Energiewende! This one word defines the German view on the global climate crisis that our planet is currently experiencing. Literally Energiewende means energy change. While its definition is simple it’s connotation encompasses an entire movement. Osha Gray Davidson writes:
The government has set a target of 80 percent renewable power by 2050, but many Germans I spoke with in three weeks traveling across this country believe 100 percent renewable power is achievable by then.
This plan also has many checkpoint gates that it must achieve. By 2020 Germany must be dependent on 35% renewable energies. These energies include wind, solar, and sheer German momentum. Sheer German momentum believes strongly that the Earth is experiencing a global climate crisis.
If a member of parliament called climate change a hoax or said that its cause is unknown, he or she would be laughed out of office.
Interesting. Here in the United States, we’re still trying to accept the idea of climate change. For example, my favorite winter-time joke: Where’s that dang-old global warming when you need it? (note: this joke is best told when temperatures are under 41°F and is best told by or to somebody who doesn’t properly understand what global warming is). As another example, lets see what the US Chief of Energy has to say about the matter.
Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change.
Ernest Moniz goes on to say:
“I am not interested in debating what is not debatable…There is plenty to debate as we try and move forward on our climate agenda.”
While it is good that the Energy Chief (a tittle best held by a true sorcerer) strongly holds this as fact, there are still many United Statians (I think it’s time we stopped calling ourselves Americans as we live on only a part of the continent) that uphold the belief that Global warming is a myth. If you really want to delve into crazy, I suggest you check out the Friends of Science webpage.
You know him. Maybe you are him. The casual acquaintance, not quite friend, he saunters forward, dilated pupils scanning over each of his shoulders, iPad casually out and ready, a knowing smile forming a crest of righteously pompous paranoia across his stubbled jaw, beads of youthfully enthusiastic perspiration clinging to his hipster handlebar mustache, and, beaming with false solidarity, he presses play:
Half-way through the clip, he starts digging through his leather “Tool” wallet and pulls out five pre-creased bills to further baffle you with (below).
Ok, great, I’ve seen this stuff before. So was 9-11 an inside job? Maybe just allowed to happen for private agendas? It’s old played-out news, and, most likely, your mind was made up long ago. The more important question no one seems to be asking is, “why should we give a shit?”
Woah woah woah!! You can’t mean that?
I do. Absolutely. And if I do my job here, hopefully you’ll be shrugging with indifference as well by the end of this article, and the world can be a happier place with just a few more rainbows and baby unicorn farts. Come follow me on this fanciful rollercoaster ride, enjoy all the benefits of “disregarding bad news.”
Where we stand
Today, 36% of Americans either are certain or pretty sure that 9-11 was an inside job. So, this is not some fringe group of loonies, but a rather hefty chunk of “we the people,” not to mention the masses on the fence open-minded to the idea. The countless YouTube links circulating Facebook are everywhere so the question has been posed to just about everyone by now. If we can all unite for a moment and assume the very worst, “9-11 was our government killing its own people,” that’s exactly why we need to knock this right the hell off. Terrorism is bad, but thinking about terrorism is far worse…
There is a natural rhythm to peering down the rabbit hole. First is the rush of finding something sensational; it triggers this carnal craving to be “in the know”. Then, once the initial high of learning something edgy wears off, the specific details slowly fade away from our memories and we’re left with only a few linchpin ideas. These are the singular points that, at least to us, are utterly irrefutable. The linchpin is a beautiful mental process that allows us to unburden and feel righteous in our opinion, free wonder about other things.
On the official story believer’s side of the case is the old, “how could that many people possibly keep something this big a secret?” Then, to the conspiracy theorists, all they need are 2 words, “building 7,” and the argument is over. In either case, it’s like an atheist preaching to a born-again; it always ends in a, “well I just have faith,” and a perforated stress-ulcer coupled with bloody stool.
I mean something far greater than apathy when I say this: once you quit giving a shit, it’ll all be roses. I promise.
Whoever the group responsible, there is a wide array of believed motives. Conspirators say Iraq war, oil, create enemy, repeal rights, globalization, fear agenda. Meanwhile, official storyers say… umm… “They hate freedom” or something, U.S.’s Saudi Arabia presence, sanctions on Iraq. Whoever the culprits, whatever the aim, each of these explanations shares a common bond; they all hide under the same umbrella: “propaganda.” There is some message that attack was designed to send. There was a message, and that is part of why we need to stop caring…
See, the mind of the conspiracy theorist is an interesting place. They tend to be the more curious amongst us, believing themselves more open to the truth than others. Whether their world view is ever validated or not, there have always been a segment of the people who don’t buy the “official line.” Be it JFK, the moon landing, Lincoln, freemason founding fathers, or “God” is a mistranslation for “Aliens,” alternative explanations of history abound.
What that means is, if a small powerful group of the world’s elite was responsible for 9-11, they knew full-well that some would shout “bullshit.” It’s a matter of human nature. So don’t you think, just maybe, if they knew how you’d react, that might have been part of the plan?…
I hope you can bear with me here. Remember, we’re still assuming the “truthers” are right.
Since the 60’s, the idea of “the man” has been all but ubiquitous, but in the last decade especially, an overwhelming shift in perspective has occurred to where it’s now just assumed common knowledge that “your government is out to get you,” like some unspoken rule. FEMA camps, chemtrails, illuminati symbols, clips of cops beating rioters all flood through our bandwidth. Ideas that would have gotten one ostracized a decade ago are now commonplace. politicians are corrupt, the news is filled with lies, food is poison and breathing causes cancer, so cynicism seems to be justified, but let me ask you this: How bad was 9-11 really?
Even the “they” out to get you isn’t out to get you.
3000 people died that day. That’s terrible, but not really (how dare you?). Nearly 3000 people have died since you started reading this article.
But those weren’t Americans so it’s not as important? Or, those were largely natural causes (circle of life)?
The callous truth is, in spite of all the hype, the numbers are a speck of rubble amidst the heap of steel and concrete that is human mortality. Being blown up by a terrorist is terrifying (hence the name), but not only are you more likely to die slipping in the shower than you are to die in a terrorist attack, you are 4,167 times more likely (where’s the war on hygiene?).
Here’s what I’m suggesting: the result has been accomplished. Even If our own government were the orchestrators of 9-11 (again, maybe so, maybe not), it absolutely doesn’t matter.
The numbers are so small they are inconsequential. If the government attacks its own people, you should worry about it if you also expect to be struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket; it could happen, but it won’t.
The dwindling baby-boomers who still trust FOX-news may fear terrorist, but the internet doesn’t. The internet, though, is afraid. We are afraid of something far worse…
If these elusive shadow men really run the show, the larger game was not anything tangible, but the propaganda campaign that followed, where we now collectively fear our government. That was the aim. The result has been this massive uneasiness on the collective mind of the people that the one’s they were supposed to rely on were out to get them, and that is far scarier.
Pissed off guys in caves with access to box cutters is not a threat to a heavily armed nation. But a group who controls the riot police, watches all the satellites, monitors your browsing history, and owns the judicial system is trying to kill you… that’s scary.
Guess what, my friends; they aren’t. 3000 people. Whoever it was killed just enough to make it seem plausible that they are killing us. They aren’t. They just aren’t. Do serial killers exist? Of course. Will you be skinned and made into a lampshade at some point this week? Absolutely not!!!
Now I can already hear the backlash. “He must be working for the man. They got to Qwizx, too.” Or, “What about the FEMA camps, flying drones, and U.S. citizens put on no-fly lists or labeled terrorists without trial?”
Yep. Those are things alright. So what? The only thing that’s changed is now we know about it. Far worse things have happened and will continue to, because that is part of the human condition. Say thank you to the internet for being a check on the villains of the world’s nefarious bullshit. You are just as safe you were before you did a Google search for codex alimentarius, but now you are aware.
They want you scared; there’s nothing to be scared of. When you “expose the truth” you’re really the one spreading the fear. The very powers you’re trying to expose, you are doing their job for them.
One of the most important criticisms of psychiatric diagnosis is the Rosenhan experiment, which was an experiment orchestrated by David Rosenhan in 1973. In these experiments, completely sane people faked hallucinations in order to gain access to mental hospitals in an attempt to show that “psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.”
In the study, the fake patients, three women and five men, kept written records on how 12 different hospitals in 5 different states were generally operated and also how they were personally treated.
The experiments began by each of the fake students making appointments at the hospitals and describing voices and words that they heard in their heads. They provided “a false name and job, but all other details they gave were true including general ups and downs of life, relationships, events of life history and so on.”
After being admitted to the hospital, they acted exactly as they would in the outside world, participating in activities and regularly talking to patients and hospital staff in a friendly, jovial manner. They also immediately told the staff that they felt fine, and no longer heard voices or felt the slightest bit depressed.
The sane patients were in the hospitals for 7 to 52 days, with an average of 19 days of admittance. Their objective: to be declared sane and get out of the hospitals by their own devices. This is where things get interesting.
First, none of the patients were detected by the doctors or staff at the hospitals as being normal or sane, while many of the clinically insane patients spotted their sanity immediately. In fact, 35 out of 118 patients publicly voiced thier suspicions regarding the fake patients.
Second, normal behavior was viewed as symptoms of their illness. Writing notes on the staff (which they did openly as the staff took no interest in the subject matter of the writing) was considered ‘writing behavior,’ and showing up early for meals was labeled as “oral-acquisitive syndrome,” rather than simple boredom.
Here are the results of the staff’s behavior toward the fake patients:
Response
Percentage making contact with patient
Psychiatrists
Nurses
Moves on with head averted
71
88
Makes eye contact
23
10
Pauses and chats
2
4
Stops and talks
4
0.5
Next up, the researchers flipped the study on its head and lied to hospital staff, telling them that one or more sane patients would be admitted to the hospital. The staff was to rate each patient on a 10-point scale as to the likelihood of them being a fake patient.
The results:
Number of patients judged
193
Number of patients confidently judged as pseudo patients by at least one staff member
41
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist
23
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist AND one other staff member
19
The psychiatrists at these hospitals failed miserably at recognizing insanity, as well as sanity.
Rosenhan notes that the “experience of hospitalization for the pseudo patients was one of depersonalisationand powerlessness. Powerlessness and depersonalisation were evident in the ways in which the patients were deprived of many human rights such as freedom of movement and privacy. Medical records were open to all staff members regardless of status or therapeutic relationship with the patient and personal hygiene was monitored and many of the toilets did not have doors. Some of the ward orderlies would be brutal to patients in full view of other patients but would stop as soon as another staff member approached.”
Anyone that has ever taken a look at the DSM knows what a joke modern day psychology and generalized labeling has become. According to the DSM, everyone is clinically insane and requires very similar if not identical treatment. As Rosenhan urged so long ago, “instead of labelling a person as insane we should focus on the individual’s specific problems and behaviours.”
One of the most important criticisms of psychiatric diagnosis is the Rosenhan experiment, which was an experiment orchestrated by David Rosenhan in 1973. In these experiments, completely sane people faked hallucinations in order to gain access to mental hospitals in an attempt to show that
psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.
In the study, the fake patients, three women and five men, kept written records on how 12 different hospitals in 5 different states were generally operated and also how they were personally treated.
The experiments began by each of the fake patients making appointments at the hospitals and describing voices and words that they heard in their heads. They provided
a false name and job, but all other details they gave were true including general ups and downs of life, relationships, events of life history and so on.
After being admitted to the hospital, they acted exactly as they would in the outside world, participating in activities and regularly talking to patients and hospital staff in a friendly, jovial manner. They also immediately told the staff that they felt fine, and no longer heard voices or felt the slightest bit depressed.
The sane patients were in the hospitals for 7 to 52 days, with an average of 19 days of admittance. Their objective: to be declared sane and get out of the hospitals by their own devices. This is where things get interesting…
First, none of the patients were detected by the doctors or staff at the hospitals as being normal or sane, while many of the clinically insane patients spotted their sanity immediately. In fact, 35 out of 118 patients publicly voiced their suspicions regarding the fake patients.
Second, normal behavior was viewed as symptoms of their illness. Writing notes on the staff (which they did openly as the staff took no interest in the subject matter of the writing) was considered ‘writing behavior,’ and showing up early for meals was labeled as ‘oral-acquisitive syndrome,’ rather than simple boredom.
Here are the results of the staff’s behavior toward the fake patients:
Response
Percentage making contact with patient
Psychiatrists
Nurses
Moves on with head averted
71
88
Makes eye contact
23
10
Pauses and chats
2
4
Stops and talks
4
0.5
Next up, the researchers flipped the study on its head and lied to hospital staff, telling them that one or more sane patients would be admitted to the hospital. The staff was to rate each patient on a 10-point scale as to the likelihood of them being a fake patient.
The results:
Number of patients judged
193
Number of patients confidently judged as pseudo patients by at least one staff member
41
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist
23
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist AND one other staff member
19
The psychiatrists at these hospitals failed miserably at even remotely being able to tell the difference between sanity and insanity.
Rosenhan notes that the
experience of hospitalization for the pseudo patients was one of depersonalisationand powerlessness. Powerlessness and depersonalisation were evident in the ways in which the patients were deprived of many human rights such as freedom of movement and privacy. Medical records were open to all staff members regardless of status or therapeutic relationship with the patient and personal hygiene was monitored and many of the toilets did not have doors. Some of the ward orderlies would be brutal to patients in full view of other patients but would stop as soon as another staff member approached.
Anyone that has ever taken a look at the DSM knows what a joke modern day psychology and generalized labeling has become. According to the DSM, everyone is clinically insane and requires very similar if not identical treatment. As Rosenhan urged so long ago,
instead of labeling a person as insane we should focus on the individual’s specific problems and behaviours.
Wondergressive 
