Releasing Positive Energies for Change & Growth

Dream Awareness network

My Blog

Blog

Transforming Politics Through Divine Grace

Posted on August 8, 2016 at 12:35 PM Comments comments (37)

Is There a Place in Politics for Divine Grace?

 
Before you read this post, if you are even interested in doing so, I will help you to understand my perspective of this topic. First, I am not referring to anyone’s specific religion when I use the word divine. Although some attributes of one’s religion may contain elements of the divine, claiming to be religious does not mean you are aligned with the divine in a much more universal sense as described here. It has nothing to do with morality or judgment. And grace is not something dished out to deserving people by some capricious God.

 What is Divine Grace then, and can it play a part in politics? In the book What Ever Happened to Divine Grace, by Ramon Stevens, “Divine Grace is the creative, motivating power or energy of your life and the entire universe. Divine means the source of this creative, motivating energy is beyond your normal ideas regarding the physical universe.” It is therefore meta-physical. 

Meta in English is from the Greek preposition and prefix meta (μετά-) meaning “after” or “beyond”.  In this sense, metaphysical means a divine concept beyond the normal interpretation of physical reality as perceived by the 5 physical senses. 

When I first started studying Physics, the subject as a scientific body of knowledge was defined in my first text as “the fundamental science of that natural world.” Physics was understood by studying the proofs of certain theorems that then became laws using the language of mathematics and experimental observations. 

 Of course, the natural world was meant to include only what could be sensed by the 5 physical senses that humans use to perceive the world. Any phenomenon that was “beyond” that definition; i.e., the metaphysical, simply was not true, not natural, and did not exist. End of discussion. This was classical physics. The phenomenal world of factual direct experience, no matter how revealing or how powerful, just simply was not a valid scientific experience. 

Contrast that worldview with the 21 century quantum physicists, theoretical physicists, and astrophysicists who are grappling with using mathematics to maybe prove the existence of parallel universes, multidimensional existences, that time really does not exist, that space is really curved, that we may live in a virtual reality of another beings “video game”; or even that we may have counterpart personalities living parallel lives in some other dimension.

 Out–of-the-box thinking that came about through quantum physics changed everything in the scientific worldview and is still changing it. Topics that were ignored once because science had no explanation for them are now being discussed in metaphysical terminology and trying to be proven mathematically.

 There are more mind boggling concepts than those I have listed below.  I am not making this up. If you want to be up to date on modern thought in the world of Physics, just sit down in front of the marvelous technological inventions of flat screen TV or your computer screen and watch the latest full season of the Discovery Science Channel series Through The Worm Hole narrated by that great actor who has played god in the cinema, Morgan Freeman.

 You will see that the definition of Physics is clearly being redefined from what it was in that first text I studied in 1961. It is certainly a revolution in thinking that will lead to a completely revised worldview. My opinion is summed up in a quote from the book The Evolution of Physics, authored by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infield:

 “Science is not, and will never be a closed book. Every important advance brings new questions. Every development reveals, in the long run, new and deeper difficulties”. 

 I will add that the “difficulty” arises because of the reluctance of those trying to hold on to their old outmoded worldviews, not wanting to change beliefs that would upset their “apple cart” of understanding. A similar scenario of changes as described above for science, hold true for religious beliefs and worldviews as well.

The great divide and the enormous wedge driven between the two big political parties, by the right leaning religious conservatives, by intent, has created a situation that will not be as easily reconciled as the dilemma described above regarding scientific beliefs and how they change .

What both the old ideas of thinking, regarding religion and science have done, working jointly, is to deny any existence of divine grace without judgment, is to proliferate fear, war, destruction of Nature, and a feeling by a majority, that they may be living a life without valid meaning or purpose, based on what has been experienced in the past. 

 So, as a field of applied physics, Meta Physics could be described as the study of the laws of the universe that describe the creative and motivating power, or energy, of all life, ALL That Is, anywhere in the entire universe or universes including, but not limited to, our incomplete understanding of what we call physical reality.

There just may be a Physics that applies to the Unknown reality, just as there is a Physics that applies to physical reality; a reality that some physicist says is an illusion anyway.

One of the most profound laws of physics, e=mc², formulated by Albert Einstein, says that there is an equivalency existing between matter and energy.  The magnitude of this equivalency is factored by the speed of light, c, squared.  This light speed factor is an enormous number using conventional thinking. The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second of clock time. That speed squared is 34,596,000,000.

 Therefore the factor in the equivalency is 34 billion 596 million. To be more precise, the speed is if the “particle” of light was traveling in a vacuum.  This is no small potatoes. You may feel I have gotten off track a little. In reality I just want you to try to get a perspective of the unthinkable amount of energy contained in the matter in our visible universe only.

How this energy was originally created, no one knows and I suspect, probably never will.  What is or was the source of this energy?  Science only explains the source as a miracle (of course they don’t use that word) they call the Big Bang.

 One instant there was no matter at all, and the next instant, all the matter of the universe came into existence and started expanding very rapidly and then coalescing. Since the originating source of all this enormous amount of energy is beyond any physical explanation science can offer, it must truly be metaphysical, or beyond the physical, this puts it in the realm of the Divine.

 Again, according to the full definition of Divine Grace in Ramon Stevens’ book:

  “Divine Grace is the motivating power of your life and universe. Divine means the source is beyond your physical universe; grace means that the divinity rides on a loving, buoyant intent which seeks always to carry you to your own greatest fulfillment.”…There is a greater level of wisdom at work in our lives that is a claiming voice. It is the voice of Divine Grace.”

 No one can deny that energy is real and exists. Everyone does experience energy in many forms. The law of physics in the physical world known as the law of the conservation of energy tell us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but that  it only can be transformed from form to another, or transferred from one object to another;  meaning that the expression or manifestation of it can be altered.

 One of the greatest unknowns in astronomy today is an understanding of the process of how galaxies form. There are theories, but no certainties. The galaxy-formation process has not stopped. Our universe continues to evolve. Where does all the energy that condenses into matter come from, if energy can be neither created nor destroyed?

Just what was the source of all this energy that scientist say produced a “big bang” with its resulting clouds of matter in the form of cosmic dust? Science comes up with theories about what took place after the theoretical big bang, but leave the discussion about what caused the big bang up to the philosophers and theologian.

Remember the above definition of Divine; Divine means the source of this creative, motivating energy is beyond our normal ideas regarding the physical universe. It is therefore meta-physical. The idea of Grace implies that there is intention associated with this explosion of creative energy. So, creation happens by intention, whether it is the creation of a universe, a mass event, or the creation of an individual’s personal reality.

 At our level of understanding in the beginning of the 21 century, we can only theorize about who or what is at the source of creating that energy. Since there is a “something” acting as the source, we can’t really be so sure that energy is being conserved unless the source is a part of the system.

 If we only consider what we see and understand as the physical universe, we cannot say for sure that the source of this physical universe supplies a limited amount of energy or not. We would have to consider the whole system including the source as a part of the system, and on and on. Maybe, the so called Law of Conservation of Energy is really just a working theory about energy in the physical world, but does not apply to the metaphysical universe, the unknown reality.

 As sure as the scientist are about so many things, they still tell us now at the beginning of the 21 century that the apparent measurable amount of matter and energy in the universe does not make sense; does not add up, according to previous and current accepted theory. They theorize that in order for the universe to remain being held together, approximately 70- 95% of all matter and energy is “unknown”. It’s somewhere “out there”, they say; even all around us.  If it’s out there, where does, or did, it come from?  I think you begin to understand the quote above from the book by Einstein:

“Science is not, and will never be a closed book. Every important advance brings new questions. Every development reveals, in the long run, new and deeper difficulties”. 

Since science has never been able to explain the source of this creative energy or the matter that coalesced, they have held to the idea and theory of a Big Bang. Maybe it is time that they explore what meta physical philosophy has been saying with vigor for the past 60 years or so, and before in some ancient writings; that energy in the form of consciousness gives rise to matter by intention, in its many and varied forms; from the atom and molecule to a biological structure as complicated as humans and the human brain. 

 If so, Consciousness then,  may not be an accidental random happening that arises from non conscious matter by accident, but that matter is actually formed by intentional consciousness manipulating energy and slowing it’s frequency to the point that it appears solid. 

 This discussion cannot begin to explain - who, what, where, when, and why of consciousness.  For some insight, I can direct you to that great resource of knowledge and wisdom know as the Seth material.  The Seth material is a collection of books authored by Jane Roberts and they can be discovered by a few moments of Google searches.

 So, how is this “greater level of wisdom at work in our lives that is a calming voice - the voice of Divine Grace,” Showing up in the 21 century?

It is showing up in the emerging revolution in ideas, thoughts and actions in our politics, our religions, our economies, our beliefs about war as a means of solving problems between nations, and our very ideas about what is reality according to science.

 The voice is in the form of impulses of awareness that some change is needed and that real and lasting change begins from within – A belief that the outer reality is just a reflection of what is collectively within each individual.  The real change starts within us.

 To the person grounded in institutionally taught, conservative, fundamental, “right-leaning” religious ideas, the concept of divine grace means a belief in an objective creator “God” outside and above them somewhere in some place they call heaven. This father figure as projected by them is a judgmental character willing to condemn them to eternal misery, or slaughter them in vicious ways, for not living according to certain rules which have been projected onto “him” throughout history.

 They attribute to “him”, this God,  the human qualities of jealousy, revenge,  both hate and love,  disdain for the physical body, disdain for impulsive thought, submission to male authority, and blind conformity to other than self. This “God” even has children that he likes better than other children, and doesn’t mind killing the opponents of those chosen as favorites. I am not referring to any one religion here, but to all fundamentalist conservative religious sects that hold that belief.

The fundamentalist extreme conservative ideas about reality manifest in a constant struggle between the powers of good and the powers of evil. Not only is there grace and destruction from above, there is divine destruction allowed from below in some where called Hell, under control of a power objectified as Satan,  where one may suffer an eternity for not pleasing their objectified “God”.  All good comes from God and all not good comes from the Devil/Satan, an all powerful force of evil.

 They cannot understand these ideas in terms of metaphor.  In this worldview, one must love God and at the same time fear God. And their greatest fear is that God will snuff them out for not living according to the rules some other humans have set for them.  They fear they could be snuffed out or killed and be faced with an eternal punishment in Hell for their mistakes, or failure to “miss the mark” (the original meaning of the origin of the word sin).

 So, the two main western worldviews that have dominated our past culture are the religious one described above, or the scientific one described above that says life came about through random accidental happenings, without real purpose or design and the meaning of existence is just to propagate more random beings devoid of meaning and purpose. Only the strongest and fittest survive in a process of evolution as progressing in a linear fashion.  It is in the scientific group that most people who label themselves atheist fall.

 A critical survey of the world events and the continued destruction of the earth, might lead you to think neither worldview is working all that well in allowing the greatest fulfillment of every person, with the same degree of fair and just consideration. The impact and consequences of these worldviews can be seen in our politics, economies, environment and our culture.  For the next year, and beyond if changes don’t take place, these worldviews will be driving the political narrative.

 Even when science thinks they have “closed the book” on a subject based on how definitely the theories are presented, Einstein’s quote reference above proves right. Accepted theories portrayed as facts in education are still just theories. Recent news about the Rosetta space craft discoveries is evidence, that the book will never be closed. See the referenced link below.


“The comet being studied by Europe’s Rosetta spacecraft contains molecular oxygen, a surprising discovery that will force scientists to rethink details of how the solar system formed.”

But still, scientists insist that consciousness was a random, illogical, mutational arising that occurred out of matter in a biological form. Most scientists cannot even look at the possibility that consciousness came first and gave rise to matter. They are so sure of their theory that they accept it as fact.

 Consider the ideas below from the Seth material as contained in another blog on this site. First, I have a couple of suggestions that may help in understanding this material. The first is to let your mind be “open” for new possibilities and to “suspend disbelief”, in the impossibility of what is being shared, if only for a while.

 Allow for the possibility of these ideas to be valid, even as the other “officially” accepted religious and scientifically based views about reality, which many people have held on to, were assumed valid and not questioned by most people for so long. Indeed, some beliefs currently held may have to be changed or eliminated in order for the deeper implications of this material to sink in.

Allow for the importance of not only our intellect, but also the importance of our dreams, impulses and intuitions that speak to us of a greater inner reality that we can indeed experience and practically use in our lives to guide us and to help us solve practical problems.

 So, let us begin with an alternate view of reality as explained in much detail in the collected volumes of the Seth material published by Jane Roberts (and her spouse Robert Butts) and New Awareness Networks Inc. that took up the continued publication of previously unpublished material upon Jane’s death in 1984.

 The original manuscripts of Jane’s are kept available today through Amber-Allen Publishing Inc. They are also available at Yale University. Yale University has in its archives, copies of all of the volumes of material that was produced over a 20 year period by Jane Roberts.

 Jane has been referred to as one of the 20th century’s greatest mystics and psychics, who lived at a time when the material was shunned by most religious, scientific and educational institutions. With my paraphrasing added in some places for clarity, let us contemplate on what Seth shared with the world through Jane and Rob; and Jane’s ESP classes that she taught for about 11 years in Elmira New York.

 “Consciousness Is the Vitalizing Force behind the Physical Universe. There is a basic unit of consciousness, that expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down.

The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite prospects of expansion, development and organization; yet within its self always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes a part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated.

 The basic unit of consciousness (CU for consciousness unit) is the source of all other kinds of consciousnesses, and the varieties of its activities are infinite. It is aware energy, identified within its self as it’s self, not “personified”, but “awarized”.

The basic unit of consciousness (CU) combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness – as atoms and molecules combined to form various structures. This CU is endowed with unpredictability, which allows for infinite patterns and fulfillment.

The organizations of consciousness “grow” even as cells grow into organs of the body and delivery systems within the body.

Each “particle” of consciousness is dependent on every other. The strength of one adds to the strength of all. The weakness of one weakens the whole. The energy of one recreates the whole.  The striving of one increases the potentially of ALL THAT IS, and this places great responsibility upon every other consciousness.”

 As used in the Seth material, All That Is, is the GOD concept, but described in an entirely different way than conventional thinking.

“Consciousness forms its own organizations and psychic interactions, such as precognition, clairvoyance and telepathy at all levels.

 Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience ALL THAT IS through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own. The structure of probabilities deals with parallel experience on all levels.

 Your consciousness picks and chooses to accept as real, the results of, and ramifications of, only certain overall purposes, desires, or intents. You follow these through a time structure. Your focus allows other just-as-legitimate experience to become invisible or not felt.

Consciousness is able to hold its own sense of identity by accepting one probability, one physical life, for example, and maintaining its identity through a lifetime.

 From the seemingly “chaotic” bed of your dreams, springs your ordered daily organized action. In your reality, the behavior of your consciousness and of your molecules is highly connected. Your type of consciousness presupposes a molecular consciousness, and your kind of consciousness is inherent in molecular consciousness – inherent within your system, but not basically predictable.”

Now, a quick review of the CU’s, or basic units of consciousness according to the Seth material:

  •  The CU’s are endowed with unpredictability.

  • The very unpredictability of the CU’s allows for infinite patterns and fulfillments.

  • The very nature of these CU’s is the vitalizing force behind everything in our physical universe, and all other universes as well.

  •  CU’s attempt to expresses themselves in all probable directions.

 Some additional advanced attributes of the CU’s are:

  • CU’s can indeed appear in several places at once, and without going through space, in your terms.

  • Literally, these CU’s can be in all places at once - They are in all places at once.

  • The CU’s will not be recognized because they will always appear as something else.

  • CU’s move faster than the speed of light!

  • There are many millions of CU’s in just one atom.

  • Each CU is aware of the reality of all others; and influences all others.

  • In our terms, these CU’s can move forward or backward in time!

 It seems to me, that these CU’s postulated by Seth In the 1960’s, may be the “God particle” that physicists have been searching for, and theorize they may have discovered through high energy collisions in the CERN particle accelerator, near Geneva, Switzerland, used to do research into the basic structure of matter. It is irony that the new ideas from quantum physics seem very similar to these ideas from the Seth material.

To grasp hold of the above ideas is to allow an entirely new worldview into your belief system. A worldview that supersedes the traditional religious and scientific world views described above. It is not a world view based on revenge and punishment or accidental random happenings, but one based on loving intention for the value fulfillment of all creation with equal opportunity as it is discovered individually and collectively, that through the power of your own beliefs, thoughts, intentions, and expectations, you create the reality and the events you experience.

This is true in physical reality as it is in the unknown reality, the meta-physical reality. 

So, the current world of global politics is the one that has been collectively created by all on earth as the UN-manifested probabilities are manifested and played out by all the actors (all of us).  Real change starts from within with new beliefs about a famous statement by a great teacher:

 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”, and according to Seth, “Your neighbor is any other person on the face of the planet”, given inalienable rights for their own value fulfillment, by their very birth.

 If this writing has left you with more questions than answers, it is because the answers are within. And it is within that you must look. Not to another authority figure.

 You, and all others are a part of All That Is, and All That Is, is a gestalt that is a part of you, while being far greater and much more.

  •  If your desire is a more loving world, become more loving.
  • If you desire is not to be judged by others, do not judge others.
  • If you desire is not to experience the feeling of condemnation, do not condemn others.
  • If your desire is to not experience terrorism, do not rain terror onto others.
  • If you wish others to be compassionate toward you, be compassionate toward others.
  • If you feel you have to separate yourself from all others different from you, it is because you have separated yourself from the source of all being, which is love; you have separated yourself from Divine Grace.
  • Outward change always starts with a change within.
  • The problems inherent in conventional politics will begin to be taken care of, when the problems with officially accepted world views are changed.
  • It all starts within. Divine Grace is for all people on earth.

Is there room in your politics for the above statements?

There is much more on this alternate worldview I speak of in the collected volumes of the material published by Jane Roberts and her husband Robert Butts. The collected works are generally referred to as the Seth material.

 © Dec. 19, 2015 by John W. Robinson, Dream Awareness Network

 Postscript: From the book The Return Of The Prophet by Hajjar Gibran (2008). The great uncle of Hajjar was Kahlil Gibran. “The Prophet” once again speaks through Hajjar.

“You were born in grace’s garden at the dawn of creation. Nothing more than your graciousness, can be added to the depth and breadth of grace’s splendor.

 Grace speaks in soft colors and caresses your senses with benevolent whispers. She serves up a glorious banquet and does her best to awaken you for her feast. Grace carries you always homeward and forever would lead your feet to dance on the very ground that will claim them.

 It is your privilege to star in the sacred play of light and shadow that was staged to celebrate your birth. Your innate polarity is projected into the presence of all that appears before you.

You may suffer in discord with your reflections, but prior to the shadow play, the light of spiritual grace shines eternally upon you.

Whether in peace or conflict, you meet what you bring; this recognition initiates your enlightenment. The measure of your attainment is demonstrated by your emanation of grace through scenes of adversity.

The grace you are after is before you always, but in fear of need you deny it. The illusion of need hangs like a veil over your eyes. To worry of want while in this garden of plenty is to cast yourself into a sequel of lack. Loosen the knot of need and remove fear’s blindfold that you may see this extravagant playhouse through the eyes of the preeminent Player.

Grace overfilled your cup long before the fear of want was conceived. Patiently she waits with delight for those precious moments when you pause to notice.”
END

Politics in the 21st. Century

Posted on December 19, 2015 at 4:46 PM Comments comments (24)
21st. Century Politics: The Struggle between Fear and Reason

Part One: Exploring the psychology of the “Far Right”.

In one of my previous posts (on the Face Book page Dream Awareness Network), I brought up the topics of fear, anger, and hatred in politics.  I think the recent Republican Political Party has been a shining example of these detrimental emotions. This is not to say that the Democratic Party is void of them. Only that the Republican leaders have been the shining stars in the politics of fear. It cannot be more evident than in the last debate on December 15, 2015.

In this post and future ones, I will explore the reasons for this in regard to the Republicans leading their charges. I will look for the reasons why they display such fear and paranoia. What are they afraid of?  This post gives some underpinnings to reflect on. Othert post will deal more directly with the fears of the “Far Right” in general and how this influences political ideology.

And then I will move on to the “Far Left”- I will do the same for the far left liberals. Why have they been so reluctant to bring about even greater positive changes in our national climate? What are they afraid of? How do they help foster creating a victim mentality?

Through this ongoing analysis I hope to show why this country needs to support Bernie Sanders at this point in our experiment with Democracy.  Yes, it is still, I believe, in the experimental stage, not yet fully realized. Maybe, it is Bernie Sanders that can take us one step closer. It will not be a “piece of cake”. Hopefully, the outcome will be that after the radical changes, we end with political institutions that are a blend of the rational and intuitive powers of Mind.

  The Nixon Example
  I could not paint a better picture of what I am attempting to show than the following excerpts taken from the book – The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events(INME), 1981, by Jane Roberts, Sessions 856 & 870.

The sessions deal with frightened people, idealism, and interpretations of good and evil. It deals with the “Watergate Affair”. This moment in our national history happened in 1972. If you are part of our country’s largest voting bloc, the New Millennials, you may not know the history.  This synopsis will give you an idea of what happened. A thorough understanding can easily be discovered by researching the topic.
The Watergate Affair was brought to us by the conservative Republican President Richard M. Nixon. For more details read the article referenced by the link at the end of this post.

From the book The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events:

“Let us look briefly at that entire affair, remembering some of our earlier questions: When does an idealist turn into a fanatic, and how? And how can the desire to do good bring about catastrophic results?

The President at the time and through all of his life before was at heart a stern, repressed idealist of a rather conventionally religious kind. He believed in an idealized good, while believing most firmly and simultaneously that “man” was fatally flawed, filled with evil, and more naturally given to bad rather than good intent.

He believed in the absolute necessity of power, while convinced at the same time that he did not possess it; and further, he believed that in the most basic terms the individual was powerless to alter the devastating march of  evil and corruption that he saw within the country, and in all other countries in the world. No matter how much power he achieved, it seemed to him that others had more- other people, other groups, other countries – but their power he saw as evil. While he believed in the existence of an idealized good he felt that the wicked were powerful and the good were weak and without vigor. 

He concentrated on the vast gulf that seemed to separate the idealized good and the practical, ever-pervading corruption that in his eyes grew by leaps and bounds. He saw himself as just. Those who did not agree with him, he saw as moral enemies. Eventually it seemed to him that he was surrounded by the corrupt, and that any means at his disposal was justified to bring down those who would threaten the presidency or the state.

  He was as paranoid as any poor deluded man or woman is who feels, without evidence, that he or she is being pursued by creatures from space, earthly or terrestrial enemies, or evil psychic powers. Those poor people will build up for themselves a logical sequence of events, in which the most innocent encounter is turned into a frightening threat. They will project that fear outward until they seem to meet it in each person they encounter.

It is obvious to most others that such paranoid views are not based on mass fact.

Your President at the time, had at his command vast information, so that he was aware of many groups and organizations that did not agree with his policies. He used those as in other circumstances a paranoid might use the sight of a police car to convince himself that he was being pursued by the police, or the FBI or whatever.

The President felt threatened – and not only personally threatened, for he felt that the good for which he stood in his own mind was in peril. And again, since the idealized good seemed too remote and difficult to achieve, any means was justified. Those who followed him, in the Cabinet and so forth possessed the same kind of characteristics to some degree or another.

  No one is as fanatical, and no one can be more cruel, than the self righteous. It is very easy for such persons “to become religiously converted” after such episodes (as in Watergate) lining themselves up once more on the side of good, searching for “the power of fellowship -  Turning to church rather than government, hearing in one way or another, the voice of God.”

I will interject here the actions of Republican President George W. Bush, 30 years later in 2003, who openly and publicly stated that he heard the “Voice of God” tell him to invade the non-threatening country of Iraq.

The consequences of his actions resulted in the deaths of 6,700 U.S. servicemen, the maiming of approximately 40,000 more that came back from the experience with missing arms, legs, or eye sight, unstable mental conditions, and consequential suicides that continue to this day. There were also hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people who were killed; men, women and children, who continue to suffer today from depleted uranium poisoning spewed out by the weapons used in that war of aggression.

  Is that what  “Christian God” would tell someone to do? Is that any better than those you fear and their actions? Was that really the teachings of the historical Christ? I hardly think so. At least, from my perspective and the experience I gained as a leader in a Christian church for several years in my past. (I served as deacon, elder, Sunday school teacher, prayer group facilitator and personal growth group facilitator).

Research the facts for yourself if you do not believe me. This summary does not even consider the deaths resulting still today from the consequential actions of that decision in 2003 (as in terrorists wanting to “get even” through the development of ISIS).

What karmic entanglement will the U.S. be in store for in the future if it does not change its destructive direction? I have not even brought up the environmental impact that we may experience because of the G. W. Bush’s administrations decisions, or lack of them regarding the environment. He was supported by many Republican congressional persons; since they cannot accept the fact that we humans, as a part of Nature, are having a detrimental impact on all of Nature.

I think many of the supporters and those dedicated to the Bush administration ideals believed they were taking the right actions, according to their deeply held beliefs that were rooted in fear. The power of fear can feed irrationality and destructive behaviors. One must look within themselves to discover a power greater than fear. It is not external.

We have forsaken our roots. The window of opportunity may pass us by if dramatic changes in our political system are not implemented. Some believe we may be at a decisive moment in our history.

Back to the Watergate affair from The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events ...

“So how can the well-meaning idealist know if their good intent will lead to some actualization? How can he or she know, if this good intent might in fact lead to disastrous conditions? When does an idealist turn into a fanatic?

Look at it this way: If someone tells you that pleasure is wrong and tolerance is weakness, and that you must follow this or that dogma blindly in obedience, and if you are told this is the only right road toward the idealized good, then most likely you are dealing with a fanatic. If you are told to kill for the sake of peace, you are dealing with someone who does not understand peace or justice. If you are told to give up your free will, you are dealing with a fanatic!”

I will interject again with my experience of the last Bush administration. Their mantra, which was also used by the Hitler Nazi regime

(See the relevant post on the Blog Page:Language, Words and Thoughts; A Journey From Beliefs To Action: What It Means To Be A Liberal.  It is under the category Politics, World Events and Dreams.)


  “You are either with us or against us,” was the Bush mantra used to intimidate all opposition to the so called  “Bush Doctrine” and their destructive plans. It seems that the Homeland Security Project was also implemented in order to take away many of your freedoms and to create a state of perpetual fear. 

Those who spoke out against the administration were treated with suspect. I believe this is why I was put on the “do not fly watch list” during the entire Bush administration after they started to implement their plans. I had been outspoken in various communications to many people as being in opposition to the policies. Air travel was important to my career. I was not removed from that list until Obama was elected President. …Now back to the excerpt from INME.

…”Through your mundane conscious choices, you affect all events of your world, so that the mass world is the result of multitudinous individual choices. You could not make choices at all if you did not feel impulses to do this or that, so the choices usually involve you in making decisions between various impulses. Impulses are urges toward action. Some are conscious and some are not.” …

…”To change the world for the better, you must begin by changing your own life. There is no other way.

You begin by accepting your own worth as a part of the universe, and by granting every other being that same recognition.

You begin by honoring life in all its forms.

You begin by changing your thoughts toward your contemporaries, your country, your family, and your working companions.

If the ideal of loving your neighbor like yourself seems remote, you will at least absolutely refrain from killing your neighbor – and your neighbor is any other person on the face of the planet!

You cannot love your neighbor, in fact, until you love yourself, and if you believe that it is wrong to love yourself, you are indeed unable to love anyone else.”

To reduce the risk of cerebral overload, I will finish this post on the politics of fear with the next post. As a teaser, here is an excerpt to be in the next post. It is from the book What Happened to Divine Grace?, 1988, by Ramon Stevens.
 
“…How then, can you distinguish between a legitimate idea or philosophy and one based on fear? Fear provides two give away clues for the discerning mind to detect.

  First, it will cause its host to latch on to what appear to be contradictory beliefs. A logically considered philosophy is one that can be reasonably applied to every situation and found to be consistent.

A philosophy based on fear, however, latches onto a host of different ideas, some of them opposing, in its desperate attempt to camouflage its true reality. When you speak with someone whose beliefs seem to cancel each other out in contradictory shambles, know that you are speaking not to reason but to fear.

The second clue fear provides is that if a philosophy based upon it is allowed full expression and played out, it will invariably bring about precisely the opposite result of that which it claims to support. Why? Because as we have seen, an impulse that is denied out of fear is energized by the denial, the grid of intent behind it empowered to a much greater degree than the superficially desired goal.

Thus, inevitably, a policy based on fear will result in the precise opposite of what it claims to desire.”
 
You can gain more insight into the above idea by reading the posts on this web site Blog Page that deal with the Power of Suggestion and The Law of Attraction. There are several posts covering the topics.

Think about the presidency of Richard M. Nixon and a few of his followers:
 -- Professed to conduct a “War on crime”, but had to resign his position of President before certain impeachment for criminal activities related to the Watergate Affair.
.
  And also the presidency of George W. Bush and fellow neocons:

–  Professed a platform of Family values, protector of freedom, converses with “God”, but led to the total disruption or destruction of untold thousands of lives and families, took away individual freedoms, further enhanced spying on all Americans, took the politics of fear to the extreme for modern times, and whose actions resulted in the turmoil still existing in the middle east today.

We can do better! The politics of fear has to stop. The politics of separation has to stop. We need constructive ideas and problem solving. We need all the people involved who truly support a better future. We need thousands of visionary leaders. We can no longer afford a do nothing congress living fat off of tax payer dollars - Your dollars.

For more information related to this post see:
 
The below link was not discussed in this post but should be reviewed by all voters before the next election. I will cover some of it in another post. It covers the lies told the American public by the Ronald Regan administration - Another fearful Republican administration. George H. W. Bush was Vice President.
           
For information related to the lies told concerning the invasion of Iraq see the below link:
 

Footnote: For The New Millennials.

Being a part of our country’s largest voting bloc, the New Millennials, you may not know the history I refer to in detail, but I do think that you may be better able to discern truth as a group, than some of the generations that preceded you. You have had more access to information through technology than all previous generations.

My hope is that you have also gained a better grasp of the ideas of reality creation, exercised not only through your vote, but also through participation. You influence the creation of a better democracy through your thoughts, intentions, and actions.
You also influence the creation of a more just and fair world through your thoughts, intentions, and actions.

I also hope that you, like me, will obtain a copy of the speech delivered this week by Pope Francis and read it for understanding. How does it resonate with you and your role in creating the future you desire socially, economically, spiritually and politically? Which presidential candidate meets your standards for the future you desire?

   Based on what I have read, observed, and understood so far, for me it is Senator Bernie Sanders. His standards are supported greatly by his voting record in Congress and the Bills he has introduced. It will take a team of hundreds of thousands to support his effort for positive and dramatic change for all.

I may be two generations removed from the New Millennials, but, being a product of the ‘60’s I have an awareness of the ideals that were embraced then, which are similar I think, to your current ideals. You have all the resources for peaceful revolutionary success at your disposal.

Be bold – “Cape Diem”! - It’s your future at stake.
Express your dream for your country and yourself through action.


Two Valued Politics

Posted on October 31, 2014 at 2:15 PM Comments comments (21)

 Language, Words and Thoughts;
A Journey from Beliefs to Action:
What it means to be liberal

By John W. Robinson
© July 18, 2004
Revised September 2012, and 
Oct. 31 2014.


I owe the evolution of the ideas presented in this article to a seed that was planted in my mind back in the late 70's when I first read the book Language In Thought & Action by S. I. Hayakawa. I heartily recommend reading this book to anyone who desires to understand their self and the language they use and the "news" they accept.
 
The current motivating force that overcomes mental inertia and compels me to write this now is the open abuse of language, as it pertains to the negative propaganda, in the subjective media, trying to re-define the meaning of the word liberal.
 
To anyone with an open mind, the evidence is in-your-face every day on network and cable "news" as it tries to redefine political candidates specifically and anyone who supports them in general and en mass. They do it using short sound bites, 24 hours a day with planned, spaced repetition; one of the most important tools in promoting propaganda. As you will probably see in this paper, more than short "sound-bites" is needed to communicate.
 
The pundits attempt to associate the word liberal as a label that means un-American, unpatriotic, supporting terrorism, pro-Communist, socialist, traitor and many other negative connotations. The National Republican Political party and their pundits including the “religious right” have become experts in propagandizing their "message" with disregard for truth. It appears that their supporters accept these opinions without critical thinking applied before the acceptance of such ideas into their core beliefs.

 
In researching the implied meaning of the word liberal, I will cite definitions as recorded in 3 different dictionaries published during different time periods. This is important to consider, as you will see.

Reference One
 Webster's New World Dictionary - The Everyday Encyclopedic Edition, (Published & copyright by the Southwestern Company, 1965 Edition.)
Liberal is from the Latin root liberalis, free - liber, free.
1.     Suitable for a freeman: not restricted
2.     Giving freely: generous
3.     Ample: abundant
4.     Not restricted to the literal meaning
5.     Broad-minded
6.     Favoring reform or progress; not conservative
 
Reference Two
Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary - Published & copyright 1984.
(Berkley edition published by arrangements with Houghton Miffin Co., 1984)
1.     Generous
2.     Abundant & ample
3.     Not literal; loose
4.     Pertaining to the Liberal Arts
5.     Respectful of the ideas or behavior of others; tolerant
6.     Favoring democratic reform and the use of governmental resources to effect social progress.
7.     Of or belonging to a political party that advocates liberal views.
Note the first reference to "government"
 
Reference Three
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
(Copyrighted and published 1991 by Merriam - Webster Inc.)
 
From the Latin root liberalis; suitable for a freeman, generous; liber; free.
Akin to Old English leaden; to grow
From the Greek root leathers; free
1.     a). Relating to or based on the Liberal Arts 
      b).  Of or befitting a man of free birth
2.     Generous, open handed, giver
3.     Obs*  - lacking moral restraint, Licentious (Note: The temporal label obs is for "obsolete" and means that there is no evidence of use since 1755).
4.     Not literal or strict, loose
5.     Broad-Minded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy or tradition
6.     a.) Of  favoring or based upon the principles of liberalism
b.) Of or constituting a political party advocating or associating with the principles of liberalism; esp of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with the ideals of individual economic freedom and greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.
*Note: The reference to government was more detailed and the first negative connotation mentioned, albeit obsolete.
 
I think it is interesting and maybe not a coincidence that the changes taking place from the research period of 1983 to 1990 are a reflection or correlation of the political ideology that was evident during the Reagan-Bush I era. It is also the period of the Republican Party and the Christian-Right's emphasis on the take over of Government and the educational processes and curriculum in this country.  Some of the current pundits' talking points are continuing to give the idea of liberal an even more negative association in an attempt to redefine the meaning.
 
In looking at the word liberalism, the first source (1965) simply defines it as "the quality or state of being liberal as in politics or religion or as holding liberal principles and ideals.”  The second source (1984) does not give a specific separate definition.
 
The third source (1991) defines liberalism as:
  1. The quality or state of being liberal
  2. a). A movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b). A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market and the gold standard.
c). A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
           d). The principles and policies of a Liberal Party
 
In the same source (1991), a Democrat is defined as an adherent of democracy or one who practices social equality (as in how rules are applied or opportunities are available). The 2 source (1984) defines democrat as one who advocates Democracy or one who belongs to the Democratic Party. The first source (1965) defines democrat as:
1.     A person who believes in and upholds government by the people
2.     A person who believes in and practices the principle of the equality of rights,         opportunity, etc.
3.     A member of the Democratic Party.
 
There are some significant definitions that I will point out that are repulsive to the current Republican Conservative Right, and are I think, the basis of their constant attacking the ideal of the historical meaning of being liberal.  I also refer you to the end of this article and footnote , which discusses how words are given their meaning.
 
I am going to digress for a moment to talk about the Two-Valued Orientation in Politics.  For reference, the idea of Good versus Evil is a Two-Valued way of thinking and believing. Everything that follows and in quotes is taken from Language In Thought & Action by S. I. Hayakawa.


"Under a two-party political system such as we have in the United States, there is abundant occasion for uttering two-valued pronouncements. Fortunately, most voters regard this two-valuedness of political debate as "part of the game," especially around election time, so that it does not appear to have uniformly harmful consequences. Overstatements on either side are at least partially canceled out by overstatements on the other."
"Nevertheless, there remains a portion of the electorate - and this portion is by no means confined to the uneducated - who take the two-valued orientation seriously. These are the people (including the TV & newspaper journalist) who speak of their opponents as if they were enemies of the nation rather than fellow-Americans with differing views and ideals as to what is good for the nation."

 
"On the whole, however, a two-valued orientation in politics is difficult to maintain in a two party system of government. The parties have to cooperate with each other between elections and therefore have to assume that members of the opposition are something short of fiends in human form. ( Note added by me: The congress under President Obama, is the first in my life time to show such juvenile behavior in the form of obstructionism, in the hope that the nation will suffer and the voters will blame the President. I do think that most rational thinking people will see through this, and vote with a compassionate heart next week.)

The public, too, in a two-party system, sees that the dire predictions of Republicans regarding the probable “tragic” results of Democrat rule, and the equally dire predictions of the Democrats regarding Republican rule, are never more that partially fulfilled.  Furthermore, criticism of the administration is not only possible, it is energetically encouraged by the opposition. Hence the majority of people can never quite be convinced that one party is "wholly good" and the other "wholly bad."
 
"But when a nation's traditions (or its lack of tradition) permit a political party to feel that it is… so good for the country that no other party has any business existing - and such a party gets control- there is immediate silencing of opposition. In such a case the party declares its philosophy to be the official philosophy of the nation and its interest to be the interest of the people as a whole.
 
 "Whoever is an enemy of the National Socialist Party." As the Nazis said, "is an enemy of Germany," Even if you loved Germany greatly, but still did not agree with the National Socialist as to what was good for Germany, you were liquidated."  (From Language In Thought & Action by S. I. Hayakawa).
 
We also have the below from the Nazi Germany era:
"Anyone who dares to question the rightness of the National Socialist outlook will be branded as a traitor,"       Herr Sauckel, Nazi Governor of Thuringia, June 20, 1933.
 
" The official national Socialist orientation never permitted a relaxation of the two-valued conviction that nothing was too good for the "good" and nothing was too bad for the "bad," and the idea that there is no middle ground, 
"Whoever is not for us is against us!" 
This isthe cry of intolerance armed with certainty."…

Does this sound familiar? This was the mantra of the Republican administration after the events of September 11. 2001. It was used to justify an invasion of Iraq based on false accusations.
 
In the movie Outfoxed (www.outfoxed.org), there are numerous examples of the subject I am addressing. Fox News Network and the pundits who "speak the news" are clearly illustrated to be "experts" in this arena of pushing RNC propaganda. I urge everyone to see it and make up your own mind. You don't have to take my word for it. Fox News as a source proclaims to report "fair & balanced" news. There are many who believe it to be a voice of the political extreme right.
 
If you look at the 3 definition from the third source, you can see a clear example of how "labeling" from the Conservative Religious Right during the eighties and their effort to greatly influence the educational system in this country resulted in a negative connotation being entered into a dictionary.
 
If you are aware what was happening during that period, you will know that the political agenda of the Christian Coalition led by Ralph Reed was to infuse government with Ultra Conservative Fundamental Right Wing people ("true believers") and their beliefs. This was well documented. They have made it clear that they want to force their doctrine and dogma onto society, by law, as soon as they can take over all branches of the government.
 
I believe it was no coincidence that Ralph Reed stepped down from the presidency of the Christian Coalition when he became an adviser to President George W Bush and a paid consultant to Enron. I am not sure what skills he took to an oil / energy company that was the most corrupt and devious corporation in recent times. It may have been a reward for a job well done. And, it is not surprising that in 2012, Ralph Reed has resurfaced to support the effort to get Mitt Romney elected. The evangelical right now proclaim Mitt to be one of them. But, Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on every major element of the RNC policy platform since his time of running for Governor of Massachusetts in order to get the backing of corporate money and the religious right in this country.
 
And the latest continuing saga of Ralph Reed is highlighted below.
 
“The true surprise at the Tampa convention in 2012 was Ralph Reed’s resurrection. When the former head of the Christian Coalition was discovered to have raked in millions of dollars from the super lobbyist — and eventually convicted felon — Jack Abramoff, Reed wound up in political purgatory. But outraged by the election of Barack Obama, and responding to what he describes as God’s call (via Sean Hannity), Reed returned to start the Faith and Freedom Coalition with the aim of toppling Barack Obama from the White House. To succeed, Reed needs to win the allegiance of many of the trusting Christian followers he had duped and double-crossed while working with Abramoff.
 


While Romney, Ryan, Rubio, and Eastwood (talking to a chair) got the lion’s share of attention during the Republican Convention this week, three one-time college Republicans who are now the party’s real power-brokers — Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist — were busy doing what they do best: leveraging their political, "religious", and financial resources to back pro-corporate, anti-government objectives at the core of the conservative agenda.”  They were producing and spreading their own brand of propaganda.”
 
It is very well advertised, that no Republican candidate for President of the USA can ever hope to be elected to office without pledging to do the bidding of Grover Norguist and the billionaire backers of his efforts to take over the US government. As usual, Karl Rove is one of the “point men” in this effort.
 
They only need someone smart enough to “hold a pen as Grover Norguist put it, because they (their elected President) will only be doing “what he is told”.

 I think we could say that as a Mormon, Mitt has “sold his soul to the devil”, to put it in the terms of the religious.
 
In a search of 18 separate sources on the web, all were similar to those already cited except one that really stood out, put forth by the Republican power brokers, indicating more revealing propaganda attempts in labeling their opposition party. The one standing out so blatantly is as follows.
 
A liberal is “One who denies some of the basic truths of Christianity”. (By a far right pundit)
 
 
This is the perfect example of trying to re-define the meaning of words. This idea is still shouted out in 2012 by the ones who belief that only their beliefs are truth and everybody else must be governed by them.
 
I have to ask, if the person who put this definition up was around 2000 years ago to witness and record what was "TRUTH"? Maybe the Roman Emperor Justinian who put the current form of the Bible together in about 535 AD, and decided, on his own, what would be recorded as TRUTH, was a friend of this persons.  (See footnote 2. at the end regarding the current Bible's origin).
 
If I take the attack on "Liberals" as coming from a group who basically oppose the words officially used to define liberal then I may conclude that they oppose the concepts of:

·Giving freely, generously and in abundance…………a clear Biblical teaching.

· Being broad minded : they prefer narrow minded & limited thinking instead without critical judgment.

 Making progress………they want stagnation, regression & rigidity to be the rule.

·Being respectful of others and tolerantthey believeothers don't have the right of a differing opinion.

·Democratic reformit was real important when Caesar or Hitler had the power, but not if they get it. All though the "church" was not not strongly outspoken against Hitler.

·Using governmental resources for all……they believe only corporate and religious welfare should be allowed.

·Non literal acceptance……they want others to be ruled by their myths and non truths.

·Not giving in to all authority……..only “they” can define & be the authority for all others.
 
I think you get the point. I think you can see how words can be used. I have even done it myself. I also think the attempt to include the suggestion (3rd definition, 3rd source) that a liberal is lacking in moral restraint and disregarding of sexual restraint is a blanket, irresponsible, slanderous accusation of a group of people. Of course they may think I have committed the same "sin" by expressing my opinions. Its just that I favor progressive instead of regressive politics. 
 
In modern media, news events there are reported numerous records of these so-called “religious ones” displaying a “lack of moral restraint” This seems to be the only method at which these people (ultra radical right wing conservatives) excel. 

It will be their own behavior that defeats them, not an opposition party – in my opinion).
 
On a positive note, when I looked at four different dictionaries published that are on the shelf this week in 2012, there were no negative connotations defining liberal in any of them. Maybe fair & balanced defining does exist after all once again.
 
Footnotes
 
1. Language In thought & Action by S. I. Hayakawa, Fourth Edition. The book was first copyright in 1939 and updated in 1978 with new current examples.  Published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. S. I. Hayakawa served as President of San Francisco State College from 1968-1973. In November of 1976 he was elected United States Senator from California
 
2. From these two sources: The Religions of Man by Houston Smith.  Harper & Row, 1958 and, Edgar Cayce on Reincarnation by Noel Langley, Warner Books Edition, 1967.
 
As for the Bible, the current form came into being about 535 years after the death of the historical Jesus.


From all the various writings of the time that chronicled the Hebrew history & mythology and the reported Philosophy of Jesus, a Byzantine Roman Emperor Justinian held what was called the Fifth Ecumenical Congress of Constantinople in 535 AD.

 
"The purpose of this congress was to condemn the teachings of Origen (185-254 AD), that until then, had been held vital to preserve the "original gospels".  Councils had been held before, but none had the impact on the future teachings that would be allowed.  In the year 325 the Emperor Constantine had summoned the Council of Nicea (three hundred Bishops attended) to "settle" the question of Jesus' divinity or humanity. 
 
Later in 380 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. This fifth council/congress was more secular than religious. Many documents believed to be significant and containing truths that Justinian did not want to include were discarded.
 
Pope Virgilius, the Pope at the time, was excluded from the meeting as well as all but six western Bishops. There were 159 Eastern Bishops attending, the ones that apparently were Justinian supporters. The Church of Rome at the time was powerless against the military supremacy of the Byzantium. With only 6 western Bishops attending, the vote naturally went the way Justinian wanted, and the basic form of today's Bible was set.

All the early gospels (writings) were either in Latin or Greek, and were never allowed getting into the hands of laymen. Religion became a puppet of the state

 There was an effort to destroy all previous documents that were not aligned with the decisions of the Council and the desire of the Emperor Justinian. All documents that contained ideas contrary to the “official line of consciousness” were sought out and burned. Those who voiced opposition to what was happening and did not convert were killed.
 

For another 500 years, much disagreement continued between the early Eastern & Western Church, until 1054 AD when the Roman and Greek churches excommunicated each other. It became the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East and the Roman Catholic in the West. 
 
The next great division took placed in the sixteenth century with the Protestant Reformation and the breaking away from the Western Roman Catholic Church."
 
 
Splits in the Church of course have continued until the present day. There are now more than 250 denominations in the United States alone, offering over 250 variations of the "Truth".
 
3.      From: Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1991)
 
"Perhaps the first thing that we need to remind ourselves of is that when we speak of the meaning of a word we are employing an artificial, if highly useful, convention. Meaning does not truly reside within the word but in the minds of those hearing or reading it. This fact alone guarantees that meaning will be to a great degree amorphous: no two people have had exactly the same experience with what a word refers to and so the meaning of the word will be slightly or greatly different for each of us.
It is obvious, then, that a dictionary which set itself the task of defining the meaning of words in their entirety, will undertake foolhardy enterprise. Therefore, the dictionary editors invoke the traditional distinction between--
(1) Denotation-- the direct and specific part of meaning, which is sometimesindicated as the total of all the referents of a word and is shared by all or most people who use the word--and
(2) Connotation-- the more personal associations and shades of meaning that gather about a word as a result of individual experience and which may not be widely shared.
 
I don’t claim to know the Truth with capital “T”, but I do think this so called democratic civilization may not survive with the divisions and social inequalities that are prevalent in today’s society. Wealth is once again being concentrated via preferential laws, and it appears that to effort to give money voting power is at its greatest. The problems can only be solved by an attitude of compassion and cooperation - and a complete overhaul of our basic systems; political, religious, and educational.
 
Think about the language you use and the meaning you place on words; they reflect you thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs. Change will come. Will you be on the progressive side of conscious evolution? Or will you be stuck in the dogmatic doctrine of dis-empowering beliefs?
 
© John W. Robinson October 31, 2014
 
Conclusion for this Op Ed - October 31, 2014:

Although I first wrote this treatise 10 year ago, I have reflected on the significance of the subject as another election cycle comes upon us. This is the first time it has been publicly published.

What got me thinking again about how I felt in the period 2000 - 2004, was the desire to write some comparisons of various contrasting world views that still guide groups of people, including me of course. My world views have changed over the years and I think have been moving in a direction of greater understanding, love tolerance, and compassion for all people. My focus currently is in spreading the "good news" as I see today. That being: We all create our own personal reality, using our thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and intents; as an artist uses colors to create a picture on canvas. We are the producers, directors, actors, casting agents, and critic of our own lives.We are here to learn that we contain a powerful creative force that can be used for good, constructive purposes (for all), or for destructive, purposes. 

It seems that nothing has really changed in the efforts of a certain political group that really avoids an evolution of consciousness and progressive change that benefits all humanity. This is a group that will find themselves in the minority, within a couple of decades at the most. They recognize this fact and fear the coming changes. This fear will most likely lead to more irrational behavior, even more than in the past, because fear is debilitating.
 
Little do they realize that their incessant focus on this fear will only give the positive changes more power and help bring them about! Even in the
Old Testament you find the caution – I believe it was Job who is quoted as saying “the thing I feared the most has come upon me”. Even back then they understood the Law of Attraction and the process of personal reality creation.

If you read all of this , I say Namaste" to you. 

 

Politics, World Events & Dreams

Posted on August 3, 2011 at 1:54 PM Comments comments (10)
In light of the Current World events in Politics and the Budget/debt process in the USA, I thought I would offer a view on such happenings as they were covered in a timeless Philosophy. The following in quotes is extracted from the stated sources and is as relevant today as it was nearly 50 years ago.
 
“It makes little difference whether you watch the news or not – but it makes all the difference in the world what you think of world events.
 
The perspective from which you watch world events is vital, and it is true that communication now brings to the conscious mind a far greater barrage than ever before. But it is also a barrage that makes man [everyone] see his own activities, and even with the growth of the new nationalism in the Third World, those nations begin from a new perspective, in which the eyes of the world are indeed upon them.
 
Your country [the USA] faces the results of its own policies – its greed as well as its good intent, but it is out in the open in a new way. The world will be seen as one, but there may be changes in the overall tax assessments along the way, as those who have not paid much, pay more.
 
The results of fanaticism are also out in the open. Never before, in your terms, has the private person been able to see a picture of the mass world in such a way, or been forced to identify with the policies of his or her government. That in itself is a creative achievement, and means that mankind is not closing their eyes to the inequities of his or her world.”  
From Dreams, “Evolution”, and Value Fulfillment Volume Onea Seth book by Jane Roberts.
AND 
“You may become outraged, scandalized – or worse, filled with self-righteousness, so that you begin to attack all those with whom you do not agree, because you do not know how else to respond to your own ideals, or to your own good intent.
 
The job of trying to make the world better seems impossible, for it appears that you have no power, and any small private beneficial actions that you can take seem so puny in contrast to this generalized ideal that you dismiss them sardonically, and so you do not try to use your power constructively. You do not begin with your own life, with your own job, or with your own associates. What difference can it make to the world if you are a better salesperson, or plumber, or office worker, or car salesman, for Christ’s sake? What can one person do?
 
Yet that is precisely where first of all you must begin to exert yourselves. There on your jobs and in your associations, are the places where you intersect with the world. Your impulses directly affect the world in those relationships.
 
Many of you are convinced that you are not important – and while you feel that way it will seem that your actions have no effect upon the world. You will purposefully keep your ideals generalized, thus saving yourself from the necessity of acting upon them in the one way open to you: by trusting yourself and your impulses, and impressing those that you meet in daily life with the full validity that is your own.
 
Those natural impulses, followed, will automatically lead to political and social organizations that become both tools for individual development and implements for the fulfillment of the society.”
From The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events – a Seth book by Jane Roberts.
 
So again I repeat – “It makes little difference whether you watch the news or not – but it makes all the difference in the world what you think of world events.” -  Collectively, we will become what we think about most. We will create our personal and our collective reality from our thoughts, feelings, emotions and BELIEFS. If we believe and act from FEAR, we will create the situation we feared and then wonder why this is happening to us.
 
So, what does this have to do with dreams? In the tradition of all the shamanistic and native cultures - and following the teachings of the Seth Philosophy published by Jane Roberts (beginning more than 50 years ago), plus the current teachings of Robert Moss, a world renowned author and “Dream Work” researcher and teacher, what we experience and call physical reality, is first rehearsed in the Dream Time. Our Dream Time is the bridge between the Unknown Reality and what we experience as physical reality. The Unknown Reality is the source of the ideas that are communicated through Dreams, the Sub-conscious and Intuitions. If we follow our natural impulses, we can overcome the false beliefs we have accepted that lead to our difficulties.
So pay attention to your dreams as they do reveal your beliefs to you just as your experience in physical reality is a mirror of your beliefs.
 
Other Seth/Jane Roberts books that deal with these ideas are:
The Nature of Personal Reality
The Unknown Reality Volume One
The Unknown reality Volume Two
Dreams, “Evolution,” and Value Fulfillment Volume Two
Dreams & Projection of Consciousness
 
Some Robert Moss Books of interest:
The Three Only Things – Tapping the power of Dreams, Coincidence & Imagination
Active Dreaming – Journeying Beyond Self Limitation to a Life of Wild Freedom
Conscious Dreaming – A Spiritual Path For Everyday Life
DREAMGATES – Exploring the Worlds of Soul, Imagination, and Life Beyond Death