Monthly Archives: August 2008


I wonder how we define honesty?

Most people would define honesty by looking at the physical universe and pointing out what has already manifested. We could be completely honest and tell an obese person that they have a fat butt.

But does this sort of honesty really help? Is it valuable? You could say, “Well, it helps me because I don’t like fat people.” Yeah, but why don’t you like fat people? If you were truly honest, you’d look inside yourself to find out.

If we accept the premise that the universe was created by consciousness and that your thoughts and feelings will ultimately determine your experiences, then anything in your awareness that you choose to focus upon will ultimately become real, and a subject for future honesty. To tell someone that they have a big butt is just to remind them that they have created inappropriately.

So any feeling you have and express is honesty. If you say to someone, "Looking at you irritates me, because I've put on some weight recently and I don’t like myself as much," this might be considered more honest than the statement above. This sort of honesty might be of more value, for we have not denigrated another. We have bared our soul to the other and made the subject about ourselves. And since all statements we make about others are really about ourselves, it also has more integrity.

What do you think?

I've always admired people who can be honest without irritating other people. That's something I've had to personally work on. I think the trick is always to be able to honestly express your feelings without making another wrong. That requires a conscious effort.

The Law of Attraction and Relationships
Condensed from Ken's book, [url][/url]"The Vibrational Universe"

Lets look at an example of how the Law of Attraction applies to relationships. Lets say Barb is having trouble with Bob, her boyfriend. Bob does annoying things like not call her when he says he will, and when they go out to eat, he chews very loudly. He isn't very handy either. When Barb had a major toilet malfunction from the upstairs bathroom, the drywall collapsed in the dining room below. They had to call in a repairman and it cost a small fortune to fix it.

Because Barb is really into self improvement and considers herself to be spiritual, she goes to the local astrologer and gets a reading about her boyfriend, and their relationship. The astrologer looks on her charts and sees that her signs for the next 3 months show a lot of trouble with persons of the opposite sex, and advises Barb to be on her guard for some temperamental male behavior. Now all Barb's thoughts and feelings are aligned toward conflict with Bob, and so she begins to interact with Bob in this way. Sure enough, within a few weeks they get in several big fights and break up two months later.

Bob actually has several wonderful characteristics which attracted Barb to him, but she has only been noticing the 2 or 3 things about Bob that irritate her, and so naturally, draws these forth from Bob when he interacts with her. Do we say the astrologer was correct in her predictions about Bob and Barb? Or do we say that Barb created the whole thing? Its up to you I guess, but I prefer explanations which place a conscious being at cause over his or her life.

I reject explanations that postulate evil forces, because these forces don't exist in an attraction based, free will universe where everything is connected within a positive field of energy!

Life is a self fulfilling prophecy. Like our example of Barb and Bob, it was Barb's agreement with the astrologer which placed her vibe in such a way as to promote conflict with Bob. It wasn't the position of the planets, or anything else outside of Barb. Barb has free will (as do we all) to choose her own experiences. It just happened that she decided to go into agreement with the astrologer, and therefore created more conflict in her relationship. The sad thing is that Barb may decide from this experience that she is no good in relationships, and so further compound her difficulty in dealing with the opposite sex. (I'm not bashing astrology, just using it as an illustration).
Lets look at another example. Take Ralph, a guy who loves fast cars. Ralph has saved up enough for a down payment on a new sports car. He is really juiced to show off his beautiful car. He gets to the dealer breathless with anticipation and when he sees that beautiful machine he thinks: 'man that thing looks so great. I hope nothing ever happens to it.' He begins to get anxious about scratches and dents, and idiots running into him. Anyone who has ever bought a new car knows how Ralph is feeling right now! Anyway, Ralph gets all his paperwork done and is anxious to get out of there and get his car safely in his own garage. He is driving down the street when Jim, a hothead who just quit his job and got his last paycheck, is headed off to the bar. Jim is really feeling his oats and comes out of the parking lot hell-bent-for-leather. He doesn't even see Ralph as he jerks his rig out into oncoming traffic and turns right in front of Ralph, putting a big dent in Ralph's brand new machine.

Did Ralph just have bad luck? Was there some diabolical force that directed Jim to mess up Ralph's new car? If we accept these explanations, we have to assume a universe where either things just randomly happen, or where there is a source of blackness that, like a boogeyman, decides to mess us up. Neither of these explanations make any sense. Ralph was a perfect match to Jim, and so they came together, exactly according to the thoughts, beliefs and feelings uppermost in each of them. Ralph was worried about his rig getting dented, and Jim was in just the right mood to want to run into somebody. BAM! a perfectly orchestrated co–incidental event, with Ralph and Jim as both actors and directors.

What appears to be a big boogeyman is just the guy behind the curtain with a bunch of levers and buttons. That guy is you.

Have fun orchestrating your life!

Despite the mainstream media’s “sanitization” of the news (see Operation Mockingbird), more and more people are coming to realize that there is something fishy going on in our country.

People can see the price of everything going up, yet the government tells us that inflation is under control. People understand that there is a “sub–prime mortgage crisis,” and even though they don’t understand the reasons for it. People understand that there were irregularities in the vote count for both the 2000 and the 2004 elections, and have a sneaking suspicion that all is not right with our democracy. Stories of newly built concentration camps, along with video footage, exist on the internet.

Some people have heard about Project Paperclip, which actively recruited Nazi scientists (and other Nazi intelligence officers) into the U.S. intelligence community. President Truman, in 1946, agreed to this idea with the restriction that only those who had nominal connections, or who were not ardent Nazi’s, could participate.

The War Department's Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) conducted background investigations of the scientists. In February 1947, JIOA Director Bosquet Wev submitted the first set of scientists' dossiers to the State and Justice Departments for review. Samauel Klaus, the State Department’s representative on the JIOA board, claimed that all the scientists in this first batch were "ardent Nazis," and so their visa requests were denied. CIA director Allen Dulles, a good buddy of the notorious Nazi Abwehr chief and master spy Gen. Reinhard Gehlen, was furious, and he had the dossiers “sanitized.”

And that’s how the United States imported criminals and other “dark forces” into our space program and our intelligence community. In September 1947, for example, Wernher von Braun, the most famous of these Nazi scientists, was originally classified as a “potential security threat” by the Military Governor of the US sector in Germany. After the cleansing of his dossier, von Braun’s classification was changed to say that he “may” not be a security threat.

Why am I going on and on about Nazi’s? Because Project Paperclip was the beginning of a cancer that has taken over the intelligence structures of our democracy, and has seeped into all three branches of our government. The cult of secrecy and “national security,” under which the crimes of blackmail, assassination, torture, and other evils are committed, is strangling freedom in our great country.

The genius of America is not democracy, which is merely rule by the majority. Such a system can lead quite easily to the asphyxiation of minority opinions. No, the genius of our Founding Fathers was the establishment of a 3 pole system of government based on checks and balances. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial were designed to keep the other branches from assuming too much power.

Unfortunately, the cancer within the intelligence community has penetrated all three branches. The executive is now, by far, the most powerful branch of government. President Bush essentially controls the direction of US domestic and foreign policy with his Presidential “signing statements,” in which he simply attaches riders to Congressional legislation. This allows Executive agencies to defy the will of Congress, and interpret the law in any way the president sees fit.

So what to do?

Ladies and gentlemen, a general election is approaching. In November 2008, we have the opportunity to reverse the slide of our government into darkness. We need a fresh start, and we cannot get that fresh start by voting for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. In Obama and McCain, we are being offered a false choice. The Dems and the Reps have destroyed our currency, have inflated our national debt, and have turned our once great economy into the world’s largest debtor nation. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been gutted. The United States is broke. We need to restore sanity to government, and that cannot be done by continuing to elect the same people who have caused the problem.

I personally vote Libertarian, but if you feel that you must vote for either a Democrat or a Republican, please do your homework. In 2008, we must elect candidates with the utmost honesty and integrity. Politically, it is time for all of us to assume the mantle of true Patriot and lover of freedom, just as our forefathers did.

I will leave you with some wise words:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man [or woman!]....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people."
Samuel Adams

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Kenneth James Michael MacLean


The Americanization of Emily

The Americanization of Emily is one of the most remarkable and consciousness–raising movies I have ever seen. It is a movie about reaching for the light, and living in the moment, with a superb screenplay and excellent acting. At this juncture in our country’s history, it should be seen by every American.

This movie can be viewed on many levels of consciousness. To the superficial, it is a silly and amusing love story. To the patriotic, it is the glorification of a contemptible coward. But for those who can look deeper, it is the story of a man who knows exactly who he is, who lives in the moment, and who chooses life over death in every moment.

Made in 1964 and starring Julie Andrews (in her first movie role), James Coburn and James Garner, it is the story of a man who reaches for life, and rejects death.
James Garner plays Lt. Commander Charlie Madison, a self–proclaimed lover of life, and coward. Charlie is a “dog robber,” one of a group of men who were attached to important military figures –– a sort of personal aide – and who made life easy for them by throwing elaborate parties and seeing to their comfort. I won’t bore you with the movie details because you can see it for yourself, and I urge you to do so.

In the movie, Charlie Madison defines cowardice as the rejection of death. As a result, he tries to get out of an assignment to land on Omaha Beach during D–Day. Charlie finds the idea of marching into Nazi guns appalling.

War is death. The product of war is death. Those who reject war are, however, popularly seen as despicable. But of course, those who embrace war also embrace death, and those who embrace death are insane.

Our species build monuments to death and war. We glorify those who have chosen death instead of life. This makes perfect sense to those who promote and profit from war. But what is truly remarkable is that the rest of us have bought into the idea! The equation of war, the equation of death, is Orwellian: death = life.

It is known that Hitler, a depraved psychotic, placed certain of his troops in positions that he knew would result in their slaughter. He got off on such things, apparently, as do all those who sadistically embrace death.

Yet ultimately, on a spiritual level, death IS life, for when one dies, one returns to the fullness of onesself as a powerful, non–physical being. You either understand that or you don’t. Those who promote war –– the “you only go around once” crowd –– do not have this understanding, because they have lost themselves. Those who glorify war believe that death is permanent. Therefore, those who favor and promote war also believe in the permanent destruction of the soul. Death for these people is for keeps. That is a level of darkness very difficult for sane men and women to contemplate. Wasn’t it Edmund Burke who said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." What good men and women can do is to live lives of openness, integrity, and love. This is the greatest weapon we have to deal with those in the consciousness of death. For if we move towards them, we become them.

One of my favorite quotes is from the late great cartoonist Walt Kelly, who wrote the Pogo strip: “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” In WW II, the United States was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. Now, they have risen again, in the guise and under the aegis of the “intelligence” community. The National Security Act of 1947 allows the commission of crimes under the false justification of national security. This Act established the legitimization of criminality at the highest levels of our government, and it was a sad day for all freedom–loving Americans, and persons of integrity throughout the world. Christopher Story, the noted independent U.K. intelligence analyst and author of International Currency Review, calls this Act a “crooks charter.”

The Americanization of Emily asks the question, what is cowardice? Is cowardice the refusal to support a popular –– and many would argue, necessary –– war? Or does cowardice mean simply taking the easy way out –– following the patriotic masses and not questioning the legitimacy of taking up guns to kill one’s fellow man in a war begun and promoted by others?

Is cowardice something contemptible? Or is it simply a rejection of death? Coward comes from the Latin cauda, or tail, and literally means, with tail between the legs. Those who avoid war come in two flavors: fearful, slinking ones, and those who mindfully understand that killing and war is pointless, and who understand that life is sacred, and should be nurtured and supported. Unfortunately, society tars both with the same brush.

War is merely an argument that got out of hand. Wars are fought not for exalted principles, but because country A wants the resources of country B. If you don’t understand that yet, you will, if you live long enough.

The legitimacy of war is a vexed question, because, paradoxically, it CAN be life–giving, in the sense that when you are in the midst of battle, every sense is heightened. You are fully present in the moment, and acutely aware of your surroundings. If you have ever been in a life–threatening situation, you know what I’m talking about. Paradoxically, unconditional love means that all actions are sanctioned. True love always loves the kernel of God within, and looks past the mask of hatred. I talked about this on one of my Interview With Spirit broadcasts in July.

In a book called “Cracking the Bible Code,” Dr. Jeffrey Satinover describes the incredible experience of a Holocaust survivor, who said that after he had fully confronted and accepted his circumstances, he found a spiritual awakening. Surrounded by death and evil, this brave soul found life. Within death is always life, because death is an illusion.

Death is transformation from one level of awareness to another. Nassim Haramein, scientist and researcher, uses this example to describe death (I am paraphrasing): ‘Imagine that you were inside the womb of a pregnant woman, and saw the growth of this little being. Suddenly, there is a gigantic explosion, waters are bursting, and this being, with whom you have developed a wonderful relationship, is gone. For you, your friend is dead, but for those on the other side (of the event horizon) a new life is born.’

Society denigrates those who refuse to kill others in war, but like Charlie, that person may simply embrace life, and reject death. That is why people are given the option to become conscientious objectors. Within some sane remnant of the human species consciousness, it was recognized that killing and death are insane, and some may choose not to blacken their souls with acts of murder. The conscientious objector process tries to distinguish between the skulking sneaks, and those who are truly mindful. Nowadays, however, with our government having been corrupted by the parasitical “intelligence” structures, such sentiment is dismissed contemptuously.

I encourage you to rent The Americanization of Emily and tell me what you think. For me, this great move argues for peace. As Mother Theresa once said, “I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.”

Kenneth James Michael MacLean