Thinking Long Thoughts: Crucial to Finding Our Answers

Have you ever wondered why some people are brilliant, capable of making new connections in thought that are regarded as genius by others? And why most people are followers, in awe of brilliance, but not original thinkers themselves? Is it really that some are gifted with that much extra intelligence, or is it a difference in the way we use our intelligence?

Creative thinkers, leaders in the realm of ideas, are those who know how to think long thoughts, to sustain a mental question long enough to reach the end of the answer. Few people do this. We’ve been trained since birth to accept what others tell us as reality without looking deeper. Children are rewarded for getting “the right answers” on test rather than for growing original answers or questioning the pat answers they’ve been given. Curious kids are told “curiosity killed the cat” or “you ask too many questions.”

The system is set up to discourage long thoughts because people who think are a danger to the system. Thinking deeply enough allows you to connect isolated pieces of information, revealing the system’s real mechanics and ultimately its agenda. If enough sheep on the farm start thinking about their situation, noticing the pens that confine them, wondering why their wool regularly vanishes and what happens to their friends who disappear, that’s a danger to the sheep farm operation. Humans getting too smart is a danger to the New World Order.

We say “people are waking up.” They are, and it’s good to see the numbers who are not accepting the long-standing answers anymore. But what disturbs me is that so many simply replace one imposed thought system with another, rather than becoming truly independent thinkers.

I’m noticing this in the Truth Movement, the continuous parroting back of what David Icke says, what Alex Jones says, what Zeitgeist Addendum says, what various leaders in the Truth Movement think. Icke and Jones are independent thinkers, but what about the rest of us? Isn’t simply repeating such people’s brilliant insights almost as dangerous to truth as parroting back the system’s propaganda?

Let me explain why I ask that. Conspiracy researchers have their fingers much closer to the pulse of what’s really happening than the mainstream news (which is dedicated to promoting human dependence and illusion). But Icke, Jones and other outspoken lovers of freedom have not figured everything out nor do they claim they have. Their understandings are works in progress.

To swallow whole everything you read in a David Icke book without examining the research yourself is to be a follower, and being followers got the human race into its current fix. When we act like sheep, we tend to get herded into a pen.

To accept as final truth everything David or Alex says, or that anyone else says, is to limit the mind’s ability to grow beyond a certain point. It limits the ability of the human race to grow in knowledge, because how will human knowledge evolve, if the humans themselves refuse to evolve it?

Worse, making someone “knowledge king” in our minds takes away our power and bestows it on another individual. That power can then be misused by the leader for his own self-aggrandizement, or manipulated by others who find a way to influence the leader and through him all the people that he leads.

It is hard for many people to resist the temptation of power, but we offer that temptation to people we put on pedestals. That they typically grow arrogant and messianic is our fault as much as their own. Better to listen to brilliant people, with their fresh perceptions and insights, and let their ideas inspire and stimulate our own original thought. Then we contribute to the growth of knowledge and human freedom, along with the person who inspired us. If we simply swallow whole everything the person we admire thinks, we’re nothing more than a groupie, comfortably finding personal identity in another individual rather than doing the work of becoming ourselves.

I never understood before I started this blog how much even aware people tend to follow the leader. I see it in the people who write in for advice, setting me up as an authority on life when I am just a person who insists on asking questions and thinking long and hard until I get to my answers. I see it in the fawning emails some people write, and in the hateful emails they typically write later. Such readers diminish themselves, believing because I have original ideas I must be superior to them. They then try to correct the mistake by heaping on me personal abuse to right the balance. It’s like school children – worshipping people they place on pedestals one moment, then drawing mustaches and horns on their heads the next.

Where I see group-think most is in the emails that go on  and on expounding Eastern philosophy, attempting to correct my misguided opinions. These people don’t see that they’re regurgitating the easy, familiar explanations and excuses they’ve been taught. They refuse to look deeper, into the holes in the excuses and the gaps between the explanations.

When we give up one belief system to adopt another, it makes us feel free. We’re tempted to regard ourselves as enlightened. In fact, we’ve jumped from one pen into a slightly larger one. We think we’re out in the open range because we refuse to look at the edges, those disturbing still-existing fences, the boundaries of the thought system. We may frolic happily for a while, feeling superior to the sheep who haven’t leaped the wall we did,  growing irate at anyone’s suggestion that the space we cavort in may not be real freedom.

I haven’t been writing much lately because I’m going through an inward period, deeply thinking through many things. This isn’t an answer time for me, an expounding time. It’s a contemplative time, looking at the holes, the gaps, the still-remaining questions. Insights are coming in bits – small puzzle pieces. I write when I have something to say, and I won’t say until I understand. Long thought can’t be hurried.

Anyone can teach themselves to think profoundly, to discover new and deeper connections. You simply have to ask “why” and “how” and “what evidence supports this.” You have to refuse to accept other people’s viewpoints as fact, even the unique and brilliant ones, even your own unique and brilliant ones. You must look at the uncomfortable places where your beliefs are in self-contradiction, or where they don’t fully explain your experience. These chaotic spots are not something to shy away from, but keys to deeper answers. They are disguised doors that, when engaged, lead outside the holodeck.

Thinking takes time. We have to make space for it. We need quiet time to think long thoughts, to get to the bottom of things. It’s not accident that our lives are so busy and loud that most of us have no time for quiet thinking. That keeps the humans sheep, oblivious of our pens, following the dictates of our masters.

I’m reading a stimulating book right now that I don’t like at all, a book a reader suggested to me. I recommend it. It’s called, “Making a Soul,” by John G. Bennet, a disciple of Gurdjief’s. I don’t like the book because I don’t like Bennet’s conclusions, but I cherish the experience of reading it because it challenges me.

The author has seen through parts of the illusion. He thinks deep thoughts and posits profound questions. His conclusions get waylaid because of some of the assumptions he still makes, but how refreshing it is to read something filled with original, provocative ideas rather than rehashings of the dogmas we’re accustomed to.

I get some of my best insights from reading new things I don’t like and listening to original opinions that disturb me. The uncomfortable clash between another person’s insights and my current opinions always forces me to delve deeper in my own pursuit of truth.

Bronte Baxter

© Bronte Baxter 2009



  1. Barbara said,

    April 5, 2009 at 11:09 am

    I see that you mention Zeitgeist Addendum in your latest article. I liked this very much, so much so that I started reading about The Venus Project, but then I began to have doubts. I just think how the Zeitgeist people would like to see the world is not the same as anything I would like to see. It’s quite chilling in fact.

    What do you think yourself? There are some who are genuinely looking for a better world, but I don’t think the Zeitgeist people are among them. It has a feel of New World Order to me.

    I wouldn’t want to live in that sort of society. I know ours is very flawed but I want to get closer to nature, its what keeps me sane. Living in those futuristic cities, especially the ones in the sea, would be like living in some open prison. In the kind of society talked about in The Venus Project with no lawyers, banker and stockbrokers, I can’t see the need for a city at all. It’s the financial sector that cities are built around after all.

    I prefer living in a small community where you know who your neighbours are and have some open space to walk, run, ride a bike and look at trees and wildlife. A small plot of land for growing flowers fruit and vegetables would be nice, not an apartment in a building in the ocean.

    The world-wide aspect of the Venus Project bothers me too. How can someone decide that other peoples should live the way they want when they might be quite happy as they are?

    “A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few”

    Does this mean we all just take what we want? We just go to some free store and help ourselves to food, clothes speed boats, horses whatever we like? Well someone is going to have to grow the food, sew the clothes build the boats and look after the horses. I suppose work is going to be voluntary if there is no money. There are some jobs, however that there might not be enough people to do them if they weren’t being paid in some way.

  2. brontebaxter said,

    April 5, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    My biggest gripe with Zeitgeist Addendum is that it criticizes “religion” while substituting its own new version of religion: the doctrine of “We Are All One.” Toward the end of the film, it is Krishnamurti, a revered guru in India, who is the unidentified speaker of the supposed wisdom.

    The Indian gurus and their western counterparts, who teach Oneness philosophy, have brainwashed a great percentage of Americans into believing that if we just regard this world as an illusion, and all of us as intrinsically one, then all conflict will cease, there’ll be no need for money or work, and we’ll all just bliss away in utopia, knowing we are God. The Zeitgeist movies spring from this same mindset.

    The fact is, our individualism, our ambitions, our goals, our desires – these are the things that make us strong and independent, and the very things the Oneness movement aims to diminish. Reason: because you can’t control strong individuals. Oneness will be the religion of the New World Order, because it tames the individualistic tendencies and the initiative that are the backbone of freedom and of ongoing human life on this planet. Yet The Oneness Doctrine is becoming increasingly popular in certain sectors of the freedom movement, fed by just such propaganda as the Zeitgeist films.

    I agree with you, Barbara, that the whole concept is chilling. And the idea that everyone will magically want to work and produce for free and there will be enough for everyone to just take what they want: someday mankind may arrive at that state, but we certainly aren’t in any position to suggest that as a feasible social structure at this time. As a practical solution, the movie is ridiculous.


  3. David said,

    April 9, 2009 at 11:28 am

    Thinking for yourself is a lot harder than it sounds and your comment that “We need quiet time to think long thoughts, to get to the bottom of things” is so apt: makes you wonder if the constant bombardment of sounds and images etc in todays society isnt deliberate…

  4. Mat said,

    April 10, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    I very much like your idea of long thoughts and insights. I like the quote from Lord of the Rings “Laurelindorenan! That is what the Elves used to call it, but now they make the name shorter: Lothlorien the call it. Perhaps they are right: maybe it is fading, not growing.

    It is enough to look at the language of young generation nowadays, the language composed of short monosyllable sounds developed through sms and chat conversations, that one may start wondering: maybe it – this world – is fading, not growing.

  5. Coen said,

    April 11, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Hi Bronte,

    YOur searches are interesting, your disillusionment a little disturbing. I share it with you, though.

    Allow me to share my sense of Gad, whatever you wish to call him. There was a creation, right? How? Surely not with little angels flitting around, painting flowers. Think monobloc, the whole universe in one piece. Who wrote the maths to make that possible? The maths that created the original explosion that set the universe spinning, that sent hydrogen into stellar furnaces where more complex molecules were made. These molecules, several star-generations later, are what you and I are composed of. The maths that created the universe makes gravity, heating the water to make coffee, breathing possible. Christians say: In the beginning was the word, and the word was God. Hindus talk of Brahma dreaming the reality we experience, and then waking, to begin a new dream.

    If God created the universe in which I existed, would he care what I wear to church? Whether I kill my neighbour who believes in a different deity?

    I believe God, if there is one, would want His creatures to be happy. I would, if I was God.


  6. Barbara said,

    April 12, 2009 at 8:10 am

    As spiritual beings I believe we came to the universe at the begining, not as an addition to it.

    The ancient peoples of the world knew a lot that we have all but forgotten. Science may yet bring some of it back for us.

  7. Brownhawk said,

    April 12, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    My sense is that the pursuit of truth by increasing numbers of humanity is coalescing towards a development of intuition that will be high enough to establish a consensual understanding amongst its earnest seekers. This would have to be a necessary prerequisite for the potential gathering of evidence that would put it in the arena of actual experience. Science can provide information that may parallel this understanding, but it can’t tell us how to utilize the human power it represents.

    Searching for truth in terms of reclaiming our power implies, of course, having questions. The primary question is, “What is the ultimate meaning of free expression?” and to those who are trying their damnedest to squelch it, ” What are you so damned afraid of?!”

  8. Bill said,

    April 13, 2009 at 2:26 am

    All talk of the cosmos and the world is based on the belief that the world is really out there but if it is we are only aware of what is in our own mind.

    If the world is not out there then we live in a spiritual oneness. I’m not sure which is right. Either way the ego is false but my idea of the ego is the idea of oneself in time not the awareness of self that never leaves the now.. So I am in agreement that we should not lose our unique self and yet still enter the oneness.

    Logically I tend to think we are only aware of sense impression in a small contained area (our skulls) and all movement is an illusion. But to think that there could be a universe that nobody has never and will never see or know directly seems hard to understand.


    When we try to think deeply about these questions, it is impossible not to encounter our programming: everyone else’s ideas that we have read and picked up. This notion of the universe not really being out there is one such notion. We need to really look at its validity.

    My contemplation brings me to these conclusions: of course the world exists, as much as anything ever exists. To play with this notion of the world not being real is only weakening. It leads us to passivity, to a who-cares attitude, because if something’s not real, why bother with it?

    But think about it: if we reject the world as non-real, what are we left with? Just amorphous, undifferentiated consciousness. That may be a nice place to vacation to, but would you really want to live there? In a place where’s that all that is? The amorphousness created the world because simply being amorphous was boring. If consciousness found it boring, so would we, so trying to get back there as the end-all-be-all goal of existence is ridiculous. Yet this is what the Oneness Doctrine advises.

    Instead, we should be remaking the world into something fantastic that is closer to what the Infinite had in mind when it started the creation. If the Infinite is a field of all possibilities, a field of infinite energy and intelligence, and if we are That, then we should be pulling out and creating new possibilities that are not based on polarities of happiness and suffering. Those who swallow Eastern dogma will tell you that happiness can’t exist without suffering, that life can’t exist without death, but this is just limited thinking, and limitedness is completely foreign to infinite possibility. We can create ANYTHING we can conceive of creating. We should be thinking about that, and working toward great revisions of reality, rather than getting lost in this “it isn’t real” business.

    If you read my articles in the “Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment” series (see left column of this blog), you’ll get my take on the ego. I don’t think it’s “false” at all. It’s the spark of our personhood expressing in this world, God’s way of acting in the universe. When we hang out in the oneness dogma, and cease being dynamic and committed to living, we subvert the Infinite’s purpose of creation, because we’re actually, inadvertently, helping to destroy it.

    I explain in those articles I mentioned the reasons behind my view that Eastern religion and philosophy work in tandem with the proponents of the New World Order to weaken our grip on life and genuine meaning. Reason: so that those who wish to control the playing field of creation can do so without anyone’s resistance. I know you are sincere, and trying to think things through, but the worldview you are toying with is dangerous to life.


  9. Bill said,

    April 13, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    I am sympathetic to your view that it is a mistake to try to return to the One perhaps we did became bored with it. Maybe the ego is OK but our idea of the ego may differ I meant, I’m sure you’ve seen people who are out of time like trained soldiers, especially officers who may appear efficient but do not seem real. Don’t you get the feeling sometimes when talking to people that they are not themselves but acting what they think they should be.
    I must admit that I’ve changed my mind as to what is reality is over the years and I certainly see it differently to how I used to when I was younger.
    I went for a walk this morning and as I often do thinking about important questions of life and I remembered the sect that is called Pure Land Buddhism and it became clear what they mean but again that is easily explained if it is in our head you cannot have things or movement and what ever the picture is, it is appearing in a medium that is pure. So as they say we are all in the pure land. I believe that there is a esoteric method of direct experience of reality needing no years of study. The story about polishing a mirror representing the mind when as pointed out there is no mirror to polish.
    If true and most likely it is, it doesn’t matter what happens to us. We ourselves are pure We don’t have to practise liberation, we are liberated. Cheerful thought anyway.

  10. Revolution Harry said,

    April 16, 2009 at 5:42 am

    I agree entirely with the thrust of your article. As soon as I discovered David Icke I immediately thought I need to look into this more deeply. Cross reference and see what others have to say. This gives you the opportunity to synthesise a variety of information and inevitably forces you to think for yourself. I’m always guided by something Robert Anton Wilson used to say. To paraphrase it was something like, instead of saying something *is* true you should say it appears to be true given all the information available to me at the present moment. The result is your mind remains open and ever questioning.

    On the subject of ‘oneness’ (which I agree is a slightly perturbing development within the ‘truth’ movement) I was struck by the Gnostic symbol for humanity; the wheel. The hub is ‘God’ or ‘consciousness’ or ‘oneness’; the spokes are individual people and the outer rim the world. It expresses the paradox that we are both ‘all one’ and unique individuals at the same time. The ‘enlightened being’ is able to traverse the spoke in either direction. It’s a working model I find useful.

  11. Des Brittain. said,

    April 25, 2009 at 6:26 am

    Then there are some of us who don’t speak your language very well and who just “know”.
    We know that David Icke just doesn’t ring true. He is just repeating stuff he has read somewhere. He has a lot of learning to do yet.
    JG Bennet rings true. Read his book on Shivapura Baba and just look at the photos of the beautiful little Indian guru he writes about. Oh, just google it.
    “Witness” by GJ Bennet will give you some idea of how Bennet just knows. He has explored so much, from Gurdjieff to Subud and back.
    I am sixty now and so much of what I read on forums like this is what I used to say when I was twenty. I forget that young people are still awakening and discovering this stuff and have every right to write and describe what they have found. Other newcomers to the path need this. I guess I don’t but don’t ask me to guide you!
    At my age one can sort the wheat from the chaff quite easily. We speed read through much of the shite that is on offer!
    I’m into refining myself. Losing weight. Getting rid of flab in body and mind. Waiting. Being still. Not too much more striving. Simplifying life. Relying more and more on intuition and accepting my limitations.
    No more trying to impress, craving your love and praise. Easy does it. Day at a time. Looking at the stars more.
    I am being guided. It’s interesting. Letting go.
    Putting into practise all that I have read and heard over the years. I’ve nothing to lose anymore.
    Good stuff this, innit?


    I liked reading Bennet because he questions things the rest of us take for granted, not because he “just knows.” When I hear people use that phrase, it rather creeps me out. It’s a way of saying, “My mind’s made up, don’t challenge my assumptions.” How can any of us honestly say, in this mixed up world fraught with deceptions, that we “just know”? No personal offense intended to the person who made this post, but I don’t buy that.

    Of course we all have feelings about what’s true, and certain things “ring true” while others don’t. But what rang true for me at 15 is different from what rang true for me at 30, and what rings true for me now is different still. “Ringing true” just means something resonates with our experiences to date and with our conclusions about the meaning of our experiences. When experiences and knowledge change, the old philosophy will not “ring true” anymore.

    This is why feelings alone can’t be used as a yardstick of reality. All factors of experience have to come into play. We must always take our own opinions (what “I know”) with a grain of salt.

    I read at the end of a book once a statement to this effect: “This book reflects what I believe at the moment. I reserve the right to change my opinion as new information enters my life.” I respect that way of viewing one’s current state of knowledge. To set up our current beliefs as unquestionable truth, because we “just know,” limits the growth of knowledge in one’s life as clinging to institutional religious dogmas. The only difference is, it’s our personal dogma we’re enshrining, instead of some religion’s.

    • Brownhawk said,

      April 25, 2009 at 9:02 pm

      “This book reflects what I believe at the moment. I reserve the right to change my opinion as new information enters my life.” I just finished the rough draft of a book and I want to qualify my positions by making a statement like this in it’s Introduction. I want the reader to know from the outset that my intentions are for what I postulate to be thought-provoking ideas.

      The thought that says, “All I know is that I know nothing” keeps you honest and away from any notion that you’ve got things ‘all figured out’. It’s crucially important to distinguish between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’. Whatever I think I’ve figured out may consist of my understanding of what I may come to know; with true ‘knowing’ defined as demonstrating one’s power as an individual with expressions indicating a mastery of Being.

      The present all-out war being waged against mankind seeks to suppress this understanding. To see it in any other light is to remain in, or be lulled back to, a sleeping state.

      BRONTE’S RESPONSE: I think saying “All I know is that I know nothing” is going to the opposite extreme. We know the best we can in the moment – that does not mean we know nothing, but that what we know is flexible and fluid.

      Another problem with that quote is that our words and our thoughts create our reality. You shape reality toward greater ignorance when you tell yourself that you know nothing. Better to say “I am learning and understanding more all the time.”

      • Brownhawk said,

        April 26, 2009 at 9:57 am

        Good point. What I’m really trying to say is that many people get complacent in their thinking, and find ways to rationalize that position. They’re in denial about being LAZY. The genius of Life is that there is no end to learning, no limit to what is possible when engaging the awesome mystery of imagination. When you stop striving, you are succumbing. Not striving in the ‘worldly’ sense, but where it has to do with living energetically, without all the ‘blissing-out’ nonsense.

  12. ed said,

    June 26, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    I cannot be sure that all my seeking is not an avoidance measure. That doesn’t mean that my avoidance won’t eventually wittle down to its driving force…to be in this ‘world’ but not of it….. hope to ‘see’ you ‘digging’ this grave!

  13. Curtis G. Norman said,

    July 15, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Hello Bronte;

    I was about to write and ask if you had located a copy of Bennett’s “Making a Soul”, when lo and behold, after reading further, you mention that you are in the process of reading it (or by now have read it)! You then go on to state that you don’t like the book because you don’t like the conclusions, but “cherish the experience of reading it because it challenges me”). I am glad for you that you found something of value in the book. It was though, not my foregone conclusion that you would accept it as “gospel truth”. I did not either, but found in it, an explanation of the structure of this world which seems based upon universal suffering (everything that lives must consume or be consumed by something else in order to survive), and as such, was a precursor to the books by Robert Monroe about the beings who consume “Loosh” generated by our emotions (suffering especially).His ideas that it is a particular “kind of energy” that we make that is the purpose of our being was telling to me; this struck a chord in me that said “this man is on to something of which the majority of mankind has no realization. I thought you would find the parallels intriguing, and the teachings he offers of interest.
    You go on to say that you do not like Bennett’s conclusions and that ” his conclusions get waylaid because of some of the assumptions that he still makes”. I would be very interested to read more of your point of view on these matters. Perhaps you would like to expound a bit?
    You might be interested to know, if you did not already, that Bennett was one of a number of Gurdjieff’s students who, upon Gurdjieff’s death, took his teachings in somewhat opposite directions, and a few of whom formed “schools” of their own, so to speak. One of these was Maurice Nicoll, whom I can recommend. He was a student of C.G. Jung, and Nicoll takes the Gurdjieff teachings into a sort of Christian mystical bent (but is definitely anything but a “fire and brimstone evangelist type). In one of his books entitled “The Mark”, he makes a point of stressing that Jesus’s teachings about not “sinning” is misunderstood due to mistranslation of the word for sin from the Greek as it was used in the context of his teachings. It meant “not hitting the mark” or “missing the point of aim”, as in trying to better oneself spiritually, especially wherein this is necessary for humankind’s evolution to the next level, which is the abandonment of violence. This is another teacher who’s writings seem very timely to me, since, if we are to survive as a species and evolve spiritually, then the abandonment of violence (and our morbid fascination with it) should be topmost priority. Thank you very much for your time and for listening (reading?) my ramblings!


    • brontebaxter said,

      July 15, 2009 at 11:21 pm

      Great post, Curtis. And you did an apt job of explaining, for those who haven’t read it, what “Making a Soul” by Bennet is about (and why I found the book so stimulating).

      To answer your question about what I don’t like about that author … It seems to me the book goes in great depth in the beginning to establish evidence that suffering is the purpose of physical life, a purpose that serves something in the unseen. He explains that just as a plant can’t understand who or what is eating it, or an animal can’t understand that it is on the farm to sustain the farm owners, so a human can’t easily perceive the next level up of the food chain: that which consumes humans. Our energy is taken from us in ways we don’t understand, by beings we don’t understand.

      He suggests these beings are the heavenly bodies, since on a level of complexity they are the next rung up in physical structure (counting up from mineral to plant to animal to human to that which is above human). I think he’s onto something here, and it would explain why sun worship and worship of other celestial bodies have forever been a part of human culture.

      That’s the first part of the book though. From there, he starts combining lots of ideas into abbreviated mentions that deserve much more development if they are to be proven or understood. Frankly, I think he gets off on the wrong track, into some pretty convoluted stuff – conclusions that come from imagination and surmising rather than from the evidence of human experience.

      Also, I strongly disagree with his assumption in the first part of the book that humans HAVE TO provide energy for the next rung up on the food chain. I think not! No more than animals have to submit to being eaten. No more than a plant couldn’t grow thorns or thistles to protect itself if it decided to. (Are you familiar with the idea that evolutionary change in species comes not from random selection but from desire? The cave man runs away from the dinosaurs, wishes for longer legs, this affects his genes, and future generations have longer legs. I forget where this theory comes from, but it was a respected alternative to Darwinism at one time.)

      As I wrote in my most recent blog article (“Human Will: The Forgotten Freedom Faculty,”) will seems to be everything. We only serve the food chain if we allow that to happen (passive use of will). It is possible to retain our own energy, not allow it to dissipate through victim scenarios and victim responses to events that occur.

      But to completely free ourselves from the food chain, we need to stop being consumers of others, as much as we need to stop being consumed. As long as we dive into the meat, we are doing the very thing to other creatures who feel pain and who desire to live, as the gods are doing to us when they harvest US. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

      I think we can use will to break free of this cycle entirely, to stop being either consumer or consumed. But learning how to use will to do this is another question. That’s something I’m working on now, and I don’t pretend I’m finding it easy. But we must learn it, if we want to stop being fodder for the live-then-die machine.

      In fact, the whole universe has to learn it. The celestials (celestial bodies) have to learn it. As long as the sun eats our energy the way a gardener eats his plants, the sun is dependent on feeding and will eventually die. Science tells us the sun will someday run out of the fuel it burns. I suspect drawing energy from earth is a way the sun seeks to make that happen later, rather than sooner, but it’s still doomed.

      The sun needs to learn how to maintain its existence from within itself, just as you and I do if we want to become immortals. So long as we’re dependent on dying things to stay alive, we will also die.

      Not only the celestial bodies but the Brahman (Big Bang, source of the universe) from which the celestials sprang needs to learn to thrive from within itself if it wants to be immortal. Instead, it (the universe) is shaped like a torus, we’re told – ever spitting out creation then ever sucking creation back into itself. The dog chasing its tail is a suitable analogy, as is the esoteric symbol of a snake swallowing its tail: the universe functions in a self-destruct feedback loop.

      But you, I, the plants, the animals, the sun, Brahman, all came from and exist as thought: an impulse of consciousness, that is energy in motion, directed by intention or will. By going back to our essential nature as mind-energy-will and working from there, from within ourselves, we should all be able to transform the physical level of our expression into something infinite and eternal. There’s no reason matter must die if the consciousness of which is composed never dies, if energy never dies. Death only exists on account of our belief that it is inevitable. I’m sure even Brahman believes this, which is why his universe runs on that sad premise.

      Since you and I are not only individuals making choices for our own lives, but also are part of Brahman (the consciousness behind the universe), by changing our minds about the need for death, we change Brahman’s mind, too. When we start to harness our will and declare our intent of becoming immortal, the whole universe feels it. The hundredth monkey …

      Lately I’ve been “talking to the sun” trying to communicate this, the need for it and the rest of us to stop feeding, the need to start to work from within our infinite nature rather than drawing on help from external finite nature for our survival. If mind is made of infinity, structured in infinity, in an endless and eternal state of pure energy and potential, then learning to function as such, by changing our minds about what we are and need, will result in our becoming physically as eternal and nondecaying as our essential nature. I think it’s a matter of transferring our main focus from creation, the insubstantial, to the substantial, and working and thinking from there.

      We are like kittens chasing a flashlight spot around on a dark floor. It all seems so fascinating and mysterious, but only until we think to look up, to the source of the thing we’ve been chasing. Then the mystery disappears, and so does our need to chase little lights.


  14. Canuck said,

    May 22, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Wonderful post Bronte, I’ve loved it since the first time I read it and it’s always in the back of my mind when I encounter something new to dwell on whether it’s news or something closer to home. ‘Finish your thoughts’ ‘keep your mind open’ mostly, lately, it’s ‘follow the money’.

    Thank you.

  15. Carole said,

    November 1, 2010 at 12:42 am

    I have read most of your blog, and found it insightful and even somewhat helpful. Because of my admiration for your writing, I decided to give Alex Jones a listen. I listened to his program for about a week, but then decided it was too toxic and not worth the time. Although I do agree with some of the things that Mr. Jones has to say, I found that, like many media outlets these days, he mixes a lot of half truths with a lot of sensationalism and propaganda. He obviously has an agenda, and everything that comes out of his mouth is a calculated spin. I can understand why some people are attracted to him as he is very passionate and charismatic, as is Rush Limbaugh. And like Rush Limbaugh I found myself actually getting physically sickened when I listened to him. I’m surprised you haven’t picked up on that as you seem so attuned to the negative spirits that you believe are controlling organized religion. Personally, I think there is more coming through his so-called “transmission” than just his words; some sort of controlled negative vibration that is very unhealthy. On a lighter note, I think his use of the phrase “info wars” should be changed to “infomercial.”

    • brontebaxter said,

      November 1, 2010 at 1:17 am

      I disagree with you about Alex Jones. Yes, he has an agenda, but it is to expose the New World Order. What’s wrong with that? Alex Jones is an emotional, passionate guy, and depending on the day you listen in, he may be in a positive mood or a negative one. He gets pretty down about the world situation sometimes, but most of the time, he’s positive about our hope for the future. I can take a guy getting down about a threat to everything that makes life worth living – it’s pretty understandable, and I have bad days myself. The important thing is, he’s giving his all to making a difference. I do agree that some of his stuff has too much spin – the flavor of propaganda permeates some of the articles on the site. But I’m sure he’s doing far less harm than good.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: