Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Search for a word within this document – use the  Ctrl + F keys  on your keyboard.

Leave a suggestion or comment >CLICK HERE<. 

CWM74 – Moral Code; Dealing with Trauma; Psychotropic Drugs; An Abnormal World

2013-04-19 – Moral Code; Dealing with Trauma; Psychotropic Drugs; An Abnormal World
– Apr. 19, 2013

Conversations with Monjoronson #74

The moral code of social sustainability
Will design teams be working with moral issues?
Will design teams develop the moral code?
Is it immoral to perform an unsustainable action?
Teaching children to engage their own thinking
Giving children the tools to deal with trauma
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Psychotropic drug use problem
Responsibilities of parenthood
Urantia is an abnormal world
Christ Michael’s Correcting Time program of immediate assistance
Our species is intransigently invested in materiality
Become a manager of your own life and community

TR: Daniel Raphael
Moderator: Michael McCray

April 19, 2013

Prayer: Heavenly Father, Michael, Nebadonia, we thank you for your help and the opportunity to talk to your Avonal Son and his staff during this Correcting Time. We wish to sincerely thank you for our lives, for the fact that we are able to do this with you. Amen.

MONJORONSON: Good morning, this is Monjoronson.

Group: Good morning.

MMc: Do you have something to say to us this morning?

MONJORONSON: No, let us proceed with your questions, please.

The moral code of social sustainability

MMc: Would you be kind enough to tell us more about the new “moral code” that is associated with social sustainability?

MONJORONSON: Yes. As you know—or perhaps do not know—the moral code that you have, that you are using across the world—particularly the Western World—is approximately well over 4000 years old and it is a person-to-person morality that also guides those social institutions, such as courts and other social institutions, how to resolve moral issues, moral conflict between individuals. Much more can be said about that, but let us begin to examine a new morality of social sustainability. When we speak about social sustainability, we speak about the whole human species, not just Americans, or Canadians, or the French, or Italians, or Mongolians, or Japanese, or anyone else. Social sustainability means a universal application of those values which are core to the human species.

Whether you are Japanese or a South Pacific Islander or an American, you have always sought a better way of life, a higher quality of life. You have not been satisfied to exist [with] your status quo of living in poverty, or living in a diminished social status, economic status or political status; you always want to have a better quality of life. That is the first core value of the human species.

The second value is subordinate to the first value, as is the third value, but the second value is growth. In order to improve your quality of life, you must grow in some way. Even though this improved quality of life may appear to be very material, you had to grow within yourself to develop the capacity, that inherent potential within you, that could allow you, enable you, to make more money, to get more return on your investment if you are a business person. So, in some way, you must grow. We see that with children; it is so obvious as to be assumed by you—and when I say “you,” I mean all humans—that you have accepted the necessity of education as a mean of helping you unlock the potential within you. Education is a tool, and in learning to use that tool, you grow and then you can apply that tool of education to some form of occupation or some pursuit of finding purpose in your life, and of course, your long-term goal is to find meaning in your life, however you may define that. So, the second core value is growth; growth in one perspective or another.

The third value, which we have spoken of before is equality. It is not concerning the obvious equality between yourself and other people, as this is fundamental, but equality across your whole species—meaning that whether you are an Estonian, or you are an Ethiopian, that you are equal—you have an equal value to your life, as the Estonian has to his life. You value yourself equally as other people value themselves. In a socially sustainable morality, the individual is seen as an asset, whose active participation in their lives, their family’s life, their community and society, makes a positive contribution to the sustainability of themselves, their family, community and so on.

Whether a person has an IQ of 85, or an IQ of 185, they both can make a valuable contribution to the sustainability of their own life, and the sustainability of their family and community, so in that regard they are equal. We do not see any difference in the value of an individual based on their intelligence, or their race, or their ethnicity, or their nationality—those are superfluous. The only time that the individuals are not seen as equal is when an individual cannot make moral decisions, that has the incapacity to make moral choice. In these cases, where the individual is so debilitated mentally, or incapacitated through organic or functional brain damage, mind damage, that the Thought Adjuster is absent. This is the only time that we would draw a value difference between individuals.

Morality in a socially sustainable society assists automatically and proactively in assisting to improve the sustainability of the individual through the family, community and so on. It is a way of thinking, of making decisions, that automatically contributes to the social sustainability of all, and that would be remarkable, would it not? Surely, it is. This decision-making process, this morality also assists the individual in clearly seeing decisions that are immoral. Now, how would immorality be defined in a socially sustainable society? Immorality, in that situation, would be seen where any action eliminates an individual from making a socially sustainable contribution.

Now, the immoral action can be taken by another individual, [or] a social institution—and when we define “social,” we mean any organization or institution or association of individuals above the size or dimension of an individual or family. It could be a company, it could be a foundation, it could be a corporation, it could be a city, it could be a county, or a national organization. Or, on the third level is that a global organization, global entity, could have a detrimental effect upon an individual. So, now we have defined those three agencies—if you want to call it that—which could have a positive or detrimental effect upon an individual, or another social agency, organization or global institution, then you begin to see that immorality and morality can be defined far more clearly than your old traditional moral code.

Now, do not be confused with the word “morality” and “moral code.” What morality is, is a simple standard method of making decisions, either moral or immoral. But according to social sustainability, that code assists individuals to make decisions that contribute to their own sustainability, their family, community and so on, and it very clearly defines what immorality is as any behavior that is detrimental to the social sustainability of another individual, social entity or global entity.

Remember, it is principally concerned with the individual. There are individuals and then social agencies and individuals within global entities, so really, it comes down to being detrimental to the individual. Murder, obviously, terminates the capacity of another individual to make contributions to the social sustainability of themselves and their family. Injury to another, obviously, causes the victim to have diminished capacity to aid in their own sustainability and so on. In the third case, the victim may be harmed to such an extent that the state, city or some social agency has to use its resources to assist the victim to recover, so that they are then able to make a contribution to themselves, their family and so on.

The fourth case is where there is the loss of resources; where an assailant—and I use the term “assailant” loosely—it could be a person who embezzles money; it could be a person who uses the money from a bank to buy a grand house [for which] they had no authorization to use that money. Or it could be where a victim requires ongoing care for themselves throughout the duration of their life. In these cases, where there is diminished capacity, and the requirement of the city or state, or some agency is using their resources to support and assist the victim, when you see that diversion of resources, whether they are labor, or whether it is money to pay for labor, is diverted from social sustainability projects that are positive, into the care and nurturance and sustenance of victims, that is also immoral. The moral code of social sustainability makes it very clear what is moral and what is immoral by individuals, by social agencies and global agencies. Rather than one level of morality and immorality, you have nine: nine on the positive and nine on the negative, for a total of eighteen. So, there is an easy way and quick method of differentiating and determining the morality within a society and civilization that is striving to move toward social sustainability.

Most of you are unaware that your moral code does not apply, was not made applicable to your bank, or to your insurance company, or to any corporation, whether large or small. And, it was not made applicable to the conduct of global institutions, whether it is a national government, or an international body. A morality of social sustainability can now be applied to everyone and every entity equally, so all of your agencies, institutions and individuals are working towards the same goal, and there is a very clear-cut definition of what is moral or immoral, by anyone.

Will design teams be working with moral issues?

MMc: Thank you. I’m wondering if the design teams are going to be handling these moral issues as part of their designs for sustainability?

MONJORONSON: Yes, they will be. The design team, in order for it to truly be effective, must validate the morality of the topic that they are working on, and this will provide the direction to the team of how they respond and develop the designs for the social process or institution that they are working on. It would be fruitless, would it not, for the team to proceed working on a topic that was fundamentally immoral, as it would be tremendously frustrating and they would be scratching their heads very soon, wondering why they are not making progress. The obvious answer is that they are dealing with an immoral issue.

Because the three core values are the validating factors for moral and immoral options and behavior, it becomes very clear promptly to the team, whether they are dealing with a moral or immoral topic, but it is a formal process that must be engaged by the team in the very beginning. We truly appreciate your question, as this is very timely to present this topic. We did not present this socially sustainable morality to you earlier simply because it requires much thought and contemplation and reflection, whereas with jumping into working with socially sustainable topics, it is much more pragmatic, much more hands-on and the results are much more immediate. These are probable topics that you can work on, and now, your presentation, the delivery of your question is very appropriate and so you see that the morality of a topic must be determined before the team begins working on its design.

Will design teams develop the moral code?

MMc: Will there be design teams devoted exclusively to developing the moral code?

MONJORONSON: Yes, this is fundamental to the development of a socially sustainable moral society. You will find that when this begins to happen, it will proceed rapidly and these moral research teams, as you may call them, will rapidly find that many of your governmental and social agencies are involved in topics that provide immoral answers in a sustainable society. [Existent social policies] may be applicable and useful now in your archaic form of society, but in a socially sustainable society, the direction of many of your social agencies will change radically.

Is it immoral to perform an unsustainable action?

MMc: If an action is deemed unsustainable, would it generally be immoral to perform that action?

MONJORONSON: Generally, that is correct. Yet there are actions and behaviors that can be determined to be morally neutral – they are neither socially sustainably moral nor immoral. You will find that the actual process of moral determination is very, very brief, but then redesigning your social institutions, social processes and organizations to become morally consistent with social sustainability will require a great deal of work. Would you like for me to give you an example?

MMc: Please.

MONJORONSON: Concerning welfare, as it is determined, a welfare agency in a city, county, state or federal government, is loosely defined by each jurisdiction, in how it complies with federal and state guidelines for the use of welfare funds. In a society that is moving towards social sustainability, all welfare policies would be guided by the three core values of social sustainability. Welfare could be used to support a victim who has been deeply injured by a perpetrator, an assailant, let us say. This person may be physically, emotionally, mentally, intellectually incompetent to care for themselves, therefore, they would need to have the assistance of the largesse of their local government to help support themselves. You already have Social Security Insurance or disability payments to those people who are permanently disabled. The proof of that would change in a socially sustainable society, so it would be determined that the award of those benefits would be to assist the individual’s improvement of quality of life, particularly through the process of growth, and their support would be assisted for them to grow, if possible, and if not, then just to maintain their livelihood. In a society that is moving towards social sustainability, these three core values would be used in that determination to much greater effectiveness in determining who is worthy of receiving that and for how long.

You may say that in your current society that this is impossible, and truly it will be nigh on to impossible for this to be developed now, as there are far too many people in your society to use this effectively. Let us defer further discussion on this until later, as it can become quite detailed.

MMc: Okay. One of the things that I’ve noticed or that has occurred to me, is that when you say it’s going to be quite detailed in taking our society as it is now, into sustainability, and using the new morality, case law and tort law is built up around the old morality, where you have a situation where things have quantitative value. In tort law, it is assumed that there is a value assumed to have been lost or taken away from one person and they lose or suffer some disability or have some… let me come back to this question at another time.

Teaching children to engage their own thinking

Last time we talked, you said in the future, “Parents will assist their children to grow up knowing how to engage their own thinking.” Will you tell us what does this entail?

MONJORONSON: Yes, I would be glad to. It is a very timely and appropriate topic. As a parent, while you enjoy the child as an infant you can hold in your arms and nurture and suckle and feed and clothe, bathe and have their company with you to travel and visit friends, you are in many ways, nurturing the child becoming adult. That this individual is in a rapid evolution of growth, that they will soon, as an infant, begin thinking independently in that they will have many thoughts which they have not been trained to guide. Let me give you an example: You are feeding your child and it does not like asparagus. Asparagus to an infant is a very dramatic juxtaposition of flavors and chemistry, that is not palatable to them, but as they become older, they become aware of the complexities of food, of the meals that are prepared, the dishes that are prepared, that they have many flavors. So, you begin teaching your child early on in life to experiment with food types when they are able to digest solid foods. Rather then just meat and potatoes, meat and potatoes, meat and potatoes, or carrots and beans, carrots and beans, you provide them with a combination of flavors so that eventually they begin to enjoy the full spectrum of meals.

Just as an art teacher teaches a child about twenty different shades of white, and pink, and magenta, and orange and so on, so too, the parent begins to teach the child to taste their food, and to teach them the distinction between the flavor of chocolate, and the flavor of berries, and the flavor of potatoes, butter and so on, so that you begin to teach them how to analyze their tasting, and this is to lead them into looking at their own thinking. It is highly important to teach children early on, not to worry, and of course, most children who are “worry warts” learned that from a parent [who] is overly concerned about some standard being met and causing punishment when that standard is not being met. The child begins to fret and worry about meeting that standard in the future. Or they observe their parent who worries about not having enough money to pay the bills, and so on.

Many of the detrimental processes that individuals go through are learned behaviors. They will learn that through emulating their role models, or through punishment and reward. The parent begins to teach children what to be concerned about and what not to. Of course it is the process of discernment we are talking about. As a wine taster, a Sommelier would be able to tell you a great deal about each wine that they bring to the table, that when you taste this, there is a process of knowing how to taste it, and how to effervesce the flavors that exist in this liquid, so that you can tell whether it has the flavor of almonds and vanilla, as in a superb Chardonnay, or whether it has the robustness and complexities of spices and berries in a Zinfandel. So, it is a matter of discernment.

When one begins to discern their own thinking, they become what some call proprioceptive; they are able to observe their own thinking. For instance, should one be as concerned about wrecking the car without opening the garage door, and ruining the house and the garage door as they are concerned about spilling some milk on the table—these are vastly different, but some people cannot tell the difference about which is more important than the other, so they do not know how to weigh, sift and sort their world around them. Learn to guide your thinking by observing and discerning that which is external to yourself. It only comes later in childhood and early teen years where an individual can begin to observe their own thinking—not think about thinking, but observe their thinking, which is much different and much more constructive and much more guided. It is important to teach children what to be concerned about and what not to; what to prepare for and what not to.

They say worry is a function of the mind, which does not produce good results; it is concern about the future, which you cannot control in the future, but only can control and affect now in this immediate moment. It is important to teach children how to live their lives in the moment; how to make a better future tomorrow for their life now by discerning what actions they can take now that would be helpful for their ease and comfort tomorrow. If one cannot affect the future in this moment, then they might as well divert their attention and energy into something that is productive. This is highly important to a socially sustainable society and civilization; it begins with individuals who know how to live in the moment. Those individuals who have regrets and guilt are concerned about what has happened in the past. That cannot be affected either, even now in this moment, except to discern that they cannot affect it and so not to put any effort or energy into it.

Giving children the tools to deal with trauma

MMc: Will you tell us more about the tools that can be given to children early in their life on how to deal with trauma?

MONJORONSON: Would you state your question again please?

MMc: Again, in our last time we talked, you said there were tools that can be given to children early in their life on how to deal with trauma, and I wondered if you would enlarge on that thought for us, please.

MONJORONSON: I could, and I will answer it this way, that developmental psychologists and child therapists would be able to inform you as accurately and more fully about what is appropriate for children to concern themselves about. Trauma in their life, the loss of a pet, the loss of a sibling, loss of a parent or grandparent, neighbor or friend is deeply troubling to the child, emotionally, and this is very upsetting. It is unfortunate that most parents have not been trained in how to deal with trauma, either in their own lives, or in how to teach their children how to deal with trauma. Trauma is a multi-level situation that is both emotional, social, immediate, [and] future projected, and must be dealt with in a way that assists the child to move through it.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

You know, as well as I do, that there are many adults who are still grieving about traumas that occurred years ago, even decades ago, sometimes in their childhood more than fifty years ago. They were not given the tools to deal with that situation then, and they became traumatized and have developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), so that they become permanently incapacitated. One of the reasons for such great numbers of victims with PTSD is that they were never trained in how to move through trauma, either to grieve it and accept it eventually and to move on, or to forgive it and to move on. Trauma is one of the situations that leave memories in the mind of the individual, yet the individual has not been taught how to deal with the thoughts of those memories. It is not the memories that cause great difficulty, but the immediate thoughts of the individual concerning those memories. When thoughts take on reality, then the individual is living in a traumatized fantasy or a dream world of a nightmare of sorts.

It is important that these processes be taught to children as much as children are taught how to prepare their own meals in a Home Economics class in school, or how to change their oil in an Automotive Shop class. The practical, pragmatic functions of living as an emotional/spiritual being necessitates that every individual be taught how to sustain themselves emotionally and intellectually through the process of trauma and grief and grieving. Even the person who understands those processes understands that they are still the victim of that when trauma occurs to them, and then they have the knowledge to know that “this too will pass,” and that this will not be the same a year from now. Those simple phrases are truly useful to children, but how they change the future a year from now, is through being taught how to deal with trauma in the moment, in this time now, and how to move through it so that how they think about that trauma is different a year from now than it is at this moment.

MMc: Did I hear you say that psychologists have captured the tools that we need to teach children?


MMc: These tools are already known?

MONJORONSON: Yes. I am not telling you anything that has not been discovered. Even adults, even this one who has been in therapy, was taught in therapeutic sessions that this will not be the same for you in a year, and the therapist proceeded to teach this one how to deal with those thoughts of trauma, so that it would be different. When children begin to have thoughts of worry and concern, and thinking about the trauma that occurred, they are old enough to receive instruction how to deal with their thoughts. They might not have the capacity of intellect or vocabulary to understand the depth of discussion, but they can definitely take on the thought, the comforting words that “this will not be the same tomorrow,” and you will not feel the same about it next week, or in two weeks. These words are very important for children to hear, for children consider their parents to be “all powerful,” whether positively or negatively, and when you give them these suggestions of how to think, they truly do use them, because they do not enjoy worrying and thinking about the trauma either. They would rather go out and play and be carefree and enjoy the moment in the sunshine in the play yard.

So, you are beginning to see how life in a society that is moving towards social sustainability will be changed; it will be changed in the courts in tort law, it will be changed in the deliberateness of how to raise children to think constructively about negative thoughts and how to bring peace to their thinking. Family dynamics and the work of parents will change tremendously. It will not change radically for couples that choose not to have children, but for couples that choose to have children, their roles as parents will change immensely.

Psychotropic drug use problem

MMc: For now, what are the most effective options we have to remedy the psychotropic drug use problem?

MONJORONSON: As one of your social psychologists would say, “Where can I begin?” “Where to start on this huge problem?” Fundamentally, a solution to it begins in the family. It begins in having intentional children, and raising those children intentionally. It begins with teaching children just as we have spoken a moment ago, of giving them the pragmatic skills of how to deal with trauma; how to deal with stress—emotional stress, social stress, occupational stress, family stress, academic stress—all forms of stress and how to deal with them. The solutions to the psychotropic drug problems in your culture now are historic. They truly cannot be changed overnight. This is a generational problem, and as you are seeing, it is a multi-generational problem. There are people in their 70’s and 80’s who came out of the 50’s and 60’s, who began using drugs and who are still using drugs inappropriately. And there are individuals who are now sub-teens and teens who have learned to use psychotropic drugs inappropriately, so it is a multi-generational problem for your developed countries, in fact, most nations now.

There is a time and place to use psychotropic drugs, but it is rare and must be used with intention and with deliberation, not for recreation. Healing this problem across your globe truly must begin with a new generation, a generation of thoughtful individuals who want to bring children into the world intentionally, deliberately, and are skilled to do so. Because of absentee parents with too many jobs, too many activities, too absent from the home when children come home from school, has been a problem. The multi-generational problem of drug use begins now in this generation with couples who want to bring children into the world intentionally. To do so, they must live simply; not live beyond their means. This means living with less; living simply, so that one of the parents can remain at home to raise these children, and it may mean that it requires one parent or the other parent—they can switch roles—over the duration of perhaps anywhere from 18 to 20 or more years, depending on the time and spacing between children. Having two children within two years of each other, this can occur within 20-22 years, until the children have the capacity to remove themselves from the family home and live on their own.

Responsibilities of parenthood

Responsibilities of parenthood continue, even after children leave home as they will still need advice, though constant nurturance from parents to the child is not necessary at that time. But when children are still moving through their developmental years until at least age 20, one parent needs to remain at home to be there to guide and nurture the maturity of the child, and not just through providing meals, but through emotional nurturance, social nurturance, working with the child and dealing with their peer problems and peer situations as they grow up, how to occupy their time constructively, rather than sitting in front of the television absentmindedly, being filled with nonsense or socially destructive thoughts and portrayals that they see on TV.

Parentage is a full-time chore; a full-time responsibility and obligation in a socially sustainable society. Children who come into a socially sustainably conscious couple, family, are raised then to accept and know the culture of social sustainability that culture requires of them if they become parents, to remain at home for the care of that child or their own children. So, this becomes a multi-generational process of indoctrinating, inculcating cultural values within children of social sustainability. Unless children come into the prosperity and wealth of their parents, and have no need to be employed, then those couples which do not have that wealth must live simply, so that the income of one of the parents is sufficient to sustain the family and to provide the next generation with the education and support that they need, so they themselves become sustainable. This aspect of social sustainability that you are seeing is a culture change. It is not “if,” but “when” this is accepted into the global culture of this planet, it will become the greatest cultural development in all the history of your species.

Urantia is an abnormal world

MMc: Yes, I can see that. What did you mean when you said, “If your next nuclear war occurs, it will repercuss throughout all Nebadon and Orvonton.”

MONJORONSON: What is not so obvious about that, sir? You must keep in mind… let us put this in a more positive way… the basic assumption of most people who live on this planet, is that this world is normal. But in the family of inhabited planets in Nebadon and Orvonton, and the Grand Universe, this planet is an extreme exception. It is not normal and it is not ordinary. It is extra-ordinary and it is quite abnormal! Most worlds move through an era of cannibalism, where there is the destruction of others and their consumption. Your species, on this planet, continues to destroy others of its own species family. This is seen as being very strange to almost all planets in all of Nebadon. Your planet is observed from afar, and oftentimes with tremendous attention. “What is going on here?” In Uversa, capital of Orvonton, the seventh superuniverse, Urantia (or Earth), is under constant surveillance. It is not that the governors or the administrators within Uversa meddle in the affairs of Urantia, as they do not. But there is ongoing vigilance concerning this strange little planet and the odd societal—even masochistic behavior—of your species, because your species is destroying itself. And now, with nuclear capacities, it has the capacity to destroy itself very rapidly and very completely. Or if your species is not totally eliminated from the face of this world, those who remain will be so socially, economically and culturally deprived as to return to states of existence that are incredibly primitive. So, “if” there is another nuclear war on this world, it will repercuss throughout all of Nebadon and Orvonton. It will be a shocking development.

Christ Michael’s Correcting Time program of immediate assistance

The other side of that is why Christ Michael has so deliberately and with such great effort and intention developed the Correcting Time program to come with immediate assistance to this planet. When your world was on the brink of that International nuclear war in the 1980’s, that was a confirmation that your world was teetering on extinction and self-annihilation, and that this world as an incubator of new souls, who had the capacity to traverse to Paradise, [to] the First Source and Center, would be eliminated. Therefore, it required Christ Michael to take immediate, long-planned enactment of those long-term plans to assist this world to move into an era of transition and social stability, preparatory to moving into social sustainability in the next, early phase of the days of light and life. All spiritual managers of planets, sectors and local universes, grand universes—all deal with possibilities, and so Christ Michael planned long ago for the possibilities that perhaps could develop, and always opted for working with the most likely probabilities that would occur, waiting on the developments, the sovereign decisions and actions of mortals to determine which probable outcome would develop, and then the invocation of the appropriate plans and actions to move the planet and its civilization towards enlightenment.

Our species is intransigently invested in materiality

Your species is so intransigently invested in materiality as to require that that materiality, the material substance, the objectification of everyone’s lives be in jeopardy before they would become amenable to the thought of changing their way of living, their way of valuating what is around them, to question the very process of valuation, from object-quantity to quality-value valuation. That moment of teetering of the tipping point, as you call it, from one valuation to the more evolved valuation is the point at which your world will change. Do you understand that the reasons for permitting these tremendous negative cataclysms which are now occurring on your planet cannot be subverted early? It is simply because of your own stubborn, hardheaded intransigent natures to refuse to move toward that which is in your best interests for the long-term, and that tipping point of decision-making has yet to occur. First, your population must be made aware of this new culture, this new valuation of the quality-value way of appreciating the world around them, and so you are seeing the rapid development of discussion of sustainability across your world in all developed countries and cultures. Of course, because they are so invested in material culture and the objectification of their lives, they have begun with the material sustainability before they begin with social sustainability. It will only be after social sustainability becomes enculturated in most cultures that they will truly begin to see the possibilities of spiritual sustainability. Then your world will progress very rapidly.

Become a manager of your own life and community

Let us bring this to a close today, please. We have given you sufficient thought for minor details and very large details for how societies are managed and how a planet is managed. Planetary Management is a subject that is taught on Uversa. Local universe management is taught to Creator Sons in Paradise. It begins somewhere and it begins with the individual. Do you want to be a manager of your own life, or not? Truly it is a decision. Do you want to become a manager for your family so that it teaches trans-cultural, multi-generational facts of family and individual sustainability? Do you want to be a community [or] a national leader? then you must think in terms of larger perspectives than which car to buy, which house to live in, and who your friends are going to be. Begin to think in terms of “us,” rather than “me;” “we,” rather than “they.” Begin to see yourself as part of the whole, and truly see yourself as “powerful,” rather than “powerless.” If you are a minded individual who is curious and cares about what is becoming, then we invite you to engage this process of acculturating yourself in the concepts and process and pragmatics of social sustainability. Only then can you become a leader of your communities and your culture, at whatever level that may be.

Lastly, I hope that you are beginning to see me differently. I am not your panacea; I am your teacher. I am an Avonal Son, I have come here to uplift you and your societies under the program that Christ Michael has inaugurated and has begun and initiated on your planet. Good day.

MMc: Thank you.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Email this to a friend
Twitter Tweet
Share on Facebbok
WhatsApp -Share document