It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A New Political Concept

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:33 PM
Ok I have to say that this was/is one of the best written pieces I have ever read, you have it!

It would please me so much to see you continue and to create a book around your ideas and solutions.

Thank You so much for sharing your solid insights and loving manifestations.

You are one of the chosen few.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:39 PM
hey you know my reaction to this but i'll summarize points that we've discussed before to refresh your memory:

1) i think the abundance paradigm is a wonderful idea

2) i'm not comfortable with the idea that we should both use and discard old texts, at the same time. either the text (or text from a specific time frame) is relevant or its not. an example of this strangeness is picking only 2 passages out of the entire book of revelation as relevant, and tossing the rest of it away. or only picking specific moments in yeshua's life or words that he's been attributed to saying, and tossing out the rest. i realize there's a problem with translation bias and historical error seeps into all types of data (including dna), but we need some form of coordinated learning here because there's no method to the madness in what is happening now. we either need to know what signs to look for in the text that suggests error/translation bias, or avoid using it to prop up our arguments at all. the same thing is true for sumerian-akkadian-babylonian-egyptian texts.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by undo]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:14 PM
The evoultion of the human race continues it's going to be a long process fraught with pitfalls and yet we struggle on...

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:42 PM
Interesting OP, S&F

Only a couple of problems that I see... Primarily, the idea that anything can be "probably" more true or factual than anything else. That's a fallacy, in my obtuse opinion. There's no such thing as "more true" or "more factual," it's all simply a matter of consensus among the ruling elite at any given point in the history of humankind. What the peasants think or believe is meaningless drivel — it's the elite in finance and politics and academia and religion and entertainment who create your reality at any given point in time.

You either agree with it or you're deemed "insane" or "radical" by the elite.

Doesn't matter what's "true" or "false" or "fact" or "fantasy"... I'm rather aligned with the epistemologist Charles Fort in this respect. Fort was frequently berated as an "anti-intellectual" for his views, and he is yet perceived as something of a crackpot among those who shape your reality, simply because he was so prolific and he made so much goddamned sense, I think.

Fort held that nothing is "fact" and nothing is "fantasy"... Instead, all information is in a state of perpetual transformation from fantasy to fact and back to fantasy. Then back to fact. Then back to fantasy. Ad infinitum.

Fort called himself an intermediatist — one who accepts NOTHING as fact or fantasy, as all information is true or false depending only upon popular consensus.

His views grew out of, yes, some odd personal "notions" that he entertained throughout his life, but were buttressed by extensive research on his part for a large portion of his latter life. Starting at about the age of 40, the questionably successful author Charles Fort began his research in two of the great libraries on the planet — The New York Public Library and the Library at the British Museum in London.

For a couple of decades, Fort haunted these libraries for 8 hours a day, every day, taking tens of thousands of notes from scientific journals and magazines and the leading newspapers of the day, covering every arcane topic you can name, from cryptozoology to paranormal activity to lycanthropy to UFOs to weather anomalies to astronomy and geology and physics and on and on. Fort gathered over 60,000 handwritten notes in his research, which he compiled and released in a number of fascinating books published in the first three decades of the 20th Century (before his death in 1932).

Based on these extensive and assiduously categorized notes, Fort arrived at the conclusion that dogmatic Science (and authority in general ) manipulates our perception of reality, attacking those fringe thinkers who threaten to expand our perception of reality beyond the control of the ruling elite.

Fort demonstrated, using voluminous notes from extraordinarily prestigious sources — such as Nature and The New England Journal of Medicine and The Royal Astronomical Society — that there are, indeed, truly BIZARRE documented phenomena all around us in the natural world, phenomena that Science simply cannot explain using its primitive and narrow Scientific Method. Accordingly, Science attempts to undermine and discard and cover up these anomalies, in order to protect the integrity of their CONSENSUS of reality.

How disingenuous is a Science that discards inconvenient information?

We cannot, therefore, make informed assessments on the probability of one bit of information being "more true" or "less true" than another when the information itself is biased and distilled and spoon-fed to us by a social authority whose intent is to limit our thinking and manipulate our perception of reality.

I mean, this is like me giving you the choice of going over Niagara Falls in a barrel OR driving off a thousand-foot cliff in a flaming pickup truck, and inviting you to decide upon the "probability" of surviving one or the other.

Well, if you're a free-thinking individual, you flip me off and exercise your third option — to pursue your own Life, and that doesn't involve hurling yourself over a precipice of any kind.

Right. And THAT is what we should do to Science or Government or Education or Religion when they offer us these "either-or" choices. No thanks. We should always have the option of flipping off authority and pursuing our OWN perception of reality, even if that reality is full of mysticism and magic and mythic gods, if that is our choice.

That's called true Liberty.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

i pretty much agree with several things you've mentioned in your post, only problem i have is suggesting that it's okay to excerpt tiny bits out of huge volumes of data and throw everything else away. how can we ever arrive at something approaching what really transpired, if we're restricted to 5 words out of 1000s and how does one go about deciding which five words are relevant.

an example is to characterize enki as totally above the negative activities of his brother enlil, an idea which is generated by reading the sumerian texts, and then ignoring sumerian texts which suggest enki and enlil were working on these things as part of a coordinated team. in fact, ignoring huge sections of the text that say all manner of interesting and oft times strange things, simply because they aren't the right kind of strange to fit the paradigm you're working with. hey if it's there, why not find out how come? why stop at the spot where the data easily supports your findings and leave the rest undiscovered or ignored?

let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by undo]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:35 AM
Very interesting and thought provoking!

I think that our senses and awareness is so primitive that reality is beyond our conceptualization. Use of Language is the best we can do to describe our environment and it falls woefully short.

Perhaps someday if we last long enough the doors of perception will be unlocked for mankind.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:44 AM
Just giving this a little bump for the night readers, really well worth the patience and time. It is true, so many times myself included we want to come on and flash learn, read, but when a member takes time to share such quality penmanship it is a pleasure and learning opportunity to just kick back and dive in.

I think many people are coming to a point where we know the way things have been are coming to an end yet refrain from using the heart to make the adjustments into the next and even possibly the end chapter in humanities story.

It is easier to go on dull and mediocre, reacting from the mind and the intellect rather than opening all the windows and doors of the heart the soul and really living, really making the change needed at this critical time in our shared history.

Is it because the evil influences have you literally scared to let go of their system? Are you living a half life because you have fallen into fear rather than rising into the next step of your personal evolution, our shared evolution?

We dont need more political revolution, that has been tried into the dirt and never maneged to create more than a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the rest who are still the same souls, still hoping you want to create their version of a revolution.

What is needed a new kind of revolution, an energy revolution of the heart. I think that 2012 could possibly be a time when this dimension slides into the next, but you have to start living the life you intend to emanate now.

Creating the future you want to be living in in 2013. Let go the past and be who you are today, as you are. Fully accepting yourself and making steps to be the you who will benefit from the shift.

I have an idea that when the shift comes, if you are ready and willing to move to a higher frequency it will happen and your life will be lived from that higher state.

On the other hand if you choose to allow the lower astrals who will be and are already moving into this plane of existence to control your emotions, your heart and actions, 2012 will come and you will know that nothing happened, that the world is even more dark and hopeless now than before.

Create the life you want to be living in after 2012, after the shift.

Start today!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:47 AM
money really, i see as the problem. there's no reason we couldn't go to Mars now, if money wasn't an issue. We could get every scientist interested and do it in a couple years. But there's all the red tape.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Amaterasu
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?

I am going to have to spend some time digesting the entire post, and I hate to pluck a single paragraph from it for a comment, but I need to do it here. If all life were equal in measures of finite details, then what you are saying here would have merit. However, this isn't the case in any way. A dog, for example, can potentially be the canine equivalent of retarded and yet few people would notice it. The dog would be considered stubborn, hard headed, or just plain goofy... but then again, how many of us haven't seen a dog that fits these descriptions?

Humanity is very different. Developmental milestones have been set by so-called "experts" and if a child doesn't hit them, they are quickly considered as having some form of defect. Humans are essentially the only creatures on Earth who can have this applied to them. While animals can inbreed and appear to produce "normal" offspring, with humans even a tiny glitch in the system is quickly observable... be it a retardation, minor physical defect, or other developmental issue. I think Hollywood has largely contributed to this falacy that one generation of inbreeding humans will magically produce The Hills Have Eyes mutants with humpbacks, stubb arms, and 5 lb tongues. It is only because of how fine our motor skills and appearance is on average that the minor defects seen within that single generation of shared genetics are so noticable.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:22 PM

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
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.

Hmmm... I, like the Church of the Sub-Genius, would LOVE slack. I would love to do my job on my own terms and schedule. Or not do it at all. I would love to spend time camping when I feel like it. I would love to play games when I feel like it. I would love to help in discovering the past - with the education there for the taking. I would love to teach others what I know. I would love to paint when I feel like it. I would love to have the choice of climbing Mt. Everest - with the latest in gear and support. I would love to visit the many pyramids around 6this planet when I feel like it. What's this about "kings and queens?" I never proposed such a thing. We would be in charge of ourselves and our own behavior only.

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.

I suspect that even then, energy was at a premium, and there was some kind of monetary system in place. So... No, I don't think so. Once we have all the energy we need and want, there is haves and have nots no more.

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.

True. And I would never want to force anything on another. The ones unhappy despite the chance to do what sings to their heart are responsible for their choice. And let them be unhappy if they so choose, I say. The line is the "fighting," and "wars." They break the three Laws. But if they want to organize a fight (like boxing or whatever), and all agree to the terms (even fighting to the death), then let them have at it. If they want to fight and agree, no laws are broken.

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

I disagree. Within this approach is the opportunity mount and achieve any horizon we would pursue. It's not a "system," per se. It is an approach.

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?

Not sure I grasp what you're saying here.

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.

A price on love? Really??? Hmmm. I believe love is priceless. [shrug]

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

[shrug] The universe is a creation, in the Now, via the intent of all consciousness combined. And it is not with my eyes that I can see this clearly.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Interesting OP, S&F

Only a couple of problems that I see... Primarily, the idea that anything can be "probably" more true or factual than anything else. That's a fallacy, in my obtuse opinion. There's no such thing as "more true" or "more factual," it's all simply a matter of consensus among the ruling elite at any given point in the history of humankind. What the peasants think or believe is meaningless drivel — it's the elite in finance and politics and academia and religion and entertainment who create your reality at any given point in time.

Oh, I agree with you that somewhere out there within the limits of perception is a core truth, but being without all data, I must assign probabilities to the data I do collect as to how likely it is to be that core truth. It is merely from my humble perspective that I must speak in things being more or less probable relative to truth.

That others would impose brands of "truth" on the perception of the masses really is irrelevant to my assessments, but that I account for the fact that I may be hearing from them. I do believe that there is a core truth, as in certain things really did happen in a given way, and the reports are what may be skewed.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:40 PM
To the rest of you, I wish I had time to thank each of you for your comments. I address the negative, because that is what needs to be addressed. But with one hour a day on the computer, I really cannot fit all my thanks to each of you individually, much to my regret!

With any luck, I will be getting an online service soon, and will have hours and hours!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:32 PM

THIS is now part of the 1% of threads I live for here at ATS.

As we all know, the time between posts of this caliber is ever so increasing in nature, so it truly affirms and reassures the monumental effort we all put/wade through in effort to find this seeming phenomena of empirical logic, truth and illumination, as I reflect in somewhat facetious embarrassment on the fact that it was a U2U that got my attention.

What better way to entertain others than to teach of the highly probable foundational truth and genuine solution? You are truly using your consciousness for what it was meant for, and I can only applaud you for it, as it is so rarely seen.

I cherish the last hour or so (I was compelled to comprehend every word) as time well spent, and saved this page on my local start page as a link in my "Centering" category of links (connections).

I give you the most unfeigned "Bravo!" I have given in years! A little star and flagging just doesn't seem to be enough for threads like this.

:respect: (a little more coin for your soul)

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
Ridding the human race of greed would require some study of The North American Chief ...It would take nearly 3 generations of nurture of the youth to bring about what you suggest ...Not that is ever too late to attempt it.
I have herd the term The Terra Papers .... Could one of you
kind souls direct me to such document ...please..... peace

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by Amaterasu

You have sparked my curiosity.

I always wondered if maybe ancinet pyramids and mayan culture alike were only inspired by our own curiosity. Our fine tuning that is sparked by curiosity. To want to understand how far the sun is from the earth and to know when there are going to be eclipses.

The more I think of it I think David Icke is a nut. There are so many conspiracy theories that suggest that the elite are half human and half alien.

I actually want to believe that sometime in the near future humans learn time travel and that the ancients experience with the gods was actually meeting with time travellers from the future and the monuments were erected in a moment of curiosity, to try to contemplate the unvierse.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by antar
Ok I have to say that this was/is one of the best written pieces I have ever read, you have it!

It would please me so much to see you continue and to create a book around your ideas and solutions.

At the risk of being banned for talking about someones book (
looks at Doc Velocity
) he already has a book look at his signature.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:15 AM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

*clears throat*

*looks around furtively*

shhhh... don't tell anyone but ama is a female.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by Amaterasu

hours and hours, sounds good!
then i can pick your brain some more about terra papers.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:58 AM

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
Ridding the human race of greed would require some study of The North American Chief ...It would take nearly 3 generations of nurture of the youth to bring about what you suggest ...Not that is ever too late to attempt it.
I have herd the term The Terra Papers .... Could one of you
kind souls direct me to such document ...please..... peace

To both you and ladyinwaiting...

Greed is only significant (can only exist) in scarcity. In abundance, each will settle on that which provides them comfort. For some, it may be a whole lot (but there will always be more), but for the vast majority, it really won't be a great deal.

Greed is meaningless in abundance.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

I have been thinking about your comment that the abundance paradigm is boring. Truly, I scratch my head. It really took me aback.

I place myself in the paradigm. I’m giving myself the freedom of the situation, seeing how *I* would choose to approach this marvelous slack, and I, personally, see me and my daughter together at the Pyramids (those ones in Egypt, yes), and we stand together looking at them, knowing we can enter. Behind us is my daughter’s father with his arms over our shoulders and a hand on each of our arms. This one triangle we define is bursting with bliss as we pause for this view, and then continue forward.

Visiting the Pyramids is kinda a kiss goodbye to the Earth for a while, for we have chosen to explore space and time. We are happy because this is what we would choose to do. Behind on Earth, we will leave ones we love, whose bliss is more bound there, and if there are any people on the globe we would hate if we’d spent much time with them, we don’t know who they are. The one’s we love we will always communicate with. Anyone we cared not much for, mostly we have never seen again. Actually, we keep connected to the people we love, though people we probably would love, if we met them at a gathering, pass by and we exchange smiles. Mostly, we don’t see them again, either.

We will be back, but for now, we leave them behind to adventure.

So, though the choices of the three of us combined might wind up leading us to a different future, that one would be my vote.

Realizing what slack we would have makes it clear to me that many would find it awesome. They could practice surfing their gnarly wave on whatever beach they wanted to in the world, and if they felt like visiting the historic landmark of Las Vegas in teaching their children (or themselves) history, that could be arranged, too. (All those lights are now powered by free energy.) What bliss to choose how one would create in this quantum-driven universe, with the tools of one’s heart and imagination.

Without money, there is little cause to break the three Laws. Why would you steal someone else’s stuff when you can have your own? Why would you hurt someone? Why would you have reason to defraud?

Maybe you wanted to devote your life to the playing of a musical instrument, or writing songs for it, but you took over the garage business from your father because that was the most accessible source of livable income? There will be no need for such businesses, and as long as you obey the three Laws, you can spend your time playing your instrument, recording it, and sending it out on the web for consideration and sharing. Taking breaks to go camping with your friends/family. Or tinkering with that program trying to do it better. Or tinkering with the cars your father used to fix, because you find bliss in it now and then. Or… Basically, having slack.

If you wanted to guild the Golden Gate Bridge in gold, you could.

You would rise in status by how you treat others and what you choose to produce. And generally, you have no more social disorders but cases of individual conflict. In these individual cases, the procedures of which are always available for examination by those who care – which could be anybody – via cams on the web (Personal Witness devices will be perfected, thus offering vastly more information about the incident), and via posted statements and footage made by any who witnessed, consensus will be reached. And if an individual is determined to have behaved poorly, the individual will move closer to “pariah” in the minds of others; the degree of movement will be determined by how unethical one had chosen to be.

So back to your “boring” comment. I figure that if, faced with so much to create with, you still find yourself bored, it is because you are choosing to be bored. That being the case, what can I say?

Um. Good luck with that?

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in