A New Political Concept

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+7 more 
posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:04 AM
The most important thing my father ever taught me was to think in terms of probabilities. He taught me to examine every piece of information I get and assign it a probability of being true. For example, rather randomly, the idea that words convey communication – a “self evident” thing to most – I say to myself, based on the evidence I have collected, I give that a very high likelihood of being so. The probability I give it is about 99.999…%. Because there is some degree of error (or could be) in my understanding of the universe, I can never assign 100% or 0% to any idea. And this leads me to never be 100% incredulous or believing, and so I am willing to entertain all data without summarily dispensing with or accepting any of them.

Interconnecting information, seeing a field of information and associating its connections, is another art my father gifted me with, which aids in the adjustments of the probabilities I gauge. Number of reports, credibility of source, personal experience and trusted input (can’t trust anything 100%, either), and so on all are evaluated as time progresses and additional data come in.

Evaluating the credibility of the source is my responsibility, and on any fantastic claims, I give little benefit of doubt, but will not dismiss a source out of hand. And I will look at evidence and evaluate sources for any adjustment to the probabilities I have assigned, despite how crazy an idea might sound when I first encounter it.

And so, from what I have gathered…

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that those of you who do not believe that some form of an evolutionary process formed the universe around us can go on in your fantasy world that you choose to accept, group together and pat yourselves on the back in your more or less shared belief, and as long as you leave the rest of us alone, go ahead in this delusion.

I base my assessments of the evident process evolving around me, in probabilistic terms – how likely is it that this creation has any given claimed explanation? How likely is it that the creation I see would be explained by the literal biblical view alone, versus the evolving process? In asking this question, which springs from a stance of questioning everything, I have to give this “Poof! God created this (some small number of years ago)” a very low probability. Maybe, very generously, 0.0000002%?

Having learned to assess things, not by a True/False method, but by assigning probabilities, adjusting them as additional data come along, I have come to see things in a radically different way than most, though thankfully, I see others who are calculating probabilities and not just flipping switches. Interestingly, those of us assigning probabilities are coming to a high concordance of perspective.

The problem with the switch method is that until we have glaring evidence before us that some “wild” claim is true, we will continue to behave as if the truth lies with a given switch in the off position (the claim is false) even when evidence would suggest it’s highly probable that the switch should be in the on position (the claim is true), because there are a lot of data that we emotionally don’t want to be true. We discard data and leave the switch in the off position.

In fact, even with glaring evidence of the truth of something, too many persist in keeping the switches in the off position – witness the belief that the world is flat, or that the Earth is the center of Creation. (I find it much more likely that Consciousness is at the center of Creation, and so every conscious thing is at the center of the Universe. Paradoxical it may seem – but not when considered in the light of quantum mechanics.)

The importance of probability in this experience of life is glaringly evident when looking at quantum mechanics (QM) – the very fabric of the rules in our universe. (Yes, I suppose one could say that we have faulty information and that there is no such thing as QM, but I really have to give that idea a vanishingly small probability, given the plethora of experiments showing the QM expectations are fullfilled.) QM is all about the probability of something being manifest, in an interplay of conscious observation and the zero point field.

(Another thing I suspect is that all “fields” are manifestations of some of our different dimensions. The probabilities are high. I also suspect that the zero point field, the foundation field, is the “life/energy” dimension.)

On probabilistic basis, I have assessed it highly likely that consciousness is creating what is Now and has been since the beginning 16.4 billion years ago (more on this timeframe later). Consciousness is “God,” which now, in its many parts, seeks to have glorious, blissful becoming through the continued creation of the Now.

What this leads me to is that I must accept my responsibility for what I create with the tool of my behavior – in my actions and intents – because I am conscious and therefore a (/an active part of) god. I must also accept that all other consciousness is god, as well. I cannot, therefore, place myself above or below another, and on an ethical foundation, must accept the three Laws. For that is the yardstick to measure how much we manifest our godhood:

Do we hurt or kill sentient Beings on purpose? (What would happen if every one of us just refused to do this for any reason…?)

Do we take or damage the belongings of others willfully? (What would happen if we all chose to respect that which belongs to another…?)

Do we present ourselves and our goals to others fraudulently? What would happen if we all chose to offer the truth? Ah… Back to the concordance of perspective that those of us working in probabilities are seeing…

So I ask myself what are the probabilities that there are some…families, even…that might be conspiring to maintain control of the masses? Surely, if there are some, they are not presenting themselves and their goals unfraudulently. In order to establish the likelihood that there are, I have to ask whether such a description would explain how things look around me.

I find that, especially within a system based on exchange of scarce energy (money system), it is highly probable. Given that there are families to whom wealth has migrated to – wealth that could feed, clothe, house, and make comfortable everyone of us here on this planet perpetually (as money comes in, it could be spent on everyone of us…) – and knowing that there are those who grew up in privilege and were taught they are “better” conscious units, I cannot escape giving very high probability to this idea.

It is important to know that energy is what money represents. Disassociating energy from the money used to store credits of energy expended makes it easy to ignore the implications of what an infinite, immediately accessible source of energy would do to the need for money.

Because I want to find solutions for everyone, every god in this joint creation of ours (it’s the Christian thing to strive for), I have pondered long and hard. Since money represents energy – and even Jeremy Rifkin will tell you it does (read his 1980 book, Entropy) – then I must question the need for money (and the power/control it provides) given that any effectively infinite source of energy would make money infinite (a meaningless condition), and “Dark” Energy tells us there’s a lot of energy to be had.

Since money – and therefore energy – is key to the comfort of any given Being in a moneyed system, and the comfort of all is the ultimate goal of consciousness, bringing comfort to everyone needs a solution (clearly, we are not all fully comfortable in our existence). And as long as there are conscious units that hold themselves above others, and who control the money/energy, energy extraction is the only solution.

Given that I keep hearing reports of free energy, knowing that the zero point field is infinite (life/god) energy manifesting through the awareness of consciousness, I have to give high probability to the existence of the energy extraction methods of which these reports speak. The sources of these reports seem mostly credible, and I have knowledge of specific suppression of an idea that drew energy from the Earth’s magnetic field: an independent inventor had built a prototype, and shortly after he set about to garner interest, he had his operation raided by the FBI who muttered something about “patent infringement…” If the idea is patented…where on the market are those devices that use it? (If simple magnetics was suppressed, any ability to draw on the “Dark” Energy would be all the more likely to be stomped out lest it spread.)

Again, probabilities point to those who would conspiratorially control the energy.

Why don’t we see this bursting on the market? Free energy devices! “The company who makes ’em’ll be richer than one can imagine!” Except that, if abundant energy is available to all, everyone will have control of themselves and the power elite will be elite no more. Also, if we all became equal, it will become all the more important how we each choose to behave in our co-creation of the Now, as opposed to how big our bank account is.

As the present rich may choose to pursue their bliss, so would we all, if we can have access to the sea of energy around us.

So what would it take, I wonder, to set us free with this truth, that energy is available but the means of extraction have been hidden? Putting myself in the position of one who has been enjoying the richness of life/experience in the false view of superiority, I might worry about retribution for the treatment I approved with my behavior towards the masses, the “human hearted.”

(continued next post)

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:05 AM
(continued from previous post)

So perhaps forgiveness would be in order as our bargaining chip. Let us free and we will forgive. We will accept our new-found comfort and the freedom to pursue our individual bliss within the three Laws and allow the “lizard-hearted” to continue in their comfort, if not their control of us.

In calculating probabilities, I have examined the data on life evolution and have identified an area that that disturbs me if it is presumed that humans evolved in completely the same way as all other life we’re familiar with on this planet.

First, virtually all creatures can inbreed for generations before abnormalities spring up. All except humans. Why would it be that evolution awkwardly constructed one species to have the highest awareness (by far!) than any other and yet have such restrictions in inbreeding, with good probability of issues in the first generation, and high odds in the second?

Why would virtually all creatures have a small handful of genetic aberrations – most with none – and yet this one species has over 4,000 “defects” (passed-on illnesses and aberrations). From a probability standpoint, it is phenomenally unlikely that such a species would develop alone.

In looking at explanations for this, I can see two main ideas to assign probabilities to: either the “creator of all” chose to create everything but us close to perfection but deliberately gave us short shrift, or our species is the result of another species’ tampering. I just can’t give much credit to the first option. At very most, it commands 1% probability in my view, and that’s giving vast benefit of doubt. I give roughly 99% that somewhere along the line, our species was “lifted.”

I look at a couple of sources of data, given good probability of holding some measure of truth. Probabilities go up in correlating these data that our species was genetically modified by another. The first source is the “Enki” tablets, found in what was once ancient Sumer. In these tablets we are told that we were a genetic manipulation by the Anunnaki. The second source, alone open to debate but combined with the “Enki” tablets, holds better likelihood of truth, is The Terra Papers.

Though these two sources are at variance with respect to the vector which led to the creation of humans, they are in an awesome agreement about what happened when we were created. They both mention common details – such as the fact that we had to be given some piece, some essence of these gods, and that it was a joint effort between a leading male Being (a prince) and female Being (a princess). They also agree that it was the Anunnaki.

This is why I have assigned a high probability to the idea that we were genetically manipulated in the distant past.

Given this, I might give higher credit to the idea that we still coexist with our creators or other, conquering ET’s. But yet, those of us Now owe nothing but forgiveness to these fellow gods. That their ancestors created us (as we are now discovering we can effectively create) in no way obligates us to them, but really, if anything, obligates them to us.

Whatever the past, we are equal in our godhood Now, and their final obligation would be dispatched in allowing free energy to flow, setting us free.

Speaking of conspiracies, I contemplate the fact that there are a plethora of “little” conspiracies – with money as a motivation, many conspire to gain higher comfort through conspiratorial means. Conspiracy is the rule in our system of money, not the exception. So to believe that our government, or any government, which does not operate in total transparency, is operating for our own good is naïve at best.

Given that we know “back room” deals are made to the money/power advantage of groups and individuals, can we discount a higher set of conspiracies? Perhaps we should examine the claim that there are those who deem themselves better than us, believe there are too many of us, and wish to “cull the herd.” Could there be conspiracies of this nature?

My assessment is that it is highly probable. Applying that idea to the world around me, I see that it would explain a great deal. From GMO, which shows disastrous effects in lab animals, to choosing to use spent uranium as weapons ammunition, to keeping illegal a most benign and helpful herb while pushing patented chemicals which show many side effects and even deaths, I can’t help but think that even with money as a motivation, those who care about humans and the Earth would stop short at creating the damage such choices provides. There are many other examples, but these are three big ones.

If it’s likely that there are those who would approach Humans as we might approach cattle or sheep, and also likely that there are those of extraterrestrial origin amongst us, it is likely that they represent the same group overall.

The tenet “Divide and Conquer” is worthy of considering in terms of probability. Is there any evidence that deliberate efforts are made to do just this? When we see such things as patriotism, religions begun with visitations of “supernatural” beings (extraterrestrials…?), deliberate interpretation of ideas that place some above others, separation of “races,” and many other examples, it seems wise to suspect that there are efforts to keep our species from joining together in a common goal. Even promotion of team allegiance (as in sports) is a dividing force.

So what is the solution? Obviously we must acquire the means to extract energy at will. We must set up a code of conduct based on ethics. We must avoid those ideas which promote division. If we are to take over our planet as one species, we must do so without divisive choices.

Perhaps I should explain why I brought up the number 16.4 billion years as a timeframe for creation. I suspect highly that this number represents the time our journey of Consciousness has taken until nearly now. From the time we, as base Consciousness/matter/energy entered (created, began) this universe, striving to grow ever more complex, ordered and aware, to the Now you and I know is likely to be this 16.4 billion years, based on a Mayan Stele that was found several decades ago – in the 1940’s or 50’s. For many years the information on this stele languished with little heed. No one at the time could fathom why it had numbers as big as 16.4 billion indicated.

As Humans began to push the estimated age of the universe further and further back, someone questioned whether there was a relationship with time in these numbers indicated on the stele and whether they related to things science and history has told us about what has happened. And once they approached the information from this standpoint, what the stele represented became very clear.

I recently read James Mitchner’s Space, published in the mid-80’s, and was intrigued that he refers several times to the age of the universe as being 18 billion years. Since he was known for the rigor he put into researching his novels, I must give great probability to the idea that in the mid-1980’s humans estimated the age around there. Yet in the past couple of decades, what has been reported in the mainstream media that science has shown is that the universe is calculated to be, first, about eight billion years old, then 10, and recently I heard 14 plus. What are the probabilities that it’s rather somewhere around 16.4…?

Back to this stele and what they discovered… Seems that the numbers very likely relate the development of Consciousness in the universe, each number represents a shorter and shorter period of time, and each “step” represents some universal aspect. The 16.4 billion year period is the age of the Universe, and there are eight more “waves” the stele described, each a successively smaller layered wave upon wave, all of which end…virtually now. The 16.4 billion represents a base state of consciousness and underlies all we experience – base matter is created and worked with. It is the zero point field tattooed with consciousness as matter, the unaware consciousness centered everywhere, putting the spin to matter as it manifests.

Through this manifestation, consciousness came to build the rudimentary forms of life – a wee bit of control manipulating the matter further.

The next step up brought consciousness to transit from the ability to respond to action, seething in the mass of infant matter, to individuals capable of responding independently, including, eventually, mammals. From there, consciousness worked and cooperated, developed coherence, into family units. This gave consciousness more skill at manipulating things around as its nodes developed. Still further, in the next steps, tribes cooperated and then government developed, as consciousness strove towards harmonious coherence.

Next, consciousness begins subdividing into regional representation, with families and tribes still present, taking control of governance and edicts, and in turn, consciousness maintains its control of matter, leading to national groupings. This pushes communication further, and brings forth inventions to control matter all the further. Communication/interaction spreads, cohering consciousness all the more.

From the widened information flow, consciousness becomes aware of a planetary cohesion, seeking the ability to pursue its bliss against throwback awareness built on negative intent, but consciousness as a whole persists. Galactic awareness follows, with consciousness willing to consider its place in galactic terms. Information flow and discovery have broadened consciousness’s awareness of the paths that could be forged galacticly.

(continued next post)

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:05 AM
(continued from previous post)

What is soon to follow is consciousness meeting the oppression head on, those with the drive to deny Beinghood to our consciousness as human Beings. In exchange, most of us, but for those who have been twisted by the yoke of money/energy/power, have the choice to step forward unabashedly and call ourselves Equals in statistical unison, as a loving and giving form of consciousness or let ourselves be eugenicized and darkened. The propaganda we have been steeped in is that we are not gods, and it is arrogant to claim that we are.

And yet… Quantum Mechanics shows us the very basic ingredient in existence is consciousness. Consciousness creates all in the zero point field, ergo, we, as conscious Beings are collectively God the Creator.

In fact, we are, indeed, Beings, and loving ones, as a rule, and our yearning has always been for our individual and collective bliss. We have the impetus to create with our matter/energy/power a blissful existence for all of us: the whole of the Universe.

To date, I have read and watched many a web piece about the coming ninth wave described on the Mayan stele, and I hear much about the coming shift in the symphony of consciousness as universe. There’s all this hype about, “It’s coming!” and “Intend it.” But I haven’t seen a cohesive vision put forth about what this coming together might manifest as.

Right now, the intent of consciousness is fuzzy and very unfocused. My place in this game we call life (more on that idea below) seems to be to offer the image to focus on.

Today, we can see evidence of all but the ninth wave – base matter (very low consciousness), cellular life, mammalian life, family structure, tribal structure, regional (Go, team, go!) behaviors, national (America, f# yeah!) groupings, the interweb as planetary consciousness flow (information exchange), and video games such as Mass Effect give us galactic awareness.

The ninth wave is a mere 260 days long and begins (depending on whose translation from the Mayan calendar to ours one uses) 260 days before October 28, 2011, or the most familiar date of December 21, 2012. With Timewave Zero and the I Ching pointing to that date, as well as the Galactic Alignment, I suspect that the 2012 date is the more likely, but I leave open a fair probability that either is the correct date. (For more on the Mayan Stele, watch Ian Lungold on youtube.)

But what would this mean to us? Some insist that on December 21, 2012 (or October 28, 2011), it will simply be a turning of a calendar page and the cycles will begin again. But I doubt it. Given that the nine waves of Consciousness span 16.4 billion years, and all culminate at once, I give very low probability that we will see things as merely “just another day.”

We are striving to create a universe in which each of us may follow our bliss, in ethical love and cooperation. In order for this to happen, we need that abundant energy from the zero point field, for without comfort (however each of us might define it), there can be no complete bliss.

With abundant energy, there is little We cannot choose to create, and with the Interweb (as I feel it should be called), We can communicate to consciously co-create our world, bending the matter with love and/or respect as the only motivation, shedding the profit motivation entirely. Perhaps 2012 (2011) marks the moment when all have freedom to pursuer their bliss following “God’s” only Laws – those three which forbid willfully hurting or killing another sentient Being, taking or damaging another’s belongings willfully, or willfully defrauding another Being.

As mentioned, money is a yoke we perforce must eliminate (via infinite energy), because the motivation to break any of the three Laws is always – statistically speaking – in some way related to money/power (for/over oneself – though it may seem as if it is power over others). Though there is aberration, where it happens without the money/power push is so statistically small a percentage of occurrences that it can be ignored in general, and in any specific can be dealt with by those involved and who care. It is not a social problem at that point. It is an individual one.

And so… The 2012 (2011) date approaches, and if We can bring the abundance forth, co-creating in expression of our love of self and others, We will achieve our goal of ubiquitous comfort and bliss.

They say that money can’t buy happiness. It cannot buy happiness – that is each of ours to choose – but it can buy comfort. With goods and services (created and offered by robots, and those of us whose bliss is creating goods or offering service to others) available via the Interweb, every sentient Being can have comfort.

In fact, every Being can choose the level of lifestyle that suits them best. Freed from the necessity to pour their own energy into the scarcity paradigm of money, freed from the need to be tied to a job, We can choose to live in a cave, a hut on a beach or in the mountains, a modest home, a palace. We can choose how much we wish to consume – and with most anything any one might desire available, consumption will become far more discerning.

There will be no need to package goods except where the safety in hygiene or structure demands it. Most packaging today is in place to deter theft, but with things available for the asking, theft of goods is oxymoronic. One cannot steal what is free, making packaging, for the most part, unnecessary. Our waste will drop to a minimum.

In fact, goods will be made to the very best standard they can be made – no “planned obsolescence” since no one will be driven by present and future profit. This will further reduce the waste that exemplifies today’s society.

I could go on and on describing the abundance paradigm, but I want to move on – questions are welcome if you want to understand how it would easily function and what it might mean to you personally – so I will bring up the probabilities involved in 9/11, merely to show that something is very wrong with clinging to the official story (and very wrong therefore to deny conspiracies on that level).

What are the odds that the “mastermind” of such a grand affair once worked for the CIA (under the name, Tim Osmun (sp?))? If the official story is true, that is. Quite slim, I’d say. What are the odds of an ex(?)-CIA man playing a willing patsy to a deeper plot? Much higher than him running off to plot against the US on his own, I’d wager.

What are the odds of fires bringing down three high-rises in one day when fires have raged much longer (fifteen to twenty times as long) and had never brought down a high-rise before? Pretty slim, I’d say, especially considering that the collapse of all three buildings was indistinguishable from a controlled demolition, complete with the “squibs” – the little jets of smoke that are quite familiar to demo workers. (Those jets are explained away as air pressure exploding out windows as the buildings collapsed, but they should not have occurred virtually simultaneously several floors down from the leading edge if that were the case: the windows on the immediately lower floor would have gone first if any, since that’s where the highest pressure would be.)

What are the odds that the bomb-sniffing dogs would be removed days before the most important time for them to be there to help rule out explosives? Quite slim, given that they were not removed in any regular fashion prior to this, and in fact it seems they were never removed en masse before. If there was a plot of much greater import than 19 Arabs in religious frenzy, the odds of this happening seem to be roughly 1:1.

What are the odds that the FBI would know exactly where to find civilian surveillance cameras trained in line with the Pentagon, such that within three hours they had collected all the evidence? Not high, I would guess…unless they knew about the plan before hand and had scouted the area for just such cameras, which implies foreknowledge…which lands right in the 1:1 ballpark for a deeper plot. (If this was unexpected, I would think we would have seen the FBI putting a call out in the media for any footage to be brought to them for analysis and we all could look at what the footage showed.)

What are the odds that the most surveilled building in the world (the Pentagon) would produce only a small number of frames with nothing conclusive showing? Very, very unlikely. Unless… Yeah, 1:1.

What are the odds of having several witnesses state that there were explosions at the foundations of the Towers (they blow out the foundations first in controlled demo… Hmmm….) BEFORE the first impact? Fairly small, I would think. If these witnesses had experienced no such thing, why would they all recall such a thing? Why would it even enter their mind? Low probability they were all hysterical and unable to distinguish what happened. Again, high probability for that deeper plot.

What are the odds of knowing (not merely suspecting) the culprit in something so unexpected in a mere matter of hours? If the official story is true, I would expect a week at the very least, and most likely months. If the motive was nefarious and orchestrated in the high ranks of our government, I would expect the patsy to be brought out nearly immediately (hours) to focus the shock and anger that deed produced into the direction desired (think Goldstein in the book, 1984) – like going to war, to the profit of Haliburton, et al, for example. Deeper plot, anyone?

(continued next post)

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:06 AM
(continued from previous post)

There are so many more things that I could bring up about that incident that have extremely low probability in the official version, but with just these few items alone, if the official story is true, probability was skewed into astronomical ranges over many events through that period when added together. If one presumes a conspiracy of individuals in our government and media, the odds of all this become virtually 1:1.

If one looks at all the seemingly anomalous occurrences of that day (and those surrounding it), the official story asks that we believe that that incident wildly ignored probability, whereas looking at it from a standpoint of conspiracy, the probabilities fall exactly where they should be.

The reason I wanted to make this point was to bring home the fact that there are some very evil, twisted Beings in control of humanity, sending our finest to kill other Beings (in violation of the first Law). And we allow it because we just don’t want to face the depth of the evil – for it would shatter this Disneyfied world view we cling to for what comfort we can eke out of the slave life we’re given. The government always works in our interest. It protects us… We would be told all the truth!

What are the probabilities that forcing cancer-prone rodents to breathe tobacco smoke 24/7 would not yield a statistically significant increase in observed cancers in over 50 years of trying – IF tobacco, alone and pure, causes cancer? Pretty damned low, I say, and yet they have not a single study over that timeframe showing this. Our government does not tell us this and blamed tobacco (being the most common inhaled substance in the 1940’s and 50’s) and the sun for the cancers that began to crop up as a result of the high-atmosphere explosion of the Trinity nuclear device. Radioactive particles are very much proven to cause cancer. But the government did not want to have their weapons testing shut down… So they “protected” us with lies.

And to keep this myth alive, they have added cancer-causing chemicals, carcinogenic fiberglass filters, radioactive fertilizer, and probably had other evil ideas about how to make smoking cause cancer. Now they use it to divide us, as well, casting the smoker as pariah and setting us against one another. They have whipped up such fervor in some that they have become what I call Tobacco Terrorists, passing laws that remove freedom (in our “land of the free”). Jihad on smokers, yes indeed.

We waste our personal energy, what little is left after we have slaved at our jobs for diminishing returns, fighting over non-issues, with bread through food stamps and circuses in all shows they broadcast, keeping us from applying ourselves to joining in an overarching solution.

What are the odds of a plant, the use of which shows a plethora of easement of human woes and no adverse side effects, be illegal once the fact of its many benefits is shown with no question? Why would anyone not want to enthusiastically report this and suggest we embrace this plant? What explanations might we come up with and what are their probabilities?

That “God” declared this plant verboten? How unlikely given the wide range of issues it handles, often better than the “legal” pharmaceuticals… Really? And where is it written, for that matter? Some have merely extrapolated an interpretation of other words to mean marijuana. Nowhere is it written that this plant is so verboten that we should hunt, sting, arrest, try and house (if found guilty) those who grow, sell and use this plant – to phenomenal social cost, in terms of money/energy/power, social coherence, erosion of the purpose of our police, corruption, and individual hell.

So I have to ask myself why we haven’t seen this change. Having dismissed the “God” explanation as about 0.05 likelihood, say, I ask myself if it makes any probabilistic sense, if the Disneyfied view is the correct one: that Big Brother loves us and though some individuals may be corrupt, the best interest of the average human will happen, including information dissemination. In fact, given by the fact that a great deal of marijuana’s benefits were known in the 1970’s, and the push to keep it illegal continues in a fevered if more visceral pace, that there is a deeper plot.

Having gone from outright lies – Reefer Madness – to subtle implications of some mysterious problem, such as sad looking doggies voiced over with a plea to their master not to use marijuana because they “don’t like you when you’re stoned,” they keep on as if this is some horrid taint with no equal campaign funded to show the benefits of letting it go, and the cost to keep clinging. (Puh-leez, doggy, show me the objectionable behavior. I can see the commercial with the doggy watching a man beat up his wife while drunk and saying something along those lines, but the use of marijuana has no behaviors associated with it that would upset any animal, human or otherwise.)

Alright. I have to conclude that a large part of the explanation lies in money/power/energy (deeper) plots than in what Disney fantasia might lead us to believe (remember the end of that film? The ghostly and monstrous being consuming the little Disneyworld denizens?).

Perhaps it’s merely a money thing… Drug cartels don’t want to see legalization and pressure our lawmaker/breakers to keep the status quo by manipulating what we are told. Maybe the evil is purely money driven. That has good probabilities. Still, I would think that even if it is the money alone, a greater flow of information would be seen and the honest, logical approach would have a stronger following.

Perhaps it is a truly evil agenda, bent on the thrill of anguished energy of the Beings caught in their money/power/energy net. I give that a good probability, too. In fact, more than the “money alone” picture. This has a lot to do with other data about the universe that I have correlated, and if you need examples, feel free to ask.

So lessee, I give the “God” thing statistically nothing, and the money-as-sole-motive about 25%, with the “deeper plot” assigned 70%. (The rest is left to the uncertainty factor.)

What are the odds that a relatively short span of time would see pharmaceuticals at high levels in water supplies in a number of cities? Different drugs in each city? The excuse we are given is that these are drugs flushed into the waste water via urination and then persist in the reclamation. I give little probability to that explanation because, first, statistically, every city uses roughly the same percentage of drugs, so finding one city with extremely high levels of one drug and another city with extremely high levels of another drug suggests a different scenario. Also, why would the filtration of reclamation fail so completely to clean out the other waste – but not a specific drug?

I give much higher odds that this was a test to see how long, from the time an agent is released into a water supply until detection, it takes. If there was a stand-alone case of high levels of some specific pharmaceutical (or if the cases persisted over time, but there was a spate of them and then nothing), that would be a much lower probability, but there was that rash of them.

I contemplate the motives of an individual who would deliberately set up an accident. Why would anyone choose that behavior? Instantly, I remember that virtually all cases of this behavior involved making claims for money. Would such behavior be seen in a society where no one had the need for money to get what they wanted? Where no one had any reason to keep track of how much your unit of conscious flesh cost and you could create bliss by doing what made you…well, er…blissful.? Where there is no need to contribute labor, and with joyous acceptance of our strongest connections individually polarizing into a stable state of love?

Would such behavior be seen much in a paradigm, an embracement, of abundance?

No, I think. Such dastardly deeds have no motivation. Oh, sure, for sour relationship, people may still choose to cause damage to another Being, but good grief! With the need for money out of the picture, why would one choose this behavior, except in a pique of passion? (How many cases of piqued passion have been over money? – if we get rid of money…)

Thrills, maybe? I suppose, but if we hold to ethics as our Law, as a rule, that sort of choice for a thrill will generally lead to being avoided. Pariahhood is earned by the choices of behavior which step outside of ethics. And even pariahs can change, so one is never completely abandoned but just generally avoided. I mean, each of us, moment to moment, controls how we behave – so in any given Now, the pariahs can choose to become gracious. (A state of grace is a choosing of behaviors that are ethical, that are within the three Laws.)

Ah. The abundance paradigm. I do want to see it take off, because I so fully grasp the inextricable intertwining of available energy and any “monetary” system – goods, shells, sex, time. And knowing that energy, the force that keeps the universe spinning, is available to all Beings through what has variously been called the Higgs Field, the Zero Point Field, “Dark” Energy, and the Cosmological Constant, knowing that methods of extracting from this eternal font have been developed (very high probability), and knowing (via much consideration) what a beautiful thing it would be to be free of money and have the world available, I am motivated to promote that choice.

(continued next post)

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:07 AM
(continued from previous post)

I also think it is the very answer to the Evil F#’s in the world, the galaxy, the universe. If we just look around us, we can see that most of us are not out to hurt anybody, obeying the Three Laws, the triad the Law of ethics breaks down into. It is only in our choice of behavior that we can keep these three Laws. With money (a large contributor of piqued passion) removed as a motivation to break the Three Laws, and with the ability to choose to spend a very high percent of time with those one wants to spend time with, it will be a rare occurrence that Beings will choose poor behavior.

The Evil F#’s are likely extraterrestrial, given that no human heart I know of would make choices as I see made in the experience around me. Who would rush a huge amount of toxic “dispersant” into the waters of a large body on this planet, when the far better choice would be to do all one could to stop the flow, showing everything and hearing any suggestions, and allowing nature to run its course?

It would have been solved post haste if we had handled the BP fiasco that way. With money out of the picture, information in crisis flows freely (and it’s a much higher likelihood the crisis is not staged), and we can collectively contemplate the solution, with the best (not the best funded or pet money-maker) emerging.

So if we are intimately entwined with Beings of (an)other universal environments, and we can bring forth abundance, our best stance is to stand gently but firmly on the ground of our being and offer the respect of ethics and the courtesy of equals, along with all the abundance they care to partake in.

And even if we are one lonely species of Being in the universe for all intents and purposes, and the Evil F#’s are human…? Let’s offer THEM that deal.

Let’s cast off slavery to robots. All people who take bliss in any given function can do so. It won’t matter if they don’t show up – the robots can take up the slack, allowing them to do the work when the mood strikes rather than on a forced schedule. In garnering respect from those whose lives such a worker’s efforts touches, they will be “paid.” Respect is the coin of the soul.

I find it interesting that in many studies intent is shown to work, in the form of prayers most specifically but with intent in general, as well (read The Field and The Intention Experiment by Lynne McTaggert). Yet the most highly cited study in the mainstream media of this phenomenon, showing no such effect, has been shown to be rife with poor scientific control. In cases of good control, effect can be seen. These facts are not reported in the MSM (mainstream media), only the (incorrect) conclusion that we cannot affect the world around us.

So what is the role of an individual who feels powerless to change the world? Intend the change to abundance, love and comfort for all. If there is something one can do – leak information or spend money towards that end, all the better. Do it. But even if one is slaving away barely making ends meet in some loveless labor, the intent will be felt and the effects will spread.

Now that it is clear that We can create heaven, in the form of bliss for all Beings, without some nebulous “God,” through the application of infinite energy, eliminating money, it becomes much easier to intend for this to happen. Now that a picture has been painted of what it would look like (read The Abundance Paradigm by Amaterasu, and The Case for the Second Coming and New Jerusalem, which contains the text of The Abundance Paradigm, by Amaterasu and Kalki), intend for it to come to be.

Regardless of one’s religious affiliations, our power to create cannot be questioned (QM shows us this is so), and we create what we intend against any competing intent. The more of us intending, coherently, towards that goal, the more likely we will see that goal fulfilled.

I admit that my goal to bring about the abundance/love this universe offers is selfishly driven – I want to live in that creation – but it is also driven by altruism. I want to give it to every Being. It is simultaneously service to self and service to others.

In fact, it is easy to see that the whole dichotomy of service to self/service to others is an illusion. We can serve ourselves and others at the same time and with the same drive.

How many of you hate your job? How many of you have (or considered having) a bumper sticker that says, “I’d rather be [fill in the blank with something you love to do, that brings you to bliss]?” How many of you would like to have the option of going to work or not without worry of negative consequences if you choose not to on any given day? How many of you would learn, and apply that knowledge, if only you could afford the tuition and/or had the time (think healing others, spending loving moments with family/friends, doing research, creating art, studying history, learning to ski, exploring the wilds, creating ecological harmony, growing organic food, learning what it takes to climb Mt. Everest successfully and having the equipment to do it, and so on)?

How many of you were thwarted by a lack of money/time in your efforts to follow your bliss?

Based on my discussions with others, I’ll wager the numbers in answer to each of these questions is very large. I’ll wager 99% would be a close guess, because only 1% of us here on this planet have the money/energy and time to pursue their bliss as they wish to. Granted, there are some out there whose bliss it is to do exactly what they’re doing. So maybe 98% would be a better guess. But I’ll also wager that very few of the ones presently involved in their bliss are payrolled bankers, insurance salespersons, stockbrokers, oil/gas/coal workers, Wall Street traders, and all other industries that free energy/no money would eliminate. Most endure their job to have a small quantity of time/goods to enjoy.

Perhaps there are those whose bliss comes in the form of controlling others… In a system without money, control of others becomes psychological only and the ones thus controlled must give tacit permission. These Beings who take bliss from such control would struggle to find their bliss. But again, I think the percentage of such Beings is small in the human population – VERY small. Most take bliss from controlling their own time.

And what would happen in times of crisis? Considering that, for example, we have many volunteer firefighters, it is clear that enough of us take bliss in responding to crisis, solving the problems and offering support. In the event of crisis, enough of us would come together to create solutions.

Some of you fear (and we have nothing to fear but fear itself…) that others might choose differently than you wish them to. Maybe it’s that they will choose a different “God.” Maybe it’s a fear that they will choose a different lifestyle. Maybe you want to ensure that others do not choose to alter their consciousness via herbs and funguses… To you I suggest that you let go of these fears. As long as these behaviors do not result in breaking the three Laws, there is nothing to fear, and if the Laws are broken, we have recourse through making pariah of those that break the Laws.

We have the choice to take full responsibility for ourselves, taking what we have created thus far and henceforth create towards a blissful, abundant universe, and as we wish to be allowed our bliss, we must accept all others’ bliss within the three Laws. Allow unto others as you would have others allow unto you.

In closing, I will again bring up the “game” we play called life. It would seem that Consciousness is playing an elaborate “video” game. The “win” is to bring us to where we co-create comfort for all. The “lose” is where most of us are killed and the remainder enslaved. As long as we deny our power in this creation, we are headed for the loss of this game. If we take responsibility, through intent, of what we create, and create coherently, we humans will all win.

I plan on steering us towards that win. Now it’s up to you to pull the oar of intent.

“We are the ones we have been waiting for.” — Hopi prophesy

“The truth shall set you free.”

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:28 AM
S & F for you. I think this is an excellent concept that more people should and will embrace. Terra Papers is also an excellent read and I have printed them and passed them along to many others. Thanks

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by Flatfish

Thank you so much, Flatfish!

I, too, have printed The Terra Papers and have shared them. They were the first thing I ever read that made complete sense of this crazy world we're in.

I appreciate the warm response!

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:35 AM
S&F for you my friend .
Remember in the Quantum world a positive projection is much more powerful than the benign .Fidel Castro's latest on Global Research has echos of your hope . www.globalresearch.ca...
peace to all ...Now to read the comments to your great post

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:57 PM
Thank you for this well thought out coherent post. I hope that all that read will take the concepts to heart and share them with others (I will). The more people that will participate the faster and more complete the change. We are near our darkest hour and change is upon us. Whether that change be good or bad is still our choice, for now!

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:09 PM
If you want it to be accepted by the majority of people, I'd suggest making it quite a bit shorter.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

LOL! I'm sorry. I laugh because people read actual books, still, and they're MUCH longer than my post.

Perhaps the intended audience is not comprised of those with too little patience to read...

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

Perhaps the intended audience is not comprised of those with too little patience to read...

Perhaps. That's why I said 'if'.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by Amaterasu

All I can say is, you poured your heart and soul into this thread. Much information is in it and a lot to digest. The gist of what I am getting is the laws of probability are being used to show what the odds are of the events happening if we take the word of TPTB. I have used this type of logic when debunkers bring up the word coincidence to very strong UFO cases. I allow one or two coincidences, but when you get to three and above then the case has to be taken seriously.

There is a lot here to digest, and I will have to reread this a few times. One note, the stated age of the universe has been changing greatly as new theories abound. It started off as millions of years and was as high as 20 billion years, but now the main theories suggest it is younger at 14 billion years. Still, no one knows the age as they were not around back then.

Great job here, and I look forward to reading more insightful ideas from you, Amaterasu.

Edited to add: This is not just a post, it is an essay. It has been a while since I read one as good as this.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by kidflash2008]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:19 PM
Thank you to all of you who have given such kind words. I expect to have an open letter in response to a book I am presently reading coming out next.

I hope many more will comment.

And Larry... I suspect you expect too little of people. Have more faith. [smile]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:20 PM
Ah, well. Now here is a conceptual construct which merits study.

I agree that at the root of all things is the embedded likelihood that we have taken our facts, and even our own perceptions, for granted. We tend to incline our 'pronouncements' of judgment as finished products; almost unintentionally implying that any human thought can be as definitive as the maxims such as "this too will change" or "time is relative."

But we must know that the foundation of our existence (individual or collective) is based on an ever-changing framework. Beneath us (metaphorically speaking) is an incomplete foundation - as would have to be the case given that we are finite insofar as our ability to perceive is concerned. The ultimate ascendancy, or illumination is often called by different names, but consistently describes the notion of freeing our conceptual limitations of all manufactured limitations.

The likelihood that as a species, or as the human race if you prefer, we could collectively rise above such limitations is, I suspect, very low. But since you broached the subject of Higgs I will include that necessarily there is quantifiable uncertainty in even the most definitive of observations.

Probability and possibility are facades of our incapacity to embrace infinity. Even as we evolve and our technological knowledge increases, we do so at the cost of cutting out that which we can deem inconsequential or expedient. We have transcended in our manipulation of information, for example, from analog to digital - because it was necessary to simplify the task of engineering. Analog represents infinity, digital is discreet. No matter how finely you segment reality, the fluid roughness of infinity is diminished by the act. This parallels our behavior all around. It is, for the most part a choice; in and of itself neither good, nor evil. It is simply expedient.

As a result of the acceptance of uncertainty, we introduce the element of choice into many levels of our own existence. Language, for example, often is the unwitting conveyor of falsehood. Mathematical expression of the statistic is easily the most ill-fated form of language. Technocrats and pedagogues notoriously abuse the quantification of probability and game theory. Symbolic logic can distill truth from lies, but only if the intent to use it that was falls into the realm of political expedience.

The behavior of people is perhaps someday to be quantified to a given level of certainty. But will the desire to make use of the information for personal affirmation, or control override the benefits such knowledge might convey?

History says "Yes."

The prime motivation for malfeasance and deception is fear. Fear of tomorrow. Fear for our posterity. Fear for our condition. Fear for our pride.

The opposite of Fear is faith. It is the wisdom of the ancients passed down through generations of myth and song. Of all things bad, "Fear" is the father, "Pride" the mother.

Hence the constant reminders from men of spirit that we must abandon our attachment to all things external to ourselves before we can truly be free. Even if I have nothing, I still exist. Logically, it follows that I, as a being, have value that is beyond the measure of any external consideration. "I think, therefor I am." takes on a new dimension. The self-evident nature of human consciousness as the sole cause for 'rights' becomes more concrete under this light. There are elements of reality that no one can take OR give.

People however are generally compulsive communicators, who lacking anything that satisfies them to communicate, seek to communicate symbolically by way of wealth, social power, and the trappings of vain-glory.

As long as we decline the necessity of calling such things out as, for example the late George Carlin said "It's a club - and we ain't in it!" we remain childishly inclined to cling to material motivations and consumership as a means to affirm our worth.

Are there those who capitalize on the weakness? Are there those who actually evoke and encourage it? The answer to both is yes. But we have been warned before - many times - about such things. Slowly as the epochs pass, we begin to understand that what we have is in the end only ONE thing - viz. what we happen to have access to. Beyond that, we remain, as always, a lone spirit, navigating reality looking for an ethereal fulfillment which eludes a universally consistent definition.

In our time the words most needed are never forthcoming; "Let me help."

And those who by circumstance or conspiracy are in a position to intercept the goods required for a stress free life; are expending extreme efforts to ensure that most of us feel helpless.

Money, lucre, specie, is a construct upon which they built a paradigm of trade, which upon institutionalization became commercialism, which then became the tool of corporate "virtual" citizens, no more than empty husks and disguises intended to conceal the perpetrators of their acts. As time progressed, corporations consolidate, both legally, and socially. Now the new economic royalty prevails in most matters corporate; their enterprise of dominion will soon be recognized as the enterprise of empire; at which time a decision must be made.

Money is not the problem. Who 'owns' it is.

There may be an opportunity to change the paradigm; but considering we are ill-equipped to engage the controllers (this was made so by design) it is unlikely to be a painless process. Again, the illusion of having to sacrifice something for nothing is well entrenched.

I would continue, by I fear I may have digressed shamelessly....

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Maxmars]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by Amaterasu

Firstly, it's good to see you again. You are much more "absent" than previously.

You've given much here to chew on, and I tend to agree, although I believe if we could rid the human race of *greed*, we would have made our greatest contribution to our own success and well being. The simple elimination of that one foul characteristic, but seemingly dominant trait of our species would go far in our advancement.

Also, A, I did read your book, months back, and I enjoyed it very much.
Can't remember if I told you.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Because there is some degree of error (or could be) in my understanding of the universe, I can never assign 100% or 0% to any idea. And this leads me to never be 100% incredulous or believing, and so I am willing to entertain all data without summarily dispensing with or accepting any of them.


Evaluating the credibility of the source is my responsibility, and on any fantastic claims, I give little benefit of doubt, but will not dismiss a source out of hand. And I will look at evidence and evaluate sources for any adjustment to the probabilities I have assigned, despite how crazy an idea might sound when I first encounter it.

Regardless of the topic, this is an excellent way to approach things. Few things in life are definite and even things that seem highly improbable are likely not completely impossible. A few centuries ago the idea that people could fly from New York to China in a day would have seemed impossible, yet today people do it all the time. Who knows what we will be capable of in the future that seems impossible today? Or what new truths will be discovered about the world we live in? To put complete and utter faith or trust in one idea or perceived truth at the expense of all others is rather short-sighted, regardless of what that idea or perceived truth is.

On the topic of sources, if you repeatedly find a particular source to be completely unreliable or embellished to the point of story-telling as opposed to factual would it not be fair to dismiss that source in the future with little thought given previous repeated experiences with it? Or would you still lend it as much credence as any other source at the start of your research into any given topic?

On a side note, you weren't kidding when you said it was a lengthy read.
Very well put though, as always.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by Amaterasu

Star and flag for you. Brilliant essay.

I noticed in the beginning that you and I have had the privilege of being influenced by our fathers. It made me aware that not everyone has been as fortunate as we have.

You described a world I have dreamed of many times. Some of us tried in the sixties and almost succeeded in changing our world but the evil greedy ones won that battle.

About two months ago I was reading predictions on ATS and was stopped abruptly with thoughts of peace happening. The exact words that came to my mind were "What if peace broke out?"

Would that not be strange? If we suddenly felt love and peace spreading all over our world. I've told a few family members and friends to be careful and watch out as I felt peace was going to happen and it would be so wonderful.

You might guess how they responded to me. They asked if I had been in the black hole again. That is their defination for ATS.

With all that is within me I want this new world and will do my part to make it happen.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:53 PM
Well this is something rare and beautiful on ATS isn't it?

These are the kinds of threads that make this place so great. Wonderful research and extremely well written.

I'd have to agree that we are seeing the world from a similar perspective. Although I've attained my awareness through different means than your ability to analyze data and form cohesive hypotheses.

Quite well I must add.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that those of you who do not believe that some form of an evolutionary process formed the universe around us can go on in your fantasy world that you choose to accept, group together and pat yourselves on the back in your more or less shared belief, and as long as you leave the rest of us alone, go ahead in this delusion.

Although I somewhat agree with your premise here, it's a perhaps not a good idea to consider them in a "fantasy" world, as that would automatically imply 0% probability.

I will however state that I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books.

I find it much more likely that Consciousness is at the center of Creation, and so every conscious thing is at the center of the Universe. Paradoxical it may seem – but not when considered in the light of quantum mechanics.

It's only a paradox to those who fail to see that we, at least in some small way (or huge way, I assume the ladder.) create the world, universe and therefore "current" reality we all live in.

Your concepts of free energy in association with money and power I agree with 100%. I also agree that far too much people discount evidence, strong evidence, in favor of emotional security, in virtually every aspect of our lives.

But we are all guilty of such a thing, being human and all...

I'm a fan of the Three Rules you've listed, they make me think of the 3 Rules given that robots could not break in science fiction movies.

Now you talk about the statistical probability of conspiracy by few to control many, let me ask you a startling question.

If we are consciousness, directly influencing our environment, and current manifestation of reality, are we not influencing that scenario to exist?

The same of course would apply to ET visitation and genetic engineering. I myself have not made up my mind as to where we originated from.

It's either too beautiful or too horrible for us to know about, either way it would probably ruin to journey to some degree. I don't necessarily believe we are supposed to understand ourselves or consciousness at this point in our development. Seems like a powerful weapon to give such an unruly bunch...

In any case, that was a fantastic read, and such a concept is certainly considered to be in my high probability of how things are.


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:08 PM
I believe we debated this in the past. And I still believe now as I did then.

Abundance, is a boring thing.

How many of you would truly be happy being a king and queen of all you see. Oh, you say yes now, but after a few hundred years you would wish for excitement, drama, and the dangers of life. The thrill seekers would not be happy unless their was a mountain to jump off of rather than watching your robot do it.

You brought up so many topics that to address each one would take a month. But, I have a eye to what you did not mention that would bring prospective to your topic. Is not the Abundance paradigm, a thing of our ancient past? Was it not this very same thing that lead to the "Atlantis" wars? It will eventually lead once again to the haves, and the have not.

You can not force everyone to be happy. Some will always want to wallow in their grief, no matter what it is. Some will always have a challenge that is greater than your system will allow. Some will always want to fight or war because that is what makes them happy. Some will want to do their own work rather than have a bot do it for them.

We are not only a duality species of spirit and body, but a more complex set of both attributes, greed, and generosity. We are beauty and the beast, we are the givers, and the takers. We, on the surface of this planet are the perfect mix of emotions and morals. We beat anything in the past, hands down. We are not gods, but we can be god like. Total love was also tried in the past and it was found to be lacking in the spirit for there was nothing to inspire us forward. Total greed was tried in the past and it was found to be just as debilitating as love. Put the two together and you have something that can actually appreciate the difference.

You speak of a system that can never be achieved, completely. There will always be a new horizon to mount and achieve.

Are most ancient ancestors are "Lizard Hearted" because they would not have survived their own ordeal if they had to love the life form that was eating them alive. And our most recent ancestors that do live in your abundance paradigm, are they not held captive by it?

I disagree, love is the most special attribute in the universe, and to be realized, it must have a price put on it. Otherwise. it becomes abused just like the abundance paradigm of the present day "Global Elite" you are so quick to condemn. They were given everything for free, in a warped and perverted type of love, which is actually greed, on a family level.

The universe is not a creation? There is no "Divine" guidance, above us? Then I would say, your eyes are not open, my friend.

top topics
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in