Global Warmists and Thought Forms

The global warmists are making summer last too long.  Today, on September 29, a week after the autumnal equinox, the temperature at my house is over 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now the “scientists” of the world–in this latest religion of abstractions that supposedly controls the cosmos–agree that man is responsible for “climate change,” and we must do something about it.  Even the psychiatric establishment has linked arms with the “scientists” to advocate for a “call to action,” “educational initiatives,” “alliances with other organizations,” “leadership,” “evidence-based advances,” “special responsibility,” and “radical measures” to spread the word that climate change poses a threat to public health, including mental health,” according to the September 7 issue of Psychiatric News.

Well, the climate changes every day and every minute, and each square centimeter of the earth has a different climate.  This could be proven by sticking a thermometer in the ground or hanging it in a tree or dunking it in an ocean.  Where in this scenario is the climate not changing? This simplistic grasp of science is too easy for the “climate scientists” to comprehend.

The fundamental precepts of modern “science” require hypotheses that can be tested, according to the “scientific method.”  This method requires inclusion of a “control group,” which is identical to the test group but without the experimental intervention.  It also requires that the experiment must reduce variables to one, so that the test is high in selectivity and specificity.  That is, the test must measure what you want to measure (selectivity) and only that variable (specificity).

The notion that the climate is changing and that man is the cause, contains two hypotheses, neither of which is testable under the scientific method.  This makes it “political science,” which employs its own methods.

It is at least as valid for me to claim the global warmists are extending summer temperatures through misguided thought forms.  I’m not the first or only person to claim man can and does influence the weather through thought.  This was the province of the shaman in some tribal cultures, and the premise behind Native American rain dances, and of mystics and seers around the world.

The idea of “thought forms” was popularized in the book Thought Forms: A Record of Clairvoyant Investigation by Annie Besant and CW Leadbetter, of the Theosophical Society, in 1901.  The book asserted that people’s thoughts, experiences, emotions, and music have an  ethereal substance that can be perceived by the psychically attuned.  The book contained paintings of thoughts related to devotion and devotion sacrifice, three types of anger, three types of love (undirected, directed, and grasping) and jealousy, intellect and ambition. The authors claimed that the quality of a person’s thought influences his life experience and can affect other people.  The book had a strong influence on modern art and literature.  Kandinsky, Yeats, TS Eliot, Malevich and Mondrain, especially, were charmed by Theosophy.  Wikipedia notes that Annie Besant and CW Leadbetter played a pivotal role in shaping the globalized culture of East-West mysticism and rationalism, sound and sight.

While the book refers specifically to individual thought forms, I’ve also read and believe there are group thought forms, too, akin to what psychiatrist Carl Jung called “archetypes,” “the collective unconscious,” or universal symbols.  It could be argued that the terms “most people” or “society,” or even “we” refer to a type of mass mind thought form, the generally accepted notion of what humanity as a whole is like, what it believes, or how it thinks.  Perhaps television or the mass media reflect the mass mind thought form and its assumptions.

It’s never clear how those who refer to “most people” arrive at their characterizations.  I know of no one who has interviewed “most people,” yet these terms slide easily off lips and are just as easily accepted.  Who are these nameless, faceless, creatures so easily packaged into stereotypes such as “liberal,” “conservative,” “black,” “white,” and all the labels “we” use to lump individuals together in so much featureless protoplasm?

The “scientists” only acknowledge what they can perceive with the five senses they admit to, or with sense-extenders, like microscopes or spectroscopy.  They have yet to prove life exists, or that the mind exists, and they have yet to prove the universe has only three dimensions.

If the mind exists, I would dearly love to see the “climate scientists” use theirs to bring fall weather to my back yard.

7 thoughts on “Global Warmists and Thought Forms

  1. Sha'Tara

    Psychiatrists linking up with scientists: another nail in ‘science’s’ coffin. Thought forms… now that’s speaking my language. What are ‘thought forms’ actually? They are a form of lucid dream in zip file format. When you get them, your mind knows its being given information but it takes “time” to open the file and sort the contents. “Group” thought forms should be studied with great circumspection because they are more likely to be group programming than actual thought forms, particularly if the source is of earth. All of my esoteric information/teaching came to me through thought forms but sourced from outside this world and most from outside this universe. I know this because it was clearly explained to me. Earth sourced “thought forms” came to me in the form of faith, propaganda, advertising, tribal/race beliefs, patriotism, religious doctrine, politics and economics. That’s all based on programming and brainwashing and easily discounted.

    Reply
    1. katharineotto Post author

      Sha’Tara,
      You understand the concept, but it’s probably new to a lot of people and needs defining, which you are beginning to do. I was basically referring to earth-generated thought forms through programming, conventional beliefs, and so forth. Higher-consciousness thought forms have to wend their way through all the mental static we as a species create with our propaganda or programming, as you so appropriately phrase it.

      And yes, I know you don’t think much of psychiatrists, and I don’t blame you. The self-described healers of the mind (or so I believed) have metamorphosed into exploiters of the mind in a “cripple-to-control” mode. In this case, the deplorable lack of professional boundaries is especially unforgivable, considering much of psychiatry is supposed to be about boundaries.

      Reply
  2. Sha'Tara

    There are “good” books, there are “bad” books – there are “good” thought forms and “bad” thought forms. Thought forms are a mode of information accessed by the mind to understand and connect with its surroundings within its own degrees of awareness. They’re like email, or text messages except that the mind needs to learn how to translate the information. For those who don’t, or cannot, believe in thought forms, they don’t and won’t, exist, it’s that simple. Psychiatry in my book is a complete sham at best, at worst a legalized criminal enterprise, much like banking.

    Reply
    1. katharineotto Post author

      Sha’Tara,
      I think people are influenced by thought forms whether they believe in them or not. The mass media is a good example of thought forms disseminated on a grand scale, with studied use of subtle persuasion, as with advertising. Also, what we refer to as “propaganda” also promotes a kind of belief system pretends to a shared reality that may not be valid.

      There’s a lot to like about psychiatry, but not the way it’s practiced now. I admire trailblazers like Freud and Jung who tried to make sense of dreams and symbols. That has been abandoned in modern practice, and it’s too bad.

      Reply
      1. Sha'Tara

        I’ll never be a fan of psychiatry or those practicing it but when we open ourselves to the cosmos, it’s amazing the number, size and effectiveness of the hidden forces that influence all sentient life, often to its detriment. What do we really know of what goes on… not just out in space, but beyond our 3-D interpretation of reality in both the macro and the micro of existence? Essentially nothing.

  3. feistyfroggy

    Very interesting post. Group think is always an interesting topic! As for “most people” I would have to guess the speaker(s) arrive at that conclusion experientially.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s