Bare Bones Biology 278 – Tower of Babel

Probably I haven’t talked before about the Tower of Babel method. Some people use this method to win arguments by changing the subject, and the corposystem has raised it to an art form to make money and to prevent us from taking control over our own choices. For example, I just looked at the TV screen that said the explosion of the shuttle the other day caused “no environmental effects.” Do people really believe this garbage? If there was no effect we could not have photographs. So how do they define effects? They just change the definitions of things they don’t want to talk about.

The second reason I think this is a technique used to confuse us is because it is one of the ploys to the increase profits in a supermarket. Move things around, change the definitions, change the subject. So, I don’t want to waste my time looking for things in the supermarket that I already knew where they were, but the corposystem knows if they change things around people will probably buy something they didn’t intend to buy. Creating confusion stirs things up, while at the same time maintaining the balance of power. It’s a good ploy if your goal is to maintain your power, but it doesn’t accomplish anything. Just stirs the pot.

141029-sunrise-ASC_2591ssGenerally, when this is happening, I simply refocus on my own goals, which in fact does at least give me power over my own goals, and is the first and most important step toward accomplishing them, because I will never accomplish my own goals by just jumping into the ocean of options that are provided by my opponent. The corposystem understands all of its goals better than I do and is prepared with a response. That reaction simply empowers my opponent’s goals.

So, in brief. These are the questions I ask myself to reconfirm my goals, in order of their importance.

First question. What do you want to succeed at? Very precisely define your one primary goal. I’ve been told that a goal is not a mission and a mission is not a goal. If that’s true, which it was not in my day, but if it is true now, then describe your mission. A mission is not required to be possible, but of course you can’t succeed at accomplishing a big mission, so the primary value of a mission is that you don’t end up confused and fulfilling some mission that is different from what you really want to do.

Second Question. Which is more important to you – making a name for yourself, or changing the culture? If you only got one choice?

a) Do you primarily want to be important, a leader, or do you primarily want to create uproar, whether or not the uproar is the most effective way to change the culture? Because it isn’t. Uproar empowers the corposystem, the system will join you in playing the game of make-believe change, and you will both be happy. It’s relatively easy, but it won’t change the corposystem, because that’s already the ethic of our corposystem. We always start a war whenever we want people to believe we are trying to change something, but war in our corposystem is routine; therefore it does not change anything. Just different wars against different things. You will not change the social system using uproar — because that is the social system we already have. But you might get more power for yourself within the system as it already exists.

b) On the other hand, do you genuinely want to create a new social breakthrough? Then you must be able to visualize a SUSTAINABLE society that is different from the one we have, and to do that you will need to understand HOW the corposystem uses 20th century ideals to empower itself (for example, why did the Tar Sands issue disappear instantly from the agenda of the internet. Where is Occupy? Who pulled Obama’s teeth?) What happened is the corposystem was and is ready to deal with 20th century ideals, that are really the ideals that grew out of the original axial age. If you really want to change our societies in this new axial age (an enormous mission), you will have to learn HOW the corposystem controls us, and you will have to then work against the weak points of the corposystem model – not its strengths. This will require hard work to learn the differences between facts, corposystem power, and weaknesses that the corposystem tries hard to prevent you studying.

Here’s an example that is based on what we know already about the weak spot of the corposystem. The weaknes141028-sunset-ASC_2590ss of the corposystem is that it requires growth of human populations to maintain its power over us. This is a weakness because growth is not sustainable beyond the available resources. Therefore the corposystem will crash sooner or later. Sooner would be better for the welfare of Life on earth. What is the most effective way to bring this about with the least suffering?

If you want to change the corposystem, what is the most effective conceivable way to do so?
(A) Devote your life to trying to feed the people who are suffering from hunger (for example); or

(B) Devote your life to reducing and rebalancing the populations of people on earth, so that there will be enough food for all the organisms required to maintain life in reasonable comfort on earth (including the other species that are required to grow the food and generate and maintain the air and water cycles); or

(C) Both

(A) will not change the corposystem ethic, which is based on growing the human population in order to make more money. The corposystem does not care whether or not the money it makes (that is, the money you spend) is created by human suffering. Therefore, your efforts to comfort/feed suffering people will be reinforcing the goals of the corposystem rather than changing the corposystem. And because the growth will continue – therefore the suffering will be increased by your efforts. Because caring for more people makes money for the corposystem. Thus your work will cause more harm than good (assuming you believe unnecessary suffering is harmful). (A) will not change the corposystem. On the contrary, it will make the corposystem more powerful. And of course, you will be rewarded.

(B), by reducing the population rather than permitting it to grow, will FORCE the corposystem to change its goals, or at least it’s methods of making money. You will not be rewarded, because the function of any system is to maintain itself, not to reward people who are effectively changing it.

(C), Both would be nice, but if you can’t do both, I claim that changing the corposystem is more important, clearly more likely to lead to a sustainable human life style. SUSTAINABLE means FOREVER — less suffering forever, and will reduce more suffering even in the short run than (A). The corposystem rewards its “heroes” because they are benefiting the corposystem – even the activists are benefiting the corposystem, with extremely few exceptions. Even if that is not their intent.

(A) makes other people treat me like a hero, but (B) is far the more noble aspiration.

To download the podcast of the first part of this blog go to: