Anything anyone want to discuss?

Any topics out there people want to delve into here? Lots of Guests reading this forum. Is there anything in particular that you want to talk about?

C1 wrote:

Any topics out there people want to delve into here? Lots of Guests reading this forum. Is there anything in particular that you want to talk about?

I met the Globalist Jim Garrison, president of the State of the World Forum and associate of Mikhail Gorbachev, two days ago - in person.

He came to present to a group in my University, and adamantly pushed the occupy Wall St. protests. He said that we are currently in "pre-revolutionary times". The feeling I got from him was what could be described as a "spiritual psychopathy", an "elegant evil". 90% of his presentation was absolutely right on, but there was a 10% that was absolutely insidious. It was like listening to Marx or Lenin talking, as they, prior to the current generation of Globalists, were pushing the false liberation ideology of their day.

At the end of the presentation he pushed "Climate Change" and the financial crisis as the two greatest threats right now [along with the "war on terror", these are the justifications Globalists give for their ambitions].

We then divided into discussion groups. He came around to these discussion groups after about 20 minutes. I asked him about an interview he gave to the San Francisco Weekly in 1995. here is a link to that interview: http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/303991/

In that interview, Garrison stated, "Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government ... [there is a growing] "recognition that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction"

He then stated in response to this: "the World was a much more optimistic place back then, [I'm a little fuzzy on the next part, I think I remember him saying something like "we were thinking of lasting solutions towards world peace", then he continued and said] but I wouldn't say that now, because of all these problems like Climate change and the financial crisis."

So I showed him the following reuters article showing that the Vatican had advocated World Government as a "response" to the financial situation: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024

and said "it seems that many people are pushing World Government in response to all this."

After the discussion section was over, and before he concluded his presentation, he asked me how I knew this, and I said something along the lines of "I just happen to be familiar with this information". I then showed him an excerpt from the book Geneva Versus Peace (Sheed & Ward, New York, 1937) by Comte de Saint-Aulaire, French Ambassador to Great Britain in the 1920s. I had obtained this book recently, having seen it cited and finding it relevant, and part of it discussed his meetings with Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. financiers regarding why they financed the Bolshevik Revolution. I stated that this excerpt reflected my feelings on the occupy Wall St. protests. Here's the excerpt, where one of these bankers explained his reasoning (p. 80):

"You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International. These opposites, which are at the antipodes to one another in society and in their doctrines meet again in the identity of their purpose and end, the remaking of the world from above by the control of riches, and from below by revolution."

He then gave me a strange look that was a combination of respect and being taken aback and said, "I like your mind."

Then, he assumed a cold look prior to resuming with his spiel in front of everybody.

He may be coming again in Spring. I learned from this that when confronting Globalists, it is necessary to discredit the three pseudo-justifications they put forward, even if they don't bring up the issue of World Government [Garrison didn't bring up that issue, but discussed how we were, all the World over, in "pre-revolutionary times". There was no mention of World Government until I brought it up in the discussion group.] To the extent that he brings these pseudo-issues up, if I see him again, or if I see another major globalist again, I will need to be ready to do that.

To do this effectively, you have to eloquently present your information, in a dialogical fashion. Caustic polemical actions like those of the "We Are Change" group only serve to discredit your presentation - and groups like that are highly questionable in the first place. Possibly something I did stuck in the minds of others though - there may have been a few people uncomfortable to learn that he was such a strong advocate of World Government. I may perhaps confront him on "Climate Change" and "the financial crisis" then, though I have to concisely and definitively make my point, as many people are religiously indoctrinated into believing the first pseudo-justification.

Rather than the three pseudo-problems Globalists assert we "have", I propose we have 4 major problems:

1) The fact that we have a debt money system, with more money owed than is in circulation, and that real wealth inevitably ends up in the hands of the financiers at the top. We could add political cybernetics as a buffer facilitating this fundamentally parasitic process.
2) The fact revealed by Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports that governments and corporations are one entity essentially, and that this entity puts money into investments that will further accrue wealth to itself. This wealth would fix every budgetary "crisis" many times over.
3) The fact that genetic engineering of crops, via cross pollination and being consumed by animals, may potentially immensely devastate the entire biosphere.
4) The fact that globalists fabricate "problems", to which they offer "solutions" that result in further expansion of power.

Personally I am moving towards interest in quantum physics, spirituality, and psychedelics. It's important to find a positive path to follow IMO. Terence Mckenna as quite a bit of good material we could get into if anyone is interested.

Clairvoyant wrote:

Personally I am moving towards interest in quantum physics, spirituality, and psychedelics. It's important to find a positive path to follow IMO. Terence Mckenna as quite a bit of good material we could get into if anyone is interested.

I'm interested. Please feel free to kick-start a thread or threads.

C1 wrote:

Clairvoyant wrote:

Personally I am moving towards interest in quantum physics, spirituality, and psychedelics. It's important to find a positive path to follow IMO. Terence Mckenna as quite a bit of good material we could get into if anyone is interested.

I'm interested. Please feel free to kick-start a thread or threads.

You may find, then that there is great relevance in the work of Rupert Sheldrake (a friend of Terence McKenna), as well as that of the physicist David Bohm and Krishnamurti. The latest edition of Rupert Sheldrake's book "A New science of Life", called "Morphic Resonance", includes a dialogue w/ Bohm at the end. The book can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.com/Morphic-Resonance-Nature-Formative-Causation/dp/1594773173

David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti had an extremely important series of dialogues entitled "The Ending of Time": http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-ending-of-time/

David Bohm's essential book is "Wholeness and the Implicate Order": http://www.amazon.com/RC-Bundle-Wholeness-Implicate-Order/dp/0415289793/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

And Krishnamurti's essential book is "The First and Last Freedom": http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-first-and-last-freedom

Those books say essentially the same thing - one from the perspective of physics and philosophy, and the other from the perspective of psychology and philosophy. They are at a different level from most books.

A good introduction to Krishnamurti's work is the text "Freedom From the Known": http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/freedom-from-the-known

And the video "Living Without Images":



The reason this is being brought up is that a series of "experiences" occurred in this body, beginning just about a year ago but progressively quickening into a continuous emergence of something entirely different from normal experience. This particularly became manifest a month ago. The following is from something I previously sent to somebody:


It seems like we are attracted to the novelty of certain situations because we have not yet attempted to dominate them with classifications and valuations, and it seems that when we do this, the situations become tedious and stressful - at best! Given that we are aware of this process then, is it possible to negate it - not through the verbal desire to negate it, but rather, through a total experiencing of it without attempting to avoid or latch on to it?

So many of us spend so much of our time in pursuit of an ideal - whether it be the acquisition of "power" or "love" in a "relationship". We agonize over the perceived lack of this in our lives, and, in the event that we "achieve" this ideal, this agonizing process is still present - violently attempting to maintain and expand power or to achieve perpetual "safety" and "security" in "relationship". It is particularly ironic that we apply this term "relationship" to this process of seeking gratification from another person - as whatever delusions we might have otherwise, we are merely exploiting each other for the perceived "benefit" of "psychological security". Once we are fully aware of this process, something very much like our ideals of love and power emerge, although they are of a totally unrecognizable quality.

We seem to waste an incredible amount of energy in avoiding pain. To the extent that we do this, the pain is still there, only we are further agonizing ourselves by avoiding it! So why don't we cease this? When we suffer totally - all this wasted energy seems to come together. This then burns up all our old robotic activity, our insane, barbaric drives, our conditioning which is failing us so thoroughly. The distance between the observer and the observed is fear, and to cross this chasm, which is entirely delusory but which agonizes us to such an incredible extent - we must allow this fear to be totally present, at all levels, so that there is no "I" in this, there is only pure fear - not the temporary experience of fear, with the hope of "achieving" something else, but pure, unconditional fear. Of course, this is not the cessation of functionality - in fact, there is an incredible clarity in functionality that had previously been absent, lost in an insane maelstrom of confusion. What happens, in reality, is that all the old patterns cease - and then, something entirely new emerges.