Tag Archives: death

#Parentaldeath: An inconvenient truth

Screen Shot 2015-05-24 at 17.27.29

The majority of people who have children make an assumption that upon their death the children will take care of everything. For the most part, parental death is a family affair that comes with emotional baggage that more often than not outweighs common sense. In this article I will be opening up this topic to investigate the reality of the death-aftermath that children are faced with upon parental death.

“Having children” is a loaded topic that is predominately equated with the joy of procreation but the package has many more dimensions and many of them are not openly discussed. Consider that having children represented an old-age insurance. Once an individual could not work anymore,  there were younger bodies that could step up to the situation and support the ageing parent. For many in the world this is still a viable approach because there is no other option of survival, ensuring that a person’s basic needs are met when they are too old to work. In Western countries, this picture changed due to the changes that were brought on by the industrial revolution.

Robin Blackburn who reviews UK pension history writes: “The ability of offspring to take care of their parents in old age was limited by their own earning power and the family’s access to property. In the countryside owning land was the best insurance for old age but in the growing towns and cities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries only a small minority had family businesses which could offer a similar cushion.”

So pension funds developed out of this necessity where workers would start paying into a fund at a younger age to guarantee a minimal coverage of their living expenses by the time they were too old to work. Early pensioners, as today, were skirting the poverty line, especially when there was no supplementary income available.

In a similar vein, it is understood by most parents that when they are gone their personal effects, property, finances and so forth are passed onto the children and the children will deal with it. Society sees this as an honorable act, it is part of the family lineage that creates history and preserves tradition – whether children like or not. Though the truth is that in our contemporary life children face a huge responsibility that engulfs time, money, and effort. Many of us are not prepared or equipped to deal with so many belongings, the financial burden and administrative aspects of bringing closure to a person’s  life time.

The topic of death is hardly ever discussed, let alone looked at in common sense or addressed in a practical manner that eschews all emotions and focuses on the facts. However, fact is that when the death of a parent comes around and that parent has made no preparations, the situation turns into a dramatic period in every child’s life. And there is no law to protect the child from an irresponsible parent.

It is entirely left up to the parent how much work, money and time a child will have to devote to a parent’s afterlife. If the parent was oblivious to inheritance laws, the child could face heavy financial burdens.  Obviously this will reveal the character and nature of the parent though at this stage it’s too late to make any changes.

There are many dimensions that could be laid out in respect to a parent’s death and what a child may be facing, but as an overall approach I would like to look at how we can conceptualise the death aftermath. Here I would like to suggest we make it part of the of the sustainable development agenda. The reason for this is that death/birth are a human development goal that needs to be attended to because birth as well as death converge into the greater system of resources of human consumption.

In the first instance this would require each person receiving education about death procedures and the laws surrounding inheritance, which would create awareness in two ways. For example, the child would be aware of the fact that taxation and debt is something they might have to be responsible for if the parent leaves behind property and unpaid bills. At the same time, a parent would have the same awareness and could pro-actively make arrangements that help ease the financial burden on the child (for example gifting the property to the child while still alive etc).

Secondly, in today’s contemporary society, values shift rapidly. Mom’s Sunday tableware does not captivate us nor do we have the space to house her extensive collection. Old world values seem to have longer shelf life and durability when compared to our electronic life style, where gadgets become obsolete in just a couple of years. (eBay’s collectible and antique market is fading). However, those objects – whether it’s mom’s Sunday tableware or dad’s antique bureau – are made up of valuable resources which could be easily recycled or upcycled. The options to dispose of large quantities of household articles and personal belongings are few with poor monetary compensation. A tax break for responsible household dissolution could be another way to kickstart this point in the sustainable dying agenda.

Thirdly, states could issue basic guidelines about personal belongings, property, finances etc where each person maps out a dissemination agenda, which could be updated at each stage of their life, to eliminate situations where a person dies without will or a inheritor receives something unwanted. Online testaments are already implemented but not enforced by the state – this could easily be done just like taxation has been enforced.

Fourthly, children should have a way to say what they are willing to take responsibility for while the parent is still alive so that the parent, if the child is not willing to take over a specific responsibility, finds an alternative solution. This could be done in a way that the parent is legally obliged to disclose their death preparations when the child has reached a certain age, say 16 years.  For example, imagine the child has a low functioning autistic sibling, who requires a lot of care and is a high financial commitment. Upon the parent’s death, there is an assumption that this responsibility now becomes the responsibility of the other sibling. The situation might be more than inconvenient – it may even be impossible. If this situation was already cleared in an official manner, for example via an online responsibility document visible to the parent and the child alike, the parent would have to take precautionary steps that would ensure that the autistic child is cared for upon the parent’s death.

These four steps serve to inspire ways in how we can improve an area in our lives that is overlooked and overvalued (in terms of how much we actually value what is being passed on to us). There is much room for expansion, where we can create a platform of equality when it comes to the responsibility that each of us has to take the consequences of our death seriously. One way of providing this platform is to make the communication between parents and children about the death aftermath much more transparent. Transparency about the death aftermath eliminates assumptions and stops passivity because many are hiding behind their fear of death.

Banking on Death, Or, Investing in Life: The History and Future of Pensions (2002), Robin Blackburn


Leave a comment

Filed under All

Nothing has changed, everything has changed – a personal tribute to Bernard Poolman


Bernard Poolman in the recent years before his death

It still seems unreal to me, when just weeks ago I was talking to Bernard Poolman at the farm where I was visiting for three weeks – and now Bernard is dead. He passed away on August 11th from the impact of a heart attack. I remember it was dark already, an early winter evening in South Africa, when I first met him in person, as he had just returned from a city trip dealing with some legal administration. He stepped onto the veranda and called my name making long rolling sounds with this mischievous twinkle in his eyes that I was to see more than once throughout my stay. It was as if he was saying to me “and so it is, we meet again”, but of course, this is just my interpretation. Bernard was like a mirror to each of us, he reflected our own perceptions back to us, and he understood very well what was happening inside of us in that moment, so that he tailored his words as a point of support, to help us see what we were doing to ourselves, the things we wanted to see in the world that weren’t there. Interactions with Bernard were a real-time opportunity for self-change.

He then proceeded to give me a hug and we sat down at the table and started talking. There were moments were he was visibly in pain because of the work that he had taken on using his physical body. He was preparing our world for a rebirth into equality and oneness but how many of us have an understanding of what that means on a physical level? Bernard did not care much about the pain, for him this was the byproduct of an extraordinary task that had to be done to sort out this world – a world that is in reverse.

A world in reverse starts with our pursuit for pleasure, for well-being, for fitness, beauty, comfort, and health. Bernard showed us by example of his life the difference between existing as a picture and existing as life. Becoming life is to stop catering to the picture, it is a process that requires us to step out from behind the smoke screen and become the real thing – passed the pain, passed the resistances – a self-willed entity, and to see the web of relations we have created within every aspect of this world.  ‘Fractalising’ our existence, ourselves, and every living thing on planet earth into an endless array of divisions, restrictions, and segmentations. This is what we do as a default, we are  “naturals” at this and call it “human nature”, we submit ourselves to our minds and we don’t stop ourselves from getting sucked up. With each ‘mind sucker’ a new concepts is created that enhances the divisions, restrictions, and segmentations. Fractals are infinite repetitions that create our world over, look at the branches of the tree or the tiny veins in your hand. We have copied these cycles of repetition only we allow ourselves to default into the separation instead of coalescing the world into equality, where the principle of equality repeats in all aspects of worldly affairs and LIFE succeeds SURVIVAL. Once and for all.

Piecing ourselves back together is accepting that the world must be straightened out without concessions. We must move from negligence and convenience to absolute and unlimited caring for the place called earth. First, however, we must understand how we, each for themselves, have actually reached our current point. Bernard was there to facilitate this understanding because he had taken a machete to the thickest of mind and emotions and cut himself loose – all by himself.

After this initial meeting, I spent whatever time was available visiting Bernard in the main room. Unlike any other stranger I have met before, there was this instant connection, a clear link of communication between us – it was so clear that there was no room for anything else, awkwardness, anxiety, insecurity or any other emotion that typically interferes with our communication signals. Bernard’s uncompromising stance was available to me in every moment of interaction, to centre myself within it. I saw the potential of communication, not in a SciFi “beam me up Scotty” kind of way – this was not about transmitting thoughts, or having a perfect understanding of what was being said between us. Rather a point of communication where I actually got to see myself, where the veil comes off, and where I see what lies behind the words I use, the way I use them, and how I have applied myself over the years in the same mind tracks, like a train forging groves on wheels of words in which I move myself along – struggling, stumbling – a layer so impervious to myself where only glimpses reach my awareness after an intense session of self-forgiveness. Through my conversations with Bernard I realised the true level of carelessness I bring to the world, practically, in every word I speak.

Whenever I entered the room and saw Bernard’s head peek out from behind the computer, he was approachable in the same way, today, as the day before, as tomorrow. There was never a shift or a change and within him that I experienced and because of his absolute stability, our conversations where always only about me. Bernard was self-complete. Let me clarify, selflessness is a “program”, it is what it says: a missing self. It feeds our urge to exist in the denial about who we really are by filling ourselves up with others, with tasks, objects, and services that are apparently needed in the world – selflessness is another escape mechanism. I say ‘apparent needs’, because unlike self-completeness, selflessness cannot respond to what is really needed which is what is best for all in each situation, in each moment, because the person is preoccupied by the reasons he/she wants to escape from. Because Bernard is complete as a self – as is – he was able to respond to what I needed to see and hear at the time. He no longer operated from desire, preference or judgement, the fluctuating emotions that move us like a puppet on a string and that make us blind to our acceptances and allowances in the world, so that we create a world dominated by suffering.  Because Bernard is self-complete (and he still is even when he is no longer in physical form) he could utilise his ‘self’ as a tool for support – for social engineering – one person at the time, to bring about a world that is best for all, beyond his own physical existence.

In Bernard’s presence I experienced myself like a child again. I am talking about a specific aspect of being a child, the innocence that children bring to the world, an unspoiled receptiveness that has not been caught up in all kinds of filters, the ulterior motives we usually place in front of ourselves when we come to speak with others, in how we attempt to protect our vulnerability. I was free of this pre-programmed prompter that supports my survival and I could relax into a part of me that was once my starting point to grasping the world around me. Only now I was grasping myself. Bernard’s self-complete being created an unflinching point of reference in which I could expand my awareness. A reversal of what we usually experience when interacting with others where we suppress and limit ourselves.

Answering my questions was only a part of our communication, he volunteered much of what he saw about me, even when he had to scream it into my ears. He could never scare me though, not for a moment I perceived his expressive way of talking, loud voice and beastly face, as scary. I realised what I had originally considered as scary in my online communications with him, when I first joined the group, was the purity and stableness of his interactions that cut through all the pretences. The fact was that Bernard, the man who died on August 11th, lived entirely without fear. We never encounter a being that does not exist on and in fear – with Bernard fear as a basis to each breath had become life at the basis of each breath. This cannot be easily grasped by the mind because there is no entry point to attach one’s programs – his words, his movements, his actions are not marked by fear, and the mind is at a loss for parity in pre-progammed settings that simply are not there. This can threaten the mind if we allow it.  The main points that Bernard told me about myself where wrapped up in questions inside of me, dinosaur questions, that I had actively pursued years ago. I had all the pieces to the puzzle but I was unable to put them together in the way that they would make sense to me and give me direction. Bernard resurrected these questions and put the puzzle pieces for me in order so that I could leave the farm with more of myself than when I came.

My encounter with Bernard has given my self-realisation process detailed direction, it has sharpened my focus. What I have seen and realised about myself cannot be undone. It has changed everything for me because the more we see about who we are and what we have created, the greater the stakes of responsibility to give everything all of the time, 100% of a no-return investment. Bernard’s death can only be understood from that perspective, he gave everything all of the time and each moment of giving he was aware of the no-return policy – he even told us so many times.

There is an uncanny parallel between Bernard and Jesus, which we can revisit 2000 years from now. It’s not the obvious one that both men lived the principles of equality and that both men gave up their lives as the living principle of responsibility. It’s the parallel that emphasises US – those who have committed themselves to equality as the principle of life. Jesus’s death brought no merit to this world, his words were distorted and his principles misinterpreted, 2000 years later we have a world of abuse, poverty, corruption and war. What the world will be in 4013 is entirely up to us. Jesus and Bernard opened the doors to a new world order using everything available to them, and once again we are left with an opportunity to step out from our pre-programmed designs and become living beings.

I cannot deny that I will miss the man, and that tears cannot do justice of the profound loss we have all witnessed these past few days. As Cerise said, the world is poorer for it, now that Bernard no longer walks the earth. It is however, not a question, that we will continue walking our process. Hearing of his death, much of the shock we experienced are the voices of selfishness –  entitlement to convenience in our processes –  regardless of what Bernard has done for all of us, how much he suffered through the physical pain, we insist on him being here for us, so that we can fall back on our crutches. I speak for myself here and all those who have relied on getting Bernard’s perspective, his encouragement, living vicariously through his commitment. As a group, it’s the moment of realisation that we are always alone in making the decision to stay here breathing and nail our awareness to the ground, or to drift into the illusion of the mind. In that sense, nothing has changed, though everything changes from now on – we walk for real. The time has come.


Bernard Poolman in 2005 – picture by Rozelle de Lange


Filed under All

Sex in death and the Equal Money System

In April 2012 Egyptian Islamists have caused a stir in the world by proposing several new laws that focus on a man’s ‘live’ property – the woman. From the Western perspective most proposals concentrate on what might be considered conventional or habitual aspects of a typical extremist religious orientation towards husband and wife, such as the bride’s age, the right to seek divorce, and the female’s circumcision. These proposals went rather unnoticed in the Western Press except the one that would grant husbands permission to have sex with their wives within 6 hours of death. It’s the ‘farewell fuck’, so to speak. Other sources, for example Isalmists in London, deny that such a ‘farewell fuck’ law could come into being in Egypt. They argue that it may be a proposal but that it would never make it into parliament.

Whether we look at ‘farewell-fucking’, Clitoridectomy or foot-binding as examples for practices that are formed from religious beliefs,  and when we look beyond the male-female dynamic, what comes to the forefront it the notion of self-interest. This self-interest is not only that of men as it would initially seem to be, because many of these practices are directed towards women, who are compliant for their own reasons within the trap of self-interest. (to be cared for, to be protected, for example). Obviously in most cases it is the mothers who are implicated because they are the ones who are allowing the mutilations on their children.

These types of practices demonstrate our ways of existing in self-interest:  as long as we can find others who share the subject of our self-interest the more likely we can find ways to pursue it through public institution e.g. law, customs. The ‘carrier’ of self-interest in these cases is religious belief, and holds more true for countries who have rather homogenous religious teachings established over centuries. Other countries, mostly Western-oriented countries, utilise cultural focusses such as beauty & fashion. Prominent examples here are anorexia, or the wearing of very high heels which represents in its effects a milder version of foot-binding, otherwise we see liposuction, breast implants, and so forth.

What all of these abusive practices have in common is that they disable the physical body in some way, or on the minimal scale, shape it through abuse. But then how does farewell fucking differ when it’s no longer about the living body and the dead body has only x amount of hours before it definitely becomes unusable because it decomposes?

The first point is that the woman’s role is that of property and not of an equal being, or the recognition of beingness, of aliveness. Therefore if a man can have sex with a dead women it is not because both are sharing their beingness or aliveness with each other, but that this is a matter of him enacting a picture he prefers, his memories, and his sexual urges – and so in that moment he represents all that we have done in the name of sex collectively: pornography, masturbation, sex slaves, sex trade, pedophilia and so forth.  The man might be the catalyst of the situation but there is a fundamental factor here which implicates men and women alike:  the sexual engagement is a solo mental pursuit, it is the mental pursuit in search of self-gratification, and the physical body of another is the object by which this pursuit is achieved – thus other bodies functions as a vehicle which can be discarded after use.  Now that we have established it as a mental pursuit there is more to say about the mind.

Another view of the dead body’s farewell fuck is that it is a really a ‘fearwell’ fuck. It is the desperateness of the mind that fears of having no more access to the physical body ( the one the man is married to, the one he considers his property). It is thus the same fear we have losing objects, or a house, a car – the fear is about losing access to the living flesh as provider for the mind – in the mental pursuit of self-gratification.  Thus it is not difficult to see that the living flesh is a resource, like the earth, we try to hold on to as long as we can, entirely oblivious of the effects. This is also evident in other ways when we look at how we handle the resources that come from the living earth, the pattern of behaviour is identical. We act in self-interest and are oblivious to the effects e.g. Fukushima.

Yet, at the same time, the mind realises that it cannot exist without the physical body, and because there is no control over the physical body (i.e. the dying body) the aliveness of the body slips away without the mind having any way of stopping it e.g. medical research. Therefore the control that the mind wants to experience is of course imaginary, but is through social and cultural mechanisms of domination that it believes it can do so. We have thus arrived in this beginning of the article.

However,  obvious cultural mechanisms such as collective religious beliefs can be matched by more subtle versions – from which no nation or country is exempt. An example is our pursuit for education because we value intellectual thought over physical labor. That is why jobs with more education are paid more, or why we look down on people with less education. Those with the better paid jobs are in the position to campaign for their self-interest, for example in form of laws as the death-fuck case illustrates. Yet, the death fuck is actually revealing to us that the mind fears losing the body because it cannot survive without physicality. The mind is the ultimate ‘co-dependent’ aspect of us, in all its one dimensionality, as it exists in separation from the body which is the one component that guarantees its survival.

Lastly, why many seem outraged about the death-fuck is because on some level everyone knows that it reveals the true nature of the mind. The death-fuck, may or may not become law in Egypt. However, it vividly demonstrates our disposition is self-interest and from here all else unfolds, all the way to death. The implementation of the change we want is thus simple

1) stop all self-interest > start interest in all equally

2) apply this to all that we consider resources, e.g. raw materials,
food, people, etc – in short, money as a proxy to resources

3) Implement the solution: the Equal Money System

Some of us have made a head start in stating what they see to be best for all, check out the topics for an equal money system!

Participate, join, change, and share your beingness with all equally!


Filed under Equal Money

2012 Self-programming evidence when learning a new language

In this blog I will briefly describe my recent observations of learning a third language. It has been an interesting experience so far, not because I have a rather easy and fun time learning it, which is yet another point, but rather because for the first time I am aware of how personality construction is tied to language. I can see how I would have done this as a small child when I learned my mother tongue and did not realise what self-programming meant at that time. I have a different perspective now. One, where I understand that my personality behaviour is driven by my ego which takes every single situation of interaction with others as grounds for distortion through means of manipulation, deception and sabotage – all in accordance with my personality. I say ‘my’ ego, and that is already the indication for me to stop right here: my ego and I are one as I am the one who accepts this behaviour. After all, this is the reason why I am taking part in the DesteniIProcess because I want to step out of the mental existence driven by ego, and and be here as the living word- as Self.

What I have realised is the following. I learn words and grammar of the language that I am learning through interactions with my teacher in class, other students, and through doing my homework.  In my daily life, I apply what I have learned in the context of speaking with others who are native speakers. There is usually a discrepancy between what I want to say and what I can say at my current level of learning. What I mean is that I do not have all the grammar and words to express what I would like to say to others. This is already quite curious because that which I want to say exists somewhere, as part of me, but not in already formed words.  It is the stage before I form a phrase, before I speak from mind – but I cannot say where that place is, per say. I realise that our habitual procedure of speaking, when speaking in one’s mother tongue, speeds up the process that I am experiencing in slowness, and that once one speaks fluently, when one has mastered the language, one cannot even recall these ‘in-between’ places where only self-expression exists without words.

Here is another observation: at this time I can only speak in the present tense. Therefore I can only reference or communicate to someone else what is happening with me or the world around me right now, in this moment. It is seemingly a limitation but when looking at it more closely I have noticed that speaking about the past becomes less relevant. When one cannot describe one’s life experience in the past tense and only in the present tense, the familiar petty aspects of story telling, the character definition of others, the energetic undertone that can come with past tense telling is absent. What stays when communicating the past in the present tense is the pattern that is emergent from our past, and that can be communicated in the present tense. I find this quite supportive because it highlights my behavioural patterns more clearly. I see more clearly what I have accepted and allowed to be me.

All these observations are facilitated by being slowed down through the nature of learning to speak in another language. Also, there is no possibility for me to momentarily go into mind-time and speed up my speaking participation. By having slowed down to the degree that I have as I am becoming the embodied manifestation of the words, which is different from speaking slowly, because even then one is only slowing down on the surface but the underlying process is still proceeding at the same speed I can see how I, within myself, react to situations. Here I have noticed that it is within the interaction itself, rather than what I want to express (and may not be able to), manipulation and deception is accepted by me and the other party. It is this process that eventually, through repetition, charges each word I say.

From the perspective of my process I find this an amazing discovery because this makes a few points clear to me:

1) During the word formation, for example when I have used the words of my new language for a few times, an emotional/feeling charge can build up (if I don’t stop it) from the situations in which I have spoken these words. The emotional/feeling charge seems to easily take on a prominent position, overriding the essence of what it is that I want to express – that which is still here without the words.  Hence, I can see that all the words I so easily spew out in my other languages are full of emotional/feeling charges that leave no room for self-expression.

The solution: Redefinition of  words to eliminate the emotional/feeling charges.

2) Finally I have seen that I am self-expression somewhere buried inside. I only have a glimpse but I see that I do not need the mind to be here.

The solution: Equalise the mind so that self-expression can flow freely, and language is the living word. The living word is self-expression.

3) We are defining ourselves through the interaction with others, through the energetic charge words span the relations of our ships. Relationships are primarily charged through what seems to be an ‘exchange’ with others. Although this exchange is not really exchanging anything, it is a ‘charging station’ where each for themselves charges in the face of the other.

The solution: Taking self-responsibility – to step out of the trap of self-interest and learn to stand equal to each word that I utter – and thus have the prerequisites to get to know another.

Recommended reading:




Leave a comment

Filed under self-forgiveness