Monthly Archives: February 2010

Why Internet porn is…bad


Here’s a very interesting piece on the very relevent issue of Web censorship and regulation: Control freaks want web licences to end bloggers’ anonymity – be very afraid.


I love how Google, Inc. pretends that they are the good guys in everything. Like in the China censorship fiasco, where Google, in China to tap into that gigantic market potential, was forced to reconcile their basic search engine model of “anything goes” in order to satisfy the demands of CCP authorities who wanted a Chinese “Google” with limits on pornography, and presumably political speech and other content. Google suddenly got self-righteous and backed out of the deal? But what is their standard?

Well, as anyone who has ever taken a cursory Google stroll in the web porn realm can testify, right now the standard is anything goes. One could argue that the simple reason for this is lack of regulation – that whereas the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers resides in California and is dominated by the English language, the World-Wide Web is just that, world-wide – oustide of LANs and corporate networks and the like, there is essentially no regulation. Contrary to Al Gore’s claims, the Internet is not and has not been created by any one nation or entity.

Now, at the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Iran has come out with their own, completely filtered Internet safe for conservative Islam. We hear also that Australia is resorting to government controls to try to stamp out child pornography.

Are they on to something?

Is it maybe possible that the Internet can be – is – a diabolical phenomenon? If you believe in mind over matter; or consciousness over matter, i.e., that first there is consciousness and consciousness brings matter into being through a cosmic mind of sorts, then the World Wide Web becomes a most diabolical spider’s web because of this:

The force and power of intention. 

There has been much research and thought put into the “power of intention” (there is a popular book and seminar series by the same name). 

So my question is this: what megawattage of human intention is being poured into the Web in 2010? An astronomical, increasing amount – that is inarguable. What is the differential in what is then not going into the immediate, real-time environment, like your family in the other room or your coworkers in the adjacent cubicles? What can only be in totality a large, large negative sum.

Where is this lifeforce of human intention going that for millions of years only fed through the feedback system of the biosphere? It is being circulated on the Web, but it may also be undergoing conversion, being flipped when it hits the higher-dimensional universe and this human energy force may well be channeled off to other dimensions or parts of the universe. Either way, it does not remain on this Earth in original form. That’s the theory anyway. Hence the negative sum; the loss.

What is being lost?

An example: think of the intensity of human intention/lifeforce/whatever you want to call it, that is expended directly toward the computer screen by a man masturbating to Internet pornography? Here’s another thought: we know that with the close attention the opposite sex pays to this eternal dance – mating – they want to be where the men are; where the men are focusing their sexual energy. Hence we see this proliferation of women and girls posting themselves online in a provocative way. 

Where does it end? What are the consequences for Gaia, our mother earth?

And people wonder why we are seeing a breakdown in social relations – including between the sexes in – and why we see accelerating earth changes, climate change, wars, political instability, etc.

This is why I have genuine fears that the very new phenomenon of the Internet is not at all entirely yet understood. But let’s hope that in the long-run, as things play out, we can make any necessary adjustments to harnass these technologies for the good of the Earth and humanity.


1 Comment

Filed under IT/Technology

Homeland Un-Security


(3 Feb. 2010)

Read “Domestic Terrorism or Tax Revolts” from the wonderful blog Orwell’s Dreams, on the burgeoning  tax protest/tea party trend – versus domestic terrorism – and then proceed to the below article. They segway nicely because below is about the inevitability of the federal govt. turning it’s now vast anti-terrorism apparatus against its own people. Hey, that’d be more convenient than aiming at terrorists hiding in far-away countries, eh?

Janet Napolitano. She’s nicknamed “Big Sis”, after “Big Brother” – as in “Big Brother is watching you”. Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano says that the Department of Homeland Security will now be monitoring social networking sites to “provide situational awareness” in case of an “act of terrorism, or other manmade disaster.” The ABC News article says that the DHS statement offered 31 web- sites as examples but did not specify.

Does anyone see the irony in casually nicknaming a Department of Homeland Security Secretary “Big [Brother]”? Well, there is no irony, or very little left to go around, as it were.

By the way, if President Barack H. Obama had actually delivered even a portion of what he promised in his ’08 campaign, he would have abolished – that’s right – abolished the Department of Homeland Security! Obama desperately is looking for ways to raise revenue to fund the gargantuan federal government – how much money could be saved if this Department – much of which is just pork-barrel spending thrown atop needlessly layered law enforcement bureaucracy – were scrapped? It wouldn’t be difficult because the agency isn’t even a decade old and was created in a political act as a political agency . I think this is obvious. It is odd, because I dare say the majority of Obama voters in ’08 would have supported just this. But no, can’t scrap the dreaded DHS, we might need it! No, better to cut off the head of this snake before it grows a tail and starts to bite…

It’s uncanny the resemblances we are seeing to the Orwellian “Doublethink”. And now we get to “thoughtcrime”: read this article on the wonderful blog Orwell’s Dreams. The DHS making this announcement right before Google Buzz is debuted? And the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together. Essentially, if this blog is right about what Google Buzz does to a Gmail account, all Google has done is outed your email contacts for the world to see. How convenient! Easy as pie.

I was reminded again of our dystopic reality when news broke of a surveillance video from the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel where three contracted security guards can be seen standing and watching while a 15 year-old girl is beaten and robbed. Our society has here taken the word “Security”, turned it on its head, and stomped on it (literally).

If Orwell were alive today would he say that the U.S. is living in a dystopia? Fairly likely. Question: if the security guards are not down in the Transit Tunnel and the other Light Rail stations for purposes of security, why are they there? In reality, they have shown themselves – and the government that pays their wages? – as an Orwellian, existentialist phenomenon with a shifting purpose. True, they may be seen as a deterrent; sets of eyes in a uniform who can radio the police if need be; but on the whole, these un-security guards are with us down in the tunnel for a psychological reason. What that reason is depends on the meaning we give it. If we are criminal-minded it might be that they’re there to intimidate. If we’re more concerned about getting victimized ourselves, than they’re a protective presence. But don’t tell me that their purpose is as “security”. We saw in the news that contractually, this is not the case! By agreement with the City, Olympic Security Guards are not allowed to intervene in incidents.

I’ve long thought that the Department of Homeland Security will one day, if it has not already, create more homeland insecurity, or un-security, than security.

Indeed, one of Orwell’s criteria for a 1984 society – perpetual war – came true on 9/11/01 when the Bush administration declared the “War on Terror”. Note the resemblance to the 1984 idiom “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.

A war on “terror”, or in this case “Terror” with a capital “T”, is little more than a semantic trick that either means nothing or anything. A very dangerous phrase because it’s a relative one. Anytime you can introduce some relativity into language, particularly language that has domestic and foreign policy implications as has this “war”, than we are trekking into realms unkown (or realms known but that we’d rather not know and are better off leaving to history…). Because, as has been ceaselessly pointed out to no avail, you can not “win” a “War on Terror” because if one is serious about using that phrase whilst at the same time accepting that an act of terrorism is not a specific country or political grouping, than you must accept that, again, it could mean either war on everything, or it could mean war on anything – anything those weilding the phrase want it to be on. Or both.

Actually, a clever interpretation here comes by way of Seattle anti-war activist Steve Ludwig’s “War Is Terrorism”. How’s that! “Is” with a red, capital “I“.

1 Comment

Filed under politics

The Hum

The Hum. It’s worse – can be worse – than mere noise pollution. To those who can hear it – a small swath of the population – the Hum sounds like a slightly peircing, electrical pulse or putter that seems to come, and indeed does come, from thin air. The cause is mysterious. According to John Dawes, the Hum is an interaction of portions of the power-grid with the earth’s gravitational field and ionosphere.

And it’s here in Seattle

I live next to a big institutional-type buliding here in the Rainier Valley, Seattle, WA, and next to the house is a telephone pole with a couple big grey battery things (I don’t know the technical term) plus a “splitter” which, I am told by an experienced carpenter and electrician I know, doubles the voltage in the adjoining power lines. 

The Hum has also inflicted itself on citizens in Taos, NM and in Bristol, UK (where we had the first reported cases in the 1960s) to the point where local authorities, the media, and in Taos then-congressman Bill Richardson, all got involved in order to expose the phenomenon and advocate for its victims.

Researcher John Dawes, from the UK, put up the only web page that I have seen devoted to explaining The Hum:

There has been a “whitewash”, as Dawes puts it, of the phenomenon. It does not get attention commensurate with the harm it causes human-beings (and probably some animals as well). It’s fairly clear that there would be a financial interest (i.e., the hugely prosperous energy industry) to keep something like this under wraps and away from media or mainstream medical attention.

The institution i live next to is full of people (I’ll not be specific so as to give away the exact location here) and they may also be at risk.

The Hum needs to be fully investigated.

– d.g.w.

1 Comment

Filed under Seattle stories