Humanity has lost its way, but we were led astray. The very institutions we invented to secure us, failed. They have achieved the opposite, and we, the collective of humanity are forced to live in the tribal, vengeance-ruled war world from which institutions invariably profit. And even if you are not completely indoctrinated by this institutionalization, generations of the collective have been indoctrinated, and by reinforcing social "norms", they diligently steered steer their peers further toward the cliff edge.
Throughout our society is a misguided, socially polarized perspective. Everywhere we look, the truth is deliberately conjured and obscured, leading to divergent oppositions; from the simplest to the most complex, from garden plants to nuclear power "plants". No matter the subject, no matter the related tangential beliefs, the divergence can be summarized via one simple divider - institutionalization or individuation.
We have been collectively steered by oligarchical institutions toward institutional thinking, allowing unnatural mechanizations to be granted the rights of individuals, and enabling a culture of war, competition and separation. So where does this leave we natural, spiritual beings, who are naturally wired for peace, co-operation and oneness?
Corruption of Our Food Supply
This article is a discussion of various of modes of thinking, which compare and contrast institutionalization with individuation. Confusing the two, as in the latest trend of awarding the rights of men to machines, is the new shell humanity has wrapped itself in. And the divine right of institutions is now, dare I say, the essence of what the individuated around the world are rallying against, and what the institutionalized are fighting to protect.
With this mindset embedded in the collective psyche, those institutionalized individuals figuratively or literally tout exposure to industrial excrement as nutrient, while the individuated among us warn that the industrial poison will kill and demand integrative conditions instead of those suitable only to oligarchical institutions. Some "scientists" have claimed that their "research" (read obfuscation) has found "conventional" food is the same as organic, with no negligible differences in nutrition content. But the facts tell a different story.
And therein is evidence of such social steering, through which pseudo-scientific "facts" are considered. Throughout recorded time, organic farming has been the convention, only recently have pesticides and fertilizers and herbicides been introduced into the food chain, along with factory farming and the genetic modification of plants to survive lethal doses of Monsanto's Roundup that kills everything it comes in contact with - including the global honey bee population. Yet it is organic (read unpoisoned) food that bears the burden of a prefix in our language.
Indoctrinated by misinformation, many people suggest that genetic modification is equivalent to traditional seed hybridization. But they are not equivalent. In the same way that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square, seed hybridization is modification, but it is a modification an individual can facilitate - with the aid of nature - and is not comparable, in either method or result, to dangerous laboratory modifications touted by institutional leaders as the way to "feed the world".
When it comes to nuclear experimentation, our logic is flawed, but even more so, it is steered.
One of the things that grew out the early days of the nuclear experiment was the idea of hormesis, the con vincing (emphasize con) many that external exposure to radiation is in fact beneficial! This con was originally touted in uranium mines, and now along the North Pacific Coast, etc. The concept of hormesis coincided with the flabbergasting idea, put forth by "scientists" who obviously failed chemistry, that all radiation is the same. Yet this is so far from the truth. In fact not all bequerels are created equal.
For example, the argument for hormesis is somewhat a corrupt conjuration that begins in some truth. The truth is that exposure to some radiation stimulates an immune response, because everything in your body is so heavily affected by radiation exposure that a physiological self-preservation response kicks in. But the "beneficial" result of that immune response is short lived. In the long/mid term, the human body does not benefit from radiation exposure and cannot maintain the full-tilt immune response required to deal with prolonged exposure. And the nuclear industry's catastrophic history proves it.
The problem with hormesis related to industrial nuclear waste is that there are all kinds of accompanying elements, particulates and gasses that are certain to kill you -- despite what the pro nuke kooks suggest; the same kooks, incidentally, who said everything at Fukushima 1 was fine after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and who still say all is well, even after the triple meltdown and ongoing radioactive pollution spilling from the damaged reactor. [For more on the nuclear industry's ongoing denial, please see: GE Spokesperson Discusses Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster - Interview and Analysis)]
Hormesis is a load of nuclear industry jive. And while the nuclear experimentation industry is the most complex mechanization, it has a whole crew representing an equally complex system of manipulation to maneuver it into social acceptance. Following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown, Dr. Peter Karamoskos, a nuclear radiologist and a public representative on the radiation health committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency said in an article for the Sydney Morning Herald:
You have to hand it to the nuclear industry and its acolytes. In the middle of the second-worst nuclear power disaster in history at Fukushima, and with still no end in sight, you would think they would respond with contrition, humility and profuse mea culpas. Not on your life. The industry representatives and its acolytes came out swinging in full denial attire"
But more insidious and objectionable is the creeping misinformation that the nuclear industry has fed into the public sphere over the years. There seems to be a never-ending cabal of paid industry scientific "consultants" who are more than willing to state the fringe view that low doses of ionising radiation do not cause cancer and, indeed, that low doses are actually good for you and lessen the incidence of cancer.