Steve Briggs, Meditation and Indian Yogis Lead to ET |397|

s I said earlier, we should not hide things away. They exist, so let’s begin to deal with them. It’s our whole consciousness. Everything included, warts, shit and all. It doesn’t have to be visible to everyone, unless they wish to see it. Are you troubled by porn on a daily basis?
I am puzzled by your perspective - unless you are asserting the internet is something apart from a well-regulated community - a necessary zone of chaos. I understand that communities tend to foster common good while constraining common harm. There may be a realm in which the whole of human potential (for good or ill) exists - but I haven't conceived that as the internet, and I am not sure that's a good argument - but I am open to hearing more from you.

I am not troubled by porn on a daily basis, but neither am I daily troubled by pedophilia, sexual violence against women, gross injustice, violence against myself and so on - in terms of direct personal experience. As a person with a disability I am not daily troubled by discrimination and exclusion. Yet for the most part of the past 2 decades my professional role has been to support people with disability.

I think awareness of harm is sufficient. It is why we feed the hungry, house the homeless, and tend to the sick (well some of us do). The question might be where we draw the line - and that's a fair topic for debate. I note in the US that there is a passionate debate about whom should be helped and who is a 'freeloader'. Same thing here - and with the same result - polarisation and recriminations.

I don't think the whole of our consciousness should be manifest just because its there (in a metaphysical sense). We all manage our behaviour to conceal the 'warts, shit and all' to a greater or lesser degree. For me, part of the essential notion of humanity is a duty of aspiration to being a better self. In a complex pluralistic society geared to cater to then lowest common denominator (for that is where the profit is for many) I agree that the tendency is toward warts and all - the chaos of unmanaged emotions and instincts. But I don't think the solution is the creation morally gated communities that hide from that 'reality'.
 
Alex, there is a lovely analogy that I like that may shed some light on this question. A bird flies with two wings... the wing of compassion and love, and the wing of discrimination, intellect, and reasoning (assuming of course that these faculties are ferroting out truth). With only 1 wing the bird can't fly. With love/compassion but no discrimination/intelligence the people become like sheep. With only the wing of intellect there is the liklihood of prejudice, elitism, and all the rest. Balance is the key...
This is also the love/wisdom balance. In Kabbalah there are several similar balances, like mercy and severity. But we are always finding similar challenges in our lives - self-interest and the collective good for example. I like Jordan Peterson's observation, using Taoist imagery - that between order and chaos there is point of harmony. Here chaos is not an evil, and order is not necessarily a good.
 
That might be the case if it were left entirely up to the human population, but humanity has help that will more than counter the ET element assisting the global elite.
Okay Steve, you can't get away with saying this (with which I agree BTW) without being obliged to elaborate. You have the opportunity to got placed and know stuff folks like me can't verify without an other-than-ordinary experience. Form instance most folk would want to know why you think the inhabitants of benighted Syria know anything. You accept the premise that you can hobnob with Sirians because you have.

After the English had invaded Australia (as we now know it) reports of kangaroos, platypus and black swans were regarded by confabulations and lies by learned gentlemen who could not imagine as real huge hopping rodents, furry critters with duck beaks or swans the colour of coal. In the spirit of balance between having been there and imagination there is an obligation to give more detail in return for a kinder reception.

I agree with you because I have inferred this from multiple sources, rather than an explicit assertion by any 'authority'. I guess, also, because there is a degree of intuition/inspiration as well. Why do you say it?
 
I agree with you because I have inferred this from multiple sources, rather than an explicit assertion by any 'authority'. I guess, also, because there is a degree of intuition/inspiration as well. Why do you say it?
Come on, then, Michael, enlarge a bit what your own "multiple sources" might be, and what they say that has led you to infer that humanity has more than enough help to counter ET/the global elite. ;)
 
Come on, then, Michael, enlarge a bit what your own "multiple sources" might be, and what they say that has led you to infer that humanity has more than enough help to counter ET/the global elite
Oh dear! I suppose I must, since I have pretty well presented my ass (that's arse to Australian readers) to be kicked. I am not sure where to begin.

I have had experiences that lead me to believe that I have been 'abducted', and they have led me into an enduring interest in ET. I have satisfied that interest through extensive reading over a number of decades. In addition I have had conversations with a non-physical agency (previously human) who gave limited responses to my questions on ET's reality. ET has featured in readings not related to ET/UFO themes as well. Also of interest to me has been the absence of reference to ET in readings related to non-physical agents communicating to physical human agents via various means.

I know from direct experiences that some elements/aspects of the ET phenomena are damned keen I do not explore my encounters with them, because these has manifested in quite concrete ways. That includes quite a specific sense of threat, or intimidation. But I also know I am 'protected' so long as I do not go stirring things up. I have had a conscious sense of a guiding or protective agency since I was around age 13.

When I put all this together I do not get any sense that ET is a danger to us. My early advice suggested that ET were 'traders' and I was advised that if we left them alone they'd leave us alone. That advice was from the late 1970s. Now, revisiting my records of it, I take a sense warning that a narrow focus has its perils. Now I do not imagine that commercial ETs have any motive beyond profit. That may mean they will deal with those who can benefit from what they have to offer, and who can arrange deliver of goods in exchange. That is likely to be the powerbroker - the elite and the 1%.

In contrast ET has been talking to folk on an non-hierarchical basis for ages. Let me call these guys 'spiritual ET'.They connect with individuals of merit or capacity, rather than respecting our institutions. They do not regard governments as worthy arbiters, and they have no regard for wealth or political power. They influence via attributes of consciousness. Not only that, they have an awareness of a higher intent that the commercials neither know nor care about - but maybe they are also smart enough to avoid getting tangled up in things they cannot profit from.

I know there is a lot of lurid envisioning of ET's influence here. I have no reason to doubt that there is tech that can advantage us all. But if it is won from a commercial enterprise the 'owners' are entitled to profit it from it as they see fit. I think the Greer assertion that this tech should be available to all outside a capitalist mentality is naive. It would be nice though. You only havre to look at the annals of anthropology to understand that trade is trade - and tack that onto a rapine commercial mentality that dominates western capitalism and you have what is.

Of course governments want to get in on the business and ensure that any tech that can be weaponised is managed to ensure it does not constitute a risk to national interests. It does seem that the general consensus is that ET isn't a threat, but that does not mean that what has been traded is not.

So I see there are two layers - the commercial and the spiritual. When I write this nothing sets of alarm bells, and that tends to be a good sign that, on a deep level, my guides are not disconcerted - as they sometimes are.

That pretty much sums up my position.
 
The concept was presented to me by the Sirians, which I understand is not a credible source for most. I am happy to have people take me to task over the assertion. The Atlantean mutilation did not occur over night. It was a slow, insidious, drip drip process that occurred as a result of the Atlantean priesthood/temples being corrupted, after which the other pieces fell into place. I can't say what it means to lose 90% of one's genetic coding, but Psych textbooks say (used to say) that the average human uses about 5-10% of their mental potential. Where is the other 90% and why aren't we using it? My apologies for offering up ideas that I can't back up with anything more than ET tales. Must seem rather lame... so fire away. After all, the ET topic was one of the reasons Alex had me on the show.
From what Alex said about the Sirians, they do sound interesting - in that they told us astronomical details about their solar system that were only confirmed in the 1970's. I wonder if you have a link to somewhere where this is discussed further.

On the other hand, it does seem that some people can psychically access scientific information that is not other wise available - for example occult chemistry - so it might be that this information was acquired in this way.

One problem that I think we all have, is that while materialism seems clearly false to me, it is hard to get a fully consistent picture of what reality is really like, and some people can be very convincing, and yet say something that makes me doubt they are plugged into the truth. For example, some psychicaly gifted people also go along with the concept of dangerous global warming. We have had a number of discussions about that here, and I don't want to divert this discussion to that, but I don't believe this is a danger - indeed I think it is a scam - and Alex has similar views - so my problem is how come this message isn't pouring through loud and clear from the other side! BTW, I can share more information about the whole global warming issue if you are interested.

Discovering non-physical reality seems to be a complicated, messy process!

David
 
I think that’s a problem, everyone has something(s) they’d like to ban. In your case, it’s porn, in mine it’s violence, in others it’s...fill in the gap! That is why I now think that there must be somewhere where anything can be stated; ie a free for all.

Otherwise the internet will become overcontrolled by who knows who. Truth is definitely being withheld at present, and it’s getting worse. To deny a voice to people we don’t like or fear or hate is to deny a picture of our true consciousness.
Surely it’s better to see the truth, warts and all, than to allow things to be picked off one by one by who knows who.

The internet is not what it once was, but should be returned somehow imo.
Is it even possible? I don’t know, but I do know that it’s not looking good keeping things from people. I might be wrong, or misguided, but it’s how I presently see things. I think it should definitely be discussed. I too, disagree or don’t like seeing a lot of what is on the internet, given a choice, I would not go there, but I fear that allowing things we are offended or disgusted by be banned is a slippery slope.
If the organised skeptics would be allowed to become official censors, they would ban parapsychology from the Web - as "the pseudoscience that undermines the academic authority, promotes irrationality and may drag us back into the Dark Ages".

Unofficially, however, they are already doing their worst to erase parapsychology from any platforms where they have a notable presence, such as Wikipedia.
 
I am puzzled by your perspective - unless you are asserting the internet is something apart from a well-regulated community - a necessary zone of chaos. I understand that communities tend to foster common good while constraining common harm. There may be a realm in which the whole of human potential (for good or ill) exists - but I haven't conceived that as the internet, and I am not sure that's a good argument - but I am open to hearing more from you.
Don’t be too concerned at your puzzlement Michael, as I confess that my thinking on this is by no means firm. What I think is firm is my concern at certain aspects of our freedom to express views outside the mainstream being curtailed. How to push back on such pressures might mean that we have to go deeper into the dark before reaching the light. The internet is the only place that mankind can relatively easily communicate it’s ideas, both good and bad, relatively easily over any boundaries. Boundaries are being constantly built by those who wish to direct our thinking, that is what I’m trying to bypass. If the ‘good’ messages can be banned by calling them ‘bad’ then we will have to accept everything, and carefully pick and choose, while ignoring the stuff we don’t like. After all, our imaginations know enough dark reality as it is, but are happy to dwell elsewhere. (Most of us, at least)

I am not troubled by porn on a daily basis, but neither am I daily troubled by pedophilia, sexual violence against women, gross injustice, violence against myself and so on - in terms of direct personal experience. As a person with a disability I am not daily troubled by discrimination and exclusion. Yet for the most part of the past 2 decades my professional role has been to support people with disability.
Are we to ban all those categories from the internet ? Again, I’m not suggesting that such topics are easily made visible, but somehow censoring ‘bad’ stuff is the Trojan horse that is used to control what is allowed or not allowed. Meanwhile their true possibly dark intent is darker than that which is banned!

It’s not as if we’re talking about banning things which almost everyone might agree should be banned. Alex Jones wasn’t talking about sacrificing babies or murdering Muslims, as far as I could see, he was someone not really worth listening to, but he might be found entertaining to some. Yet he was simultaneously targeted by many social media outlets. As I asked in a previous post to Alex, what does this say about the US 1st amendment that he was championing? I’m genuinely asking, I’m nowhere near clever enough to think I know the answer - yet I am not satisfied with going back to watching Coronation Street and thinking...Oh well! Maybe I’m just a hopeless Conspiracy Theorist? :)

I think awareness of harm is sufficient. It is why we feed the hungry, house the homeless, and tend to the sick (well some of us do). The question might be where we draw the line - and that's a fair topic for debate. I note in the US that there is a passionate debate about whom should be helped and who is a 'freeloader'. Same thing here - and with the same result - polarisation and recriminations.
I agree with this, but it gets quickly gets political/ complicated. I went into town on Christmas Eve to hand out some money to some homeless people. I drove to two places that I frequent that are also home to some unfortunate people, unfortunately for me, their possessions were lying there, but they were nowhere in sight. I then drove into the city centre, with a much higher probability that I’d find some. Success, not twenty yards from where I found a space there was a woman selling The Big Issue. Perfect. I had £100 pounds in twenties. I gave her one of these and asked her if she knew where I could find others like her. She enthusiastically pointed further along the road. A couple of hundred yards away I found myself being greeted enthusiastically, and expectedly by a man and woman. The man pissing me off be kissing me on both cheeks and introducing his wife and his daughter. Mmm, how did he know I was a ‘good samaritan’? Mobile phones, of course. After feeling self conscious and in the middle of a feeding frenzy, I had to raise my voice and say NO to his begging to give him a further 20 for his daughter after giving £40 to him and his wife. I hobbled off feeling slightly ripped off and already questioning things. Fortunately I was to meet a more enlightened soul who was blowing balloon animals for sale to get a bed for the night. He was more ‘my type’, he was not simply begging, but trying to do something about it. He was very grateful, almost tearing-up, I was embarrassed. My observations didn’t quite end there, but this has taken much longer to write than I thought it would. It has made my point about being complicated, even something as simple as giving money away, thinking it was being done without judgement. But I did judge. I’m human! I think such complications are one of the reasons we’re here. You can’t go through life without making many Choices.

I don't think the whole of our consciousness should be manifest just because its there (in a metaphysical sense). We all manage our behaviour to conceal the 'warts, shit and all' to a greater or lesser degree. For me, part of the essential notion of humanity is a duty of aspiration to being a better self. In a complex pluralistic society geared to cater to then lowest common denominator (for that is where the profit is for many) I agree that the tendency is toward warts and all - the chaos of unmanaged emotions and instincts. But I don't think the solution is the creation morally gated communities that hide from that 'reality'.
But it’s not in a metaphysical sense only, is it? Bad shit happens to real people.

“For me, part of the essential notion of humanity is a duty of aspiration to being a better self.”

You and I are alike in many ways, you are much more capable of expressing yourself clearly through writing. I apologise for waffling to some degree, I know my thinking on this is a bit dodgy. And I haven’t even had any alcohol!
 
Each and every censor would claim that the position he or she wants to be banned is somehow dangerous.

Yet, to know what is truly dangerous and what is not, we must have a free discussion in which both proponents and opponents may be heard.

But, in situation of censorship, the very defence of a particular position - not just its enactment - may be forbidden, making it a (thought-)crime to defend particular positions with argumentation and evidence.

So, a dangerous mistake can be enshrined forever by force, since the very arguing against it would be a suppressed and prosecuted as a crime.

P.S. I want the porn to remain fully legal and widely accessible.

P.P.S. And I think, that psychoactive substances should be legalised, too. It does not mean I want anyone to get drugged out of their mind - it just mean that anyone should be allowed to make their own choice, to use drugs they want (psychoactive too), and not to be forced to use drugs they do not want (by violent psychiatry or mandatory vaccination). The "war on drugs" is lost, it is tremendously counter-productive, and it should be stopped.
 
Okay Steve, you can't get away with saying this (with which I agree BTW) without being obliged to elaborate. You have the opportunity to got placed and know stuff folks like me can't verify without an other-than-ordinary experience. Form instance most folk would want to know why you think the inhabitants of benighted Syria know anything. You accept the premise that you can hobnob with Sirians because you have.

After the English had invaded Australia (as we now know it) reports of kangaroos, platypus and black swans were regarded by confabulations and lies by learned gentlemen who could not imagine as real huge hopping rodents, furry critters with duck beaks or swans the colour of coal. In the spirit of balance between having been there and imagination there is an obligation to give more detail in return for a kinder reception.

I agree with you because I have inferred this from multiple sources, rather than an explicit assertion by any 'authority'. I guess, also, because there is a degree of intuition/inspiration as well. Why do you say it?
I will recreate as best I can recall the SIrian side of a conversation a decade ago. This particular conversation focuses on DNA and the Atlantean mutilation.

Sirians: "Your planet’s Shadow Government and its Zeta Reticulan allies influence people through fear. No other negative emotion exists but fear, and so every time a person allows themselves to indulge in worry, anger, grief, or whatever emotion that is not of the light, they fall under the influence of the SG. All negative emotion is illusory and can be instantly eliminated if the person decides to be happy and chooses to do whatever it is that makes them happy.

The star seeding of the human race occurred billions of years ago, although the results of that original seeding didn’t mature into what you know as human beings until later. The star seeding including about 1000 strands of DNA were woven into 12 helixes. This perfect DNA structure was sabotaged by the Zeta Reticulans, who reduced the human DNA to one double helix, effectively unplugging mankind from its inherent capabilities to manifest supernatural powers such as telepathy and levitation. Master geneticists created this star seeding and skilled Zeta geneticists sabotaged it, but keep in mind that the Zeta’s that are disrupting the earth represent a small percentage of the civilization they come from. They number about the same amount as the Shadow Government on earth. In some cases there has been hybridization between humans and Zetas but they also live among humans as non-human beings.

The enslavement that was imposed upon humanity was not your karma, because karma does not extend beyond the planet and these influences were extraterrestrial. Karma really has no existence beyond the individual’s oversoul which knows at every moment what it is that the person needs to learn and provides it. So therefore karma does not exist the way gravity does, although like karma, gravity too is not totally binding to the individual.

The Shadow Government exists in every religion and virtually every organization in the world, but it no longer has the power it once had to disrupt people’s lives."
 
From what Alex said about the Sirians, they do sound interesting - in that they told us astronomical details about their solar system that were only confirmed in the 1970's. I wonder if you have a link to somewhere where this is discussed further.

On the other hand, it does seem that some people can psychically access scientific information that is not other wise available - for example occult chemistry - so it might be that this information was acquired in this way.

One problem that I think we all have, is that while materialism seems clearly false to me, it is hard to get a fully consistent picture of what reality is really like, and some people can be very convincing, and yet say something that makes me doubt they are plugged into the truth. For example, some psychicaly gifted people also go along with the concept of dangerous global warming. We have had a number of discussions about that here, and I don't want to divert this discussion to that, but I don't believe this is a danger - indeed I think it is a scam - and Alex has similar views - so my problem is how come this message isn't pouring through loud and clear from the other side! BTW, I can share more information about the whole global warming issue if you are interested.

Discovering non-physical reality seems to be a complicated, messy process!

David
Our ET friends have implied that the earth is warming for reasons other than man-made issues of pollution. They used the analogy of kundalini heating the human body as the body is purified and transformed into something better. They said planetary warming is not new to earth and that it will not be a long term concern. It will definitely not cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it.

The ET's claimed that virtually all of the global ecological problems (oceans, air, land) are quite fixable with the technology they possess. Then why haven't they intervened? Actually, they claim to have intervened quite a lot already in areas such as oil spills, nuclear reactor meltdowns, globalist efforts to spread epidemics, and more crucially, they claim to have prevented the detonation of nuclear war heads on a number of occasions in response to the globalists efforts to create world war.

None of these claims are provable so feel free to fire away if this sounds like rubbish.
 
Last edited:
In Rishi Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (a treatise explaining siddhis or super normal powers), the sage describes dozens of siddhis including the ability to disappear from view, appear in two places at one time, travel to the sun or moon, levitate, know the past or future, become as small as a particle of sand, possess the strength of an elephant, restore life to a dead person, see things at great distances, know the thoughts of others, extend the normal span of life indefinitely, gain mastery over the 5 elements, attain omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience... There are dozens of siddhi abilities, but I suspect that few yogis possess these abilities today. There are accounts of miraculous feats performed by yogis, some of which have been carefully documented.

I know a family where 3 generations have possessed various abilities such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and such. While not every family member of each generation was endowed with these abilities, the abilities were clearly passed on from one generation to the next as each person possessed similar abilities, none of which they made any effort to cultivate -- they were simply born with the abilities. From this example, it seems reasonable to assume that DNA plays a role with 'siddhis' just as DNA affects eye color, height, and so on.
 
The one thing about free speech that should be understood - it is not only protecting your unpopular and controversial views against gagging by the people who believe them to be dangerous. It is a protection of others' views from your desire to ban them, a voluntarily accepted restriction of your own potential to suppress others.

And its second role is no less important than the first one. How many people are complaining that their controversial views are being censored because of being mistakenly, in their opinion, interpreted as "dangerous" by censors, yet are all-too-eager to shut up their own opponents, who, in their opinion, are "truly dangerous"?

Universal free speech is exactly the principle that protects us both from the censorious zeal of others and defends others from the same zeal that we themselves may feel. At least sometimes.

Even I feel it sometimes, I have to confess: occasionally I come across the views that are so deeply revulsive even in my exceptionally open-minded, tolerant-to-difference-and-disagreement view. Even I sometimes feel the temptation to call for censorship. Yet I, dare I to boast, have my own strong anti-censorship position, based on my willfully accepted ethical principles, that prevent me from doing it, no matter how deep the revulsion.

Most people are not that dedicated to the freedom of others. So, we need free spech defence to protect them from each other's censorship attempts.
 
Our ET friends have implied that the earth is warming for reasons other than man-made issues of pollution. They used the analogy of kundalini heating the human body as the body is purified and transformed into something better. They said planetary warming is not new to earth and that it will not be a long term concern. It will definitely not cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it.
The ET's claimed that virtually all of the global ecological problems (oceans, air, land) are quite fixable with the technology they possess. Then why haven't they intervened? Actually, they claim to have intervened quite a lot already in areas such as oil spills, nuclear reactor meltdowns, globalist efforts to spread epidemics, and more crucially, they claim to have prevented the detonation of nuclear war heads on a number of occasions in response to the globalists efforts to create world war.

None of these claims are provable so feel free to fire away if this sounds like rubbish.
That sounds far more plausible, I think many people must have wondered if ET have somehow kept us safe from nuclear weapons. Clearly planetary warming is not new - it happens after every ice age - and that is part of what is absurd about the CAGW scare.

I suppose part of my reaction to the damaged DNA scenario comes from reasoning like this. If in fact we are being sent to this reality to train in some way, the entire purpose of our time here would seem to be rather pointless if we had super powers. If any of us could see into the future and view our future time at whim, it would be a bit like going to see a film and seeing the end before the beginning, or seeing the result of a football match before actually seeing the game. A few might like it, but most would hate it.

Also, compared to the forces we are talking about here, the globalists are utterly puny - more like naughty children. I mean, ET could presumably kill them off at will if necessary, or kidnap them and remove them from Earth if they still had some compassion for them.

David
 
That sounds far more plausible, I think many people must have wondered if ET have somehow kept us safe from nuclear weapons. Clearly planetary warming is not new - it happens after every ice age - and that is part of what is absurd about the CAGW scare.

I suppose part of my reaction to the damaged DNA scenario comes from reasoning like this. If in fact we are being sent to this reality to train in some way, the entire purpose of our time here would seem to be rather pointless if we had super powers. If any of us could see into the future and view our future time at whim, it would be a bit like going to see a film and seeing the end before the beginning, or seeing the result of a football match before actually seeing the game. A few might like it, but most would hate it.

Also, compared to the forces we are talking about here, the globalists are utterly puny - more like naughty children. I mean, ET could presumably kill them off at will if necessary, or kidnap them and remove them from Earth if they still had some compassion for them.

David
Your thoughts about knowing the future are good ones. Though there is a siddhi for viewing the future, the future is not fixed and so there is no way anyone can say exactly what will happen. That said, if a person can read (see) the akashic record in the light field surrounding another person, they will have a clear sense of the other person's intentions. On occasions when I've asked about my own future, my guides have not been particularly specific, and not always 100% accurate. More like probabilities.

There is an analogy comparing free will to destiny which I like. Destiny is the road you're traveling and free will is the shops you enter along the way.

For most, super normal powers do not manifest until one is either at the stage of enlightenment or quite close. And in the case of some Mahatmas, they are adamant that they will not display them publicly. Part of the fun of the 'leela' (cosmic play) is in innocently experiencing it as it unfolds. I honestly don't know how this pertains to civilizations like the Sirians who seemed to possess incredible abilities. It did seem that, despite their abilities, they maintained an incredible innocence and enthusiasm for their lives. Simple things seemed quite thrilling to them.
 
Last edited:
Yet, to know what is truly dangerous and what is not, we must have a free discussion in which both proponents and opponents may be heard.
Exactly my point. we ban a lot of things by common assent and many other things because people with power decided they can speak for all - which they never do without consultation. There are polarised 'moral' positions that arise purely from obedience to a dogma - and which may be sincerely held. Nevertheless the arguments are poor. Advocates of libertine values can be just as misguided and ill-informed as the views of strongly conservative types.

However I do think that, on balance, values that favour self-restraint and discipline, and promote individual and collective wellbeing tend to be the more enduring - and universal. So while I have particular objections to porn, it does not meet that test. Can I observe that we have encouraged the flourishing of economic activities that are inimical to our wellbeing? Those activities are so built into our economies dislodging them would cause real financial harm. I heard a claim recently that around 80% of the US economy 'service industry' based - and you'd have to reckon at least 50% is unhealthy, demeaning or exploitative.

But so long as self-interest rules we will, never debate the merits of harmful enterprises so long as they deliver jobs. I do not think porn will be banned, and its not a theme I give any energy to. I raised in the context of this discussion only because it is a flagrant representation of of a 'liberty' that does no good at all, and much harm. It is an industry that generates profits at personal costs to participants and observers, and which is supported by many people. In saying I would ban porn, I do not mean that I would impose a ban, rather I would act to ban via persuasion. In proper democratic fashion I would seek to persuade others to agree.
 
The ET's claimed that virtually all of the global ecological problems (oceans, air, land) are quite fixable with the technology they possess. Then why haven't they intervened? Actually, they claim to have intervened quite a lot already in areas such as oil spills, nuclear reactor meltdowns, globalist efforts to spread epidemics, and more crucially, they claim to have prevented the detonation of nuclear war heads on a number of occasions in response to the globalists efforts to create world war.
There is an expectation that ET should intervene in ways that we define - and that is BS. A wise parent or God does not step and 'save' a child from suffering that is actually a developmental experience. Many years ago an early occult teacher put the matter very bluntly to me. He was not, he said, here to tell me things, but to teach me how to think. That included becoming aware of how I needed to develop on a personal level.

While I can't confirm your assertions about interventions it does make sense that a wise guide would intervene to prevent catastrophic consequences - as a good parent would quietly 'save' a child from the outcomes of their worst choices.

But that does not mean they will deliver 'solutions' to us on a platter, to save us the struggle and bother of working toward spiritual maturity. They may make it possible for us to continue that struggle by ensuring that the more idiotic and evil of us are thwarted.

I want to make the point that we humans are diverse in our deep drives and motives - we are a spectrum - from the most base to the most noble. We may be one humanity (spirits manifesting in a common biological form) but we are not uniform in intent or aspiration. So the expectation of intervention or 'disclosure' is often naively conceived.

Christians like to think of their God as interventionist, but there is, to my mind, scant evidence to support that dream - especially when you look at instances of interventions by 'spirit' across the spectrum of people (regardless of apparent virtue or faith). For me there is a constant traffic across the physical/metaphysical boundary, and much of that incoming influence fits the definition of 'intervention' (by Sirians and others).

Intervention to aid us in our struggle to grow in awareness has to be targeted and particular. It has to be personal, finally. I know my life has been full of 'interventions' - but I am still spiritually stupid. And yourself? (not Steve but any reader)
 
.P.S. And I think, that psychoactive substances should be legalised, too. It does not mean I want anyone to get drugged out of their mind - it just mean that anyone should be allowed to make their own choice, to use drugs they want (psychoactive too), and not to be forced to use drugs they do not want (by violent psychiatry or mandatory vaccination). The "war on drugs" is lost, it is tremendously counter-productive, and it should be stopped.
The War on Drugs (WoD) was dumb from the outset.But it was actually a war on consciousness. Check out Graham Hancock's banned TED Talk on that theme. The WoD has always been about limiting access to POVs that do not support the business as usual mentality. As we have done with alcohol it is always possible to manage drug influenced conduct, without banning the drug itself. Johann Hari's Chasing the Scream is an instructive read.

The WoD has effectively been a form of censorship - you may not think this way. Like all stupid 'Wars on XXXX' it has been lost because it was never winnable and always immoral and dumb.
 
Hi David

This is part of an article on John Davis 11

An emblem of his wealth became an instrument of his destruction when he wrecked his Jaguar automobile in January 1964. Brain damage was quickly confirmed by EEG and the impairment was diagnosed as progressive. John Davis continued to practice law despite increasingly frequent seizures and deteriorating mental function. Even in 1968, he was asked to work in Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign. But as he told Steve LeVine, an A.P. writer who interviewed him in 1983, by 1969 he could not function at all. By that time his career had effectively ended.



He fought disbarment, even while his facilities continued to decline. His wife divorced him and he finally suffered an indefinite suspension of his license to practice on his birthday in 1977, July 12. In 1976 Davis literally became a homeless derelict, spending nights in hospital waiting rooms, under highway bridges, and in graveyards. The severity of his impairment was summarized in a report dated December 13, 1976, by Donald C. Carter, M.D. of the School of Medicine of West Virginia University: This man's cognitive functions are grossly impaired...[T]he overwhelming evidence from my examination is that of cognitive deficit, unregulated emotional control and severe memory and judgment impairment. The long, agonizing descent into hell of John Davis ended suddenly on the day in 1977 when his doctor and friend, Edward Lewis, told him that he had less than one year to live. He walked into the Spring Hill cemetery in Charleston where he often slept, carrying his Styrofoam "bed." It was there that he had his deep spiritual experience that was to be so dramatically validated.



As he told Steve LeVine: I didn't see lights, didn't hear voices echoing from the mountaintop, didn't have any mission sent upon me, except being a human being...I felt my whole brain reorganize. I learned more things that night than I'll ever be able to explain. He described the experience as a "sense of kinship, a oneship with the universe." Davis never had another seizure. He immediately began a rigorous program of exercise, reading and-most importantly concentration. He discovered pranayama, the Hindu art of breath control, and kundalini yoga, and employed them as techniques to retrain his mind and body. He had virtually lost his faculty of speech, once one of his brightest jewels, and practiced speaking in front of a mirror with his mouth full of marbles.



An EEG performed on July 29, 1979 was completely normal. Dr. Carter, who in 1976 considered him to be permanently and totally disabled, reported on April 11, 1980: "Mr. Davis was found to be healed of his cognitive, emotional and attitudinal problems...the healing process has very adequately compensated and remedied these defects to a remarkable degree, not previously thought possible.



On May 31, 1979, his longtime personal physician, Dr. Lewis wrote: When Mr. Davis in the summer of 1977 undertook to rehabilitate himself, his physical health, alone, was perilous, perilous in the extreme. But it has been my clinical experience that for a few highly motivated patients, a trauma or ordeal such as Mr. Davis experienced of losing the right to practice their profession, their livelihood and even their home, sometimes is a catalyst to cause them to be able, under close medical supervision, to arrest their progressively worsening condition and reach a sort of equilibrium where minimal functioning can be maintained. This is not infrequently reported in our journals, and even occasionally observed in our clinical experience. But for a person to be able to self-motivate themselves and so mobilize their physical and psychic energies so as to make the simply astonishing complete physical, emotional and mental recovery, as to become as fully functioning as has Mr. Davis, is unique in my clinical experience. It just is not found in our medical books! In 1976, John Davis's score on the WAIS Performance IQ test was 112, only a little above average and far below what would be expected from someone of outstanding educational and professional achievement. In 1980, his score on the same test was 156. Dr. Carter's colleague, Dr. Quarrick, said:



This score is outstandingly high and is in sharp contrast to the mediocre one obtained previously. Neither the psychometrician nor myself have ever seen such a high Performance IQ. In fact, it is 8 points shy of the highest score that can be statistically generated by this test. So John Davis was restored to his license to practice law, with the help of attorney Rudolph DiTrapano who had employed him as a law clerk during his recovery. And he was remarried to his former wife, Ruth. But he was somehow more than what he had been before. Although he spoke with some apparent strain and effort, his eloquence was somehow greater. …..



He was a young man in a hurry, but it was his intellect that shone forth and won him the honors. It is from the graveyard experience that the new man begins to emerge. John Davis struggled mightily to convey the message that he brought back from the graveyard. And if his poems do not always reach the highest level of art, they never fail to convey the passionate intensity of a man who knew, beyond doubt, what is, and what reality awaits every struggling soul. sooner or later.


© Copyright 1986 TAT Foundation. All rights reserved.
 
Top