Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 3, 2025

The light forces have decisively splintered the spine of darkness

The light forces have decisively splintered the spine of darkness

By Matthew Ward (Matthew)

Channel: Suzanne Ward

Posted on June 3, 2025

Effects of frequencies; Earth not in 5D; directing energy; freedom, independence; Pope Leo XIV; Illuminati power in the Vatican; medical industry, autism, ADD, ADHD

 


With loving greetings from all souls at this station, this is Matthew. 

The light forces have decisively splintered the spine of darkness and your world is turning one of the most dynamic corners in universal history. In coming weeks and months you will see the chaotic aftermath of an ages-long “storm” evolve into international mopping-up, and then world reconstruction will get underway in earnest.

That vital action is part and parcel of the positive changes within hearts and minds. The winds of higher awareness are swirling, and without knowing about the new prevailing frequencies and heightened vibrations, many people are feeling a welcome difference. After a short, somewhat stressful period of adjusting to that energy surge, a sense of calmness is displacing confusion and anxiety.

The influx of love-light is like the universe hugging Earth and every one of her resident souls! As tensions ease and frustrations lessen, you will see kindness grow, generosity expand, attitudes soften, desire to assist increase. Not all souls will respond that way, but it is very heartening for us to see that uplifting reactions are well-outpacing fear, despair and conquest.

Some lightworkers are feeling so exuberant they think Earth is now in fifth density. That density is true of individuals whose assimilation of coding in the frequencies boosted their spiritual and conscious clarity to that extent. However, most of the populace do not know about their Beginnings in Creator/Source, their immortal multidimensionality, the two ascension processes or the universal battle between light and dark forces—they have a great deal to learn during their journey to fifth density.

And, if Earth were in 5D, not an iota of deception or corruption would be plaguing your world. For instance, it still is difficult, is it not, to distinguish AI-fabricated incriminating photos and videos from valid materials or to know whether persons are themselves or pretenders? Is it not still difficult to discern if “breaking news” is factual or a tall tale, if reports of world leaders at conflict are true or false, or if dire predictions are real or dark ones’ attempts to create fear? On that last point, we assure you NO dire predictions will come to pass!

Beloveds, please direct the energy in your thoughts, feelings, visions and daydreams to benefit yourselves and your world. Keep in mind that what you do isn’t confined to Earth—whatever happens anywhere in this universe affects everything else everywhere else. As you and the souls you helped awaken use your co-creational abilities to establish the love-light foundation of Earth’s Golden Age, you will be assisting and assisted by other civilizations that also are building glorious new worlds.

This entire universe is on the move to manifest peace, joy, health, harmony and prosperity in grand abundance as lighted beings everywhere are building on a foundation of freedom from darkness, independence from control!

My mother’s acquaintance, a Scottish medical doctor, psychiatrist and shaman who has lived in Peru off and on for the past 20 years, is familiar with bodies’ self-healing systems and all natural healthcare remedies. A student of Eastern and ancient esoteric philosophies, he also is a prolific writer of poetry and prose. With his permission, we share what he recently posted:

True freedom and independence are the essence of existence, the unshackled breath of the soul.

They are not mere privileges but the very marrow of life, the silent rebellion against chains seen and unseen.

To be free is to dance with the wind, unbound by the gravity of expectation, to carve one’s path through the wilderness of endless conformity.

Independence is the quiet, never-ending fire that burns within, the refusal to be a shadow in anybody’s or another’s light.

It is the courage to stand alone, yet connected to the universe and the Cosmic Consciousness—a solitary star in the vast, infinite cosmos, radiant and unafraid.

In their purest form, they are the symphony of selfhood, the melody of a life lived authentically, where each and every step is a declaration: I am. I choose. I am free.

So mote it be!

Long live true freedom and independence!

“Was selecting an American as the new pope a strategic decision or an accurate reflection of the cardinals’ respect for him?”  His selection was a strategic decision, and before we say more about that, let us speak a bit about the 2000-year history of popes since St. Peter, who is considered the first.

Emperors usually had the final say about his successors until 1000 years ago, when that was given to the cardinals, and those who were members of Italy’s wealthiest families often became popes. It is hard to imagine that the papacy was eagerly sought. During the first millennia most popes died violently and were called martyrs, but some records indicate that unwittingly or intentionally they did something that displeased the powers that be. The deaths of the last two popes, John Paul II and Francis, show that displacing one who doesn’t adhere to instructions still holds sway.

When the cloning process was being done precisely in science laboratories, John Paul was cloned, then killed. His gentle benevolent nature was so strong that it was evident in the clone throughout the several years it represented him. His desire to bring light to the Vatican also was strong, but the clone never was permitted to act on any reforms John Paul wanted to initiate.

Five years ago Francis was killed for championing NESARA, wanting to end satanic rituals, use the Vatican fortune to help the poor, and return stolen art. A holographic image of him at a distance was produced briefly, only until he could be portrayed by a portly old man wearing a mask. That pretense lasted until it was decided the revered Francis should transition to spirit life and a new pope installed.

All those decisions were made by the Illuminati. For the last two hundred years or so generations of that sinister secret society have been the unseen power in the Vatican. It was through their influence and self-service that a century ago, Vatican City became an independent sovereign state with its own government, treasury, laws, business operations and restricted population.

As the world’s smallest country, the Vatican can participate in international diplomatic and political affairs, and as its autocratic ruler, the pope has absolute authority over everything within the country and the Catholic church worldwide. The Illuminati use the Vatican for money laundering, storing art stolen by Nazis from the Jews in WWII, and as the international headquarters of satanism and the principal site of human sacrifice.

Now then, everything the Illuminati do is strategically planned, usually years or even decades prior to taking the first step on an itemized agenda. However, situations that formerly could be expected to continue years into the future no longer can be, and the decision about Francis’ successor was made comparatively recently.

Robert Prevost is intelligent, extensively knowledgeable and capable, multicultural and likable, and he is indeed respected by many in the College of Cardinals. His name choice comes from his great admiration for the last Pope Leo, whose interests he shares in reaching out to help wherever it is needed.

By choosing him, the Illuminati believe Leo XIV can reinvigorate the huge Catholic population in the United States that is fast slipping away from church dogma and financing, and they are reminding the government of that country that they still heavily influence its economic, legal and judicial systems. They expect devout Catholics who are thrilled about the first American pope to help them retain that power; and because Peruvians claim he is one of them and they also are thrilled, the Illuminati think the new pope might be able to bring that country and maybe even all of South America into their fold.

None of that will come about, and Catholicism and all other religions will undergo changes as their increasingly-aware adherents drop manipulative, controlling aspects and strengthen the spiritual.

“Please ask Matthew if RFK Jr can discover the cause of the soaring rate of autism so it can be stopped.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services knows, and so do numerous physicians and medical scientists, that the cause is ingredients in vaccines routinely given to infants. To avoid the appearance of any connection between vaccinations and autism, vaccine “batches” have varying levels of damaging ingredients or none, and that stark difference is reflected in the population.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Kennedy’s formidable foes, the medical industry’s peak management and lobbyists, will do to prevent his disclosing evidence that shows their unconscionable actions against humanity’s wellbeing and life itself. “Western medicine” is the collusion between the directors of the alphabet organizations all the way to WHO and the owners/managers of insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital administration corporations. Those collaborators, who are Illuminati/Deep State/One World Order/Shadow Government and other designations, create dis-ease and diseases because everything associated with physical, mental and emotional “healthcare” is immensely profitable for them.

They have killed, imprisoned or stripped licenses from medical personnel who cured illness by natural methods or the use of frequencies. Along with proliferating toxins via a variety of vaccinations, they have banned successful remedies and suppressed technology that could greatly benefit the peoples. They have damaged the health of Earth and all her life forms by chemtrail spray that poisons air, water and soil and the carcinogens in herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers.

We add that the vaccines given infants cause symptoms of autism, not the extremely rare authentic disorder, which is a choice in very few soul contracts and prebirth agreements of all souls who want to share the lifetime. Actual autism and the vaccine-caused symptoms offer the afflicted persons and everyone closely involved in their lives many opportunities to learn patience, perseverance, empathy, compassion, forgiveness, and the triumphant feeling of surmounting an obstacle.

“What’s the reason there are so many kids (and adults) diagnosed with ADD or ADHD in the USA? What’s happening?”  Half a century ago some individuals’ carbon-based cells started transforming into the crystalline structure, where cosmic knowledge is stored, and some souls incarnated with crystalline cells. Those individuals were more intelligent and gifted than their peers.

Elementary school-aged children in that select group learned quickly, and because they were bored by typical classroom work, they became fidgety and inattentive and that was considered disruptive. Instead of providing those students with more advanced, stimulating educational materials, teachers notified parents; instead of nurturing their children’s extraordinary brightness, questioning nature and eagerness to learn, most parents took them to doctors.

The medical industry devised Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder diagnoses and prescribed drugs that stunted development of the youngsters’ crystalline cell growth, learning capacity and emotional maturation. As they grew into adulthood feeling at odds with a society that rewards conformity, a number became depressed and/or developed illnesses. Like others who also were dealing with depression or painful physical conditions, they were given prescription drugs that are addictive, can exacerbate depression and cause death by overdose or suicide.

To offset the public’s backlash about those effects, about two years ago the medical industry started diagnosing adults who were anxious, impulsive, disorganized or angry as having ADD and ADHD. Medications prescribed for those conditions have less severe effects than anti-depressants and opioids.

If the aforementioned health-related questions were to be asked five years from now, our reply could be: The improvement in patients was phenomenal and there have been no new cases during the past couple years. We can say that because increasing vibratory rates will keep advancing souls’ awareness of their innate powers to overcome “social engineering” and 3D limitations.

Dear family, all light beings honor you for mission steadfastness and support you with the unparalleled power of unconditional love.

Suzanne Ward
 
 


Saturday, May 4, 2024

Documentary: How Rockefeller Destroyed US Healthcare

Documentary: How Rockefeller Destroyed US Healthcare

By Neenah Payne

Posted on May 3, 2024

 


Although Hippocrates, reportedly the founder of Western medicine, said, “Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food”, medical schools now provide almost no information about nutrition.

In the Shadow of Flexner is a groundbreaking documentary film by Justin Smith that exposes the century-old corruption that forever altered the trajectory of healthcare. At the heart of this riveting narrative lies the Flexner Report, a document published in 1910, the insidious purpose of which was to eradicate all traces of natural medicine from the educational landscape.

In an era when conventional doctors faced public skepticism, the Flexner Report became the tool of choice for industrial capitalists seeking to monopolize medicine. With an intricate web of influence, orthodox physicians and profit-driven magnates embarked on a mission to discredit any therapeutic approach that did not involve drugs or surgery. The fallout of this Machiavellian maneuver was the sidelining of gentle, nature-aligned treatments in favor of a system that prioritizes profit over patients.

While orthodox medicine has undeniably gifted the world life-saving advancements, the documentary sheds light on the dark underbelly of a system where millions have become collateral damage in the pursuit of financial gain. The film explores the paradox of a medical industry awash with unprecedented funds, yet failing to stem the tide of rising chronic conditions globally.

Through compelling storytelling and jaw-dropping revelations, “In the Shadow of Flexner” takes audiences on a gripping journey through the annals of medical history. It challenges viewers to question the ethical foundations of a health care system that, despite its triumphs, has left countless individuals in the shadows of profit-driven decision-making. As the world grapples with escalating health care costs and an alarming surge in chronic illnesses, this documentary serves as a poignant call to reevaluate the priorities that shape the future of global health.

Flexner Report: The Rise of Big Pharma

The Fascinating History of Supplements! shows that The Flexner Report radically altered medical education and practice in North America. Dr. Daniel Nuzum discusses the impact of the report — a study of medical education in the United States and Canada written by Abraham Flexner and published in 1910 by the Carnegie Foundation.

Many aspects of today’s American medical profession stem from The Flexner Report. After The Flexner Report, the focus shifted from things that help people heal naturally like exercise, good sleep, and good nutrition. Instead, the focus was on drugs and surgeries. Until the report, most of the medical schools taught homeopathy. However, the report ended the homeopathic movement because the funding of medical institutions that weren’t teaching the use of drugs and surgery was stopped. So, 40-50 medical institutions closed. Within five years, only two of the 17 naturopathic medical schools were left. A similar thing happened to osteopathic schools and chiropractic schools.

Funding was cut for anything that was not drugs. There was no more funding for herbal remedies. Cannabis and other remedies became demonized. Drug companies threw supplements out the door. The drug companies funded the medical schools and got positions on the boards. So, the drug companies were able to slowly push out what had been standard medicine – which is now called “alternative medicine”. They presented their drugs as the only solution.

The Cleveland Clinic in Ohio was originally a homeopathic university and hospital. However, after The Flexner Report, the word “homeopathy” couldn’t even be used in the clinic!

Fortunately, that is changing now! The Cleveland Clinic For Functional Medicine is part of the growing reversal of the trend begun by The Flexner Report! The site says: “Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine is a collaboration between Cleveland Clinic and the Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM), led by Mark Hyman, MD, Chairman of IFM, founder of The UltraWellness Center, and New York Times best-selling author.” In the 2017 video Two Years In: What’s Happening at Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine Dr. Hyman explains how the collaboration began and is accelerating across the country now.

What a great discussion we had last night (March 20, 2024) on the pivotal ‘Flexner Report’ and its profound impact on how ‘Big Pharma’ gained control of Western medicine. Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Joe Varon were joined by Independent filmmaker and author Justin Smith to discuss the Flexner Report and his new documentary “In The Shadow Flexner”.

Watch and learn how to address this delicate subject now!

John D. Rockefeller’s Father Was A Cancer Quack!

A Brief History of Modern Medicine shows that John. D. Rockefeller’s father was a cancer quack. “Before the Civil War….John D. Rockefeller was just a boy and his father ‘Big Bill’ Rockefeller was a quack physician selling bottles of creosote to cancer patients for 25 dollars apiece.”

However, after The Flexner Report, Big Pharma would label naturopathic doctors “quacks” for not pushing expensive drugs and surgeries!  Yet, medical errors are now the third leading cause of death!

Canada’s Growing War on Supplements

The video below shows that Big Pharma wants to deny people access to vitamins and supplements. This is at the same time there is a growing war on food!

In The Canadian Government’s War on SupplementsDel Bigtree, Emmy Award winning host of The Doctors TV show, founder of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)  director of Vaxxed: From Coverup To Catastrophe, and host of The Highwire, interviewed Shawn Buckley, LLB, Constitutional Attorney & President of the Natural Health Products Protection Association in Canada. Buckley discussed the Canadian government’s war on vitamins and supplements via the introduction of extreme regulations designed to restrict access and raise the cost of natural products.

Neenah Payne

https://www.activistpost.com/2024/05/documentary-how-rockefeller-destroyed-us-healthcare.html

 

 

Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Many Are Trying to Feel Safer by Demanding that Others

Many Are Trying to Feel Safer by Demanding that Others Agree With Them

Hakann trough A. S.

Posted on February 6, 2024

 


 My dearest brothers and sisters,

This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.

From a high perspective, your current life is just one day in a very long journey back to Source.

Alternatively, you could see your current body as the vehicle you happen to be piloting right now, with your soul being the driver.

No matter what happens to your body, no matter what happens to you in your current life, your soul will be just fine.

Even if you sell your soul or commit heinous crimes, then yes after your death you might end up in an unpleasant place. But even that is a place you can work your way out of — it is not a hell that you’re sent to permanently. Even there, you can always turn to Source or to an ascended master like Jesus or Yeshua.

In very rare and extreme circumstances, beings can get unmade, if they violate the free will of very many people in a very serious way. But even then, an alternative way of thinking about that is that the being just instantly gets merged back into Source. Because after all, the energy corresponding to that being’s soul doesn’t just stop existing, it merely gets transformed — and Source is everything, so the resulting transformed energy is still part of Source. So it is valid to think of beings who get unmade as beings who just instantly get merged back into Source.

So from a high perspective, you can view your body as just the vehicle that you happen to be currently driving. And pretty much no matter what happens to your body, no matter what happens to you in this life, your soul will be just fine.

That said, very many people are afraid right now. We can clearly feel it all the way up here in our spaceships — not that we didn’t feel the energy of Earth last year, but the fear is palpable now. The gray hats are afraid, the dark controllers are afraid and the people of Earth are afraid. And this fear is understandable.

People are afraid about immigration, about a US civil war, about crime and gun violence, about being able to afford rent and groceries, about censorship, about being lied to, about health and healthcare, about the next US election and more.

People are also afraid of conflicts and about people dying in, among other places, Gaza and Ukraine. And now people are scared about a possible third world war. At the time of this channeling, three US soldiers just got killed. My thoughts are with them, and their families, and everyone else who has suffered or is suffering.

So, if you are afraid, then my thoughts are with you. And there’s nothing wrong with you, what you are feeling is understandable. Many people on Earth are afraid right now, you’re not the only one.

A lot of people are trying to get a handle on things by having a debate about policies. What should be done? Is Texas right in regards to the Southern Border? Should we send money to Ukraine or not? Is student debt forgiveness a good thing or not?

I would like to make a distinction here between what you might call a substantive debate, where both debaters are emotionally stable and are genuinely debating the substance, versus an I-want-to-feel-safer debate, which might appear substantive on a surface level but where at least one of the sides is actually trying to feel safer by insisting that the other party agrees with them.

Obviously, substantive debate is great. I’m all in favour of that. However nowadays, most debate is I-want-to-feel-safer debate. Usually nowadays when two people have a debate, it might appear to be about the issues, but the deeper layer there is two people saying to each other: “you must change your opinion so that I can feel safe.” “No, YOU must change YOUR opinion so that I can feel safe.”

Obviously, that kind of debate isn’t going to end in a satisfying way for either side. Which is why debates so often feel frustrating and pointless nowadays.

Really, that’s what a lot of debate comes down to nowadays: two scared people insisting that the other person changes their view so that they can feel safer.

Or perhaps one side tries to have a rational, substantive debate and the other side is trying to feel safer. However, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you and the people on your side are always rational and being substantive, and the other side is being irrational. Pretty much everyone, including people who are being irrational and who are trying to feel safer, has some reason for thinking that they are the rational side and the other side is “ignoring experts and ignoring the science”, or the other side is “ignoring obvious reality in favor of virtue-signalling”, or some other reason. Pretty much everyone, including irrational people, think they are the rational ones and the other side is irrational. So don’t be too quick to label yourself as someone who always tries to have a substantive debate and who never tries to feel safer through demanding that the other side agrees with you. Probably you have had some moments where you were indeed debating substantively, but also some moments where you were trying to feel safer through asking that the other person agrees with you.

Also, I’m presenting it as a binary now — either people want to have a substantive debate, or they want to feel emotionally safer — however people often have both motivations, to differing degrees. Most people have inner fragmentation, and one part of them may want a genuinely substantive debate, while another part might just want to emotionally feel safer by demanding that the other person agrees with them.

Note that a person’s feeling of unsafety doesn’t necessarily need to come from there being a physical threat towards them personally. It can also come from someone feeling unsafe on behalf of someone else whom they consider to be part of their ingroup. For example, someone who empathizes with Palestinians or Ukranians or Jews or Texans or immigrants might currently feel unsafe because people in these groups are suffering or under threat (not necessarily to the same degree, but still). An empathetic person might feel unsafe because other people, whom they more or less consider to be part of themselves, are unsafe.

This is logical when you consider that humans are a communal species. It makes sense to feel unsafe if people in your tribe, in your in-group are in danger. Obviously you don’t literally live in tribes anymore, but most people still label some people as being part of their in-group, as being part of their metaphorical tribe, and other people as their out-group, as not being part of their metaphorical tribe. And so people can literally feel unsafe because they consider Palestinians or Ukranians or Jews or immigrants or Texans or whoever to be part of their in-group, and their in-group is currently suffering or under threat.

So a Jew currently might feel unsafe because of the awful Hamas attack on October 7th, where Jewish civilians were killed. It’s logical to feel unsafe if people in your in-group were killed recently.

A Jew might currently also feel unsafe because certain people are turning against the Jewish people. I don’t support condemning Jews or discriminating against Jews, or against any other people for that matter.

What I do think is acceptable is criticizing the policies of the state of Israel. Now, this too will make certain people feel unsafe, even if the criticism is directed at Israel and not at Jews in general. This is because certain people (including some non-Jews) have the state of Israel itself as part of their in-group. I don’t necessarily recommend having a nation or a philosophy as part of your in-group, but people do this all the time. There are also Americans who have the USA as part of their in-group, for example.

Another factor is that people can feel unsafe if someone says something that threatens their self-identity, or threatens the self-identity of their in-group. For example, a Jew might currently feel unsafe because people are saying that Israel is committing genocide, and that may be threatening to their self-identity or to the self-identity of their in-group.

And so you can see the problem with many modern debates. One person says: “you must change your opinion and agree with me that Israel is committing genocide, so that I can feel safer, because I see Palestinians as being part of me and they’re under threat.” The other side says: “no, YOU must change YOUR opinion and agree with me that Israel isn’t committing genocide, so that I can feel safer, because I see Jews as being part of me and they’re under threat.”

Obviously this discussion isn’t going to go anywhere, because both sides feel unsafe and both sides try to solve that feeling of unsafeness by insisting that the other side changes their opinion. If both sides take this position, then obviously both sides will feel unheard and annoyed and even more unsafe after a debate.

Humans are a communal species, after all, and it feels safer if the other people around you think like you do. Hence, the hidden motivation of many discussions nowadays is people constantly telling each other: you must change your opinion, so that I can feel safer.

Now yes, it is my opinion that certain countries should stop supporting the, in my opinion, Israeli genocide of Palestinians. I am not saying that the nation of Israel should get to commit, in my opinion, genocide just because the people of Israel feel unsafe. That said, It is also my opinion that the Hamas attack was terrible and I don’t condone it. With these disclaimers out of the way, I am just pointing out the underlying dynamic that effectively both sides want the other to agree with them so that they can feel safer.

Or let’s look at another example. One person feels that illegal immigrants are a threat to him or to his in-group, which might be his friends and family or the people in his state. This person wants to make illegal immigration harder, and feels left-wingers are opposing that effort and thereby making him less safe. The other person in the debate sees refugees as being part of herself, to an extent, and therefore sees a person who tries to block illegal immigration as making her in-group less safe. Because after all, these refugees are suffering and we must let them in. No human being is illegal.

In this case, both sides may end up effectively telling the other side: “you must change your opinion so that I can feel safer.” And of course, this doesn’t work.

This debate might end up in name-calling, or people might negatively stereotype the other side and create a strawman. For example, the pro-immigration side may call the anti-immigration side selfish or heartless or xenophobic or call them a bunch of racists or far-right extremists, overlooking the legitimate concerns about illegal immigration that people may have. The anti-immigration side might overlook the genuine empathy for refugees that the pro-immigration people may have and just accuse them of not living in reality and of hypocritically wanting other people to take care of refugees so long as the refugees don’t have to be housed near them. The anti-immigration side might also pick up that left-wingers often have immigrants but not right-wingers as being part of their in-group, so the right might accuse the left of not actually being empathetic. Though to be fair, very few people genuinely have all humans as being part of their in-group. Most people are only empathetic, to varying degrees, towards people in their in-group.

The anti-immigration and pro-immigration debaters might employ thought-terminating cliches, such as “you’re a racist” or “you’re just virtue-signalling, that’s all it is.”

Both sides may also construct a self-serving picture. The left self-servingly pictures immigrants as women and children who are fleeing from terrible conditions and who want to integrate and contribute to society. The right self-servingly pictures immigrants as so-called military-aged men who come from stable but relatively poor countries, who just want to make more money by coming to a richer country, and who very well may end up intentionally abusing social services or committing crimes.

The reality is that immigrants can be both.

So as you can see, a large part of this debate isn’t really a rational, substantive discussion about the facts. Instead, a lot of it is about people feeling that their in-group is under threat, and so both people emotionally try to feel safer by trying to convince the other side to change positions. You can see this because both sides often create a self-serving picture and strawman the other side and pretend that everyone on the other side of the issue is bad or hypocritical in some way. People who are genuinely substantively debating don’t do that.

Of course, I’m not saying that no one is making substantive arguments either for or against immigration. I’m just saying that most arguments are seemingly substantive but if you look under the surface, it’s mostly people saying: “you must change your position so that I can feel safer.”

Insisting that the other person must change their opinion so that you can feel safe, or applying labels to them, ultimately just makes the other side feel less safe and less heard. No matter who is right, you don’t solve a crisis of people feeling unsafe by doing something that makes them feel more unsafe. So they are likely to further dig in their heels and possibly become more extreme.

If the other side is clearly emotionally invested in being right, which is usually the case on Earth, then it’s usually not productive to have an emotionally charged debate. Instead, it’s more productive to actually listen to the other person. How are they feeling, what are they worried about? If there are even tiny areas and tiny things where you genuinely agree with them or that you genuinely appreciate about them, tell them. Do all this, and the other person will feel safer and more heard, and in time they will become more reasonable and rational. In time, they may also develop more empathy for your position, and possibly start including your group into their in-group. And once the other side is emotionally stable on a deep level, then you can finally have an actual, rational, substantive debate.

Of course, if you don’t have the space to listen to someone, that’s understandable. But I do want to communicate the idea that arguing with someone typically makes them feel more unsafe and therefore dig in their heels, while listening to and empathizing with and expressing appreciation for people typically makes them feel safer, and therefore over time it makes them more rational and reasonable and empathetic with you.

Note that if two people argue, often they have a different in-group. For example, an anti-immigration Texan might have Texans and New Yorkers in their ingroup (“New Yorkers are still Americans, I don’t think they should be censored”), but not illegal immigrants. A pro-immigration New Yorker might have illegal immigrants in their ingroup, but not Texans (“they’re far-right Trump voters, they’re the problem, screw them”). In this case, just arguing with each other often isn’t very productive, as we saw before. By listening, both listener and speaker can widen who they think of as their ingroup.

Empathy means that both sides should consider how they would feel if you were in the other person’s shoes. For example, an Israeli person should consider how they would feel if they were a Palestinian. But also, if an American wants to accuse Israel of genocide, they should at least take a moment to reflect how they would feel if someone accused America of committing genocide. I’m not saying: don’t say those words. I’m just saying: take a moment to imagine what it would be like if you were in another person’s shoes.

So: rather than telling people they must agree with you, rather than labeling people, it’s more productive to just have an open conversation and listen to people. You may have to be the one to listen first, but when they feel heard, maybe in time they will have the room to listen to you too. And sure, listening to an unreasonable person doesn’t instantly make them reasonable, those things take a bit of time. However, telling an unreasonable person that they’re wrong also doesn’t instantly make them reasonable. In fact, telling an unreasonable person they’re wrong probably makes them feel more unsafe, and therefore makes them even more unreasonable. Even if you’re 100% right, telling a person who feels unsafe that he’s wrong often only makes him dig in his heels.

Empathy also means that you should consider the viewpoint of other people, including people you don’t necessarily like, or people who you think are on the wrong side of a certain issue. If you can’t formulate an non-strawmanned argument in favor of their viewpoint, if you don’t understand the legitimate parts of their position and think they’re all just a bunch of racists or hypocritical virtue-signallers, then you might need to listen to them more.

Be careful if you feel the urge to label an entire group as being bad and therefore that their concerns shouldn’t be listened to. Sure, perhaps the group by and large is behaving poorly, but probably not everyone in that group is, and probably even a largely-unreasonable group has some valid concerns in there somewhere.

Now, what I’ve mostly been discussing is people getting emotionally triggered. And that’s one possibility. But what can also happen is that someone calmly and seemingly rationally points to a self-serving picture, and pretends that is proof.

I’ll give an example of a stereotypical libertarian and a stereotypical communist, although note that there are libertarians and there are communists who have more nuanced views than this.

Still, suppose that someone says that libertarianism would just lead to massive inequality, environmental destruction and companies becoming monopolies and creating a dystopia, then a libertarian might point to their self-serving picture of a perfect libertarian society and say that in true libertarian society, everything is great. And the supposed proof is that the libertarian has constructed this self-serving picture, and so he just points to that picture and pretends it’s proof. And of course, this isn’t actually an argument, and in fact this makes the non-libertarian people feel a bit less safe. After all, this libertarian appears to be living in an entirely different world than them, and for a communal species like a human that feels scary.

A communist might do basically the same, pointing to his self-serving picture of communist utopia, and act like that is somehow proof that communism works.

Sure, some libertarians and some communists have better arguments than this. But still, sometimes this is what happens. And this kind of “just look at my self-serving picture, observe how in this picture everything is great, now agree with me” kind of argument is closer to “I need you to agree with me so that I can feel safer” than it is to a truly rational, substantive debate.

Now, actually, the Pleiadian society I live in could be seen as both libertarian and communist. No individual owns the means of production, which is communist, yet on the other hand we have no taxes, practically zero laws and zero coercion from the government. From my point of view, both communism and libertarianism can work, just perhaps not in a pure version at the current level of human consciousness. Ultimately, the way out of Earth’s political deadlock will be for the people of Earth to increase their level of consciousness. And at that point, libertarianism and communism, or even both at the same time, may become feasible.

And how do you help increase the consciousness of the people of Earth? Well, actually listening to other people, including those whom you disagree with, is a great contribution to that indeed.

So, to summarize today’s message: many people are feeling afraid, and are saying to each other: “you must agree with me, so that I can feel safer.” Of course, it doesn’t work if both sides do this.

Most people feel unsafe. And if you tell a person who feels unsafe that he’s wrong, he’ll probably feel even more unsafe, and he may further dig in his heels and become even more unreasonable as a result. Doesn’t matter if you’re 100% correct, the other side may very well still feel more unsafe and become more unreasonable as a result.

What works better is asking the other side how they are feeling and what they think is important, and genuinely listening to them, with the intention of understanding them and not with the intention of finding something that you can weaponize against them.

While listening, feel free to ask clarifying questions so that you can understand them better. If you can express genuine empathy or genuine understanding or genuine appreciation for them, even if it’s just about something tiny, then it can be very helpful to do so.

If all you care about is a particular social or political issue, even then it’s more productive to ask the other side how they are feeling and what they think is important, and to listen to them. That makes them feel safer, and as a result they will in time become more rational and reasonable as a result. Whereas if you tell them they’re wrong, they will likely feel less safe and they may become more unreasonable as a result. So even if all you care about is a particular issue, even then listening is more productive than telling the other side that they’re wrong.

You might be tempted to subconsciously think: “but people in my in-group are suffering, therefore I need to tell those people over there that they’re wrong, to help people in my in-group.” I understand the temptation, but you probably help your in-group the most by actually listening to the people on the other side of the argument, so that those people feel heard and understood, which will make them behave in a more reasonable way in the future.

Telling people that they’re wrong almost always doesn’t work, because almost everyone is currently feeling emotionally unsafe, and from that place people can’t rationally evaluate new arguments. Listen to people first, so that they feel safer, and then in time maybe you can actually have a substantive debate.

If you have the emotional space for it, it’s best to only start giving your opinion once the other side feels fully heard and seen and understood, which may take quite a long time. Of course, you’re not obligated to do so, but that is the ideal. This also works well in relationships, by the way.

So many people are willing to help improve the world, but they have no idea how. Often, these people end up trying to promote a political or social issue that they like, which in turn makes people on the other political side feel more unsafe. If some of these people would switch to listening first, that would help a lot.

I hope this was helpful.

You are very in my thoughts in these dark and scary times. We are actively working to help you behind the scenes. Please take good care of yourself. The medium-term future looks very bright, but the coming weeks and months may very well be intense.

Your star brother,
Hakann

—–

Note from the channeler: this message contains the opinion that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. I also live in the Netherlands, where certain kinds of speech against Israel will get you into legal trouble. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if this particular statement can actually get me into legal trouble, but I don’t want to find out.

Therefore, I will include the following disclaimer for my legal protection:

—–

Disclaimer: I am not denying the Holocaust. I am not denying the right of Israel, or the right of the Jewish people to exist. I am opposed to the murder of Israelis, by Hamas and other groups. I don’t think Jews should be killed or removed from the lands of Israel.

I actively discourage violence of all types. I also actively discourage discrimination of all types, including (but not limited to) discrimination against Jews.

Information in this message is for informational and educational and entertainment purposes. This message contains humor, parody, and satire.

There is a comment section. Comments do not necessarily reflect my views and opinions.

End disclaimer. Have a good week.

 
For Era of Light
 
These channelings are exclusively submitted to EraofLight.com by the channeler. If you wish to share them elsewhere, please include a link back to this original post.