Recently, I've come to see life itself as the initiation. I am a teacher in an initiatory yoga tradition, and I have also gone through several shamanic initiation ceremonies. Initiation is an important rite of passage in many spiritual paths and traditions. However, I think we got it all wrong. For example, a typical vision quest lasts only a few days, but it is a mere microcosmic representation of the macrocosm, which is the entire human lifespan. In the etheric realms, where we exist prior to incarnating into form, it is quite possible that we decide to go on a decades-long vision quest on a particular planet where we can learn important lessons necessary for our "graduation" to higher levels of existential reality. In other words, shamanic and yogic initiations are merely symbolic of an entire lifetime. Life itself is the initiation.
We are cosmic travelers who incarnate into form to undergo a decades-long initiation ceremony. When the body is no longer viable, we move on to other experiences and learning environments. I have found it useful to view life in this way. It gives meaning and purpose to all the suffering and hardship that we're forced to endure, just like the hardship that we experience during a vision quest.
I have also come to accept that there is no other way to learn what we need to learn. If there were, the universe would have manifested an alternative by now. We must endure the suffering...there is no other way. In other words, we come here to suffer. Buddha had it right when he taught that life is suffering. However, he was attempting to escape that which he came here for. I'm no longer convinced that the purpose of life is to escape from suffering. Instead, it's more likely that the purpose of life is to withstand and endure suffering. Again, if there were any alternative to the necessity of the lifelong initiation, the universe would have already figured it out.
One cannot skip steps in the evolutionary process. We are forced to pass through each step one at a time. This can be seen clearly in the fossil record of all species. Therefore, whatever shitstorm that humanity is currently passing through is a necessary step in our collective evolution. There is no avoiding it or getting around it. We must pass through our own personal initiations, but also our collective initiations as a species as well. There is no other way. It is what it is.
This resonates a lot with Chris Bache's perspective in LSD and the Mind of the Universe. No way around the suffering, but there is purpose in the suffering...to help us evolve, individually and collectively. The more mindful we can be about this process, the better. Namaste.
Thank you Chris , There is no need to see suffering as a nagitive. Suffering is an essential element of evolving into fully realized individuals. Using it as an alchemist transmuting it into a positive form.
A skill that can be taught.
Also the idea of reincarnation hasn't fully been understood , we keep coming back only for the purpose to become fully realized. Once that occurs we come back for others...
This process has been going on for millions of years.
There is a major backup of souls just above us hoping for one more go around. To be totally honest there is no more coming back , this is it. If you haven't gotten rid of your nagitive side my now your doomed til eternity.
The key here is to be as light and airy as one can get so they may squiggle through all the muck above.
Thank you for this comment. I read it this morning and perked up. I’ve been thinking about it all day. It helps me redefine my day, week, month, and year which have been marked by an unusual amount of obstacles, a twisted sense of humor in the serendipity found in the turmoil. Sending love to your and all of our suffering 💜
Another great piece! Love the sentinel archetype. For many of us lifelong sentinels the experimental vaccines are more suspect than Covid as existential risks at this point. The linked article from ok doomer doesn’t consider that the risk factors they list correlate faithfully with the unprecedented global mass vaccination campaign.
Likewise for many eco-sentinels the years long war on drugs/terror/communists/poverty and now germs is strongly implicated in the ecocide we are living through now. I agree with Jem Bendell. Perhaps we weren’t meant to control everything?
Deeply grateful for your soulful inspiring work Daniel. 🙏
Thank you for saying that, I feel that way especially as someone with genetic variants that prevent proper detoxification in the body (mthfr), people don’t seem to understand this very rational perspective and I hate being called anti vax. I’m pro science, health, and progress. It takes time though to learn about new treatments and effects. And It’s just personal to each medical experience.
Thanks Daniel. Greatly appreciate your perspective and ongoing work. 🙏
Just a quick book recommendation here. I've been reading Sean Kelly's recent "Becoming Gaia" and think it's excellent, and quite sober. Subtitled: "On the Threshold of Planetary Initiation." Similarly, Christopher Bache's "LSD and the Mind of the Universe" goes into the territory of initiation, but from a more experiential psychedelic angle.
Hi Daniel, I too consider myself a "sentinel"; I've been obsessing over and writing about climate disruption and the Sixth Great Extinction since 2011, when I started my first blog, Transition Times.
I agree with you that we need deep system change, and I don't think it's going to happen in a rational, technological fix-it kind of way. It's going to be a paradigm shift that happens first in the realm of consciousness, at what we might call the soul level, or the Gaian matrix. It is actually already happening, and we are all part of it--sentinels having a crucial role to play in leading the way and sparking larger movements.
Today I launched my new blog, The Spirit of Education. I have been researching spiritual approaches to the climate crisis and systems change for a long time now, and I'm finally ready to start a public conversation about my explorations. My first post and the About page lay out my direction. I will welcome the thoughts of all "Liminals"!
I just want to say how deeply How Soon Is Now affected me. It was worth all the effort, even if it doesn’t feel that way sometimes.
Regarding what we can do now, are you familiar with Joanna Macy’s The Work That Reconnects? That process seems promising to me and I intend to start talking about it more with my network
interesting essay. Your defense of the sentinel could be stronger. I'm not convinced that the sentinel is more interested in "civic liberties" than the conspiracy theorist. Couldn't we say that a conspiracy theorist acting on behalf of the wildest theory also cares about civic liberties?
Right off the back....the phrase "sentinel intelligence," sounds like a passive reaction to the idea of a conspiracy theorist. I don't support right-wingers....but in a theoretical bar fight right now....the sentinel would lose against the conspiracy theorist imo. Lol. A sentinel and a conspiracy theorist walk into a bar....
What does the sentinel have even? Can it lure the imaginations of people who are done with the status quo as is? Sentinel intelligence as a phrase does not spark the same level of enticement. If the conspiracy theorist is a populist...what is the sentinel? The bourgeoisie? Already...it's a bit flat. Sentinel as a term feels like, "Mom said I couldn't be a conspiracy theorist anymore so I have to be a sentinel now."
Technically a conspiracy theorist also has sentinel intelligence....especially if they ended up being right about the conspiracies they warned people about? Correct? As someone who falls under the "leftist" umbrella, who doesn't want to get labeled alt-right for not being a moderate liberal, I would prefer to reclaim the conspiracy theorist theorist title versus adopting the sentinel label. Or at least spend some time "complicating" the conspiracy theorist title.
Maybe look at the evidence of different views and really flush out the arguments for the points-of-view you disagree with. I'm not sure if you've done that yet. But I'm interested in seeing you really tear apart what you would consider "the opposing side." It's like you're skirting around something or haven't fully researched the opposing evidence...but as the reader I want you to be transparent and thorough with your logic and reason on why the other side is wrong. Just say it.
It seems like subliminally you are qualifying people who fit in with the "sentinel" label as those who align more with mainstream consensus? Maybe the sentinel trope lost its steam for me because in passing you tried to tackle the two main science taboos right now in one article but at a surface level: climate change and vaccines.
It's like you are using the sentinel label to just create a subtle division between people who believe in forced vax and people who don't to avoid controversy. This seems like "towing the line," but you could do a more in depth analysis that is messier and takes risks with your audience. I want to hear your thoughts without the mask of the sentinel argument as a shield. Instead, go for it!! We can take it!!! lolollool
Good first attempt. Excited to hear you unpack this more. Go harder or maybe the sentinel idea doesn't have enough umph? I feel like you held back in this essay. :)
Thanks so much for your reflections Daniel; they always seem to reach deep in side me.
I am grateful for you bringing the word sentinel to us through your reference, but through your work (which I haven't read yet). I feel the sentinels are somehow Mercurial in nature and much like lightning itself which connects sky and Earth and of course the serpent coming through something like a what is called a worm hole these days.
We are here now, not by chance
Somehow, light at the end of the tunnel needs to be reflected in some way.
So thanks once again
May the wings on your heels, serve you when necessary !
Weird that young people don’t think they’re going to get old, when I feel like every GenX person I meet thinks that we’re all going to live waaaaay longer due to health and tech innovations. Wonder what the cause of this generational disconnect is...
Or perhaps because us GenX see our parents in decline, and in hospitals etc, we desperately hope things will be better for us when we get old. So it’s wishful thinking maybe.
Sorry, Daniel, but Jessica Wildfire's piece about the supposed danger of Covid is hogwash. For a long time you've been resisting the mountains of evidence to the contrary and even more important the evidence laying out the corruption and sociopathic behavior of people pushing the Covid scheme. Starting with the crime against humanity of Bill Gates, the CDC, Fauci and their bought and sold media selling a lie amounting to a crime against humanity -- that fake tests "prove" ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don't work. Whereas, in many countries around the world, their success in dealing with the virus is undeniable. And with Omicron, the data of death rates and hospitalization shows those who are vaccinated decisively outnumber those who are not. Not to mention the deaths and serious injuries from the vaccines themselves. And the autoimmune responses increasing with each jab.
I remain on the fence. I don't trust the mainstream view and I don't trust the alternative anti-vax view either! I am waiting for some kind of honest relatively unbiased accouting of whether the vaccines had more efficacy and saved masses of lives compared to if they had not been implemented.
I do agree that the way the lockdowns etc was handled was problematic but I also don't think that this was necessarily a conspiracy or a "crime against humanity." The problem is that the situation is murky with a new disease... massively contagious... without us knowing what its long-term health consequences would be. In the past, there wasn't even an opportunity to argue against a mass vax program. There was a general assumption that everyone would do it and basically people did do it in emergencies.
By demonizing and "othering" people and identifying them as villains, you forfeit your capacity to think clearly or make a good reasonable argument. It becomes very emotionally driven.
I am sure we will revisit this in the months ahead and can butt heads on it more.
The short answer to the list that she cites is "yes." They or most of them contain research scientists and academics whose careers have been threatened by any semblance of factual reporting. Why? Because their work has been financed by NIAID (Fauci)
You found the anecdotal observation in that tweet more convincing than the reporting of, say, Alex Berenson or Dr. Peter McCollough? The tweet reminds me of social media posts in early 2020 when friends were saying basically - 'I don't anyone who had covid, so it probably doesn't even exist.'
I don’t find it super convincing, you are right. I admit I don’t see a clear path to “sense making” around this, not being a statistician as everyone seems biased in one direction or the other, including people like Berenson, who I have read closely. What do you find most convincing / compelling?
On the topic of COVID Vaccines, I'm most compelled by -
1) The Youtube channel of Dr. Raszek, called 'Merogenomics'. I find his reporting balanced and slow to come to conclusions.
2) Medical professionals who are either already retired or willing to risk their careers to present viewpoints that counter the prevailing narrative -Dr. Cory, Dr. McCollough, Yeadon.
On the likely origin of COVID -
1) Whitney Webb, and
2) (the often annoyingly smug/libertarian-sounding) Chris Martenson
On the cascade of crushingly difficult and complex issues of the day and how best to grapple with them -
In some ways I know it does little good to argue about covid measures online, especially in the comments section of someone else’s article. But here it goes anyway.
When I see the clustering of words “Bill Gates”, “CDC”, “Fauci” and “greatest crime against humanity” I always have to roll my eyes. There are so many reasons. First of all, it’s the same exact narrative that I hear from a certain set of individuals, mostly coming from the American conservative right but also having afflicted a lot of the left that decided to jump down the rabbit hole. They rail against the narrative of the main-stream media and yet they propagate the same boring pre-packaged “anti-system” tropes. I would be interested to hear about specific and unique criticisms about the pandemic management, but I rarely hear those.
Next, the arguments are not coherent to me. Are we saying that covid is worrisome or not? If it is not, no remedy is necessary, whether ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or any of the available vaccines. If it is, why be so invested in ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine over vaccines which were developed and tested rigorously (as rigorously as possible under the emergency constraints) by various research groups around the world? What I don’t get is the inconsistency. The same folks that are anti-quarantine and ant-masks are also defending certain remedied should they get sick, but only if it is not one of the standardized vaccines. Trump has done something really well, deflect blame and muddy the waters as much as possible so that expertise is questioned and personal opinion becomes supreme. And that tendency among politicians and the general populace has only spread. So unfortunately these anti-Fauci/deep-state narratives just have too much of a Trumpian smell to me.
Also, the terms “crimes against humanity” . . . of all the horrible things happening in the world I would not pin the worst of them on Fauci and Bill Gates. Although its true that wealth accumulation is a problem and Bill Gates is among the wealthiest, he is also one of the world’s most important philanthropists. Now, it’s true that his philanthropy buys power and influence, and that would be a reasonable area for debate, but that’s not usually how I see it framed. Also, I have to mention that Bill Gates had been warning people about the risk of a global pandemic for years before Covid hit, and in a seeming “shoot the messenger” type of response, he somehow became a perpetrator of the pandemic. I think this shows little creativity.
Now, I would like to end on a more conciliatory note, as these topics are divisive, and the world is divided enough as it is. I assume you and I both want a better world, and that is the most important thing to remember. You have your own set of concerns, and I have mine. I am concerned that what we need now more than ever to deal with various global problems is collective action. I am concerned that we are becoming more fractured than ever, and this is impeding collective action. I am concerned that our response to the pandemic (infighting, resentment) is just an indication of how unlikely we are to come together to stop a very likely ecological collapse. Those who try to warn others and stand up for change, will be demonized, just as Greta Thunberg was untimely accused of being a puppet, either of her parents’ agenda or of the leftist ecological movement. There will be no good-will efforts that won’t be ridiculed or diffused by a counter-narrative that questions that individual’s motives. In other words, we are fucked. Hey, but that’s ok. This life is a school and we came here to learn, and sometimes the only way to learn is the hard way. That’s the conclusion I am coming to. If this means many species dying, including possibly humanity, there is little I can do to stop it. In the meantime, I’ll do my little part in trying to make the world a better place.
So right on Veronica regarding our global response to the pandemic ...3 years ago I thought this was the start...a revolution ...the global community would come together and work on this one big problem...
This has not happened and has made me believe that humanity will not come together on climate action until it is too late...which may have already occurred.
“Sentinels” . . . what a great term. And I appreciate the differentiation between that and a conspiracy theorist. What’s confusing it that conspiracy theorists also claim to be fighting for the greater good and yet it feels like a misdirection of attention and energy. The problems that are most urgent (ecological collapse) get dispersed amongst other triviality like obsessing about alleged child sex trafficking rings or trying to make sense of the next Q drop (seems Elon may be the next Q prophet). It’s all so frustrating and it feels like a significant part of humanity is taking part in one large gaslighting theatrical display as if to see how off course we can take our evolutionary potential. As for the elusive “we” that you mention in relation to the collectives that could use “media and other tools to reshape the collective consciousness,” I think they exist. Your newsletter is an example. Also, there are many spiritual teachers and evolutionary thinkers that are reaching many more people thanks to the internet, and thanks to the hyper-connectivity that the pandemic kicked off. Zoom, YouTube channels, and other platforms are stimulating all kinds of thinking and opening up new types of awareness. So, I do believe there is a change of consciousness happening, but it might not be completely outwardly apparent. Whether these changes in consciousness will do enough to change our pillaging of this planet during the next couple decades, I can’t really say. As Chris S said in brilliant comment here, it may all be a part of the cosmic plan. I'm just glad I have folks like you here to share with, it makes the journey so much more tolerable.
It says deep within the Torah all it will take to right the ship we're on , is Not One enlighten individual, but a collective of 40 million conscious individuals aligned in the same direction !
All those that live within side there own bubbles need to fully expand their awareness and pop the bubbles they are in and merge with others in an expanded version of themselves...
I am one of the Baby boomers. Born out of World War 2 , 2012 did Mark a time when these 40 million conscious individuals were hatched. Maybe it's time to reinvent burning man and bring these 40 million together for all the right reasons!
Gabor Mate;s new book theorizes that we are so traumatized as a society that we are literally incapable of dealing with the climate crisis, Thomas Hubl has the same prescription, we must heal our collective wounds before inspired response is possible. This healing is an individual choice, and fortunately the tipping point is well below 50%. This is the only way to slow the inertia of the establishment.
I'm told that beings are here from all over the galaxy to witness this experiment, which has never been attempted in such a compressed time frame. Stay tuned
I suggest that Daniel needs to go deeper in his thinking about carbon offsets. I suggest reading Paul Hawken et al.'s book Regeneration with its section on offsets--discussing those that have been successful and what we need to do to make more of them work. The UN views accurate offsets as a necessary part of meeting climate goals, but there is still debate on how we can make these work.
Daniel, ten years ago in How Soon Is Now, told his reader to "Cut down on air travel. Stop taking unnecessary business trips and vacations. Focus on creating local utopias rather than travelling long distances for exotic experiences." Like Ketan Joshi, Daniel seems to hold the idea that quickly ceasing the usage of fossil fuels is possible, while those who support offsetting as a tool tend to admit the sheer difficulty of such a task.
A personal flight creates a lot of emissions for one's own carbon budget. For instance, Daniel's flight to Turkey created about 1 lb of CO2 per mile, not including the other pollutants, but including the factor that high-atmosphere emissions cause about 2x the climate forcing as emissions on the ground. So, Daniel's share of the flight, to haul his body weight and luggage and hire the plane, emitted about 10K lbs, or 5 tons, of emissions. This is 2.5x the emissions that my personal car accounts for during an entire year of usage, but, granted, I try not to drive very much, sharing Daniel's concern about climate change.
To put this flight-emissions figure in perspective, to maintain the IPCC's 1.5C increased temperature goal (by 2100), and spreading the emission budget equally among all people, then each person's carbon budget by 2030 needs about 3 tons per year for everything (I'll double-check this figure, but I think it's correct). So, Daniel's one Turkish flight uses about 1.7x the total carbon that a single person should use for an entire year by 2030 to limit global warming. Right now, sustainable jet fuel costs at least 5x the amount of fossil jet fuel--which would raise the cost of his trip by perhaps 500%. And it's debatable if we can even produce enough to replace fossil jet fuel, so that would limit available flights too.
I write this not to shame Daniel, or other frequent flyers, but to note how difficult it is to reduce one's personal carbon emissions. We also have to consider all the other services from fossil carbon that we get: food, heating and cooling, transport, manufacturing of materials, electrifying appliances and making wind turbines and solar panels, constructing buildings, etc. Thus, and as the UN IPCC notes, we will need to devise "negative emissions technologies" until we can replace fossil fuels (which is a tremendous challenge and perhaps not possible in the near- or mid-future). So, carbon offsets are considered as a possible tool. There's also a difference between mandatory carbon markets and personal voluntary ones.
Yes, there is corporate greenwashing about carbon offsetting, as well as problematic and ineffective offsets, and offsets are currently minimally used, particularly by voluntary individuals. The core ethical idea makes sense to me: each person and entity needs to take responsibility for cleaning up their climate pollution. Offsets would also have the positive side effect of getting people and companies to pay much closer attention at how much they are polluting. Doing this, then they might stop using so much in the first place, as Daniel urged.
I also agree with Charles Eisenstein that we shouldn't become technocratic bean-counters about carbon, but rather we need to approach solving climate with an attitude of love for the living world. But I don't see these as mutually exclusive as Charles seems to; we could design carbon offsets in a way that would provide much-needed financing for ecological restoration, and we could do this with an attitude of respect, reciprocity, and indeed love for the living world.
You make some great points. The irony of Daniel traveling so often seemingly despite his own recommendations to not do so are reflective of the seeming futility of all of our best intentions, even those who are aware and care. To really slow down climate change, a large majority of people would need to agree to radically change behavior and to hold each other accountable. I don't see that happening on any scale. The pandemic is another example. We can't even agree on collective action there, how are we to do so in other areas of our lives that requiere even greater sacrifice? What the pandemic has shown me is that any attempt at collective action that is supported by the government in any measure (ei. quarantines and mask requirements) will be short lived and will end in rebellion and accusations of repression. I am coming to the conclusion that if a systems collapse is what we need, then that is what we shall have. In the meantime, I am trying to do my part to mitigate my environmental impact on the world (no driving and very infrequent flying, only to see my mom once in a blue moon). I'm also looking into supporting and protecting certain eco habitats. I'm not sure what else to do at this point.
Hi Veronica, One reason I keep traveling is that I am trying to find a place I can live. I am not really feeling like I want to live out my life in New York or America. So that is a legit issue. In other ways I try to be a good ecological citizen. I have never owned a car for instance. I think that systems collapse (but there are many possible variations on that) is most likely... reading An Inconvenient Apocalypse now, very good and clarifying.
Hey Daniel, I think finding a place to live is totally legit and I didn't meant to shame you. We are all participating in the system somehow whether we want to or not. I hope you find that special place!
After the last 4 months in my former homeland ...NY and America ...getting back to Australia was wonderful ...not perfect ...far from it but still the best choice I made back in 84
I don't have the time or energy to deal with this which sounds like well meaning, well spoken propaganda. How can you defend Fauci and Gates et al without bothering to investigate what they stand for and the the damage they've caused? It's amazing to me the hard-baked resistance to tracking brilliant researchers like Whitney Webb or MDs like Peter McCullough and Pierry Kory, or even refusing to look at Children's Health Defense which has featured fact-driven reporting and interviews with people sacrificing a lot to counter the Pharma narrative. As for ivermectin and HDQ, you totally miss what I'm saying -- they have saved many lives around the world while being blacklisted by Fauci and the CDC. Ever wonder why? Early Covid killed many people many of whose lives could have been saved according to heroic MDs actually working in ICUs and risking their careers to use ivermectin because it worked. This is not even to get into the data about the damage mRNA vaccines have caused. Check out MDs like Meryl Nass and Ryan Cole and so many others instead of regurgitating what you've been told by a bought and sold media. Though the number of people is growing daily of refusing to go any further with the jabs and boosters, the latest of which was tested on a total of eight mice
Recently, I've come to see life itself as the initiation. I am a teacher in an initiatory yoga tradition, and I have also gone through several shamanic initiation ceremonies. Initiation is an important rite of passage in many spiritual paths and traditions. However, I think we got it all wrong. For example, a typical vision quest lasts only a few days, but it is a mere microcosmic representation of the macrocosm, which is the entire human lifespan. In the etheric realms, where we exist prior to incarnating into form, it is quite possible that we decide to go on a decades-long vision quest on a particular planet where we can learn important lessons necessary for our "graduation" to higher levels of existential reality. In other words, shamanic and yogic initiations are merely symbolic of an entire lifetime. Life itself is the initiation.
We are cosmic travelers who incarnate into form to undergo a decades-long initiation ceremony. When the body is no longer viable, we move on to other experiences and learning environments. I have found it useful to view life in this way. It gives meaning and purpose to all the suffering and hardship that we're forced to endure, just like the hardship that we experience during a vision quest.
I have also come to accept that there is no other way to learn what we need to learn. If there were, the universe would have manifested an alternative by now. We must endure the suffering...there is no other way. In other words, we come here to suffer. Buddha had it right when he taught that life is suffering. However, he was attempting to escape that which he came here for. I'm no longer convinced that the purpose of life is to escape from suffering. Instead, it's more likely that the purpose of life is to withstand and endure suffering. Again, if there were any alternative to the necessity of the lifelong initiation, the universe would have already figured it out.
One cannot skip steps in the evolutionary process. We are forced to pass through each step one at a time. This can be seen clearly in the fossil record of all species. Therefore, whatever shitstorm that humanity is currently passing through is a necessary step in our collective evolution. There is no avoiding it or getting around it. We must pass through our own personal initiations, but also our collective initiations as a species as well. There is no other way. It is what it is.
Thanks Chris! Great comment.
This resonates a lot with Chris Bache's perspective in LSD and the Mind of the Universe. No way around the suffering, but there is purpose in the suffering...to help us evolve, individually and collectively. The more mindful we can be about this process, the better. Namaste.
Yes!
Thanks for your great post Chris.
Buddha taught the path of the Bodhisattva too, as a path of coming and going through incarnations so that all may move along the path.
Thank you Chris , There is no need to see suffering as a nagitive. Suffering is an essential element of evolving into fully realized individuals. Using it as an alchemist transmuting it into a positive form.
A skill that can be taught.
Also the idea of reincarnation hasn't fully been understood , we keep coming back only for the purpose to become fully realized. Once that occurs we come back for others...
This process has been going on for millions of years.
There is a major backup of souls just above us hoping for one more go around. To be totally honest there is no more coming back , this is it. If you haven't gotten rid of your nagitive side my now your doomed til eternity.
The key here is to be as light and airy as one can get so they may squiggle through all the muck above.
We haven't been moving on to the higher realms we keep coming back never fully understanding why...
we've outlived our welcome
Thank you for this comment. I read it this morning and perked up. I’ve been thinking about it all day. It helps me redefine my day, week, month, and year which have been marked by an unusual amount of obstacles, a twisted sense of humor in the serendipity found in the turmoil. Sending love to your and all of our suffering 💜
Another great piece! Love the sentinel archetype. For many of us lifelong sentinels the experimental vaccines are more suspect than Covid as existential risks at this point. The linked article from ok doomer doesn’t consider that the risk factors they list correlate faithfully with the unprecedented global mass vaccination campaign.
Likewise for many eco-sentinels the years long war on drugs/terror/communists/poverty and now germs is strongly implicated in the ecocide we are living through now. I agree with Jem Bendell. Perhaps we weren’t meant to control everything?
Deeply grateful for your soulful inspiring work Daniel. 🙏
Thank you for saying that, I feel that way especially as someone with genetic variants that prevent proper detoxification in the body (mthfr), people don’t seem to understand this very rational perspective and I hate being called anti vax. I’m pro science, health, and progress. It takes time though to learn about new treatments and effects. And It’s just personal to each medical experience.
Thanks Daniel. Greatly appreciate your perspective and ongoing work. 🙏
Just a quick book recommendation here. I've been reading Sean Kelly's recent "Becoming Gaia" and think it's excellent, and quite sober. Subtitled: "On the Threshold of Planetary Initiation." Similarly, Christopher Bache's "LSD and the Mind of the Universe" goes into the territory of initiation, but from a more experiential psychedelic angle.
Be well everyone. 🙏
i love Bache's work and once taught a seminar with Kelly... i will check out his book.
Hi Daniel, I too consider myself a "sentinel"; I've been obsessing over and writing about climate disruption and the Sixth Great Extinction since 2011, when I started my first blog, Transition Times.
I agree with you that we need deep system change, and I don't think it's going to happen in a rational, technological fix-it kind of way. It's going to be a paradigm shift that happens first in the realm of consciousness, at what we might call the soul level, or the Gaian matrix. It is actually already happening, and we are all part of it--sentinels having a crucial role to play in leading the way and sparking larger movements.
Today I launched my new blog, The Spirit of Education. I have been researching spiritual approaches to the climate crisis and systems change for a long time now, and I'm finally ready to start a public conversation about my explorations. My first post and the About page lay out my direction. I will welcome the thoughts of all "Liminals"!
For now, wishing you a cozy Solstice.
Transition Times: https://bethechange2012.com
The Spirit of Education: https://open.substack.com/pub/jenniferbrowdyphd/p/transitioning-from-transition-times/
I just want to say how deeply How Soon Is Now affected me. It was worth all the effort, even if it doesn’t feel that way sometimes.
Regarding what we can do now, are you familiar with Joanna Macy’s The Work That Reconnects? That process seems promising to me and I intend to start talking about it more with my network
interesting essay. Your defense of the sentinel could be stronger. I'm not convinced that the sentinel is more interested in "civic liberties" than the conspiracy theorist. Couldn't we say that a conspiracy theorist acting on behalf of the wildest theory also cares about civic liberties?
Right off the back....the phrase "sentinel intelligence," sounds like a passive reaction to the idea of a conspiracy theorist. I don't support right-wingers....but in a theoretical bar fight right now....the sentinel would lose against the conspiracy theorist imo. Lol. A sentinel and a conspiracy theorist walk into a bar....
What does the sentinel have even? Can it lure the imaginations of people who are done with the status quo as is? Sentinel intelligence as a phrase does not spark the same level of enticement. If the conspiracy theorist is a populist...what is the sentinel? The bourgeoisie? Already...it's a bit flat. Sentinel as a term feels like, "Mom said I couldn't be a conspiracy theorist anymore so I have to be a sentinel now."
Technically a conspiracy theorist also has sentinel intelligence....especially if they ended up being right about the conspiracies they warned people about? Correct? As someone who falls under the "leftist" umbrella, who doesn't want to get labeled alt-right for not being a moderate liberal, I would prefer to reclaim the conspiracy theorist theorist title versus adopting the sentinel label. Or at least spend some time "complicating" the conspiracy theorist title.
Maybe look at the evidence of different views and really flush out the arguments for the points-of-view you disagree with. I'm not sure if you've done that yet. But I'm interested in seeing you really tear apart what you would consider "the opposing side." It's like you're skirting around something or haven't fully researched the opposing evidence...but as the reader I want you to be transparent and thorough with your logic and reason on why the other side is wrong. Just say it.
It seems like subliminally you are qualifying people who fit in with the "sentinel" label as those who align more with mainstream consensus? Maybe the sentinel trope lost its steam for me because in passing you tried to tackle the two main science taboos right now in one article but at a surface level: climate change and vaccines.
It's like you are using the sentinel label to just create a subtle division between people who believe in forced vax and people who don't to avoid controversy. This seems like "towing the line," but you could do a more in depth analysis that is messier and takes risks with your audience. I want to hear your thoughts without the mask of the sentinel argument as a shield. Instead, go for it!! We can take it!!! lolollool
Good first attempt. Excited to hear you unpack this more. Go harder or maybe the sentinel idea doesn't have enough umph? I feel like you held back in this essay. :)
Thanks so much for your reflections Daniel; they always seem to reach deep in side me.
I am grateful for you bringing the word sentinel to us through your reference, but through your work (which I haven't read yet). I feel the sentinels are somehow Mercurial in nature and much like lightning itself which connects sky and Earth and of course the serpent coming through something like a what is called a worm hole these days.
We are here now, not by chance
Somehow, light at the end of the tunnel needs to be reflected in some way.
So thanks once again
May the wings on your heels, serve you when necessary !
Weird that young people don’t think they’re going to get old, when I feel like every GenX person I meet thinks that we’re all going to live waaaaay longer due to health and tech innovations. Wonder what the cause of this generational disconnect is...
Young people have better intuition about the state of the planet... that is my theory anyway... they feel what's coming.
Or perhaps because us GenX see our parents in decline, and in hospitals etc, we desperately hope things will be better for us when we get old. So it’s wishful thinking maybe.
Sorry, Daniel, but Jessica Wildfire's piece about the supposed danger of Covid is hogwash. For a long time you've been resisting the mountains of evidence to the contrary and even more important the evidence laying out the corruption and sociopathic behavior of people pushing the Covid scheme. Starting with the crime against humanity of Bill Gates, the CDC, Fauci and their bought and sold media selling a lie amounting to a crime against humanity -- that fake tests "prove" ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine don't work. Whereas, in many countries around the world, their success in dealing with the virus is undeniable. And with Omicron, the data of death rates and hospitalization shows those who are vaccinated decisively outnumber those who are not. Not to mention the deaths and serious injuries from the vaccines themselves. And the autoimmune responses increasing with each jab.
Hi Michael,
In her piece, Jessica W cites research papers from:
Science
Pediatrics
Nature Scientific Reports
PLOS Medicine
New England Journal of Medicine
Nature Medicine
Science
Yale
Nature Immunology
Journal of Medical Virology
Molecular Psychiatry
Washington University
University of Minnesota
Do you then think that all of these researchers are somehow in on a tremendous conspiracy together? Or how does it work, in your opinion?
Here is one effort to rebut the anti-vax position that made some sense to me:
https://twitter.com/NGrossman81/status/1603067578309840897?s=20&t=mx0lpwQesEbqyNyHQTHNzw
I remain on the fence. I don't trust the mainstream view and I don't trust the alternative anti-vax view either! I am waiting for some kind of honest relatively unbiased accouting of whether the vaccines had more efficacy and saved masses of lives compared to if they had not been implemented.
I do agree that the way the lockdowns etc was handled was problematic but I also don't think that this was necessarily a conspiracy or a "crime against humanity." The problem is that the situation is murky with a new disease... massively contagious... without us knowing what its long-term health consequences would be. In the past, there wasn't even an opportunity to argue against a mass vax program. There was a general assumption that everyone would do it and basically people did do it in emergencies.
By demonizing and "othering" people and identifying them as villains, you forfeit your capacity to think clearly or make a good reasonable argument. It becomes very emotionally driven.
I am sure we will revisit this in the months ahead and can butt heads on it more.
The short answer to the list that she cites is "yes." They or most of them contain research scientists and academics whose careers have been threatened by any semblance of factual reporting. Why? Because their work has been financed by NIAID (Fauci)
You found the anecdotal observation in that tweet more convincing than the reporting of, say, Alex Berenson or Dr. Peter McCollough? The tweet reminds me of social media posts in early 2020 when friends were saying basically - 'I don't anyone who had covid, so it probably doesn't even exist.'
I don’t find it super convincing, you are right. I admit I don’t see a clear path to “sense making” around this, not being a statistician as everyone seems biased in one direction or the other, including people like Berenson, who I have read closely. What do you find most convincing / compelling?
Thank you for you reply.
On the topic of COVID Vaccines, I'm most compelled by -
1) The Youtube channel of Dr. Raszek, called 'Merogenomics'. I find his reporting balanced and slow to come to conclusions.
2) Medical professionals who are either already retired or willing to risk their careers to present viewpoints that counter the prevailing narrative -Dr. Cory, Dr. McCollough, Yeadon.
On the likely origin of COVID -
1) Whitney Webb, and
2) (the often annoyingly smug/libertarian-sounding) Chris Martenson
On the cascade of crushingly difficult and complex issues of the day and how best to grapple with them -
1) Daniel Pinchbeck
In some ways I know it does little good to argue about covid measures online, especially in the comments section of someone else’s article. But here it goes anyway.
When I see the clustering of words “Bill Gates”, “CDC”, “Fauci” and “greatest crime against humanity” I always have to roll my eyes. There are so many reasons. First of all, it’s the same exact narrative that I hear from a certain set of individuals, mostly coming from the American conservative right but also having afflicted a lot of the left that decided to jump down the rabbit hole. They rail against the narrative of the main-stream media and yet they propagate the same boring pre-packaged “anti-system” tropes. I would be interested to hear about specific and unique criticisms about the pandemic management, but I rarely hear those.
Next, the arguments are not coherent to me. Are we saying that covid is worrisome or not? If it is not, no remedy is necessary, whether ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or any of the available vaccines. If it is, why be so invested in ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine over vaccines which were developed and tested rigorously (as rigorously as possible under the emergency constraints) by various research groups around the world? What I don’t get is the inconsistency. The same folks that are anti-quarantine and ant-masks are also defending certain remedied should they get sick, but only if it is not one of the standardized vaccines. Trump has done something really well, deflect blame and muddy the waters as much as possible so that expertise is questioned and personal opinion becomes supreme. And that tendency among politicians and the general populace has only spread. So unfortunately these anti-Fauci/deep-state narratives just have too much of a Trumpian smell to me.
Also, the terms “crimes against humanity” . . . of all the horrible things happening in the world I would not pin the worst of them on Fauci and Bill Gates. Although its true that wealth accumulation is a problem and Bill Gates is among the wealthiest, he is also one of the world’s most important philanthropists. Now, it’s true that his philanthropy buys power and influence, and that would be a reasonable area for debate, but that’s not usually how I see it framed. Also, I have to mention that Bill Gates had been warning people about the risk of a global pandemic for years before Covid hit, and in a seeming “shoot the messenger” type of response, he somehow became a perpetrator of the pandemic. I think this shows little creativity.
Now, I would like to end on a more conciliatory note, as these topics are divisive, and the world is divided enough as it is. I assume you and I both want a better world, and that is the most important thing to remember. You have your own set of concerns, and I have mine. I am concerned that what we need now more than ever to deal with various global problems is collective action. I am concerned that we are becoming more fractured than ever, and this is impeding collective action. I am concerned that our response to the pandemic (infighting, resentment) is just an indication of how unlikely we are to come together to stop a very likely ecological collapse. Those who try to warn others and stand up for change, will be demonized, just as Greta Thunberg was untimely accused of being a puppet, either of her parents’ agenda or of the leftist ecological movement. There will be no good-will efforts that won’t be ridiculed or diffused by a counter-narrative that questions that individual’s motives. In other words, we are fucked. Hey, but that’s ok. This life is a school and we came here to learn, and sometimes the only way to learn is the hard way. That’s the conclusion I am coming to. If this means many species dying, including possibly humanity, there is little I can do to stop it. In the meantime, I’ll do my little part in trying to make the world a better place.
So right on Veronica regarding our global response to the pandemic ...3 years ago I thought this was the start...a revolution ...the global community would come together and work on this one big problem...
This has not happened and has made me believe that humanity will not come together on climate action until it is too late...which may have already occurred.
Keep making the world a better place xx
“Sentinels” . . . what a great term. And I appreciate the differentiation between that and a conspiracy theorist. What’s confusing it that conspiracy theorists also claim to be fighting for the greater good and yet it feels like a misdirection of attention and energy. The problems that are most urgent (ecological collapse) get dispersed amongst other triviality like obsessing about alleged child sex trafficking rings or trying to make sense of the next Q drop (seems Elon may be the next Q prophet). It’s all so frustrating and it feels like a significant part of humanity is taking part in one large gaslighting theatrical display as if to see how off course we can take our evolutionary potential. As for the elusive “we” that you mention in relation to the collectives that could use “media and other tools to reshape the collective consciousness,” I think they exist. Your newsletter is an example. Also, there are many spiritual teachers and evolutionary thinkers that are reaching many more people thanks to the internet, and thanks to the hyper-connectivity that the pandemic kicked off. Zoom, YouTube channels, and other platforms are stimulating all kinds of thinking and opening up new types of awareness. So, I do believe there is a change of consciousness happening, but it might not be completely outwardly apparent. Whether these changes in consciousness will do enough to change our pillaging of this planet during the next couple decades, I can’t really say. As Chris S said in brilliant comment here, it may all be a part of the cosmic plan. I'm just glad I have folks like you here to share with, it makes the journey so much more tolerable.
It says deep within the Torah all it will take to right the ship we're on , is Not One enlighten individual, but a collective of 40 million conscious individuals aligned in the same direction !
All those that live within side there own bubbles need to fully expand their awareness and pop the bubbles they are in and merge with others in an expanded version of themselves...
I am one of the Baby boomers. Born out of World War 2 , 2012 did Mark a time when these 40 million conscious individuals were hatched. Maybe it's time to reinvent burning man and bring these 40 million together for all the right reasons!
"Life itself is the initiation." Yes.
Gabor Mate;s new book theorizes that we are so traumatized as a society that we are literally incapable of dealing with the climate crisis, Thomas Hubl has the same prescription, we must heal our collective wounds before inspired response is possible. This healing is an individual choice, and fortunately the tipping point is well below 50%. This is the only way to slow the inertia of the establishment.
I'm told that beings are here from all over the galaxy to witness this experiment, which has never been attempted in such a compressed time frame. Stay tuned
I suggest that Daniel needs to go deeper in his thinking about carbon offsets. I suggest reading Paul Hawken et al.'s book Regeneration with its section on offsets--discussing those that have been successful and what we need to do to make more of them work. The UN views accurate offsets as a necessary part of meeting climate goals, but there is still debate on how we can make these work.
Daniel, ten years ago in How Soon Is Now, told his reader to "Cut down on air travel. Stop taking unnecessary business trips and vacations. Focus on creating local utopias rather than travelling long distances for exotic experiences." Like Ketan Joshi, Daniel seems to hold the idea that quickly ceasing the usage of fossil fuels is possible, while those who support offsetting as a tool tend to admit the sheer difficulty of such a task.
A personal flight creates a lot of emissions for one's own carbon budget. For instance, Daniel's flight to Turkey created about 1 lb of CO2 per mile, not including the other pollutants, but including the factor that high-atmosphere emissions cause about 2x the climate forcing as emissions on the ground. So, Daniel's share of the flight, to haul his body weight and luggage and hire the plane, emitted about 10K lbs, or 5 tons, of emissions. This is 2.5x the emissions that my personal car accounts for during an entire year of usage, but, granted, I try not to drive very much, sharing Daniel's concern about climate change.
To put this flight-emissions figure in perspective, to maintain the IPCC's 1.5C increased temperature goal (by 2100), and spreading the emission budget equally among all people, then each person's carbon budget by 2030 needs about 3 tons per year for everything (I'll double-check this figure, but I think it's correct). So, Daniel's one Turkish flight uses about 1.7x the total carbon that a single person should use for an entire year by 2030 to limit global warming. Right now, sustainable jet fuel costs at least 5x the amount of fossil jet fuel--which would raise the cost of his trip by perhaps 500%. And it's debatable if we can even produce enough to replace fossil jet fuel, so that would limit available flights too.
I write this not to shame Daniel, or other frequent flyers, but to note how difficult it is to reduce one's personal carbon emissions. We also have to consider all the other services from fossil carbon that we get: food, heating and cooling, transport, manufacturing of materials, electrifying appliances and making wind turbines and solar panels, constructing buildings, etc. Thus, and as the UN IPCC notes, we will need to devise "negative emissions technologies" until we can replace fossil fuels (which is a tremendous challenge and perhaps not possible in the near- or mid-future). So, carbon offsets are considered as a possible tool. There's also a difference between mandatory carbon markets and personal voluntary ones.
Yes, there is corporate greenwashing about carbon offsetting, as well as problematic and ineffective offsets, and offsets are currently minimally used, particularly by voluntary individuals. The core ethical idea makes sense to me: each person and entity needs to take responsibility for cleaning up their climate pollution. Offsets would also have the positive side effect of getting people and companies to pay much closer attention at how much they are polluting. Doing this, then they might stop using so much in the first place, as Daniel urged.
I also agree with Charles Eisenstein that we shouldn't become technocratic bean-counters about carbon, but rather we need to approach solving climate with an attitude of love for the living world. But I don't see these as mutually exclusive as Charles seems to; we could design carbon offsets in a way that would provide much-needed financing for ecological restoration, and we could do this with an attitude of respect, reciprocity, and indeed love for the living world.
You make some great points. The irony of Daniel traveling so often seemingly despite his own recommendations to not do so are reflective of the seeming futility of all of our best intentions, even those who are aware and care. To really slow down climate change, a large majority of people would need to agree to radically change behavior and to hold each other accountable. I don't see that happening on any scale. The pandemic is another example. We can't even agree on collective action there, how are we to do so in other areas of our lives that requiere even greater sacrifice? What the pandemic has shown me is that any attempt at collective action that is supported by the government in any measure (ei. quarantines and mask requirements) will be short lived and will end in rebellion and accusations of repression. I am coming to the conclusion that if a systems collapse is what we need, then that is what we shall have. In the meantime, I am trying to do my part to mitigate my environmental impact on the world (no driving and very infrequent flying, only to see my mom once in a blue moon). I'm also looking into supporting and protecting certain eco habitats. I'm not sure what else to do at this point.
Hi Veronica, One reason I keep traveling is that I am trying to find a place I can live. I am not really feeling like I want to live out my life in New York or America. So that is a legit issue. In other ways I try to be a good ecological citizen. I have never owned a car for instance. I think that systems collapse (but there are many possible variations on that) is most likely... reading An Inconvenient Apocalypse now, very good and clarifying.
Hey Daniel, I think finding a place to live is totally legit and I didn't meant to shame you. We are all participating in the system somehow whether we want to or not. I hope you find that special place!
After the last 4 months in my former homeland ...NY and America ...getting back to Australia was wonderful ...not perfect ...far from it but still the best choice I made back in 84
oooh....conspiracy theory is trending on twitter now.....i lowkey predicted that in my last comment...
:)
I don't have the time or energy to deal with this which sounds like well meaning, well spoken propaganda. How can you defend Fauci and Gates et al without bothering to investigate what they stand for and the the damage they've caused? It's amazing to me the hard-baked resistance to tracking brilliant researchers like Whitney Webb or MDs like Peter McCullough and Pierry Kory, or even refusing to look at Children's Health Defense which has featured fact-driven reporting and interviews with people sacrificing a lot to counter the Pharma narrative. As for ivermectin and HDQ, you totally miss what I'm saying -- they have saved many lives around the world while being blacklisted by Fauci and the CDC. Ever wonder why? Early Covid killed many people many of whose lives could have been saved according to heroic MDs actually working in ICUs and risking their careers to use ivermectin because it worked. This is not even to get into the data about the damage mRNA vaccines have caused. Check out MDs like Meryl Nass and Ryan Cole and so many others instead of regurgitating what you've been told by a bought and sold media. Though the number of people is growing daily of refusing to go any further with the jabs and boosters, the latest of which was tested on a total of eight mice
I think the likely origin of COVID (ECO Health/Daszak, Fauci, and others) belongs in this debate, too.