How could so many experts be wrong

A commonly heard refrain from people when confronted with an alternative to the conventional story they have been told all their lives is, "How could so many experts be wrong?"

The mistake here is using the word "expert."

An "expert" is too often a person who repeats what someone THEY THOUGHT was an expert told them, and on and on it goes.

What many people think of as experts are really generalists at best, and brainwashed apparatchiks at worst.

The world is full of the latter.

The use of "the expert," rolled out by a corrupt establishment, to brainwash the public and lead them in a certain direction, is as old as time, itself.

God v's gods

Some atheists like to argue their case by conflating the big G (God as the Creator of All) with little g's, meaning gods of legend, like Zeus and Apollo, and the myriad gods of pagan religions. These are all minor gods. Nobody claims they are the big G.

It is possible that plenty of "minor" gods actually exist, rather than being the stuff of legend. For what is a god but a being with greater powers than a human? And given the size and make-up of the universe, isn't it likely there are living entities, physical or not, with powers greater than humans? These would be like gods to us, just as we would seem like gods to beings less advanced than ourselves.

"We" are not responsible

Quite a few people use the term "we" when describing the actions of their government. As in "we did this..." or "we did that...". As if they were part of government decision, when they weren't. There's no "we" in it and it's pathetic to think there is. "We" didn't give billions to Ukraine, "we" didn't blow up the Nord Stream Pipeline, "we" didn't carry out the 911 attacks, "we" didn't plan and carry out the John Kennedy assassination, "we" didn't go to the moon and "we" didn't win the Second World War. Sections of the US government did many of these things, or contributed, but it's not only wrong to say the US population, in general, did these things, or that some civilian alive today is somehow, in some way, responsible for any of these things. 

We're responsible for what we do, but not for what anyone else does, including any government. That should be pretty clear by now. And we certainly aren't responsible for any past event, unless we were directly involved. 

So this use of "we" in such instances should be done away with. It's a false claim of responsibility or blame and it sounds stupid.

Unity consciousness: the eye within the storm

In certain spiritual circles, there is talk of unity consciousness versus duality. In Buddist terms, this is "being awake" versus being in Samsara or delusion.

This world promotes duality, us and them, I and They, me and you.

In the spiritual perspective, there is no differentiation between within and without. Objects in consciousness are treated equally. 

That doesn't preclude the ability to recognise danger or to move away from that which is destructive.

Discernment still exists in the state of unity consciousness, but the emotional charge is gone. There is no hatred for any other. There is only compassion, for all beings are seen as part of the one life, the one cosmos, which we all inhabit and share.

In Buddhist terms, this state of equanimity, or unity consciousness, results in "right action, right thought and right deed." 

This view represents the idea that when we are at peace, we can see things clearly, and we can respond appropriately to events that arise. 

When we are instead emotionally inflamed right action and thought become impossible. Even our perceptions and judgements will be adversely affected. We literally will be unable to see straight or to think straight. 

This is perhaps a reason beings get caught in the web of ongoing karmic relations, due to wrong action being performed in past lives or in this one.

The way out is simple. Develop equanimity towards all things. We need to not be reactive in this life. We can see ourselves as like the eye of a storm, where there is peace within while being surrounded by instability and madness.

The world is indeed mad, and madness is on the rise as life becomes increasingly unpredictable and unstable.

We can expect to be surrounded by people who lose their minds, particularly if they are plugged into the matrix of mind control.

The news is perhaps the primary tool of the deluded ones to inflame the population, so they will be as deluded as the propagators are.

After all, the spiritual enemy feeds on negative emotion, and this is what keeps it alive, both within us and in the world at large.

So, to be clear, it is our duty to see through all this and have compassion for those who are lost. That doesn't mean everyone can be saved. Many will fall, unable to stabilise in chaotic times. But we can build a symbolic fortress around us by pulling back and not buying into the dialectic state of mind being promoted. Just say "no," as Nancy Reagan so wisely said.

So sit on your chair of peace and share that peace will all around you.

Love wins, and the time of chaos will soon come to an end.

So let's not get involved in the slagging matches, which are just egoic delusions and focus on that which never changes. The formless, changeless One within.

The rich man and the kingdom of heaven

If "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24) did this man, below, achieve it?

And what does "the kingdom of God" actually mean?

Many interpret "the kingdom of God" to refer to the afterlife, specifically the part of the afterlife the faithful are believed to enter upon their death, that part we call "heaven", but could "kingdom of God" instead mean a state a being achievable on earth as in heaven?

Could "kingdom of God" be referring to a state of peacefulness or equanimity, attainable in both heaven and earth, which may be difficult for a rich person to achieve and maintain if they are overly focused on building a fortune and then worried about holding onto it?

Angry establishment cult believers

When the establishment can brainwash people into thinking something is scientifically proven, when it isn't, it can become like a religion, and believers become angry with people that don't share their cult-like beliefs.

The irony is that many of these people think they are too smart to be brainwashed and too clever to fall for a religion or a cult.

If that were true, they wouldn't get so upset with people who don't share their dogmatic views.

Our health is our responsibility

Our health is not the government's responsibility. It's not the medical industry's responsibility. It's not RFK Jr.'s responsibility. 

It's our responsibility. 

There is no doubt our environments are full of poisons, poisons are sprayed on much of our food, soils are depleted by poor farming practices, town water is poisoned, etc. 

However, we can't control these things and so it's up to us to educate ourselves about health and healthy living and put into practice what we've learnt.

The Establishment versus The Truth

The establishment includes the political system, the mainstream media, and most, if not all, well-known institutions, national and global. Google and Wikipedia are also under the establishment banner.

It's this multi-tentacled beast that controls most people's thinking and beliefs.

This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that the establishment is deeply untrustworthy due to the dark forces that control it.

Thankfully, many people are awake to this.

These people and their beliefs are attacked relentlessly by the gatekeepers of the establishment to try to keep the population under their control.

The true battle on earth isn't being fought by armies. It's a battle for people's minds and, therefore, their behaviour. 

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on this propaganda war by the establishment, while the non-believers tend to just function by sharing the truth as they see it, without spending billions of dollars in doing so.

It's David versus Goliath, in a battle David must win.

Will future humans willingly choose the Matrix?

In the Matrix movies, people are kept in life supporting pods AGAINST THEIR WILL while their minds inhabit a virtual reality they mistake for true reality.

In the not-too-distant future, the possibility of people CHOOSING to place their body in a pod while experiencing a virtual reality full-time or part-time may exist.

If technology continues to advance in this direction, such a virtual reality could achieve a level of complexity, interest, and pleasure such that many people may choose to live in it rather than in the real world.

Whether a physical body can survive for a full lifetime (or longer) in such a pod is an open question.

While sufficient nutrients and air are provided a body could potentially remain in a state of stasis for some time, although some degree of physical exercise or movement would seem important to keep the body healthy for an extended period.

Wealthy people may be able to choose to pay a fee and have their body cared for, for the rest of their lives while they explore seemingly endless virtual worlds.

I think this is more likely than the possibility of individual human consciousness being uploaded into a computer mainframe to live eternally, as some science fiction writers have imagined.

Whether a life lived in a virtual world is the "right" type of life to live should be an individual choice.

Before choosing, it would be wise to experiment with living in such a world before signing one's life away.

A useful addition to such a virtual world would be a switch within that world, that would allow people experiencing it to signal their intent to leave so that those overseeing the program could create the appropriate conditions to let them out.