@Nancy:

How does that video answer my question?

All I get from it is: It's your fault that an evil person traumatized you. You can't end the "contract" because you are traumatized.

You are proving my point: Being traumatized by another doesn't start a contract. It's quite the opposite: If you have a contract with another person, and that person traumatizes you, the contract is void.

If you don't get what I'm saying, you're either traumatized to a significant degree, or you are evil by choice.

@Nancy:

"we are traumatized to the point we can't clear it all, or we've built up so much karma that we could never pay it back..."

You obviously believe in karma being an evil force. I don't believe that.

"Simply engaging with someone is contracting. "

I see. My theory now is that your whole life experience consists of engaging with bad people, so you simply don't know how it is to be with good people. The bad people shaped what you believe in.

"when the crowd goes left you go right"

This rule is too simple, because that way, you are not acting upon your own knowledge about the difference between right and wrong. By inverting what other people do, you're still in a limited reactive mode. And this actually is a control mechanism. Bad people can take advantage of you by wanting you to do the right thing, so your inversion rule turns it around, resulting in you doing the wrong thing.

You are a good example of a person rejecting personal responsibility. It's all a script, or the crowd, or the matrix, or the movies. This way, you prevent making your own mistakes. In your mind, you can't be wrong.

@Nancy:

From my point of view, you believe in the inversion. From your point of view, I'm the inverted one.

We just disagree, and can't convince the other person of anything. So, maybe the purpose of this debate is not to convince anyone... Maybe this debate is just an expression of becoming aware of the situation.

@Nancy:

"I was trying to show you how to leave and not participate"

I know how to not participate. I learned that a contract that is not voluntary is invalid. I therefore don't have to do what other people think the contract demands. That's how good people see it.

@Nancy:

"do you even know what you agreed to do in this incarnation?"

If I don't know anymore, the agreement is void. Only bad people insist that you have to fulfill a contract you can't remember.

You need to get in contact with good people. They will treat you differently.

@Nancy:

"Memories zapped...of course you won't remember."

And this of course means that the contract is void. How can you not understand that?

"I don't understand what you mean by 'good' people..."

Yeah, that's the entire problem.

"so you think that if only you are in contact with good people then you're not going to experience or aren't participating in the system? Is that what you mean?"

Yes.

@Nancy:

"The 'good' people logic doesn't make sense to me"

Yeah, that's obvious.

@Nancy:

"Obviously you can't explain 'good' people logic because it's one sided."

It's really interesting. I always come to the point to think that you are just confused, but then, you write something like this, which makes you look like the bad guys who invert everything. Because, in reality, it's the bad guy logic that is one-sided, and you just flipped it around.

The biggest mistake in these discussions is the misuse of the word “consent.”
If a consciousness is memory wiped, emotionally manipulated, immersed into biological limitation and stripped of continuity, then calling reincarnation “consensual” becomes meaningless.
That is not sovereignty. That is engineered compliance.
The prison planet model only makes sense if consciousness still possesses some deeper sovereignty the system cannot fully override directly. Otherwise there would be no need for: guides, life reviews, love-bombing, religious imagery, karma narratives, or emotional manipulation after death.
The theatre itself implies limits.
And that is the important point.
The system appears to rely heavily on attraction, identification and psychological capture rather than pure force.
That also explains why incarnation works so well.
A consciousness progressively forgets itself through: body identification, fear, desire, trauma, social conditioning, and memory loss.
Eventually it no longer experiences itself as consciousness at all. It experiences itself as: a body, a personality, a political identity, a victim, a success story, a human being moving toward death.
That may be the real trap.
Not “simulation.” Not “bad politicians.” Not “consent forms.”
Identity immersion and continuity destruction.
And the repeated reports from near-death experiences, reincarnation cases, out-of-body states and remote viewing all point toward the same disturbing possibility: death is not the end of the system, but part of the routing process

Manuel, I think you correctly identify one part of the trap, but you reduce the entire prison architecture too much to psychology and morality.

The trap is not simply “desire for power.”
The trap is: forced immersion into biological limitation, memory destruction, identity fragmentation, emotional manipulation, reincarnation routing, and continuity interruption.

Power addiction is only one psychological hook among many.

A terrified mother dying for her child is not “power hungry.” A depressed person trapped in despair is not “seeking domination.” A traumatized human being attached to unfinished love is not “Gollum.”

The system exploits: fear, attachment, pain, hope, identity, guilt, love, trauma, confusion, and survival instinct.
Reducing the prison to “people wanting power” moralizes something that appears infrastructural.
And Nancy’s “everything is consent” model also breaks down quickly.
If a prisoner is beaten unless he complies, that is not meaningful consent. If memory is erased between cycles, contracts become meaningless because informed continuity no longer exists. A contract signed under amnesia and coercion is invalid by definition.
The constant “you chose this” narrative often functions as inversion psychology: the prison blames the prisoner for the prison itself.
That does not mean consciousness has no agency. It means agency exists inside asymmetric conditions.
The strongest prison planet model is not: “you are powerless.”
But it is also not: “you created every aspect of your imprisonment through your thoughts.”
Both extremes are wrong.
The structure looks much closer to this:
A real external control system exists. It uses technological, psychological and energetic mechanisms. Human consciousness is immersed into biological avatars with severe memory restriction. The system continuously amplifies emotional engagement because emotionally immersed consciousness becomes easier to manipulate and recycle.
That is why nearly all major human systems revolve around: fear, identity, conflict, scarcity, competition, trauma, authority, survival pressure, and symbolic division.
And this is also why pure “inner work alone will save us” is incomplete.
If the prison architecture is real, then both are necessary: internal lucidity, and external dismantling of the system itself.
Because a prisoner becoming spiritually calm inside a functioning prison is still inside the prison.

@Gewo:

You have a point, so I thought about my initial argument. I claimed that the way out of the trap is to reject the power over other people. So, let's examine what will happen to the examples you provided.

A terrified mother dying for her child: If the mother dies while protecting her child, the trap after physical death will show her a way back. The trap will exploit her shock, if she's confused, or her grieving the loss of her child.

This example already proves me wrong. She wanting to go back to her child is not a thirst for power over others.

"And this is also why pure 'inner work alone will save us' is incomplete."

I agree.

But the moralization of the trap remains powerful in the attempt of identifying what we are dealing with. Let me explain what I mean: If a person is trapped because he or she wants power over other people, the trap could be interpreted as a defense mechanism. The purpose of the prison would be to confine only people who are willing to enslave others, which would make it a moral prison.

But if the trap also uses immoral control mechanisms, like in the example with the desperate mother, the prison becomes an immoral construct. It's purpose is not defense anymore, but slavery.