The Web of Love

The Web of Love

Comments 0 Comment

The following text is from the Web of Love website. I think it is can be particularly helpful:

This is a beautiful and simple visualisation/meditation/prayer. Not selling any ‘religion’ here but it may be worth a try 🙂

The Web of Love is an energetic web which connects the sacred essence of all beings in our world. In the deepest part of ourselves, there is in each of us a beautiful, divine essence which wants nothing more than to love and be loved.

The Web of Love, though invisible to our eyes, interconnects all of us through that deepest essence. It literally surrounds and envelops our planet and all who live here. We are all interconnected through sacred love. It is up to each of us how much we choose to be aware of this connection.

We are all capable of giving and receiving limitless amounts of love. Many of us have forgotten this and ended up feeling alone or uncared for in our lives. The Web of Love reminds us of our true nature. It is a call to join together in sharing the abundance of sacred love that flows within and between us all through consciously connecting with the web.

Connecting with the Web of Love

Breathing the Web. Here is a simple, yet powerful way of connecting with the Web of Love through breath. Close your eyes for a minute and imagine a sparkling, colorful web connecting the deepest essence of all people in the world. You can place your hands over your heart or the center of your chest as you do this. Take a few deep breaths as you open to this beautiful image.

Now, while taking a slow, very deep inhale, silently say to yourself:

Your sacred love flows in to me

Then slowly exhale fully while thinking and feeling:

My sacred love flows out to you.

Repeat this a few times while opening your heart to all the love present. Make sure to fill your lungs completely on the in breath and to exhale fully on breathing out. Breathing sacred love like this for just a minute or less can powerfully shift you into a more open and loving space. Try it now, and invite yourself to really let the love flow.

The “you” in these sacred love statements can be all people in our world, or any individual you choose. For some, it might be easier to start by imagining the one to whom you feel closest in your life. Breathe the web with that special someone in mind and let the love flow between you.

Then with each following breath, envision other people in your life and do the same. When you are ready, envision groups with which you are involved and eventually all people who share our world. This simple breathing exercise can be deeply meaningful in either a personal or a global context. Consider joining with other caring people around the world in doing this.

There may be times when you want to breathe the web, but can’t remember the words above. “Love to me, love to you,” is all you need to feel the web as you breathe. You can create your own sayings, too, with words that are more meaningful to you. The most important element is your intention to connect with all people on this beautiful planet through the Web of Love.

https://www.weboflove.org/index#partner

Critical Thinking Required

Critical Thinking Required

Comments 0 Comment



I written a few things about the pandemic over the past months, much bemoaning the division into tribes of the covid-compliant and the covid-defiant whereas we should be looking beyond this narrative to the meta-narrative of power that it is a part of. Here is my current position on all this.

First on masks. I believe that masks do provide some protection against the transmission of coronaviruses and the evidence and arguments I’ve seen supports that. The question for me is are they a proportionate response to the risks.

Given that the number of daily reported Covid-19 related deaths has fallen dramatically in the UK since the height of the pandemic (now about 1% of the numbers at the peak) and daily reported infections have fallen less dramatically (now about 20% of the numbers at the peak) it seems that

a) transmission of the infection has become less likely

and

b) the infection is less harmful to those who currently have it.

Figures for reported deaths are more meaningful that figures for reported infections since the latter will vary with the volume of testing and also the accuracy of testing.

I am not claiming the Covid-19 is not harmful and lethal to many, I am suggesting that since its lethality is arguably much less that it was we should be asking if particular prophylactic responses such as masks and particular elements of lockdown measures remain appropriate and proportionate. We should be asking what levels of Covid-19 morbidity/mortality require the use of what specific measures including masks. We must ask this because:

a) Covid-19 is likely to remain part of the human microbiome (the community of microbes coextensive with human communities) for the forseeable future notwithstanding any assault by vaccines. Should, therefore, masks and social distancing remain part of our social protocols for the forseeable future?

b) Current specific measures have had and continue to have disruptive and damaging consequences that I hardly need to outline.

c) Proposed specific measures such as mandatory or near mandatory vaccines are highly problematic. If people are unclear about why the proposed vaccines and vaccine regimes are problematic then they should ask more questions about safety and efficacy.

While we are considering these points we should also consider all the anomalies in mask protocols. For example it is curious that the government is encouraging people to go out to restaurants where they necessarily have to remove masks and where there is more danger of orally ingesting viruses while requiring people to wear masks in all shops where there is little danger of oral ingestion.

I am neither pro nor anti mask. I am pro critical thinking and I think that there have been serious deficits of critical thinking in our collective response to this virus. The ham handed suppression of voices on mainstream and social media that question the official narratives about Covid-19 suggest that our governments are not keen on critical thinking.

I am not going to expound on any speculations regarding global conspiracies but we should note as facts that.

a) There has been an enormous transfer of wealth from communities and small businesses to the billionaire owned corporations during this crisis.

b) An enhanced security and surveillance apparatus together with greater legislative powers is being set up.

c) There is an apparent and increasing convergence of state and corporate power in operating the new or enhanced security and surveillance structure.

I am not pro or anti government. I am pro democracy, in particular discursive or deliberative democracy. That is not what we have now. What we have now, arguably in the UK and demonstrably in the US, is more akin to oligarchy.

There is a tendency on the part of the political right to support government on actions sold as pertaining to national defense and a tendency on the part of the political left to support government on actions sold as pertaining to national welfare. It is surely pertinent in both cases to ask if the government is pursuing a national interest or the interests of the oligarchs, if it is pursuing the interests of the people or the interests of the established powers.

Come Again ..

Come Again ..

Comments 0 Comment

“Come, come, whoever you are. Wanderer, worshiper, lover of leaving. It doesn’t matter. Ours is not a caravan of despair. come, even if you have broken your vows a thousand times. Come, yet again , come , come.”

― Jelaluddin Rumi

Chloroquine Controversy

Chloroquine Controversy

Comments 0 Comment

I posted this link on FB two days ago without comment. In the light of efforts to suppress and discredit the testimony of a group of intelligent and courageous physicians. I’m reposting it here with comment.

Apart from the very odd, and for me worrying, fact that the video was banned from YouTube, the way that the media has reacted to these ‘frontline doctors’ talking about hydroxychloroquine is quite disturbing.

Almost all of the criticism has focused on Dr Stella Immanuel. Dr Immanuel is admittedly quite shouty in the video and, in her other role as a pastor, she apparently has odd metaphysical beliefs, but I’ve noticed that the critics do not challenge her claims to have treated 350 covid-19 patients who have all recovered. This is the first thing I would investigate if I were an investigative reporter. I might of course suppose that the other doctors with her knew something about her work and claims but I would talk to them. These other doctors are, however, studiously ignored. I have seen an article on the video referring to Dr Immanuel and a group of ‘people in lab coats’. Those who introduce themselves do so as physicians. Dr Immanuel’s work is cited but the argument that hydroxychloroquine should be considered and made available as a treatment is endorsed and proposed by the other doctors.

Pay special attention to what Dr Joe Latipo (I don’t know if this is the correct spelling) says from 31:00 to 36:00 minutes into the video. This is exactly what journalists should be saying. I doubt that he will be widely quoted and I doubt that this video will be widely seen. I may extract and post the Lapito segment for discussion separately since what he says about bringing ‘more light to the conversation about how we manage Covid-19’ coincides with my own interest in having more reasoned conversations about the pandemic and more generally.

Lapito notes that while there are moral issues on which there should be a singular voice, “Covid-19 is not a moral issue it is a complex, challenging issue that we benefit from having multiple perspectives on.” Lapito notes that there have been both randomised control trials that suggest that hydroxychloroquine is not effective against Covid-19 and observational studies that suggest that it is effective. He argues that given that there is evidence for both positions and given that the drug has been used safely for decades limiting its use as a treatment option makes no sense. “All of a sudden” he says “it’s been elevated to being this poisonous drug.”

Worth highlighting too is the segment from 38:30 to 39:40 where one of the doctors is talking to a particularly dense reporter about the relationship between zinc levels and covid-19. Apart from reminding me of the widespread failure of reporters to ask decent questions this reminds me that we should be talking about other prophylactic measures besides distancing, wearing masks and washing hands, such as taking zinc and other mineral/vitamin supplements.

I cannot of course comment on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine but here’s a link to a 2003 Lancet article that is worth reading. The article begins

“.. the tolerability, low cost, and immunomodulatory properties of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine are associated with biochemical effects that suggest a potential use in viral infections, some of whose symptoms may result from the inflammatory response.2, 3 We raise the question of whether this old drug whose parent compound, quinine, was isolated in the late 19th century from the bark of the tropical cinchona tree, may experience a revival in the clinical management of viral diseases of the era of globalisation.”

The article goes into the mechanisms through which chloroquine acts against viruses similar to Covid-19 and concludes

“Due to its broad spectrum of antiviral activity as well as to its suppressive effects on the production/release of TNFα and interleukin 6, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine may also find a place in the treatment of other viral infections characterized by symptoms associated with inflammatory processes and/or immune-hyperactivation.”

With regard to the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquinine (HCQ) in relation to covid-19 there have been claims that studies have shown it to be ineffective and dangerous. It appears that the most authoritative of these studies was flawed or even faked. The following is from a June 2020 Guardian article:

The Lancet paper that halted global trials of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 because of fears of increased deaths has been retracted after a Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in the data.

The Lancet study had a dramatic impact on attempts to find out whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, and its older version, chloroquine, could help treat patients with Covid-19. The US president, Donald Trump was among those who backed the drug before any high-quality trial evidence had been published.

The World Health Organization and several countries suspended randomised controlled trials that were set up to find an answer. Those trials have now been restarted. Many scientists were angry that they had been stopped on the basis of a trial that was observational and not a “gold standard” RCT.

The Guardian 4 June 2020

There are serious questions to be asked about HCQ and more generally our responses to the covid-19 crisis.

1. Does Hydroxychloroquine work?
2. Why has there been an effort to suppress use of HCQ?
3. Why has there been an effort to suppress discussion of HCQ?
4. Why is there not a discussion about the efficacy and cost/benefit profiles of all prophylactic measures with regard to Corvid-19 including masks, gloves, sanitisers, handwashing, lockdowns, social distancing, exercise, nutritional supplements and common medications such as asprin?

These questions have not be settled and laughing at the eccentricities Donald Trump or Stella Immanuel will not settle them.

Totally Intolerant

Totally Intolerant

Comments 0 Comment

Some may recall the Long-Bailey Doctrine:

“The only acceptable response to any accusation of racist prejudice is self-scrutiny, self-criticism and self-improvement.” ~ Rebecca Long Bailey 12 Jan 2020.

According to this there is no defense against any accusation of ‘racist prejudice’. To be accused is to be guilty. Both RLB and the Labour Party have abandoned reason, freedom of expression, tolerance of dissent and principles of natural justice. And it is in the nature of witch hunts and inquisitions that defending those accused of witchcraft and heresy are to be accused of being witches and heretics themselves.

“… Llanelli MP Ms Griffith said anyone who cannot accept Sir Keir’s zero-tolerance approach should leave the party.”

“Zero tolerance”. That’s it exactly. Total, totalitarian, intolerance.

See: A Crisis of of Antirationalism.

BLM Newham Central Park

BLM Newham Central Park

Comments 0 Comment
https://youtu.be/rckAH6_kyE4

It was the first realspace public event that I’d been to for over three months. It was peaceful, safe and necessary. It’s worth talking about.

Thank you Stand Up To Racism Newham for hosting this event in support of Black Lives Matters

These are my ‘video notes’ from the Black Lives Matter event in Central Park Newham. I’m sure that the host organisation, Stand Up to Racism Newham, will publish their videos of various speeches so these are mostly some short clips but I included in full a speech at the end by a young writer/actor talking about her own emotions regarding BLM. I think that as we move forward it’s really important to talk intimately about feeling and relationships .. to have honest and open conversations whether we agree with each other or not. There is of course much more I could say on this subject; my perspective is unique to me as everyone’s perspective is unique to them they may or may not be of value to others but what is really valuable is the sharing of perspective in genuine conversation.

Campaigns may bring about change at political levels but it is conversations that bring about change at personal and interpersonal levels. I also recorded the latter part of a chat I had with a young man at the event, Suje Junior, who does some interesting work and had some interesting things to say. I said that I would like to continue the conversation and invited him to join the Newham Democracy Facebook Group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/newhamdemocracy/

I also spoke to Suje, and a couple of other people, about a Zoom video conversations that I want to organise. My first attempt to do this for the Newham Democracy group didn’t really happen since only Dean Armond and me turned up. The second attempt (in a couple of weeks) will not be focused on the Newham Democracy group but on people, from anywhere, willing to share their thoughts, feelings and creativity about our current crises. If anyone wants to talk with me about this do that.

Vlog 01 – Introduction

Vlog 01 – Introduction

Comments 0 Comment

One of the reasons that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks is that most old dogs are embarassed about doing things badly. I’m trying to overcome that inhibition – hence this. It’s my first ‘vlog post’ for my blog (which will remain text oriented) so it’s not good but here it is anyway.

Between Light and Darkness

Between Light and Darkness

Comments 0 Comment

On some level that will not be appreciated by many it is true that we are caught up in a dance between forces of spiritual light and darkness and that our world will never be the same again. I fully understand that many people will consider me weird for talking in this way but I will do it anyway.

The issue, for me at least, is not about supporting or resisting lockdowns or other measures of control, or changes in our lifestyles .. its about whether our intentions are bent towards principles of justice, freedom, equality and love.

Many of us have had comfortable lives within the present order but it has been at the expense of those of us, globally, who have been excluded and exploited. The intention of the ‘dark forces’ is not a just, free, equal, compassionate world it is a world of oppressive control that is increasingly materialistic/mechanistic, one that is spiritually dead.

The intention of the ‘forces of light’ is that we should transcend our selfishness and separateness from each other, transcend the spiritual isolation of which the current physical isolation is a reflection and a consequence.

We have separated ourselves from the natural world, from our biomes and microbiomes, from Being and from other beings, and from acceptance of the natural cycles of life, growth, change and death. Through self-transcendence or selfishness-transcendence we will bring about a world that is aligned with the Will of God; a Kingdom of Heaven.

What world do you intend? This is important because the world that emerges for you depends on your intention and the world in which your world resides depends on our collective intentions.

Blood on Our Hands

Blood on Our Hands

Comments 0 Comment

“Labour has apologised after posting cartoons depicting Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Matt Hancock with blood on their hands on a local Facebook page”

What it shows is actually the level of discussion that is happening in this country. Very polarised, very uninformed and very silly. I’m not going to talk about it at all it’s just a cheap ploy to grab attention.

It seems that some people can only entertain one idea in their minds at the same time so it’s either we have to have a lockdown to save lives or we have to lift the lockdown to save the economy. But it’s not an either/or matter.

Whatever is done must be managed to minimise the loss of life and to support the economic wellbeing of the nation. These things are not incompatible but there are incompatible visions of what constitutes the economic wellbeing of the nation.

For the right economic wellbeing seems tied to the current status quo of inequitable wealth distribution, for the left it is tied to notions of a well funded welfare state and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of economic activity. Covid-19 is being recruited by both sides to support their economic/political visions.

We know that whatever situation emerges when the pandemic subsides or the panic regarding it subsides with be one that is economically more equitable, less equitable, or just the same. Things being just the same is unlikely. Whether people care to admit it or not, they are jostling for ideological aspirations and these are based on understandings or misunderstandings of how the economy works. In addition to issues of public health and economy there are also issues of freedom to be considered. It is not simple at all.

Insofar as I can articulate my own position, I start by asking what an economy is for and how can it best be managed to result in the the greatest good for the greatest number. I am in favour of such changes to the economy that favour environmental responsibility and social justice. I believe that a managed restart of the economy that favours and is accompanied by discussion of such goals would have gain public support and commitment as part of a new, necessary and responsible social contract.

I regret that there is almost no discussion of vision or strategy or community involvement in the development of vision and strategy. I regret that there is little public understanding of the way that the economy works that we can use as a foundation for informed discussion. Without such discussion, whether we realise it or not, there will be blood on our hands.