Friday, June 14, 2019

An Evidence-Free yet Indisputable Case for Intelligent Life Beyond Earth

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

With the way people reject the suggestion that intelligent life may exist in locations beyond Earth, one might be led to wonder whether or not there is intelligent life on Earth itself…

Denial Is Unreasonable

To conclude that intelligent ET life is nonexistent, one mustn’t have put adequate thought into their analysis.

If one is as I used to be, a parroter of whatever I believed my peers and “authority” would grant approval for, then there isn’t much of any thought at all.

Of those who do think further, these often the more scientific types, the tendency is toward being so dependent on “authority” and “approved means” to tell them “what we know” while perceiving this information to be “fact” and “truth” that they’ve no mind left for what lies outside of conventional research and assumption.

The purpose of this writing is to look at a variety of concepts that, although they certainly aren’t evidence—and much less proof—of intelligent ET life, make a very strong case as to why such life could most certainly exist and we wouldn’t have a clue.

These ideas shatter any imagined validity in denial because denial assumes that all, or at least a satisfactory number of, avenues have been examined, but this is not the case.

Be aware that this is not a conspiracy-informed discussion. It could be described as an exposition on open-minded thinking and inquiry, and the shortsightedness that arises without them.

Similarly Dissimilar

Even if we unwisely assume that what “authority” tells us is all true and they really know no more than they tell us, so what?

How many millions of years has sentient life been on this planet and yet we, the most intelligent of creatures, have hardly been to the moon?

Is it really that implausible for even one or ten or one thousand other planets in this universe of unspeakable magnitude to have intelligent life of a similar or lesser status?

Life could even be the rule rather than the exception—we can’t see or travel to them, so why would we think that they should automatically be able to see and travel to us?

As for science saying that we’ve been sending signals out into deep space but haven’t received anything in return, again, so what?

Is anyone actually receiving them? Are any receivers of these signals not really receivers because, although intelligent, they don’t yet have the technology to receive and reply? Must the receivers of these signals necessarily respond?

Why does ET life have to behave exactly as we assume it should behave?

We Wouldn’t Know Unless We Knew, Right?

Of course, this less-than-or-equal-to status ignores the human- and Earth-centric arrogance of the required belief that no one is greater. (Even if it were true that no one is greater, we don’t know that no one is greater, and so the arrogance still stands.)

Since arrogance and ignorance go hand-in-hand, if we don’t want to be ignorant or arrogant, we must be open to the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere and that some is less advanced, some is equally advanced, and some is more advanced—potentially advanced enough that we couldn’t even see it if it were here.

Consider 3 categories of orientation of advanced, intelligent ET beings (excluding any mixing):
  1. Neutral
  2. Negative
  3. Positive
These beings have no agenda other than pure observation. As such, they would not interact with us or allow themselves to be seen.

If they were here, we wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

There are two general ways of interaction with negative beings: they would try to control and/or destroy us either overtly or covertly.

Alhough negative ETs might initially observe us from a distance, the use of overt force, such as UFOs flying around blowing shit to smithereens and reptilians corralling humans in chains, isn’t at all apparent, so, potentially, since negative beings can never seem to keep themselves from meddling in others’ affairs, they could be here controlling us covertly.

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

There are two general ways that interaction with positive beings could take place: overtly or covertly.

Looking at the world’s state of affairs, what peace-desiring beings would want to fly into Earthly airspace? Even if they had reached the ground without being obliterated by missiles in midair, they would probably be quickly abducted by government officials and/or swiftly killed (literally or figuratively) because that’s what happens to everyone who lives and speaks of higher truth on this planet. So, if any such positive ET beings had any inkling of the danger of being here, they would not likely wish to make themselves known overtly. Furthermore, suddenly showing up by the hundreds, thousands, or even millions would scare the hell out of people, and that’s not peace-extending at all.

This leaves us to covert behavior: positive and merely observing, or positive and actually helping us in some way.

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Otherwise, if a given race of ETs were technologically equal or even a good deal more advanced than us, what if, say, they lived halfway across the galaxy or in a different galaxy altogether. How long would it take them to get here, if it were possible for them, even at light speed? (The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across, by the way.) Or, of all the infinite places they could go, what’s to say they would necessarily come anywhere near here?

It’s so easy to say, “Science says…” or, “The New York Times reported that…” but who actually knows?

A person may well not even know that there are termites eating away at his or her own house until their foot unexpectedly falls through the floor, and yet somehow we know that there’s no one living on—or in—any far-flung celestial object? With such the lack of attention we give them, there could be people living deep inside the Earth's crust or the moon and we wouldn’t even be aware.

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Keeping It Simple

In writing this, I admit that I’m skipping over a lot.

I’ve personally seen multiple UFOs, two of them so close I could almost touch them. I’m ignoring my own intuition and the self-knowledge that has come to me through QHHT (Quantum Healing Hypnotherapy) and Akashic Reading sessions. I’m making no suggestion of things I've found through 15+ years of conspiracy research. I'm bypassing scriptural references to ET races and all the spiritual (and other) information available about them. I’m avoiding the fact that, of the many thousands of worldwide sightings, abductions, and video recordings of UFOs over the decades, surely, at least one must be legit. I’m paying no heed to the half-assed, limited hangout, partial disclosure that’s suddenly burst into the mainstream even as reports and studies continue to come out saying that we’re most likely alone. I’m setting aside all the obvious marks (structures, artifacts, etc.) of other civilizations that have been left all over our world (and the Moon and Mars) and for which we have “no” explanation that necessarily point to unknown civilizations with advanced technology, potentially or necessarily of ET origin.

But do you know where skipping all that stuff puts me? Right here. Offering a simple case for intelligent ET life that, by pointing out a lack of evidence, cannot be thrown away as nonsense.

How adamant have people been about there being no ET life? How negative have people been toward those who believe in intelligent life beyond Earth? How closed-minded have people been about something that they cannot come even remotely close to proving false?

People have been so focused on what they apparently “know” that they've steamrolled right over everything they don't.

To Be Intelligent, One Must First Admit Ignorance

Arrogance says, “I know,” but in doing so it can’t help but admit to its own ignorance—the very thing arrogance is used as a shield from.

Can other places in this universe of unspeakable magnitude potentially have intelligent life, whether less, equally, or more advanced than us?

Of course.

Because, from an openly ignorant viewpoint, an absence of data isn’t proof of anything other than an absence of data!

We wouldn’t know unless we knew, right?

Thursday, June 6, 2019

There's Nothing Left To Learn In the Old World

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness

The Old World is dying.

You may not think it because the Old World has so much momentum and, to many, a siren-song-attractive voice, but dying it is.

It’s for this reason that there’s nothing left to learn in the Old World.

A New World is being born, and the ways of the Old are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

All the while, to say that there’s nothing left to learn in the Old World is not to say that there’s nothing left to learn from the Old World.

The Old must be let go of, but the New can only come as a consequence of learning from our errors, or that which has continually brought us more pain and suffering. We have to learn from the past so that we can release it and move into the future.

The Dead-End of Cancer Research

To explain what I mean, let’s consider cancer as an example.

The Old World perspective has the following focal point:

Here is a problem. How do we manage it?

Many people may believe that the medical establishment is attempting to find a cure for cancer, but this is not so since the basis on which the research is being done—which is subconscious to the vast majority of people—is inconsistent with a cure being available.

The way our collective lives unfold is nothing more than a mirror of what lies within us collectively.

Here in the US, when a person gets cancer they’re more or less forced to take any or all of three treatment options: radiation, surgery, and/or chemotherapy—all of which are damaging to the body and put cancer patients through a fantastical amount of pain and suffering before they experience a lull in cancerous activity usually only to have their cancer flare up and kill them.

So few people understand that the reason these three options are the only options is because as a collective we firmly believe that the medical establishment is doing all they can to seek a cure while using the best methods currently available. In a way people are horribly mistaken in this belief, but they’re also quite right in the sense that we’ve been pouring billions of dollars into cancer research seeking a cure.

Seeking. (And often, in the epitome of dead-end duality, fighting for a cure.)

This logic may sound so ridiculous because one must seek to find, but you must understand: The currently accepted view by the collective, if unconscious, is that cancer is here to stay. This means that cure-seeking is here to stay.

Remember the overarching viewpoint: Here is a problem. How do we manage it?

Our focus is not oriented toward solutions but merely management, and so there has to be another underlying assumption, and belief, that a solution may either never be found or is out in the future somewhere, maybe in the year 2046 or 2252.

So, if we “know” that cancer is here to stay, then how could we ever arrive at a cure?

A New View

We now need to shift our viewpoint:

Here is a problem. How do we prevent it from arising at all?

Instead of keeping on with potentially endless cancer research, which at this point is typically nothing more than a broken way of “looking forward,” we have to look backwards.

The fact of the matter is, we already know plenty about cancer and it’s hardly taken us anywhere. What we need to do now is say, “Hey, cancer never existed, or perhaps only very rarely at best, until the modern day. What happened?”

Well, we started…
  • spraying heavy metals in our skies,
  • including toxic substances in our cleaning products,
  • spraying our crops with pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides,
  • loading our vaccines with heavy metals and other toxic substances,
  • genetically modifying our food,
  • speed-growing cattle with poor diets and excess hormones,
  • IV-dripping cancer patients with a carcinogenic substance,
  • plentifully eating foods that contain little to no nutritional value,
  • bogging our bodies down with refined sugar,
  • allowing manufacturers do dump their toxic waste right into rivers,
  • absorbing 5G radiation from cell towers and other electronic devices,
  • and on and on.
You see, there’s really no need to do any further research on cancer, at least not in the Old World way so much of the research is currently done.

We might look into how a given substance is harming the body. For example, knowing that Monsanto’s Roundup is causing cancer is vital in order to get rid of both the product and the psychopathic company and to possibly find a means by which to neutralize the toxic substance glyphosate.

In large part, however, resolution is a matter of common sense: Quit it with all the toxicity! No one has ever polluted themselves and their world like we have, and no one has ever been so near to self-extinction.

When the Wright brothers were working out how to build a functional means of air travel, they never said, “Errmm… attempting to fly this particular model is clearly going to end badly, but let’s ride it off of that there cliff and pretend to fly before we crash and burn in the boulder field below. At least we can be remembered for going out trying.”

How incredibly foolish are we to see that nearly everything we do is destroying us and yet act either like it’s not actually that bad or like, “Well, it’s the best we could do.” Really? …Really!?

And I’m well aware that there are many alternative treatments to cancer that have been heavily suppressed since they actually work, don’t cause massive amounts of pain, suffering, fear, and death, and would put Big Pharma out of business in a hurry if they became known to the general public.

As critical as it is that these treatment alternatives become mainstream, it doesn’t in any way lessen the importance of what I said just a moment ago. Whether treatment is quick and pain-free or slow and agonizing, we’re all still living in a world where cancer-causing agents are bountiful.

To focus primarily on how cancer functions or how to keep it in check completely ignores the innumerable causes of cancer. Would these causes be addressed appropriately, cancer research would need only be done to the extent that cancer patients receive healing and that various methods be found to counteract any remaining cancer-causing threats (for example, plastic molecules that stick in the body “forever”).

Cancer could then become completely irrelevant to humanity.

Cancer is not a fact of life—it’s what we get for thoroughly ignoring the facts of life.


Existence is whole.

What this means is that there is no problem without a solution. Both arise together, although in the duality-minded, time-based form of experience they may seem to be separate, or a given solution may seem to not exist at all.

The Old World is dying, but it is a world of problems. We now have to accept these problems, which are the unresolved consequences of our past actions, as being in the domain of wholeness so that we can acquire their solutions and move on.

In the New World such problems don’t exist. The solutions aren’t of the New World either but are the steps we must necessarily take toward it.

It is our linking of problem to solution that releases us from the Old, dualistic view and lifestyle, reveals to us the non-dualistic nature of existence, and ushers us right into the New World.