Time does exist and God is evolving

Ronald Pearson has come up with another Summary of his scientific theories, and I include an excerpt below which shows how Mind and brain are separate, that Spiritual planes of existence are real, that ‘God’ has evolved and continues to do so, and a revelation to me personally, but quite a relief, that Time actually DOES exist even in the Spiritual planes, though they have no way of measuring it or need to do so.

If Time did not exist then we have great problems describing how free-will is possible, and get into complex Quantum theories such as endless parallel universes where all possibilities exist. Thus we have the ridiculous notion that in one Universe Elvis is still alive, Hitler won the Second World War, etc., and in other Universes many other permutations exist. Now we can dispense with such nonsense – the future is real and just a set of possibilities dependent on free-will and other factors.

Here is the excerpt of Ron Pearson’s latest summary:

Excerpt from Ron Pearson’s Big Breed Theory Summary

How Quantum theory is Explained

In the 1930’s it was discovered that, in the world of the atom, all aspects of reality, what we normally observe, vanish like the morning mist. All the bits comprising atoms, their ‘sub-atomic particles’ exist in limbo states until somebody tries to measure where they are. They also exist as waves, like ripples on a pond. Then where waves arising from different places cross each other strange ‘interference patterns’ arise.

The particles exist mostly where the waves are strongest – and then: wait for it – they collapse into particles on observation!

To make sense of this a famous physicist, Niels Bohr, organised a conference. They came out with the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ that said consciousness participated in the creation of matter.

Yet they still all believed that only the mortal brain was the seat of consciousness. So I ask, “How then could matter have existed before brains evolved?”

The answer has to be that consciousness existed prior to the creation of matter and resided in the background medium. This had evolved consciousness by the self-organising power of energy fed chaos. It then designed and created matter.

Where God and Spirit come in

I call the resulting background medium the i-ther meaning ‘intelligent ether’. The structure refines itself by the self-organising power of energy-fed chaos until it acquires a machine-like intelligence. Then further refinement cause small parts to develop consciousness.

God has evolved: not with a male figure shape: it is a huge ever-growing ball, yet the structure is fine grained even as compared to the tiniest sub-atomic particles. Most of i-ther remains in the form of a programmable computer with the minds existing as small more highly organised fractions. These, by thought, are able to program the remainder. God is the totality of all these minds. They all co-operated to design and create the universes of both matter and spirit.

These worlds of spirit and matter could have been designed and created in the same mathematical way. They could use organised vibrations of i-ther as constructional tools to produce what are really virtual realities – such as those we enjoy on our computer screens.

There is a difference: they are fully three-dimensional. The i-ther not only carries out the computation: it uses itself as the 3 D screen on which to portray the images. The worlds of matter and spirit co-exist in the same place but, tuned to different vibrational frequencies, they are not normally visible to one another.

Our bodies are part of the picture and so, to human beings, the illusion of total reality is achieved. We are designed to experience this illusion for a while before the i-theric mind decouples to re-attach to one of the parallel worlds that interpenetrates our own: those of spirit.

The simplest way to start would have been the programming of just a few sub-atomic particles inclusive of a replication routine – rather like the viruses that infect our computers. Now, however, these viruses incorporate a replication cut-off routine. In this way a big bang of matter creation can be organised that parallels that of the established big bang theory. It is, however, now free of its invalidating false logic and predictions.

Now the fine grain structure includes a vast memory store that psychics call the ‘Acashic Records’. Everything that has happened is stored in them and what is expected to happen in the future is stored there also. However, the historic records are fixed but those of the future can be changed owing to the free will of minds. This fits in with experience. It shows why some people are able to make fairly accurate predictions of future events but accuracy diminishes with the time ahead. There is no need to postulate time does not exist: that instead there is an eternal ‘now’: that all is fixed and pre-ordained. If this was so free-will could not
exist.

Some people of remote viewing capability claim to have travelled both into the future and into the past. What they are really doing is reading the records that provide the illusion of making such journeys.

A fascinating ‘must read’ is a new book by Brigitte Rix (2011). She is a highly developed clairaudient medium who writes the story of her deceased mother from before her death until the present. This gives a graphic account of the way one progresses in the world of spirit. A fascinating aspect is that one makes things by pure thought. And the products feel just as real and solid as do our own chairs and tables. This gives strong support to the theory by showing how the mind must be programming the i-ther.

One difficulty emerges once again: the problem of time. All communicators tell us it does not exist for them. Yet how can this be if they progress? I think they mean they have no time reference like our Sun. They can be deluded just as we can be.

I have replied to Ron as follows, and asked a question the answer to which I’ll post as a Comment to this blog if Ron replies, though it may well be very technical and laypersons like me may not fully understand it. Here is what I replied to Ron:

Many thanks for this. The section I found most interesting, and easy to understand for the layperson familiar with Survivalism and the afterlife communications, is the section I’ve attached. It conforms to what I myself have surmised: that if anything approaching the concept of a ‘God’ exists, then it has evolved, continues to evolve and all living things and all inanimate matter is part of it. Also that everything is basically energy and matter largely an illusion.

It amazes me that what you and I can see so clearly, Quantum Physicists apparently cannot. That is the obvious conclusion that if Mind is necessary to organize waves of probability into sub-atomic particles, or in other words, to create matter or the illusion of matter, then Mind must be a form of energy separate from a brain composed of matter. Quantum Physics in fact prove that Mind and brain MUST be separate, and if separate, then it follows that survival of death is perfectly possible, and indeed is to be expected. Energy is the natural state of things, solid matter is an illusory temporary creation of Mind.

The revelation to me in your latest summary is that Time does indeed exist. It has always been puzzling to me how the future can be determined by free-will if there is no Time, just a constant ‘now’. It could well be that without a Sun and therefore day and night, those on the otherwise Earth-like environment of the Third Level of Spirit would have no way of measuring Time. This comes through in Brigitte Rix’s book – the mother is vague about how many Earth days have elapsed between communications, or how long she’s been in Spirit. However there does seem to be a chronology in what she does, how she progresses. This seems to suggest that Time does indeed exist but she has no way of measuring it nor, indeed, any need to do so.

It is as if on this idyllic plane of existence, similar to Earth in that it has the illusion of matter created by thought, they have not only dispensed with the need for a State along with artificial regulators like an army, police, money, etc. – in fact a sort of Spiritual communist stage of evolution as optimistically envisaged on Earth one day by Marx and Engels, but they have also dispensed with the need for Time, or at least, the need for dividing it up into units of measurement.

Having said this, however, it no way invalidates the fact that eternity exists. I cannot envisage that there can truly be a beginning or an end as there must always be something which preceded or followed both of these concepts, which also are largely illusory. What we actually are describing by such terms as ‘beginning’ or ‘end’ is a dramatic change or conversion from one state of existence to another. There must always have been some background medium for matter, or energy, to now exist, and since energy can not be destroyed, then it must be eternal.

I do have a difficulty understanding exactly how primaries annihilate each other, even though there is a net gain to account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Does this mean energy can be destroyed after all, or does it convert into some background medium which has always existed? Or is the fact that there is, in fact, a net gain in energy/matter explain the concept that energy can never really be destroyed? Any destruction is more than compensated for by net creation?

Anyway the main thing is both your theories and Quantum Physics theory and experimentation show that Mind must be separate from the physical brain, and that means that survival is based on a firm scientific basis, even if many orthodox scientists are at present unwilling to admit it.

Time does exist and God is evolving.

Ronald Pearson has come up with another Summary of his scientific theories, and I include and excerpt below which shows how Mind and brain are separate, that Spiritual planes of existence are real, that ‘God’ has evolved and continues to do so, and a revelation to me personally, but quite a relief, that Time actually DOES exist even in the Spiritual planes, though they have no way of measuring it or need to do so.
If Time did not exist then we have great problems describing how free-will is possible, and get into complex Quantum theories such as endless parallel universes where all possibilities exist. Thus we have the ridiculous notion that in one Universe Elvis is still alive, Hitler one the Second World War, etc., and in other Universes many other permutations exist. Now we can dispense with such nonsense – the future is real and just a set of possibilities dependent on free-will and other factors.
Here is the excerpt of Ron Pearson’s latest summary:
Excerpt from Ron Pearson’s Big Breed Theory Summary
How Quantum theory is Explained
In the 1930’s it was discovered that, in the world of the atom, all aspects of reality, what we normally observe, vanish like the morning mist. All the bits comprising atoms, their ‘sub-atomic particles’ exist in limbo states until somebody tries to measure where they are. They also exist as waves, like ripples on a pond. Then where waves arising from different places cross each other strange ‘interference patterns’ arise.
The particles exist mostly where the waves are strongest – and then: wait for it
– they collapse into particles on observation!
To make sense of this a famous physicist, Niels Bohr, organised a conference. They came out with the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ that said consciousness participated in the creation of matter.
Yet they still all believed that only the mortal brain was the seat of consciousness.
So I ask, “How then could matter have existed before brains evolved?”
The answer has to be that consciousness existed prior to the creation of matter and resided in the background medium. This had evolved consciousness by the self-organising power of energy fed chaos. It then designed and created matter.
Where God and Spirit come in
I call the resulting background medium the i-ther meaning ‘intelligent ether’. The structure refines itself by the self-organising power of energy-fed chaos until it acquires a machine-like intelligence. Then further refinement cause small parts to develop consciousness.
God has evolved: not with a male figure shape: it is a huge ever-growing ball, yet the structure is fine grained even as compared to the tiniest sub-atomic particles. Most of i-ther remains in the form of a programmable computer with the minds existing as small more highly organised fractions. These, by thought, are able to program the remainder. God is the totality of all these minds. They all co-operated to design and create the universes of both matter and spirit.
These worlds of spirit and matter could have been designed and created in the same mathematical way. They could use organised vibrations of i-ther as constructional tools to produce what are really virtual realities – such as those we enjoy on our computer screens.
There is a difference: they are fully three-dimensional. The i-ther not only
carries out the computation: it uses itself as the 3 D screen on which to
portray the images. The worlds of matter and spirit co-exist in the same place
but, tuned to different vibrational frequencies, they are not normally visible
to one another.
Our bodies are part of the picture and so, to human beings, the illusion of total reality is achieved. We are designed to experience this illusion for a while before the i-theric mind decouples to re-attach to one of the parallel worlds that interpenetrates our own: those of spirit.
The simplest way to start would have been the programming of just a few sub-atomic particles inclusive of a replication routine – rather like the viruses that infect our computers. Now, however, these viruses incorporate a replication cut-off routine. In this way a big bang of matter creation can be organised that parallels that of the established big bang theory. It is, however, now free of its invalidating false logic and predictions.
Now the fine grain structure includes a vast memory store that psychics call the ‘Acashic Records’. Everything that has happened is stored in them and what is expected to happen in the future is stored there also. However, the historic records are fixed but those of the future can be changed owing to the free will of minds. This fits in with experience. It shows why some people are able to make fairly accurate predictions of future events but accuracy diminishes with the time ahead. There is no need to postulate time does not exist: that instead there is an eternal ‘now’: that all is fixed and pre-ordained. If this was so free-will could not
exist.
Some people of remote viewing capability claim to have travelled both into the future and into the past. What they are really doing is reading the records that provide the illusion of making such journeys.
A fascinating ‘must read’ is a new book by Brigitte Rix (2011). She is a highly developed clairaudient medium who writes the story of her deceased mother from before her death until the present. This gives a graphic account of the way one progresses in the world of spirit. A fascinating aspect is that one makes things by pure thought. And the products feel just as real and solid as do our own chairs and tables. This gives strong support to the theory by showing how the mind must be programming the i-ther.
One difficulty emerges once again: the problem of time. All communicators tell us it does not exist for them. Yet how can this be if they progress? I think they mean they have no time reference like our Sun. They can be deluded just as we can be.
I have replied to Ron as follows, and asked a question the answer to which I’ll post as a Comment to this blog if Ron replies, though it may well be very technical and laypersons like me may not fully understand it. Here is what I replied to Ron:
Many thanks for this. The section I found most interesting, and easy to understand for the layperson familiar with Survivalism and the afterlife communications, is the section I’ve attached. It conforms to what I myself have surmised: that if anything approaching the concept of a ‘God’ exists, then it has evolved, continues to evolve and all living things and all inanimate matter is part of it. Also that everything is basically energy and matter largely an illusion.
It amazes me that what you and I can see so clearly, Quantum Physicists apparently cannot. That is the obvious conclusion that if Mind is necessary to organize waves of probability into sub-atomic particles, or in other words, to create matter or the illusion of matter, then Mind must be a form of energy separate from a brain composed of matter. Quantum Physics in fact prove that Mind and brain MUST be separate, and if separate, then it follows that survival of death is perfectly possible, and indeed is to be expected. Energy is the natural state of things, solid matter is an illusory temporary creation of Mind.

The revelation to me in your latest summary is that Time does indeed exist. It has always been puzzling to me how the future can be determined by free-will if there is no Time, just a constant ‘now’. It could well be that without a Sun and therefore day and night, those on the otherwise Earth-like environment of the Third Level of Spirit would have no way of measuring Time. This comes through in Brigitte Rix’s book – the mother is vague about how many Earth days have elapsed between communications, or how long she’s been in Spirit. However there does seem to be a chronology in what she does, how she progresses. This seems to suggest that Time does indeed exist but she has no way of measuring it nor, indeed, any need to do so.

It is as if on this idyllic plane of existence, similar to Earth in that it has the illusion of matter created by thought, they have not only dispensed with the need for a State along with artificial regulators like an army, police, money, etc. – in fact a sort of Spiritual communist stage of evolution as optimistically envisaged on Earth one day by Marx and Engels, but they have also dispensed with the need for Time, or at least, the need for dividing it up into units of measurement.

Having said this, however, it no way invalidates the fact that eternity exists. I cannot envisage that there can truly be a beginning or an end as there must always be something which preceded both of these concepts, which also are largely illusory. What we actually are describing by such terms as ‘beginning’ or ‘end’ is a dramatic change or conversion from one state of existence to another. There must always have been some background medium for matter, or energy, to now exist, and since energy can not be destroyed, then it must be eternal.

I do have a difficulty understanding exactly how primaries annihilate each other, even though there is a net gain to account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Does this mean energy can be destroyed after all, or does it convert into some background medium which has always existed? Or is the fact that there is, in fact, a net gain in energy/matter explain the concept that energy can never really be destroyed? Any destruction is more than compensated for by net creation?

Anyway the main thing is both your theories and Quantum Physics theory and experimentation show that Mind must be separate from the physical brain, and that means that survival is based on a firm scientific basis, even if many orthodox scientists are at present unwilling to admit it.

Constitutional and other important Matters

There are some political decisions which are not appropriate to be made by voting for a particular political party during a General Election. Some, those which deal with the basic Constitution of a country, state or federation, for instance are best decided by means of a referendum. Others I’m not sure should be left to the whims of the ballot box at all.

Basic human rights should not be held ransom to ballot box decisions highly influenced by the media. A popular vote in a referendum might well bring back capital punishment, for instance, even though it means innocent people are quite often executed. Taxation to fund basic public services and things such as State pensions is another area which I feel maybe should not be used to win votes at election time. There are certain things which have to be funded, either by taxes or other means (such as, for instance, taking over the banks/financial institutions and using the money invested to keep taxes low). State pensions are one of these, as are the basic public services. They have to be paid for, and it is no good saying we can’t afford them. When you’re in a shop or supermarket at the checkout you can’t argue about the price of what you’ve bought, you pay up and shut up. Additional taxation can be decided by political parties, but I wonder if the funding of very basic necessities such as those outlined above should be taken out of the political arena altogether and perhaps enshrined in the Constitution.

This would indeed happen if our present Constitution in Britain, that of a Constitutional Monarchy, were replaced by a referendum decision to go over to a Socialist Republican Constitution. This would guarantee a decent State pension for all and decent essential public services, and also would insure that the bulk of the means of production, distribution and exchange remained under some form of public ownership and control so long as the Constitution remained in force.

Take the position in Britain since the Second World War. The Attlee Labour government nationalized many industries, and while this was a bureaucratic form of public ownership, it was never really given a chance to work as subsequent governments, both Labour and Tory, later privatized many of these. You cannot chop and change like this every time a new government is elected, there has to be some form of stability.

Most countries have some form of Constitution. In Britain it is a bit of a hodge podge with no single written Constitution put to the public in a referendum, but in order to, for instance, become a republic we would have to have such a Constitutional referendum to replace the Monarchy.  We now have the European Union, of which Britain is a member, and that too has a Constitution.

Many who want to come out of the EU are demanding a referendum, and that is their right of course. However referenda, to be truly democratic, require a balanced argument to be presented to the public by the media in the weeks and months leading up to the vote. All the possible advantages and disadvantages need to be presented by both sides in order for the general public to make an informed decision. With most of the tabloid press campaigning to come out of the EU this could not be a truly balanced debate. It might well be that the media have to be strictly controlled in weeks leading up to a referendum or General Election, so that a truly balanced view was presented to the electorate. TV and radio have to give equal time to the major political parties or to both sides of a referendum debate, but the press are not subject to such controls even during an election or referendum campaign.

Many matters can be presented to the public at election times in party manifestoes, but other things are more appropriate to referendums which often require a substantial majority of the electorate to make major Constitutional and other changes. It might be a requirement, for instance, that all eligible voters actually do so, or alternatively, that a minority vote in a referendum in which the majority abstain is invalid.

Imagine the utter chaos if every 4 or 5 years due to party political programs we switched between a republic and a monarchy. In a similar way no country can switch every few years between a capitalist and socialist society. America is an example of a country where capitalism is enshrined in the Constitution, and elections are between two political parties or candidates who compete to run the system. It is similar in Britain and other Western countries.

It is, therefore, quite democratic to have a Socialist Constitution voted in by a referendum and then have various political parties campaigning at election times to win a popular vote, form a government and then run their version of Socialism.

Switching between monarchy and republic, capitalism and socialism requires surely a Constitutional referendum, and cannot be decided by a General Election vote in which under non-PR systems the elected government may well be opposed by the majority of the electorate.

Religion or Science?

There has always been a battle between religion and science, going right back to the era of Plato. In the Middle Ages when Galileo looked thru his telescope and announced that the Earth and planets orbited the Sun rather than the whole Universe orbiting the Earth, he was denounced as a heretic because the Christian Church maintained that our planet was the center of the Universe.

In the 19th Century Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin came up with their theories of evolution and Natural Selection, and the argument about religious Creationism and scientific Evolution started. It is echoed today in the ongoing battle today in America about Evolution versus Intelligent Design (the successor to Creationism).

In actual fact the distinctions between science and religion are often blurred. Alfred Wallace, for instance, who preceded Darwin with the theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, was a Spiritualist and remained so. Intelligent Design is a more sophisticated theory than Creationism because the latter is just a literal reading of ancient Biblical texts about God creating the world and the heavens in just seven days. Intelligent Design, however, can mean that Evolution is guided by some form of intelligence, and indeed this is what is suggested by scientific concepts such as Ronald Pearson’s ‘Big Breed Theory’ which includes a matrix termed the ‘intelligent ether’ or ‘i-ther’ permeating everything. Quantum Physics suggest interaction between sub-atomic particles even at great distances, that without a conscious observer sub-atomic particles of light return to wave function or waves of probability, and in the sub-atomic world particles can be in more than one place at the same time. For similar reasons Albert Einstein was never happy with Quantum Physics, and it still doesn’t fit in with his theories. Pearson’s theories, on the other hand, are perfectly compatible with Quantum Physics and also what is termed the ‘paranormal’.

Coming on to the so-called ‘paranormal’ itself, there is also a division between the religious devotees and those approaching such things from a scientific, some would say pseudo-scientific, viewpoint. In Ufology, for instance, there are those quoting the hard documented evidence from USAF and Intelligence files, from statements about the existence of alien craft visiting our planet by no less personages than the first Director of the CIA, Admiral Hillenkoeter, and by Dr Ed Mitchell, ex-astronaut who walked on the Moon and ex-NASA scientist, also founder of the Institute for Noetic Sciences which investigates the paranormal. On the religious side of Ufology are those who worship the UFO cult such as the Aetherius Society.

In Spiritualism there are also religious and non-religious strands. In Britain and elsewhere many Spiritualist centers are termed ‘churches’, many calling themselves ‘Christian Spiritualists’ and some even have adopted titles for their officials aping Christian ones such as ‘Rev.’ and ‘Minister’. The whole New Age culture is something of a religion, with beliefs encompassing astrology, numerology, miraculous healing, the power of crystals, homeopathy, etc.

On the other hand there are the non-religious Spiritualists or Survivalists who take an empirical stand, basing their beliefs on hard evidence. Agnostics, atheists, humanists and rationalists can take this approach, fostered by the Campaign for Philosophical Freedom. Pearson’s theories are promoted by them, and if consciousness, Mind or Intelligence is a form of energy which creates and organizes matter, then this is a scientific concept rather than a religious one relying on a Creator or God. Many scientists are now investigating such concepts as whether Mind and Brain are indeed separate, as much hard evidence suggests. Not least Near Death and Out of the Body experiences (NDEs and OOBEs) which along with the Soviet discovery that all living things have a second energy body, termed bioplasma, suggest it is possible to be conscious and fully aware of one’s surroundings when outside of your physical body, or indeed, when the physical body is unconscious and flatlining, or technically ‘dead’, the brain not functioning.

I am very much of the scientific approach, and find much of the religious and New Age concepts quite alien to me. I’m not into homeopathic medicines, herbs, astrology, numerology, Tarot cards, crystals and the rest of it. Nor do I wish to go to places calling themselves ‘Christian Spiritualist churches’ singing hymns and reciting the Lord’s Prayer, or indeed professing a belief in ‘the Fatherhood of God’, whatever that sexist and to me meaningless concept is supposed to convey.

Many scientists now and in the past have investigated such concepts as the afterlife. People like Edison, John Logie Baird, Sir William Crookes and many more – their research continued today by people like Dr Dean Radin and others in the Institute for Noetic Sciences, and many more scientific researchers into the so-called paranormal.

The Internet and especially YouTube is a great place to search out these scientific lectures and it is quite astounding how much knowledge is out there, constantly expanding, but largely ignored by the public media and the orthodox scientific journals. It is quite clear that science is undergoing a revolution and that those today thinking ‘outside the box’ and described as mavericks or heretics will be the pioneers of tomorrow’s orthodox science, which will show that the ‘paranormal’ is, in fact, perfectly normal and obeys the basic laws of physics. It is our understanding of these laws which need revision so there is no conflict for instance between Quantum Physics dealing with the sub-atomic world and the post-Einsteinian physics dealing with the Universe itself.

Gerrymandering of General Elections

Our whole electoral system is gerrymandered in order to create governments with large Parliamentary majorities often on a minority vote. In addition the media, patriotism and no doubt MI5 are all used to direct the public into the way they should vote.

1983 was a prime example of how the public were fooled and cheated, ending up with the right-wing Tory government of Maggie Thatcher re-elected on a minority vote with a huge Parliamentary majority.

Thinking back to the years preceding this, Michael Foot was elected Labour leader in late 1980, promising to return to the roots of the working-class party and to abandon Britain’s nuclear weapons. These policies and Foot’s leadership of the Party were blamed for losing Labour the 1983 Election, but it is not nearly as simple as that.

Soon after Foot was elected Labour leader the ‘Gang of Four’ emerged – Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and William Rogers. Four prominent rightwing Labour Party politicians, who announced they were leaving Labour to establish a new political party which would re-shape British politics: the Social Democratic Party.

This was a very clever ploy, since the very name of the Party was designed to confuse the electorate. Social Democrats were synonymous throughout Europe and elsewhere as being Left of center politically; social democracy being an alternative term for Socialism and Social Democratic parties an alternative name to Labour or Communist. For instance the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (also known as the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party or Russian Social Democratic Party) was a revolutionary Socialist party formed in 1898. It later split into Bolshevik (majority) and Menshevik (minority) factions, and the Bolsheviks eventually became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In the former East Germany (GDR) the Social Democrats and Communists united to form the Socialist Unity Party which governed the country through the National Front coalition which also included other political parties.

So we now had a position in Britain where two completely different political parties were claiming the role of being the main Left of center party, and it was unclear which one the working-class and its trade unions should be supporting.

Added to this confusion was the Falklands/Malvinas War in 1982 which whipped up an extremely distasteful jingoism, culminating in the rightwing Sun tabloid (itself a bastard child of the defunct Leftwing Labour newspaper the Daily Herald) announcing with the headline ‘Gotcha!’ the murder of hundreds of Argentinean sailors aboard the Belgrano when she was sunk by the British Navy whilst sailing away from the dubiously legal ‘total exclusion zone’ Britain had unilaterally declared for a large part of the South Atlantic.

The fact that the Malvinas were just off the coast of Argentina and were long ago colonized by Brits made this even more distasteful. How would we feel if Argentina had colonized the Isle of Wight, and when we tried to reclaim it had declared a ‘total exclusion zone’ on the English Channel and Solent and then sunk a British Navy ship as it was sailing away from this zone?

Of course patriotism, like other gang-mentality, is an old ploy to de-humanize people and make them hunt in packs, depicting the rival gang as something sub-human or inferior. We see it in gang warfare on our streets, in football matches with their rival teams, in the Mods and Rocker battles of the 1960s and, of course, in jingoism, extreme nationalism and patriotism culminating in war. The opposing side whether it be Germany, Japan or Argentina are depicted as sub-human, and hysteria whipped up for ‘our boys’ sent out to murder not only soldiers, sailors and airmen from these other lands, but totally innocent civilians, including little babies and children, as happened in the totally illegal Axis and Allied air raids on cities and the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Second World War.

So we arrive at the 1983 General Election with this jingoism as the background, Thatcher having said ‘Rejoice!’ at the extremely wasteful (in cost and human lives) campaign to reclaim a few colonized islands thousands of miles away off the coast of Argentina for a few ex-pat Brits, with Labour leader Michael Foot mercilessly criticized in the tabloid Press for turning up at a Remembrance Day service in a perfectly respectable duffel coat, and the lie being spread in the media that without its totally useless and very costly nuclear weapons Britain would be defenseless.

The fact that they did not deter General Galtieri from trying to reclaim the Malvinas/Falklands, and that they did not help Britain reclaim them either, was conveniently overlooked. Also the fact that nuclear weapons did not stop America losing the Vietnam War, nor the Soviet Union from ultimately failing in Afghanistan. The latter being another story, since the West made full use of Osama Bin Laden and the Mohajadeen to defeat the Soviet forces and overthrow the Marxist-Leninist government in Afghanistan, and those chickens later came home to roost, though many claim 9/11 and Bin Laden were in fact all part of a Western conspiracy.

Back to 1983 however, and Labour lost the Election, Thatcher was re-elected with a massive Parliamentary majority, and it was all blamed on poor old Michael Foot, his duffel coat and his policy of getting rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons.

On closer analysis, of course, none of this proves to be true. Yes, the Tories got 61.08% of the Parliamentary seats due to the unfairness of our first-past-the-post electoral system, whilst Labour got 32.15% and the SDP/Liberal alliance, supposedly the re-generation of British politics, got a derisory 3.54% of the seats.

However if we examine the popular vote we get a rather different story. The Tories were still the largest single party but on a minority vote of 42.44% of the voting electorate, Labour was marginally ahead of the SDP/Liberal alliance with 27.58% and the alliance itself managed 25.38%. Clearly those who defected from Labour to join the SDP had committed political suicide, since Labour still ended up with far more Parliamentary seats than the SDP/Liberal alliance under the unfair first-past-the-post electoral system which only works well when there is a two party system; third parties and others are clearly severely disadvantaged and find it almost impossible to break through in terms of Parliamentary seats.

Whilst not accusing the ‘Gang of Four’ themselves, clearly the hand of MI5 and MI6 can be seen behind the events of the early 1980s after Foot’s election as Labour leader. First a split in the Labour Party to confuse the electorate, the promise of a re-shaping of British politics (which never happened of course), and then a convenient patriotic war to stir up jingoism and make Foot appear even more of an outcast with his plan to get rid of Britain’s useless nuclear weapons. The implication being, totally without foundation of course, that this so-called ‘independent deterrent’ (almost entirely dependent on the Americans anyway) had somehow ‘won’ the Falklands/Malvinas war. Who knows, without our nuclear weapons General Galtieri may even have actually claimed the Isle of Wight and colonized it with wretched Argentineans, having expelled the Brits?

Whatever the public thought, the electorate clearly was hoodwinked and lost. With a Left-of-center anti-Tory combined popular vote of 52.96%, under a fairer proportional representation electoral system the natural thing would have been for Labour and the SDP/Liberal alliance to form a coalition government, and the Tories the Opposition. Labour and the alliance could have cobbled together a consensus policy for government, and whatever happened we would not have had to endure the re-election of Thatcher and her extreme rightwing administration, with all that followed.

In the 2010 General Election we had a similar result. The Tories got only 36.1% of the popular vote, Labour got 29% and the Liberal Democrats (their new name) got 23%. In terms of seats under the unfair first-past-the-post electoral system this translated into 47.1% of Parliamentary seats for the Tories, 39.7% for Labour and a derisory 8.8% for the Liberal Democrats. Clearly, once again, the Left-of-center political parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, had won a clear majority of the popular vote (52%), and even under the unfair electoral system, more Parliamentary seats than the Tories (Tories 47.1%, combined Labour/Liberal Democrat 48.5%). Yet what happened? The Liberal Democrats went into coalition, not with their natural allies Labour, but with the Tories whose policies they were totally at odds with in exchange for a referendum on the electoral system, which the reformers backed by the Liberal Democrats then lost.

It is hardly surprising they lost this referendum since it did not give the option of proportional representation, only the Alternative Vote system which was not proportional and could result in people’s second or third choices deciding who formed the next government. It would not help minor parties to gain seats, quite the opposite in fact, and just as first-past-the-post was designed for a two-party system, the Alternative Vote was clearly designed for a three-party system. Greens and all other minor parties would lose out. Only PR is fair to all parties and all the electorate.

So we can live under the illusion we live in a democracy, but increasingly people are becoming clear this is not the case. Not when an anti-Tory Left-of-center majority of the popular vote is translated into a Tory-led coalition government with a majority of Parliamentary seats, nor indeed when Maggie Thatcher was able to form a Tory government with a massive 61.08% of the Parliamentary seats when her Party only won 42.44% of the popular vote against the Left’s 52.96%.

USA uses a similar first-past-the-post electoral system and has similar unfair results. In the 2000 Presidential Election, for example, Al Gore lost to George W. Bush even though Gore won a higher percentage of the popular vote.

 

 

Logical Universe

At the heart of the centuries-old debate about the origin of the Universe, life, etc. and whether God, intelligent design and so on are evident or whether it all came about by accident, evolution and natural selection has always been the assumption that if there was a God or a Creator it would have been all-knowing and all-loving.

One reason why so many are agnostic or atheists is that there is so little evidence for this. Would an all-knowing, all-loving Creator need to go through the laborious process of Evolution? Would such a Creator make one creature prey on another for food? Would such a Creator allow natural disasters to kill millions of people over the centuries? Allow wars and terrible tortures, often in the name of God and religion?

This question puzzled me for years, and I became an atheist. I still feel I am agnostic on the question of ‘God’ although I do believe there is intelligent design behind life forms and evolution and am aware of overwhelming evidence for an afterlife. There are an increasing number of atheists, agnostics and rationalists who see evidence of an afterlife, some in the Campaign for Philosophical Freedom for instance which seeks scientific proof of the afterlife and does not approach the subject from a religious standpoint (see their website: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/).

It has been relayed by messages from Spirit that the higher entities on that side are ruled by logic rather than emotion. Although ‘love’ is often described as the positive aspect of everything, ‘hate’ being the negative, the actual process by which all life and the Universe evolves towards the more positive seems to be ruled by unemotional logic.

I certainly find it impossible to believe complex organs in animals and humans could have come about merely by chance aided by natural selection. I definitely see intelligent design behind an eye, for instance, to take just one organ. On the other hand I see very little evidence of an all-knowing, all-loving Creator.

I do see much evidence of a logical evolution step-by-step with very gradual developments which seem to be designed rather than left merely to chance and natural selection.

If Spirit is indeed logical and unemotional this would fit in with the Universe as we know it. What is more logical than the food chain, for instance? One of the most convincing arguments against vegetarianism or veganism is what would happen if animals were allowed to breed uncontrollably and none were killed and eaten by humans for food? Surely the animals would have to be culled or else face starvation as their numbers outstripped the food supply? Also, of course, animals would still prey on each other, but the idea of millions of cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens, etc. roaming around the countryside uncontrolled looking for food their numbers unchecked by abbatoirs or culling is really untenable.

It is entirely logical that there should be a food chain and that numbers are controlled in this way, and also that carcases of dead animals are used as food. If you take a logical, unemotional viewpoint a case can even be made for natural disasters, wars and disease controlling the human population.

Taking for a moment the afterlife as being real, and the purpose of a physical life on Earth and other planets being to evolve and learn from experience, then from a logical and unemotional standpoint everything makes some sort of sense. Life on Earth is temporary and largely an illusion anyway, even scientists agree on that point since solid matter does not even exist, we only think it does.

If the destiny of all living things is to evolve and exist in a timeless Spiritual or Energy environment then does it really matter what happens during a temporary physical existence which is largely illusory anyway? It is almost as if we and all life on the planet are part of an artificial reality computer game. What matters is how we play the game and if it helps us to evolve Spiritually or not.

We are told that the law of cause and effect rules, and in Spiritual terms this is known as the karmic law. So if we do negative things we build up negative karma which will eventually rebound on us, whilst positive karma will also come back to us and help us to progress. In this logical way, quite unemotional, all life on Earth and the other inhabited planets slowly progresses, learning the hard way.

Where, then, do positive emotions like love come into this process? They surely have to come about by evolution and experience. By gradually learning that hate and negative emotions and actions create bad karma, whilst love and positive emotions and actions create good karma and enable our Spiritual progress to higher states of existence.

So, if this is how things are organized, then the kind of all-knowing, all-loving God-type entity religious people believe in is not something which always existed, but is an ultimate goal of evolution; something which is very slowly evolving. All life is connected on a Spiritual level we are told, and in fact this also applies to things which do not appear to be living. The whole multi-Universe is closely connected and is part of a single Spiritual totality. The apparent separateness of individual humans, animals, plants and inanimate objects is illusory as all are part of a Spiritual Oneness. A unified energy field if you like which is temporarily organized to give the illusion of separateness. The whole purpose being to evolve to a higher form of existence.

We are given to understand by Spirit communicators from the higher levels that this Spiritual evolution is endless and there will always be new lessons to be learnt and higher states of existence to evolve to. We may envisage an ultimate goal or end to this process being  a unified conscious energy field ruled by positivity and love of which we are all part, but in a Spiritual state where Time itself does not exist past, present and future are meaningless terms so equally there is literally no beginning and no end. Everything is eternal or Timeless except our brief experiences on Earth-like planets in a largely illusory physical Universe composed of four dimensions, the fourth being the illusion of Time and of everything having a beginning and an end.