Peering Into the Mind of God – Through the Buddha. (He finally answers the God question.

From “Cosmic Voyage” by Courtney Brown:

In the early period of these investigations into the ET enigmas, at the same time that I suggested to my monitor that I would like to use Scientific remote viewing (a trainable mental procedure that can assist a person in obtaining accurate and detailed information from distant locations – both in time and space) to interview Jesus, we decided to include the personalities of Guru Dev and Buddha on the list as well.

Buddha himself was an unknown to me. Quite honestly, I wanted to include him so that I could obtain discussions with a cross-section of great spiritual leaders in my analysis. But I did not know much about Buddha. In short, he was an unknown to me.

Nonetheless, Buddha was not insulted by my lack of knowledge of him. He has always been somewhat of a mystery personality in my understanding. Indeed, in the session that I will present now, he remains so, but at the same time, he teaches more about the meaning of life than I could ever imagine learning without assistance in one lifetime. Simply, this SRV session was the most beautiful experience I have ever had while remote viewing:

———————————————————-

Courtney Brown: Wow! What an aesthetic impression! I get the idea of something that I heard of long ago in which Buddha expanded his consciousness to be really large, like a mile in diameter, and then he shrunk his consciousness to be really small, like on the molecular level. I am feeling like my consciousness is currently really expanded, in the stretched sense, like Buddha’s was. I also get really strong energetics, very powerful.

I get the sense that I am in a very large area, almost like a galazy, and that small parts are spinning around. I am feeling stretched thin, but not uncomfortably.

I sense that I am supposed to get something out of the big picture here. I am also getting something like an allegorical overlay. I have the initial image of the Buddha-like fellow in the Galactic Federation headquarters.The current situation reminds me of when I entered his mind and he showed me a picture of the galaxy.

But this current scene is not the galaxy. This is very different in a weird sort of way. The idea here is of creation. Life is not yet formed here. The essence of life is present, but it is not manifested yet. It will come, however.

What should I do now?

Monitor: I am not sure. Do you have any ideas?

CB: Let me ask my unconscious. I will cue on the idea of suggestion in the matrix.

Monitor: Follow your intuitions. We have never done this before.

CB: I am getting the idea of cuing on God. I will do that now. Hold on… I am now getting the idea of moving to a personality that I know, Jesus. I will cue on Jesus. OK. I have Jesus now. I am cuing on the question of where I am right now.

The signal is clear. I am being told that I am where life began at its initial point. I am going to cue on why I am here.

I am being informed that I need to know the reason for life. This is a very powerful signal. I am now cuing on the question of what I should do now.

Jesus tells me that I should release. I should go into the vortex. It has been good knowing you, buddy. I am going inside.

Oh my gosh. What an AI! (Aesthetic Impression – an emotional response to something that is remote-viewed. SRV requires viewers to declare (and this rid the mind of) all AIs to prevent contamination of the data with internalized emotions.)

I am inside now. God spent an eternity as a point source. His evolution reached a point of change in which he could not bear the loneliness of isolation. His only recourse was to re-create himself throughout an infinitude, thereby initiating a sequence of creating new gods, new hims, beings to care for him, and for him to care for. He loves us because we ended a loneliness that was beyond any ability to describe in words.

Oh wow. This is just overpowering! I just had an experience of an explosive shift. All of time is created. There are galaxies, infinite diversity, all expanding. There is great joy, great joy in God’s new existence. Great joy!

I am now asking if there is more that I need to know. I am a bit shaken. I am not sure I can go on much longer.

Jesus is telling me that this is the end. I can rest now. He says good-bye. Where did you send me that time?

Monitor: Courtney, it was not me who sent you. The target was Buddha.

CB: Buddha?!

—————

This session is described in more detail in Courtney Brown’s second book, “Cosmic Explorers”:

The vortex was alive. There was the sense of a huge consciousness, and as I extended my mind across this consciousness, I felt stretched like the skin of a balloon, although not uncomfortably so. It then became clear to me that this being was terribly alone, and sad beyond measure. It had spent an eternity by itself, slowly evolving, until it finally grew to a point at which it could end its pain.

Then, in one sudden burst, I experienced this being’s solution. The being essentially blew itself up, or at least much of itself. As I followed the outward rush of the being’s fragmenting expansion, I perceived that it experienced a new joy that nearly overwhelmed me. The being did not die.

At first the bits and pieces of the larger being were too small and immature to even be aware of themselves. Neither were they aware of their own origin. From this point began the most profound evolution of the original being. It had become a parent to the fragments of itself.

The fragmented parts began to experience existence in a way that seemed independent of the parent. Initially they did not understand that they were literally part of a single larger being. Yet as they continued to grow in experience, they matured and developed an intense need to know how they came to exist, and indeed, the reason for their existence. This led them eventually to seek and discover the reality of their parent, their loving creator.

It was at this moment of realization that they understood that they WERE their parent, and that their own growth and evolution was also the growth and evolution of their parent. The parent had created a way to look back at itself through a mirror of a multitude of individual consciousness.

FINAL DISCUSSION by Courtney Brown:

Buddha did not want to tell me directly who he was; he wanted me to experience the answer to my question. Nonetheless, as incredible as it may seem, Buddha sits on the Galactic Federation Council that helps monitor the affairs of humans on Earth. To this day, he watches over us.

Buddha wanted me to release myself so that I would expand and embrace, sense, experience God’s creative essence, and indeed, the moment of creation. It was this intimate experiential knowledge that lead me to the certainty that Buddha and my Federation/teacher friend were the same. From his guidance came a general principle: Revelation (i.e, being told something) is the infantile route. Experience is the mature route.

Apparently, Buddha felt that I needed to know the reason for life itself. Life exists because God wanted to create life and his motivation was to end his own loneliness. The sense of loneliness that I experienced in this session was the deepest, most penetrating pure sense of the concept that I could ever imagine experiencing. Moreover, the joy that God experienced when he created time, physical matter, and us, was similarly the purest, most wonderful joy that could ever be.

I now understand what is meant when it is said that we are made in God’s image. It does not mean that God has hands and feet. It means that he feels as we feel, or perhaps more appropriately, we feel as he feels. Emotion, the rich blood of experience, is Godly.

[My Personal Note: This is the reason for the POLARITY INTEGRATION GAME that we are all playing now. God was not at peace being alone in the dark. He could not see the light and the darkness was the same. So the Polarity Integration Game was created so that through US, this could be learnt.]

And a counterpart:

Peering into the MIND of Lucifier using Scientific Remote Viewing:

“I detected an organizational structure among the subspace beings [ET], and pursuing it, found they had a rigid and hierarchical social order. The control over their existence within this hierarchy was almost military in quality. They took orders and followed them. Strangely, they had been ORDERED to self-indulge and destroy (both in subspace and after physical birth).

Following the signal further, I went after the leadership of the organization… until I found the one dominant leader. This being was an amorphously shaped dark and light being.

I entered its mind only to find it had an extremely dark mind. Something was very wrong there. It was as if the being was psychologically ill.

To begin with, it had a pathological fear of dying. It seemed to think that military fighting and conquest was needed in order to survive. It knew that mistakes had been made, and it was afraid of punishment. The leader seemed unable to devise a plan for reconciliation – fear prevented it. Then it became clear to me: this leader was a terrorist.

Continuing the mind probe, this subspace terrorist leader was intent on destroying the Grey [ET] homeworld. The aim was to instill fear in the other parts of the realm, and thus weaken the opposing forces. Fear was the key weapon. In words that best reflect the intent of the leader’s mind, the Grey souls were being held as hostages during the crisis. The dark mind wanted a negotiated settlement that would establish its right of personality survived, but with changes. It wanted control over its own dominion. It wanted to establish itself as a sovereign – a dictator.

Indeed, the leader desired worship (of itself). Its need for worship was built into a weakness in its personality structure. It needed worship in order to assist in its own flawed personality. In a weird way, the leader had a problem with low self-esteem.

As I was making these observations, I felt the being shift its attention to me. It executed a time and locational shift to find me, then I felt it ‘descend’ into my office, like a dark subspace cloud surrounding me as I sat at my desk.

To my considerable interest, I felt absolutely no fear of this being. I simply examined it, and it examined me. It then departed after a few seconds of observation (perhaps thirty seconds), leaving the impression that it felt that I was a small-fry being that was not directly threatening its activities or reign. I was a pest.”

- From “Cosmic Voyage” by Courtney Brown. 

An Excerpt from “The Only Planet of Choice.” by PHYLLIS V. SCHLEMMER. This is a mediumistic work, the person referred to as ‘Tom’ is a spokesperson for the Extraterrestrial Council of Nine.

It is when replying to a questioner who has used another term than ‘The Nazarene’ that Tom uses the term ‘Christ’ or ‘Jesus’. The Nine call him the Nazarene. This chapter deals with the Nazarene as a person, his origins and mission and it needs no introduction, the transmissions speak for themselves….

GUEST: On Earth, there are many ideals for God: could you indicate which of these ideals most closely match the ideals of the Nine?

Tom: The ideal given by the man called Christ, as he was the last of us to visit Planet Earth.

GUEST: And of those descriptions of Christ given in the Bible, which is the most accurate?

Tom: There are many misinterpretations in your Bible. It is true that the man you call Christ lived a normal, human existence, but he was a man of discretion and he walked with discretion among the people.

GUEST: Was he one of the Nine?

Tom: No, but he emulated their thoughts and their understanding. He was all of us at once. He came with the perfect goodness that is in each of us. Within us, as within you, there are various elements, but he had from each of us the most perfect of the elements of us. There are many things that are not told about him, for what he did, he did in private and did not allow the world to see him in human frailties.

ANDREW: I want to follow up the statement you once made when you said that 2,000 years ago you almost succeeded in helping to raise the consciousness of this planet. Was this in the time of the man we call Jesus Christ?

Tom: This is correct.

ANDREW: How did you in fact work with this being called Jesus Christ? Could you please tell me? I think it would be most illuminating for all of us.

Tom: We do not call him Jesus Christ. We call him the Nazarene. His inspirational work and his healings were inspired by us, and his energy was supplied by us. He made the commitment, and when he made the commitment he knew what he must do. We had great hopes at that time. But what you call your civilization and your societies created the problems. And then you made a god of him, as you have made a god of many.

This will not happen again. There will be not one, but a collection of beings that will raise the level of consciousness of this planet. It is very important that you do not deify us. It is very important that you understand that God is in each and every one of you, and that God is love, and is the love that creates the one God.

ANDREW: The mission of the Nazarene apparently almost succeeded but, as you say, there was failure because of the role of society and our so-called ‘civilization’. There are many on Earth today who fully expect the return of the Nazarene, and I gather from what you say that is not possible, since the single individual will not return to……?

Tom: This is correct, a single individual will not return. There are many on this planet similar to the Nazarene. It will be a collection. Those that come and say they are the Nazarene or the Messiah, are not the true Messiah. As we have explained before, when they call themselves masters, they are not masters

ANDREW: On the one hand humankind needs to understand that you exist and that you come in peace, on the other hand they expect some single individual to return – by whatever means, clouds of glory etc; I have talked to people in some of our churches, and they say that only Jesus can return, and anybody else is a representative of the Devil. How does one cope with that kind of attitude amongst people?

Tom: You pray as we pray. This always has been a problem, but when we come, and when they see the good works, then they will know who we are. After all, the Nazarene said: “You shall know them by their works”. When people see that we do not come in war because there is no war with us as there is on your planet, and when they see that we come with love and with technology to help this planet that is exterminating itself, how can they but know that we come from God?

GUEST: Jesus said that the two most important commandments that we all had to be aware of are: that we should love God with all our heart, with all our soul and with all our might, and that we should love each other as we love ourselves. And that’s what all the scriptures rested on, those two commandments. The way I perceive the first commandment is in the way the Jewish people used to love the Lord, their God, through rituals and prayer. I wonder how in our daily lives we could really do that, love God with all our heart every day?

Tom: As you know, in ritual it becomes redundant. Take time for self alone, in communion with creation. This would set the time for being with the Creator. It is important (but not compulsory) to find a method of meditation that would suit you. You can make that your ritual. Also, if you take the second commandment: you know, on Earth there are many who do not love themselves. Through corruption many do not love themselves. We would extend it to say: utilize kindness to all and to yourself – you then fulfill that commandment.

DAVID: It’s reported in the Bible that Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes before the Father but by me” and that seems inconsistent. Has that just been misinterpreted?

Tom: Is not man attempting to rule man?

DAVID: Yes, at times they are.

Tom: Then is it not so that it is man that placed it upon the parchment?

DAVID: Christians, who see the Nazarene as the most advanced example of how we should live, tend to point to the sentence that I quoted as being a very important statement.

Tom: Is that not dogma-ness? [sic]

DAVID: Oh, absolutely right.

Tom: Is that not an attempt to control the belief-system of religion? We ask you, do you not trust your own divine being?

DAVID: Evidently not! (Laughter)

Tom: Yes

ANDREW: In some people I have met and talked to while in Israel, there is still the expectation of the arrival of a Messiah.

Tom: The Messiah [The Messenger] would be with the landing, should that happen. We speak of the man, the Nazarene.

ANDREW: Would they recognize the Nazarene?

Tom: Yes.

ANDREW: Would the landing of the Nazarene be in the area of what is now called Israel?

Tom: Yes, because the Nazarene is the leader of Hoova.

JOHN: How is the danger of him being deified again going to be overcome? Will the Israelis understand this time?

Tom: There would not be but one, there would be many Hoovids who arrive. They would explain, and they would bring the understanding that the Christ is within every individual.

HARRIET: We were wondering about the Immaculate Conception, and whether you would tell us about that, and also if the Nazarene had offspring?

Tom: You ask us to tell you our thoughts or our knowing?

HARRIET: Your knowing.

Tom: We understand not why humankind make complications out of simple information. The earth mother of the Nazarene was implanted by the Hoova, in what you term.. you do it in your planet without physicalness.

JOHN: Yes, artificial insemination.

Tom: Yes, Jesus was the first-born. He is Hoova, that the nation of Israel calls Yehovah. After his birth, then Mary and Joseph had seven other male and three female. The Nazarene’s physical brother and sister siblings were not implanted. You asked if the Nazarene experienced the physical glory?

GUEST: We were talking about the genetic influence of the Hoovids, and we identified the first two genetic implants of the Hoovids, and we wondered whether the Nazarene represented the third?

Tom: He was like that but that does not mean he offspringed children.

DAVID: So he had no offspring?

Tom: You make your world complicated. He was a representative of Hoova. In the genetic stream of Hoova, there existed beings of Hoova on Planet Earth. What the Nazarene did was to reawaken the coding of memory within. He was a man upon Planet Earth, and as with nearly all men upon Planet Earth, went through a sexual development, as do females, which comes from the source of soul within. For in the moment of sexual exchange, it is the one moment in your physical life when you attain the oneness of your Creator. It is that time and moment which is sought.

This is part of the difficulty upon Planet Earth, for humankind has misunderstood the purpose of sex, and in searching for the returning to the Creator, has debased it. And because the founders of religion knew the truth of this returning, and did not wish the masses to attain it also, they forbade it, and thereby made it dominant. Part of the difficulty of male humankind moving from one woman to another in endlessness stems from the misunderstanding and non development of true exchange, and the purpose of this exchange.

It was necessary for the Nazarene to experience that with the Magdalene. In the exchange with the Magdalene he was able to maintain his true identity with the Creator. Is that understood?

When both partners whose motive is clean – we do not wish to preach -who understand who they are, and their oneness with their mate, and have attained the bringing of two together in unison and great glory, this then brings great joy. If you experience this, remember, do not let it pass, for it is catching a star, riding a star. Remember that, for it will always bring you back to the returning of your creation. Know also that you are part of the Creator, and that you also created the Creator.

HARRIET: That’s beautiful.

JOHN: So, what you’re saying is that Mary Magdalene did not have a child?

Tom: Not from the Nazarene.

GUEST. Did Jesus, perhaps in connection with Joseph of Arimathaea, according to tradition, ever visit Glastonbury in England?

Tom: The Nazarene circled Planet Earth, for it was of necessity for his energy to permeate the globalness.

DAVID: Was that a specific ‘Yes’ to Glastonbury, one of the locations he passed through?

Tom: Do you need a map to understand energies? What you term special or sacred or holy, from all beliefs, was touched. And in your Kingston in England also.

GUEST: So the tradition which exists in Glastonbury that Jesus visited as a boy with Joseph of Arimathaea, is that a correct tradition?

Tom: Yes, I just explained he travelled around the globe.

JOHN: You are referring to the lost years of the Nazarene, between the age of twelve, when he was at the temple in Jerusalem, until his ministry began? Can you tell us about that?

Tom: At the age of fourteen, and within a year of his manhood, he began a long journey. He went into the area of the Himalayas and he spent a great deal of time in Egypt, viewing the pyramids, learning about the energies and knowledge of the pyramids. He also spent a long time in the
lands of the Himalayas. He had also spent much time with the Essenes. He took within him the triangle of knowledge of India, Egypt and the Essenes. He had the assimilation and the truths of all three. John the Baptist also spent time with him in Egypt.

JOHN: Yes. Will any records of this be discovered?

Tom: There are records in two of these areas: one in Egypt, and the other in what is now Israel. At the proper time there will be a correlation of finding these records within six months of each other. There will be fragments, and there will then emerge truths.

DAVID: Is it true that the Nazarene travelled and learned in the Far East?

Tom: There was a time of travel, including to the nation that you know of as the nation of the sun – Japan.

ISRAEL: We know that the Nazarene, Yehovah, came three times. One of these was the Buddha. Could you explain to me the necessity of that incarnation and in that environment [India]? What was its purpose?

Tom: Your nation did not go forth as they should, therefore it was of necessity for one to come who would cover a great portion of the Earth with the heart of understanding of the Universe. It is in alignment with the progress of the Universe. In actuality those of the Buddha’s following have grasped truth into their soul and heart quicker than those who should have, the Hebrews. Do you understand?

ISRAEL: Yes, if it doesn’t work from the inside, try to make it work from the outside.

Tom: That is correct, yes.

ANDREW: – What was the original language in which John wrote down the ‘Book of Revelations’? You said that the original is the one to read and that the translations have problems.

Tom: It was in Aramaic.

ANDREW: Do you know if any such manuscript exists?

Tom: Yes, but not in an area or place where you may recover it. It will come in time – it is in the City of Jerusalem, and it will be found.

ANDREW: I see, there is not a copy in any museum or anywhere where it is publicly viewable?

Tom: You may go to your Vatican.

ANDREW: Could you give us the story of how John received this message? Was it in a situation like we are sitting in here, or was he alone, or was it before the baptism of Jesus?

Tom: It was before the Baptism: it was the Revelations that brought the understanding of who Jesus was.

ANDREW: Was Jesus a witness to this revelation?

Tom: Yes. He was young boy. It came as we speak to you, do you understand?

ANDREW: Yes, I understand, right, that’s remarkable.

JOHN: Can you say something about original sin and the act of baptism, and whether the importance of these continue today? Does the concept of original sin bring us into this world with guilt?

Tom: In the beginning, when the Covenant was made with Hoova and it was broken, original sin followed the Hebrew seed. When Hoova came again as the Nazarene, it was released completely. For his sacrifice was complete release. But those that followed after the Nazarene perpetrated many things in his name, began a set of rituals, as previous to the time of Hoova. Do you understand?

JOHN: Well, in the Christian service we consider that Christ in his death did forgive us our sins and presumed that inferred the original sin.

Tom: He did not forgive you. The Universe relieved you.

JOHN: Yes, but symbolized by his act

Tom: Yes. If there had been acceptance, the guilt of original sin would also have been relieved. It was the time.

JOHN: But the baptism today is still to relieve us of original sin..

Tom: It is not to relieve that. In each church is a different way, in a religion that was not begun by the Nazarene. Baptism is not to remove original sin, it is to indicate acceptance of the Nazarene. In the beginning it was Peter who started this, following the pattern of John the Baptist.

JOHN: There is a belief that the crucifixion of Christ took away the sins people committed since his death. In other words: Christ forgave sins afterwards. I feel this is an avoidance of responsibility, could you clarify this at all?

Tom: You are asking whether if they ask in his name, they are forgiven?

JOHN: People feel that by his crucifixion they have already been forgiven of their sins, in other words it seems to me a license to sin, which doesn’t seem right to me.

Tom: That is not the purpose. The crucifixion of the Nazarene was not to relieve people of the burden of their own responsibilities: it was to show everyone that for the love of God and for his commitment he would willingly die. Remember that the Nazarene did not attempt to communicate with the Gentiles, only to those of the Hebrew nation of Palestine. If he could have relieved them and made them aware he would have shown them, and in turn the rest of the Planet, the way to individual and global transformation.

Within the nations that you call ‘Christian’ and who worship him as a god, there are those that understand that he is of a trinity.

JOHN: Was Jesus the first person ever to be resurrected?

Tom: It is true that he was the first to be resurrected, but not in the sense that you understand. He was the first that was returned to his civilization, Hoova, in the manner in which he was returned. There have been many who have been resurrected, but he has been returned to his
civilization. The people upon the planet Earth who saw his resurrection believed that it made him God.

ANDREW: So, with reference to people who came from one of the universal civilizations, and then went back, you mean to say that Jesus or Yehovah was the first who was brought here, and then returned physically intact, and this was not done earlier?

Tom: Yes. There were what you would call resurrections and returning to spheres but not returning to civilizations.

ANDREW: Is this really what we would call teleportation or bilocation or..

Tom: It would be bilocation. It was the first time it had been done.

JOHN: Is the one who took the body of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathaea, the same person as Joseph, the head of the civilization Aragon?

Tom: It is two different ones..

ANDREW: We’re really wondering whether Joseph of Aragon was with the Nazarene on Earth?

Tom: He was with the Hawk (Horus) in Egypt: he was the one that is called Imhotep. He was also a high priest in the time of the Nazarene called Annas.

JOHN: Was Joseph of Arimathaea also from Aragon by any chance?

Tom: I will consult …. Joseph of Aragon has said no, that Joseph of Arimathaea was from Altea. It is only a similarity of names.

STEVE: We usually think of the Eastern methods of attaining enlightenment, the Hindu and Buddhist, as far more advanced than the Western methods. Is this so?

Tom: To be removed from the world is not the best. All may reach the highest of heights within themselves, but how would they react if they must reach the heights when there are those that need their service and their help? To escape the responsibility of involvement, it is true you may believe that you have become a master or a perfect being, for if you do not interact with others, then you will indeed think that you are perfect.

STEVE: Well, I’m thinking of the Eastern sacred books – the Upanishads and the Vedas, the Sutras and Tao – are these given from other civilizations?

Tom: It is so, as with others, yes. But it has not been used always for betterment. If the Eastern philosophers had the truth of their fellow men within their heart, their nations would be highly evolved. But they use it at times to make themselves masters, without uplifting the souls that need help. It is important that those who have understanding of suffering attempt to relieve suffering.

STEVE: I would like to explain why I asked that question. It seems that all our communications are very much within the Western philosophical and religious tradition, and emanate from the same sources that Western civilization and religion emanate from, and this is one thing that I have to struggle with. Because I have grown up to think that the Eastern methods and religions are more enlightened.

Tom: How many millions of their people are suffering? Do you understand what we say? That also is a trap.

JOHN: Yes, I think we see the faults in our own culture, and we look across the fence and think that they have the answer. But.. yes

Tom: If you sit upon a mountain and look below you, and say “I am enlightened, for I sit and I pray, and those that are below me, it is important for them to suffer and I cannot do anything to help”, then you have set yourself above them. We will use your term of ‘karma’. It is not fully understood. In their thinking that suffering is their karma, they in truth have created suffering karma for themselves. To not be involved with your fellow men, to simply place a hand to help them, or a publication to ease their burden, they cannot be masters as they proclaim. To have mastered all the physical, the important thing is to master all of the physical with involvement, not detachment from those that suffer. Yes.

STEVE: Well, just to repeat, do such books as I have mentioned in fact emanate from extraterrestrial sources, although they may not be fully developed and highly evolved?

Tom: Yes. But also remember that people use that which benefits them, and they make their interpretation, in order to control others or to make themselves better than their fellow humans. Yes.

JOHN: So you’re saying they have as many distortions as the Bible..?

Tom: As the Word Book. Yes. There is the most singular important thing that humankind has neglected, and we speak of nearly all humankind, and that is compassion.

When there is compassion for all living things, including those that are closest to you, then the shift in consciousness of the planet
begins and will be accelerating. You see, in the nature of humankind you may have compassion for a child that falls that is yours, but not see the pain of another child that falls. You may have compassion when you see the slaughter of villagers if you are in affinity with them, but not of the slaughter of those that slaughter.

It’s when here are those that you love, that do not agree with you when you have need of their agreement, that you lose compassion for them. It’s when you may maintain that compassion, or gain it, or regenerate it, and feel the feeling that they feel without self involved then you come out of the ashes and begin the growth. The building then is strong, and secure, and not fragile (but it could be burned again). Humankind has not had compassion for humankind. Even one of you, who might have compassion for a small child, has no compassion for an adult that does not agree with you. That also is changing.

JOHN: Yes, on that, it’s interesting that we have difficulty having compassion for the nearest and dearest to us. We have compassion for those a little further away with whom we agree, and then we lose compassion again when we go further still, it’s this middle ground.

Tom: Yes. When you are able to remove self from self, and place yourself in the position of another, then begins the evolution of the planet. Then this planet begins being the paradise that it was planned to be, yes.

Express yourself in words of love and words of joy, and that makes the Universe in happiness, for when there is happiness, joy and laughter in the Universe it is a time of great celebration. This is what Planet Earth must do. Humankind must not take itself so seriously. It must begin to
experience within itself the joy of its divinity, the joy of its oneness with the Universe. It must pull itself out of this bondage, it must stop living in a situation of victims. We have never asked for victims or sacrifice, but humankind in its guilt, creates its victimhood. For it knows that it has passed and has crossed that valley that it should not have, and now together with all we are bringing it back across the valley, for it to be one with the Universe.
This next transmission was concerned with other communications and their validity.

ANDREW: I want to ask about psychic communication: could you give us an idea as to who in the past, historically recognizable figures, were what you would call perfect communicators? As you say this Being is. Could you tell us of any that we can rely on?

Tom: I will consult for permission. There was the one you call Jesus of Nazareth, you knew that. There was the one that you call Socrates. There was the one that gave to you in code, Nostradamus. There was the one that was of one and the same as that of Jesus: the Buddha. Remember this: there was perfect communication and it was in translation that it became obscure. In all the translations.

ANDREW: In all of these cases, I see, right.

Tom: Then there was Elijah, and there was the one called Joseph.

ANDREW: Which Joseph was that? There are several in the Bible.

Tom: It would be the one that was in Egypt. And there was one whose name was Da Vinci. We speak to you only of those that have been recorded historically. There have been others.

ANDREW: A more recent figure like Helen Blavatsky, would she qualify?

Tom: I must consult yes, Blavatsky was true.

ANDREW: Are there any who have lived in the past 100 years who were scientists who recorded knowledge that is true?

Tom: That knowledge comes from a civilization.

ANDREW: I see, you are talking about those directly speaking with you?

Tom: Yes.

JOHN: May I ask about the Theosophists? I assume that the person who spoke through Blavatsky and Alice Bailey was the same person, known to us as ‘the Tibetan’- Dhjwal Khul.

Tom: That is not true.

JOHN: Could you tell us who ‘the Tibetan’ is then?

Tom: We are trying to find a way of explaining. If you have three people, who together create a triangle, and if the three merge in mind, you would have a oneness. The Tibetan is a triangle.

JOHN: Does he have a direct relationship to the Nine?

Tom: It is as if – we know not how to explain – it is incomprehensible in your language. It is not a physical being. The information comes from a triangle.

JOHN: Is it of a high quality?

Tom: Yes. It is taking from three, the perfect aspects of the three. Do you understand that?

JOHN: Yes, I do.

Tom: The Tibetan was different to Blavatsky.

ANDREW: I’ve recently looked again at the writings of Michel de Nostradamus, and I’ve been very impressed how his predictions made 400 years ago are parallel to the ones that you have made about what is coming. Who was this Michel de Nostradamus that he was so prescient way back when, and were you behind his foreknowledge?

Tom: When there was prediction people took it as a definite reason to be out of their responsibility. It was an error that we made also, for humans hold destiny in their hands. What was not understood by humankind was that prediction was made to have man change his way: if he did not change then the prediction would come into being. We cannot reiterate that point enough. We wish that to be impressed upon humankind’s mind, for it is the beginning of humankind’s understanding that they hold the key, they are responsible, and they make the change.

You ask who he was? He was doing the same as you are doing at this time. We now wish for light to come forth, for the removal of darkness, for the removal of humanity’s belief that darkness must take place. For there are two alternatives: the ones of darkness have existed too long it is time for those of light, and that is your choosing. Humankind does not need despair, hopelessness, or futility but hope, love, and the possibility of goodness.
Here is an exploration of ‘principles’ which can contribute another thread to the tapestry of our understanding…

JOHN: Could you say whether in fact there are twelve principles that have come in, and if the final one is ‘Balance’- is that correct?

Tom: I will consult for permission It is affirmative but with reservations.

JOHN: Yes, well, could you mention some of the other principles and the times at which they came? That might help me to understand principles that came in at different times.

Tom: In the time between the father of Abraham and Moses, and spanning the time of Jacob, was the principle of law. When we speak of law, we speak of the following of the law of the Nine. That does not mean that the law that was given had the necessity of being adhered to, from that point until what you would call eternity. But it was important for that time. In the true sense, natural law does not change, but law for order in the Universe in relationship to a singular planet is adaptable to change. When we speak of law in that time, we speak of a law that those that we had asked (as we had asked Abraham, Jacob and Moses) do what we had asked, in faith. It was a form of law.

JOHN: Yes, I feel that there is something important behind these principles. I feel they’re associated with the Twelve (ie. the Nine plus three) and the Nine. Are these periods regular in length, or do they vary? Am I on the right track?

Tom: We understand what you are getting at. Again we answer with an affirmative but also with reservations, for there have been times that are in closeness to other times of great distance.

JOHN: I don’t quite….

Tom: There are those times which have great expansions, and then there are those times which are short periods.

JOHN: Yes. Has there been another one between the time of Christ and now?

Tom: That of Christ was the final before you today. The period at the time of Altea was of wisdom. The principle of justice came at the time of Ur. The time of Horus in Egypt was of knowledge, and knowledge also became out of balance. Yes.

Both men were strong-willed and brutish when they started out, but with time, age, and appreciation for where they have come, a sense of gratitude has really softened them.

Rajnikanth used to have a quick temper, and the pitch-black look of a panther. But at the turn of the century he became very spiritual and began going to the Himalayan mountains to live with the yogis. He became increasingly simple-hearted. If he goes out in public, he does not bother with appearances. Bald now, with a disheveled face, he carries himself purely on self-trust. If you ask him what his secret to success is, he will say, “All glory to God.”

Kamal Haasan, on the other hand, is an intellectual from the marrow of his bones to the pores of his skin. He is a humanitarian. He believes in the love of people for each other. In human goodness.

When he started out, he met some powerful thinkers who seriously influenced him. Some had radical political ideas, and fed some compelling logic to Kamal Haasan that Mahatma Gandhi was a man of ill intentions, and has done terrible things for India. For a decade, Kamal was the first person to criticize Gandhi openly, if anyone should broach the subject.

Then he went through a transformation – as if his heart opened up, and he finally understood where Gandhi was coming from. As an ode, he made a wonderful film called, “Hey Ram”, where the story goes like this: the main character’s wife is raped and killed during communal riots, he blames Gandhi for the atrocity, plots with several high-standing figures to assassinate him, and by the end, realizes his mistake. A film of self-transformation.

However, Kamal Haasan is the epitome of an atheist. In 2009, I had the opportunity to attend a screenwriting workshop that he had organized. A question was asked to him about God – to which he replied, “No one thinks about God as much as an atheist.”

His intelligence is uncanny. Now that I’ve given you some background, we arrive at the main point of this story:

In 2010 Kamal turned 50. The entire south Indian film industry organized a televised event to honor the actor. Several megastars were present from different regions of South India, and they all had something to say. Quite a few of them, including Rajnikanth, had praised God.

It was only a few days ago that I actually saw the event on youtube, and hearing Rajni and Kamal speak gave me goosebumps…

Rajni began by expressing that when he entered the industry back in 1975, Kamal was already a superstar. “If Kamal had wanted he could have told the producers not to put me in another film, and they would have listened. Instead, he encouraged them to cast me in roles opposite him. When people started to appreciate me, Kamal pulled me aside one day and said, ‘Rajni, now you must make your own films. If you continue making films with me, no one will let you rise. You need to suceed.”

He went on to say, “The Goddess of Creativity has been holding the hands of many proficient actors and guiding them along… but then I noticed, while she holds our hands, she is carrying Kamal on her shoulder. I said to the Goddess, “Devi, how is this fair? How can you take us by the hand and give him preferential treatment?’

“To which the Devi replied, “Look at the intensity and effort he puts into his art. He leaps into the deep waters, wanting to learn as much as he can, from dance, to music, to languages, to techniques. He has put his entire energy into this art… so now tell me, do you want me to set him down among you?”

“No Devi, no. Let him stay on your shoulder. I understand.” Is how Rajni expressed it.

It was a powerful speech, and after many others had spoken, Kamal came on stage -

He said he has prepared no speech, and it will be difficult for him to speak without crying…

“I was just gifted a bronze statue of my mother and father. They are no longer… but I don’t feel that they are not here. You are my family. This is my life. I don’t know how to call this celebration. So many of you have spoken, and many of you are spoken like this is not celebrating the end of my career, my art, at 50, but the beginning… but no, I know the truth, so I won’t think of this as my beginning. At the same time, I can’t think of this as the end either, because everyone is reminding me I have more work to do. Could I think of this as a halfway point?

“Many people said, “May you have God’s grace. May you live for a thousand years.” You all know what I believe in and what I don’t. You tell me, should I believe in God? Is it not enough to believe in you?

“So, I don’t know if I’ll have a thousand years left or not, when I was 18 I wrote down a big list of things I wanted to accomplish in my life. When I look at that list now, I feel like I haven’t even finished the first 3 properly. I know I have very little time left, and a lot of work to do – but when I am surrounded by so much love, I’m starting to have a thought – maybe I can still finish half of that list? I’m starting to wonder.

“Hearing you all speak, I wonder if I should believe it. But I won’t believe it. There are many things I will not believe. If I believe it and think I’m a big man, I know I can’t even take two steps forward.

“What has brought me so far is this love. You just heard Rajni’s speech! Who says things like that! He has humility, that’s why he makes himself seem like nothing and puts me on a pedestal! What love! There was absolutely no need for him to put himself down to make me look big.”

Kamal’s voice is shaking, Rajni is visibly moved, and it’s getting quite emotional in the audience now…

“You know where this is coming from? It is from the accolades you give us, calling us Superstar, or Universal Hero… we know who we are – Rajni knows who he is. He goes searching for himself in the Himalayas. I run around this city, not knowing where else to go. But this “Who am I” that we are searching for now isn’t what we wanted in the beginning… isn’t the “Superstar or Universal Hero.” We can clearly see now that the work for which we were born has not been accomplished. So, we search.

“He is searching for it in spirituality. I am searching for it in society… my daughter Shruti has grown up listening to my atheistic monologues, but now she goes to the Temple, but she won’t put holy ash on my forehead, because she appreciates my feelings on this. But even so, if she DID put holy ash on my forehead, I will not erase it. It was put there out of love.

“That’s who I am. I don’t accept the term that I am an atheist. That’s the name that others put on people who believe as we do. There is another name for us – humanitarians.

“For all those who came on stage and prayed to God on my behalf, please do not think I am teasing you. Where did I say there is no God? I am saying it would be nice if he IS there. Being surrounded by all of you, with so much love from you, I feel like, what’s the fuss, let there be such a God – it doesn’t matter to me.

“But one thing I tell you – in future times it will not be atheists who break down temples. You will see. Only the religious will do it to each other.

“The humanitarians will only increase in more and more love for humanity. That is what I am seeing as I learn in my life.

“Standing before you all, I don’t know if I should joke, or speak happily, or angrily… I don’t know what to do. I didn’t prepare a speech. So, in thanks to you all…”

Kamal kneels in front of everyone, touches his head to the ground… while the audience rise to their feet… He remains there for a while, infused with emotion… stands back up.

“Now I bowed not to God. But to your love. Thank you for your love.”

An excerpt from “Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramhansa Yogananda.

Asoka was a grandson of the formidable Chandragupta Maurya (known to the Greeks as Sandrocottus), who in his youth had met Alexander the Great. Later Chandragupta destroyed the Macedonian garrisons left in India, defeated the invading Greek army of Seleucus in the Punjab, and then received at his Patna court the Hellenic ambassador Megasthenes.

Intensely interesting stories have been minutely recorded by Greek historians and others who accompanied or followed after Alexander in his expedition to India. The narratives of Arrian, Diodoros, Plutarch, and Strabo the geographer have been translated by Dr. J. W. M’Crindle to throw a shaft of light on ancient India. The most admirable feature of Alexander’s unsuccessful invasion was the deep interest he displayed in Hindu philosophy and in the yogis and holy men whom he encountered from time to time and whose society he eagerly sought. Shortly after the Greek warrior had arrived in Taxila in northern India, he sent a messenger, Onesikritos, a disciple of the Hellenic school of Diogenes, to fetch an Indian teacher, Dandamis, a great sannyasi of Taxila.

“Hail to thee, O teacher of Brahmins!” Onesikritos said after seeking out Dandamis in his forest retreat. “The son of the mighty God Zeus, being Alexander who is the Sovereign Lord of all men, asks you to go to him, and if you comply, he will reward you with great gifts, but if you refuse, he will cut off your head!”

The yogi received this fairly compulsive invitation calmly, and “did not so much as lift up his head from his couch of leaves.”

“I also am a son of Zeus, if Alexander be such,” he commented. “I want nothing that is Alexander’s, for I am content with what I have, while I see that he wanders with his men over sea and land for no advantage, and is never coming to an end of his wanderings.

“Go and tell Alexander that God the Supreme King is never the Author of insolent wrong, but is the Creator of light, of peace, of life, of water, of the body of man and of souls; He receives all men when death sets them free, being in no way subject to evil disease. He alone is the God of my homage, who abhors slaughter and instigates no wars.

“Alexander is no god, since he must taste of death,” continued the sage in quiet scorn. “How can such as he be the world’s master, when he has not yet seated himself on a throne of inner universal dominion? Neither as yet has he entered living into Hades, nor does he know the course of the sun through the central regions of the earth, while the nations on its boundaries have not so much as heard his name!”

After this chastisement, surely the most caustic ever sent to assault the ears of the “Lord of the World,” the sage added ironically, “If Alexander’s present dominions be not capacious enough for his desires, let him cross the Ganges River; there he will find a region able to sustain all his men, if the country on this side be too narrow to hold him.

“Know this, however, that what Alexander offers and the gifts he promises are things to me utterly useless; the things I prize and find of real use and worth are these leaves which are my house, these blooming plants which supply me with daily food, and the water which is my drink; while all other possessions which are amassed with anxious care are wont to prove ruinous to those who gather them, and cause only sorrow and vexation, with which every poor mortal is fully fraught. As for me, I lie upon the forest leaves, and having nothing which requires guarding, close my eyes in tranquil slumber; whereas had I anything to guard, that would banish sleep. The earth supplies me with everything, even as a mother her child with milk. I go wherever I please, and there are no cares with which I am forced to cumber myself.

“Should Alexander cut off my head, he cannot also destroy my soul. My head alone, then silent, will remain, leaving the body like a torn garment upon the earth, whence also it was taken. I then, becoming Spirit, shall ascend to my God, who enclosed us all in flesh and left us upon earth to prove whether, when here below, we shall live obedient to His ordinances and who also will require of us all, when we depart hence to His presence, an account of our life, since He is Judge of all proud wrongdoing; for the groans of the oppressed become the punishment of the oppressor.

“Let Alexander then terrify with these threats those who wish for wealth and who dread death, for against us these weapons are both alike powerless; the Brahmins neither love gold nor fear death. Go then and tell Alexander this: Dandamis has no need of aught that is yours, and therefore will not go to you, and if you want anything from Dandamis, come you to him.”

With close attention Alexander received through Onesikritos the message from the yogi, and “felt a stronger desire than ever to see Dandamis who, though old and naked, was the only antagonist in whom he, the conqueror of many nations, had met more than his match.”

Alexander invited to Taxila a number of Brahmin ascetics noted for their skill in answering philosophical questions with pithy wisdom. An account of the verbal skirmish is given by Plutarch; Alexander himself framed all the questions.

“Which be the more numerous, the living or the dead?”
“The living, for the dead are not.”
“Which breeds the larger animals, the sea or the land?”
“The land, for the sea is only a part of land.”
“Which is the cleverest of beasts?”
“That one with which man is not yet acquainted.” (Man fears the unknown.)
“Which existed first, the day or the night?”
“The day was first by one day.” This reply caused Alexander to betray surprise; the Brahmin added: “Impossible questions require impossible answers.”
“How best may a man make himself beloved?”
“A man will be beloved if, possessed with great power, he still does not make himself feared.”
“How may a man become a god?”
“By doing that which it is impossible for a man to do.”
“Which is stronger, life or death?”
“Life, because it bears so many evils.”

Alexander succeeded in taking out of India, as his teacher, a true yogi. This man was Swami Sphines, called “Kalanos” by the Greeks because the saint, a devotee of God in the form of Kali, greeted everyone by pronouncing Her auspicious name.

Kalanos accompanied Alexander to Persia. On a stated day, at Susa in Persia, Kalanos gave up his aged body by entering a funeral pyre in view of the whole Macedonian army. The historians record the astonishment of the soldiers who observed that the yogi had no fear of pain or death, and who never once moved from his position as he was consumed in the flames. Before leaving for his cremation, Kalanos had embraced all his close companions, but refrained from bidding farewell to Alexander, to whom the Hindu sage had merely remarked:
“I shall see you shortly in Babylon.”

Alexander left Persia, and died a year later in Babylon. His Indian guru’s words had been his way of saying he would be present with Alexander in life and death.

The Greek historians have left us many vivid and inspiring pictures of Indian society. Hindu law, Arrian tells us, protects the people and “ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave but that, enjoying freedom themselves, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess. For those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot.”

“The Indians,” runs another text, “neither put out money at usury, nor know how to borrow. It is contrary to established usage for an Indian either to do or suffer a wrong, and therefore they neither make contracts nor require securities.” Healing, we are told, was by simple and natural means. “Cures are effected rather by regulating diet than by the use of medicines. The remedies most esteemed are ointments and plasters. All others are considered to be in great measure pernicious.” Engagement in war was restricted to the Kshatriyas or warrior caste. “Nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at his work on his land, do him any harm, for men of this class being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury. The land thus remaining unravaged and producing heavy crops, supplies the inhabitants with the requisites to make life enjoyable.”

The Emperor Chandragupta who in 305 B.C. had defeated Alexander’s general, Seleucus, decided seven years later to hand over the reins of India’s government to his son. Traveling to South India, Chandragupta spent the last twelve years of his life as a penniless ascetic, seeking self-realization in a rocky cave at Sravanabelagola, now honored as a Mysore shrine. Near-by stands the world’s largest statue, carved out of an immense boulder by the Jains in A.D. 983 to honor the saint Comateswara.

The ubiquitous religious shrines of Mysore are a constant reminder of the many great saints of South India. One of these masters, Thayumanavar, has left us the following challenging poem:

You can control a mad elephant;
You can shut the mouth of the bear and the tiger;
You can ride a lion; You can play with the cobra;
By alchemy you can eke out your livelihood;
You can wander through the universe incognito;
You can make vassals of the gods;
You can be ever youthful;
You can walk on water and live in fire;
But control of the mind is better and more difficult.

- From “Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramhansa Yogananda.

The following is a transcript of the description of Jacques Fresco’s resource based economy as highlighted in the documentary – “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.“

A study done in the UK called The WhiteHall Study confirmed that there is a social distribution of disease as you go from the top of the socioeconomic ladder to the bottom. For example, it was found that the lowest rungs of the hierarchy had a 4-fold increase of heart disease based mortality compared to the highest rungs. And this pattern exists, irrespective of access to health care. Hence – the worse a person’s relative financial status the worse their health is going to be on average. This phenomenon is rooted in what could be termed ‘Psychosocial Stress’ and it is at the foundation of the greatest social distortions plaguing our society today. Its cause? The Monetary-Market System. Make no mistake: The greatest destroyer of ecology the greatest source of waste, depletion and pollution the greatest purveyor of violence- war – crime – poverty – animal abuse and inhumanity the greatest generator of social and personal neurosis mental disorders – depression, anxiety not to mention, the greatest source of social paralysis stopping us from moving into new methodologies for personal health, global sustainability and progress on this planet is not some corrupt government or legislation not some rogue corporation or banking cartel not some flaw of human nature and not some secret hidden cabal that controls the world. It is, in fact: The Socio-Economic System itself at its very foundation.

STEPS WITHIN A RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY:

Let’s imagine for a moment we had the option to redesign human civilization from the ground up. What if, hypothetically speaking we discovered an exact replica of the planet Earth and the only difference between this new planet and our current one is that human evolution had not occurred. It was an open palette. No countries, no cities, no pollution, no republicans, just a pristine, open environment. So what would we do?

Step 1 – MAXIMUM SUSTAINABILITY:

Well, first we need a “goal”, right? And it’s safe to say that goal would be to survive. And not to just survive, but to do so in an optimized, healthy, prosperous way. Most people, indeed, desire to live and they would prefer to do so without suffering. Therefore, the basis of this civilization needs to be as supportive and hence sustainable for human life as possible- taking into account the material needs of all the world’s people while trying to remove anything that can could hurt us in the long run. With that goal of “Maximum Sustainability” understood next question regards our “method”.

 Step 2 – DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM:

So then – based on the current state of scientific knowledge in the early 21st century along with our goal of “maximum sustainability” for the human population how do we begin the actual process of construction? Well, the first question to ask is: What do we need to survive? The answer of course, are Planetary Resources. Whether it is the water we drink, the energy we use or the raw materials we utilize to create tools and shelter the planet hosts an inventory of resources- many of which are demanded for our survival. So, given that reality it then becomes critical to figure out what we have and where it is. This means we need to conduct a survey. We simply locate and identify every physical resource on the planet we can, along with the amount available at each location from the deposits of copper, to the most potent locations for wind farms to produce energy, to the natural fresh water springs to an assessment of the amount of fish in the ocean to the most prime arable land for food cultivation, etc. But, since we humans are going to be consuming these resources over time we then realize that not only do we need to locate and identify- we also need to track. We need to make sure we don’t run out of any of this stuff, that would be bad. And this means not only tracking our rates of use but the rates of earthly regeneration as well such as how long it takes for, say a tree to grow or a spring to replenish. This is called “Dynamic Equilibrium”. In other words, if we use up trees faster than they can be grown back- we have a serious problem, for it is unsustainable.

 Step 3 – SYSTEMS THEORY:

So then, how do we track this inventory especially when we recognize that all of this stuff is scattered everywhere. We have large mineral mines in what we call Africa energy concentrations in the Middle East huge tidal power possibilities on the Atlantic coast of North America the largest supply of fresh water in Brazil, etc. Well, once again, good old science has a suggestion: it’s called “Systems Theory”. Systems theory recognizes that the fabric of the natural world from human biology to the earthly biosphere to the gravitational pull of the solar system itself is one huge synergistically connected system – fully interlinked. Just as human cells connect to form our organs and the organs connect to form our bodies and since our bodies cannot live without the earthy resources of food, air and water, we are intrinsically connected to the earth. And so on. So, as nature suggests, we take all of this inventory and tracking data, and create a “system” to manage it. A “Global Resource Management System”, in fact, to account for every relevant resource on the planet. There is simply no logical alternative, if our goal as a species is survival in the long run. We have to keep track as a whole.

 Step 4 – STRATEGIC PRESERVATION:

That understood, we can now consider production. How do we use all this stuff? What will our process of production be, and what do we need to consider to make sure it is as optimized as possible, to maximize our sustainability? Well, the first thing that jumps right out at us, is the fact that we need to constantly try and preserve. The planet’s resources are essentially finite. So it is important that we be “strategic”. “Strategic Preservation” is key. The second thing we recognize is that some resources are really not as good as others in their performance. In fact, some of this stuff when put into use has a terrible effect on the environment, which invariably hinders our own health. For example: oil and fossil fuels, no matter how you cut it, release some pretty destructive agents into the environment. Therefore, it is critical we do our best to use such things only when we really have to – if at all. Fortunately for us, we see a ton of solar – wind – tidal – wave – heat differential and geothermal possibilities for energy production so we can strategize objectively, about what we use and where, to avoid what could be called “negative retroactions”, or anything that results from production or use that damages the environment and hence, ourselves. We will call this, “Strategic Safety” to couple in with our “Strategic Preservation”.

 Step 5 – EFFICIENCY STRATEGY:

But production strategies do not stop there. We are going to need an “Efficiency Strategy”, for the actual mechanics of production itself. And what we find is that there are roughly three specific protocols we must adhere to:

One: Every good we produce must be designed to last as long as possible. Naturally, the more things breakdown, the more resources we are going to need to replace them, and the more waste produced.

Two: When things do break down, or are no longer usable for whatever reason, it is critical that we harvest, or recycle as much as we possibly can. So the production design must take this into account directly at the very earliest stages.

Three: Quickly evolving technologies, such as electronics, which are subject to the fastest rates of technological obsolescence, would need to be designed to foreshadow and accommodate physical updates.

The last thing we want to do is throw away an entire computer system just because it has only one broken part, or is outdated. So we simply design the components to be easily updated, part by part, standardized and universally interchangeable, foreshadowed by the current trend of technological change. And when we realize that the mechanisms of “Strategic Preservation”, “Strategic Safety” and “Strategic Efficiency”, are purely technical considerations devoid of any human opinion or bias, we simply program these strategies into a computer which can weigh and calculate all the relevant variables, allowing us to always arrive at the absolute best method for sustainable production based on current understandings. And while that might sound complex all it is, is a glorified calculator, not to mention that such multi-varied decision making and monitoring systems, are already used across the world today for isolated purposes. It is simply a process of scaling it out.

So, now, we not only have our Resource Management System, but also a Production Management System, both of which are easily computer automated to maximize efficiency, preservation and safety. The informational reality is that the human mind or even a group of humans, cannot track what needs to be tracked. It must be done by computers, and it can be.

 Step 6 – PROXIMITY STRATEGY:

And this bring us to the next level: Distribution. What sustainability strategies make sense here? Well, since we know that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and since energy is required to power transport machines, the less transport distance, the more efficient. Producing goods in one continent and shipping them over to another only makes sense if the goods in question simply cannot be produced in the target area. Otherwise, it is nothing but wasteful. We must localize production, so distribution is simple, fast, and requires the least amount of energy. We’ll call this the “Proximity Strategy”, which simply means we reduce the travel of goods as much as possible whether raw materials or finished consumer products. Of course, it might also be important to know what goods we are transporting and why. And this falls under the category of Demand. And demand is simply what people need to be healthy and to have a high quality of life. The spectrum of material human needs range from core life supporting necessities such as food, clean water and shelter… to social and recreational goods which allow for relaxation and personal – social enjoyment – both important factors in human and social health overall. So – very simply- we take another survey. People describe their needs, demand is assessed, and production begins based on that demand. And since the level of demand of different goods will naturally fluctuate and change around different regions, we need to create a “Demand / Distribution Tracking System” so to avoid overruns and shortages. Of course, this idea is old news, it is used in every major store chain today to make sure they keep up with their inventory. Only this time, we are tracking on a global scale.

 Step 7 – STRATEGIC ACCESS:

But, wait a minute. We really can’t fully understand demand, if we don’t account for the actual usage of the good itself. Is it logical and sustainable for every single human to, say, have one of everything made? Regardless of their usage? No. That would be simply wasteful and inefficient. If a person has a need for a good but that need is only for say: 45 minutes a day on average, it would be much more efficient if that good was made available to them and to others when needed. Many forget that it isn’t the good that they want, it is the purpose of that good. When we realize that the good itself is only as important as its utility, we see that “external restriction”, or what we might call today “ownership”, is extremely wasteful and environmentally illogical in a fundamental, economic sense. So, we need to devise a strategy called: “Strategic Access”. This would be the foundation of our “Demand / Distribution Tracking System” which makes sure we can meet the demand of the population’s needs for access of whatever they need, when they need it. And as far as physically obtaining the goods, centralized and regional access centers all make sense for the most part, placed in close proximity to the population and a person would simply come in, take the item use it and when finished, return it when it is no longer needed, sort of how a library works today. In fact, these centers could not only exist in the community in the way we see local stores today, but specialized access centers would exist in specific areas where often certain goods are utilized, saving more energy with less repeat transport. And once this Demand Tracking System is in order, it is tied into our Production Management system, and of course, into our Resource Management system. Hence creating a unified, dynamically updating, global economic management machine, that simply makes sure we remain sustainable. Starting with securing the integrity of our finite resources, moving to make sure we only create the best, most strategic goods possible, while distributing everything in the most intelligent and efficient way. And the unique result of this preservation based approach, which is intuitively counter to many, is that this logical, ground up empirical process of preservation and efficiency, which can only define true human sustainability on this planet, would likely enable something never before seen in human history. Access Abundance, not just for a percentage of the global population, but the entire civilization.

This economic model, as was just generalized. This responsible, systems approach to total Earth resource management and processes, designed, again, to do nothing less than take care of humanity as a whole in the most efficient and sustainable way, could be termed: a “RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMY”. The idea was defined in the 1970′s by Social Engineer- Jacque Fresco. He understood back then, that society was on a collision course with nature and itself – unsustainable on every level, and if things didn’t change, we would destroy ourselves, one way or another.

Link to the Venus Project Website.

What is the difference between awareness and witnessing? 

There is much difference between awareness and witnessing. Witnessing is still an act; you are doing it; the ego is there. So the phenomenon of witnessing is divided between the subject and the object.

Witnessing is a relationship between subject and object.

Awareness is absolutely devoid of any subjectivity or objectivity. There is no one who is witnessing in awareness; there is no one who is being witnessed. Awareness is a total act, integrated; the subject and the object are not related in it; they are dissolved. So awareness doesn’t mean that anyone is aware; nor does it mean that anything is being attended to.

Awareness is total – total subjectivity and total objectivity as a single phenomenon – while in witnessing a duality exists between subject and object. Awareness is nondoing; witnessing implies a doer. But through witnessing awareness is possible, because witnessing means that it is a conscious act; it is an act, but conscious. You can do something and be unconscious – our ordinary activity is unconscious activity – but if you become conscious in it, it becomes witnessing.

So from ordinary unconscious activity to awareness there is a gap that can be filled by witnessing.

Witnessing is a technique, a method toward awareness.

It is not awareness but, compared to ordinary activity, unconscious activity, it is a higher step. Something has changed: activity has become conscious, unconsciousness has been replaced by consciousness. But something more still has to be changed. That is, the activity has to be replaced by inactivity. That will be the second step.

It is difficult to jump from ordinary, unconscious action into awareness. It is possible but arduous, so a step in between is helpful. If one begins by witnessing conscious activity, then the jump becomes easier – the jump into awareness without any conscious object, without any conscious subject, without any conscious activity at all.

This doesn’t mean that awareness isn’t consciousness; it is pure consciousness, but no one is conscious about it. 

There is a further difference between consciousness and awareness.

Consciousness is a quality of your mind, but it is not your total mind. Your mind can be both conscious and unconscious; but when you transcend your mind, there is no unconsciousness and no corresponding consciousness. There is awareness.

Awareness means that the total mind has become aware. Now the old mind is not there but there is the quality of being conscious. Awareness has become the totality; the mind itself is now part of the awareness. We cannot say that the mind is aware; we can only meaningfully say that the mind is conscious.

Awareness means transcendence of the mind, so it is not the mind that is aware. It is only through transcendence of the mind, through going beyond mind, that awareness becomes possible. 

Consciousness is a quality of the mind, awareness is the transcendence; it is going beyond the mind. Mind, as such, is the medium of duality, so consciousness can never transcend duality. It is always conscious of something, and there is always someone who is conscious. So consciousness is part and parcel of the mind, and mind, as such, is the source of all duality, of all divisions – whether they are between subject and object, activity or inactivity, consciousness or unconsciousness. Every type of duality is mental. Awareness is nondual, so awareness means the state of no mind.

Then what is the relationship between consciousness and witnessing? Witnessing is a state, and consciousness is a means toward witnessing. If you begin to be conscious, you achieve witnessing. If you begin to be conscious of your acts, conscious of your day-to-day happenings, conscious of everything that surrounds you, then you begin to witness.

Witnessing comes as a consequence of consciousness. You cannot practice witnessing; you can only practice consciousness. Witnessing comes as a consequence, as a shadow, as a result, as a byproduct. The more you become conscious, the more you go into witnessing, the more you come to be a witness.

So consciousness is a method to achieve witnessing.

And the second step is that witnessing will become a method to achieve awareness.

So these are the three steps: consciousness, witnessing, awareness. 

But where we exist is the lowest rank: that is, in unconscious activity. Unconscious activity is the state of our minds.

Through consciousness you can achieve witnessing, and through witnessing you can achieve awareness, and through awareness you can achieve “no achievement.” Through awareness you can achieve all that is already achieved. After awareness there is nothing; awareness is the end.

Awareness is the end of spiritual progress. 

In awareness you lose the witness and only witnessing remains: you lose the doer, you lose the subjectivity, you lose the egocentric consciousness. Then consciousness remains, without the ego. The circumference remains without the center.

This circumference without the center is awareness. Consciousness without any center, without any source, without any motivation, without any source from which it comes – a “no source” consciousness – is awareness.

So you move from the unaware existence that is matter, prakriti, towards awareness. You may call it the divine, the godly, or whatever you choose to call it. Between matter and the divine, the difference is always of consciousness.

Osho: Meditation: The Art of Ecstasy.

Let me explain:

Us being aware of what is going on is their weakness.
Us being unaware of what is going on is their strength.

As long as people believe that it’s all just people stumbling along, corporations stumbling along, governments stumbling along… everyone means well, are generally ignorant, but are trying to make the best of things and sometimes get greedy and create dysfunctional systems (by the way, this is the majority world paradigm about what people think is happening)… as long as people believe this, they are subjected to slavery.

People think – as a world paradigm – that there is no such thing as free energy. How could there be? If the government or scientists found it, we would be using it by now.

Right?

Well, an Occupy Energy movement strikes at the heart of the issue.

Strikes at the heart of the weakness of the people in power.

FREE ENERGY means open-space, means that entropy is no longer a factor. You need entropy in order to control, in order to have world-domination.

In other words – you need a world paradigm strictly based on SCARCITY in order to control and enslave people.

Now, a few scientists here and there have discovered free energy here and there, most of us don’t know a thing about it because they were all shut down.

An Occupy Energy Movement would be a mass-movement – an independent media documented movement – of people all over the world (engineers, etc) using the principles to create free-energy. We shouldn’t have just a couple of people. We should have thousands. And each of them should video document their progress and make it freely available!

Now, when the forces in power try to silence this – try to shut it down – even kill, to keep things quiet (and you simply can’t keep something that big quiet – Gandhi proved this), then the world will come to see one thing very clearly:

1. There IS such a thing as Free Energy.
2. SomeBODY is trying to stop it!

This opens them up for a paradigm shift.

See the film, Thrive:

I feel the other critical factor involved here is public perception. It generally does not make sense to people to see a movement attacking banks and stockmarkets. As far as they know, banks are safehouses to store their money – ‘why would people protest against that?’

The issue is simply muddled up, so the protesters are not getting wide public support, which is why the sudden arresting of freedom of speech is not being questioned. The Occupy Protesters look like hooligans, rather than someone concerned for society.

The same thing will happen with the Occupy Energy movement – people at large will not put two and two together.

This is what happened with the difference between the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. During the Vietnam War quite a bit of footage was broadcast that showed the people suffering because of the war, the deaths – and most importantly – it put faces to the death tolls. This is what lead to the mass movement and protests with strong public support.

But during the Gulf War the Forces-that-be learnt their lesson. This time all you really got to see was some unremarkable aerial footage of buildings and lights shooting down from the sky. It allowed the public to completely disconnect from the humanitarian perspective of the issue.

I feel the best way to carry out such a movement is to create Free-Energy mechanisms and independently document using such free-energy to help people in terrible situations around the world… slums, ghettos, any other community desperately in need of energy.

We need to put faces to the people in need, and HOW Free-energy is helping them. Then when we document such an endeavor being stopped by the Government (or the Elite that control the government), that will actually be something TANGIBLE for public perception.

The Occupy movement is largely based on fighting ‘AGAINST’ something. “We don’t want this, we don’t want this…” which leads to – then what do you want? A Free-Energy movement on the other hand, is about “this is what we are fighting for!”

This is based on the same principle as when Gandhi decided to go and make salt… that salt comes from the Indian Ocean and is every Indian’s right to have it for free – it was a symbolic statement; ”Man needs salt, as he needs air and water.”

Same way – “Man needs energy – and free energy DOES exist. They have been lying to you.”

Nothing can shake the foundations of the public who are strongly ‘materialistic’ as much as this can – because Free-Energy connects to them on a material level too.

From scarcity to abundance.

If we make these free-energy machines public during the Occupy Protests receiving wide media attention, what this will lead to, I suspect, is the government responding by claiming these energy systems are patented and it’s a violation of intellectual property to freely produce these energy systems.

This will enable us to fight the utter nonsensical nature of intellectual property. Intellectual property is one of the great damnations of our current society and it is out of sync with the way in which intelligence functions as a collective consciousness.

However, presenting Free-Energy machines at the Occupy Protests would only be a first step to get media attention.

It is incredibly important to show these Free-Energy machines being used to alleviate suffering around the world – we must appeal to the humanitarian in the world at large in order to provoke a truly substantial movement.

Five Monkeys:

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a ladder under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the ladder and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the ladder, spray all of the monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result – all the monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries, the other monkeys will leap to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water.

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and goes to climb the ladder. To his horror, the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt, he knows if he touches the ladder he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the ladder and is attacked. The previous newcomer joins in the punishment with enthusiasm! Then, replace a third monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time a newcomer takes to the ladder, he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the ladder or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

Now let’s see what happens when a new monkey is put into this group where all the original monkeys (who had actually been sprayed with water) have been replaced one by one.

The new monkey watches the other monkeys sitting in a corner looking at the bananas. He scratches his head, and immediately heads for the ladder.

Then it happens!

When the monkeys sees the new guy heading for the ladder, they again freak out, yowling and throwing their arms in the air. They chase after him, beat him and pull him off the ladder. He doesn’t even understand why, but he wanders to a corner and sits with them, disillusioned.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys has ever been sprayed with cold water. Still, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs.

WHY?

Because ‘that’s the way it was always done.’ The monkeys in that room only knew the environment they walked into. Not because it had to be this way, but because they didn’t know anything different.

And that’s how the ‘Powers-that-be’ psychologically influence mankind. You don’t sit there thinking, “what will the government think?” – no, you sit there and think, “what will my mother think?” It is a brilliant form of conditioning to turn a human into the fictional ‘well-adjusted’ individual.

But the story is not over -

Then take all the monkeys out of the cage and put one new monkey in the room by himself. The new monkey sees the ladder, sees the bananas, and climbs the ladder. He begins to eat the bananas and discovers they aren’t ordinary bananas; they are Monkey’s Pride premium bananas! He’s hit the jackpot. He savors the taste.

A few hours later, place four of the original monkeys (who were sprayed) into the cage with this guy. Put fresh bananas.

This bothers the new guy as he figures these four guys will be up the ladder in a flash. So, he sprints to the ladder and is about to climb when the original monkeys see what’s happening and immediately grab him and start to beat him and drag him down.

But there was a difference -

This monkey had actually tasted the bananas, he knew they were good. So, he fights back, beating and kicking at the other monkeys and pulling himself up until he reaches the top of the ladder. He then picks up one of the bananas and shakes it at the other monkeys.

Now the four are confused.

But it looks safe enough now, and those bananas are going fast…

This is what I mean by a “paradigm-shift.”

- A summary of a key principle from “Lessons from the Monkey King” by Arthur F. Carmazzi.

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn’s view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. It is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper‘s model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury’s perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn’s model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.

- Wikipedia.

You know what? To me, that’s the saddest thing in the world. People suffering from starvation is very sad. But to me the root cause of it all is when people are not given the opportunity to make the very most of their own potential. Nothing is as tragic. Because it is the slow death of a mans spirit, not his body. That’s what I want to fight against.

- The Possibility Magazine.

The idea of a Utopian world has turned into a fairytale. Yet, everytime I see the misery around me – particularly when it seems so unnecessary – it has always made me wonder if things could be different.

The reason why I never ventured to actually answer the question – is it possible? – in all these years is because I was surrounded by so many reasons why it is not -

1. Eastern reason – The Universe is cyclic, and thereby humanity will have to be plunged into darkness, and come back into the light, over and over again… because that’s how we learn and refine ourselves. A Utopia exists when the planets align to bless the world… and when the planets step into another alignment, we plunge into darkness again.

2. Western reason – Utopia is not possible because there has not been a single evidence in history of it actually working.

3. Mankind is violent by nature, and revolt against any system – any structure – so there will always need to be some form of policing and government.

4. We tried sharing resources – that’s what socialism is – and look what happened.

5. Everyone wants different things, you please one group at the detriment of another.

Essentially – the main reason against a Utopia is just one – ‘You cannot avoid corruption, no matter what.’ That’s the fundemental reason.

Yes, I’ve been plagued with these reasons of why it can’t be possible… I once wrote a piece on Utopia where I highlighted many of them in detail.

It is very much possible it is true, very much possible that there can be no way to avoid corruption or exploitation no matter what we try. But we just don’t know that because it doesn’t seem like we’ve really thought it all through – what if we are a sentient species still very much in our infancy?

Are the mystics and sages insane? Because they all tell variations on the same story, don’t they? The story of awakening one morning and discovering you are one with the All, in a timeless and eternal and infinite fashion. Yes, maybe they are crazy, these divine fools. Maybe they are mumbling idiots in the face of the Abyss. Maybe they need a nice, understanding therapist. Yes, I’m sure that would help. But then, I wonder. Maybe the evolutionary sequence really is from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit, each transcending and including, each with a greater depth and greater consciousness and wider embrace. And in the highest reaches of evolution, maybe, just maybe, an individual’s consciousness does indeed touch infinity—a total embrace of the entire Kosmos—a Kosmic consciousness that is Spirit awakened to its own true nature. It’s at least plausible. And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story, which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds totally insane?”

– Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, 42–3.

Of all the arguments ever given, the one that stopped me was the idea of the ever-changing Universe. So, I gave up and lived, deciding it’s not possible. But it didn’t occur to me for a long time that I didn’t even try – you simply do not know unless you try -

“The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.”

- Arthur C. Clarke.

The Buddha speaks of pleasure and pain being a part of life – with desire comes suffering. But what we can’t forget is that he didn’t just get enlightened and poof out of existence. He wanted to share, to help improve things. So does Sadhguru.

I’m not thinking about the entire Planet being in a state of ecstatic joy – I know there are a lot of misunderstandings behind the word, ‘Utopia.’

To put this into proper context -

2 percent of the world are already in Utopia, and I am not referring to the wealthy. Utopia is a mind-state.

I am thinking about a counter-culture. Now, one of the laws of the Universe, even according to the yugas, is that the world goes from a golden age to a hellish age and back again for the purpose of learning through pain and pleasure. Perhaps now is a destined time to return to the golden age – even if the cycle is determined! The yogis certainly seem to suggest this. Yes, there is pain and pleasure, and yes it exists so that a person refines their character and learns the true depth of equanimity. But this world goes through cycles.

Considering all this, it occurred to me that I had set up a mental block not to try and see if it was possible to create a counter culture where that 2 percent mindset (who are already in a paradigm that transcends ideas of ownership and money – or close to it) can co-exist and grow. Grow as individuals, and growth of course includes pain!

But our growth in an environment where we can follow our sense of synchronicity more easily – because of a higher level of collective consciousness vibration (already evidence is collecting in Neuroscience for this), allows for us to be far more aware about the way we go about learning. This isn’t about avoiding pleasure and pain. It never was.

It is simply about being in a higher level of awareness collectively.

I have no plans to create some Utopian model, by the way – there can be no elaborate model. My main concern here is with the steps to a transition from here to there, and how we’d go about it.

After the transition – staying true to having no government and only an administration building that has a full account of all available resources and consumption rates, and communal libraries for all kinds of items that we don’t use daily (to save wastage of resources), in this kind of environment everyone is given their basic needs. And if Abraham Maslow’s principles are true – which I believe to be the case – then once their basic physiological security needs for food and shelter are satisfied, and given a thriving environment to have more engaging and fulfilling relationships, then gaining self-esteem through being able to fulfill one’s life goal (without society getting in the way anymore), they will freely explore for themselves and drive naturally towards Self-Actualization. Which means, the system would evolve organically, naturally – there would hardly be any system.

Just one – the monitoring of resources, their replenishment rate, and the rate of consumption.

The rest of it is humans with the freedom to actively create. Each of us. Somebody once said “when mediocrity is the standard, then it doesn’t mean much to be called a genius.” We would have a society filled with brilliance. With art – through science, technology, and entertainment. People would be constantly evolving the houses they want to have… the technology they create… time will be spent in exploration.

Perhaps there will be dark nights – as that’s a part of a journey – but if Maslow is right, when our needs are met we become much more empathic.

The only real problem to make sure we have thought through properly – is in the realm of relationships… but I feel that the fundemental flaw that breaks relationships is the idea of ownership.

I see this to be a paradigm shift, so yeah there will have to be a counter-culture – the problem is that the people in power see the general public as stupid – or more accurately – that ‘they behave irrationally and do not have the capacity for democracy. That they do not know what they want, so let’s give them what we think is best.’

This brings up a few questions;
1. What is best? As applied to a collective.
2. What is the paradigm we are shifting from?
3. What is the paradigm we are shifting to?
4. What is the route there?
5. What is the main resistence?
6. How is it sustainable?
7. Is it possible for the public (as a collective) to ever actually begin behaving as individuals, or will they always have to be lead?

1. What is best? As applied to a collective?

Understanding that you own nothing is like a stroke of reality that sobers you. But it also opens you up to infinite possibilities without getting greedy.

The problem with the current kind of socialism is that there is no creative abundance in it. So, to see how to bring the best elements, the best ideas we’ve ever thought of together; let’s consider a resource based solution.

In the end, that’s all we have to deal with here. Resources. Let’s go down to the very crux of the issue, before any isms. Any institutions.

Pure resources, and us.

Now how do we share it around? How do we thrive? Or more importantly, how do we create an environment that cultivates empowerment. Then, the resources become just a tool, not an identity.

2. What is the paradigm we are shifting from?

It’s the need to identify oneself with resources that’s causing the problem – as if life is slipping away if you don’t. You need half the world’s wealth tucked away in your pocket if your life is to mean something. There is no sense in that.

As for sharing it around, firstly; there is more than enough to go around. Some people are going to need more than others. That’s inevitable. But the important thing is, we aren’t treating resources like assets or commodities anymore – that kind of thinking is ludicrous, very ineffective.

3. What is the paradigm we are shifting to?

Instead, we focus on what people would like from a free-market, but are unfortunately unable to sustain such an idea when applied because of an assumption that we must “own” things. We don’t have to – more to the point what is fascinating is realising what actually motivates us – and it has nothing to do with ownership, or even authorship.

(to be continued…)

Summary of Leninism & Fabianism…

Collectivism is the concept that government is the solution to most of our problems. A collectivist is a person who believes that solutions come through government action and through coercion using laws. Sacrifice individuals or minorities for the greater good of society.

Collectivism exists today in two forms: Leninism and Fabianism.

Marxists are idealists. Theoreticians. Marx’s theories of Communism were, “Workers of the world unite, throw off the chains of your Capitalist exploiters. Recapture control of the means of production. Unite against war and racism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

But no openly Communist country in history was ever taken control of by Marxists. They were taken over by Leninists.

Leninists are leadership and organisation orientated. Activists. The ones that go out and make it happen. They believe in Lenin’s ideas – that we must have organisation, structure, discipline, communication, training, leadership. He created a fighting force.

It was this fighting force that took over countries. Lenin taught that Communism is a vision for the future (when mankind is perfected and the state would wither away) – instead he was establishing what he called Socialist Republics.

Lenin said, “Before anything, do whatever you must do to achieve and maintain power. If you come to power, then you can afford debate, because you can shoot anybody who disagrees with you.” Lenin used Marxist ideas as a front, a marketing ploy to inspire the public.

Lenin used Art of War’s strategy of feigned retreat in politics by appearing defeated to the Capitalists, louring them with ideas of free-market. Once they have built up their infrastructure and industry again, they return to their old premise of hating Capitalism.

They’ve done this over and over again in history, and when you see a piece on the news declaring, ‘Break up of communism,’ it just means they’re at it again.

Lenin sent communists into non-communist countries under the pretense of being strongly anti-communist. They purposefully formed anti-communist organisational fronts to lead an opposition as social democrats. All for the consolidation of power.

Social democrats talk about open markets and freedom of speech, but the police state doesn’t change.

The branch of communism that is perhaps the least known in the western world is Fabianism.

The Roman general named Quintus Fabius was famous in history for defeating his enemies by wearing them down with delay tactics and refusing to make a frontal engagement. His name was chosen symbolically.

Fabians objected to Leninists, “You’re trying to create a new world order through force and violence and quick revolution. That’s the wrong way. The proper way is patient gradualism. We will INFILTRATE our enemy’s system, their institutions, corporations, and we’ll gradually convert the world to international socialism (also collectivism) in that fashion.”

Dragging it out? Sounds like Congress.

The symbol for the Fabians is the turtle – slowly but surely. Operating in stealth mode, under the radar.

But both Fabianists and Leninists agree on collectivism – New world order needs strength, military, money. All they are fighting about is who is going to have the best jobs in that World Order. Who is going to have the power.

Fabians are the bigger threat because they specialize in countries which have developed parliamentary systems. Where people are used to voting in their own “dictators.”

But Leninists seem to specialize in countries where Self-rule is not expected. Third world countries, for instance, where people are used to dictatorships.

These are the two factions that dominate the world today. Communism doesn’t really exist.

- This is a summary of this video link .When I heard Edward Griffin put forth his views, it seemed quite sensible and objective. He seemed to understand that free-speech is a very good thing, true human freedom is a good thing, but was against One-World-Order kind of thinking.

This is the website of Edward Griffin, who provided this summary:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/