I can’t believe I’ve been doing this for 20 years consistently. The below screenshot should give you the history. I think I’ve been blogging before blogging was even a word. Anyway, this post is mostly about introducing reSource on YouTube. As I’ve changed so much from the time I started this, it’s time to change again to something I think needs attention in the time we’re living.
Mission statement that will change over time too:
Welcome to a channel aimed at going on a journey to find a different source from the one we’re used to. To re-connect with what matters … from going back to basics with nature to seeing waste as a resource that needs to be honoured. We’ll be looking at gardening for newbies, looking at aspects of our life in different angles. I have more plans but for now I promise to upload a video a week starting with what I’m growing, converting waste to black gold, victories and losses. Lets learn and grow together and may reSource be with you.
Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) is a political manifesto written by Adolf Hitler. It was his only complete book and became the bible of National Socialism in the German Third Reich. It was published in two volumes, which dated 1925 and 1927.
Defies fathers vision for his future and goes his own way.
Preferred knowing about history instead of just memorising names and dates. Loved reading and reflecting on what he read from books and pamphlets but also didn’t care much for bookish knowledge.
Supports intimidation as a means to get what you want and was grateful for physical intimidation especially on the lower classes.
He does give props to those who raised themselves from lower classes as they knew what it was like in the lower classes.
He calls mass media a school for adults to get political enlightenment and was amazed at how fast ideas could be spread for mass instruction. Diverting people from focusing on things that really need attention. Hmmmm.
I have to say he’s very surgical in his analysis but he’s also all over the place so it’s more like genial ramblings with some entertaining descriptions like – get Englands chestnuts out of the fire.
My ears perked up when it mentioned posters and graphic techniques to perfect propganda. That part of the book should be called Art of Propaganda.
His judgements on certain peoples and what they would do, say with dominating media, seems prophetic now.
Views on marriage, dealing with people infected with STDs/STIs, on artists and litrature, etc. On how Jews only care to spread their people and not care about anyone else on the land. On how religion is used to other reasons like politics and money. All problem’s root cause is not considering race.
Numbered and specified systems on how to run a movement.
My favourite quote
In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of the State, money became more and more of a God whom all had to serve and bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and more old-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room for the worship of mammon.
Volume One: A Reckoning
– In The House Of My Parents
– Years Of Study And Suffering In Vienna
– General Political Considerations Based On My Vienna Period
– The World War
– War Propaganda
– The Revolution
– The Beginning Of My Political Activity
– The “German Workers’ Party”
– Causes Of The Collapse
– Nation And Race
– The First Period Of Development Of The National Socialist German Workers’ Party
Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement
– Philosophy And Party
– The State
– Subjects And Citizens
– Personality And The Conception Of The Citizen State
– Philosophy And Organization
– The Struggle Of The Early Period
– The Significance Of The Spoken Word
– The Struggle With The Red Front
– The Strong Man Is Mightiest Alone
– Basic Ideas Regarding The Meaning And Organization Of The Storm Troops
– Federalism As A Mask
– Propaganda And Organisation
– The Trade-Union Question
– German Alliance Policy After The War
– Germany’s Policy on Eastern Europe
– The Right Of Emergency Defense
We all need to break just from that technology, just for a minute. My point is, for a guy your age wouldn’t even know the pain, because in your generation, it’s like the space shuttle blows up every fucking day (refereing to the time his teacher put on the TV so the class could watch the space shuttle launch which then blew up). How can you care about anything when you know every goddamn thing?
I’m getting over one cop shooting, and then another one happens, and then another one happens, and another one happens. I’m crying about Paris, and then Brussels happens. I can’t keep track of all this shit. So you just give the fuck up. That’s the hallmark of your generation, and that’s fucked up, because your generation lives in the most difficult time in human history.
This is the age of spin.
The age where nobody knows what the fuck they’re even looking at. What does it all really mean? It’s easier not to care for you.
Conversations With God – Book 3 by Neale Donald Walsch
– This book will have Concepts dealing with other realms, other dimensions, and how the whole intricate weave fits together.
Act as if you are, and you will draw it to you. What you act as if you are, you become. In other words, “Fake it until you make it.” Therefore, whatever you choose for yourself, give to another.
– No one is more ill-equipped to raise children than young parents. And no one knows this better than young parents. Most parents come to the job of parenting with very little life experience. They’re hardly finished being parented themselves. They’re still looking for answers, still searching for clues. They haven’t even discovered themselves yet, and they’re trying to guide and nurture discovery in others even more vulnerable than they. They haven’t even defined themselves, and they’re thrust into the act of defining others. They are still trying to get over how badly they have been misdefined by their parents. In most advanced races and societies, elders raise the offspring, nurture the offspring, train the offspring, and pass on to the offspring the wisdom, teachings, and traditions of their kind.
– How men created a male God and Satan because women had power back in the day.
– Death, souls, afterlife, microcosm and macro intertwined.
– 3 choices you have:
1. You may allow your uncontrolled thoughts to create The Moment.
2. You may allow your creative consciousness to create The Moment.
3. You may allow the collective consciousness to create The Moment.
– Think of the Cosmic Wheel as that CD-ROM. All the endings already exist. The universe is just waiting to see which one you choose this time. And when the game is over, whether you win, lose, or draw, the universe will say, “Want to play again?” So if you think it would be interesting for the doomsday predictions of the psychics to come true, focus all your attention on that, and you can draw that to yourself. And if you think you would like to experience a different reality, focus on that, and that is the outcome you can draw to you.
– Who You Are is love. What love is, is unlimited, eternal, and free. Therefore, that is what you are. That is the nature of Who You Are. You are unlimited, eternal, and free, by nature. Now, any artificial social, moral, religious, philosophical, economic, or political construction which violates or subordinates your nature is an impingement upon your very Self—and you will rail against it. What do you suppose gave birth to your own country? Was it not “Give me liberty, or give me death”? Well, you’ve given up that liberty in your country, and you’ve given it up in your Jives. And all for the same thing. Security. You are so afraid to live—so afraid of life itself—that you’ve given up the very nature of your being in trade for security.
– The institution you call marriage is your attempt to create security, as is the institution called government. Actually, they are both forms of the same thing—artificial social constructions designed to govern each other’s behaviour. It is the ultimate announcement of fear. If marriage allowed you to be unlimited, eternal, and free in your love, then it would be the ultimate announcement of love. As things are now, you become married in an effort to lower your love to the level of a promise or a guarantee. Marriage is an effort to guarantee that “what is so” now will always be so. If you didn’t need this guarantee, you would not need marriage.
And how do you use this guarantee? First, as a means of creating security (instead of creating security from that which is inside of you), and second, if that security is not forever forthcoming, as a means of punishing each other, for the marriage promise which has been broken can now form the basis of the lawsuit which has been opened. You have thus found marriage very useful—even if it is for all the wrong reasons. Marriage is also your attempt to guarantee that the feelings you have for each other, you will never have for another. Or, at least, that you will never express them with another in the same way. Finally, marriage as you have constructed it is a way of saying: “This relationship is special. I hold this relationship above all others.” If Who You Really Are is a being who says, “This one relationship—this single one, right over here-is more special than any other,” then your construction of marriage allows you to do that perfectly.
Yet you might find it interesting to notice that almost no one who is, or has been, recognised as a spiritual master is married. It’s because masters cannot truthfully make the statement that your present construction of marriage seeks to make: that one person is more special to them than another. This is not a statement that a master makes, and it is not a statement that God makes. The fact is that your marriage vows, as you presently construct them, have you making a very un-Godly statement. It is the height of irony that you feel this is the holiest of holy promises, for it is a promise that God would never make. Yet, in order to justify your human fears, you have imagined a God who acts just like you.
Therefore, you speak of God’s “promise” to his “Chosen People,” and of covenants between God and those God loves, in a special way. You cannot stand the thought of a God who loves no one in a way which is more special than any other, and so you create fictions about a God who only loves certain people for certain reasons. And you call these fictions Religions. I call them blasphemies. For any thought that God loves one more than another is false-and any ritual which asks you to make the same statement is not a sacrament, but a sacrilege. Religion and marriage the way you have constructed them is what we are talking about here.
Love has no requirements. That’s what makes it love. If your love for another carries requirements, then it is not love at all, but some counterfeit version. That is what I have been trying to tell you here, It is what I have been saying, in a dozen different ways, with every question you’ve asked here. Within the context of marriage, for example, there is an exchange of vows that love does not require. Yet you require them, because you do not know what love is. And so you make each other promise what love would never ask. (Neale and Nancy’s declaratio to each other – http://everything2.com/title/Uncommon+wedding+vows)
– You have bastardised the Word of God in order to justify your fears and rationalise your insane treatment of each other. You will make God say whatever you need God to say in order to continue limiting each other, hurting each other, and killing each other in My name. You have invoked My name, and waved My flag, and carried crosses on your battlefields for centuries, all as proof that I love one people more than another, and would ask you to kill to prove it. Yet I tell you this: My love is unlimited and unconditional. That is the one thing you cannot hear, the one truth you cannot abide, the one statement you cannot accept, for its all-inclusiveness destroys not only the institution of marriage (as you have constructed it), but every one of your religions and governmental institutions as well. For you have created a culture based on exclusion, and supported it with a cultural myth of a God who excludes. Yet the culture of God is based on inclusion. In God’s love, everyone is included. Into God’s Kingdom everyone is invited.
– If you terminate a pregnancy, We terminate a pregnancy. Your will is My will.
– You’re approaching the same point in human history again. It’s vitally important that you understand this. Your present technology is threatening to outstrip your ability to use it wisely. Your society is on the verge of becoming a product of your technology, rather than your technology being a product of your society. When a society becomes a product of its own technology, it destroys itself.
– Because guilt and shame is something which is imposed on a being from outside of itself. It can then be internalized, no question about that, but it is initially imposed from the outside. Always. No divine being (and all beings are divine) ever knows itself or anything it is doing to be “shameful” or “guilty” until someone outside of itself labels it that way. In your culture, is a baby ashamed of its “bathroom habits”? Of course not. Not until you tell it to be. Does a child feel “guilty” for pleasuring itself with its genitals? Of course not. Not until you tell it to feel guilty. The degree to which a culture is evolved is demonstrated by the degree to which it labels a being or an action “shameful” or “guilty.”
The idea of ‘mottainai’—a Japanese approach to the concept of waste—could provide the west with a philosophical answer to environmental crises. Kevin Taylor, a graduate student in environmental philosophyfrom Southern Illinois University, explores this nuanced ethic of care and its deep roots in eastern ways of thinking.
In environmental studies, islands are often noted as isolated places where people have caused problems by exhausting local resources. The most famous example is Easter Island.
The builders of the famous statues, aware that they were almost completely isolated from the rest of the world, must surely have realised that their very existence depended on the limited resources of the small island. Yet they exhausted its resources anyway. This is often used as a metaphor for what we are doing to the planet; an idea made popular by Clive Ponting in his A Green History of the World.
Mottainai has come to be thought of as an all-encompassing Japanese term for the four Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle and respect.
In an increasingly globalised world, island nations have access to outside resources but the island mentality remains in countries such as Japan, which has developed a particular environmental awareness articulated concisely by the word mottainai.
The term expresses a feeling of regret at wasting the intrinsic value of a resource or object, and can be translated as both ‘what a waste’ and ‘don’t be wasteful’.
In recent years, the concept of mottainai has been popularised by Japanese and international media, as well as through children’s literature and in academia. Despite the pop culture applications, the word itself is said to have origins in Buddhist philosophy and religious syncretism. It has long been used to express the feeling of regret that carries with it metaphysical, ethical, and aesthetic connotations.
As a concept, mottainai reflects the feeling that arises from the awareness of both the interdependence and impermanence of all things.
‘The four Rs’
Thanks to Wangari Maathai, an accomplished political and environmental activist, mottainai has come to be thought of as an all-encompassing Japanese term for the four Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle and respect.
Before Maathai popularised mottainai outside of Japan, the word was being used by environmentally conscious Japanese activists in 2002. But Japanese scholars and authors insist that the mottainai spirit has been a part of Japanese culture for a long time, especially during the resource-starved post-war period.
Indeed, many Japanese attribute a mottainai attitude to their grandparents. Mariku Shinju illustrated this very attitude in her children’s book Mottainai Grandma.
‘Our parents told us what mottainai is so we know what it means. But if we don’t teach them to our children, they don’t learn,’ she says. ‘It’s a very scary thing. That’s why I thought we have to make an effort to teach the idea and to change the situation.’
This older generation was forced to live through a resource-poor era and the practice of frugality found resonance in Buddhism. Mottainai Grandma was published in 2005, which was the same year Maatthai first introduced it to the world.
According to Yuko Kawanishi, a sociologist at Tokyo Gakugei University, mottainai also has ties with Shinto animism, the idea that all objects have a spirit—or kami.
The idea that we are part of nature and should maintain a harmonious relationship with nature is a deep part of Japanese psychology.
Not only does nature find itself imbued with kami, Shinto also celebrates the spirituality in man-made objects.
A prime example of this can be found in the idea of tsukumogami(animated household objects). Tsukumogami are a type of yōkai—variously translated as monster, spirit, goblin, ghost, demon, phantom, spectre, fantastic being, lower-order deity, or more amorphously as any unexplainable experience or numinous occurrence.
When an object turns 100 years old, it attains a spirit and becomes a tsukumogami. The concept that 100-year-old objects are imbued with spirits was an outgrowth of the Shinto reverence for objects and sacred spaces. A modern day ritual known as ningyō kuyō collects unwanted but not unloved dolls and, in a kind of mock funeral, prays for them and thanks the dolls for years of fond memories.
Even though the dolls are not technically tsukumogami, a ritual is performed to purify and drive out the spirits within. Both Shinto and Buddhist sects perform the ritual, though funerals are typically the realm of Buddhist priests. The general perception is that the ritual is necessary to help the passage of the spirit from the realm of the living to the realm of the dead.
This reverence for objects is commonly applied to katana, teapots and calligraphy brushes, but also to more mundane items such as pencil boxes, room dividers and umbrellas.
While Mottainai has been identified in such manifestations, it is for the most part understood as having its origins in Buddhist philosophy—particularly the concept of pratītyasamutpāda, or dependent origination.
Buddhist environmentalism is said to have begun with Gary Snyder in the early 1950s. Among Snyder’s contributions to eco-Buddhism was his ecological reading of Indra’s net—a metaphor used to illustrate the concept of dependent origination.
Eco-Buddhist David Barnhill describes the theory as ‘relational holism’, simultaneously affirming the primacy of relationships among particulars, but also the primacy of the whole.
It is here that we find Buddhism and ecology share a common vocabulary—particularly in terms of interconnectedness—which cautions us to be mindful of our actions so as to minimise suffering and not be wasteful.
The Buddhist monastic tradition emphasises a life of frugality in order to concentrate on the attainment of enlightenment. In fact, stories of ascetic denial in Buddhism are not uncommon, and such stories lend credence to the belief that mottainai is Buddhist in origin. It is within this move towards frugality that a Japanese aesthetic begins to emerge from mottainai as a concept of waste.
Mottainai attempts to communicate the inherent value in a thing and encourage using objects fully or all the way to the end of their lifespan. Leave no grain of rice in your bowl; if a toy breaks, repair it; and take good care of everything.
“Anthropologists have long known that Native Americans reared courageous, respectful children without using harsh coercive controls. Nevertheless, Europeans colonizing North America tried to “civilize” indigenous children in punitive boarding schools, unaware that Natives possessed a sophisticated philosophy that treated children with deep respect.”~ The Circle of Courage
“The Circle of Courage is a model of positive youth development first described in the book Reclaiming Youth at Risk, co-authored by Larry Brendtro, Martin Brokenleg, and Steve Van Bockern. The model integrates Native American philosophies of child-rearing, the heritage of early pioneers in education and youth work, and contemporary resilience research. The Circle of Courage is based in four universal growth needs of all children: belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity.
These traditional values are validated by contemporary child research and are consistent with the findings of Stanley Coopersmith who identified four foundations for self-worth: significance, competence, power, and virtue. These are summarized below:
In Native American and First Nations cultures, significance was nurtured in communities of belonging. Lakota anthropologist Ella Deloria described the core value of belonging in these simple words: “Be related, somehow, to everyone you know.” Treating others as kin forges powerful social bonds that draw all into relationships of respect. Theologian Marty observed that throughout history the tribe, not the nuclear family, always ensured the
survival of the culture. Even if parents died or were not responsible, the tribe was always there to nourish the next generation.
Competence in traditional cultures is ensured by guaranteed opportunity for mastery. Children were taught to carefully observe and listen to those with more experience. A person with greater ability was seen as a model for learning, not as a rival. Each person strives for mastery for personal growth, but not to be superior to someone else. Humans have an innate drive to become competent and solve problems. With success in surmounting challenges, the desire to achieve is strengthened.
Power in Western culture was based on dominance, but in tribal traditions it meant respecting the right for independence. In contrast to obedience models of discipline, Native teaching was designed to build respect and teach inner discipline. From earliest childhood, children were encouraged to make decisions, solve problems, and show personal responsibility. Adults modeled, nurtured, taught values, and gave feedback, but children were given abundant opportunities to make choices without coercion.
Finally, virtue was reflected in the pre-eminent value of generosity. The central goal in Native American child-rearing is to teach the importance of being generous and unselfish. In the words of a Lakota Elder, “You should be able to give away your most cherished possession without your heart beating faster.” In helping others, youth create their own proof of worthiness: they make a positive contribution to another human life.”