Mechanism Four

The Distortion of Values

Our Beliefs and Values are shaped by culture. While there is a genetic basis to certain human attributes and behaviors, the knowledge we have and the way we think about and act upon that knowledge is fundamentally an environmental phenomenon.

With that in mind, the monetary system requires a form of communication to inform the public of what a company has made available for sale. This form of communication is termed ‘advertising’. The characteristic of advertising is ‘promotion’ and promotion is a manner of communication, which, generally speaking, creates a bias in favor of the product in question. In other words, advertising’s job is to entice...or in more direct terms – manipulate the consumer into purchasing a product. This manipulation takes many forms, but one of the most effective is the manipulation and/or exploitation of the viewing audience’s “values” - what he or she finds important.

However, before we go any further, it needs to be pointed out that the mass consumption patterns currently seen in the United States and elsewhere were not always the case. America originally was founded, to some degree, on a kind of Protestant work ethic, where thrift and savings were dominant values. However, by the early 20th century, a concerted effort by the business community set out to distort these notions and mold a new army of impulsive, perpetually dissatisfied, status conscious consumers. Advertising agencies switched their arguments from utilitarian ones to those gauged for emotional appeal and status. Consequently, today the average American consumes twice as much as he or she did since the end of WWII.(14)

Now, one of the most powerful forms of ‘value manipulation’ comes from re-associating a person’s identity to a particular ideal. Patriotism and Religion are classical examples of this, for through indoctrination at an early age, a person is often conditioned to feel a close personal connection to a country or religion, hence conditioning that person to want to support the doctrines, unconditionally.

Another example of this is the concept of “fashion”. Fashion takes many forms, from the clothes people wear to even the ideologies they perpetuate. To illustrate how successful the commercial industry has become in manipulating the values of human beings for their own gain, many people today can be seen walking around wearing certain commercial articles, merely for the purpose of expressing a company’s brand, contriving some kind of apparent social status or “stylistic expression” from them. Signature “Tommy Hilfiger” shirts, trade marked “Prada Bags” and flashy Rolex watches are examples of products where the utility or function of an item has lost total relevance, with importance now derived by what the item “represents”.

Sadly, what these people often do not realize is that they are nothing more than walking advertisements for the respective company, plain and simple.

The “status” or “expression” really exists entirely in the conditioned ‘value projections’ of that person, and if enough people become manipulated in the same way, a “trend” emerges, which further reinforces the delusion by way of collective identification. These trends can become so powerful, that those who do not adhere to the fad, might be deemed “outcasts” and be ostracized.

Now, ‘Vanity’ aside, we must also examine the distorted values created in the form of mentalities and worldviews. This constant need of self-interest often spreads like a cancer into other psychological areas, creating and reinforcing such neurosis as “Greed”, “Jealousy” and “Ego”.

Greed is likely the driving force of the monetary system’s perpetuation, beyond just survival. Due to the inherent stratification of goods and services (and hence standards of living) available to those with more and more purchasing power, the human being is groomed to perpetually want “more” material wealth, for the “more” seems to go to infinity. The result is a culture which doesn’t have a concept of balance, or a sense of what is actually important, or “enough”. Advertising compounds this by its constant depictions of “the possibilities”, often making people question their own self worth because they do not “have the best things in life”, etc.

Jealousy appears to begin cultivation at a very early age, perhaps when the school teacher would praise the student who would make high marks, and scold the student who didn’t, making that student feel envious of the person who made the high grade. Regardless of its origin, a classic tactic of advertising is to exploit this neurosis by using the media to depict a person with something that you do not have, making you feel as though you need to have it in order to be “equal”. This is very similar to greed, with the exception being that people grow to despise others for what they have, creating social tension and often conflict.

Ego is often defined as ‘a feeling of superiority to others’. This distortion takes essentially two forms:

1) General superiority based on wealth class / or position in the social hierarchy

2) Arrogance regarding one’s creative contribution, demanding prestige, acknowledgement or other “rewards”.

The latter, for many, almost seems “natural”, for people today love to “take credit” for their ideas and inventions. This has a strong reinforcement in the monetary system, for when it comes to making a “profit”, one is literally being “rewarded” and “acknowledged” for their personal inventions and actions. This further compounds the propensity for a person to demand credit for what they do, even if it has nothing to do with money.

It should be pointed out that no human really “invents” or creates anything on his or her own. Every idea and creation that has emerged has been done so based on the contributions of prior generations’ work, environmental influences and/or peer feedback. As Isaac Newton once said: “If I have seen further, it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants”(15). His point was that he built his research, and hence discoveries, upon the work of many other great scientists who lived before him. His credit therefore is not only his, it goes to the whole body of scientific discovery that he had learned and worked with.

This form of Ego has no position when a person understands that ALL inventions and creations are actually collaborations developed serially, one way or another.

Now, as for the former distinction of Ego noted above (“General superiority based...”) this is a class oriented disposition which, on one level, is a psychological means to make one feel better for having more than another human. A wealthy person walking down the street finds it much easier to dismiss a homeless person, by saying “he is just a lazy bum”, as opposed to recognizing him as a victim of culture. On another level, blind elitism, in the form of a kind of ‘class based racism’ leads people to dismiss those with less purchasing power as simply being “inferior” or “undeserving”, for the social stature, education and lifestyle afforded by this elite, is vastly out of reach for those without similar purchasing power, therefore creating gross differences in culture.

In the end, our values are based on what works and helps us create easier, better lives. If we live in a system that rewards competition, unenlightened self-interest, corruption, vanity and arrogance, then these are the values that will constantly be perpetuated in society. While many people give lip service to ‘honesty, caring for others and humility’, it is easy to see why these qualities do not prevail, for the system of survival in society today does not support or reinforce them.

reference :
(14) Schor, Juliet, The Overworked American, New York Books, 1991, p. 208
(15) Newton, Isaac, Letter to Robert Hooke February 5th 1675


precisely thats what need to happen, debt no need to return.

in the not too distant past there is a great example of a transition that took place that has almost made the use of money obsolete in a particular industry. the scale of the transition was unintentional, and somewhat incomplete, but it is still a great example of what is possible.

-it started with an idea for some new technology.

-the technology made the product in question abundant, readily available, and free of cost.

-after only 2 years of implementing the technology, over 26 million people were working together to make the transition happen.

-there was almost no advertizing. people mainly found out about it by word of mouth.

-none of the 26 million people even realized they were taking part in a transition. they didn't even know to what extent they were co-operating with eachother. they did not have to organize or educate eachother. they were only taking advantage of the convenience of the technology.

-although the product in question was rapidly losing monetary value in the industry that serviced it, the average end user of the product never had to deal with any inconvenience due to lack of industry support. the new technology surpassed the old industry by so much that the end users were actually getting more than they ever had before.

-when the industry cried out for the government and the courts to put an end to this new technology, and re-enforce an environment of scarcity, several more versions of the technology popped up to replace it. the transition continued.

the product in question is music. the technology was napster, and all the other peer-to-peer services that have come along since napster.

the music industry has been forever changed. the only reason there is any money left in it at all is because governments imposed sur-charges on recordable cd's, flash memory devices, and mp3 players, that goes directly to the music industry corporations. our social structure set out to rescue them.

now imagine if this transition had been intentional. what if the product(s) in question had to do with the basic needs of survival instead? - food, shelter, energy, clothing, transportation
what if people took advantage of a type of technology that made survival not only virtually free, but improved the access to the means of survival far beyond what we have today? if people suddenly realized they didn't need money to survive?

and what if at that point, tzm and tvp were there to follow up these events with a plan for a new social direction? what kind of chances would a rbe have at becoming a reality then?


sam harris, science can answer moral question

Excerpt from ZMF and Jacque Fresco's word :

the reason that i frankly think it's a waste of time to engage in moral value judgments about people's violence is because it doesnt advance by one iota our understanding of either the causes or the prevention of the violent behavior. people sometimes ask if i believe in "forgiving" criminals my answer to that is. no, i dont believe in forgiveness anymore than i believe in condemnation. its only if we, as a society can take the same attitude of treating violence as a problem in public health and preventive medicine rather than as a moral "evil"... its only when we make that change in our own attitudes and assumptions and values that we will actually succeed in reducing the level of violence rather than stimulating it which is what we do now.

One reason that the biological explanation for violence, one reason that hypothesis is potentially dangerous- it's not just misleading it can really do harm- . is because if you believe that, you could very easily say: . “Well, there's nothing we can do to change the predisposition people have to becoming violent. All we can do, if somebody becomes violent is punish them- lock them up or execute them- . but we don't need to worry about changing the social environment or the social preconditions that may lead people to become violent because that's irrelevant.”

the more justice you seek, the more hurt you become because there's no such thing as justice. there is whatever there is out there. that's it. in other words, if people are conditioned to be racist bigots, if they are brought up in an environment that advocates that why do you blame the person for it? they are victim of a subculture. therefore they have to be helped. the point is, we have to redesign environment that produces aberrant behavior. thats the problem. not putting a person in jail. thats why judges, lawyers, freedom of choice - such concepts are dangerous, because it gives you mis-information. that the person is "bad".. or that person is a "serial killer". serial killers are made just like soldiers become serial killers with a machine gun. they become killing machines, but nobody looks at them as murderers or assassins because that's "natural". so we blame people. we say, "well, this guy was a Nazi - he tortured Jews". No, we was brought up to torture Jews. once you accept the fact that people have individual choices and they are free to make those choices... Free to make choices means without being influenced and i cant understand that at all. all of us are influenced in all of our choices by the culture we live in, by our parents and by the values that dominate. so, we're influenced- so there cant be "free" choices. Whats the greatest country in the world? -- the true answer: i havent been all over the world and i dont know enough about different cultures to answer that question.' i dont know anybody that speaks that way. They say 'its the good old USA! the greatest country in the world!' there is no survey... 'have you been to india? - 'no' Have you been to England?' - 'No' Have you been to France?' - 'No' Then what do you make your assumptions on?' They cant answer - they get mad at you. They say 'God dammit! Who the hell are you to tell me what to think?!' You know... Dont forget : youre dealing with aberrated people. they are not responsible for the answers; they're victims of culture and that means they have been influenced by their culture.

[size=150][b]Selfish adults 'damage childhood'[/b][/size]

By Mark Easton
BBC News Home Editor

[b]The aggressive pursuit of personal success by adults is now the greatest threat to British children, a major independent report on childhood says.[/b]


The report says children's lives are "more difficult than in the past"

It calls for a sea-change in social attitudes and policies to counter the damage done to children by society.

Family break-up, unprincipled advertising, too much competition in education and income inequality are mentioned as big contributing factors.

A panel of independent experts carried out the study over three years.

The report, called The Good Childhood Inquiry and commissioned by the Children's Society, concludes that children's lives in Britain have become "more difficult than in the past", adding that "more young people are anxious and troubled".

According to the panel, "excessive individualism" is to blame for many of the problems children face and needs to be replaced by a value system where people seek satisfaction more from helping others rather than pursuing private advantage.

[url=]What makes a good childhood?[/url]
A spokesman for the Department for Children Schools and Families said: "We know there are still risks and challenges ahead for children and parents and that there is more for us all to do".

[b]'Tone deaf'[/b]

The inquiry has a long list of recommendations including:

? abolishing Sats tests and league tables in English schools

? a ban on all advertising aimed at the under 12s and no TV commercials for alcohol or unhealthy food before the 9pm watershed

? stopping building on any open space where children play

? a high-quality youth centre for every 5,000 young people

"Individual freedom and self-determination bring many blessings," writes the report's principal author, Labour peer Lord Richard Layard.

"But in Britain... the balance has tilted too far," he says.



This is a starting point for a debate as to why a million and a half British children are unhappy and why young people's emotional health appears to be worsening.

[url=]Mark Easton's blog[/url]

Another contributor, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, suggests society has become "tone-deaf to the real requirements of children… in a climate where the mixture of sentimentalism and panic makes discussion of children's issues so difficult".

The panel, made up of 11 experts including eight university professors, says its conclusions are evidence based.

But some of its findings on family life in Britain are bound to be controversial.

[b]Working mothers [/b]

It cites research suggesting that three times as many three year olds living with lone parents or a step-parent have behavioural problems compared with those living with married parents.
Lord Layard discusses how stressful life has become for many children in all social classes…[/quote]

"Children with separate, single or step parents are 50% more likely to fail at school, have low esteem, be unpopular with other children and have behavioural difficulties, anxiety or depression," it argues.

"Child-rearing is one of the most challenging tasks in life and ideally it requires two people," the report concludes.

It also suggests that having many more working mothers has contributed to the damage done to children.

"Most women now work and their new economic independence contributes to levels of family break-up which are higher in the UK than in any other Western European country."

The panel has a series of recommendations aimed at improving the quality of family life experienced by children:

? a civil birth ceremony conducted by a registrar in which parents publicly accept the responsibilities of parenthood

? free parenting classes available around the time of birth

? free psychological and family support if relationships struggle

? rules making it easier for parents to stay at home to rear their children

Chief Executive of the Children's Society, Bob Reitemeyer, commissioned the research which included more than 30,000 submissions from organisations and children.

"Essentially the report brings a taboo into the open which is that we have to confront our selfish and individualistic culture," he said.

"We need to realise that we are collectively responsible for the welfare of all children and that together we can make childhood better."

The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, is studying the report.


The report says parents should have free parenting classes

Although government may be sympathetic to some of the inquiry's conclusions, it is unlikely it will implement its radical proposals in the near future.

The government statement said: "The report mirrors the ambitious plan for improving children's lives and outcomes we set out in our Children's Plan, which aims to give every child the best chance in life, and we are pleased that the review acknowledges the positive impact that the Children's Plan is already having on children's lives.

"We know there are still risks and challenges ahead for children and parents and that there is more for us all to do.

"But as the report points out, in many ways our children have never lived so well - children are more educated, less sick, and more tolerant, and the government is working hard to invest, help and support children and their families to make Britain the best place in the world to grow up."

reference :

Dave Meslin : The antidote to apathy

[size=150]Nature vs. Nurture[/size]
Are We Really Born That Way?

By Kimberly Powell, Guide

Jul 19 2010

You got your green eyes from your mother, and your freckles from your father. But where did you get your [url=]thrill-seeking personality[/url] and [url=]talent for singing?[/url] Did you learn these from your parents or was it predetermined by your genes? While it's clear that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetic waters get a bit more murky when it comes to an individual's behavior, intelligence, and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature vs. nurture has never really been won. We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. But we do know that both play a part.

[b]What is Nature vs Nurture?[/b]

It has been reported that the use of the terms "nature" and "nurture" as a convenient catch-phrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development can be [url=]traced back to 13th century France.[/url] Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior.

Fast-growing understanding of the human genome has recently made it clear that both sides are partly right. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature. End of story, right? Nope. The "nature vs nurture" debate still rages on, as scientist fight over how much of who we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment.

[b]The Nature Theory - Heredity[/b]

Scientists have known for years that traits such as eye color and hair color are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell. The Nature Theory takes things a step further to say that more abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual's DNA.

The search for "behavioral" genes is the source of constant debate. Many fear that genetic arguments might be used to excuse [url=]criminal acts[/url] or justify [url=]divorce[/url].

The most debated issue pertaining to the nature theory is the exsistence of a [url=]"gay gene,"[/url] pointing to a genetic component to sexual orientation.

An April, 1998 article in LIFE Magazine, "Were You Born That Way" by George Howe Colt, claimed that "new studies show it's mostly in your genes."

If genetics didn't play a part, then fraternal twins, reared under the same conditions, would be alike, regardless of differences in their genes. But, while studies show they do more closely resemble each other than do non-twin brothers and sisters, they also show these same striking similarities when reared apart - as in similar studies done with identical twins.

[b]The Nurture Theory - Environment[/b]

While not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters of the nurture theory believe they ultimately don't matter - that our behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

American psychologist John Watson, best known for his [url=]controversial experiments[/url] with a young orphan named Albert, demonstrated that the acquisition of a phobia could be explained by classical conditioning. A strong proponent of environmental learning, he said:

[i]Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select...regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors.[/i]

Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner's early experiments produced pigeons that could dance, do figure eights, and play tennis. Today known as the father of behavioral science, he eventually went on to prove that [url=]human behavior could be conditioned[/url] in much the same way as animals.

A [url=]study in New Scientist[/url] suggests that sense of humor is a learned trait, influenced by family and cultural environment, and not genetically determined.

If environment didn't play a part in determining an individual's traits and behaviors, then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects.

So, was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over time in response to our experiences? Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. [b][color=#FF0000]Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.[/color][/b]

reference :

Part 2: other relevant information

[size=150]You Never Really Own Anything[/size]

Ownership. Property. This is mine. This is yours. Do you think you own anything? You don’t. Ownership is an illusion. So is property. Why? Because all the things you use are only used by you temporarily before they are passed on or thrown away. Be it food, clothing, cars, property, furniture, cell phones, air, water. You never say to anyone ‘Don’t breath here! This air is mine!’. Of course not. Air is still free. Water is also in a large degree free, but is becoming more and more privatized. Food, clothing, cars and land has become utterly privatized. Still. You don’t, and never will own anything of it.

You use it.

You don’t own it.

At best, all you can say about something you think you own is that ‘this is in my possession now and as long as I am using it’. That is the most ‘ownership’ there is. Everything that you ‘own’ is only ‘yours’ temporarily. It is only borrowed or rented. Your food goes into you and comes out again. So does the water. Even your body is on loan. When you die it goes back into the circulation. Ownership is an illusion. Still, it’s an illusion bought by humanity. But it is no more than an agreement that say’s that ‘ok, we will have a system here that gives some the right to claim vast resources of the planet for themselves, while others suffer’.

There’s no ownership in nature. There’s only coexistence, with every part fulfilling their task, and every part being fulfilled in doing so. In a moneyless society and resource based economy this is how we will look at ownership, since this is the only ‘ownership’ there is and ever will be. Having a paper that say’s you own something doesn’t make it more ‘yours’ in the big scheme of things. Whatever you ‘own’ can be lost in the blink of an eye.

Today ownership is almost equal to accessibility. The more you own, the more access you have to things in life. The more land you own, the more cars you own, the more houses you own, etc. The problem is that you are only one person and cannot possibly make 100% use of all the things you own. Even if you only own one car and a guitar. You will never be able to use whatever you own all the time.

If, however, you didn’t own anything, but had access to virtually everything this planet and humanity can offer, you would ‘own’ more than the richest people on this planet will ever own. I’ll say this again, because this is the most important thing there is to grasp when it comes to concept of non-ownership:

If you didn’t own anything, but had access to virtually everything this planet, and humanity, can offer, you would own more than the richest people on this planet will ever own. The whole planet would be yours to use. Of course, this means that all borders and visas would have to go too.

In a resource based economy everyone will have access to virtually everything on this planet. Today we think that if this was the case, everyone would rush to the same places and go for the same things, because that is what is seemingly happening today. ‘Everyone’ seem to run after the same things. And sometimes, yes, some things are more popular than others. But we must remember that a lot of this is due to advertising and promotion seeking a certain behavior among the population fulfilling the profit motive of the capitalistic system.

One example of a moneyless system in today’s society is the library. Sometimes you have to wait for books to come back, yes, but more than often the books you want to borrow are there for you. If the whole world was like the library, you might have to wait a while going to a certain beach or holiday resort if it was full for the time being. But, there would be lot’s and lot’s of other places to visit in the mean time, just like there would be lot’s of other interesting books to read while you were waiting for the one you wanted. Maybe you’d find other, even more interesting books to read, and places to visit, in the mean time.

The idea of ownership builds on the notion of scarcity. The thought that there is not enough of places and books for every one of us. Therefore, it is best to hoard as much as we can while we can. If we don’t, we risk being without, not having access and having to live a poor life.

Not owning anything could be the best experience humanity has ever had. It would result in the most abundant lifestyle anyone on this planet could ever dream of. Not owning anything is a notion built on the opposite of scarcity. It is a thought that when we share, everyone will have many times more than what we would ever have if we were to own everything we wanted. This includes the richest of the richest people on this planet. No one, I repeat, n o o n e, can own the whole planet. Even though someone certainly tries to do just that, it will never happen. In any case no one would ever be able to use the whole planet for themselves only. You can’t swim on all the seas, climb all the mountains or eat all the food.

Some people try to own as much as possible, thinking this will bring the best lifestyle for them, not realizing that sharing will bring more to everyone, even them. Of course, we can not all have our own private jet or private beach. But we would have access to more jet’s and beaches than we could ever use in a world with no ownership.

So, since we don’t own anything anyway, since ownership is nothing more than an illusion bringing lack to the world, why not simply abandon it. Of course, this is not something that is done over night. Many people are ready for it, even rich people. But just as many people are afraid of it and far from ready. For it to happen this thought has to manifest itself throughout the population and take root. Humanity have to break free from the thought of money, property and ownership and open it’s eyes to the new virtually unlimited possibilities a moneyless society and a resource based economy can offer.

“We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.

As regards to the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic,
the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.”

-President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907


It is my intent and will that all who read this understand what it means. Because if you are able to understand it, then you can finally move forward in understanding why things today are exactly why they are. This is very important. We must recognize our defect and rejection of that which the government has provided to us. To understand that the governments of this world, though seemingly, corrupt and out of control, is merely a reflection of the people in which it has to govern. That we are the problem. I'm the problem and you are the problem. We have refused to govern ourselves. Due to that refusal we are left with the best that the government can literally provide.

We as a dependent of the government are a disruption and a burden because we refuse to govern ourselves. They have stepped in to try to control us, to keep us from hurting ourselves and one another so that some semblance of society might still exist. It's not pretty and not what people think they want but it is what it is because that appears to be exactly what we want.

Like I said before, the government is merely (merely; meaning ONLY) a reflection of the people in which it governs. The more out of control the people who have submitted themselves to it, the more out of control the government appears to be out of control to control it. It's actually pretty simple. Cause and effect. We are the cause by the choices we make and the government, in all of it's choices, are the effect. We the people make this so. We are the problem.

On the other hand, if we were to stop looking to the government for our every need, for currency, for trade, for everything commercial, to deliberate fairness and equality, there would be none who find themselves holding the short end of the stick. For there would be no stick that any would want to hold.

Every government of this world will be united. Know that. Their cause will be to subdue all of those who are the problem. Know that. They will rule with a "rod of iron". They will either force us to all grow up by making us understand that we indeed are the problem or they will have to simply put an end to those that will not except the responsibility for their own actions, intents and understandings.

For those of you who think that government has enslaved you, by whatever means, know that you did agree to be governed, by and through your personal acts and actions. Do not be fooled. It is you that is the problem and your unwillingness to accept that responsibility is the problem at hand.

They'll get you by your claim of ownership. Understand that they have taken steps to relieve you of ownership. Most governments accomplished this in the 1930's. By doing so, they have made it possible for you to live your life here, now, in abundance. Yet because your intent is to own that what you cannot possibly own, you have caused scarcity instead of abundance. They see you fighting for the right of ownership. Those who fight to own something that cannot be owned is merely keeping others from the benefit of that which they make claim to. That is not love. That is not community. That is not being your brothers keeper. That is not you looking out for the best interest of others. That is not being in service to others.

All in all, ownership of any kind today is selfish, thoughtless and the source and cause of every single problem you can point your finger at. Bar none. Ownership is the problem. A man's claim of ownership is a man claiming to be owned. We were sent here to be in the world, not to be of the world. To make a claim of ownership, you are being claimed by that which you claim and are therefore of the world and no longer merely in it.

"The powers that be" know this to be the truth of the matter. They understand that simple fact of ownership. You say they want claim and ownership of everything and I say that is a lie. They make no claim of ownership, the only ones making a claim of ownership are those pointing their finger at
these "powers that be" and saying, "they are trying to own everything." When in fact they are merely controlling it.

Who said, "Own nothing and control everything"? That was a very wise man. That was someone who understands what destruction ownership causes. That is a man trying to show others the right way. Those who misunderstand the logic of non ownership are lost in illusions of grandeur and that is the product of the illusion of ownership.

You truly own nothing. Your claim of ownership is causing the hungry to starve, the thief to steal and the murderer to kill. You who claim ownership of anything and everything, even your own family and loved ones, you are killing them and their future, in a world of abundance that already exists.

If you claim ownership, you are the problem. If you refuse to understand that you are the cause of the problems that you see in the world today, your experience will not only be unpleasant for you but for your prodigy also. Everything you try to hold in the form of ownership, you WILL lose, including but not limited to your life.

Do read this more than once. Understand what it says. Ask for help in understanding if you don't understand. Do not let this opportunity slip away into eternity.

Those of you who wish to continue by arguing for the "right of claim and ownership" don't bother to respond. I'm not here to change your mind for you, I'm here to assist you to change your own mind, if change is what you seek. I have no time nor energy to reason with you and your intent of continued claim of ownership. Let your will be done in that instance. Mine is "fair warning". The "powers that be" also, have given you fair warning. Do you really think I came up with all of this on my own?

A final word taken from the last line of the Declaration of Independence, do understand it… ..."with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Notice: No claim of ownership, it's ALL been pledged.

Know thy self, for your only enemy is the one within.