I am often asked:
What do you say when people want to engage you in a negative conversation and you pull yourself out of it because you know exactly what is going on. But do you find that ignorant? You recommend picking up people where they are. Is that always true?
These are two questions and need two answers.
Regarding question 1: I am now withdrawing from this conversation because it is being conducted in low vibrational areas. And I don’t want to stay there any longer than absolutely necessary. And what these people rate as “ignoring” is not ignorance on my part, because I am consciously removing myself from this low vibration area. Regarding question 2: You recommend picking up people from where they are. Is that always true? Yes, that always applies. It is also important that I choose which people I pick up where. And when I notice that these people are not ready to let themselves be led out of a low vibration range, my behavior applies as in question 1.
A few basic rules are sufficient in conversations and discussions.
An important basic rule is: Never allow yourself to be maneuvered into a defensive position or never start to justify yourself. If you can’t think of a more appropriate answer, just say, “I think that’s a mere assertion.” And then your counterpart is in the situation that he has to prove that it is more than an assertion. Conversely, if someone insinuates that you are only making assertions, you say: “Then prove it to me.” I already know that my argument is correct.
Manipulation of the terms:
Anyone who deals with manipulation should also familiarize themselves with influencing techniques. Whether we want it to be true or not, there is no immunity to influence.
The more we know about influencing techniques, the more we can protect ourselves from them.
Matrix explanation of the term “giving up” comes from giving up, stopping. Well, this interpretation of the task is the matrix version. I love the term “task” because I understand it differently. For me, a task means a “gift”. “A gift that I pass on”.
Yes, a gift is a gift. We have received a gift – the understanding of the natural order – as a gift. “May I give you this gift”. We now have to fulfill this task first so that we can and are allowed to pass the experience on as a gift so that honest seekers can find the right path more directly.
We also have to do away with the matrix terms radically – in the sense of extreme. Radical in the sense of radix – root – means removing only the rotten fruit is often not enough. Often we have to start remediation with the roots. Those who have a rotten tooth often need a root canal treatment. Extreme situations often also require radical measures.
We have to make a clear distinction between “owner” and “owner”.
An “owner” is only the administrator of a thing, while the “owner” is the “owner” of that thing. The “tenant” – as the owner of a farm – is only the “manager” of the farm, but not the “owner” of the farm.
The leaseholder has to pay the owner regular rent so that he can “use” the farm for his benefit. The owner collects the rent without working on the farm. The owner can also terminate the lease agreement and change the tenant. But the tenant cannot terminate the owner.
If the owner takes the lease away from the lessee, that is “his right”.
If the tenant takes the farm away from the owner, it is theft.
He’s got a huge fortune
What is wealth? That means these criminals are capable of robbing so much money. This is modern robber baronism. Wealth versus inability. Ability = ability. So the ability to rob. It doesn’t mean he has huge earnings – he deserves it. It doesn’t mean he has a huge stolen property – which would be more correct – because it is nothing else.
FDH = eat half
Many people know the recommendation “FdH” = “Eat half” if they want to reduce their body weight. Even conventional doctors often make this recommendation to their patients. But this recommendation is also a matrix recommendation. Those who have previously generated their excess weight through an unhealthy diet will be able to reduce their weight with the “FdH” recommendation, but will still remain unhealthy if the remaining half is still unhealthy. My recommendation is “Usually” ™ = “Eat the right thing”. And if you notice that you are eating too much of the healthy, then reduce the amount to 80% from full – but continue with healthy.
The word side effect is also an example of manipulation.
On all package inserts for pharmaceuticals there is an area under which the side effects are mentioned. Side effects, or NW for short, are further, usually undesirable effects of a drug or a pharmacological substance that occur in addition to the desired main effect.
In nature – in contrast to artificial products – there are no side effects. There are only ever effects. There is action and reaction. In simple terms, the word “besides” means “in addition”. So a side effect is an additional effect. I explain that a side effect is a result of something. The effect is the action, and the “side effect” is a reaction to the effect.
If the sun, water, earth and a seed are the effect, then the sunflower is the reaction and the result. If booze is the action, the hangover is the secondary effect, or a result of the primary effect.
The term side effect is nothing more than an attempt at excuse. You want to wash yourself off the guilt because you say it’s an effect that we don’t want, that is, a side effect.
Anyone who drives against a wall at 100 km / h (action) gets – in the mildest case – a headache (reaction).
The effects of chemotherapy, i.e. cytostatics, are:
- Destroy and disrupt the metabolism
- Damage the DNA, cells and daughter cells
- Block auxiliary molecules of cells
- Destroy the mytochondria
- Tumor cells burst (spread diseased cells into the blood)
- Hair and nails fall out
- Mucous membranes are destroyed (conjunctiva of the eye, covering layer of the glans and clitoris, intestinal mucosa, uterine lining, gastric mucosa, mucosal block, oral mucosa, nasal mucosa, vaginal mucosa)
Which of the above lists are actions and which reactions?
Of course there are no side effects. If we make a fire in the forest, is one of the main effects of the heat used to fry the sausage? And then is a side effect of the smoke that burns our eyes? Then we would have to honestly say that the heat is our desired effect and the smoke is our undesirable effect of the fire. Likewise, with an analgesic (pain reliever), we would have to say that our desired effect is to suppress the symptoms, remove the pain, and the undesirable effect is renal insufficiency. The term “next to” implies that it is a matter of a sideline, of a minority. This is pure manipulation. So let’s not fall for it.
From my book: The Power of Manipulation – From Rhetoric to MK-Ultra.