Peering Over the Precipice of Change

Posted: June 10, 2012 in FB Note Archive

Let me first point you to an early warning piece compiled by Michael Snyder: George Soros, IMF & The World Bank: Warnings Of An Impending Economic Collapse.* In my DVD, 2012: The Year of Great Transition, I talk about the multiple indicators that propose that the global economic system will suffer a great implosion starting late next month. I certainly have thoughtful friends who don’t believe this is going to happen and I have other friends who have questioned both the value and motivations associated with highlighting these potential discontinuities. They generate fear, they say. And furthermore, those things might not happen.

This got me thinking a bit more about this whole transition and our preparation/response to it all.

I guess it’s becoming clearer to me that each of us has only ourselves to assess in determining what we need to do going forward. I remember the response of one of our friends here in Berkeley Springs when he began to read my 2012 book: “I read the first couple of chapters the first night and wanted to go get my gun and shoot myself,” he announced to a party we were attending. My response was, “No, no! You’ve got to read it all, don’t stop as soon as you find things uncomfortable!” I guess, in general, I’d suggest the same thing in terms of these kinds of messages that harbinger destruction and upheaval. Don’t stop at the bad stuff, the really exciting stuff comes where the larger context is explained.

E. Dee Conrad’s book, A New Dawn Awaits, which I’ve mentioned here and many of your now have, is like this-you can’t stop in the first chapters that talk about all of the disruption-you have to read it all. You need to understand where this all is going. I’ve had many people tell me that they were seriously moved and appreciative of my making her book available to them, so I know that it works for those people for whom it works.

I guess that is the point. Each of us enters this transition from a different perspective and a different set of needs and therefore each person’s appropriate engagement with the shift must necessarily be unique.

That being said (and I really do appreciate that each of us must approach this personally and that none of us is in a position to judge others), let me loft out a couple of ideas. I think one of the most fundamental (practical) objectives of this life experience is learning to live without fear-finding comfort in the “eternal now”-as Paul Tillich called it. The ability to live without fear of the future fundamentally changes one’s approach to life and opens up significant options that fear and anxiety preclude. There are a number of ways to find this space-Echardt Tolle has famously written about some of them-but what I, at least, have found is that fear seems to coexist with a sense of uncertainty. In other words, the more uncertain someone is about a potential situation, the more open the person becomes to unleashing a gnawing apprehension about what might happen . . . and, of course, how bad it could become.

For me, the two general approaches to dealing with this uncertainty revolve around ignorance and information, the pursuit of which, in turn quickly becomes a bit of a logical labyrinth. On one hand, you can purposely stay uninformed of what is developing around yourself and, in not knowing about what might be inbound, neither think nor worry about the future. That works. That is what Wayne Dyer advertises that he does. I have no doubt that that is the best approach for some, if not most, people.

The problem for me is that this approach revolves around the notion of surprises. When something big happens that you haven’t considered-and therefore don’t understand and can’t contextualize- uncertainty is generated. If the event is really abrupt and strange, it engenders a great deal of very rapid uncertainty and therefore fear. Having not considered the possibility before the fact (when time was available to make some sense of not only what such a thing could mean but also what might be done about it), you very quickly finds yourself out of time, money and options . . . and that’s usually not fun.

The alternative is to try to stay knowledgeable about what might be on the horizon, therefore engendering a picture of what you might encounter and having the opportunity to prepare yourself, mentally, physically and spiritually for the coming changes.

But that only works if you don’t become stressed by what you see. If the incoming change is scary, you internalize all of the potential ways in which the future might turn on you and that compounds your insecurity. You’re fearful again. So that won’t work either.

The challenge, therefore, is to be informed but not to become emotionally involved in what you learn and consider-to maintain an arm’s length, “observer” perspective of all that might happen that has any aspect of what might be considered negative personal implications. It’s a process of looking at the future with your head, not your heart. The underlying principle, of course, is that the future almost never shows up as you thought it would . . . and it seldom is a bad as anticipated. Worrying does absolutely no good whatsoever and embellishing those “negative” images with stressful emotions which literally increases the likelihood that something unsavory will, in fact, be manifest. Your consciousness is causal and when your emotions are supercharged, it’s like pouring gasoline on a fire. It really gets going.

So, you can stand on the sidelines and hope everything works out, or engage in the process, but only if can do so without internalizing the emotionally negative things you see emerging. It’s one thing to be surprised when the events are small but it’s quite another when the unanticipated is large and fast moving. Like the difference between a thunderstorm and a hurricane: the net effects are magnified when things are unfamiliar. They don’t make sense. You can only make sense out of anything by understanding its context. Pick any single event or concept by itself-star, storm, change, or my wife Diane-and unless you understand the context, you have no idea what it means. We all know that you also need some history-some distance-from an experience to fully appreciate what its real meaning was. Everyone has had what at the time seemed to be a bad experience, that, in retrospect made a lot of good sense and contributed positively to their lives. That is the value of context-you begin to see how the short-term disruption contributes to the longer term stability and expansion.

I mention this because many substantive indicators suggest we are entering a period of very significant, abrupt, unprecedented events. Like the article mentioned above, the channeled material from E. Dee, the clear picture coming out of the webot process, and a host of other credible sources, very good source material suggests that our world is about to change dramatically. My friend Kevin Blackwell (and many others) make the point that the planet needs to change in order for the new world to emerge. It’s all part of the process.

The bigger context is the key. It is all good, because the short term change, like childbirth, might be painful in the present but it is an integral part of something quite wonderful and beautiful being born. If you can hold that larger picture in your mind-and the fact that the universe is benign and loving and will care for you-then you can look at big change without any negative charge and be excited about participating in what appears to be the grandest event in the history of our species. The context is rather extraordinary and shifts how you look at everything.

An important distinction must be made between reasonable, supportable attempts to inform, and those kinds of transmissions that have words like “apocalypse” in their title-which, wittingly or not, are designed to prospect for and mine fear and other negative emotional responses. I would clearly put E. Dee’s book in the former category. It is coherent, unimpassioned reporting from a source that is very consistent with many other sources. As a number of people have said to me: “There’s nothing new here, but this presentation is so coherent, comprehensive and clear.”

Now, we all respond how we respond, so it would be foolish to feed one’s fear while knowing that that would be the effect. That’s why I think that many, if not most people probably can’t effectively handle the full truth of what appears to be heading this way. They will neither see nor fully appreciate the much larger context of what is transpiring and therefore slip into fear; but in this case, being uninformed risks being unprepared.

This is why I think we need balance. We have a mind for a reason and we should use it. The human mind’s capacity for logic has been one of the central tools in the evolution of our species. We have reached this place of being about to be catapulted into an extraordinary new world in good part because of the increasingly effective use of our minds. Now we need to expand-and balance-the way we operate to include logic and analysis as well as the softer, non-linear intuitive resource that many of us have essentially ignored. But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater as we move in this larger, expanded direction. That’s my guess.

But, all of the above is conventional analysis. Let me be quick to say that we can jettison all of this kind of thinking in a heartbeat if some indicators of the character and magnitude of the incoming change turn out to be true. There is the possibility that with DNA change, expanded operation in fourth and fifth dimensional reality and a bunch of other radically unconventional ideas, all the rules about how to live on this planet could change. It would be a different game on a different playing field with very different rules. Should this emerge, much of what is capturing our attention on a day-to-day basis (in the short term, at least) would be unlikely to illuminate the magnitude of what we are really experiencing. In that case, it might turn out that effectively insulating oneself from all that is going on around would be the best policy. Maybe not cluttering up one’s mind with trying to understand and anticipate in a linear way would be the best approach. I honestly don’t know. But I do think that we each must do the best that we know how to do at each stage of this transition and that, if we do that, there isn’t anything else that we really can do.

The Revolution is Love

As I mentioned in the last issue of FE, there is a practical example of how one can think about these things. It’s not the endpoint, but you can start to see the possibility of a different paradigm. Here’s a short YouTube video featuring Charles Eisenstein called The Revolution is Love. ** There’s an almost angular difference to the conventional analytical orientation. Eisenstein is working from a different operating plane-he’s using a radically different set of metrics to assess and make sense of what is happening.

That’s what is interesting to me about this big shift, “they” are changing not only the rules . . . but also the playing field. This is really a different game that we’re in.

Anticipating 2012

As I mentioned above, we’ve got a new DVD out on what 2012 looks like to me. I gathered the information from eight or nine credible sources together in a synthetic picture. It was interesting because it became clear that there were multiple indicators that were very specifically forecasting the rapid collapse of significant pieces of the existing system in the coming 12 months-some of the big pieces start coming down in the next 90 days! ***

For example, one can make a pretty compelling case that there will be an extraordinary cosmic happening in the third quarter . . . to say nothing about two other major earth-shaking events that appear to be on the schedule for June and September.

2012 is gearing up to literally become one of the most important years in the history of humanity.

Very strange things seem programmed for the third quarter-events for which we don’t yet have descriptive language. It is interesting that the input from both conventional and unconventional reporters has pointed consistently toward the uniqueness of this period.


Courtesy of John L. Peterson and the Arlington Institute:


* …

** …

*** …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s