Dichotomies
Dichotomy: A division into two, where the two are sharply different or opposed.
Dichotomies are common in human language and thought. They are a kind of simplification of real situations that allow us to communicate without excessive verbal nuance. In common experience we have dichotomies like cold/hot, sick/well, low/high. We recognize that there are degrees between these extremes. We use a few modifying words to communicate this: more/less, many/few, etc. This can also be done in a more technical way using a continuous scale (or spectrum) as we do with measurements like temperature and time.
If you study Scientology you will run across a scale that goes between -40 and +40. This is one way we have to express a spectrum of values between two extremes.
We use and experience a lot of different dichotomies. When any of these are used in ways that really don’t make sense, you get a false or deceptive dichotomy. This often happens when someone is hoping to express an idea of superior versus inferior (a “vertical” dichotomy) using a dichotomy that can’t really be evaluated that way.
The perfect example of this is Left versus Right in politics. In the first place, this dichotomy obviously uses a horizontal metaphor. Secondly, these terms are often left inadequately defined. Thus, most attempts to convert this horizontal dichotomy into a vertical one use specious or circular arguments.
Other dichotomies that are essentially horizontal, at least in most contexts, and become false or useless with any attempt to convert them to a vertical (good/bad) meaning include:
White/Black.
Science/Pseudo-science.
Advanced/Primitive.
Logical/Emotional.
There are many others. These are some we see in common use today. You might disagree with my proposition that these dichotomies are being misused, but I invite you to take a closer look. You may report your findings in the comments.
Even our most basic “vertical” dichotomies rely on a certain amount of social agreement, or context.
Good versus Bad (or Evil) has to be one of our most basic dichotomies. We can only pin down the meanings of these concepts in the context of, say, the game of human existence. There is broad agreement that this is a useful context, even though it is not the only one possible. For example, things might turn out a bit different if we shift the context to the entire biosphere.
In the context of the game of being human, most would agree that “good” would mean survival of that game, whereas “bad (evil)” would mean the end of that game. If someone wanted to kill all humans on Earth, that would be evil. If someone wanted to provide all mankind with a way to live happier and longer lives, that would be good.
Alive versus Dead is another important vertical dichotomy. Most agree that being “more alive” is better than being “less alive” or “dead.” Different contexts for this will be explored below.
Healthy versus Sick is a very popular dichotomy these days. This is in some sense of subset of the Alive versus Dead dichotomy. This will also be explored further below.
I would now like to explore some additional dichotomies that I use a lot in my writing that are not encountered as much in popular culture.
These important dichotomies have been hidden from us by our lack of awareness of what we really are – immortal spiritual beings – which awareness has been suppressed. (It can’t be totally blocked, as it is too innate to life.)
This awareness may become more real through recall of a past life, or by running into someone else who has done this. There are other ways to elevate this awareness, but most of them are quite unpleasant or take years to develop.
From this basic awareness comes the realization that we also have a mind and the we are separable from both it and the body. It is much more difficult, however to separate from the mind, and most of use can live with it satisfactorily, particularly after doing a bit of “mental housekeeping.”
Another realization that has developed out of this is the Tone Scale. This is the scale that goes from -40 to +40 that I mentioned earlier.
In our technology, the full scale applies to the being separated from the body, and a subset of this scale, 0.0 to 4.0, applies to the being when it is with the body and “human.” These can be thought of as “aliveness” scales for beings and for humans.
In the human context (where body death is 0.0 and something we might call enthusiasm or “zest for life” is at 4.0) we get a scale of human emotions. A variety of related scales involving human attitudes on various subjects (such a politics) can also be derived.
This can also be seen as a scale of sanity. When I speak of “criminals” versus “honest people” I am using the human version of the scale. 2.0, at the center of this scale, is considered to be the make-break point in human life. At this point, the person is struggling. Below this point he is angry, then fearful, then immersed in a sense of loss, then apathetic, then dead. Above this point he becomes bored, then conservative, then interested, and then more and more cheerful.
Another overlooked dichotomy, which is applied mostly to individuals, is In Present Time versus Out of Present Time. This is important in spiritual technology. It is often referred to in social discourse with terms like “with it” and “out of it” or “aware” and “asleep.” It is a major factor in the mental phenomena commonly associated with psychological disorders.
There is another important dichotomy that gets thrown around a lot and deserves closer attention. This is Freedom versus Slavery. This only makes sense in the context of ethics; otherwise it becomes a false dichotomy. Freedom is good when it is used to do good. And slavery is bad when it is used to do bad.
On the human level, a free person is one who, though “trapped” in a body, is unfettered in most other ways and is personally happy and seeks to promote the happiness of others. And a slave is one who is not only trapped in a body but trapped by the fears that criminals can use to make him feel like his options are limited to choices that will only make things worse. He is often in constant fear, which all by itself shortens his life and renders him ineffective, unproductive, and lacking in alertness. An angry slave may seek to destroy his master, but may take many others with him. And a slave may select the wrong target for his antagonism.
As most of us understand life: Freedom is good and Slavery is Bad.
But a being can become “inverted” and begin to look at things the other way around.
Our current situation is an example of an inverted narrative striving to dominate our attention.
I don’t agree with the idea that we should let a disease convince us that slavery is better than freedom.
In March 2019, federal prosecutors publicly announced their investigation into a college admission scheme that led to criminal charges against more than 50 people—including parents, college and university coaches, and a founder of a for‑profit college counseling and preparation business—related to falsifying information to facilitate the admission of more than 30 students to more than 10 different universities.
Two students identified in this investigation were admitted to the University of California (UC) system. And so it became the job of the California State Auditor, an independent state agency, to look into the UC admissions scene and see what they could find. They looked into admissions records for the years 2013 through 2019. They released their report this month.
The audits team dug up 64 additional cases indicating abuse of privilege in the admissions process.
According to the auditors, these unethical practices were made possible by “missing safeguards.”
The auditors were able to locate 42 admissions at UC Berkeley that could be documented as related to personal connections rather than academic ability. The other 22 inappropriate admissions were all done through athletic coaches.
…because of limitations in the evidence available for our review regarding the campuses’ admissions processes, there were likely more inappropriate admissions at the campuses than the 64 we describe in this report.
The auditors also found no strict policies (criteria) regarding who gets admitted. This allows admissions staff to make allowances for students who don’t pass the initial screening process (“application review”). Beyond that, they found the application review process itself flawed and inconsistent. Recommendations depended too much on who was doing the review. Finally, the auditors found that the university President’s office seemed disinterested in promoting or insuring fairness and consistency in the admissions process.
It’s a Good Old Boys club.
I didn’t read the whole report in detail.
I had walked away from this whole scene almost 50 years ago, after I looked at the choice of going to university and decided it wasn’t for me. I wrote off the system way back then as a snake pit, and never really saw any reason to upgrade that assessment.
But this issue is pertinent to our current scene. It provides more data points regarding the question of how criminals can gain a foothold in society and grow their influence.
And so, a few salient (protruding) points come to view:
The first article I find on this topic was posted at PBS.org on 26 February 2019. It reports that state government funding for public universities has dropped by $9 billion in the last ten years. Currently, about half of public university operating costs have to be covered by tuition. The article makes the point that the public is unaware of this situation, many believing that taxpayer spending on public higher education is increasing.
State spending on state universities fell by 16% (adjusted dollars) between 2008 and 2017. Only five states are spending more today. In 8 states, the cuts were much steeper.
According to the College Board, tuition has been rising since the late 1980s in a bumpy pattern related to the availability of taxpayer funding and increased student demand for a higher education.
An article at Inside Higher Ed notes that public universities become targets for budget cuts when states are under financial strain.
According to a 22 March 2017 article at 24/7 Wall St. institutions of higher education are increasingly relying on private and federal money to cover expenses and expand. Federal funding sources include Pell Grants ($31 billion in the 2014 academic year) and research grants from many federal agencies. These are of a similar amount to the tuition assistance funding, but much more concentrated in the big research universities and in particular, in medicine.
And so we see one clear connection to our current scene: Medicine.
As alluded to in point 2 above, bodies are a key element in an ancient structure, or pattern, which seeks to balance the spiritual desire for freedom with management’s desire to maintain control. In a more “advanced” biology-based society, this control can be effected through the institution called Medicine.
Religion (superstition) government (force) and industry (technology) are more primitive forms of social control. In a sufficiently advanced society, Medicine (bio-psychology) can take over many aspects of this function. Beyond this we have the promise of advancements in spiritual development which could lead to a reversion to life without bodies. However, current ruling elites fear this possibility to the extent that they will take criminal actions to suppress any organized progress along this line.
I write of these things as though they are common knowledge. I realize that most see all this as some sort of belief system that probably isn’t true. If you are not part of the ruling elites, you most likely see this subject as curious, slightly disturbing, but basically harmless. If you are an “insider” in the elites, you are more likely to consider this subject as a dangerous truth which must be kept under very strict control.
Though spiritual development in its current form poses no particular threat, its disruptive potential is seen as vast and possibly fatal. The fact that ET groups have reached us that use this subject in ways that are frightening and at times hostile has led the ruling elites to believe that the subject needs to be developed for strategic purposes but otherwise kept secret.
This enrages persons like myself who see this as purely a matter of religious freedom. We are fully aware of past abuses and intend not to allow such to repeat. We also realize that the general public, including the elites, are mostly only subconsciously aware of these past abuses, and are therefore irrationally fearful of the subject.
Our work on Earth is largely as an unorganized and extremely diverse collection of individuals and small groups who have no common plan or strategy. We share an urge to somehow remedy the problem of the totally irrational fear and ignorance that surrounds these matters. A few are making noticeable progress, while others seem stalled or defeated.
Most of us don’t want stupid rich kids going to college just because their parents can use money and influence to get them in. But the fact is that even if the college admission process were squeaky clean, it would not make that big a difference. The ruling elites have many other ways to keep their ranks “pure.”
The best I can hope for is that a parallel system develops that uses a whole different approach to the future. This system would have to be based on real spiritual awareness and be informed by the mistakes made in our actual spiritual history. I don’t see that it can afford to raise its head and identify itself as an organized movement. But perhaps that isn’t necessary. Let it be known, however, that there is another “higher education” system seeking students. Long hours and terrible pay await its graduates. As does a real opportunity to enjoy life in a way that most of us have not for a very long time.
I tend to dream in little concentrated bits. Perhaps I have discussed this elsewhere. But one part of this I haven’t discussed much are the flashes I get of female forms. If I were a woman this lifetime it might be different. But as a man, other lives of men tend to be the ones contacted (or so I suppose) which furnish the little bits of images. And so those images are likely to include one thing longed for by most men – the company of a woman.
I thought of this metaphor while I was in bed, so decided to put it in a subtitle before I forgot about it.
Each relationship, as we have experienced them, brings with it a string of emotions. The elevated heart rate. The buzzing of genetic communications. The tug of something that seems almost installed, synthetic.
I thought I would list some of mine (this lifetime) with a word or two that seems to be the dominant experience for that particular friendship:
That’s enough. You’re not allowed to ask my about most of these people. The point is how different each one was.
And none of these relationships really played out to a satisfactory conclusion. They all contained incomplete cycles of action. And so, instead of a nice sequence of flows – beginning, middle, end – I got a knot of emotions, all bound up with each other.
Now imagine this repeating ten, one hundred, one thousand times. Once again, each lifetime. And before long you have something closer to a tangled ball of twine instead of a clear and knowable past.
In an attempt to find some relief from the apparent absurdity of our current situation here on Earth, I took a free trial on Amazon Prime and began watching movies. I started, really, because my friend Fauna Elisabeth had posted on Facebook some movies she had watched, and I wanted to see them, too.
One was about the development of the KKK in the South after the Civil War. It was a “clan.” It had roots in Scottish-Irish culture. It was a good film. A bit disturbing.
Then I watched a story told by the daughter of a racially mixed couple about what happened after they moved from Hawaii back to his home state, Alabama. Need I say she had a hard time. A bit disturbing.
Next I watched the first Stargate movie. It was a bit disturbing.
After that I “binge watched” the entire first season of The Expanse. It was recommended by a church friend. It, too, was disturbing.
Then I watched a comedy called My Spy. But it was also disturbing.
Then I sort of gave up and started watching the Stargate SG-1 series from the beginning (1997). You guessed it.
So I’m lying in bed, thinking of our current situation, and crying about the most recent stories I watched (two of the main characters reunited with their estranged wives, then forced to separate from them again – among other heart-wrenching situations) and I realized I was seeing a pattern.
These story writers were pulling at the loose ends of my knot. And how many of us have such knots? Probably nearly all of us. (Some have become so beaten down they are no longer aware of these knots – even for this lifetime.) They were using, in particular, closeups of women’s faces, and also of their hands and necks. And my heart rate sped up. And my feelings from those other times popped out and affected me.
The above was the main gist of what I wanted to write about today.
But it wasn’t all I saw in these stories. This is, remember, part of the corporate entertainment industry. They are interested in pulling your strings. Perhaps writers tend to do this anyway. It might not all be the doing of Corporate…perhaps they aren’t that smart.
Violence, of course. And plenty of it. As if it were supposed to be a normal part of daily existence. That’s called “normalizing” violence. Maybe violence is normal. But why would we push it so hard in our stories? Because they sell better that way? Perhaps. But there is more.
In Stargate SG-1 (where I still have most of my attention) the Earth people are usually depicted as very much genuine and in the present. They are with it. In contrast, the people on most of the worlds they visit are in various states of disability. Many are “less advanced.” Some seem drugged. A few seem euphoric. There are a few “wiser” civilizations, but they are depicted as totally inscrutable and desiring to stay uninvolved in the games of life.
I don’t remember Star Trek that way. (The two shows bear a lot of resemblance to each other.) Even the “bad” Americans are on the ball compared to most of the off-world people. Yet the truth is probably closer to this: Most societies out there are painfully similar to our own, though many are much older, and therefore, more technically advanced, and less free.
Next, we see the great skill of doctors being continuously extolled. The intergalactic voyagers are constantly bringing pathogens (often “unique virus-like diseases”) back to Earth with them, and the docs always manage to figure out what to do to save the planet. The head doctor is a beautiful young woman with fascinating brown eyes. They like to show closeups of her. The intellectuals are also important in these stories. Psychics or spiritual people never appear as helpful on Earth. They only exist on other planets, and their “powers” are often brought into question.
This of course bears no resemblance to what is happening in society today, does it?
Beyond that, other points include:
Though I know my assertion that any of this could be real is fantastic and unbelievable, there is too much evidence now that it is quite real. The details are probably clouded. But I am concerned and I respect others that are also expressing concern in a rational way. I know we’re all supposed to be strong when times get rough. But I could use some hand-holding right now, frankly.
Two days ago, on Wednesday the 16th of September, 2020, David Wilcock livestreamed a 4-1/2 hour presentation of various data that he has been told that are pertinent to the current scene.
David is a spiritually-oriented guy who is a serious student of the “Law of One” materials. These are a rather extensive series of interviews done with an unidentified being calling itself “Ra.” All these interviews were done through a woman acting as a channel. Included in these materials is the prediction of a transformative event that David refers to as “Ascension.” The quasi-religious nature of these materials, and the fact that their source is untraceable (it is safe to say they did not come from the mind of the channel) put them completely outside the realm of science, in a subject generally known as New Age.
David made his living writing articles, doing spiritual consultations, and then writing books in which he relates modern research to these more esoteric materials with the compulsive thoroughness of a true intellectual.
However, because he ran in New Age circles, he got caught up in several other stories having to do the ins and outs of earthly power struggles and how they might relate to this esoteric prediction that things on Earth are eventually going to change.
These stories tend to focus around exactly what technologies the power elites – both here and off-planet – might have at their disposal, where they got it, and what exactly it can do. Extending from that is the question of who exactly the power elites are, and what they are doing to try to acquire full control over these technologies. From there came the realization (shared by many others who have ventured down this road) that those serious about their power are a murderous lot who can’t possibly maintain their positions if they continue to act with such disregard for the dignity of human life. Here we arrive at a point that everyone tends to agree on!
As is common in David’s world, there are various people who have experience working “on the inside” (and who are thus usually called “insiders”) who wish for various reasons to share what they know without being immediately targeted for elimination.
David believes that most of his informants are (or were) sincere in their desire to expose the atrocious and anti-human aspects of what goes on behind the scenes, as well as various technology details. His most recent presentation was partly provoked by the recent loss of two of his “insiders.” Both of them had become dear friends. Both died mysteriously (as is the norm). And one had asked David to keep his identity strictly secret until he had passed.
These are not the only sources that David has lost in his career, only the most recent ones. But their loss at this time seemed a bit odd and perhaps significant, since we are experiencing in these days an unprecedented attack on our spiritual, cultural, and political institutions.
The back story appears to be that those groups who were dominating politics and business at the time of the Second World War struck a deal with some external group that they would get “safe passage on the last train out” so to speak if they could deliver up the planet to this group at some unspecified future date. Initially this looked like a sure thing, but then it seems some individuals involved in various aspects of the plan caught wind of its deeper implications and decided to set up a counter-plan that would prevent the population from being enslaved.
According to this narrative, Trump was the first President since Reagan to refuse to cooperate with this plan. (Reagan was persuaded to change his mind about this after he got shot and almost killed.) Trump was chosen and installed by the rival faction (known as the “Alliance”) but it is not clear how much he himself knows about all the background data. The main accomplishment of his first term was to make significant personnel changes in key areas of government. This of course is driving the group being opposed – which controls most of the large media companies as well as the Democratic Party, or so it seems – totally berserk.
Most of David’s presentation was about the exotic technology that is being used by I think both sides in this struggle, but mostly is under the control of the Alliance. This is data from a computer dude named Bruce Peret who was roughly David’s age, and had gotten very interested in the Law of One materials after working a while in a secret program training people to improve their psychic abilities. This program was needed because a human with normal psychic abilities is unable to properly operate some of these exotic technologies. Bruce Peret recently died of cancer.
Then David switched to data from the other insider who recently died, Pete Peterson. Pete was very involved in helping the Alliance adapt exotic technologies for use on Earth. He has been involved in secret programs, per his own story, for most of his life.
The above data is mostly from earlier conversations with Pete. Here he is going over a plan to create an economic panic that will allow the power elite of take away many basic human rights. It relates how the Alliance got started. The military (or ex-military) people who had a problem with firing on American civilians managed to find each other and develop a counter-strategy (The Plan) for hindering the current ruling elite.
David decided to include these comments from Peterson. David was convinced that Pete’s story about what happened to Obama prior to his inauguration was accurate. According to contemporary news articles, this meeting happened on 7 January 2009. Here’s a photo from the get-together.
Such a meeting is unprecedented in my experience. They basically got four white guys to beat up on a black guy. Apparently the senior Bush was the one who actually delivered the bad news to Barack: You step out of line, and we take out your daughters, then your wife, then you. You’re just a useless ******.
I think the Dems are there just to make it look like the cover story was true.
Like I said, David is convinced this really happened to Obama, and in recounting the story, as told to him by Pete, he started to cry. He cried quite a lot. I think I would have, too. He kept saying, “I’m sorry. I really don’t like talking about this stuff.” He didn’t realize it would affect him so strongly.
From my training and viewpoint, it should be noted that David was tired and hungry at this point. This lowers the threshold of restimulation (makes it easier to get upset).
I chose a screenshot from the video where it just looks like a guy crying. I’m not trying to embarrass him or anything. I’m just trying to make the point of how emotionally rough this situation is for people who really care. I care, too, but I don’t have any videos of all the times I’ve cried. We might all take a break right now and have a good cry. It’s a very appropriate response. Then we have to pick ourselves back up and decide what the hell we are going to do about all this.
I received today a postcard from my friend who is living in Japan.
He wrote, “I’m stranded in Paradise!”
What makes Japan seem like paradise to an aging white guy from California?
A few statistics, California versus Japan:
Land Area – 424 km2 / 338 km2
Population – 40 million / 126 million
Annual economic output – $3 trillion / $6 trillion (est. GDP)
Indigenous people overrun – started around 1550 / started in 800s
Languages – 58% English, 30% Spanish / 99% Japanese
Gini (income inequality) 42 / 34
HDI (human development index) 0.9 / 0.9
Obesity/BMI over 30 – 26% / 4%
Suicide per 100,000 – 10 / 15
Have you figured it out yet?
I really haven’t spent the time to deeply analyze this, but I can make a few comments.
The Japanese have somehow managed to keep their basic culture together for well over a thousand years. We go back only about half that long in this territory, and we’ve changed cultures so many times, I don’t think we even know what the word means any more, even though California exports “culture” to the entire planet.
On top of that, holding a position of dominance on a planet has its down sides. Namely: Your group gets targeted by every aspiring group of criminals that comes along, because they know they can’t have their way unless we can be persuaded to abandon all concepts of decency and fair play.
To note a few details that show up in the numbers that perhaps foretell one possible future for us:
The Japanese have some rough times behind them. Not so much from their war with the U.S., but more from their earlier adventures in Asia, and especially in China. For now, they have found a workable balance. I hope they can keep that going so that when the U.S. finally melts down, there will be some sane people left somewhere!
In an 8 April 2020 press release, the Human Rights Foundation condemned non-democratic regimes for using the pandemic as a way to stifle dissent.
“Even under a state of emergency, states must ensure individual liberties such as freedom of expression are safeguarded. The use of incitement and defamation laws to persecute those who speak freely violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
The press release ended with these words:
“As autocratic rulers use this health crisis as an excuse to expand their hold on power, HRF remains committed to uniting people in the common cause of defending human rights and promoting liberal democracy. This is a critical time to take action and prevent authoritarian regimes from further diminishing individual rights.”
The HRF has always made the point that tyrannies typically close down free speech entirely, thus making it difficult or impossible to find out what is really going on in those countries.
We should value, they emphasize, the benefits we have in the Western liberal democracies (and any such countries located elsewhere) from being able to say what we think and report on questionable government activities without immediately being arrested, thrown in jail, or killed.
I find it a bit odd, then, that the censorship we have been experiencing in (for example) the United States is not brought up by the HRF as a bad sign and steps in the wrong direction.
As I attempt to widen the view beyond the issues of government control, as important as they are, my allies on these issues tend to scurry away, like rats in an alley that is suddenly illuminated.
In a 13 June op-ed, HRF’s strategic advisor Jenny Wang danced around some of these issues, concluding:
Against the backdrop of a global decline in human rights and freedom, the voices of corporate America – and the resulting impact – can be even louder and more powerful. If consumers demand that the brands they buy lead with democratic values and uphold fundamental human rights for everyone, regardless of race or nationality, they have a chance to truly make a difference.
These activists have a problem. In the West, “social justice” issues are being championed by intellectuals trained in postmodern psycho-social theories developed by people who want to revive Marx’s dream of a true democracy, where the working man actually holds the balance of power collectively. Yet the movement is being supported by big business!
I consider the Marxist dream to be seriously flawed. People need real leadership, and I don’t think we can survive well without a management class as well as a large community of small business people who have as much freedom to think and create as we can possibly give them.
The new “social justice” has turned against this more realistic vision as too “colonial.” Yet they welcome the funding they get from both new and old members of the ruling classes, through groups like the Open Society Foundation (Soros), the Ford Foundation, Cisco, Airbnb, Door Dash, and many video game companies as well as others.
Meanwhile, those concerned with losses of liberty as a result of the (former) pandemic have been pointing to the World Health Federation. Supposedly a U.N. agency, it is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, which is invested in the vaccine solution to infectious disease. Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus achieved his post with the help of the (totalitarian) Chinese government and a political party in Ethiopia, Tigray People’s Liberation Front. This party currently holds power in Ethiopia, attained through military action against the previous dictatorship. It currently boasts (on Wikipedia) 80,000 “fighters.” It was openly Marxist until the Soviet Union fell. It is now nominally democratic.
Big business embracing Marxist idealists? Global bodies being run by communists? What it going on here?
I have recently been exposed to a lot of data concerning the political aspirations of establishment Medicine. The W.H.O. is obviously part of this establishment, if not at its apex. Adhanom was trained in the U.K. (though he is not an MD).
Establishment Medicine was basically created by the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 1900s. With the help of influential academics, alternative forms of healing were pushed out of the mainstream and forcefully replaced by Rockefeller’s brand of allopathic (drug-based) medicine.
By the 1940s, psychiatrists were heavily involved in medicine, thanks to the Eugenics campaign, and similar propaganda work. When someone (usually attributed to academics connected to the Intelligence Community, such as Allen Dulles) decided they needed to conduct a program of secret research into the general subject of “mind control,” a select group of psychiatrists were right there, willing to pitch in. The various projects engaged upon under the umbrella of MK-Ultra caused considerable harm and suffering to those unfortunate enough to be the subjects of its experiments. Many of the doctors who worked on those projects are considered today by medical reformers like Dr. Peter Breggin to be sociopaths and murderers.
And so, in countries where outright tyranny is not in fashion, such as Western Europe, the United States, and various other states across the planet, the job of tyranny has been carried forward on the shoulders of medical practitioners.
And thus, a plan launched by John Rawlings Rees in 1940, which he later promoted as the first president of the World Federation of Mental Health, has been moving forward.
“If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people, I think we must imitate the totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity.”
“…We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the church, the two most difficult are law and medicine.”
“Let us not speak in terms of ‘mental hygiene’ but in terms of ‘mental health.’ …Let us all therefore very secretly be fifth columnists.”
As Andrew Lobaczewski, Polish researcher into the origin and spread of evil in governments and other organizations, pointed out: Positions of power tend to attract people who depend on authority, rather than hard work and good service, for their survival. Thus, a society that does not stay on its toes can easily be overrun from the “top” by elevating sociopaths to high positions, then failing to remove them when they betray themselves through criminal activity.
Thus we see Western “social justice” supported by medical tyrants and the new breed of big businesses.
We see traditional conservatives, previously supporters of big business, now wondering how the scene went so far south, and calling for a restoration of basic civil rights – traditionally the favored issue of the Left.
Someone, it appears, is being opportunistic. The Left accuses the Right (Trump) of this, while the Right accuses the Left of it. They seem locked in contest, like two bucks vying for the opportunity to mate with the does.
I am not convinced this Right – Left conflict has any depth. Bucks, I am told, seldom really hurt each other when they fight. It makes a good show, a kind of smoke screen, obscuring the fact that criminals are continuing to take over the West, already quite entrenched in many countries, usually under the banner of “communism” “Marxism” “liberation” or “revolution.”
And though the people these criminals manipulate may be sincere, they themselves are not. If this conflict dies down, they will find a new one to fan into flames with slanted news and financial support.
Going forward, our basic security and ability to operate according to our own best judgement will depend on our ability to detect tyranny and repel it before it takes complete control. Many parts of the world are already lost, at least for now. And the West is sinking fast. That’s the way I see it.
This is a work of fiction about a remote viewing group (that is real) which helps pave the way for more honesty across the planet.
Marianne is what I would describe as a New Age motivational speaker working in the Christian style. That may not be totally accurate, but is good enough for now. Surprisingly, her now famous words (often attributed to Nelson Mandela) as expressed in a short work of free verse, best expresses my own understanding of the fear that most troubles Mankind:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness
That most frightens us.
This is the first verse of that writing, which might be seen as a sort of Affirmation of Truth. Our light and our power is what most frightens us – interesting.
Possibly my own greatest fear at this point is that I will be suddenly removed from the game, and someone else will have to clean up after me, and find it a burden rather than an opportunity to show love for my spirit.
I have also been frustrated by my difficulty finding ways to interact with people with sufficient action, animation and joy. My writing is better than nothing, but does not leave me satisfied or happy at the end of each day. I had learned something that I considered very important back when I was 25, yet I allowed my attempts to share that with others to be cut short, and instead I went to work for my church. Though that work was fulfilling in its own way, and I learned much in the process, it was doomed because it wasn’t ultimately what I wanted to do.
Now that I am old enough to be retired, I am even more eager to spend my life sharing what I have learned with others, and still I see very little interest from those around me. Most never did share my interests, it seems, and in spite of everything that has happened to challenge our ability to cope, they seem to remain disinterested.
This article explores, a bit, why that is. It explores our deepest fear, a fear that acts to suppress all happiness and joy, and replace them with a sort of nervous anticipation or dread. The playground we call the internet has turned into not much more than a series of TSA checkpoints, and seems on the verge of shutting down completely. It could have been a happy place. But it seems this was not to be.
Some psychologists (such as R. Nicholas Carleton, 2016) have proposed that “fear of the unknown” is the most fundamental fear.
I might phrase it as “fear of the unknowable.” This is necessarily an umbrella concept that contains many derivative concepts, such as the fear of death.
There is a university group (Chapman University, CA) that does an annual survey that assesses a list of fears to find the most “popular” ones for that year. It is a tribute to the power of the internet that “corruption of government officials” has remained the top-ranked fear ever since the survey started. Death, terrorism, and illness, as well as sudden financial loss, also top the list. We see from this study how fear of unknowns plays out in popular culture, and how the exact wording of this fear can be influenced by propaganda messages, and even real news.
It should be noted that to the extent that any given subject can be made more knowable, the fears associated with it can be reduced. Almost everyone who has knowingly survived death, either through a Near Death Experience or past life recall, becomes much more relaxed on the subject of death.
This can likewise be applied to the problem of knowing oneself.
It has been established by many different observers using many different techniques that the “self” or “basic personality” is an entity that survives death, has existed for a long time, and will likely continue to exist for a long time.
The major problem with this entity is that when it pops out of the body, other people who are in bodies can’t tell it’s there. They have lost their ability to perceive or communicate directly with spiritual beings. According to research done on this, this has been a problem for a long long time. We are largely unable to perceive ourselves or others, as spirits, directly. Our perceptions have narrowed to only those of the physical senses.
The traditional “solution” to this problem has been to force every spiritual being to attach itself to a body. Although this might have seemed like a good idea at the time, it has created a host of new problems.
Now not only can most of us not perceive “free” beings, but we have devolved into playing the game of biology, which involves a whole set of requirements that put us on a very materialistic, and frankly rather sullen, path.
Instead of dreaming up some way to restore our spiritual perceptions so that we could continue to have high-spirited games with a minimum of rule-breaking, we suppressed everyone to the level of the material world, just so we could keep track of where everyone is.
And it doesn’t even work! Lots of beings go “free” (and invisible) all the time, then have “fun” harassing us or in various ways making fun of our self-imposed spiritual blindness. They run around as “ghosts” or “demons” and goodness knows what else. They frighten people and give “free” beings a bad name.
The ruling groups of today, as well as those of the distant past, resolved to suppress “free” beings in any way they could. They deny they even exist. They set traps to catch them in, and force them back into bodies. They set up various operations to punish any urge towards freedom or spiritual awareness, or they attempt to co-opt existing groups or movements and render them ineffective. In its worst forms here on Earth, this devolves into what we all agree is “criminal” behavior, and we have set up lists of rights and laws to protect our most basic freedoms so that some small measure of free play and happiness may exist, even in this limited biological world.
And yet, because spiritual awareness has fallen so low for so long, we err by seeing these lists of laws as strictly secular, when in fact they mean much more to us than that. The freedom to practice a religion of one’s choice is a central law of classical liberalism, but is now under attack from the purveyors of secular thought.
It should be noted that I don’t use “government” here in its narrow sense, but broadly, to include anyone designated to rule over or control others, in any sector of society.
It has been our hope to make a lot more progress on this planet before it gets closed down by some hissy fit from one of the local powers, or some similar action from an off-world source.
This current bent on hysterical thinking and unwarranted fear based on making many things mysterious when they are in fact quite knowable is deeply troubling to me. I did not bring any children into this world because I saw this coming. A lot of people saw it coming. But most writers who predicted this did not see the underlying problem as a deep fear of free spirits. And so, most were pessimistic about the outcome.
Now that we have a better grasp of what exactly our rulers (and we) fear, ways to handle that fear begin to show up. It will be rough enough for me when I come back (although we could experience a turn-around in that time). And it will be for you, too, if you don’t work a little more diligently to reduce the unknowns in your life:
The mechanism of the evil intention and how to defeat it is knowable and very important to know.
The basics of spiritual operation and our spiritual history are knowable and very important to know.
The basics of social organization for a group or a world based on the truth of spirit are knowable, and well worth learning.
I have these three topics well under control now.
Your own path of self-deceit, and the truth of and recovery of your spiritual abilities, are knowable and are crucial for your survival. You will need these abilities to do well in lifetimes to come.
This I don’t have for myself yet.
If enough of us attain these things, we could keep this planet going for some time. It will only survive if we can significantly reduce the levels of crime, insanity and war here. This is possible to do.
Then we must turn to face the others. They seem to know much more than we do, but are really only slightly less stupid than ourselves. They have somehow kept their societies going for millions of years. It was not easy on their people, some of whom live here on Earth now. They don’t want us to remember what they did to us. But we already have. Can we forgive them? We probably should.
This is (unfortunately, I think) a work of fiction. Here I imagine that a major world leader has decided that the only way to break through the violent conflict which is gripping the planet is to be more honest, to tell it like it is. The basic concept is inspired by FDR’s “fireside chats” which were a series of radio broadcasts carried out as a sort of propaganda campaign by the President of the United States between 1933 and 1944. It was a way for the President to avoid relying on the press or other media to relay his public communications, as even then they had a reputation for distortion and sensationalism. I doubt FDR was as bluntly honest with his his audience as my fictional leader attempts to be in this dialog. But today we have many able beings who only wish to give the world a fuller range of choices concerning what they decide to believe who are finding themselves fired, put in harm’s way, or arrested. I know of at least one person who is being slowly killed in prison for the simple crime of releasing a series of novels that contain a little too much truth.
The interviewer (I) I’ll call David. His interlocutor is “Mr. President” (P).
I: Good morning Mister President. I am honored to be able to chat with you today.
P: Thank you, David. I am sure you are aware of the unprecedented nature of this event. Though I have conducted many interviews with members of the press, and given many speeches, I don’t consider you to be a journalist as much as a free thinker. And that is the theme of our talk today, freedom.
I: The audience should know, that though we are not reading from a script, we decided ahead of time what topics you wanted to cover and plan to limit this conversation to those points, so that we can cover all of them without taking too long.
P: That’s true. In some ways I wish we could just ramble, but the current situation requires, I think, a more focused approach.
I: Let’s get into it then. Why don’t we start with how you see the current situation, and in particular, the elements that have been ignored.
P: Sure. Well, it is clear to most, I think, that some sort of battle is taking place, if not all out war. It is difficult to call it “war” when we see no bombs being dropped, no soldiers on the march, only some rioting in a few towns. But this is a new kind of war. A war in which the antagonist only feels safe when hidden, and wages his battles via surrogates who may not even know exactly who they are fighting for.
I: How could that be? How could someone engage in conflict without knowing what they are really fighting for?
P: Well, this is the nature of war, isn’t it? I mean, the last two great wars which were centered in Europe seem to be obvious cases of democracy versus fascism. And though we have since learned this was far from the full story, take a look at Vietnam, or our adventures in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Who can tell me, with any certainty, why those battles were waged? The stated reasons seem almost laughingly weak to us now, yet the true reasons may be close to unknowable.
I: Really? Unknowable?
P: Documents can be shredded. Key players can die. And the truth of history can be lost in an almost permanent fog. It would be difficult for even a skilled team of remote viewers to dig out the truth!
I: Remote viewers?
P: That’s what I said.
I: But…that’s woo-woo, fringe stuff, right?
P: I’m afraid that’s where this conversation is headed. I appreciate you noting, though, the points where I exceed the usual boundaries for such discussions.
I: So…where else do we have to go to get the big picture? UFOs?
P: Heh! Odd you should mention that! I have been approached before on that subject, as you may be aware. UFOs themselves play a minor role in what we will be discussing today. They are only a few steps ahead of what we see flying through our skies all the time. We aren’t used to them, that’s all. But of course, there is the matter of who is controlling them, and why they are here. And that gets back to the theme of hiding versus being honest, and of slavery versus freedom.
I: I have never seen a sitting President address this subject directly.
P: It cannot be helped now. The situation has gotten too far out of hand. We should have taken the earlier signs as a warning of what lay ahead. For all I know, that could have been one of their key reasons for appearing. But instead the authorities at the time decided it would be too embarrassing to tell us all the truth. We are past the point of embarrassment now; it has become a matter of life and death.
I: You make it sound very serious.
P: Well, I think it is. I mean, our civilization may die anyway, but would you rather die facing your enemy, or from a sneak attack from behind? I would choose the former, wouldn’t you?
I: It is a chilling choice to have to make.
P: Yes, that’s true enough. But this is the role of spirituality in society, and one of many reasons why it was unwise for us to marginalize those who insist that spiritual matters should be taken seriously. This was the greatest shift I had to experience, and it led me to conclude that we needed to have this talk.
I: How does spirituality fit into the bigger picture? I always thought of it as a superstitious idea connected with religious faith.
P: Perhaps I can put it this way: Think of the role faith had to play in the lives of people before they had our modern sciences and technologies to assist them. If you got sick, only faith could heal you. If you were attacked by an invader, only faith could save you. They didn’t have a global satellite system or a global information network to help them extend their perceptions, all they had was spirit. How did our ancestors even survive? Has no one entertained the possibility that a reliance on spirit may have had some degree of workability?
I: Does it?
P: I, too, had to be convinced of this. Which takes me back to the remote viewers.
I: Right.
P: Remote viewing is a spiritual approach to obtaining factual data. Do I need to explain it to you in more detail?
I: No, that’s fine.
P: Fact is, I was made aware of some data obtained by remote viewing by someone on my staff. He was using it for investing purposes, but thought I might be interested in some of the more politically-related projects. I hadn’t really heard of the subject before that. I had to get a briefing. That’s when I discovered that our intelligence services use it, too. They weren’t going to tell me about that. But when I pressed my DNI for more data, he admitted this to me.
I: Did he tell you why he had withheld that data?
P: Not in so many words. But I could tell that he was embarrassed to admit it. It sounds, in a way, kind of corny, you know?
I: Yes, I suppose it does.
P: So, I finally discovered that Spirit still plays an important part in the fate of nations. But that this was now a secret. I thought that I should know more about this secret. After all, I’m the President. It’s part of my responsibility to know what’s going on in the world. So, I looked into it. Actually, I had one of my staff look into it – someone I trusted – and had them prepare a report for me.
I: What did you learn?
P: Without getting into all the details, I found that here was the intersection between politics and woo-woo. It tied the two together. What we learn from studying the spiritual fills in huge gaps in our knowledge of our political history. And it gives us something different to look forward to.
I: Nirvana?
P: Hah! I wouldn’t go that far! But a sort of confidence in future, and an expanded set of choices.
I: What did you become more confident about?
P: That we will survive. That freedom is real. That life is worth living. That happiness is possible.
I: This does not seem to be the prevailing reality.
P: That’s why we are having this talk. But let’s take our heads out of the clouds for a few minutes, shall we?
I: Sure. Where do you want to go next?
P: Let’s continue with your very first question. The current situation. We only got as far as establishing the fact that we are in the midst of some sort of battle. What, then, is this battle about? For all practical purposes, it can be understood as a straight political battle over who will control our planet, and what they might gain for themselves through that control.
I: Are we talking, like, Communism versus Capitalism?
P: No. Right now the struggle involves several groups, all of whom are acting more or less like criminals. To choose sides is difficult, because they all have their bad points. But of course, I want to come out of this with as much freedom and happiness as possible. And that doesn’t mean for a select few, that means for everyone.
I: The current situation on the planet is quite unsettling.
P: The United States, in spite of everything, is still in a relatively strong position. But that position is being steadily eroded. This is because most if not all of the secret groups see our country and its power as a block in their road forward. Earth’s most potent protection against slavery was developed here in the United States. There is both a spiritual component and a physical component, and they were both developed here, roughly in parallel. But the spiritual component developed publicly for the most part, while the physical one was developed in secret. I think it is time to create a new balance between these two components, particularly since the spiritual has in essence discovered the existence of the physical part.
I: Through remote viewing?
P: Yes, that’s correct.
I: But, why does the planet need to be protected against slavery?
P: That has to do with the “guys up there.” All the major players in the off-planet game have very controlled societies. Maybe it doesn’t seem like slavery to them. But their concepts of freedom are quite limited compared to ours. This has to do with what we are experiencing here on earth right now. Look at what has been proposed as permanent protections against a pandemic illness. Most of us consider these measures to be a severe restriction on our freedoms. While others argue that it must be so in order to protect the entire group. I know now that this is a lie. But it has been a very persuasive lie. Look at all the people now who believe in wearing masks! They are convinced that this is a civic duty! Their ideas about life have been distorted by those who think that we have been allowing too much freedom on this planet for too long.
I: But what if this disease had been much more dangerous than it turned out to be?
P: That is a challenging question. This concept that existential threats to the planet exist that are so strong that we could not overcome them without a fundamental shift away from freedom is very persuasive. At this point, it is something I just have to put my foot down about. I have no “scientific” proof that a freedom-loving approach would protect us from any and all challenges, but neither do they have proof that it wouldn’t. By many measures, life in many of the societies that would like to turn us into, essentially, one of their colonies, is not a very happy life. These societies are in fact deteriorating and they don’t understand why. They gave up on freedom, that’s why.
I: So, assuming I believe all this about ET societies putting pressure on Earth, your argument is that all they are here to do is enslave us?
P: Yes, that’s my argument.
I: So…what’s so great about freedom? Doesn’t it create as many problems as it solves?
P: Up until our most recent spiritual breakthroughs it seemed that way. The main problem we have always had to deal with is the freedom of the criminal to do harm. That problem has always been one of the greatest arguments in favor of dictatorship here on Earth, as well as everywhere else. But this has now been solved. We have new insights now into how crime works and what to do about it. These insights are being implemented in my administration and also on a broader scale, in a softer form. Eventually we will have this solved, and it will become more clear how it is possible to maintain freedom in the face of criminality.
I: Does this play a part in understanding what has been going on here on Earth?
P: It certainly does! We have been erring in favor of secrecy and autocracy in order to combat what was seen as an external criminal threat; literally, an invasion from outer space. And while this did result in our obtaining certain material advantages, it also allowed the criminals of Earth to consolidate their power in the name of assisting in this cause. We gave them access to certain information and technologies that were not safe in their hands. We are now in the process of correcting that. We are implementing our new spiritual awarenesses in this process, and so far this is going very well. But the general public is not yet benefiting much from this.
I: There are still huge holes in my understanding of the current scene. On one hand there is the pandemic, and on the other, this whole social justice movement and the riots and other destruction connected to it.
P: The pandemic – which did not actually proceed as it was originally planned according to the data I have been given – was a strategy by one of the secret power groups to implement what they saw as a more socially acceptable kind of dictatorship, through the subjects of science and medicine. This is the same group that is pushing climate change, population control, artificial intelligence, social media, mental health, and all that sort of thing. They are heavily influenced by one of the mental sciences factions, and are supported by organized medicine and those who fund organized medicine – the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and so forth. They seem relatively benign, they’re doctors after all, and have gained a lot of support in the West.
I: There are other secret power groups?
P: At least one other major group, besides the one I have been working with.
I: OK. I imagine we’ll get to that.
P: Sure.
I: So, that’s the pandemic. What about the social justice movement?
P: This is a creation of the other major power group. It is more radical, more of an anarchist group. It is being advised by another mental science faction. They have gained control in many of the academic humanities, also in some intelligence circles, and have ties to organized crime. They are more interested in reducing people to a state of grovelling victims, willing to accept any atrocity. Theirs is a very dark vision.
I: Do they really think they can gain control that way?
P: It is not clear that control is what they are really after. More the opposite. They mean to offer a new alternative, it seems, for those who demand freedom at any cost. Well, that is the cost: That the criminals must also be free. I am dismayed that it is so popular here in the states. But we could have expected it. Pressure from the other group helped to give it more support. It is anti-fascism, yet pro communism. It is a very conflicted group, but it doesn’t care. It doesn’t have to be right, it just has to be free to make others wrong.
I: Very creepy!
P: I agree.
I: I know that this is the greater concern for many people; that the place will descend into an anarchy.
P: Yes. And it has been a real challenge to balance our responses between these two attacking groups. There is a tendency to conflate them, or to put more emphasis on one or the other. We were considering a strategy of somehow pitting them against each other, but decided against it, that this would only make things worse.
I: What can we do, then?
P: The general rule that I advise is to resist all invitations to indulge in criminal acts. Both groups are trying in their own ways to bring you down to their level. One is trying to do this through “science” while the other is advocating a sort of anti-science. Real science and real faith are our friends. In most places, law still reflects common sense moral truths. Do not steal, do not be dishonest, do not murder. On top of this, the basic human rights are still in place. Freedom of speech and thought, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, the right to work, the right to property. If any group tries to tell you that you should violate any of these basic laws or rights, resist it. Don’t go along with it, say why, and encourage others to do the same.
I: There are some places that charge a fine for not wearing a mask in public.
P: We are doing everything in our power to reverse such atrocious rules. And here I make an important announcement and appeal: There are many in government, including especially our police, our officers of the peace, who are being told that they need to, on the one hand, enforce rules that take away basic human rights, and on the other hand, stand by and watch “social justice warriors” deface, burn and loot. I want to make it clear that I see these instructions as illegal, and if you go along with them, you have, sadly, failed in your duty and renounced your oath. You may have to face the consequences of such actions, or failures to act, sometime up the track. Choose to do the right thing now, and encourage your teammates to do likewise.
I: Does not what you have just said in some way violate the principle of state and local rights?
P: That is, I suppose, for the future to judge. A state, a town, does not have any “right” to fail to perform its duties to its citizens. I have offered what help I could to some of the more troubled areas, and they have refused it. Those areas are now in a condition of Danger. A legal framework for handling this is not fully in place. I have invoked certain emergency powers, but these were put into law in a way that is not very suitable for the current situation. In some sense, the people in those towns, cities, and states who are suffering are on their own. I can only encourage them to disagree with tyranny, and to do so in as peaceful and legal way as they can manage. Don’t allow yourselves to be pulled down to the level of the criminal. That is where they want you; that is how they can enslave you.
I: I must say I am a bit rattled. I feel there are a lot of elements to this that I don’t fully understand yet.
P: Well, we did get a bit ahead of ourselves. Let’s see if I can fill in some details. Where would you like me to start?
I: What about this whole pandemic thing?
P: All right. We’ll start with that. Now let me ask you first to recall, if you can, other times when stories of great threats to our survival have been told. Threats that would lead to large numbers of sick or dying. Unacceptably large numbers.
I: In modern times, I think of war, of other pandemic scares, of overpopulation, of global warming…
P: Yes?
I: Mm… the mental health problem.
P: Yes. All these that you have mentioned, and the last one in particular, have been put before us as large existential threats.
I: Existential because…
P: Because none of them have clearly materialized, right?
I: Right.
P: I want to touch on one first, war.
I: OK.
P: The effects that we have seen here in the United States as a result of all the different wars we have been involved in have been a great – though not totally crippling – loss of our young men (and some women), a strengthening of certain industries from public – taxpayer – investment, and a severe economic drain from other industries and in the form of foreign aid. We also have seen, it seems, a boost in violence, or some forms of it, in the world as well as here at home. Our wars did not result in peace, that’s for sure. Yet this is how they have been sold to us. Yet it is peace, not war, that is our best protection against further violence.
I: You are saying that there was some insincerity involved.
P: Yes. And the actual results we have seen are, for the most part, the actual results desired. Not peace.
I: OK.
P: Now, let’s switch to mental health. The other issues have played a role. But this one is key. Because the campaign for this one could rely so easily on subjective truth. Who has not felt worried? Who has not felt sad or discouraged? Who has not seen someone acting really crazy? Most of us have. This has been a very real situation in our lives. Of course it should be addressed.
I: Of course!
P: But what did we get when we started investing, in the 1960s, in a new program to expand “mental health services” out into communities?
I: I know that they let out a lot of patients from hospitals – mental hospitals – and some of those facilities closed down.
P: Good. That was a part of it. So now we had all these broken people wandering around in our cities or suburbs, and we had people lining up at the local clinics for services. But what were they getting?
I: Drugs.
P: That’s right, they were getting drugs. Of course, some clinics also offered psychotherapy and other such things – counseling – but this was the big one, drugs.
I: Today a lot of people are taking those drugs.
P: That’s right. And that was the desired outcome. Have we seen a surge in mental wellness? In happiness? No. We have seen a surge in drug use, and in drug company profits. And who benefits from those profits? Just a few people at the top, along with the doctors and scientists who were willing to support this campaign. Did the general public benefit from this surge in mental health services? No.
I: And what about human rights abuses?
P: That was another desired result. Unruly people could now be deemed “mentally ill,” taken by force to a facility, and put on drugs against their will. Silenced. They continue to work to extend their powers in this direction. It is all based on “what is best for society,” same as the arguments for the pandemic regulations that we have been seeing. The message is coming from doctors, and people want to trust their doctors. People should trust their doctors. But not these doctors! They have been ethically and morally compromised. They are worthless to us now as doctors. I wish I could get their licenses revoked! This is something we are actually working on, but we have to clean up the licensing bodies before that can happen, or else bypass them using civil rights law.
I: There were so many great doctor shows on TV! I recall several of them!
P: All part of the campaign to boost the public adoration of doctors.
I: You think those shows were made on purpose, not out of some natural creative process in Hollywood?
P: Or Burbank? No. I have been briefed on this. You can find some basic data about this, still, on the internet. It is not worth going into detail about that here. I did like Laugh In, though!
I: That was before my time.
P: Too bad, it was one of the last truly funny shows to come out of Burbank.
I: So, let’s move on to the subject of social justice.
P: Sure.
I: You said that the intellectual aspect of this came under criminal influence. How did that happen?
P: That was very much encouraged by a faction of the mental sciences. Some early proponents were J.R. Rees in the UK, Brock Chisholm in Canada, and John Dewey in the U.S. Chisholm was the first Director-General of the World Health Organization. And Dewey was very influential in teacher education in America. This led to several generations of teachers and professors who were sympathetic to ideas like using education to change social behavior and achieve greater “cultural diversity.” The intention, it seems, was to instill in young people a tolerance, not just for people of different races and cultures, but also for deviant behavior, starting with sexual choices, then including things like drug use and ultimately criminality. They made a lot of inroads into society in this way. Our social fabric has been compromised.
I: But how can you draw the line when it comes to which behaviors are to be tolerated?
P: The intention of the behavior is extremely important. Intentionality has been de-emphasized in modern psychology. An attempt has been made to reduce everything to acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, with a large dose of moral relativism added on top of that. A classic example is that of killing for self-defense. It is an extreme example, but illustrates the point. Murder is wrong, except when it is in self-defense. This is acknowledged in law. But social justice might argue that it is OK to kill someone in self defense if it is “obvious” that they are a racist, and so would oppress you if they had the opportunity. A similar argument has been made for screening people to predict whether they might become mentally ill, or commit some crime, in the future. It is a seductive argument, isn’t it? But this is how the criminal thinks, not the sane man.
I: Another example is female face coverings.
P: Yes. That is a less extreme example, fortunately. It is an issue I am not totally well-informed about.
But to the extent that the custom is mainly intended to show religious devotion, then it is understandable. The idea that it arises from a desire to limit the role of women in society is more difficult to deal with. There is certainly an irrational aspect to it that makes it more difficult to assess. It is a perfect example of something that requires a lot more dialogue. But at least the custom itself is not outwardly harmful.
I: OK. So, where do we go from here?
P: Let’s try to summarize what’s been gone over so far. The planet is experiencing external pressure to globalize, to deal with the rest of the universe as a unified planet. We aren’t totally ready to make that jump. All the different languages, political philosophies and so forth. But some different factions on Earth want to accelerate the process. I assume they feel that they would obtain some material benefit from being the first to deliver up our planet to Empire. One faction takes an anarchist approach which attempts to normalize criminality. Another faction takes more of a technocratic approach which emphasizes good management, based on science. However, the second approach is anti-Spirit. They don’t really believe in Spirit, and this is why they fear Empire and want to appease it. They don’t really believe in freedom, and see no way to control the criminal element. They hope to save themselves by delivering up a planet that can at least produce something that will be seen as valuable by the outer worlds.
I: So, where do you stand?
R: I stand with a third faction, as I implied earlier. It is not that well organized or that well funded. It works for the independence of Earth. It has arisen from those who were formerly members of one of the other two, then became aware of what was really going on, and decided they couldn’t stomach it. I cannot tell you in detail who this faction is comprised of, for in truth, I do not know. But they are the ones who asked me to serve, and they are the ones who got me elected.
I: I see a very sketchy situation here. Victory seems far from a sure thing.
P: That’s right. It was a small miracle for us to get this far. But I can tell you what we have in our favor. And as long as we cultivate these points, they will serve us well, whether we prevail here on Earth or not.
I: You mentioned Spirit. And freedom.
P: Yes, and those two go together. Real freedom is not the freedom of the criminal. It is a freedom balanced by rules. That gives us a game, and playing a game is the road to happiness. It is a spiritual experience.
I: What else?
P: A few basic values follow from these two that the other two factions lack. One is a real respect for religion and for the various concepts of God. While we realize now that many who came here and posed as “gods” were no more than stragglers from Empire trying to set up their own little kingdoms here, that does not cancel greater concepts of God. These are concepts mostly brought here by the various “prophets.” There was an initial teacher who has gone unnamed and unrecognized, the author of the Vedas. It is not that important to know who that was, but he should be acknowledged as the initial inspiration on Earth for a higher vision of ourselves and of possible futures. The older and newer religions of Earth work to preserve and disseminate these teachings. Though fractured due to time and misunderstandings, they are to be respected and supported in their work.
I: And other important points?
P: The major other point is our understanding of evil and how to deal with it. Evil is, in essence, the tendency to fight against the dominant game. In this way, there is a relative nature to evil, and this point has been was picked up by the social justice people.
I: But if one game is dominant, why fight against it? Wouldn’t that be crazy?
P: Yes, it would be. But it is fought by those who have sunk below an ability to play. They are alive enough to pretend to play, but not able enough to really participate. They were convinced of this fact long ago. It is a terrible problem for them, and evil is their solution. Rage against the game. They think this is the only game left for them to play. It is quite sad, really.
I: But you said you understand how to deal with this.
P: Yes. It is a technical matter, It begins with unsticking them from the problem, and then returning to them an ability to play. Most such people are quite ignorant. They require a lot of training to bring them up in ability.
I: This sounds a little like those retraining camps…
P: I know, I know. They will accuse us of this, of course. And this creates a big problem for us as you might imagine. But our basic moral framework is still in place in many parts of the world. That is one reason why America is such a popular place to live, in spite of all the terrible things past governments have done. We still have strong moral values supported by a strong religious base. This moral strength actually works in the direction of protecting criminals from outright slaughter. Most societies would kill them if the truth were known. Our hand is only stayed by the knowledge that death is unlikely to change them. That is the criminal’s way to get rid of people who annoy them. It is not our way. The only hope the real criminal has in our hands is the hope that we can help him to solve his problem. But there are many who are likely to spend the rest of their days in quarantine, unwilling to cooperate with our attempts to help. It has to be their choice.
I: It’s ironic you should call it a quarantine!
P: It is an apt term! This is really the only true pandemic on this planet. Perhaps some day it will be recognized as one. It is through the actions of real criminals that most of society’s ills seem to worsen. They assist greatly to cause accidents, addictions, illness, and war. To say nothing of crime, of course. Spiritual growth will only be possible if we can restrain the true criminal in his attempts to tear apart all that we have built. And spiritual growth is our only hope.
I: Can you tell me anything more about spiritual growth?
P: Spiritual growth is the final pillar in our strategy. There are two main roads to spiritual growth: training and practice. They should both be traveled. This growth benefits us first by enabling us to better handle those who rage against the game. Its second benefit is enabling us to help each other. And its final benefit is enabling us to maintain our freedom in the face of larger and larger barriers. This is the key benefit that we all seek. But to seek it only, and not the other benefits, is to fail. We must be able to bring everyone up with us. Every failure to help diminishes us a little. But I wouldn’t worry too much about that at this point.
I: Have you been working on your own spiritual growth?
P: A little bit. Not as much as I’d like. I’m really not that far yet. I hope to have more time after I have served. It will depend on how skilled those who follow me are. There are still many challenges ahead.
I: Like what?
P: To get our own house in order will be difficult enough. But we will also need to hold off those external pressures that whole time. And then we will have to deal with them. Those closest to us, if we “win” will want to know how we did it. And then we will have to deliver our knowledge to them. And that will draw in more pressure. And if we are successful in dealing with that, it will require more delivery. Will we host them here on Earth? Or set something up on another planet? It will be a challenge either way, and one we are barely even thinking about now.
I: My brain feels like it wants to explode.
P: I’m sorry. But you asked, and I thought I should answer.
I: That seems like a good place to finish today.
P: Yes.
I: Perhaps we will do this again.
P: I hope so. I think we have more to cover.
I: Then, thank you sir.
P: You’re very welcome.
“Narrative” is one of the newer expressions in the world of popular thought. The word starting increasing in use in the 1990s and has skyrocketed since then (Ngram Viewer).
The term came into use in psychology (Sarbin, Bruner, McAdams), then bounced out into sociology (Critical Theory), marketing and political rhetoric. All these fields are closely related, as they are all based on concepts of human psychology.
In politics you find expressions such as “pushing, forwarding or controlling” a narrative. Where information channels are controlled, you will see them pushing certain narratives concerning some important topics. Academia (“science”), media, business and government may all go into agreement about which narrative is correct, truthful, or official. Then you get a situation where it becomes difficult for the general public to remain properly informed.
I am writing this to give some of the top examples that concern me. This includes several historical events, and subjects where there are legitimate disagreements about what is true.
Date: Early years A.D.
Narrative: Jesus was killed by the Romans, crucified as a common criminal.
Finding: Highly unlikely.
In a post about the Seth materials (Jane Roberts), posted on Sept 1 2009 by Roger A. “Pete” Peterson on diaryofamystic.com, the following synopsis is given:
“Seth said that Jesus was not crucified, and that it is not in the nature of enlightened individuals to sacrifice themselves. Rather, a willing and deluded surrogate, who believed himself to be the Messiah, was substituted in Jesus’ place, and it was this surrogate whom Judas betrayed (and who was then crucified). Jesus was then able to be “resurrected” because he had not actually died. Seth said that the crucifixion of Jesus did occur as a shared psychic event, but it did not occur as a physical event.”
These basic facts were later confirmed by Courtney Brown in a Scientific Remote Viewing project done in 2011.
Date: 4 July 1776
Narrative: The colonial rebellion against Britain was precipitated by policies promulgated by King George III.
Finding: George is named in the Declaration only for purposes of doctrinal consistency.
The policies that the American colonies disagreed with were promulgated by British Parliament. By 1775, they had already led to war. At that time, many colonists hoped George would side with them. George attempted to maintain a moral high ground, while many of those who held real power led highly questionable lives and were deeply connected with the moneyed aristocracy. Although Lord North, who led British government during much of the time in question, was friendly with the king (a Hanover, from a family of German princes), he also ran Britain’s treasury. In the end, the British decided to put most of their military energy into defending their sugar factories in the Caribbean. At the time, those factories brought in much more revenue than did the American colonies. While the British East India Company attempted to offload its managerial work in India onto the British government, George gradually deteriorated from some sort of mental disease as well as physical problems.
Date: 22 November 1963
Narrative: President John F. Kennedy is fatally shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Finding: False.
This assassination has been one of the most extensively investigated incidents of the previous century. Only the Warren Commission investigation supported the police theory that Oswald was responsible. A subsequent Congressional Committee review (1978) found that possible evidence of a wider conspiracy had been overlooked. Many investigators found evidence for at least one shot fired from the “grassy knoll.” This is more likely to be the shot that killed Kennedy. A man in prison even told one investigator that he had been the shooter. A Scientific Remote Viewing project done in 2015 also found at least two shooters and clear evidence of a higher-level organized operation.
Date: 4 April 1968
Narrative: Martin Luther King Jr. is fatally shot by James Earl Ray.
Finding: False.
Extensive investigative work by the widow’s attorney William Francis Pepper indicates that the shot that sent King to the hospital was most likely fired by a trained marksman. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that King was recovering in a hospital bed when the the head of the hospital came in, ordered all other personnel to leave, and then smothered King with a pillow. Attempts by a Scientific Remote Viewing project done in 2016 to clarify the situation indicated that the killing involved a conspiracy that included influential people.
Date: 11 September 2001
Narrative: Multiple hijacked passenger jets are involved in fatal attacks in New York and Washington D.C.
Finding: Narrative ignores obvious inconsistencies in the data.
I will not go into great detail on this one. The finding is largely based on the observation that the events which actually occurred, in particular, the “dustification” of the Twin Towers and the collapse of Building 7, cannot be explained by the mainstream narrative. A Scientific Remote Viewing project conducted in 2014 found extensive evidence that the attack was planned and coordinated from a base in the U.S.
Reincarnation
Narrative: A belief not adequately supported by science.
Finding: A truth that “science” refuses to support.
Carefully done research by a team of academics at the University of Virginia establish past life recall as a documented certainty. Numerous researchers using various methods have verified that it exists in adults as well as children. In an adult it can be brought about by persistent spiritual work, if it doesn’t come naturally (which it usually doesn’t). I have personally met people with past life recall. Scientific Remote Viewing has also validated the existence of a spiritual personality separable from the body at death.
Evolution
Narrative: The best scientific explanation for the origin of biology is Evolution Theory.
Finding: Evolution (natural selection) is an entirely inadequate explanation for the origin of biology.
The argument against natural selection relies heavily on modern observations about machine-like structures in single cell organisms and information-like structures (DNA) in cells. By almost any model imaginable, it is impossible to design a working machine without a rigorous design process. Likewise, it is impossible to create workable information about anything without the participation of an intelligent actor. Thus, Intelligent Design is a much better explanation for the origin of biology, and is supported by spiritual research and religious belief. The information received by Rael, though incomplete, gives an example of one possible design scenario.
Between Lives
Narrative: Science does not support any belief in a between-lives experience.
Finding: It has been found that between lives on Earth almost always includes a memory wipe and other forms of forceful invalidation.
Until Courtney Brown did a project on this subject (Death Traps, 2020), reliable data on this subject had not been widely available. His project clearly indicates a prison situation on Earth that is enforced by a system that recycles spiritual personalities using some sort of technology that must have been invented millions of years ago.
I want this blog to be helpful to the reader. Even if you are not here to find out a little about electronics, web design, or whatever.
Thus I have added Pages to provide you with content that can be updated but is always there.
Comments are encouraged, but they are moderated, which means that they don’t appear as comments until I approve them.
I really would like to hear from you.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 170 other followers
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Dichotomies
Research & References of Dichotomies|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source