Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture - important issues

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Jager <dfjager@yahoo.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture - important issues
  • Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 02:55:01 -0700 (PDT)

Dear everyone,

We can safely assume that we have unburdened ourselves of at least one
falsehood and found the "Light' of Permaculture; yet this does NOT
automatically imply that we have liberated ourselves from the literally
thousands of more Lies that fill our hearts and minds.

Oystein's post has a lot of info that he summarized in perhaps too short a
form that at first glance it does not warrant further attention. Yet some of
the ideas he brings forward are sound. Very sound indeed. Here is a person
who doesn't stop liberating himself from falsehoods, and found some more
truths besides Permaculture that are very shocking. Obviously, even among
Permaculture crowds, such info is a bit too much.

It is kind of depressing to see the laden responses; not based on a
discussion of the facts provided in the links by Oystein.

Let me try and help clarify Oystein's comments / ideas a little further, in
between the lines below.

>
> > 1. Humans are not in charge of the climate (so the
> permaculture response
>
> While it is literally true that no one is in charge of the
> climate, those words are a soundbite straight from
> corporate-funded think tanks. Not being a climate scientist,
> I must rely on experts here, and I tend to side with 99% of
> the world's climate scientists rather than a handful of
> oil-company mouthpieces making zombie statements that will
> not die when disproved. Follow the money: the
> anti-climate-change propagandists work for the carbon
> industry.

1 - Climate scientists are dependent on their funding from grant foundations,
etc. Who controls that money? Rotary, Rockefeller, CFR, etc, etc... aka The
elite.
Now, during my PhD, I saw how easily my own professor was writing grant
proposals in which he HAD TO put SOMETHING about climate change, because the
funding agencies wanted to hear it. So we studied CO2 emissions from these
peatlands in Finland and Russia. After 6 years, guess what the conclusions
were? Even during the driest and hottest years, with warm winters, the
peatlands were still LARGE carbon sinks (i.e. they accumulate carbon by
capturing CO2 into biomass). Of course, this project then died a quick death.
Funding dried up. Surprise surprise.
And during that time i had the wonderful opportunity to work with former
Eastern German and Russian meteorologists. You know, those people who
actually measure the weather, day to day, and not run some hot-shot
supercomputer model. Some of them had worked for 40+ years, getting DAILY
measurements. AND they ran the statistics on this material. Guess what. They
flat out denied ANY warming trend, though they did acknowledge an moderate
increase in rainfall and temperature variability and extremes (yet
fluctuating still around the same averages). They said that this is due to
landuse change (most notably deforestation) and hence the lowering of
atmospheric water vapour content. Water, incidentally, is the substance with
the largest specific heat capacity of almost ANY natural substance on the
planet, and its loss increases temperature extremes, as well as rainfall
variability. Any meteorologist and physicist will concur, though many
"climate scientists" will
not like to hear about this.

>
> > 2. Exponential human growth (overpopulation) is a myth.
>
>
> The human population is doubling at decreasing intervals.
> That is, by definition, exponential growth, so this
> statement is mathematically ignorant. As for it being a
> problem, population growth is now being sustained by fossil
> fuel-based food. Maybe we'll find something else as oil runs
> out, but we are already seeing huge declines in food yields
> from overuse of soils (I did population genetics work for a
> while; I recognize the signs of overpopulation.) Maybe
> having one species use 40% of the Earth's annual production
> is sustainable, but if population doubles again, so does
> that number. Anyone who doesn't think human impact is a
> problem should start drinking from the nearest river, and
> see how long you live. I suggest a great video called
> "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy" as a good look at what
> population growth means.
> http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

Only 1 argument for me on this one. The population PLUS modern technological
living standards = disaster. Yet 7 billion people in 7 million eco-villages
around the globe plus a change in diet (no grain, no meat)? I foresee no
problem!

>
> These last two are way off topic, but they are fun for me.
>
> > 3. Viruses, as infectious microorganisms, is a myth.
>
> Now we're in my field. I did immunology and genetics
> research for 15 years. I have used viruses to cause
> infections in otherwise healthy organisms. Their entire
> genetic machinery is designed to infect; their genes have
> been independently used to cause infections, and to do
> everything needed to infect healthy organisms. They are
> little miracles, cleverly designed to cause infection
> because it they cannot reproduce without infecting a host;
> it's their raison d'etre. Also, it's difficult to explain
> how a killed virus can confer immunity against a live virus,
> even in very unhealthy people, without viruses being a cause
> of infection.
>
> > 4. Pasteur was wrong - an infection is always a
> secondary illness; infections arise after tissue has been
> damaged, by malnutrition or intoxication. (PR: enrich the
> blood for good health, like you would enrich the soil for
> good growth)
>
> People who say this have not read Pasteur. He was not
> "wrong." He knew that otherwise healthy organisms throw off
> infections much faster than sick ones. And I'd be careful
> with statements that include the word "always."
>
> I suggest getting into the best shape possible and then
> letting an Ebola-sick monkey spray blood on you, or stay in
> a room dusted with with hanta-virus mouse turds. It may
> change your mind about viruses.
>
> These arguments take advantage of the fact that most people
> have not been taught to do critical thought, and get sucked
> in by fallacious bits of sophistry that match their politics
> and temperament, since they don't have the mental tools to
> properly evaluate them. As Dick Cheney reportedly said, "you
> can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are
> the ones we're looking for." Like I say, I love to upset the
> conventional wisdom, but promoting these dead-wrong, zombie
> arguments can do real harm to real people.
>
> Now back to the important stuff.
>
> Toby
> http://patternliteracy.com
>

I take these to issues together, since they are related.

First some collected notes by Natural hygienist, Dr. Tilden.

"Dr. Pettenkofer, professor of bacteriology, at the university of Vienna,
reached the conclusion that germs do not cause "disease." One day, while
instructing his class in the bacteriological laboratory, he startled his
students by picking up a glass containing millions of living cholera bacilli
and swallowed the entire contents before the astonished students. De Kruif
says 'There were enough millions of wriggling comma germs in this tube to
infect a regiment, but Pettenkofer only growled through his beard: 'Now let
us see if I get cholera.' "

"Mysteriously, nothing happened and the failure of the mad Pettenkofer to
come down with cholera remains to this day an enigma without even the
beginning of an explanation."

Dr. Thomas Powell, who died a few years ago in California in his eightieth
year, is thought to have taken more germs than any other man. Years ago he
challenged his medical colleagues to produce a single "disease" in him by
germ inoculation. For years many of the germ theorists did their best to
silence this discordant note. Cholera germs, bubonic plague germs and germs
of every description were innoculated into his body and fed to him in every
kind of food. Again and again they scraped his throat raw and painted it with
diphtheria germs. But in all these many efforts, not once did they succeed in
producing a single "disease" in him.

There are many such anecdotes to be found ALL over the natural hygiene
literature AND also on the internet. Moreover, notably Dr. Weston Price
(writing about humans) and Dr. Albrecht (writing about animals), showed
conclusively on their own, that the SOIL (or body fed through the soil) is
worth 80% of human health (perhaps 20% is reserved for one's outlook or
spiritual state). The Soil and Health library, run byu Steve Solomon, is a
very good source of info about the fallacy of the germ and virus theory.

And it is not that Pasteur was wrong or right, it was just that Pasteur
plagiarized Bechamps (a WELL documented fact, look it up), and that Pasteur
on his death said: "I was wrong, the germ is nothing, the soil (i.e. state of
the body) is everything!"

Daniel Jager




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page