The Alexander Material by Ramon Stevens

For other issues, click here.

Ask Alexander a question here.

Issue No. 2

Q:I am from Southeast Asia—Malaysia. You mention Southeast Asia is not a good choice during the upheaval of the earth.* To me, where I am—East Malaysia—part of Borneo—is stable in terms of environment, politics, etc. (by comparison). Maybe this is one of the safe pockets you mention? (Li)
A: With all due respect, Borneo falls in two categories of “unsafe” areas—it's an island, and it's in Southeast Asia. In addition, it is plagued by rampant deforestation, dam building, and other typical ecology-destroying practices of developing nations. It is also home to three different nations. In times of ecological stress, the tension over diminishing food and water supplies would only be exacerbated by competition among those nations for dwindling resources. At least all three nations are Muslim so you won't have jihadists to add to the mix. There may be pockets of safety in Southeast Asia, but Borneo, or any island, is not among them.

*[See Spirit Wisdom 2, Chapter 12.]

Q: The growing awareness about global warming and the political will to make serious work about CO₂ reduction, unfortunately brought some technologies (nuclear) back on the front page as a “green must” (politicians and scientist say it's green, no CO₂ coming out of the chimney). In your work you explain that we eventually will abandon those technologies because they will somehow end in disaster. We have, you say, a choice. We don't need to experience those parallel earths. And for that, we only need to turn away from the technologies that create such possibilities.

Turn away how? Buy solar panels or a windmill, become more energy independent, keep your fears in check and you're saved? (W.B.)
A: You look at global warming and potential technological salves from what exists now. Fair enough, you cannot be expected to hold a prophet's visionary insight. But the joke is that the earth swarms with so much energy on a daily basis, that it is astonishing you speak of nuclear energy at all. Consider the massive ocean currents as they churn; the howling intensity of the winds; the shower of solar radiation; the urgent upward thrust of plants: you live on a planet swarming with colossal volumes of energy—and all your species can ponder is whether or not to build nuclear power plants!

There are technologies not yet invented that stand to capture energy from the limitless energy swarming about the earth, and to further refine extant technologies for greater efficiency. In time terms, those technologies exist now. Time and money invested in manifesting those potentials will yield an infinite supply of renewable energy. Time spent building nuclear power plants is not only time wasted, but time invested in millennia of toxic residue poisoning the earth.

We sense your question: okay, Alexander, what exactly are these potential technologies? Here is a teaser: you have solar panels to capture the sun's energy and convert it to electricity. But plants already do that: capture the sun's radiation and convert it to energy, an energy generated by and therefore compatible with living organisms. Technology already exists to use algae to produce biofuels. As that technology advances, it will become possible to harvest energy directly from simple plants—meaning, not to convert them to biofuels, but to convert them to electricity. A distant-future potential is for people to derive their bodily energy from plants without ingesting them; in other words, to directly share and absorb a plant's energy without killing and eating it (thus solving the final dilemma of conscientious vegetarians!). This involves wearing “converter” gloves, or other apparel, and making contact with the plant. Energy flagging? hug a dandelion!

Beyond that potential lies another: to absorb energy from all sources—sun, wind, sound, etc.—by simply wearing apparel that captures, absorbs, and converts it to usable form, either as bodily energy or to power devices. By that time, the clunky and inefficient devices of today, which must be carried and recharged, will have been superseded by implants which can play music, fetch messages, browse the Noosphere (successor to the Internet), through thought-triggers. But we are venturing far past your lifetime, which holds its own rich field of promise and potential.

Q: I am confused by President Obama. At times he acts like the enlightened star child that some sources have described him as being. At other times, he acts like a corporatist tool of the Illuminati. How does he appear to you, from your spiritual perspective? (R.L.)
A: Enlightened star children don't conduct war.

Q: My question is about the chapter “Human Vibrations” from Conscious Life. You explain that any combined group of people have what you call an “energy vortex” and that we are “influenced” by any energy vortex we step into, be it positive or negative. You then say that there are ways to psychically protect yourself from negative energy vortexes but you never give an example. So my question is: how do you defend yourself against negative energy vortexes? I'm interested because I'm a service engineer (and gay) fixing office machines. (W.B.)
A: The examples we give in Conscious Life relate to various groups of people and their collective energy, which we term a “vortex.” The easiest way to protect yourself from a negative energy vortex is to step out of it! That is, not to spend time with groups whose conversation habitually wallows in whining, complaining, gossiping, back-stabbing, etc.

If you are forced to spend time in the presence of such people, you have several options. One is to try to lighten the mood by changing the subject to a lighter one, reframing the subject by asking, “Well, what do your kids do well?” or “Yes, but everyone has admirable qualities. What are your husband's?”

The other option is to psychically put up a “shield” of defense against the negative vortex. You do this by visualizing a white curtain around you, hanging a foot or two from your body. See it as luminous and pulsing with divine energy. Tell yourself, with great intensity and conviction, “I am strong and inviolate. I remain positive. Only ideas of the light reach me,” or other wording to that effect.

Your question actually involves a different sort of negative vortex, that created by electrical machinery. True, we have stated that the cycles these machines run on are detrimental to the human energy circuits. That said, since you are surrounded by these unnatural cycles all the time, the body “adapts,” though at the cost of some sensitivity and integrity of its natural energy fields. Our recommendations to compensate for any excessive exposure to electrical machinery are (1) spend more time in nature, particularly lying on the earth; (2) drink fresh root-crop juices like carrot juice. An organic carrot plucked from your garden, immediately thanked, juiced, and drunk offers the highest benefit.

Q: In Conscious Life, Alexander says, “You are a distinct species, the human race, created at the very first along with every other species upon the earth,” and “‘Evolution,’ the notion that animals adapted their senses based on environmental conditions over the millennia, has no basis in reality. Each species was created and thrust into existence all at once, in your time terms.”

In our “time terms” there seems to be a fossil record that has scientifically determined that life didn't happen “all at once.” No new life forms seem to pop into existence, and it appears that life has gotten more complex over time. From what we see, life forms must reproduce to continue and “pass on” their genetic information. When was this “created at the very first” in our historical time and how does it reconcile with what we find in the fossil records? I understand that we have an incorrect perception of time, but we must deal with the reality as we find it. Quotes like the one I cited don't make sense to me. Could you help clarify the creation process in terms we can understand and that fit the reality we find? (A.H.)
A: Picture yourself at the theater shortly before the curtain rises. You know that all the actors are backstage, costumed and rehearsed, awaiting their entrance. They may wait an hour or more to make that entrance, but all are poised in the wings, awaiting their cue.

So it is with the nature of organismic life. When we say that “each species was created and thrust into existence all at once,” we do not mean that the earth was suddenly populated with every species that has ever existed or ever will exist. Allow us to broaden the model.

We are dealing here with issues of probable earths, linear time, and the banks of potential from which events crystallize into expression. Before the earth existed in physical terms, it was “thought” into existence. The ultimate, irreducible earth is a field of thought/consciousness/potential, not a physical entity. Swirling within that field are the infinite probable earths, the infinite possible combinations of land/water, life, climate, etc., that can potentially unfold on various probable earths.

All potential life forms, plant and animal, that can possibly exist on any probable earth were “created” (i.e. thought) before the earth itself was thrust from the realm of pure thought into the space-time dimension; meaning it assumed the qualities of electromagnetism and physical forces. There is a bank of potential life forms, then, which can seed your and all other probable earths. This is why we say all species were created and thrust into existence “at once” in your time terms; for the earth and universe were themselves thrust from thought into physical existence “at once.”

If this sounds esoteric, it shouldn't: you do it all the time. When you plan a vacation, decide to read a book, ponder making love, or decide to take out the garbage, you follow the same process: action begins as pure thought, then is later thrust into physical expression. In deeper terms, you have chosen to manifest one probable version of the events that can potentially unfold within that stretch of linear time. You have 24 hours a day, and “fill” them with events you pull from the bank of all potential events. Thought precedes action; on prosaic and cosmic levels.

We have written elsewhere about the earth riding currents of accelerating and decelerating energy; and that yours has been, for millions of years, an era of acceleration, with an especially accelerated period over the last few centuries. At each “level” of acceleration or deceleration, there is a range of potential creatures which can comfortably inhabit the earth. When the earth's energy is dense, it attracts creatures focused on pure survival with little mental complexity (fish/reptiles/birds). When the earth's energy is lighter, it can attract creatures of higher mental and emotional sophistication (mammals). That doesn't mean all the “lower” animals perish, but that mammals come to predominate. Pre-humankind, think of the continents' fauna: thundering herds of buffalo and wildebeest, while the snakes and lizards scuttled out of the way: their day had passed.

So the fossil record indeed shows a gradually increasing sophistication in life forms; no argument here! Where we disagree is with the assumption that evolution—random mutation, natural selection—is responsible for that gradual appearance of “new” species. We have stated that evolution can occur within species, as they adapt to varying environmental conditions, but not between species. It all makes splendid sense, to draw a line from fish to reptiles to birds to mammals; it's deeply satisfying to minds hungry for cause and effect and a linear unfolding. A great deal of evidence seems to confirm the theory of evolution. We must still respectfully disagree, when it comes to the how: either a blind, mechanical process of mutational trial and error, or the manifestation of life forms flowing from Thought, from the bank of potential life forms designed before earth existed. We side with Plato, over Aristotle, in that regard.

Q: “The second coming of the Christ” is talked about in Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts—when, where, how? (Li)
A: We too have mentioned the “latest” coming—we don't wish to assign a specific number to the incarnations of the Christ Entity—in Earthly Cycles, the “Families of Consciousness” chapter. We'll join the Old Testament prophets and Seth in declining to name a specific date and place of incarnation. Think about it: if the specific date and place of incarnation were specified beforehand, what would happen (remember Herod)?

In Earthly Cycles we delineate the qualities to look for in that individual. It is through those qualities that the incarnation of the Christ Entity will be recognized.

Q: My question refers to relatively new psychotherapy techniques that are making waves because they can be more effective than medications and are quicker to act (EMDR stands for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing). They can be taught to patients in an empowering way (especially the variant called WHEE). I use WHEE regularly in my practice, and I'm befuddled by how rapidly and deeply such a simple technique works. So I'm especially curious about the energetics of these techniques. Hence, my question...WHEE is a very new variant of EMDR, not yet well known. (R.L.)
A: We have written elsewhere* about the nature of memory: how it is stored and processed on two levels: in the brain, and in the “memory field” surrounding the physical body. Memory matrices in the memory field contain the full, unabridged version of an event; meaning time, place, sensory stimuli absorbed, cognitive and emotional reaction, etc., are all contained within the memory matrix. Then there is a neuronal “trigger” in the brain which carries a trace, condensed version of the event. When the neuronal trigger is tripped by an associative thought, the memory can be replayed in greater or lesser intensity—pulled into conscious awareness from the memory field—depending on the need or intention of the individual at that time.

In addition, within the brain a rich complex of neuronal networks shuttles incoming sensory data to appropriate associative material. As the brain's principal focus is on survival, incoming sensory data must be immediately evaluated for any potential threat. The low growl of a panther coming from close behind triggers an immediate associative link to “fight or flight” defense mechanisms; all other sensory and cognitive data are blocked until the danger has passed. Incoming sensory data which portend no danger undergo similar processing, and are sorted along well-worn grooves of association.

Psychological illness can arise when powerfully negative experiences of abuse or suffering are inappropriately linked with less threatening sensory data. A child whose father was physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive may grow up to interpret “man” as “sadistic abuser,” rather than evaluating each man as a unique individual. This is a primitive process of crude association which can be very hard to break, however maladaptive it is for a person's overall happiness. It remains within the brain, not triggering associative memories in the memory field, but shuttling among neuronal networks, where only relatively crude “traces” of memories reside. This accounts for the crude primitivism in the psychological functioning of severely disturbed people, particularly those who suffered childhood abuse. But how to break that maladaptive associative pattern?

The reason the therapeutic techniques you mention offer such seemingly miraculous results is that they force the body to focus on something else—a repetitive external motion or action—while replaying the triggering memory. This interferes with the maladaptive memory pattern because it forces the brain to do something else while replaying that pattern. Since incoming sensory data is always the brain's primary concern, even something as simple as watching a moving finger or self-tapping becomes the predominant concern, reducing the intensity of the maladaptive memory pattern. The conscious brain can do only “so much” at once; if it must attend to external data, as well as the intentionality that accompanies it, there is relatively less “attentional energy” left over to focus on the maladaptive memory pattern. In addition, the rhythmic nature of that pattern rides a different frequency than brain waves, further interfering with neuronal networks.

Just to reinforce this material: everything you see, touch, taste, smell, or hear is processed on two levels. First, what is it? Second, what does it mean? These evaluations occur in different parts of the brain; thus, associative networks build up between them. We have seen that psychological illness can arise when maladaptive patterns become etched into the neuronal networks, unmediated by higher level thinking. The processes you mention—a rhythmic external pattern to which the brain must attend—enervate the associative link between the memory and its dark emotional association because the brain must focus externally. In addition, nothing that is happening in the environment, whether in a therapist's office or at home, reinforces the maladaptive association. This further weakens the link between a memory of abuse (what is it?) and its dark emotional association (what does it mean?). The memory and its association are “decoupled,” so to speak, so that the memory no longer triggers dark associations, but becomes a “neutral” memory free of emotional association.

This is but a basic “primer” on the techniques you describe, but it points you in the direction of understanding their efficacy.

*[See Conscious Life, Chapter 32.]

Q: There are much rumor about the photon belt phenomena. People say we will experience 3-5 days of darkness when the earth past through it. And probably all of our electrical equipment will break down (temporarily?). True or false? Is the photon belt same as the new galactic creation beam talked about in Ken Carey's book (The Third Millennium) or Bruce Moen (Monroe Institute) in his book Charting Unknown Territory? What are the best preparations we can make subjectively and physically for this coming event? (Li)
A: First of all, we generally do not comment on the contents of other authors' books. First, on principle, recognizing that there is a vast diversity of consciousness and intelligence among the earth's people, a vast diversity of authors is therefore needed to speak to those at each level. An exalted visionary's wisdom won't resonate with baby souls wallowing in fear. A baby soul author spewing venomous prophecies of destruction won't resonate with old souls seeking gentle wisdom. We have our audience as well; it is not our place to pass judgment on other authors' works, which have their niches and audiences.

Second, to offer a comprehensive critique of an author's work, our human host (Ramon) would have to read it. Sorry to say, we do not hold total awareness of the contents of the Library of Congress!

There is a consistent pattern among the questions submitted to us: someone reads a dark but compelling prophecy about future events of death and destruction, and asks our perspective. We would return the question to you and ask: what do you think? do you resonate with the prophecy? do you worry about it beyond the few minutes after reading it?

Please consider this: of all the dark prophecies ever uttered about calamitous earth changes, death and destruction raining from the heavens, pole shift, alien invasion, 2012, etc., ad infinitum, NONE HAS EVER COME TO PASS. There is one exception: the very real process of global warming, verified and confirmed by your best scientists on a daily basis. As you live in Southeast Asia, consider what will happen when the Himalayan glaciers melt away and over a billion people are left without water to drink or to irrigate their crops. That is worth worrying about, and taking ameliorative action to prevent, not photon belts.

Join the conversation! Ask Alexander a question here!