Miss Utah, Schadenfreude and Internet ‘Celebrities’

If you’ve been anywhere on the Internet these past few days, chances are you’ve come across the video of Miss Utah flubbing one of her answers in the Miss USA Pageant. The clip has become the did-you-see-that? video of the week and has rendered Miss Utah the target of derision, mockery, and guiltless schadenfreude. Few commenters, bloggers, and tweeters have expressed anything resembling second-thoughts about anonymously taunting Miss Utah’s butchered answer, with justifications ranging from “It’s just mild teasing” to “Calling out dumb people for their idiocy is important” to “I dunno, it’s just fun to mock her, I guess.” I’m not entirely sure why we collectively believe that public shaming is perfectly acceptable, nor am I entirely sure what role the Internet plays in reinforcing that belief, but the exploration of potential answers leads to some dark places.

Of course, poking fun at such “bloopers” isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, and it would be disingenuous to treat it as such. Long before YouTube existed, shows likeAmerica’s Funniest Home Videos and Candid Camera, along with one-off compilation episodes of stupid game show answers, were all popular (and supposedly non-cruel) vectors for laughing at strangers’ embarrassment. While these shows were able to be broadcast in every TV-owning American household, the type of schadenfreude they employed, exploited, and encouraged was/is of an ancient variety; comedy has always involved, at varying levels of explicitness and emphasis, the mockery of others. What we’re dealing with here is by no means a new phenomenon.

However, while the style of that kind of comedy is old, the form of it is radically different in the Information Age. Consider a hypothetical example (or dig up some YouTube clips and find a real example) of a woman on, say, The Newlywed Gameproviding the host with a bone-headed response to an easy question, the type of astoundingly dumb answer guaranteed not only to be laughed at on the spot but to be included in the show’s bloopers episode as well. Not only would that woman experience in-the-moment embarrassment, knowing her answer was idiotic, but she’d experience embarrassment knowing potentially millions of people would have opportunities to see replays of her brain-fart and laugh at her, too. On a surface level, this appears similar to what a contemporary target of public derision like Miss Utah is experiencing now. Embarrassment in the time of the Internet, however, is an entirely different beast.

For the sake of argument, let’s ignore the whole video-sharing practice that would expose someone like Miss Utah to more viewers than our hypothetical Newlywed Game contestant would have been exposed to via cable television. It doesn’t really matter that more people have the opportunity (thanks to the Internet) to mock someone like Miss Utah, it’s that she has more opportunity to see the mockery. Our hypothetical Newlywed Game contestant could “know” that millions of strangers out in the world are laughing at her display of idiocy, but that knowledge isn’t solid—it’s an abstract fear, a sort of worried paranoia, one that would be nearly impossible to confirm. Miss Utah, on the other hand, can quantifiably measure (via tweets, blog comments, et al.) the amount of derision and vitriol directed her way. There is no abstraction, no “wondering” if people are laughing it her; they are, they’re unabashed about it, and she knows it. She may not actually read every mean tweet or snarky blog post, but it’s unfathomable that such ubiquitous mockery would “surprise” her in the Internet Age.

Does this make the mockery intrinsically “meaner” or somehow more like bullying than teasing? I don’t know, but it does get to the heart of what I think is one of our most interesting uses of the Internet: to reinforce that we are “smarter” than others. If you were to ask a random guy on the street if he considered himself smarter than the average American, it’s hard it imagine someone that wouldn’t answer with the affirmative. That’s not exactly shocking; people don’t tend to celebrate being dumb and don’t seek to perpetuate a reputation of possessing substandard intelligence. Watching this phenomenon manifest itself on the Internet is fascinating. We seem obsessed with providing example of tweets, Facebook status updates, and video comments that show how ignorant most people are, and it’s hard to say whether that fixation comes from a place of insecurity or simple callousness or something entirely weird and new.

Consider the “articles” (though I hesitate to call what is just a collection of tweets an “article”) that came out after Margaret Thatcher died or after Barack Obama was re-elected. Read them: what was their purpose? Each of those articles can be boiled down to a simple and non-surprising statements like “Some young people, especially Americans, may not know who Margaret Thatcher was” and “Some people, especially Republicans, may have been displeased that Obama was re-elected.” That’s it. Not exactly ground-breaking material, huh? However, an “article” that only consists of those self-evident statements wouldn’t attract hundreds of thousands of unique page views from Thatcher acolytes or Obama supporters. Instead, by using tweets from uninformed or enraged people, the writers of said articles are demonstrating the risible ignorance of others in a public manner deliberately designed to induce shame–it’s like a “show, don’t tell” poetry lesson in concrete imagery taken to a strange extreme. Not only are they “proving” people are “stupid,” and therefore positioning themselves as obviously “not stupid,” they’re encouraging readers to laugh at said people, too. This, to me, is troubling.

Why do we need such frequent proof that we are “smarter” than other people? Are we that insecure? Also: why do we continue to act surprised that certain people may have different views or different levels of intelligence than us? It’s not exactly mind-blowing that a conservative voter would take to Twitter in outrage after Obama beat Romney in the last election; I’m sure plenty of Obama supporters would have done the same if the outcome was reversed. Yet it seems like after every big pop-culture event, websites desperate for page views scour social media hangouts like Twitter and Facebook to find the most “ignorant” responses worth mocking, as if it is somehow shocking that polemical issues produce diverse opinions, as if it is somehow startling that a person’s knee-jerk reaction may not be well thought-out. All I can say in response to this judgement-disguised-as-”surprise” is: Duh. For example: is it a good thing that virulent racism exists on the Internet? No, not at all. But is it surprising that virulent racism exists on the Internet considering how much Web access is expanding and how many more people are embracing social media as a means of expressing themselves? No, not at all. As the Internet continues to reflect (and replace?) more and more of society, it’ll reflect more and more of the virtues as well as the flaws. That’s inevitable.

The most helpful way to understand this phenomenon of culturally approved mockery is understanding how “Internet culture” has absorbed a lot of the worst characteristics of “celebrity tabloid culture,” creating an environment where all derision is fair-game. Pick up a tabloid or, hell, any newspaper, really. Watch the news, or what masquerades as the “news” in 2013. Go to any entertainment blog. It doesn’t take a deep perusal of such media to see that we have no qualms with mocking celebrities, with photographing them in a bad light and writing about how they’ve “really let themselves go,” with speculating about wild sex rumors, with writing snarky insults that degrade their intelligence and/or person-hoods. After all, what do such mean comments matter, right? I mean, those celebrities are multi-millionaires; they chose to be in the public eye, ergo every invasion of privacy or caustic aspersion is justifiable, right? If they didn’t want to be mocked, they’d pick a less visible career: simple as that.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the flaws with this troubling line of oft-held reasoning. First, it isn’t as if celebrities aren’t people. It’s not like they’ve forfeited all right to be treated decently because they happen to have a career that is very public. For an interesting study of this, check out the documentary Heckler on Netflix. Watching various stand-up legends verbally demolish hecklers is certainly good entertainment, yet the best part of the documentary is host Jamie Kennedy’s journey to the homes of various bloggers and reviewers who brutally trashed Malibu’s Most Wanted—we’re talking writers who said, in what they though was a perfectly acceptable “humorous” tone, that Kennedy should commit suicide because the movie was so bad. Watching Kennedy have these reviewers read their hatchet-jobs out loud to his face is compelling, and watching him question them about the impulses that drive them to such deplorable levels of cruel mockery is deeply revealing. None of the writers seem apologetic, even when Kennedy is visibly demonstrating how hurt by their words he is, and such callousness speaks volumes about how we tend to view celebrities as bullet-proof, as inhuman, as lacking the capacity to be hurt by us “mere” commoners.

I bring all this up not because I’m a Jamie Kennedy fan, but because such blatant disregard for “famous” peoples’ feelings is rampant on the Internet; it’s the same practice, except the standard for who is “famous” has shifted dramatically. Because the power of (potentially) “going viral” creates an environment where any ol’ random person may actually become real-world famous, and because what one posts on the Internet is irrefutably a conscious choice (and choice that is public), “celebrity” has gone from referring to millionaire actors to anyone and everybody. It has made every mistake ripe for public shaming; it has made ruining someone’s personal reputation in the name of driving page views justifiable because, hey, if they didn’t want their reputation besmirched they wouldn’t have done that stupid thing, right? In this day and age, you can ensure the person you’re mocking knows you are mocking them, and if they are hurt, well, tough luck: by being on the Internet, they were tacitly agreeing to all the terrible aspects of being a “celebrity” without any of the benefits.

(Note: I should mention, and I probably should have mentioned this earlier, honestly, that I’m not above such displays of callousness. Anybody willing to dig back through my FanSided archives will find numerous cheap shots taken at the likes of Skip Bayless, Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant, and a slew of other recognizable, famous, A-list names. I wrote these insults without hesitation, and will probably write other such jibes without hesitation in the future. This whole article, then, isn’t a condemnation of “all of you” from my enlightened, holier-than-thou position; I’m part of the problem as well.)

The situation with Miss Utah exemplifies the mechanics, justifications, and problems with turning everyone on the Internet into a “celebrity”. On one hand, there is very logical reasoning behind turning her into a target of mockery. Her interest in pageantry necessitates that she has a very public personae, a personae that is actively judgedat said pageants. When she goes up on stage, especially at a nationally televised competition, she is aware at how many sets of eyes are scrutinizing her every move, marking her down for every mistake or misstep. Replaying her botched answer, then, may not seem all that different than replaying, say, a botched DeAndre Jordan free-throw, but there is a key difference between the two. While an athlete flubbing a basic task is certainly risible, the mockery of said athlete tends not to encapsulate that athlete as a whole. Making fun of DeAndre Jordan’s free-throw incompetence doesn’t translate to saying he’s incompetent as a basketball players (he’s a good rebounder, great shot-blocker, and vicious dunker), nor does it translate to saying DeAndre Jordan is somehow an incompetent person. The reason the mockery isn’t extrapolated out that far is because there is enough video evidence showing the things he excels at; because Deandre Jordan is a true celebrity, there is enough information about him to demonstrate his inarguable talent; his flaws are minimized, outweighed by his skills. Miss Utah, however, is a “celebrity” in the Internet sense; she is now a public figure without any representation of her as a whole, reduced to merely her singular inglorious moment. All information that will come out about her now will be filtered through the lens of her bumbling answer; it is hard to imagine people putting in the effort to actually learn about her beyond that moment, to try and see her as anything but a walking punchline. How many of the “Boom Goes the Dynamite” guy’s good, redeemable qualities do you know?

Of course, trying to define the demarcation line between “offensive” and “inoffensive” humor always sparks foolhardy, tired, and ultimately futile debates. There is no clear answer that will satisfy everyone, and while certain helpful guidelines have been hashed out (such as with joking about rape), a be-all-end-all solution isn’t realistic. I’m not really interested in telling people what they should and shouldn’t joke about; I have nowhere near the clout, expertise, or authority to feel justified in delineating right from wrong. What I am interested in, however, is how the medium of the Internet creates an environment where we all feel comfortable mocking everyone and anyone, and not even anonymously. Questions about this will grow increasingly important as “things on the Internet”—be it comments, tweets, photos, posts, you name it—have more and more real-world repercussions. Perhaps I’m just pessimistic, but it is hard for me to imagine how such a trajectory doesn’t lead to more hostility, more judgment, more denigration of strangers in an effort to feel morally or intellectually superior while simultaneously guaranteeing the specific strangers one feels morally or intellectually superior to experience shame. Our words, even our words on a message board or in a blog article that nobody reads (my expertise!), matter, and it will become increasingly harder to ignore their impact as the Internet evolves. This is not to say that you’re tantamount to a cyber-bully if you wrote a snarky tweet about Miss Utah—that would be an outrageous comparison—nor is this to say that insult-comedy is “off limits,” but as such online shaming becomes more prevalent, accepted, and profitable, it may be wise to engage in a bit of reflection.

photos

9 Coolest Recreations of Family Photos

2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year: Tesla Model S

Shocking Winner: Proof Positive that America Can Still Make (Great) Things

 Engineering Excellence 

Tesla claims it has 250 patents covering the Model S, and more pending. The body is light, thanks to its all-aluminum construction, yet strong and stiff. The front and rear suspension are also mostly aluminum. At the rear are extruded rear suspension links that provide the strength of forgings at much lower cost, while up front are hollow-cast front knuckles that weigh 25 percent less than a conventional knuckle of similar strength. The electric motor sits between the rear wheels, contributing greatly to the 47/53-percent front/rear weight distribution. The motor is an AC-induction type, the basic principles of which were demonstrated in the 1880s by Nikola Tesla himself, and it doesn't need expensive rare earth metals. Tesla offers three lithium-ion battery packs for the Model S -- 40-kW-hr, 60-kW-hr, and 85-kW-hr -- that are claimed to provide ranges of 140, 200, and 265 miles, respectively. The base 85-kW-hr powertrain delivers a stout 362 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque, while the performance version makes 416 hp and 443 lb-ft.The battery packs are assembled at Tesla's plant in Fremont, California, using Panasonic cells with nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathodes. Situated under the floor, the battery pack is a stressed member that further improves torsional rigidity, and helps lower the car's center of gravity to just 17.5 inches, about the same as a Ford GT's.

Advancement in Design Refreshingly, Tesla designer Franz von Holzhausen resisted the temptation to make the Model S look different for the sake of being different to call attention to the fact it has an electric motor. Former GM design boss Wayne Cherry, a consultant judge this year, summed up the exterior design theme of the Model S as "somewhat safe and conservative," but noted the beautifully executed design-enhancing proportions, the excellent stance and gesture, and the harmony and grace of its lines. His only criticism? "The front end is a missed opportunity to establish brand identity." The Model S takes advantage of the packaging opportunities afforded by the compact EV powertrain. The cabin is roomy, though the raked roofline impinges on rear-seat headroom. With no engine up front, the "hood" covers a useful luggage space, and the rear hatch opens to a cavernous load area that gets even bigger when you fold the rear seats flat. Total load capacity is 63.4 cubic feet, not that far shy of the 63.7 cubic-feet in a Chevy Equinox, and despite its rakish looks, the Model S is the first hatchback in the world to offer third-row seating. A number of the interior design solutions need more polish. However, all judges were impressed with the Tesla's unique user interface, courtesy of the giant touch screen in the center of the car that controls everything from the air-conditioning to the nav system to the sound system to the car's steering, suspension, and brake regeneration settings. The system means the Model S interior is virtually button-free, and the car has been effectively future-proofed: More functionality is only a software update away.

 

Efficiency
Whatever what you use -- gasoline, electricity, hamsters in a wheel -- making a vehicle move requires the consumption of energy. The laws of physics are immutable. The question is, how efficiently can it be done? In the case of the Tesla Model S, the answer is very. The best energy consumption figure we've returned is 118 mpg-e for a 212-mile run from the eastern fringe of the Los Angeles sprawl to Las Vegas, Nevada. For the 313 miles of road loops during the COTY evaluation, where the car was driven at normal speeds by all the judges with the air-conditioning running, it averaged 74.5 mpg-e. Impressive numbers, especially considering the 4766-pound Tesla Model S Signature Performance version will nail 60 mph in 4.0 seconds and the quarter in 12.4 seconds at 112.5 mph, with a top speed of 133 mph.

Safety
In terms of active safety, the Tesla Model S is at the top of the class. With all the car's mass down low and between the wheels, the Model S is a very stable platform, and the electric motor's instant torque means the car is quick and responsive in traffic and during overtaking moves. The stability control and anti-lock braking systems are calibrated to the unique instant-on torque and regenerative braking characteristics of an EV. When a crash does happen, the usual complement of passive safety devices, including an array of airbags, kick into play. Beyond that, clever engineering such as the double octagon extrusions front and rear, and the immensely strong roof structure, is working to protect you. Tesla claims the Model S outperforms federal crash standards, having been impact-tested at 50 mph (the mandatory standard is 35 mph) and exceeding the roof crush requirement by a factor of 2.

Value
With a base price of $58,570 (before a federal tax credit of $7500), the 40-kW-hr Model S is competitive with entry-level Mercedes-Benz E-Class, BMW 5 Series, and Audi A6. A loaded 85-kW-hr Signature Performance series, like the $106,900 (before tax credit) car Tesla founder Elon Musk drives, is priced right on BMW M5 and the Mercedes CLS63 AMG -- cars of similar performance, remember. Tesla buyers likely don't need to watch their pennies, but the calculation's worth doing all the same: At an average of 74.5 mpg-e, the Model S costs about 6 cents a mile to run, based on California's 13 cents per kW-hr.

X-FILES OF SOVIET DEFENSE MINISTRY 

EXPOSED

In Soviet times, the Ministry of Defense was working on a secret project aimed at creating a superhuman with paranormal abilities. Under this project, a group of scientists managed to get in touch with a foreign civilization. The head of this top-secret project shared some details with reporters for the first time.

On a regular winter day in Moscow, in the comfort a room with a fireplace, journalists were given a real sensation. A senior retired official of the Ministry of Defense, lieutenant-general in reserve, PhD, a fellow of the Academy of Natural Sciences Alexey Savin said that in the late 1980′s a group of researchers from the Expert Management Unit of General Staff managed to make a contact with representatives of another civilization. Interestingly, none of the journalists were particularly surprised but, rather, relieved with the “confession.”

Vasily Yeremenko, a Major General of FIB in reserve, academician of the Academy of Security, Defense and Law Enforcement, was the first to speak to the press. In Soviet times he served in the KGB and supervised the Air Force and development of aviation technology. Among his assignments was collection of information by the Air Force of the facts of appearance of unidentified flying objects. According to Vasily Yeremenko, by that time there was an ample amount of such information.

Missile units were even given a directive in case of detection of UFOs. The main task was not to create opportunities for reciprocal aggression. In 1983-1984 at the testing grounds of the Academy of Sciences by Vladimirovka, the Ministry of Defense and the KGB organized a large-scale study of paranormal phenomena. The military training site was not a random choice. Experts have long come to the conclusion that UFOs inevitably appear in places where military equipment and weapons are tested.

“We can say that we learned to summon UFOs in Vladimirovka. To do this, we dramatically increased the number of military flights and movement of the equipment. If the intensity on our side increased, UFOs appeared with the probability of 100 percent,” explained Yeremenko. After six months of tests the authoritative commission came to three main conclusions.

First, modern science was not yet able to identify such phenomena. Second, it could be reconnaissance equipment of the U.S. or Japan. Third, it could be an impact of an extraterrestrial civilization. “The UFO topic today is ubiquitous. Precisely because of its scandalous nature serious scientists are not willing to identify their position on this issue. Pilots often see such objects, but they have a veto on this topic, so do astronauts. In confidential conversations they talk about their experiences meeting with UFOs, but they are afraid to speak publicly about this,” said Vasily Yeremenko.

He believes that this subject requires a serious approach because it is a security issue. Yet, it is still a closed topic both in the U.S. and in Russia. Lt. Gen. Alexey Savin proceeded to reveal some aspects of the engagement of the Ministry of Defense. He headed the Expert Management Unit of the General Staff, whose task was to examine various unusual phenomena.

The main project of the unit was a state program on the discovery of intellectual human resources. The goal of the program was to identify ways to make the human brain work in a special regime of super-powers, making a person a superhuman. The Scientific Council of the program was led by an Academician Natalya Bekhtereva, who until her death served as a scientific director of the Institute of Human Brain of RAS.

Over two hundred highly skilled professionals from across the country participated in the program. “In the process of research, we came to the conclusion that a human was an energy and information system that receives information from outside. This is precisely why a human can manifest paranormal abilities,” said Alexey Savin. In order to identify this external source of information, three groups were created. One group was formed from scientists, another – from military, and the third one was composed of women.The group of women made the most significant progress in the research. Savin explained that they “wanted to make a contact with representatives of other civilizations. And we did it.” According to him, a special method has been developed that allowed the human brain to tune into a contact. “We had to tune energy-contour of the human brain to a particular wave, like a radio,” Alexey Savin explained.

No hypnosis, drugs, or other similar methods were used in the course of the experiment. A special system of testing was also developed to separate the incoming reports from hallucinations and insanity of the experiment participants. The experimental results were impressive: six participants were given a chance of physical contact, and two of them even managed to visit an alien ship. According to Savin, representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations revealed themselves gradually, giving away the information as they saw fit.

In particular, they talked about their government structure and education system. No information on the military could be obtained. The only thing they agreed to share was a scheme of the equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases. The head of the experiment explained that humans were like small children to them. “Our civilization is too young to be of interest to them as a subject for a dialogue. Because we are also a part of the universe, we may harm ourselves and other civilizations with our foolish actions, so they are looking out for us. ”

The program of communication with extraterrestrial intelligence had been developed for several years until politics intervened. In 1993, the study was stopped and the unit disbanded. According to Savin, he was able to retain only a small number of documents, most of them, including photo reports, are still in the archives of the Ministry of Defense. Incidentally, the unique method for the development of the phenomenal abilities of an individual, until recently, was used in the Academy named after Gagarin until it was disbanded by the former Defense Minister Serdyukov. Yet, the core of the research team was preserved.

“Four years ago we tried to repeat the experiment, and we were successful,” said Alexey Savin. According to him, today this work continues, and the “brains and talented people are still present in the defense industry.” Answering the question of Pravda.Ru why it was decided to announce it to the media Savin replied: “Why hide something from people? Instead, they need to prepare for new challenges.”

He believes that there are two global challenges today: climate change and shortage of drinking water. Russia has a special role in this process. “When we pass the point of bifurcation, people from all over will run to us. How will we meet them, with weapons? Of course, we will have to negotiate.” Maybe all this is a puzzle from the “textbook” for young civilizations? Perhaps, aliens have arranged an experiment to see how we would handle it.

14 WAYS TO CLEANSE THE BODY FROM CHEMTRAILS, GMOS, FLOURIDATED WATER, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS

Add caption

From the chemtrails being sprayed over our neighborhoods to the poisons killing our bees and making our food toxic ‘medicine’ we need a way to purge the deadly elixirs of a greedy government, owned and run by corporate interests. For the sake of keeping your attention, I won’t go on ad nauseum about fluoridated water, oil spills, and contaminated air and water due to fracking and mining.

As research since the early 1900s suggests, our bodies simply cannot handle the level of toxicity in our environment without some help, though it was originally designed to cure itself from every conceivable toxin – from heavy metals to the common cold. We have simply burdened the mechanism so profoundly, that the intelligence of the human form is being strained to its acme. We either learn to adapt to the toxic environment that our governments so blatantly support, or we die. We can’t wait for congress or the senate to do the right thing. It’s time to get radical. It’s time to tell your friends about this, even if it is absolutely rabble-rousing.

For some time we have been able to simply ignore, or turn an apathetic ear toward warnings about our food, air and soil being polluted, but when the EPA and FDA, arguably puppet institutions meant to placate farmers and citizens into thinking that their concerns over our war-time and consumer-based lifestyles are benign, states that yes, pesticides ‘are harmful to human health,’ then its time to pay attention. That kind of confession is like telling us the sky is blue. If they didn’t at least state the painfully obvious, it would be very difficult to maintain even a modicum of respect in social and political circles.  Most people are already laughing them out of the room.

 Our Blood and Bones Contain Over 85,000 Different Toxins

We are a toxic world. Our blood and bones now contain over 85,000 different chemical pollutants. Depleted uranium from bombs, and nuclear energy sites like Fukushima, as well as chemicals as sinister as Agent Orange and toxic mold are now part of our genetic make up. There are too many other toxins to name here. Their names and devastating health effects could fill books. These toxins have seeped into our cells, causing cancer, depression and even insanity.

These pollutants are making our children less intelligent and slowly breaking down our immune systems until they can’t even fight a simple virus. Our hormonal systems are so out of whack from these toxins that both boys and girls are starting puberty way too soon, and fetuses are not developing properly. ADHD, ADD, and Autism are on the rise like never before. Our bodies are fat and tired too, because a toxic body can’t metabolize fats and proteins properly.

Channels of Toxic Elimination

Under better conditions our bodies can get rid of toxins through numerous natural channels:

·    Hair

·    Finger and Toe Nails

·    Skin

·    Bowels

·    Sweat

·    Blood

·    Bile

·    Urine

In lab tests, extremely high levels of toxins can be found in a single strand of hair, even in people who think they live a ‘healthy’ lifestyle – they workout, don’t smoke, try to eat their vegetables, etc. Hair is actually one of the most telling when testing toxicity levels. It even contains remnants of LSD and cocaine in people who used drugs more than six months prior to testing. It also shows traces of aluminum, mercury, bismuth, lead, arsenic, tin, titanium, silver, asbestos, chlorine, tar, uranium and antimony, just to name a few toxins.

If any of the channels of toxin elimination are compromised, it can make the body very ill and eventually cause it to die. Our liver works diligently to eliminate toxins through bile production. Our skin, one of the largest detoxifying channels, is constantly shedding skin cells to rid itself of poison. Our bowels and digestive organs including the bladder and kidneys, large and small intestines also work very hard at keeping us toxin free. The lymph system keeps T-lymphocyte cells circulating to help kill foreign invaders like viruses that come from mold exposure.

Recycling of Toxins Leads to Disease

The problem is that once the body tries to get rid of a toxin, repeatedly trying to make it water soluble, for example, (though this is just one way of eradicating a toxic poison from our systems) so that it can be excreted, then it starts to recycle that toxin in an effort to find some channel, any channel that can expel it properly. This is how disease starts to happen. A Russian scientists and naturopath named Eli Metchnik did extensive research on this phenomenon in 1904.

In Ayurvedic medicine this is called the ‘multiply and localize’ stages of disease development. A toxin starts to move through blood plasma, and into the reproductive cycle of cells and tissues, so wherever you are weakest in your body, you are likely to develop disease. A disease is ‘born’ in the physical body when genetic predisopositions for disease give way to environmental stress – i.e. toxicity.

What Can I do to Detoxify My Body?

Fortunately, there are inexpensive ways to start to cleanse the bowels, hair, skin, lungs, liver, kidneys, and even the cells, but it starts with realizing we are toxic. Then we must take action.

·    Install a HEPA filter or a High Quality Air Purifier. You can also spend time in nature, since trees and flowers act as natural air purifiers.

·    Start by throwing out all the toxic cleaners we use to spruce up our homes. Turn to vinegar, baking soda and citrus, particularly lemon juice, and sunlight. These four items can clean our houses (and sometimes us) from top to bottom without causing depression, hormone disruption, cancer, and a host of other diseases caused by the carcinogenic and toxic substances in household cleaners, like diethanolamine (DEA) and triethanolamine (TEA) just to start.

·    Sweat. Indian sweat lodges aren’t just for inducing a vision quest. While many people attain spiritual insights from participating in a sweat lodge, they also help to clear the mind and body of toxins, so we naturally become more lucid. You can also use a dry-heat sauna for the same effect.

·    Fast. Most of us don’t want to skip even a single meal, but just taking one day off form eating to allow the body to purge toxins stored in fatty tissue can make a world of difference. Fasting has been practiced by different cultures and religions around the world for centuries as an effective way to detoxify. Nutritional cleansing programs like the Isogenics cleanse include periods of intermittent fasting (alternating periods of fasting and non-fasting).

·     Purge. There are ancient yogic teachings, which cleanse the mouth, tongue, trachea, stomach and intestines by drinking sea-salted water and then eliminating it. Much like a natural enema, Shankhaprakshalana helps to clean out the entire intestinal tract. The term is actually a Sanskrit word meaning Conch, as in the shell, and it refers to the circular and winding shape of our internal cavity – from mouth to anus.

·    Use the six Shat kriyas or Shat Karmas practiced in Hatha Yoga. These Sanskrit words refer to six ancient cleansing techniques. Shankhaprakshalana is just one of them. Some like, Nauli, or stomach churning are difficult for beginning students, but Jala Neti, nasal irrigation is easy for almost anyone to practice.

·    Drink more water, but only if its purified. Many toxins are water soluble, so if you drink clean, purified water, you can help to remove them. Just make sure you aren’t drinking unpurified municipal water, it is often full of hundreds of toxins.

·    Bathe in hot then cold water. Bathing in the ocean was practiced by the Kumu Hula (master teachers) as a means of purification, but not everyone has ocean front property, so bathing is a great purification ritual. It is also practiced all over Japan, Turkey, India, Africa, and Australia, just to name a few countries with bathing purification traditions or rituals. Bathing in first hot water, expands the blood vessels, and helps the ‘brown’ fat cells work more efficiently to reduce fat and toxins from the body. The cold water allows multiple dips, and also allows us to remain in the hot water longer. If you live near a hot springs or untainted, natural underground water source, many of these pools have excellent nutrients in them, which help to draw toxins out of the body. Also, just warming the body improves the lymph system and immune function. Epson salt baths can help if you don’t have a natural hot springs or the Dead Sea near you (but even the Dead Sea is becoming toxic!)

·    Try one of the myriad natural cleansing products available on the market today. There are lots of products that are affordable and help to cleanse everything from the bowels to the liver.

·    Eat Detoxifying Foods. You can detoxify with green tea, coffee enemas, and cilantro even. Turmeric is great for detoxifying the body, as is sour sop fruit. Apple Cider Vinegar is wonderful and so is lemon juice and ginger.

·    Use Shaolin Clay to Draw Impurities From the Skin. Shaolin Monks used a special clay to help draw impurities from their bodies and to heal more rapidly from injuries received practicing martial arts. It was made into a paste with several herbs and placed on the skin, or ground into powders and taken with herbs (like Dan Gui, Nan Xing, Bai Zhu, etc.) as an oral herbal treatment. Clay baths are especially effective at removing heavy metals and mercury or lead.

·    Take Milk Thistle, or Dandelion Root to Detox the Liver. This important organ removes toxins from our blood stream. These two herbs can greatly help the liver process toxins before they ever reach the bloodstream, so that they can be purged from the body via the feces or urine.

·    Increase Your Vitamin C. Several studies pointed to a simple Vitamin C supplement in higher doses (which are safe since Vitamin C is water soluble) as a very effective means of detoxiing from Nuclear Fallout.

·    Consider Aboriginal Kanwa Minerals are extracted from bubbling pools deep in the desert areas of Australia that are full of hundreds of trace minerals that can help detox the body. Also known as Calcium Montmorillonite Clay, this special ‘mud’ can do everything from absorb bad bacteria to reverse bone decay. Only because this soil had been untouched for millions of years, is it filled with important minerals like calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, silica and manganese, as well as other trace elements that help restore a toxic body.

Even though companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and the military industrial complex want to keep pouring toxins into our world and us, we can detox with some simple remedies to make living a healthy possible in a contaminated world. We may not be living in a pure environment, but we can still treat our bodies as temples, and purify them of the spoils of war and a fast food, pharmaceutical empire.