This is only my second post for this year and perhaps the last unless the delivery issues can be overcome. A lot of work goes into maintaining this list and the websites where the posts are archived. Only 127 subscribers are using protonmail.com so my advice to get a free, uncensored e-mail provider has apparently not been taken seriously. I will continue to write, but unless the delivery issues are overcome, the platform has to be changed.
This said, I awakened this morning to the thought that one more try is worth an effort. I would like to break this post into two parts. The first deals with Antares. You can take this on whatever level suits you, but many years ago, I visited Antares in a state of higher consciousness. The first explanation upon reaching this rather close red star was that our textbooks are incorrect. The name Antares does not mean “Rival of Mars” but rather “Anti-Ares” meaning “against war” and aggressive expressions associated with the God of War. Why there is even a god of war is perhaps a question for another day.
The energy on Antares was very soft and small children had higher consciousness than most pundits on our Planet. Everything was “easy” meaning there was no friction or discord.
The second explanation is that Lady Gaia used to be a member of the court in Antares, and she took incarnation as what we know as Earth. They are concerned about her treatment and are prepared to help as they love her dearly and are saddened by what they see. Next, my guide, a small boy with a beautiful soul and sensitivity, took me to a sort of beach where there were at least a hundred space ships, all loaded. He said that, in earth time, it takes about eight minutes from Antares to Earth with these craft which have supplies for what we might call a galactic scale relief mission. He took me inside two of the crafts. One, I remember, had plants with little white flowers that were to be used to clean up superfunds and any sites with nuclear waste. Another had technological equipment for repairing the ozone layer.
As mentioned, there were probably more than a hundred ships, but since I only remember being shown inside two of them, I will limit my commentary to nuclear power. As we all know, the atom bombs were developed in Los Alamos and first tested in the desert in New Mexico before being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They have not been used in warfare since. Remember this. Thousands of bombs were “tested” by numerous countries, and there are consequences of this testing that have yet to precipitate; but in terms of weaponry, the devices are obsolete and many voices at extremely high levels have stated the same thing. Reagan asked “those who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” Echoes of this sentiment can be found in circles with pacifists such as myself up to the highest levels of military and government in countless countries.
However, we went on to build nuclear power plants that have a serviceable life expectancy of more or less 40 years. That is what the permits state and the rest is all debated, some reactors having been shut down before reaching their 40th year and others having had extensions. The half-life of the radioactive materials in reactors varies enormously from hours to four billion years. These are half lives, not the time elapsed until no radiation can be detected.
In our lifetimes, there have been numerous nuclear crises, some that got quite a lot of coverage and some that were hardly reported. Among those most familiar to us are Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011). These are all global events because the emissions travel around the world in a matter of days. The radioactive particulates precipitate and contaminate air, water, and soil. They are inhaled and ingested, and they are sucked up by the systems in our planes and vehicles for air circulation . . . to name a few methods of disbursement.
The fact that Russia secured the Chernobyl reactor on the first day of its invasion speaks to the concern for safety, but it hardly justifies the actions taken.
To be honest, I know nothing about Russian weapons, but I do know a little about the depleted uranium used by the U.S. This is used against armored vehicles as the tips of bullets and other projectiles are used to penetrate. There is a vaporization that can easily be inhaled and the metal is very difficult to recycle because it is radioactive. I have been consulted by numerous Gulf War veterans and studied their symptoms and really feel that this kind of warfare is unconscionable. As a pacifist, it is true that all war as well as bullying and arm twisting and threats are intolerable, but the consequences of the use of certain devices make no distinction between soldiers and civilians nor between allies and enemies. They are therefore totally indiscriminate and have lasting health and environmental consequences.
I am on the path of the student, the thinker, not the doer. Each path is related to the adrenal glands and the direction of rotation of the first chakra. On the path of action, people must learn to use skill in such a way that actions do not create adverse reactions, i.e., karmic consequences. As such, the doer must learn to weigh the pros and cons so as to anticipate blow back. He or she must also learn to find win-win solutions that support stability in personal relationships as well as relationships between communities, ethnic groups, countries, and perhaps one day aliens. This is not a casual path, and it is often embarked upon with ego and ambition. When it is not in harmony, the fight mechanism is triggered, and only a fool engages in a fight he or she cannot win. It is therefore always preferable to seek a fair solution without risking repercussions,
On the path of the more reflective individuals, the goal is wisdom and when the adrenals are triggered, the flight mechanism is triggered. This is so obvious now in Ukraine. Many people are in bomb shelters or taking refuge in Poland and other sympathetic countries. Others are saying they are willing to fight to the death. Personally, I think this is very foolish. It is not a question of right or wrong, but a cause must be extremely valuable to risk one’s life. A mother may risk her life for her children, but a family without a father is not really a great gift to the wife and children.
While I understand the sentiments of those who are angry enough to fight as well as those who are frightened enough to leave, I don’t think either choice solves the problem. If the situation escalates, meaning if weapons are handed out and sympathizers ship more weapons to Ukraine, not only will there be more losses but also more risk that other countries will ally with either Ukraine or Russia.
The Security Council has voted. Russia, of course, exercised its veto power. UAE, China, and India abstained. So, at the moment, Russia is isolated in the world of public opinion, and this will only shift if something really dramatic happens that changes the trajectory. Strategists plan several steps ahead so we should expect surprises and the nature of surprises is that they were not on the original list of what people expected.
Let me put this another way. If Russia seizes the pipelines, it is what people tend to believe was the intention. If Russia withdraws, it will give the impression of weakness because whatever the goal was, it was aborted. However, if they destroyed bioweapons laboratories and have proof, they are heroes. Sit tight.
This post is not about who did what or why. It is about energy. I hope I have rattled the cage a bit about why the talking heads who are urging Europe to revert to nuclear energy to reduce their energy dependence is not sound advice. It is noise of no consequence though obviously some people will push for it because it would shift the balance of power and solve a short-term crisis. They might babble on about thorium to make a case for safe nuclear energy, but this keeps the power in the same hands, i.e., the one percent continue to reign.
If everything related to oil and gas as well as nuclear energy is deemed obsolete, then we have real change. I know I sometimes repeat myself. Actually, no planets are retrograde in my natal chart, but sometimes I feel that dots are not connected and that restating some details will help the linkage. I spent much of childhood in Southern California. As fate would have it, I moved to Hawaii right before the nuclear incident in Simi Valley that got almost no press coverage. However, billboards, oil pumps, and smog were the landscape of much of my youth. It was a huge surprise to me years later to learn that the electric car was invented in 1832. Loosely translated, this means that the pollution in which I was surrounded was absolutely unnecessary. The smarting eyes, the coughing and sometimes choking, were unnecessary.
If we really want change, the people themselves have to make themselves energy independent. There are hundreds of technological solutions to the energy crisis as well as to climate, desertification, and environmental hygiene.
If you believe this, then you also know that those who are standing in the way of alternatives are also trying to squeeze the last penny out of the investments they have made. One of the many ironies of this conflict is that going back some years, I think to the BP issue in the Gulf of Mexico, Russia took a different position on oil than the major corporations whose names are familiar to us. We grew up hearing that petroleum is a fossil fuel whereas Russia maintained that it is abiotic . . . in which case, the game is not what we thought. I am not an expert, I am merely pointing out inconsistencies that keep our minds muddled.
Tulsi Gabbard gave an impassioned speech at CPAC explaining that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights given by God, not granted by state powers. They are recognized in the Constitution as rights, not concessions or gifts. If we believe this, we must not jeopardize the safety and security of anyone or anything. Nothing can be forced upon us that jeopardizes our rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We must allow this for everyone, not just ourselves and the people we love but also for total strangers and even people we do not really like. I have a hard time liking people who misuse power, but I still respect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, subject to the caveat their actions do not infringe the rights of others. If they do not measure up to this threshold, then their power has to be curtailed by lawful means.
In the New Year’s resolutions, I promised to make simple suggestions for improving our lives and our world. There is only one very important nudge I would make today. Be temperate. Before expressing your views, think carefully about the facts and whether or not you are actually privy to information supporting the facts. Then, if you express a thought, do it constructively and cautiously because sometimes things are not exactly as they seem. I have no inside information at all and no power at all to influence. I can merely invite you to share the view from my window. I have tears when I look out, but those tears express the compassion that I feel and cannot hide from myself or others. These are challenging times but nothing will improve except by our own thoughts and actions. Make sure your footprints are worth following.
If you enjoyed this essay, think about making a contribution to support my web presence. Your donations are greatly appreciated and also necessary to sustain my work.