On morality and duality, I have observed an increase in this specific sentiment among both remote viewers and the community. I wasn't going to say anything, but after the most recent ET board meeting I felt it necessary to address it. Here I offer only my overview and a stark reminder.

It is often expressed–in this circle and those adjacent–that the idea of "good and evil" or "ultimate good and evil" comes only from a narrow and filtered view of reality. Sometimes it is thought that these ideas were only created to control people, or also that "in nature there is no good and evil, only predator and prey".

I tend to agree, but only up to a degree. Personally, in my psychic explorations I have not observed that the idea of "nature" holds much weight. I don't personally view the behavior of ISBEs as an extension of nature, instead I have personally observed the opposite, that nature itself is a result of the actions, wills, events, and agendas of ISBEs.

I have not observed an evolution of species personality, so I dont see that ISBEs emerged from and carried with them the "predator-prey" phenomenon. Instead of it being a sort of "innate truth" of the universe, I actually see that ISBEs were the original source of the phenomenon–more specifically–more oppressive and authoritarian ET types who did not believe that any beings in the universe have a right to free will self determination.

I dont believe that from an ultimate perspective there is an ultimate good and evil, but when one decides to leave the ultimate position of God and take part in a universe and start interfacing with the temporal, then that is a whole different situation. When one decides to take form or adhere to specific agendas and ideas then those forms, agendas, and ideas all have negative and positive factors. These can be seen from the expiriencer as Good and Bad, or Just and Evil. Taking positions and holding beliefs and agendas will fundamentally alter perspective, and among this arises things that can "build" your will, belief, form, and/or agenda, or "harm" it. There are also neutral factors as well.

In my own assessment I would consider those who generally believe that people have a right to self determination and believe in free will and extend offers to peoples to join the "galactic federation" (or whatever you wish to call it) generally tend to be "good". Whereas those who dont believe anyone has a right of self determination and dont believe in free will and force people to work for their empire by erecting genocidal prison planets that eliminate memories and mindwash billions and possibly trillions into subservience and absorption into their empire, generally tend to be "bad". You can empathize into either side until infinity but when recognizing our current situation and our present moment I do not think we have to or even necessarily should refrain from using the words "good" and "bad".

I do not believe nature is a good measurement for morality in general. As I have said, in my psychic explorations I have not observed that biological evolution is a fact, and so I do not think that "brutalistic nature" as it appears on our planet, is in any way the foundation of existence in this universe.

I do believe that strength is ultimately what decides, but I also dont agree that strength in any way modifies any virtuous boundaries and standards in any ultimate sense. For example just because the oppressive ETs were strong enough to overwhelm a vast swath of the galactic population by use of force and death traps and mind erasure doesn't mean that they arent "bad" and shouldn't be called "bad" for doing that. Even if the prisoners of the prisons have been tricked into believing they are virtuous, it still doesnt make it generally true.

It seems like this skepticism of duality emerges from an observation of the importance of force and power. Ultimately it is true that it is weakness that makes us vulnerable in the first place to enslavement, but to then think "what right do you have to call your enslaver evil if you were too weak to protect yourself" is a bit short sighted in my view. Strength ultimately determines outcome, but it does not ultimately determine the presence of virtue. The two realms of strength and virtue exist simultaneously.

Example:

If Person One is stronger than Person Two then Person One can take them and kill them or kidnap them or traffic them or do whatever with them, but just because their strength was able to decide the outcome doesn't mean it decided that it was virtuous and good, even if Person One forcefully brainwashed Person Two into thinking it was.

Likewise, just because Person Two recognizes that what is happening is bad and says so and cries out and yells and tells Person One to stop, doesn't mean that this appeal to virtue in any way will actually stop what will happen.

Strength without Virtue is misguided, blind, and often wicked.

Virtue without strength is weak, helpless, fleeting and pathetic.

Ultimately, I offer that we must achieve and maintain a greater strength and virtue than that which has ever been seen in the human race. Both our strength and virtue must be balanced to truly burn off our oppression and redeem ourselves.

Knowledge plays a vital role in all of this, but I will need to address this in a later post if you wish. Here I needed to focus on the ideas of duality and morality.

I was watching a nature documentary where a hyena captures a gazelle, and it basically rapes it before beginning to eat it alive, it doesn't really bother to try to give it a quick death in any sense. I then immediately picture this overlay of Pizzagate cultists and babies, with their weird spirit cooking and John Podesta "6 fish" hands . . . don't get me started.

Ultimately it's hard to define good and evil. I think there's just a goal for the long term vs a short-sightedness of what that really is. Fluffy happy people often serve evil because of their naivety. Sick psychopathic angry people can also serve righteousness because they don't have to treat everything like a delicate flower.

I like that these people triggered Kahmia. I feel literal headaches when I hear people enthused with their "lovely Bashar" and seem to register zero intellectual exercise by asking why there's this disparity with horrendous rapes / tortures / murders / apathetic cops etc, and . . . "we're here for you, you funny cute humans, we're fuzzy wuzzy care bears here for you"

I won't lie it makes me sort of debate who I want to see shot more, the "evil reptilians" or these misguided hicks.

Well . . . morality must remain up for debate, just like evidence.

I love your assertion that "Fluffy happy people often serve evil because of their naivety. Sick psychopathic angry people can also serve righteousness because they don't have to treat everything like a delicate flower."

Naïveté and Apathy (or any psychopathic traits) especially are a huge threat to any kind of structure that wishes to maintain integrity, be that emotional, mental, physical, or else.