Campion

The voting systems (and funding of parties) we have results in space for only two effective political parties in each nation, meaning that Labour and Tories both go for the middle ground which is largely made up of those middle-class, middle-income, educated liberal voters, who are the swing voters. The traditional working class have nowhere else to go apart from Labour, and the upper class high-earners likewise have nowhere else to go apart from Tory. Therefore there's less motivation for either party to worry about their traditional base. The middle ground is more amenable to globalism, multiculturalism and corporatism because they haven't seen the straws in the wind of the encroaching cryptocracy. So the Tories become more socialist and Labour becomes more capitalist. This was upset a little in the 2019 election when the Red Wall was persuaded to vote Tory because of one-off factors like Labour's stance on Brexit and the populism of Boris, but this may well be overturned next time. However you only need to persuade people to vote for you, not actually do the policies because we've got such short attention spans. We've been trapped in this political hamster wheel since the beginning of democracy.

The most charitable explanation I have is that the powers are being pragmatic and applying the maxim of 'the end justifies the means'. Instead of consistent moral principles we have contradictions and double standards. In which case we have to ask ourselves what are the real ends they are working towards. Of course by their own actions they have created a precedent that lying is acceptable ("Israel doesn't have nukes" justifies the ends) so we have to take everything else with a pinch of salt. I'm not only referring to the US-Israel relationship here of course, many other countries use this so-called "diplomacy".

@Ethel well I've no great preference between constitutional monarchy and a republic so I'm not offended but at least it's good to see your passion for this stuff and I hope you decide to stay in the forum. I don't know enough about anarchy to give a good reply apart from the usual what-if scenarios. Whether we keep the monarchy or go for a republic, I'd advocate sovereignty for the British nations and either dissolving the union or relegating it to a subordinate status. Then let the nations decide their destiny themselves. We need more decentralisation and local powers at least, even if I'm not ready for full-on anarchism yet .

If you follow the money, this way of doing it channels money from govt borrowing, to the govt, back to the taxpayers in the form of handouts, and then on to the banks, energy companies and other corporations. And we still have to repay the debt to the banks plus interest. They could just use price caps, tax cuts or minimum wage increases to help us out, but then we aren't the main beneficiaries of this whole money vortex.

The more I think about it, the more that things like the non-proliferation treaty and international aid ( civil and military) looks like a scheme to keep small countries dependent on the superpowers and compromise their independence. Preventing places like Ukraine and Taiwan having them makes them rely on the US and effectively become part of the empire. We were told that MAD, mutually assured destruction, from nukes has kept the peace in Europe since WW2 so we need them. But there's a different rule for others. And now they're trying to bring in "international law", which implies international courts and international government. Ie a single authority merging together the superpowers. No wonder the left like it to deal with the middle east: problem/reaction/solution again.

@legion ah yes I remember the Mordecai Vanunu story. Not good, but I don't see the answer as unilateral disarmament. It looks like Israel only has nukes for themselves, they're not proliferating to other countries are they? Israel could simply admit to their nuclear arsenal. The US policy, as a nuclear power itself, doesn't make sense to me. To be consistent they'd have to stop funding themselves or do unilateral disarmament first, before they stopped funding anyone else. This is also why I don't get the campaign against Iran having nukes too, when it's mostly nuclear powers trying to stop them.

Wiki says that the size of the observable universe is 93 bn light years, and the total size is unknown. So, maybe there is 'dark space-time' beyond the end of the visible universe, rather like there's dark matter and energy. I find it strange that the size of the universe is 93 bn light years when it's only 13.8 bn years old, so it's expanded faster than the speed of light. Due to inflation in the first fraction of a second after the big bang.

I think I'm with Israel on this one. Why should the globalist UN pick them out individually when there's plenty of other countries with nukes too? I could understand it if they had a resolution on multilateral disarmament for every nuclear power, but unilateral disarmament? Wind your neck in. We should leave the UN.

"What is the Purpose of Religion?" There's so many different types of religion and the question appears to be trying to generalise. I'd say both purpose and religion are human creations, therefore are we wishing to create something monolithic; something which expresses our individuality; or perhaps a mixture? For myself I realised some time ago, after trying and failing to belong to various traditions, that I'm better off being religiously self-employed. I've found meaning and purpose in searching for a reconciliation between unity and diversity. Wholeness and fragmentation. Earlier in the thread @shabbirss said 'everything is connected'. Well, that's true if you've got a belief that there are multiple 'things' which need connecting up. How about if reality is only one 'thing' which just appears fragmented because that's how our minds work? What if the distinctions between things are relative to our thoughts? Are the waves in the ocean connected together, or is it just all one ocean? It could be both depending on your perspective. If you want to divide it up into waves, what's connecting them is the rest of the deep ocean, which is far larger. In broader terms, the relationship between things is the rest of the universe. It's not so much divide and rule, but divide and relate.

What does he mean, surely "father" is just being used as a metaphor for our human parent? I had a father and I am myself a father. Very much here on Earth.

Originally the word pagan was used by urban people as a term of abuse about the uncivilised rustic country folk, rather as we have terms like bumpkin and redneck. In other words, pagans were people who lived away from the centre of authority and control, their religion more local and home-grown such as the spirits inhabiting their local area. So I'd say the good paganism, like other good religion is based on the sovereignty of the ordinary believers, with self-responsibility and not giving away their spiritual authority (ie authorship) to a centralised hierarchy, usually based in the city.

There's a war against masculinity, and fertility in general in the western world. Masculinity is demonised as 'toxic masculinity'. As long as trt is kept on a small scale and not challenging the infertility effects of all the artificial chemicals and LGBT agenda it'll probably be tolerated and kept under medical control.

Which ties into the legend of Theseus killing the Minotaur, and that legend echoing the Minoan religion of Bull worship and domination of the Greeks at that time. But on the other hand, the Royal obsession with bloodlines and fertility is arguably just a supersized version of regular people's desire for children and family as a way to get continuity and overcome the destruction and decay of death. Projected onto the whole tribe or society, as it were.

I agree but they also hoodwink the ordinary members of the parties, and even many MPs, as well as the public, into thinking there is a genuine political democracy.

I just looked at the ingredients in my cheap brand of moisturiser and realised I've no idea what many of those chemicals are. So from now on I'm going to try using simple olive oil instead.

The whole system is designed to absorb minorities into the mainstream and neutralise them as much as possible. When you look at the main political parties they are made up of a coalition of different factions held together by mutual desire for survival and power in the first-past-the-post electoral system. This is also the globalist agenda for us, as our local identities are subordinated to the global hive mind out of a belief that's what we need for our survival. Anyone who tries to keep hold of their culture and identity separate from the global hegemony is labelled extremist, far-right or far-left, and a threat to peaceful society. Even as that very society crumbles and is replaced.

Yes. But in the second round, the same people make the rules for the election, and are the voters in that election, for who will be Prime Minister of the whole union of nations. I'm trying to get my head round the reality that a political party is a private organisation making its own rules like your local golf club; but can be elected to parliament and run our countries like a public sector service. Unfortunately we're being tractor-beamed into a condition where media is reality, because we are so disconnected from the traditional realities of community and nature etc.

I was a little surprised to discover, but should have already known, that the 1922 Committee has free rein to make up whatever leadership election process they like, "apparently" even on the spur of the moment and in a state of panic like this time (if you believe the narrative that this wasn't premeditated). They seemed determined to keep out the party membership and keep the election to the parliamentary party who would deliver their preferred candidate.

Yes, it's how we're paying for both sides of the Ukraine war. I hear so many predictions in this game that I honestly think it's part of the manipulation to keep us coming back for more. But how often do people review their previous predictions to see how good they were? I've got an idea for a project to create a database of all these predictions so I can analyse how accurate it all is.

I don't know enough about DI's awakenings to give a good posting to the original question, but it's great to read about other folks' awakenings, if the mods don't think it's off-topic. I have some awakenings, or insights, based on my meditation practice and spirituality, tho how they compare to DI's is not yet clear to me.

I read the Truth Vibrations a long time ago and intend to read some more of DI's books soon, so most of my current knowledge of him comes from videos. I've heard him talk of us as something like "consciousness having a human experience" so he's in the camp of philosophical idealists. Is there a difference between 'consciousness' small c and 'Consciousness' capital C to explain what happens after we die? I wonder what's the difference really between hell and a room full of evil people? Perhaps it's about power. In this world, evil people (ie selfish people) can be in a position of power over their victims and carry out these types of crimes, but hell is supposed to be full of demons and devils who are more powerful than us so the perpetrators become the victims as punishment. In eastern religions they believe in karma, where an evil person is reborn as someone less powerful and becomes a victim of evil people later on. So putting these together, hell is evil operating in a power hierarchy, whether in this world or the next doesn't really matter.

When we in the UK were in the EU, we heard nothing from our MEPs inbetween the elections, there were just a lot of anonymous diktats coming from "Brussels" with a few figureheads like the Commissioner who we never voted for. But maybe some Euro enthusiasts will listen and begin to question their world view.

Then what is "not that", and what's the difference with infinite love?

If ego is anti-Christ, then Christ is non-ego? Sounds like Buddhism and non-self. There is a school of thought with Jesus travelling to Kashmir and was influenced by Indian religion & philosophy, translated into Jewish language. I've started reading "A search for the historical Jesus" by Fida Hassnain which is about this.

Thinking about it, the Templars were originally part of the Catholic church, albeit with some secretive and heretical beliefs & practices. They were big builders & architects too so the link with Freemasonry makes sense. They were a very powerful part of the Church, which I find hard to reconcile with the Pope simply closing them down rather than recycling all that wealth and skillbase into other organisations: so maybe the church's inner circle were involved all along and those Templars who were killed & tortured were simply the ones who were becoming too independent minded. In which case the 'inner circle' which is now at the esoteric core of the Freemasons is not particularly loyal to one institution, but it acts as power brokers and manipulators in a lot of hierarchies.