My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.
This is the second part of my spiritual broccoli series, where I discuss views that are held by some people in the Earth spiritual community and that I think are not helpful, or misunderstood, or partially wrong. Like broccoli, this message may not taste very well for everyone, but hopefully it is healthy.
Again, we are just sharing our perspective. You are of course completely free to disagree with us.
And again, overall I think that Earth lightworkers are doing great. Furthermore, our perspectives are also the same on a whole lot of important topics.
On manifesting and “keeping your vibrations high”
Some spiritual people think that if they just focus their conscious mind enough on something, for example via visualizations, then they can manifest anything they desire.
Yes, you can manifest things. However, your conscious mind, subconscious mind, emotions and soul all have a say in what you manifest. If these things are all aligned, you will have great manifesting powers. However if for example your soul doesn’t want you to be in a relationship right now, then you probably won’t be able to manifest a partner, no matter how many visualizations you do. This is one of the reasons why we regularly suggest that you talk to your soul and ask it what it would like you to do.
If you want to manifest something, then regularly think about it and take practical action in that direction. Observing your thoughts and emotions will help your subconscious heal, which in turn will help you manifest more things you want and less things you don’t want. If you really want to manifest for example a partner, then you can even for example think: “I want to experience my pain and anxiety and fear surrounding relationships” and then observe whatever comes up, without suppressing or trying to change anything. This may help “clean up” your subconscious and emotions in the area of relationships, which may help you attract a partner. Although if you don’t want to do that, you don’t have to — thoughts will come up over time, bit by bit, and you will have the opportunity to heal them anyway. And also, your soul still has a say in whether you manifest a relationship.
Furthermore, the situation on Earth is determined by more than just one person. If you travel by car across a road that is always clogged or jammed at a certain time of the day, then good luck trying to consistently manifest a smooth car ride. Probably you will not be consistently able to do it, because other people also exist and also make choices and also have an impact on the world.
Another thing to be aware of is that people who like the Earth idea of manifesting often talk about the importance of “keeping your vibration high”, which is the idea that if you look at happy things then you will feel good and in turn manifest good things in your life, whereas if you look at sad or painful things then you will feel bad and thus manifest bad things in your life, and hence you should look at happy things and not at sad or painful things.
First of all, this again pretends that your rational mind and emotions are the only ones doing the manifesting, which is not true. Your subconscious and your soul have a say in that too.
Second, we would describe this as limiting your awareness to a happy bubble. Some people even describe that as retreating inside a narcissistic bubble. We have stated that while this can be a valid survival mechanism, it is not a state of great spiritual attainment. After all, one: suppose you are in great pain and need help. How would you feel if someone else who might have the money or emotional capacity to help you, instead excludes you from their awareness and retreats in their own happy bubble? Two, note that Yeshua or Jesus spent time with the lepers and helped them, which is the opposite of “keeping his vibration high.” Three, this leads to spiritual misconceptions such as the ones we have been discussing in this message. After all, if you choose to only observe happy things, then you will probably start developing opinions that don’t make sense to people who look at all of reality, which yes, includes people who just get their metaphorical heart ripped out and never recover from the emotional trauma, just because someone else wanted to make another million or have a bit more power or control or sex.
Furthermore, suppose we Pleiadians told you that some of our babies are starving every day, but we would rather focus on keeping our vibration high and going on holidays to tropical locations, instead of practically helping those starving babies. You would probably think we were evil or possibly crazy, right? Well, similarly, we think it is a good idea for Earth humans to take as long as they need to heal and stabilize their own life first, and it’s completely fine to take many years for that and not really help anyone else during that time. But once you have your own metaphorical air mask on, we would like to gently invite you to start helping other people, in whatever way fits you best. You don’t need to literally help starving children, but it’s good to contribute your piece of the puzzle to humanity, whatever your piece of the puzzle may be.
About “Being Sovereign”
Many of you are not free at the moment, due to restrictions from society and governments and the money-matrix you are trapped in. Over the last few years in particular, governments have tried to force people to do things or not do certain other things.
So it makes sense that the concept of “being sovereign” really appeals to many of you.
And indeed, you deserve freedom. In the future you will gain your freedom.
Still, we would like to invite you to be aware of what the word “sovereign” actually means. Someone who is sovereign is someone who has supreme power or authority in their sphere. Indeed, most people use the words “a sovereign” to refer to a king or queen, who indeed has supreme authority in his or her kingdom and who can for example execute people on a whim. A sovereign is someone who can make laws that other people are forced to follow, but does not have to follow the laws of anyone else.
Is that actually what you want? Or would you prefer freedom and voluntary associations and community instead?
If you are sovereign, then you have supreme power or authority in your sphere. So then there are two options:
1) You are sovereign, and there are other people in your sphere, and you have power over them
2) You are sovereign, and there is no one else in your sphere.
Personally I wouldn’t want either of these options. I don’t want to rule over other people, and I also don’t want to be in an individual bubble of just myself. Instead I want freedom and voluntary associations but also a community of equals around me. Personally I don’t want sovereignty, I want freedom and voluntary associations and community. I don’t want to be in a “kingdom of one”, I want to be in a happy and healthy and free community.
We understand that you may want to have a word that describes that you do not think the government has the right to tell you what to do. That makes perfect sense to us, especially considering how governments have been behaving lately. For this however, we think it is a bit strange to use a word that more or less indicates that you are a king or queen. Instead you could say that you are a voluntaryist. Voluntaryism is a philosophy that centers around voluntary participation in society and voluntary interactions between people. We like that calling yourself a voluntaryist doesn’t just indicate a claim of personal freedom and a rejection of a coercive government, but it also implicitly means that you do wish to participate in society and you do wish to interact with people, just on a voluntary basis.
Also, if you say that you are a voluntaryist, then that suggests that you want a society where everyone is free. In contrast, the person who says he or she wants to be sovereign often thinks in the direction of: “I claim sovereignty for myself. Now how can I become financially independent myself, how can I make sure that I personally do not get bothered too much by the government.” This touches on the idea of people retreating into their personal happy bubbles, which we discussed in the previous section.
You are not an island. Even if you have a homestead, you still need tools and items that were made by other humans. We’ve debunked the idea in the previous section that you can just manifest everything you want purely via your rational mind and emotions. Furthermore, you are connected to every other Earth human via the collective subconscious. In fact, you are literally that starving beggar on the street. He is you and you are him. It is only a layer of illusion that makes it so that many Earth humans perceive themselves as being separate from other Earth humans. It would be more accurate to think of all of Earth humans as one being, with the individual Earth human being a tiny body part of that greater whole. And so, thinking you are separate from other humans would be like your toe thinking it is separate from the heart.
We wouldn’t say that the concept of being sovereign is inherently bad. But that concept sure seems a lot easier to hijack for the ego than the concept of voluntaryism. There are energies attached to the word “sovereign” of hyper-individualism and of ruling over others and of being separate from others and of not really actively going out of your way to help other people. Yes, being sovereign has some good elements and energies attached to it too, but in our mind, most of those elements are also covered by the words “voluntaryism” and “freedom.”
As I said in my previous message: things that feel emotionally really good are not necessarily the very best or most helpful things for you. For example, some things feel good because your ego likes them. Yes, I know that many of you feel scared and perhaps oppressed and like half the world has either gone mad or fallen into a coma. And therefore I completely get that the idea of being sovereign feels safe and powerful. But the words “being sovereign” also carry with it the energies of either ruling over others, or being separate from others, or being in a “kingdom of one.” Is that what you want?
Suppose some of your colleagues or family members or friends declared themselves to be sovereign. Would that make you feel good, or would that make you feel concerned or possibly excluded?
Ultimately it’s of course up to you if you want to say you are sovereign, or if you want to say you are a voluntaryist, or neither.
Pleiadian Political Views
Voluntaryism is often associated with libertarianism. If people are curious about the political views of the average Pleiadian, then here they are, although of course Earth humans are free to develop their own views. We usually think that people should be free to do as they wish, so long as they’re not directly harming another. We have courts and acknowledge their right to determine what is and isn’t direct harm. Everything that needs to be done is done because people volunteer their time (and we have automated all simple chores).
We don’t force people to serve the community, but we do raise our children with the knowledge that if no one decides to serve the community and no one does unpleasant tasks, then the community crumbles. So in practice, nearly everyone who is able to, volunteers some of their time to the community. If people refuse to contribute, or behave in ways that are not directly harmful but are unpleasant or inconvenient for others, then usually we just politely inform them how we are feeling about that. If that doesn’t work, we sit them down and ask how they are doing and if we can help them with anything. Still, we don’t force them to comply or contribute.
So from one perspective we are pretty libertarian: everyone is free to do as they wish, so long as they don’t directly harm another. We don’t really have a government — the closest thing to a government we have are courts and respected thought leaders and military commanders. In rare circumstances we will hold a binding psychic referendum. Wiser people are generally more psychically powerful, which also means that their vote has a heavier weight for the purposes of referendums, although everyone’s vote counts to some extent.
For example, we held a referendum about whether we wanted to send a fleet to help Earth or not (we did). Yes we are part of the galactic confederation and yes Source did request our help, but still the choice was ultimately ours to join the Earth Assistance Fleet or Earth Support Fleet, or not. We are not ruled by galactic confederation bureaucrats — our participation in the galactic confederation is voluntary. We freely chose to help you.
Contrary to Earth’s libertarianism however, we do not allow people to purchase means of production or something similar to that. Indeed, we don’t even have money — we just help others as needed or desired, and they do the same for us. We have no desire to own means of production, because we know that we can just ask for anything and it will be given to us. So in that sense, we are simultaneously communist, in the good way — we have no authoritarian government that forces people to share, but we share nonetheless.
All this is possible because we have a high enough level of consciousness and enough love for each other. Hence we think that increasing the level of consciousness even further and learning to love more unconditionally would be critical steps for Earth humans.
The economic left-vs-right-wing debates are also made much easier for us because we live in a post-scarcity society. Once humanity reaches a high enough level of consciousness, then you will very soon be in a post-scarcity society too. For example, free energy technology and replicator-like technology already exist. It’s just a matter of humanity increasing their level of consciousness a bit more
Let’s discuss the next bit of broccoli:
Your Mind Is Not Your Enemy
When unpleasant or so-called negative thoughts or emotions come up, people sometimes interpret that as their mind being against them.
In truth, your mind is not your enemy. It’s likely that one of two things will be the case:
Either you perceive thoughts or emotions from other people or from the collective subconscious, in the same way that you can hear sounds that other people make. You can perceive the thoughts of others just as you can hear the sounds of others — but most Earth humans don’t realize that not all the thoughts they perceive actually came from themselves. Hence we like the Earth saying: “don’t believe everything you think.”
Second, painful thoughts and emotions can be brought up so that you can neutrally observe them, without judging them or trying to change them or suppressing them, and by doing so you will let them go. Well, some things will have to be observed a couple of times before they can be fully released, but still: ultimately it is healing for you that old pain is being brought up like this, because then you can heal it. You are not being tortured by your mind: instead your mind is offering you an opportunity to heal.
The mistake that Earth humans frequently make is that they refuse to actually observe their old pain, over and over and over again, and then it can seem that your mind keeps tormenting you with the same old pain. But if they stop trying to push it away and actually just observe it, then yes that may hurt, but generally less than is feared and also the pain will go away surprisingly quickly.
We think the Earth saying “be in the present moment” is sometimes taken too far. If old pain comes up and you are in a situation where you have the space to observe it, then it is healthiest to indeed just observe that, instead of suppressing it as people might think is suggested by: “be in the present moment.” This is also true if the old pain came up during meditation. “Be in the present moment” or doing meditation does not mean that you should not observe old pain that comes up.
Just don’t dwell on your old pain. If it comes up, observe it. If it feels ready to go or if your attention starts naturally going elsewhere, then let it go and go on with your day.
Narratives vs Truth
Nowadays some people think that maintaining certain narratives is more important than truth.
For example, doctors and scientists have been censored and deplatformed because they made truthful or expert-opinion statements about covid or about covid injections. This illustrates that some people care more about narratives than about truth.
As another example, if you say something positive and also objectively truthful about Russia or about Putin, or something negative and also objectively truthful about Ukraine, then in many cases you will get censored. Conversely, negative things about Russia are published constantly, even if they have no actual proof backing them up, or if they can be proven false with some basic research or basic logic. Some people care more about pushing an anti-Russia narrative than they care about truth.
Now, it is sort of understandable that some people think that certain things or people — a certain medical condition, or Putin — are so dangerous that we must push certain narratives that oppose those things or people, and also we must censor information that runs counter to that narrative, even if truthful, because after all people are dying.
However this is a dangerous development, because once people accept this pattern that narratives are more important than truth, you can bet that the media and governments will take that and run with it. Do you want to live in a world where governments and international organizations determine what civilians should and shouldn’t do and think, and then work with mainstream media to push narratives to achieve those agendas, while censoring truthful information that runs counter to those narratives, all for the supposed safety of people? Because that is where Earth already is to an extent, and there Earth would be heading even more strongly, if there was not this great awakening going on, if the energies weren’t rising day by day and if light workers and us galactics weren’t there. Fortunately, your actual medium-term future is very bright.
In general, we think that you should let people form their own opinions and take their own actions, unless those actions directly harm another — and people expressing so-called harmful opinions or political views on the internet is not direct harm in our eyes. It is generally not good for humankind if you try to push people to take “correct” actions or have “correct” opinions. Similarly, it is also not helpful to keep trying to wake a person up, if that person has clearly indicated that they are not interested in your views on a certain topic.
We do acknowledge that social media, as it currently exists on Earth, is problematic. So much so, in fact, that the vast majority of people would be happier if they weren’t on social media. That said, censoring people who express so-called bad opinions through social media, or telling them that they are bad people because they have those opinions, is not the answer.
Similarly, some people are prioritizing narratives over actual real-life people. For example, think of a group that claims to be pro-women, but then when a woman disagrees with them, they want that woman to be censored or deplatformed. Or think of a group that claims to be pro-black people, but then when a black person expresses a right-wing opinion or plans to vote right-wing, then they no longer treat that person with respect. This kind of “narratives over actual real-life people, for the supposed greater good” approach can very easily do more harm than good.
Some people have this fantasy that if they just censor the so-called harmful opinions enough, or if they just tell enough people that they are bad for having certain opinions, then eventually everyone will be reunited with the right opinion. However, at most this can only work temporarily. If a population is strongly divided on a certain topic, then the only lasting way to heal the division of the people is to have full and free discourse and research, without censorship and without telling people they are bad for having certain opinions. After all, what you resist, persists. The only lasting way to heal a rift is through love. And yes, as was said by R’Kok in a previous message: this also means for example letting racists speak and letting racists make their arguments. If you want to solve the problem of racism on a fundamental level, then let the racists speak and let them make their arguments, and give them as much love and understanding as you can, even if you disagree with them. That is the only way to fundamentally solve the problem of racism.
You might not like that, but look at the state of for example the US today — there is so much of this “censor people if they have harmful opinions” going on that the country is bitterly divided. People with opposing political views are for the most part either ignoring or attacking each other. A civil war is actually a serious concern. That is what the path of censoring bad opinions eventually leads to — you end up with two or more groups of people who end up living in completely different worlds. They barely talk to each other. For the most part they can’t stand each other and it’s possible that eventually they will literally end up fighting a war with each other. The way to avoid that is by letting people speak without censoring them and without telling them that they are bad people for having those opinions, no matter how much you may disagree with what they are saying.
Furthermore, suppose you are against letting racists have a voice. Okay. Well, some people believe that non-vegans should not get to have a voice, which may mean that you don’t get to have a voice. Or if you are a vegan, there is someone out there who thinks you should not have a voice. So who determines who does and does not get to have a voice? That problem is not trivial to answer at all. In practice it means that the strong censor the weak — because people who are able to successfully censor others must by definition be in a position of strength over them. And this: “the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must”, is not fair at all and is actually a quite old and dense pattern. Moreover, once the political landscape shifts, all those patterns of censorship may very well be used against the political side who is doing the censoring today. Hence we recommend simply not censoring and giving everyone a voice.
Loving unconditionally also means that you freely let people speak whom you really disagree with.
Even if a certain opinion genuinely is harmful, then it does not automatically follow that censoring that opinion is good for humankind. Censorship does more harm than harmful opinions do, in the medium term. The supposed cure — censorship — is worse than the supposed disease — people spreading information on the internet that is allegedly wrong or harmful.
Or as a broader point: it is valid to think about if a certain person or country or corporation is acting in a way that is destructive and if you can do something to protect yourself or others from that. But what Earth people often do is something more like: “man, I really hate those people or that country, they’re so evil and hypocritical, I really can’t stand them, I wish them mild harm. If I see those people online, I will tell them that they are evil or wrong.” Something like that second thought pattern is very common but also doesn’t actually help you or the collective. In fact, it is holding the collective back. More productive thought patterns are for example: “why does this person or country emotionally trigger me so much — even if someone behaves destructively, that’s not inherently a reason for me to be emotionally triggered by specifically them, because there’s lots of people who behave destructively out there.” Or: “is what I’m being told about them actually true, is the mainstream media being truthful, are they actually that cartoonishly evil, maybe they have redeeming qualities, maybe I should try to understand their perspective.” Or: “okay, so there are people out there who behave destructively. Well, how can I do something that helps me or helps other people, or how can I make sure that I actually have a good day myself?”
Also, the word “misinformation” is a scary-sounding term that’s meant to control and direct your mind. We recommend mentally replacing that word with “incorrect information” because that’s literally what it means (and “disinformation” means information that is incorrect and that is spread by people who know it is incorrect). We also recommend replacing the term “spreader of misinformation” with “someone who posts information that is wrong, yet that they believe is true.” And another good thing to keep in mind is that someone who uses the term “misinformation” automatically attempts to take on the mantle of the objectively correct and trustworthy arbiter of truth. Well, do you think that they have earned that mantle? If not, maybe it would be more proper for those people to not speak about “misinformation” but instead say that they personally disagree with certain information.
Note that the term “misinformation” is applied very selectively. The government has repeatedly been proven to be wrong about certain topics, yet then the mainstream media doesn’t ever say that the government spreads misinformation, much less that the government is a spreader of misinformation — even though that would be factually correct.
Similarly, the theory that Trump colluded with the Russians, whether true or false, is objectively speaking a theory of conspiracy. In other words, it’s a conspiracy theory. However, the mainstream media would never call it a conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia, even though that is a conspiracy theory by definition — it’s literally the theory that people conspired. After all, they want you to believe that Trump colluded with Russia, and hence it’s not called a conspiracy theory.
This illustrates that the mainstream media uses certain powerful phrases to get you to think in a certain way, and they apply those phrases selectively so that you indeed think in the way they want you to think. They do not apply those phrases fairly and evenly, otherwise they would be calling the government a spreader of misinformation and they would be saying that anyone who believes that Trump colluded with Russia is a conspiracy theorist. They are using those phrases to try and control your mind.
We think one reason why people censor and use manipulative language to push their supposed for-the-safety-of-the-people-narrative, is because Earth humans are generally very afraid of death and are very much in resistance to death. This is understandable because you have not been taught the truth that you are a reincarnating soul, and even those who know that truth often do not yet embody it. Still, it is good to keep in mind that your own soul probably cares much more about being able to explore and experiment and experience lots of different things, than it cares about safety. Your soul probably is willing to accept a higher risk of dying or sickness if that means that it can explore and have the experiences it wants to have. In fact, your soul very likely also wants to have experiences that you would think of as unpleasant or even awful or traumatic.. After all, your soul knows it can reincarnate, so it would rather just be mostly free to have experiences. Therefore we think that people should be mostly left alone to act and believe and say what they wish, so long as they do not directly harm another.
By the way, we all know that undeveloped masculinity can take on destructive forms and do a lot of damage and be quite harmful. This is absolutely true. However, the last three years we are also seeing undeveloped femininity do a lot of damage. After all, this whole obsession with keeping everyone safe, even if that means forced lockdowns or forcing people to accept being injected or censoring or deplatforming people, is fundamentally an undeveloped form of femininity. Granted there’s also a destructive agenda by the dark controllers at play, but the dark controllers couldn’t have done those things if there wasn’t a lot of undeveloped femininity out there that was too focused on safety above all else. Certainly these lockdowns and forcing people to accept injections and online censorship isn’t masculine energy, which is much more on the side of letting people do their thing and being free and letting people be outrageous and accepting the risks that come with that.
Yes, some of the people pushing for these things may be men, but both men and women have masculine and feminine energy. Even if the people pushing these things are often men, this still comes from their undeveloped feminine energy, or from them catering to their constituents who often have undeveloped feminine energy (or from an explicitly destructive agenda by the dark controllers). So, in an ideal world, women would be having a discussion with each other about how highly they should value safety and what sacrifices they are and aren’t willing to make on the altar of safety — and if they think it is fair to force other people to comply, for the supposed safety of the group.
The galactic perspective here is that forcing someone to comply is only justified if that prevents direct harm, and note the word “direct” here. For example, if one person is about to literally stab someone else to death, then it is justified to force the would-be-murderer to stop.
In fact, it’s not even really true that government mandates were necessary to protect people who prefer safety over freedom. If someone personally chooses to prioritize what they think is safety, then even without a government enforced lockdown he or she was completely free to choose to stay indoors. You don’t need to lock down the entire country in order to allow individuals to make the choice to stay indoors themselves, if they want to personally choose what they think is the safe option. Similarly, if the covid injection indeed provides protection, then you don’t actually need to mandate it. After all, the people who want the supposed safe option can go take the injection, and then they are supposed to be safe even if the people around them don’t choose to get the injection. Right? That’s the whole point of the injection — it’s supposed to keep you safe. Or if that’s not actually true, then it’s even more questionable to mandate an injection that doesn’t even really keep people safe in the first place. So as you can see, people had and have the ability to choose options that they think keep them safe even without government mandates. In our eyes, this means the government mandates had no legitimacy.
If you think that the forced lockdowns and covid injection mandates and online censorship are good things, then keep in mind that it is leading to a massive rift in society. Many people simply do not trust the government or even doctors anymore, at all. And a society isn’t stable if a huge chunk of the population sees the government as a malevolent and tyrannical entity. It is easy to only look at the supposed saved lives part of the equation, but these mandates have greatly destabilized society as it currently exists and they have caused many people to mentally give up and only go through those motions from now on. Furthermore, the current economic crisis and sliding living standards are in part a result of the lockdowns. Furthermore, 30% of US high school girls seriously considered suicide last year according to the CDC, and yes, forced lockdowns and forced mask wearing have contributed to this, as has the general polarization of society that has come about as a result of these effort to keep people safe at all costs.
Again, your soul very likely doesn’t crave safety. Instead your soul very likely craves the ability to freely explore and experience and express itself and act and possibly help others, even if there is danger associated with that. After all, your soul can just reincarnate if the body dies.
“I Want to Wake Someone Up, Why Does He or She Resist Truth?”
Many lightworkers may rationally know differently, but still subconsciously assume that if they present truth and evidence to other people, then eventually those people will be convinced.
However, in practice this often doesn’t work. A lot of you have learned that in the previous years.
However, why doesn’t it work like this?
Well, people are different. However, to greatly generalize, you have broadly two categories of people. One group is quite small and generally makes the free-will choice to be selfish, not because they’re struggling, but just because that’s what they choose. Generally, this group doesn’t care for truth all that much and cares more about comfort or personal gain or feeling good emotionally. It is hard to convince someone of an unpleasant truth if they simply do not care about the truth all that much.
The second, much larger group of people is fundamentally good-hearted and fundamentally does care about truth. If you take a psychologically healthy person from this group and present them with a convincing argument about something important, they will investigate it and will change their mind if the proof is solid enough.
Unfortunately, this is only true if the person is indeed psychologically healthy. And unfortunately, the vast majority of Earth humans at this point in time are not very psychologically healthy. In fact, more Earth humans than not are in survival mode right now.
People in survival mode basically care about physical and psychological comfort and safety first and foremost. And this is very understandable — that’s what survival mode is, after all.
And thus, when you tell such a person something that is psychologically distressing to them, they will resist it, even if that thing is true. This is not because these people are dumb, or lazy, or sheep, or whatever. They are simply in a psychological survival mode.
So, what would be productive for the awake part of the population to do?
Well, you can share truth and information to people who are genuinely interested in that and are actively coming to you, or are actively coming to a truth-sharing site.
It is also helpful to try and be as kind and as emotionally safe as possible to those who are in a psychological survival state, because they need it and they are suffering more than enough already. Presenting distressing information to them, even if true, may actually do more harm than good to them, because it distresses them more and may push them deeper into a survival mode. What they need first is people being unconditionally loving and emotionally safe and emotionally supportive, so that they can exit their survival mode, and then they will become motivated to seek out truth in a natural and inherent way, just like you were.
As we shared in previous messages, this is also why we disagree with the white hat or gray hat approach of letting people suffer until they wake up. To the extent that this strategy worked, it has woken up everyone whom it is going to wake up. What the unawake part of the population needs is not more things that terrify them. Instead they need comfort and rest and financial stability and a period where no new scary things are being shoved in their face.
Be Careful About Negatively Labeling People
Especially since the start of the corona-crisis, people have often been using negative labels on each other, and then using that negative label as a reason to treat the other person poorly. It is fine to describe groups of people in a more or less neutral way, but you should be careful when applying negative labels to someone. So talking about the group of unawake people is fine, because you need some word to communicate that idea, but we don’t recommend using the negative label “sheep.” Furthermore, using a negative label can actually make it seem more reasonable to treat certain people poorly.
For example, sometimes the logic is used that if people are anti illegal immigration, they are racist; and it is fine to deplatform racists. However, if you don’t use the extremely emotionally powerful label “racist”, then this argument mostly falls apart. The sentence: “we should deplatform people who are anti illegal immigration” doesn’t seem nearly as reasonable as: “we should deplatform racists [and also we’re quietly defining people who are anti illegal immigration as racist].” Again, this illustrates the power of labeling people. (To be clear, we are against racism, but we don’t think that being anti illegal immigration is inherently racist. We are not making a statement about whether immigration is good or bad, that is for Earth people to decide.)
Similarly, sometimes people are labeled as “woke” or earlier as “social justice warriors”, and once they are labeled as such, that is then used to justify treating them with less respect and sometimes harassing them.
Sometimes labels aren’t even accurate, yet they still work. For example, suppose people demonstrate against a certain government mandate. The mainstream media labels the demonstrators as alt-right or extreme right wing, even though that may not actually be true for most of the demonstrators. However once they are labeled as such, in the eyes of many it is fair to treat those people harshly, because after all they are extreme right wing. Even though they never were.
Similarly, sometimes people are called “communists” in an attempt to discredit them, when they are not actually communists.
Similarly, tv can label someone as a Russian agent, even if that is not actually true — however, many people watching tv will accept that label as being true, even if it isn’t, and will subsequently support that person being denied the opportunity to speak.
So be careful when applying negative labels to people. It can make it seem reasonable to treat people poorly, while usually that would seem less reasonable without the label.
In fact, it can be good to actually do more or less the opposite of sticking a negative label on a person. That is thinking looking at someone and thinking: “he or she is a divine fractal of Source.” You can either do this when someone annoys you, or you can just take a ten minute walk and think “he or she is a divine fractal of Source” whenever you see another person or even animal or plant. For some of you, this will be a very beneficial exercise. For others, it will not be especially beneficial.
And yes, while we understand the frustration that some of you feel, this includes being careful about calling the non-awake “sheep.” In reality, most of them aren’t bad people, they’re just terrified or exhausted or traumatized. If you are frustrated with the unawake, we understand, but rather than calling the unawake “sheep”, we recommend observing your thoughts and emotions instead. Perhaps you feel tired or unseen or unappreciated or scared. Or maybe it hurts you that your loved ones aren’t listening to you and that you are unable to help them. We empathize and we send you all our love.
Thank you for listening to our perspective on these matters. If you disagree, you are invited to share that in the comments. We are genuinely curious.
I leave you today, with my unconditional love and with a lot of regard and respect for how well light workers are doing there on Earth.
