Issue 34 – 21 July 2017 – rattuos
Until this thing called a paradigm shift is finally over and results in general acceptance of what we call enlightenment the war between ignorance and truth must continue. It has been waged for thousands of years and killed many of our brightest humans while rewarding some of the most evil. One extraordinary fact about this is that according to some thinkers, although the forces of ignorance are used and maximised, the actual leaders are not ignorant at all. They know very well what the truth is, the reality and go to extraordinary lengths to conceal it.
This is scarcely a new concept as it has been considered since the first tales of fallen angels over two thousand years ago, or the biblical demons who are revealed as intelligent and using the human. We have had many dictators who have kept their populations in ignorance, and religious leaders too. We have scientists who are employed to conjure up papers to support corporate interests. We have think tanks set up by any number of lobbies to conjure up predictions that help their funders. We have a media owned by corporate interests that has learned that continuous repetition of a lie leads to general acceptance of it and that a collective refusal to publish facts effectively conceals them. We have politicians who are divorced from independent thought and forced to tow a party line. And we have fewer and fewer prominent minds prepared to stand in front of this behemoth knowing it will run them down, ruin them and ruin their families.
What is extraordinary is how intelligent and well informed people can act like this. Most politicians have good degrees and are informed by a vast array of intelligence services. Climate change is an obvious case. There is ostensibly a fight between scientists who support the possibility that our climate is changing due to human interventions that could be reversed and scientists who ridicule the very idea. This has enabled politicians to dither, or to appear to dither, and not to put into law the actions that might save the planet and its species. You have to take your pick which side you trust. Perhaps you work in an industry that requires you to strip the forests of their timber and see keeping your job as more important than the mere possibility it will lead to our extinction. But if you decide that we need to ban carbon fuel burning immediately you know very well we will not and that there is almost nothing you can say that will change that. 90% of the world could say that and it still would not happen. But the very notion of climate change is helping to conceal the reality. It is quite possible to dispute climate change and why it is changing by one or two degrees, what it will result in and how it can be averted. But the reality is that our problem is much more diverse than this single problem. Our endangered species are being poached, our planet polluted, our very genes are being altered before we know what will happen as a result. Our wars are changing our psyche and creating vast reservoirs of appalling karma for our species. Obesity and diet related disease is destroying our health and health care services as are pollution and stress. Corporate greed is plundering the entire planet. Poverty is as intense as ever it was and ravaging entire nations sometimes for political reasons. Nuclear power is leaving a vast legacy of waste that has been dumped at sea, buried or is in stockpiles awaiting an age where there may be an answer or funding, and is not taken into the cost equation when constructing more power stations. We have vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons that may be used literally at any time. Our United Nations is dysfunctional and some nations get away with murder while others are unchallenged. We are about to witness in the next few years a vast eruption of methane gas locked in the melting tundra and under melting icecaps – a gas considered to be many times more destructive for our delicate atmosphere than carbon dioxide and one whose sudden release seems to have preceded previous mass extinctions.
Is this true? We are not scientists so how can we know. Looking up on Google ’methane climate’ just now the first item on the list was this:
“ Hot Talk, Cold Science
Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate
S. Fred Singer is a distinguished astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. In this book, Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate.
Singer’s masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of any global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” (like “carbon” taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations.
Hot Talk, Cold Science is essential reading for anyone who wants to be fully informed about the global warming debate. “
Perhaps he is right but as I had never heard of the man I found this on Wikipedia
“Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss, his public downplaying of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an advocate for climate change denial. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.
Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before obtaining his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London. He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau‘s Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.
In 1990 Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project, and in 2006 was named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a stand-off on a consensus on climate change. Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise. He is an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and has claimed that climate models are neither based on reality nor evidence. Singer has been accused of rejecting peer-reviewed and independently confirmed scientific evidence in his claims concerning public health and environmental issues…..” Wikipedia
Who am I to argue? My point above is that ’global warming’ has been given a front seat and the very many unarguable issues are either excluded from entry or take back seats.
Now today the point that I really wish to discuss is not climate change, politics, propaganda or anything else just the fact that enlightened beings are running the forces of ignorance or darkness and quite deliberate in that. Who they are is not particularly relevant either. Nor even what they are. They could all be sociopaths for example but it makes no difference. A television programme this week showed us the ‘corporate psychopaths’ that they think have taken the business world into war with the populations. It was interesting but not as interesting to me as to why they have done this. Some will see in this the greed for money and undoubtedly that is something feeding the cancer cells but even so it is not what caused the disease. The question is why are enlightened beings preventing enlightenment for the human?
The answer is extremely simple. Why do we have secrets? Why do inventors patent their inventions? Why do colonists fight to hold onto the conquests they have made? Why do most of us pass on our assets to our children? Why do we have private land ownership? Why indeed do we have poverty rubbing shoulders with extreme wealth? In my life I have come across many gurus and yet not one of them was willing to share the real ‘secret’ of their enlightenment. They sold many products that they assured others contained this secret but every one held onto it. Why?
The terrible truth is that those who want enlightenment usually want it for the wrong reasons. In theory it is impossible to obtain if that is the case. Some of the misguided ideas on the subject suggest that if any part of the self remains it will not come, as if Gautama Buddha really had no ‘self’ when all that is written or known about him clearly shows that he did. Of course the concept of selflessness is quite separate from this obsession with having so self. Selflessness is about putting certain things before one’s own desires. There are a huge number of people who act in this way, most mothers do. But some put the interests of quite dangerous entities before their own interests and do so not for money or fame but delusion. That is to say many of them ’believe’ fiercely in things which the enlightened ones know are not actually true. You can do good works in your life for the wrong reasons and conversely do evil for what seem to be the right reasons. That would include lying to the world to keep it safe.
This matter is not easy even if it is simple. The point is summed up in the word ’apocalypse’. This word has been given a meaning that is the complete opposite of its real meaning. The word is Greek and actually translates “An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω, literally meaning “an uncovering”) is a disclosure of knowledge or revelation. In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden, “a vision of heavenly secrets that can make sense of earthly realities”.Wikipedia
But the dictionary meaning now is for example:
“apocalypse ə’pɒkəlɪps/ noun
noun: Apocalypse; noun: the Apocalypse; noun: apocalypse; plural noun: apocalypses
1. the complete final destruction of the world, as described in the biblical book of Revelation.
“the bell’s ringing is supposed to usher in the Apocalypse”
(especially in the Vulgate Bible) the book of Revelation.
singular proper noun: Apocalypse
2. an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale.
“the apocalypse of World War II”
And what you can see here is that ‘revelation’ or the opening of the eyes of humanity is considered to usher the ‘complete destruction of the world’. There then is the excuse for keeping our eyes firmly shut even if the enlightened are the ones doing this.
I remember something that happened in the 1970’s. I had recently come across a sect that said they wanted to help planet earth because she was pregnant. They thought that planets gave birth to moons and there is certainly some evidence these days for that being partly true. It coincided with many of us former hippies being extremely concerned about environmental issues. Then suddenly one day I was handed a book, a small paperback, by someone in the sect who warned me to keep it to myself and only to pass it on the someone I could trust. I was told that the authors and various people related to them had been murdered. These days it would be freely available on the internet. Anyway this book was making a point which I suppose is tied up with all of this although it was almost certainly a fake. In some ways it reminds me of the way that conspiracy theories are often so absolutely ludicrous that they give conspiracy theory a bad name as a result. I am sure this is deliberate and we might note that a very discredited conspiracy is for example that we are controlled by the Illuminati. But the little book was called Alternative 3 and this is what I have found on it today:
“Alternative 3 is a television programme, broadcast once only in the United Kingdom in 1977, and later broadcast in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, as a fictional hoax, an heir to Orson Welles‘ radio production of The War of the Worlds. Purporting to be an investigation into the UK’s contemporary “brain drain“, Alternative 3 uncovered a plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of climate change and a terminal environmental catastrophe on Earth.
The programme was originally meant to be broadcast on April Fools Day, 1977. While its broadcast was delayed until June 20, the credits explicitly date the film to April 1. Alternative 3 ended with credits for the actors involved in the production and featured interviews with a fictitious American astronaut
The programme was presented as an edition of an Anglia TV series called Science Report. The intended transmission date was April 1, but it seems that Anglia was unable to obtain an ITV network slot for the programme on that date due to strike action/labour disputes. The script was written by Chris Miles and David Ambrose. Music was supplied by Brian Eno, a portion of his score being released on the album Music for Films (1978). Apart from the presenter Tim Brinton, all the characters in the programme were played by actors who were explicitly credited at the end.
The episode began by detailing the so-called “brain drain:” a number of mysterious disappearances and deaths of physicists, engineers, astronomers, and others in related fields. Among the strange deaths reported was that of one “Professor Ballantine” of Jodrell Bank. Before his death, Ballantine delivers a videotape to an academic friend, but upon playback the tape appears to contain only static.
According to the research presented in the episode, it was hypothesized that the missing scientists were involved in a secret American/Soviet plan in outer space, and further suggested that interplanetary space travel had been possible for much longer than was commonly accepted. The episode featured an Apollo astronaut “Bob Grodin” (played by Shane Rimmer) who claims to have stumbled on a mysterious lunar base during his moonwalk.
It was claimed that scientists had determined that the Earth‘s surface would be unable to support life for much longer, due to pollution leading to catastrophic climate change. Physicist “Dr Carl Gerstein” (played by Richard Marner) claimed to have proposed in 1957 that there were three alternatives to this problem. The first alternative was the drastic reduction of the human population on Earth. The second alternative was the construction of vast underground shelters to house government officials and a cross section of the population until the climate had stabilised, a solution reminiscent of the finale of Dr Strangelove. The third alternative, the so-called “Alternative 3,” was to populate Mars via a way station on the Moon.
The programme ends with some detective work; acting on information from Grodin, the reporters determine that Ballantine’s videotape requires a special decoding device. After locating the decoder, the resulting video turns out to depict a joint American and Russian landing on the Martian surface in 1962.
The programme was made with stock film used at the time to make it appear like a conventional documentary programme. In a 1989 interview, actor Richard Marner (Dr Carl Gerstein) said he didn’t rehearse his lines to make the delivery appear as natural as possible.
Within minutes of the programme ending, Anglia Television was flooded with telephone calls demanding more information. Callers were told the programme was a hoax. The Times on 21 June reported that “Independent television companies last night received hundreds of protest calls after an Anglia programme, Alternative 3, gave alarming facts about changes in the Earth’s atmosphere. It was a hoax, originally intended for April 1st.” It also pointed out that several of the characters in the programme were played by well known actors.
Nick Austin, who was editorial director of Sphere Books when Watkins’ adaptation was commissioned and published, writes that the book was the “best chance I’d ever be likely to get to participate in a hoax of truly Guy Grand proportions — the best thing of its kind since Orson Welles‘ War of the Worlds radio broadcast.”
Austin writes that he was both delighted and disturbed by the Alternative 3 controversy, and adds that the reasons “a clever hoax, openly admitted to be such by its creators, should continue to exercise the fascination it so obviously does the best part of a generation after its first appearance is beyond my feeble powers of analysis and explanation.”
A more detailed explanation of the hoax is featured in a study of conspiracy theory subculture and literature, Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003), wherein Michael Barkun devotes a few pages to Alternative 3.
Barkun writes that “Alternative 3 was clearly a hoax — and not only because it was intended for broadcast on April Fools Day. The interviews with supposed scientists, astronauts, and others were far too dramatically polished to have been spontaneous, and in any case, the episode’s closing credits named the actors who took the roles of interviewees and correspondents. Though artfully produced, the show’s counterfeit documentary style could scarcely have been expected to fool many. As an Anglia TV spokeseman put it, ‘We felt viewers would be fairly sophisticated about it.'”
Barkun notes that television and newspapers were “swamped” with inquiries about Alternative 3 and that Anglia Television’s sale of the book rights to Leslie Watkins caused the tale to spread far beyond the United Kingdom.
In 1978, Leslie Watkins wrote a science fiction book based on the screenplay for the television episode. Watkins had previously written a few moderately successful “suspense thriller” novels, and his Alternative 3 novelization detailed many of the claims presented in the episode. It was published by Sphere Books Ltd, of Grays’s Inn Road, London. In the book, many of the fictional characters were replaced with real people. For example, quotes from the fictional astronaut Bob Grodin were attributed to real life astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Edgar Mitchell.
Ken Mitchell’s novel, Alternative 3 (HarperCollins) ISBN 0-7322-7703-5 uses the Alternative 3 scenario as a background to a techno-thriller. On June 20, 2010, the 33rd anniversary of the original Anglia Television broadcast, an allegedly “unexpurgated” edition of the Alternative 3 text was released as an eBook”
I suppose what is most interesting to me about this little book, not having seen the television programme and living very close to Grays Inn where such books were published is that it made no difference to my thinking anyway. I was being deluged on a daily basis with deranged fantasies about Atlantis, Egypt, magic, a lost brotherhood etc. However even this year Stephen Hawking, the eminent scientist, has said we must colonise another planet if we are to survive and this little book foretold global warming before anyone else. My recollection was that one of the alternatives which was rejected was for the human to return to the stone age.
How many of you either know or are a control freak? I come across them all the time. It seems to me to be quite a recent thing because in my youth although we were strictly controlled it did not seem to be so obsessive. People were allowed to make mistakes and then punished for them. Control freaks refuse to give up control even when they are wrong. In my childhood when people were wrong they resigned but now many hold onto power for all they are worth and even make speeches explaining that they are the only ones who can save us, save their country, save their company, save their party. They mean save themselves from ignominy. Enlightened masters have become control freaks. You can clearly see this in the behaviour of recent famous gurus and politicians. They invest much energy into cover ups. I will not detail them but many of the gurus have been sued or accused of sexual assault. Many politicians of dishonesty or having vested interests. This is true also of major organisations in our time. The classic example given to us whether it is true or not is that of the Emperor Nero ’fiddling while Rome burned’.
So the definition of enlightenment is no longer enough. The enlightened have knowledge of the facts and can see. They may even be selfless servants of some organisation. But for one reason or another they are against humanity being allowed to see the facts for themselves and have devised all manner of strategies and diversions to ensure that is, and remains, the case. They maintain that humans knowing the truth, seeing what is coming, will lead to chaos and instability in Creation. I suppose the example is to be seen in films where some devastation strikes or is about to strike and we see shops being looted, people killed, raped and abused and the forces of law and order trodden underfoot by a crazed horde. Revolutions are also seen like this, unless we support them. In truth the bus driver is taking the bus over a cliff while maintaining that the real danger is in replacing him. He says that telling his passengers they are going over the cliff will result in great danger! That is what a control freak says anyway.
So find your enlightenment by all means but also try mentally to find a way to save us. The saviours are the best example to us all, not those promoting war, genocide, theft and inequality. Peace likes to be promoted peacefully. Violence likes to be promoted and portrayed as a peaceful solution. The laws of Karma and Dharma (Justice and Truth) are inflexible and we will all have to account for our actions, which will all be known when we die because we will testify against ourselves. Whatever you do in life bear that in mind.
Your ancestors have a big stake in you and will either be justified or disgraced by your life. If they see you as trying to justify them by good works and salvation they will help you. Perhaps it would help if you tried to contact them for whatever help they can give you. You do not need a medium – you need to be a medium and practise your clairvoyance. Ask their help in doing that. You may be surprised at what happens. These are the kind of meditations that are so beneficial. Chanting a mantra benefits someone else, usually the one who gave it to you to repeat endlessly like the lies that appear to be true when repeated often enough.