i think the plan made for the planet is flopping again

[unity100]

This is due to the nature of the public though. There is nothing stopping people from electing Ron Paul. Society chooses to only consider candidates who are supported by the party system.

is it ?

you cant elect anyone you dont know about. there is a ron paul, yes. but who is he ? what is he saying ? is the mom in idaho able to get that information ?

there is a treaty called acta, which has been internationally negotiated since 3-4 years. it changes a lot of things legally, makes a lot of things criminal offenses, like recording your daughter singing a copyrighted song at her birthday.

however, americans are totally unaware of this, even as of this date.

why do you think that is ?

Also this is an America-centric perspective. Small parties in Canada have been created and within 1 election cycle are significantly effecting the debate.

coincidentally, and in conjunction, the number of people who are aware about acta worldiwde, even though that, if ratified, it will affect everyone outside russia and china , are not even a tiny percentage.

the reason is, because they are also kept in the dark, by the channels which hold information dispersion in our societies.

they are controlled by partners of the corporations that hold the interest in america to keep public from that information. in most cases, they are directly subsidiaries.

so, answer to my rhetorical question in the previous quote is simple - it is because they are intentionally kept in the dark.

What's wrong with a corporation? It's just a method of organizing a bunch of people together to do something. Why is this collective ownership model evil? Why can't a corporation be used to do good things if the shareholders choose for it to do so?

because that we have discussed such things in extreme detail, i have given a link to the earlier thread. however still i will drop a short reply here, out of courtesy :

everything is a method of organizing more than 1 entities in our existence. the very existence we are dwelling in since infinite octaves, if you had read Ra material's parts about 'first thing in creation' and on, is a discovery of such infinite number of finites.

what makes everything different is how finites are organized. this is no different in the case of finites we know as 3d entities, or, in the case of our planet in general majority definition, humans. (3d entities do not have to be all human).

it doesnt matter how you organize it - if, a method of organizing gives the control and OWNership of the products of whatever is being done, to a few that are strategically and organizationally placed higher than others, it becomes a negative construct.

basically, if you make 10,000 people work for 3000 people, and those 10,000 do not get equal share of their fruits of labor, it means others are reaping the fruits of that labor. it constitutes an energy flow, spiritually and conceptually, from the other entities to the minority entities.

not to mention that, it is undemocratic - you can employ 1 million people worldwide, yet, none of them may have a say in how the resources and output is used, but, a few people who are posing as majority shareholders.

as for 'Why can't a corporation be used to do good things if the shareholders choose for it to do so?', this is a question with a more fundamental concept, it relates to energy models, actually even basic constructs of mind, and too long to discuss here - however, we have discussed them in length in the thread i linked.

This has nothing to do with corporations but rather the current distribution of resources. Some people have been given ownership of massive natural resources like oil which is a bit ridiculous but the public could change this in a day if they chose to, using their elected government.

are you thinking that resources other than oil are not in the hands of minority ?

entire mainstream news distribution in united states is owned by 4 major corporations. if you go town to press, it becomes similar. if you go down to backbone providers, it even may go down to 3. if you go to cleaning products, you come up with a similar number again, if you are not fooled by the brands but can read and track the small logos that appear at the bottom of the back labels.

it doesnt matter whether 1 person control some resource or product, or, 50,000 people worldwide control it through a huge network of partnerships, interests and ownerships. minority still controls it.

Even in a free-energy world we would still need money. Money is just an exchange medium. If there is free energy then the limiting resource will be human intelligence. You'll still need to get your hair cut and you'll want to make sure the person who cuts your hair is able to get what he wants (maybe he wants to take a vacation to Mars) and in order for him to get that he needs someone to pilot the spaceship, etc.

before there was money, people were still getting what they wanted. after this density ends, there will not be money, and people will still get what they want.

There is a feeling of ownership and then there is the organizing principle of ownership. It's society agreeing that certain people are in charge of certain resources because if everyone was in charge of every resource it could be chaos.

and why would that be ? was there chaos in lemuria ? was there chaos among the 150 entities who got harvested positively in the 2nd cycle ? (the ONLY entities who got harvested from this planet until end of 3rd cycle, by the way)

A corporation is just a collection of people exerting their will. A megacorporation is just more people. I don't see why this is inherently bad.

aside from earlier comments, please refer to the thread i linked.

Are you arguing for communism? Communism fails not because of human nature but because it's impossible to organize a system like that.

and because it fails, 4d positive sources/societies that are being channeled through countless channels since the last 50 years, have corporations, ownership, and profit ? they have money ?

This is an oversimplification. There are some charities that are able to help. There is always something you can do for others using your money. Sure, some ways are better than other ways. But you're missing the point.

if we look at what Ra says about negative polarized planets, they also require some amount of free will in order to be able to polarize negatively. even negative polarization requires some of it.

but, it is not enough, for positive polarization.

What if the CEO is using the corporation to serve others?

please refer to the thread i linked about the basic concept behind this argument.

He's not forcing anyone to join his company. There is a hierarchy to organize the work - divided responsibility.

people were rather free to move about in medieval england too, so, if you didnt like a particular lord, you could move, if you had the means.

however, any place you went, had another lord. so, you would just be changing lords.

same goes for 'forcing'. yes, noone is forcing you to join a company. but, you will have to join a company to work, or, work for someone else, or, be a tribute payer to someone else.

Most corporations now put service to the community as a very high priority and they emphasize the concept of win-win where both parties in every deal they make will feel happy with the exchange and both parties will win from it.

your 'most' corporations definition is an overstatement and oversimplification. where are those corporations ? general motors ? bp ? walmart ? nike ? at&t ?

I have no trouble imagining this. Those higher entities need to eat too don't they? I believe in charity work but not all work should be charity work. In the higher dimensions there may be no money but there will be an equivalent construct used to organize social groups - I think it's actually spiritual energy itself.

organization does not require ownership. even bees, as 2d entities have organization, but, they dont have any concept of ownership. its communal.

there is no relevance in between organization concept, and ownership. organization is a mental concept which is used not only for social concepts in this system of illusions in our existence, but EVERYthing, ranging from how a stone is constructed, to the complex system we know as body. it is an immensely complex construct, yet, no element of it owns any other element or part of it.

Some people hoard profit on Earth out of a pathological desire to hoard. But most don't. Even most CEOs don't actually hoard - they reinvest their money or they spend it - circulating it back to other people.

wow. please refer and read the thread i linked.

You're describing slavery - a former economic system. Not the current economic system. That's an over simplification of the economy.

First of all, those 5000 people voluntarily entered into a relationship with the 15. Those 5000 people got something out of it - they got paid, they enjoyed their work, and they got to do a service for others in the form of their labour. Most of the output actually went to the people who utilized the stuff they made. So if the employee is making tacos, the output actually goes to the customer, not the 15 major shareholders.

slavery as an institution was a moral contract in which entities could enter voluntarily, from prehistoric times until medieval england, too. you could be in debt, unable to sustain yourself, and you could apply for slavery to a master, in return for feeding you. you should not get hung up on the african slave trade and american experience with slavery. even during african slave trade, there were indentured servitude concept. white men slaving away for others, despite it being forbidden by christian churches.

the point here is, something being voluntary, does not change the nature of it. if you make 10,000 people voluntarily work for 10 people, it still is a negative construct, a negative energy flow, even if all volunteers to it.

Secondly, most corporations are owned by millions of people.

that is a naive and uninformed view of the current system. millions of tiny shares distributed to millions of people ,do not change the fact that there are always major controlling shares which belong to holdings or individuals, and which decide what happens with the resources and output.

Those 15 do not own "all" the output of 5000. That's just not true in any sense. That would be slavery.

it is slavery. just like in roman times, the workers are given as minimum as possible according to their function (teacher slaves were fed and kept much better than those work the fields in rome) according to the standards of the day. all corporations try to minimize their unqualified wages down to minimum wage, gradually keeping them high for more qualified functions. the output of the work is, just like in roman times, phenomenal compared to what is being given to those who work.

nothing changed - tho sorry, one thing has changed - it is now much more possible to choose the master. HOWEVER, the 'industry standard practice' concept eradicates that choice too.

And now we have a zillion wanderers who are increasing the harvest. I think the wanderer effect is working.

please refer to the linked thread. this was discussed there in length.