The 1900s were a century of extremes. It was also a masculine decade (1900 = 1). Examples of this include nuclear bombs, LSD, abnormal psychology, world wars, computers and successful manipulations by the cyrptocracy. As with all cycles (presidential, climate, war), an adjacent century such as the 2000s will exhibit opposite characteristics.* First of all, it is a feminine century (2000 = 2). Secondly, it is about the sweet spots hidden in plain sight, far from the extremes that were manifested in the 1900s. I say this not because of a plethora of signals in these first eighteen years of the 2000s, but because I have sensed it for some time and the rule of cycles suggests it to be true. The feminine aspect will likely exhibit itself more profoundly by the year 2022, which is rich in twos.
What do I mean by sweet spots? My favorite physical example is the Trojan points. These are the locations between Earth and Moon that have the unique and valuable characteristic that anything placed at these points, whether a walnut or a factory, will remain at that location indefinitely. In other words, no energy is required to keep the object from falling into either the Earth or the Moon or any other direction. This is a valuable characteristic; it is the non-Terra version of holding the high ground. As of yet, no one and no nation has laid claim to these points, but in this century they will. It is a sweet spot, hiding in plain sight. I do not doubt that cheap, uncentralized energy will be uncovered in this century, and likely a host of other valuable and surprisingly easy opportunities. “Why didn’t I think of that?” will be on everyone’s lips.
The message of these opportunities comes from outside this universe, and in most instances only a minority of people have the antennae necessary to pick them up. Many are already capturing these thoughts and many sweet spots are already under investigation.
One symptom of the sweet spots, and perhaps even a valuable lynchpin, is the dethroning of the mind. As long as the mind has primacy, the “how” of everything will be center-stage. How to avoid taxes, how to win the presidency and how to make a million dollars all rest on the cleverness of the mind. The Human mind, however, pales in power next to Human intentions and emotions. The mind is capable of much, but it is both a quagmire and a ghetto; once trapped there a great many options disappear, including the sweet spots I am talking about.
The HBO show Curb Your Enthusiasm has plugged into a sweet spot. Lauded comedy tv show writer and now actor, Larry David, has completely abandoned written dialogue for his popular show. The raw emotions and interesting tendency for real people to talk on top of each other appear on this comedy show where the writer gives direction but leaves the actual dialogue in the mouths of the actors. Writing a scene where two people speak at once is difficult in itself, and even more difficult to execute in a satisfactory manner. By offering an intention for the scene and being open to the interpretations of the actors, David has moved television into a sweet spot that in time others will pursue.
At its core the dethroning of the mind involves two opposite poles of a polarity. The most relevant is this intention/openness polarity. Duality demands that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When we create with full polarities in mind we tap higher order energies. Whether it’s the creative response of an actor to freedom from the written word, or simply the arrival of serendipity and synchronicity, this approach naturally gravitates to the sweet spots of any situation.
With the full throttle control of any “how” we assert our cleverness. In abdicating the how of any situation in favor of intentional openness we assert our wisdom. The 1900s were about extremes because that is where cleverness takes us. The 2000s are about sweet spots hiding in plain sight because that is where wisdom leads. The latter is a matter of dancing with nature and the universe with a sense of play. The former is all about control and is akin to raping nature and the universe. The two different outcomes (think Monsanto) are exactly what you would expect.
*I am particularly intrigued by the cycle of Bush to Obama to Trump. The Bush/Obama polarity is classic good cop/bad cop. Bush illegally searches our car and then whacks us in the head with a telephone directory. Obama shows up with a smile and a Coke (and a lie on his lips). The Obama/Trump polarity is entirely different. Here we have the very good fake, Obama (think how much better he looks and sounds versus the very bad fake Hillary), followed by the very real, but bad real, Trump. Once again I associate Obama with a can of Coke; it’s a fake food, but oh how we love it. Trump, on the other hand, is real, but he’s the real of halitosis and neurosis. These two polarities, Bush/Obama and Obama/Trump, make we wonder about future plans for Obama. If you wear glasses you know well the experience of the optician having you look through different lenses. He is continually asking you, A or B? C or D? as he narrows down to a proper prescription for our eyes. It’s notable that Obama is favored in each of the polarities. No one wants to be facing a cop in an interrogation room, and no one likes a fake person, but given the options offered most will choose Obama the “good” cop and fake. Everyone knows that Coke is bad for them, but how many still indulge in this comfort food? Just so does social engineering proceed in its clever fashion.