Pamphlet for a New Energy Policy


 

6) Four points of order

   The explanation of the invention is therefore just as important as the invention itself. Inventors say simple things like “energy generated from magnets,” “from a vacuum,” “from electrolysis,” or “from crystals,” but that doesn’t immediately make sense. Without a shared understanding of the vertical, underlying processes that form the source of the energy conversion, the practicing engineer—who simply needs to learn how to implement the principles of conversion—will also find it difficult to develop his own application, and the patent office will find it difficult to grant him a patent. The horizontal truth of the law of conservation of energy, the existing order of things, and the knowledge of closed systems must also remain intact. The future cannot exist without the past, for the future is nothing other than everything from the past that we were able to preserve and build upon. In the HDT, repressive progress—that is, renouncing one thing for the sake of another—is not true progress, but merely an exhaustion of synergistic possibilities. The old method remains an option; despite the CD, the old vinyl record is still a possibility.If the cell phone isn't working, we'll go back to using a landline. If the power goes out, we'll bring out the candles and oil lamps again. And if the new energy generator doesn’t work under certain conditions, we may well need to fall back on the old method and its explanation. Newton’s classical mechanics was never truly replaced by Einstein. Newton’s principles still apply in many common situations. We don’t discard elementary school when we reach high school. Einstein merely represents an extension, a further refinement, a narrowing down, or a description of an exception or a refinement. Misconceptions or outdated methods fall by the wayside, as may well be the case with the unnecessary use of fossil fuels, but we always keep them in mind in our history books or even keep them available as a backup system. The museum also has its uses. There we still find the clock that runs in sync with the sun, the coal kit that can still be used to make money today, and the designs for the first nuclear power plant, which we haven’t quite gotten rid of yet. The description and explanation of how the new technology works must always go hand in hand with its development. Without thorough empirical research to test the theory, there will be no scientific or broader societal recognition of the insight, and the direct energy transformer will not be produced on an industrial scale. We discovered effects and began to reflect on them. And we are not done yet. These insights lead to new testable predictions and developments. Alternative explanations generate alternative predictions and lead to different paths that point toward the future. Without this synergy of taking the empirical knowledge of the experimenting inventors seriously, and engaging with theorizing philosophers and other pioneers, such an inventor and/or theorist—who then exists so one-sidedly for themselves outside the method for developing science—is written off as a loser, a fool, a madman, or a fraud, or even seen as a threat.

   We raised the issue of energy, researched what others were doing, and broke the matter down into simple terms; we conducted our own experiment, arrived at an explanation of the facts, and incorporated a number of other phenomena and explanations into that framework. If we want to properly complete the method, we are now ready to assess the integration of those findings into broader society—the larger context of a new world order based on our findings. A brilliant idea or a machine alone won’t get us there. We are changing the world; we are taking the next step on the ladder of human evolution. Without the theoretical knowledge—which must be conveyed alongside practical demonstrations in textbooks and classrooms—there will be no commercial application, nor will a new perspective truly hold water. We need a better kind of intelligence if we want to prevent the destruction of the planet, as it is becoming apparent under the old energy policies. New patents, new lifestyles, and the associated commercial developments of marketable products will only emerge once we have moved beyond serendipitous discoveries, strange uncontrollable effects, and unique, unrepeatable achievements to manageable, calculable, predictable, and repeatable methodIn the past, without this combination of a plausible theory and a practical application, many scientists and inventors—who were, in and of themselves, well-integrated into society—such as Nikola Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, Bruce de Palma, and many others, found themselves marginalized and excluded from society. And this blocked progress in knowledge and its application in this field—so essential to our shared lives—for all of humanity. At the beginning of the 21st century, the word “ether” is still taboo in scientific education, despite Einstein’s formulations of its relative truth. A unified field theory, a theory of everything, cannot ignore this concept. In 1963, Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate in physics, stated the following on this subject:s of alternative energy conversion.

"...the failure of physicists around the world to find such a satisfactory theory, after so many years of intensive research, leads me to believe that the aetherless foundation of physical theory has reached the limits of its capabilities, and to see in the Aether a new hope for the future". Paul Dirac, 1933 Nobel Prize winner in Physics Scientific American, The Evolution of Physicists Picture of Nature, May 1963

    Had what happened to Wilhelm Reich, for example, not occurred—he died of a heart attack on November 3, 1957, at Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary —and had we been more paradigmatically adept with the pioneers, then perhaps we would not now have a global war over oil and gas resources and such a gloomy and fiercely contested, one-sided, economically determined idea of world order... That is how important the philosophical foundation is now. Even if that foundation may ultimately not be the decisive factor, we must nevertheless continue to engage with it. We recognize the one-sidedness that runs counter to this as materialism, as a need for false certainties, as an escape into the actually burning matter of the worldly contradictions of the ego—which, with all its politicization, we can now easily recognize in being entangled in the material energy issue of horizontal, one-sided thinking. In this entanglement, the idea of commerce prevails—the notion that our happiness is for sale—a view that, in a capitalist context, even tends to supplant democracy, even though democracy is, in fact, the ideal symbol of free trade. While a world order must certainly embody a spirit of commerce, it cannot, of course, consist solely of that. Nor does this immediately require an additional philognostic political party, but first and foremost a conceptual model or paradigm such as the HDT—however provisional in nature—to achieve relativization and consolidation in a broader scientific sense than that of the economic and mechanical thinking that normally dominates energy policy.We need a paradigm like this conceptual model, which, in principle—as outlined in this pamphlet—can be widely understood by society, supported, and further developed so that it can be incorporated into education. By accepting the concept of a dynamic, relative ether active in nature, anyone can understand that we can extract energy from it just as easily as from the power of wind, sun, and water. Space, too, functions as an energetic field that can be harnessed. Period. Whatever else you choose to call it.

    In addition to economic and scientific thinking aimed at energy production and management, there are two other aspects involved in a sound understanding of the world order. These are the interests of an overarching world religion and a form of world government. To resolve the problem of conflicting local religions that exist around the concept of the ether and the spiritual interest supported by the HDT, we must discuss the religions and their place in society. Secondly, we must also discuss the form of government that is acceptable to the entire world population—a form of governance that serves both the interests of the whole and those of the individual state. Een soort van win-win formule simpel gezegd. This concept of order must, on the one hand, resolve the contradictions of the current democratic system and, on the other hand, maintain a positive connection with the control of energy as it exists in the natural (relative) ether. From the perspective of the HDT, we speak—in respect for the person in the fullest sense—first and foremost, at the highest level of differentiation, of the importance of man, woman, intelligence, and the spirit. The spirit is central to the various forms of association in the natural and human sciences, with the freedom from illusion as the guiding theme: what we think must correspond to what we see. Intelligence forms the counterpart to the restless spirit, which, when left to itself, is always focused on matter. The mind requires the guidance of the intellect through a certain uniting that must bring order to the person. This ordering, for the sake of the intellect, takes place within the realm of religiosity and the private sphere, where the individual first and foremost seeks peace and security.

   The men in society are discussing the order needed to ensure that no one is shortchanged, so that a sense of community is preserved and does not lead to criminalization. We no longer call that order nobility, but democracy. Consultation with the people is the essence of good and stable governance that must keep pace with the times. Viewed in this light, the man of the new model no longer wages wars with weapons for the sake of unilateral world domination and dictatorship, but must now engage in politics with his paradigmatic views and concepts to prevent armed conflicts in a global mindset that, unfortunately, is often based more on territories or national identity than on a natural, cyclical understanding of the temporal order of our material life, as the HDT perceives it.

  A woman who has not yet achieved emancipation is concerned with earthly matters: the home, financial security, and supporting her husband in his worldly duties. But when she develops a sense of social and moral responsibility beyond the private sphere, she is recognized for what she truly is: a soul, a person with a spirit. Only when both man and woman are emancipated together is there a possibility for love and happiness in which the ego can dissolve, sexism can disappear, and the soul - which is the true equalizer of humanity - can be found. For the completeness of our personal interests as human beings, the spiritual half of the HDT, which stands for the interests of the soul, is at least as important as the material half. The HDT implies an understanding of emancipation as a process of becoming equal within the witness of self-awareness that we call the soul. In that regard as well, we must think vertically: moving away from merely rationalizing bourgeois attachments and away from the sorrow caused by the absence of a true collective intelligence and humanity. Thinking solely horizontally in materialistic terms - which hold that men and women, by fighting against celibacy, must devote their thinking and intelligence to the satisfaction of their own and others’ material needs - will not be enough to pull the cart.

    Thinking vertically, the parallel must be drawn with energy generation from the ether using the new technology of the newly invented graviton pumps. Without that parallel, the paradigm cannot succeed, and we will once again be stuck with lost, isolated, dismissed, ridiculed, and forgotten inventors, alternative thinkers, and cultures of innovation. In practical terms, the HDT, based on the idea of evolution and the transfer of knowledge, the necessity of stable democratic governance, the concrete satisfaction of material needs, and respect for spiritual truth and the integrity of the person, respectively: 1) scientific, 2) political, 3) economic, and 4) religious considerations in connection with the concept of the ether. Considerations that all play an equally significant role in the establishment of a coherent global governance, a new world order, an order in which the unity of the classical ether—or a balance in the relative ether—prevails within a healthy diversity, both in a cultural and a natural sense. This aligns with the European Union’s dictum, for example, of unity in diversity (see also the Bhagavad Gîtâ 9.15). The main reason why humanity’s progress in addressing the energy problem is not happening as quickly as one might expect lies not only in the obstacles mentioned at the end of Chapter Four, in the fact that such scientific innovation is simply too complex for a single individual to grasp, and has too many social—that is, religious, political, and economic—consequences to break through as a way of thinking and acting without further ado. Yet, with the necessity of a new energy policy, one can see the paradigm of a new world order emerging as an inevitable consequence of our cultural and scientific developments. Ultimately, for practical reasons, one cannot avoid promoting these four aspects simultaneously as a single coherent whole. The arguments for this are as follows:

1) From a scientific perspective, therefore, the concept of the ether must be reevaluated in terms of its relativity. We have already mentioned various signs that this process is indeed already underway. This pamphlet is part of that effort. In conjunction with this development, the concept of time will also need to be revised. For the ether cannot be separated from time and matter. Matter constitutes the electromagnetic condensation of the dark energy of the primordial state, and time determines the existence of that matter within the energetic vacuum of outer space. Matter is never perfectly static; the relative ether that maintains the order of matter is constantly in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Under the influence of time, it is always in motion, with fields moving through fields and fields moving toward and away from one another, and it is therefore time that enables the actual transformation of the energy of the static field into an electric current of electrons by skillfully utilizing the dynamics—or quantum mechanical uncertainty—of the relative ether.In quantum mechanics, the position and momentum of particles do not have precise values. This is known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901–1976) was a German scientist who received the Nobel Prize in 1932 for developing quantum mechanics, the theory describing the relationship between indivisible units of energy—known as quanta—and matter. He also proposed the idea of the proton-neutron structure of the atomic nucleus. For elementary matter, there is a “probability distribution.” There is always a certain uncertainty regarding which field matter belongs to and to what extent: the local, the universal, and the spacetime fields are in constant interaction at the particle level and beyond. Time, space, and matter are all that can be seen in the world, and thus, with the redefinition and revaluation of the relative ether as a specific property of gravity in space, relativity regarding the concept of time must also be politically invoked and respected.  This means that the simultaneity that Einstein rejected is therefore out of the question for us in civil society, so that average times, solar times, and daylight saving times must be phased out politically and ultimately abolished. As far as the taboo on simultaneity is concerned, Einstein was right, according to the HDT. Legal time regulations must not conflict with scientific principles; that must be government policy. No more scientific tables in the political trash bin. The dictum then reads: we do indeed share the moment synchronously, but time is always different in different places, at least latitudinally (both longitudinal and latitudinal time observance require unequal hours that are very difficult for citizens to observe; only Islam does so—largely—with prayer times).

     Thus, the existing liberalization of the concept of time in business management at the beginning of the 21st century is scientifically supported by legal measures that better accommodate a local, personal, decentralized, and more natural temporal order. Clocks may then only keep the same time if they are located in the same physical space. At a distance—at least in a latitudinal sense—they must always indicate a different time. Without such an intervention in the civil order, the basic principle of relativity—and the respect for it through the ether machines—and the unity of consciousness within the diversity of matter would be violated, resulting in a political and civil unity that comes at the expense of diversity. That would constitute a form of induction (false unification) and loss of consciousness that is downright dangerous to mental public health and the development of culture (synergy is lost in compensations). Such falsehood must be combated on all fronts. False unity at the expense of distinctions is thus a taboo developed through the natural sciences. Generalizing is dangerous (everyone in a “uniform,” so to speak). A tendency toward false unification with time, as developed in the twentieth century alongside the culturally neurotic counterpart of individualism, is therefore rationally and politically irresponsible and unacceptable. This new paradigm must therefore be accompanied by a new clock: the same clock we had before, but now with an additional gear that is astronomically controlled to account for the so-called time equation (the difference between a sundial and a standard time clock), so that, at least in terms of latitude, time on Earth varies by longitude (see solar tempometer).   The calendar, too, must then undergo a transformation in which, on the one hand, the day and the week are aligned with—and allowed to follow—the order of the sun, and on the other hand, a kind of day off is introduced that cuts across that solar order in accordance with the phases of the moon, as if it were a wandering Saturday (see the Full Calendar of Order). Linear weeks as we know them from standard time also constitute a kind of false unification in which the dynamics resulting from the relative ether are denied; in other words, the weekly order must be intercalated with a fifteenth day (study day? fasting day?) to fit into a month, much as was done in the old Julian calendar. Without this respect for the natural dynamics of celestial bodies based on a relative ether, there can be no question of a better collective and civic understanding of the ether. And that concept is essential for the new energy policy. Einstein clearly stated that time depends on how the observer’s position changes relative to the planet. If we do not move around much geographically, this amounts to respecting apparent astronomical solar time. Viewed this way, we cannot avoid a revision of our time system and the legal measures that go with it. Since this takes us back to old structures, we have nothing to fear from it; it is still in our cultural genes. Philosophically and politically, we are then faced with the problem of a paradigmatic struggle between the emotional, pragmatic politics of “modern” preferences and bourgeois attachments from the twentieth century and the new-rational-relativistic preferences of the 21st-century restoration of classical science in a syncretic guise. This new form of relativism—a rational one—is inevitable if it is to serve as the theoretical foundation for the new technology of direct energy conversion. We simply need the rational explanation provided by the new relativistic ether machines, and we cannot view this as something that can exist in isolation from bourgeois culture.

   2) Of course, politics is also being shaped by this new way of thinking. The concept of democracy needs to be redefined. We have already written about this in “The Ether for Real” (on the website: Order, Democracy, and Utopia). We need a democracy in which the individual party—the collective group ego, so to speak—can never again dominate unilaterally. Democracy faces the paradox that the political party poses the greatest threat to its own survival. What must disappear is the mixture of fear and desire regarding democracy that prevails among the citizenry, who are constantly hoping for victories or fearing a dictatorship or decline. In the HDT, this state is recognized as a state of psychological suffering, as a symptom of a global cultural neurosis. People are wary of the democracy that led to fascism, communism, fundamentalism, and ultimately also the misery of capitalism—the capitalism of the pseudo-aristocracy of financial elites who, just like the French nobility before the French Revolution, have too little compassion for the needs of the local global population. We cannot tell Africans and other Third World countries to “eat cake,” as Marie-Antoinette Bonaparte said at the end of the 18th century. The war on terrorism and against criminal subcultures (was 9/11 a so-called “false flag” operation? was the CIA criminal?), the fight against AIDS (caused by HIV or not?), and the war on drugs (legal/illegal?) and gambling, alcohol, and sex addiction (regulated by law or banned?), prove at the beginning of the 21st century that capitalism in and of itself can never form or find the peace of a sound social balance and a corresponding state of health. Freedom does not equate to righteousness.

    We need a concept of democracy that no longer treats these symptoms of materialism as isolated problems, but rather addresses the root cause—poor governance (a flawed temporal order)—through civic virtues: the regulation of desire, the ego, intelligence, and solidarity. The disease must instead be tackled at its root with an improved, more scientific understanding of ether and time and with a corresponding improved energy policy. Democracy as the highway to a one-sided, political imposition of a socialist, capitalist, fundamentalist, or fascist/militarist nature must be prevented. The hope for the democratic victory of any party must be definitively dismissed as illusory and destructive. Through the HDT’s philosophy of knowledge, we strive politically for cooperation within all-encompassing coalitions—that is, for integrity—rather than for the victory of one segment of society over another. The political structure of democracy is like a body with four limbs. These require a central administration that is honest, stable, and scientifically trained. For the time being, science—as the youngest religion (worshiping the ether with true time!)—is assigned this task, with the mission of keeping its own way of thinking fresh and up-to-date, and not allowing it to crumble into a false elitism through competition for subsidies and sponsorships. This can only be achieved by isolating each of these paetipolitical tendencies toward dictatorship—as a distinct interest of civic virtue—within a separate sphere of action in accordance with the new order of the times as described above, and by balancing them with other interests. This can be achieved administratively through a redistribution of seats in the parliaments and a division into ministries and subdepartments, in such a way that these align better with one another and with the nature of the identity of the ordinary citizen in terms of his age (status) and profession (class; see A Small Philosophy of the Association).

    To prevent the fallacy of such a system (a caste system or a class-based society) and to guarantee the equality of citizens, there must—along with a principled and structural vigilance against false unifications—also be respect for the levels of abstraction at which a person can function and the experience they possess. Citizens are equal in their emancipated respect for natural diversity. This must always be kept in mind. A better differentiation and distribution of political and economic power thus constitutes the remedy against imbalance. Such a more identity-conscious politics, which, through more differentiated electoral groups (until now: standing parliamentary committees), better represents the individual administratively and combats individualism as a culture-neurotic symptom, must always be based on human rights.

No one should be cast aside because of money or for any other reason; this must be enshrined in the constitution. Basic security is an absolute prerequisite for being able to participate in society relatively stress-free and in good health, or to change one’s life path. A full-time volunteer is, in human terms, just as valuable as a salaried employee, and citizens must therefore be able to freely choose between these two fundamental identities within a humane labor system where unemployment, in principle, no longer exists; unemployment would then be more of a neurotic symptom of a personal identity crisis. You work for a salary under a boss, or for the God of volunteer work, and the only option left is to be a criminal or ill, and society has provisions for that as well, albeit with less freedom of choice. The free will of a righteous and healthy individual to choose whether or not to participate at this or that level of engagement or sphere of action in civic virtue is essential. A system is complete if it respects the duality of spirit and matter and if one can just as easily choose material progress as spiritual progress. The two cannot exist without each other, so it is also an illusion to try to exclude one with the other, as is often envisioned in the struggle between capitalism and fundamentalism. The salvific system must be comprehensive and inclusive—i.e., everyone must be included but not compelled—and cannot claim justice through exclusion or exclusivity. Even non-participation, even in this new order, would then fall under a category governed by law, perhaps still under the old legislation. For example, one signs a contract of (digital) cooperation (transparency or oversight of transactions and activities) with the government, or one opts for the old freedom of liberal privacy, with the attendant problems of monitoring passive capital, taxes, and the like. The basis of political trust must be found in that freedom of choice. After all, it will not be immediately clear whether such a status of cooperation (SoC) actually cooperates better than the preference for privacy. Purity is an ideal for which people have been praying for centuries.

3) There is always much to be said about money, and a new energy policy will inevitably bring with it a new system of revenue and expenditure. The cultural landscape is shifting, and the economy must shift with it. That is inevitable. Progress cannot be sacrificed to Mammon; that would be cultural suicide. A centrally controlled digital economy—as envisioned by those who are monetarily progressive and eager to pave the way for the new world order—can only exist if the old local economy continues to function as a backup system and citizens always have a free choice without being demonized. We are not bad if we do not serve big capital, and we are not bad if we do. Unity in diversity implies a shared awareness of all dualities—rich and poor, man and woman, concrete and abstract, etc. Economically, therefore, in conjunction with energy policy and the political reorientation toward civic identities, there must be decentralization and liberalization. Each identity group—rather than each nation or traditional political party—will then have its own local economic policy, with the same safeguards against preferential treatment as those implemented in the democratic reform designed for electoral groups tailored to civic identities. With increasing integrity and stability of governance, as described in the previous point, greater refinement and effectiveness are also possible. After all, the new energy policy has saved the synergy of society. This also counteracts one-sided profiteering and the corresponding political imbalance. With direct energy generation, the monopoly and exploitation of energy distribution are automatically broken up as well, particularly with regard to decentralization. For this reason, the entire economic system must be decentralized to a significant extent: after all, energy production can then be handled simply by purchasing a direct transformer, and all electricity and gas bills will be eliminated if a private generator is more cost-effective than the central utility. This will lead to a liberalization of economic power that is more specifically determined by food, water, and shelter—matters that have always been managed more decentrally—and in this way, people will become less dependent on and less determined by what were previously the centrally directed, economically motivated, collective actions in the realms of diplomacy, the financial elites, and the art of war.

    Solving the energy problem will not, of course, immediately solve the world’s climate, water, and food problems, but there is no doubt that solving the energy problem will also have consequences for the other problems—consequences that cannot yet be fully anticipated. As for the redistribution of political and economic power, the new paradigm offers a conceptual blueprint for a future world order, bearing in mind that this new way of thinking is closer to nature and more directly connected to it. This shifts the balance of power from the structure of the pragmatic, reductionist culture to the order of the genetic, nature-conditioned human who recognizes the importance of his self-preservation in that of the entire human species as well as in the interest of all other life forms on and beyond Earth. First and foremost, the temporal order constitutes a biological genetic program. Genes embody the conditioning of living beings throughout their evolution, and this also applies to the secondary cultural cell membrane circuits—the so-called sensitizations—that an individual or a subculture may possess alongside their genes. The genes form the blueprint, the architectural plan of the material manifestation of our species, and culture must, rationally speaking, not conflict with that power of the primary natural order of matter, space, and time. We must not allow culture to alienate us once again so disastrously from the natural order of our own planet as we did in the twentieth century. As our understanding of time—which is more closely aligned with the relative nature of the ether—evolves, culture will become more in tune with, and more harmonized with, the order of nature. With economic implementation and the reinforcement of civic behavior in this regard, there will be less stress and friction with nature, leading to a better (collective) conscience in relation to nature on the one hand, and to each other’s individual nature and culture on the other. As a result, our chances of survival on the planet are significantly improved through a more collective, ecologically conscious policy.

4) Finally, there is the religious question. Religion constitutes, to a greater or lesser extent, the old school of freedom from illusion in connection with the ether, whereas science constitutes the new school for combating illusions through their relativity. Science, being ego-based, tends to fragment into conflicting camps, with the natural sciences sometimes invalidating and rejecting the social sciences, and at other times the humanities invalidating and rejecting the natural sciences. But science is, after all, more than just geometry and architecture or a prayer and a therapeutic session. Following the Indian example of the so-called darshanas, filognosy recognizes six fundamental perspectives, each with its corresponding forms of logic and intelligence. Not only are philosophy and methodology an absolute prerequisite for successful natural science, but the social, cultural, human, and behavioral sciences are also an inevitable consequence when a scientific paradigm must be integrated into an educational system and a sound system of incentives must be in place to reward desirable and appropriate (local, decentralized) ethical and ecologically positive behavior. The duality between teacher and student, but also between citizen and politics, is something that is politically and administratively inevitable; thus, the analytical and spiritual self-realization aspect of human reality cannot be excluded from a syncretic, comprehensive science. And this applies no less to theology and political science. The ego with which we are constantly grappling in politics is still best addressed within the various religions that continue to succeed in uniting the full diversity of entire societies under a single personalistic umbrella. The danger of distorting that ego into fundamentalist fanaticism must be recognized as stemming from a philosophical/paradigmatic deficiency. The idea behind the new paradigm is that a more nuanced respect for the impersonal nature of time and the ether automatically enables a more nuanced respect for the individuality of persons; in other words: the better one is with numbers, the better one is with the person. In this context, we can be good within a bad system, bad within a good system, bad within a bad system, and good within a good system. The moral framework of a certain spiritual coherence, the attitude, and the behavior of people in a well-functioning society - as a whole, as a single system - can coexist in these various ways without any direct causal link being evident. Should we then choose to be good with a bad system? The rebel and the terrorist say that is treason, even if you are a law-abiding but narrow-minded citizen. We have maintained this for a very long time, and the problem with it is that we lose the synergy, the space we have for the positive values of social life. The system drains our goodness. It is unsustainable. Should we then be bad within a good system? Bad within our new system, in the spirit of fighting fire with fire and evil with evil? That is hypocrisy, and a very destructive form of treachery - a misguided form of propaganda, so to speak. Then you’re not called a hero, but a criminal or terrorist who must be punished or killed. Must we be evil under a bad system? The pacifist argues that this would entail a war that not only perpetuates and reinforces the system itself - as is the case with our vague idealism rooted in the standard time established during World War II - but also causes people to lose their faith and trust in the natural, divine order of humanity and reason. Is there a greater catastrophe imaginable? So should we then be good under a good system? It is clear that the latter must be chosen, even if that is a heavy burden - a real Jesus-like task - for the first sheep to cross the dam. You must be a saint or a martyr in your adherence to the rules of conduct, in shouldering the burden of an existing dysfunctional society, and in consistently advocating for a good system; otherwise, we are traitors, hypocrites, criminals, and warmongers. That covers the attitude, our mindset - the anti-material, spiritual aspect of the HDT. By truly developing this behavior collectively in a practical way and by putting the hierarchical structure of our material reality into practice with the HDT, we are complete; we are truly of God. Without that respect for the practical side of upholding the distinction between direct and indirect sustainable energy generation, we are merely good within a bad system, and that is making a deal with the devil.

     Greater differentiation leads to greater respect for individual interests and, consequently, better overall health. The personal and the impersonal form a fundamental duality of category and element that cannot simply be set aside through scientific or political favoritism. It haunts anyone who is guilty of placing one above the other. The ego, the class, the caste, and thus also the person’s culture—that is, religion—must be approached as both a problem and a solution. The problem is always the false unification and the false ego that excludes others; the solution, with the new paradigm, is always differentiation and integration within a culturally overarching vision that is not repressive and exclusive but progressive and inclusive. Thus, in response to the necessity of this reality, historically syncretic approaches emerge in theology in which each of the religions is given its own place within a historical context: for every era and every nation, there is a reevaluation of humanity’s relationship with the concept of God that results in a (individual/subcultural) cultural shift: historically, for instance, there was a transition from the decline of Vedic culture to Judaism, from the decline of Mesopotamian, shamanistic, Chinese, South American, and Egyptian idolatrous cultures to the philosophy of Socrates and Buddha, and from the decline of the impersonal, philosophical, and empty nature of Buddhism—along with the Unseen and the misused concept of Yahweh—to the solution found in the selfless heroism of Christ. And so it continues from the decline of Christianity’s power into the darkness of the Middle Ages due to the lack of a natural temporal order aligned with the ether, to the rise of Islam, which seeks to align the time of the sun and moon purely with the ether. Subsequently, Islam falls due to its unbridled passion and one-sided fundamentalism, so that we can see the emergence of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which culminated in modern relativism, which is now also falling with yet another alienation in relation to the primal force of the ether in the form of modern standard time. With the old energy policy and the standard time system that goes with it, we were alienated and in denial of that ether from which we cannot escape, along with the need for a new energy policy. Religious integration of the world order therefore does not involve founding a church or temple of worship, but consists of putting every religious subculture in its proper place without a single one being able to entertain the idea of ruling the world. And so we have a history book that describes all this through a form of education for adults and children in which everyone, according to their own needs, supplements their knowledge and sense of community with that chapter from the general history of religion, philosophy, and science, in which one must then further develop one’s skills as if it were a continuing education course in socio-historical integration.