What I Was Taught an American Is

[Amaterasu Solar]

I'm a fairly old lady and grew up in the late 1950's through the 60's.  Back then, a stress was being placed on the principles of freedom - a choice above "liberty," because that term also carries with it the idea that a captain has allowed liberty to the crew with the expectation that the slaves (crew) will return to Their work - justice, the serving of Ethics, and pursuing happiness.

I ponder how much happiness gets pursued in Ones who must find some way to plug Their energy in to get the tokens to survive, let alone do things They really enjoy, and when They have enough tokens, and the captain says One may have liberty, there's always that time that approacheth where One "has to get back to work."  What kind of life, what principles served, do We create for All, when We must account to a system for the energy We each input into that system?  Why do We confine this pursuit of happiness to ways in which We might plug Our energy in to be able to afford high-class liberty (if We're extremely lucky or sell out)?

And why indeed, given that this planet belongs to Each born upon it and it is stolen from Us by the psychopaths in control through "trusts" and deceit.

The legal system so Many consent to - finding paths to some resolution if One can afford it - thwarts Ethics far more often than it serves them.  Justice?  Hardly.

And top-down controlmind.  Freedom?  Any system that gives Some power over Others and then bullies (polices) to ensure compliance is counter to freedom.  And promotes psychopaths to power, they being the Ones who are most interested in the power over Others.  Add a money system, accounting for Human energy so that the Humans can survive, and the twin towers to psychopaths in power emerge with the loathsome vine of the legal system supporting them.  (The whole protection for vaccine creators from any liability is an Ethical sidestep if there ever was one.  There are zero regulations on what may be put into vaccines.  Think on THAT for a moment.)

Given that the Founding Individuals for the place where any might claim these principles as sacrosanct needed Human energy to get things done that no One WANTED to do, and did not have access to the energy in the aether, the pool of energy We swim in, and They did not have robots to do what needed to be done but no Human would choose to, nor was there the interweb for communicating problems to Those who care rapidly, so a top-down system was used.  That is the way They solved for getting Humans to do things They would not otherwise choose, with economics as impetus.  Commerce is now archaic, when One stops to think.  It is only because They have so avidly pursued the hiding of things like electrogravitics, which draws energy from the aether and gives gravity control, that They have maintained this archaic way as long as They have.  All free energy has been hidden and suppressed.

We now have the tools to stop accounting for Human energy here.  We now have the tools to fully support the principles that I was taught were the definition of being an American.  I don't think of these principles in terms of some arbitrarily designated area on this planet, but in terms of Humanity on this planet.  ALL of Us.  All of Us Human owners of this vast and abundant planet, that could give Us ALL Our fill, on which so Many owners slave, so Many starve.

[Mystic Wanderer]

I think you and Michael Tellinger need to hook up. 

Put both of you together, and we might actually see some positive changes occurring on this planet. 

[Amaterasu Solar]

Michael and I have had brief communication. Either He truly does not see the problems inherent in retaining ANY accounting for Human energy and the lack of need to with technology We do have, or what, but He seemed not interested in what I was offering. He seemed more bent on transferring the money strata from one scope to another, and I was not going to press Him on it. [shrug] I think His heart is in the right place but He is still trapped in scarcity modeling. My humble assessment. [smile]

[Minstrel]

Sadly, it seems that human nature will continue to pursue and employ advantage.
You and I may be well pleased to satisfy our needs, and even take occasional liberty...
But there remain those that will attempt to take more than is needed, so others will serve them.
Call them Royalty or Tycoons or Tyrants...they are everywhere there is something of value to be had.
They make promises - "Why risk your & your family's future?  Come serve with your fellow laborers...together, and ensure prosperity for all."
That was their promise.
It failed, because they were not held accountable to their promises.
They took yours and mine and ours and paid politicians to write laws to let them keep it all...and keep taking it all.
Sorry for the sad face.
I agree with your frustration.
I just don't see the solution as simple as "I'll play nice if you play nice."

[Mystic Wanderer]

Amaterasu Solar wrote:


Michael and I have had brief communication.  Either He truly does not see the problems inherent in retaining ANY accounting for Human energy and the lack of need to with technology We do have, or what, but He seemed not interested in what I was offering.  He seemed more bent on transferring the money strata from one scope to another, and I was not going to press Him on it.  [shrug]  I think His heart is in the right place but He is still trapped in scarcity modeling.  My humble assessment.  [smile]

Hmm... I didn't get that "feeling" from him.  I think he realizes the elite use the money system we have now as a way to control us, so he is focused on doing away with that system so the control is taken away from "them".  
His plan involves each and every human being using and sharing whatever their unique talent is and offering it as a personal gift to the whole of humanity without payment in money.  People would have food, free energy, etc. just for doing their part.  

Some people are artists, musicians, some are builders, some are good with growing food/plants, and the list goes on and on.  It's not exactly like a commune, but similar, I suppose, only worldwide. 

I'll have to take a deeper look into what you are suggesting we do to make a change.

[Mystic Wanderer]

The Ancient teachings got it right, I think:


Modern Problems, Ancient Solutions

There are remnants of the ancient lores still remaining, and many clues left behind in stone and bone. The indigenous cultures around the world were not savages as has been portrayed to the western world. They were clever, fair and lived as communities. A wide understanding of celestial and astronomical knowledge was common among many.

When a person fell ill, the medicine man would see to him without charge, medicines came from the land which hold cures for every disease known, just as our European ancestors did in the far gone past. Our current ways are to pay a doctor, whom only knows how to prescribe chemical drugs made by the big Pharma companies for a price that usually create many other ailments at the same time, whilst making a minority a whole lot of money.

In our modern western world we work to make the rich richer, whilst most struggle to make ends meet. We are taught to want this and want that and be jealous of those that have more, many are trapped into ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’. Most no longer grow their own natural foods ,which if eaten on a daily basis, is the key to good health. Instead our time and freedom is given to those we are making money for. We are reduced to buying second grade vegetables and fruit (usually refrigerated for months on end, and hold little nutrient value) most living off processed foods — the key to disease.

The ancient cultures had a mutual respect for nature and each other, working together as communities. The young were taught by the elders, the elderly looked after by the younger.

Read More

[Amaterasu Solar]

Minstrel wrote:


Sadly, it seems that human nature will continue to pursue and employ advantage.
You and I may be well pleased to satisfy our needs, and even take occasional liberty...
But there remain those that will attempt to take more than is needed, so others will serve them.
Call them Royalty or Tycoons or Tyrants...they are everywhere there is something of value to be had.
They make promises - "Why risk your & your family's future?  Come serve with your fellow laborers...together, and ensure prosperity for all."
That was their promise.
It failed, because they were not held accountable to their promises.
They took yours and mine and ours and paid politicians to write laws to let them keep it all...and keep taking it all.
Sorry for the sad face.
I agree with your frustration.
I just don't see the solution as simple as "I'll play nice if you play nice."

"Human nature" is contingent on the systems We are using.  In systems that give Some power over Others (top-down controlmind, accounting for Human energy), We see psychopaths who are in control, doing things and blaming "Human nature."  No, the solution is not in expecting any Human to change first.  First We change the systems, then "Human nature" will follow.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Mystic Wanderer wrote:

Amaterasu Solar wrote:

Michael and I have had brief communication.  Either He truly does not see the problems inherent in retaining ANY accounting for Human energy and the lack of need to with technology We do have, or what, but He seemed not interested in what I was offering.  He seemed more bent on transferring the money strata from one scope to another, and I was not going to press Him on it.  [shrug]  I think His heart is in the right place but He is still trapped in scarcity modeling.  My humble assessment.  [smile]

Hmm... I didn't get that "feeling" from him.  I think he realizes the elite use the money system we have now as a way to control us, so he is focused on doing away with that system so the control is taken away from "them".  
His plan involves each and every human being using and sharing whatever their unique talent is and offering it as a personal gift to the whole of humanity without payment in money.  People would have food, free energy, etc. just for doing their part.  

Some people are artists, musicians, some are builders, some are good with growing food/plants, and the list goes on and on.  It's not exactly like a commune, but similar, I suppose, only worldwide. 

I'll have to take a deeper look into what you are suggesting we do to make a change.

And here is where I differ from Michael.  We don't NEED input from everyOne, 10% at any given time is plenty, and being as We are problem-solvers, when a problem arises, at least 10% of Those affected will act to solve for the problem.  And as soon as expectation of input is pronounced....someOne has to do the accounting.  SomeOne has to police to make sure YOU are putting in YOUR "fair share."  This gives power to Some over Others.  Such power over Others is unnecessary, and in the long run, damaging.  So I propose that We stop accounting for Human energy added entirely.  Govern Ourselves bottom-up via the web, solving problems locally but with the ability to reach planet-wise if need be to find a solution.  No "laws" (statutes, bills, codes, edicts, mandates, regulations, or any other legal thing), but the three Laws of Ethics (the foundation of Common Law).

What I base My system on is the natural stigmergy in all societies.  Information flow allows the autonomous Individuals to make best choices for both Individuals as well as society.  There is no such thing as "hive mind..."  The "queen" in insect colonies is there for reproduction.  The individuals are autonomous, with inborn "program sets" such that if they are out scouting and meet up with some number of others scouting, the individual will shift from scouting to another task.  The "queen" is not involved.

.

[Minstrel]

Amaterasu Solar wrote:


..."Human nature" is contingent on the systems We are using.  In systems that give Some power over Others (top-down controlmind, accounting for Human energy), We see psychopaths who are in control, doing things and blaming "Human nature."  No, the solution is not in expecting any Human to change first.  First We change the systems, then "Human nature" will follow.

I tend to disagree.  I do not see a "system" that cannot be abused.  Systems are based on rules, and with rules come rule-breakers, rule-interpreters, rule-enforcers and so on and so forth.
Human nature is no different from the rest of "nature"...being a consume and expend energy paradigm.  Life in this existence is predatory & terroristic.  To the prey, predators are always terrorists.  Regardless of the system - some will make it their life-ambition to exploit 'loopholes' to their advantage...based on the rules.
I would love to see a loopholeless system whose rules are equally good for all.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Minstrel wrote:

Amaterasu Solar wrote:
..."Human nature" is contingent on the systems We are using.  In systems that give Some power over Others (top-down controlmind, accounting for Human energy), We see psychopaths who are in control, doing things and blaming "Human nature."  No, the solution is not in expecting any Human to change first.  First We change the systems, then "Human nature" will follow.

I tend to disagree.  I do not see a "system" that cannot be abused.  Systems are based on rules, and with rules come rule-breakers, rule-interpreters, rule-enforcers and so on and so forth.
Human nature is no different from the rest of "nature"...being a consume and expend energy paradigm.  Life in this existence is predatory & terroristic.  To the prey, predators are always terrorists.  Regardless of the system - some will make it their life-ambition to exploit 'loopholes' to their advantage...based on the rules.
I would love to see a loopholeless system whose rules are equally good for all.

Given 1):  There are only three "rules" (Laws), 2) that the psychopaths in control in this system have power because We use a money system (accounting for Human energy) and top-down controlmind, 3) there are about 1% primary (genetic) psychopaths and as much as 6% secondary (mind controlled, abused) psychopaths, when the power structures are removed, the Ones who would "break rules" will have neither motive to do so nor the ability to pay toadies and so would have to do all rule-breaking PERSONALLY, and that 90+% of Us can easily deal with the 1-6% who might choose poor behavior.  As We are set up now, They have protections - physical (paid toadies) and legal - which They will not have...  Given all this, worrying that some One may break a rule as a reason not to go forth in taking power from the psychopaths, is a poor choice.  All solutions that are within Ethics are acceptable for any problem any Individuals might create.  Ethical consensus amongst Those who care will be the solution method for any Individual who might choose Their behavior poorly.

[Minstrel]

Amaterasu Solar wrote:

...  Given all this, worrying that some One may break a rule as a reason not to go forth in taking power from the psychopaths, is a poor choice.  ...

Accepting your "givens", I am an expert at making poor choices.
I only see another set of rules that seem simple-enough at the start - but will soon multiply as "exceptional" circumstances show their inevitable faces...and before long - we'll be back where we are, now, again.
Again, though - my expertise is in making poor choices.
Good luck with yours.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Minstrel wrote:

Amaterasu Solar wrote:

...  Given all this, worrying that some One may break a rule as a reason not to go forth in taking power from the psychopaths, is a poor choice.  ...

Accepting your "givens", I am an expert at making poor choices.
I only see another set of rules that seem simple-enough at the start - but will soon multiply as "exceptional" circumstances show their inevitable faces...and before long - we'll be back where we are, now, again.
Again, though - my expertise is in making poor choices.
Good luck with yours.

By "poor choices," I mean either worrying about non-issues, or choosing to break the three Laws of Ethics.  And until You can provide an example of "exceptional" circumstances, I doubt I will come up with any.  If We state that there are NO "laws," only the three Laws, and all solutions must be within those Laws, where do You see a problem rising?  And...  Though not a utopia, can You truly say what I propose is no better than what We have now?  With Our planet stolen from Us, enslaved to psychopaths who are killing Us and the planet (blaming "Human nature")?  No, it will not solve every problem, just solving for poverty, oppression, wage/debt slavery, intrusion, and profiteering (war profiteering, medical profiteering, pharma profiteering, chemical profiteering, food, water, air profiteering).

EDIT to add:  Forgot prison profiteering.  I knew there was an important one I forgot to list.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Here is the transcript of where Michael Tellinger was on Cosmic Disclosure.   This show gives a brief idea of what his message is about (for those who don't know).

The transcript is towards the middle of the page: Ubuntu and the Blue Avians’ Message Part 1 - Summary and Analysis | Corey Goode and David Wilcock 


Transcript Link


Sorry, I don't mean to derail your thread, but I still find that you and Michael are both working towards knocking the elite off their pedestal, so I think it applies, which ever avenue people choose to take.

[Amaterasu Solar]

 


Not a problem. I thought Michael would be more interested in what I am working towards than He turned out to be. [shrug]

[Minstrel]

Amaterasu Solar wrote:

...until You can provide an example of "exceptional" circumstances, I doubt I will come up with any.  If We state that there are NO "laws," only the three Laws, and all solutions must be within those Laws, where do You see a problem rising?  
...

I may have missed it, earlier...but, if you don't mind - What are the 3 Laws?
That might help me better understand your confidence.
Likewise, it might illustrate your point that "there are no exceptions".
My profession deals with law/s.  When the profession was young, everything seemed to fit within common understandings &/or a sort of common-law paradigm.
As the ages have rolled past, however, greed, mismanagement, dishonesty, omissions, poor judgments and a lot of money have turned it into a profession that deals more with exceptions than common understanding.  ...But everyone wants to act like it is still, just, common understanding.  Which is why so many attorneys are employed in said profession. (And they tend to disagree with each other, unless they stand to gain from being on the same side of an argument.)
I have no solution to offer.  I would love to believe there is one...or, at least, that there is one worth fighting to give a chance at working.
Appreciate the conversation and opportunity to consider your passionate plea.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Ahhh. Sorry, most People I have been talking with lately know the three ancient Laws of Ethics. [smile]

1. Do not without fully informed consent willfully hurt or kill anOther
2. Do not without fully informed consent willfully take or damage anOther's property
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)

All things Common Law are based on these three Laws. We are all both subject to and judge of these Laws. In a world where commerce has been removed, We need nothing more than these Laws. ALL of "admiralty" is about commerce. And free energy IS coming. Some here have had it for well over 50 years at the minimum. We swim in this energy, and there are many ways to tap it.

[Minstrel]

Thanks for the info!

It seems to me that this would only work in a world where everyOne (all participants) is on the same page, sharing a common goal for the arrangement.
AnyOne falling subject to the wrath of the community (fouls out) would probably be excommunicated or banished... If enough people are banished, there is a chance that they will unite against the peace-loving group...leaving the peace-loving group in need a Rogue-Hero (like Mad Max) to come to their rescue.  (That story has been played many times and many ways --- think Clint Eastwood characters.)

Fully informed consent
Hurt or Kill anOther
Take or Damage anOther's property
Defraud anOther

Exceptional Scenario:
Jim took John's life, and all his possessions.
Jill, John's sister, says that 'not three weeks ago, John said he would never consent to someone taking his life, nor his possessions, and that upon his death, all his worldly possessions would be hers'.
Jim says that John not only consented to Jim taking his life, but also offered all his worldly possessions in exchange for the service.
No-one but Jim and John were present when John's life ended, nor when Jim recovered all of John's worldly possessions.
A thorough investigation of 'the scene' does not reveal a struggle - but - it has obviously been cleaned and rearranged to suit Jim's personal preferences (as, Jim moved into John's digs).

No foul can be proven...only inferred, insinuated or otherwise conjectured.
How do the 3 Laws handle this situation fairly?

[Amaterasu Solar]

While The bulk of Humanity does need to agree to systems that to not promote psychopaths to power for psychopaths to have Their power removed, the bulk of Humanity already behaves Ethically, especially as the to the first two Laws - statistically insignificant numbers choose to willfully and without fully informed consent hurt/kill Others (outside of war which is fomented for profit/control through propaganda) or take/damage Others' property without fully informed consent. 

Yes, if You choose poor behavior (break a Law or three), at minimum, You will lose social currency. You will become pariah. But to think that even a 5% pariah rate is a threat to the 95% seems absurd. And in a world where all material things are available, MOTIVE for poor behavior is radically reduced. Why would You take someOne else's stuff when You can ask for and receive Your own? "If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war."

As for the three Laws and this exceptional situation... Those who care will seek an Ethical solution to the problem. As I am sure much in the way of details and information is lacking in that brief description, I cannot say what will be chosen as the resolution. Only that it will be Ethical. And then life goes on. But no One is going to say that, because Jim chose to do something, everyOne is subject to some new rule.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Got to thinking about Our "Jim" character... He will surely garner scrutiny in the passage of time, I would think. Maybe He "gets away with murder" once, but given the possessions in a world where possessions are the things We care about and not the things We need to live as We might choose, they weren't the motive, in highest probability. Sure, the caring about this case will lead to investigating probable motives. It will be seen, at best, as a case of poor taste in choices on the part of the two to leave no evidence of contract... Rather rude to Sis, even. Ethically, if I were to judge, I would say He surely does not deserve the possessions, having failed the obligation to have evidence of contract. Sis, I would suggest, gets the stuff, and We who care place Jim under scrutiny. That's how I would suggest the matter be handled.