, over 150 World-leaders vowed to reach the following Goals by 2015:

Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty

Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality

Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases

Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

We're 11 years later – would you say that in the last 11 years, world leaders have been actively engaging themselves towards reaching these 8 goals – or have they – as usual – been engaging in resource-absorbing wars, conflicts and corruption?

We have only 4 years left – anyone see a change of tide in the near future? Don't think so.

So – why is it that, despite the efforts to put together an Agenda, or a series of Principles or a list of Goals – that there is no substantial change?

Let's have a look at the nature of the question of sustainable development. In essence, what is being asked of companies, is to continue business as usual – whereby you sell products or services in such a way that you are able to fulfil your corporation's goal, which is: profit maximisation – thought, you must do it in such a way that your actions don't cause harmful consequences to the environment or society as a whole.

What is the problem with this question?

The problem is that we are trying to create a way of doing business that adheres to two conflicting principles.

The first principle is the principle of the economic system, which is profit-maximisation. This is a Self-Interested principle, whereby you want to be the winner and want everyone else to be a loser. I'm not making this up or portraying the economic system in a 'bad light'; this is the essence of the game of the Free Market mechanism that we're playing: Everyone competes with each other and everyone wants to come out as the winner. For some to be winners, there have to be losers. We can't all be winners – the Free Market mechanism doesn't provide for that. There HAVE to be losers. Otherwise the system doesn't work.

Sustainable development, however, requires that we adopt a principle of doing what is best for society as a whole. If we wish to do what is best for all – then it follows that there are certain practices that we simply cannot allow.

An example is that we cannot allow firms to harvest resources from the Earth for a reason /purpose other than doing what is best for all, whereby useless products are produced, not because people will actually benefit from those products, but because an opportunity was identified where the perceived need/desire to acquire such a product can be CREATED, through means such as advertisement – and therefore, firms will create a market for the product and be able to make money out of producing and selling this product that no-one REALLY wants or needs. The examples of such products are numerous. Simply walk around in a mall or in your supermarket and have a look at the products they sell that actually don't benefit anyone – but for which, nonetheless, Earth's resources were used to produce them.

If you are serious about sustainable development, it is obvious that such practices are a 'no-go' as they completely defeat the principle of doing what is best for society as a whole – both in the present as in the future.

But have a look: The right to choose what you want to produce is a basic principle of the Free Market economy. That's why they call it 'free'. If you want to produce a product that no-one needs, but that you'll be able to sell and make profit with (provided that selling this product is not illegal) – then no-one is going to stop you. Instead you'll be cheered at: "Go ahead! Be an entrepreneur! Thank you for engaging in our economy! We need more people like you!"

Are you starting to see what I'm seeing?

On the one side we have the capitalistic/free market economic system, which allows people to do as they please in terms of what to produce and how to produce it – and the only real requirement to be successful is that you do better than your competitors.

On the other side we have the need for sustainable development, which calls for firms and individuals to consider and do what is best for all.

Now – it is very simple: Either you follow the first principle, or you follow the second – but you cannot have both – it is impossible, they contradict each other at their very core.

So – either we allow each one to act in self-interest and we accept that a third of the population starves forevermore – and we accept that this can even get worse and that only some are the winners and most are the losers – and whereby we have no regard for the environment or future generations.

Or – we decide to end the free market system and create a new system that is based on the principle of doing what is best for all, hereby effectively eradicating starvation, poverty, destruction of the environment, etc.

Now – why is it so difficult for people to consider the second option? As long as we don't commit ourselves to the solution the world requires, we continue sticking with option 1 and continue to cause further damage – why delay?

The reason is simplistic:

People don't want to give up the free market system.

Why not? We have just shown that if we don't, we only further suffering and destruction.

People don't want to give up the free market system, because people don't want to give up their idea, perception and experience of 'freedom'. This idea, perception and experience is the very foundation of the free market system and it is what people hold on to.

It doesn't mean that we are actually 'free' – I mean, how free are you if you are driven by fear and greed?

No – we are not free – but for some reason humanity thinks it is important to cling to the idea and belief that we are free and that we can make our own choices – even if it means the death of billions – as long as I feel like I can make 'my own choice' and 'make up my mind' and 'have my own opinion'.

If you consider that all that requires to be done – for actual sustainable development to be possible – is to give up an idea/perception/belief of us apparently having 'free choice' – and that if we would just for one moment realise that our choices aren't really free – then we could make an actual change, then we could start creating real heaven on Earth.

You must understand that if you are going to give people the freedom to do as they please – then they WILL use this freedom to abuse, they WILL use it to pursue their own personal 'happiness' and they WILL sacrifice others and their 'freedom' in the process. We have been proving it for centuries – our current economic system, our current state of the world is PROOF of that. The attempts of the Sustainable Development projects thus far, have proven that: all were free to choose to participate within making an actual change, or continuing as they were – and the latter was chosen.

We've tried it the 'freedom' way – it's a fucking joke.

People don't have the right to freedom. Have a look: what do we do with those that we deem to be 'dangerous to society'? We lock them up, we put them in prison, we take away their freedom. Now, consider that anyone who thinks and believes that their own personal happiness and gratification is more important than what is best for all – is an actual danger to society. Why?

Simple – because they will rather see another suffer and come out a 'winner', than to create a system of support that will benefit all. They will rather see a third of the world's population die of hunger, than to risk losing their luxury and their 'freedom'.

Humanity has lost their right to freedom. Humanity has proven themselves to be a danger to society, to life. Humanity has failed. And as such, our freedom requires to be taken away – the free market system has to end. We've had our chance, we've had our fun – but this is enough!

Sustainable development is possible, but not in our current economic system – not in a world where 'freedom of choice' is respected and valued above life itself.

Therefore – consider a new economic system, an economic system that has sustainable development at heart, that has EVERYONE's best interest at heart. Such a system is not impossible, it is being developed as we speak.

I understand that people are afraid to give up their idea of freedom. But look at this world and realise: no freedom actually exists and no good has come of our current system of so-called 'freedom' – none whatsoever. The apparent 'well-being' and 'abundance' that exists in some countries: it is at the expense of billions – they are the few winners where billions lose. Don't hold it as a carrot in front of you. Within the current system of competition: it is IMPOSSIBLE for all to experience this abundance.



For those who understand and grasp what is being said here – for those who understand what is required – please join the Equal Money Movement. Join www.equalmoney.org. Start a blog and speak up.

There will be a time where you'll have to make a decision: to support your own self-interest or to support all life – when that time comes, understand how your actions affect the whole.

Join us – be 1 Vote for World Equality.

 


 

Sources:

http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml

ECONOMY is the Science of REAL EVIL

When you study economy, you will be surprised at how clearly they show you that the current economic system DOES NOT WORK. From the perspective that:

• They are aware that within the current economic system, only those with money will be provided for and anyone else is excluded and doomed to suffer in poverty.
  
• They are aware that the current economic system is based on everyone's desire to make profit and become wealthy without any regard for the well-being of all.
  
• They are aware that any attempt within the current money system – of for instance government-interventions – to try and prevent or stop poverty, is ineffective – the intended effects always back-lash and make the situation worse. And this is not because the interventions are carried out ineffectively. To operate within the current system, you are dealing with a certain mathematical equation that you simply cannot temper with. You can 'intervene' for a moment and try to manipulate the outcomes = but soon enough the system will simply balance itself out again.
  

This then begs the question: Why the hell are we STILL operating within the current system, if all economists are aware that the system DOES NOT WORK???
 
Surely, by now, someone must have come up with the simple insight that: 'Hey! If this current system does not work then maybe we should just design a new system! One that is not based on personal profit, but on what is best for all!!'
 
So – why are we not hearing about it, why – after all these centuries – are we still splashing around in the same retarded system? And I repeat: All economists understand the consequences of this system, understand the principles that it is based on – and understand that the abusive effects of this system, such as poverty, starvation and crime cannot be fixed from within the system. They understand that: if we want to continue with this system, then we'll have to accept poverty, starvation and crime – simple as that.
 
When I started studying economy, I wondered how much I would get to know about how the system really works and how much the information would be 'falsified'. And – I was so surprised to see that the information is all there, laid out before me, for me to understand and grasp. They explain how the system works, why it works the way it does, what its problems are and how we cannot fix the problems from within the system.
 
So – if I understand that: WITHIN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, there is NO SOLUTION TO POVERTY – then surely, all the economists who have their Masters and shit in Economy, understand the exact same thing.
 
SO WHY ARE THEY NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT????
 
And then I remembered the sad, ridiculous truth of science:
 
As a scientist, you are not to make statements such as 'this is what should happen', 'we should not do this', 'this would be better', 'this system sucks'. As a scientist, one has to capture the information, makes sense of it and be able to explain it and THAT's IT.
 
Why? Because according to the philosophy of science – scientists have to remain 'objective'. Scientists must get the facts, understand the facts and explain the facts – they mustn't say that the facts could've been different if only we'd changed the current system and that we should therefore change the system. Nope. Because – see, apparently then, you're being 'subjective' and that's 'not cool'.
 
SO – THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT!!!
 
And as soon as you start making statements about how the economic system is a mess and it doesn't work and we should change it – because: look around: we're accepting poverty, crime, abuse, rape, murder, starvation, profit, personal gratification – all in the name of the SYSTEM! – you can't be taken seriously anymore as an economist, because now you've gone and let your subjectivity 'cloud your judgment'! 'That's really unprofessional of you!'
 
And obviously, anyone else who figures out that the system doesn't work is not going to be taken seriously – why? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT! You're not an economist – 'sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.'
 
So – we've created this magnificent closed system of information control. Basically saying: "If you want to study Economy, that is cool. But you must understand – you're not allowed to use your knowledge against the current system. In fact, you're not allowed to make any normative statements about the system in any way. If you do, you'll simply not be taken seriously as an economist and then you won't be able to get a job as an economist and then you won't be able to make money and then you'll DIE!! "
 
So – what's the point of studying economy then? Well, the following: "We have good news, though! If you study economy, you'll know how the system works. You'll know the ins and outs and be able to use that knowledge in your advantage. That's right! You'll be able to manipulate the system to suit you, to take advantage of others! Isn't that wonderful!"
 
And that is exactly why we haven't had anyone else come up with an Equal Money System. (Which – honestly – is the obvious solution to the current system if you understand how the system works. Meaning: all economists already KNOW that it is the solution.)

The reason that we are not already living in a society based on equal money and what is best for all – is because:

1. Science is designed in such a way that it will never really allow change, because the experts are not allowed to speak up
   
2. Economists do not want to speak up and rather use the 'secret knowledge' to give themselves advantage in the system, to gain personal power
   
3. Economists who do want to make a change and want to do research on the topic, will not get funds. Why? Because funding comes from either someone who expects to gain profit out of your research, or from the government. (Remember – this is how the system works, your research is your 'proof' – if you don't have 'proof' no one wants to listen to you.)
   

No individual or business will fund research into equal money, because equal money is about stopping profit – so obviously, if you're a profit-seeking business-man, you're not going to support research into equal money.
 

The government is not going to fund you either, because the government consists of politicians who are too concerned with remaining in power and winning the next elections. Therefore – what they're interested in is quick-fix solutions to make it look like something is happening, to make it look like they care and to prevent too much protest. So – they will invest in short-term projects, rather than an actual long-term solution.

So – Leila and I are working on a video-series to assist you in understanding the basic mechanics of our current economic system. Because, once you understand how the current system works, you'll understand why an Equal Money System is the solution. I suggest you also read up on Leila's latest blog-post: Vocabulary is the Key to Self-Expansion – in relation to not allowing yourself to be intimidated by economy or the science of economy. Those that are currently in control and in power of the world understand how the economic system functions – if we want to change the system – we have to stand equal to that. I will make an announcement with links on this blog as soon as the first video of the series is online!
 
To all those who understand how the current economic system operates – yes, I'm talking to all of you economists out there – if you don't want to be an evil bastard: join us. Those ideas you've had silently come up in yourself several times as you were studying of 'this doesn't seem right' and 'is there no other way?' – stop suppressing that! The economic system is just that: a system created by human beings. And if you are a human being who understands the ins and outs of this system and understands that this system is abusive and is not what's best for all – then it is your RESPONSIBILITY to act! It is your responsibility to speak! It is your responsibility to do everything in your power to bring about a new system!
 
Join us on Facebook and the Equal Money website.

Self Comes Forth within Agreement

Comfort as how it is lived and experienced in this world is as a 'hiding' from pain. Comfort always occurs After something unpleasant has happened to you and then someone comes to comfort you. Comfort – Come into my fort – Come here, I will comfort you, I will create an apparent fort around you, where you can pretend that you are safe and secure from whatever it is you're hiding from. In that, you can suppress your experience so that it feels like it is now 'gone'.
This definition and application of the word 'comfort' is quite problematic – as all that happens is a suppression of what you are experiencing. And – in a way this is obvious, because – most of the time – what you are actually trying to hide and run away from, is yourself, your own inner experiences. No fort is going to keep you safe from yourself… so all that you 'can' do – apparently – is to suppress your inner emotions so that they are gone and you are now 'safe'.

In those moments, where you seek comfort from someone – what is usually the experience? It is an experience of inner turmoil and it is like this inner turmoil has 'taken over' inside yourself. And all you can do is just be that turmoil and cry as the turmoil and worry with the turmoil and think about the turmoil and it is like a storm that doesn't stop and the only way you know for the storm to stop is to have someone else step in and comfort you.

In that storm, in that inner turmoil – it is like you have lost yourself.

So – what is the alternative? How can you stop the storm without having someone comfort you and suppressing the entire experience? Because – common sense – if the experience is suppressed, it means it is not gone at all – it is merely suppressed. You don't feel it anymore, but it's still there, lurking in the depths and the shadows of yourself. And with any next opportunity, when you are off-guard, it will just come storming back in, taking you over, all over again.

The alternative is for you to – from within the storm – stand up. This is done through applying self-forgiveness, breathing and self-corrective statements. As you apply these tools, you will see that the storm clears – and you come forth. When self comes forth – that must be… self-comfort.

Instead of being comforted by someone saying 'come into my fort' where you can try to hide from the storm inside yourself – you comfort yourself; allowing yourself to Come Forth through applying the tools of breathing, self-forgiveness and self-corrective application.

This new perspective on the word 'comfort' is also applicable in relation to the words 'comfortable' and 'comfortability'. Because – when you say that you are comfortable in the presence of a particular being, do you not mean that you are able to be yourself? That you feel that you are able to share things with this person that you would not normally share? So – you are comfort-able – able to come forth as who you are. Eventually, you want to be able to be here as who you are no matter what – though, initially, you will find that you feel comfortable only around certain beings.

In terms of an agreement partner – that comfortability is what you are looking for – someone where you are able to come forth – where you feel like you can share things that you would not normally share, where there is no pressure to be anything else than just you. This point of comfortability is signalling to you that there is potential for an agreement here.

If you find an agreement partner and both of you have decided to walk together – you will find moments where you are no longer comfortable, where you want to hide from the other, where you want to run away from the person, where you want to 'appear better' to the person, etc. This does not mean that your agreement is now invalid and that you have to break up. It simply means that you're facing a particular point. Then, it is to push yourself to communicate with the other being, push yourself back to that point of comfort. Stand up – come forth.

If you keep on applying this point, if you keep on pushing for that point of self-comfortability within agreement – you will see that it becomes much easier for you to be comfortable around other beings as well. What are agreements, but a training ground in realising your equality and oneness to and as other beings?

So – remember that it is not because you are comfortable in the presence of a particular being, that this comfortability will remain unchanged if you decide to walk an agreement together. Your comfortability is a starting-point. As you walk together and go through all kinds of experiences that are being triggered and you suddenly realise that you're not at all comfortable with your agreement partner anymore – that's when you want to go back to your starting-point. Because if you continue as you are, where you are in each other's presence, but not actually present as you with the other – you'll each move into separate directions, individually and communication will become more and more problematic.

So – go back to your starting-point, meaning: push for that point of open communication. Share what it is that you're experiencing, despite feeling uncomfortable about it. And as you talk with each other, and openly share what each one has been experiencing, you're placing yourself back as the starting-point of comfortability. This means that you're both present again, here, together – and able to direct the particular point that caused you to become uncomfortable around each other in the first place.

Freedom and the Crucifixion of Jesus

Have a look at one of the typical representations of Freedom within this world: 
 

A human being standing on a ledge with his/her arms spread horizontally to the side – generally with wind blowing through his/her hair for extra drama. A typical example is the scene in the Titanic where Jack and Rose both stand in this position at the front end of the boat.
 
When I was on a trip with my parents, I saw a kid climbing on a pile of rocks, spreading his arms side-ways and squeezing his eyes closed – taking on a pose so that his dad could take a picture. As I saw this boy take on this pose, I spontaneously laughed out loud, because he looked like Jesus on the cross – and I thought that it was his intention to portray this, because in the way he squeezed his eyes, it looked like he was in pain. However, when the boy heard me laugh, he turned red and looked embarrassed. Then I realized that he didn't mean to portray Jesus on the cross in pain, but a 'free man' squeezing his eyes because of the apparent intensity of the experience of freedom. 
 
In that moment it struck me: Why is one of the most prominent symbols of freedom the same pose as Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of man?
 
Isn't this odd? Why would freedom and crucifixion be related? How is it related?
 
To answer these questions, we can investigate the crucifixion of Jesus in the bible:
 
What was the point of Jesus dying on the cross? He died for the sins of man – meaning: he paid off their 'debt'. What does this mean in the Mind of Man? It is interpreted as such that because Jesus has already died for my sins and he has already 'paid off my debt' – I get to do anything I want – without consequences! And this – in the Mind of Man – means Freedom. 
 
So from this perspective – Freedom and Crucifixion are equal and one – the symbol is the same because they form two parts of the same polarity equation.

 
Let's investigate further and have a look at how this polarity equation plays-out in our world today.
 
How is freedom in this world experienced? Through being able to 'make my own choice'. But when it comes to being able to choose in this world – you need/require money. Only when you have money are you really able to make a choice. Because, if you don't have money you don't have many options: you do what you have to do to survive and help your family survive – so really, what choice do you have?
 
The amount of money that exists is limited. It is also distributed unequally: some have more money than others – some have a whole fuck load more than others. So – what kind of world do we live in? We live in a world where some have a whole fuck load of money – and thus a whole fuck load of options and thus the experience of being able to 'make my own choice' – where others have a lot of money with a lot of options and a certain experience of being able to 'make my own choice' – where a whole lot of people have little money with little options and a very limited experience of being able to 'make my own choice' – and a whole fuck load of people have no money, no options and no experience of choice in any way whatsoever.
 
Obviously – since money is limited – if someone has more money than they would have if all money was distributed equally – they have this money because they 'took' from someone who has less money than he/she would have if all money were distributed equally. So – within accepting and allowing and defending one's Freedom, one's Free Will, one's Free Choice – what are you, by implication, accepting and allowing? You are accepting and allowing the crucifixion of those who now – because you have 'more' – have 'less'. You are taking away their Freedom, their Free Will, their Choice. Because, as we said – in having more money – they have less money. With less money, one has less options and thus less (or no) choice.
 
Thus – common sense: within this world the majority of people's freedom is sacrificed for the minority's freedom. Every single day, we crucify those whose options we take to be able to experience 'Freedom', 'Free Will' and 'Choice'. 
 
We focus so extensively on this one event in the past of one Man apparently dying for the sins of Man – that we don't see how this is happening daily, continuously, endlessly. The Crucifixion of Jesus is not a one-time event – it is the essence of the nature of existence, permeating through our reality as we all participate within the current Money System. Jesus' crucifixion is happening right now, at this very moment. 
 
How many more must be crucified, how many more must die, how many more must suffer – before we realise: it doesn't have to be this way. 
 
This crucifixion must end, it cannot be justified, because – none of us on the 'positive polarity', who have sufficient money and are able to 'make our own choices', would be willing to be sacrificed, would be willing to be crucified. We are no Jesus – we are merely sinners.
 
It doesn't have to be this way. An Equal Money System would provide equal money, options, freedom and choices. No-one has to be crucified, no-one has to be sacrificed. We can end this cycle. 
 
www.equalmoney.org

Practically Living with Animals at the Desteni Farm

Today I walked through a series of events where actual and possible animal-attacks kept on following each-other.

Okay – let me first explain to you the lay-out of the farm in terms of who lives where, as the housing area of the farm is divided into two parts.


You have the front part of the farm, which includes the gate where you enter, the 'main house', the pool, the car-port, the 4 wooden rooms on the one side, with 'the music studio' (Cerise and Fidelis's house) behind that and the other two wooden rooms on the other side of the main house.



The second part consists of 'the second house' (Rozelle, Andrea and Robert) and the new building at the back, which is where I, LJ, Gian and Leila live.
 
The two parts of the farm are separated by a fence and the music studio. The reason for the split is because some animals require a 'safe refuge' from the pack of dogs that sometimes chases after birds or cats. And also because Baru and the other big dogs don't do well together.
 
So, this afternoon – I go outside because Bumi (one of my and lj's new pups) was crying by a gate, and what has happened before is that the big dogs in the 'first/front part' of the farm saw her crying by a gate and they ran up to her barking an growling, because they still see our new pups as 'intruders on their terrain.' So – I go out and see Bumi by the gate, but the big dogs are all running around in front, not taking notice of her. As I look at the dogs, I suddenly see a Hadeda (http://www.sa-venues.com/wildlife/birds_hadeda_ibis.htm) flying up in the sky from in between the dogs and realise that's what the dogs are 'entertaining' themselves with. So, I yell at them to stop and at the same time I see Cerise and Fidelis running down to chase the dogs away from the bird. 
 
The hadeda wasn't closing her one wing, so Cerise, Fidelis and later LJ investigated where she got hurt. The damage wasn't too serious, so we took her in the house to take care of the wound and have her rest a bit. 
 

I used 'purple spray' to disinfect the wound after cleaning it, which is an anti-septic spray that we use specifically for animals. I had fetched the purple from the main house, so, after I was done, I go down to the main house to bring the purple spray back. As I leave, Bumi follows me to the gate and starts crying again. In the meantime, Sunette and Fidelis had started treating the dogs against maggots, because the hadeda (that they had been chasing) was covered in it. This treating of dogs is usually done in the garden behind the main house, from where all the dogs could easily notice Bumi's cry. (Bumi in picture on the right)
 
So – as I am walking down to the main house, I see the dogs go into 'alert mode' as they hear Bumi crying. Gracy had been the 'most ferocious' in the previous confrontations, so I try to grab her as she passes by me, but she pulls loose and goes straight for the gate. Even though Bumi now sees this pack of crazy dogs running at her, barking and growling, she still tries to get through the gate, instead of running away. So, I run and yell at the dogs and chase them away to make sure Bumi doesn't get hurt. Because, what happened before, as well, is that Bumi pushed her head through the gate and then got stuck – so if that'd happened while the dogs were trying to attack, she would've gotten hurt.
 
I take Bumi to the house and when I go back out into the garden, I see Timelines wants to come for a visit. Timeless lives in the 'first part' of the farm, but enjoys coming for visits to the 'second part' because she is friends with most of the dogs here. The problem is that she is often the one to start barking at Baru (who lives in the second part), which can lead to a fight. So, if Timeless comes for a visit in the back, we always make sure that Baru either isn't in the garden, or we take her immediately into the house to prevent a confrontation between the two dogs.
 
So, I bring her up to the house and she says hi to all the dogs here. Then, suddenly, I see Leila and Gian's parrot walking out of their room, into the kitchen-area. Usually, either the parrot is locked up in his cage when their door is open, or is free to move around in the room, but then the door is closed – or Leila or Gian are with the parrot in the kitchen or lounge area to make sure no accidents happen.
 
But this time, I was alone with the dogs in the house and there comes the parrot walking out of Leila and Gian's room. Timeless and the parrot haven't spent much time together – so it's possible that Timeless will attack the parrot – or that the parrot attacks Timeless, because, yes, birds are very territorial as well.
 
So – I go 'oh crap!' and try to get Timeless' attention so she doesn't notice the parrot and try to get her out of the house as quickly as I can. As I open the door of the house, Timeless hears something in the 'first part' of the farm and runs straight down to the second house. Usually Timeless always stays by us when we bring her back to the 'first part' of the farm through a gate close-by our house, to avoid coming near the entrance of the second house, where Baru likes to hang out. But, as I said, this time she ran straight down to the second house because she heard something going on there. Gian, who was also out in the garden, and I try to call Timeless back, but she doesn't want to come back. As I go down to the second house, I see that luckily Rozelle was there and she was holding Baru back with a chair. Esteni was already on her way to Timeless back into the first part of the house. 
 
I was pretty shaken up with how these events had followed each-other so closely, each time having to intervene asap to make sure no-one gets hurt. First the dogs and the hadeda, then the dogs and Bumi, then Timeless and the parrot and then Timeless and Baru!
 
Living together with animals is always seen as something 'idyllic' – as though, because you live with a lot of animals in the same place, everyone lives in peace with one another all the time. Yes, there are moments where different animals are able to live with each other, enjoying each other's presence – but, just as with humans, there is also conflict. And the more animals live together in one area, the more conflict there is – just as with humans. If it hadn't been for all the fences and gates and Bernard being the 'alpha dog' – we wouldn't have been able to live with so many animals on one farm.
 
Even just in our house, we spend a lot of time on 'animal-management' as we live with a parrot, a duck, two hens and 6 dogs. There used to be 3 chickens: the two hens and one rooster – but we had to find another solution for the rooster, because, as his 'roosterness' developped, he became more and more aggressive towards Chimera (small dog) and started attacking her, pecking at/pulling on her eye-lids. We had just set up a new chick's house in the back of the garden, so we decided to place Tweeter (the rooster) in with the chicks. 
 
That was quite a tough decision and experience, because Tweeter had been with Lj and myself from the day he was born. His mother wasn't taking care of him to be able to take care of his sisters who were a bit older and already able to walk. So, we took Tweeter in and trained him to be able to live with humans and dogs. He even learned how to bark! When the dogs were barking, he'd blare out this horrible sound, which was his bark, lol. 
 
So far the hens haven't caused any problems, nor do the dogs have issues with them – so we will see how this develops. At the moment, the hens actually seem more relaxed with Tweeter being gone. We also haven't yet gotten to the state where the hens are laying eggs, they're still too young. So that will be another point that will require consideration and direction. The 'shitting-problem' was solved through making diapers for the chickens. It's like a harness that I sewed up, that's got a pouch where we place in paper towel. And every few hours, we change their diapers, meaning: throw out the old paper towel and place in fresh one. We cannot let them live in the garden, because of Baru, and because they might escape through the fences. And we tried to train them to shit on newspaper, but it just wouldn't take. So, now they have to wear diapers.
 
When things 'go well' where various animals and humans are able to live together, it's not because of everyone just 'liking each other' and simply 'getting along'. It requires planning, consideration, training, management, awareness, attention and… trial and error. It's not something that 'just is' or 'just happens', it is a 'work in progress'. And sometimes you can want to make it work as much as you can, but you have to consider practicality. Like we had to do for Tweeter. We wouldn't practically be able to 'get Tweeter to a point' where he would be able to 'peacefully' co-exist with the other animals in the house. Because his programming as a rooster of dominating those 'under him' is so ingrained as himself, that it'll require a lot more time than we practically have available, to get him to that stable point of being able to co-exist with others without trying to dominate them and cause shit. So, we re-homed him. He currently seems to be quite satisfied as being the rooster in the midst of hens and chicks. We 'hope' he'll also share with them his story and experience of living with us, so that, in turn, he can assist the other chickens. 
 
So, here just sharing my experience of today as well as some observations within working and living with the animals on the farm, which is where I am currently exploring and enjoying myself a lot!
 
Thank you for reading. 

My experience of motherhood and the mother matrix system

Last night I had a conversation with LJ about the mother matrix system.

We have at the moment Boeboe, Chimera (3 month old puppy) and Tweety (about 3 week old chick) living with us in our room.

With having to take care of babies, my mother matrix system issues have been coming up a lot lately.

The point that I have been experiencing consciously is the point of feeling completely overwhelmed. First, when Chimera came it was quite an adaptation, because we had to 're-schedule'/'re-organize' everything we did because now there was a baby that needed constant care. Since Leslie-John is a guy and mostly works outside assisting with maintaining the Farm, this meant that I had to stay in the room most of the time. Just that fact of having to stay inside and not being able to just leave whenever I want, I found sooo ... what's the word? constraining. I felt stuck and constrained. I kept on hoping she would grow up fast so that she can go outside playing by herself without needing constant supervision.

Also, we had to make sure that Boeboe would get equal treatment and got the same amount of attention and so on, make sure we don't neglect him. Usually Boeboe would go outside all day, play with the workers and stuff, but since Chimera came, he's been wanting to stay with us in the room - which just makes things more 'demanding' because instead of having to look after 1 dog, we had to look after 2. Boeboe also doesn't like puppies while Chimera was fond of Boeboe. So, she wanted to play with him and he wanted her to fuck off. So we had to watch them mostly, to make sure she wouldn't get hurt and to push Boeboe to get over his crap. (Now Boeboe and Chimera love playing with each other.)

Then, when everything started to settle and Chimera didn't need my supervision all the time (although I would still be mostly in the room with her) - we took in a chick. Now - a chick is constantly, continuously tweeting, non-stop. Just that fact made me go crazy the first few days. Also because a young chick needs warmth and so we would hold it on us and then he/she (we can't really tell the gender when they're young) would climb on my shoulder - next to my ear! And there it would be tweeting all day long. He/she'd only sleep for like 5 seconds at a time and even when falling asleep he/she kept on tweeting.

Of course with there being a new baby getting so much attention, Chimera and Boeboe wanted to get the same amount of attention. At some point I was sitting with Boeboe and Chimera on my lap and Tweety on my shoulder, trying not to move (because when I move Tweety tweets louder) and at the same time do my daily work on the computer. It was horrible!

The one day LJ was gone all day, I think he went to town or something - I was left alone all day to handle and take care of the little ones - by the time he came back I just burst into tears and told him he could never again leave me alone with them for so long. LJ just kept on laughing at my state - and eventually I was laughing with him.

Because of becoming so tired of having to constantly, continuously be there for them, I would get impatient with them whenever they don't listen. With simple things - and especially Chimera, for instance when I ask her to come so we can go back to the room or somewhere else, and she looks at me and deliberately runs in the opposite direction. Because of feeling helpless I'd sometimes fall into using anger as a way to manipulate her into 'obeying'. But even that didn't work.

I felt myself being pushed to that point where I either breathe and let go or become a complete controlling, angry monster like most parents are in this world. The fact that I've been in process investigating my childhood experience and how parents play such an important role in how you design yourself, how you develop yourself in your life and your world - pushed me to breathe - because I have experienced the consequences of angry, controlling parents and I don't wish that for anyone. And I know you might think now that 'because I say I want to do it different, I will become my parents' as explained within Desteni video-interviews. I disagree - because I understand and have practiced the tools with which I am actually able to step out of the cycle, which are breathing, self-forgiveness, writing and self-corrective action. To say you want to make a difference without knowing how to make a difference will obviously have you keep on doing the exact same things.

Anyways, I started my post with "Last night I had a conversation with LJ about the mother matrix system." and I haven't written about that point yet. I have so far only explained my conscious experience of being in a mother-position - only that which I was aware of.

What we discussed last night was the point of fighting/pushing away the mother matrix system.

When I arrived on the farm about 2 years ago, I was the complete manifestation of the mother matrix system.

In seeing the extent in which this system had been directing me and influencing my life - I developed a fear of it. And whenever I was 'faced with' babies (animal or human) I'd try to push the system away, in expectation of it taking over.

So, the point me and LJ discussed last night is that I am still trying to fight off and push away the mother matrix system. He suggested that the system is me and that I can utilize the system in a way that is best for all, without the control and the manipulation and the worrying and so on. And I hadn't really looked at it that way.

He gave the example of Timeless. She is a Swiss Shepherd - so we figured that her breed was somewhere along the way trained and programmed to be herding dogs. So - if it is in her breed, it must be in Timeless as well. We assisted Timeless in utilizing this herding system, without her having to become/without being overcome by that system. Yesterday she actually 'rescued' a little duckling. It got lost in the back camp while the mother was in a cage in the stable's camp. Timeless carried her (with her mouth) by the neck back into the stable's camp. When LJ saw her with the duckling in her mouth he first thought she'd killed him, but then she dropped him off in front of LJ's feet and the duckling walked off :).

After our discussion, I had Tweety on my shoulder and she crawled behind my head for more warmth. But he/she kept on tweeting, like he/she was restless. Then I tried out what LJ suggested, to utilize the mother matrix system - I, within myself, envelopped him/her with softness/warmth, whatever you want to call it, like an imaginary blanket. And immediately Tweety became silent and fell asleep.

That was quite an amazing experience because of the immediate feedback as Tweety fell asleep. I also felt a big sense of relief - because I saw that I didn't have to fight the system, I could stop being afraid. And I realized that I had been wanting to do that, holding them like that within myself, for quite a while, but I denied myself the experience because of fear of the mother matrix system, fear of being dishonest, fear of being overcome/taken over.

On the 10th of December we have two more pups joining us - let's see how it goes :).