I've gotten another day. I stand by Day 1; if you have money or time for 3 books, i believe you should start with the above-mentioned ones.
I like this idea of having another day. It also fits in with my experience. In the years up to 21-12-2012 i was preparing for an eventual end of modern global culture, commonly referred to as TEOTWAWKI: the end of the world as we know it. Every day since the 21st of December 2012 i've experienced as a gift, as extra time to do what's necessary to safeguard mankind from destruction (or anyway to preserve appropriate knowledge for future post-TEOTWAWKI generations). The 21-12-12 date held no particular interest for me personally since my own research had not led me to take that date as a threat, but i generally acknowledged [and still do] that there could be a threat and accepted the 2012 date as an arbitrary due date to work towards. Indeed, i suspected in the years before Dec. 2012 that the world might not last until then.
But, as it turns out, the world 'did not end' and i'm still here to prepare. Good thing, too, for in retrospect, certainly, i was not prepared at all. Many are the essential things i've come across since then.


If there is 1 single argument that has driven me these past years, it is that there is absolutely no sense to the general sense of continuity and safety that people express. Species take millions, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of years to develop, by all commonly accepted accounts; how then, could a cerebral species 'pop into existence' at some point in Earth's 4.5 billion-year history? At no level of the mainstream story does this make sense; neither the "2 million years ago mankind was walking around as Homo Erectus"-story makes sense, and even less does the "12 THOUSAND years ago mankind came out of the Stone Age"-story do so. There is just no data, logic, or common sense to give such idea any credit at all. And yet, such ideas are not only commonly accepted but EVEN THE SO-CALLED CONSPIRACY THEORISTS don't appear to question the implication that, basically, our ancestors were retarded! The old saying applies: "When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME"... By talking like our ancestors were retarded, YOU sound retarded! (And things like mineral-deficiency in mind, that could be closer to the truth than this dispensation would like to believe; much more on that later.)
Mankind must've been more-or-less genetically exactly the same 100,000 years ago as people are today. MILLIONS of years ago folk SHOULD HAVE been able to build impressive constructs, following mainstream data and logic, yet there is no record of anything beyond about 12,000 years. WTF?! Not only does supposedly the ONLY cerebral species in Earth's history not just pop into existence in any sane scenario, but they certainly don't sit on their collective asses for 2,000,000 years and then go from caveman to astronaut in 2,000 years! People ALL OVER THE WORLD have been showing not just intelligence but also creativity, ingenuity, and passion. How could an intelligent species just sit around in caves without as much as the invention of the wheel to show for themselves? Occam's Razor applies [the simplest explanation is usually the right one]: they could not.
This brings us to VARIOUS scientific disciplines that independent of one another have noticed cyclical global destruction. There's nothing to see of our ancestors, not because they were retarded, but because all traces of their cultures were wiped off the face of the Earth. Not once, by the way, but repeatedly. As a matter of fact, there's data to suggest that fairly destructive events take place every 4,300 years or so. However, my own research and considerations have led me to believe that (based on the data, logic, and common sense anyone should be able to muster in this age) global destruction on an unimaginable scale takes place on the surface of our planet every 11,500 or 13,000 years. I won't cite the research that supports this yet but i'll get around to it later.
A global destruction of the shape and magnitude i'm talking about could occur in many ways. It could be about mega-tsunamis like the kind that one might expect if the Earth were physically jolted, it could be about cosmic radiation, or of a cosmic short-circuiting of the planet; there are many options and one does not exclude the other. I believe that mega tsunamis are AT LEAST to be expected. The shape of islands like the Canaries and Hawaii points to frequent mega-tsunamis. You have to look at it in the big picture, i.e. geologically: if something jolts the planet every 13 THOUSAND years, then that's 1000 mega-tsunamis in 13 MILLION years. The age of sea floors range from 1 to 180 million years so we're talking many thousands of mega-tsunamis that have hit our globe since oceans have existed.. That would certainly account for the 4 meter diameter PEBBLE i saw lying in a valley in La Gomera!!! A pebble, i say. What's a pebble? A piece of stone that's been eroded down to a round and smooth shape by getting tossed around over and over and over again. What tosses around a piece of rock the size of a house? A mega-tsunami, that's what. Around and around and around...

Anyway, as far as i'm concerned we could all go at any moment. Basically because i respect that our ancestors could not have all been retards just a few thousand years ago but there's other data, logic, and common sense that precludes this as well. My research has led me to have ideas about what would be safe places on the planet in case of global destruction. The island of La Gomera, is a good example of how i came to my ideas; it's flora goes back 2 million years. The flora on La Gomera is EXTINCT around the Mediterranean now but it used to flourish there. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that La Gomera has been a safe place for about 2,000,000 years, which by the way is when it became an extinct volcano. The other 6 Canary islands are not extinct volcanoes. However, though La Gomera has been safe for plants, it's unlikely any person could have survived there, since it lacks caves. I won't bother you [at least not yet] with the many considerations i've had over the years that led me to believe what are probably safe places; what i'm saying is that i'm getting a 'package' ready for future generations. It consists of my library, some seeds, some tools,, but most importantly: this book (or one like it). It would be nice if the NEXT 13,000 years doesn't have to start off with 11,000 years of ignorance and suffering, i think.


Rereading what i wrote on Day 1, i see i've neglected to give a short summary of The Billings Method. Many good and essential books can be boiled down to just a few pages. Just like most people should be able to explain Darwin's theory of evolution in a minute or so, it took a whole book for the world to take Darwin seriously. This just goes to illustrate the importance of books and of reading books: only by reading the book does when get the foundation of data, logic, and common sense that it takes to embrace the conclusions brought forth in said book. If you don't read the book yourself, you'll have to take somebody's word for it. That is immature, if not downright traumatized behavior. Just like billions of people own their very own Bible, and are expected to read from it, there should be a 'bible' of our age's most important discoveries and improvements. It is one of my goals to put together just such a thing, a 'Bible 2.0', if you will. Screw copyright; i will simply take the most relevant information from the most important books and make one big book out of them all that can then be copied again and again down the ages. Hard copy books, after all, are quickly disappearing and we're really living in an age of digital book burnings; should anything happen to hardware around the world, all books will effectively have been destroyed, as surely as a global book burning might have. This could be one of the reasons why past generations left us so little. It seems like nothing but biblical texts survived and that's ironic because, when you consider it carefully, the Bible is as much a compilation of humanity, health, spirituality, economics, science, history, and politics as what i have in mind. Having said that, it'd due for an upgrade...

The Billings Method explains that the female reproductive cycle has 4 phases. Each phase can be as long as a week or as short as a few hours. Every woman's ovulation cycle goes through these 4 phases, one after the other, and usually the cycle is complete after about 28 days.
Starting with the menstrual phase, this is followed by a 'dry' phase. This is usually less than a week. Then starts the fertile phase; where the magic happens...
The fertile phase ends with the ovulation itself. In preparation for ovulation, a woman's body [i won't go into naming what parts are involved] produces a mucus that allows sperm to survive. Knowing when this phase takes place and how long it lasts is key to mastering pregnancy. Each woman must herself keep an eye on what her body is producing and when, in order to learn how her own phases take place. They will generally be the same every cycle so a woman would only be required to take careful notice once (if she hasn't been paying attention already). If it sounds complicated, it should be noted that Aboriginal women in Australia have had this knowledge at their disposal for tens of thousands of years; this is not rocket science.
If one avoids bringing sperm into contact with the fertile mucus, one avoids pregnancy. It's as simple as that. Sperm that comes inside the female body at other times dies a quick death. This knowledge can be used to either avoid or achieve pregnancy, especially since the fertile phase in some women is very short and only knowledge of when ovulation is imminent might allow for inception. (One might wonder why a woman's fertile phase is so short and whether this should be considered a result of poor health that suggests it unwise to even become pregnant in the first place, but there's no research on this that i know of.) However! It gets even better!

By taking the fertile phase into account, it is easy to determine the gender of your child. This is a tiny bit more complicated than "sticky mucus good, other mucus bad" (depending on whether you desire pregnancy or no), but it's basically within anyone's grasp to gain control of whether you are blessed [/'stuck'] with a boy or a girl for the rest of your life...
If you have sex on the first day of fertility [this only works if your fertile period last at least a few days] but then refrain from sex until the end, i.e. until ovulation takes place, i.e. until when the sticky mucus stops,, you will have a girl. If you only have sex on the last day of the fertile phase, having refrained from allowing sperm to come into contact with the fertile mucus all of the days of that phase up till then, you will have a boy.
Again,, cultures, religion, and politics around the world have based endless precepts on the assumption that there is neither control over pregnancy nor control over what gender people can choose for their children. The countless deaths in China that come to mind! The horrors carried out because Chinese folk were ignorant of these matters! Thousands upon thousands of newborn baby girls killed because parents were only allowed 1 child and wished for it to be a boy. As well, how many large families have there not come about because parents kept trying for just 1 girl or 1 boy (along with their 5 boys or girls, respectively, that they already had)? And then there's all the subtle suffering; what about men and women who refrained from sex altogether because they dared not risk another pregnancy?
Truly, ignorance of this basic functioning of human reproduction has led to untold suffering.
I've learned, as well, that the ovulation method works far easier than the book would have one believe. You can enjoy penetration even during the week of fertile mucus; just don't ejacjulate or otherwise allow ejacjulate to come into contact with the mucus. No one needs to have rubber or pharmaceuticals that annoy and undermine basic health, things that only make big corporations billions of bucks. So there you see why The Billings Method doesn't reach 'Joe Sixpack'; popular culture follows the money. Follow the crowd at your peril.

I was just looking at a presentation by Paul Wheaton in San Diego to a group interested in permaculture. Even if you're into permaculture you perhaps have not heard of Paul Wheaton and perhaps you've never heard of permaculture; it's beside the point. As a permaculture expert Mr. Wheaton is into a vast array of topics, which is typical of permaculture in principle. Based on his dealings with so many different topics conveyed to people who are generally laymen, he made a few arguments concerning communicating new ideas that were real eye openers to me (though i'm certainly not unfamiliar with talking about things to people who have never heard of them before). I mention his insights because they have bearing on my dilemma as author trying to convey much information that's generally unknown.
He explained that people who argue do so due to conflicting information; hence, people getting along do so simply because their information happens to coincide. (For the moment. For the matter at hand...) He made an astute observation: if someone knows someone who knows more than he does himself, then the person knowing more is cool. If someone knows a whole lot more, then he's super cool. If someone knows even more than that, then he's crazy, and if someone knows even more than that person, he should be institutionalized for the sake of his own safety and those around him...
Before that Mr. Wheaton mentioned that anyone knowing less than you is considered stupid and if they know a lot less you feel like bashing their head in.
Now permaculture is about many aspects of sustainability, usually focusing on but not limiting itself to agricultural considerations and techniques. In his 2 hour talk Mr. Wheaton cover 72 topics he refers to as bricks. He makes it clear that there are actually thousands of such bricks and that he's just sharing a taste of what permaculture might be about. That's a lot of topics most people have never heard about. As to the depth and scope of my own research, permaculture is just one of many area of research and consideration. I generally convey the areas of research i cover as 7 points of a star:
- Humanity
- Health
- Spirituality
- Economics
- Science
- History
- Politics
Permaculture in that star belongs under Economics and Science, though it has relatively strong ties with all the other points, as well. When you research any topic deeply enough, one notices that it links to (all) other aspects of life. To me agriculture is just one of many very important and essential realms of research. I could go on for hours on any aspect mentioned above. That's a lot of people calling me misled or certifiable! But then what do i have a brain for? This is the difference between the mainstream and me; the mainstream hugs the center and carefully edges on to new things, while i care nothing for what's popular or average and go headlong into new fields of research if they happen to present themselves. It doesn't take a genius to outshine the mainstream. It is in fact easy as hell. Mainstream attitudes make it that way. The ideas, insights, and connections i present, therefore, tend to fly in the face of 'common knowledge'. That's because 'modern man' acts exactly as retarded as they assume their ancestors were! In the valley of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Having said that, with that warning in place, i will be presenting data, logic, and common sense that may appear outrageous, extreme, ridiculous, facetious, fantastic, or even dangerous. I can't help where you're coming from. I can only say this: the conditioning of the mind can change. I have done it many times in my own life,, following data, logic, and common sense that led me to places in thought or feeling that annoyed me. I was never perturbed by annoyance; i realized at a young age that if i got angry over something, this said something about me, not about the object of my anger. There, and in extension, if something or someone got me upset, this piqued my curiosity. I did not let fear of my own feelings or prejudice lead me away from new information; if anything, my fears and feelings have been trustworthy guides on the way to knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Rooting out the sources of anxieties, irritations, and fears has given me routes to knowledge i had no idea about. Curiosity, chance, and luck were important factors, as well, but when it comes to changing the conditioning of your own mind, it is the heart (or lack of it) that leads the way. There have been moments that i considered a matter that called forth outrage in myself, the kind that popular culture would applaud; it led me to consider the matter more, more deeply, and with more motivation. After all, if something could irritate me, this was not only a challenge or curious, but it revealed a vulnerability on my part. Often i would find that presumptions, presuppositions, or preferences in my own mind were the cause of my outrage and that research undermined my previously superficial take on things. In this way i have reconditioned my mind many times, allowing data, logic, and common sense to take over my sensibilities where previously barbarism ruled.

Fear is where the difference lies between the 75% and the 25% that Alice Miller and Peter Kropotkin explain in their books. Popular hairy-fairy culture pits fear against love but there is a scientific approach that places fear opposite to empathy. That's not about semantics; one way of putting it is quaint guesses led by intuition, the other is scholarly, based on research.
The psychological trauma Alice Millers explains has to do with a conditioning to resort to the reptilian brain over and over again. The reptilian brain is very useful but actually pre-human and not well suited to constant application. To fall back on 'reptilian' considerations is only valid in a very limited number of situations. In order to understand the research presented by people like Miller and Kropotkin, you must first understand some basics about the human brain that are commonly [i.e in popular culture/the mainstream] not spoken of.
Emotion, intellect, and instinct take place in different parts of the brain. Everybody uses these parts of the psyche every day and it's unnecessarily vague to say such things stem from 'the brain'. Mainstream research acknowledges that emotions come from the limbic system, that intellectual thought takes place in the frontal lobe, and that survival instincts come from the brain stem. Translated: emotions come from the limbic system, intellect from the neocortex, and instinct from the reptilian brain. The large mammalian brain developed in a later stage of 'human evolution'. In infants it is the last to grow. When a baby comes into the world, this brain grows at an incredible rate and doubles in size in the first 2 years of life. (And that's just talking hardware; primate brains have more neural connections than most other species but these connections, the 'software', evolve over time.) At no other period of it's development will the brain grow as fast. During this period, specifically while the infant lives on instinct, it is extremely vulnerable. Now, you can't muck up the engine of a Model T Ford too much, but imagine you are building the engine of a Ferrari; though the end product is vastly superior to the Model T Ford, it's beginnings are so much more vulnerable. So, too, the brain of a baby; it seems cultural attitudes deem the brain of a human child indestructible because it belongs to what will one day become a cerebrally superior being. The opposite is the case! And Alice Miller's research points to how the psychological trauma in infants occurs; having occurred and being present in an adult parent, her research explains how it's possible for a parent to subject it's very own offspring to terror and torture, albeit subconsciously (though not really...). The child of such a parent is conditioned to returning again and again to it's reptilian brain, to see what fear has to say. So not-traumatized people appear fearless by comparison. However, that's not because they are special, it's actually because they are not damaged in that respect. In other words, it's not that there are 75 T Fords driving around with 25 Ferraris; rather, there are 100 Ferraris driving around and 75 of them are broken.
The research is very clear. Alice Miller's work is scholarly written and executed. The only reason not to take it seriously is because it annoys you on a personal level.

I have put together a tool for processing the necessary information i've come across in my years. It's a kind of protocol. There is just too much indispensable information lacking in popular culture to approach the lacking information haphazardly. Mainstream culture cultivates general ignorance while simultaneously worshipping specialism. The ideal is to have a wizard in one area be like a clown in all other areas of life. The basics of life are relegated to strangers who are driven by profit. If it sounds insane when you put it that way, that's because it is. It is crazy and immature to trust others with matters as essential and far-reaching as the food you eat every day, the quality of the water you drink, and the cleanliness of the air you breathe. Trust is for children and for those who have no choice in the matter, i.e. victims or slaves. The popular attitude is often literally expressed as: "Well, you gotta have faith in some things" or "Ya gotta trust someone". No. You don't. Children necessarily have to trust that their needs will be met; adults should tend to their own. Otherwise, where does it end? Will you allow strangers driven by profit to determine the health of your children? But that's exactly what modern culture suggests. And it shows...
You must master the basics of life. You cannot leave your freedom, health, well-being, future, legacy, independence, and surroundings to strangers. Unfortunately, if you are like i used to be, no one offered you the basics of life. I had to figure such things out for myself. The internet helped but the internet is like reading: almost everyone can read but hardly anybody does; similarly, most people have internet but hardly anyone uses it to search for information they should have.
Since you are (likely) so lacking in knowledge of what you should and need to know, it seems like a lot of work. For one this is because the popular paradigm suggests things are so bleak that we must all look to 'savior authorities' to survive existence. This, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a basic marketing tactic: the one selling the product is the same person telling you that you need the product to begin with. In this case, i'm selling nothing; i am explaining essential matters for free. And i'm telling you that your brain is probably filled with unsound assumptions concerning what kind and how much work it will take to master the basics.
For instance, popular culture would suggest that you must read thousands and thousands of books in order to attain the kind of mastery i claim to have. I have already explained, though, why that is nonsense and why you need only look to authors who publish books without contradictions, guesses, suppositions, preferences, speculation, etc. on every page. Let's get one thing very clear: you are better off reading 1 single book by a good author than you are reading 1000 books at random. 1000 bad books cannot make up for not reading 1 good book. In fact, you'd probably be better off reading 0 books if the books you're going to be reading are bad books anyway. The point here is that you don't need to read much to get up to speed. Yes, i have a few meters of books in my library but the truly essential books are few. And even my entire library is tiny compared to many people's libraries, and that tiny library is what i've come up with for reading in your life, i.e. if you read a few books every year, you'd get through my library in a decade or so. From a mainstream point of view, if i were to say that i had the books it takes to understand the basics concerning humanity, health, spirituality, economics, science, history, and politics,, you're probably thinking a library the size of a public library containing hundreds of thousands of books. However, not only will you not require that quantity of books at all, the quality of books i'm talking about are generally not to be found in public libraries at all!
So, these are things to keep in mind when i speak of mastering the basics. You have not been prepared for the endeavor but that doesn't mean it is either too much work or too difficult a feat for you to accomplish. Your main problem is a set of bad assumptions concerning what it will take. What might help in making sense of the array of knowledge, understanding, and insights i'm referring to is a plan. There is a good saying i apply regularly: Failing to plan is planning to fail. When you go to school or university, people have set up a curriculum for you to follow, day by day, year by year. I had no curriculum to go by and that's why it's taken me decades (though, in truth, if i would've had internet at my disposal for more than the last few years, it probably wouldn't have taken me that long either). You, on the other hand, have in this book a list of priorities, content, and connections that make assimilating the basics logical, satisfying, and easy. Your challenge is not the content; your challenge is accessing the data, logic, and common sense presented in this book and dealing with your own personal issues in accepting them.

All of this will probably be easier if you are male. Part of the complete knowledge, understanding, and insights i'm talking about has to do with the very real differences between genders. It is easier for the male brain to intellectually absorb ideas and implement them in his life. Women tend to be less cerebral and require more experience with something before they are willing to embrace it. That's all about gender i'll say for now; i merely say this to help put personal challenges into perspective. Having said that, if you are a woman who has suffered no psychological trauma as a child, you're probably more able to embrace real knowledge than the 75% traumatized males in the world. It's all relative... so don't get hung up on preconceptions. You'll know when you hit a speed bump; just deal with it accordingly when the time comes.

Ultimately i'm talking about a completely different paradigm than the popular one in which ignorance and specialization is the norm. Your mastery of humanity, health, spirituality, economics, science, history, and politics includes topics such as psychology, sex, agriculture, sovereignty, and religion. As you learn about such matters, you will see how little your so-called authorities in the ignorance paradigm know, while you experience how little effort it takes to outshine them. Your greatest obstacle is the presupposition that the insanity of the 75% matters. This brings us back to book # 3: Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid.

Solidarity is the inherent nature of most species. After all, a clenched fist will break separate fingers. Social evolution has been the backbone of most species. As such, in the course of millions of years of evolution it is hard-wired into the psyche of both man and animal that selfish behavior is wrong. (You might say that what undermines the very survival of a species can be considered evil. The more thought one gives this matter, the more that definition of evil actually makes sense.)
The 25% have their solidarity intact. Ignorance of this issue mankind faces, however, leaves them vulnerable to the 75%! This cannot be overemphasized. The 25% tend to be tolerant of the inhumanities perpetrated by the 75%. Ironically, what the 25% are doing is utterly logical and natural, for they give extra of their resources to those they intuit are sick. This is entirely in line with what one would expect from a social species. However, in doing so indiscriminately and from ignorance, they allow the sick-yet-intellectual 75% to undermine life for all of mankind. In fact, the self-destructive behavior of the 75% threatens all life on the planet! Truly, the (literally) suicidal nature of the psychologically traumatized is most evident in their willingness and ability to destroy their only habitat: planet Earth.
If there were one necessary 'religion' in the world, it would be a religion that guides this natural tendency of healthy people towards the insane and their destructive choices. Ironically, it appears that Jesus Christ was attempting to do that very thing. Based on what i understand of human nature (and of both the 75% and the 25%), it looks to me like Jesus (and likely the community in which he was raised, i.e. the Essenes) intuited what was wrong in society and attempted to guard both individuals and society against it. It is my belief that if he would have had the research at his disposal that we all can enjoy today, he might have succeeded in actually saving both mankind and the planet from modern culture. More on Christianity and Jesus Christ at a later stage.

The greatest challenge everyone faces is really one that is inherently human: what to do with the psychologically traumatized? It actually doesn't really matter if the percentage of traumatized people is 1% or 75%; the psychologically traumatized will spread their condition if the contagion, if you will, is not met by informed action. Though authoritarian/totalitarian power structures now rule the world, even if only 1% of the people on Earth were capable of torturing strangers to death, their numbers would inevitably increase over time. The percentage, therefore, is a matter of time, not of principle. For this reason, the threat of traumatized people is inherent to society and it's presence must be dealt with intelligently.
If we consider the glass half full, at least to our generation the full extent of the problem is 100% clear! We have witnessed with our own eyes what the 75% are willing to do and are capable of. It's actually a good thing that we cannot deny it. We've all seen millions of African children dying needless deaths for decades on end; we've heard of millions of species going extinct in our lifetimes, how the rain forests were halved in a few decades. If you've done your research then you know that about 1 percent to 1 per mille [10% of 1%] of the number of whales exist compared to how it was 150 years ago, many of them driven to extinction altogether. Genocides fill the history books, though the worst of it remains hidden from the mainstream since no one talks about the Roman Church killing off about 10% of all women in Europe when it went through it's witch hunt phase! It gets even worse but then one enters the realm of so-called conspiracy theory. I'll get there eventually.
If there is a good reason for the existence of a religion in society, it should be to deal with the ever-looming threat of psychologically traumatized people and how the sane tolerate their abuse. The Bible, and other books, deal with 'evil' but they speak of evil like one would to a child. However, the matter can [and i believe should] be addressed from a scientific point of view. Kropotkin's book does a great deal to clarify the matter: if one ant has food and doesn't share with those who are hungry, the surrounding ants will be swept up in a killing frenzy and destroy the ant who was selfish. For humans this reminds us of lynch mobs. For us personally, i.e. something everyone has personal experience with, it reminds us of anger at unfair behavior. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, therefore, suggests that when a father kills the man who raped his daughter, he is acting out quite human impulses that should not be undermined, for they embody our instincts towards that which is human, 'good', and fair. However, people are not ants and we intellectually find ways around this instinct that protects the weak, poor, and vulnerable: politics...
Psychologically traumatized people who constantly refer back to their reptilian brains, live a life in fear. Psychologically healthy people cannot begin to imagine what it means to live like that and that's part of the problem: projection, which is an integral part of empathic/social existence, does not work when the brain of the other functions entirely differently! The fearful steal, but they learn to steal in darkness; they cheat but learn to get away before the shit hits the fan. It is the challenge of being an intellectual species! We are cerebrally superior and can achieve amazing things but at the same time we can use our brains to plan genocide, vengeance, or torture!


In the end it boils down to the following: a submissive attitude towards people who have pulled power to themselves, so-called authorities, is inherently supportive of inhuman culture. The first step, therefore, is to stop acting like a child and putting faith or trust in others. Faith and trust are for children, slaves, and those suffering from the victim attitude that is the other side of the coin to the savior authority paradigm. Being informed and mastering the basics of life, therefore, creates human culture (at the expense of totalitarian cultures) like nothing else. Also, when it comes to information, sharing is the logical extension of our basic social human condition. A truly human (sane) culture, therefore, would have everyone sharing what information they have with everyone else. In this way the opposite of the paradigm of ignorance and specialization is achieved. People might still trade their experience or expertise, but to put it bluntly: copyright is the root of all evil. No wonder it is essential to the modern paradigm.

There will always be the psychologically traumatized. Ironically, i do not suggest that the 25% should focus on trying to heal the 75%. The benefit for mankind lies in the future, with the generations to come. What the world needs is a society and a culture that knows how to deal with the psychologically scarred in a way that allows them to find their own healing but protects those who are vulnerable from (further) scarring. The feeling that one should try to heal the sick is natural and part of being one of an empathic species; however! (and this is where religion might come in), it is neither possible nor desirable to heal another person. In fact, the idea that you can 'save' another person is entirely in line with the savior authority paradigm in which there are saviors and victims! Healing the psychological traumas of others should not be the focus of attention because it doesn't work anyway; and ironically, it actually serves to continue the paradigm of saviors and victims which is the exact opposite of sane and healthy humanity.
There is, however, much that can be done for future generations! There is even much that can be done for the children of the 75%. Now, whether the percentage of people in a society is 1% or 75%, the same principles might apply to get the percentage going down rather than going up. Those principals are as follows:
- treat pregnant women like royalty
- treat newborns like gods
- treat infants from 6 months to 2 years of age like royalty
So if you would support the psychologically traumatized, this is how you can satisfy your feelings that you do something for them. In this way you actually can help prevent psychologically scarred parents from passing on their condition to their children. Not only will those children not tend to traumatize their own children in the future but they can support any healing that's possible for their parents. This is the way mankind can help heal itself. It is accomplished through infants.

Just as intellect, emotion, and instinct have distinct locations within the brain, there is a similar distinction to be made for IQ [intelligence quotient], EQ [emotional quotient], and AQ [aggressive quotient]. Now that last one is one that i myself have made up based on Alice Miller's research; the 75% have a high aggressive quotient, while the 25% have a low AQ. All 3 of these aspects of brain functionality have very different origins in life and they are probably quite different from what most people might expect. For one, since popular culture has this insane and utterly unscientific crush on genetics. In fact, intelligence has very little to do with genetics. Sorry to burst your bubble if i did; don't shoot the messenger.
IQ is mainly established during pregnancy. You see, genetics has largely fallen off the face of the planet, even in mainstream publications, because it has been superseded by epigenetic research. You used to read about some genetic 'discovery' in the newspapers nearly every day; now, you don't. Why? Because since the human genome project reached completion, almost all genetic theories were blown out of the water. Basically, all geneticists had to start over from scratch and start reeducating themselves, particularly concerning epigenetics and transgenetics. To put it bluntly: genetics is so 10 years ago.
The development of the fetus is dependent on how the mother-to-be feels. With humans, this can go to the development of more instinctual growth or to laying a proper foundation for the mammalian brain. Brain development is also a matter of nutrition and there is strong evidence that iodine in the pregnant mother's diet/body is key. In fact, there is research to suggest that iodine levels can easily cause a difference of 30 IQ points! You can see how genetics has been forced to take the back seat (if it should even be considered on board at all). So when you're talking IQ, you're basically talking hardware, not blueprint.
The emotional quotient (EQ) is all about how well one can deal with stress. This also can have very strong nutritional components since much of emotion concerns hormones and hormones are in turn built up of chemical components that the body needs to have in reserve. People who 'cry over nothing' do so because their body can't cope with the stress they are dealing with. Many people suffer from something James Wilson explains in his book Adrenal Fatigue. Burnout, depression, bipolar issues, etc. are physical much more than 'psychological'; in most cases, at least. EQ was introduced as an addition to IQ tests since it's obvious that many people can intellectually cope with certain situations but that doesn't mean they're up to it emotionally. Besides nutrition [i.e. mineral deficiency being a big problem], all kinds of psychological conditioning or experience can have strong effects on how people deal with all kinds of stress. If you are tired, malnourished, or suffer from some phobia or other,, these are things that fall into the realm of EQ. To keep up the computer analogy: you're basically talking about the health of both hardware and software.
The authoritarian/psychological/reptilian trauma that Alice Miller talks about in her books has to do with software; you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink; similarly, you can tell someone with the reptilian trauma that they are not a victim, but they will not, cannot, accept it. The software will not go there. The software is authoritarian and the computer will [actually, almost quite literally] crash if the point is pushed. AQ, therefore, is not about what you're intellectually or educationally capable of, nor is it about what you're emotionally up to; it is about what your are willing to accept. Hell, we might even call it the Acceptance Quotient!
In the end, AQ [be it Aggressive, Authoritarian, or Acceptance Quotient; doesn't matter], is all about taking seriously that babies can be traumatized to the point of schizophrenia, in which case they will forever* have a love-hate relationship with others, forever seeing life through glasses in which there are only savior and victims.

This translates to the 3 Golden Rules as follows:
- treat pregnant women like royalty, for that increases the IQ of their child; give them good food, save them from stress, and offer good prospects
- treat newborns like gods, for AQ is established in the very young; never leave babies alone, not even with a parent, not even for a moment
- treat infants from 6 months to 2 years of age like royalty, for that establishes good software as well as hardware; as well, they should still not be left alone

So this new human religion i've been hinting at is already taking shape, isn't it? It's about sharing information as a matter of principle, being wary of the threat of trust in strangers, knowing what not to do to aggravate mankind's challenges, and knowing what can be done to support healing and prevent further spread of the psychological contagion, the epidemic of inhumanity ravaging societies and the planet.
There's much more that i'll be adding to that list but it's a very good start already. So how could one actually implement the 3 golden rules: treating pregnant women and infants like royalty and babies like gods? And why should one?



The S.E.E.D.