Article - Henry See
The Psychopathology of Politics
It is a truism that if you want to avoid arguments, you should never discuss politics or religion. Knowing this, and considering the fact that we discuss both subjects the Signs page, we aren't really surprised that our comments elicit a strong reaction of both argument and criticism!
The criticisms come from all sides. We get criticized by those who think that we are taking sides (of course, always the "wrong" side according to the writer), as well as from those who think that any discussion of politics is inappropriate because our "salvation" comes from elsewhere, usually, according to the critics, from thinking nice thoughts and understanding how "We are all One". This suggests that we should be "above the fray", as if the concerns of the material world were "beneath" those who were spiritual seekers.
Given the thousands of years of disinformation out there, not to mention the work done since WWII and catalogued in our Cosmic COINTELPRO Timeline, how is one supposed to even know what it means to be a "spiritual seeker"?
The more we discover, the more we realize that nearly everything we think we know is either out and out wrong, or manipulated, or disinformation. This condition exists whether we are dealing with ideas about the spiritual path, to the stories we are told about our history, to the day's news, to many ideas that are accepted as scientific knowledge. We live in a virtual reality of preconceptions, assumptions, clichés, stereotypes, habits, and mechanical responses.
How did we end up in this mess?
What can we do about it?
Politics and religion are often presented as two ways out.
"We are all One"
There is a view among a certain number of spiritual seekers that politics is a waste of time. They suggest that political differences arise from a problem of perception and understanding: we do not understand that we are all part of the Grand Scheme of Things, and we, therefore, perceive differences based upon the illusionary and impermanent parts of ourselves - skin colour, wealth, nationality, social position, etc. By becoming aware of these "illusions", we become detached from them, and then they no longer maintain their hold over us.
Therefore, they suggest that instead of working on the political level, we should be working to disabuse ourselves of the illusions of race, etc. We should work to become unattached.
In her article Splitting Realities, Laura has responded in detail to those who think that the discussion of politics is a waste of time, especially the energy we put into opposing the war in Iraq. Therefore we will not dwell too long on that topic here.
On CassChat, the public discussion list for topics Cassiopaean, a participant recently questioned our lack of understanding of the "fact" that "We are all One". This is the catchphrase that is used, almost like a mantra or incantation, to wipe away our reality. We view this idea as a form of self-calming, that is, when you are looking the horrible truth of our reality in the face, and this confrontation is creating a strong emotional response within you, energy that could be used to stay firm in the recognition of the truth, the "We are all One" phrase can enter your mind and steal away this energy, leaving you in a state of peacefulness and calm. It lulls you into believing that all is right with the world. It is as it should be. Twas ever so.
Of course, the world IS as it should be. But this does not mean that we are above it or outside of it.
The main lines of our reasoning of why this is an inapplicable precept in this reality is given in the article on T. Illion's book, Darkness over Tibet.
To summarise it briefly, our response to this criticism is that, here and now, to ignore the important differences that indicate that we are not yet all One, is a misunderstanding of our intended role in this reality and the lessons we have to learn in this world. From the point of view of "God", or of Creation, we are all indeed equal, we are One; we each play our role in the divine scheme of things. God manifests all his ideas in the world IN and THROUGH us, and to reduce all of this to "we must all be one" - much in the way of assimilation to the Borg - is to reduce the mind of God - the glory of creation - to a "one note samba."
What is more to the point: we are not yet "gods" ourselves, that is, we have not yet learned the lessons of discernment, we have not yet anchored the choice of following the ascending, creation of all the ideas in the mind of God pathway. Our work in this realm is to make choices and take decisions based upon an ever-deepening understanding and knowledge of the differences between the two paths. To ignore the distinction is to ignore our work; it is to move backwards, to remain upon the entropic descending path, the path that is the default in this world. To move off of the entropic path demands a conscious choice and effort. One must choose to learn these lessons.
To speak as if we had already learned these lessons, and could therefore ignore the distinctions between entropy and creation, would be arrogant and would be to usurp the place of the divine and to speak in its name.
Others may think that they have already learned these lessons and that we are not "advanced" enough to recognize it. But then we ask "If you have 'graduated', then why are you still here?"
Unfortunately, this notion that "We are all One" is very widespread. In fact, George Bush is an advocate of that path and is seeking daily to implement it all over the world.
One variant promotes a disengagement from the world. The path to happiness is to not allow oneself to be touched by pain and misery.
But whoever said that the purpose of this life was to be happy?
Unfortunately, a lot of people promote this idea, and this brings us back to disinformation and how far removed we are from having an idea of what spiritual growth really is. According to this, to be happy generally means to turn off one's brain through meditation and creative visualisation to alleviate your stress. In short: "self-calming" that buries the talent of the lessons of this world.
Another variant of "We are all One" suggests that if we could all just love one another, then there would be no more war or injustice or violence or exploitation. That's all fine and good as long as there is a universal definition of what it really means to "all love one another." There are many whose idea of loving another consists in consuming them. As this is clearly an unrealistic concept on the global level, it then becomes a question of applying this in your own life, where we have the illusion that we can "control" things enough to be able to put it into practice.
And to a certain extent, this may be true. We can turn the other cheek and "understand" the reasons why the person we live with goes on a rampage from time to time, be it due to events in their childhood, pressures at work, or a shift in hormones. This can allow us to anaesthetise ourselves long enough to make it through, holding out until the calm returns. But this can only go on for so long. The pressure will build. It may well explode.
This is not a permanent solution, and, in fact, can lead to "self-calming", that is, using various means to refuse to confront the terror of the situation, to avoid any act to change it. Playing the martyr and congratulating yourself on your suffering in the face of the vicissitudes of your relationships or your job or your life may lead to arrogance and pride, not the conditions within which you have eliminated the drains upon your energy, drains that will prohibit you from having the means to do the real work.
Acting upon the belief that "We are all One" in this world may well turn you into a victim, the willing prey of the predators in your life. And feeding predators only allows them to get stronger and prey on others. They also reproduce, and thus feeding them by allowing them to continue their predations contributes to the overall suffering of ALL humanity. And yet, so many have been convinced by the predatory system itself that feeding the predator makes you "above the fray," a martyr, and most definitely, no longer "of this world." And that does nothing but feed the ego. "How Holy I am! My rags are more raggedy than yours!"
Thus, from our own experience, we have arrived at the conclusion that the idea that "We are all One" and the idea that we should stand outside of the conflicts of the day is inappropriate. By intervening creatively, according to the nature of our being, we learn about the world, we add to our knowledge, thereby bringing closer the day when we may graduate. We express our BEing through our interactions with the world. Do we stand up for the principles that we feel in the depths of our being, or do we compromise, thereby compromising our BEing? And we always must consider that when we are most truly ourselves, responding to the world, we are an organ in the body of God expressing the myriad thoughts of God in this reality.
The question then becomes: how to intervene in the world in ways to protect our own free will while respecting the free will of others?
Beginning in the spring of 2002, Laura began regularly updating the Signs of the Times page. At first she was looking for curiosities, be they social, strange weather, atmospheric, or other anomalies. This was the period when Bush was facing criticisms for Enron. The aggression in Afghanistan hadn't gone very well, in spite of American propaganda to the contrary, and the warlords had overtaken most of the country. Osama had disappeared. The next stage of the neoconservative agenda, the occupation of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam then moved to the fore.
But there was no evidence linking Saddam to Al Quaeda. There was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. There was no evidence showing that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. So it had to be manufactured and the American people had to be convinced that the war against Saddam was not only necessary, but was inevitable.
With the launching of this campaign, the articles on Signs became more political. Laura was documenting the terrible slide towards tyranny wrought by the Bush Reich. And she began to take a stand.
This is when the criticisms started.
During the period when Bush was telling outrageous lies to justify invading and conquering Iraq, we were told that we were "siding with the French and Russians". Why didn't we criticise the Russians, they asked? Why didn't we criticise the French? And, of course, the ever-favourite insult of "Would you prefer to live under communism"?
Those who criticise what they take as our political positions come - in the main - from the United States, with the occasional note from an Ameriphile in Canada. Readers from other countries do not write these types of letters, understanding much more clearly our real positions. Through the Signs page and the letters we receive, we have come to understand just how deep is the cleavage between Americans and the rest of the world.
It is frightening.
American culture is that of the psychopath.
American criticisms have a tendency to show little knowledge - even abyssal ignorance - of other countries and other peoples. They are outside of the American purview.
The criticisms we receive come from people whose beliefs appear to fall into the smorgasboard that is the American Right. While many criticise Bush and the central power in Washington, they do not question the position of the US in the world. They accept the mythology that Americans have constructed about themselves: the bastion of freedom and democracy; that liberty grows out of the barrel of a gun; that they are the most advanced economically, politically, culturally, and socially in the world, or were until certain non-Europeans started undermining "European civilization" in the US; that the invisible hand of the "free market" could proportion goods and wealth according to those who justly earn it, if only socialist/centralists/liberals/Rockefellers/take your pick, didn't interfere; that God trusts in Americans as they trust in Him.
A recent proposal by the Pentagon to engage in terrorist futures shows that the almost religious belief in the free market extends far and wide.
very few criticisms of this material that appear to come from the Left
in the US, but it may be that the Left tends toward materialist explanations.
Their "spiritual" preoccupations may run to environmental issues.
The Democrats, Anne Coulter's insults aside, are the same thing as the Republicans. One suspects she is being paid as part of a propaganda campaign to brainwash people into believing there is a difference, to maintain the farce of real choice in American elections.
Another favourite bogeyman of the American Right is the United Nations and the New World Order. These folks have been so busy tilting at the windmill of the UN that they don't see that the NWO has been put into place through the auspices of the US government and the Bush Reich. It is here. It is now. And it is "your country" that has done the dirty work while you were out waving flags and preparing militias and arguing over how many guns you need at home to remain free. And all the while "your country", via the CIA and the military, was overthrowing governments it didn't like (that is, who were not subservient enough, bowing to the power of the US dollar). YOU, the American Right, the ranters and ravers about the dreaded New World Order ARE the New World Order! YOU are the BEAST!
As I mentioned, we do not get letters on this subject from outside the US. It appears that our readers from other countries have no trouble seeing through the lies, the manipulations, and the outright arrogance of the United States in international affairs. The outrageous behaviour of the American government, as well as the political naiveté of its citizens, is so clear from outside the US that one has difficulty understanding why the American people are so blind. Does a diet of flouride, aspartame, Coke, McDonald's, Fox TV, MTV, Survivor, and American Idol really affect the neo-cortex to such an extent?
But, then, how many times have Americans who pose questions been told by their entourage "You know what your problem is? You think too much."
I sometimes wonder if that isn't a HAARP signal.
Another question that seems to be misunderstood relates to Israel, Zionism, and the power of the Jewish lobby in the United States.
We have reported on this, citing in particular the work of Kevin MacDonald and his book The Culture of Critique.
In the last forty years, it has become "anti-Semitic" to raise the slightest criticism of the State of Israel, or to pose the slightest question about the economic and political power of the Jewish lobby in the United States.
We see responses from different positions on this question as well: from those who accept the self-censorship and become de-facto warriors for the Jewish Defence League in labelling our questions as "anti-Semitism"; from those, usually on the right, who take a position in defence of "European civilization", ignoring that the US has long imposed its own culture on the countries it conquers economically, promoting the "American Way of Life" with every coke sold and McDonald's hamburger consumed. It is called "bringing progress and democracy" to the victim. We see this playing out in Iraq at this moment. Any attempt on the part of other countries to protect themselves from this is viewed as "anti-Americanism" by many Americans.
Without an understanding of the hyperdimensional hypothesis, of the theoretical existence of other realities and their effect upon our world, there is no model by which we can understand what is really going on. It is only in the context of this theory that one cannot come to an accurate assessment of the "Jewish Question".
In this model, it can be seen that it is an error to take sides in a false battle between "American culture" and "Jewish culture". The majority of both groups have been set up for a brutal endgame that is now coming to pass.
We will be returning to this question in greater depth in the future.
A Political Solution
Although we report on the political events of the day, we do not advocate a political solution to the world's ills.
This may be why the left ignores us, because it is obvious to us that no political solution is possible, and this idea is the cardinal sin for a militant on the left.
When we act - through our exposure of the lies and our analysis - we do so with no anticipation that our actions will have any effect whatsoever. Our work on the Signs of the Times is done simply because we think that if nobody speaks up for the Creative Principle of God, he is deprived of his voice in this reality. To believe the lies, and to say nothing when confronted with them, is to acquiesce, to align oneself with the lie, the entropic principle, and to give up one's free will to that lie.
To align oneself with the Truth is not taking sides within the political quarrels. What would be the point? We simply do what is in us to do because it needs to be done for the principle of creation and for no other reason: No hope, no anticipation, no expectation of change or reward or anything else. Nada, zero, zip, zilch.
We think that a new Eden built upon the ideals of the proponents of the free market, private ownership of the means of production, and a high degree of individual responsibility, is no more useful and hope inspiring than the ideals of planning, collective responsibility and duty, and a socialist ideal of equality. Or to put it in the terms of the Libertarian thinker Murray N. Rothbard, who would place "conservatism" and "liberalism" at the two poles, there is no more hope for such a society from the "conservative" dream of the status quo than there is from the "liberal" dream of a permanent revolution in society.
Neither position, nor the positions found around, between or in contrast to them, deal with the nature of man himself.
How can we have an equitable and just society when the raw material of this society displays characteristics that must bring us to consider something so truly horrible that the mind reels from facing this evident fact.
Psycopaths and Political Solutions
One of the major areas of research for members of the QFS in the last two years has been the question of psychopathy. Many readers do not understand why we have spent so much time on this issue. They believe it is a diversion at best, or a complete betrayal of the earlier work at worst. On the issue of political change we can see why the issue of psychopaths is so important.
There is an old adage that one bad apple spoils the barrel. How many of you have been in organizations that were functioning very well until the arrival of someone who decides that it is meant to serve his or her personal interests to the detriment of all others and the group itself? A person who is willing to lie, to cheat, to steal, to set one against another to achieve his or her goals. And we are certain that many of you have repeatedly witnessed the fact that such a person invariabley quickly gains the upper hand by these means. They do not care what means they use to win; winning is all that counts.
Since the beginning of 2002, this group has done much work in understanding the character of psychopaths and organic portals. It is very possible that OPs amount to half of the population, and that psychopaths are a significant part of that 50%. It is obvious from watching the society around us that the psychopath tends nearly always to rise to the top because she or he has no inner controls on behaviour that prevent ruthless activity to attain their goals. Ruthlessness is a winning strategy in this world, of that there is no doubt.
Robert Hare - one of the world's leading experts on psychopathy - spoke about the problem of psychopath's in the business world over a year ago, discussing how the business climate encourages the success of the most ruthless and amoral people. Laura, researching the genetic basis of psychopathy, discovered some horrifying connections between the nature of the capitalist economy and the propagation of genetic psycopathy in her article "Official Culture" in America: A Natural State of Psychopathy?
The Iraqi people have seen one group of psychopaths being replaced by another: bye bye Saddam, hello, Bushkreig. The neocons in the Pentagon have no moral qualms about erasing peoples and governments that stand in the way of a Greater Israel and US control of the world's oil supply.
One cannot "be nice" to a psychopath and expect to change them. One can attempt to "be One" with the psychopath, but this will have no positive effect; the psychopath thinks of no one other than himself and has no qualms about using others to achieve his ends. One can propose any number of political and economic systems, but the psychopath has no desire to play by the rules.
None of the positions we have looked at recognise the problem of psychopathy; how can they be expected to provide solutions for a world where the psychopath is king?
Let us look at the solutions they offer to the crisis we are facing.
There can be an individualist response to this situation, that is, stocking up on lentils and rice, arms and ammo, ensuring a protected water supply on a piece of land in the country. This does nothing whatsoever for others. It is a selfish response, and American "individualism" taken to the extreme.
Groups of like-minded individuals can band together with their land and lentils and create communities preparing for disaster to strike either from the heavens or from the UN or Chinese troops crossing the Mexican border to take power in the US.
But if these individuals have not worked on themselves, worked to root out the internal demons, there is no guarantee that they will not fight among themselves.
One bad apple
And if they had done this work, would such activities then be the chosen solution? It is the Creative Principle that is important; it is the soul.
Running away and hiding to preserve one's own flesh is the physical equivalent of claiming to be "above the fray," a martyr, and most definitely, no longer "of this world."
Supporting the Creative Principle is not done by being "not of this world" or by arming onself and hiding away in a fortress in the country. This is a manifestation of the entropic principle - turning in on oneself or one's family and turning one's back on the world.
The Creative Principle of Humanity can only be expressed through the internal Will, individual by individual.
The Bolsheviks thought that they could create the "New Man" from the outside. Change the material conditions of society and you would change the inner man, they believed. With time, more and more measures of coercion were used to speed up the process. There was no desire to respect the free will of anyone. The will was but another part of the New Man to be molded according to the needs of the State.
Millions were sacrificed. It was an abysmal failure. But what else could be expected when the psychopaths had taken over the party, the state, and the apparatus of power?
We are confronted with an insolvable problem: how does someone who wishes to respect the free will of others intervene and change a planet under the thumb of the psychopath?
After studying psychopathy, we do not think it is possible. The only way to such an Eden is through a splitting of the two paths, the STO from the STS. That is exactly the task that has been given to us in this world; that is the core of the lessons we have to learn. In the core of our being, which way do we lean, which path do we choose?
This is not a choice made while calculating the costs and benefits. It is not calculated according to game theory.
It is a question of who you really are.
The New Elite
Another proposal that has taken various forms over the years is the idea that an elite, a group of people who have done this necessary internal work, who understand the dire situation that we are in, and who can take up the mantle of leading the others out of the mess, can come to the fore and get the planet straightened out. This is the gist of the message of Boris Mouravieff when he diverts from the authentic teachings he received and begins to theorize for himself.
Mouravieff writes in volume three of his work, Gnosis:
Mouravieff is clear that this transformation of society can only take place through the transformation of man himself:
But how would such a proposal actually work in this world?
How would this group of well-meaning people actually achieve this power, that is, the positions in society that would permit them to implement the necessary changes?
How would this be done without infringing upon the free will of those who were not yet at a level to understand what was happening?
Mouravieff, writing in the sixties, believed that the United Nations could serve as the basis for such a transformation. He thought that, in addition to the existing General Assembly, made up of representatives from the different governments, that there could be a chamber made up of representatives elected directly by the people of the world.
In this vision, Mouravieff sees the growing development of what it now called globalisation and the concomitant development of nationalism as the natural reaction. He was struggling towards an appreciation of networking, of the ability for individuals and groups to work together towards a common goal while maintaining their individual differences, talents, and points of view, an environment where all the peoples of the world could contribute:
This is a beautiful vision.
Unfortunately, there are some problems.
Could you imagine this happening without running into the resistance of those who were opposed? And those who oppose would include very powerful and clever psychopaths of unmatched ruthlessness.
Even within a framework of what Mouravieff himself would have called the "A" influences, we see that serious efforts were made to prevent the United Nations from taking on such a role. Just look at the theories of the New World Order that are so popular among the American Right. Who is the villain? The United Nations, of course.
After demonising communism, instilling in Americans a completely irrational emotional reaction to the idea of a communist takeover of the United States, these disinfo artists then painted the UN in the same colours of "centralist" and "socialist", as a body that would rob Americans of their hard-fought rights, and were able to transfer the demonic emotional energy over to the UN.
Well, the joke, and a very bad one it is, is on those who propagated this theory. As noted, and as we can see for ourselves in the daily papers, at least those outside of the USA, the New World Order is here and it is the US itself that brought it about.
And so we must address the main problem of Mouravieff's idealistic approach - a problem enunciated by Mouravieff himself, though he certainly was unaware of the ramifications of this problem - the chief problem underlying the failures of humanity throughout history, and why there is really no possibility of anything we do being an effective agent of change in this reality.
All of the plans for social change, Mouravieff's included, ignore a fundamental factor about our world, a factor that we ourselves learned from Mouravieff, and that is the factually supported theory of the existence of a "pre-Adamic" race and the evidence that our world is now run by them. We refer to them as Organic Portals, and the psychopath is an OP that is, so to say, turbo-charged. The next major obstacle is the problem of hyperdimensional realities. If these two ideas are not factored into considerations of this reality, there is no possibility of positive, social and political change.
Political Change in a Hyperdimensional World of Psychopaths
Although Mouravieff discusses the issue of the pre-Adamic race, he does not integrate it into his understanding of our reality. He certainly doesn't incorporate an understanding of psychopathy.
When one understands the prevalence of psychopaths in positions of power, and that the capitalist system itself is a psychopath factory (for an analysis of this, as I mentioned above, see the article "Official Culture" in America: A Natural State of Psychopathy?), Mouravieff's proposition to use the UN as a vehicle seems naïve. Is it possible to imagine a man like George Bush working to promote Mouravieff's vision? Bush was unwilling to listen to the UN for something far less radical.
Of course, Mouravieff would have had no illusions about Bush; he knew that before transforming the world, one must transform oneself. But how could a group of Creative "Elite" with the orientation of serving others, gain positions of "power" - a concept that is antithetical to their very nature - in a world where one must mimic the psychopath to succeed? And even if certain individuals, the "prophets" as Mouravieff terms them, were able to obtain a certain number of positions of power, how could they bring about any changes when the psychopaths are willing to resort to assassination to maintain their own control?
A society of the just can only be built through the choice of all its members. It cannot be imposed. This implies that - in a world where both choices are options - those who do not wish to be a part of a just society have the full right to go off and do what they wish. And then the question becomes: can a society of the unjust coexist with a society of the just in the same reality? Keep in mind the objectives of the psychopath, and the inevitable clashes.
The fact is, in a reality that is mixed, a significant proportion of the population will remain psychopaths no matter how many individuals choose the path of respecting free will. Because in a mixed reality where the conditions are set up to "teach," to "force a choice" between "yes and no" or "left and right" or creation or entropy, and individuals are required to choose a pathway, psychopaths not only have the right to exist, they are an essential part of the "school!"
That does not, however, spell doom across the board for those who have learned the lessons that the psychopaths teach and have CHOSEN to live in a society of the Just. But it seems necessary to understand that such a choice being possible implies making a choice to leave the world of choices...
We mentioned earlier that a just society, or a society of the just, could only be built if those forces working against such a society were no longer permitted to wreak their havoc, that is, by means of a split from the psychopath's reality.
In the years since Mouravieff wrote his idealized plan, humanity has seen the development of a technology that permits the work of the Creative Principle to be done, although in a way that Mouravieff could not have foreseen. It is a means that bypasses the existing structures such as the United Nations or other political forms. It is a means that will permit small groups of people, people with an understanding of the true terror of the situation - including an analysis of psychopathy - to come together to make changes in their own lives, realizing the vision of Mouravieff with the new means at our disposal.
The technology that permits this is the Internet. A group such as the Quantum Future School can come together across international boundaries, and through networking of the Creative Principle, the individuals can do the inner work necessary while at the same time building new forms of relationships among the members, creating new forms of interaction in which the psychopath has been excluded and that he can no longer destroy. Total exclusion of the psychopath is essential for a colinear society that is, as Mouravieff described it:
But even with the Internet and the ability to create a virtual safe haven from which the psycopath is excluded, they continue to prey. The series Adventures with the Cassiopaea documents the struggle to break away from Maynerd Most and his psycophants. The French Connection is documenting our interactions with the psycopath who was waiting to pounce when Laura and Ark crossed the Atlantic to find a physical "safe haven" in France from where they could continue to stand against the lies and manipulations of the global psychopaths.
But what the psychopath doesn't even comprehend is the fact that even his own activities are necessary trials by fire through which we come to a deepening understanding of the nature of our reality - and the psychopath him or her self.
Through our interactions with psycopaths, we are able to learn to work together, to forge the bonds of a new way of BEing and DOing, together.
Through our interactions with psycopaths, we learn how to deal with them, how to recognise them, and how to create here and now, a reality where they have no effect. We can even laugh at them because they are reaction machines, running a programme that can be brought to light, understood, and even turned to our own benefit.
They will always remain mechanical in their thinking and in their actions. They may well surprise with the depths of their depravity, the lengths to which they are willing to go to get their way, but armed with the knowledge of their programmes, it is possible to bring about a "reality split" wherein they no longer have any effect.
Of course, it is not a transformation of the entire world. This is excluded from our purview by the nature of this reality itself. For the world to "be transformed," the earth will have to pass through a cataclysm, a cleansing, a splitting of realities where two doors to the future open, and where the key to opening these doors is the frequency of your BEING. Perhaps such a possibility exists, perhaps it does not. It is one of the fundamental questions that our scientific research is focused upon.
It is through a scientific understanding of reality, of its multidimensional character and the cyclical nature of time, that we can create the tools for an end to politics as we know them altogether - but only for those who choose such an end, those who align their choices with Creation, and demonstrate those choices by ACTING for the destiny of a Creative World.
Without an understanding of hyperdimensions, there is no way to escape, because hyperdimensions open the door to a new world were there are no psychopaths. And the key that unlocks the door is your BEing. And through the other door is nothingness.
Check out the Signs of the Times Archives
Send your comments and article suggestions to us.
You are visitor number .