Jan Cox Talk 0256

Conspiracy in the News

Audio = Stream the audio (from the video) using  the bars below in two parts.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0256 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

#256 *Apr 16, 1987 * - 1:43

  [Conspiracy, power and rebellion (con't). Ordinary consciousness always has the deep suspicion of 'hidden forces' and it is correct in this; this is the primary support for conspiracy theories. In this scenario, the conspirators must always conceal their existence --deny their own interest and misdirect the attention of the powerless from the conspirator's true interest by attacking all conspiracy theories as baseless. Consider that this is exactly how Life uses man; e.g., philosophy: the search for answers, for the 'meaning of life'. Life even denies its own existence —e.g., replaces with concept of fate, astrology, gods/devils etc. Consider the internal application (why do you act against your own best interests?), the constant misdirection of The Partnership and denial of conspiracy ("there's no conspiracy in me --just ignorance, or laziness; unconscious motivations").  Fragmented information --diversity, pluralism --never gives complete picture of reality, is no real pluralism --just appearance...therefore, a conspiracy. The conspiracy controls the news (reports of reality) and thereby consciousness itself must be fragmented while the illusion of multiple sources is constantly profered. This makes the news perishable, temporary; irrelevant after its instant revelation. This is the ultimate fragmentation: irrelevancy. Instantaneous global reporting of news gives the sensation of a shared reality --but still primarily a fragmenting of reality.]
  [Rebellion: primary thrust or aspect is to eradicate the distinction --separation-between powerful and powerless. The 'extinction of all distinction' is really a call for deadly peace. The desire to grow, to effect self improvement is a form of rebellion --disruptive of the status quo; expunges the distinction, the inferior difference between yourself and your desired goal. But no revolution can ever succeed; can only be superseded by a new revolution. Another prime aspect of rebellion: yours is the rebellion of the patriot (enlightened necessity) whereas the rebellion of others is one of thugs, thieves, mercenaries. Your rebellion is good, but the attempts of others to improve are viewed as useless, unnecessary or threatening; undeserved,unwarranted --in the 'who cares' category. Another aspect: "it's us against them"; if you can see (the 4-D loop), you can understand the unrecognized liberating use behind this pervasive feeling in mankind. To be used for liberation of The Few this must be seen impartially as "don't let them make you do what they want" e.g., return hostility for hostility (what they want). An 'enlightened spite'. There is no chance for rebellion if you do what they want you to do. The impersonal-personal use of 'us vs. them' internally would be "them/us against I". The ultimate conspiratorial theory: your own partnership; the 'unconscious mind vs. the consciousness mind'. "unconscious motivations" as the ultimate denial of the conspiracy of Life. The Few must be able to see the reality of the powerful against the powerless in the horizontal world; that virtually all are among the powerless and it will never change. This realization is a radical liberation. The dichotomy of the powerful/powerless has it’s poor 3-D reflection via all the institutions of man. ]
  [Tattoo for the week: Every ill ain't death and every I ain't you. Variation: every bye ain't gone and every I is you]
  [1:35 Message to other cities re: the near impossibility to do anything new. New info must be threatening, disrupting.


Transcript

CONSPIRACY IN THE NEWS

Document:  256,   April 16, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987              

     I am going to continue on the subject of conspiratorial theories, but I remind you that I am not talking about ordinary conspiratorial theories.  The prime 3-D support for conspiratorial theories is very important:  that ordinary consciousness has the suspicion that behind the visible actors there are unseen forces.  That's a fact.  (Except it's not a fact as ordinary consciousness would have it.)

     The idea of conspiratorial plots are omnipresent in the history of man.  At the crudest mechanical level, people believe that there is a secret band of bankers that is running the whole world; causing all wars, depressions and then putting us all back on the road to apparent success -- and apparently they are making money on all this.  It is not that there is no reality to this, but in so far as that having some importance, or existing as simply as I just stated it, is nonsense.  Ok, not nonsense, I should be more specific -- it's as real as the gods of the world's great religions.  It is that real, but that is not what we are talking about.  It's not that simplistic, but neither is it total insanity.  It is true, but not as ordinary consciousness believes.

     All of humanity has the suspicion that the actors and affairs of Man may only be the visible part of something else that is going on behind the scenes.  THERE is the three dimensional support for conspiratorial theories.  The common denominator for these theories is how it operates, that is, how it stays conspiratorial.  By definition it's a secret combining of more than one person, a plot done in secret, but part of the way it must operate is that they must also conceal their own real interest.  They must misdirect those being conspired against -- that is -- everybody else.  And then ultimately they must deny that they exist.

     Now I am going to jump back and forth between the ordinary belief and what I am trying to get you to look at.  If there was a group of greedy old men that were running things, you have got to see some validity to the ideas I just enumerated.  For them to operate, they would have to conceal their true interests.  It should be obvious to you that if you were performing subversive maneuvers in the midst of your opponents, you would have to conceal your own interests.  And you would need to continually misdirect those that you are attempting to conspire against, the powerless in this case.  The conspiratorial theory is also dividing humanity into the powerful and the powerless.  The conspirators are those with the power and then the rest of us poor schmucks get conspired against.  We get used.  But in order to operate efficiently, they would have to conceal their own interests.  They would have to misdirect our attention (the powerless) so that we are always looking somewhere else.  And then to really put the frosting on the cake, they would even deny that they exist, and that conspiratorial theories are just so much hog wash.  They would be the ones writing the stories laughing at those sorts of theories.

     All right, let's jump the great secret crack.  How familiar does this ring of Life's overall use of man? Forget about the bankers.  Forget about human people.  Think back to all the so-called religious and philosophical whinings.  Can you not hear the same kind of note being sounded?  If there were a conspiracy like this, would not Life be doing the same thing in its use of man, assuming that it has interests that are not exactly yours?  Life itself conceals its interests.  What else is the basis for three dimensional philosophy?  It is asking, "What is the meaning of Life?" and it has covered it there.  It has concealed its interest because no ordinary human perceives it.  All religions state that man can not know god's plan.  It is just impossible -- so there you are.  It misdirects humanity.  If it did not, then everybody would know the answer to everything.  But as it is, nobody knows the answer to anything.  Of course, you could say, "Man is not smart enough," but we've got, at best, a spotty three thousand years of recorded history -- can you see that consciousness in general understands no more of the "eternal questions" than it did in Grecian times?  People are still asking the same questions and they believe that the answers are no more forthcoming.  Is that not misdirection? 

     The third area of this one aspect I was using as a parallel between ordinary belief in conspiratorial theories and Life itself is that the conspirators must finally deny their very existence.  Life does that in almost every pore of its body.  It comes out in human consciousness as everything from influence of the planers to the good old standbys of gods and anti-gods, subconscious traumas, and fate.  It comes out as everything except anything that is a satisfying reply.

     There it is, Life itself.  It meets every requirement.  Once you see it, it makes the idea of some mortal band of conspirators look like children, which they would be -- because they would be as conspired against as you are.  Can you refine the parallel between the Life/theories conspiracy to your inner life?  Can you find no parallel between that and what seems to be the eternal dialogue within you?  The continual ambivalence of the partnership?  Are they not the same dynamics?

     How else do you explain the fact that everybody believes that they do things that are not in their best interest?  Forget all the explanations of "the devil made me do it," or, "childhood trauma."  Just accept the salient fact by humanity's own definition, "We all do things that are not in our best interest.  We all have some piece of self destruct in us."  Alright, why us and not possums and squirrels?  If there is a conspiracy going on, then the conspirators must conceal their interests.  How else would you explain that everyone does things that are not in their best interest health wise, feeling wise, financial wise, any wise?  A conspiracy.  But forget about bankers and little gnomes down in the vaults of Zurich.  How about little gnomes down in your vault.  And they are concealing their interest.  Don't worry about finding a conspiracy somewhere else.

     As another aspect of this parallel, they must misdirect your attention.  Is that not true of ordinary consciousness?  If attention was properly directed there would have been some sort of ordinary progress in the last three thousand years (and if not there -- then inside of you in recent years).  But in ordinary consciousness, there is ALWAYS the feeling that I am looking in the wrong place.  "I believe I am trying to figure this out.  I try to have a great thought.  I even pick up a paperback on Plato -- and suddenly I remember that my favorite TV show is on; or I went to sleep.  I continually seem to get misdirected."

     And of course, when the conspirators are operating most efficiently, they deny their own existence.  There is a conspiracy in you, but have you ever heard about it?  Never.  I am the first person to bring it up.  What if I had jumped out of the bushes one night with some sort of disguise so you could not recognize me and told you that there is a conspiracy inside of you.  You and the partnership would run it through all of the systems and go, "Good grief, there's no conspiracy here.  Maybe a little ignorance, maybe a little dumbness, maybe a little laziness, but no conspiracy in here."  That is the ultimate conspiracy (if there is one), because the conspirators must deny their own existence.  And by "deny their own existence," I am inferring that they succeed at it.

     Let's move on to fragmentations.  If there was some kind of conspiracy, they would control the way those conspired against (that is, the powerless) get information.  Ultimately, whoever is defining reality is in control.  Look at information as information, news, reporting, consciousness -- it is all the same thing.  The area I am now beginning to describe is what seems to be information, knowledge, stories, consciousness of out there, the reality that ordinary awareness is receiving.  You should begin to realize that the information that you get at the ordinary level is fed to you in fragments and that it can not be diverse enough to ever offer Line-level consciousness a picture of a seamless reality.  If there was any real choice in the kind of information that is received, what you would be setting up at the 3-D level would be the possibility of mutation taking place in humanity's area in Life's body.

     For instance, let's take Russia.  For example, "Compared to Russia, we have a pluralistic source of information.  Our concept of reality is much better than theirs because their news is slanted and controlled by the government.  It's no secret that the Russian's get only the news that their government wants them to have.  Whereas in the U.S., we have newspapers that attack the government.  We have newspapers that attack other newspapers.  We have right wing and left wing newspapers."

     It is all about the same information.  It is all fragmented.  It never disturbs the status quo,  never.  If it apparently had the germ to be disruptive, you must see that it is going to be a teeny-weeny germ, in a teeny-weeny newspaper.  There is not extant anywhere on this planet true pluralism of information.  There simply is not.  It fits right in with conspiratorial theories.  Look at it this way; if pluralism of information is just an illusion -- then it has to be the act of some group, right?  It's not the nightly TV newscasters or the publishers of the New York Times.  They don't have the power.  They don't own these outlets of information.  It's back to the conspirators, the faces & forces behind the visible that must give the misdirection, the illusion of freedom of information.  And one way to maintain this illusion is to fragment the news.

     It just so happens that there is a physical parallel to this that I will point out to you.  The physical layout of newspapers and magazines.  The story will start and then it will say, "Turn to page twelve."  You have to turn the pages, passing other stories and advertisements.  The layout of everything in Life is such that everything is already fragmented.  You catch the headlines and start reading the most important news for the past 24 hours.  Then you have to turn to page twelve and on the way other things catch your eye:  an ad for a shoe sale or a piece about the porno wars in Cleveland.  So you read some of that and then remember the important story and turn to page twelve.  Fragmented.  You never knew it was a plot did you?  You thought there was some reason, like they had to get as much on the front page as possible. Some layout artist somewhere says, "Well, it all won't fit on the front page, so we'll just stick it in the back somewhere and put a 'continued' where it breaks."

     Now that I brought it out, can you smell a conspiracy somewhere?  It fragments all the stories, the reports of reality.  Do you not see a beautiful potential parallel between that and the way that consciousness acts now -- the fragmentation?  If there was a conspiracy, they would have to be controlling the news.  They would already have thousands of years of experience.  They would have started this fragmentation at the very beginning when writing was on stone tablets.  They would have been there for all the so-called religious leaders of the past.  It would have been them up on Mount Olympus.  I am just picking that as one possible starting place in history -- Line level history.  Can you see that if there was a conspiracy that they would have placed themselves in the position of not only controlling religion, but beginning it as well?  Can you see that the first thing that these conspirators would have to do is control the reporting, the detailing of what's going on out there, outside the consciousness of the individual.  That is the most efficient means of control and by now they have been at it for at least 3,500 years.  Their tentacles are into everything.  They have got it all.  So all the news appears pluralistic, as though you had a choice, and it is fragmented (with the "news" equalling consciousness and consciousness equalling the news).

     So what's new?  Why worry about conspiratorial theories?  You should have already been using your internal laboratory to see the fragmented state of Line-level consciousness.  Consciousness is continually turning the page and looking over the stories that apparently have no relationship to what you were thinking about.  Consciousness is continually going off, thinking about something else, seeing a billboard, seeing an advertisement.  You are continually turning the page and you are dealing with stories that are always continued on page twelve.  You are always dealing with reality at Line level in the following manner:  "Stay tuned, the next story could be very important to you, but first these announcements."  That is consciousness.  It's not limited to TV.  It's not limited to magazines and newspapers.  If there was a band of conspirators, they would be behind such an arrangement.

     There are other parallels in this area of "the news."  There is the sensation of constant reporting. There are 24-hour radio and TV news stations and all they do is report the news and show commercials. There are people now who admit to being news junkies.  There seems to be the sensation that there is constant reporting going on.  It's not like your parent's day, and far removed from your grandparent's day when they might have gotten a newspaper once a week.  Go back another generation and the news might have been months old.  The news came whenever a stranger passed through the town.  "We elected a new president."  And your grandfather would say, "Oh really?  When?"  And the stranger would go on to say who the new president was and that he was elected six months ago.  But today there appears to be constant reporting and it seems to be of some consequence.  But what is the consequence?

     Alright, jumping back and forth between what would appear to be the external world of reporting and whatever else I may be inferring that is not so obvious -- this sensation of constant reporting specifically helps to keep it fragmented by spoiling yesterday's news.  This sensation of constant reporting makes yesterday's news seem perishable and irrelevant to what is going on now, hence fragmentation.  (Yesterday's news could be just two hours ago, I am not limiting it to 24 hours.)  When consciousness is dealing with reality (excuse me), when TV and the newspapers are dealing with reality on a constant basis, it makes yesterday's news seem perishable, outdated and irrelevant.

     You find someone watching the news and you say, "What was the lead story yesterday?"  Nobody knows.  It appears to be unconnected to right now.  It's dated.  It's rotted.  It's out of fashion.  And it is ultimately rendered irrelevant.  And from one viewpoint that can be seen as the ultimate fragmentation of consciousness, excuse me, the news.  Everything that went before is now irrelevant.  There is no real connection.  The world is going too fast to get caught up in yesterday's news.  So when you asked that person what the news was yesterday, what kind of an answer did you get?  "Yes, you're right.  I can't even remember what the headline was, so it could not have been important."  That's the Great Fragmentation Bandit.

     Yet another parallel is the growing sensation and reality of global instantaneous reporting.  The entire world has the impression of instantaneous reporting.  For example, one country may have a nuclear accident and try to keep it hidden.  But within hours it's on all the networks (worldwide) that something is rotten over there, something has happened.  It is almost instantaneous reporting.  And what does that do?  It increasingly gives everyone the sensation of a shared reality.  It gives everyone on this planet the increasing sensation that our reality, the Russian's reality, the Peruvian's reality is just about the same. You don't think that's a masterstroke?  Can you see that there is a continuing fragmentation of consciousness, excuse me, the news?  It continues to fragment when it is apparently doing the opposite, building everything into a more commonly shared global reporting network.  It does just the opposite in the 3-D world.  It continues to fragment it.

     I am going to move on to rebellion and revolution, but I am going to still be using these same external parallels of conspiratorial theories and the two hereditary camps of the powerful and the powerless.  You can't move from one class to the other.  There is no doctor that can take the poor cockney girl and turn her into "My Fair Lady."  There is no way to go from the powerless to the powerful in the 3-D world, but there are continual historical manifestations of attempted rebellion.

     One aspect of rebellion is that the ultimate goal of the revolutionists is always the extinction of the distinction between all economic, racial, religious classes.  Their apparent goal is to eradicate the distinction between the powerful and the powerless.  But what is entailed in that?  What they are really asking for is a deadly peace.  They are like someone who lives next door to a noisy train yard who is begging for one night of peace and quiet so they can get some sleep.  That would be the extinction of all distinctions.

     Now back to the conspiratorial theories.  How common is the feeling in you of "wanting to change."  Maybe you didn't march in the sixties and maybe you have never felt the need to rebel against anything political or economic.  Regardless of that, you felt the need to change or you would not be here listening to me.  Everybody feels as though they should be a part of some kind of rebellion.  It doesn't mean that you have ever used the term.  It could be verbalized as "the desire to grow, to better myself."  It is a low level form of rebellion.  "I want to do better in life, to do better in the social strata.  I want a better car and a better hair piece.  I want to be a better person."  That's rebellion.

     What you are doing by attempting to change is not dissimilar from everyday rebellion and revolution. Your desire to change is the desire to eradicate the distinction between you and everybody else.  You might say, "I want to be as rich as the Rockefellers.  I want to be as pretty as a movie star."  You think that is change and it seems to be acceptable.  When you are talking about change, what you are really saying is, "I want to eradicate the distinction between me and what I am not.  I want to be as rich as them.  I want to be as powerful as them."  The revolutionists would say they are attempting to eradicate social classes and they want to end all conflict.  "We should all be brothers and live in peace."

     This kind of revolution never occurs in Life.  Not only would it create a deadly peace, but it would also eliminate political and economic opponents.  If you do away with opponents, you have eliminated all struggles.  If you do away with all struggles, you have eliminated all growth.  Therefore no revolution ever succeeds.  All external revolutions are just a prelude to the next revolution.  There is no end to it.  They can not reach what appears to be a satisfying conclusion.  If you take power away from another person forcibly, then it is going to be taken from you.  You are a sitting duck.

     Can you see a parallel between this kind of external revolution and what appears to be your personal internal life?  You attempt to change and what happens?  The revolution never succeeds.  Let's say you had a bad habit that used to bother you and now you don't do it anymore.  You may have apparently struggled with it for years, but now that you have stopped, are you any better off?  Not really.  You may say that you are glad you did it, but are you satisfied?  Did that take care of it?  Is the rebellion now over?  Are you any more satisfied than you were?  And yet there is the belief out there (and internally) that we are always on the verge of a rebellion or should be.  That is, change, self improvement.  Does the revolution ever succeed?  Is there ever an end to it?

     Jumping some more between the two apparent aspects of revolution that I might be talking about, notice that your rebellion is always one of patriots and the enlightened.  The revolution of anybody else is always a revolution of thugs and rogues.  "We in our desire to rebel, to create a revolution, are doing so for enlightened reasons.  We are patriots."  But all you have to do is look across the street at a conflicting political party or group of people -- and you do not find patriots over there.  At the very least, they are mercenaries.  At their worst they are thugs and thieves.  How strange it is that you can not have two groups of enlightened, patriotic revolutionaries.

     Try to jump back and forth.  Your desire to personally change, to rebel, is always "good," while the desire to change in others is always undeserved or unnecessary.  If somebody tells you, "I've taken up aerobics and gone on a diet."  Who cares?  You don't care, nobody cares.  "I have gone on a diet and given up salt.  It is good that I do this."  Whenever you hear such comments, your feeling is close to, "that's unwarranted, it's unnecessary and undeserved."  In other words -- "You're not going to do it, who do you think you are fooling."

     How can it be that everyone on this planet is involved to some degree in an attempted revolution?

     "I've taken up running."

     "Oh yeah, lot of good it's gonna do you."

     "I've decided to go back to school."

     I know why you're going back to school.  You want to make more money.  You're a thief.  You're no good.  Who cares.  What you should be doing is trying to straighten up your untoward personality."

     In other words, the other person's revolution is useless at the very least while your revolution is based upon patriotic, enlightened attitudes.  Now jump outside and look at this in terms of "fragmented news."  If a government is overthrown by some rebels, some newspapers will praise the rebels while others will support the old regime that is now trying to regain power.

     Now all of you have got to be good enough by now to transcend your own partnership's saying of, "Well, hey, the news is distorted somewhere else.  The news we are getting is the right news."  If you can entertain that, then you have already forgotten the possible reality of the conspirators generating what seems to be a choice of views and an apparent freedom of choice.  If you still believe that the Russian's have the freedom of choice to distort their news -- then if there are conspirators, oooh,  do they love you.

     I must remind you that this has nothing to do with politics, the newspaper business or anything else "out there."  They are just poor reflections of what I am pointing to. 

     Let me show you yet another aspect I would insist has to do with revolution.  There is a belief that has been expressed throughout history and there is a great unrecognized liberation in this idea.  The idea is, "It's us against them."  This has ranged from a battle cry to just a silent feeling within an individual.  If you can begin to see part of the 4-D loop behind this -- it is a form of real potential liberation.  You first have to see it as an impersonal, though personal affair.  There is nothing to be gained from a 3-D awareness of "us against them."  You could look at it as being a personal affair in two different directions in the 3-D world -- of internal and external, us against them, the powerful against the powerless; not-I against I.  Now look at it as being a kind of "personal albeit impersonal us against them" in an externally directed manner.  Which is:  Don't let them make you do what they want.

     A prime example is:  they deliver hostility towards you and what they want you to do is return it.  If you are going to understand what rebellion is, if you are going to understand that there is a liberation in an externally directed us against them, then you have got to immediately, forthwith and forever not let them make you do what they want you to do.  It is a form of slavery.  If you are going to be any sort of a revolutionary, don't do what they want you to do.  Never.  As long as they can make you do what they want, there is no chance of rebellion.  None.  You have got to see that.  Even if they do something and what you want to do is holler, "I'm not going to put up with this garbage."  It appears as though that might be rebellion, but you are missing it.  That is what they wanted you to do.  Isn't that what you wanted to say?

     If you can jump real quick, there is a way in which you can see a more internal use of this kind of impersonal/personal feeling of us against them.  The internal aspect would be us against I.  Them against I.  Does that sound familiar?  Can you see any connection?  What I am trying to push you towards is that you can get some reflection of an enriched reality by seeing that it is "us against them out there."  That there is a four- dimensional reality to that, and there is a four-dimensional reality to the feeling of, "It's us against them in here."  A way to deal with it out there (to actually rebel against it) is don't do anything they want you to do.  Never.  And internally, begin to recognize that this "us against them" internally manifests itself in a feeling that is undiagnosed in this manner:  that internally, individually, everyone feels like it's "us against I," or, "Them against I."

     How about the ultimate conspiratorial theory?  Your own partnership.  It's the ultimate.  If you want it in more mundane terms, how about the division of Man's consciousness into the conscious mind and the unconscious mind.  It is just an accepted fact.  Can you see the aspects of the ultimate classical conspiracy?  How about the things I noted earlier tonight?  The concealing of the conspirator's real interests; the misdirection of your attention in such things as "us against them" -- the attention of "us." The denial that there is a "them."  "There ain't no them, it's me.  I guess I do some stuff that is not profitable or upsets me, but I certainly don't do them consciously.  That's not to say that unconsciously I still am not directed in ways that are not totally self-satisfying or profitable."

     Can you see that this could be defined as the ultimate conspiracy?  That this band of conspirators, this band of people who in secret have plotted for common interests.  I do not have to search in Zurich, or dream of Tibet.  I have the ultimate conspiracy in me.  And it has all the earmarks of the classical externally defined conspiracy.  "It feeds me fragmented information.  It makes me believe that I have a pluralistic source of information, that is, a grasp of reality.  I have freedom of choice.  I can look at things in different ways.  I can consider different opinions.  I have such a variety of reports of reality that I cannot be easily fooled.  I am sophisticated.  I am a twentieth century man or woman.  I am intelligent..."  And yet look at the way everyone says they feel.

     You are driven to feel, think and behave in ways that if you were intelligent enough, clinical enough, and you could ask yourself as a fictitious reasonably insane person...

     "Why did I do that?"

     The answer is, "I don't know."

     Have you ever done it before?  And if your memory was good enough to begin to seam together a non-fragmented reality, you would say, "Yes."

     Do you think you will ever do it again?

     "At the rate I am going, yes."

     And yet you say that it is not profitable.  "Yes."

     Can you say right now that you even want to?  "No."

     That's not a conspiracy?  Something is going on.  There are forces behind you the actor and you can not even say what the interests are. 

     Well, whose interests are they?  "I don't know."

     Are they really yours?  "Evidently not."

     Well, how often do you think about this?  "Never."

     You mean you think and behave in ways that keep you from ever even asking, "What am I doing?"  "Yes."

     It has all the earmarks of the external, classical conspiratorial theories:  That there are unseen forces that have plots and interests that stay hidden, that misdirect my attention to the point I can not even maintain a continuing awareness of that even though it has been pointed out.  And then when it gets down to it, everything in Life seems to be arranged to tell me that this is not true.

     If you could See all that -- it is a liberation.  A liberation such that it would probably give enough of you time to breathe so that you might take a giant leap upwards.  At the partnership level, there is a continuing judgmental struggle going on between you and your conception of everyone else.  You are continually arguing at other people.  It is simple enough to know that the internal noise of the partnership and the Yellow Circuit itself is continually talking about and making fun of other people.  It is being sarcastic just as fast as you can breathe.  Try and take this in one gulp -- if you can see that, in truth, it's the powerful and the powerless in the ordinary world; that you and the people you are laughing at are in the same boat and neither you nor they can move -- that is the liberation that I have described in many personal ways.  Try this, you see an illiterate sewer worker and say, "I may have more education, I may have more money saved up right now than you will make in the next ten years, there are things about me that you will never catch up with...but be that as it may, you and I, Charley, are in the same boat and I have no more power over the ordinary world than you do...  None. 

     You may have a degree in education, law, medicine.  You may be a member of the right clubs and apparently be in a far stronger position than the sewer worker, but if you think you have any more power, once you see what I am talking about, you are irreversibly powerless.  There is a conspiracy, it's just not as ordinary consciousness would have it.  Part of that conspiracy is genetic, through heredity.  It apparently comes out in social, political and economic affairs, which is a poor reflection.  It seems real enough, but that is not THE conspiracy.  You are part of the powerless, so is the sewer worker, so is your congressman and senator. 

     Those of you who can remember that I am not actually talking about -- what it may sound like I am talking about -- will find that there is a reality to the division of the powerful and the powerless and that there is no way to change it.  There is a reality to this, a liberating reality that has nothing to do with pessimism or fatalism -- it has nothing to do with the 3-D world.  It is only in the 3-D world that there are any "isms."