I was talking with my friend Khurshid the other day, and he told the story of the drill sergeant. The drill sergeant is honest to a fault, and loyal, and he has trained soldiers that have risen to the rank of lieutenant, colonel, major, and even general. The drill sergeant works very hard and without him the army cannot survive. Yet the man never rises above the level of sergeant. He is stuck in his position, and in that position he is very low on the chain of command. In other words, the men he has trained have risen to ranks of greater power and influence, yet he has very little influence because of his low rank. This is the dilemma of the hard worker who values personal integrity.

The men above the drill sergeant, more than likely, have had to compromise their integrity in greater or lesser degree because in any organization there is a certain amount of “go along to get along.” No organization is entirely rational or operates on the greatest good all the time. Personal integrity is very often not compatible with advancement and success.

This tells us a lot about the world we live in. I ask you, what would happen if you told the truth in every situation at your place of work? Would you be looked upon as an ideal employee? Do you think your advancement would be hindered or strengthened by always acting in ways you thought were right? I’m betting that no matter what your position or in what company you work, there is a certain amount of compromise with your own values IF you want to rise in the organization. We do this because we need that paycheck, and because the world is a very complex place.

This poses a dilemma: the tension between character and integrity, and advancement. This ethical conflict was illustrated perfectly in the movie, “Scent of a Woman,” which came out in the 90s. A young man attending a private prep school from a poor family (Charlie) and a rich kid (George) witness a few of George’s rich friends pull a prank on the school headmaster (Trask) by dumping paint all over his new car. The headmaster learns that Charlie and George know who pulled the prank but they refuse to say who. The headmaster threatens both kids with expulsion from the school, which would be a big deal for Charlie, who needs to graduate to get into a good school. For George it doesn’t matter, his family is rich and he could do anything or go anywhere. Trask offers Charlie a bribe, a letter of recommendation that would virtually guarantee his acceptance to Harvard. The headmaster gives both Charlie and George the Thanksgiving holiday to think about it.

Now here is the dilemma for Charlie: he gave his word to George that he wouldn’t rat out George’s friends to the headmaster. To make a long story short, George eventually caves into pressure from his rich father, who insists he tell the truth. At school, Charlie and George are subjected to a formal inquiry in front of the student body and the student/faculty disciplinary committee. George, aware that his wealthy father might cut him off if he doesn’t give up the names of the perpetrators, cops out and says that his vision wasn't clear. When pressed for more details, George passes the burden to Charlie, who remains silent. Charlie is told that when he enrolled he agreed to abide by the influential school’s rules and that he is honor bound and duty bound to tell the truth. But he does not tell the truth, and does not give up George’s friends, even though George and his friends treat him with casual contempt because of his lower social status. Trask recommends Charlie's expulsion.

Charlie chooses integrity and character over honesty and truth. He is in the same position as the drill sergeant above, who cannot rise above his station and succeed. Charlie’s chance for success is ruined by his decision.

What would you do? Well, there are two equally valid answers. The first is to say, “To hell with these rich people who don’t like me but who expect me to cover for them.” Here, Charlie breaks his word and compromises his integrity, but he gets his recommendation and his scholarship to the Ivy League. He “succeeds.” The second is to do what Charlie did and say that his personal integrity is more important than breaking his word. But Charlie is the poorer for this decision. Charlie “fails.”

Khurshid pointed out that the real dilemma: the Charlie who “fails,” who is true to himself, cannot exert influence in the world, because he will never rise in the power structure. The Charlie who compromises his integrity can, however, rise in the world and be a player, and eventually influence and change the system for the better. So – is it worth it to stay in a low position and have character, and personal integrity, or is it better to keep the broader goal in mind, and do what you have to do to become powerful and influential? Isn’t the Charlie who fails really just a coward because he isn’t willing to face up to the realities of the world, so he can eventually change things for the better?

I don’t know the answer to that question. I would have said that the Charlie who fails really succeeds because he is probably a happier person than the Charlie who compromises his integrity. After all, if you are willing to break your word once, you are probably the type to do it again. Can you really influence things for the better if your own character is flawed? (see our political system) Or is that just the cop-out of a weakling who will never rise high enough to influence anything? In the real world, sometimes you have to go along to get along, keeping the greater goal in mind, don’t you? Sometimes you just have to make hard decisions that maybe don’t make you feel good personally, but you suck it up for the greater good. Otherwise you’re just a prude who will never accomplish anything.

I don’t know, frankly. I have personally chosen the “failed” Charlie route, but I am just a happy person with little influence in the world. I suppose there are people who maintain their personal integrity AND become real players, but I don’t know any of them! I see a world run by sociopaths at the top, who are selfishly focused on their desires for power, or whatever.

In a vibrational universe, intense and exclusive focus on anything sets up a powerful matching vibration. Therefore, sociopaths who are intensely focused can be very successful. A vibrational universe operating on the Law of Attraction doesn’t care whether you are a nice person or not. In fact, the LOA punishes people who are “nice,” because nice people are usually not so intensely focused. They can see both sides of a situation, whereas a sociopath is convinced he or she is right and plows ahead regardless of others. In a vibrational universe this focus is rewarded.

In a world with a collective consciousness as low as ours, where the economy is driven by an energy distribution system based on scarce fossil fuels, who do you think is going to wind up at the top of these organizations? Monstrously competitive people, intensely focused people, and sociopaths who are blindly concerned with their own needs. Their vibrational focus is so strong that it is rewarded.

In the movie, the situation is only partially resolved. Before the hearing, Charlie takes on a “babysitting” job over the Thanksgiving holiday, taking care of a blind ex-Army vet (Al Pacino) who is tired of life and ready to end it all. Long story short, Pacino (Slade) recommends that Charlie give up the rich kids and go to Harvard. Slade shows up at Charlie’s hearing and gives a rousing speech defending Charlie’s character, which shames the student/faculty disciplinary body and they allow Charlie to stay in school. Slade tells them that Charlie may have acted wrongly (against the school regulations) but that he “isn’t a snitch!” and tells them that he’d rather have a platoon full of guys like Charlie (guys with character) than a bunch of rats from the Baird school, who are willing to squeal on their mates when the going gets tough. The disciplinary committee clears Charlie of wrongdoing, but we never find out whether Charlie gets his recommendation from the headmaster (most likely not, as the guy is a twit) or whether he gets to go to the Ivy League.

The movie tells us, “you have to have integrity to be happy,” but the successful guys in the movie are the headmaster and the rich kids who get off because their parents’ money can buy them a degree.

So the question is, how many of us can be happy and successful? By successful I mean powerful in a world that is dominated by governments, militaries, and corporations in fierce competition for scarce resources. We might say that the recently departed Dr. Wayne Dyer was one of those guys – but his influence only extended to people in the metaphysical community. Oh, he leaked out into society as well, but the people making the important decisions in the world – people who decide whether we’re going to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance, or what the LIBOR interbank rate is – aren’t listening to Dr. Dyer, otherwise this planet would be a much different place. The same for Oprah, or Deepak Chopra. These people are happy and influential in their circles, but they aren’t making important decisions that affect the lives of everyone on the planet. THOSE decisions are being made by selfishly focused people who have risen to the top of one or more societal pyramids because of their rigidly focused mentalities.

I suppose this is what the eschatological predictions of the Bible and the Hopi and the Mayans and other cultures mean when they talk about a battle at the end of the world. We are living that battle – the battle for the consciousness of the planet. Right now the collective consciousness of humanity is unsustainable. We cannot continue to industrialize the entire planet using scarce fossil fuel resources for much longer. We can no longer afford to allow sociopaths and other selfish people to run our most important organizations. We have to change our consciousness or human civilization is not going to make it. It’s as simple as the words “resource depletion.”

Fortunately, we don’t have to “re-educate” humanity. There are universal forces at work, beyond the silly materialism of our primitive science. The physical universe and everything in it is a perturbation, a set of vibrational impulses, within a universal field or superstring field. This universal field is pure consciousness. It is non-material in origin. It is beyond present-day science and the scientific method. Therefore, a true science, a sustainable science, will take this into account. It will unite materialism with what has been called spiritualism or metaphysics. A true science will integrate CONSCIOUSNESS into itself. Consciousness, even though it is non-material, has the ability to create thought, the basic building block of this universe and any other (see “The Unity of Spirit and Matter,” at sunrise-oproduction.org). Quantum mechanics deals with material entities at or above the Planck level. But a quantum science must deal with the universal field, and consciousness, as well as the material, because consciousness and the universal field are non-material, and material things are vibrations upon this universal field. (See John Hagelin, quantum physicist, in his excellent presentation, “What is the Universe made of and where does our Consciousness come from?” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV5Vptx0iJw&feature=youtu.be )

Universal forces are pushing awareness to a higher level. This is occurring at a deeper level than the current consciousness of humanity can conceive of. It is a little like the operating system of a computer, which is completely invisible to the user. Yet the OS provides an environment that allows all of the programs and devices on your computer to run smoothly. Guess what – some intelligence actually wrote that operating system. Some intelligence understands how it works and can fix it if something goes wrong. And most importantly, that OS is designed for harmonious interaction of all components within it.

Is it such a great leap of logic to postulate that the consciousness which underlies the universe has an intelligent plan for the advancement of life within it? I’m not justifying the idiocy of people who say that the universe was created 6,000 years ago because not believing so will undermine some religion. No, if a universal field really exists, then what occurs in that universe is not, cannot be, random. Materialists say that life evolved randomly and mysteriously from the random collisions of matter that somehow magically got created during the Big Bang. That is absurd and delusional. The universal field and everything in it is designed around harmony – otherwise life could not have evolved – and free will.

If you are really, really stupid you can use free will to deny the obvious: the inherent well being of the universe and this beautiful planet. You can deliberately turn your back on well being and create a civilization that thinks it’s really cool to fight and compete within itself to the detriment of the people living in it. Yup, free will – consciousness – allows you to do this. But you’d do it only if you were really, really, dumb.

And that brings us back to our original question of success vs. integrity. We simply need to redefine what success means. If you ask ten people in the US what success means, all ten of them (or at least nine) will tell you it either means making lots of money, or having lots of people approve of you, or some combination of both.

If I asked a child this question and got these answers I wouldn’t be surprised. But really, as a civilization we have to do a little better than that! Why? Because these adolescent beliefs are simply unsustainable! We have to get over the idea that the general is more “successful” than the drill sergeant because the general has some pretty stars on his uniform. Without the drill sergeant, the general never gets anywhere, because he himself never gets properly trained and his troops don’t know how to fight. A dumbass might say that the general is higher than the sergeant, but a rational military analyst will recognize the invaluable contributions of both.

Until we can go beyond the adolescent need for approval and shiny stuff, this civilization isn’t going anywhere. But the good news is that the underlying pure consciousness of the universal field is driving the process – and it is totally benign. Invisibly, the nature of life itself will turn a negative to a positive, if we let it. And it will do so despite the wailing and the sneers and the derisive comments and actions of people who don’t get it. If we are smart we just don’t buy into that.

Last week we talked about the creative impulse being fundamental to everyone on earth, even the clueless, and even the sociopaths. The creative impulse stems from the benign nature of pure consciousness, so all motivation for action, no matter how twisted, has a benign orientation. Recognizing that harmony is the sine qua non of existence will go a long way toward making our progress to a new, benign civilization a lot easier. And it will allow the drill sergeant, and the general, to understand how valuable he is.

(This is the blog post for September 2015. Due to a WordPress update problem, I lost three month's of posts)
A New Definition of Good and Evil

My friend Khurshid and I were talking about good and evil the other day. He said, "Good is using your creative powers to the best of your ability in the world." I thought that was a very good definition, because it doesn't say, "If you want to be good you have to believe this way, or act that way." It also doesn't say that to be good you have to fight evil. This definition of good avoids the conflicts we can get into living in the duality, where every positive thing has a negative counterpart. In fact, this definition of good transcends the duality altogether. If enough people thought this way the duality would grow weaker because we would have a balance where there was more creativity and less darkness. The duality is strongest when we think that to get more good we have to fight the bad or the unwanted. The duality, in other words, is the just the human race's balance of thought at any time t. Because we live in a vibrational universe, the balance of thought is always changing. So at any time t we can change the balance of the collective consciousness.

The Akash

Why is this important? Because we live on a planet that is surrounded by a field of subtle energy – the Akash. Akash is the Sanskrit word meaning "æther" in both its elemental and metaphysical senses. This field records every impression, every thought, every action, of all life forms on the planet. In Hinduism, “Akasha” means the basis and essence of all things in the material world; the first material element created from the astral world, and one of the Panchamahabhuta, or "five elements." In Sanskrit the word means "space", the first element in creation. The Akash is invisible to scientific instrumentation, and its existence is unknown to science. And even if it were known or even suspected it would be pooh-poohed, deeming it irrelevant. But it’s not!
The Ahash interacts with every life form on the planet. We contribute to it via our thoughts and intentions, and it interacts with us via the Law of Attraction. This process has been going on since the dawn of life on this planet. When this planet was formed (built) the Akash was included. Once a planetary civilization gets beyond the tedium and tawdriness of strict materialism, the Akash becomes recognized. Of course our materialistic human societies have no clue about this field and its importance, which I tried to show graphically in my movie, “The Evolution of Consciousness” (available for free at sunrise-production.org). Be that as it may, the human race, in every moment, literally determines the balance of consciousness on our planet, and the strength of the duality, by the thoughts we contribute to the Akash.

Framing and Beliefs

Our thoughts become rigidly "set" into a pattern when we believe we have to think a certain way. A belief restricts thought into certain channels. For instance, the silly belief that in order to be a "real man," you have to drink a lot of alcohol. The opposite of that is if you don't drink alcohol you are a wuss. Don't laugh, this belief is still prevalent in a lot of people. So the duality is enforced, or constrained, to follow a certain pattern or template, by a belief. Human consciousness is filled with these beliefs, which usually are so commonly accepted that people say, "Everybody knows that _____(fill in the blank.)"

For instance, everybody knows that if we want freedom we have to fight for it. Everybody knows that fighting cancer is a good thing (or standing up to it, which is a similar concept). So if you were to say to someone who asks you to donate to the "fight against cancer" that you believe we should be curing cancer and not fighting it, they would probably (1) think you were a kook (because "everybody knows" that fighting cancer is the way to get a cure), or (2) get angry because they think you are making fun of them, or (3) think you are one of those conspiracy nuts who actually believes that there is a cancer cure.

My wife Jenny has no patience with this. She says, "What difference does it make whether you say fight cancer or cure cancer? People understand that you want to cure it."
But no, they don't! The issue of cancer is framed around the idea of fighting it. What you name something is what you believe about it. The idea of framing is a very important concept in journalism. We see framing all the time in the "news." The news is framed around the status quo. Last month we said that the status quo in energy is all about fossil fuels – and that an attempt to go beyond that automatically makes you not normal. Even if you're the bloody pope. So cancer is framed around the idea of fighting it or standing up to it. Which implies its continued existence. Cancer will never be cured with this belief system in place.

Good and Evil

Now let's take a look at the opposite side of this idea of good being the use of your creative powers in the world. Bad, or evil, would then just be NOT using your creative powers. Wow, I really like this. In this definition evil is just the absence of creativity, just as dark is the absence of light. Looking at things this way, fighting evil, or anything unwanted, never even comes up, because the good-evil issue is now framed around the idea of the presence or absence of something good. This lessens the duality because there is simply more or less creativity in the world. We wouldn't tell someone that in order to be a better person he had to "fight" his or her lack of creativity! If we were angry we might tell him to get up off his ass and use his God-given abilities a little more. We might think, "Joe isn't living up to his potential," but we wouldn't think, "Joe is evil," just because he wasn't creating his life at a high enough level.

This gets us back to the educational system, and parenting. Our educational system is more interested in getting kids to shut up and toe the line than it is to encourage their creativity! And if you were a teacher and had a roomful of kids you might be excused for thinking this way. Because most of these kids have been brought up with the idea that their personal creativity is dangerous (it can get them into trouble, because creation means going beyond the accepted norm), and that there is a right way and a wrong way, and that they'd better be good or else!

The sad fact is that our beliefs have been framed in a similar way for millennia, even though there is no inevitability in thought! For instance, we might say that human thought inevitably gravitated toward fighting unwanted things, because our primitive ancestors were morons who had to bash each other (and other life forms) over the head to eat and survive. But this way of thinking is misguided. The civilization before ours (Atlantis) had a high technology, but the people there had a war and then the human race regressed back to caveman status. But that happened because their beliefs must have been framed or oriented to the idea of conflict and war. My guess is that the history of this planet we read about in history books is complete fiction. You know, the pyramids and the sphinx were made by primitive Egyptian farmers who, in their spare time, decided to erect a structure composed of 4 million blocks of stone, each one of which weighed a ton or more, and stacked them up 480 feet high to an error tolerance of half an inch. I mean, if you believe that you'll believe anything!

In 1996 a very brilliant man, Carl Munck, published a book called The Code, in which he mathematically mapped out all of the most important structures on the planet from the ancient world (including the pyramids) and showed that the ancients had an understanding of mathematics and technology that was beyond our understanding today. He created a new branch of science that he calls archeocryptography, and which shows the intelligent design of a worldwide network of structures. But his books are typed out on a typewriter and bound in spiral form because this guy can't get anyone to take him seriously. However, if you read these books (including Munck's Whispers from Time) they will blow your mind. They are seminal works, and very, very important. In a sane society this guy would be giving lectures in amphitheaters.

The story of Carl Munck (and Nikola Tesla, and Royal Raymond Rife, and Stubblefield, and Gabriel Kron, etc.) all have the same endings: geniuses who were prevented by the current framework of consciousness from advancing past the inside of their labs. I mention this just to give an example of the power of framing.

Creativity

Let's get back to our definition of good. In duality good-evil is a necessity. There's a fifty-fifty balance. I was brought up to believe that the duality is inevitable (hot-cold, dark-light, etc.) But it isn't. Or at least, the balance of it isn't. In a physical universe there will always be some duality, some opposites. But the polarity or duality in consciousness is simply created by consciousness, just like everything else. The duality is just a mindset, it is not something immutable, or some natural order that can't be changed.

If good is just using your creative powers to the best of your ability, then good isn't something abstract, or something we can't all agree upon. The problem with defining good as doing the right thing is that what's right isn't definable, it changes depending on your beliefs. But using your creativity isn't subjective; it's something we can all do. You can say, "but what about a psychopath? His idea of creativity is harming people." Well, a society that defines good as being creative won't squash a person's creativity! People become anti-social when their creative desires are thwarted. A lot of times this happens because it isn't "the right thing to do." You know, little Johnny wants to be an engineer and as a little kid he is constantly breaking things to find out what's inside. That can get pretty irritating to a parent, who is always yelling at the child. Eventually Johnny gives up and says, "screw this, screw people, screw life." Johnny's soul has become warped simply because his desire to create has been repeatedly thwarted. But Johnny will still create, even if it is in an anti-social direction!

I believe that the highest purpose of any human being is creating an effect. And if your soul purpose is thwarted then you will create any effect you can. Even a warped personality, a person who has had his or her creativity squashed, will still try to create. He or she may do this in a negative way, but this twisted creativity still comes from a divine impulse: Create! In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. And the first thing God did was create the world. This divine impulse to create goes way beyond good and evil, and beyond the duality. Therefore a definition of good based on creativity is a sound one, because it reaches down to the most fundamental level; a level beyond dogma, religion, or even belief. If you observe people you will see that those who are closest to death are the ones with the least desire to create in the world. When the creativity index goes to zero, the person "dies."

Creativity in all forms should be celebrated, even if it looks kooky. A dangerous psychopath should of course be constrained, but his or her creativity (even if it is twisted) should be acknowledged. I believe this could result in a very powerful therapeutic technique. You know, little Johnny (who is now warped) throws the vase against the wall. Instead of getting in his grille and saying "No, stupid!" the creative aspect of his action should be acknowledged. "Nice throw, Johnny. What were you trying to do there?" An insane person is of course impossible to help and should be locked up, but if there's any spark of life and sanity left you can reach someone by seeing and acknowledging their creativity. (Somebody has probably already thought of this form of therapy.)

A definition of good and evil based on the creative impulse within all of us can transcend the duality, and old belief systems, and lead to a better world. In this vein, Khurshid said, “The person creating problems thinks he is on the positive side, and he sees us creating problems. Whereas we clearly see the psychopath and the anti-social personality creating problems for society.” The Creator has enabled this opposition so that we may evolve. All actions have behind them a creative impulse (create!) and are divinely inspired, even if the motivations for those actions have been twisted.

So what happens when human consciousness evolves? Do problems just go away? Nope! As human consciousness evolves, we are able to solve the present day problems, but then more problems come up. However, we are now more able to solve the problems that crop up. That is evolution. In a lower level of consciousness, problems are intractable. Wars are fought that never really resolve anything. But as consciousness evolves we reach the point of detente –we may not like each other, but we realize that we have to cooperate at least minimally or we destroy the planet. Then we reach a point where we are tolerating each other fairly well. Then we reach the stage where actual cooperation occurs on a broader and broader scale. But always there are problems! Without problems evolution is impossible. And that’s where creativity comes in.

Problems are an opportunity to use our creative powers to better ourselves, and better the world.

Using this definition of good and evil – the presence or lack of creativity – it is much easier to see why problems exist. Problems are not problems, they are opportunities to use our creativity. Without problems there would be no reason to exercise creativity, and there would be no evolution. We would all be angels sitting on clouds eating a lot and watching TV. And so those on the other side – the bad guys – are necessary for our evolution. They are playing their roles well, and offer each time an opportunity to learn and grow. The only mistake is to accept their negative vibes into our space and our consciousness. By seeing problems (and the people who cause them) as just an opportunity to enhance our own creative abilities, it’s a little easier to tolerate those jerks (ha ha). The understanding is that everyone is creating, we can’t help it, it’s part of who we are. And creativity is what we all have in common, even the most evil person in the world. Creativity is the wedge we can use to reach even warped personalities. And we can look at our own lives and see where we are on the creativity index, which may inspire us to do inspirational things.

(Blog Post for August 2015. Due to a SNAFU in a WordPress update, I lost 3 month's of posts),

It is now more and more clear that the debate about "climate change" is really about phasing out fossil fuels. Last month we wrote about Pope Francis' new encyclical, Laudato Si, in which he calls for the gradual phasing out of fossil fuels. This was an international bombshell in my opinion, because it acknowledged publicly what has been fought over privately for the past 60 years: the release of hidden, frontier physics technology like electrogravitics and the extraction of energy from the vacuum of space, and medical breakthroughs such as a real cure for cancer.

Of course, talk like this opens one to the pejorative comments of the brainwashed and the materialists. You know, "anyone who says cancer can be cured is a kook, energy from the vacuum is a pipe dream, and anti-gravity is the province of science fiction writers." Well, recent events are very encouraging.

Today, Al Gore again jumped on the climate change bandwagon and called for a stop to drilling in the Arctic, specifically, in the Chukchi Sea. The article, titled "Al Gore criticizes Obama on climate change and 'insane' Arctic drilling," appeared in Thursday's July 16th edition of The Guardian. The article was worded in a very interesting manner, saying that "As conventional fields decline, the Arctic is the last frontier of the oil era, containing more than 20% of the world’s undiscovered, recoverable oil and gas." [italics mine]. The article speaks of the oil era as if it were a historical period in the planet's history. This is significant! It is another sign that the rising consciousness of humanity is literally moving the collective consciousness, the quantum operator, to a higher level where brighter possible futures are allowed.

It is now clear to me that the words "climate change" are actually code for "the fossil fuel empire." The debate has moved forward sharply from global warming and the reduction or conservation of fossil fuels for energy (with the implicit assumption that fossil fuels are the only real alternative) to suggestions that fossil fuels should give way to cleaner sources of energy on a global scale. Of course these are just suggestions so far, but it indicates the willingness of public figures to mention the possibility publicly. This is very exciting.

Here in the US, the Congress is essentially a collection of bought-off politicians who support the status quo. We talked a bit about this in another blog post. It is hard to blame our Congressmen and women because they are being blackmailed by the National Security State – what I call the Network, composed of private corporations, including defense contractors like MITRE and Lockheed Skunkworks here in the US, high-tech companies, and intelligence-focused firms. These corporations have either gotten hold of advanced ET technology or developed it gradually over the years – depending on who you listen to. Who cares, really – we just have to end the secrecy! Our Congressmen are essentially threatened with severe punishment if they go off of the fossil fuel script. Even President Barack Obama, whom the late great Christopher Story said was told when he entered office that he could not talk about this hidden technology or he and his family would meet with unfortunate circumstances.

Frankly, I don't care where this advanced technology comes from. If you choose to believe that the earth is the only planet with intelligent life in a universe with a diameter of 13.5 billion light years, over 7 trillion large and dwarf galaxies, and over 1022 stars, and trillions upon trillions of planets, have at it. I am just saying that this technology exists and that its release could help humanity end poverty and launch a new era of creativity and prosperity on this planet without the accompanying pollution and resource depletion.

Of course the hidden technology is not a panacea and we will still need plenty of fossil fuels as the planet transitions out of the "oil era," so the people at the top of the pyramid will still continue to be very wealthy. So what's the problem? I think it's just that the quantum operator (human consciousness) has not yet reached a decision on where the human race is going in the future. But when it does, we are going to really see progress!

The US Congress is almost entirely represented by people like Rick Santorum, who responded to the Pope's encyclical by rejecting it out of hand and telling the Pope to mind his own business, and said that his writings were outside the scope of a cleric. The popularity of the US Congress is about 10% at this writing, and the proportion of representatives from the established two parties is over 95%. Independent members of Congress are much more attuned to change. But the current Congress also mirrors the collective thinking of the citizenry.

The BRICS alliance, which has now over 150 informal member countries supporting it, is designing a new financial system. (See http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-19/brics-plan-become-political-alliance-reform-international-financial-system.) Western banks are holding on to what they say are hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of derivatives and other paper securities, but their real value is a fraction of that. This situation is holding the world's financial system under the hot seat. The dollar, which was established as the world's reserve currency, is no longer looked upon as such.

The Bretton Woods agreement was signed in 1944 and was to last for 50 years. Setting up a system of rules, institutions, and procedures to regulate the international monetary system, the Bretton Woods accords established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which today is part of the World Bank Group. Since 1994 the world has technically been without an accepted monetary system framework for international transactions – oh, the old system has continued, but it has almost completely fallen apart now. The world's most powerful banks are resting on a thin tree branch that is about ready to break, which is one of the reasons the BRICS alliance was formed. The BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) has moved away from the old financial and military structures, and is designing a new financial system (and military alliances) that will benefit the whole of humanity. We don't even hear this outfit mentioned in the mainstream American press, because the BRICS alliance is open to the phasing out of fossil fuels and a new financial system that does not have the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. This new financial system would deprive the current prominent western banks and the current players of some of the power they now have.

You can read up on the BRICS alliance online, keeping in mind Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap." That applies to most everything on the internet these days.

The Secret War, or the Intelligence War – whatever you want to call it – has always been about who will control advanced, off-planet technology. This has been going on behind the scenes since the end of WW II. The battle over this technology must of necessity be a hidden one – for if the public knew we had these advances, there would be an irresistible demand from the entire population of the planet. Even so, a lot movies and TV programs have been made about this – the James Bond stuff, the Bourne movies with Matt Damon, The X Files, The Fringe, etc., etc., all of these shows have hinted at the real issue behind the secret intelligence war. All of these programs involve advanced technology. Moreover, the two main themes of science fiction have ALWAYS been 1) advanced technology, and 2) ETs. SF has always been about these two main themes. Why? Because they are inextricably tied together. ETs = exotic technology, which is being held within the Network so as to continue an outmoded fossil fuel empire.

The battle has been between the light side – release this technology for the benefit of mankind, and the dark side – create a one-world Borg state with a few at the top. The unknown factor is the quantum operator of human consciousness: will humanity wake up in time to create a civilization to benefit the whole of mankind? As the Chinese say, "may you live in interesting times."

But now the secrets are slowly being divulged and the true purpose for the secrecy is gradually being revealed. It's a big, big game out there and humanity are like a bunch of ignorant little kids playing around in a sandbox. The universe out there is multidimensional and it is teeming with life at all levels of consciousness. Immature races like humanity are slowly developing, and much more spiritually advanced races are out there as well. The decision we have to make collectively is, which dimension of existence do we want to live in? A degraded 3D existence where morons like Rick Santorum run the show, or a much more prosperous existence where the true creativity of the human race can shine? We are confronting these questions right now. We are being influenced right now from both the light and dark side – and it is up to us to choose; because the universe, or the all-that-is, will support any choice we make. Do we choose to remain enslaved to an old paradigm of thought, or do we advance into the light? It's up to us.

Here in the US (and around the world as well) the mainstream media simply won't report on the issues of ETs, UFOs, and the associated frontier technology. If you discuss ETs or advanced technology publicly you are shot down (or shot at) and labeled mentally unstable, or told to go write a science fiction book. This technique has worked for decades now. Inventors on the frontiers of physics, like Tesla and others, have over the years been either bought off or threatened if they dared to publicly promote new technology outside the fossil-fuel paradigm. Royal Raymond Rife, who cured two dozen terminally ill cancer patients back in 1931, saw his equipment stolen and died a bitter and broken man after living to see the establishment of the American Cancer Society. The ACS has not, since 1969 and hundreds of billions of research dollars, even come close to curing cancer. The current cancer cure rate, according to my doctor, is between 3% and 4%. We can do better!

But there's good news as well: as human consciousness advances to a new level, these low-level tactics are becoming less and less effective.

I invite you to read the New York Times and listen to NPR, two sources of news that are supposed to be on the highest plane of information here in the US. I guarantee that you will NEVER, ever hear these issues even talked about, except as loony "conspiracy theories." The news is framed, always, in terms of the current paradigm. And that is not really unusual, because the mainstream news sources essentially represent the status quo of human consciousness. When we see these issues actually being talked about seriously on platforms like NPR we will know we have made a breakthrough. But for now, we can hope that more public figures will begin to advance the discussion, as Pope Francis has done.

In this stage of human advancement, you have to look for subtle signs of the advancement of consciousness. But the Pope and Al Gore are apparently feeling a little better about talking about a brighter future for mankind that is not totally dependent on fossil fuels. And when the rest of us finally decide we'd like a better future than the nonsense we experience today, there will be no stopping us!