Tag Archives: Emotions

My encounter with Desteni’s portal

 Zaque and Sunette

Zaque and Sunette – Photo by Anna Brix Thompsen

In this post I am writing about my personal experience with Sunette Spies in the moments and minutes when she is portalling the dimensions.  I am talking about the bio-technology of connecting to the dimensions by creating a pathway of communication via Sunette’s physical body.  Sunette utlises her body in that she makes it available to those who come through the portal to which we  have direct access to the other side – the un-embodied dimensions. Our bodies have no access because this gateway is realised without the mind. In other words, the mind, as it is, stands between and separates the physical dimension from the un-embodied dimensions. There are many reasons why that is the case but that is not my focus here.

So, we are looking at a technology which is the human body as interface for communication. Before I go on I want to point out that what I am reporting here is seen from my perspective which comes with my personal history, however I am committed to lay out what I have witnessed and comprehended with scrutiny to fully describe to you the added value that this experience has given to my life.

Briefly, my personal history is such that in the past I have been involved with forms of spirituality because I was on a quest to understand myself in this world that did not make sense to me, and where I was not ‘feeling alright’ with how I was experiencing myself. Those paths have included channelling, chanting, affirmations, yoga, mediation and so forth. I moved through a lot spiritual traditions and did not shy away from study and practice, which is why I learned to read and write Sanskrit. I took no shortcuts because I wanted to find the truth. Similarly, I have never suspended my doubts and given into blind belief which is why I am here as a member of the Desteni group. With this group, I have satisfied the ‘urge’ that has driven me most of my life because through Desteni I have learned the tools that enable me to find the answers myself.

Therefore, when I first learned about the portal I was skeptical but yet open-minded to investigate what is being said, and prior to meeting the portal in person this was done through listening to the interviews on Eqafe. These audio interviews are Sunette’s voice used by the various beings from the dimensions, who are recognisable when listening to because of subtle tonality and pitch shifts in her voice.  Once I met the portal, I realised that in my own unawareness I had built up an image of the setup or the environment of what it would have to be like to produce these interviews. When I saw the real deal, it was a humbling experience. There are no props, there is no fancy technology, just a dictaphone. Sunette sits modestly on a couch-bed seamlessly and effortlessly moving into the dimensions as she starts to speak.

I have seen many speakers throughout my professional career in labs and research environments rehearsing for public talks, even quite seasoned ones. These experiences have given me a grounded understanding of what is cognitively possible for most people, to produce comprehensible improv in front of an audience.

The first notable experience for me was that Sunette does not rehearse and that she does not speak from notes. If you know Eqafe, then you know how many parallel series are online which are constantly getting updated with new interviews, and which build in their content on the previous interviews conducted in that particular series. For someone in this line of work, giving interviews that are part of an ongoing process of multiple, parallel strands of topics, concepts, references, analogies, metaphors and so forth would be an overwhelming task. A task that would be unmanageable regarding our mental capacity of remembering data and information from days or months ago.  To create continuity in the delivery of the interviews, where each interview of a particular series was left off for example, would require extensive support, involving people and tools.

Here, with Sunette, there is none of such extensive support, as I said there is a very basic recording device and a woman sitting cross-legged on a couch-bed, speaking. Surrounding Sunette and sitting close by are other visitors who are staying on the farm and who are listening to what the dimensions have to say. Some fall asleep during the interviews, others are completely absorbed. I can’t say what it depends upon, I suppose on the various stages of one’s process or on the topic.

During the interviews Sunette’s body moves in fluent ways complimenting the words with large gestures. It is as if the body is speaking as whole ‘platform’ rather than a mind with a head and a body. I noticed that difference because whenever we see someone gesturing in a pronounced manner, the gesture is still only a secondary aspect to the face and the head, because we predominantly perceive a person talking. With Sunette as the portal, the body is perceived as the primary entity and that which is personal to her, simply fades away. In other words, I only perceive the impersonal and not the character or personality that is Sunette.

During my stay at the farm, there was a change made to the way the portal interacts with the visitors. Prior to the change of how Sunette is portalling, her gaze did not address anyone in specific. This, then, was changed and she looked at us visitors during the interviews. In my experience that only enhanced the perception of the body as body and less as the person that is called Sunette.

To give you an analogy, it’s similar to when you go to the zoo and you see for example a lowland Bongo, or some other animal to which you don’t react because you have absolutely no reference, because you have never seen the animal in reality, your reference points are vague and distant images from books and other media. By not reacting I mean that the animal has not been associated with either collective or personal emotions.  Hence, the experience we have is that the animal is mostly ‘another body’ in space. This ‘otherness’ we perceive is the absence of an emotional relationship but we still identify with the animal as a living being.

Every interview I listened to was a combination of subtle shifts in tonality and pitch depending on the beings that came through yet consistent to the previous interviews in meter and rhythm. And it was this consistency that also made my focus on the words very solid. It’s similar to how we design technological interfaces for human-computer interaction. When an interface is consistent in layout and in structural access points, the learning curve is not only low but the interface becomes transparent in the process of interacting with the information. We call the interface user-friendly.

Therefore, if Sunette, as the portal, would have displayed emotional shifts, it would have been just like listening to any other human. But she does not and this is why I had a clear connection to the words as they were spoken by the portal, and when I did pick up emotions, I realised they were my own.

The portal’s consistency goes beyond what I just described, it also pertains to the content of the interview itself. Whether it is a life review or a reference interview, like one of the quantum systemization interviews, the points that are being drawn out are focussed like a laser beam. It is through the beings’ direct way of seeing the reality that we live in without interpretation and emotional obstructions that we can have unencumbered access to what is shared, the relationships that are conveyed between ourselves and life we create in the world. This is what lead me to insights and realisations, time and again.

I recall that I sat in when the Altanteans came through the portal to talk about the emotion of worry. The Atlantean moved like a drill deeper and deeper into the various dimensions of the relationship we have created with ‘worry’. Let me describe it like this: All humans share the same emotions and our emotions move very fast. All we ever ‘get’ is the experience of the emotion, the intensity and the physical reactions. At this stage we have no access to all the different connecting points of emotions between ourselves and our reality. Psychology cannot say much about emotion beyond a description for the sole reason that psychologists are also walking around with their emotions and they cannot step out of that which has made them.

What the Atlantean did was slow down and stretch out the emotion of worry and then look at the individual relationship parts, in how they ‘fit’ together with our individual realities. Let’s take a visual metaphor. In popular Hollywood movies, you often see – well, as of late –  a fast movement of someone jumping or fighting in action slowed down, almost to the point of still stand. Perhaps, I saw this for the first time in the Matrix movie, was it Agent Smith? Normally we cannot see what an actor’s body actually looks like in these movements because they are too fast for our perception. However, when the movement is slowed down through technology we can see how the legs relate to the arms and the head to the feet, and we see the sequence of arms, head and feet as they twirl through the air.

Similarly, when the Atlantean talked about the emotion of worry, the being was able to communicate a 360 view of the relationships we create in real life when we worry. The moment the words are being said by the being, it is crystal-clear that this is how we experience it without being aware of it. There is a tangibility to what is being said that just stuck to me, and I could apply it to my own life, and see exactly how I create these ‘worry’ relationships.

Because the Atlantean can see directly what “worry” does in the relationship we form with it, the being can then point out solutions that we are able to apply ourselves, to change by disconnecting ourselves from the toxic relationships we create with worry. The week after I listened to that particular (2-part) interview, I have been in a situation where I have already utilised the insights gained from the realisation. I can see more about myself and how I can stop being completely addicted to emotions. It’s the kind of support that supports me to become autonomous in deconstructing myself because the work of walking my process is to be done by me – that is my responsibility.

In an nutshell, I consider these interviews my real education because what I learn here is real and directly linked  to how I can make a difference in my own life.  The learning has transformed me in a way that no conventional education, including my PhD, has ever done for me.

It is clear to me that the essence of our existence is relationships that we all share and that these relationships are the basis for how we have created the system, the culture and our individual lives. We are differently configured with various emphasises in our energy production that determines our emotions: the biochemical production with physical and behavioural reactions as output to the world  – that which we produce as end product in our relationships. At the same time, it is also clear to me that we are able to change the program (such as the ‘worry’ program) when we see what we have done. Currently we don’t see and this is why these interviews are an incredible resource. They are the library of the future through which we learn to see ourselves for real – for the first time. The future part is this: once you have seen what you have become, you can’t go back not having seen it. At that stage, it then becomes a matter of moving forward by learning the tools to change your relationships with the world. As we do so, we change the world to one that is best for all because it’s the obvious thing to do.  So, this is why I wrote this post, go on take chance with Eqafe and have a listen to the portal.

5 Comments

Filed under All

The truth about predictive programming

Let’s end the misconceptions about predictive programming and realise what it is in truth. For most people predictive programming has been associated with conspiracy theorists, and the events that have taken place in the public arena that are exemplified in atrocities such as the attack and destruction of the World Trade Center and the recent Sandy Hook shooting. Even the “labelling” of these events as predictive programming IS predictive programming in and of itself.

If we look at the situation from the perspective of those who are advocating the existence of predictive programming then there are two fronts, the “executioner” and the “receivers”. The “executioners” are those people who are extremely influential by the virtue of their large amounts of money and the power that comes with it. The “receivers” are the public, the victims, and the ones at which these atrocities are directed to.

Recall that all of these events do not just magically fall from the sky but where orchestrated by a number of individuals that help with the logistics. Even those who are individually blamed for instrumenting the massacres such as Sandy Hook or the Batman shooting are considered part of the public before the event happens. Therefore, is everyone a potential pawn in the predictive programming scheme of the high-ups?

Let’s look at our individuals lives for a moment. How many things would you change in your life? Are there any behaviours that you would change if you could?  How does your behaviours shape your life in predictable ways – in the decisions you make? In the way you react to others? In what you like and dislike. Why is that so, if you are a free and self-determining entity in this world?

There can only be one answer to all of these questions: all your behaviour is predictable because you have programmed yourself in this manner and you use your belief system to keep yourself from seeing it.

Belief No.1. I am an individual, I am free, and I can determine my life.

If this belief were a reality and not a belief, why is that we are not creating our lives in such a way that we don’t harm others? Typically, a person’s answer to this statement is that they are not the ones that are harming others, it’s the others that are doing it. Consequentially, is all starvation and poverty in this world done by others? Of course not. Each one participates in this world every day, goes to the voting polls, sends their kids to school, goes to work and goes shopping. Each one of us is an abuser of life in the same vain as anyone who participated in the events mentioned above. Because the slow accumulation of abuse (for example in the deaths of starved people and the extinction and abuse of animals) cannot be quantified in the same way as the “big bang” events, such as the September 11 attack or the Sandy Hook shooting, does not make it any less abusive. We are abusers on equal footing through our blindness in the belief that we are free and that all that is unacceptable and bad in this world is always someone else.

Belief No.2. The world can’t be changed, it’s human nature.

Obviously this statement is a belief that is in total opposition to belief no.1. We cannot be free and not free at the same time. These two beliefs demonstrate how we are unable to see our own situation. “Human nature” is the excuse to not take responsibility, to not digg out what happened in our childhood what has been passed down over generations, behaviours we have accepted and used to program ourselves. It’s the refusal to look at who we have become, release it and create ourselves as directed human being that stops acting from automated patterns of behaviour. There is plenty of evidence that humans a) are totally malleable, example: feral children and b) and accept their limitations through their emotional states, example: the Stockholm syndrome.

Belief No.3. I have intelligence, feelings and emotions – this makes me human.

Is it therefore that as an intelligence species we create millions of consumer products that we believe we need while systematically destroying our habitat without which we are unable to survive? Is it because we have feelings and emotions we are afraid of each other and create wars, slavery and destruction, and form relationships that are dysfunctional because we don’t want to be alone – and furthermore disguise all this by calling ourselves loving beings? Is it because we have feelings that we let our own species starve to death, while standing by doing nothing about it, and believe that when we say: that’s terrible – that things will magically change as we go about our day? Or, is it that we pray for the hungry and the poor, which we know does not change THEIR conditions, but at least we have calmed down our own conscience of being terrible abusers? The answer to all of these questions is that because of feelings and emotions that we seek out at any price,  we become abusers and enslave ourselves and others.  We have programmed ourselves in self-interest to always seek out the positive emotional state, in however we define “positive” regardless of the reality we live in and is affected by these choices.  We have come to identify ourselves with emotional states and we refuse to see what human life would be if we were acting form the principle of LIFE, and not from a changeable, fluctuating, oscillating emotional states. We are so blinded by our self-definitions of needing feelings and emotions to exist that the idea of letting go of feelings and emotions is seen as a death threat.

Surely, it’s easy to see that predictive programming concerns us all, we are all living programmed lives, hence our actions, decisions, words, likes and dislikes are predictable. Therefore to look at a group of “others” as “executioners” and as ourselves as the “receivers” or victims is part of the predictive programming we have accepted as who we are. A new definition for predictive programming is: the path of a human life without self-honesty.

2 Comments

Filed under All

Realisations on ‘Trust’

The word “trust” was introduced to me in phrases like “trust your gut feeling” ; “trust in god”; “trust yourself!” – I remember pondering what that actually meant because my parents could equally say to me “trust that it will turn out alright in the end”.  Where was trust?  What was behind this elusive term?

Trust was never taught to me as being part of me but rather as something outside of me. Something precious that I had to work for, to prove myself just like others had to, in demonstrating their trustworthy behaviour to me. Trust works like money in the bank that when you give it away, when you ‘deposit’ your trust in others than you have invested into this person, and you expect a return from your investment. From this position I trusted others not to betray my trust, and thus held them prisoner the same way I held myself prisoner not to do something that would be in some way counter productive to the trust they had given me. I realise that I had no understanding of trust, and most of the time did not want to look at this word more closely. It scared me, it was a big word, there was something final about it – like a final frontier – to have trust meant something so absolute.

Over the years, when I studied spirituality, the word trust would reappear in my life. When reading scriptures or listening to “mind appeasers” – slogans, I heard spoken by gurus – that I used to attach myself to, hoping that if I honour the content my life would turn out alright. I trusted their words. Then, it did not dawn on me to investigate these words to see what they really stood for, and why I so easily sought to make them my own. It was difficult to gain clarity through the hazy mist of emotions and feelings that engulfed me.

The issue of self-trust has surfaced when I had to make important decisions where I get stuck weighing the pro’s and con’s surrounding the elements of the decision, neither wanting to commit to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – because: what if I could not trust my decision, what if I could not trust myself. I realise that self-trust means I make the decision from the starting point of what is best for everyone who is affected by the decision. In self-trust I take a stance to face the ensuing consequences of my choices which means I take responsibility for what I create.

Distrust was part of my education. In science education we equate being distrustful to a good starting point for scientific inquiry because we can never be 100% sure that our results are accurate in reflecting an objective reality. Distrusting a scientific outcome is the basis for doubt as catalyst for reasoning. The whole scientific process is disguised as identifying pieces of knowledge that can be convincingly communicated to others, convincing others that they can trust the information to be free from personal history, perspective, or assumptions – that the information is objective.

I realise that without self-trust there is no self-value as life. Consequently, the lack of self-trust is compensated for by looking for validation in others or in some ‘thing’ that is outside of myself and will function as a fake foundation in which I can place a safety anchor, and call it trust. This is what I have allowed to exist within as myself “to trust that things will turn out” – as I mentioned in the beginning. Placing trust “somewhere” is to have an idea of trust where trust remains a separate entity – this separation is there even when I say I place trust inside of my Self. It creates a space, a room for the “lazy” way out, not to take responsibility, not to equate for oneself in self-honesty what is best for all.

If I see my Self as this separate entity from trust then there is also room to be either “less then” (<) or “more than” (>) depending on the situation and on the pre-programmed elements that I have accepted to be me. Just like a mathematical equation. Then, in this gap between Self and trust the variable “doubt” can enter, and in all instances the outcome is a self-defeating cycle where the noise of my mind can have a foothold and I become reactionary to outside influences, to feelings and emotions – in brief: I compromise my Self. When trust equals (=) Self, I stop all possibilities and uncertainties. I remain here.

The road to self-trust is pathless but not “peopleless”  http://www.desteniiprocess.com

4 Comments

Filed under self-forgiveness

A threesome: Equal Money is the only solution!

In this post I am discussing three viewpoints of the Equal Money System in relation to anarchism, resource-based economy and gold standard.

Equal Money System is not Anarchism.
The word “anarchism” is an umbrella term which groups political and religious thought (such as Christian anarchism) in a number of traditions. These are underpinned by the basic idea that societal structuring of individual and collective human relations can function in the absence of a centralised authority.

In the last two hundred years, the various movements of social or collective anarchism have, in their essence, dealt with the distribution of labour and the role of property. This does not compare to an Equal Money System because the main focus here is neither material nor economical. Both of those aspects are merely necessary within the practical concerns of life. Equal Money’s main focus is on living beings with the central idea to uphold, support and assist all that is living, in equal ways through taking measures in the physical world that are born from self-responsibility.  Thus, how aspects such as labour, ownership, and property are dealt with from the social and collective stance is determined through the application of the principle of equality, to achieve the common goal in establishing what is best for all.

Historically, individual anarchism has strongly supported ego-based human relations (see Max Stirner). Here, individuals are encouraged to will themselves through their ego to form and cultivate a union in the interaction with others while freely following one’s desires. Supporters of this approach are convinced that conflicts and suffering can be tackled and resolved if this union is maintained. From the perspective of an Equal Money System, the human ego is not a viable path to be trusted in creating a better world that includes everyone. The reason being that the human ego operates on the basis of thoughts and the mind in general. Desteni research clearly shows that the mind works in ways that keeps people separated from each other through mechanisms of deception and abuse. This is done through feelings and emotions which trigger manipulation and sabotage of Self and others, always promoting only one thing: the perceived benefit through self-interest.

When tracing various developments of anarchistic thought and action, it becomes evident that these movements have acted through opposing established systems. As part of a reactive manner, the movements have utilised abuse, such as violent acts against those who do not support their ideas, and other ‘anti’ stance  activities such as general strikes.  In an Equal Money System, abuse, of which violence is one form, is eradicated through the elimination of ego-based interactions between people, animals and the environment. Abuse has no place in the principle of equality and the achievement of a society in which everyone acts in the best interest of all. This is accomplished through new forms of education and a life-coaching process that Destonians have taken on in self-responsibility to purify themselves from the ego-based mind. The DesteniIProcess forms the basis of this process through the practice of self-forgiveness.

Some traditions of social anarchism will form their ideas incorporating concepts of mutuality, reciprocity, and voluntary action, yet the basic notion of “earning a living” still holds true even in the face of proposed currency reforms. In an Equal Money system, money is not regarded to be on equal footing with life, it is purely seen as an organisational tool which cannot be used or abused to equate a person’s ability and capacity to perform work with their living requirements.  Thus, an Equal Money System spells the end of poverty because everyone is equal taken care of on the basis that they are a living being.

The Equal Money System is not a resource-based economy.

The concept of a resource-based economy is a recent development which looks at possibilities of getting around the use of money through declaring all resources of the planet as common heritage for all. Proponents of this approach are found in the Zeitgeist movement. Supporters state that besides money, credit, barter and any other system of debt or servitude would not exist in a resource-based economy. On the level of human relations this is achieved, according to Zeitgeist supporters, through more meaningful ways of relating to other people. From the Zeitgeist perspective this will emerge from the fact that the individual will no longer have to worry about keeping a job which greatly reduces mental and physical stress.

Several questions are prompted from this context. How will humans suddenly start to relate to and with each other in more meaningful ways when human nature has a track record that lays down centuries of abuse and self-interest, regardless of which economic system governs human relations? Without rigorous self-investigation and practise of self-honesty, how will those who form the government in a resource-based economy remain free from corruption? How will it be ensured that resources as common heritage stay common and are fairly distributed?

The resource-based economy, as proposed by Zeitgeist supporters, is strongly hinged on cutting-edge technologies produced in new and innovative ways. The idea is that through modern technology the environment can be better protected, the cities re-designed for improved living, and more effective transportation systems and industry plants can be build. However, technology is advocated without looking at the root of the current ways we apply and implement technology and what that means in the face of a new type of economy. It is unlikely that newly designed cities will get rid of abuse, that by living in these cities we suddenly know how to decide and act from the starting point of what is best for everyone.

Changing the way we interact in the world is not a material procedure, the process for a better world does not start with creating a better exterior but rather starts with us, and who we are as people, what we have allowed and accepted to exist in the world – it has to start with the realisation that we are all responsible, and that only if we take responsibility we can make changes. This is why the Equal Money System begins with the human and the process needed to transform human nature so that we can implement a system that supports everyone equally. All exterior and operational aspects are emergent from this process of transformation which is based on understanding how to decide and act from the starting point of what is best for all.

Why the gold standard will not work.
When humanity used gold as a standard for exchange of goods and services, as early as 600 B. C., the economic difference between people existed just the same as it does today. Poverty and fear of survival have underpinned our societies with or without gold standard. The change to gold standard from fiat currency does not change the fact that we put a price on life. It will not end abuse, nor will it stop corruption. Again, this is yet another approach where we look at the problem in separation of ourselves. The collective problem that we are faced with is not one that can be solved by making minor changes to the system we have created, which is what the return to a gold standard implies. To create a world where everyone is taken care of equally which is what Destonians are here to bring about, we must understand that the change begins with us, individually and collectively.

For additional information on the topic of Equal Money and much more, visit our store: http://store.desteni.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Equal Money

Creating my life through the DesteniIProcess

I have been asking myself if the agreement with Gabriel might have been a pre-programmed situation. The reason for asking myself this question has been twofold. First, we seem to be quite compatible in a basic way of being. Don’t get me wrong I can see that this agreement is taking me apart which is beyond what I was experiencing in my process when I was on my own. I can see that the perceived peaceful inner state I was experiencing then is now in chaos most of the time which means that it was not real, and this is requiring me to look at my issues in much more depth than before.

Second, the timing could not have been better to start an agreement. I had finished my studies and both Gabriel and I had to move from our old flats. In my case I had to move countries because of the enormous cost of living in the UK. It all fit just a tad too well for me not to be skeptical about it. Yet, in the beginning when he and I first met and an agreement was on the table, I dealt with much anxiety of fear of loss of my independence. I had not reckoned with an agreement any time soon and was quite satisfied with my ‘single’ status.

The other day, I mentioned the pre-programmed aspect to Gabriel, who said to me that it is a matter of ceasing one’s opportunity as these open up. After reflecting on this for some time now, I see what he means and found that “ceasing one’s opportunity” comes into play as part of the DesteniIprocess where we learn to make decisions on the basis of a non-energetic state.

I will explain this on a pertinent real-life example. In May of this year, when I was going through the last stages of examination regarding my studies, I was presented with a highly probable opportunity for a job, which entailed becoming part of a research team in a small town in France. At the time, when this opportunity presented itself I was having to cope with things on multiple fronts. I did not want to make a decision out of a situation where I had no clarity in terms of what I wanted to do after my studies once these had been entirely completed, meaning all the last examinations had been done and dusted, and I was free to review my situation. However, the deadline of applying for this job meant I had to furnish the research team with an immediate response. Granted that there were other issues with this job but this was the biggest one. Thus my answer to this opportunity was “no, thank you”.

Some of my colleagues did not understand how I could have let such an opportunity slip through my fingers. Given the economic situation and the overall factor of how interesting this post would have been, from the outside it certainly looked like I was being foolish to let it go. Had this been years ago, before I started the DesteniIprocess, I would have been probably too fearful to say ‘No’ even if I really wanted to. I would have been afraid of how difficult it would be to find a suitable job and would have convinced myself to take it because of my inferior position towards the point of being without work.

This is not to say that I am fearless when it comes to not having a job and making money, or that I do not long for security. What it says is that my starting point for making a decision has changed and that, in this instance, I did not operate from my typical pre-programmed way of acting in the world that I know has influenced my previous decisions on jobs and matters of having to do with being secure in the system.

If we look at the trajectory that follows, having not ceased this job opportunity, I was able to cease the agreement opportunity because I was still in the UK at the time when Gabriel came to participate in a business meeting. This enabled us to meet up and connect in physical space, which later prompted the agreement. Ceasing an opportunity from the starting point of self rather than from the starting point of pre-programmed reaction, then let me create my life where I was able to choose an agreement with another, and begin to investigate myself in relation to intimacy and shared living with other Destonians. Hence it was through the DesteniIprocess that I was able to change my life situation.

Since I started the DesteniIprocess I have understood that every breath is accumulative in the process of creating my life and that these decisions are really composed of minute moment-to-moment maneuvers in the world. Only if I understand who I am here in every moment can I become self-directive and stand as a self, as one and equal to all that is here.

2 Comments

Filed under agreement, self-forgiveness

How Destonian actions are no longer limited by human nature – a call on the scientific community to investigate the effects of self-honesty

From the perspective of a self-willed, responsibility-taking individual in process, all actions are performed in equality regardless of the nature of these actions. In other words, Destonians do not simply execute an action but are standing as equal to the action itself. Inevitably, this entails all dimensions of an action including the actual content that is being dealt with in physical space. An example to make this clear would be someone serving food and drinks to someone else. In our current system this is often done for money, as it is the case in restaurants, on airplanes and trains, or other public venues that sell food and drink. Under these circumstances, the server is more or less a machine, who has no say in the food and drink that he or she passes on to the next individual.

By contrast, in an equal money system such scenario would not take place because people will not earn money through the actions they perform. In an EMS, money will merely be an organisational tool and earning one’s living will be a thing of the past because we will have shifted from “performing for living” to “life as living”. Hence the person serving the food takes responsibility for whatever she is ‘dishing’ out. Responsibility alone is a key factor in an Equal Money System, because when we are no longer paid to perform actions, we can no longer point fingers to someone else, and relinquish our participation in the consequences of the actions we have performed.

In the current money system this is a mute point. Most actions we perform we execute because we function, and are trained to be, cogs in the turning wheel of hierarchical structures that run throughout the various areas of our society.  Therefore we have laws and rules that outline behaviour and keep us in check. These structures, together with their rules, replace our autonomy as acting bodies in space, and are the breeding ground for abuse. On a basic level the abuse begins with the exploitation of having to perform actions for money where the individual has no say whether the action to be taken is in its consequence best for all.

This orientation towards collective human-to-human interactions meanders and penetrates all spheres of our lives. It already starts in childhood, when children observe how their parents ‘take responsibility’ for them because as a society we have the accepted belief that a young human cannot be responsible for his or her own behaviour because of the developing intellectual and cognitive capacities. Anyone can readily observe these types of behaviour in daily street life when, for example, a child moves into the close proximity of another human, one of the parents will happily apologise for the child as he or she feels responsible for the child’s behaviour.

Of course this aspect of human existence has never been challenged, or is never considered otherwise – it is just a fact of life, or else it’s human nature.

At Desteni, we do not accept the limitation of human behaviour because we understand that limitations are created by belief. Learning to distinguish between belief and what is here, what is available to us as physical beings, is achieved through applied common sense. Thus, in common sense we know that we cannot fly in the air but we also know that all interactions with other humans are open to change depending on the starting point that guides these interactions. In other words, we do not just accept this undefined notion of “human nature”, because most humans have bought into a certain manner of speaking or acting. We understand that what this says about us is that humans are intrinsically interconnected and that we function as a collective.

The myth of human nature is predominately perpetuated through scientific inquiry where studies reiterate that we are limited to the common denominator, in terms of how the majority of humans act and interact when investigated scientifically, rather than making the common denominator a starting point for change.

However, even in science there are plenty of examples that human nature is changeable but this is not taken into consideration by the scientific community because if it were we would need to investigate further who we truly are, and we may, just may end up in the place where Desteni is going – a place where the human can become self-honest through self-forgiveness and no longer exist in separation from others.

If the scientific community was thoroughly scientific and not biased to maintain the status quo, they would be willing to investigate what happens when self-forgiveness is applied to human behaviour. The community could even look at Destonians as a group to conduct study, together with those who have not yet applied self-forgiveness as a control group.

One such perspective could be given through “information transfer”. We are all aware of distortions that occur when passing bits of information onto other people. I even recall a way of playing as a child. As a group of children we would form a long line in space and the child on one end would whisper a sentence or two into the ear of the child that stood next to her. That child would then turn around and continue whispering what she understood to the next child, and so forth. The child at the other end would eventually get the information and state it out loud, together with the child who had originally stated the sentences in the beginning. The result of this was always big time laughter because the distortion that occurred when transferring the information made the outcome funny.

It’s a simple example to show how we are not trustworthy, not even with a few sentences. Once we apply self-forgiveness this changes in the process of becoming a self-willed individual. So if science was truly working for the good of all, then why would the scientific community not tackle these limitations and come to see with Destonians that a new world can be created by changing ourselves to act and interact from a starting point that is best for all on every level of existence. The only answer that science can give us here is that in truth science is not interested in creating a better world for all but that scientific inquiry is just another paradigm of the system, working in deception and abuse.

For details on the DesteniIprocess, click here: http://desteni.org/dip/

For more information, click here: http://equalmoney.org/

We are in the process of creating a comprehensive publication on Equal Money where many of your burning questions are answered- we will notify those interested when our book is completed – if you wish to sign up you can do so by clicking on the link below:

http://equalmoney.org/the-book/

2 Comments

Filed under self-forgiveness

How those who hate what I do are helping me close doors

It’s an interesting experience when one can look back on oneself and see how the practice of Self-Forgiveness has taken effect and as a result definite changes in one’s behaviour are apparent.  When such change occurs in my life, most likely I don’t perceive it in detail, I may notice an aspect suddenly, out of the blue, that strikes me because I no longer RE-act in a familiar way to a familiar situation. Those are the moments I realise that I am here, and that this change is a manifestation of me in ‘hereness’. Moreover, it is clearly showing me that change is possible through forgiving oneself in what I have accepted and allowed to be in this world, who I have become through accepting and allowing myself to function from a place of ego.

Like I said, this is a momentarily occurrence, when I make myself “aware” that I am not reacting from emotion, I am not experiencing anger or guilt, and similarly I am not experiencing the ‘high’ of something beneficial that happened to me. I am just stable, here. Recently though, I saw a concrete development of a self-change. A situation where I was previously experiencing strong emotions, which changed over time and I began to see how the emotional charge was waning away enabling me to settle into stability.

In particular, this change was prompted by responding to those who hate what I do. I am talking about those, who go out of their way to attack Destonians by posting belligerent YouTube videos with fictitious content that in no way reflects what Desteni is about, or by leaving defaming and offensive comments on videos made by Destonians, which are videos where we document our process for the world to see.

In an attempt to clarify our position, Destonians have started to respond to these ‘hater’ videos by addressing the content directly. We do that by explaining and straightening out the misrepresentation of what we do, and who we are. When I first started to make these ‘response’ videos, I felt much resistance because I had previously conditioned myself to avoid conflict or disagreement with others. I considered it bad and exhausting, and when I was faced with a situation where conflict was brewing, I would simply walk away or pay no attention. Only if I had no other choice I would stand up to someone but under duress and much emotional charge inside of me. This charge I would try to contain with all my might. Well, who would want ‘to lose it’, if one could help it! With these ‘hater’ videos, I had to respond to statements that were made about my activities with Desteni, which were not only untrue but often quite difficult to decipher, because the ‘hater’ had little clarity why he or she was engaging in the act of making these types of videos in the first place. In some ways it was as if the person was dumping their emotional debris on us through the making of these videos.

Not only was I experiencing resistance to the task of making a video, but I was also experiencing anger, rage and backchat. This was in the beginning of this video-making journey. As I got into the making of these videos and used Self-forgiveness in the process, my emotional states ebbed away, and with each new ‘response’ video I made, I saw less resistance within myself and a calmer demeanor. I could suddenly hear the ‘hater’s’ fears, or their anger, their insecurity and confusion. Increasingly I saw them as who they were, the self-programmed being that was so layered by their accepted and allowed beliefs that they had no access to their ‘real’ self. It gave me the ability to see more clearly that I am one of the self-programmed beings because the statements that were being made were in essence all similar, maybe with varying emphases but made from the same belief components. I realised that it is through my interaction with the world around me I could understand my opportunities for self-change as all is one.

Over the course of several weeks, I came to enjoy producing these ‘response’ videos because now I was making them from a point of stability and support. When I had no emotional charge and reaction towards the process of video-making, the ‘hater’s’ words where simply outlining to me the world I exist in, and the world I have accepted and allowed to exist within me. Through my gained clarity I could see beyond the veil of emotions, I could see how I was blinded by them, and how emotions and feelings paralised me. I could see what had obviously been right in front of me all along – but I was unable to see because of memories, emotions and feelings. I could see because I had changed a world within me.

The other day I met a colleague, who I perceived as quite argumentative and competitive. He often invites me to come along but I mostly decline because I have labelled my interactions with him as ‘hard work’. I only realised this recently because I am now looking to understand my protective stance of my ‘alone’ space. Though this is another issue beyond the point that I am making here. What is relevant to the point I am making here is that when I met this colleague recently for a little walk he had invited me to, I accepted without a second thought. During this walk we came to a moment where I stated that he was limiting himself on a particular issue, which, as expected, set him off to a heated and accelerated manner of speaking. He did not only cut me off in mid-sentence but also was visibly angry. As I see it, there are two perspectives here that have been the result of the support I gave myself through the making of the ‘response’ videos I described above.

The first one is that I spoke about what I saw in his statements, meaning his self-imposed limitations. I do recall a time when these types of observations would have had to stay in my mind, because I was too afraid of making the person angry and being rejected. In those days, I would gently knot my head, and let the person continue talking, merely listening without honest participation. What I was really observing would be kept locked away in my secret mind. Now this was different, I gave him my perspective of what I perceived as fearful and self-limiting behaviour. Furthermore, while he was shouting and cutting me off, I remained relatively calm. There were some moments where I was making my point stronger than in other moments, but it was not from a place of angry or fearful behaviour. I could also see that I could actually listen to his words and respond, where I would previously just turn off. I mean ‘shut down’, wrapped up in my emotions with an unresponsive, blank mind. That was the past now. I was able to continuously point out to him the dimensions of the point I was making, illustrating it clearly and directly to him.

When I went home that day, I realised that I had created a sliver of heaven on earth for myself, because I always wanted to be able to be fearless in the face of conflict, and concentrate on the issue at hand. In the situation I had experienced I spoke and conducted myself from a place of certainty, a place of shared existence because all the way through the conversation, I did not see him as an antagonist in separation of me. No, I merely saw his ego, as I can sometimes see my own ego, and that was all. Beyond that, I knew and experienced us as one. I could walk through the points he was making, stating what I saw, the fears and conditionings, yet I was stable inside. Eventually our conversation calmed down because we changed subjects, and I had truly changed something within myself. Thank you, to all those who hate what I do because it allowed me to close this door and keep it shut.

1 Comment

Filed under self-forgiveness