The start of much change on earth
The Arcturian Group
Channel: Marilyn Raffaele
Posted on November 10, 2024
The Inner Voice Gide Us Into Strength and Self-Trust
Posted on November 10, 2024
I receive an equal number of emails asking, “why are you, a spiritual blog, covering the political scene?” as emails asking, “why are you not covering contemporary things that are relevant to us? Are you detached from reality?”
Rather than me stating how I personally am approaching the storm that confronts us today, I thought I’d quote Michael’s requests of us, which is what I’m adhering to.
His counsel is on what GAoG should be aiming for in a time when news of pedophilia, adrenochrome harvesting, etc., is spreading globally through social media (if not through the mainstream media).
The first one describes the context in which events are happening; the second one sets out our role in reporting it.
“Archangel Michael on Why All This Conflict is Occurring,” September 28, 2023, at https://goldenageofgaia.com/?p=348361.
Archangel Michael: Everything that has need to be eliminated, everything that has need to be relinquished, everything that needs to be healed in this cesspool that we call ‘chaos’ has need to come to the surface.
Otherwise – and this has happened many, many times in human history – what happens is there is a belief [that] there is a healing, an accommodation, a remedy, and then the human collective tends to think, ‘Okay, now it is cleaned up. Now it is healed. Now it is done.’
But the core – the core issues – of the collective, and of course of the individuals, have not been addressed, and therefore it simply settles in and it festers.
Archangel Michael in a personal reading with Steve Beckow through Linda Dillon, Jan. 18, 2020.
Archangel Michael: You are not coming, and the purpose of our, shall I say, joint venture [the Golden Age of Gaia], is not to come [into the discussion] in all instances as a human news authority on various topics. That would be unrealistic and place a burden upon you that would be unreasonable and certainly not helpful.
But you do know about experience and how one feels and how one processes and how one shifts the energy because that is truly what we are doing. …
The attention of the planet, of the human race is exactly where it has need to be, which is on the human geophysical experience of what is going on on the planet.
So it has brought the attention very much home so that the anchoring is very much, “this is our planet. This is our home. This is where we are intending to ascend, live, create, be.”
So in fact all this attention, political, geophysical and other is very timely during this period of transition and of giving birth. So do not think that it is something that you are intended to be a knowledgeable expert on. But it is what you feel and perceive [that’s important].
Steve: The invitation to me often is to comment as well on international affairs. … I think that if I report on them from a neutral, unbiased place that I am fulfilling your request of me. Is that correct?
AAM: That is correct. However, let us say this. I am not asking you to abandon your beautiful human self. There is a reason, my beloved friend, why you are in planet and why you are in human form (as interesting as that is), at this time.
Neutrality is very important because what you are doing is you are not pointing to or creating a wider chasm between who is right and who is wrong because generally, as you well know, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
But regardless of that, when I say that you are reporting, in neutrality, that does not mean that your application of [i.e., what you want to do with] the situations, event, environment is to not be brought forth.
So that, whether it is horrendous, distressing, how you feel about it and how you think it interprets in terms of the evolution of the new race of humans and some of the, yes, what you might think of as esoteric applications is very useful.
Because what you do when you suggest the applications, say, of the divine qualities – this tool, that tool – is you are equipping people with, reminding people in the name of the Mother/Father One of what they can do.
Not because one is right or one is wrong but because it empowers them to feel that they can contribute to the solutions. And the solutions are in fact what is creating Nova Earth. …
Let us use this example. You have called for an end to pedophilia but did you truly think, Sweet One, that it would simply disappear and never reach the public awareness?
Steve: No. It’s what my role is in bringing it to the public awareness I wondered about.
AAM: So it is in discussing in the public awareness the various reasons (and we do not mean the political excuses, the power abuses) why this type of behaviour has emerged over centuries, thousands of years.
Steve: Wow! Do I know anything about that?
AAM: It is abuse and control…
Steve: Oh, from that level… Okay.
AAM: …of the most vulnerable. So it is the descent into appetite. But where our forte is is, yes, exposure so that it doesn’t re-entrench itself because this is rather entrenched behaviour on all kinds of levels.
So you start to bring forward the justice, the truth solutions and it is not merely (and I say this very cautiously) forgiveness but it’s the application, yes, of compassion, patience, determination, vigilance … so that this does not occur and reoccur and re-entrench.
So you are speaking in neutral ways about the events that are uncovered, pointing to the deeper systemic, ancient situations that have contributed to this.
And then, you are pointing the way to the new because you cannot create a Nova Society where there is not an understanding, an agreement about what is acceptable in the most basic, human-rights ways.
July 8, 2023
![]() |
credits to wikipedia |
Historians have long debated the precise causes of the American Revolution: Were they constitutional, economic, political, or ideological? We now realize that, being libertarians, the revolutionaries saw no conflict between moral and political rights on the one hand and economic freedom on the other. On the contrary, they perceived civil and moral liberty, political independence, and the freedom to trade and produce as all part of one unblemished system, what Adam Smith was to call, in the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written, the “obvious and simple system of natural liberty.”
The libertarian creed emerged from the “classical liberal” movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Western world, specifically, from the English Revolution of the seventeenth century. This radical libertarian movement, even though only partially successful in its birthplace, Great Britain, was still able to usher in the Industrial Revolution there by freeing industry and production from the strangling restrictions of State control and urban government-supported guilds. For the classical liberal movement was, throughout the Western world, a mighty libertarian “revolution” against what we might call the Old Order — the ancien régime which had dominated its subjects for centuries. This regime had, in the early modern period beginning in the sixteenth century, imposed an absolute central State and a king ruling by divine right on top of an older, restrictive web of feudal land monopolies and urban guild controls and restrictions. The result was a Europe stagnating under a crippling web of controls, taxes, and monopoly privileges to produce and sell conferred by central (and local) governments upon their favorite producers. This alliance of the new bureaucratic, war-making central State with privileged merchants — an alliance to be called “mercantilism” by later historians — and with a class of ruling feudal landlords constituted the Old Order against which the new movement of classical liberals and radicals arose and rebelled in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The object of the classical liberals was to bring about individual liberty in all of its interrelated aspects. In the economy, taxes were to be drastically reduced, controls and regulations eliminated, and human energy, enterprise, and markets set free to create and produce in exchanges that would benefit everyone and the mass of consumers. Entrepreneurs were to be free at last to compete, to develop, to create. The shackles of control were to be lifted from land, labor, and capital alike. Personal freedom and civil liberty were to be guaranteed against the depredations and tyranny of the king or his minions. Religion, the source of bloody wars for centuries when sects were battling for control of the State, was to be set free from State imposition or interference, so that all religions — or nonreligions — could coexist in peace. Peace, too, was the foreign policy credo of the new classical liberals; the age-old regime of imperial and State aggrandizement for power and pelf was to be replaced by a foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations. And since war was seen as engendered by standing armies and navies, by military power always seeking expansion, these military establishments were to be replaced by voluntary local militia, by citizen-civilians who would only wish to fight in defense of their own particular homes and neighborhoods.
Thus, the well-known theme of “separation of Church and State” was but one of many interrelated motifs that could be summed up as “separation of the economy from the State,” “separation of speech and press from the State,” “separation of land from the State,” “separation of war and military affairs from the State,” indeed, the separation of the State from virtually everything.
The State, in short, was to be kept extremely small, with a very low, nearly negligible budget. The classical liberals never developed a theory of taxation, but every increase in a tax and every new kind of tax was fought bitterly — in America twice becoming the spark that led or almost led to the Revolution (the stamp tax, the tea tax).
The earliest theoreticians of libertarian classical liberalism were the Levelers during the English Revolution and the philosopher John Locke in the late seventeenth century, followed by the “True Whig” or radical libertarian opposition to the “Whig Settlement” — the regime of eighteenth-century Britain. John Locke set forth the natural rights of each individual to his person and property; the purpose of government was strictly limited to defending such rights. In the words of the Lockean-inspired Declaration of Independence, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it….”
While Locke was widely read in the American colonies, his abstract philosophy was scarcely calculated to rouse men to revolution. This task was accomplished by radical Lockeans in the eighteenth century, who wrote in a more popular, hard-hitting, and impassioned manner and applied the basic philosophy to the concrete problems of the government — and especially the British government — of the day. The most important writing in this vein was “Cato’s Letters,” a series of newspaper articles published in the early 1720s in London by True Whigs John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. While Locke had written of the revolutionary pressure which could properly be exerted when government became destructive of liberty, Trenchard and Gordon pointed out that government always tended toward such destruction of individual rights. According to “Cato’s Letters,” human history is a record of irrepressible conflict between Power and Liberty, with Power (government) always standing ready to increase its scope by invading people’s rights and encroaching upon their liberties. Therefore, Cato declared, Power must be kept small and faced with eternal vigilance and hostility on the part of the public to make sure that it always stays within its narrow bounds:
We know, by infinite Examples and Experience, that Men possessed of Power, rather than part with it, will do any thing, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it; and scarce ever any Man upon Earth went out of it as long as he could carry every thing his own Way in it…. This seems certain, That the Good of the World, or of their People, was not one of their Motives either for continuing in Power, or for quitting it.
It is the Nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary Power, granted at particular Times, and upon particular Occasions, into an ordinary Power, to be used at all Times, and when there is no Occasion, nor does it ever part willingly with any Advantage….
Alas! Power encroaches daily upon Liberty, with a Success too evident; and the Balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking at Mankind Root and Branch, makes the World a Slaughterhouse; and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is most likely, has left nothing else to destroy.
Such warnings were eagerly imbibed by the American colonists, who reprinted “Cato’s Letters” many times throughout the colonies and down to the time of the Revolution. Such a deep-seated attitude led to what the historian Bernard Bailyn has aptly called the “transforming radical libertarianism” of the American Revolution.
For the revolution was not only the first successful modern attempt to throw off the yoke of Western imperialism — at that time, of the world’s mightiest power. More important, for the first time in history, Americans hedged in their new governments with numerous limits and restrictions embodied in constitutions and particularly in bills of rights. Church and State were rigorously separated throughout the new states, and religious freedom enshrined. Remnants of feudalism were eliminated throughout the states by the abolition of the feudal privileges of entail and primogeniture. (In the former, a dead ancestor is able to entail landed estates in his family forever, preventing his heirs from selling any part of the land; in the latter, the government requires sole inheritance of property by the oldest son.)
The new federal government formed by the Articles of Confederation was not permitted to levy any taxes upon the public; and any fundamental extension of its powers required unanimous consent by every state government. Above all, the military and war-making power of the national government was hedged in by restraint and suspicion; for the eighteenth-century libertarians understood that war, standing armies, and militarism had long been the main method for aggrandizing State power.
[From For a New Liberty.]
![]() |
Was there ever really a time of public peace? |
Posted on May 3, 2023
Here we are worrying about family and friendship splits over political issues and we face another obstacle in communication: People communicating on two different levels and just not getting their ideas across.
For the first time in my life I became aware, mid-conversation, that I was having one of these discussions with another person. The other person was talking from the intellectual level and it was all about right/wrong, good/bad.
I was talking from the experiential level and it was all about how does it feel? Does that feeling work for you? And there seemed no way to make the two ends meet, so to speak.
Again and again the other person recounted the grounds upon which they said they were right. For everything that was questionable, there were self-serving excuses. You know. The ones we all have?
We always seem to want to appear to be right in our own eyes, until we don’t. Until we discover the benefits of personal responsibility rather than settling for appearing right. Then a great weight falls from our shoulders.
Until then all is image management and the most we can hope for, I think, is the ephemeral satisfaction that comes from being right. In terms of relationships, all we can hope for is shifting alliances. She’s good. Now she’s done something and so she’s now bad. Now I hang out with these guys, who are good. Now they did something….
We settle for alliances of the good and right, as we define them, with daily updates. That’s all life becomes, it seems to me.
I’ve compared the intellectual level (by itself) on occasion to eating dry oatmeal. The best it seems to get at the intellectual level is sharing between friends where we trade our likes and dislikes and deep secrets (usually gossip). Not much nourishment there.
We use our conversations as opportunities to hone our story so that we have “all our ducks in a row.” Never mind the truth. Once we have our story where we want it, it becomes set in stone.
Life at the experiential level at least has more juice. It’s like hot oatmeal with milk, berries, cashew nuts and maple syrup. There’s much to like.
Life at the realizational level is indescribable. At least to my pen.
At Cold Mountain Institute in 1975-6, we resident fellows spent three months in an encounter group, living from the experiential level, and, in my opinion, it was as good as it gets on Planet Earth – at that time or since. (1)
We cleared the decks of everything between us and stood there without armor. I guess I hunger for that degree of transparency and harmlessness again. And all the clearing of vasanas or core issues I’ve done since then is only to have that state of beingness – like a hollow bamboo – back again.
I know that, once this … I love Kathleen’s word … “disarray” is over and we’re blessed by the Ring of Fire, (2) we’ll be living from that state as a society. The more we are, the more the world will work for everyone. (3)
And, within days or weeks of gaining that state, we’ll probably just accept it as normal. And largely forget that only for a few brief moments in our history (like the early Fifties) and in a very few places has a state of public peace – even if it was illusory – ever really been “normal.”
Footnotes