SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
THE NEW MIND WAR
SECTION : MENTAL AND PHYSICAL
This is going to be an exciting Section
Though part of the remit for the New Mind War – psyop, this is a crossover Section which we think is fundamental. In this respect and via the discussions and articles to follow, certain issues will become apparent; specifically around the question; what does feeling good really mean? – The discussion is relevant to whatever the role one performs, however and as will be apparent, it is directed first toward specific roles, ie. ours and those closely associated. In order to better deal with certain issues, we decided to keep the discussion format.
(C-I) (C-III) (C-IV) (C-V)
Note: The reader might wish to begin at Page Three, and work from there.
To begin, it is prudent to state that none of us have qualifications or training in the subject of physical education, nutrition, nor any of the associated disciplines. Neither is this is a commercial enterprise, there are no commercial elements. What will be discussed therefore is based upon the constituent essence of our life, our personal experience and reflection, and not one presumptive of our being specialists in this field, we are NOT. You could say therefore that it’s a discussion regarding us, regarding our lives as we live them, or moreover, me (C-I) in particular, as I am very enthusiastic about the subject of well-being and see the way to walking a very different path here than is the norm.
As stated the platform herein – for our fabulous remit, is psychological warfare, that is; and to expand things a little by asking, ‘why and to what effect the remit of wellness, central to us, as Brits, can, when deployed as a propaganda tool against our opponents, be devastating? Yes, one might, at this initial stage, ponder over the question; how this topic is a warfare tool at all when our opponents are utilizing very particular modalities and most often the ones which carry recourse to ‘conventional’ weapons along with them. As I do explain, the power that such imagery (conventional weapons), whether via choice and use of language, pictorial, or film, is now fading into redundancy and because of two factors. Firstly, the mechanism exists now to usurp and carry altogether different cues, infinitely more powerful and seductive in their effect. Secondly, the brandishing of conventional or other weapons and their associated power fetish is a mere defense against what has the capacity to submerge, diminish and very effectively destroy such over utilized and expected tactics. A necessary adjunct is that superpower warfare is a concept of none applicability, it has its roots embedded in other reasons, namely industrial/commercial support, thereby making psyop a first tier line of attack. Our opponents know this all too well, as we have said and an apt point to make for now is; do not think films/movies are neutral, do not think media stories are neutral, do not think that any information coming over the water, no matter how it is wrapped and presented to us is neutral – it is not. Everything coming over the water and toward us is a strategic ploy developed by our opponents, which we have to be fully mindful of and deal with it via our own strategy.
Strategy is interesting to discuss, perhaps a curious concept, no matter where or how applied. As I just stated, war strategy against Russia, or China can never be applied, thus it remains a very costly game. I can say that strategy in this particular part of the Mind War remit requires qualities of; shrewdness, brinkmanship, boundless creative talent, understanding the nature of simple to complex messages and their intentional nuance. Likewise, how to identify what undermines our opponents, confuses and often hurts them – this, bound in a commitment and allegiance to what constitutes our own welfare.
The strategic objective is; domination over our opponents such that collectively, we, to the fullest extent become their ambition, their reason for life.
“Real Knowledge is to Know the Extent of One’s Ignorance”
Chinese teacher, politician, and philosopher
(551BC – 479BC)
Well, to move on. There is a literal mountain of information available, supposed advice too, some which require money, some that do not – some that do require money and should not. More specifically, much is prescriptive, if I might use the term, to advocate doing this, that, or the other and the result will be whatever claim is introduced. This is not necessarily to offer criticism because there are very good reasons why necessary advice is given. Having said that ‘necessary advice’ is often cloaked as such by the unscrupulous and therefore I say, has to stay in the domain of the properly qualified and who are licensed – those whose credentials are verified as proper and thus legitimate, and absolutely no one else. Often there is a contract in the sense that there is an intentional power ploy, a control message, but I will return to this important component issue later.
In a nutshell, this Section is a discussion of the psychological and philosophical questions, regarding our particular life status enjoyed here in the U.K., as emerged and does continues on, for which I argue the term ‘well-being’ does apply.
As an initial wide sweep, my perception is, that by virtue of being awake one becomes bombarded with ideas, with suggestions – and these connected together and more often packaged in three-dimensional forms which are very seductive, for their commercial purpose. Certain are not confined to commerce per se and are aimed at us from a distance, that is from other nations, one in particular, for certain other reasons we shall discuss in fullness, as I said. Leaving aside the latter point for now, I can say for example, that a certain image might be offered together with a suggestion that all will be right or wonderful if a particular mode of thinking and/or course of action – association, is engaged. Often these images and what they advocate appear to me to dwell in the realms of adhesive obsessional fantasy, ie., which provoke and reinforce that state of being. What one might question therefore is; whether everything is likely to be right, that is, if ‘things’ improve, then to what extent and nature, given the complex, multi-faceted interplay that makes up one’s life? How does one negotiate through, if at all? What constitutes one’s mental state vis a vis awareness of all of these stimuli? Is one even aware and consequently able to negotiate a way through, or just go headlong, come what may? The latter is a rather obvious question, but I see that there are implications because it (the ability to negotiate one’s way – be in control) cannot be one that I and all my colleagues question. That and broadly speaking, ‘going headlong and come what may’ suggests not being able to elicit control to the extent that is arguably beneficial.
Yes, one facet of observation is that it’s an awkward scenario when there are literal multitudes of life choices available, together with wider and established social norms, ways that things are required to be done collectively and within the latter, whatever expectations there are placed upon a person (and have always been).
I want to throw something into the discussion here by introducing three issues;
(i) Diet and debt. Diet is fundamental, as I shall explain. I could rephrase the latter (debt enslavement) by saying; what is necessary and what is not nearly as necessary and often, not at all.
(ii) Other issues, broadly stated for now are; education (bound with perceptions of developed self-worth, awareness of the intrinsic natures which exist in others globally), and activity (pursuits).
(iii) Linked inextricably with the latter are; pursuits which are completely pointless, an utter waste of precious time – why I think this and who is to blame. Note that in this frame, I shall be referring to ‘certain foreign examples’. I can introduce what is our own – UK example of not only social security, but of patronage by the government of the Arts, the splendid and free job training schemes here, abundant recreation. I want to discuss with my colleagues certain foreign (English speaking) preoccupations / beliefs fueled by ideas better regarded as mere convolutions of words and their invented meanings dwelling in the realms of cloud cuckoo land, and while painted (successfully, I might add) as meaningful.
In addition, some might wonder why this is a crossover topic placed here, some might be of the opinion that it’s vital, in order to adequately perform one’s role. Though it’s much more than that and will (hopefully) become apparent.
In life, we are colorful, we are vibrant in our exploration of the multiplicity of experiences our freedom elicits
photograph (c) 2016 Courtesy mirror.co.uk
(C-IV) Yes, it’s all very complex – multi-dimensional. What constitutes awareness, the status of mind, in flux, the emotional bonds, their polarities, to lots of things, many at once.
(C-V) I want to ask; is it proper that what a person or persons have come to know as their world and what they do should be questioned? You can argue that introducing confusion – if confusion is a consequence, then it’s not a good thing to do.
(C-I) Well, I see two issues arising from that: (i) Confusion is normal for most, a prevailing state of collective mind and (ii) Confusion is a consequence for most, a purposely induced state of mind via external agency. It’s hard to say to what extent these merge, when, how and why.
(C-IV) I’m not fully understanding of the point, where we are going. Confusion in the face of complex inputs which constantly appeal to our developed capacity? What is this saying?
(C-V) I think it’s saying that there is no argument for a sense of uniqueness because there can’t be one, the social world – what’s in it, made by whom, for whatever reason, constitutes the extent of thought. It’s not possible to be independent of this, but it is possible to exert control. A contentious point is; many do not exert control, they are an amalgam of the whole thing, others (us) are not that status, they take a minute fraction to a massive part of the world and control it. The former are really zombies, unfortunately, and I don’t care for the adjective.
(C-IV) ‘Sleepwalkers’ if that’s your assertion? – Entirely under the control of the external world. In this, you could argue that it’s their view of those who are unlike them (those make decisions for themselves and for them) that they are set apart? I say this because of the term I’ve heard from time to time, “When are ‘they’ going to do this?” They, being the authorities, or whoever.
(C-I) Too simple, but it’s suggestive of the way things are. In each camp there are a whole host of differences, but I’d say the ‘zombies’ share one underlying characteristic which is; the complete inability to step out from the content of the collective – They are what the world, the part of the world they experience makes them into. It keeps them that way.
(C-IV) How does it keep them that way? Via a process of identification with and reinforcement of manufactured norms? Is that what you’re saying?
(C-I) Basically, yes. A pervasive, plastic reality. The shifts which occur do so because of the ones who are able to emancipate from this state. If not for them – for good or for bad, life would be one machine, set in one unchanging condition.
(C-V) There are new people in the soap operas, saying things that appeal to the mass audience?
(C-I) Hey, in a nutshell. Consequentially there’s no difference between the media introducing ideas – soap opera scriptwriters, and whoever else doing it. The point being that within the framework we live within, new ideas are fed either by accident or purposely. Of course, certain ideas are viewed as revolutionary but they are still versed in the same thing. We can’t step beyond it.
(C-IV) It’s not that simple, and I assume you know? In addition, new ideas are not confined to social relationships.
(C-I) It’s more to make the statement that who we have evolved into as Brits is a perfect example of how it should be, and so because of what we’ve just said. A social world where it’s a mixture of both and either camp, one becomes aware very early in life of all the directions to go and requisite proper explanations of what they mean. I would say that it is very difficult to become a zombie. If you don’t think so, take a look at the case elsewhere. I know that you know very well what it’s like elsewhere – everywhere else, but just disagree with how I’ve arrived at the conclusion. Yes?
I do not think the ‘confusion’ attribute we mentioned earlier is applicable. I think that state would only be engendered when one very narrow world-view became subject to what is without restrictions. It could be resentment, dissociation, disconnect. There is a control issue here, and a ‘step over’. I would say a very narrow world view is likely though not necessarily one where choices are curtailed via an external agent and the one remaining that of the controller and enforced as such. The point being that it’s not that way for us, so we are not conditioned into narrow expectation/choice. However, within our framework there obviously are those who would like to change it so it becomes that way. That’s not the issue here.
(C-IV) Explain the nuts and bolts, and do it simply. I also need you to say why you think it (zombie-ism) “is the case everywhere else.” You really must qualify this, because in China’s example, how many hundreds of millions of people have been lifted from poverty? The extent of that life improvement is literally mind boggling.
(C-I) I will answer that in a moment, because I have something very important to say regarding the sheer extent of China’s very positive influence in all respects and so, not into only our lives here in the UK, but globally. In their lead of the new globalization is a form of life enhancement, rich, varied, dynamic and complex – which is very new and welcome.
But going back to the issue for now, diet is a good example and a perfect opportunity for the external agent to mold the collective who are offered what they think is a choice, but it’s not necessarily so.
(C-IV) Are you saying that what is taken for granted as an array of choice is really a manipulative ploy dressed up as such? How can food be this? Where are you referring? Are you going to use national comparisons to back up your argument?
(C-I) Yes sir, that’s the intention. Generally speaking, if you consider the proposition that food is not beneficial to one’s health, but it is viewed otherwise, as sustenance, and within this, there are strands of what really is beneficial but that it requires the ability to differentiate, to be able to question what is taken as common sense reality. The latter is the issue, because one has to have emancipated from the blind walk along the plank and fall from the end. We provide the means to question, it’s there in everything, one can choose to remain with the junk food and its phony glamor verbiage, but the issue of conscious choice is the point. As I said, choice is not the case with regard to many other nations, to the same extent, if at all.
(C-V) They eat nutritionally bad food simply because it’s food. Food is a necessary provision and this necessity is fraught with exploitation – on a massive scale. You think?
(C-I) You got it. This has wider implications.
(C-IV) For what? Mind control over a human system? Is this what you are saying?
(C-I) Essentially, yes, I am saying this, that the defining of what the most essential thing is, and this definition becoming part and parcel of an unquestioning acceptance in a wider consumer reality.
(C-IV) So the issue is?
(C-I) That the whole thing is predefined by virtue of profit motive and absolutely nothing else whatsoever. Modern day diets consist of what is essentially toxic.
(C-IV) Explain toxic.
(C-V) I can explain that. Additives such as synthetically produced ingredients; preservatives, colorants, flavorings, growth hormones, genetically modified junk food.
(C-I) It’s not only that these substances are there, but why. We could appeal to the linear rise of the global population, the decline in certain nations of real income of workers, but I say it’s more related to the ‘more for less’ strategy on the part of the companies who control food production, whether they care about health less than profiteering. That’s not all either, when there is an external controlling agency who decide what is this, that or the other on the behalf of the masses, any all motivations creep in. Why should they care whether people suffer and die, it’s in their interests because the biggest companies who operate food production also operate pharmaceuticals and more. These are inextricably linked and in this, are the ones in governmental positions who benefit, via their support.
I suppose you could reduce the argument some by saying people are more informed here on exactly what the constituency of what they need the most actually consists of. One can wonder, but not for too long because it’s not necessary, the answer is obvious, which governments in particular push GMO foods and propagandize against vegans. Why Russia is determined to be the organic super power – whereas the USA package the whole GMO thing up with psychological warfare.
(C-IV) You should back up your arguments with relevant research data, such as that pertaining to the use of insecticides, hormones and so on – their effect on the human body.
(C-V) Just to add something to. If you consider food as essentially toxic, then practically all food has the capacity to kill. The point I am making is that it’s very obviously not packaged up this way and would be inconceivable. There is in addition a class issue regarding cuisine and I’m interested to know your thoughts on that.
(C-I) OK. There is a class issue inherent, but only so much as the issue determines what is made to appeal to whatever ‘class’. What you can’t say is that food eaten in expensive restaurants is nutritionally superior, because I would argue that the more that you pay the worse it is. Oven chips can be attired as something much more refined but the end product is the same.
(C-IV) What’s your answer? To stop going out to restaurants, drinking in pubs, eating oven chips? I’m not being supercilious, only questioning of how you could possibly affect what is ingrained? Why do you care?
(C-I) I was coming to why I care. I care about my colleagues and friends. I care about those who matter. I care about my country. We together have important directives, new ideas to formulate. We are not sedentary overweight zombies, stuffed full with poisons because if we were, everything would suffer as a result.
(C-IV) You are making the assumption on behalf of others, because you say they don’t have the capacity to make decisions for themselves, that how they choose to live is not only wrong but a veritable death wish. Do you think there is a problem with that?
(C-I) No sir, I don’t think there is a problem with that, or with me. Am I not living proof of everything that is right in the world?
I say the problem lies with; why the problem exists at all. So there.
(C-IV) Not wishing to confine the issue to the food industry, what you are really wanting to say is, that by implication all that people do is contrived independently of them. If this be the case, is it possible to realize it, if so what exactly does realizing consist of – psychologically speaking? I have an image of people living set apart in varying extents, holding certain convictions which control their outward behaviors. From your exegesis I am given the impression that it’s much easier here in the UK to think differently than the dictate, indeed if there is one, whereas in certain countries you would be fighting the system and likely losing the battle.
(C-I) The notion of being ‘different’ is easier here, – what constitutes one’s individuality is realized early on, while experimenting with and developing combinations of traits via different relationships. It constitutes a rich learning experience. If there was only one very narrow parameter, that would result in a psychologically malfunctioning collective, severely malfunctioning, in my opinion.
(C-IV) But you have said yourself that what one has never sensibly experienced (had) will not be missed. How do you factor this in to your diagnosis of a psychologically malfunctioning collective? This is your perception, not theirs.
(C-I) The fact that the perception is mine does not detract from its accuracy. How could it?
(C-IV) Does confining life experience to that of a narrow parameter fall into the same controlling authoritarianism you mentioned earlier. That those in control know exactly what they are doing? Or that they are the same as the ones they control?
(C-I) It depends where who we are referring to.
In our case which is where I have a stake, the ones who know what they are doing on our behalf – and who are members of our diverse and free society, thus same in many respects and unique in others – we foster this result, don’t we?
(C-IV) Use an example to illustrate your point.
(C-I) The TTIP sham won’t glue itself to the psyche of very many here, and rightly so. The politicians or most hopefully, are aware of the consequences with regard to deregulation of food, how the sham benefits only the ones who, under TTIP can actually sue governments for not abiding by their rules, I mean refusing to be dictated to via law.
These are US producers who want our market.
Everything regarding our food under TTIP would be pitiful and highly destructive of health, just as it is where it would arrive here from, because the ones who benefit by shoving it down our throats are, or would be – US producers, GM and associated pesticide magnates. No one in their right ******* mind wants that. The fact that the discussions on TTIP are held in secret is testimony to how they should be trusted, I mean not trusted at all.
In the USA there are almost fifty million on food stamp assistance, which means a likely 150 million who benefit. These are the ones who, living in shit poverty and squalor are likewise fed utter shit because it’s cheap to produce and the product and price can be made to appear attractive to them. The health care system in the USA is a ******* joke. Which briefly illustrates the value placed upon the person. There is no value other than being a tax payer. I say that British politicians are aware of this, or if they aren’t, they ought to get educated. Those in parliament who are eating from the hands of these multi-national corporations already, thus supportive of TTIP ** because it serves their own corrupt, ******* interests and associated tax avoidance ought to be booted out.
PS. now defunct – at the sea bed.
The China Silk Road Initiative and Maritime Silk Road (OBOR) is so vastly superior for its integrity and the undeniably real benefits to the UK population. Already there are 25,000 jobs created and the Trade Union Congress are hailing this as a major positive shift in meaningful bi-lateral relations with Asia. This is the new globalization in operation. – Compare to the phony as ****, anything with ‘Transatlantic’ written on it, frack under your house whether you like it or not , just because it poisons you, your kids and your dog *******, especially when the Americans have the ******* nerve to come here and present threats before the thing is even ratified. It never will be ratified. (Dead now, apparently).
(C-IV) I read the article you gave me on sleep deprivation (aptly titled; ‘Sleep Baby, Sleep and Yawn’). It’s more a recipe for social inertia, than what I expected. Are you not of the opinion that maximum time spent applying oneself and career fulfillment – payoff for that time, are inextricably linked? We are in a very competitive world where there is no room for retiring to bed at the drop of a hat, even if it is therapeutic, as you say. Payoff can be interpreted as, to use a phrase of yours, ’emancipating oneself from the shackles, which if not realized and removed, serve only to perpetuate powerlessness.’ The process of learning being the most appropriate rite of passage into awareness and control of one’s own life. The article feels very comforting in retreat, a pervasive complacency. I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t sacrificed everything for their career, burned the midnight oil every single night. So have you.
(C-I) That’s a good point. I suppose the requirements we face have dictated, and do dictate, our lifestyle and requisite commitment. It’s also necessary to realize in the first place that there is this requirement, that there is more of infinite value and it won’t just magically appear. This has always been the case as far as we are concerned – being in constant development, goals set on our behalf which are often beyond our reach. I’m not sure this applies to all, because of circumstances. Often these circumstances are dictated and there is no way out of them, though I say there is a different form of emancipation from that. We can’t use our example and judge everyone else according to it.
(C-IV) How would you meld the issues of diet and debt into that, serving to explain what you define as one’s authenticity?
(C-I) Yes, sir. In many respects, and excluding ‘the many shining lights with integrity’, (hi there), the collective global human reality is more ridiculous now than ever, a multifaceted, universal battlefield – and if ‘certain’ continue having their way this will worsen. Negotiating with these criminals masquerading as politicians is an issue uppermost in any consideration, of first; the realization of one’s place, and second, the negotiating of this place in the context of the said drama of the ridiculous. You could say many are caused via external agency to believe and act as though all is fine and dandy when it certainly is NOT, someone telling them and / or this personal status being all they have ever known. Narrowing this down to two facets of the banal; diet and debt – much peddled as food is poisonous and practically everyone is debt-ridden in what is for them an enslaved time. In considering the question why food is toxic and time is indebted, central is the notion of individual authenticity. This means a fundamental realization that though one is irrevocably a part of the collective, there is a state of mind one can cultivate and which the collective cannot affect, no matter what. This is not the norm, when you consider how many groups there are, with allegiances shared and associated practices – all predefined for them.
(C-IV) Narrow it down. How does what you are saying fit into the New Mind War paradigm?
(C-I) Perhaps I have been too generalizing, I can’t react to the whole of the population of the planet, though there are certain facets which apply to all. The principles of proper nutrition, for example. We can include the sad fact why some don’t eat at all and the reason why has much in common with who we are pointing toward as being arbiters of poison.
With regard to the New Mind War, our focus has to be one that projects outward from our example and it’s not just a case of saying that we have better supermarkets and why, or that less people are indebted. The latter is not likely to be a realistic assessment because of the consumer society we have morphed into and the surface and meaningless value attributed to items / things, and to life itself.
(C-IV) What is “our example”? Define this, would you.
(C-I) Can I just say that we have a problem of epic proportion and this problem has been brewing for decades and unless it is realized exactly for what it is, – as a controlling instrument ‘par excellance’, things will suddenly take a nose dive from which no one will recover. An undeniable reality, while hitting us all of the time. This is the pathological blanket wrapping everything. Into its fabric is woven certain artless traits. These traits glorify the very opposite of what we are discussing, by utilizing all means. These traits are typical of aggression, the antithesis of what I argue is meaningful life. It’s more than one thread, food saturated with what act as the very precursors for aggression (the desire to kill), insecurity which debt enslavement provokes and propaganda techniques which bolster the whole shabang into the psyche of the masses. The latter, propaganda, in this respect, is altogether insidious because it includes patriotism, the phony perception that proper values are those of domination, exceptionalism, into which emotion, conscience and the very questioning of the journey thereto, is disregarded as being weak, as defective, womanly even. This I see being concentrated, the most deeply entrenched, within certain nations.
(C-IV) Our example?
(C-I) Our example fosters the value of that realization, the consequent difference contained in free choice. This is valued, upheld, enjoyed, reveled within, if you like. As opposed to what is the opposite, pervasive syndrome.
(C-IV) Just summarize this, you are leading me to think that goodly amounts of populations are controlled for very specific ends, these ends and the means to attain them defined by controlling psychopaths – we should remain politically incorrect by not naming who (you argue) fall into this category.
(C-I) For the purposes of our discussion it’s better to stay within the experience of the individual -” mental and physical” – because our remit addresses many other issues more geopolitical than I want to focus upon here. We do this elsewhere.
The recognizing of hopes and dreams is my point, not having to suffer the indignity which enforced ignorance does engender. We recognize our mistakes, we admit them and this is because we see mistakes for what they are. This is NOT the case with regard to who would have us be as they. But to focus on diet and debt, no one can enter into fulfillment unless the issues around these two factors are addressed.
One factor that is important is; that of being unlike the majority, if indeed this is the case. This is not the case here, as I said before. I mention this “being unlike the rest” because common-sense would have it that certain concepts are accepted as being sacrosanct. People are told something, and they believe it without questioning any facet thereof. The ones who control the food industry for example, do not want anyone to question a single thing, especially to encourage healthy eating. They would have it that they do foster healthy eating. They do not, and proof is in the eating, quite literally. There are very obvious changes that can be made to what one eats, and the benefits which accrue are enormous.
Debt resides among those who can afford the condition the least. It serves to perpetuate poverty, stagnation and powerlessness. The intention is NOT to lift people into prosperity, but to KEEP people in despair. Think about this; where there is the exorbitant / unrealistic cost of education, where student loans which, besides being disabling to the nth degree, exist within supposed first world nations, where the access to proper health care comes with the threat of looming bankruptcy, where the dismissal by government to invest tax payer revenue back into infrastructure development – rather than use it to fund its own bizarre agendas. This is NOT the case in the UK. It’s important to make this distinction.
Healthy eating is easy to define. The shift way from what is made to appear as common sense reality is not.
Debt enslavement ; the most obvious vehicle commandeered for this purpose is consumerism. The value cleverly made to appear that it’s attached to what is, in essence, valueless. We’ve spoken about “singularity” already, but it’s relevant in this respect, because people generally are conditioned to value objects that are owned, not the person in essence. If I were a woman with a new car I would be attributed qualities regarding the car. If I said I had qualities other than the car, these would remain insignificant. It becomes an issue when I cannot afford the car and have only the qualities no one wants to know about.
(C-IV) Would you narrow down your exegesis to, quote; “Healthy eating is easy to define,” and in particular, why it is a factor in adequately performing personnel. I’ll leave it to you to define ‘personnel.’
(C-I) Yes, sir. Well, all personnel, regardless of their function would benefit from healthy eating, but I just want to reiterate a point, if I may. This point is that unhealthy eating is in varying degrees responsible for decision making which is characteristic of aggression. You don’t have to look far to see this.
Food of meat origin is pumped full of growth hormones to an extent that it’s impossible not to be affected. This is not the only issue with the meat industry, meat remains in the system for longer than one would care to know about. We have an epidemic of obesity and in this, diabetes and heart disease. I don’t want to go into this, in great depth because it’s obvious. A diet that is friendly to the body, a diet which is altogether free of steroids, saturated fat, sweeteners, colorants, what is of GMO origin – is vastly superior to health. The rather obvious statement and it’s accompanying alternative; that a diet consisting of organic, vegetarian/vegan food is what should constitute one’s diet in its entirety. This does make for an “alternative lifestyle” in that social reality is bound up with eating and the products which are awfully bad appear everywhere, as are the places to consume them.
An alternative lifestyle begins with diet and exercise. This means understanding the diatribe put out via advertising for what it really is, in that “good food” is shown as being meat, because it’s patriotic to eat the stuff, it’s use of male imagery in so doing, the gung-ho, go off shooting up the world – or worse, that kids love fast food muck because there are clowns associated with it. The alternative is not anything of that, but it can mean being set apart from the crowd, a person at dinner who is choosy, who doesn’t drink alcohol, and so on. There is nothing wrong with being this person.
The worst offenders are the staff whose job is to be seated before a computer screen and who eat junk, throw in a few colas and potato crisps. Any sedentary function is fraught with ill health.
There is nothing complicated, but the shift from what appears the norm to one that is not, is a different issue.
(C-IV) What is the process one would expect to go through? I refer to becoming a healthy eater and by association, set apart from the crowd?
(C-I) Really there is not a distinction to make between women and men in this, both tempt results that are metabolic, aesthetic and characteriological. Basically, body functions will change immediately, the change will result in a different appearance which itself beckons a new relationship with the world. It’s a process that encompasses an existential superiority, a power over the pull which the commonality exert. Once in motion, the course is set. In other words, the pub is out of the question, everything one sees in the supermarket is scrutinized and rejected if it does not conform. The fact of one’s appearance, I refer to what is aesthetically pleasing not just to others but is so to oneself, this acts as a positive reinforcer. One becomes one’s own heroine / hero. The time spent alone and yearning to be out with the others quickly fades, the time alone becomes precious, it’s about **renewal.
Renewal; The threatening nature of the global reality we all live within, is meant to permanently transfigure our composure. Threats come in many guises, some very obvious and others which are not obvious and in the latter, are those which aren’t meant as threats but would be if one partook in them. Enjoying a night out with the girls drinking at a bar, attending a party or a dinner function, is not meant to be a threat, but is so to one’s health.
I can broaden time alone by appeal to the capacity – which is one’s blissfully transcended state, to disregard and thus be unaffected by the external world in its entirety.
(C-IV) Given the varied human circumstance, that of adequate to severely bad, are you making a case for a life condition where in fact it is unrealistic to assume there can be one?
(C-I) I do agree with the assessment of the societal condition, but as I have said all along and what is the stage (ours) of the New Mind War, we can look out from a place which provides myriad preconditions for actualizing meaningful and enjoyable life. In the midst of this, there is what impinges, is what is intended to impinge and does so by force.
(C-IV) So you advocate not presenting the fullness of threat, to dress up circumstance and place it in a rose filled garden, which many would say was a figment of your imagination. I do not think this, but there are many who do and I’m curious for your response.
This going to be an exciting Section so stay with us!
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum