In the newest Conversations with God dialogue we are offered a list of sixteen differences in the behaviors of an awakened species when compared to the behaviors of humans living in an unawakened state.

In the days ahead I’m going to review that list here, and provide an opportunity for deep discussion of them. Here, then, are Items #5-8:

5. An awakened species does not embrace a principle in its civilization that correlates with the concepts that humans refer to as “justice” and “punishment.”

6. An awakened species does not embrace a principle in its civilization that correlates with the concept that humans refer to as “insufficiency”

7. An awakened species does not embrace a principle in its civilization that correlates with the concept that humans refer to as “ownership.”

8. An awakened species shares everything with everyone all the time. Humans in an unawakened state often do not, only sharing with others in limited circumstances.

Looking at these four observations, do you agree? What changes do you think would take place in the daily experience of humanity if we adopted the four behaviors of an awakened species that are listed here?

Conversations with God-Book 4: Awaken the Species has placed before us a road map, providing us a look at how we may get from where we are as a species to where we want to be: a place that is free from violence and strife, from suffering caused by others, from the experience of lack and insufficiency.

I believe it is possible for the human collective to get there, to create these outcomes. What do you think? Is this all a pipe dream? And regarding the four behaviors on the list above, do you see them as applicable and functional in any way in the daily experience and expression of the sentient beings on our planet?

In the newest Conversations with God dialogue we are offered a list of sixteen differences in the behaviors of an awakened species when compared to the behaviors of humans living in an unawakened state.

In the days ahead I’m going to review that list here, and provide an opportunity for deep discussion of them. Here, then, are Items #1-4:

#1: An awakened species sees the Unity of All Life and lives into it. Humans in an unawakened state often deny it or ignore it.

#2: An awakened species tells the truth, always. Humans in an unawakened state too often lie, to themselves as well as others.

#3: An awakened species says one thing and will do what they say. Humans in an unawakened state often say one thing and do another.

#4:An awakened species, having seen and acknowledged what is so, will always do what works. Humans in an unawakened state often do the opposite.

Looking at these four observations, do you agree? What changes do you think would take place in the daily experience of humanity if we adopted the four behaviors of an awakened species that are listed here?

Conversations with God-Book 4: Awaken the Species has placed before us a road map, providing us a look at how we may get from where we are as a species to where we say we want to be: a place that is free from violence and strife, from suffering caused by others, from the experience of lack and insufficiency.

I believe it is possible for the human collective to get there, to create these outcomes. What do you think? Is this all a pipe dream? And regarding the first four behaviors on the list above, do you see them as applicable and functional in any way in the daily experience and expression of the sentient beings on our planet?

Okay, time now to get on with our series of entries here in How to Have Your Own Conversation with God.

Now, some of these steps are going to seem pretty obvious to you, or rather simplistic. Please forgive me, because each of them is important. I have to start, then, at the beginning.

The first step to having your conversation with God is that you must believe there is a God. I know that sounds like, oh, Neale, come on. That’s so elementary. But is it really?

Do you really and truly or merely intellectually believe that there is a thing called God? And if you do believe that there is a thing called God, what is the nature of this thing that you believe in that you call God? Is it a larger‑than‑life human? A larger‑than‑life being of some other kind? Is it an energy? A detached totally non‑personified energy? What is this God that you believe in, if, in fact, you believe in it?

So what I want to tell you is that step 1, as elementary as it may seem, is a profound, sincere, deeply held conviction and belief that there is such a thing called God, that God exists in the universe and that God is ‑‑ if nothing else, if we can’t figure out how to describe God, at least we would say that God is the center and the source of Supreme Intelligence.

That is, that God is completely and utterly intelligent and aware and, therefore, has the ability to formulate thoughts, what you and I would consider thoughts, and to communicate. I am saying here that this is a God with whom we can communicate.

Again, please, forgive me for belaboring the point, but a lot of people who believe in God believe that God is some kind of disembodied energy, just a non‑personified energy, the energy that we call Life perhaps, but that this energy may not be “interact-able with,” if I could coin a phrase. That is, it’s not something you can interact with intellectually. You can’t have a conversation. You can use the energy, like you use electricity, but you wouldn’t have a conversation with electricity.

And it’s amazing how many people feel this way about God. I’m not making them wrong, by the way. I’m just saying that a large number of people feel that God is a disembodied energy, not unlike electricity, and you don’t have conversations with it.

So step number 1 then, obvious as it may seem, is that you hold as absolutely true that, A, God exists, and, B, God exists in the form with which two-way communication is possible.

I was asked recently over at CWGConnect.com about how we could have a personal God with whom we can communicate if God is really nothing more than raw energy. The answer I gave is that God is much more than raw energy. God is both the source and the expression of the highest consciousness, the greatest wisdom, and the grandest love in existence. God has made it clear to me that divinity will manifest itself in the life of every sentient being in the way that every sentient being is most capable of understanding and embracing the manifestation.

Thus, God will appear in the lives of some people as nothing more than raw energy. Life itself, if you please. In the lives of others, God will appear to be an Essential Essence, with personality. Divinity may therefore evidence itself as a protective Father, a nurturing Mother, a wise and gentle Friend, an Always Ready Helper in time of need, or in any other way, shape, manner, or form that suits the moment at hand.

In my own world, God is the Alpha and the Omega, the All-in-All, the Totality of All That Is. The beginning and the end of it, the here and the there of it, the before and the after of it, the up and down of it, the fast and slow of it, the dark and light of it, the left and right of it, the big and the small of it, the male and the female of it.

That’s just my thought. But you have to hold some idea that an Essence exists with whom you can experience a two-way interaction—and you can’t have any doubt about that. At least, not any continuing, persistent doubt that would more accurately be described as denial.

Now it is clear to me that acceptance of and embracing of the reality of God may be the most challenging of all the steps in the process of having one’s one conversation with God. It is certainly not a given. How one comes to this acceptance and embracing is a matter of another series of columns altogether, and is not something we are attempting to explore here. If you believe in God, you do. And if you don’t, you don’t. And that’s where we’re starting this series of entries. As stated in our last post, we’re not going to get into a debate about God’s existence here. People have been occupying themselves with such debates for millennia, may God bless ’em. Or, if you please, may Nothing bless ’em.

I’ve just returned from seven days on the road, bringing the message of Conversations with God in person to people across the continent and over the Atlantic from my home in Oregon. And once again I experience that if there is one question that I’m asked more than just about any other when I meet people everywhere, it’s this:

“Can I have my own conversation with God? How can I do that? Is it even possible to do that? Or is this just something that happened to you and to other select people?”

And, of course, you know my answer. No, it’s not something that’s just happening to me. And, yes, it is possible for everyone to have their own conversation with God. In fact, everyone is having their own CWG all the time. They’re simply calling it something else.

I am aware that this response sidesteps the initial and major, pertinent and germane question — which is, of course, if there even is such a thing as “God.”

I believe there is, and that what humans have been debating and discussing for thousands of years is not whether such a phenomenon exists, but how to define it and what to call it and how to use it — if, indeed, it can be “used.”

Survey after survey, year after year, of culture after culture, in country after country all over the world indicate that the majority of people on our planet hold a belief that there is in existence some sort of Higher Power. We just can’t seem to agree on the nature of that force, its characteristics, its composition, its usefulness (if any), its intention (if it possesses a sufficient level of consciousness to even have an intention), its purpose (if any), its aim or objective or desire (if any), and its place in our lives (if any).

Is it simply a physical aspect of our Universe with which we must contend, or is it a force and a source with which we may interact with purpose and intent, producing predictable and consistent results?

The difficulty of entering into such any discussion about this is that there is no way to verify empirically or substantiate scientifically any theory that supports the second notion in the sentence above. It is rather like trying to prove that Blue is blue.

Excuse me, but…who said so? What makes this true? Is it because everyone agrees? Is it our accepted understanding because everyone has decided it is?

If we hold up six crayons, each of a different color, and ask members of an audience to point to the one that is Blue, will everyone point to the same one?

If we hold up six ideas about God, each of a different nature, and ask members of an audience to point to the one that is real, will everyone point to the same one?

What makes Blue blue and God god? Is it just because we said so?

We’re not going to solve this here, of course. People have been trying to get other people to agree with them on the question of God, one way or the other, until they’re blue in the face.

I have my point of view about it, but if I can’t convince you to agree with me on this, I’m not going to get discouraged or wind up being sad or feeling…well…blue.

Nor am I going to argue with you about it and thrash it out until we’re both seeing red. Now you may say I simply lack the intellectual courage to engage in such a debate. Some might even call me yellow. But I’m just not willing to get into all these gray areas. That’s a blueprint for disaster.

(Sorry, I had to do it. I’m new at this kind of humor…I’m green here…so that, of course, colors my whole approach. But I’ll stop now, because I know I’ve carried this a bit too far. To be sure, this is not what you’d call purple prose. I’m not going to win any blue ribbons with what I’m writing right now. And I’m sure you’re not exactly tickled pink with it. In fact, if I carry this any further you’ll probably turn white. But wait! There’s a silver lining to all this. I’ve been caught red handed here, and you could use my reluctance to defend my beliefs to blackball me…claiming that I don’t really believe what I say I believe, and that I’m a charlatan. And you wouldn’t be the first to charge me with that. I mean, such an accusation would not be exactly out of the blue…)

All of that having been said (sadly…), I’m going to use this space in the days ahead to share with you how you can experience having your own conversation with God (everyone is having it, but not everyone is experiencing it as that) and observe it bringing direct benefit to your life, in 7 easy steps.

So join me here in just a few days as I share this with you. And again, this is not going to be an argument or a debate, an analysis or an investigation, about whether there is a God or not. You can quarrel about that if you want to in your comments below, but my upcoming columns are not going there. So if you don’t agree with my premise that God exists, you may want to ignore my next 7 entries.

(Coming Next: Step 1 in having an experience of your own conversation with God.)

• You are looking at a website that is never edited or censored by anyone manually…least of all me…and, as far as I know, only by one level of programming, which finds and deletes posts with foul language or links to other sites. This headline article is being written right now at 5:35pm Pacific Time Sunday, May 7.

  Two minutes ago Raphael posted this:

  I was wrong…comments are STILL censored. Amazing! My comment addressed to Patrick was eliminated, after being “reviewed” by the global conversation team. No foul language, no family-unfriendly language, no links of any kind.

  This is truly not worth my time. Whoever is doing this, have at it hoss, enjoy your tiny little power…you are a little pest, a tiny microbe, an insignificant bacteria.

  Earlier Raphael posted this…

  Posts do not just “disappear”, they are not abducted by aliens and molested…they are actually moderated, as can be seen by the notice “hold on: this comment is being reviewed by the global conversation team” (or something similar), prior to being taken out (presumably lined against a wall and shot). 

  Explanation? That’s all we are looking for here….not denial, but a rational explanation for an irrational event.

  Wow, this site must be being severely hacked. The only one “working” this site, as far as I know, is me. I have no idea who is sending the notice that a comment is being “reviewed by the global conversation team.” Somebody has indeed found his or her way into our site management system and is playing games with us.

  We will look into it and re-program the site, if we have to.

  Raphael also wrote: On another note, I am seriously questioning Neale’s point about developing a loyal following by using a two-pronged approach, authority/coercion and example/inspiration. I find the idea of using coercion repugnant, and to be opposing all spiritual truths. Is this Neale’s new direction? I hope not…

  Again, I am merely asking questions.

  I’ll reply to that here. I am not suggesting for a minute that humanity’s approach should include violence of any kind. I do see how what I wrote in my last post here might have been interpreted that way. The point I was hoping to make (and did a clumsy job with, apparently) is that at present…at our present stage of maturity as a species, at our present level of emotional development…we don’t seem to be able to grasp that violence cannot end violence, and is never appropriate as an action or activity or choice of Highly Evolved Beings.

  The problem, I was hoping to point out, is that right now, we are not even considering a two-pronged approach, which could possibly produce surprising results. I used the discipline of a child as my bad example. Yet even discipline should not include “violence” of any kind, in my belief. I did not make that clear in my earlier writing.

  The so-called “battle of ideas” is one approach that humanity is not using with utmost skill or commitment. But the battle of munitions does not have to include bombs and bullets and weapons of mass destruction. I regret that I did not make it clear that I consider economic means are but one form of “ammunition” that our disciplining of nations whose leaders are acting like children could include more of. As well as other diplomatic means.

  All of that having been said, if somebody comes into my house or approaches me on the street and is moving to kill or injure my loved one, I am going to use physical force, if that is the only means that will work, to bring an end to the threat or the assault. I will certainly try to talk the assailant out of it, but if I cannot stop the killing or injuring of my loved one any other way, I will use physical force equal to that which is used against me.

  My mind struggles with this every time I look at it, but that is where I am right now at my stage of emotional development. I’m open to discussion on this.

  I am also open to finding a way to end the hacking of this website. No Comment entered here should be “moderated” by anyone. We’ll see what’s going on here, or we’ll just re-program the site.

  Everyone be well.

   

   

I inaugurated here, a little while ago, an exploration of what I believe may be one of the most important questions of our time — if not the Most Important Question: Can we solve humanity’s problems using the same energy that create them?

As you know, Albert Einstein famously said, “No.” And I agree with him. Who am I to disagree with a genius of the ages?

Einstein understood that you can’t end someone else’s violence with violence of your own, you can’t end someone else’s anger with anger of your own, you can’t end someone else’s stubbornness with stubbornness of your own. He was very clear that you can’t end someone else’s resentment with resentment of your own, you can’t end someone else’s terrorism with terrorism of your own, you can’t end someone else’s verbal abuse with verbal abuse of your own.

The real question is not whether Einstein was right about that, but how to put his wisdom into practice within the human arena. We humans seem to know no other way to respond to incoming energy except with energy of “like kind.” So we do, in fact, respond to violence with violence of our own, terrorism with terrorism of our own, verbal abuse with verbal abuse of our own…and so on, right down the line.

We’ve decided that “two can play the same game” is the way to “win” — even though that exact strategy so often produces loss after loss after loss. We don’t seem to know what to go with that information. We don’t seem to know how to deal with that data. We have had a hard time, our species has, with looking at what’s right in front of our nose and doing anything about it.

As Conversations with God-Book 4: Awaken the Species says:

“If your objective is to live a life of peace, joy, and love, violence does not work. This has already been demonstrated. If your objective is to live a life of good health and great longevity, consuming dead flesh daily, smoking known carcinogens continuously, and drinking gallons of nerve-deadening, brain-frying liquids like alcohol regularly does not work. This has already been demonstrated.

“If your objective is to raise offspring free of violence and rage, placing them directly in front of vivid depictions of violence and rage during their most impressionable years does not work. This has already been demonstrated. 

“If your objective is to care for Earth and wisely husband her resources, acting as if those resources are limitless does not work. This has already been demonstrated. If your objective is to discover and cultivate a relationship with a loving Deity so that religion can make a difference in the affairs of humans, then teaching of a god of righteousness, punishment, and terrible retribution does not work. This has already been demonstrated.

“Do you need any more examples?”

We don’t. We can see clearly that our tendency as a species is to look directly into the face of every evidence we could possibly hope to find, and then do exactly the opposite of what that evidence suggests is the best course of action.

The president of the U.S. and other world figures are facing this dilemma at this very moment as global leaders seek to find a way to peacefully deal with planetary events taking place in Syria, and now in North Korea, as well as in the United States, China, Russia, the countries of the NATO Alliance, and other nations across the map.

As everyone knows, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to strike an airfield in Syria from which that country’s government was accused of having launched a chemical attack on its own people. The Syrian government itself has denied that it did so. Whether it did or did not is not the question in this exploration. Serious as that question is, the prime inquiry here is larger than even that. The question here is whether, when any person or government suspects another person or government of aggression or attack, is the most effective and best response to be aggressive and attack back?

Ironically, this is the very question North Korea is answering right now. Its leader, Kim Jong Un, is accusing the United States of acting aggressively — and even of preparing to launch an attack on the DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea).

The solution to these problems we are facing today as a civilization is two-pronged…and the difficulty is that we are approaching the solution as if it had only one aspect, only one approach that will work.

You can keep disciplining a child over and over again in response to misbehaviors, or you can use a two-pronged approach: Discipline and Discipleship.

The dictionary defines a disciple as “a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.” And if you wish to create a follower, you can do so with the force of your power or the force of your ideas. You can create someone who follows your orders or someone who follows your example.

The first approach, if used exclusively, rarely works, as it almost always generates resentment, rebellion, and revolution in the end. Both approaches, used co-jointly, can generate surprisingly positive responses, and, in the end, even uncommon loyalty.

The trick in all behavior modification is not simply to force change of an unwanted behavior itself, but to alter the stimuli that motivates all behaviors, wanted and unwanted.

When it comes to people and nations, what is being talked about here is not simply a battle of munitions, but a battle of ideas; not simply a competition involving conflicts, but a competition involving concepts.

We need to place before humanity a whole New Cultural Story, a complete set of New Notions about what it means to be human, what we are doing here on the earth, what our purpose and reason for existing is, and what we can do to actualize and functionalize all of that.

This is not something that today’s world leaders appear ready to fully comprehend or deeply understand — much less to implement. We have the ability — now more than ever with our instantaneous worldwide communication — to place these new ideas before our species…we simply do not have the will to do so. All of this has to do with our infancy as a species.

A lot of people like to think of humans as highly evolved. In fact, humanity has just emerged from its infancy on this planet. In their book New World New Mind, Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich placed this in perspective in one mind-boggling paragraph:

“Suppose Earth’s history were charted on a single year’s calendar, with midnight January 1 representing the origin of the Earth and midnight December 31 the present. Then each day of Earth’s “year” would represent 12 million years of actual history. On that scale, the first form of life, a simple bacterium, would arise sometime in February. More complex life-forms, however, come much later; the first fishes appear around November 20. The dinosaurs arrive around December 10 and disappear on Christmas Day. The first of our ancestors recognizable as human would not show up until the afternoon of December 31. Homo sapiens—our species—would emerge at around 11:45 pm…and all that has happened in recorded history would occur in the final minute of the year.”

We are, in fact, the children of the cosmos — and we are acting like it.

The challenge before humanity right now is that we are simply too immature to understand that eliminating violence as a response to violence makes sense. Conversations with God-Book 4: Awaken the Species makes it very clear that Highly Evolved Beings would never use violence in any way as a means of resolving differences. They have understood that differences do not have to produce divisions, that contrast does not have to produce conflict, that variance does not have to produce violence, and that proponents do not have to be opponents.

As humanity moves out of its childhood, we will no doubt let go of childish things. We will put down our toys (our warplanes, our missiles, our bombs), we will stop our screaming and our yelling, we will quit stamping our feet and throwing tantrums, and we will begin considering and adopting news ideas about what it means to be human that allow us to continue to be human without having to be inhumane in order to guarantee our ability to do so.

We can begin that process — that is, ordinary humans like you and I can inspire, ignite, and initiate it — by providing to everyone whose life we touch a striking example of what it means to be an awakened species. And, as well, by placing before humanity…idea, after idea, after idea…producing an evolution revolution all over this planet.

Ideas the loveliness of which, the efficacy of which, the preferability of which, and the benefits of which will be so self-apparent as to magnetize the behavioral changes that they invite, generating at last the so-long-hoped-for greeting card outcome: Peace on Earth, and Goodwill to Men and Women and Children everywhere, forever and ever, and even forever more.

Now you may think this idea naive. You may label it unsophisticated or simple, childlike, and ingenuous. Yet I am reminded of Victor Hugo’s powerful insight: All the armies of the world cannot stop an idea whose time has come.

I will propose and explore some ideas whose time has come in this space in my next entry here.

Somewhere along the way we have to ask ourselves: Was Einstein on to something when he said that you can’t solve a problem by using the same energy that created it?

Can you bring an end to violence with violence? Can you bring an end to war with war? Can you bring an end to someone else’s anger with anger of your own?

There is a delicate balance here that begs to be struck. To sit back and do nothing after the witnessing of abject cruelty and rampant violence — even though it may not involve or affect you directly — may simply not be tolerable to the mind of a person of conscience.

If you saw a woman being attacked in an alley as you happened by, would you keep on walking, reasoning that it doesn’t involve you or affect you, and therefore you should do nothing?

Likewise, if you saw men, women, children and even babies suffering cruel and agonizing deaths after being attacked with chemical weapons, would you look the other way, saying that it doesn’t involve you or affect you, and therefore you should do nothing? Or would you risk getting involved — and involving others who are even less affected than anyone, being third-party removed — in the name of what feels “right” to you at the depth of your being?

There is a delicate balance here that begs to be struck. This is precisely the balance that U.S. President Donald Trump is trying to find in response to events in Syria.

Is it our job to “police the world,” making sure that its leaders do what we think is right and just and good, even if it could cost some of our own their lives?, people in the United States are asking today. Is it our place to let the rest of the world sort itself out without our intervention at any level that involves force, so long as the violence is not inflicted on us?

This appears to be the question of the moment in the minds of many. Yet the posing of that question in that way suggests that all this is what is often called a “Zero Sum Game” — or a proposition in which one participant’s gain exactly equals another participant’s loss, producing a balanced outcome.

The challenge here is that there is more than one way to produce such a balance, where the pendulum rests squarely in the middle, or the scales hang evenly, or the seesaw winds up perfectly level. To produce such a balance, one would have to use equal force, for sure, but would it have to be identical force?

In the case of nations, some would argue that economic force could be as impactful as physical force. Yet if one participant’s economic condition is buttressed and supported by a third party, the second participant’s use of economic force could wind up having no effect whatsoever. (The same could be said about physical force, for exactly the same reason.)

How, then, does one’s intervention stop from becoming meaningless? Or worse yet, harmful to oneself?

This is what keeps occupants of the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House up all night. It is what turns the hair of Presidents noticeably grey noticeably quickly after taking office. It is why being the Chief of State of any nation in the world can be an endlessly thankless job.

What is the spiritual solution to the world’s dilemmas? Is there even a good one to be considered? This is a question that I am asked a lot these days. It is a question I ask myself a lot. And that brings me back to Einstein. Was he right?

I’d like to put the question you to, here — and the specific issue of what, if any, an effective response, spiritual or otherwise, might be to the use of chemical weapons in Syria — before I offer my own observation.

I shall read your comments below with great interest.

Not a week goes by these days when people do not ask me what I think about all that is going on in our world right now, and what our best spiritual response might be. Based on the messages in Conversations with God, what would be most useful, they want to know. What would be most helpful right now? What would be most effective?

Today, with all the nuclear sword rattling and bragging about intercontinental first strike or defensive capabilities between countries . . . with all the on-the-ground terrorism and bloodshed and starvation and heartbreaking images of stick-thin women carrying emaciated babies across borders desperately hoping to find safe haven . . . with all the social unrest and upheaval we see at every turn . . . it’s little wonder that sadness and fear seems to be winning the day everywhere.

Yet many people all over the world are still searching for ways to brighten their days and lighten their individual lives — and, too, for something they could offer our world to produce a glimmer of hope amidst the despair, and to bring some light unto the darkness.

This is where you come in. You and me. All of us, together.

There is something we can do. Something to shift our personal, daily lives away from sadness and worry, and something to even help, in a very real way, to uplift the larger reality. What  I am saying to everyone when I am asked about the CWG spiritual response to all that is occurring in our world right now is to explore the messages in Conversations with God-Book 4: Awaken the Species. 

This is a brand new and totally unexpected dialogue, which began on August 2, 2016 and moved to completion, forming an entire book, in five weeks. That book was rushed into print and has just been released — this past Monday, in fact. It has already begun appearing in regular excerpts, now every other day, on my Facebook page, so everyone may access it at no cost. Here is the link to my FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/NealeDonaldWalsch?ref=br_tf

If you wish to have your own personal copy, it is available at Amazon through the following link:

https://www.amazon.com/Conversations-God-Book-Awaken-Species/dp/193790749X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490719225&sr=8-1&keywords=conversations+with+god+book+4

I had no idea this book was coming through. I awoke before dawn on that morning last August with an inner urge to talk with God about our world and its present circumstance. I knew from an old, familiar feeling that it was important for me to move forward with that conversation immediately. I found myself immersed 12 hours a day in this new dialogue, which included a surprising, if not jaw-dropping, revelation amount Highly Evolved Beings from other dimensions, and — most important — an extraordinary personal invitation to every person who reads the text.

Included is a fascinating list of sixteen differences between an awakened species and humans in an unawakened state (offered to inspire us to make specific changes in our own behaviors), as well as ways to tell if we have fully awakened, and five tools for integrating the immensely helpful suggestions of CWG into our daily lives.

Coming at a time of global economic distress, political madness, social upheaval, chest-thumping by so many of our globe’s brazenly partisan and increasingly unyielding leaders, emboldened by their fist-pumping, people-shoving followers — this brand new dialogue declares that this precise moment is actually the Perfect Time for Advancement in the evolutionary journey of our species, and offers the spiritual, philosophical, emotional, and physical steps to move us forward.

The first step, it says, is to self select to be among those who commit to moving forward their own individual and personal evolution by embracing and demonstrating behaviors that serve to awaken the species to who and what human beings really are (Individuations of Divinity), and how that may be made manifest in our collective experience. As I said, the text offers us some solid ideas on ways in which to do that.

I hope that many of you will joyfully read Conversations with God-Book 4: Awaken the Species. 

Lovingly, Neale.