With this thread, I want to point something out. I already have spoken about it in the prime section of this forum, but it's time to get a better picture of the psychology of the good ETs in order to understand why we – Earth humans and ETs alike – face the problem of a prison planet at all.
The questions I'm quoting are from a discussion with Shiningbrow in this thread:
https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/66956-why-is-disclosure-needed-to-dismantle-the-prison
"Is there something else that the good ETs have actually signed??"
Well, that depends on their belief system. If the supposedly good ETs believe in government like most people on Earth do, I wouldn't even consider them to be "good".
I already brought the following video some time ago. If you haven't watched it yet, please watch it. It's really important to understand.
"apparently, good ET crafts have been seen across the skies in basically every country and region on the planet - but they're not getting shot down over every single country or region of the planet...."
But that fact doesn't seem to help anybody. I mean, militarily speaking this gives the opportunity for a beachhead, but there obviously are circumstances that make such a venture pointless, because otherwise it would be happening.
"The obvious thing at this point is to have some sort of implant or knowledge given,"
That's why I'm making this an extra thread, so we can focus on what actually is holding everything in place and preventing a long-term destruction of the death traps.
Taking down the death traps in a physical sense seems to be easy enough. It would be costly, but doable. The difficult part is something else, namely how to prevent a restart of the system. You have to understand that the prison planet is just a technological layer on top of the belief system. It's really really important:
The prison runs on top of the belief that governments have the right to violate the non-aggression principle, because you need aggression and blind order followers to shoot down crafts and prevent disclosure.
That's why I'm repeatedly pointing out the work of Mark Passio, so people can understand the implications of that knowledge.
If someone is following a government who is allowed to violate the non-aggression principle, they are part of the bad ETs belief system!
It doesn't matter wether it is believed or not – maybe most people are following out of fear, not conviction – but the universe is telling us something here:
If you allow an aggressive government – either through action or inaction – you end up on a prison planet, be it as a prisoner or a prison guard.
So to me, a really important question is: Do the supposedly good ETs actually follow the non-aggression principle, or do they believe in government the same way the bad ETs believe in government?
That question is so important because if the good ETs believe in the legitimacy of aggression, they are NOT ABLE to free Earth. It would be karmically impossible! They could manage to free it for a short period of time, but aggressive government would be reestablished sooner or later, thus the prison planet would just restart a new iteration.
The prison planet is not happing to us without reason. It's not an accident. It's the result of what people believe, of what people choose to do, and of what people choose to ignore.
So, do you really belong to the good guys when you look at your own beliefs and actions?
Everybody, including Harvey and his people, should answer that...
""apparently, good ET crafts have been seen across the skies in basically every country and region on the planet - but they're not getting shot down over every single country or region of the planet...."
But that fact doesn't seem to help anybody. I mean, militarily speaking this gives the opportunity for a beachhead, but there obviously are circumstances that make such a venture pointless, because otherwise it would be happening."
I'll disagree with your analysis of this... it tells us that the US is probably NOT the place to be for full disclosure to occur. And I also don't think it's the best place anyway for groups who want it to occur. (personally, I'd stay away from all of the Five-Eyes countries!)
For a catastrophic disclosure event, it'd best be done over western or northern Europe - you know, places where political (and to an extent, media) freedoms are more intact.
" Do the supposedly good ETs actually follow the non-aggression principle, or do they believe in government the same way the bad ETs believe in government?"
That's a logical fallacy (one which Passio adheres to - and relies on, and is why I avoid his stuff)... there's either governments (which by his - and your - definition are evil... and then there's something else. There are no other options possible - which is incorrect.) And, if any organisation truly believes in a passivist non-aggression principle, then they leave themselves open to those who do follow aggressivist ideals. (meaning, there's something in between). I'm not saying CB is right about this, but he has said that there's wars going on throughout the galaxy - it's not all love and roses out there.
"The prison planet is not happing to us without reason. It's not an accident. It's the result of what people believe, of what people choose to do, and of what people choose to ignore."
You're choosing to ignore - what people have been indoctrinated into believing. Most people don't believe because they've actually considered their beliefs (and, when they do, it's always in that light... until that can be shed). It takes a LOT to get past that conditioning (it is, quite simply, a form of brainwashing). People will never rise up and change something that they aren't even aware of. A really good example here would be you... you know about the Death Traps. You also have some idea on how to avoid them, or at least prepare for them when you body-drop. So, the obvious question here should be asked - why aren't you dropping your body so that you don't need to stay here... and either work your way towards the good ETs, or choose how and when you return - or simply hang about on the other side to advise people from a MUCH better perspective?
Your current idea is - people need to rise up and take down the government(s) of the world - and completely destroy the institutions of said governments (which not only include the politicians, but also the public service and the military... and the organisations that support them (MIC, Big Pharma, gas/oil, mainstream media, etc).
Firstly, who the hell is willing to do that? (by 'do that', I actually mean 'go to jail or get shot').
You may say, "But if enough people rise up..." - which overlooks the fact that as those few individuals do rise up, they also get removed - so there's never enough numbers to make "enough rise up" happen.
So, I think the point I'm trying to make here is - the DTs need to be dismantled *before* anything big changes down here - not the other way around. The dismantling of the DTs would almost necessitate the downfall of the more aggressive systems of governments ("enlightened" aware beings who are aware of who and what they truly are won't tolerate it - and would be fully aware that "enforced body drops" are acceptable means to ensure incarnated freedoms).
Of course, once that does start happening, we do need to wonder what exactly the 'bad ETs' would do... I'm quite sure they're not just going to shrug their shoulders and walk away with a sigh of resignation....
Sorry for answering late, I was busy with other things.
"I'll disagree with your analysis of this... it tells us that the US is probably NOT the place to be for full disclosure to occur."
After thinking about your point, I agree. Why do I think there's no beachhead already? It's most likely not to be found beneath the global players. But that's a lot of speculation based on things we don't know for sure, yet.
"That's a logical fallacy (one which Passio adheres to - and relies on, and is why I avoid his stuff)... there's either governments (which by his - and your - definition are evil... and then there's something else. There are no other options possible - which is incorrect.)"
That's all about language. I distinguish government – a word that literally means mind control – from administrations that are respecting the non-aggression principle.
"And, if any organisation truly believes in a passivist non-aggression principle, then they leave themselves open to those who do follow aggressivist ideals. (meaning, there's something in between)."
Here's the fallacy on your part. Non-aggression does not mean passivist or pacifist. Aggression means attacking without the right to do so. Inflicting harm outside of defending yourself and others. You can be non-aggressive and at the same time good at defending yourself.
I always recommend the TV show "Kung Fu" with David Carradine so people can understand what non-aggression actually is: In the show, the protagonist named Caine is totally able to take you out with force, but he's not attacking anybody aggressively. Look at Mark Passio's explanation of the difference between force and violence:
"You're choosing to ignore - what people have been indoctrinated into believing."
I'm not choosing to ignore that. I'm very well aware of how difficult it is to break that level of indoctrination, because it's implemented through parenting and schooling children. It already happens within what's called the formative years, the first 4-7 years of childhood. It's really difficult to change later, when people are adults. It's like inventing a new identity.
"why aren't you dropping your body so that you don't need to stay here"
Because my intuition tells me that I have come here for a reason. Leaving hastily will not help. Maybe I manage to get back where I came from, but the actual problem I'm helping to solve cannot be solved where I came from.
"Your current idea is - people need to rise up and take down the government(s) of the world"
No, I didn't say that at all. If you cling to the term government, I'll say: Make the governments non-aggressive. I would call that an administration then.
"so there's never enough numbers to make "enough rise up" happen."
The rise-up that is needed consists of not paying the wrong people anymore, which is done through violent taxation. So what we need to do is to implement an administration that doesn't run on taxation, but on contracts in which the people and the administration agree upon obligations. For example, if the administration is not using the money according to the contract, the people don't have to pay anymore. A government will force the people to pay. But the government has no right to violenty force you to pay, because no one has that right.
"the DTs need to be dismantled *before* anything big changes down here"
There are already big changes down here.
"Of course, once that does start happening, we do need to wonder what exactly the 'bad ETs' would do..."
They would try to start WW3... which is exactly what is happing right now.
Being "late" is fine... I have been coming and going for a while (and, unfortunately, forget which threads I've been posting in - especially once they're off the front page).
Firstly - "That's all about language. I distinguish government – a word that literally means mind control – from administrations that are respecting the non-aggression principle."
Ummm - what's your source for the definition of this word? somewhat ironic that you say it's "all about language", because it most *certainly* does NOT "literally mean" mind control! (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=government) And, frankly, when people start sprouting stuff that can be so easily shown to be not true, I start to tune out.
"Here's the fallacy on your part."
Actually, no. That wouldn't be a 'fallacy', It may be an error, but those aren't the same things.
"Aggression means attacking without the right to do so."
Ah, yeah.... I now recall our debate on the concept of 'rights'... still not convinced! However, it's part of your definition, so it makes arguing against it difficult from my perspective, because you can just say "oh, but that's not the meaning of the word as *I* intend it".
"Because my intuition tells me that I have come here for a reason. Leaving hastily will not help. Maybe I manage to get back where I came from, but the actual problem I'm helping to solve cannot be solved where I came from"
Just as a point of argument (not suggesting anything otherwise), but it's everybody's natural 'intuition' to remain embodied... that's called 'survival', and is built into the DNA of living things in order to perpetuate the species. So, how would you know whether that's really 'intuition', or part of the programming? Are you actually *responsible* for other beings stuck on this planet? (which is somewhat irrelevant given the fact that these entitles are 'immortal', and this is only a few thousand years of entrapment - out of the billions that we will exist in this universe).
" If you cling to the term government,"
This goes back to what i wrote just above - you have your definition of the word, and it doesn't mean the same as either mine, nor most other people's definitions. So, "cling to the term" is somewhat invalid.
However....
It's still overlooking the basic premise - which you've continued as before:
""so there's never enough numbers to make "enough rise up" happen."
The rise-up that is needed consists of not paying the wrong people anymore, which is done through violent taxation. So what we need to do is to implement an administration that doesn't run on taxation, but on contracts in which the people and the administration agree upon obligations. For example, if the administration is not using the money according to the contract, the people don't have to pay anymore. A government will force the people to pay. But the government has no right to violenty force you to pay, because no one has that right."
So, again, you want people to do something that will make the 'government' use violence to force you into paying tax... Which is what I pointed out before - you want the people to overthrow the government (forcing a change upon it - even if it's not through violence), and that government and system is *not* going to go down without a fight... I presume you're ok with the deaths of millions of people... (just making the point clear...). I will note - it does appear that the people at the top of this pyramid are certainly ok with the deaths of billions of peoples in order to achieve their objectives, so honestly, it shouldn't be a stretch for those opposing that agenda to be willing to do the same.