Politics and harvest

[APeacefulWarrior]

The only indication us "mere mortals" have, is by paying attention to what their politicians say... which is what I'm doing.

"Mere mortals" comments are unnecessarily denigrating yourself and your own abilities. Please don't take it out on yourself just because you're annoyed at me. :-/

You can research this stuff for yourself from public sources. I mean, I'm from the US even if I'm not living there now - do you think I take half of what American politicians say at face value? 'Follow the money' is generally a pretty good rule of thumb to follow, especially when we're talking tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Most economic data is undoubtedly fudged somewhat, but not to a huge degree, since so many institutions worldwide need it for decision-making. It's honestly not hard to start looking at flow of money around the world and see how it ties everyone together.

The only difference for me is that I don't see it as intrinsically a bad thing that so much money is flowing around. I'm willing to accept some sacrifices to "globalization" if -as it seems to me- it's ultimately reducing the chances of another major global conflict.

[YinYang]

When I said "mere mortals", I meant us ordinary citizens who are not privy to elite agendas, intelligence and meetings behind closed doors between nations. Ra also said this:

Questioner: I was concerned about the amount of physical distortions, disease, and that sort of thing in third-density negative just before harvest and in fourth-density negative just after harvest or in transition. What are the conditions of the physical problems, disease, etc., at late third-density negative?

Ra: I am Ra. Each planetary experience is unique. The problems, shall we say, of bellicose actions are more likely to be of pressing concern to late third-density negative entities than the earth’s reactions to negativity of the planetary mind, for it is often by such warlike attitudes on a global scale that the necessary negative polarization is achieved.

As fourth density occurs there is a new planet and new physical vehicle system gradually expressing itself and the parameters of bellicose actions become those of thought rather than manifested weapons.

Ra: I am Ra. We feel this evaluation of your planetary mind/body/spirit complexes’ so-called future may be less than harmless. We say only the conditions of mind exist for such development of technology and such deployment. It is the distortion of our vision/understanding that the mind and spirit complexes of those of your people need orientation rather than the “toys” needing dismantlement, for are not all things that exist part of the Creator? Therefore, freely to choose is your own duty.

So I'm aware that the conditions of mind exist out there that make war on a global scale a possibility, so however much we wish to put the pieces together, it will only always be speculation, because there are those who will wage war for the sake of war, which doesn't lend itself to any logical discussion, because those "conditions of mind" are alien to the positive polarity anyway. All we can do is more or less get some kind of indication of where things are headed.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Sure, there are those who want war for its own sake - but most of them aren't in direct positions of power which allow them to start one easily.  And those who are in power still have to answer to their own backers.  Even the most autocratic of dictators still has to have an apparatus backing them and tacitly approving of their actions for them to be able to run their country.  These are people responsible for industry, media, internal security, and soforth.

Without the support of the lords, and to a lesser extent the commoners, a king is powerless no matter what powers he has on paper.  

Just look at North Korea.  There's no question Kim Jong-Un is a crazy bastard.  He probably would start a war if he could.  However, NK is also DEEPLY reliant on China for, well, almost everything from electricity to food.  If China ever removed their backing of NK, the state would collapse and probably within a matter of weeks.  So, Kim still has to dance to China's tune, no matter how bellicose he is.  The alternative would effectively be suicide.

More or less, the modern world -as I see it- is evolving to a point where there are simply too many disadvantages to large-scale war for any self-interested person to engage in it, no matter how bellicose they may be.  The only exception would be those so utterly fanatical that they would be willing to risk highly probable self-destruction just for the sake of seeing the world burn and, thankfully, such people are few and far between.

(Now, if ISIS ever managed to get their hands on a nuke, then I'd be worried.)

Basically, look at the part of that Ra first quote you didn't bold:  As fourth density occurs there is a new planet and new physical vehicle system gradually expressing itself and the parameters of bellicose actions become those of thought rather than manifested weapons.   This is exactly the situation I believe we are moving towards now.  Battles of ideology and currency, rather than warheads.

And I consider that a massive step in the right direction.

[ColinT]

Goodbye

[YinYang]

Sure, there are those who want war for its own sake - but most of them aren't in direct positions of power which allow them to start one easily.

How do you know this? STS by its very nature seeks power. We have one of the biggest war hawks on her way to the White House. May I remind you that together with Tony Blair, Clinton was one of the most vocal proponents of the war in Iraq and was all too eager to propagate the lies:



I also considered it quite rich of her to trot out a Muslim couple at the DNC who lost their child in the Iraq war, and then somehow blame it all on Trump. That's twilight zone stuff.

And those who are in power still have to answer to their own backers.

Who did George Bush answer to? With every war the US has waged, there were anti-war protests by the civilians, to no avail.

Even the most autocratic of dictators still has to have an apparatus backing them and tacitly approving of their actions for them to be able to run their country.

Do we live on the same planet?

Just look at North Korea.  There's no question Kim Jong-Un is a crazy bastard.  He probably would start a war if he could.  However, NK is also DEEPLY reliant on China for, well, almost everything from electricity to food.  If China ever removed their backing of NK, the state would collapse and probably within a matter of weeks.  So, Kim still has to dance to China's tune, no matter how bellicose he is.  The alternative would effectively be suicide.

Who's tune does the US dance to? The most aggressive country on this planet?

More or less, the modern world -as I see it- is evolving to a point where there are simply too many disadvantages to large-scale war for any self-interested person to engage in it, no matter how bellicose they may be.  The only exception would be those so utterly fanatical that they would be willing to risk highly probable self-destruction just for the sake of seeing the world burn and, thankfully, such people are few and far between.

I remind you of Mars, Maldek and Atlantis.... earthlings in other words.

The Ra quote you referred to is applicable after harvest.

[ColinT]

Hello

[ColinT]

Goodbye

[YinYang]

I just find it so sad, that even after the Chilcot report, not a peep out of the US, as if it doesn't exist... as I said, twilight zone!

[APeacefulWarrior]

Yinyang, please tell me you didn't start trotting out a lot of stuff about America just because I mentioned I'm American.

And, the thing is, conflicts like the Iraq War are small-scale stuff, relatively speaking.  I'm not defending it or saying it was a good idea, but it was a small-scale conflict compared to what we saw in the 19th and 20th Centuries.  Even the most pessimistic body counts for the Iraq War put it at around one million.  Yes, that's between 500,000 - 1,000,000 people dead who shouldn't be.

But look at some of the major conflicts of the past.  The Khmer Rouge, 2 million.   The Vietnam War (or Second Indochina War) was 2-3 million.   The Chinese Great Leap Forward was about 30 million.  Stalin's purges, 20 million.  WWII was around 60-70 million.  WWI, 40 million.  The Napoleonic Wars, 4-5 million.  

Again, this isn't to apologize for Iraq, it's to put things in perspective.  Wars in the last few decades have been far less destructive overall than wars of the previous 150 years or so.  And they seem to now just be getting smaller and smaller in scale as time passes.  The plain truth is that the 21st century has fewer wars, and fewer people per capita involved in war than at ANY OTHER TIME in recorded history.

Honestly.  <-- Seriously, at least look at the graphs.  Even if there's been a slight uptick lately, it's nothing compared to the 20th Century.

It's just hard to see because the media is so fixated on making sure we're aware of every single death that occurs anywhere on the planet, so it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture.  There really has, globally speaking, never been a safer time to be alive.

Even the most autocratic of dictators still has to have an apparatus backing them and tacitly approving of their actions for them to be able to run their country.

Do we live on the same planet?

Come on, now.  Are you seriously saying you don't believe that big business and other major public figures have significant influence on political decisions, even in autocratic states?  A leader that behaves in ways that are likely to crash the economy, or inspire revolt among the population, is likely to quickly find themselves restrained by the second tier of leaders.  If not outright deposed.  Even among negatives, the instinct for self-preservation is still going to usually outweigh devotion to larger bellicose goals.

Obviously, that may not be true 100% of the time, but by and large, "evil" doesn't mean "stupid." And we're moving towards a point where launching a major war solely for the sake of having a war is becoming plain stupid, even from a negative\egocentric point of view, because there are so many drawbacks. Hell, the Iraq War demonstrated this. It was a fiasco that cost the US far more than it gained, and most people know it. It's a large part of the reason Obama has been so hesitant to involve the US in any more mid-east conflicts except in the most superficial of ways.

The Ra quote you referred to is applicable after harvest.

And according to Q'uo and nearly every other major positive channelled entity I'm aware of, the Harvest is underway and ongoing, with the 4D changeover happening alongside.  In the quote, Ra even specifically referred to this new system gradually expressing itself.  We're in the beginning stages now.  

This isn't going to be an overnight thing; major global shifts in overall perspectives and attitudes of the population at large will be part of the process. The reduction of open warfare, and the creation of institutions which specifically make peace more self-advantageous than war will continually erode the ability of the negatives and bellicose to create large-scale bloody conflict.  

But it's going to be a winding-down, not a "cold turkey" instant cessation of hostilities, which is exactly we've been seeing for the past few decades.

(And with that, I'm going to bed...)

[YinYang]

Yinyang, please tell me you didn't just start trotting out a lot of stuff about America just because I mentioned I'm American.

No PeacefulWarrior, I knew you were American from another thread already, and I also mentioned earlier in this thread that I (and most sensible people) don't confuse ordinary Americans with their government. I actually have quite a soft spot for Americans, since all my greatest spiritual teachers were/are American, and I have close American friends, who also happen to be outraged by their government's actions. And let's be honest, had it not been for America, you and I won't be able to have these enjoyable tit for tats. The internet was the best invention ever.

As for the rest of your post, I hope you are right, and I mean that sincerely.

[YinYang]

The key point is still how incredibly unlikely it is that China and Russia would form a military alliance against the west.  THAT'S the thing that could theoretically bring about WWIII, but it's also a thing that has virtually no chance of happening.

Well it seems to be happening, this just in...

China holds massive naval drills to prepare for ‘sudden, cruel & short’ modern war

Last week, Beijing also announced that it would hold a “routine” naval exercises in the South China Sea in September with Russia.

“This is a routine exercise between the two armed forces, aimed at strengthening the developing China-Russia strategic cooperative partnership,” China's defense ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told reporters.

[ColinT]

Hello

[YinYang]

Hey these "juggernauts" are inevitable, because every entity has his/her own unique distortions. As many entities as there are in the creation, that's how many unique perspectives there will be any any given subject. Add fears, desires, biases and identifications to the cauldron, and its double, double toil and trouble

I enjoyed your post, Colin, and our "break with nature" is something I've often thought of as well. It's also something Alan Watts talked about quite often. He went on and on about how AWFUL our city planning is, "squares stacked on top of squares", as he called it. I am not very familiar with the transhumanism thing, is Ray Kurzweil's still so involved with that? I remember listening to a podcast once where that came up, and they were mostly talking about Ray Kurzweil's proclamation that humans don't have souls, so I never felt the need to explore that avenue further. I just checked him out quickly, saw that he was one of the big shots at Google, and that was that.

I've read some social psychology articles about the intense isolation that so many city dwellers experience in large cities, in spite of the population density. Modern life has alienated us from one another, and from nature. If you just consider the invigorating effect nature has on your spirit. I don't see how we can change tack though.

[ColinT]

Goodbye

[YinYang]

Do you remember that OLD song:

Little boxes on the hillside
 Little boxes filled with ticky-tacky
And they all live in little boxes
 And they all look just the same.

I remember that song from the tv series Weeds, which took some strange turns in the end... and once that song is in your head! I'm already humming it...

Neither do I at present. I'm just plugging along with a new project that gets started in a few weeks. Maybe after a few months I'll have some ideas.

I'll watch the space! I read a book recently called Dweller On Two Planets about Atlantis, and they had a very different idea about city layout, which sounded quite amazing. Not "squares on top of squares", and yet they also obliterated themselves in spite of all their sophistication... this planet!

[ColinT]

Hello

[YinYang]

>  Dweller On Two Planet

You know, I was wondering whether to mention that: Phylos the Tibetan. It was a cult favourite back in the ? late nineteenth century?

I just Googled "best esoteric literature" one day, found this website and there it was. I can understand that the book must have been very popular in esoteric circles, since I couldn't put it down. Given that we were discussing war drums, the book ends with a prophecy, calls America "Atlantis returned", and speaks of a final war:

A short but sharp conflict, Sanguinary past belief, even now reddens on the horizon. The trained armies, millions of men active or in reserve, that are now engaged in conquest, fevered with war, will but little longer, comparatively, submit to having themselves and loved ones ground under the heel and strangled by the hand of that organized thing, Capital, which, itself merely the natural fruit of selfishness, none the less is a riotous animal principle, compelling the few to be masters of the many, denying the God-born declaration that all men are created free and equal, and warping it to seem a giant lie.

Soon millions of trained soldiers will turn upon the visible representatives, the wealthy and worldly prosperous, who in reality are not more responsible than will be their assailants, of that Relentless Force behind all human enterprise. Later they will break up into lawless bands bent on satisfying Ishmaelitish tendencies, each self-server's hand weaponed against his fellow creatures. Then will the pentup hate, the savagery and selfishness begotten by ages of selfishness ruled by unbridled animalism break in a storm such as the world hath never yet seen, no, not during all the ages I scan, ages forgotten for untold thousands of years. That loveless conflict will initiate that which, Nature completing, will leave living but one where now are many.

Bit dramatic, but anyway there it is.

Till later!

[Jade]

I enjoyed your post, Colin, and our "break with nature" is something I've often thought of as well. It's also something Alan Watts talked about quite often.

Ra speaks of this more often than one would think. It's a little veiled. Here's a good link:

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=n...0&l=30&o=r

"The body complex in its natural fuctions/laws/influxes" = the planet and our physical complexes in their most "natural" state. It's also part of the meaning of the Fool's Journey to return to the ways of the primitive man.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Well it seems to be happening, this just in...

China holds massive naval drills to prepare for ‘sudden, cruel & short’ modern war

YinYang, if you read the news looking for confirmation that the world is doomed, you'll have no lack of sources to rely on.  You realize the media thrives on doom-n-gloom reporting, right?  

When it comes down to it, every country in the world with a functioning military holds "wargames" like that from time to time.  And yes, they have a bit of a propaganda function as well ("See how strong we are!") but still, they are totally routine and done in public view specifically to show off.  One could easily compare it to dominance displays among 2D creatures.  Their purpose is to prevent fights, not spark them. A creature which craves a fight doesn't attempt to scare its prey off.

But actually, the article is so heavily spun that it actually makes a pretty good object lesson in how easy it is for the media to instill a false sense of fear and unease in their viewers\readers without saying anything outright untrue.

Like, speaking of the word routine...  the article made sure to put "routine" in scare quotes within the text, to imply it's a lie or euphemistic, but without having to actually substantiate this in any way.  They rely on the readers to make that unstated assumption.    Then they go on to fill up more than half the article's length with information about the political situation surrounding the South China Sea, despite there being no demonstrable causal relationship between the wargames and the political situation. After all, given the huge scale of the games, they would have realistically been in planning for weeks or months.

(Not to mention, there was also a direct denial from the Chinese government that they're related, but it was buried in the text.)

However, they rely on the audience to simply fill in the segue for themselves and make up a causal relationship between the events in their minds.  That's another common trick - simply talking about two separate subjects and thereby creating a link in the readers' minds that may or may not exist in reality.  But as long as they don't SAY there's a link, it's not a lie to place two unrelated things side-by-side.

And then there's this gem of a juxtaposition in the article:

The drills, however, come at a time of increased tensions in East Asia after an international arbitration tribunal last month rejected Chinese territorial claims to the South China Sea. Beijing rejected the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague calling the ruling “waste paper.”  Despite the court ruling, China continues to claim most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion in annual trade passes. Furthermore, China has repeatedly warned against US intervention in the region, which continues to show its force through the freedom of navigation principle.

Notice how they jumped almost straight from the ruling about the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, to talking about China warning about US intervention?  These are two utterly different subjects.  The only relationship between the US and the PCA is that the US is a signatory to the treaty establishing it, along with more than 100 other countries.  The comment about warning against US intervention is literally apropos of nothing, again, attempting to imply these military drills are somehow preparing for a US attack without the slightest direct evidence of it.

They then double-down on that line of thought with a highly inflammatory quote about 'giving them a bloody nose' from "one source with ties to the military," which they attributed to Reuters but didn't bother to link to.  Here's the link.  While it does describe some hawkishness in China's military, the vast bulk of the article is about all the reasons why China doesn't want a conflict, and it makes sure to point out there've been no actual overt military actions or threats of it from either side.  And for that matter, it's not even clear that the anonymous quote was referring specifically to the United States since, again, the matter under discussion was the PCA ruling from The Hague.  

But by taking that one quote out-of-context, they further create the perception of tensions that are much higher than any purely fact-based look at the situation would suggest.

And in the meantime, the real joke of it all is how utterly banal the original statement that inspired the article was:

The Chinese navy started a drill, which involved firing dozens of missiles and torpedoes, in the East China Sea Monday.  The drill is aimed at honing the assault "intensity, precision, stability and speed" of troops amid heavy electromagnetic influences, said a navy statement released Monday.   "An information technology-based war at sea is sudden, cruel and short, which requires fast transition to combat status, quick preparation and high assault efficiency," the statement said.  The drill involved naval aviation forces, including submarines, ships and coastguard troops.

Which really just establishes it as a totally standard wargame like everyone else does from time to time.  Plus, of course, we see that the RT article left out some crucial context when quoting "sudden, cruel, and short" in the headline.  Within the full context, it's clear he's simply stating this as a fact of 21st Century military reality, not a threat.  A technology-based sea war would be "sudden, cruel, and short" no matter who was involved.

And please understand, I'm not typing all this out to pick on you or anything like that.  I'm honestly hoping you (and anyone else who's interested) will see just how incredibly easy it is for media sources to create the illusion of heightened hostilities where, in reality, there's every reason to see it as just a bit of harmless chest-thumping.   This is how they get people to keep reading, by making mountains out of molehills and then running the story in soap opera-like fashion day after day.

But it takes is a few minutes typing queries into Google, with a little awareness of matters like missing context and false juxtapositions, and you can start looking through the illusions.

[YinYang]

Speaking of propaganda, I particularly enjoyed it when Hillary discovered that the rest of the world has caught onto the propaganda game...

[APeacefulWarrior]

Come on, Yinyang.  I tried to show you just how biased a certain source is, in hopes you'd look for more balanced sources for information, and you respond by implying I'm somehow trying to shut down the discussion and keep repeating "it's a free world."  Even though I said nothing whatsoever about shutting down the discussion and, in fact, said outright exactly what I was hoping to accomplish.  Which had nothing to do with the cessation of discussion.

You just did far more to try to discourage me from talking than anything I said to you, what with suggesting I close the window rather than contribute my thoughts to the discussion.  I mean, that's what a discussion is, right?  An exchange of different viewpoints?

And sarcasm like this...

I am very happy then that planet earth only has routine military exercises, and that war is an impossibility due to these effective exercises whose "purpose is to prevent fights".  

...is turning my words into hyperbole just for the sake of dismissing them.  Nowhere did I say the word "impossibility."   I said that dominance displays are intended to prevent a fight, not that they're inevitably successful in all circumstances.  And what I said is pretty universally agreed to be true, both in zoology and sociology.  

But really, what's so wrong with having a lot of skepticism towards a news source that's going out of its way to paint the most hostile and fearful possible picture of China\US relations?  A news source which, I must point out, is run by the Russian state and would have a very vested interest in trying to fan any flames of hostility which might be there.  So of course they're going to be putting up big front-page headlines implying that the US and China are preparing for hostilities.  That's how the media soap opera game works.

And, wouldn't it be nicer to know we're NOT on the brink of WWIII or anything like that?

I really thought you'd be relieved to hear the situation isn't as bad as you feared.  At least please go read the Reuters article I linked to.  It has a much more fair and fact-based overview of the situation and why hostilities are realistically very unlikely.

[YinYang]

See my post above about propaganda, and I'm quite happy to get my news from RT and Al Jazeera, since American propaganda is something I just can't stomach anymore. Too many lies.

You speak as if this is our first unproductive debate on this forum... maybe we should give it a rest. You and I seem to sit on opposite sides of the fence on just about everything.

[APeacefulWarrior]

Well, I'll take the removal of your original reply as a tacit apology.

I'm quite happy to get my news from RT and Al Jazeera, since American propaganda is something I just can't stomach anymore. Too much lies.

Reuters is European. It's not American propaganda, unless you're honestly saying that you think Europe's top news source is American-controlled. Plus, the article I linked to has far more verifiable facts, and fewer instances of the sort of propagandistic techniques I was pointing out. And as far as Al-Jazeera goes, I've got no problem with them. I enjoyed watching AJE back when I was in an area where I could receive it, and considered it one of the most comprehensive sources at the time.

It's RT that's incredibly biased and manipulative in its coverage these days.

Besides, the techniques I was illustrating can -and should- be used to look at ANY news from ANY source. They're amazingly universal, in terms of manufacturing fear and uncertainty in readers\viewers. Once you start to spot some of the common patterns - like leaving out context or juxtapositions of unrelated items- you can spot them whenever a biased reporter is trying to use them for manipulation, no matter what the source is.

You speak as if this is our first unproductive debate on this forum... maybe we should give it a rest. You and I seem to sit on opposite sides of the fence on just about everything.

Well, there are other people reading this forum and they can also learn by seeing two people hashing over differing opinions. I even mentioned in the long post that I hoped other people would find it useful too. And that we've had an unproductive discussion in the recent past doesn't cause me to automatically think that it's pointless trying to talk to you at all. I'd think that a rather dire attitude, if I found myself in possession of it.

[YinYang]

It's RT that's incredibly biased and manipulative in its coverage these days.

RT is a monster the US created, cause and effect. And I agree with you that Al Jazeera has a very high journalistic integrity. I find that description "incredibly biased" applicable to every US news source though, although The New Yorker I can't stay away from, I just love their articles. I'm curious, do you have RT and Al Jazeera channels in the US, or is it blocked?

[APeacefulWarrior]

I'm curious, do you have RT and Al Jazeera channels in the US, or is it blocked?

When I was last in the US a few years ago, both were available on cable in some areas, but it was a decision made by each individual local cable provider. After that, Al-Jazeera English was replaced with a US-specific version called Al-Jazeera America. I never got a chance to watch it, but the general opinion I've heard is that it's not as good as AJE was. Apparently they water down their mid-east commentary even further.

And (after a little Googling) it appears RT also has its own US-centric branch called RT America, but I know nothing about them. I don't even know if they were RTA when I was in the US, since my cable company didn't carry them.

[ColinT]

Goodbye

[YinYang]

I see I've replaced one of my long posts with another, so this thread won't make much sense now, but that's fine.

[YinYang]

Well, there are other people reading this forum and they can also learn by seeing two people hashing over differing opinions. I even mentioned in the long post that I hoped other people would find it useful too.

Actually I see it a bit differently, I think it creates a confrontational environment, which I at least am beginning to find tiring, because it has become a pattern with you. It doesn't matter what a person presents you with, you simply continue to disagree.

I will share these Ra quotes again which speak for themselves:

Questioner: I was concerned about the amount of physical distortions, disease, and that sort of thing in third-density negative just before harvest and in fourth-density negative just after harvest or in transition. What are the conditions of the physical problems, disease, etc., at late third-density negative?

Ra: I am Ra. Each planetary experience is unique. The problems, shall we say, of bellicose actions are more likely to be of pressing concern to late third-density negative entities than the earth’s reactions to negativity of the planetary mind, for it is often by such warlike attitudes on a global scale that the necessary negative polarization is achieved.

As fourth density occurs there is a new planet and new physical vehicle system gradually expressing itself and the parameters of bellicose actions become those of thought rather than manifested weapons.

Ra: I am Ra. We feel this evaluation of your planetary mind/body/spirit complexes’ so-called future may be less than harmless. We say only the conditions of mind exist for such development of technology and such deployment. It is the distortion of our vision/understanding that the mind and spirit complexes of those of your people need orientation rather than the “toys” needing dismantlement, for are not all things that exist part of the Creator? Therefore, freely to choose is your own duty.

So despite the fact that this is a forum dedicated to the Ra material, and I have used Ra's words to speculate about world events, you once again become condescending like in the other thread, this time by saying I'm "looking for confirmation that the world is doomed". So perhaps you can see why I don't consider these exchanges with you constructive, which eventually leads to my sarcasm, because I think you are more vested in disagreeing than any sincere exchange of ideas.

[Zach]

I saw the weirdest thing today... I sometimes go to Russia Insider, and they are definitely not objective in their reporting (who is nowadays?), they have this Gonzo journalism style, which is still entertaining, so I came across this article, and thought "oh please" when I saw the heading, but then I watched the video they posted which is very bizarre.

I mean, is that an epileptic fit or what is that?

My view may seem somewhat extreme; and I can't say I'm certain.. but this quote from LOO would invoke my belief on the subject of this kind of phenomenon with certain Figures of power.

"Questioner: Are there any Confederation or Orion individuals living on Earth visible to us and important in our society at this time? Walking among us?

Ra: I am Ra. There are no entities of either group walking among you at this time. However, the crusaders of Orion use two types of entities to do their bidding, shall we say. The first type is a thought-form; the second, a kind of robot."



"ro·bot

noun
a [biological]machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
(especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
used to refer to a person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.
"public servants are not expected to be mindless robots"

I added the colored text to give leeway to what I beleive Ra may consider a "robot" semantically. I think It could also mean an incarnate human that was in some way psychologically broken to the extent of creating a blank slate for mental re-programming, hence, 'a robot' (maybe)."


Its possible my thinking in regards to Hilary is inaccurate. I think at the very least though she is a very broken/fragmented person internally.

Just my 2 cents.

[YinYang]

My view may seem somewhat extreme

Well, I would lie if I said that quote didn't go through my mind as well when I saw that clip... it's really freaky. Just when I thought the US election can't get any crazier.