~For Sir Paul Maccartney~ Fans write your messages here
-
Hello,Paul. Make Russia happy again!Come in 2007 in our country.Thousands of fans in towns big or small waiting for you!
-
I'm anticipating the release of your new Classical album this month! I was hoping you'd create a new Classical album, I guess a genie granted me a wish Cheers, Trev.
-
Keep happy Write some more love songs
-
TrevorWD:
I'm anticipating the release of your new Classical album this month! I was hoping you'd create a new Classical album, I guess a genie granted me a wish Cheers, Trev.
I am, like you, looking forward to ECM with much excitement. Can I borrow your genie, T? I've got a few wishes I'd like granted as well.
-
Dear Paul, I?m writing to tell you about surely the most amazing discovery! It is a formula for a philanthropic quantum leap, which could make poverty, and many other areas of concern, absolute history! Practically overnight! It?s not a crackpot scheme. It has grounds in proportion to its claims, and I?m quite sure you?ll appreciate it. The only question is, how do I convey it? I have to express it boldly, because it is bold; and it has a contemporary ?best before? date. Why you in particular? Because I see you as the eldest statesman of the positive counterculture. And many of the issues involved are ones known to be close to your heart. It starts with a simple act- not a defiant one like Luther pinning his list to the door. And after the first act, everything basically flourishes from there. The first act really, is seeing all the possibilities. Once they?re envisioned, it?s hard to think of anything else. I am still reeling, myself. So I will start with the immediate results from the first act It involves thousands upon thousands of innocent lives saved It would be achieved by the Queen herself, using her position to call for changes, most expediently the ones needed to save those lives. Her public image doesn?t paint her as someone who would do this; in fact it kind of paints her oppositely. Precisely why she has the power to do it The element of surprise. She has actual power, but she never really uses it- to the extent that no one expects her to. Put aside whether she would or wouldn?t, for a moment, and ask whether she could. Of course she could- and she is the only one who could. All the other public figures I can think of just don?t quite have it. Bush or Blair couldn?t do much. Not the Dalai Lama, not Brad Pitt- even after his performance in Troy. But she could; she could simulcast herself next Christmas, or tomorrow if she wants, and announce an end to, say starvation, and it could be done. Not just her say so would do it, action would follow. She could marshal a coalition of kindness that no cause could resist. For example, she could unite all charities under one cooperative banner. But does she know she has the power? To cut to the chase, the crux of my idea is simply that everything currently for sale would become absolutely free. The only reason people seek payment is so they can buy things themselves, but everything would be free. Who would lose? And who could refuse? People with savings would still have them if it failed, but if it worked it would be to everyone?s benefit, so much that no trade off would be noticed. I could have mapped out the logistics of how this would work, but I think you know enough about these matters to see how it would. It would take care of starvation, the homeless, the impoverished; instantly! People would keep producing; in fact they would make better products, since cost wouldn?t be an issue. Accountants, market researchers, and so on, could switch to the appropriate corresponding fields- or maybe they?d do something else entirely. People everywhere would be able to do what they really want. People would do what they were good at, and everything would get done, even more so than it does now. In fact the whole of humanity would evolve, I think. And we would all still be working for something; it?s just that our pay would be infinite. Stealing, dishonesty and robbery, they?d all be obsolete! Originally the idea occurred to me rather strangely- please bear with me as I explain this-I thought, ?If she tried marijuana, just for a few days, she would surely see why so many people liked it. Then she would want the laws prohibiting it to be revised. There are hundreds of people in prison for marijuana offences. Judges are lenient these days, but often they have to sentence, for large scale growing or selling. If she understood that it was within her power to set them free or keep them there, maybe she would try it in the name of being objective. All those lives affected by those laws, doesn?t she have a responsibility to look at both sides of the controversy? Just say she did, and just say the experience was a road to Damascus thing, then her first order of business would be to pardon en masse, wouldn?t it? And if she wanted to, she could implore other people in positions of responsibility, to try the same experiment. If she did get involved, she wouldn?t necessarily spur people to have more. I think she would encourage them to partake more responsibly. And if the experiment failed, and prohibition was still wanted, then it would be more effective than before, because the responsibles could say ?We?ve tried it and we still think it?s bad for you.? But this idea is more than about drugs. These notions led me to fathoming her actual potential. And when I had fathomed it, the full extent of the noble things she could achieve occurred to me. A decision that affects the world needs to come from the top. She is the top. The fact that she hasn?t exercised this position makes her even toppermost. Even through history, there has never quite been one single person with that much ability in their hands. Everyone else has to ask someone else. She, therefore, is the person we all must ask. The world has held and released its breath, over just details of her life. And they?ve been astounded especially when something risqué happens, imagine how they?ll react if she takes this ultimate risk. The distance between her and a pauper is nothing compared to the distance between where she is, and where she could propel herself to- if she closes the former distance. Getting back to the first act It is simply you going to her, as representative of us all, and explaining her power. You?re her knight, and I would think part of that duty involved not just protecting her position, but pointing out if a large portion was unclaimed. She must feel like she?s just a symbol, going through empty rituals, and not able to do much for the needy, because she doesn?t think she has real power. Governments treat her like a relic from an outdated institution, kind of like a lioness in a zoo. And how hard would it be, even for an exceptional lady like her, to come to terms with the fact that she could have absolute control over every soul on Earth? Even the dissidents would fall into line if she excelled positively. Royalty has long been regarded as closest to God. Her house is the foremost of all royalty, and she is the foremost of it. Diana made some inroads to making a real life princess into something like a fairy tale. It wouldn?t seem totally out of left field if you were to make knighthood real. In reality Elvis made rock into royalty, and you are the heir. But kings sometimes must be knights. (Like Richard was, in Ivanhoe.) There are enough of you for a whole order. The ones that haven?t been knighted, surely could be on your recommendation. As for her making matriarchy real, well, even in fairy tales there has never been a Queen like this! It?s evocative of the chess piece though. As a player I see each piece, and what it can potentially do, as if invisible lines traced along all its possible routes. When I look at her possibilities? It?s also like when a queen doesn?t move, until striking suddenly, late in the game. Or when a pawn makes it all the way to the other side of the board, without anyone expecting it to get there. Literally, she is the Commonwealth. I?ve just started reading a book called The Royals, by Kitty Kelley, which has early quotes from Her Majesty to this effect. I am by no means seeing her higher than she already is, nor overestimating her potential. She is not only Queen, but she also stands in the King?s square as well! (A good little example of the surprise dynamic, is in the movie Saving Private Ryan. Tom Hanks? soldiers are starting to fight amongst themselves, and instead of trying to break it up, he suddenly tells them what his civilian job was, which they had been speculating on for some time.) And most of what her family has been through has been very humanizing. That is part of how this all comes together. It is to her as a human that the message is directed. A human that would not let anyone suffer, if they could help. Even under duress we are compassionate to each other; imagine how it would be if there were nothing holding us back. In the world, there is a huge amount of suffering, and at least an equal amount of willingness to help; the two just aren?t meeting. She can bring them together. If I lived in a neighbourhood that was extremely troubled, and there was a lady who lived there but kept to herself, and she had not only riches but also influence enough to set it right. I would appeal to her- especially if the neighbourhood was hers. And I would expect neighbour-neighbourhoods to follow her examples. She would not just be helping us she would be helping herself. A person can?t truly be happy if there are others crying in despair. Her countries are full of such people. But we can?t beat ourselves up if the anguish is somewhere beyond our reach, right? Nowhere is beyond her reach. Almost every house would open its door to her. Some, though, and I must say this bluntly, would probably see her as a target. I?m sure she would be prized by a terrorist organization that was ambitious enough. -Yet another way, that telling her would be protecting her. Most terrorist antagonism would dissipate in the event of free day. That which remained could be negotiated in civilized forums. If she got right into the spirit of things, she could give Ireland back to the Irish, New Zealand back to the Maoris, and Australia back to the Indigenous. How I would love to see America restored to its native inhabitants- if everyone got into the spirit of things, that could happen. We could still go there, in fact it would be more accessible than before, only it would have a chief instead of a president. In free world, everyone could travel where they wanted, and the world would be happily shared. Perhaps the ultimate endorsement won?t become apparent until after it?s done maybe then it will surface that a mass scale attack was planned, but called off since her declaration. Most of the changes I?m talking about, are already heading in these directions anyway- but very slowly. The fact that they are heading this way is all the more reason for her to step in early and instigate. If they happen gradually, it won?t be as good, or they might not happen at all. If they happen at once, they happen as one. Which brings me to my saddest but most compelling argument. At any given time, there must be at least a thousand children being actively abused. The Queen could arrange for everyone to have access to a TV, and speak to them all. She could address the abusers directly, and offer them immunity to prosecution if they let the children go that instant. Few would condone amnesty for a child abuser, but who would deny it if saved children that would otherwise have died or been abused longer? She could really put the pressure on if she did it in conjunction with the everything free announcement, and said to the abusers ?I am trying to usher in a world of happiness for everybody, people that acted out in their various ways against the old world will soon have nothing to rebel against. I?m asking you to help me usher it in by letting those children go. You will never be charged in relation to them. And everyone will uphold this promise. Children?s lives hinge on it. Anyone jeopardizing it will be seen as jeopardizing those children?s lives. When the children are found, they will be brought to me. I would like to see at least a thousand children, and their families, moving into my palaces Symbols of the good that cooperation can bring. There will be no police investigation into what happened to them, but they?ll be given every chance to heal. I couldn?t blame you for wanting to dispose of them, or keep them hidden, but what I?m saying is that I will pay a ransom. Money won?t matter soon. But I?m offering you immunity, more valuable than anything else. And bear in mind! Soon there won?t be many crimes to keep my police busy; and if you continue what you?re doing, they?ll be able to concentrate all their forces on you.? And, furthermore, she could announce to every girl or boy who was afraid to come forward, that it is time do so now, with her guarantee of safety. That would be at least a hundred thousand, probably more like a million. Statistics that I?ve read, point to even more. She would need phone lines open, and her soldiers ready, and perhaps degrees of clemency for offenders that don?t try stopping the children, but it could happen. She could even say ?Everyone! in my name, go to the house next door to you right now- and check that all the children are safe. If anyone resists, or if you have any suspicions, call this number immediately.? And she could give a carte blanche warrant to a proven team, who must ignore anything else they see, but go after child safety with the totality it deserves. It?s a radical concept, but for a child every measure should be taken. And no person should complain about an act that is for the safety of children. She would have to arrange it all with watertight precision of course. I won?t go into further detail right now. Hopefully, I?ve said enough to show the plausibility of it. Similar treatment could be given to a lot of issues. That one has undeniable universal appeal. The possibilities for communication to reach every corner, by every medium, are already practically upon us. Instead of waiting for it, she could make it happen suddenly. We don?t always see the magic of things, when they happen gradually; but sped up, it soon becomes apparent. Interactive communication would make it possible for global votes to be cast. But I?m anticipating a world where the votes would be unanimous, because no one would lose. To go from a world where many feel they have nothing to lose- or not far from it- to a world where no one could lose! Small groups and organizations achieve this. Why not the world? Some might say that a free world would give things to people that didn?t deserve it, but more important is the people it would save- that didn?t deserve it. There are children kept in boxes and cages. That alone should be impetus enough for a united effort. If just one person was starving; if just one person was impoverished; if just one person had a terrible illness; if just one person was being sexually abused; etc. We?d help them right now wouldn?t we? And we wouldn?t pause to consider whether it was our responsibility. The fact that it is millions doesn?t make it less. It makes it that many times more. And what is a life worth? We all know the answer to that As much as our lives are worth to us. There are so many things that she and a free world could change. I?m sure that they?ll occur to you- but allow me to list a few The seven deadly sins would go- or at least become a lot less deadly-. Animals would no longer be ill-treated, since it was financial concerns that drove people to poach, put hens in cages, sheep on freighters etc. People would be a lot freer to go vego, because of all the varieties that would be possible. Commercial advertising would be gone, helpful unobtrusive information would take its place. Pollution, and other environmental issues, would be gone, since it was financial concerns there too. The environment is probably the most imperative reason, for reason to prevail. If we don?t do an immediate, or very quick, turnaround, it will soon be too late. All the individual matters won?t matter if the world becomes uninhabitable. But isn?t it a great juxtaposition that right on the brink of it all going bad, it can all go good? In a world so wonderful, maybe people would need some drugs. Maybe my original idea wasn?t so silly. It was conceived with total seriousness, actually? just not a corresponding expectation for it to be taken seriously. The drug issue is the ultimate paradox, I think. The problems stem from the illegality. All the cartels and associated crime would vanish if prohibition did. She could declare drugs as part of free world too. All the suppliers could give it away. And thenceforward people could grow their own in splendour, and their decisions would be informed. She could advise those, that detractors of this would cite as the reason for it not to happen, to take it easy, and show worthiness to her trust- to celebrate by not hooking in. Currently, we have to horde it to ensure that it?ll be there when we want it, and consequently we have it too much. Also, most people take drugs just to feel a glimpse of what a free world would be like! Moreover, decriminalization has lessened use, where tried. If she tried marijuana, she would get around to the other drugs too. This gets increasingly hard to imagine, but that is the point. It?s virtually impossible to imagine, that?s why it would have so much impact. If someone said, ?That?s exactly what I?ve always thought she should do,? I?d be worried! because the basis of the idea is that no one will expect it. If I did a chart of the people least likely to try drugs, she would be at the top. She is at the top of a lot of charts. If Bush did the experiment first, people wouldn?t be that surprised. If Blair did it, they would probably be more surprised- but not as much as with her. The Pope could get a huge reaction. But none of them could achieve the level of utter unexpectedness as she; and none of them could follow through with the reforms. None of them could declare everything free. They could support her declaration, and lend it strength; and she could rally them. But on their own, no Currently, I estimate, half the world is pro prohibition, half against. The ones that want prohibition, would not want it if they could see how ineffective it is, and how negatively effective it is. The world is split down the middle in lots of ways, and it all comes down to the fundamental issues of trust versus control. In most cases, either side wants the same thing, but they each think they have to get it at the other?s expense. The thing is that if it comes at an expense, it?s not worth anything. Really, with one side this way, and one side that, we are in the ultimate state of nothingness. If scales are balanced, they read zero. Joy is hollow, not accentuated, when there is parallel suffering. Currently, no one gives or gets anything; the rule is that everything costs more than its worth (profit.) This is really a cycle of taking. Reverse this and it would be a cycle of giving, which would make for surplus, in proportion to the profits that are currently amassed. If I got everything I personally wanted, and someone asked how it felt, I?d say not good because there are so many of my fellows who don?t have what they want. I know you must feel the same. But there isn?t much anyone could do, until now. If she had of done what I?m suggesting 20 years ago, it wouldn?t have worked. Only now is everything properly in place. It?s like all the seeds that saints planted in the past, are now all sprouting at once. And the world is mature enough now. It?s like a child that has grown to an age where its parents can?t tell it what to do. The only thing they can do is trust it, and give it some good advice. Or, if they want to be more involved, they can earn its respect, so much that it will honour them and do what they advise, not because of having to, but because of wanting to. However, if the child has to kick and scream until the parents finally let them go, then, even if they get the freedom eventually, it won?t count for much. Currently that?s the trend, oppressed minorities cry out until something gives. It?s nice that something eventually gives, but it would be so much nicer if it were given before the cries reached such levels. The Queen would gain an enormous amount of genuine respect if she did some of these things. She would give everyone a chance to become kings and queens with her, and they would raise her dais even higher out of heartfelt love. Look how prophets of the past have been venerated just for pointing towards this kind of world. Can I digress to tell you about another discovery I made? I believe it is the unified theory that Einstein searched for I was looking up at the stars one night, when it occurred to me from their milky look, that they were exactly what I would imagine sperm to look like, under ultra magnification. If sperm is our life essence, then seen at its most microscopic, it would have to look like stars, wouldn?t it? Then I looked at space and thought, well that has to be the womb. The trick is that when something is seen from a billionth of the size, it moves a billion times slower. So those stars are the sperm that has just entered the womb. The sun is the one sperm that pushed its way through to the egg, and Earth is the egg. Meanwhile, the planets are grandfathers, great grandfathers, and so on, exerting their influence, just as relatives do, from generations away. The millions of years the Earth has been fertilizing, amount to just a few days, or less, in the scale of time that applies to this womb. So, when my mum had me, it outwardly appeared like nine months, but inside it was like nine billion years, because I was a billionth of the size. That egg and the sperm that fertilized it, ultimately became me. And grew to a billion times the size, elevating me to this time scale. Now I face the dizzying, but thrilling, prospect that there is another higher scale, a billion times bigger When this egg forms into an embryo. Somehow, I think that all of us get to be this superbaby that we?d collectively become. Or it will be born into a world with a billion times more room, and simply have offspring enough to give each one of us a superlife. A peaceful revolution of the magnitude that the Queen is capable of, is what will thrust us towards this goal. We?ve been held back for so long, that if she frees us, it will have a slingshot effect. And every stretch in the other direction that we?ve endured, will have had a purpose. Bad, they say- and now I believe them- teaches us to appreciate good but we know what good is now, we don?t need the contrast anymore. Life wasn?t meant to be buy and sell, and if it was, it was only for the purpose of showing us how strenuously it shouldn?t be. Eden would not have had cash registers. And God would have let his children taste the trees when they were old enough. Currently there are still trees we aren?t allowed eat from; the ones that give us knowledge.(And maybe life.) But now we are ready. I say ?revolution?, but that implies something busy, with an overwhelming amount of new things, whereas this would be a relief of existing things- woes. No one would have to be killed in this revolution, lives would be saved instead; but if muscle was required, she has a lot of well-trained real life James Bonds to call on. Although, I prefer to think that she could just have an open door policy that allowed anyone, who felt their misgivings were irreconcilable, to come and voice them in person. If the worlds? epidemic problems were looked at as diseases, then freedom would have to be seen as a cure. The way it would happen instantly, would make it seem like a miracle. And it would be a miracle If she tried marijuana, miracle. If she got those children freed, miracle. If she got the starving fed, miracle. If she got all debts cleared, miracle. And, is not a cure the one time we are legally permitted to take certain drugs? If someone I knew were ill, in a way that drugs could cure, I would get the drugs they needed. Incidentally, I think that most individual illnesses would be curable or preventable, not long after free world was introduced. Since funding for research would be limitless. And a hospital with alternative therapies, as well as orthodox ones, would be far more effective. Also a lot of sickness is caused by illegality; e.g. People abusing solvents. Or over concentrating just on the legal drugs. Or drowning their sorrows. Her majesty doesn?t have to try marijuana- she could set up an unbiased council of people whose opinions she respected, and get them to try it first. But why not? She?s not at an age where it can ruin her life. It?s not like she can?t afford to. People can say that drugs are bad for youth, or people that can?t afford them. But what about someone like you, Sir Paul? There are thousands of people, in no danger of becoming problem users, who face prison if caught. And if caught for even half of what they had actually done, would get life. She could not deny that it was OK for them to do it. You could even make a bargain with her, and offer not to do it anymore if she tries it and still disapproves. Or depending on how far you wanted to go, you could lead a delegation of people that confess to every time they?ve ever bought or supplied marijuana, and demand to be charged for each instance! Of course, stunts like this wouldn?t really be necessary. You could talk to her, person to person. The only way to regulate drug use is positively. Current laws are simply pushing the problems skyward. If her argument against is ?No, drugs are bad, I?ll never condone them.? The counter argument is ?Well why don?t do something about them that actually works? Encouraging responsible use would have more of a regulatory effect. Stop these laws that promote irresponsible use; you?re effectively doing more than condone them right now.? Drugs are already there. They can?t go; but the ugly aspects can. And drugs regulate themselves Too many results in a tolerance; after that it?s practically pointless to keep taking them. Less is more. (So really, if she has a little now, she will have had more than most of us.) I also think that having no drugs at all, is as dangerous as having too many. Maybe in an unfree world, people would abuse drugs more. But in free world there would be too many good things to do. The two go hand in hand. The world can?t be free, unless prohibition ends, but it doesn?t make sense for prohibition to end until the world is free. They?d need to be done around the same time. Free world would still kind of work with prohibition still in place, but not very well. If it was declared first, an end to prohibition would soon follow anyway, so it would be better to declare them both. Another thing that would follow is sexual liberation. The uptightness between the sexes would crumble, like it does with individuals, but with everyone, in a wave. This is another area where she could beat everyone to the punch, by instigating it, instead of being the last person to realise it. I imagine her forming a coalition of all Queens from around the world, who would come to terms with their power as well as their sexuality- arguably one of woman?s greatest powers. I don?t suggest she do something contrary to her wishes, I suggest she stop acting contrary to her wishes, which, like everyone else, she hides because of social convention. If she shatters that convention, she can bring us together supremely. Broken hearts would be mended, and prevented. And all the problems related to frustration, and pushing sex into a dark corner, would melt. Moreover, people like me would find it easier to get laid! Currently, when I meet a girl, I don?t say what I really feel. I feel it so strongly that not saying it is like a lie. Even couples lie to each other! Lying would no longer be necessary. Nothing is more vulgar than a lie. The idea of lying to preserve a false sense of pride, based on false foundations, and running from false notions of vulgarity, is so absurd. Truth is held back by a very delicate balance. Tipped, it will all come flooding through. Currently people live each in their own world, all of a sudden, all people would be aware of their interconnectedness- and be living it too. Awarenesses such as this- let alone acting upon them- are, when looked upon from a distance, physical components; and for them to all come together at once would be like billions of cells uniting. Everyone would be awake if she came on TV. Literally. People that were sleeping would get woken up with the urgent message, ?The Queen?s on TV and she?s?? Everyone would make love that night, and every night thereafter. No one would die and no one would cry. A bulletin board, with all the necessary accessibility, would be prominent for anyone that the movement had missed; and all help would be rushed to them. You made a jest at the end of Abbey Rd about being with her one day, I believe. Maybe in grand irony that will turn out to be true. I think that she, if she has the feelings like other women, should be able to express them, more than anyone. I say this with all due respect to her husband, who I?m sure, if he?s a man like me, would have a few unfulfilled desires himself. (And half of her is her husband- the second most powerful person, by rank and virtue. A great organizer and innovator, from what I?ve read) Coming out and saying how we feel, especially where deep feelings are concerned, is extremely hard to do, unless others do it first. If she does it first, then everyone can. There are so many lonely women, and so many lonely men, and it should be easy for them to meet. In free world it would be! ?No More Lonely Nights!? Sexuality, like drugs, is an extremely sensitive issue. Many people struggle with traumas that connect to it. It?s most extreme in pain, because, conversely, it?s the most extreme in pleasure. It?s also the most extreme in desire- mostly unfulfilled. The only thing we want more, is a world without suffering. (Some want it so much that they?re afraid to ask.) This desire is so full on that if we want it, we must go after it with sexual fervour. We are, if my discoveries are correct, bringing together the essence of two ineffable gods--- at least two. I used to be almost an atheist, in the strictness of my enquiry methods I was not willing to believe until I saw proof- or proof that proof wasn?t needed. A few years ago I read The Sayings of Ramakrishna and I was converted. His vision, which he claimed on stable grounds, was very direct. It involved the notion that all the gods are very real- but using divine cloaking devices. After a while, I had a notion of my own. It wasn?t alluded to by Ramakrishna; his emphasis was on opening the curtains so that we could see for ourselves. What I saw, intellectually, was the gods making love in one holy orgy. I arrived at the notion by figuring that if they are gods, they wouldn?t have hang-ups, and would probably get up to things that are beyond adult. And, it would explain the polytheistic mingle that exists around the world. This idea goes against the popular pious image of them, of course. But it goes with the logic that I have accrued. I just carry the logic further. One of Ramakrishna?s sayings was ?go further? He illustrated this with a story of a man who found a grove of gold in the woods, but instead of stopping he went further and found diamonds, but he didn?t even stop there? For me, coming up with the notion of free world was my reward for going further. Just the idea, let alone it happening, has filled me with joy. I?ve always imagined utopian scenarios, but this one is far more vivid, because it actually has a chance of working. Every child, safe. And every child having everything they want- appreciating value by climbing ever higher, instead of clawing their way from the bottom. Every person could convert their home into a palace. The idea of all those palaces going up really filled my head. If I could get whatever I want built, I would have a huge pyramid in Egypt. I?d have smooth sides on it, so I could slide down it; and the top would open up to reveal a landing platform for my jet. It sounds fantastic, but it is plainly plausible in free world. Personal spacecraft would be plausible! The idea of all the unfortunates of the world going from nothing to everything in a day, really makes me smile. It?s not enough if we could relieve them all. They need more than relief. They need the opposite of what they had. A girl who had no shoes, should get a wardrobe full. Maybe, just maybe, on some level, she has been planning a huge turnaround like this all along! The Windsors trace back to Odin himself, according to a book I read called Rhinegold Odin personally got into bed with a Queen somewhere waay back in the line and imbued their blood. The heroes Sigmund and Siegfried, and the heroines Silgilind and Gundrun, are among the first examples of what this created. So maybe she, or the goddess she represents, knows. Yet, though it?s apparently intended by the gods, I still think that free world will have to be done by humankind. Although, one possibility of assistance occurs to me Have you noticed a common theme in movies is for the protagonist to gamble all they have on a slim chance in order to win it all? This formula is a bit like that. It won?t be easy. In fact if you pull it off it will be like a lottery win. But the lottery has never offered a prize like this. Maybe the one time the gods will help, is by tilting the chances just enough when the gamble is a worthy one. Like parents that want us to learn, they leave it up to us to actually do. My mother and father didn?t get down and push the x and xy chromosomes together when it was time for me to form. Perhaps emissaries of their essences were there, but they probably just coached. Jesus said explicitly that he was the beggar in the street, and other such lowly characters. If this saying is taken literally, it means to me, that God is hiding in the unfortunates, waiting for us to truly take notice. To not just be magnanimous towards them, but to love them like ourselves, acknowledging that indeed they are ourselves. They are part of the self of one person most of all. Her. A portion of her is dirty and malnourished. A portion of her is strung out on drugs. A portion of her is in prison. A portion of her has AIDS. A more important portion than her actual self, which is easily looked after, she needs to reach out to this portion. A good- and a logical- leader will look to the most unfortunate first. She is the head of each of the warring churches in the UK. Who better to apply Christian ethics where they are most needed? The only one higher up is God Who has AIDS too! And all of these problems have the apparent potential to spread out of control. What then? When would she be moved to realization? When everyone, except her, is affected by one or all of these problems. Some encroach on her family members already, is that not close enough? I don?t mean to sound like I am chastising here. I?m merely pointing out the omens I see. I don?t think anyone needs to feel bad, because I don?t think this was meant to be, until now. The checklist of whether it?s the right idea is in every single thing. Something of this magnitude needs that many endorsements. Take any given thing and ask if it could be any more effectively placed for the contrast. I look at this computer in front of me. It?s just outdated enough for a total technology leap to really have a great impact with. If it was already able to make holographic images, and contact anyone in the world, then it wouldn?t seem like such wonder if it was fully upgraded tomorrow. If the Queen and Prince Phillip had done anything more ambitious than sell organic vegetables, then a move like what I?m suggesting wouldn?t be such a shock. The fact that their business to date has been so quaint is part of what will make free world a quantum leap. Yet, the fact that it was organic vegetables was surprising, just enough, to soften us slightly for the shock of a total turnaround. No one will see that she is the one, because people can?t really imagine that far beyond their own position, but when she elevates them all, they will be able to recognise who she is; for they will be on the same level. You, I believe, will be able to see her now, because you?re high up too- just on a different mountain. The peaks are close at that altitude, because in conceptual world, gravity has different rules, and the peaks lean in towards each other. I can see it because I think differently, but I had to be born different to be capable of this. The miracle of what God does, I think, is taking this apparently overlapping world and making it unique and specific to each one of us. We each get a perspective that would be no different even if it was the only one. Mine has shown me this. Who am I to advise all this? I am a commoner. Perfect! I am one of the prime candidates for a move like free world to transform. I was born with a unique disability called Asperger?s Syndrome, a subtle form of autism, which makes some things difficult, but consequently it makes other things easier- e.g. philosophy. Tolkien and Einstein are thought to have had it. I am also a Gemini like you. And I love writing and singing songs, though my life has been unaccommodating to success at this pursuit, so far. I draw. I tried writing a book once, but it needs a few more drafts before its ready for publishing. Coming up with free world is my swansong though By the time it happens, God willing, I will achieve my own personal goals, and they will be blissfully deemphasized, by everyone else achieving theirs at the same time. A while ago, before this idea, I thought of writing you and suggesting that you make a new Beatles, with George?s son and John?s two sons. I thought, ?Paul achieved the pinnacle of success in the sixties; wouldn?t it be great, and unexpected, if he did it again.? I also thought that Cat Stevens (Who already hears the stage calling him again) could do a show-stopping comeback, if he wanted to. Maybe getting Bob and Leonard either side, and Don Mclean and Rodriguez either side of them, all as his back up. Then I thought, wouldn?t it be even greater if the two comebacks were combined. And wouldn?t it be even greater if they came up with new, even better songs. A show that big would be more than a show; I kind of envisioned that it would be like a huge protest- like Cat would say ?We?re not going to stop singing until everyone stops fighting and starts loving each other.? More recently, I thought of the idea that it would be within your means to assemble every musician, and conduct them in a grand orchestra. In that position, you wouldn?t even have to perform yourself, you could just let your part shine through in the production. I used to think it would be wonderful if I could synthesize favourite albums and songs into notes, by speeding them up ?til they were half a second long. A grand orchestra would be like a natural version of this. You could have a whole spectrum of sounds at your fingertips, Black Sabbath at one end of the scale, different line-ups for sharps and majors, and The Beach Boys at the other end, also with various line-ups. And Carl and Dennis could even be sampled in, with archive recordings. You could even incorporate my half-second idea if you want. Basically you can pull music out of the nosedive it?s in, and fly it to a new stratosphere. And, sorry, but I don?t think anyone else could, they could all support you, but on their own, no. The ultimate song is life itself, in harmony A music teacher told me once that the reason a good song sounds so good is because it is a glimpse of what utopia would sound like. You can produce this song. I know you?re not as young as you once were, but that should be more of an advantage than disadvantage. The same with the Queen. Incidentally, have you had dimethyltryptamine? It is the strongest drug, but non addictive. The experience is so satisfying that one doesn?t feel like having more, not for a while anyway. I was as compulsive as they come, but I always took a week, at least, to come to terms with each experience. And it?s not bad for the health; it actually seems to purge bad health. It?s classed as a hallucinogen, but I see it as dehallucinogen- it makes me feel that my regular view of life was the hallucination, by showing me a heightened reality, that feels very convincingly like true reality. In our own time we could absorb an alchemy of all drugs. Though, ultimately, I envision a world where no one will feel the need for any drugs, because they will attain perfect well-being and nirvana. Abstaining out of choice. I will never respond to force, if I did the purpose of the force is defeated anyway. If they want us to conform, then the only way is to give us the choice to. If we just succumb to force, it?s not really us giving in. Everybody knows this is the way. It?s just been a long, long time and they need a big reminder. Not, to learn something new, but to get in touch with what they intrinsically know. To give voice to what they silently cry out for. Every one loves- to some degree- something. Even the violent, love something, misguidedly enough to compel them. Love, to its total degree, is desire to the point that we place the object above even ourselves. And, by doing so, we end up elevating ourselves. Me, I love this future. Before I imagined it, I had no idea of what an absolute sham the present is. But it is a worthwhile sham because it makes the future possible. Isn?t the fact that we?ve had to endure this sham, a good reason to forgive us for drug taking and other disobediences? Losing is the enemy, not each other. And it is the enemy because of the winning that it keeps us from. Like the Salvation Army, anyone hoping to save anyone has to take a military approach. But carry that idea further, and be aggressive in applying love where it?s needed, I say. I would love to see all the armies of the world fighting for salvation. To me, saving people, like the Salvation Army do, is far more of a feat than any fighting force, ever. In the perspective of truth, peace is a much heavier sword to wield. To save people is so much more impressive than killing them. To convert people is so much greater than conquering. Ghandi was far more vicious than Alexander, in battling the real enemy. I don?t need to tell you that I see John Lennon as a great warrior. And one of the original veterans, was Jesus. He wasn?t recognised as Messiah because he didn?t lead a Davidian armed uprising against the Romans. He could have done that, but instead he did something far more effective. He penetrated, with extreme peace, all the way to Constantine, and converted them all. That is so much more exciting to me than if he had of stormed Rome. Now he has penetrated all the way through to a nihilistic young man like me. The position of human existence is, clearly, a platform for great spiritual feats to be conducted from. As a cooperative force, we would soon be an entity, greater than the sum of our parts, yet individual as well, more so than we ever could?ve been before. Then we could do what we?ve never even dreamed of. Our ability to dream is somewhat conditioned by our forecast of the possibilities. My true vision is actually a lot more off the wall than the toned down version I?ve outlined here. I don?t want something alternative thinkers will say ?right on? to. I want something that will surprise them too. But I would probably need an atmosphere of real free speech- the kind that would come very quickly from any move towards these ideals. I have refrained from saying too much, for brevity, and for the sake of not wanting to risk being grouped into any kind of a crackpot category. Though I have consciously gone out on a few limbs. There are lots of loonies who have given a bad name to social concern. Though, they do provide a good opposite standard to be mindful of. I have checked myself every step of the way to make certain that I?m not suffering any delusions akin to what they do. Speaking of loonies; they are among the people who would be helped by free world It is the people that currently seem the most unhelpable, that would suddenly be totally helped by its advent. Mental illness is often a by-product of the unfree world. Most problem areas are. They would not only be suddenly helped by free world, the sources would be removed. It would treat the symptoms and the cause. I could go on and on, but I feel that I must let you know about this ASAP, so I will send this for now, and if you haven?t read it by next week, I?ll send another instalment. If you choose this task, then I trust you will do it quickly and efficiently, and contact me for further details. Being a fan, it will be nice to hear from you, but this is strictly business. If you don?t want it, then let me know so I can write to Robert Plant- my second choice; or Ken Hensley- my third. Maybe you don?t agree, maybe I?m way off, but surely there is some substance here; enough for some people to be saved who otherwise wouldn?t be. I am currently at a drug rehab called Moonyah Recovery Centre, in Queensland, Australia, under pressure from court. It works out well though, because a letter like this has more validity written by a person who is not on drugs. It?s not bad here, it?s quite good really. I can accept phone calls so ring anytime. Or you can always get hold of me through my mum Elizabeth, she?s always knows where I am. The Moonyah number is 61 7 3369 0922. Mums? is 61 2 6624 3919. To reiterate my position, I?m not suggesting we live in a world where everything is overindulgent, drug laced, and sex crazed. I?m suggesting we stop living in a world where so many go without, and where going without pushes people to breaking point on a regular basis. And if living in paradise is what we have to do to achieve this, I?m prepared. Yours Sincerely, Tully Chandler p.s I don?t relish giving advice to someone I admire so much- as though you don?t already know better. Yet, a good student doesn?t just become a cheap junior imitation of his master. He takes it further. Just like you and your contemporaries did with the blues and rock. The masters that you were apprenticed to, took it a long way, and you took it a lot further, then the next apprentices took it even further. Then there was lull. That lull has been, I?m saying, for dramatic effect. Just like a pause in the middle of a song, followed by a sudden pick-up. I paid no attention to anything but music, and philosophers who would have rocked, if the medium had of been around then. You have been one of my professors and this is my assignment- rushed- that I am handing in. Part 2 I have a friend who recently got 15 years non parole for micrograms of LSD, some ecstasy, and a few plants. The police exaggerated the street value, and made him out to be big time. It was his first offence. He?s over fifty. But he is handling it very well. This guy is one of the loveliest people I?ve ever met, anywhere. He and I write long letters like this, to each other often. He has loving spiritual beliefs, that he continues to exercise even through the worst stages of his ordeal. Not in some naïve, brave faced way; but with even more realness than most unfettered people. He would be a boon instead of a burden if something more imaginative than prison was thought of for him. I personally think that he should simply be let go. But, failing that, there are about a hundred alternatives to hard time, that would not only be better for him, but also the community. This man, gets off on giving, and would do well if there was some kind of program where he could work off his debt to society. It was probably more generosity than greed that got him into trouble. He was going to make the liquid LSD into tabs, to pass on to his friends, and any money he accepted would have probably just been to cover costs. He?s into Rajneesh, and he was a member of a fun sounding commune. It?s not easy to get hold of LSD. He must have been very resourceful. It?s such a shame that his talents go to waste, when he would gladly use them productively, if given a chance. He is a prime example of many talented, well meaning people, who are locked away. If the judges were to actually meet some of these people they would see that they aren?t bad at all. But no one ever meets them. They are swept under the carpet, but they aren?t dust, they are gold. So much waste could be saved in this one area alone. If they were given alternatives to prison, even something like being sent to an island somewhere- like early Australia- they would be so appreciative. Their guards would be relieved, not having to look after them. And everyone would soon notice the extra contributions that these grateful souls would give. Give a man his life back and he will use it well the second time. The law has done a very good job of convincing them that they will serve their entire sentences. If a disaster was coming, and every available hand was needed on deck, to have a hope of surviving, would people still want these men and women locked up for simply giving people what they wanted and would have got anyway? And, the concept of punishing, is logically backward. They?re so busy punishing that they fail to prevent the next crime, and the next? It may sound radical, but it, like most things I?ve mentioned, is already happening slowly. Rehabs, like the one I?m in, are providing alternatives to prison. And the way a rehab works is that it tells us ?You can leave here and use as much drugs as you want, there?s no walls stopping you, but we implore you not to, and we offer you this information about how harmful drugs can be, and we offer you help if you want to keep away from them.? Rehabs have a lot more success than prisons. Prison, especially for these kinds of offences, is such an outdated method. It comes from a time when we didn?t have the technology and understanding we do now. A lot of prisons, are actually from those times, and totally unfit by modern standards. It is, more often than not, a human rights abuse; which means the governors are more criminal than those they govern. But they?re all just following orders, and working with what they?re given. The thing is that most criminals were just working with what they were given too. The other thing is; the Queen effectively follows orders too, instead of giving them, which she should be doing. Everyone wants to pass the responsibility. This is almost apt, because it is in fact everyone?s responsibility. The only sin in Eden, as far as I can see, was evading responsibility If Adam had of simply stood up and said ? Yes, I ate from the tree; I knew it was wrong, I?m sorry, and I won?t do it again,? God might have been more lenient. It was because he blamed Eve, and she blamed the serpent, that it went bad for them, and continues to, for us. It was all their faults. And, it is all of ours?. I don?t care who is more to blame than who. I will stand up and take responsibility. That?s really all I?m suggesting in this letter. If we stop passing the buck, and stop it here, all the woes will stop with it. One problem too is that a disgraceful percentage of the responsibles, are culprits. There is no reasonable way to expect that they will ever get on top of their areas of responsibility. And it is not unreasonable of me to indict them as a reason for the perpetuation of those problems. As long as responsibility is divided up into sections, the enemy (Losing) can continue to jump from one to the other. Rousseau summed it up when he pointed out that anarchism isn?t everyone running riot, it?s actually a far more stringent law than we currently have People using their own - presently unexercised- consciences; and being accountable to their fellows. Privacy is for people that have things to hide. People that oppose loosening of laws, are people who are afraid of real laws. One can not evade real laws, like they can the current ones. Another pass the parcel game is prioritising. Prisoners are low on the priority list of people who need help; and maybe they should be- if it was a prioritised list. But it isn?t. It?s easy to save everyone who needs saving. So long as people give up their vain attempts to avoid responsibility. The current ?prioritising? is just an excuse for helping no one at all. We say ?not them? because ?they need it more.? Eventually prioritising just about everyone off the list. And then even the priorities we end up with, don?t get helped either, because of financial concerns. The most common priority is ourselves. It?s such a struggle for me to look after myself, that I hardly ever have the time or energy to do things for others. But this is where lateral thinking comes in; when we see that by helping others, we are helping ourselves. This is rather hard to see, though. That is why a coordinator like her would be so much help. She is no stranger to the I am you, and you are me concept, she was using it even before I Am The Walrus came out. Even a small workforce can?t be expected to function without an overseer. Who currently oversees us all? [By the way, is that the meaning of that title, that the I is literally everything, even the walrus swimming in the sea?] Darwinially speaking, all animals are our ancestors. And, personally speaking, aren?t we the sum total of all our ancestors; going all the way back to God. If God is omnipotent, then even from so many generations away aren?t we omnipotent too? I used to like this concept, intellectually, but I had trouble believing it could actually be applied in any practical way?until now. The prospect of this future is so wondrous that it has surpassed even my imaginative musings of what might be. There is, unfortunately, a certain barrier that prevents us pressing ahead with these good intentions; especially the grand ones. I see it as the shell. The one that has enclosed us, all this time, but that we need to break out of. It is fear of the unknown, and unwillingness to accept that we were wrong; etc. Conceptual, but every bit as hard as matter. Yet, like shell, it?s pretty delicate, once given a decent push. That first push seems like the only hard one really, after that it?s easy. I don?t think I?m getting carried away with supernatural ideas in this letter. I think it?s more of a supernatural phenomenon that people doubt the supernatural. If there was a court decision on whether or not magic and miracles are true, it would have been overwhelmingly won by now; given the amount of evidence that has been presented. The concept that there is more to life than what we can see, is so resoundingly obvious, yet so seldom practiced. I guess pride and ego are powerful forces. And I guess the supernatural hasn?t wanted to be seen ?til now. I do feel proud of this idea. I feel that I can?t take much credit for it, though, because it looks like fate has been aiming for it since day one. I can?t claim that any angel has come and endorsed it personally- but I?m waiting. However, if I look at Gods? voice as the circumstances that surround, then it is endorsed. Brian said that music was the voice of God. It has prepared the world beautifully for the possibility of a free world. Elvis came on the heel of the blues, and sent vibrations that have swirled in amazing patterns across the whole world. Since those first notes were sung into that microphone at Sun, they have never stopped. At any given time, thousands around the world are playing My Happiness, and every other song he sang. And good feeling has been duly inspired everywhere it went; and the message got continuously louder, through the likes of you. The mark of God, in my books, is when the message resounds like that. Jesus spoke on the mount, and people are still hearing it. Krishna spoke to Arjuna, and people are still overhearing it. Ramakrishna too, never wrote a book, he just spoke so profoundly that people remembered what he said and wrote it down. I was thinking about the name Moses one day, and about how the middle s is sounded like a z. In Egyptian names like Tutmoses, it has an s sound. So I imagined if Moses had an s sound. It then sounded like Mosis, which made me think of osmosis. I then was hit with the concept of all those stories written on paper, feeding their way up through the tree of life, like water does in a real tree, through osmosis. His book was one of the first big ones. Looked at objectively, it is the centre of the seed. Whatever people choose to believe individually, there is no denying that that book has had influence, one way or another, on the albumen around it. That mans? actions, and those of others in bible stories, were pretty inspirational. In fact, in the realm of human achievements, they, and other stories, have been our water. Moses going to Ramses, is kind of like you going to the Queen. Moses was, apparently, a bit inflexible and demanding though, whereas you will not have to be. Moses was calling for a separation, but you will be calling for unity, and mutual benefit. The idea of paradoxical thinking, I think, is that the paradox shifts back and forth several times, before finally making unified sense. When you said in one of your interviews, that ?there are seven levels? thing, my personal interpretation was that there are seven back and forths one must do in order to penetrate a mystery. People usually give up by 3 or 4, or at the most 5, so the mysteries are well protected. But it inspired me to keep the paradox going for more a few more bounces. The answer comes when both sides are satisfied equally. Like when writing a song, and trying to find the right rhyme, without compromising the meaning; every time, when I finally find the right rhyme, it just happens to be right expression of the meaning too. And it often takes the equivalent of seven levels to get there. The paradoxes involved in the Queen solution, are at least sevenfold, but the unified sense that they ultimately make, is so compelling, that I think it will be easy for you to explain it to her, with the proper setting. Not only is the sense compelling. The lack of sense that currently pervades is compelling too. Hopefully in the instances she fails to see one, she will at least see the other. God could probably give endorsement to this, by way of a well timed provable miracle. But it might be too disruptive to the process. All miracles would be proven or disproved in free world. But it seems a shame to come all this way, apparently on our own steam, and not cross the finish line on our own. A while back I imagined how the world would react if Jesus came back. People would stop their discordant behaviour quick smart. And, I like to think, a lot of the reforms similar to what I?ve suggested herein would come about very quickly. But I would see it as ten times more of a miracle if she did it. For her to be the focus of the media, for as long as it took to get through to everyone, would be far more glorious, to me, than Jesus riding a white cloud. Because, with him, it wouldn?t really be us doing it. With her, it still could be. And, I kind of expect him to come. But not her. Even after all this that I?ve written, I don?t really expect this to happen. I?ll be just as shocked as everyone else. But I?ll also be as pleased. For me, a miracle is even more of a miracle if it happens scientifically as well as supernaturally. Science, seen to its full degree, is very super. But I?m talking about something like when the paradox comes together, like my example of the right lyric. An example, keeping to the current theme, is one I read in a book by Barbara Theiring, called Jesus The Man. She contended that when he was crucified, he was resurrected by actual means- that he was resuscitated! She explained, very convincingly, that he was taken down from the cross when he was right in the no mans? land between life and death. The other two were still alive, and had to have their legs broken. But he was deemed dead, due to his convincing last comments, and the spear thrust into his side, which elicited no reaction. Water and blood flowed out of the wound, and Barbara pointed out that this is actually a sign that the person still lives. So he was taken into a cave, where myrrh and a hundred aloes were applied to him. Ostensibly a burial preparation, but actually the perfect medicine for what he had suffered. So, the idea that his buddies came through for him, and actually helped him beat the death penalty, is far more inspiring to me than the ?it just miraculously happened? explanation. Yet, the logical explanation is miraculous. For people to rescue someone that way is a miracle. And God is renowned for working through people. So really, it?s both explanations in one- far better than one or the other. And there was also a fairly auspicious coincidence in myrrh being the gift he got as a baby, and an active ingredient in what brought him back to life. Another example is looking at Moses? 6 day creation as 6 ages of evolution; which if a day to God is the equivalent to an age for us, makes perfect sense. To me, the Queen would be better than two answers in one. She would be bringing everything together, and then some. Her mother was portrayed as soft on the outside, but brilliantly ruthless underneath. Perhaps she is the opposite, and a total softy underneath. Her uncompromising image, though, is what puts her at the pinnacle necessary, to save us. Imagine if she came out with a song, man! That would be the ultimate show stopper. Johnny Lydon would clap along! Me, I?d want to see him perform with her, but I can?t have everything. I?ll settle for the world saved, and my friend let out of maximum security. Really, I?d be happy enough if just a few thousand children were saved. However, I must be clear about this It really has to be all. Not, all or nothing. Just all. There is no compromise when it comes to saving lives. This doesn?t mean anything more extreme just a few doors have to be opened, and all of them will be. I said that my true vision is a lot more off the wall than this toned down version. My own mind has toned it down for me. It has come to me in increments. Just today I thought of how some fields of entertainment could be galvanised into positive action There is already a slight leaning in the direction of professional sportspeople to do community based things. Imagine if they all stopped their competitive games, and concentrated entirely on welfare. [I feel funny telling you to imagine anything; but I trust that I will be vindicated.] All the energy of our world is rendered invisible by competition. Take bikers for instance. They are a huge force, but their lack of direction and civil conflicts render them relatively insignificant. They do get together to deliver toys to needy kids once a year, though- yet another leaning. Gangsters are another example. And criminals in general, putting all that effort into an aim that goes nowhere. The police are putting an equal amount into nothing. Religions too. If everyone were to stop and realise the colossal amounts they?re wasting, they would see how much they could have via cooperation. If it?s greed or need that makes people fight, then they should be really greedy and go after this huge cake that sits right next to the crumbs they fight over. Babylon is nearly over, because we all, almost speak the same language again. p.s. Do you think that ?second coming? could be a deliberate divine pun? In keeping with my star-seed theorem. I am a big fan of wordplay. One of my favourites is Abraham; if you revolve the b, making it a g- adding the high branch of the h, which you break off, to make it into an n; it becomes Anagram. And Abraham, or Abram, is basically an anagram of Brahma, (who is his Hindu counterpart- both being the great father.) What?s more, Abraham?s wife, originally called Sarai, which sounds Indian, corresponds to Brahmas? consort Sarasvati. Also there are other god names hidden in Abraham; such as Rama and Ra. A similar thing happens with Prometheus, which contains Morpheus, Proteus, Hermes, Horus, and a lot more which I can?t think of right now. The relevance of this, is that there is a certain point when something becomes more than just coincidence. My whole life has teetered on that point. But the idea of free world goes way past it. So I will trust that it will make it to you, and that if it doesn?t, there is a meant to be reason, which will become plain to me in time.
-
Dear Paul, Next Installment. In my desire to convey, I posted installment no. 1 on your message board it got a few unencouraging comments. However, that fits. I said that it was not intended to be exoteric. If this proposal was something that heaps of people agreed with, it wouldn?t work. The surprise element is a crucial part of it. I should say the shock element, but shock is seldom pleasant- this one would be. It would be so ultra pleasant, that everyone, including me, might be stunned into motionless for hours. Although, it would be accompanied by some compelling calls to action, so perhaps they?d even each other out. The sheer pleasure that could be, is actually what prevents people from seeing how this could work. When contemplating great pleasures, one usually has trouble believing that they could happen the greater the pleasure, the greater the difficulty. For instance when we are physically attracted, we say ?Oh, she won?t go for me.? I?m sure even rock stars experience this dynamic. Well, when it comes to asking for something as grand as this, no wonder no one is prepared to allow the possibility into their minds. Another example is when a person has serious illness, and they are afraid to believe in unconventional cures, because it would set them up for a fall if it didn?t work. Many won?t raise their hopes even for conventional cures. Moreover, I am suggesting too, that this is the secret of the universe. So of course it?s not something that people will immediately say? Oh yeah!? to. It would never have remained hidden, if it was that easy to see. And yet it is easy, for someone who is willing to get real. In fact half of its encryption is that it is painfully easy to see. This stops people from seeing it, because over obviousness is a great hiding place, and because they are that loathe to admit that it was right in front of them all along. Not wanting to be wrong, is almost as powerful an inhibition as the aforementioned difficulty. There also a little trick that the cerebral cortex plays on our consciousnesses, where it screens information, and allows only that which concords with our goals. This principle was explained to me with an example of a person setting a goal to buy a certain kind of car- say, a red one- suddenly the person starts to notice ads for red cars all over the place. He was seeing that same information before, but his cerebral cortex was screening it because it didn?t have relevance to his goals. Now it gets noticed. So, we have to set the goal before we see how possible it might be. (It seems like it would be easier the other way round.) With cars and other more common goals, the possibility of achieving them is widely known; but with major changes like this, it isn?t. I set the goal a long time ago; and though it made a lot of sense that changes should happen, I could never really see how. I had a few ideas for how, but they were all dependant on loose factors- and I was a loose factor too. And I wasn?t aiming high enough. It?s fortuitous that nothing got off the ground ?til now. With all the tricks of the mind, and the way fortune works, the only way one can truly claim to know anything for sure, is if they admit regularly that they don?t. Not to invite doubt; but to increase sureness. Doubt already comes uninvited, and is increased by people being too sure. I mean being open to even the possibility that our own perceptions are wrong. Surrounded by wrong, we come to regard our own eyes as the only safe judge. But they are wrong too. Actual Truth is so gigantic, it sees us. Like a mythical giant a man doesn?t see a giant, the giant sees him. We see things smaller than us, and our own size maybe, and even things that are big but in our scope of vision. But a giant, of the size that I?m suggesting, is so big that we can only take in a portion of it at a time. As if just its foot takes up our entire field of vision. Well! What I am contending here, is literally giants! Not a hundred times bigger, not a thousand, not a million, but a billion! at least! They are so big that we can?t even see a foot; all we can see is microscopic particles. The particular particles that we see though, are the most relevant and all encompassing The fertilizing egg. The innermost depth of the most private place in this great goddesses' body. Magically surrounded by the essence of several father gods. And maybe even another goddess or two. This is no metaphor. It is the real physics and shape of the universe. The puzzle is a lot easier to put together when one knows what picture it makes. This idea saw me. I still continue the ritual of regularly admitting that I could be wrong about all of this. I like doing it in fact, because each time my questions confirm it for me all the more. But sure as I am, I would gladly be proven wrong- if only someone would come up with some facts to debate with. I?ve run the idea past a few individuals, who I thought might be able to fathom some of it, but they, generally, have more or less just said the typical responses like ?that will never happen? and ?people won?t do that? and so on. No one has countered with any facts- I?ve provided many. If you Sir Paul, really don?t end up liking this, then I will respect your judgment, but please try to include some factual reasons. A consideration with this much potential, deserves to be looked at properly. It at least deserves to have judgment reserved till the end. Any judgment, anywhere, that preempts and jumps ahead is automatically suspect. If I find myself judging before the ?trial? is over- that is, the relevant circumstances- I know to question myself. (But there is one instance where early judgment is cool, when its judgment in favour! A judge can dismiss a trial at any stage, to declare the defendant not guilty, but to pronounce them guilty, that requires seeing the whole case out.) If someone told me ?Hey, I can save every suffering child in a matter of days? and the person showed no outward signs of actually having the means, I would still listen, just out of respect for the boldness of his claim. And who am I to judge by his outward appearance whether or not he has the means? The answer has been hidden for a very long time. If some derelict says he has it, then maybe its there; it?s not been found anywhere else, and it?s not in the places it should be. If the derelict just said something like ?hey buddy, I?ve got some diamonds in my shoes can you help me get them out.? I would probably ignore him. Or if he said, "I know how to help 20 suffering children.? I?d still keep walking. But if he said every child, I?d have to listen. Especially if he said he had incontrovertible proof, and an endless supply of it. If something is true it has thousands and thousands of proofs, because it actually happened. If it?s false, the circumstances around it won?t match. The same goes for something that could happen. I can keep citing proofs. This is still just the tip of the iceberg. (It is objective proof, but the idea is only designed for a specific audience- at this stage.) No one thought an iceberg would sink the Titanic; it goes to show how many people can be wrong, especially when the truth doesn?t agree with them. This idea is the opposite of a disaster- a disaster is unforeseeable tragedy, this is unforeseeable opportunity. It?s not something I expect a regular passenger to understand- not even the captains on this ship can be expected to understand much. But the queen can tell a captain what to do. If she was on the Titanic she could have told the captain to turn that ship around at any stage of the voyage. She actually has an honorary but real position as supreme commander of all ships in her seas, or something like it. (I?m not sure of my facts here, I?m just guessing) Position or not, she has that ability- seldom if ever exercised- but real. And just as she has it with ships, she has it with everything else. Imagine her, on any ship, telling the captain to turn around. Most would do it in a heartbeat; even the demurrers would do it pretty quickly if she told them that there was a reason, equivalent to this one. (I guess I must be Jack Dawson,(Leonardo Di Caprio,) in this metaphor.) What has been the use of royal power accrued through history, if not for something grand like this? What use for all her wealth, and yours too Sir Paul? What has been the use of everything through history? The saying ?you can?t take it with you when you go?, takes on new meaning when free world is considered. The wealth- inverted from saved to given- would actually be the fuel that would rocket us into the next world; where the real wealth is. Life, at the very least, is a story. What ending, other than this one would fit? The mood has been supremely set for a miracle. How could anyone be satisfied with anything but a spectacular twist? The irony is that it wouldn?t be set, if people expected the miracle. (I don?t even expect it, but I am so dissatisfied with current expectations that I have to believe in an alternative.) For magic to come into a story, a convincing backdrop of drab reality has to precede it. (Sure this life has its moments, but compared to the super life, its drab. And any moments it?s had, are cancelled by the tragedies anyway.) This is why people have trouble believing in God, or anything grand, because to believe means coming terms with the fact that this God must have engineered, or condoned, or allowed all the unlikable aspects as well as the likable ones. [maybe God is like the queen, and unaware of being able to help! ? just kidding] The implications of total omnipotence can seem like a total insult on top of every hardship we?ve endured! But what if there was a reason that made it worthwhile? Jesus called on his disciples, to literally, knowingly endure all manner of hardships? That doesn?t make sense, unless there is a reason for it- a good reason. But even if these considerations are wrong. Even if I?m totally off track with this God stuff, there are compelling enough reasons just in the spectrum of practical Earthly needs. Take any cause, and it?s just about enough on its own I think its worth trying, just for the chance that it might, for example, save the endangered tigers. Those majestic tigers have survived, down to less than a hundred in some species, and wouldn?t it be the most wonderful thing, just at the last minute, if the cavalry arrives. I could name a thousand other prominent examples, just from the animal kingdom. Then there?s people situations, like wars. This meeting of God and Earth is the super paradox where like an X, the two apexes meet, and go beyond meeting, to become the star of David. The divine considerations are just as imperative as the human ones. Yet, we are blind to them both? until now. Sorry that it comes to you through such quaint messaging as me, but I make no apologies for the message itself, there is nothing quaint about it. I really don?t think God can personally endorse this, Sir Paul; it would surely blow the deal. Signs and omens maybe, which I think there are plenty of. One suggestion I can make, though, is that you run the idea by a few wise men and women that you know. Don?t, please, leave a decision like this up to one mind, even one as exceptional as yours. Call a council, and see what they have to say. You have access to some of the greatest minds in history. Me, I have to rely on my imagination. DMT and a few other routes could probably give some more direct perception, which is why I mentioned it. Though you shouldn?t even need it; but it?s there as a last resort if you have insurmountable doubts. There is a certain unspoken emphasis on doing it for ourselves that I can?t put in to words. If this emphasis was spoken, it wouldn?t have the desired effect. I guess it?s like love; we can?t tell our partner how to reciprocate, it wouldn?t feel like they were reciprocating if we did. Yet too much mystery is not helpful either I am laying a lot on the line here- explicitly- because I know that even when I?ve said it all, there will still be no shortage of mystery. Even when the Gods reveal themselves, as I am sure they will after the queen does her thing, there will still be no shortage. However, currently, far from shortage, there is too much- way too much. Deliberately too much. All; I propose, for the purpose of revealing God?s glory. The avalanche of mystery that until now has pervaded, has been a curtain. But the curtain itself will shape and weave into the cape that God will wear, to fly us into skies that are high even by godly standards. When I say God, I am speaking in a collective sense; like how ?Man? denotes all men and women. I believe that any single God is so closely cooperative with the others, that they represent a whole body anyway, like a perfectly harmonious council. Yet, I do think, seven or more macrocosms up, there is a head God (I imagine a white light image) that presides; and presides so well, that each god on down represents precisely, every ordinance. I wrote about always being open to the possibility that I could be wrong. I am also always open to the possibility that there could be more- lots more. I also wrote about the unwillingness of people to accept, or even entertain, these possibilities. This, I referred to in the first installment as the shell around the egg. The shell is necessary, to contain the coming to life activity that goes on inside it. And it is an ingredient in that life activity, provoking it to break out and fly. It is the pupa of the cocoon. The breaking out is part of the coming to life. Just as birth is a key ingredient in making a child. It?s not just a process, it?s an ingredient, in the most secret of recipes How to make life. And, maybe one way of understanding the impossible-to-understand is by reasoning that the shell has to be hard, in order to contain the rambunctious life that is us. If it wasn?t as hard we would have clawed our way out prematurely. Maybe, also we can see it the way we look at nature. Nature looks vicious on those wildlife documentaries, but we accept it because ?it?s nature.? Perhaps we have to remove our immediate empathy, to have the broader sense of empathy necessary to effect a cure. I have heard it said by some radicals, such as Joel Goldsmith, that to help the problems of the world, we need to meditate and say ?there is no problem.? Maybe this is what they mean. I have always thought a lot of you Sir Paul. As much as I have though, I still have to ask; do you believe in God? Does anyone really believe? If someone really believed, I think they would get unlimited power with that belief. But what fun would it be, if an individual got that power? Better for us all to get it at once! Hence free world. It would not only give us all an equally infinite share, it would give some that deserved it, even more power By definition, there can?t be greater degrees of infinity. But there are some people that are going to have to get extra special treatment I?m talking about the oppressed. The new royalty should be the little princes and princesses that have endured the worst of the worlds? sin. Nothing can ever make up for what they have endured. But we can try. I don?t mean to be insensitive, but maybe something can make up for what some have endured. Maybe even the most horrific terrors, are there for a reason. I say a big maybe here, everything else I?m rather certain of, but this is very theoretical Maybe, since no life, is death, and life must be absent, to appear, then we are rising up from the dead here. That, it?s a fair guess to say, would involve some excruciating ordeals, but they?d all be worth it. In other words, maybe it?s all large-scale growing pains. And maybe nothing can make up for it, but free world and next-scale-up world can compensate for it- balance it out. I don?t know if this theory is true, but I do know that compared to the what might be, the what is, may as well be death. Just because I can?t see it, the child abuse and other atrocities going on in the world right now, render any notion of life I ever had defunct. And, as awareness increases, it?s like I can see it. There is some terrible evil going on in the world right now. The first step of fighting it is being able to look at it. I reckon it?s 50%. And, if not fighting it with every breath in our body is sin too, then that takes it up to over 99%. Now; I?m suggesting that we reverse those statistics. Until, in actual accordance with our ideal ideals, there is barely a 1% chance of any evil occurring. The fact that it was 99%, proves that 1% is possible. And even the 1% would be struggling to exist, in these events. The worst sin of all, should very quickly become; the act of saying ?no, that can never happen? Defeatism in this battle, is very deadly. And it is very rife; like defeatism does, it spreads. I would have done as David did against Goliath, if I was in his position. I am doing so now! But I am not fighting this Goliath openly; then, I might not stand a chance. Instead I am being clever Contacting you is my sling. And with a heart full of faith I trust that it will then hit the temple of over-proud evil. Some defeatists will say that the causes I speak of should be left up to the relevant authorities. I say that doing so is inviting the problems to continue. What army can hope to make a successful attack, if it has enemy agents amongst its ranks? The relevant authorities are riddled! The fact that they don?t make realistic attempts to sort their ranks, indicates that the higher ranks are the worst. If they are not corrupt, they are incompetent, and I don?t know which is worse. And what if we are all one entity? How tragic it is that this entity is doing this to itself! But it sets the scene so perfectly for a turnaround. The formula that I propose can overthrow every beurocracy in the world. It can cut through all the red tape, and put red carpets in their place. No one waits in cues in free world. No security, or selling. All that energy freed! How can any government maintain its stranglehold on such a paradise. They wouldn?t even want to. And nasty people in general All the uptight wet blankets, would be left with no choice but to win with us, to be happy! (And maybe so they should- really they are the most in need of pity.) And these are the least of the benefits that will happen. These are the obvious things, which are guaranteed to happen. When you factor in these obvious things, you have then to look at the obvious things that they would cause. I will jump straight to the top of my wish list here- I could work my way up slowly- but that wouldn?t be in keeping with the dynamic The things that I imagine are that illness and death would be conquered, and even time, and other limitations. (I currently theorise, Sir Paul, that time exists only because it doesn?t exist We are living in one ultra extended moment, within subdivided days) Therefore, as things pick up, those constraints will fall away- like a shell. So, in the ideal version of this world, maybe; but definitely in the next, the people that we thought dead, will be alive with us! This, I know is a very bold thing to say, and I am sorry for any offence it may cause; I know that you, like everyone, have lost dear friends and relatives. I have too. And it is the ultimate example of wanting it so much that I am afraid to ask. More than anything in this world, or even the next, I would love to know my deceased half-sister Gabrielle, who died of a heroin overdose when I was little. It?s the most impossible wish, yet the one I want the most. I want it so much that I could never seriously contemplate it, until now. On equal par to having her back, is preventing it happening to my loved ones who still live! It?s another hard to look at cause, but of extreme importance to me. I spoke earlier about a derelicts? promises. One person, who didn?t have a conventional home, but made many astounding promises, was Jesus. He has claimed, with a fair bit of corresponding evidence, the ability to bring all the dead to life. And souls too. And he also talked about being reborn, which fits eerily with my starseed observation. I am, in light of my recent observations, suddenly a lot more interested in what he had to say. He, or his legacy, initially didn?t show many outward signs of being able to achieve these things. Most of what I saw actually looked contrary. They are starting to look a lot more convincing lately though. I am thinking that perhaps the contrary appearance was part of his cloaking device. That he didn?t advertise, he de-advertised. And that the de-advertising was in keeping with the design to let the world devastate itself enough to cause a sufficient contradistinction when it suddenly swings back the other way- to create a ?sling? effect. Jesus was David. He was the ?son of David? and that is David even more than David was. A son is everything his father was, and more! Refined, added to, and blessed with not having as many mistakes. This was one of Jesus? open secrets. He embraced the fact that his descendancy, like everyones?, traced back to God. And, by according full omnipotence to God, he continued the logic by reasoning that omnipotence would never lessen Therefore, from 48 generations away- or 480 - just one drop of that original blood, is surely enough- more than enough- to carry the unlimited power of God. If anything, it should be greater, not less. Yet the contention here is that the power is being used, but in a way that does not look spectacular. I, for instance, would have healed everyone, not just a few. But lo, it now appears like everyone can be healed, in a most thorough way. And it is entirely thanks to what he did, (or didn?t do.) Maybe, even an all-powerful god needs to build up a bit of momentum (or antimomentum) to perform a feat this big. It now appears like we can all have at least a BILLION times more than we ever could have thought to ask for. What would one of the people he met have said, if he told them that ?yes, I can conjure anything you want right now, but if you give it a little time I can do something a billion times greater?? That, basically, is what he said. He was the son of the creator God; his business was of the highest order. He was creating too. That is something worth waiting for! And yet, we may not really have even been waiting very long. I believe it is definitely less than 9 months, in higher scale time. I actually think it?s more like 4 days, which is the time that it takes for a mum?s egg, on this scale, to explode into life. For the first few days the egg shows activity on the surface, like a mould growing on it, then suddenly it starts to form. We, I believe, and could probably prove scientifically, are on the brink of the fourth day. (While the sex on the higher plane is still going.) We may not really have even been created yet, just inundated with information about what creation will be like. And the only way for it to be described to us, on this little scale, is for what we call ?life? to occur, then for us to realize that we have to multiply that by a billion, and break the shell of adversity to experience it. Every concept, every activity, every thought, every thing, came from one occurrence. The sun shone close enough to this planet to create a mixture of sugar and water and acid, which resulted in DNA. It has been an elaborate butterfly effect since. That original sunshine and the earth it reacted with wrote even this letter. I am no more than a mechanical process. The illusion of free will is convincing, so is the illusion of adversity, but they are, in fact, inflexible controlling factors. A paradox I?ve noticed (or should I say that original sunshine has noticed) is that divine direction is most at work when the situation appears accidental. This is evident most of all in our genesis; people still think it might have been an accident. This divine direction comes from the stars that shot in to the belly of this great goddess; and her herself. Not only is the next scale up a billion times bigger; the activity which connects us, is the most beautiful, holy, and intense there is; we know this from this world. Lovemaking is the one act that epitomizes beauty most in this world, what would it be like there? I imagine it very vividly. The gods that we imagine on this scale are tiny compared to these billion times bigger ones. I?m not saying they are actually tiny. (Actually they are huge, the greater gods are just a lot huger) Nor are they even relatively tiny. But comparing them is the only way I know to describe the indescribable size and stature of the great ones. Upon arriving, we will probably be in awe, like we were as babies in this world. But, since everything is better as well as bigger in the greater world, I imagine that growing up will be a lot easier. It might sound like I am totally unimpressed with the peaks of this life; but I appreciate certain things Music, I?ve got right into, for instance. But only because it points toward the next, in a way that only poetry can. One of poetry?s best qualities is the way it can say something, with a clever combination, better than a thousand plain words could. The concepts that I?m writing about have been alluded to. But never said. Perhaps, holding them back all this time, as that original sunshine has done, is so that when they are finally released explicitly, they will have the necessary impact to motivate you into action. Action enough that you will have the necessary impact to motivate her majesty. You are the sun Sir Paul, in one of its supremest forms, and she is the Earth in one of its. We all are; and we will all join in, if you do first. There is an age difference, but that should only heighten the occasion. She saw you sing Yesterday, man, in one the most brilliant glories this world has known. She was your audience. And, as for age, you?ll both be doing something that may well end age for everyone. Buddha was right, life is suffering; but real life is so grand that even when it suffers it aint all bad. This suffering not only isn?t that bad, it has an opposite-to-bad purpose. If she were young again, she would try pot and every other radical thing there is. I was thinking today, that it?s not solely the drug itself that could be helpful to her; it?s also the dynamic of the rush. Water pipes slam that sensation into ones brain in a way that few things can duplicate, and the social changes she can make would slam goodwill where needs to be, suddenly and beautifully. Forget drugs for a high, what about the absolute ecstatic thrill of saving a Childs? life? Now there?s a rush! If these things I propose happen, I will have tears of joy streaming down my cheeks. And what about the possibility of meeting these gods? Who might be hiding in those children, like genies in lamps. We show kindness, like kissing a frog in a fairy tale, and?. People believe in miracles, or aspire to believe in them, even in this stagnant stage of reality, how will it be when everything runs smoothly? That is a fairy tale ending. Going to the greatest queen of all time. From a line of great queens. And making her young again, by showing her the way to end the suffering of her people, by turning it into a pleasure they could never have known otherwise. The fountain of youth is maybe in these youths? Can I tell you what preceded this whole revelation? Well, I guess I can since this is a letter. But please, stop reading if you are easily offended- or even hard to offend- because this is a majorly sensitive area. Still reading? OK then. It starts with a question. Out of all the women in the world, who is the last, if you made a list that included them all, that you would want to make love to? My mum is a fine looking woman, especially for her age, but a very deeply entrenched inhibition makes me put her last on the list. Yet, if I was to see her as she was in the time she conceived me, my list might suddenly change. One, she was much finer looking in her youth. Two, I didn?t know her. She was, 32 years ago, a most attractive woman. My father thought so. Her beauty did not just make him come, it made him conceive. And he is me, is he not? Actually, when I take away the mere separations of time, and age, and knowledge, I am confronted with the top of the list! Isn?t that something? She?s gone from the bottom, of a very long list, all the way to the top. Actually there is one above her. My dear beloved grandmother. [Please know that I respect you grandma, if you ever read this.] I?m talking about her in her prime, right at the age she was when my grandfather penetrated her. He was me. Take it all the way back, and Eve, the mother of all living, is lying there with her legs spread. She is the most beautiful, and definitely at the top of my list. What am I saying! Isn?t even thinking about this more taboo than even my own mother? Eve is my great, great, great, many times over, grandmother. She is my Grand Mother. Well, actually, it doesn?t seem that taboo when I think of Eve, it should, but it doesn?t. Is it something to do with the distance, or is that Eve existed in a time juncture where inhibitions at one stage didn?t exist? The relevance of this is that if we trace the route all the back, past even Eve, we arrive at the supergoddess, who is being polytheistically pleasured by our collective parents. This route is hidden by many obstacles, one of which we?ve just crossed, the unthinkable taboo of incest. It occurs in the bible enough for us to now see that it was placed there, as a revolving fire sword, to guard the garden, which in turn guards the macrocosm. Eve lived upwards of 900 years, and her size, and mind were also proportionately 10 times bigger than what we are used to. Thus making the 100 to 1000,000,000 fluctuation a bit easier, by going to a 1000 first. She is the emissary of the goddess we are currently inside. [As a billionaire, Sir Paul, you should appreciate the number more than anyone.] The descendency got gradually smaller, after Noah, ?til eventually Moses floated into Pharaohs? life. All those stories are simply a genealogical record. The bible leads us to God, because it traces back there. That amazingly intricate path, is one path nonetheless, and it goes to the sun, and the sun goes to God, and the Gods go to the next macrocosm up, and so on to the next, and the next, for about seven sets of seven levels, and then it?s the white light Head God; say ?Hi.? I said before that God can?t endorse this letter- God, through little old me, is writing it! God writes everything, even the Dr Suess books. Anyway, the 900 hundred gradually went down to 120, then it went to 80 then it went through the middle ages down to as low as 40. During some bleak periods, the average might have been even lower. Then it started, just as gradually, to increase. And so it is still doing now in a wonderfully symmetrical arc. As our health increases, our life spans will too. But the stage of the arc we?re approaching is not going to be gradual for long, it will be vertical. Just like the beginning 900?s were. And at the top of that vertical rise we fly up to the next level. It?s so gigantic that it actually becomes simple again. The idea that everything has been planned, is a bit much, I know. But look at what happens when we have children. Those 9 months happen ultra automatically. To the world forming within that 9 months, it wouldn?t have seemed automatic, it would have seemed like each little thing was a decision that could have gone either way. (And maybe it never is totally automatic, but it has a very high chance of success, as shown by births and their ratio of success.) Here?s a notion It does go either way. In fact, it goes both ways. And every juncture spawns another two dimensions, or more. I?m saying that, if we take away limits, there is a parallel reality for every possibility that ever was. For every juncture that ever made us think ?What if it had gone the other way?? So, if this notion is as correct as it feels, that means that there is an alternate reality in which I am still with my ex, and one where my half sister still lives, and one where I was a success, and so on. There are so many of them that they make a blur. I am calling on the other varied versions of me to shoot for free world too. [Presuming they can hear me.] I believe it?s an undeniably good move in any reality, and it should happen in all these alternative worlds, simultaneously. So when, God willing, it happens in this world, a cumulative total effect will kick in, adding even more power. With all these variants and complexities, it seems beyond even an all-powerful god, to have engineered every detail. If there is any reliance on physics, and materiality, then bad was necessary for good. The only reason people complain about God, is because they assume that it?s within divine capabilities to make everything better with a magic wand. But just say the wand couldn?t do that, then free world is our only choice. Maybe God can do a C- section birth, if absolutely necessary, but we?re being given a chance first. Maybe even if we fail, God will do it all with a magic wand anyway. I probably shouldn?t be telling you this, because it might affect your determination. Maybe the reason that it might affect your determination, is the same reason that the world has been given every reason to believe that we?re on our own. And/or, maybe, even for Gods, or especially for Gods, the coming together of conceiving is a miracle, and for a miracle, the unmiraculous has to precede. But really the reasons behind it all don?t matter that much. Whether all, some, or none of these hypotheses are true, we still have to save the children. There has been too much dithering and bickering, and not enough action, for too long. Even if it was Gods? will, I defy it, just as much as I do anyone else who says children should suffer or be allowed to suffer. I should not even be speculating here about cosmic philosophy. The answers will be found out surely enough after the children are saved. The answer is to be absolute. Everything else in life is controversial. There is no controversy when it comes to child safety. But with all the other controversies going on, we have fallen into a pattern of effective acceptance. I believe that it wasn?t possible, until now, to actually do anything much, so don?t feel too bad. Just feel sufficiently bad enough to shock yourself out of the old thinking; that you, me and everyone was used to That it?s OK to go on with our lives while children suffer. It was OK, because the forces for the attack were not in position yet. But they are in position now. And the enemy is totally unaware. In a pincer movement we wipe the distractions away (the things that free world will make obsolete) and we wipe the evil away (the harm that comes to children.) Wiping the distractions away is half of saving the children. In fact a lot of children will be saved by it alone. Poverty is child abuse, malnutrition is child abuse, war is child abuse. Even children that aren?t being abused, are being abused so long as their fellow children are. As enraged as we should be if our own child was in danger, is how enraged we should be for them all. Yet we have to channel that rage into effectiveness. Getting angry and emotional is actually one of the obstacles. Currently it?s a big part of what blinds people. Even the people that actually want to do something can?t detach themselves sufficiently enough to see the problem, objectively enough, to make the right decisions. What?s worst of all is that people are so resigned to letting government?s rule, they accept the courts perpetuating treatment of the problem. The courts are not helping the problem at all. It?s ludicrous that there even needs to be a law written up about child abuse, the crime of it should go without saying, and the treatment of it should not be half-hearted, like it is with other crimes. Child abuse is the only offence. (and animal rights too, they are as helpless as kids) (and violation of women, or anyone unable to fend for themselves) Every other petty matter is a distraction, and it?s criminal to dwell on it, to the neglect of innocents. That is why our energy needs to stop being wasted, on things that free world would free. The courts are more busy punishing children, than punishing abusers; e.g. kids that steal to alleviate their poverty, and kids that act out because they were abused. The children?s court is an abuse of children too. The whole thing is backwards. I have written a lot about Gods? will and whether we have truly made mistakes, or just acted out destiny. Well, if we have made a mistake, it?s only one, and it?s this Letting the children suffer. Every other thing is only a mistake to the extent that it contributes to that suffering. The worst mistake, and one which I wish to end right now, is thinking that there can be mistakes other than letting children suffer. Even if there were separate mistakes, they should be forgiven, so that we can get on with the saving of children. Not only is every mistake, a mistake to the extent that it lets the suffering continue; Every other pursuit is a mistake to the extent that it lets the suffering continue. It?s so pandemic that only the queen can lead an effective cure. One of the things I imagine her doing is saying to everyone, ?hey, instead of taking a holiday, come with me on a journey of outreach to all the suffering children of the world. Let the new tourist attraction be helping children. It?s the greatest thrill there is. And if we do it properly, every day will be a holy day.? She can rally every other prominent figure too. If there was any doubt about her ability, add to that the ability of Oprah, and all the other prominent figures that will join forces with her, and you. Like I said this is only the tip of the iceberg. Hopefully the tip will be sufficient enough to get your interest. Yours truly, Tully Chandler Ps. I have a mobile now 0416 918 297, and an email tully-chandler@hotmail.com. Dear Paul, Next Installment, Continued I?ve written a lot about how insignificant this life is, compared to the next; I feel I should rescind a little This life is really not that bad; it?s actually quite monumental because of its littleness The fact that many men and women have excelled positively, despite their dark surroundings, makes it all the more special I mean here we are, with really no idea what?s going on, and yet we excel anyway. It?s like we?ve been dropped behind enemy lines, and the fall gave us amnesia, yet we?re piecing together what we can and fighting anyway. I will be really impressed if we excel ultimately, and achieve free world. YET even if we achieve it, down to the last detail; even if every child is safe, even if everything is free, even if all sickness is conquered, even if every drawback is completely turned around; even if the churches and temples and ashrams and synagogues and mosques become supercentres of true spirituality, with great golden architecture befitting their purports. Even if they all start cooperating. Even if the Gods start to make personal appearances. I will still have to say, ? I spit on this world, even in all its glory Compared to the billion times better one that awaits us, it?s nothing.? Sorry, but that is my way, someone has to be dissatisfied, to yearn sufficiently for the higher ground. We are in infinity, and we need to take advantage. The purpose of limits has been to show us how extensive infinity really is. Here, we are concerned about finite energy, in its varied forms; whereas right above us the Sun exudes more energy every second than we could ever dream using in our whole lives. As an evolved, cooperative, free people, we could draw the suns strength directly. When it becomes a supernova, we could by then be super too, and stand up and say to it, ?go on, explode, I will take every last bit of that energy into my being, and grow from it.? It?s not so inconceivable when we consider that it is us anyway. Perhaps even the Gods will hitch a ride. I wrote a lot in this letter about the extent of their control in all of this. But I was thinking today, maybe they have taken a risk and really handed over some control to us, not out of limitation, but out of divine desire to become even more unlimited. What is greater, God controlling every detail, or God letting a fair portion of those details go, but getting the desired result anyway? Like a trapeze artist without a net, like a singer without rehearsing. I wrote in this letter about fallibility, and how even you, Sir Paul, should question yourself. Here?s a question you might like In the last letter, I said that it would be well within your means to assemble all the musicians of the world. Do you really know that is true? You should know. But I?m guessing that you don?t, not entirely. Such is nature. No one can really see themselves and what they are capable of. That is why the queen needs to be told. She is herself, and should know her abilities better than anyone, but she can?t because being herself, being self-conscious, prevents her from seeing herself with the clarity that another could. Also, it is her in her capacity to effect others that she needs to see, and ?others? are going to see that better. Just as a speaker won?t know how well their speech went, until someone from the audience tells them. You can call up any, and every, band you want, and they would be glad of the opportunity to collaborate with you. Take, for example, one of my favourites Styx. They would be there in a flash. Deep Purple would be there, and they would join with Whitesnake, and blow everyone away, if you wanted them to. That group you put together, with Ian Paice, and David Gilmour, and the keyboardist from The Pirates, shows me that you are somewhat in touch your potential. Or what about the Hollies? I also remember an interview you gave concerning Wings, when you said that you could have called up Eric Clapton and put a supergroup together, but instead you wanted to start small again. I like the way that you got Denny Laine though; I think he was a super, yet obscure, choice. The same with Hamish Stewart. But it?s time now to get the current Moody Blues, and every other group on board. It?s not time to sing for individual purposes, or even entertainment, anymore. I would have loved to see such a show, not so long ago, but now I am only interested in free world. As the Moodys said in The Simpson?s, "can the poetry boys, its ass whipping time." After free world, we will all join you. I envision that people will sing as standard, instead of talk, and dance instead of walk. Like one of those War?s over celebrations, but on a total scale. People expect you to sing, just like they expect a politician to speak. A politician breaking out in song, is as unexpected as you all getting up there and saying ?we?d like to do a concert together, but instead, lets have a look at the state of our world, we?ve seen a way for it to dramatically improve, and it involves cooperation, the same cooperation that it would take for all of us to perform together, not one after the other, but together. The principles of cooperation have been well demonstrated by bands, which become bigger than the sum of their parts when they join. But we have only ever joined in groups. Now, we want to join entirely, but for us to do so, the world needs to as well. Music and society are mirrors of each other, one side of the reflection can?t be moving while the other stays still. So lets go.? That, really, is the best proof I can offer you, Sir Paul The various bands have wanted to join forces, as shown by isolated attempts. But the time wasn?t right until now. Various considerations prevented it. Money was one Each artist needed permission from their record company, and also someone with sufficient influence needed to organize it. (That is where the queen comes in.) Live 8 was the most recent attempt, and it was huge, taking us one step closer to this possibility. (By the way, I loved it when you brought out Helter Skelter, I?ve always thought that would be a show stealer that you should do, and you did it at just the right time.) Now is the time to turn the 8 on its side. The energy that you musicians have needs to go entirely towards common goals, which can not be achieved by anyone alone, they are all of our goals, and they are all of our responsibilities. Yet, they can be achieved by one alone She is the one that must push the first domino. They are currently set up in a way where she would most likely be the last one to fall. In fact, its like they?ve fallen, and they are all leaning on her, but she hasn?t quite fallen yet. Now, with a supreme push back, she can raise every one of them and make them fall in the opposite direction. You know the way that music heals It takes the most awful things in life, and sings about them in beautiful angelic voices. You singing I?m Down, in that up-tempo style is a classic example. Being down is normally something we say in a down way, but you did it in an up way, and that song is a spirit lifter. The blues did it constantly, taking such painful issues as slavery and heartbreak, and putting them to music. And didn?t it heal, or at least salve, slavery eventually? And racial segregation? I mean the way that Elvis bridged the gap between black and white, and led the world into color, with a little help from you. Now, music can heal heartbreak. If free world happens, which is music?s child, all of us with be blissfully thrust into a world where hang ups can be hung up for good. The reasons that we went separate ways with ones we once loved, will be obsolete, and the reasons we can?t call up our exes and say hello, will be obsolete. I?m sorry if this touches on painful territory for you, Sir Paul, I don?t mean to sound insensitive. I too have an ex, and the separation is a major chasm. Many are separated by such chasms. We needed to be guarded, in the old world, because those chasms were dangerous and we didn?t want to fall in, and we were not prepared to try crossing them to reach out to the person on the other side. In free world, the chasms will close, along with all other separations. In free world we could have ex-girlfriend reunions! I would call up all the girls I?ve ever been with. In free world everyone would be listed, and we?d all have hologram phones, life size ones. I?d ring them and say ?hi I?m having an ex girlfriend reunion, you?re probably having an ex-boyfriend reunion too. So, I?ll come to yours if you come to mine.? In free world we?d be a lot healthier and happier, ergo a lot more attractive, and I think things like this could indeed become commonplace. Those are wounds that until now I never thought could heal. But they?ve been sung about for so long, and this, I propose, is the result. Other results, along these lines, are that women would finally be equal, if not a bit above. The queen would be the perfect person to lead it. There are so many opposites and disparate groups that are just waiting to come together. I am not going to list anymore. I?ve said enough. By now you should see for yourself, how they are all crying out to join. Another thing that you should be able to see, is the council of the wise ones that are no longer with us. They are no longer with us, but they are somewhere. It?s silly to think that such great souls as Janis, Jim, Jimi, and Elvis are actually dead. They are thriving in heaven. And they are able to hear us. But they won?t answer, because they shouldn?t have to. Ask Elvis what he thinks of free world, and what answer does he give you? Ask Janis. Ask Jim. Elvis would simply refer me to the If I Can Dream song, I think. Janis would say "that?s what I meant when I said come to California and I?ll buy you all a drink." Jimi would say "that?s what my guitar was trying to say all along." Jim, would just look at me reproachfully, inferring that its an insult to even ask him, when that?s all he ever worked towards. John, I wouldn?t need to ask. Their legacies- the afterglow of their firebird spirits- are more alive than any ?living? person. Living, gives us the bias of having to survive. That bias, I conquered by having a very removed life. Yours has been removed in another way. You can even help all the people who have been isolated by their fame. When everyone reaches the peak of their excellence in free world, famous people won?t stand out anymore. Think of the clothes people will wear when they have unlimited funds, and less constraints on their time and energy, and when they?re wholesomely happy. We?ll all be dressing more extravagantly than Elvis. Elvis was the sun in its supremest form. He is the culminative incarnation of Krishna, and all the more extravagant gods. This was not meant to be seen, of course, because invisibility was a key to the effectiveness of his healing magic. Yet, he was a man; and that, in my books, makes him even more of a god. The invisible is ready to show itself. The queen is its manifestation. Through her, all the queens come into power. What else would this male sun have wanted to do, to this female Earth, but bring out its feminine majesty? Which, in turn would bring out our masculine majesty; and when they join we get? well that?s one thing even I don?t know, I probably could, but there is fair slice of the pie that I?m happy not to know yet. I?m happy just to know that I will know it. The arcane concepts that I have touched on so far have only been for the purposes of fitting free world into the snug constraints of our current capacity to know. As for the who is responsible debate; God or us, or both, or neither, since we are both; I?ll say this. It?s kind of like when a couple fights, and plays the blaming game. The only way for them to end the back and forth, is to put love first, and put aside blame. We as a world need to put aside blame, because continuing it any further is blameworthy. Even argumentative couples would stop fighting if they could see their child in need. We only blame, and do all the things we do, out of misapplied love and enthusiasm. We are competing for a prize that can only be won together. We all want the same things, and there is a lot that we all would want if we could only stop the competition for long enough to see. The desire we have is hindering itself out of overzealousy; we can have even more than the greediest of us could have ever hoped for. If these things ever seemed impossible, it?s because they were until now. It was impossible for any single bee to unite the hive, because only the queen has that power. Ps. Aint it funny how fortune works? The more open I am to it, the more it can help me, without shocking me. I tried to send an early version of this to you, along with installment no.1, and the length of installment no.1 pushed it out of the email space. This was fortunate because I had rushed it a bit and there were some mistakes that I?m glad to have had the chance to amend. After all, you went to a lot of effort to get your albums just right before you released them; so too do I get my letter right, before I send it. Happy Father?s Day Dear Paul, Installment 3 There are some things I couldn?t fit into the previous two, that I?m glad to now have the opportunity to add. I?m more relaxed now that some of the more pressing matters are off my chest. There are some things though, that I probably should have omitted, or at least been less blunt about. I apologise for the challenging subjects I raised. On a certain level, I feel they were necessary; but necessary or not, there is no excuse. The problems I purport to address are radical, so my solutions are radical; but a message should always be coherent, accessible and respectful, lest it get lost. I shouldn?t have risked a message of such importance, by coming across so brazenly. However, I didn?t want to risk it by being too quaint either. I took some big risks in installment 1, by suggesting degrees of clemency in exchange for child safety. In the atmosphere of blind judgment, that surrounds that issue, I might have opened myself up for an accusation of being soft on abusers. I?m not, of course, but my way of being hard, is to be effective. Success is the best revenge. I see protecting the children as the priority; and preventing it from ever happening again, as the only goal. The context for clemency was if the child would have been in danger otherwise. If someone can bring themselves around from that point, and actually let a child go- that they had locked in their basement or something- then that would be a miracle. If the offender takes the clemency as a dramatic prompt to never do it again, then great, but the point is that the child gets rescued. If they abuse again in free world, they?ll be caught promptly. Free world would be very difficult to abuse children in It?s only possible now, because they can hide behind the privacy loophole. If a kid goes missing, the police don?t search every house in the neighbourhood, because people would complain. But if there were no drug laws, and no stealing laws- which along with a variety of others would be obsolete, then people would have nothing to hide. We?d be more of a total community. If someone turns up at a door in free world and says ?A kid?s gone missing, can we search your palace, just to narrow down the possibilities? Who will say no? Some people have signs on their cars saying pull me over and search for drugs, so that police will know their stance. Everyone should take this stance with child safety. And, there are measures that rarely get used, such as heat sensors and lie detectors. I don?t think that abusers would even want to do it anymore, in free world. The Grinch wouldn?t have spoiled Christmas if it was every day- he?d get invited to more dos. You may have noticed that I dwell on the child safety issue a lot It?s not a popular one, I know, but I am hoping that it will become popular. I?m hoping to reverse trends here. It should be practically the only thing we talk about, productively, until the problem is solved. I have dillema?d a lot over how we can forgive God, or our human race, or both, for letting it happen, and just today an avenue occurred to me When we look at some sicknesses under the microscope, we see that the cells are doing extraordinarily savage things to each other. We stand back and take a clinical look at the issue, and hopefully find a cure. We don?t get emotional with those individual cells for their savage behavior. Well, the world is very sick, and child abuse, I propose, is one of the worst symptoms. If we were to treat the cause, as well as the symptoms, perhaps we would get somewhere. And then, if we succeeded, we?d have to admit that some of the responsibility was even our?s, because of the fundamental sickness we allowed to fester. This kind of thinking requires some detachment. A doctor must be cold to be warm. The queen has that ?coldness? better than anyone- along with some warmness, also necessary. From her vantage point, we are like star wars figures- and this is good. She can perform the life saving operation. Far from being soft, I think that drastic measures should be taken, when it comes to abusers Not out of vengeance, but out of making sure it doesn?t happen again. No one found guilty of the offence should be set free, until the entire situation is under control. And, anyone ever found guilty of it in the past should be subject to an automatic investigation, as part of the first phase. This might sound a little totalitarian, but in fact it?s not. Rather it is basic sense. Think about it. Anything less is just inviting it to happen again. Would this raise complaints? Why should it? Any one time offender, can?t act outraged if s/he?s investigated again. S/he was let go based on the reasoning that s/he would not re-offend. So, if s/he isn?t re-offending, s/he should be happy to demonstrate it by complying completely with the investigation. I say ?drastic? but the only drastic thing really is the current lack of measures. Not re-offending, isn?t enough An offender, if really not a risk, should be repentant. Like St Paul, they should not only stop killing Christians, they should become a Christian, and a bloody passionate one. This passion, they could channel by helping to save children; which they could do by giving psychological insights, or, at least, performing manual labour that would be involved in a child saving movement. Penance for such crimes should have no end. Currently, it barely has a beginning. What does that say about the situation? That it is dire. That the treatment is as dire as the problem. Robbers get more time than sex offenders. Robbers are not treated effectively either. But robbing really isn?t a crime. It?s a result of fundamental problems. The fundamental problems are what need treating, and by free world they would be. Sex offences, less obviously, are also the result of fundamental problems- at least partly. (Can I digress for a moment here to point out a poignant fallacy? Laws serve to encourage only one thing, the eleventh commandment; don?t get caught. Please take a moment to ponder this because it?s a mind numbing concept Every law does that one thing only; it doesn?t seek to prevent the crimes, it doesn?t seek to address their cause, it doesn?t seek to protect the victims, it only seeks to improve the perpetrators skills at not getting caught. It just increases the problem it pretends to care about.) People are too prone to judge individuals for sex offences, as if the individuals were autonomous. Few people anywhere are autonomous, let alone sex offenders. These people are not people, they are antilife. What is the point of judging them at all? I?m not saying that they were born that way, but they became it when negative influence took them over. They can probably even come back, but not until a realistic view of them is taken first. These offenders are the epitome of misanthropy, and we?ve been missing it, because the issue is so disconcerting to look at. The government insists on governing as widely as it does, but shies from responsibility when something within that width is rotten. Then it?s the person?s fault. But we can?t complain about even the government, when it was our fault as people for allowing them to govern us. I should temper this, though, with the point that we all felt pretty helpless when it came to doing anything about governments. (Even politicians don?t like governments- ones other than their own, their opposing parties!) Now, something has come along, in the form of free world, that can overthrow every government on Earth. And it?s in a totally loving way. It would bring them into the fold. How I would love to see Bush and Blair, and all the others, grow their hair long and embrace love. That would be beautiful. They want to as well; they just feel trapped in there in their own messes. Hitler would be a hippy in free world, and if the resurrection happens maybe he will be. The fundamental issue, more than governments and even us, is atheism, and behind it is God?s cloak spell. I wrote about magic wands, but really God could set everything right just by removing the cloak. It?s probably not for me to question why God doesn?t do that tonight. But I will point out an interesting thing that I see when I contemplate the result Everyone would drop to their knees. This shows that it was only because they didn?t believe in an omnipresent God, that they acted that way in the first place. Really, and this is the ultimate irony, I?m seeking to help them. They are the most sunken souls. And, for all we know, our total salvation may depend on the broadness of our efforts to help. God has obviously fostered the doubt. Like King Richard, who let his country think he was still captive. But Richard did that so his reclamation would be ultimately more effective. He also gave clemency to his brother. But the innocents have to be helped first, foremost, and to the extent that no thought is given to quarter for their abusers. It?s too early to be speculating on their fate, when the abuse is still prevalent. I only speculate in so far as it helps the innocents. Because the attitude seems to be relevant. Richard had the luxury of giving clemency to his brother because the oppression had stopped. Revealing himself was enough to do that. But if the oppression had still been active, then Richard would have dealt decisively, I think. (Richard took the fate of his country and provinces (and even the holy land) into his own hands, is it really so outlandish my suggesting that H.M. should?) With the child issue, the time has come to deal decisively, no matter what the cost. But luckily free world offers a way to be decisive and loving too. Loving, is in fact the most decisive strike there is! With love we can disable enemies of life in their tracks. Love can shame anyone, no matter how far gone, into repentance. As surely as God casting the cloak aside could. Love is unlimited power, as much as we feel it unlimitedly when we fall in love. But mutual love is contained by reciprocation. Confront the sinner with that same kind of love, uncontained, and how will they continue to sin? Some might express disgust at directing love anywhere near an abuser, but I would be willing to do anything if it stood a chance of helping the innocents at stake. As much as my 1st installments were misunderstood, at least no one misunderstood my intentions when it comes to child safety. Lucky! because this is potentially a very great weapon, and I would hate for it to lose any of its power due to imprecise explanation. By talking about Her Majesty trying drugs, I?ve put the whole thing in danger of being misunderstood. But that?s how it occurred to me, and I was just passing it on in the same order. Also the dynamic of one extreme to another might not have been adequately expressed otherwise. I hope I eventually showed that drugs are a key factor in all of this That dwelling on drugs and the symptoms of their illegality wastes the energy that should be used to protect innocents. The worst such symptom is drug abuse itself. People are heavily entrenched in it. But it isn?t the drug?s fault. It isn?t the people either. It?s the illegality. It?s the simple mindedness of punishers, who can?t see that they are punishing themselves as much anyone, and doing nothing to help the problem. Treating the symptoms instead of the cause. If Jesus, and his fellow doctors, had of simply healed everyone instantly, maybe they would have just been treating the symptoms. I would like to meet God, but I feel far from ready until the child safety issue is won. By the way, when I talk about children and innocents, I also mean the defenseless in general The animals, the elderly and so on. I used to think that animal rights was a curious issue for you to feel so passionately about. I would see you campaigning for it and think ?yeah Paul that?s great but aren?t there more extreme causes you could take up.? Now I see that it is a most extreme cause. In fact the animals have even less advocates than children do. But there is no comparing such things. And there is no need to compare them. All these issues can be taken care of at once. The star that can do it all has only just become visible. I consider myself quite gifted at seeing things that others can?t, but even I could not see Her Majesty?s potential until two months ago. And even since seeing it, I?ve been realising slowly. I pray that you will see it.
-
I was looking today at how we are prone to dislike people in a mirror way that actually points toward an insecurity we have ourselves. This as a general rule is pretty reliable. My focus on the protection of innocents could be misconstrued as meaning that I myself had something to hide. I don?t, but please don?t take my word for it. I don?t think anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt- I don?t even trust God. If we care we must open ourselves to question. E.g. If someone were to accuse me of being a terrorist, I don?t have anything to hide, so I?d say go ahead and investigate me if it will help you narrow the possibilities. I wouldn?t get indignant and say ?How dare you accuse me of that!? Michael is an interesting case. I personally don?t think he did anything untoward, but I won?t let my opinion bias me. If he wants to prove that he did nothing, he must be creative His only option is to offer all his remaining money to the family in exchange for them confessing and demonstrating that they contrived it. Then everyone would be convinced. The world is his jury, and he shouldn?t settle for anything but a unanimous finding. He should stop being outraged, he should calmly say that child safety is in everyone?s best interest, and that he is willing to subject himself to any investigations, because he places their safety, and the assurance of their safety, above even his own privacy. If the family did contrive it, maybe they would be moved by the offer to come clean; and that would help the real victims. Because false claims make it hard for real victims to be heard. Michael acts unusually, even towards you sometimes, and he needs to accept that such behavior is going to attract scrutiny. Instead of bemoaning that the police took photos of his ?penis? he should be inviting them to take as many nude shots as they want, since that could be evidence that either clears or indicts him. But some emotion in that situation is understandable. Child abuse is a highly charged issue that needs to be dealt with in a Clint Eastwood rather than a Rambo manner. The calmest, but most sure fire, manner that I have ever seen is Her Majesty?s. She could calm the storm, which is ripping us all apart, and walk on the water out to the sinking ships. If society is seen as represented by elements, then water is the sea of people that we all constitute. Bush, for example, needs a lot to keep him afloat. But she can leave her barge anytime and simply walk where she wills. Especially if she took her shoes off, and let her hair down. Just her presence in a complete media simulcast would probably shock people, who were in the act of a crime, to stop what they were doing. She just has to use that attention creatively. It will last for more than just a day or two. It will last for weeks. And if she capitalizes on it, it will not only last, it will grow. No one has ever really been real in this life. And the reason no one ever was, I believe, was because it was her alone that ever had the power to. Elvis was pretty real and candid, but he kept his opinion about controversial subjects to himself. You have always been refreshingly real, but you have kept a pretty clean profile, which is good because it gives you the credence to be taken seriously by H.M. John was almost too real, but he was bound by constraints. He pushed at those constraints nonetheless. The queen has no constraints, and where she does, they only serve to give her more potential momentum, and she has the cleanest image ever. This gives her the ultimate credence. Speaking of real, I should point out that when I mentioned Jim in the last letter I was referring to Mr. Morrison, as I?m sure you gathered, but I should have included his surname, because I might just as easily been referring to Mr. Croce, who I?m sure would also endorse free world. The actual list of endorsers is so long that I won?t even try to start it. You shouldn?t need a list anyway. William Wallace and every other echoing voice have spoken loudly enough on their own behalf. You have heard David Byron scream I Wanna Be Free. I?m sure you have If you need a reminder, get Look At Yourself out and blast it. That song has some nice Beatlesque harmonies, and dueting between him and Ken, which is reminiscent of you and John. If you were to assemble the musicians of the world, I think a good thing that could come from it would be that you could have all the Beatlesque bands to play with. The Kinks, Manfred Man?s Earth Band, 10cc and the remaining Brothers Gibb are amongst a large circle that deserves the opportunity to join in a large mega harmony arrangement with you. They all wrote songs that were directly influenced by you. The Bee Gees literally sat there and thought ?what would the Beatles write?? All that homage deserves some acknowledgement, I think. There are also some great Australian groups such as the Easybeats and Zoot. (Who did a version of Eleanor I?m sure you would have heard.) Music was simultaneously invented by all of you. But you got there just a little sooner than everyone else, and they love you for it. Being humble is great, but this love isn?t humble and it ought to be repaid in kind. Another good thing would be giving all the blues masters and mistresses their due, finally and just in the nick of time. Not to mention a heavenly choir of real life angels, like Joni, Joan, Stevie, Dolly, Linda Ronstandt, Emmy Lou etc. You could have every country group too; The Eagles etc. You could blend the genres! But more important than even that, or as important, since it?s a prerequisite, is getting the various factions of the world to join. The lines are so clearly drawn. Every race division, every country, every state, every company, every airport, every rift, every cause, every single thing would be united by free world, just as it is divided now by unfreeness. You must be able to see how its like a cell divided, on the verge of uniting in a growing motion. I don?t propose that you challenge governments and laws etc. that would be silly. I suggest that you reverse them. Laws may be necessary now, but that is because they self perpetuate. Reverse things and it wouldn?t be challenging at all (everything?s reversed remember) instead they would just become obsolete. A challenge, in reverse, is just a gentle loving ?we don?t need that anymore.? And defeat in reverse is just ?Okay, great, I was getting tired anyway.? To give this notion fair appraisal, one mustn?t look at it with the eyes they currently use, because those eyes are adjusted to things the way they are now. Few people even now could argue that this would be anything bad, this free world. No one disputes the world itself; they just dispute its achievability and sustainability. Seeing how it can be done, can only be done by the ones who would do it. Yours truly, Tully Chandler Continuation of 3rd installment. Some people, through their currently adjusted eyes, do dispute some aspects of the world that I am proposing. The thing is though, that my proposals have little to do with how it will actually turn out. I?ve only been forecasting so that you will get some idea of the volume of potential we have. The specifics of how that potential will flourish, when activated, are for life to decide. I am only suggesting that you activate it, and give it a chance to go where it will. I?m pretty sure that many of the things I?ve foreseen, will turn out basically as I imagined, but I?m open. I?m mainly interested in the cessation of the suffering That is something I hope all people can want to a universal and united degree. I?m pretty sure about God that God is waiting in the wings, willing us to follow the simple ordinances we?ve been given. One of my favourites is Jesus saying that when we have a feast we should not invite our rich friends, we should invite the least fortunate. That is the kind of paradoxical perfection I love. Now is the chance to do that superbly. Let the least fortunate of the world feast at the richest tables of the world. Free world would enable beggars to roll up at Maxims. But also the well-off should extend specific invitations to the less fortunate. They are them. It will be edifying for both parties. (Maxim?s employees would still be rewarded for their work, but they would be more rewarded, their pay would be infinite since they could go out and have anything they want, but they would also get to focus on the respect that their craft inspires.) I imagine all the most distinct opposites of the world coming together in one great clap. The highest ranking police, with the most wanted criminals. The most senior wardens, with the highest security prisoners. Opposing political parties. The richest with the poorest. Royalty with commoners. Etc. All such division is based on the misunderstanding that we are separate. Duality is the ultimate illusion, as Krishna said to Arjuna. He was saying that to himself. The part of him that was listening was only seemingly separate, because Krishna willed it and caused it by the illusion. He was not bemoaning the illusion, he was revealing it. The illusion is caused simply by God hiding. The sound of one hand clapping is no sound, which speaks to me of the necessity of two hands. The same with the tree falling in the forest. God was conspicuously absent when Eve and Adam ate the fruit of knowledge, but then appears and says ?what have you done.? The same with Cain and Abel. Strange for an omnipresent god. These acts, which seem clearly intended, were sufficient to divide the streams. The variously divided streams flow out and away from each other, but at regular exceptions the streams cross back into each other. This I see as the mating dynamic. A person will pass thousands of people in outflow, and inflow with just a few. It?s like tree branches too, they generally go out from the trunk, but every so often they weave back in. Now is the time for all the streams to flow back into a united sea. Another natural example is an Atom bomb. I see Adam and Atom as deliberately homonymanous words because Adam, like an Atom, was split and the result was all his halves, and their halves, rushing to find other halves Just like split atoms do. The dynamic of the bomb is that the split atoms search in a circular wave, until they exhaust themselves, then they come rushing back to the middle where the missing part was all along. The rushing back to the middle, which is the dynamic we are approaching now, causes the explosion. It would be an explosion of creative healing though, not destruction. (Everything?s in reverse, remember.) We are all atoms and space aren?t we? Really, we are all love Love to some degree or another- even to an inverted degree. It?s the motivation for all aspects of atoms. This is probably the most all embracing concept there is, and it?s probably necessary to comprehend it, for a proper understanding of free world. Knowing that we are inside an act of love confirms it; but it?s there to see in everyday life Every little thing is motivated by a degree of desire. Desire to its ultimate degree is love, and the lesser degrees are love too. They are subdivisions. And the space; the other hand of the clap; is what makes it possible. Degrees of love are what control an individual?s ability to understand too everything from ignorance to openness traces to a love. We love some things too much to see that there is room, more laterally, to love them even more. Intelligence is a key factor. A loving heart is great but it really needs an equally strong mind to apply it effectively. Love is as strong as nuclear power- it is nuclear power- and it needs to be handled as carefully. The world has only been given a little bit of love, and a little bit of intelligence (we think we?ve had heaps, but that?s just because the little we?ve had is SO powerful.) We don?t need more; we just need to balance them. Yet I maintain that we are love- and intelligence- but we are mostly subdivided and inverted. And seldom in proportion. Yet we see rarities from time to time. I find it helpful in coping with the silly, stupid and painful things I see; to remind myself that it?s out of love that they were motivated. This helps me cope with my own mistakes as well. I can say to myself ?well, at least that was motivated by love, albeit twisted, and tragically misapplied.? It also helps to remind myself that we are all infants- less than infants- we are in minus youth. The crude subdivisions have been the shell of our egg. They taunt us to grow. From within we are encouraged, and from without we are taunted. I wondered to myself one day why they even let prisoners have visitors, when it?s a security risk each time. And what occurred to me was that if they didn?t, the prisoners, and the people who care about them, would be mounting escapes. The prisons and all hard line institutions only grant these allowances because they have to, in order to maintain their line. By appearing to soften up occasionally, they are able to maintain their hardness. And the occasions they soften up are parallel to the growth of the people?s spirit to be free. Look at fifty years ago, and see how much we?ve expanded since. It?s all been because of pushing against the boundaries. An interesting thing about DMT is that it enters the forming embryo 4 or so days after conception. It?s a major ingredient in the coming to life process. (Just as it is one of the three chemicals released upon death.) It would probably take DMT for a lot of people to really see the truth. H.M. should definitely try it. It is the most royal experience there currently is It makes laymen feel regal, how will it affect H? It is not really a drug. Well, it is, it?s the strongest drug, but it?s so strong that it pushes its way out of the drug class, and into the natural. It already exists in the brain, but we only get it in miniature doses. Taking it, just gives one a more adequate dose. If a lot of people, led by H.M. were to have this dose, it would be the equivalent of this embryo getting it. LSD, its junior, as per its popularity in the 60s was a dose that the embryo received. Every drug has been. The laws, fallacious as they were, were most likely just the forming embryo?s self-regulatory system. Letting that go, is now looking like an ultimate purpose. DMT only lasts for exactly 20 minutes, but they are a very substantial 20. It does so because of the M.A.O. which is the body?s regulatory system, but if one has an M.A.O. inhibitor, such as Syrian Rue, the experience lasts for 8 hours. This is what the shamans of Brazil take (they call it ayayusca) to fight the demons that threaten their tribe. DMT is, incidentally, a religion. It is to those shamans, like peyote is to Native Americans. But it?s even become a world religion, with a select but serious following. From my experiences, it has a consciousness of its own, and it decides when to meet you, rather than you decide when to have it. Open mindedness is something that we all agree on, but few of us actually practice. The only way to successfully practice it is to admit that we aren?t open minded. The only way not to be in denial is to admit that we are in denial. We have to try loving it when we?re wrong, because we won?t be wrong anymore if we do We see we have room for improvement and our cerebral cortex will start noticing mistakes, before they happen. It?s still hard though. A Ramakrishna quote I reread yesterday was ?God to man is like mountain of sugar to an ant.? We can see God one crystal at a time. And just one crystal is mind-blowing for us. But we need to experience God, not just see. Many just go into denial and say there is no mountain, or some say they see the mountain prematurely; this is denial too. Some people who read my letter claimed to understand it. And that was their coping mechanism. Understanding my letter, or any aspect of life, entails admitting that we are armoured in coping mechanisms. In other words the only way to get it is to say ?I don?t get it, but I feel there is something there.? A few of the lovely souls on your message board gave comments along these lines, and they were the closest ones to getting it. The separation?s purpose was, like it is with men, to make a baby. We separate a part of ourselves, a very quintessential part, to send into our mate?s womb. There, it probably feels very isolated. Like Arjuna it would have many questions, and indeed Arjuna was the spokesman for many in asking those questions, and Krishna was the guardian of that separation, retaining enough origin to feel at one, and to give comfort. Perhaps the part that was separated was so quintessential that God is less without it. Perhaps God is only completely omnipotent when in union with us. Like a parent feels when bereft of their child. Yet a parent is more complete than ever when they have their child. We are just coming out of the separation phase, I propose, and it?s time for the reinstation. If any of this seems a bit too much, please be aware that it is more likely too little. They may look like huge planets and suns, but they are molecules to God, and if we aspire to be born we must start to see them as molecules to us. If we absorb our sun, we will absorb them all. Simultaneously, all the other galaxies- each one that has a living planet- will join in. The population of this planet, I propose, is an indicator of how many other living planets there are. There is one for every individual we can count. They are as distant from us as countries once were from each other, but when the countries come together, perhaps we?ll be able to see. And they are as distant from each other as people, but when people come together?. The whole event will be like some huge space orgasm, a mutual and multiple one. Since everything is better in the bigger world, perhaps birth will be mostly pleasurable. As well as giving birth to a body we are also giving birth to a soul. A soul, I believe, includes physical matter- not, physical matter includes a soul- and I imagine they will truly join when everything else does, but for now they are close enough to see the potential. As for me seeing all of this, I can only suggest that I saw it first because I was the most persistent; like those little sperms that fly towards the egg. Some don?t appear to be aiming at all to get in, some do but they only weaken the wall, and one persistently pushes its way right in. The egg in this case is the truth, and by penetrating it, I hope that the Earth will open up. If one gets through we all do. But while this is happening on the higher plane, I am faced with no shortage of challenges on this little plane. And some of them are very big. I wrote in my last letter about imagining my mother and grandmother in their youth. There is a sober reason for that which I will go into; but for now I must tell you that my focus is on some painfully real problems that my dear mother is having. She lives in a ghetto neighborhood, which is overrun with junkies and lunatics. The housing department deliberately crowds all these elements into one place, along with over-trusting ladies like mum, who don?t protest enough. She and others like her were sent there as a balancing element- as counterweights. But the subversive elements simply took over. Mum is extraordinarily resilient, and also she looks for the good in all people, so she gives these subversives that live around her a lot of grace, which they only use against her. She held her own in this neighbourhood for a couple of years, but in that time it has got worse, and now it encroaches on her. She, herself, has been making admirable moves to improve, by doing art degrees at Uni and working on her health, and she has even tried to help her community in various ways, by tutoring etc. But these people only take advantage of kindness. A few weeks ago she was assaulted, by someone whom she was knitting a shawl for, whom didn?t want to wait ?til it was finished. So he pushed her over and wrenched it out of her hand. This person is a mental patient and junkie, her only mistake was to treat him as if he was human. He isn?t, he is the inhuman product of inhuman foundations such as drug laws, and unloving approaches to health. Once someone becomes such a product, they aren?t a person anymore. But loving people like mum, have trouble making this distinction, I do too, I?ve struggled with it all my life. They may have a remote chance at being people, but unrealistic encouragement won?t help them, it will just give them more fuel. I?m not saying I hate her assaulter, I want to, but that would be silly because he isn?t a person. It would make as much sense if I hated a wall or any other non-living thing. But I do feel a tremendous amount of urge to do something about the situation she?s in. Knocking the wall down will be a good start. I?m currently not allowed to leave the rehab for long enough to make it there and back. Meanwhile, I?m using the time to meditate on the matter so that I can effect the most positive solution. The feeling, when it?s one?s own mother, is so strong, compared to when it?s someone we don?t know. This is understandable. But when I consider that her fate along with everyone?s is linked, I feel motivation for free world almost as much as I do for her. Both involve being precise as well as passionate. Currently, my aim is merely to get her out of that area. She deserves better, but the housing department, which she is reliant on, is an unhelpful beurocracy. She would be instantly helped, on all levels, by free world. How many people in all sorts of helpless situations would be instantly helped by free world? If it?s a matter of a vote, you can tally them now. There are so many poor and underprivileged people. And even the privileged would vote yes too, if they could only see the privileges that would come. A domestic situation in one?s own family is as important as the world That is millions of worlds right there that would be helped by free world. We can barely come to terms with just our own. How can anyone claim to begin to fathom someone else?s, let alone everyone else?s? To contemplate free world is to contemplate such impossible volume. Then we have the death thing; we can?t even contemplate the implications of it in our own lives, let alone in the lives of others. To contemplate free world is to contemplate death, and the possibility that it can be overcome. My grandmother is getting on, and I am hoping that free world will happen in time to save her the inconvenience of ever dying. To contemplate free world is to contemplate meeting God. That is the hugest most inconceivable thing there is. I?m sure though that God compartmentalizes all that ineffableness into approachable personable qualities, like Elvis (Whose name means ?all wise? in Norse.) But this would be a personalization that would, in reward for free world, grant us anything. It wouldn?t be the personalization, so much, that would stagger us, it would be the implications of what that personality could grant. We could probably cope a little, by realising that we are a quintessential part of that personality, and that it is by returning that we have enabled the event. It would also be helpful to be mindful of the fact that we are entitled as offspring, to want what?s coming to us Ability, perhaps, to grant our own wishes. I would be in awe meeting Elvis. Although I?d make an effort to get used to it quickly. I?d probably have a few wishes that I?d ask him to grant. Like helping my mum get out of the ghetto she?s in. Since that was one of his songs. Elvis? giving away of Cadillac?s was a hallmark of the giving principle that free world would make standard. I heard recently that you gave a Bentley to charity. Nice. The beauty of free world is that a car will be just as free as an ice cream. Everything is of the same value anyway; it?s all infinite, because we?d be lost without cars or ice cream. My kingdom for a horse epitomizes this principle best. [Free ?N? Easy is playing while I write.] Right now I would give my kingdom just to be able to help my mum. [At the time of writing a friend of hers has taken her to Melbourne for a little while, so she is out of harm?s way for a week or two.] Everyone thinks that they have to help their own lives, and consequently the massive energy that we each have is pocketed up in niches. It would grow when combined. If we all realised that we have to help others to help ourselves, we would all be very quickly past the point of needing help. Then we would see how the pursuit of pleasure, real pleasure, is got by cooperation too. Currently people misperceive it as a predominately exclusive or selfish pursuit. And all of this is about selfishness! I say be selfish! be truly selfish; and see how all selfish desires, and much more are got supremely by selfless pursuit. See also that others are our self. I am not some loving ?you before me? guy. I?m just really, really, really greedy. And I see that this is the way to get the most. Besides helping mum, I don?t want much in the world the way it is. If it was all free there?s a few thing I?d want, but mostly I?d be busy planning the next phase. And what I?d want would be research equipment. I want to meet God, and I will feel qualified when free world is achieved. In fact I kind of feel qualified now- I?ll turn around and see if God has arrived. No. I am, like every man, Adam. I feel that I must be with Eve to meet God. God is in the room, invisibly of course. I imagine, and get a quite vivid sense it?s real, that all the gods sit in a circle around me like Saturn?s rings. I do believe that I can meet them visibly, but there are criteria. At this stage I?m finding it enough of a challenge to get this letter to you. I am contemplating sending it to some people who know you, and seeing if they will forward it. I wish you had someone to read through the submissions on your site, I?m pretty sure that this would be attention grabbing enough. The bet that feels best presently is Ken. He would get it to you, I?m pretty certain. I don?t mean to be presumptuous about him or you, but I have to be, a little. Come to think of it, if I could meet God right now, I?d simply say ?Sorry, I can?t talk right now, I?m too busy writing, but please can you help me get this letter to Paul. And help my mum out.? I wouldn?t even need much help with mum, because if you got the letter, I?m pretty confident that free world would follow, and if it did, mum would be supremely helped, along with all those in need. I have never really done much for her, and she has done so much for me; free world would be the ultimate gift. And the only one truly worthy- a box of chocolates on mothers day really falls short of appreciation a son must feel. I feel I must qualify the Grand Mother passage that appeared in the last installment. Its purpose was to show that anyone who hopes to see the truth must confront the hardest obstacles, and imagining our parents at the time of conceiving us, is one of them. How can we come to terms with the fact that we are in a womb, if we can?t get past the opening. Our passage to this present juncture in time was through hundreds of these openings. Out and in. To travel back in time, without jumping, we need to go back through every moment, including our parent?s bedroom. It?s like a very long series of extension cords. They trace all the way back to the ultimate power source, but to get there we have to realistically imagine the plugging in of each cord to the next. Sex is one of the most vivid things a mind imagines, but the sex of our ancestors is furthest from the mind. Solely, I say, as a padlock on the ultimate treasure chest. To open this padlock we must visualize each successive act. This should be easy, since it was our blood, each time purer, that was there. And the further back we go, the sexier it was. Sex is an inversion. Nature?s general direction is outward, in the streams I mentioned earlier. When they cross back in to each other, they go in an inverse direction. This is why it feels good. The further back we go, the more rigid sexual inhibition was, so the more intense the inversion. Nature, of course, is currently backwards, inversion is a glimpse of nature in the right direction. Just as each glimpse was heightened by the opposite stream direction, so too will the ultimate inversion be. Buddha traced his past lives back; he said it was a characteristic of his enlightenment. All of us will unite with our ancestors; each one of them will be alive again with us, I believe. If Eden had of gone smoothly, isn?t that what God, ostensibly, intended for us? That Adam would live forever, and so would all his sons. The same with Eve and her descendants. People wouldn?t have been older than each other; they would have just had seniority in order of appearance. Birth might have been a pleasure too. Instead of an ordeal like it is now- especially from within. And they could have lived with God. When I first picked up the Bible, I opened at the ?begat? page Terah begat Abraham, Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob etc. What I didn?t realise then was that I was looking at a continuing sex-fest of truly epic proportions. I was seeing dozens of sex acts on just one page, but I didn?t even register it because of the archaic language, and the non erotic description. It?s not, I now realise, because it was less exciting than erotica, it?s because it was too many times more. I think also that the lack of detail in the Bible is so that we will tap into our own genetically encoded memories of those events, and ?remember? the experiences. I wrote in the last installment about David. I see the current situation of the world as an equivalent to the battle scene that young David turned up to, delivering water to his brothers. He gets there and Goliath is taunting the Israelites, and none of them is prepared to answer the challenge; everyone is saying to each other he?s too big. David gets up and says ?what are you doing, you are Israelites, you should march up to him with confidence- I will show you how it?s done.? It?s ominous that Philistine has now become a word to denote people in general who are ignorant, because the ignorami are the challenge this time. The Philistines were not-so-distant relatives of the Israelites. They were, technically, God, taunting Israel to grow. Just as the ignorami now are God too, ignorant of being God, apparently, but whether or not so, they are encouraging us to grow. God authors us into life, like characters that become three dimensional by all the two dimensional experiences they are written into. David went from those pages to Michelangelo?s statue. Prior to that he walked tall though, he walked into Saul?s camp and took the spear from beside his bed. He became a bandit, he won God's respect by breaking certain traditions, such as eating from the bread offering, when his men were hungry. God?s traditions are like the streams of nature; they flow a certain way, but when we break them- invert the flow- it leads to intensity. We are told to have complete faith, but really God wants us to break through that and see for ourselves. We are told that God is one, but we see that God is all. One of the Gods, a Titan, is Eris; she is the daughter of Chaos. Chaos was chaotic, but Eris is simply one side of the chaos- the bad side. The good side took a little longer to emerge; [another god name contained in Prometheus] Eros. The son and lover of Venus. Eros started older and gradually got younger. This reverse aging is especially significant to me now, when I consider how reversal makes free world happen. Also that he loved his mother so. I believe that Jesus was in touch with the fact that it was he whom impregnated Mary- as indicated by Mary being a name that came afterwards in Ms. Magdalene. (In free world, prostitutes like Ms. Magdalene would be respected as priestesses. Their station, seen as disrespectable in the backwards present, will be known as pure in free world. Sex will be natural, and they will be seen as ahead of their time for being liberal with their favours. (I personally believe the fee they charge is basically to cover expenses!)They do, though, appear to have it tough, and it would be nice to see their pressures turned around by free world.) Jesus, when spelt with capital letters makes an interesting revolvagram of VENUS. Revolve the V to the left and it becomes a roman looking J, then the E stays as it is, then the N needs to spin to become a mirror version of itself, then revolved to its side it becomes a sharp S, then you have U and S. He said he was the bright morning star, and she is the first star that can be seen in the morning. [Maybe, like at the stoning in Life of Brian, he was a woman in disguise!] We are all more both than we acknowledge, only our reproductive organs are all x or xy chromosomes, and these are balanced by the other reproductive organs we meet. Our minds, and our souls, keep secrets from us I think. I think they know all along but keep it from us. Maybe the cerebral cortex isn?t that mechanical after all. But maybe the reason we don?t get told these things is that they are being saved until the right time. Now is the right time, as shown by the fact that people still think there is time. If time was to continue, I am sure that people won?t be feeling comfortable for long. Now, they will be surprised by a turnaround- and the surprise is the whole point But in ten years they would be expecting something. Life as we know it will hopefully not go on for ten more years. I am hoping that at least by the end of this year it will be becoming free world. And when it starts to do that we?ll be on track. The track has been clearly carved by the opposites we?ve seen. By now if you are reading this, you should already be getting hold of all the living legends that this era has graced us with; such as Rastafarian elders, like Bunny Wailer, and Bob?s family, and convening them for a council. They are the stirrings of this embryo?s mystic mind, and they have held on to the bitter end for the sweetness that free world makes possible. If you aren?t, then please read again, you may not have got it the first time. I listened to your songs many times over, and got more from them each time. Songs are battles fought on conceptual ground; and concepts are where the real war is. I have blasted my conceptual walls with songs, and bongs, millions of times. I have brought out the heavy artillery with heavy rock and heavy drugs. Each time weakening the wall just a little bit. Then, breakthrough; [a Queen song] I came up with the idea, and I bring it respectfully to you. Really I am bringing it to her, but I shan?t write to her, you are so much better for the task, and it is mostly thanks to you anyway. You inspired the songs, and probably a fair few of the bongs, so I am just giving credit where it?s due. Last installment for a while. I will, God willing, be trying to contact Ken for the next few weeks. Respectfully yours, Tully Chandler Final Addition. I thought I believed in all this strongly, but today something has strengthened my belief by at least ten times, showing me that my original belief was comparatively shallow Under fortuitous circumstances I found a book called The Coronation and The Throne of David. It is 66 years old, and probably out of print. Its author A. J. Ferris, B.A., does a spectacular job of explaining that the English are descended from the Israelites, and that Jacob?s Stone is beneath the coronation seat in Westminster Abbey, which makes it the throne of David. I can?t do it justice in summary, so I will quote a few pages verbatim THE THRONE OF DAVID TO BE EVERLASTING (1) The year 1935 A.D. was familiar to all as the King?s jubilee Year when the British Commonwealth celebrated the 25th year of succession of H.M. George V upon the throne of Britain. The attention of the whole world was turned to that celebration which was the theme of the New Year?s Day message in the Daily Mail. Their political Correspondent, G. Ward Price, wrote as follows - ?We are entering upon a year of hope. It will also be a year of celebration. With it comes the Silver Jubilee of King George V. By his counsel and example, he has done more than any other individual in his country to bring us safely through the trials and troubles which have made his reign the most critical period in British History. During those 25 years, 10 EUROPEAN SOVEREIGNS HAVE LOST THEIR THRONES, AND PASSED APPARENTLY UNREGRETTED. BY THEIR PEOPLES. INTO OBSCURITY. What better testimony could there be to the worth of our own King than the fact that, AT THE END OF THE SAME PERIOD. THE BRITISH MONARCHY STANDS HIGHER THAN EVER IN THE RESPECT OF ITS SUBJECTS. This country has known nothing like the guerilla war between the forces of Nationalism and Communism that went on in Germany?Austria and Spain in 1934saw civil war?Vienna and Marseilles witnessed political assassinations?Such events in our midst appear inconceivable. ?HAIL, HAPPY BRITAIN, HIGHLY FAVOURED ISLE AND HEAVEN?S PECULIAR CARE.?? The above-quoted article is secular and non-religious, hence unbiased; it brings out two facts obvious to every British citizen (1) that the British Throne has become stronger while all the other great thrones have ceased to exist; and (2) that the British Isles have enjoyed a peace absolutely unknown to the Continent of Europe. The article then goes on to give the usual explanation that some higher power is guiding the British Peoples, i.e. ?The National Celebrations next May will have a significance far greater than that of State Ceremonial?they will express the country?s unshakeable confidence in its own structure and DESTINY.? The commencement of the year 1936 witnessed the world-wide mourning at the passing of the beloved King. Immediately following came the accession of King Edward VIII with promise and hope never before associated with any King. Then at the close of 1936 came the tragic abdication. Concerning the latter constitutional crisis, Dr. Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, made the following comment in his broadcast address, December 13th, 1936. ?Truly it has been a wonderful proof of the STRENGTH and STABILITY of the throne. It is right to be proud of the way in which the nation has stood the test. Yet let there be no boasting in our pride. Rather let it pass into humble and reverent thankfulness for this renewed token of the guidance of the nation?s life by the over-ruling providence of our God?who can doubt that in all the events of these memorable days GOD HAS BEEN SPEAKING.? Then came 1937, Coronation Year, when all eyes were further turned to the throne of destiny in the crowning of H.M. King George VI. There is only one explanation which throws light on all this prominence associated with the throne at this time, and it found in the Book which is peculiarly the Book of the British peoples- the BIBLE. That the British are latter-day descendants of the Israel nation of the Bible needs no proof here. The great masses of Israel lost their identity after the dispersion of 741-721 B.C. and never returned to Palestine. However, St, Paul foretold in 2 COR., 3-16, that some day Israel would return to God, and that then ?THE VAIL SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY.? Many Bible students are agreed that the time has now come when the British people are to realise, not that they have been guided by some unknown etherial ?Destiny,? but that they are modern Israel and that God has been watching over His people to fulfil His promises and purposes in them. Here then is the only logical and reasonable explanation as to why the Throne of Britain still survives the shattering influence of revolutions, which in turn, have shaken France, Russia, Germany and Spain. It is the purpose of this book to prove from the Bible and history, that the Throne of Great Britain is the latter-day development of the EVERLASTING THRONE OF DAVID OVER ISRAEL. May this book assist to do that which God has promised will be done in this generation 1914-1954-that the ?VAIL shall be taken away? and the blindness of the British peoples be removed; blindness to their identity as Israel to their Davidic Throne and to their God. First of all let us examine the scriptural grounds for expecting that David?s throne over the nation of Israel should exist in the world to-day. In GEN. 17-4 and 16, we read that God promised Abraham and Sarah (about 1916 B.C.) that from them would come a great ?commonwealth of nations? which would be reigned over by an ancient dynasty of ?KINGS.? The promises were repeated to their son Isaac and then to his son Jacob. Also about 1050 B.C. (As we read in 2 SAM. 5) God gave Israel a king after His own heart- DAVID, and made him repeated promises from which we are able to quote clearly defined statements that the descendents of David would continue to reign over Israel for a period of time called ?FOR EVER,? i.e. until time should cease. For example, 2 SAM. 7 names three items which would exist FOR EVER that is from David?s time1050 B.C. to the end of the millennium. (1) David?s own family; (2) the throne of David; and (3) the nation or Kingdom of Israel; but apparently these three items ceased to function about 400 years after David, an apparent contradiction to the definite promises made by God concerning their continued existence FOR EVER, or till the end of the ages. 2 ., 7, records the story in which King David was contemplating building a Temple or Church to God, when the prophet Nathan, as the Divine mouth-piece, promised David that (1), (2), and (3) as above would exist FOR EVER. Verses 12 and 13- ?I shall set up thy seed (Solomon, etc.), after thee?and I will stablish the THRONE of his (David?s Family) and thy Kingdom (Israel) shall be established FOR EVER?thy THRONE (known afterwards as the throne of David) shall be established FOR EVER.? David must have received a profound impression when he heard these amazing promises made so clearly to him by God. We read that he immediately went to prayer, and as he poured out his gratitude and thanks to God, we can see by his words that he understood clearly the FACTS in God?s promises; that they were LITERAL promises made concerning a PHYSICAL family reigning on an EARTHLY throne over a very REAL nation. David?s reply is found in verses 19-29- ??thou hast spoken of thy servant?s HOUSE FOR A GREAT WHILE TO COME.? (Not just for the 400 odd years from 1050 B.C. to the dispersion 585 B.C.). ?Thou hast confirmed to thyself, thy people ISRAEL to be a PEOPLE unto thee FOR EVER. ?And let the HOUSE of thy servant David be established FOR EVER, according to thy word that thou hast spoken.? Here David?s answer shows that he believed literally what God had just promised him, and David did not for one moment doubt the word and honour of God; neither should we. In PSALM 89 these promises to David are repeated even more clearly and definitely. In verse 1, the Psalmist reveals that his purpose in writing this Psalm is to ?make known God?s FAITHFULNESS to all generations.? He then goes on to quote God?s promises to David as an EXAMPLE of this faithfulness. Therefore if to-day we cannot find the ?the throne of David? we shall have to acknowledge that God has failed lamentably to keep His promises, even more so when He actually directs our attention to the fulfillment of those promises as a demonstration of His faithfulness. PSALM 89 repeats the promises made to David in God?s own words. (V. 3, 4)- ?I have made a covenant (agreement or contract)?I have sworn unto David?Thy seed will I establish FOR EVER, and build up THY THRONE TO ALL GENERATIONS. (V. 35) I will not lie unto David. (V. 36) His seed shall endure for ever, AND HIS THRONE as the SUN before me, and (V. 37) as the MOON.? David believed what God told him, and so he wrote in verse 2-?Thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens.? i.e., by fulfilling His promises to David. So that in PSALM 89, the truth of God?s word once more hinges upon our ability to show that the throne of David has existed from the days of David 1050 B.C. until now, without a break for even one generation. We know that about 400 years after David?s death, his throne ceased to function in Jerusalem. In 721 B.C., the ten-tribed House of Israel was taken into Assyria. 130 years later the House of Judah was taken captive in Babylon. It looked as if God?s promises had completely failed because the Royal City of Jerusalem, and the male members of the Royal Family had passed captive into the hands of Gentile Babylon. Certainly the outlook was hopeless. But in the midst of these tragedies the voice of God spoke reassuringly through the lips of the prophet Jeremiah, that He would still be faithful to His promises to David. i.e., JEREMIAH 33-17 to 26- ?For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man (descendant, male or female) to sit upon the throne of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL. ?If ye can break my covenant of the DAY, and my covenant of the NIGHT, that there should not be day and night in their season, Then (and then only) may also my covenant be broken with David..(so)..that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne. Thus saith the Lord-If my covenant be not with DAY and NIGHT, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of HEAVEN and EARTH, THEN will I cast away the seed of David?so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.? Notice that in both PSALM 89 and JEREMIAH 33, God directs our attention to the SUN, MOON, DAY, NIGHT, the HEAVENS, and the EARTH, that so long will there ALSO exist the THRONE of David over Israel. Down through the centuries of Israel?s 2520 years? dispersion out of the land of Palestine, the SUN and the MOON have continued to shine. Where then has been the co-existing throne of David?! Every 24 Hours, as our earth rotates into the sunlight and then away from it into darkness, DAY and NIGHT are God?s appointed witnesses that the throne of David, and Israel, are still functioning on the earth. This small volume does not attempt to prove the Davidic origin of our British throne through detailed genealologies or historical tables. It is possible from historical evidence to trace back the descent of our Royal Family to King David by numerous links. There exist several genealogical charts composed by eminent scholars after much research in demonstration of those links. However, it is proposed first of all, to examine evidence close at hand, as provided in the CROWN JEWELS, and the CORONATION CEREMONY, with their many obvious proofs of the Israel identity of the British Throne. THE SYMBOLISM OF THE CORONATION CEREMONY (2) The throne of Britain is the oldest in Europe, and it has preserved the same fundamental coronation service (as far as our records go back) from Egferth 785 A.D., that is, for 1155 years. When the Anglo-Saxons reached England they were converted to Christianity, and the coronation service of their kings was taken from the Bible accounts of the crowning of Israel?s kings on the throne of David prior to the dispersion. When Imperial Rome fell, the Roman-Gothic kings who arose in Europe crudely imitated the English ceremony and failing to realize its significance even imitated in Latin, references only applicable to England! In the following pages some of the important parts of the coronation ceremony of British kings will be studied. As each part is examined, the corresponding ceremony in the coronation of the Kings of Israel of old, such as Saul, David and Solomon, will be contrasted. As one by one the numerous Israelitish features of the British Coronation are reviewed, the reader will form the only conclusion possible, that in Britain is found the ?everlasting throne of David.? The official extracts quoted in this book are taken from secular magazines printed to commemorate the crowning of H.M. King George V., in 1911. These magazines have reported word for word the ceremonies attached to the ascension of British Kings, and as they have no British-Israel bias, their evidence is valuable; the following parts of the Coronation ceremony have been selected for examination, as they occur in time order. A.-The CROWN JEWELS. B.-The entrance of the King into the Abbey. C.-The PRESENTATION of the King to the People. D.-The SERMON by the Representative of the Church. E.-Taking the OATH to defend the Protestant Bible. F.-The ANOINTING with Oil. G.-The Investing with the IMPERIAL ROBE, and the ORB. H.-The presentation of the SCEPTRE and the ROD. I.- The CROWNING. J.-The BRACELETS and the SPURS OF ST. GEORGE K.-The presentation of the BIBLE. L.-The INTHRONIZATION. (A). THE CROWN JEWELS These are kept in the Jewel House which is part of the Tower of London famous for its historic associations with Royalty, The regalia such as the crowns, scepter, rod, and orb, etc., may be seen encased in glass behind iron bars. Millions of visitors go specially to view this most precious regalia which it is estimated 5,000,000 pounds could not buy. Each night the keys of the Jewel House are handed over to the Lieutenant of the Tower. He challenges the guard who answer that they bear ?The King?s keys.? ?God save the King? answers the Lieutenant as he takes the keys. Such an exclamation for so long associated with British Royalty is a purely Israelitish cry as we shall see later in this chapter. The average visitor to the Tower of London must be very curious as to why, among the Royal Regalia, there are more SALT-CELLARS than anything else. The Author counted at least a dozen huge gold salt-cellars, yet saw no other parts of a dinner-service, just the SALT-cellars used at the Coronation Banquets down through the centuries. One salt-cellar presented to Charles II. By the City of Exeter, cost over 3,000 pounds. Along with all the Regalia, there are on exhibition TWELVE beautiful gold SALT-SPOONS. What is the explanation and symbolism of the presence of these SALT-cellars and spoons? The number TWELVE is a significant ISRAEL number (twelve tribes, twelve disciples, etc.). On looking up ?SALT? in Dr. Smith?s Dictionary of the Bible,? page 1,096 reports that in the Old Testament, ?no sacrifice was offered to God without SALT. Being an antiseptic it symbolized FIDELITY.? Now in 2 CHRON., 13, we read in verse 5, ?Ought ye not to know that the Lord God of Israel gave the Kingdom over Israel to David FOR EVER, EVEN TO HIM, AND HIS SONS BY A COVENANT OF SALT.? Here the writer of the Chronicles likens the promises made by God to David, to a covenant as a sign of faithfulness, Dr, Smith says that this particular ?covenant of salt? God made with David, was one which ?betokened an indissoluble alliance between friends.? Now we see the symbolism of the numerous SALT-CELLARS which form part of the Crown Jewels. Here in the British Throne is the latter-day fulfillment of God?s covenant with David, likened to a ?covenant of salt,? indicating God?s supreme faithfulness to fulfill all He promised David. The night before the coronation, the Regalia, such as the Crowns and Scepters, etc., are brought from the Tower of London to Westminster Abbey where they are placed in a room near the main entrance, known as the ?JERUSALEM? chamber. When the nations of Israel and Judah were completely dispersed out of Palestine at the commencement of the ?7 times? dispersion, the throne of David ceased to function in Jerusalem about 585 B.C. or 2520 years ago. During this exile we should expect to find the throne of David in the ?JERUSALEM? or capital city of Israel in her dispersion. For 1200 years London has been the Royal City of Anglo-Saxondom; and also the centre of the world?s missionary enterprise; then what a striking coincidence that this historic Chamber where the Regalia reposes the night before the Coronation, should be called the ?JERUSALEM? Chamber. The official ?Guide Book to the abbey? comments that ?the Cedar wood with which the walls are lined is said to have been brought from Lebanon; the name ?Jerusalem? was thus appropriate to the Chamber.? This is interesting when we read 1 KINGS, 5-5, where Solomon requested the King of Tyre for Cedar-wood ?to build a HOUSE unto the Lord my God,? and (6) asked the King to ?command that my servants hue me CEDAR TREES out of LEBANON.? Moreover upon the Tapestry in this Chamber there is woven a scene called the ?Judgment of Solomon.? This is significant when we remember that Solomon ?sat on the throne of his father David,? when Israel reached the peak of her glory and fame prior to her declension and scattering. This tapestry portrayal of Solomon exercising his God-given-wisdom, is also a symbolical picture of Christ reigning upon the same ?throne of David over Israel,? in the millennium. Then again when King James I brought into being the English translation of the Bible known as the Authorized Version 1611, it was in the Jerusalem Chamber that a large part of this greatest treasure of English literature was written. Also it was in the same Jerusalem Chamber that the famous Revised Version was prepared (issued 1881, 1885). Such translations of the Bible were proof in themselves that Britain was latter-day Israel, and her throne the throne of David, as explained in section (K). (B). THE ENTRANCE OF THE KING INTO THE ABBEY. On the actual Coronation Day, the Civil and Ecclesiastical dignitaries who bear the Regalia, leave the Jerusalem Chamber of the Abbey, and meet the King at the western door which is close by. Thence the procession advances up the Nave led by the choristers who sing the Anthem. ?I was glad when they said unto Me, we will go into the House of the Lord.? The title of the Anthem is taken from PSALM 122 composed by King David. The first few verses which are sung, are as follows- (1) ?I was glad when they said unto me, let us go into the House of the Lord. (2) Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem? (4) Whither the tribes go up?to give thanks unto?the Lord (5) FOR THERE ARE SET?THE THRONES OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID. (6) Pray for the peace of Jerusalem? (7) Peace within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.? Surely this Psalm is literally fulfilled as our Royalty advance into Westminster Abbey which is the ?House of the Lord? of the British Empire. Of all cities London has the greatest claim to be the ?City of PEACE? or Israel?s ?Jerusalem? during her exile from Palestine. As His Majesty advances into the Theatre in the centre of the Abbey he is confronted by the representatives of the Commonwealth of Nations over whom he will reign. The forefathers of Israel -Abraham, Isaac and Jacob- were all promised by God that their descendants would form a great ?Company? or ?Commonwealth of Nations? in the ? last days.? Before him, the Sovereign sees the representatives of the greatest Empire of history, who have gathered to signify their acceptance of His Majesty as their King. Here then commences that part of the Coronation ceremony known as, (C). THE PRESENTATION OF THE KING TO THE PEOPLE. An eyewitness account is as follows- ?The Archbishop of Canterbury, turning to the East side of the Theatre, challenges the assembly with the question-?Sirs, I here Present unto you King George, the undoubted King of the realm; Wherefore, all you are come this day to do your Homage, are ye willing to do the same?? In like manner the assent of the congregation is solicited on the South, West and North. The King all the while stands, and turns his face to the several sides of the Theatre as the Archbishop is speaking at each of them. At the same time, the people signify their assent by acclamation, and cries of ?GOD SAVE THE KING,? which rise from every part of the Abbey.? Now let us go back nearly 3,000 years and read the account of the Coronation of Israel?s first King, Saul. From the Exodus from Egypt in 1486 B.C., by ?Judges?; however, the time came when they demanded of Samuel the Prophet that they have a King ?to judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles? (I. SAM., 8-6, 19, 20). Samuel called Israel together and told them that in desiring an earthly King to rule over them, they were really rejecting God as their King. However, their request was granted, and the line of Kings who followed Saul over Israel became the Vice-Regents of God, the eternal King of Israel. After Samuel had gathered Israel together we read in I. SAM., 10-24- ?And Samuel said to all the people, ?See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen,? and all the people shouted and said ?GOD SAVE THE KING.?? Samuel was brought up among the Priests in the Tabernacle, and became Israel?s foremost prophet. How exactly similar then is the ?Presentation? of the British Kings by the Archbishop, to the ?Presentation? of Israel?s Kings from Saul onwards. Here, too, is the origin of our NATIONAL ANTHEM ?God Save the King,? the very same acclamation with which the Kings of Israel were received by the people when Israel dwelt in Palestine prior to the dispersion. There then follows (D). THE CORONATION SERMON, delivered by either the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Dean of the Abbey, or some prominent Church-man. The preaching of such a sermon absolutely originated in Israel. There are numerous examples in the Old Testament where the Prophet or Priest addressed the King and the people of Israel at their coronations. But what is most interesting , in examining the sermons given at the crowning of various British Kings, is the number of times the Clergy chose, as the subjects of their addresses, scripture referring to various Kings of Israel. For example, at the Coronation of George III., Bishop Drummond preached on I KINGS, 10-9-?lessed be the Lord God which delighted to set thee on the THRONE OF ISRAEL, because the Lord loved Israel for ever. Therefore made He thee King to do judgment and justice.? This scripture was actually addressed to King Solomon, some 2,900 years ago! In this way, unconsciously, the clergy have likened the throne of Britain to Israel?s throne of old, little realising they were referring to the same throne over the same people, but in the ?latter days.? That is as much as I can transcribe for now; I have to keep up with my obligations in the program I?m in. I go to regular NA meetings, which I see as great centers of spirituality, even though on the surface they look kind of bland; that?s their paradox. The ?little realising? sentence is a good one to end on, because it was ?little realising? it that I wrote most of this letter. I had no idea of the notions raised in that book, when I wrote the 1st and 2nd letter to you, it was only at the end of this one that I found it, and I have changed nothing on account of it. I?ve gone back and changed some spelling and grammar, but I?ve added nothing about David and God, those things were already there before I ever saw the book. I shouldn?t really need to transcribe any more anyway, because by now you should have seen the profound connection. The book goes on for several more chapters to describe such things as Jacob?s stone being handed down through Irish Queens, to wind up in The Abbey. It rings so true that I have not even needed to read much of it to see and feel the truth and relevance of it. I?m sure that you will be supplied now with sufficient enough inspiration to do your own research. Intuitively, and logically, I have always known that England is a conspicuously magical source of outpour. Now I can appreciate why. The idea that the Israelites wandered thus, is something that I?m sure the Rastafarians would appreciate. They worship Ras Tafari as God, and do so, it is my understanding, because he was a descendant of Solomon through the Queen of Sheba. He wore a ring which contained a part of one of Solomon?s rings, that he bequeathed to Bob. There is also a sect of Judaists in Ethiopia that make a rather serene claim to having the Ark. If they do have it, I expect that it is well guarded; by God. I wrote in the 2nd installment about the various reasons there are for why we do and don?t understand things, but the bottom line is that we understand when God decides we will. God can keep a million search parties from finding that Ark, and can lead one to it just as effortlessly. We have to make the effort to come to terms with this power, that even perplexed David at times, so that we can work with it. God has hardened hearts, like Pharaoh?s. But now it is becoming ever increasingly clear that hearts will soften, just in time for the advents here outlined. And God doesn?t even need to blind anyone to prevent them from seeing; just refrain from unblinding them. God?s sheer magnitude is enough to prevent anyone from ever seeing the real picture. If people can?t allow themselves to contemplate the comparatively little things I?ve outlined, then they are far from seeing God. Yet, part of God?s power, is that we will be shown this wondrous magnitude nonetheless. (Another thing we may have contrast to thank for.) I can?t wait! It?s easy for me to talk tough though, I?m only speculating here. When God really comes, I will be on my knees with everyone else. But I will find it a lot easier to keep my composure if free world has been achieved first. People tell me often to forget about the world and just concentrate on helping myself. Well, by doing this rehab, I am helping myself more than ever before. But also, by conceiving free world, I am doing it from within me and without me. (Although George believed in life after life, I mourn for him still, and extend my condolences to you.) Speaking of within me, I will finish this letter by updating you on my mum?s situation. She has gone to Melbourne, and is staying at her mum?s house. Her mum Marie, is holding up really well, she?s not a 100% after some operations, but she sounds pretty damn good. I was delighted to get a call, which interrupted my typing just an hour ago, from them both. It was quite monumental for me to speak to them both at once. I haven?t spoken with grandma for years, but she?s real happy with me now that I?m cleaning my life up. The thing is that if I?m on to something with this free world, then I?m doing my bit to clean up life in general as well, so it?s profound that the dearest and most direct parts of my life, those two majestic ladies, are going through parallel trials, which I am hoping, and trusting, since I?ve been given cause to, they will come out of supremely well. They are both going through Saturn returning, but I hope that their Saturnalia (A golden festival that used to be held around Christmas time) will be deservingly royal. It?s appropriate that their fate should rest with the queen, since they are both queens to me. Many mums everywhere are queens to their offspring, and many sons and daughters are princes and princesses to their parents. It?s high time that we all got to a stage where we can treat them as such. Yours truly, and finally for now, Tully Chandler
-
I just wanted to say, yesterday 9-20-06 we celebrated our 31st year of being married. I told Dave back before we got married he would have to share me with The Beatles and I must say, he has done a great job
-
Hey Paulie! You the man! (STILL!) Keep doing what you`re doing, and don`t let it ever stop!
-
Paul,which plans do you have on 2007?
-
mikhail:
Paul,which plans do you have on 2007?
Do you wanna invite him to Russia?
-
I know you probably don't have time to read all these messages, but I just wanted to say that I am really looking forward to your new classical album. My daughter is sixteen and is in the band at school, and she plays the tuba! Everytime I go to one her concerts I think of you. You have made me appreciate classical music so much. Your music is so inspiring, keep up the good work!
-
Yes,of course.In my town,in my flat!
-
mikhail:
Yes,of course.In my town,in my flat!
Great So Tula is not very far from Moscow... I think I'll come to see you both
-
Hello Paul wish you were well!!
-
You^re welcome!We can make a big party and call Diana,Kathy and other fans!
-
That would be great
-
Yeah!That will be cool!
-
Paul,how are you?
-
Paul,you are the BEST!!!