Post No. 196 - The Only Planet of Choice, Star Wars and Kung Fu [Content Warning: taking things for granted, irresponsibility, selfishness, competition, violence]

Some time ago I did a rave review on Stuart Holroyd's magnificent book "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth". Well, there is a follow up book which I have finally (courtesy of some gift money) bought: "The Only Planet of Choice", published under the name of the medium from Briefing and subsequently, Phyllis V. Schlemmer.

I'm going to do a more comprehensive review of that book later (meaning, with apologies, it will get added to my draft posts for some time ... there is a downside to being busy :( ), but some of the themes from it tie in with other things I am doing as I try to laze around doing nothing (well ... almost nothing ... ) on my end of year break.

Now, the theme that has been coming through fairly strongly so far is:

• this world is acting as a bottleneck on the evolution of the Universe, and our negativity could contaminate the whole rest of the Universe;
• the reason for the bottleneck effect is the addiction to physicality, and lack of connection with Deity/the Universe of people on this planet (apparently we get mired in the density of the planet);
• to fix things, we need to acknowledge that there is no death, and hence all actions will have consequences which must be paid for, and "[i]f they also knew that each of them had the quality of greatness in them" (p. 91).

Now, while I am perfectly prepared to admit that we can and do influence others, and that this planet has got itself into somewhat of a negative state (e.g. see here), I have trouble with the concept that we are the only form of a compulsory evolution. I'm an engineer, not a deity, and yet I know that critical systems need redundancy (i.e., back ups). In fact, if you look at the patterns in a leaf, the vessels that transport fluids around the leak have multiple redundancy in them, and in fact have been used to inspire designs of failure-resistant piping systems. To think, after ensuring back up occurs in something such as a leaf, the Universe has made such a fundamental flaw is a bit ... doubtful, to me. [8]

Still, who am I to say? I could be wrong :)

I have less problem accepting that negative psychic energy from this planet could lead to a snowball effect throughout much of the rest of creation (I'm glad the emphasis seems to be off physical [nuclear] radiation poisoning all the rest of creation: I suspect that message may have been an ... error, on the part of the transmission units [mediums :) ] who channelled it). In many situations in life, the stronger influence tends to win:

• in evolution, the more appropriate survive;
• in a court case, those with better evidence and legal resources tend to win;
• in the physical world of Nature, the stronger force tends to win (determining which is stronger tends to be related to our perspective of time [1]);
• in the case of a group of women living together, one will tend to dominate and all the women's periods set into unison with her period (that doesn't necessarily refer to the alpha female, by the way!) - see here;
• in interpersonal interactions that are not aware of social/cultural/emotional/spiritual factors (and I recommend activism/social study, personal growth/counselling and studying polyamory to develop such awareness), the stronger person (again, not necessarily the loudest/pushiest/most obnoxious/"alpha" type personality) may tend to dominate those who are weaker;
• in psychic terms, stronger (which is time-related, but also subject to changing factors such as how many other sources of energy will help [2]) energy will tend to dominate the weaker.

The solution, according to Phyllis Schlemmer's book (which is reporting the chanelled advice from "The Nine" [3]), is for people to clear the clouds of negative energy (and I also read an implication suggesting spirit rescue could be useful, but that is not stated explicitly) and accelerate the development of this planet, largely around doing 9 to 18 minutes of meditation [4] daily (or possibly at least weekly - I haven't finished the book yet).

(One thing I quite like about the meditation is a suggestion to cleanse initially using three of my favourite colours: emerald green [although I prefer a darker shade], royal blue and purple - p. 271.)

This ties in well, for me, with my recent resumption of meditation, and the increased calmness I have been feeling as a result of it (I have a rather stressful job). It is also interesting that I have been looking for films with meditation in them, without much success other than some episodes of Kung Fu and the Star Wars series of films.

In fact, I find it quite fascinating how life will often pop up with the answers to things I am looking for. For instance, I wondered how, if I had not had access to the books I have had, I could have learned the things I have ... and got the answer in two ways:

1. Charmaine Wilson's lifestory (see here and here [5]), and
2. the general sequence of events at the moment, where I am often finding validation of information I have received from my Guides/Higher Self/helpers, including some of what I have read in The Only Planet of Choice.

Going back to the meditation, one thing I disagree with is the preference of The Nine for doing their meditations at the same time. I agree with the use of colour to cleanse, having three or more people together in a state of harmony, but I don't agree with trying to have everyone around the globe synchronise to do their meditations at the same chronological time. I am fully aware of the problems this creates for some (especially for us here in Australia, if the thing is set for a time that suits people in the USA, as was often the case when I worked for a US-owned company), including flow-on effects on family, work and health, but, more importantly, I am aware that having a group of people around the globe who do their work at the same clock time in their timezone means that it is possible to build up a wave of energy running around the planet. (That is something we worked out in an online Correllian shrine I used to help co-run.)

Now, in terms of addiction to this world, just after I'd read that part of Phyllis' book, I watched the episode "An Eye for an Eye" (episode 4, season one - see here), with it's portrayal of the effects of the theme of revenge (getting even, as many here would call it). I think these effects are best summed up by the saying I attribute to Gandhi (although it quite possibly comes from others) "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind" ... and makes the whole world trapped in a cycle of karmic returns and rebirths.

It was interesting to me that comments were made about the character Caine in this episode that he seemed calmer than his brother, and there is quite a bit on the theme of being at peace in this TV series.

That's a comment I have sometimes had made about me, but I have never felt it was particularly true. I have, of course, been meditating since I was 14 or so, so it may be that I am - or seem to be - calmer or more at peace than others, but that is simply a matter of relativity (non-Einsteinian, if you'll pardon the science joke :) ). All things are relative - in fact, a saying I first came across in one of Rampa's books is "the more you know, the more you know there is to know". As another example, I was quite successful as a kid (a teenager) at my local sailing club in central-Queensland, and was praised by others for it - in fact, my first skipper once - wrongly - predicted that I would be on the first Australian team to win the America's Cup ... although I was cruising through the Whitsundays at the time :) . One of the reasons I wasn't was that I knew the competition increased as you went further "up the chain" - a National championship, for instance, had lots of people like me, people who were all good at a local level; a World championship had lots of people who were good at a national level, and so on, and the work to be succesful at higher levels was phenomenal (and I would rather put that amount of energy into making this world a better place, rather than seeking personal glamour). My results in competitive sailing have shown that I can win at a local, regional and State level, come in the top 10% of a National championship, and come in the top 30% of a World level championship. So ... to the people who think i am good at anything, keep in mind that it is all relative, and others are better than me, and that we are all, given the time (possibly more than one lifetime), practise and guidance, capable of achieving the same as anyone else.

Now, let's consider the Star Wars series of films (and, by the way, I consider Bablyon 5 infinitely better, and Star Trek much, much better [6]). In one of those films, Yoda says something along the lines of "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side". Now, forgetting about the "dark side" stuff for a moment, I've previously posted that I do not consider either fear or anger to actually be emotions - fear is, in my view, a sometimes inappropriate survival mechanism (see here) and anger a way that some mother emotion is being expressed (see here).

The Wikipedia review on Yoda (see here, accessed on 2nd January, 2011) includes the following:

Yoda makes his first film appearance in The Empire Strikes Back (1980). Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) arrives on Dagobah to seek his guidance, having been instructed to do so by the Force ghost of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness).

Rather than immediately identifying himself, Yoda tests Luke by initially presenting himself as a comical, backwater individual, deliberately provoking both Luke and R2-D2 (voiced by Kenny Baker). Finding that Luke exhibits many of the flaws that led to his father's downfall, Yoda is reluctant to teach him in the ways of the Force, but agrees to do so at the spectral Obi-Wan's behest.

In my opinion, the prequel film sequence actually shows Anakin going bung because of possessiveness of Padme, manifesting as fear of loss, which in turn could perhaps be attributed to personal insecurity or lack of self confidence/esteem - which takes us back to the second part of the "cure" mentioned in "The Only Plant of Choice": "[i]f they also knew that each of them had the quality of greatness in them". (It also is yet another argument for either being polyamorous, or at least using the techniques of polyamory to deal with problems such as jealousy. We all have a shadow side; we need to acknowledge that, change what can be changed, and accept and manage what cannot - or what will take time to change. ) [7] Getting in touch with our innermost, truest selves, our Higher Self, that part of ourself which may seem almost god-like to us, is one of the aims of meditation, according to Rampa, and certainly is one of the benefits I've found. That form of meditation (which is not the "relaxation" approach to meditation, nor transcendental Meditation or similar techniques) has certainly led to increased calmness and an inner strength for me.

Have a look at my post and please consider :)

If, sadly, you won't consider doing that for yourself, please consider doing it for others, for this planet, our home, Earth.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. In the case of a bushfire, at the time of the fire, fire is stronger, but, in the long term, life will generally lead the bush to regenerate. In the case of tectonic movement, the uplift is initially stronger than erosive forces when it creates a mountain range; but then, over time, the wind and rain are stronger than the mountain. ... Can you tell I've been watching the TV series Kung Fu, dear Grasshopper? :)
2. The most obvious sources of energies are people. On your side will (generally) be Guides, your Higher Self, friends, etc. (The qualification here is that if you are seeking to harm others, your Guides and Higher Self will be opposing what you do!) However, other sources of energy can be from crystals, sacred places, etc - and YOUR energy levels are subject to your psychic health (which can be affected by your physical state of being), your psychic skills (which comes down to practise!) and your psychic strength (which depends on things such as ... practise and usage).
3. There are some interesting parallels between the information on "The Nine" and the books of Lobsang Rampa and Alice A Bailey.
4. See here, and here.
5. Charmaine developed directly from guidance she received.
6. Star Trek's creator, Gene Roddenberry, is reported to have sat in on quite a few of the communication sessions with The Nine. Actually, I am more personally impressed by his flying experience ... :)
7. There is also the issue of the attitude of the Jedi that their knights must be single to deal with: that runs a whole gamut of potential problems, and is based on a whole set of (wrong) assumptions that I will be posting about in due course. In the interim, note that Tibetan monasteries included one sect where monks and nuns were married, and that even Rampa has commented that sex can lead to spiritual ecstasy.
8. Another example pof the multiple options thing is the introduction of new ideas to this world. I believe that ideas are channelled into this world by "inventers", "thinkers", "philosophers", etc - John Denver once wrote about how he felt that his ideas for songs came from outside himself, for example. (The best I can find to support this - given that I cannot find the actual quote - is the following, from here: "The songs would just come from him, as if he was a vehicle from God that the songs flowed through," Annie Denver was quoted as saying in the Denver Post after Denver's death.)
   
   As a small example of this, in my younger days I had an idea for a type of sail which would be more like an airfoil, and which would change as you tacked. I never progressed that (I chose to focus in other areas of my life) but I subsequently saw a programe on TV where someone in Western Australia had actually developed and patented that idea - and good for them: they hadn't pinched "my" idea any more than I had theirs. It was simply a case of this relatively minor invention having come in to this world through at least two portals ...
   
   A possibly better known case was the development of the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. Darwin's work was (arguably) somewhat paralleled by that of Alfred Wallace. It appears to me that neither based their work on that of the other, they were genuinely independently developing the same idea.
   
   I've read other examples, but must apologise as I haven't kept references to them (largely because I consider this idea so self evident). All I can offer at the moment is that Edgar Cayce reportedly channelled a comment that each person could happily and succesfully marry any of around 40 people on planet Earth at any one time (so much for "the one" - bring on polyamory, I say! :) ).
   
   Where we know of only one person who has developed an idea, I consider that the others who were channelling that idea into this world may either have failed, thus proving the benefit of multiple channels, or simply not be known.
   
   Also, in relation to this topic, Chapter Three of Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth contains a statement from "The Nine" that only 2% of those who make a commitment to serve for "good" on the Earth actually follow through and succeed in that commitment (p. 97 of my copy). This was in the context of discussing the original channel for The Nine, who pulled out from the work and was replaced by Phyllis - oh wait: was that a case of back-up? Or ... the original possible author of Briefing was actually Lyall Watson, who decided not to undertake that role and was replaced by Stuart Holroyd ... oh, was that another case of back-up? In fact, on page 85, an entity being channelled by Phyllis specifically states that, if the original channel fails, there were two more from the group who could take on that role.
   
   (It is interesting - to me! - to speculate on the differences between the response of a spiritually immature and a spiritually mature soul to the 98% failure/2% success rate. An immature soul would either say "oh that won't be me" or "what's wrong with all those others that they failed so much", whereas a spiritually mature soul would be more inclined to say "I too have probably 'failed' 49 times, learning something constructive each time, before I finally succeeded. I wonder what I can learn from that borader overview?", and would be more likely to be (a) sympathetic, and (b) useful, to those in the 49 failure part ... )
   
   Very importantly, NONE of this means we should write off or take casually our Planet, or any of the valuable individuals who has tried to take on a role for the service of the "greater good" and struggled or even "failed". All are INHERENTLY valuable, and our Plant is valuable in its own right. I'm just suggesting that THAT is enough reason, and expressing doubts that the Planet has a sole, CRITICAL function in the Universe ...

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: Alice A Bailey, energy, evolution, Lobsang Rampa, negative energy, Stuart Holroyd, Charmaine Wilson, personal characteristics, responsibility,

First published: Sunnudagr, 2nd January, 2011

Last edited: Monday, 3rd January, 2011 (added comment 8) 

 

 

Post No. 168 - A miscellany on leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, acne and security theatre ...

I'm being lazy in this post, and combining a few things together in the one post :)

What I am going to cover is:

• a few thoughts on leadership, from watching the film "The Core";
• a few thoughts on the implications of different spiritual growth orientations;
• my response to being an audience member at a Charmaine Wilson proof-of-survival event;
• an interesting post I heard recently on the ABC; and
• a forwarded post about "security theatre".

I recently re-watched the film "The Core", which I watched once before when I wasn’t in the right mood to suspend disbelief. This time, I actually enjoyed the story-telling - and I particularly noted one theme, on leadership. Bruce Greenwood's character tells Hilary Swank's character (I obviously paid a lot of attention and memorised the character's names ... not) that she hasn't been given leadership because she has breezed through everything. She is told she needs to know failure - and she does so later in the film. This is a bit like the saying to the effect "those who have never made a mistake have never tried anything". I will think about this - I might even add in to the Rangers training materials when I get back to that ...

Clearly, being in charge is important to Hilary Swank's character, and she learns the difference between "being in charge" and leadership. That leads me to my next point: what is important to you?

If you are, perhaps, predominantly of a Bhakti Yogic path of spiritual growth orientation (see here for my previous post where I commented on the various forms of growth orientation), what is likely to be important to you is people, relationships, interactions, love. On the other hand, if your spiritual growth orientation is along the lines of the Jnani Yogic path, then perhaps truth is what you consider above all else. On the Raja path: perhaps being all that you can be is most important, and if you are on the Karma path commitment, honour and work would be what you consider most important.

EACH of these preferences is valid - as valid as any other. I find debates on topics such as "what is better: X or Y?" extremely annoying, as the truth is each is equally valid, and which is better depends of the people involved and the circumstances. Of course, that probably doesn’t make for what people consider "good entertainment" ...

Now, being focused on one spiritual growth path does not mean that you are necessarily incompetent in another, as you may have already travelled that path and decided to be a more rounded soul by travelling one or more other paths.

Of course, you may actually also be incompetent on other paths, as you may not yet have travelled them :)

Interacting with people on other spiritual growth paths can be source of disharmony - for instance, a person on the spiritual growth orientation path of Karma - actually, I'll simplify that, for the rest of this post, to "karma path person". So, a karma path person may see respect for privacy as more important than establishing emotional closeness, whereas Bhakti path person may see establishing closeness as a need that overrides all other considerations such as respecting other people's space. Neither is right or wrong: have to work out way to let each do their own thing. Of course, someone who thinks they are the Bahkti path and interprets that as meaning they are seeking to be loved (i.e., only receive, instead of also - equally - give) will annoy everyone on all paths. [1]

Recently I heard a stereotypical situation mentioned (as an example of a stereotype, more or less):a woman's car breaks down; the stereotype-woman wants to vent emotions about it to her (stereotype-male) partner (they’re stereotypically heterosexual, also), while stereotype-man wants to go fix the car.

(As a digression, I was recently involved in a conversation about the conflict between head and heart, and the comment was made that, although it is often best to follow one's heart [provided one has a modicum of spiritual maturity], the conflict between head and heart can be useful, as it shows the areas you may have past hurts to be tended to, or areas where you can learn or grow.)
From the point of view of stereotype-woman, once she has vented, the rest of it is just details to be sorted out; but from the point of view of stereotype-man, the venting is just details and the work of fixing the car still needs to be done. Both are right, and both are wrong: the stereotype-woman is wrong to consider fixing the car a simply details (it can be demanding, hard work - and expensive), and stereotype-man is clearly (well, clearly to me :) ) wrong to consider the emotions caused by the situation as trivial details. (By the way, I've had unreliable cars - and died in my previous incarnation as a result of a plane engine failing: lack of mechanical reliability has been, to me, almost terrifying, before I dealt with some of my past life issues - and it is bad enough just having to think "if I go to do the shopping, will I get stuck and lose all my cold goods?" let alone, as was the case for me when I was working in inland Queensland, "what will happens in the hours before another car could come along?" [I always carried water, blankets, etc for such an eventuality]).

This stereotype situation can be looked at from other points of view as well.

From an energy point of view, both right: after venting, they still have the issue of the car failure and what could have contributed to it to deal with (this is the same problem as getting drunk to forget something, usually pain: when the drunk sobers up, the problem is still there, and they have been weakened by getting drunk, and maybe had the problem exacerbated if they have picked up a lot of negative energy while their aura was blown wide open), but on the other hand, the emotional energy may have led to the problem.

If I may jump ahead to where I have the temerity to offer advice, I would suggest BOTH need equally to look at situation objectively.

From point of view of paths, karma-path-person wants to fix the whole situation, Jnana-path-person wants to know what happened and why (whether this is from a physical or psychic focus depends on the person's worldliness vs. spiritual focus), and so on. Each may not understand why the other is focused on what seems to be not important.

Doing a little more hypothesising on this theme, someone who is focused on solely one growth path may find someone who is focused on a few paths at the same time confusing. The former may be inclined to say to the latter "Whoa! Hold on! Just choose one thing, and look at that." On the other hand, the latter person may "know" that any situation has multiple aspects to it, just as a jewel may have multiple facets, and they all need to be looked at to understand the situation properly (which, it will no doubt surprise you, is my position :) ).

Now a few random thoughts which could possibly be related to my life experience of being on one particular mix of spiritual growth paths, and interacting with others who have a different mix:

• I tend to not need a lot of people contact - just my partner and my friends (including those family members [I count myself as part of four families: adoptive, birth and two through relationships] who are friends, which excludes the few who are red-necks). In fact, I find people who fear being alone a bit ... sad. On the other hand, I NEED solitude and time in the bush (wild bush, not the manicured parks and gardens near where I live) and on water, or I feel that I am psychologically dying. I feel a great sympathy for stereotype-tribal person who withers and fades away when locked away from their land in a prison (for an example of this, see the quirky film "The Gods Must Be Crazy" [2]). I haven't had any worthwhile bush time for long time now ... but I am hoping to do so this weekend :) (On this, I also find people I am trying to teach who easily get bored frustrating: they are less likely to do the simple, repetitive practice that is necessary to develop skills - the sort of thing that people who make things look easy have already done ...)
  
  This, too, could simply be that my need for people contact has been more than adequately met, at the moment, but my need for bush-time has not, and hence that need predominates - so it is a case of having multiple needs, but one tends to be most predominant at one time or another. As an example of that, consider food and drink: we need both, but if we are hungry and thirst, and then drink (or eat), the need that will be most apparent will be our hunger (or thirst). Maybe the same sort of effect applies to those who are working on multiple growth orientation paths: when the more urgent needs of one path have been tended to, another path's needs become more pressing - and so we cycle on, over a period of hours, days, months, years, decades or even lifetimes ...
  
  A similar effect can be observed with karma: many people tend to bounce about between extremes (e.g. primly "good" in one life to compensate for a prior life of "badness") before they - eventually - find a way to maintain a dynamic equilibrium between their various competing needs/behaviours/etc.
• Next, I don't have to justify myself or my views to anyone. I am owed respect inherently - which includes the right to have my privacy respected, and I have the right to be as irrational as I choose to be - provided no-one is being harmed. Of course, I need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that. For instance, if a partner asked me why I am doing or not doing something, and I chose not to answer, I have to be prepared to accept the possibility that such may destroy the trust/closeness that is a basis for that relationship, and hence end the relationship. I am, in this case, more thinking of other situations. For instance, when I left my first job as an engineer, after 7 years (which ,incidentally, was they day they (a) said they thought I was a good engineer, and (b) was the day they told me if I had stayed another two weeks I would have been paid pro-rata long service leave), I was fed up with engineering. At the send off, one of the directors said he hoped I stayed in engineering after I moved interstate, and I did not respond to that. As far as I was concerned, that was my business, and FORMER work colleagues had ZERO right to know anything of my future plans.
  
  Related to this, I have come across people regretting the loss of interaction between neighbours. I've lived in a small community where such interactions were good, but that was in the boating world, when I was living on a boat. If I was living on the banks of a river, interactions might be similar. In the 'burbs, however, I am cursed with having to cope with other people's bigotry: I don't want interactions that comprise other people telling me I should not exist ... This was probably worst in Menzies' Australia in the 50s and 60s, during which time Menzies made a comment about not needing to take some sort of repressive action (I have forgotten the details - sorry, and don't have time to look this up) as nothing could match the controlling behaviour in people's living rooms.

Now, moving away from spiritual paths from the point of view of yogic pathways, I spent some time (along with a few dozen others in the audience - there is NO special or particular connection between myself and this person) with someone recently who was on a related, but slightly different spiritual pathway to me: Charmaine Wilson.

Charmaine is a fantastic medium - and I consider some particularly good points of her session to be:

• the beginning and end talks about depression, how there is no shame is being depressed and the importance of dealing with it;
• that mediumship is not a perfect, exact science (as Charmaine said, she gets an image and may tend to interpret it in a particular way, whereas the significance of the image is something else; the example given was of getting an image of a bridge, which turned out to be because the spirit had been president of the (card-game) bridge club ...), and Charmaine did acknowledge when some connections were not very strong and left some attempted readings pass;
• that it is possible and good to be connected to your own spirit;
• some cautions about ways some people rip others off (e.g. by claiming that the "client" [rip-off victim!] has a ghost haunting them, and that the "client" [rip-off victim] needs to pay the pseudo-psychic [i.e. rip-off merchant] more money).

I have come across such rip-off merchants and "tricks", so it is good that a warning about such was given last night. It is also good that she attempted to defuse the fear of spirit matters, and mentioned that people pass over to the Light easily. I do, however, disagree with her on this somewhat: there are some people who don't pass over, and do need rescue. That is not Charmaine's area of speciality, whereas it is mine, and I consider my experience more relevant in this case (whereas is someone I wants a good "proof-of-survival" reading, I would recommend [strongly!] they go to her, not me :) ). Charmaine is dealing with spirits who have passed over, and are coming back to pass on messages; I deal with the ones who have got stuck - who, I should be clear, are NOT always or even often malevolent. My teacher gave an example of one "haunting" he was asked to work on, where the client said the spirit was doing evil; when asked to give examples of the "evil", she mentioned things like chairs being pulled out when people went to sit in them. What was the source of this "evil"? A young child who had found he was invisible ...

Have a look at some of my past posts on this: http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/06/saturday-morning-rescues-blog.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2010/01/film-review-lovely-bones.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/12/shades-of-exorcism.html, http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2009/10/service-to-guide-souls-of-dead.html, and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2008/05/mediumship-part-three-last-part.html.

Also, Charmaine stated that it is not possible to be "possessed by malevolent spirits", and that events of the type shown in the film "The Exorcist" don't happen. Well, I agree that things like spinning heads don't happen, but there are "malevolent" spirits. More commonly (and perhaps less threatening or disturbing to some), there are energies and people which we are not in harmony with. In much the same way as two colours may clash, the auras of two people (possibly both incarnate, or one discarnate and one incarnate, or both discarnate) may clash. It is possible, and desirable, that one protect oneself against such disharmony - a statement made in exactly the same spirit (pun not intended by me, but I won't speak for the guides helping me with this!) as Charmaine's comments that being depressed is not wrong or terrible, but it is important to treat the depression.

Next, I was listening to ABC Radio National's Science Show programme, and heard a segment on acne. This programme hypothesised that the (evolutionary) purpose of acne is to ensure some partners survive the violence of sexual competition. That comment was based on "primitive" tribal lifestyles, where death rates are substantially higher than in "civilised" society (have a look at my post on Neanderthal Predation theory (at here). I have to say, in a milder way that pretty much matches my recollection of being teenager as being a decidedly unpleasant experience. Apart from my personal angst, there were all the "Queen Bees" and "Wannabees" (who I would term alpha females), alpha males and other bullies and bitches to put up with ... I'm glad I am personally finished (a long time ago, now) with that time of life.

Now my final point. I am including the link to this blog post as a matter of public interest. The author has requested that it be spread far and wide, and I will do so. There are major problems with the responses in Western nations to security threats: for some good comments on what is described as "security theatre" (as opposed to real, effective security) in this and other areas, I suggest you consider also checking out Bruce Schneier's website .

So ... the blog post is at: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

A few other links relating to Bruce Schneier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneier%27s_Law; and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failing_badly.

Update:
There has been another blog post about this: see here.

Love, light, hugs and blessings

Gnwmythr

Notes:

1. Now, with the qualification that I am NOT considering people who have been seriously injured in some way (e.g. been the victim of childhod abuse), and hence genuinely NEED healing, when I make this comment I am thinking here of people who are immature, or insecure, or otherwise needy, and seek an external cure, rather than seeking to cure the flaw within. Subject to my qualification, having a sense of being loved cannot be created from without: you have to at least be open to the possibility that you are loveable.
   
   I am also thinking of one woman who I heard as describing a new lover as "not selfish" because he stayed up all night rather than getting some sleep so he could do his work as he was paid to do the next day. (She hadn't thought about the work issue, by the way, only her personal pleasure.)
2. I was staggered to read, at this link, that there had been four follow up films! The second one wasn't as good as the first, in my opinion, and there were others after that ... Please note the views about the faults of the film: the Wikipedia listing includes, for instance, the following comment: "Richard Lee, an anthropologist who studied the Ju/ʼhoansi, argues that the film's representation of the group was a "cruel caricature of reality" given the decades of highly problematic social changes".

This post's photo is yet to be posted.

Tags: leadership, growth orientation, Charmaine Wilson, rescue, mediumship, proof-of-survival, sexuality, competitiveness, violence, survival, security theatre, selfishness,

First published: Tuesday 16th November, 2010

Last edited: Friday 19th November, 2010