The film makes me feel about as old as I am. Tecnochracy started durring the first great depression. It was defamed by the media as red. The film also reminded me of a book entitled "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" which is about how the bankning system is controled. Buckmister Fuller said that Technology will enable us to overpopulate the planet. Harry Braun said that politics is the first and foremost problem facing the world today about 25 years ago.

What I have to say about this film is that technology needs truepolitik, which is a play on Kissinger's term realpolitik; which in turn, describes the bad things people do to accomplish their agenda. Truepolitik refers to the original intent of politics, which is building consensus.

It is true we have inherited a political toilet that is overflowing, but ignoring the problem will not make it go away; nor will writing your congressman. What people need to do is petition for redress of constitutional abuses, i.e. apportioned representation in proportion to population growth, which equates with apportioned representation in proportion to taxation, and indirectly to the gold standard. Regardless of technology, ther needs to be a means of exchange. In 1936, scientist and engineers came up with the idea to distribute goods and services useing certificates that expire, but it seems to me what we need is a constitutional renaisaunce. There needs to be common knowledge and common consent to pursue the organic intent of the rule of law based upon the preamble of the US Constitution. The most essential blessings of liberty are tranquility, heart, and equality. When they are secured, justice will be established.

Hi Sustainable peace,

It sounds a touch like you're telling us all how it should be? My observation of the past is that where people have delegated responsibility for their own inner truth to others, then that's when the external world has become disharmonious and unbalanced.

In any case, my observation of the new "Indigos" coming into incarnation, is that they are extremely resistant to being told anything by anyone. To me that's a good thing - they seem to be here to redress the balance: to realise that all harmonious external action comes from a personal inner inquiry of truth.

I've seen Zeitgeist. I thought it was a powerful movie, right up to the point it seemed to overstep itself (at least in my truth) - in suggesting revolution. Revolution against what? I'm reminded truth does not fight illusions and illusions do not fight truth - illusions only battle with themselves.

To me, the real revolution is an internal evolution. Being the change. And from that place, a new consensus reality will naturally happen. It is already simply emerging with the unfolding of our new consciousness. Bring it on!

Chris

Chris,
The way it should be, the way it could be, the way it would be, and the way it will be is up to people to reach reach consensus. This building of consensus began before you and I were born in the form of a written constitution; the preamble of which, sums up the wisdom of millennia. It enshrines a non-egoic conscienceness. Maybe these "Indigos" coming into incarnation you mention describe the same thing. As long as there is no ego involved people can simply obey the rule of law; like a posted speed limit, it needs the consent of people.

Consensus and reality are interesting concepts when put together. It seems to me that it is practically impossible to reproduce reality because individual opinions(egoes) vary regarding it. Furthermore, opinions based upon information gathered from gossip and hearsay are excellent fodder for mushrooms thriving off darkness and gullscat.

It has been truly unfortunate that darkness and excrement have been put into writing and written with enough credibility so as to make many believe them to be true. Voltair said it well, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Consensus based upon the principles of tranquility, heart, and equality will enable people to avoid dramatizing man's inhumanity to man.

Hi Sustainable peace,

You say...

"This building of consensus began before you and I were born in the form of a written constitution; the preamble of which, sums up the wisdom of millennia."

I agree and disagree: it did begin before I and you were physically born, but in my truth, it has nothing at all to do with a constitution. A constitution implies regulation, control, and adherence to a code of conduct or practice. But these are things of the past. In my observation the new consensus reality is not based on opinions because they are simply not necessary. Opinions ARE ego based even if they are not egotistical. There's no need of an opinion when we are truly living in the moment. There is Right Action as we feel it or not.

As you said yourself...

"Consensus based upon the principles of tranquility, heart, and equality"

My life is spent working with people who are already continually accessing the new consensus reality - a higher vibrational paradigm. But it is one based on alignment of consciousness. We look within our hearts and act from our own individual highest truth - as a feeling. When we do this, we find we're aligned with everyone else whose accessing the higher paradigm.

But I observe the moment we get into rational control of that, or try to tell each other how it should be, is the moment we step out of the flow and into some other illusionary reality. It might be well intentioned, but intention is a thing of the past. Heart felt spontaneity of truth defines for me the fifth dimensional paradigm which is the next chapter of the continuing human story...

"The Complexity of our times
requires a greater and wiser use of our capabilities
a rich playing of the instrument we have been given.
The world can thrive only if we can grow.
The possible society can become a reality
only if we learn to be the possible humans
we are meant to be."
Jean Houston

May we be all that we can be!

Chris

I felt like telling here about a book I've read - Gabi Nitzan's Badulina (the name of imaginary country).

This book is like a free interview with Badulina's king. So the interview asks him about his job, and what does he have to do? How does he rule his country.

So the king is telling the interviewer that he doesn't understand. He is the king. His job is to show example to his people - how to be free and happy, and not be a police officer.

And as an example he says - look at the jungle's king lion. Do you see him walking around and telling other animals what to do or what not to do? Like not to poop in the river? If he would set it as a law, then there would always be somebody pooping in the river..

I felt it's relevant.

Constitutions, laws, limitations, rules, manuals how to do things belong to places where people try to force the system into something artificial, unnatural.

If we look at the nature, without human intervention, we see balance, we see this consensus. Yes we see 'killing', yes we see death, yes we see physical suffering, but we are those who judge it and try to prevent it in our artificial world, the world of fear, of attachement to physicality, to our fragile bodies. In nature, in the pure balance and flow of life and death, then rebirth and death again, all this is not important.

There is simply no need to design, to build, to write things down, to negotiate and bargain. It's all about trust, trust in nature and it's balancing mechanisms. It's not us to regulate the system, I think, on the contrary, it's about wiping all these laws down, and submit ourselves to the will of much more wise and powerful ruler - the Nature itself.

And just to finish with - didn't we learn anything during all our great evolution? Just tell me when even the most beautiful, great and pure ideas weren't turned to disaster when trying to apply them in reality?

Socialism, communism, democracy.. All these trials were doomed to failure just because they are imposed, because they are built upon ideal without taking into consideration human nature (at those times and conditions).

We are too narrow minded to see all the possibilities and all the parameters. How can you know what this and that law will actually lead to? Do you see the whole picture? Can you take into consideration every tiny parameter out of millions to know what's best? Like how it will affect the whole planet?

I don't.

That's why I long time ago realised my absolute impotence, lost my pride and arrogance, and gave up to try to form any opinion at all about how things should or better be there outside. I feel that all I can do is to change myself,and in this way I can affect the whole system.

At this point I fee absolutely embarassed about my attempts to judge and about all those opinions I had, since now I realize I don't even know what's good for me. I have to discover the next step all the time, walking in absolute darkness and ignorance. Even here I have nothing left to do, but to ask for help, to entrust myself to the hands of the nature, to save me from myself.

Ahhh yesss!!!!

I know that place well Yulia. It's called "heaven". Are you from that place too?

Chris

No, I've just applied for citizenship, maybe I'll be accepted

Well if I have a vote, the doorways are already open wide!
Chris

Now I just need to see them...maybe without the sunglasses?

Cicero: "...one true law is right reason in agreement with nature." Healing the planet begins with someone like Chris, who is like me, and individually subject to laws. My whole point of view is quite simply the point of view of those who gave U.S. citizens an opportunity, if not the responsibility to actualize a more improved culture. Unfortunately, immigrants, fleeing the tyranny of their old world, brought with them a mindset that contradicts the supreme law of the US; hence, someone like Chris, who is like me, end up going at it alone rather than enjoying a general consensus to establish justice by securing the essential blessings of tranquility, heart, and equality to ourselves and our posterity. I feel world peace is inevitable, but it will take longer to actualize when there is no consensus to regain and then maintain the consensus that was reached when people danced the eagle dance, and displayed the totem of the people, when people enjoyed peace.

Yes I agree with natural law.

A Bee does not have to be told how to collect nectar, where to get it from or how to make honey. It is simply a natural arising of it's beingness.

The only real difference between us and the honey bee is individual mind,
leading to freedom of choice.
But choice is really an illusion: whether to follow our destiny or not.

If we follow our true destiny by coming more from the heart than the mind,
Then, just like the honey bee, we make honey.
There is no prescription or recipe for the honey,
It is simply perfect, and tastes real good!

Chris

Will it be now one of the great citations?