Friday, September 30, 2016

Refining the battle over the plan

The principles our organization stands on creates a framework based on the cooperation of nature that allows everyone to function on a higher level. It is the Father concept of the planet that pegs us at a very high level. The potential we have. 

While many people believe nature is based on a dog-eat-dog mentality, the survival of the fittest, nature is based on the principles of cooperation, where every part has a sense of abundance. If you take one seed, after several generations, you can have an entire field, and the farmer can eat some and sell some, and make enough money to buy more land, and to take it to the higher level. 

A constitution creates a government, and is the Father concept that allows that constituency to function on a higher level. The Constitution must evolve as the people evolve. 

The Mother concept is the direction you go from that point. Will the farmer eat all the seeds and then starve, or eat some and keep some to replant the field? 

If you put the U.S. Constitution into every nation, at the end of 100 years, there will be 200 different legal systems that have evolved from it. 

As the plan for the international government has been debated, there have been people who see it as the solution to all the crises we are facing and our chance to function on a higher level, there have been people who resist the change because they rely on the old structure for their security and support, and there are those who are trying to subvert the plan for the international government for their own benefit. This is also their opportunity to get their life on a higher level, but that does not mean they can get their life on a higher level because they are grabbing for power. They don't understand the principles. No one can convince them that what they are doing won't work. They must hit the point where their power games fail before they let go of them. 

If the plan benefits everyone, eventually everyone will see the benefits, but we don't have to wait for them to see the benefits of the plan.

We can assume they have already agreed to the plan, and it will take some time before they see how it can.

The first idea that is being addressed and being allowed to permeate is where true power comes from. 

We are looking at the plan and the counterpoint idea, and that is conflict resolution.

President Obama has opened the plan to debate, and many people like the plan, but how can he end the conflicts? The solution is to turn inside the country and demonstrate the potential of the plan to solve the problems here. The United States are one step ahead of the rest of the planet because we know how the Constitution works. 

If there are disputes all around the world, we can assume that they demonstrate the need for the creation of the international court system so that disputes between nations are resolved in court rather than the battlefield. 

The international legislative branch does not yet exist to create laws, so the Father concept is that the international legal system will be based on Universal Law, to which every person on the planet has been exposed. Not everyone understands how it affects them, but they have not yet faced the backlashes from the power games they are playing.

The framework exists. All nature is based on it, and it is mankind's nature that we are addressing. We can take the seed and create a field and a sense of abundance for all, or we can starve. It is up to us what future we create. 

If the Father concept is Universal Law, the application of that is the international government, and it will decide whether we work together to solve the problems, we ignore the problems and pass them off to future generations, or every tries to control the international government and grab for power.

The games are oppressive to the people. Our proposals and planning are offered to the nations, and what they do with them is up to the governments. The power a nation has is derived by the people, and any government that is oppressive to its people will eventually face rebellion. 

With each conflict that arises, there is the potential there for one individual or organization to come up with a plan to solve the crisis. We are looking at the international laws that will be written. Our organization has established the framework based on the principles of the cooperation of nature, but it is not up to us to create the laws that do into it. 

The battles over the plan will eventually be played out in the debates over the bills that are written for the international legislative branch to debate. 

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

How to solve a humanitarian crisis

The Universe has three levels, which are called the Father, Mother and Son concepts, or the Principles, the Power and the Project levels.

If you look at the game of Baseball, for example, you have the overview concept of baseball--the game including the rules, the teams that apply the rules, and a game that is played on a certain day.

If you leave out one concept, you can't solve the problems.

If a government has no interest in upholding the rights of the people, sending in humanitarian aid doesn't work. It is undermined. The aid, including arms and food, can be stolen and turned over to the elite to sell on the Black Market, for example. You can be sending in billions of dollars worth of aid, and every penny is turned against you. By leaving out the voice of the people, you leave them no choice but to be decimated or to flee, and where do they go? They can be enslaved by one government and turned into an army, like ISIS, sent to other nations, and you do the slaughtering.

Fighting ISIS won't work, because ISIS comes from the Son level that can be supported by the Father, the Mother or the Son levels. If the people are rebelling, they have been dragged into the conflict as part of a genocide, which is based on weaving an illusion, and you cannot overcome the illusion, because not only are you in the reactive mode, those who weave the illusion are many steps ahead of you.

The solution is always the international government because it turns the attention of the governments back into the country to support the people. The power a nation has is based on its population in the international House of Representatives. Participation in the international government offers the world leaders the opportunity to function equal to other world leaders, a total of ten benefits, including the opportunity for the international government to come into their nation and to advise the government on its natural resources, including resources that are being overlooked.

For a government to work with the Mother level, and to leave out the voice of the people, there is no guarantee their plan goes up, down or straight ahead. The contractors in Iraq sometimes got into trouble because they played the power games, too, rather than just offering support. If their plan does not stand on the root cause of the crisis, the plan will fail.

To solve a humanitarian crisis, the solution is to turn it over to the international government, which functions on a higher level than any existing government institution. They understand how to solve the problems, and you also keep an open dialogue with the people, including enabling one individual to take an unfair law or practice all the way to the International Supreme Court. You make it possible for one individual to be upwardly mobile to the extent that the "cream rises to the top." People who have been in crisis, and have created successful plans to overcome any crisis, will become the proverbial cream.

If people are left to live their lives without interference, we can solve our own problems. There are seven power games that people play, and governments generally play five of them, which come together as acts of revenge. The act of revenge against Saddam Hussein is based on war, genocide, massacres based on the game of Greed, enslavement and terrorism. Conflicts start with acts of intolerance, which spiral down.

You don't fight ISIS to end the conflict. You don't degrade and destroy. You offer the entire planet the opportunity to function on a higher level, and you draw the entire planet to your side, starting with the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees to every American the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Monday, September 26, 2016

Our proposal to President Obama (Executive Summary Only)

Our organization has been attempting to travel to Washington DC with a proposal to President Obama, but due to the hostile takeover of our organization in the form of character defamation, we have not yet been able to go there.  The election is coming soon, and we have not developed a relationship with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, so we are posting the executive summary of this presidential proposal today.

It makes no difference if the president of the United States is involved because U.S. participation comes in the form of a constitutional amendment, and the president of the United States does not sign an amendment into law. It is a matter for for the people of the United States, Congress and the state legislatures to determine.

If President Obama chooses to support the plan for the international government, he can continue to do so by becoming a delegate to the conference in Europe when the other world leaders meet. Several other world leaders are or will no longer be in office at that time, and joining the delegation allows them to rise in power even while out of office.

This proposal is a channeled message from Seth, a seventh dimensional entity. All of our proposals are channeled messages, and at this time, contain only the executive summary. If the nation chooses to agree to the overview proposal, Seth will continue on with the rest of the information. If this proposal is purloined by the perpetrators of the hostile takeover of our organization, they do not have the capacity to follow through on the proposal. Seth will not work with anyone who does not stand on the principles of Universal Law. 

The Choice to Step Out of the Crisis

Imagine that once you hit the point of no return, you have a choice of going deeper into the crisis or rising above the crisis. The point of no return is an opportunity for you to step out of the crisis. It is a moment of choice based on the ultimate conclusion of your actions.

How this applies to the United States at the present time is that many nations are standing up in protest about what has occurred to the sovereign nation of Iraq. They see themselves as the next in line for their countries and their governments to be toppled, also. What is to stop them now that the United Nations has proven ineffectual to prevent or to stop wars? Many people believe the United Nations has become an institution of body counters. In the Iraq crisis, as it was beginning, instead of going in and solving the crisis, and demanding that the factions stand up and quit their game-playing, they ran away to Cyprus and declared they weren’t coming in to do something until people started to behave themselves. Well, imagine that by running away from the crisis... A far higher solution would have been to assume responsibility for ending the crisis.

Suzeranda, the head of our organization—also known as Karen Holmes—understands, and uses the analogy, that the United Nations has become like a schoolteacher on a playground when the children are fighting, and instead of wading into the fight to end it, the teacher is siding with one faction, and putting the other side down. Well, imagine that those children on the playground who have been put down consider the others to be bullies, and the teacher to be siding with the bullies. It is not your perspective that is important, it is the perspective of the people who have been put down because this is what leads to terrorism. When people feel they have been treated unfairly, and have no voice, they raise their voice to be heard, oftentimes to the point of violence. This is the root cause of terrorism, and why the United Nations, or the Bush administration, have not been able to end the crisis, or end terrorism, but their actions seem to have fomented the crisis, and put it into a deeper state.

The point of no return came, you could say, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, or from the opposite perspective, the assassination of Saddam Hussein. In this paper we will draw different perspectives, and bounce back and forth between the perspectives, not with the idea that we are putting anyone down, but because you have to understand what your enemy is thinking. If you were a general or an admiral coming up with a battle strategy, it does no good to address only your own perspective. “We are going to do this. We are going to stand on this field...” You have to understand where the enemy is coming from and to address the contingencies, or your strategy will fail. By not taking into consideration the other side’s perspective, you are not looking at all the contingencies of your plan. To address this and to come up with a solution, there has to be a way for everyone to agree to that solution because there is no way in the world the United States can fight the entire world.

You see, each time you topple one country, it creates a sense of fear in the others because they don’t want to be toppled. Until the point of the execution— assassination— of Saddam Hussein, people were willing to address the idea that the United States would “come to its senses” and resolve the issue based on international law. But at this point in time, as I said, the international structure does not address this idea, so the United States, by doing this, has, instead of just playing on a government level, is also playing on an individual level. This affects individuals. Imagine that people across the world—who have the power... It is not the governments, it is the people who have the power. The people are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough.” Initially, it was, “We will allow the governments to sort this out. We will allow them to come up with some treaty and it will solve the crisis.” But, as sovereign governments are being toppled, at this point in time, the people are standing up.

We will address the idea of a movement, and we will call this “Evolution to the Revolution,” not that it is a revolution against the United States, but it is a revolution where the people are standing up and saying, “Enough is enough. The governments are not addressing our needs. This was a power play. Enough is enough.” You could say the initial people coming into a movement, or a revolution, you could call it... We will look at this as a movement to take out the the sting of a revolution. We will look at this as if it were a movement against the governments now. The people are standing up and saying, “The governments are no longer addressing our needs. It is a power play.”

The first group that are drawn in are those who understand the principles. Those were the people who saw the ultimate conclusion of this based on the principles. They were the peace protesters. They were the nations like France, for example, or Russia, those who didn’t go along with the Coalition countries. They were the ones you couldn’t convince to understand your point of view because they already understood your point of view was not going to function. At some point, people would stand up in protest because it wasn’t standing on the principles.

The next group to be brought into a movement are those who are financially affected. To take this out of the sting even further, I will draw a parallel with the American Revolution against England, because many people understand the ramifications of the Stamp Act. Originally, the average citizen was not affected by the Stamp Act, because it was only a few pennies and they were willing to pay. But those individuals who were in business, who made many transactions in one day, and as they were being taxed by the Act, saw it was an unfair tax. At first the principles of the American Revolution were looked at by John Adams and Sam Adams because they understood the principles. The business people, from a business perspective, were saying, “We don’t want war because war will destabilize our country.” You see, when George Bush made the statement that we will fight the war outside of our country, the business people were saying, “Yes! I stand for this.” The Republican party supported it because they would be able to get more business. But the American Revolution was more aligned with what the Iraqi people or those countries were saying; “They will allow us to be blown to bits by terrorists because they don’t want it in their country, but it is our economies that are being affected.”

Imagine that the U.S. government, in this crisis, is standing on the side of King George, and establishing the concept. We will introduce the solution of this based on on how the Americans understood this, battling King George. You are looking at a flip-flop idea now. Looking at it from this perspective, you don’t stand a chance of winning this war. The war, basically is over, and you have lost. At this point, by executing Saddam Hussein, you have lost.

The business people have now been affected. You have drawn in the idea that the contracts no longer stand. You weren’t able to stabilize the country to enable the businesspeople to be able to get their life. You have lost the Republican power base because they weren’t able to get their business, also. Not only do you have against you the countries that fear they will be toppled, because of standing on the principles and their economies have been toppled, and they see the fear of their own economies being affected, but you also have lost the Republican power base because the economy was not based on sound business principles.

The practices of downsizing and outsourcing to Asia the foundation of your company—based on stockholders—you have turned over the power of a corporation because they are observing the concepts now. You could say the Pacific Rim countries now are rising in power because they understand the principles of how the United States functions on a business level. You could say you have turned over responsibility for all your businesses to Asian countries now. You have lost your Republican power base. You have lost Congress. The Democrats have no clue how to solve the crisis because all of the other people are, you could say, a mob mentality coming at you, and the terrorists have drawn people to their side.

The final group of people to be drawn into a movement are those who have lost their lives. As the companies have been downsized, and their jobs have been outsourced, the intellectual property has been sent over seas, you could say, with the retro-engineering of technology, the United States at the present is actually a third world country.

But all is not lost, because it is possible to gain back the power, and this is where we are standing now, is addressing how to gain back the power and the glory of the United States.

The power of the United States does not come from a strong military, and it is also not based on its economic strength, because there are other countries that have strong militaries and other countries with strong economies. The niche the United States has, that other countries don’t have, is the basis of the Constitution. What we will do is to draw back the power by standing on the principles of the freedom for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” We will go back to stand on the principles of what made the United States strong in the first place.

You know how to do this because you understand the American Revolution. You understand where other people are coming from, and you understand the principles of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” But, instead of saying we will outsource our strengths... we will downsize our people... we will tax our people to the point they can’t get their life anymore, we are not going to oppress our people anymore. We will uphold our people and we will stand on a firm economic basis—of firm business practices—and we will enable everyone to get their life. Instead of saying, “ We are going to get our life, and”—excuse the expression— “screw everyone else,” instead we will enable everyone to be able to get their life, and that is the basis for our plan for world peace. We will introduce the plan for world peace, and with the modicum of power the United States has left, we will draw that together with all the practices that no longer function and didn’t get us the power, and we will turn that around. We will let go of the security of Iraq, and being able to gain natural resources by plundering other countries and toppling other regimes—we will let go of those games—and we will establish a protocol for functioning on a far higher level, which is to market the principles of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” to all the countries of the world.

That is the basis of our plan for world peace, and the U.S. perspective for doing so. In the remaining part of this paper we will address all of these principles on a far deeper level, based on the contingency that the U. S. government will accept our initial plan based on the exit strategy for Iraq. The United States is at the point of no return now, once more, related for this plan for world peace. If the contingency for the plan for Iraq is not accepted, and the United States goes into deeper war in Iraq, and sends in more troops, then this plan is null and void because the United States at that point will be in a world war, and it will literally be “us versus them.”

Up, Down or Straight Ahead?

To this point in our “investigation” in how to create a plan for world peace, we have addressed the idea that certain principles are involved, and those principles relate to spiritual concepts on which the Constitution is based. You could say the time of the American Revolution was based on similar concepts to what the United States and the world is going through at the present time. Imagine, that once they understood how to achieve a sense of unity between the colonies, they were able to stand up. President Bush has declared, “United We Stand” as his rally call. Imagine how close to the truth he is by that, but extend it to include the entire world in that “United We Stand” concept, because under the spiritual hierarchy, no country is given greater esteem than another country. This is the principle of Universal Law the Constitution rests on.

Look, then, that by standing on the principles, you can go back to a higher place than you are now. You could say the world, and the United States in particular at this time, is at a moment of choice. You can go down deeper into the crisis, pushing the pendulum further out, or denying the crisis by obfuscating the idea and standing on the premise that you know how to get out of it when everyone else clearly sees you don’t have a plan. Well, if you have a plan, it has to address the root cause of the crisis. In this segment of our paper, we will address the idea of the root cause of the crisis, and this will draw back to the point of the straight and narrow, where the pendulum no longer swings.

You must be very careful. If you choose to go down, and to swing this back, you can also choose to push the pendulum to the opposite side of the spectrum. An example of this... When 9/11 occurred, the United States was seen as victims of this catastrophic event, and people all over the world knew the horror of this event. There was a great deal of sympathy. But, by gaining sympathy, that does not give you carte blanche to go out and attack and to get revenge. You can see that revenge only creates a feud. The premise we are standing on to draw people out of this crisis is that the games are what cause the catastrophes, and we stand on the principles that the games have to end. This goes back to the concept that it is not people who are bad, it is the games that are bad.

Everyone has the capacity to get their life on a far higher level when they work together. There are hundreds and thousands and millions of examples across the planet of people working together and creating their life on a higher level. We will just draw up a few examples to look at, and direct you to the Nobel Peace Prize winners, and what they have managed to accomplish by doing that. Imagine that they came up with a plan where people were able to come out ahead in some way, and then they were honored for that. Let’s market this idea of everyone being able to create their life on a far higher level and then let’s allow George Bush to win the Nobel Prize for 2008 as he stands on the principles of this. He has been misguided to think that the games would work, when in effect, the games never worked.

In our books, and the Iraq exit strategy, we address the ideas of the games and how they lead to war and massacres and genocide. We will refer you to those books and the proposal and you can look at this in greater depth. For this aspect, we will take the concept of how to get out of the games, because you now know the games don’t work, but how to turn around and to function and to draw out of the crisis, you could say, is what your choice is for going up.

If you go straight ahead and deny the crisis and how the games function, you will just lose credibility. At some point in time, everyone will just walk away from you and you will not be re-elected into office. It is like Hillary Clinton standing with George Bush and saying the war needed to go on, that it was the right thing to do. That is seen as a power play so people walk away from you at a certain point in time. Power plays don’t work. It becomes ludicrous after a while when you stand on that premise. You are not standing on the principles; you are standing on the game. This is why the Republican base has walked away from President Bush. His stand has become ludicrous. It becomes a childish game, like “My big brother can beat you up.” After a while, you reach the point where you understand that you really don’t have a big brother because he never shows up. The stand becomes ludicrous.

To turn away from this is to start to function on a higher level. No games. No revenge. No attempts to gain sympathy or compassion from someone, because by trying to gain compassion, you just back yourself into a corner. If that becomes your strategy, at some point in time, people can no longer help you. You have painted yourself into a corner and there is no way out. An example of this would be someone who uses his or her illness to get compassion. Being sick is one thing when you are 12 years old and trying to get out of a math test, but being a nation and trying to get compassion... Your responsibility is to give compassion and to handle the requirements of maintaining the society, the aspects of society that an individual is not able to handle.

Let’s go to the root cause of a government. Why would a group of people create an agreement to form a government? That is because as each donates a certain percentage to that cause, it allows a larger amount for a higher level of functioning. But, when that government functions on a lower level, and creates a sense of war, and drags everyone into it, and there is no reason for it, and this is where rebellions come about. You could say the United States is open for rebellion at this time because it is no longer functioning. When the approval rating of Congress is below 20%, or the president’s is below 25 or 30%, at some point it is opening it up for rebellion, and the Republican—and the Democratic party, because they don’t have a plan, either—is facing this concept of “cleaning house.” You are about to prove you are expendable.

To temper this argument a bit, you have the capacity at this point, as you are being squeezed, to also function on a far higher level. That is to go back to stand on the principles of what made the United States strong in the first place. The issues you are facing, by extending the inalienable rights the people of the United States have...

Let’s look at the inalienable rights for a moment.

The inalienable rights are granted to every person on the planet by the Creator of all people. That is based on Universal Law. Let’s say the Constitution is an interpretation of Universal Law, just as a religion is an interpretation of Universal Law on a cultural basis. Consider that the Founding Fathers of the United States based their concept on the inalienable rights granted by the Creator. At that point, by blurring together this idea... Instead of looking at one religion, we will consider that all the religions are based on that concept. We are taking it to the higher level, not basing it on religion, but basing it on the inalienable rights, on Universal Law. If you consider only one religion,  then you are only looking at one small segment again. That would be like saying Christians have a higher standing in God’s eyes than all the other religions—the Muslims, and such. This is what led to the protests. You could say that you are looking at things from a very narrow perspective. Well, if you say your country is better than another, then you are drawing people in who believe they have these inalienable rights, also, and those inalienable rights are that (1) everyone has the capacity to create the life they want without interference—this is an inalienable right from God—(2) that they have a voice in their government, and(3) they have to be treated fairly and equally. At that point, who can complain? You are drawing in the widest perspective possible.

This is what we will do when we look at purifying the legal system of the United States. As we introduce the plan for the international government, based on these three premises—that everyone has to be able to create the life they want without interference, that they have the right to be treated fairly and equally, and that they have to have a voice in their government—at that point in time, no one can complain, and what you are doing is establishing a structure that looks at the widest perspective possible. You are leaving no one out, so at that point, no one can complain. Your approval rating at that point is 100%, because they are sharing in the responsibility in the creation of what you are doing. It is like Patrick Henry standing up and protesting that the Bills of Rights had to be created, because it left out one segment—the rights of the people. If you have the rights of the federal government and the rights of the State, well, what happens to the rights of the people? You see, that silent segment has to be brought in, also.

You understand at this point, by looking back at the creation of our own government, that by establishing this to allow everyone to come out ahead, it allows everyone to come out ahead! That by denying someone a voice, they will raise their voice, and it will create a sense of terrorism. By denying people the right to create their life, other people who are afraid they will be denied their right to get their life will stand up and rebel.

Consider Osama bin Laden as standing up to say he has the right as a Muslim, and as a member of the Arab community, to defend his religion and his country. Which, as we look at the widest perspective possible now... Let’s say that terrorism doesn’t exist, but from the perspective of every person on the planet, they all see themselves as patriots. If you go back and consider what the colonists did when they came together and created the U.S. Constitution, imagine what would happen if you got all the countries together and created a constitutional convention, where they were all able to come together to debate these concepts.

Now, we are not going to absolve anyone of responsibility at this point. We will say under Universal Law, what you do to someone else will be done to you. The judgment against someone is God’s prerogative, and we will allow God to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. Under Universal Law, we will establish the court system to enable this to be played out. Because, one thing you have learned is that an illegitimate court, such as the kangaroo court that tried Saddam Hussein, only makes the person become a martyr. You could say that by executing—assassinating—Saddam Hussein, depending on your perspective, the United States went down, lost credibility, and Saddam Hussein became a martyr. That is all you accomplished. You created a sense of unity in the Arab countries against the United States. It backfired on you. That tactic seemed like it would work, but it backfired.

In the mediation aspect, we will establish the courts. For a moment, let’s look at the International Criminal Court, and that the United Nations does not require a country to be a signatory of that international body. The U.S. government is fully aware that if it signs that paper, it will open a pandora’s box of cases brought against it. You will be in a legal quagmire. At the same time, by drawing together everyone else, and saying we will allow you a voice in government, but under the principles, let’s agree that until this point,  all of these issues were squeezing us to create something on a higher level. As the United States refuses to be a signatory, it is like not paying your bills. They keep building and building and building to the point that your creditors starts making demands on you.

How do you get out of this when you don’t have any funds? When you are a housewife and you can’t pay your bills? At that point in time, you have to get credit counseling, or draw someone in to help you, because there is no way you can function. You are continually being squeezed, and at some point in time, you have to declare bankruptcy. You could say declaring bankruptcy goes down. Not paying your bills is going straight ahead and denying that you have them, which becomes a legal crisis at some point in time. The final choice is to come out of that, and that, you could say, is to ask for help, or to start functioning on a higher level. Drawing that comparison, let’s consider that by functioning on a higher level, where everyone comes out ahead, they are willing to let go of frivolous lawsuits. Consider all of those law suits could have been brought up against Saddam Hussein, but by executing him, they will never be resolved. The Iraqi government, by executing him, also left a lot of angry Iraqi people who felt they were denied a voice by executing him too quickly.

Consider all of the parameters of this when you look at this, that by instituting an illegitimate government, by trying him in an illegitimate court, by refusing to allow people a voice, by looking at the economic crisis—which is what we will look at next— by saying we will turn over the power to the Iraqi government, but you are building major military bases and the world’s largest embassy, at the same time, everyone is looking at it and saying, “We know what you are doing.” You have a choice to function on a lower basis, go straight ahead, or function on a higher basis.

Our premise is the U. S. government has to start choosing to address all of these issues from the perspective of the people you are dealing with, that by denying these people a voice, you are denying yourself an opportunity to resolve the consequences of this. You are not functioning on a higher level; you are choosing to go straight ahead and into denial, which means that at some point in time, like Elisabeth Kubler Ross said, “Denial is the first stage of losing your life.” When you are told you have terminal cancer, for example, the first stage is the sense of denial. The second stage is when you start to negotiate. Well, what we will do is to say there is no reason to go into these stages, where you are about to lose your life completely, and to drop the United States into a situation where it has lost all its power, and it becomes a third world country, because the logical consequences of all of these actions are that the United States is becoming a third world country at this time.

In our next segment we will discuss the issue of the financial aspect, which is the logical consequences of the United States becoming bankrupted.

Consider that the United States hired Osama bin Laden to bankrupt Russia so it would have to leave Afghanistan. At that point in time, the United States moved in, but then Osama bin Laden turned the tables on the United States and decided he could use the same tactics on the United States, and bankrupt the United States. He doesn’t have to beat the United States in a war. It is a war of attrition. All he has to do is keep making threats and keep the United States at a level of readiness. You trained him to do that.

Imagine that as this is happening, and the United States is going down, the Asian countries have also learned our tactics by watching our country outsource and downsize, and give our intellectual property rights away. The United States has created a sense of training the Asian countries to function on the level of the United States. During World War II, Japan was a ruined economy. Now it is one of the strongest countries in the world. The Asian countries believe this is their century, that they are now rising. As the United States has outsourced and downsized its corporations, you have trained these countries to function on this level. What is now about to occur is they will take over control of the world. George Bush, through his act of creating a war he could not end, has bankrupted the United States. But all is not lost, because with the Asian countries, and as the United States pulls out of this crisis by standing on the principles, you have the capacity to rise out of that crisis, also. First you have to understand what didn’t work. That is what we will address in our next segment—why those tactics didn’t work.

You have many economists—the people who told “the Grand Lie”—that these ideas would work, and people believed them. You have to now start to allow people to be squeezed, because you will not be able to convince them what they have done isn’t working. It takes a time for mankind to evolve out of their crisis, just like it took time for Moses to wander in the wilderness for forty years with the Children of Israel before they could go on to the promised land—to draw in a religious story here.

What I will do is to look  at all the ideas that have to be let go of, and then we will start to address in the next segment the economic structure. At that point we will also look at the social—such as the court aspect and mediation aspect, and even health issues, and such, because as the economic structure goes down within the United States, you are also leaving a society of people where the social programs will be cut shortly. You will run into wave after wave of crises that will come from this idea. It will follow wave after wave, where one crisis will lead to the next. Our final segment will address how to draw out onto the far higher level, so we ask that you bear with us as we discuss all of these parameters that have to be addressed. We have to first look at what didn’t work before you can start understanding the principles of what will work.

Karen Holmes, Principal
The World Peace Organization
for the One World Government

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Where Are We Now?

To create the life you want, like going on a journey, you must know where you are, where you are going, and how to get there.

Where we are now is the plan for the international government has been opened to debate by the world leaders, but no one knows how to make it come about. People in 85 nations support the plan for the international government, and so the plan has passed cultural review, and therefore is a viable alternative to the existing institutions, which are still very strong, but have proven they cannot end or prevent wars. As the majority of people still hold onto the existing structures, the plan for the international government must be rising in power to take their places as they fail.

Many people are watching the U.S. presidential election, wondering if Clinton or Trump will win and whether they will support the plan for the international government. It makes no difference whether they do or not, because world peace comes from the people, not the governments. In the United States, it is a Constitutional Amendment process, and the president has no real say in the outcome. As it becomes apparent that their foreign policy won't work, and it makes the crises worse, they must turn responsibility over to our organization. The power a government has is derived by the people.

Our first focus is on the Exit Strategy for Iraq, which involves the ideology of where true power comes from. People (and nations) get into trouble by equating ideas, such as power and military might. America should know better, because our independence from England was based on a small untrained army against the combined might of the English army and the Hessians. And, because the Coalition nations during the Iraq War could not stop the Iraqi insurgency, who fought with weapons they made in their kitchens.

The rise of ISIS--violent extremism--is like a mob scene, with people fighting. The global genocide is starting to tear apart the people, drawing more and more people into the fight. To end a mob scene, one person stands up and declares "this is not right," and walks away. It creates a question in the mind of those around him, and one by one it collapses the battle.

Within our organization, everyone knows about the plan for the international government, but everyone is fighting, like the mob scene. The illusion is very strong. The darkness is profound. The bullies who equate power and brutality have taken control and have woven an illusion that prevents the next family from coming into the framework based on the cooperation of nature. Many people equate power and money, and they have turned their lives over to those who have the money, or are getting revenge on others because they believe the lies. This has log-jammed everyone and many people don't see any opportunity to function on a higher level.

This is a dilemma, and the solution to every dilemma is to do what is in everyone's best interest.

In the battle of ideologies, no one is in agreement with one individual becoming supreme leader of the planet. The only thing people will agree to is a plan that benefits everyone and treats everyone fairly and equally. But, those who wish to become supreme leader will do everything they can to postpone or to stop the rise of the plan that benefits everyone, including themselves. Their plan backfires on them. They lose power on the international level.

Any existing institution, law or practice that does not treat everyone fairly and equally will eventually fail. Something must be rising to take its place. At the same time, what is rising must stand on the principles of fairness and equality.

No one really sees yet that what they are doing isn't working. People are grabbing for power. There has been not only a battle over the caliphate and the plan for the international government, but also within the plan for the international government. The battle of the plan transitions into the next step, and that is the battle over technology--which relates to the planning process, or the application of the plan.

The transition from the battle over the plan to the battle over technology implies that everyone agrees to the plan for the international government, but then we must deal with "the dance," which is opposing concepts. This is something we are looking at in the Faith of the Pure Ray. Opposite sides of the planning circle have similar characteristics. If you focus on technology, you must also address conflict resolution. Will technology be used as a weapon or a tool?

This is occurring with the battle over the plan, also, but based on the principles of Universal Law. Will you use it as a tool to enable you to get the life you want, or will you face the backlashes?

Where we are going is the creation of an international government that treats everyone fairly and equally, and how we get their is the long line of proposals based on the planning process. Mankind will transition out of war-based thinking into peace-based thinking as people walk away from the mob scene.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Letting Go of Terrorism

Today marks the 15th anniversary of September 11th, 2001, the worst terrorist attack in the history of the planet. What did it teach us? It taught us what we no longer wish to experience.

If mankind will no longer tolerate terrorism, we must come up with a plan that addresses the root cause of terrorism, one that benefits everyone.

The root cause of terrorism is not that "some people are good and some people are bad, and the bad people want to hurt the good people." It is that people on the bottom have no voice in matters of grave concern, and must raise their voice to be heard, oftentimes to the point of violence.

Terrorism comes from the power game of Anger, lashing out when denied a voice. The solution is to open a dialogue and to address the issues.

The plan for the international government guarantees to every person on the planet the inalienable rights to be able to create our life without interference, to be treated fairly and equally and to have a voice in our government. In the era of the international government, terrorism will fade away.

The Light is coming back into the world

The plan for the international government was first introduced in a channeled book by an seventh dimensional entity by the name of Seth, who is famous for his books through Jane Roberts. Together, they channeled books that are considered classics of spirituality, which teach that each of us creates our own reality. Their books were sold to serious students of spirituality, and they sold over 7 million books. Jane Roberts died in the 1980s, and now he is returning to teach how to create the life you want to anyone who is interested in learning how to do so.

Seth doesn't tell anyone what to do, but explains how to do it. What we create is up to us.

The international government functions on three levels. It is the primary example of the principles of creativity as the entire planet comes together to create the life we all want, it will guarantee to everyone the right to create their life without interference, and it will support the people to be creative as we apply the principles in our own lives.

The principles our organization stands on creates a framework of projects, and eventually every person on the planet will be part of the framework, which is based on the principles of the cooperation of nature.

"A Manual for Peace" was channeled in 1999, and in it, Seth explains that world peace can come now because a majority of the people have prayed for peace, and so it can come. He prophesies that during the time period between January 2008 to December of 2012, all the cycles lined up, and because change only occurs easily at the beginning and the end of a cycle, this is a time of great changes. We must be flexible to make it through this time of change, because by holding onto the old structure, this is a time of great fears. This is a time when everyone is facing a spiritual test, that of applying the principles in our own life.

The first people to come into the organization are the channels, but also the professional publishing team. Each member of the team has years of experience with Seth, so now the idea is that everyone must work together to shift from the old concepts of spirituality to the new. The old structure still exists, but now it is possible to bring into the spiritual movement every person on the planet, because this is something that everyone on the planet wants.

Jesus of Nazareth is known as the Prince of Peace, and he talked about overcoming death, that "all this and more you can do." Those who asked why made the effort to do deeper into the teachings found the answers while the rest of humanity continued on thinking they were getting the life they want until the reached their end of life crisis and suddenly realized that they couldn't get the life they wanted, and so they died or started to ask why and someone who had already overcome their same crisis demonstrated the process.

This is a time of great Darkness as mankind is facing this profound spiritual test. Even the spiritual teachers are going through the test as people are being squeezed to let go of the old and to come into the new. But, there is nothing new here. These are ancient teachings that are now just being reintroduced.

This is a plan, and Christianity teaches the principles of Creativity, the first step of the planning process. Mankind is learning to apply the principles that the spiritual teachers, like Jesus, in our own lives. Each came to introduce the principles of their religions to their own cultures, and now the principles are expanding to include every person on the planet.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

The Battle Over the Plan continues but the international government is the solution

The fear has been that the old structure is collapsing. Mankind relies on power games, but the games reach their ultimate conclusion when played on an innocent person, and that occurred on a global basis when George W. Bush invaded Iraq preemptively, and there were no WMD. He collapsed the entire paradigm based on power games.

Another way to think of it is that mankind is evolving out of war-based thinking, and the battles are raging between those who will no longer tolerate war and those whose financial support is based on waging war. Eventually, the premise that one individual would support waging war because it benefits him or her financially becomes ludicrous, and that belief structure collapses when he or she would sacrifice a loved one for personal gain, which is what motivates the peaceful individual in the first place.

"I would not want to experience war myself so I choose not to force others into war."

At this time, there are three groups of people in the world. There are those who choose to wage war. There are those who ignore the crisis and believe the United Nations is responsible for peace. There are those who understand neither of these can lead to world peace and have seen the potential of the international government, and this segment is growing as the word about the plan is spreading.

Eventually, every person on the planet will support the plan for the international government, because as crises arise, the solution to each of the crises is to do what is in everyone's best interest, and the solution will always be the plan for the international government. As that becomes apparent, mankind will start to evolve so quickly that it will seem like we are on a rocket out of the abyss.

This is the potential of our first year's proposals, starting with the evolutionary concept that disputes between nations will be resolved in court rather than the battlefield, and the monies now wasted on war will go to the people, instead.

Waging war is so Middle Ages! One evolutionary "echo" in history may have occurred when knights were trained to protect small kingdoms, but that did not address the root cause of the problem, and the farmer's livelihoods were sacrificed. Farmers were expected to grab a pitchfork and join in the battles that trampled their fields, and they tolerated it for a while, but then a code of honor came about and the farmers watched captured knights treated like gentlemen and ransomed by their king, and still the farmers were expected to pay the king their fair share of the taxes out of their trampled harvest to enable the king to train more knights. Not fair! Farmers protested by pulling knights off their horse, and warfare evolved to standing armies. But it didn't end disputes between kings because they had their armies and still the farmers fields were trampled. The power games continued.

A better solution is to settle disputes in court rather than the battlefield and to leave the people to prosper.  It is an evolutionary concept!

It is not that modern because within the United States, states are sovereign and disputes between states are resolved in federal court rather than the battlefield, and the last time there was a dispute that was settled by war was in the 1860s, during our Civil War, and our Constitution that enabled disputes to be resolved in court was written in the 1780s, not that long after kings created standing armies.

Armies will still exist in the era of the international government, but rather than to raise taxes to supply them, nations can hire them out to work on large construction projects, and they will work shoulder to shoulder with their former enemies, and mankind will transition out of war-based thinking by holding a military Olympics, just like the tournaments that helped mankind transition in the Middle Ages!

Can we learn from our past so we don't have to repeat it? Rocketing out of the abyss is to understand the root cause of the crisis and to come up with a plan that benefits everyone, and the solution will always be the international government, or one of the innovative projects, which sets mankind on the path to the prophesied thousand years of peace.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Open the door to Iran? Not yet.

The plan for the international government opened the door to Iran and Cuba, and agreements have been made, but the United States has not yet agreed to  participate in the creation of the proposed international government. Participation in the plan comes by invitation from the people, when the people demand it from their government. The United States must agree to amend our Constitution, and so everyone must see the benefits of the plan.

The plan has been opened to debate, but no one has actually committed to the plan. There is the understanding that there is a way out of the crisis--a way to function on a higher level-- but people must first understand the root cause of the crisis. What got us into the crisis in the first place? Then we must all assume responsibility for our own part in the crisis, agree to the plan, then we must start the long walk out of the abyss.

The planning and proposals are lined up in such a way that each crisis and issue must be addressed, like laying the foundation for a building. They go from the most general to the specific. We must first address the conflict that is the worst case scenario for the planet--the global genocide.

How many people see the planet facing a global genocide? The dictionary definition of a genocide is ethnic cleansing. How does that apply to Iraq? It is still a dark cloud on the horizon, and only those who recognize the games see the cloud. Once people who are responsible for ending it realize the existing structure doesn't have the capacity to end the global genocide, then they will start looking at all the plans, and agree to the one that is already solving the crisis.

Iran and Cuba are not included in the first eight proposals. The first eight nations all fell into chaos because of a sense of judgment, so we must first look at whether anyone has the right to judge another.

How many nations and how many people judged Saddam Hussein to be Axis of Evil, and declared the world to be better off without him? There were no WMD found. He was therefore attempting to comply with UN sanctions. This judgment goes against Universal Law and the commandment that "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." This sense of judgment led to acts of revenge, which triggered th global genocide. How can that be swept under the proverbial rug?

To not see the cloud on the horizon, and to ignore the crisis as the storm is almost upon us is to demonstrate that you are not part of the solution. To deny others their opportunity to rise out of their crisis by refusing to agree to the plan that benefits everyone is a demonstration that you are functioning only for your own interests. You have no power and so you are grabbing for power.

Iran is a technological nation, and is grabbing for power. Before they come into the plan, that nation must address issues related to conflict resolution.