THIS Is What The Mauna Kea Protectors Are About

ProtectorsNotProtesters-300x235There’s a lot of misinformation and ignorant talking points out there about what’s going on at Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Although what follows is not the only issue at stake, I believe it is the central one that diffuses the notion that this is about the resurrection of a religion vs. science, as has been continuously portrayed. “Superstition vs. Science” as has  been repeated.

Here is everything you need to know. It isn’t superstition vs. science. Crudely put, it is the science of people embedded in nature who understand what Earth needs vs. Westerners who don’t get it. But here’s the thing: we don’t need to get it. Western doctors and insurance companies now recognize Chinese medicine as valid even though they don’t understand how it works. So we are at a point when we can admit that it’s okay not to understand how another’s way works for it to work and be considered science.

Indigenous medicine works regardless of how the administering of it looks. Does it look like hocus pocus or religion to an outsider? Tough. Then that’s what it looks like. But what is it doing? That’s the important point. Checking the tongue to diagnose someone and then sticking needles into the body also looks like magic, but acupuncture works. And, again, we recognize that. We also recognize that life is fractal. Patterns within patterns. Is it so silly to believe that Earth herself has pressure points which need to be energetically moved in ways that look like magic to all but the people who understand her?

Lakota activist Tiokasin Ghosthorse has talked about how if you know how to listen and be in communication with plants they will tell you the music you should play to help them grow. He went on to say that the songs vary from region to region and so, for example, corn in South Dakota might not recognize the songs from North Dakota. It’s that specific. Some may have scoffed when they heard this, but now it turns out this is being validated through science.

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1021_051021_protein_music.html)

Correction: It is not being validated through science. It doesn’t need validation, doesn’t need to be proven. Proof is a Western concept that doesn’t apply to what has been self-evident for thousands of years prior to the existence of modern scientists.

If scientists would recognize that there are nations who have always understood what it takes to care for Mother Earth–that there are energy centers which need acupuncture, as it were–then maybe they would see that the telescope is not a better or more worthy form of science than doing what it takes to keep Mauna Kea in balance–whatever that means. However that occurs through heart ritual, song, and so forth. We don’t need to know. We simply need to understand that it is so and there are people who do know. Even if they had the indigenous knowledge colonized out of them in as much as that was possible, some seed of it germinates. Perhaps it’s in the DNA at this point; perhaps it’s activated by the chants which come from the land and sea themselves and is now flowering again. That’s speculation and unimportant except as a way to try to speak to scientists in their language.

Enter the Mauna Kea Protectors….

Jer’s Plasma Prophesy

Eye See YOUI have a prediction to make. The emerging and next definition of what UFOs and their accompanying entities represent shall be shape-shifting plasma beings from the every-present now. They accidentally created a past that contains us simply by looking for their own origins. In so doing, they redefined themselves as our future, as time-travelers. They’re here because every move we make has ramifications for them. They mutate. They die. Perhaps they disappear into thin air because of our future-defining actions.

Sound convoluted? It is. But let’s face it: tiny gray alien doctors in ships can no longer hold up, same as faeries couldn’t, same as soldiers battling in the sky and Virgin Marys. Same as the airships of the 1800s and the reptilians of now. Robotics aren’t the wave of the future, so out the window with those lock-step animatronic type entities and in with something more fluid. Something vague to mirror our current sense of where quantum theories are bringing us.

The faux mystery of crop circles caved to the weight of the human artists creating them, who, in turn, gave voice to their true mystery: the artists feel compelled to make them by an outside agency, and sometimes they see balls of light in the fields.

Balls of light. Plasmas. We wanted them to be orbs like in all those orb photos, but they couldn’t be. That’s water and insects and dust and the digital camera lens refracting normal things. But still, orbs. ORBS. We love the idea of orbs and we’ll find a place to put ’em in the collective toy box of all things strangeness manifest. In fact, we’ll make them take center stage as the Electric Universe Theory becomes the new it-theory to explain New Age concepts hand in hand with the latest scientific discoveries about plasmas. Perhaps this will spark a deeper ufological interest in Meso-American tales of plasma beings and the UK Ministry of Defense’s plasma explanation for all things UFO. However the change comes about, whatever the tipping point, plasmas are the way to go for the physical component of our enigmatic other and quantum entanglement will be the sensible catch-all for who and where and when and why they are here.

Tick-tock on the reinvigorated demand for that carrot to the horse that is your wallet, disclosure.

But if we’re at a point with these phenomena that we can see this change in facades coming, can we stop it? Can we stop it merely by not believing in another one? What happens then to the great evolver updating its appearance parallel to our cultural interpretations?

Can we see the enigmatic other for what it is? Is this our chance? What leaps out of that mirror when we stop projecting an image onto it? What happens when we decide, “Nah, it’s not plasmas. Try again. On second thought, don’t try again. Ever. We quit.”

What happens? Who do we see then?

Perhaps us. Truly, deeply, us.

Jeff Ritzmann once asked a shrouded entity who claimed he lived in a particle within our universe if we will ever make contact with aliens from another planet. He said it was possible, but… “Don’t be surprised if it’s you.”

Ready?

When Science Races Ahead of the Scientists

by Guest Blogger,
Tyler A. Kokjohn

 

The New York Times has examined in a Room for Debate feature whether scientists are able to exert much control over the use of their discoveries (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/05/28/scientists-curbing-the-ethical-use-of-science).  One of the opinions published, “The Lessons of Asilomar for TFetusoday’s Science” by Alexander Capron, set the current concerns arising over recent editing of human embryo genomes into a historical context and suggests that we should not rely on scientists to make all the decisions for us.

The 1975 Asilomar conference to assess the hazards posed by recombinant DNA experiments and make recommendations for a sensible path forward confirmed that the scientific community has a strong sense of social responsibility.  Recognizing the swift maturation of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology now poses potentially explosive societal challenges, a group of distinguished scientists has called for another moratorium to allow time for a full public discussion of the ethical concerns and potential implications (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/18/science.aab1028).

The forces propelling scientists forward in 2015 reflect the complexities of a globally distributed capacity to conduct gene editing experiments coupled with clear potential for enormous economic rewards.  Perhaps scientists today are ‘too self-interested and unrepresentative’ to decide how gene editing technology will be used.  Worse, the scientific community and National Academy groups calling for discussions seem almost oblivious to the fact that fast-moving developments in areas beyond human embryo engineering have already overtaken them.

The recent efforts to edit human embryo genes by Chinese scientists galvanized the concern of both scientists and the public.  However, CRISPR-Cas9 editing methods developed in insect hosts have now advanced far beyond the laboratory proof-of-principle or even carefully contained experiment stages (http://www.nature.com/news/regulate-gene-editing-in-wild-animals-1.17523).  Society is now deciding whether to attempt to control human diseases such as Dengue by unleashing ‘gene drives’ to genetically alter wild populations of mosquitoes (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/can-quick-dying-genetically-modified-mosquitos-save-florida-keys-disease/).  The group calling for a moratorium on editing human embryos noted the potential of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to impact the entire biosphere (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/18/science.aab1028).  It may be unwelcome news to many scientists, but our gene editing future has already barged into the present without their consent.

The sudden convergence of events makes clear that scientists might be unrepresentative of the greater public interest in a most unexpected way; the scope and speed of events has simply outrun even their capacity to keep pace.  The situation is a rude demonstration of the highly specialized and narrow scope of scientific research today.  The bottom line is this; the human embryo work is far behind the gene editing technology development curve.  Whatever discussions we will have about using gene editing technology must be conducted outside the realm of federal meeting rooms and involve the general public.  Expert input from scientists will be critical, but policymakers must seek these broader perspectives urgently.

If you are feeling overwhelmed by it all and unsure of what should be done next, take comfort in the fact that you are not alone.  The scientists are right there with you.

 __________

  1. Capron.  2015.  The Lessons of Asilomar for Today’s Science.  The New York Times Room for Debate, 28 May 2015.  (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/05/28/scientists-curbing-the-ethical-use-of-science).
  2. Baltimore et al., 2015 Aprudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348(6230):36-38(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/18/science.aab1028
  3. Lunshof.  2015. Regulate gene editing in wild animals. Nature 512:127.  http://www.nature.com/news/regulate-gene-editing-in-wild-animals-1.17523

PBS NewsHour 16 May 2015.  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/can-quick-dying-genetically-modified-mosquitos-save-florida-keys-disease/

 

 

###