Love the new/additional format. I appreciate the written posts as they allow your words to express your views for you and there's an element of the reader getting to fill in the blanks with just how vehemently you feel these words. In addition, I love to listen to your express those views with spoken word as then I get to hear more distinctly the actual passion with which you share them. Both have value and I look forward to both formats continuing. Keep it up! We need you in this space. I, for one, deeply value the ways your thoughts inspire and even force me to see our world through the consciousness lens.
Hey! Great idea here. Gave me just enough time to do the dishes and listen! I get it about being "off topic". Politics can be a hot-bed of ideas that stimulate other thoughts. Easy to go "off topic". Now that I know that this all needs to stay within the Spiritual Workout agreements, it will make it easier.
As far as what this judge did to said criminal: From her viewpoint (not being familiar with the latest technology that can transform criminals to ethical citizens) she probably honestly thought he was irredeemable. I don't know the details of what this kid did, but most judges are just trying to keep criminals out of the society in order to keep the peace there. However, when "politics" and money get involved, it is EASY to SEE how condemning anyone to life in prison forever would be for all of the wrong financial reasons.
... Meanwhile, regarding “the great awakening that you discuss here” have you ever read the book "The Forth Turning"? A good one. Shows how every 80 to 100 years societies turn upside-down (like this one is doing now). We did this in the US when our group consciousness realized that we were all better off ruled by elected officials instead of by a monarch. Same thing happened in the Civil War when people revolted against the free slave labor of the South, going back to the statement in our Constitution that “All men are created equal” and again during WWII when we got involved in defending that democracy against elites that thought they knew best, like Hitler. … Now we confront another awakening! Again (I feel) it is about defending our democracy against the elites that think they know best. Elites that currently own our government by getting politicians elected that get laws implemented that are not for “We The People”. For the most part, they OWN the criminal justice system of which you are discussing here, as well as most of the main stream media so that they can easily convince us to turn our democratic rights, like freedom of speech, right to defend and protect ourselves, or our right to privacy over to them. … The real conflict is between those that believe that the globalist elites DO know best and those who still feel that our political system should be “by and for We The People”.
I wrote this in haste. Meant for the quotes to be after "the great awakening". ... YOU are a great writer as you get people to respond! Love your thoughts, even if some of them get me ranting over here!
We can all appreciate a bit of haste. And you're a much bigger person than I, Linda, because I could not, would not, do not read the things that get me ranting. Enough to see what's what and maybe bound from it to a newsletter piece, but that's it for me and kudos to you. :) And no, I have not read "The Fourth Turning" but, then again, I tend not to be interested in history. Or philosophy. I mean, of course, there's interesting stuff everywhere and they are huge fields full of really smart people and thinkers. Obviously. But I've personally (and I'm only talking about me) moved into a place over the last 30 years, as a result of this practice, where I focus on what is today and keep my sights set on what I want to be/do/have in the future and put my energy into creating that. We are all different and I know PLENTY of people, many of them even friends, who LOVE and are well-versed in both subject, but when I listen to inspiration/take measure of my feelings/my energy, it drains out of me when I'm in the history or philosophy departments. It was ever so in college and, apparently, still. But again and as always, that's just me.
Conscious politics-wise, the very notion of "criminal" stops me in my tracks. It feels to me like an outdated, harsh description, a/k/a judgment, that simply will not exist where I'm going. I get that "criminal" is not changing overnight, I get that it's a mindset change, I get that it's a gargantuan project to change the conversation of a society, but apparently I'm going to die trying.
The quote by Plato (an old philosopher) that you posted earlier —> “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” is also one of my favorites. However, I also agree with the quote by Winston Churchill who said “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it”.
How would we know if we were repeating the same political mistakes or not, if we didn’t know the history of what has happened politically before, that caused every major civilization to fail?
Let’s take the rise and fall of Rome for example. People were attracted to it because it was an easy place to live, produce good food, run businesses and had a strong army to protect it. The Roman rulers enhanced trade throughout their country by investing in infrastructure, roads, waterways, public buildings, etc. The population of Rome paid taxes to support these efforts because they benefited from them. Eventually, many people from all over were attracted to Rome. Towards the end of the Roman Empire, politicians realized that they could more easily stay in power by giving people free social services, paid for by taxing the more productive people in and outside of Rome. At one point Rome gave free bread to any and everybody who lived there so nobody would starve. The more free programs they created the more taxes they had to take from the those who were producing the products needed to keep Rome going. Eventually, the productive people and land owners moved to other places where they did not have to carry the burden of the impoverished that were being attracted to come to Rome for all of the free programs. As the productive people left, there was less and less money to support a strong army. Consequently around 400AD, invaders from the North came storming down to take it over. They basically ended up invading an unarmed, deserted Roman Empire because it had disintegrated years earlier.
How is that different than what is going on now? As you know, I run an Amazon business. I am 6 days away from running out of products to sell because the supply chains that I purchase from are all being delayed. In talking to many of my vendors, I have discovered that much of the problem has been workers who left because of the Covid situation, not willing to come back because the government is paying them more to stay home. … My question to you: What happens when there is more money than products (created by productive people) to be purchased by that money? ———> If you follow the news you will notice that the extremely wealthy people are taking huge amounts out of their companies to purchase islands, and large plots of land outside of the US. Do you see any kind of a pattern here? Would it or would it not be nice to know some history about now?
The good news is that, historically at the end of every 4th Turning, we humans manage to re-arrange ourselves so that we can make things work again after they go so far off of the rails. Things DO improve from the hard lessons learned during that time. How that will occur for us has yet to be seen. Will we end up ruled by “We The People” or by one world globalists that think they know best?
P.S. By “Globalists” I mean those who own Big Pharma, that are trying to force us all to get vaccinated “for our own good”, the large corporate interests that donate huge amounts to the political campaigns of the politicians that they get elected who pass the laws that only benefit those corporate interests, and who own the media that is paid to brainwash “We The People” into believing we will all be better off for it.
OK, I'll give this a bit of a go here. A bit. You say your question to me is "What happens when there is more money than products...to be purchased by that money?" And it's posed in the context of history about, in this case, the Roman empire. Please understand that from where I sit, there isn't a scintilla in any of it that addresses what I am attempting to discuss here. It doesn't, to my mind, relate at all even though it clearly relates to you. And we're friends and this format is extremely limited, which is why I must be clear that these pages are about cultivating a NEW politics, a NEW way of doing things and it will, thusly, ALWAYS be focused on the future. Always. Maybe when we're sharing the same space this conversation will make more sense to me but right now it seems antithetical to the conversations I'm interested in having here.
I'm not arguing against the field of history. I'm not saying we can't learn from the past. I AM saying that more important than any of it, for those of us practicing a "conscious approach" to life and living the way I personally define it, is getting clear about what we want and focusing our attention in it. It's not complicated, we're just not yet habituated to it and that's a big part of why I'm here. So, I am down for conversations about what any of us want. I am down for conversations about struggles we have with being more compassionate. I am down for conversations about hard it is to change old beliefs we know don't serve us (e.g., another human can be irredeemable). I am down for conversations about how hard it is not to judge other people. And there is no stronger proponent for everyone having the right to every single belief they have about anything. I'm simply asking of us, when faced with political dynamics we find disfavorable, to think about making changes in NEW ways -- perspectives of which I hope to present and converse about in these pages and pretty much wherever I go. My hunch is there are countless places to talk about history and few places to talk about the new consciousness. But I don't get out much and I'm often wrong.
So to put it in simple terms that I can understand (as I don’t get out much either)…
You are focusing on the “spiritual” part of politics. The positive thoughts that one has to have before they actually DO anything about our political situations. While I jump right into the “engineering” or crafting solutions that might work. With questions like “How did we get here?” (History) or “What kind of barriers do we need to overcome to change our society so that it benefits everyone, instead of a few?” (Looking at current events to see what needs to be fixed)
There is the BE, DO, HAVE construct:
BE - The thoughts or skills one has to have to…
DO - What needs to be done in order to…
HAVE - What one’s thoughts dream about during the BE stage.
What you are saying here is that you would like us to just focus on the “thought” part of this. Right? While I am getting too much into the “what should we DO about it part”.
Let me know if this is getting through my thick scull over here.
If your skull is thick, so is mine.! Probably all those years of banging it against the wall. OK, in general, for the purposes of this newsletter, I wouldn't lay it out that way necessarily -- it feels constrained to me because I can certainly imagine wanting to talk sometimes about the DO, evaluating things being done, creating proposals and such. But, in some ways I say yes to what you're saying. My "constraint," the limit of what I want to discuss, is the lens of the 15 concepts we use as a lens to look at anything (no constraints). Law of attraction and intentions are part of that lens, and that's what guides me to focusing much of my attention on anything we want to be, do, or have. I am advocating for a more compassionate politics that "works for everyone." "Be compassionate" part of that lens, another guide. So, no, I don't care nearly as much about why it is that we Americans, again in this case, believe that we have the power to deem someone irrideemable, I'm saying that we cannot ever have a compassionate system if it is based on that idea. (One example.) For SURE, while you (and so many others, I believe the majority of us) excel at "engineering" and "how did we get here," this conscious practice/approach as I define it de-emphasizes that material in favor of focusing on what's desired. I hope I'm not taking us in circles here and I appreciate your careful consideration. I want to be respectful AND get this right.
Thanks Steven. The audio version is nice and allows an expressive mode that suits you. I look forward to hearing more.
Thanks, Sam!
Love the new/additional format. I appreciate the written posts as they allow your words to express your views for you and there's an element of the reader getting to fill in the blanks with just how vehemently you feel these words. In addition, I love to listen to your express those views with spoken word as then I get to hear more distinctly the actual passion with which you share them. Both have value and I look forward to both formats continuing. Keep it up! We need you in this space. I, for one, deeply value the ways your thoughts inspire and even force me to see our world through the consciousness lens.
Well thanks for that, Andi. Much appreciated. I have been eager to be in this space forever and your encouragement means the world.
Hey! Great idea here. Gave me just enough time to do the dishes and listen! I get it about being "off topic". Politics can be a hot-bed of ideas that stimulate other thoughts. Easy to go "off topic". Now that I know that this all needs to stay within the Spiritual Workout agreements, it will make it easier.
As far as what this judge did to said criminal: From her viewpoint (not being familiar with the latest technology that can transform criminals to ethical citizens) she probably honestly thought he was irredeemable. I don't know the details of what this kid did, but most judges are just trying to keep criminals out of the society in order to keep the peace there. However, when "politics" and money get involved, it is EASY to SEE how condemning anyone to life in prison forever would be for all of the wrong financial reasons.
... Meanwhile, regarding “the great awakening that you discuss here” have you ever read the book "The Forth Turning"? A good one. Shows how every 80 to 100 years societies turn upside-down (like this one is doing now). We did this in the US when our group consciousness realized that we were all better off ruled by elected officials instead of by a monarch. Same thing happened in the Civil War when people revolted against the free slave labor of the South, going back to the statement in our Constitution that “All men are created equal” and again during WWII when we got involved in defending that democracy against elites that thought they knew best, like Hitler. … Now we confront another awakening! Again (I feel) it is about defending our democracy against the elites that think they know best. Elites that currently own our government by getting politicians elected that get laws implemented that are not for “We The People”. For the most part, they OWN the criminal justice system of which you are discussing here, as well as most of the main stream media so that they can easily convince us to turn our democratic rights, like freedom of speech, right to defend and protect ourselves, or our right to privacy over to them. … The real conflict is between those that believe that the globalist elites DO know best and those who still feel that our political system should be “by and for We The People”.
I wrote this in haste. Meant for the quotes to be after "the great awakening". ... YOU are a great writer as you get people to respond! Love your thoughts, even if some of them get me ranting over here!
We can all appreciate a bit of haste. And you're a much bigger person than I, Linda, because I could not, would not, do not read the things that get me ranting. Enough to see what's what and maybe bound from it to a newsletter piece, but that's it for me and kudos to you. :) And no, I have not read "The Fourth Turning" but, then again, I tend not to be interested in history. Or philosophy. I mean, of course, there's interesting stuff everywhere and they are huge fields full of really smart people and thinkers. Obviously. But I've personally (and I'm only talking about me) moved into a place over the last 30 years, as a result of this practice, where I focus on what is today and keep my sights set on what I want to be/do/have in the future and put my energy into creating that. We are all different and I know PLENTY of people, many of them even friends, who LOVE and are well-versed in both subject, but when I listen to inspiration/take measure of my feelings/my energy, it drains out of me when I'm in the history or philosophy departments. It was ever so in college and, apparently, still. But again and as always, that's just me.
Conscious politics-wise, the very notion of "criminal" stops me in my tracks. It feels to me like an outdated, harsh description, a/k/a judgment, that simply will not exist where I'm going. I get that "criminal" is not changing overnight, I get that it's a mindset change, I get that it's a gargantuan project to change the conversation of a society, but apparently I'm going to die trying.
The quote by Plato (an old philosopher) that you posted earlier —> “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” is also one of my favorites. However, I also agree with the quote by Winston Churchill who said “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it”.
How would we know if we were repeating the same political mistakes or not, if we didn’t know the history of what has happened politically before, that caused every major civilization to fail?
Let’s take the rise and fall of Rome for example. People were attracted to it because it was an easy place to live, produce good food, run businesses and had a strong army to protect it. The Roman rulers enhanced trade throughout their country by investing in infrastructure, roads, waterways, public buildings, etc. The population of Rome paid taxes to support these efforts because they benefited from them. Eventually, many people from all over were attracted to Rome. Towards the end of the Roman Empire, politicians realized that they could more easily stay in power by giving people free social services, paid for by taxing the more productive people in and outside of Rome. At one point Rome gave free bread to any and everybody who lived there so nobody would starve. The more free programs they created the more taxes they had to take from the those who were producing the products needed to keep Rome going. Eventually, the productive people and land owners moved to other places where they did not have to carry the burden of the impoverished that were being attracted to come to Rome for all of the free programs. As the productive people left, there was less and less money to support a strong army. Consequently around 400AD, invaders from the North came storming down to take it over. They basically ended up invading an unarmed, deserted Roman Empire because it had disintegrated years earlier.
How is that different than what is going on now? As you know, I run an Amazon business. I am 6 days away from running out of products to sell because the supply chains that I purchase from are all being delayed. In talking to many of my vendors, I have discovered that much of the problem has been workers who left because of the Covid situation, not willing to come back because the government is paying them more to stay home. … My question to you: What happens when there is more money than products (created by productive people) to be purchased by that money? ———> If you follow the news you will notice that the extremely wealthy people are taking huge amounts out of their companies to purchase islands, and large plots of land outside of the US. Do you see any kind of a pattern here? Would it or would it not be nice to know some history about now?
The good news is that, historically at the end of every 4th Turning, we humans manage to re-arrange ourselves so that we can make things work again after they go so far off of the rails. Things DO improve from the hard lessons learned during that time. How that will occur for us has yet to be seen. Will we end up ruled by “We The People” or by one world globalists that think they know best?
P.S. By “Globalists” I mean those who own Big Pharma, that are trying to force us all to get vaccinated “for our own good”, the large corporate interests that donate huge amounts to the political campaigns of the politicians that they get elected who pass the laws that only benefit those corporate interests, and who own the media that is paid to brainwash “We The People” into believing we will all be better off for it.
OK, I'll give this a bit of a go here. A bit. You say your question to me is "What happens when there is more money than products...to be purchased by that money?" And it's posed in the context of history about, in this case, the Roman empire. Please understand that from where I sit, there isn't a scintilla in any of it that addresses what I am attempting to discuss here. It doesn't, to my mind, relate at all even though it clearly relates to you. And we're friends and this format is extremely limited, which is why I must be clear that these pages are about cultivating a NEW politics, a NEW way of doing things and it will, thusly, ALWAYS be focused on the future. Always. Maybe when we're sharing the same space this conversation will make more sense to me but right now it seems antithetical to the conversations I'm interested in having here.
I'm not arguing against the field of history. I'm not saying we can't learn from the past. I AM saying that more important than any of it, for those of us practicing a "conscious approach" to life and living the way I personally define it, is getting clear about what we want and focusing our attention in it. It's not complicated, we're just not yet habituated to it and that's a big part of why I'm here. So, I am down for conversations about what any of us want. I am down for conversations about struggles we have with being more compassionate. I am down for conversations about hard it is to change old beliefs we know don't serve us (e.g., another human can be irredeemable). I am down for conversations about how hard it is not to judge other people. And there is no stronger proponent for everyone having the right to every single belief they have about anything. I'm simply asking of us, when faced with political dynamics we find disfavorable, to think about making changes in NEW ways -- perspectives of which I hope to present and converse about in these pages and pretty much wherever I go. My hunch is there are countless places to talk about history and few places to talk about the new consciousness. But I don't get out much and I'm often wrong.
So to put it in simple terms that I can understand (as I don’t get out much either)…
You are focusing on the “spiritual” part of politics. The positive thoughts that one has to have before they actually DO anything about our political situations. While I jump right into the “engineering” or crafting solutions that might work. With questions like “How did we get here?” (History) or “What kind of barriers do we need to overcome to change our society so that it benefits everyone, instead of a few?” (Looking at current events to see what needs to be fixed)
There is the BE, DO, HAVE construct:
BE - The thoughts or skills one has to have to…
DO - What needs to be done in order to…
HAVE - What one’s thoughts dream about during the BE stage.
What you are saying here is that you would like us to just focus on the “thought” part of this. Right? While I am getting too much into the “what should we DO about it part”.
Let me know if this is getting through my thick scull over here.
If your skull is thick, so is mine.! Probably all those years of banging it against the wall. OK, in general, for the purposes of this newsletter, I wouldn't lay it out that way necessarily -- it feels constrained to me because I can certainly imagine wanting to talk sometimes about the DO, evaluating things being done, creating proposals and such. But, in some ways I say yes to what you're saying. My "constraint," the limit of what I want to discuss, is the lens of the 15 concepts we use as a lens to look at anything (no constraints). Law of attraction and intentions are part of that lens, and that's what guides me to focusing much of my attention on anything we want to be, do, or have. I am advocating for a more compassionate politics that "works for everyone." "Be compassionate" part of that lens, another guide. So, no, I don't care nearly as much about why it is that we Americans, again in this case, believe that we have the power to deem someone irrideemable, I'm saying that we cannot ever have a compassionate system if it is based on that idea. (One example.) For SURE, while you (and so many others, I believe the majority of us) excel at "engineering" and "how did we get here," this conscious practice/approach as I define it de-emphasizes that material in favor of focusing on what's desired. I hope I'm not taking us in circles here and I appreciate your careful consideration. I want to be respectful AND get this right.