Take an hour out of your busy schedule and change your world.
The great shift
"I awoke, only to see the rest of the world was still asleep" - Leonardo Da Vinci
Many suggest that the people of planet Earth are in the midst of a major paradigm shift, but what is a paradigm and how is the current dominant paradigm actually shifting? In this context, a paradigm is a theoretical and philosophical framework, generally of a scientific school of thought, and it is claimed that this great paradigm shift is taking place primarily because of major scientific, technological, medical and even spiritual advances, coupled with the fact that the planet and the dominant economic and political systems are falling apart at the seams and the veil of secrecy is being lifted, thanks to the abundance of information now available to us via the internet.
Many people may use the web for little more than admiring pictures of cute kittens in humorous poses or flirting with complete strangers on the other side of the planet from the confines of their bedrooms, but the fact remains that a wealth of information is now available to all. We are now firmly in the Age of Information, which includes plenty of disinformation, myths, crackpot theories, pseudo-science and all manner of wild tales, but all sorts of information is available nonetheless.
The Biblical notion of apocalypse, or revelation, is actually more about the uncovering of universal truths than the cataclysmic destruction of the planet. We are living in a time of revelation, be that revelations about the lack of sustainability of our dominant economic system, which demands constant growth, ever increasing consumption, the obsolescence of manufactured goods at the expense of the biosphere and increasing levels of personal and national debt; revelations about government spying and inherent government corruption based on the fact that private businesses, which are led by a primary need to generate profits, finance political parties and, as Napoleon Bonaparte said, "the hand that gives is above the hand that takes"; the truth about free energy and notions of spirituality, innovations in medicine and science etc.
When I was a small boy I believed that scientists and inventors had discovered and confirmed almost everything there was to discover and confirm, but now I know we've barely scratched the surface; we know virtually nothing. We are just emerging from our caves, wielding our mastery of fire. And admitting that we know virtually nothing is probably a good place to start. So let's wipe the slate clean, forget what we think we know about life and death, the universe and the human condition, and start afresh.
Before I offer you food for thought, I will offer - as a kind of disclaimer - the words of Buddha: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense."
The perspective shift
"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake
Our Milky Way Galaxy contains approximately 400 billion stars, many - if not all - of which are orbited by planets. With galaxies ranging from dwarfs, with as few as 10 million stars, to giants, with up to a hundred trillion stars, the Milky Way is something of a medium sized galaxy. To put its size into perspective, if the Milky Way had a diameter of a hundred metres, then our seemingly huge solar system would have a diameter of about one millimetre, equivalent to the size of a grain of sand. Or if our solar system (measured from the Sun to Pluto) was a disc the size of a U.S. quarter coin (2.5 cm or 1 inch in diameter), then the Milky Way would have a diameter of 2000 kilometres, or just over 1242 miles. Astronomers believe there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the entire Universe, but this figure could be much larger. To say that our universe is vast would be something of an understatement. For all intents and purposes it is infinite, though infinity is an abstract concept. But let's not despair. You are also pretty "infinite". The cell is known as the fundamental unit of life and each cell in your body is like an entity in and of itself. Estimated to contain billions of molecules and around 100 trillion individual atoms, each cell includes its own internal structure and mini organs, known as organelles. Your body is comprised of a vast number of cells. Though scientists don't know for certain precisely how many, our best guess at present is between 50 and 70 trillion. So, although you might feel like a tiny being in a universe that's vaster than you could ever imagine, you are actually a vast being made up of tens of trillions of individual cells and a mind-boggling number of individual atoms, all working together to ensure you function harmoniously as a "community".
While we're on the topic of size and scale, it's perhaps apt to attempt to set the record straight on the myth of over population. This is an extremely popular belief at the moment. We're told that there are too many people in the world; that the planet is overcrowded and the population is growing exponentially. So much so that we soon won't have enough resources to go round and there'll be water wars, alongside our current penchant for oil wars, and cities will be bursting at the seams. Well, let's put this into perspective in a way we can all grasp.
The total surface area of Earth's landmass, or 29.2% of the total surface area of the globe, i.e. the part not covered by water, covers 148,940,000km². As of the time of writing, the human population of the planet is 7.125 billion. So, if every single person currently alive on the planet - every man, woman and child - was given their own personal hectare of land (that's equivalent to 10,000m², 0.1km², or approximately 2.5 acres), they would occupy 71,250,000km², leaving an area of 77,690,000km² vacant. That's enough room for us each to swing about 3,000 cats tied together without hitting anyone else, while leaving more than half of the land on the planet devoid of human life altogether. To put this into perspective further, the total surface area of the continents of Africa and Asia combined is 74,800,532km². If we exclude Antarctica's landmass, the current population density of the planet is approximately 1 person per 20,000m² or 0.5 persons per hectare. Admittedly, much of our planet is covered by deserts, high mountains and dense forests (where we can't live because big-foot is the dominant species), but you get the picture. The planet is not over populated. Not even close. The population density of certain cities and low-lying prime coastal areas creates the illusion of over population, but it is an illusion nonetheless.
The human condition means that we are limited in our perceptions by our five senses, making it instinctively difficult for us to imagine the existence of anything we can't identify with those senses. However, it is worth considering that visible light represents only a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is a continuum of all known electromagnetic waves arranged in accordance with frequency and wavelength. At one end of the spectrum are radio waves, which have a very broad wavelength, while at the other end are the extremely short wavelengths of gamma rays. The section of this spectrum that we refer to as ‘visible light', perched between ultraviolet light and infrared light, accounts for about 2.5 per cent of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Similarly, we are also limited by audible sound. The human hearing range is on average from 20 to 20,000 hertz, representing just a tiny fraction of all known frequencies. As such, it is fair to say that we are severely limited in what we can perceive with our five senses and it is entirely plausible that there is a multitude of phenomena beyond our senses and thus beyond our ability to verify with those senses. Here in this room, for instance, there is a wireless internet connection beaming signals to and from my computer around the entire globe and even out into space. I cannot detect it with my five senses, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. There is also nothing to say that the electromagnetic spectrum identified by science is the sum total of all wavelengths and frequencies. The spectrum could be "infinite", but we would have no way of knowing, limited as we are by the constraints of this reality frame.
Finally, and briefly, I thought it might be worth changing the way we perceive the solar system. When we first learn about the layout of our solar system in school we see the Sun at the centre and the planets orbiting it as though the solar system is a flat disc. But in reality it is more like a spiral structure. Picture the Sun hurtling through space, orbiting the galactic centre at a speed of approximately 52,000 mph, with the planets following it in an orbiting motion at the same speed, forming a kind of DNA-type spiral. This may seem a minor detail, but it certainly provides a shift in perspective.
The science shift
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein
Most people still see the universe as being constructed from balls of matter - from billiard balls, to canon balls, to planets, in a Newtonian sense. Most people believe the universe is made of dead matter floating in empty space and that it somehow spawned life spontaneously and accidentally, against all the odds, in some sort of primordial chemical soup that was struck by lightning. Most "materialists" believe that if you cannot detect a thing with your five senses or prove its existence in a laboratory using contemporary means, then it cannot exist. Most people believe that the genes you inherit determine the fate of your health. But then again, most people used to believe the Earth was a flat landmass at the centre of the universe.
In reality (though there is not yet consensus on this within the scientific community), it now seems to many leading scientists that the fabric of the universe is actually imperceptible energy, some would say intelligent energy or information or consciousness; that there's no such thing as empty space and that consciousness, or mind, is primary. In other words, the physical material of the universe didn't create life, but life, or consciousness, created the matter of the universe... not that matter really exits, according to the late Max Planck, known as the father of quantum mechanics, who said: "There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
All of this kind of overlaps with the spirituality shift I will cover later, so I won't go into too much depth here with my own thoughts or layman's conclusions. Instead, I'll leave it up to some of the scientists currently at the cutting edge of their fields to provide you with some food for thought.
"The ‘scientific worldview' is immensely influential because the sciences have been so successful. They touch all our lives through technologies and through modern medicine. Our intellectual world has been transformed by an immense expansion of knowledge, down into the most microscopic particles of matter and out into the vastness of space, with hundreds of billions of galaxies in an ever-expanding universe.
"Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and technology seem to be at the peak of their power, when their influence has spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most scientists take it for granted that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think they are symptoms of a deeper malaise.
"The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled.
"Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence in human heads.
"These beliefs are powerful, not because most scientists think about them critically but because they don't. The facts of science are real enough; so are the techniques that scientists use, and the technologies based on them. But the belief system that governs conventional scientific thinking is an act of faith, grounded in a nineteenth-century ideology.
"...I want the sciences to be less dogmatic and more scientific. I believe that the sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them.
"Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.
1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots', in Richard Dawkins's vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning and will stay the same for ever.
5. Nature is purposeless and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there', where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
"Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nineteenth century and is now taken for granted. Many scientists are unaware that materialism is an assumption: they simply think of it as science, or the scientific view of reality, or the scientific worldview. They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discuss it. They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis." - Rupert Sheldrake, biochemist, introduction to his 2012 book ‘The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry'
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence... If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." - Nikola Tesla, inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist and futurist
"The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents - building blocks - of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief - all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation". So, in this view, what human beings think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm. Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness. That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation". In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency - it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation - but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. On those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness." - Amit Goswami, theoretical nuclear physicist, author of The Quantum Activist
"The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal... Perhaps, if science is clever enough to see, it will realize that religion may not be too far off with its concrete imagery; and that relative to the supreme creator, we humans are much like the microorganisms we scrutinize under the microscope." - Robert Lanza, biologist, excerpt from his book ‘Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe'
"Progress in our understanding of the universe through physics over the past quarter century has been exploring deeper levels of natural law - from the macroscopic to the microscopic; from the molecular to the atomic to the nuclear to sub-nuclear levels of nature's functioning. So-called electro-weak unified scale, grand unified scale, super unified scale. And what we've discovered at the core basis of the universe, the foundation of the universe, is a single unified field of intelligence; a field that unites gravity with electromagnetism, light with radioactivity, with the nuclear force. So that all the forces of nature and all the so-called particles of nature - quarks, leptons, protons, neutrons - are now understood to be one. They're all just different ripples on a single ocean of existence that is the unified field... And that field is a non-material field. It is ultimately a field of consciousness and everything in the universe is nothing but that. Planets, trees, people, animals - we're all just waves of vibration of this underlying, unified, superstring field...
"Everyone who's grown up in this scientific world is used to the concept that we're living in a material universe, an inert universe, a universe of dead matter. And because of that it's difficult instinctively to grasp that we're not really living in a dead universe and that the universe is overwhelmingly conscious at its basis... In quantum mechanics the idea of particle is replaced by the idea of wave function. And what is a wave function? Technically, it's a vector in a linear space. But what's that; what's it made of; what's the substance of nature? Well, a wave function, a vector in a linear space, is made of the same stuff thoughts are made of. We're really living in a thought universe, a conceptual universe. Quantum mechanics is just the play and display of potentiality... The deeper you go in the structure of natural law, the less material, the less inert, the less dead the universe is; the more alive, the more conscious the universe becomes. Then when you get to the foundation of the universe, the unified field or superstring field, it's simply a field of pure being, pure, self-aware, intelligence. I say "intelligence" because it's the fountainhead of all the laws of nature, all the fundamental forces, all the fundamental particles, all the laws governing life at every level of the universe have their unified source in the unified field." - John Hagelin, particle physicist
"It seems absolutely obvious to us that time and space are real and fundamental qualities of the physical world, entirely independent of my or your consciousness -- as obvious as it seemed to people five hundred years ago that the sun moves round the earth. This, said Kant, is only because we cannot see the world any other way. The human mind is so constituted that it is forced to impose the framework of space and time on the raw sensory data in order to make any sense of it all. We are forever constrained to construct our experience within these dimensions -- much as a computer is forever constrained to present its data in the two-dimensional format of the monitor. It is law of perception rather than a law of physics... But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Kant's work was that he came to these conclusions without any of our contemporary scientific knowledge of the world, or any understanding of the physiology of perception. Had he known what we know now, his conclusions would have been so obvious as to be totally unremarkable.
"At the time, Kant's arguments were a watershed in Western thinking. They were, as Kant himself saw, the equivalent of a Copernican Revolution in philosophy. Whereas Copernicus had effectively turned the physical universe inside out, showing that the movements of the stars are determined by the movement of the earth, Kant had turned the epistemological world inside out. We are not passive experiencers of the world; we are the creators of the world we experience. He had put the self firmly at the centre of things." - Peter Russell, mathematician and theoretical physicist
"It will remain remarkable, in what ever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality." - Eugene Wigner, Physicist and mathematician, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics
"The Central Dogma (of molecular biology) states that once 'information' has passed into protein it cannot get out again. In more detail, the transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible. Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein. This is by no means universally held-Sir Macfarlane Burnet, for example, does not subscribe to it-but many workers now think along these lines. As far as I know it has not been explicitly stated before." - Francis Crick, molecular biologist, biophysicist and neuroscientist
"The central dogma, enunciated by Crick in 1958 and the keystone of molecular biology ever since, is likely to prove a considerable over-simplification. That is the heretical but inescapable conclusion stemming from experiments done in the past few months in two laboratories in the United States." - Anonymous, published in the journal Nature in 1970
"Dogma - dog•ma noun ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg- : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted" - Miriam Webster Dictionary
"I put one stem cell in a Petri dish all by itself and it would divide every ten to twelve hours... after about two weeks I had thousands of cells in the Petri dish, but what was unique was that they were all genetically identical. Then I started the experiment by taking some cells out of the dish and putting them in a different environment. This culture medium to the cells is like the environment that they live in... These cells formed muscle. Then I went back to the first Petri dish and took some more of these genetically identical cells and put them in a different environment and they formed bone. Then I again went back to the first Petri dish and took some more of these genetically identical cells and put them in a third Petri dish with a different environment and they formed fat cells. And there I was confronted with this reality. All the cells were genetically identical, yet they formed different things - fat, muscle and bone. So I was left with a simple question: what controls the fate of cells? And the answer was the environment. It was the only thing that it could be, because it was the only thing that was different. Here I was, teaching medical students that genes control life, yet the cells were revealing to me that it was the environment that controlled their life. A very simple but profound experiment is to move my Petri dish with cells from a healthy environment to a less than healthy environment and when I do I see that the cells get sick. And if I was a kind of doctor of cells someone might ask "what kind of drugs do you give these cells to make them healthy again?" And the answer is that you don't give the cells any drugs. You just put the cells back into a good environment and they will innately, naturally come back to health again... when you teach genetic control you teach victimisation... whereas the new field of epigenetic control reveals that as you change your response to the environment you change the fate of your cells, just like in the Petri dish. The human body is just a skin-covered Petri dish and the blood is the culture medium, and the composition of the blood is controlled by signals from the brain or the mind. You are the environment of your cells. That makes you the master of your heath, because you're the one who has the opportunity to change your perception, so therefore you're the one who controls your genes... Essentially, your mind's perception of the world changes the chemistry of your body, which changes your cells... Your mind is the government of the community of cells in your body and when we entertain harmony and provide the right living with nature and balance, we provide our cells with very life supporting information and chemistry." - Bruce Lipton, cellular biologist, author of The Biology of Belief
"The cells in your body react to everything that your mind says. Negativity brings down your immune system." - Loretta Lanphier, Naturopathic Practitioner (traditional naturopath), Clinical Nutritionist, Holistic Health Practitioner and Clinical Herbalist
"Happier thoughts lead to essentially a happier biochemistry; a happier, healthier body. Negative thoughts and stress have been shown to seriously degrade the body and the functioning of the brain, because it's our thoughts and emotions that are continuously reassembling, reorganising and recreating our body" - John Hagelin, particle physicist
"Thought is a system. That system not only includes thought and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society - as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times." - David Bohm, theoretical physicist
"We're really now moving into a new era. It's the era where the last frontier is not space, as Star Trek would say, but it's going to be mind... Some of you may be thinking, ‘Well, that's very nice, but I can't do that.' Or, ‘She won't let me do that!' Or, ‘He'll never let me do that.' Or, ‘I haven't got enough money to do that!' Or, ‘I'm not strong enough to do that.' Or, ‘I'm not rich enough to do that.' ‘I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!' Every single ‘I'm not' is a creation" - Fred Alan Wolf, theoretical physicist
Reading the works of these and other scientists who don't conform to the dogmatic, materialist worldview led me to change the way I see myself and the world around me. I no longer see myself as a mortal physical body led by a mortal physical brain and I never really believed that I was nothing more than a ‘lumbering robot', as the much-celebrated biologist Richard Dawkins dubs humans, nor could I ever accept the claims of famous physicist Stephen Hawking, in his book The Grand Design, that human beings are merely "biological machines" with no consciousness, no souls, no spirit, no mind and nothing but a collection of organised chemicals that run physical brains in a deterministic, machine-like way. But these claims of Dawkins and Hawking are just the inevitable result of taking the Newtonian/Darwinian, materialist paradigm to its natural conclusion... And now we can move on.
Scientists like Goswami, Hagelin, Lipton and others helped me to realise that I am not my body, but rather my mind, which is non-physical. We are ultimately beings of consciousness and the brain is more like an interface, a receiver, an antenna that the mind uses to communicate with and through the body. The "physical" body is brought into being as a result of upward causation, but it is maintained and managed as a result of downward causation from one's individual consciousness. In other words, the mind controls the health and wellbeing of the body through perception, through thoughts and feelings. Now it's no longer a mystery why hypochondriacs always end up getting sick and pessimists always see their hopes dashed. But this is not a new idea. In fact, if this quote from Buddha is anything to go by, it's a very old one: "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."
The history shift
The current view of human history and the dominant theory of the development of life on our planet provide a neat linear progression that enables us to see ourselves as being at the pinnacle of human progression; at the cutting edge of evolution, as it were. Okay, so there's no actual evidence of macroevolution (of one species transforming into another); Darwin's "missing links" are still missing, despite numerous red herrings having appeared over the years, presented as proof and displayed in museums, until eventually being proved false and quietly removed; there are apparent limitations on the possibility of genetic mutations within species, so-called Genetic Homeostasis, synthesising life from scratch still eludes us and there is an issue over the mathematical improbability of something as complex as the human eye having ever developed from random generations of proteins, even over billions of years, but surely the question of evolution has already been answered and we just need to work out the details, hasn't it? Perhaps this is another example of us clinging to a reassuring paradigm that lets us believe we know more than we actually do.
I don't totally discount the basic premises of evolutionary theory as defined by Neo-Darwinism, but nor do I totally discount the basic premises of the theory of evolution by intelligent design and I certainly don't see why one theory should be socially acceptable and presented in schools and institutions as veritable fact, with accompanying illustrations dreamt up by creative artists on the basis of a single tooth or a couple of bones and a lot of conjecture, while the other is ridiculed and shunned by the mainstream, even though individual scientists and academics can, and do, interpret the facts to support both theories.
There are also other theories - including Creationism, Interventionism and, most appealing to me, Biocentrism - that are dismissed and brushed aside by the all-powerful Neo-Darwinian paradigm. Discoveries of evidence or the emergence of theories that seem to contradict Neo-Darwinism - whether they are related to the accepted age of the planet, the gaps in the fossil record, apparent limitations on genetic mutation within individual species or the occurrence of cataclysmic events - are simply ignored or marginalised and ridiculed.
The linear path of evolution from apparently simple unicellular organisms (which aren't simple at all, but would have appeared so using 19th century microscopes) to complex creatures does seem logical and rational to those of us who were taught to accept it from an early age, but if you found a complicated device, like a car, sitting in a desert, it also seems logical and rational to presume that somebody designed and created it, as opposed to thinking that it spontaneously evolved from nothing as a result of random and astronomically unlikely chemical reactions.
When it comes to the emergence and development of civilisation, we are taught that the domestication of animals began 10,000 years ago and the first civilisations emerged around 6,000 years ago. Prior to that, humans, despite being anatomically modern and with brains and capacities much the same as us today, were quite content living in caves, foraging and hunting for tens of thousands of years - if not hundreds of thousands, or even millions. Then suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere, in a place called Sumer, on the site of modern day Iraq, a culture emerged that had the first recorded system of writing, Cuneiform, and a counting system based on the number 60 (which is where we get our modern clock and calendar system, the degrees in a circle, the concept of a dozen etc.), with multi-storey brick buildings, a grid system and underground sewers for towns; with temples and schools, the plough for farming, wheeled vehicles and the potter's wheel, cylindrical seals for "printing" images on wet clay, stringed musical instruments, medicines developed from plants and minerals, artwork including sculptures and jewellery, an interesting "myth" of creation (I won't get into that, but is worth investigating) and, perhaps most remarkably for those of us living at the pinnacle of a civilisation that once believed the Earth was a flat landmass that the sun orbited, the Sumerians knew the details of our solar system. In fact, one cylinder seal image, which depicts the plough being presented to the Sumerians by one of their bearded "gods", clearly shows the Sun at the centre of the solar system and the planets circling it. This proves not only that the Sumerians knew our planet was a sphere and that it was part of a heliocentric solar system, but the image also shows that they knew the number of planets and their relative sizes. Another Sumerian cylinder seal image, dated to somewhere around 3000BC, shows that the Sumerians knew Saturn had rings, which "we" only discovered in 1655 using a telescope! Where did this advanced culture come from? How did it emerge? Why are we taught in school about the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, but not the Sumerians, who predated all three of them and in many respects appear to have been more advanced?
Then there are the mysterious megalithic structures of the ancient world, with similarities in structures and building styles in the Americas, the Middle East and Asia, made by people who - according to the current paradigm - couldn't possibly have been connected or have had any knowledge of each other. These sites include truly gigantic blocks of stone, some weighing upwards of 1,000 tons, which we couldn't even move today using the most advanced technology available. Even the placement of 70 ton blocks of granite found high above the so-called ‘King's chamber' within the Great Pyramid at Giza defy any logical explanation. Egyptologists and archaeologists have provided explanations of how the pyramids were built, but they don't satisfy many civil engineers.
There are numerous alternative but marginalised theories on how these structures were built, from anti-gravity devices, sound and frequency technology and magnetic levitation, to ancient alien technology or harnessing the lost power of collective consciousness to move the stones or even using an early form of concrete. The truth is that we have no idea how they were built, but I think it's safe to say that no amount of slaves, no matter how highly motivated, could have moved blocks of stone weighing hundreds of tons using ropes, wooden logs and levers. And presenting such a speculative theory as fact, with detailed imaginative drawings and plans presented in prominent places near these structures for tourists to see, is misleading and irresponsible, if not downright manipulative.
It is also impossible to date stone, but the Egyptian pyramids have been dated nonetheless, and questioning those dates is not acceptable at present. Nevertheless, Yale-educated geologist Robert Schoch provided something of a shock with his paradigm-shattering analysis of the weathering of the Sphinx, which suggests that the erosion of this megalithic monument caused by rainfall ensures it has to be at least 12,000 years old, meaning that it would date back to the end of the last Ice Age, long before the accepted start of civilisation and during a period when that part of Egypt would have been a jungle allegedly inhabited by Neolithic hunter-gatherers. His views have since been supported by other reputable geologists, but have been dismissed and ridiculed by Egyptologists and archaeologists. Interestingly, researcher Robert Bauval's theory that the Egyptian pyramids were built in alignment with celestial bodies, as part of a great "as above, so below" project, shows that the Great Pyramids at Giza would have been in alignment with the three stars of Orion's belt and the Sphinx would have been directly facing the constellation Leo at dawn on the spring equinox also around 12,000 years ago.
In his bestselling 1995 book Fingerprints of the Gods, Graham Hancock presents more astronomical alignments from pre-history, from Asian, Middle Eastern and Central and South American sites, as well as detailing numerous similarities in artwork and building styles employed by these apparently unconnected cultures and presenting ancient maps showing the coastlines of the Americas and even Antarctica, even though the contours of that ice-covered continent were only officially mapped with the use of sonar in the 1950s and the orthodox view of geology insists that it has been under ice for millions of years. Hancock suggests the existence of a lost civilisation, which Plato named Atlantis, that developed to a high level of sophistication prior to the last Ice Age and was wiped out when the ice melted and sea levels around the world rose more than a hundred metres. Hancock suggests it could have been the survivors of this lost civilisation that brought sophistication to Sumer and Egypt and elsewhere.
Could Antarctica be Atlantis? Could it have shifted south, as hypothesised by historian Charles Hapgood's 1958 theory of crustal displacement, which was supported at the time by Albert Einstein but continues to be ridiculed by most geologists; or could the poles have shifted rapidly?
One site where excavations only began in the mid-1990s supports the notion that civilisation is at least twice as old as we are led to believe. At Göbekli Tepe, located in southeast Turkey - ancient Northern Mesopotamia, 200 stone pillars weighing up to 20 tons each have been found. With carvings of animals and other artwork, the site has been dubbed the world's first temple and suggests a level of sophistication beyond people who should have been, according to the current paradigm, prehistoric hunter-gatherers.
Could there really have been a great flood that sent mankind back to the Stone Age? The date given by Plato for the apparently overnight destruction of Atlantis corresponds with a date of around 12,000 years ago, when the end of the last Ice Age would have certainly resulted in massive, devastating floods, and the great Greek philosopher said that mankind was a species with amnesia.
Across the world in India, the ancient Hindu scripture The Bhagavad-Gita describes many people being singed and burned and melted by something called the Brahma weapon, which is said to have produced an explosion brighter than a thousand suns, with the survivors described as having later started to lose their skin, hair and nails. Interestingly, speaking at a press conference after the first detonation of an experimental nuclear weapon in 1945, Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, the "father of the atomic bomb", quoted The Bhagavad-Gita, as if to suggest that we've done this before.
Is it possible that our history is not really linear, as the current paradigm suggests, but actually cyclical? Have we seen a relatively smooth development of civilisation, free of rapid changes, over the past 6,000 years, prior to which we were cave-dwelling hunter-gatherers - as the current paradigm suggests - or has our development actually been punctuated by cataclysmic events that have seen us advance again and again, only to be sent back to the forests to start afresh?
The energy shift
"All people everywhere should have free energy sources... Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for coal, oil or gas... it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." - Nikola Tesla, inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist and futurist
Debate continues on the reality of climate change - whether it's manmade or the result of increasing numbers of flatulent cattle; whether it's confined to our planet or is occurring throughout our solar system. Some believe it is part of a regular cycle that we can't comprehend because of the limited period of time we've been keeping records, while others contend that it's not happening at all. I personally think it's ultimately irrelevant whether it's real or not. The fact is that we should stop using fossil fuels immediately because they are completely unnecessary and we should stop polluting and poisoning the planet because it is our only home and, again, it is completely unnecessary.
The existence of the so-called quantum flux field, or zero point field, is not disputed. It is not controversial to claim there is such a thing and it is generally accepted by modern science that "empty" space does not really exist and that every cubic centimetre of space in the room you are now sitting in contains enough energy to run the entire planet for a day. This has been known since the mid-1950s, though officially it has remained theoretical knowledge.
Although computer technology continues to evolve on a scale and at a pace that beggars belief, technology to do with the production and utilisation of energy has barely advanced in over a century. For our motor vehicles we are still essentially using the internal combustion engine designed by Karl Benz in the 1880s. For air travel we are still using the jet engine that was developed in the 1940s and for space travel and rocket propulsion we are still using more or less the same internal combustion liquid fuel rocket engines developed by German scientists during World War II. In the early 1950s it was widely reported in the Western mainstream media of the time that scientists were on the brink of developing anti-gravity technology, until it suddenly went "black", never to be heard of beyond the realms of science fiction again.
It is not my wish to cry "cover-up" and declare "conspiracy". I am not here to blame the oil companies and the vehicle manufacturers, otherwise known as the infamous "military industrial complex" that U.S. President Eisenhower first warned the world about as he left office in 1961, but with the help of the internet and growing numbers of independent inventors, advances in the utilisation of free energy are becoming ever more present and in the Information Age it is only a matter of time until such devices become available en masse.
There are prototype energy devices and even cars fuelled by water (converting H2O, into HHO gas), while other patented devices convert heat directly into electricity. In the last two years inventors in the U.S., Ireland and Australia have showcased free energy devices based on the use of magnetic fields that seem to produce more energy than they use. Apparently at odds with the current paradigm's "laws" of thermodynamics, these inventions have featured on television news bulletins but are, as yet, not being mass produced, probably because they would blow apart the current paradigm and bring an end to national grids and numerous dirty industries. They also haven't been warmly welcomed by institutionalised physicists. Speaking on Irish Sky TV news in late 2012, co-creator of the Steorn device, a magnetic field "free" energy generator, Sean McCarthy, said: "we get daily emails from physicists threatening that someone's going to come round and beat us up and one of the people involved in our project was actually contacted on his mobile phone and told to watch his back... The depth of feeling is amazing and this is really a kind of fundamentalism from a scientific point of view. It's like a religious reaction to our claims."
Not only are fossil fuels no longer necessary, but the very real, though as yet elusive, free energy technology means that there will be no need to harness solar, wind and wave energy, which still require cables and pipelines and devices that are manufactured using oil derivatives in the first place.
According to the 2007 documentary Memoirs of a Madman 38 - Free Energy, "right now we have entrenched energy monopolies and cartels. We have OPEC and the ‘Seven Sisters' oil companies that control all the oil and energy. But what people have to understand is that the people who run the energy business in this world, which is the biggest business on the planet - turning over four to five trillion dollars a year - are the ones who control the newspapers and the governments. These companies are so big that they regulate the governments that regulate them."
Despite the power of these cartels, it appears that we are on the verge of a massive shift in the way we see energy and more and more people every day are starting to envisage a world where pipelines, cable networks, power stations and petrol stations will be a thing of the past.
Imagine having an energy-independent home and car and what this would mean for your ability to produce your own food and run your life. It would mean freedom from your national grid, freedom from corporate control and all of a sudden losing your job to a robot would not be such a scary prospect.
Ultimately, the plans for these zero-point energy devices need to be published on the internet and made ‘open source' to everyone on the planet. That's the only way we will beat the cartels.
The economic shift
"[The notion of] ‘Jobs for every American' is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care. I'm talking about welfare for all. Without it, you're going to have warfare for all." - U.S. politician Jerry Brown
To economise means to use sparingly, cautiously and frugally; to avoid waste and conserve energy. In other words, what we call "the economy" is actually an "anti-economy".
According to geneticist and activist David Suzuki, economics as we know it is insane: "The economists say, "if you clear cut the forests, take the money and put it in the bank, you can make six or seven per cent. If you clear cut the forests in Malaysia or Papua New Guinea you can make 30 or 40 per cent. So who cares whether or not you keep the forest? Cut it down and put the money somewhere else. When the forests have gone, put the money in fish; when the fish are gone, put it in computers." Money doesn't stand for anything and money now grows faster than the real world. Conventional economics is a form of brain damage. Economics is so fundamentally disconnected from the real world that it is destructive. If you take an introductory course in economics the professor in the first lecture will show a slide of the economy. And it looks very impressive: raw materials, extraction processes, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, with arrows going back and forth. And they try to impress you because they're trying to fool us into thinking it's a science, when they know damn well that it's not a real science. Economics is a set of values for which they try to use mathematical equations in order to pretend that it's a science. But if you ask an economist, "in that equation, where do you put the ozone layer; where do you put the deep underground aquifers of fossil water; where do you put the topsoil or biodiversity?" Their answer is: "oh, those are externalities." Well, then you might as well be on Mars because that economy's not based on anything like the real world. It's the web of life that filters water in the hydrological cycle; it's microorganisms in the soil that create the soil we grow our food in. It's the insects that fertilise all of the flowering plants. Nature performs all kinds of services and these services are vital to the health of the planet. Economists call these "externalities". That's nuts!"
When I first moved from the UK to Serbia back in 2002 I was often asked how the UK had managed to maintain its stability for so long, in spite of the apparent differences between its "nations" and social classes. Despite knowing virtually nothing about geopolitics, I surmised that although the Scots and the Welsh don't really like the English, we have always managed to find a common enemy that ensures we don't turn on each other. And that as long as the working classes of Britain have enough money to eat junk food every day while watching mind-numbing TV, get drunk every weekend, drive their own second-hand car, go shopping for unnecessary consumables once a month and spend two weeks getting sun burnt on a beach every year, there would be no revolution. However, in the last five years or so the number of working class people, and even formerly middle class, who can afford such a lifestyle has fallen and continues to fall. This is partly to do with the economic crisis that began in 2008 and continues in 2013, though it still isn't officially referred to as a depression, partly to do with the growing computerisation and automation of the world, and partly to do with the fact that the planet cannot sustain such a system that classes it and it's needs and living systems as "externalities". And if we persist with this broken economic model, patching it up and carrying on despite its now glaringly obvious shortcomings, it seems to me that it will continue to fall until someone decides to dust off the gallows and drag the bankers, politicians and corporate elites out into the street to relieve them of their heads and their fortunes, which won't solve anything anyway, or until the planet decides to get rid of us.
Apart from the bottom-line corporate interests of profit and growth meaning it's currently much more economically viable to employ Asian slave children than Western workers demanding pensions and overtime bonuses, there are other factors that ensure our economic system cannot survive much longer in its present form. Destroying the planet through pollution doesn't seem to be much of a concern for corporations, nor does the wasteful use of precious and expensive resources to mass produce goods that are purposely designed to breakdown or otherwise cease to function after a limited period of time, so-called "planned obsolescence", in order to ensure repeat purchases, or that breakdown due to the use of the cheapest available materials, so-called "intrinsic obsolescence". Mounting levels of debt don't seem to bother them, nor does the growing gap between rich and poor and the diminishing purchasing power of the masses. What they are concerned about, though, is their employees - or rather the damage to their image caused by employing, directly or indirectly, virtual slave workers and malnourished children in the "third world" or the damage to their profit margins caused by employing demanding Western workers who want benefits, bonuses and rights. But help is at hand for our troubled captains of industry in the form of automation. Robots and computerised, automated production lines are already replacing human beings on a massive scale. These "employees" don't need lunch breaks or health insurance and demand only regular maintenance to ensure they don't go on strike.
According to a 2013 Oxford University study entitled "The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation", 47 per cent of all jobs are "at risk" of being automated within a generation.
The researchers analysed more than 700 jobs listed on a careers website, along with the skills and education required for each position, and weighed them against how easily they could be automated and what engineering obstacles were preventing them from being computerised. According to the researchers, "our model predicts that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and labour in production occupations, are at risk".
Production line automation has already grown massively in the West and is now taking jobs in China and elsewhere in Asia. Factories that once employed thousands of workers now have just a handful of staff members tasked with supervising the machines that do the actual work and this trend is spreading at lightning speed throughout the world and through all sectors.
Fruit-picking robots with suction cups sound the death knell for seasonal agricultural workers. 3D printers herald the end of the line for construction workers and other tradesmen. Dextrous robots will get rid of the need for surgeons, watchmakers and other craftsmen creating intricate devices. Machines are replacing bank tellers, shop assistants, waiters etc. Armies of bloggers and enthusiastic self-proclaimed online reporters, coupled with social networking websites and alternative online news sources, are slowly destroying the mainstream news media industry. Amateur filmmakers and self-promoting entertainers will bring an end to the corporate entertainment industry. Complex algorithms will replace stock market traders. Drones and other remote-controlled military machines will replace soldiers, with mini-drones replacing delivery workers, as recently announced by FedEx. And with almost nobody earning a wage by working for a living, the service and retail sectors will soon find themselves bereft of consumers. In short, the majority of humanity will soon find itself surplus to requirements under the current system, unable to find a job to earn a salary to support its consumer lifestyle or even feed itself and keep a roof over its head. This might sound a bit grim, but it's actually good news.
When Jacque Fresco, made famous by his futuristic concept known as the Venus Project, was first designing robots for American industry back in the 1950s he was often verbally attacked by angry workers accusing him of stealing their jobs, but he argued that he was actually setting them free. And that's the way we should view these changes. After all, we are currently the only creature on this planet that has to pay to live here, spending at least a third of our days working for a living, earning scraps of paper that have no intrinsic value whatsoever. In the future we will be free to socialise, be creative and live our lives the way we would like. This, of course, will require the creation of a world where we are not expected to pay for anything and nobody is excluded - unlike the current world that, according to the World Bank, sees almost 80 per cent of the total population of the planet living on less than $10 a day. However, considering that the vast majority of us won't have jobs to earn the money to pay for anything anyway, the producers will have to give us things for free or we'll just take them by force.
Planned/intrinsic obsolescence will be a thing of the past. Let's be honest, if we could produce satellites in the 1950s that were capable of functioning perfectly in the harsh environment of outer space for 60 years without breaking down, then we can certainly now produce fridges, vehicles and washing machines that could last a lifetime, provided we replace the notion of planned obsolescence with one of planned maximum longevity.
When we all have 3D printers in our homes or our neighbourhoods we'll be able to make most of the items we need - from tools, to clothing, to kitchen utensils - when we need them, thus getting rid of the mass production of goods that often go from the production line to warehouses to landfill sites without ever being used.
When we all have community gardens or home growing units producing fruit and vegetables automatically, year-round, using hydroponics and automated systems, there'll be no need to buy processed food.
When we all have self-contained zero-point energy units running our homes and our vehicles there'll be no need to pay energy bills, buy petrol or electricity or maintain pipelines and cable systems.
When we all have our own teleportation units we won't need road maintenance... oh wait, maybe I've gone a step too far for your belief in technological advancement to handle at the moment.
This may sound like a utopian dream, but really it's just a natural progression based on technological advances and the inevitability of work as we know it becoming a thing of the past.
The spiritual shift
"We have severed our connection with spirit. That is what western society has done. It has sought to persuade us that the material realm is the only realm and the only way we are going to recover is to reconnect with spirit." - Graham Hancock
As mentioned previously, for the past century and a half mainstream science has tried to convince us that life is a result of spontaneous chemical reactions in nature and death is the ultimate end. That we are victims of our genetic inheritance; that determinism means there's no such thing as free will and that there can be no continuation after death because we are essentially nothing more than our physical bodies, with our consciousness being an illusion caused by chemical reactions in our brains.
This belief persists because it is the only theory accepted by the current scientific worldview and is the only one taught in most schools. People feel an intrinsic need to know how life emerged and what life is and Darwin's theory appears to provide a rational and logical - albeit pointless - explanation (despite the fact that the conclusions of the theory don't resonate with us in our everyday lives), coupled with the fact that openly questioning this theory is likely to see you branded ignorant, insane or a religious zealot. According to researcher and journalist Richard Milton, author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, "The modern Darwinian view paints a picture of life as being mechanical, cold, soulless and without direction. But the man and woman in the street don't see life in that way. One biologist admitted to me recently that working in biology today is like working in Russia under Brezhnev. People have one set of beliefs at work, but when they go home to their families they don't see them as pointless machines."
The orthodox belief of contemporary science is that the brain is the producer of mind and an epiphenomenon we know as consciousness, but I tend to agree with the growing body of independent physicists and biologists who contend that the brain and the heart are actually receivers of consciousness. According to this theory, much like a television set, when the body is switched off the signal doesn't cease to exist. The body is a vehicle that we need to operate within the frequency range of this reality frame and when it breaks down we simply move on. As this cool anonymous meme ponders, "you're a ghost driving a meat covered skeleton made from stardust. What do you have to be scared of?"
These new notions are empowering to the individual. Not only do they suggest that free will really exists and your perception and thought processes play a role in regulating your health and wellbeing, but they also suggest that your consciousness, or your conscious mind, is filtered through your physical body, as opposed to being generated by it. In this sense, firing neurons are the physical manifestation of the thoughts and feelings expressed by the non-physical mind, which cannot be detected, and not vice versa, as contemporary neuroscience would have us believe. This suggests that the soul/spirit, which essentially is the consciousness/mind, survives physical death just as the signal continues when the television set is switched off. As French writer Pierre Teilhard de Chardin put it: "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience."
The concept of the body as a television set and the soul as a signal outside of the physical realm, broadcasting at a frequency compatible with your unique body, may seem a bit abstract, but biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton insists it is grounded in biology. Speaking in an interview for Spiritual Cinema Circle, Lipton explains: "I never believed in spirituality and that's why I went into science. I preferred the mechanistic point of view, but when I started to understand the mechanism by which the environmental signals control the genetics I also recognised that each one of us is different... If I take cells out of your body and put them into anybody else they're rejected as not self, or if I take anybody else's cells and put them into my body my immune system will reject them as not self, so I started to wonder where the self is. And it turns out that on the surfaces of many of our cells there are little antennas, like television antennas, and they are what make us different. These antennas are literally like tiny tuning forks that respond to vibration. Medicine calls them "self receptors". Each of us has a different set of unique antennas and each of us is responding to a different vibration... The receptors receive a signal of self from the environment. So, in a very real sense, a body is like a television set receiving a station. My body is playing the Bruce station right now. And the significance of that is that if the body dies the broadcast doesn't. The broadcast is always there [present in the intangible environment] whether the antennas are working or not. If in the future a different embryo grows up with the same set of antennas, then your show is playing again. It doesn't specify whether it's a male or female body, a white or a black body. The body is just a television set and identity is out there in the environment. So the identity is permanent, but the "life" comes and goes."
Continued here: http://blog.b92.net/text/23422/The-Great-Shift-continued/