THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election

John Derrick · 11-05-2008, 03:07 AM

Am I the only one who saw the law of attraction in action in the presidential election?

I just wrote a blog article about it here:

The Law of Attraction In Action - The U.S. Election

No, I am not endorsing either candidate... I am just looking at the election strictly from a law of attraction point of view.

I am curious to know what everyone else thinks on this topic!

(Please, no slamming, spinning or endorsing, just objective non partisan observation)

Mike McBride · 11-05-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Derrick

I am curious to know what everyone else thinks on this topic!

(Please, no slamming, spinning or endorsing, just objective non partisan observation)

The "law" of attraction is like the "law" of silly putty - you can bend it, shape it, anyway you want it, unlike real laws of the universe.

John Derrick · 11-05-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anand_chauhan

the blog or the site is really informative...It implies what you have tried to..great effort

Thanks Anand_Chauhan

Devin T · 11-05-2008, 01:30 PM

Man, John...

I always see you pushing it. As I've said in response to you before, it's all how you look @ it, and if you're looking for a cause, you'll find it. Look @ how many fanatics out there strongly felt they found proof in the bible that Obama is the anti-Christ... I believe Obama won because of two things:

1. He is very charismatic and an incredible orator. This allowed for him to "woo" and capture the minds of millions of young and desperate Americans who are craving something different. Sure, the law of attraction plays a role, but one can NEVER know another's true intentions. Let's give it time and see how true Obama was with his words.

2. Obama was able to very successfully tie McCain to Bush. That right there is enough to pretty much guarantee anyone defeat. However, McCain did not get blown out. The electoral college is not a good judge. Look @ the popular vote. Sure, Obama won by 8 million people, but that is a fraction of the total votes. It was a close race.

Obama won because of a combination of things. Sure, thinking positively helped him to have the strength to get through this election, but it did not directly correlate to the win.

vicone · 11-05-2008, 02:12 PM

Some years ago, Jane Roberts wrote a book called "The Individual and The Nature of Mass Events" in which she discusses the correlation between mass thinking/feeling and physical events such as election results, earthquakes and storms, etc.

In essence, the election result would be in harmony with widespread public feeling - regardless of whether that was justified or manipulated. Public perception of what are considered rights and wrongs in the world around us, along with public perception of the most likely savior, generate enough mass feeling to determine the outcome.

It needn't have a lot to do with the intrinsic merit of the candidate. It has everything to do with how the public perceives him/her. Winston Churchill was considered a popular hero during World War II. He lost the election immediately after the war. The mood (and needs) of the electorate had changed. They were looking for a different hero.

FDR assumed the Presidency during a period of widespread distress - the Great Depression and the war which immediately followed. He was voted in four times and died in office at the end of the war.

These "mass events" are considered co-creation at work.

Jerry and Esther Hicks were keen students of Jane Roberts before Esther began producing her own work.

"The Individual and The Nature of Mass Events" is still available as a paperback through Amazon.

Ivan

MaskedMarketer · 11-05-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin T

Man, John...

I always see you pushing it. As I've said in response to you before, it's all how you look @ it, and if you're looking for a cause, you'll find it. Look @ how many fanatics out there strongly felt they found proof in the bible that Obama is the anti-Christ... I believe Obama won because of two things:

1. He is very charismatic and an incredible orator. This allowed for him to "woo" and capture the minds of millions of young and desperate Americans who are craving something different. Sure, the law of attraction plays a role, but one can NEVER know another's true intentions. Let's give it time and see how true Obama was with his words.

2. Obama was able to very successfully tie McCain to Bush. That right there is enough to pretty much guarantee anyone defeat. However, McCain did not get blown out. The electoral college is not a good judge. Look @ the popular vote. Sure, Obama won by 8 million people, but that is a fraction of the total votes. It was a close race.

Obama won because of a combination of things. Sure, thinking positively helped him to have the strength to get through this election, but it did not directly correlate to the win.

This is true. The law of attraction may have some good points to help someone, but this law of attraction makes what obama seem as if it were magic. You know, the "magic bullet" that everyone is looking for.

Not only is Obama charasmatic, influencial, and have a good story, but he attracted peope because he KNEW HIS AUDIENCE, he is PERSUSIVE, and he did mass advertising.

Mass advertising attracts people- there is no secret about it...

vicone · 11-05-2008, 02:45 PM

When FDR accepted the Democratic nomination as a candidate for the Presidency in 1932 he declared: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."

Were the American people of 2008 looking for a "new deal"?

Ivan

John Derrick · 11-05-2008, 02:51 PM

So do you agree that the major focus of this election was on Obama?

And that the major focus of the last election was on Bush?

Isn't that a strange coincidence?

Of course there are millions of details that we can intellectually discuss, but the details are "the how".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin T

Man, John...

I always see you pushing it. As I've said in response to you before, it's all how you look @ it, and if you're looking for a cause, you'll find it. Look @ how many fanatics out there strongly felt they found proof in the bible that Obama is the anti-Christ... I believe Obama won because of two things:

1. He is very charismatic and an incredible orator. This allowed for him to "woo" and capture the minds of millions of young and desperate Americans who are craving something different. Sure, the law of attraction plays a role, but one can NEVER know another's true intentions. Let's give it time and see how true Obama was with his words.

2. Obama was able to very successfully tie McCain to Bush. That right there is enough to pretty much guarantee anyone defeat. However, McCain did not get blown out. The electoral college is not a good judge. Look @ the popular vote. Sure, Obama won by 8 million people, but that is a fraction of the total votes. It was a close race.

Obama won because of a combination of things. Sure, thinking positively helped him to have the strength to get through this election, but it did not directly correlate to the win.

John Derrick · 11-05-2008, 02:54 PM

Thanks Ivan, I was completely unaware of that book.

I am definitely going to pick that up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicone

Some years ago, Jane Roberts wrote a book called "The Individual and The Nature of Mass Events" in which she discusses the correlation between mass thinking/feeling and physical events such as election results, earthquakes and storms, etc.

In essence, the election result would be in harmony with widespread public feeling - regardless of whether that was justified or manipulated. Public perception of what are considered rights and wrongs in the world around us, along with public perception of the most likely savior, generate enough mass feeling to determine the outcome.

It needn't have a lot to do with the intrinsic merit of the candidate. It has everything to do with how the public perceives him/her. Winston Churchill was considered a popular hero during World War II. He lost the election immediately after the war. The mood (and needs) of the electorate had changed. They were looking or a different hero.

FDR assumed the Presidency during a period of widespread distress - the Great Depression and the war which immediately followed. He was voted in four times and died in office at the end of the war.

These "mass events" are considered co-creation at work.

Jerry and Esther Hicks were keen students of Jane Roberts before Esther began producing her own work.

"The Individual and The Nature of Mass Events" is still available as a paperback through Amazon.

Ivan

MaskedMarketer · 11-05-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Derrick

So do you agree that the major focus of this election was on Obama?

And that the major focus of the last election was on Bush?

Isn't that a strange coincidence?

Of course there are millions of details that we can intellectually discuss, but the details are "the how".

Yes Obama was the main attraction- because hes the first black presidence- history has been made!

Its not a strange co-incidence that the two peope of main focus actually win the election. I mean, we see them on TV all day, on the radio, on ads, over here other people speaking.

Devin T · 11-12-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaskedMarketer

This is true. The law of attraction may have some good points to help someone, but this law of attraction makes what obama seem as if it were magic. You know, the "magic bullet" that everyone is looking for.

Not only is Obama charasmatic, influencial, and have a good story, but he attracted peope because he KNEW HIS AUDIENCE, he is PERSUSIVE, and he did mass advertising.

Mass advertising attracts people- there is no secret about it...

Many are considering Obama to be the best "new" marketer out there. He made incredible use of the internet, etc to get his mind into the attention of America. Do you guys agree?

DavesVenture · 11-12-2008, 07:55 PM

I've also thought about the outcome of the election, but from a slightly different perspective.

I asked myself "how many people on the Republican side prayed intensively for the victory of their chosen candidates, and were disappointed by the results?"

This is taking into consideration prayer being a powerful form of request irregardless of who uses it.

I suppose the same can be asked of those who put the principles of the law of attraction into practice earnestly to help with the outcome the elections.

Did the law favor one group over the other or was the LOA neutral in this circumstance?

John Derrick · 11-12-2008, 11:33 PM

Warning: This post may sound crazy to some...

I don't think that LOA is every neutral.

Whenever two teams play a sport, for example, there can be only one winner.

I suspect that somewhere along the line someone must have figured out that having people amped up and happy and supporting their team helped them win, which is why they created cheer leaders. Of course both sides now use cheer leaders.... but this is besides the point entirely.

Quantum Physics shows that when something is not observed it can be in more than one place at a time. Schrodinger's cat can be both alive and dead.

(explanation here: What is Schrodinger's cat? - a definition from WhatIs.com - see also: quantum indeterminacy, quantum measurement indeterminacy )

I know this is a hard idea for us lay people to swallow, but when an electron is shot at two holes it goes through both holes unless someone observes it, and then it can no longer be in two places at once...

This of course opens the door to the realization of infinite possibilities with infinite dimensions of reality.

So, in every event with two or more outcomes, all outcomes may occur each in a different dimension.

In the case of this hypothetical sport, in one dimensional reality team A won, while in a second dimensional reality team B won.

Each dimensional reality would be an exact copy of each other, except for the one result which caused the split.

I know this is waaaay out there. But suppose that in the election all the candidates who ran (there were more than 2) each are the winner in a separate dimensional reality.

Of course this would happen on every small outcome during the course of every minute of every day, not just on the big events.

Given this, each of us would be attracted to travel down the dimensional road based on what we think, feel and believe in a conscious and subconscious level.

That is my extremely complicated quantum theory.

Barry Rice · 11-13-2008, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaskedMarketer

Mass advertising attracts people- there is no secret about it...

Mass advertising bouyed by the fawning of the main stream press who, in many cases, couldn't spell "objectivity".

John Derrick · 11-13-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Rice

Mass advertising bouyed by the fawning of the main stream press who, in many cases, couldn't spell "objectivity".

You must be referring to Fox news right?

Now Barry.... as the OP I did say:

(Please, no slamming, spinning or endorsing, just objective non partisan observation)

and I don't want to go down a partisan road.

Thanks.

11-05-2008, 03:07 AM	#1
John Derrick Advanced Warrior Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Washington State, USA. Posts: 514 Thanks: 9 Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts Contact Info	THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election Am I the only one who saw the law of attraction in action in the presidential election? I just wrote a blog article about it here: The Law of Attraction In Action - The U.S. Election No, I am not endorsing either candidate... I am just looking at the election strictly from a law of attraction point of view. I am curious to know what everyone else thinks on this topic! (Please, no slamming, spinning or endorsing, just objective non partisan observation)
	JohnDerrick.com ====>>> The Secret Course <<<=== MoralCash.com - Affiliates Paid To Help Others PLR \| MRR \| Videos \| Software \| Ebooks \| Audio \| Graphics \| Articles

11-05-2008, 01:30 PM	#4
Devin T HyperActive Warrior Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 163 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election Man, John... I always see you pushing it. As I've said in response to you before, it's all how you look @ it, and if you're looking for a cause, you'll find it. Look @ how many fanatics out there strongly felt they found proof in the bible that Obama is the anti-Christ... I believe Obama won because of two things: 1. He is very charismatic and an incredible orator. This allowed for him to "woo" and capture the minds of millions of young and desperate Americans who are craving something different. Sure, the law of attraction plays a role, but one can NEVER know another's true intentions. Let's give it time and see how true Obama was with his words. 2. Obama was able to very successfully tie McCain to Bush. That right there is enough to pretty much guarantee anyone defeat. However, McCain did not get blown out. The electoral college is not a good judge. Look @ the popular vote. Sure, Obama won by 8 million people, but that is a fraction of the total votes. It was a close race. Obama won because of a combination of things. Sure, thinking positively helped him to have the strength to get through this election, but it did not directly correlate to the win.
	Coolproducts.com - Community Suggested Products

11-05-2008, 02:12 PM	#5
vicone Senior Warrior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia. Posts: 1,253 Thanks: 68 Thanked 191 Times in 160 Posts	Re: THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election Some years ago, Jane Roberts wrote a book called "The Individual and The Nature of Mass Events" in which she discusses the correlation between mass thinking/feeling and physical events such as election results, earthquakes and storms, etc. In essence, the election result would be in harmony with widespread public feeling - regardless of whether that was justified or manipulated. Public perception of what are considered rights and wrongs in the world around us, along with public perception of the most likely savior, generate enough mass feeling to determine the outcome. It needn't have a lot to do with the intrinsic merit of the candidate. It has everything to do with how the public perceives him/her. Winston Churchill was considered a popular hero during World War II. He lost the election immediately after the war. The mood (and needs) of the electorate had changed. They were looking for a different hero. FDR assumed the Presidency during a period of widespread distress - the Great Depression and the war which immediately followed. He was voted in four times and died in office at the end of the war. These "mass events" are considered co-creation at work. Jerry and Esther Hicks were keen students of Jane Roberts before Esther began producing her own work. "The Individual and The Nature of Mass Events" is still available as a paperback through Amazon. Ivan
	Best Tested Backlink Strategies For Free Traffic Best Strategy For Huge Profits With Amazon Products A Collection of Inspiring, Uplifting Quotes, Beautifully Illustrated - Free Download

11-05-2008, 02:45 PM	#7
vicone Senior Warrior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia. Posts: 1,253 Thanks: 68 Thanked 191 Times in 160 Posts	Re: THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election When FDR accepted the Democratic nomination as a candidate for the Presidency in 1932 he declared: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people." Were the American people of 2008 looking for a "new deal"? Ivan
	Best Tested Backlink Strategies For Free Traffic Best Strategy For Huge Profits With Amazon Products A Collection of Inspiring, Uplifting Quotes, Beautifully Illustrated - Free Download

11-12-2008, 07:55 PM	#12
DavesVenture Warrior Member War Room Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: , , USA. Posts: 19 Thanks: 9 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts Contact Info	Re: THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election I've also thought about the outcome of the election, but from a slightly different perspective. I asked myself "how many people on the Republican side prayed intensively for the victory of their chosen candidates, and were disappointed by the results?" This is taking into consideration prayer being a powerful form of request irregardless of who uses it. I suppose the same can be asked of those who put the principles of the law of attraction into practice earnestly to help with the outcome the elections. Did the law favor one group over the other or was the LOA neutral in this circumstance?

11-12-2008, 11:33 PM	#13
John Derrick Advanced Warrior Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Washington State, USA. Posts: 514 Thanks: 9 Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts Contact Info	Re: THe Law of Attraction In The U.S. Election Warning: This post may sound crazy to some... I don't think that LOA is every neutral. Whenever two teams play a sport, for example, there can be only one winner. I suspect that somewhere along the line someone must have figured out that having people amped up and happy and supporting their team helped them win, which is why they created cheer leaders. Of course both sides now use cheer leaders.... but this is besides the point entirely. Quantum Physics shows that when something is not observed it can be in more than one place at a time. Schrodinger's cat can be both alive and dead. (explanation here: What is Schrodinger's cat? - a definition from WhatIs.com - see also: quantum indeterminacy, quantum measurement indeterminacy ) I know this is a hard idea for us lay people to swallow, but when an electron is shot at two holes it goes through both holes unless someone observes it, and then it can no longer be in two places at once... This of course opens the door to the realization of infinite possibilities with infinite dimensions of reality. So, in every event with two or more outcomes, all outcomes may occur each in a different dimension. In the case of this hypothetical sport, in one dimensional reality team A won, while in a second dimensional reality team B won. Each dimensional reality would be an exact copy of each other, except for the one result which caused the split. I know this is waaaay out there. But suppose that in the election all the candidates who ran (there were more than 2) each are the winner in a separate dimensional reality. Of course this would happen on every small outcome during the course of every minute of every day, not just on the big events. Given this, each of us would be attracted to travel down the dimensional road based on what we think, feel and believe in a conscious and subconscious level. That is my extremely complicated quantum theory.
	JohnDerrick.com ====>>> The Secret Course <<<=== MoralCash.com - Affiliates Paid To Help Others PLR \| MRR \| Videos \| Software \| Ebooks \| Audio \| Graphics \| Articles