View source for Talk:2018-07-02-New Era Transition 42

[[File:lighterstill.jpg]]

Among the many objections to Daniel Raphael's work are:

*1. He cites academic authority using a bogus Ph.D.
*2. His work parrots Neo Conservative US foreign policy. [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2013-08-31-New_Era_Conversations_7 NEC 7][http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2013-09-13-New_Era_Conversations_8 NEC 8] 
*3. He cites the Rothschild family as a model of social sustainability. [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=2013-10-18-New_Era_Conversations_9#Lesson NEC 9]
*4. He has spiritual beings citing the amorality of their protocols.[http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=2014-04-25-New_Era_Conversations_20#Dialogue NEC 20]
==Content==
Members present:  Roxanne Andrews, Craig Carmichael, Liz Cratty, Jeff Cutler, Doug Dodge, Michael McCray, and Stéphane Labonteé.

 

Invocation:  Liz

 

July 2, 2018

 

MACHIVENTA:  Good morning, this is Machiventa Melchizedek and I welcome you to another day.  We are blessed to have you working with us, as you bless your lives to the will of the Father and to your Thought Adjusters and to Christ Michael’s will for your world, and for your own life. 

 

Why Christ Michael sent his Correcting Time

 

As for our opening statement today, if you look back to the time that we began these conference calls so long ago, you were totally unaware at that time of what was ahead for you and for your nations.  Now, you understand why we are here, what Christ Michael has ordered to be done, and what we have agreed to do with him willingly and willfully to fulfill his wishes.  Your world is in a situation of increasing despair and the loss of hope by many people around the world.  You now see that the ethics of Christ Michael of fair play and equal treatment has always been a signature of his work, and so too, you see now why our work together with you is so timely.  We are at a place in your world, and you are in a place in your societies and your nations where our presence is so important and the work of Nebadonia and her angels to influence and provide millions and billions of people with alternatives and options for their thinking and for their lives is much needed and is now in effect.

 

Focus is on societies and families

 

We have no comment concerning your politics or your economies, though we do have much to say about your societies and your families and the conduct of social institutions.  With that we will now begin the remainder of our session.  I know, personally, that we have supplied you with an abundance of material to ask questions about, and so now we open the session to the field of your questions.

 

The collapse of the insect population

 

Jeff:  I have several questions, one of which I may not ask as it is sort of a political question.  My first question is the alarming collapse in the insect population is starting to be noticed.  Can you comment on this?

 

MACHIVENTA:  It is part of the despair of your world and the collapse of a large segment of your economies in the future.

 

A question on the solar cycle

 

Jeff:  My next question is about solar cycle 23, which was weaker than peak-to-trough and somewhat longer in duration than previous observations over the last 100 years.  Cycle 24 started weaker than expected and has declined faster than expected.  Is this solar activity connected with the coming cataclysms?

 

MACHIVENTA:  It is a way of the Power Directors ameliorating the increase in temperatures on your world.

 

Jeff:  So, the global warming could possibly be offset by the lack of sunspots and the decline in solar flares?

 

MACHIVENTA:  You are correct.

 

Jeff:  Does the change in the magnetism of the sun, or the solar activity, is that affecting the rise in volcanic activity that we see, or is that a cycle all by itself?

 

MACHIVENTA:  It is a separate cycle.

 

Is a Republic the best form of government to implement the 7 core values?

 

Jeff:  My last question I will ask kind of carefully; it has to do with a larger nature of politics.  I’ll just read it to you:  “History indicates that past Republics have developed into oligarchies and dictatorships.  The US appears to be heading in that direction.”  The question is, is a Republic the best form of government to implement the 7 core values, or is there a better model?

 

MACHIVENTA:  A Democratic Republic is the best option at this time.  I might add that there are influences that are coming about which will have a counteractive effect of the rise of an oligarchy and the sequestering of the economy into the hands of a very few people.  Your world has now fully populated; it has various forms of governance around the world.  The most evolved are Democratic Republics; there is in process means for hundreds of millions of people to have a more direct say in the option-development and choice-making for their social institutions, their politics, and their economies.  It is important that the masses of humanity and intelligent decision-makers be co-participants in your Democratic process; it is not that the public would make the decisions, but they would have an influence in participating in the option-development and choice-making, with decision-making still having to reside with those who govern.

 

Jeff:  Thank you.

 

Rebellion against the churches

 

Stéphane:  Good morning.  I have a question about the mind-chatter and the rebellion against the churches, which involves a large part of the population.  One does not have to consciously believe in God in order to be a loving and caring person.  The same is true for truth discernment, to some extent.  So, this allows for societies to grow secularly and be aligned to some extent with Universe realities.  But at what point is conscious belief in God required to achieve a higher spiritual growth, both in this life as a person, and as a society?

 

MACHIVENTA:  I will address the first part of your question: as far as the person is concerned, and it will impact the second answer as well, is that the individual who participates in right-thinking, who expresses the highest values of their life for themselves and for all others, is a major and important element of a secular/religious society.  They make, perhaps, as much or more of a contribution to the social evolution of their societies than the religious people do.  This may seem to be shocking to you, but consider the fact that most churches are very authoritarian, very doctrinaire and very stringent about indoctrinating and enculturating their populations, their members, with the tenets and doctrines of that religion.  They in fact, oftentimes retard the social evolution of a nation and of a culture.

 

Now, as for the soul growth of the individual, this we have found that when those individuals who are of a secular nature and do not necessarily repudiate the existence of God, but are agnostic and do not disavow the presence of God, that once they cross the threshold of life into the morontial realm, they speedily accept the fact that there is a God, that there is a Creator, and that their life as a mortal was an innate part of the Creator’s plan.

 

Implementation of the 7 values into corporations

 

Stéphane:  I have a question, Machiventa, about the 7 values and the implementation, not so much as a society or at the personal level, but in the corporations.  We’ve mentioned in past sessions how the 7 values can be used in corporations for decision-making.  I have an opportunity coming up to present this concept in my corporation. Would the quality of life equate to the quality of investments for corporate shareholder return?

 

 

MACHIVENTA:  Let us make a very clear distinction at this point in discussing individuals and corporations.  Corporations are not individuals, they have no soul and they have no possibility of transcending into the morontial realm.  Their existence is solely done on the basis of profit-making.  It is important to note that equality of corporations and individuals is non-existent; there is no crossover between the organization and the individual.  The only crossover that is possible is through the executives and decision-makers who carry forward the values of equality and growth and quality of life.  The 7 values are not really applicable to a corporation as an entity, as they have no soul, and they have no personality and they have no personal exchange with their service clientele or their patients or their customers, etc.  They exist to make a profit; how they make a profit does concern us, and that is where we come in here in this discussion with you this morning.  It is important that for the corporation that first of all, that their work, their products, their services, their explorations and their mining of mineral resources from the earth does not create a negative influence upon the physical lives, social lives, economic lives and political lives of their service audience.  Are you with me so far?  (Stéphane:  So far, yes; thank you.)  You are welcome.  It is important that the morality—what we are then speaking of is a morality and ethic—in the case of corporations it would be an ethic.

 

Unethical behavior leads to immoral activities

 

Let me go back a minute and give you an example:  In the case of Volkswagen, they created a moral problem for themselves as the decisions of the executives compromised the standards of the Environmental Protection Act by cheating on the standards for diesel engines during EPA testing.  Thus the decision they made was immoral because it affected the physical lives and the health and well-being of individuals wherever their vehicles were sold, whether they purchased the vehicle or not.  Therefore it is immoral; they had made an egregious moral violation in their business conduct.

 

On the other hand, let us take as an example, Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo had inflated its ledgers of accounts available by millions and millions of fraudulent accounts.  This has an ethical impact upon the general population and particular to other businesses as other banks.  The existence of those kinds of decisions is unethical because it allows for and even encourages the slow creep of unethical decision-making over the years and decades.  More and more unethical behavior eventually leads to immoral activities such as we have seen with Volkswagen.  This is then a threat to the very welfare of the people, of the societies in which those corporations operate.

 

As advice, of how to steer this conversation with upper management, has its roots in what I have said in answer to your question.  We are not strict adherents to the 7 values, but we wish that their influence increase over the years and decades so that it becomes a moral and ethical obligation to conduct business such that it is helpful to those nations and to the people who use those products.  You know as well as we, that the decrease of sulfur in diesel was a very needed and useful, ethical and moral decision to make.  So too with other products that petroleum companies sell.  This is an example that was made out of necessity to prevent the overreaction of EPA agencies to stick their hand into your business more and more directly.  It was a good decision.

 

Do you have further questions regarding what I have said?

 

Decisions impacting shareholders’ returns

 

Stéphane:  Yes.  You have mentioned the impact on the population, but the corporation makes decisions according to shareholders’ return.  The impact of what you have said is that the shareholders would have to start understanding that decisions are being made in line with the 7 core values?

 

MACHIVENTA:  Perfect!  Perfect!  Yes, that excites me; that excites us!

 

Stephane:  So shareholders need to start having the same aspirations aligned with the 7 core values. Would this justify less corporate profit as long as alignment with the 7 core values is maintained?

 

MACHIVENTA:  What must precede that is that the corporation must begin educating shareholders, and that as they learn more and more about the 7 values and social sustainability, and really what you are going to see in the future is a constriction of your ability to market your products, and therefore as shareholders learn more and more about these values and how they will impact the future of the corporation and of society and the environment, the more that shareholders will be willing to accept decreased profits.

 

Changing corporations’ mission statements

 

Liz:  So this could be published on the corporation web site as a change to their mission statement?

 

MACHIVENTA:  Yes, the word “change” is sometimes a little stiff and “amending” or “adapting” the mission statement to the current circumstances of the environment of the world at large, the material environment as well as the market environment, would be a good place to start.

 

Stéphane:  For instance, one of the mission statements within our mission is to be a good neighbor, so that could be a great start to expanding to at least the first 3 core values.

 

MACHIVENTA:  Yes, definitely.  The first 4 values—life and the 3 primary values—are a good place to start.  The other ones then become the compassionate neighbor aspect, which will come later.  Thank you; that is an excellent suggestion.

 

Employee ownership in corporations

 

Stéphane:  This expands then to employees being a shareholder in the corporation, which has been mentioned in the past.  Can you elaborate on how the 7 core values impact greater employee shareholding in corporations?

 

MACHIVENTA:  This is where you and we get into the morality and ethics of shareholding and of ownership and of decision-making, is that employees… it would be interesting for the banking shareholders and shareholders of Volkswagen to take a poll, a survey of them for the fact that they were passively complicit with executive management in the conduct of those decisions.  The reality of that may affect shareholders how they feel.  As employees it is important both for their own livelihood and welfare and their standard of living and lifestyles to be co-participant in those decisions, particularly at the option-development and choice-making level.  It is important that this continue as you are young enough to see the years and decades ahead that there will be an increasing ownership by employees.  This is the best moral way of distributing profits and decreasing the egregious 99/1% separation in economies, particularly in those developed economies.  It is a matter of awareness; it is a matter of ownership, both employees and shareholders in general are not fully aware that they are complicit with immoral and unethical decisions by the executive decision-makers.  I hope this answer suffices.

 

Stéphane:  Thank you; it’s been very good.

 

Use of RoundUp on GMO foods

 

Jeff:  Machiventa, it was probably two years ago—I can’t remember now—that I asked you the question if genetically modified foods were harmful, and you answered, “no.”  But in that period of time, we have seen many farmers—I don’t know how many, but some—take glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in RoundUp, and spray it on the plants themselves, particularly corn, to kill the plant early to save money on the cost of drying the grain.  And that was my understanding that that was not the intended use of the RoundUp, that it was to kill weeds around the plants so that there was less competition for water.  So I would like to rephrase my question.  Is the corn and other grains that farmers are spraying directly onto the plants to kill them early, is that harmful for us and is that something that would relate to your comment about the employees of a corporation looking more for truth and justice in their products than the senior executives who are essentially working for stock market gains as compensation?

 

MACHIVENTA:  You are partially correct.  Let me state unequivocally that spraying of this glyphosate onto the corn is harmful.  What is immoral is the genetic modification of the grains of corn so that the corn is tolerant to the RoundUp.  The RoundUp is used to kill the weeds around the corn, and so when the corn has been modified to accept the presence of that chemical, then the profit increases immensely both for farmers and for the corporation.  What is immoral is that the inclusion of this molecule into the gene structure of the corn causes heavy digestive problems in those who eat corn and wheat products that have been modified to accept the presence of RoundUp, and other products that use those chemical bases.  This is an egregious, unethical, and immoral process; it threatens the life and livelihood of those who ingest these products.  As you know, modified corn in general can be used in over 100 products, many of which are unknown to most people.  Therefore, almost all people have been ingesting these products in the world economies. 

 

Only the most indigenous people who do not have those modified grains in their diets do not have this problem, and as many of you have known, many countries still have their own indigenous grains.  When produced into corn meal and flour, they are highly digestible by the visitors from other countries who are intolerant to the glutens of the products that have been genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate.  This was not known in the early stages, at least to the public, though they were known to the laboratory technicians and laboratory genetic engineers in those corporations decades ago.  Now it is almost common knowledge that those chemically engineered grains are harmful to people. 

 

Let us separate that discussion from genetically modified food products that do not incur new chemicals, new molecules into their genetic structures, whether they are grains or whether they are fruits or legumes or otherwise is acceptable.  Just as you will see in decades ahead, and even now it has begun, that the modification of human genetic structures to eliminate destructive and harmful genetic anomalies is a benefit to humans directly, and it is a benefit to the production of grains and those food products I mentioned.  Just because they have been modified does not make that bad, immoral or unethical; in fact it improves the intentions of those originally given products by the Life Carriers for your species.  You are only beginning now to learn how to return to the original genetic structure of those plants in general so that they present no harm and that they do not have an already self-destructive genetic structure in them that disposes them to early disease, early death by some disease or virus, etc.

 

Do you have further questions?

 

Does use of RoundUp affect animal foods?

 

Jeff:  If I may follow up on this, if I am trying to buy all natural chicken, for example, there is no way I can know whether or not the farmer fed the chicken non-GMO corn scratch.  Is there a secondary buildup of this material you say that impedes ingestion, this part of glyphosate by eating of the flesh of an animal that was fed this particular type of grain?

 

MACHIVENTA:  One moment.  Several thoughts occur: one is that you would be advised to call the distributor of the chicken and ask them, as this is a means for developing a market for non-GMO grains and feeds to animals.  Yes, it does have an impact on your own ingestion, but most directly the impact is through your ingestion of GMO modified corn and grain products directly that have that molecule in their gene structure.  Laboratories have already done the analyses to answer the question you have asked and I ask you to proceed in your own investigation about that.  What your investigation will provide to the receiving end is awareness that consumers are beginning to get smart, and that they are thinking about this modified grain product entering their body through secondary means as you suggest.

 

Ethical corporations

 

Doug:  I have a follow-up question on ethical corporations.  My question is… this discussion this morning makes me think of a group of corporations that are called “V Corporations,” and that they try to do everything they can to not only be profitable, but they use their profits for the fair treatment of their employees, their communities, their environment, in fact their motto is “Be the best in the world to be the best for the world.”  This is a model of awareness that can be marketed and also as a consumer I can put my dollars into those kinds of corporations that have that as a model. 

 

MACHIVENTA:  Is that a question or is that a statement?

 

Doug:  I guess that is a statement.  So it just seems like, wouldn’t that be a model to follow that would kind of help to apply our 7 values to; it’s a way to work ourselves into it?

 

MACHIVENTA:  Yes, it would be and we are enthused by that and we see those corporations as being most receptive to those 7 values and the morality and ethics that surround and develop from those values.  It would be interesting and helpful for those corporations to know about the work that we are doing and the most recent work that we have produced through This One in the new title of “Making Sense of Ethics,” which is now available on the web site This One has populated with the books that we have co-authored with him.

https://sites.google.com/view/danielraphael/free-downloads

 

Doug:  Thank you.

  

Rise in racism—hate or fear based?

 

Liz:  I have struggled with how to ask this question, and so please bear with me as I try to articulate it, I am deeply disturbed by what seems to be the rise in racism in this country; I had a long conversation about it with a friend.  Everyone is calling it “hate speech,” I think it’s more like “fear instead of hate.”  First, I’ve always viewed monogamy in a marriage as a thing that is not normally natural for mammals, but instead is a spiritual decision among a couple, and so now I’m thinking that racism is kind of, perhaps, similar and that we are perhaps normally xenophobic, or we would prefer to be with those who look like us and fear those who do not look like us?  I’m wondering if the conversation about racism should be changed from that of “hating” to that of “fearing.”  I’m thinking of overcoming racism is perhaps a spiritual decision and one that we need to make on a day-by-day basis.  I know that you say that the 7 core values are part of our DNA, but I’m wondering if this “fear of the other” is also part of our mammalian DNA.

 

MACHIVENTA:  One moment.  You have presented several topics to address.  First of all, monogamy is a social decision, not a spiritual decision.  It is important for the social welfare and wellbeing and good order of your societies and social structures and social institutions that monogamy be used in those societies where plural marriages are distained.  So too, is racism.  Racism has its base in fear—you are completely correct.  Fear is also a part of the race memory; it is not part of the DNA; it is part of the race memory that harkens back to the days before social development within your race, within your species.  It has been said before that in the beginnings of your species, before social groups were organized or came into being, that when one saw another individual, they would kill them and eat them, even though they looked like them.  They were strangers, they were different, and so too, that carries over to today. 

 

However, you are incorrect in the current fear phase of racism; it is not fear of others, it is a selfish, egoistic, racism of superiority that we are “better, we are in control.”  Remember, those fears come about through fear of giving up authority, of power and control.  It is the fear of making all other people equal.  This is the basis for the fears; it is the sense of superiority, when in fact those you have found in social studies that those who hold such primitive values, views and perspectives of other races and genders, are in fact uninformed and uneducated and ill-informed.  As people become more and more educated and culturally astute, and have traveled and seen many nations and cultures and ethnic groups and genders, they tend to lower their guard and their hate of others, that other people are certainly worthy of having lives that offer the potential for equality, growth and a good quality of life.  When you hear of “racism,” it is of fear, fear of what?  Fear that “the other” will become equal to them and encroach upon their power, authority and control.  It is ignorant at its best.

 

Liz:  Thank you very much for that clarification.  I have a whole new way of looking at it now. 


Question of allowing refugees into nations already overpopulated

 

Roxie:  I have a question that is a little bit based on Liz’s question, but slightly different.  There is a battle going on between the factions of several countries over the question of whether to let refugees enter their country when they are already having massive problems with overpopulation.  This is difficult for us to solve using the 7 core values.  Is there a moral solution to this problem that you can help us with?

 

MACHIVENTA:  Yes, it is a most difficult problem for your world today.  The morality and ethics are involved in this way:  Do you morally and ethically allow those people to invade your nation and decrease the quality of life of everyone, and in fact perhaps increase the possibility of increased violence?  Or is it an ethical question of maintaining your… one moment.  This One is struggling with the language that is new to your world, as well as you are.  In those nations which have opened their doors, they recognize the morality of equality of the lives of those who want to emigrate.  Those nations have recognized the moral value of others.  Those who resist the influx of new populations have a moral, ethical stance to take as well, that though they recognize the value of other individuals, allowing those populations to come into their country has a way of retarding the economic and educational level of the whole nation, and creates an incredible ethical burden upon those people who have established their lives in that social structure of that nation and of their economy, and so on.  Accepting them would require increasing the burden of taxes upon those people who are employed to support those who are unemployed, which would increase immensely.

 

In technologically advanced nations, this becomes very difficult for those new people to become educated to a high school or college level in order to be able to be employed in many meaningful jobs.  Yes, they might be available to take on menial work of janitorial work, and of personal assistance in homes and in gardening, and so on, but there are a limited number of those positions to fill.  The ethical question you present is one of balance:  How much can the nation bear?  How much load can the population bear of an influx of new members to adequately integrate them into the culture, into the society, and into adequate employment and into the whole ethic and culture of that nation?  That has not been determined, and that is a question that is now coming under scrutiny in those nations that have invited those foreign individuals into their nations.  It has created an incredible moral burden.  The morality is quite easy:  One is to respect all people on the earth and to love them as you would love yourself and your neighbor and members of your family.  However, that does not obligate you to take them in as family members, does it?  No, it does not; that requires another adjustment.    

 

The overarching morality of the whole problem that you are seeing is overpopulation.  There is no regard for overpopulation either in the hosting nation, or from the nations and the populations that are coming into the new nation.  This is a moral question that must be answered and will be answered within the next two decades.  Forgoing that discussion and the moral decisions that are implicated and ethical questions that cascade from that are many and will be addressed only when the population of your world is crushed onto their knees to support the new numbers of people.  You will see an increased number of those people who are dying from starvation and from disease in those nations that cannot support themselves.  You will see an increase number of people who succumb to death in those nations in the Sahel of Africa, that borderland between the encroaching deserts of sand and the nations below them.  The Sahel continues to dry out as the climate changes to one that is warmer and dryer with less rainfall. 

 

The moral question for your whole world is overpopulation and how to morally and ethically afford your people, the whole world, and the means by which they can address and manage their own family population.  This is something that has not had open discussions and which is too ironically pregnant with a need to be answered.

 

Roxie:  Thank you very much!  That’s extremely helpful.

 

There has also been a lot of emphasis in our media lately on the fact that the suicide rate is increasing.  I know that some of the reason is just that the population is growing, but could you discuss this from your perspective, please?

 

MACHIVENTA:  I would prefer to disregard it at this time.  We would invite a question reformatted that addresses this subject though.

 

Clarification on word, “intention”

 

Craig:  To change the subject a bit.  I was wondering, I have trouble with the wording of “intention” and maybe it is just me as English is only my first language, but I look in the dictionary and I see it means, “Goals, aims or ultimate goals.”  When you say that an organization needs to have an “intention” or a society needs to have an “intention,” that means, does it not, that you need to set goals and have particular aims as to the future of that society or organization?

 

MACHIVENTA:  We see a great distinction between intention, goals and missions, and so on—objectives.  Intentions are those inclinations in a particular direction, even though you could take this from the work of Stéphane; he is striving to assist his corporation to take on a new intention of sustainability in the mission and in the goals and products that they sell.  The mission, of course, is to stay in business, but the intention is to become increasingly more sustainable as a business and morally compliant to the 7 values.  It is an attitude toward how you conduct your business; that is how we see intention.

 

Personal versus social morality

 

Craig:  You asked to be reminded about social morality versus individual moralities, so I have been visualizing individual morality as we are called upon to be tolerant and altruistic, turn the other cheek if necessary, whereas in social morality the prime responsibility is to protect society and protect all those altruistic individuals from people who would abuse that, and we’ve seen over the last century and more, names that are probably familiar of people who have egregiously used society and in so doing, have in fact impoverished the lives and life potentials of millions or even the whole society.  So, I don’t know if I have a question, but you have mentioned that that needs to be addressed before we can even have social continuity, let alone social sustainability.

 

MACHIVENTA:  Let us begin reframing that situation right now in our small group, here.  Let me give you an example, one that is very stark in nature.  The personal morality of social sustainability is that you will not kill other people, unless there is a moral obligation to do so.  You would do so in self-defense; you would do so if someone were attacking your children or your spouse or doing harm to another individual.  For instance, if you carried a weapon and you saw a man ready to throw a lighted firebomb at a school bus of children, you would be morally obligated to shoot that individual and disarm them of the firebomb. 

 

However, in society the moral difference is this:  Social morality has two goals — sustaining the Homo sapiens species and the best genetic structure of that species.  The second goal is to sustain and maintain and improve the social working order of the society and the social institutions.  That is the main thrust of social morality.  Social morality applies as an obligation is incurred through the morality and ethics of the 7 values for a society to sustain and maintain the good working order of its social institutions and its population.  Therefore, it has the moral justification to remove those individuals who are morally retarded and who are social predators who have an ongoing continual proclivity to abuse and predate on the populations of the host society.  This is an abhorrent idea to many of your population; this is another topic that has not been well discussed and has not been discerned even by the best of your social philosophers, let alone your political and social activists. 

 

Social activism must take on the dual roles of social sustainability as it applies to individual decision-making and second as it applies to societal sustainability.  Only through the development of the morality and ethics that emanate from the seven values can societies evolve, to become more self-sustaining.  The societies of both nations in North America are becoming increasingly socially UNsustainable.  There has been an ethical and moral encroachment upon the rights of others over time, which is now bordering on the acceptance of immoral behavior by those people in power.  How would you overcome that?  By revolution?  Surely not as social, political, and economic revolutions within a democratic nation will in historic analysis be seen as societal suicide.  The welfare and good working order of democratic nations must come about by rethinking the social philosophies that support democratic nations on a societal level. 

 

Do you understand and see the difference?

 

Craig:  Yes, thank you

 

MACHIVENTA:  This is much to digest because it causes a cultural and for some people a spiritual and moral dissonance that they are unacquainted with and unaccustomed to.  This is required for right thinking to preserve an evolving democratic society and nation is to use the 7 values on a societal basis to sustain your societies into a long and distant future for the best welfare of growth and equality of all concerned for all future generations.  The social morality you are speaking of is one for future generations.  The selfishness of current generations is egregious to us; it is abhorrent to us that such a tolerance for selfish needs in current generations with a total disregard and thinking and welfare for future generations that will come into being. 

 

Craig:  Yes, yes.  Thank you.  I can’t disagree with that at all.

 

MACHIVENTA:  We appreciate you being our “back pew” philosopher who takes time to think about these questions and who will cogitate upon them and give us feedback in future sessions.  Thank you.

 

Machiventa’s list of top issues we face

 

Stéphane:  Machiventa, if you were to make a list of top issues that societies today are not considering for the welfare of society, you mentioned overpopulation and the impact of this.  What would be your top list?

 

MACHIVENTA:  The top one, of course, would be overpopulation.  By simply addressing this one topic, you would then begin to necessarily address the problems of executive decision-making that is out of control that is impacting the public decision-making in a democratic society.  The third one would be concerns about the family, and in the family we are talking about overpopulation, we are talking about family as the primary social institution for the development of sustainable societies and competent and capable moral and ethical decision-makers of future generations in corporations and in medicine and education and government.  It is the family that is second and third after overpopulation.  It is a question that has not been addressed.  It is a social institution that has not been given the primary attention that it needs.  It and education are the two primary social institutions of every society, have been neglected, have not been thought of, have been relegated to their own devices, which has not proven helpful to your nation or any other nation.

 

I know that my answer may have been fuzzy, but hopefully not confusing.

 

Craig:  It’s great to prioritize, to be able to think about what are the most important issues.

 

MACHIVENTA:  Yes and the question was framed in the terms of the most neglected.

 

What is the current carrying capacity of the earth to support humans?

 

Jeff:  A follow-up question to this is do you have an opinion or an idea with the current technology available on the planet about what the real carrying capacity of human population is with sustainable farming and the decline of GMO raising crops, what is the current carrying capacity of the earth to support human beings?

 

Craig:  Jeff, are you asking what an ideal population for the planet right now is?

 

Jeff:  Yes, I guess that’s what I am saying.  What is the sustainable population for the planet right now?

 

MACHIVENTA:  Your question has a bifurcation to it that you were perhaps unaware of when you stated it.  One, the maximum capacity is over 8 billion people.  However the most sustainable and ideal population is 3.5 billion, at the most.  You must realize that as the population increases, the quality of life in all regards, and all the 7 values will be violated, that it becomes immoral to the whole society and to future generations that increasing population be allowed to continue.  It is immoral because it impacts the physical lives of those individuals who remain and who do not succumb to natural causes; it is immoral because it allows the continuing of inequality and the sequestering of material resources and financial resources with those few; it is immoral because it violates the potential of growth of those individuals who come into being and it violates the quality of life overall for everyone, even those who have sequestered themselves with great amounts of wealth and materiality to supply to them will have this impact them as the increase of population exceeds 8 billion and approaches 9 or 10 billion.  Then you will see your world on the verge of total collapse. 

 

However, politically, economically and socially it will never come to those numbers because the stated question was the ideal maximum population that is possible on this world.  If it approached 9.6 billion people before global collapse occurs and the elimination of almost all people at that time, politically, economically and socially, they will be in increasing contention and vying for control, authority and power long before that, and you are even now seeing that at 7.3 billion people.  This is the point at which there will be increasing agitation in your societies as the difficulties increase. 

 

Though the cataclysms that are physical in nature may be ameliorated due to the decrease or the maintenance of the temperature around the world, it will increase in tectonics and volcanism, and also social discontent and the discontent particularly in democratic nations where people know they have the right to equal say and equal participation in decision-making, but have been set to the sidelines by those people who have money to influence those who make these political decisions for selfish reasons and for self-interest in all regards.  We know this exceeds the bounds of your question in your statement, yet you must see the totality of what you are asking in ideal situations, both for an ideal maximum population and an ideal situation for population to have an equal quality of life and lifestyle for those who remain.  Thank you very much for your question.

 

Some countries declining to have children

 

Jeff:  If I may ask a follow-up to this, it appears that in several advanced societies, notably Japan and Italy and other countries, young people are increasingly declining to have children, and I think we touched on this issue once before.  Was this part of the Correcting Time where the desire to have many children is disappearing, but the rate of decline in those populations is rather small, compared to the environmental damage that is being done to feed the current population of the world?  Is that correct?

 

MACHIVENTA:  You are correct.

 

Jeff:  So, if the desire to have many children is being slowly changed in our DNA during the Correcting Time, will the—I’m not going to use the word “decimation” because I think that means a 10% decrease of the world’s population—instead of restarting the same cycle over and over again, is there a chance that on the other side of this population problem correction that it will have a self-stabilization that becomes innate in our DNA?

 

MACHIVENTA:  You are not correct in that regard.  Your question hinged on what you said was the desire to have children, and in most of the world the desire to have children is almost absent.  What occurs is that the desire for sexual intercourse is prevalent and primary to the problem.  What must come into being is decision-making to withhold having children while still enjoying sexual relationships that do not produce children.  This is the crux of modern society and of primitive society.  What you are seeing is a tremendous dissonance between that of Japan and nations that have incredible fecundity; that is why you see the tremendous difference.  Those who are in Japan and other developed nations that have a decreasing population have chosen not to have children because they have the means to prevent having children and they desire to maintain their quality of life.  Yes, perhaps that is a bit selfish by individuals who want to maintain a good standard of living and quality of life by not having children, but on the other hand it is responsible as well.

 

Is abortion against the Will of the Father?

 

Roxie:  Is abortion against the Will of the Father?

 

MACHIVENTA:  One moment.  Your question raises many problems.  The Will of the Father is that you do the Will of the Father.  What is your will?  What is the Will of the Father?  The will for mortals is to be in alignment with the Father, thus what the Father creates the Father wants to be in alignment with its creativity.  The issue of taking the life of a child that is growing in the womb is a moral question; it is not a question of creativity of the Creator.  I know that this is going to inflame many people and put people at distance from this, but it is a moral question.  If you align yourself with the Creator, then you would not have an abortion; you would responsibly be in alignment to withhold the death of an unborn; you would be responsible to your own life course to do the Father’s Will and that is to create life and to do it responsibly.

 

Roxie:  Thank you.  I knew that was a difficult question; it is for us too.

 

 Is suicide or euthanasia appropriate at the end of life?

 

Liz:  So a follow-up question to that is that at the end of life, when there is no hope and suffering, is it an appropriate action for one to seek the peaceful release of death?

 

MACHIVENTA:  This too is a similar moral question, and it is one of a personal nature; it is one that is responsible and incumbent upon the individual who is near death.  It is dependent upon that individual having a conscious ability to make a will-decision to end their life, knowing that the continuation of their life would not provide the possibility of fulfilling the Father’s Will to grow into the potential that is infinite within their mind and for their soul’s fulfillment.  It is important to make that distinction.  The difficulty for your society is moral at this time because many individuals who are approaching that situation do not have a mind left to make a conscious decision to end it.  They have severe dementia or they have advanced Alzheimer’s and have no recollection of being capable of making decisions, other than those decisions which are part of their rote behavior that they have learned throughout life. 

 

It is a moral difficulty for those individuals who have the capacity to decide, but can they decide for the other individuals?  That is the most difficult one to bear upon; it is one that we wish your medical societies and associations, religious and spiritual groups to engage and to discern and to work on, as it must end with a moral decision that is correct for your societies, for your cultures and for your species.  It is not that you need to have the elderly walk out on an ice floe without their parka to go out in the sub-zero temperature and freeze to death to help preserve the family in the igloo or their lodging because of the extra use of food to sustain the elderly.  That is no longer the situation.  Under that old situation, that was a moral decision to make.  Could you make the same moral decision today to take the life of one who cannot make the decision themselves?  That is your moral question, as the one I pose to you.

 

Liz:  Thank you.

 

Machiventa’s closing statement

 

MACHIVENTA:  We thank you for your time and we thank you for the gut-wrenching energy it takes to ask these questions, and even more gut-wrenching energy to receive the answers and to listen to them.  They are so culturally dissonant to what you are used to as to cause you and those who read these transcripts much difficulty in accepting them into their lives.  However, what you are doing is asking questions that look far into the future of your personal lives and particularly for your descendents as they progress and live into the decades and centuries ahead.  You are the pioneers of moral inquiry now and we salute you and we appreciate you so much for doing so.  You now know why we have commended you, this small team, so well in past sessions.  Continue to ask these questions though they are the most difficult.  We congratulate you on your intellectual and your spiritual integrity to do so.  Good day.