Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Adam and Eve: Guilty Not of Original Sin but of Heresy

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



The Gods of the Old Testament and the New Testament are two different characters.

Adam and Eve did not live in paradise.

The serpent of Eden was not evil.


The Gods of the Old Testament and the New Testament Are Two Different Characters.

There’s a very good reason why the “God” of the Old Testament—hereafter referred to as “god,” with a small “g”—was such a miserable bastard—because he’s not what “God is…”, as stated in the New Testament, which is “…love,” and thus he is not the one, true God.

According to the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, before the manifest world came to be there was a distorted being created known as Yaldabaoth, king of the Archons.

Yaldabaoth is a non-physical being who has a tremendous power of creation. He is the one who created the low-density, or veiled, physical Earth that we inhabit, as well as this form of human.

In the Old Testament, god says that he is a jealous one and there is no other greater.

Strange thing to say, is it not?

Imagine sitting down at the dinner table and your spouse unexpectedly says, “You know, I think the woman who works in the cubicle next to mine is super attractive, but I love you, and I wouldn’t cave in to kiss her if she happened to come-on to me.”

Why would your spouse ever even think to say such a ridiculous thing if his love and fidelity toward you were true; unless he had doubts and felt the need to try to prove to himself that it weren’t so by rationalizing aloud?

In this case, Yaldabaoth had imagined himself to be alone; he hadn’t yet realized that any being/essence/God had already existed that is greater than he.

The angry, vengeful, and insecure nature of the Old Testament god is proof that he is not the one, true God spoken of by Jesus.

Adam and Eve Did Not Live in Paradise.

Seeing that the Old Testament god is a fraud, I think it’s fair to conclude that he wouldn’t give us all we are due nor allow us to know exactly what our due is.

In the Old Testament it’s stated that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God.

How this is interpreted by most people is incorrect because it assumes that
  1. Yaldabaoth, who is never mentioned by name or origin, is one and the same as the one, true God, and
  2. the “image and likeness” are referring to the same being/essence when they are not.
The image is the physical human form which Yaldabaoth created based on seeing the pure Spirit-Human that had already existed in a higher density realm.

The likeness, however—which is the Spirit of God itself—did not come from Yaldabaoth. In fact, Yaldabaoth did not even have the power to animate the physical human body that he had created. This breath-of-life- or Spirit-giving act was provided by an essence of far greater purity and ability than that of Yaldabaoth.

This life-giving act was greatly to Yaldabaoth’s dismay because it meant that the truth of the human Spirit and it’s worthiness we’re of pure Godliness in its nature, far above his own.

Yet, through Spirit’s placement in a dense, physical human form and like existence, it was made ignorant of its true, divine nature.

Whatever delights the “paradise” of Eden may have offered, not only had Adam and Eve been imprisoned by ignorance from the get-go in a place also created by Yaldabaoth, but, once they’d eaten the apple—or awakened to their ignorance—Yaldabaoth threw them out and into the darkest depths of his realm—Duality—in hopes they would never find their way out.

The Serpent of Eden Was Not Evil.

Think about this in the context just provided.

Adam and Eve were ignorant.

The serpent—the one the Church forever claims to be the devil—tempted, or persuaded, Adam and Eve to eat the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Is this really so bad?

If one is ignorant of their true nature and of the reality of life, is being urged to eat of the knowledge of good and evil an indisputably devilish thing?

Wouldn’t the devil be the one who says, “Don’t eat! You’ll die!” because he would rather there be ignorance than awareness?

And wouldn’t God be the one to say, “Eat up, kids! Know the truth, and it will set you free!”?

The serpent (a metaphor for kundalini energy, by the way) knew exactly what it was doing and who it was working for—the serpent was working for the greater good of God.

In truth, eating the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the mind’s awakening to the illusory, dualistic nature of this form of existence.

Like Plato’s Cave, only by becoming aware of the illusion can one escape from it. The serpent therefore offered Adam and Eve not Original Sin but the greatest of gifts—an open door to Self-/God-realization, to Oneness.

This Ain’t Your Mother’s Christianity

There’s vastly more material covered in the Nag Hammadi texts, but we can see in this little bit alone that it’s no wonder the Church has rejected any and all of these scriptures and has claimed any adherents as heretics.

Acknowledging potential error and variations between different accounts of the same information, the Nag Hammadi’s books still pose a great threat to Christian indoctrination.

This collection of books stands way too close to the truth of creation, who has been working avidly to control the world, and the revelation of who and what humanity actually is. Religion runs rampant with guilt, shame, and victimhood indoctrination, and, where these books are accepted, individually or collectively, it becomes impossible to continue on with such distorted programming.

And get this… Jesus wasn’t actually a super-serious, tight-assed SOB. There are plenty of occasions where Jesus is talking with the apostles and the author writes, “Jesus laughed…” It is also written that Jesus had spent a significant amount of time with a woman named Mary of Magdala whom he had regularly kissed on the lips.

Hmmm…

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures I’ve read is the collection edited by Marvin Meyer.

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume (HarperOne; 1st edition; 2009)

I don’t have anything negative to say about it.

The introductory texts to each book, the translations, and the footnotes are very comprehensive.

The contributors offer their views from very open-minded and well-versed perspectives, and they include plenty of references to other cultures, lines of thought, etc. from that time period that resonate with the scriptural material.

Although the Nag Hammadi has a Christian bent, the intention of the contributors is clearly about extrapolating the truth rather than catering to conventional Christian teachings and expectations.

Don’t Take My Word For It: Do Your Research

As necessary, take what has been said here and what is stated in the Nag Hammadi largely as a metaphor and with a grain of salt. For one, scripture is always heavy with metaphorical value, and, two, in the Nag Hammadi there are numerous similar but varying accounts of the same situations.

What I provide above is a bare-bones generalization of a portion of the Nag Hammadi in an effort to bring awareness to a deeper truth and reality of life.

At no time do I claim this to be any sort of be-all-end-all set of accounts. But, for me, the basic concepts of the Nag Hammadi hit far closer to home than almost anything I’ve ever heard out of the mainstream Christian domain.

I would also direct you to educate yourself regarding Anu and the Annunaki. Here’s one resource of many:

WingMakers: The Neruda Interviews
(Click: “Fifth Interview”)

The Anunnaki, Mankind’s Enslavement
(YouTube video, transcript reading)

I see a fair number of similarities between the Nag Hammadi texts and the story of the Annunaki, only the latter can be interpreted far more literally.

What If…?

In closing, I want to take a moment to address the topic of disbelief and denial regarding this material. The information regarding the Annunaki especially, it seems to me, will come to many as a shock—or maybe as stupid.

It’s always your choice to believe and accept—if only as a possibility—or disbelieve and deny.

If you lean toward the latter, would it not be better to look objectively with an open mind in the context of What if it is true?

As stated earlier, there’s a lot of metaphor involved and I don’t view this as any kind of be-all-end-all account of history.

But it’s information—information that could well have a high degree of truth. (After all, the Church has rejected Gnostic-type literature and thought as heretical and had wantonly tortured and slaughtered any who’d believed such things on their way to becoming the greatest power in the world. So, yeah, it’s probably true…)

By any means of mainstream theology or conventional research, what do any of us actually know regarding the creation of the world and how man-as-we-know-him came to be?

Taking the scriptural approach, although the opening of the Book of Genesis provides some very valuable information, at least symbolically, it simultaneously says very little due to the distortions it contains (as noted above) as well as its lack in length and detail. From the beginning of the world to the time Adam and Eve are thrown out of Eden, everything fits into 3 chapters at about 2.5 pages.

The Nag Hammadi, on the other hand, discusses the same material—including what came before the creation of the world—from a variety of perspectives in roughly 10 books and 150 pages.

If one prefers a scientific approach, well, obviously, it’s hard to say anything about anything when interpreting what is metaphorical and/or had taken place on a different plane of existence.

As for what had taken place here, where does one start? If we assume that Adam and Eve metaphorically represent humanity as we know it, what about all the precursors to the modern human that we’ve supposedly evolved from?

The theory of evolution can’t even explain this because no fossil records show a gradual shift from one form to another. Either we were seeded here more or less as we are now, or there occurred some grand shift that miraculously turned everything up a notch.

As for combining mainstream theology and conventional research to create a cohesive picture—forget about it! Talk about cognitive dissonance!

All the more reason why I and many others see significance in the information regarding the Annunaki—it can be accepted fairly literally and it fills in many of the gaps left open by metaphor, the “mysteries” of religious dogma, and half-baked science.

Again, you can believe and accept or disbelieve and deny whatever you want. It’s your choice.

But as you engage with this information, if and when rejection arises, I’d ask you to look into what your rejection is about.

Is it the material itself? Really?

Or are you being challenged, perhaps, to shift your worldview in ways you’ve never imagined?

Are you being challenged, perhaps, to change your beliefs, to step out of the status quo, and you fear the rejection you imagine you will receive from others for doing so?

Are you being challenged, perhaps, to admit that the egoic bubble of “knowing” that you’ve been living in is very fragile and on the verge of popping?

There are many people who claim to want the truth.

It’s not an accident that only a few ever actually find it.

Monday, September 23, 2019

I Asked for a Shirt but Only Got the Shi_t

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness



I’ve been buying a lot of clothes from L.L.Bean lately.

Some people might imagine that to do this I must “have money.”

Well, I do—it’s not like I’m stealing the clothes.

But money isn’t something I have much of.

Ten years ago I left my stable job (you know, a job that was dependable and reasonably paying, not one with horses) to try my hand at “my own thing.” This mostly collapsed and a couple years later I dropped into a dark night of the soul that included joblessness, zero savings, and a long-term health crisis that I’ve been working to resolve ever since.

Not much room to make an income under these conditions.

All the while, being a person of self-inquiry and self-discovery, I’ve gained a few insights about myself and, in consequence, about other people and the world at large in terms of self-worth and having and spending money.

Benny’s Is Qualitatively Challenged

I used to shop at “Benny’s.”

Benny’s is fictitious, but the commentary not.

If you don’t know, Benny’s is a department store where things are usually on sale for anywhere between 20% and 70% off and, if you’re a member, you get a bi-weekly or monthly mailer giving you up to an additional 30% off, plus for every $50 you spend you get another $10 of in-store cash to use on a later purchase.

I shopped at Benny’s for years, and I would say that the clothes were at least decent up until, perhaps, ten years ago. For around this time it seemed that every damn piece of clothes I would pick up, and occasionally buy without noticing or thinking it would cause me so much annoyance later on, had something wrong with it.

One sleeve of a long-sleeve tee shirt would be two inches shorter than another. The seam of a shirt that began at the armpit would strike a curve and end four inches toward the back bottom. Shirts would feel twisted when worn. Jean denim was thin and would wear out with a quickness.

Why, Oh, Why?

Surely I’m not the only one this has happened to.

By all means, yes, my troubles were primarily at a time when Life wanted me to move on and seek a higher and better path. So I totally understand if when thinking I was buying a shirt I “just happened” to only ever get the shit.

But, c’mon. Low quality is low quality. Maybe I hit on the worst of it, but people must be buying this stuff all the time.

If I can shop at L.L.Bean (and similar stores) that sells their clothes (at least what I buy) for basically the same MSRP as Benny’s sells theirs—but at 3x the quality—while also regularly running significant sales (e.g.: 40% off, free shipping over $75, etc.) on their full-priced inventory, why would I want to shop at a place such as Benny’s?

Why would anybody want to?

Maybe because people don’t know of stores such as L.L.Bean, maybe because they want to buy Ralph Lauren products or graphic tees, or maybe they like the variety offered by a department store all in one location.

On one hand, these may be legitimate answers. On the other hand, a great deal of what is sold is low-quality, imported garbage and people know it.

What, then, keeps many people going back?

The answer is 2-fold:
  1. People subconsciously believe that they’re worthless, that they’re unworthy of more money and better clothes (and other belongings), and
  2. People are unhappy.

Feeling Bad Feels So Good

Whatever we feel or believe or fear internally, we express externally.

Sometimes we can cover these things up fairly well, at least temporarily, but in some way or other how we live is a mirror of what is going on internally.

When people feel unworthy within, in an attempt to prove to themselves that this worthlessness isn’t so, many of them spend money since money and what is acquired when spending it is perceived to be an external symbol of self-worth.

To make matters worse, people are unhappy. And what commonly makes people happy (at least for 14 seconds) is spending money, buying stuff.

Furthering this predicament, people mistakenly imagine that they can resolve their internal discomforts by doing externally escapist things.

People are not therefore of the mindset that,
If I save my money for a few months, I can go to buy that $800 pair of Gucci shoes. Imagine how good I’d feel with those on. Imagine what all my friends would say. I could buy those shoes, feel good, and then be satisfied for a few more months.
Instead, people are of the subconscious mindset:
I’m unhappy and believe myself to be worthless.

This is a chronic issue and I know that buying a pair of $800 Gucci shoes will only make me happy to the extent that other people compliment me on them. Since compliments will be limited and unsatisfying, it won’t be long at all before I’ll want to buy something else to quell my inner dis-ease—but won't have the money.

I therefore choose to shop where I can buy a bunch of cheap-ass, poorly made shit that I’ll be disappointed with, will complain about, and may have to return.

If I return it, then I can get the double whammy of goodness of feeling good about both getting money back and then immediately spending that money once again.

Since I buy low-price items, the cycle can go on and on—internally and externally.

I will keep pretending I don’t have the money for better clothes and other belongings, but, truth is, I just don’t want to feel the internal discomfort that will arise if I spend a few dollars more on quality stuff. If I’m satisfied with what I get and don’t have to replace it for a year or ten, I don’t have a reason to spend more money and won’t be able to provide proof to myself that I’m not worthless, nor will I be able to get regular endorphin highs.

The Receipt

Next, consider this:

Let’s suppose you were to buy $1000 MSRP worth of merchandise at Benny’s.

To start, there’s a good chance you’d get, roughly, 40% off what you buy simply because it’s already on sale. As a card-carrying member, you’d get an upwards of an additional 30% off after that because you got the mailer coupon, and then you’d have, let’s pretend, $50 of in-store cash to redeem that you were rewarded from previous purchases.

$1000 x .60 (or 40% off) = $600
$600 x .70 (or 30% off) = $420
$420 - $50 = $370

Your receipt would show a grand total of $370 and then say: Today you saved: $630.

Every item would be listed there at full price minus all the discounts, which would be tallied at the end, as though you’d bought some quality stuff at discounted prices rather than a load of child-slave-fabricated shit from the Far East that was heavily marked up and then discounted to what its MSRP should have been initially (which is probably somewhere in the single digits).

Mind-Slavery

In order to market effectively marketers must know what drives the people they’re looking to sell to.

Here, not only is this knowledge available, they actually target peoples’ most base, distorted, and unconscious urges and make no qualms about using psychology-based behavior manipulation—commonly referred to as brainwashing.

As screwed up as this is, the marketing must be working to adequately condition the masses because the marketing hasn’t changed for years and Benny’s manages to stay afloat even as their competing anchor stores die off.

Worth Begins Internally

Ultimately, choosing quality has little-to-nothing to do with “having money.”

Choosing quality is about seeing yourself as worthy of it within.

And in seeing, not only do you become aware of your own deeper truths and needs, but you awaken to the manipulation around you and become much more capable of either choosing differently or consciously choosing the same.

Moreover, you find that you actually have more money, even when you have less, because you spend it in wiser ways.

The folks going to Benny’s (and other such cheapo places) have so much more money than they know. It’s only because they want to claim unworthiness and be unhappy and allow themselves to be manipulated that they keep on spending themselves into poverty and the perception thereof.

The Song Remains the Same

It seems to me that, whatever the financial topic, the same can be said about it.

What do you really want?

Do you want quality and satisfaction, or do you want poverty and misery?

People so often say, for example, “I can’t afford organic food. It’s too expensive.”

But they’re going out to eat all the time, they eat processed food and don’t exercise, and they’re therefore chronically sick and regularly paying for medical bills and such.

If people would stop choosing the path of the victim they’d have more than enough money to buy organic food and they’d be far healthier and happier.

They might well even have money left over to save or to put toward other wants and needs.

Self-Responsibility

Wherever the finger might be pointed in blame at the distorted ways of the world, the finger is always ultimately pointing back at the one who is pointing.

The problem at hand is a personal, internal one.

If you abide by the programming and behavior discussed here, the task is fully on you to make the change if you truly don’t want it anymore. Otherwise you’ll stay right where you are.

That’s one of the wonders of this Earthly experience of duality: We can have whatever we want.

If we want poverty and misery, we will draw circumstances into our lives in which we will be aided in bringing about those wretched conditions. If we want prosperity, abundance, and satisfaction, we will draw circumstances into our lives in which we will be aided in bringing about those wonderful conditions.

Whatever we may want, dark or light, painful or pleasurable, Life will place itself at our service; people, places, things, and situations will come into our lives to provide for our desires.

In this way, Life takes very good care of us.

Unfortunately, we haven’t yet learned to take very good care of ourselves.

As our mouths say, “shirt,” our subconscious screams, “SHIT!”

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Crime and Punishment... Or, Crime and Crime

by John Boodhansingh of Zero Mindfulness


“You do the crime, you do the time.”
--Authority

“Great idea! With a catchy phrase like this, people will really think twice.”
--No One Ever


As a kid I’d often run up and down the steps at home. My dad would see or hear me and punish me by making me walk slowly up and down five or ten times.

All I’d thought to do back then in response was grumble, hang my head and slump my shoulders, and then take the hike.

Now much more inquisitive, I have to ask:
  1. Had I really done anything wrong?
  2. If so, did the punishment fit the offense?
  3. Did the punishment have any value in curbing my behavior?

Had I really done anything wrong?

I would argue that I hadn’t. I would argue that wrongness is in the eye of the beholder in these types of situations.

This seems like one of uncounted instances that play out in everyone’s lives where a parent chides their child for “misbehaving” only because their parents had done the same to them. For reasons few people ever actually question, running on the steps is just an inherently “bad” thing that only “bad” people do.

If safety is a concern, is this concern realistic?

I would say not so much for the same reason that Mark Twain said, “I have lived a long life and had many troubles, most of which never happened”: people usually imagine far worse futures for themselves and others than they ever actually experience.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a time when kids still practiced the nearly lost art of playing outside. This caused me plenty more harm than running the steps ever did, yet I was never punished for it. What’s the difference if I run the steps or run a hill and climb a tree?

Did the punishment fit the crime?

To answer this question we must, of course, assume that I had done something wrong.

This is a hard swallow, but let’s pretend.

The most significant thing that comes to mind to answer the question is:

Punishment is horrendously subjective!

Couldn’t my dad have instead told me to walk up and down only once or given me the belt or taken away TV-watching for three days? Theoretically, yes.

I heard a story the other day in which a mother had left her kids home alone while she worked and had told them before leaving that if they wanted something to eat to call her. It ended up that she got home, saw that her son (perhaps 6 years old) had taken it upon himself to eat a canned spaghetti-type meal, and then beat him to death with an extension cord.

Did the punishment fit the crime?

Internally disconnected and without any “Healthy Standards for Human Engagement” rulebook, everyone’s left to do their own subjective thing. Such is hardly conducive to fairness and balance.

Did the punishment have any value in curbing my behavior?

Sort of, but not really.
The punishment was superficial because it didn’t in any way address the underlying cause of why I had been running to begin with (again assuming I’d done something wrong and hadn’t simply been being a kid and doing what kids do).

If my running had truly been a problem and the issue was then looked at in a truly helpful way, my thoughts are what would have to have been addressed rather than my behavior since behavior is informed by thought, not the other way around.

Regardless of the number of times that I had to walk up and down the steps as punishment, the only limitation I recall making was to temper my speed when my dad was around—but still run as usual when he wasn’t.

In other words, I partially stopped because I didn’t want to get punished, not because I came to see the light.

And if I was told things such as, “Stop running, you’re going to fall down the steps,” think about it—when do such cautionary statements ever work? We’re hammered day in and day out with cancer warnings, legal warnings, and numerous other warnings, and yet we all pretty much go on doing exactly as we’ve been.

If true, positive change is to happen, the mind must either willingly release its former view and/or be offered healthy reasoning that trumps everything it already holds as “truth.”

Yes-ish.
Why any punishment might have curbed my behavior comes down to three things: belief, fear, and/or trauma.

I think it’s inappropriate to say that I was ever traumatized by stair-running punishments, but, generally speaking, belief, fear, and trauma are what cause people to change their behaviors in these sorts of situations.

Nothing is healed and change is not willingly chosen. Rather, old programming is forcefully layered over with harmful beliefs, fears, and/or trauma for the sake of unnatural self-protection.

All in all, this parent-punishing-child scenario is how it’s been for ages. For some it’s not been as bad, for some it’s been far worse; in times past the punishments tended toward brutality, in recent times they’ve tended toward mildness. Nevertheless, the same threads are woven throughout.

Crime and Punishment in the World at Large

Although my personal stair-running “crime” and punishment scenario is quite minor, what underlies it is the very same thing that underlies the vast majority of crime and punishment scenarios around the world and through time.

Let's look at the questions asked earlier, but let’s change the wording slightly:
  1. Are any crimes actually being committed?
  2. If so, do the punishments fit the crimes?
  3. Do the punishments have any value in curbing future crime?

Are any crimes actually being committed?

People commit crimes all the time and we can say with certainty that this is so because crime, it could be said, is behavior that causes direct or indirect harm to others.

There are also definitely times when “crime” is merely a matter of stupid laws and conspiracy and profit, such as the illegalization of marijuana and putting people in prison for 20 years for carrying a mere ounce of it.

Assuming crime is legit, however…

If so, do the punishments fit the crimes?

Just like my story from home, although crimes are fairly well defined, there’s rarely if ever a standardized consequence for a given action. Worsening matters, our “criminal justice” system has been little more than a system in which so-called “justice” is meted out by criminals.

Two guys could murder their wives in an identical manner and receive the same charges, yet one could be sentenced to 10 years in prison and the other to 75 years. It seems more dependent upon whether or not the judge was angry because he ripped open the roof of his mouth while eating Cap’n Crunch that morning than do to any real desire for fairness and balance.

I understand that similar crimes may have differences from one another and so there may be some subjectivity and variation on punishment. But the general manner of punishing crime has been abusively arbitrary.

Add to this the fact that the whole legal/court/prison system here in the US is heavily monetized. To describe only one facet of this abomination:

If someone gets arrested, they might be told that even though they’re potentially guilty they can get out of jail until their court date by paying a bail fee.

So it’s like: You’re being convicted of murder, but we’ll let you out of jail until your court date because you paid us an (arbitrary) $50,000 bail fee… But the guy who would have been your cell mate and has been convicted of the same thing as you couldn’t afford his bail fee, so while you’re out free, he’s rotting in his cell for the next year until his own court date.

Do the punishments have any value in curbing future crime?

Make no mistake: crime and punishment is a Big Business.

Like all those fields that we have blindly depended on for eons to tell the truth, to find cures for disease, to end poverty, and all that stuff, crime and punishment has basically remained unchanged because it’s all about money and power.

If people were given paths to healing, knowledge, happiness, prosperity, and abundance, that would be at least a little bit detrimental to the Controllers, don’t you think?

So the area of crime and punishment has largely been designed to steer clear of offering ways to help offenders heal the very psycho-emotional beliefs, fears, and traumas that had set them up for prison time.

Heck, there are even those who, upon their release from prison, deliberately commit crimes and get caught once again because they know that in prison all their needs will again be taken care of.

I'm sure, too, that, if we don't live in such a place or time, most of us have heard about governments that have used “eye for an eye”-type punishment systems. Any half-reasonable person wouldn't dare to steal if they knew being caught would mean losing a hand or commit rape for fear of being castrated—but people have gone and done the deed and been brutally punished anyway.

Behaviors don’t change if minds don’t change, and minds don’t change so behaviors don’t change.

…But I suppose there’s the death penalty… In terms of potentially repeat offenders, that seems to work quite well in cutting down the crime rate…

It’s Not Enough to Merely Make Change—We Must Be It.

I fully accept that if someone is harming another then action must be taken so that the harm ceases.

The trouble is, whether a parent toward a child or the legal system toward a potential or known criminal, our methods of crime “management” and “prevention” have been so utterly deranged.

These methods don’t work, and when they “do” work, they cause people to take on negative beliefs, fears, and traumas which themselves drive people to commit more crimes in the future.

It is critical that people wake up to this fact and make an effort to turn the situation around.

For most people this will have nothing to do with involving themselves in the criminal justice system, and for everybody it will be internal.

"If People Want the World to Change for the Better..."

The way parents treat their children is in large part due to their own inner state but also is as a fragment of the local collective consciousness (for example, generally speaking, parents in the US raise their children how parents are taught to raise their children in the US; they don’t raise them like the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert).

The people who work the broken system, who create distorted laws, who lobby for special interests, and so on, they are there because it’s what resonates with the collective consciousness. Joe and Jane Citizen are the ones who put them there, directly or indirectly, and allow them to remain there.

What this means is that we each have to change ourselves in order to change our respective individual lives, and we must also change ourselves in order to shift the collective consciousness, both global and local, and thus deny support to the wicked.

As life-as-we-now-know-it is proof of, making up crimes is of no benefit; punishing people for these made up crimes is of no benefit; maintaining junk beliefs, fears, and traumas is of no benefit; meting out punishment for valid crimes without regard for the internal mechanisms that drive the negative behaviors to begin with is of no benefit.

And so we have to do something about it.

You do, and I do. We all do.

Because nobody is going to do it for us.

Even those who’re waiting for a savior of some kind, whether Jesus, the Fantastic 4, or a Powerball lottery win, even if a savior were truly coming, so what? That savior hasn’t come.

Does that mean we should just continue sitting here and letting the world go to hell? For how long?

If your child, father, or neighbor were drowning, would you just say, “Meh. Not my problem. They should have learned how to swim”?

As each of us is a piece of the whole of humanity, we have an inherent responsibility for each other.

More importantly, we have a responsibility for ourselves.

I hope you’ll take these responsibilities seriously.

It could be said to be a crime to do otherwise. The punishment is self-inflicted.