Session 22 February 2020

[loreta]

Thanks for the insights of the assassination of the General, Joe and Seppo Ilmarinen. So after all he was a good guy and like all good guys he was assassinated. History is plain of good guys that were murderer.

 

[Niall]

Thank you very much for the new session, super interesting, as always!


There's always competing forces within any nation, and those (or some part) having power in Iran may have seen Soleimani's rising influence and popularity as a threat for their own position, and found it "win-win" to get rid of him through those back room negotiations. That's the reality how things can be played out at that level, and not all those in charge are good guys, even if Iran as a country is being positive force by opposing US and Israel's nefarious plans in the Middle East.

Yes, something like that. But it's not necessarily 'good vs bad guys'. Ayatollah Khamenei and President Rouhani, for example, may have worried that Soleimani's military adventures were TOO successful, and that the general's (apparent) plan to 'corner' Israel was dangerous to Iran's primary national interest because it risked Israel becoming desperate and doing something crazy like launching nuclear weapons at her.

Sure, then Israel would be 'wiped out' in retaliation, but which responsible leader willingly sacrifices 10 or 20 or 30 percent of his population for some 'great cause'? Yes, Iranian ideology is all about 'defeating the Zionist entity in Holy War', and the specific military branch Soleimani was in charge of - the Quds Force - is specifically ideologically oriented towards 'liberating Jerusalem from the Jewish Crusaders', but that's ideology. Behind the scenes, rather more pragmatic decision-making takes place, both within the Iranian elite, and in concert with the elites of other countries, who all recognize that what it comes down to in the end is economics, trade and long-term stability (not least to maintain their own positions in power!).

FWIW, I too liked Soleimani, and I didn't like this answer! But Israel's 'day of reckoning' isn't likely to come via war with Iran or anyone else.

 

[Wandering Star]

I took it as an insight into how politics really works, and it more or less confirmed my take on the Soleimani assassination and the events afterwards.

Far from being arch enemies, all politicians and members of the political or 'elite' class around the world have more in common with each other than they do with their respective populations. They all share the common goal of maintaining themselves in power and keeping their potentially 'restless' populations under control and relatively happy, because it is from their populations that they derive their power (and wealth).

Soleimani had become an increasingly powerful figure in both the Iranian military and Iranian political and social life over the past few years. The political class in any country is usually very wary of military leaders accruing too much power and influence, because when they do, they tend to get ideas that they can do a better job. So it's possible that Soleimani was seen as a growing threat to the Iranian government and the Ayatollah and his coterie.

Through spying and electronic eves-dropping and direct discussions with Iranians, individuals in the Trump government may have become aware of this and came up with the idea of getting rid of him in the knowledge that the Iranians would not mind so much. The thinking behind this may have been Trump's awareness that with the recent alarming spread of Iranian influence across Iraq and into Syria and Lebanon (much of it thanks to Soleimani), the Israelis were reaching the point of no return where they might initiate a real war against Iran (and the Iranian government was likely aware of this). If such a war were to occur, Trump would be forced to side with Israel, and he was not inclined to have the US embroiled in another major ME war (his 'base' of supporters in the US would not be happy). At the same time, the Iranian government does not have a death wish, and they very likely would not win such a war (Israel has 400 nukes and the psychos to use them).

Killing Soleimani may have been seen, therefore, as a good way to stay Israel's hand, appease the Zionists by showing them that Trump was looking out for their interests, while presenting himself as a leader who was taking a 'strong stance' on Iran. Notice that, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Trump tweeted that he did it to "prevent a war, not start one". That was perplexing to many people since killing Soleimani appeared to be the best way to START a war between the US and Iran. But perhaps the war that Trump was preventing with this action was not primarily a war between the US and Iran but between the US and Israel (then pulling the US in). Notice also that Trump felt he had to further justify the assassination to his base by claiming the Soleimani was a 'bad man' who had been responsible for killing US troops in Iraq.

From the Iranian perspective, killing Soleimani removed a threat to their power, but the Iranian government had to go through the motions of being 'outraged' and responding with the missile attack on 2 US bases in Iraq, an attack that was very likely signaled to the US beforehand. All of this was necessary because the Iranian people, as oblivious as the American people to the way global politics really works, demanded it as a response to the egregious murder of their beloved general by the 'great Satan'. The outpouring of grief and the multiple millions of people who attended the various funeral proceedings for Soleimani is perhaps an insight into the extent of the threat he posed to the established powers in Iran.

The shooting down of the Ukrainian plane was the final element, but this was most likely a 'wild card', thrown in by elements within the Israeli intelligence establishment to highlight the fact that they were not fooled by the whole spectacle and perhaps as a warning to the US and Iranian players of what they can do. As I wrote at the time, someone very likely 'messed' with either the plane or the missile system to provoke the shoot down. Given all of this, it's no surprise that the Iranian government took responsibility for the downing of that plane, and quickly made it go away.

I try to be cautious about Trump. I think there is more to the obvious.

Some time ago I had a strange dream, of the few in which I wake up and think "how strange".

In a place with many people, there were many "meetings" in different "offices." When I left one of those meetings, I met Trump and he gave me a "camaraderie" smile, when "he" was going to enter another office for "his" meeting. One way or another, everyone was there for the same thing.

When I woke up I thought: "What do I do dreaming about Trump?"

Since then I try to "see" beyond the obvious of his actions.

 

[Joe]

Thanks for the insights of the assassination of the General, Joe and Seppo Ilmarinen. So after all he was a good guy and like all good guys he was assassinated. History is plain of good guys that were murderer.

Not really. We have no idea if he was a good guy. He may have been willing to risk a war with Israel and, as a result, the destruction of Iran.

 

[Joe]

Sure, then Israel would be 'wiped out' in retaliation

I don't think we can be sure about that. Which makes Soleimani's theorized moves even more reckless.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Interesting is, well known, saying: "See the unseen." Is it mean that this is perception of the reality that contain the idea of seeing from the 4D perspective the 3D things as the 3D being? Perspective set partly because of the spiritual knowledge, partly the choice and decision that this is correct view on things, which open to the new unseen reality.

 

[Niall]

Thanks for another interesting session!

I think with what the Cs said, the cloud ripples could still be a physical phenomenon causes by bombs or planes etc., which are themself caused by the conflict, which could be related to some 'portal' in the region(?). So it's not necessarily a literal portal in the sky so to speak (but could be as well).

That is something to keep in mind for many phenomena, that it may be both something mundane and something 'supernatural' or extraordinary. In this case, however, I don't think you're seeing the pressure waves from bombs. The 'ripples' are too consistent, too high up in the sky, and even appear to be 'shimmering', as in heat haze. They also appear to be occurring laterally, at that altitude, rather than coming up from ground level.

Here's the shock wave from a volcanic eruption, which are generally way more powerful than any bombs dropped in Syria:

Compared with what's seen in the Aleppo video, it's slower, larger, and radiating outwards (and upwards) from a central point of origin.

 

[Juba]

Q: (L) So Paul was concerned with restoring humanity to the Edenic state. He uses the symbol as one man, the First Adam, and death came to all. And then by one man life came to all. It struck me that the possibility... Well, what the C's have said is that when the Fall happened, it happened to everyone. It wasn't just like one person. It happened to everyone. So it seems to me that this primal man that is Adam is a representation of all. It's not just one man that caused everybody to go kaflooey. And they've said that it was the female energy consorted with the STS reality. Is that what we're looking at here, only the reversal of the process? In other words, a group of people that have that kind of faith that in the face of everything being literally awful as it is in our world today, that they still have faith in the other reality, they still have faith in doing good, doing right, being loving, that they do not buy into the whole Darwinian materialistic thing, and basically they don’t believe those lies and by those means they are able to, at a certain point in time that Paul called the culmination of the ages, be restored to this Edenic state... in other words a 4D STO reality. Am I interpreting that correctly?

A: Oh that was beautiful!! We are impressed!

Q: (L) Well la-dee-da! So that's basically what the anchoring of the frequency is about. And that's part of the interior state that people have to be in in order to anchor that frequency - to have that kind of faith. It’s not where you are, but who you are and what you see? Even in the face of everything being against your ideas, against what you think, against what you've figured out...

(Joe) Even things inside you being against you. The internal fight. You have faith that doing what it doesn't like that you will kind of achieve something worth having.

(Andromeda) Right.

(Joe) It's internally and externally at the same time.

(L) So it's not faith IN Jesus as Ashworth points out. It's faith OF Jesus that sets the example. And the example was put in a metaphor of the story of this crucifixion or death, but the metaphor represents basically the crucifixion of every person. They're crucified inside and outside because they are faced with this reality that rejects their consciousness, their more or less divine connection, their spiritual connection. They say that everything is just random mutations and random evolution, and that's wrong. That's the Big Lie.

A: Yes. We can retire now!

I read this part of the session several times and I have urge to cry, not some miserable tears, but tears of relief.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

[Niall]

A: We told you long ago that there is a large portal over the Middle East. This was a breaching of the realm curtain.

I found this reference to a portal over the M.E. in the 4 October 1997 session:

Q: [...] On page 33 of Bringers of the Dawn, Barbara Marciniak writes: "there have been different portals on earth that have allowed different species, creator gods from space, to insert themselves. One of the huge portals that presently being fought over is the portal of the Middle East. If you think back over the history of the Earth, you will realize how many dramas of religion and civilization have been introduced in that portal. It's a huge portal with a radius of 1,000 miles or so. This is why there is so much activity in the Middle East. This is the portal that the Lizzies use." Could you comment on that information. Are there other portals that are that large which are used by positive entities?

A: Portal is dual.

Q: So any [one?] can use it. Is it correct that this is a large portal over the Middle East?

A: Statements made in publication are close, but not absolute.

Q: Is this idea of portals extremely significant. Are they fought over?

A: Yes, but you do not need to explore these truths, until you have learned more.

Q: Okay. Marciniak also says that there are benevolent Lizzies. You once said that the incidence of benevolent Lizzies was so rare as to be not worth mentioning. Is it true that there are benevolent Lizzies as she says?

A: There are benevolences evident even in the darkest circles.

Q: Is the Rose symbolic of Prime Creator and the Cross the conflict between STS and STO?

A: No.

Q: Anything you CAN tell me?

A: You are so inquisitive, you will uncover all you seek, even without us telling you directly.

I left in that subsequent part about the symbolism of the (Christian) cross because, 23 years later, in the current session published above, Laura just answered her own question...

(L) So it's not faith IN Jesus as Ashworth points out. It's faith OF Jesus that sets the example. And the example was put in a metaphor of the story of this crucifixion or death, but the metaphor represents basically the crucifixion of every person. They're crucified inside and outside because they are faced with this reality that rejects their consciousness, their more or less divine connection, their spiritual connection. They say that everything is just random mutations and random evolution, and that's wrong. That's the Big Lie.

A: Yes. We can retire now!

Laura-in-the-future (our present) has answered Laura-in-the-past!

 

[Niall]

Unless there is another answer in the sessions regarding a portal in/over the Middle East, the Cs didn't so much 'tell us' as back up Marciniak's claims about it. The next paragraph in Bringers of the Dawn reads:

To some extent, the Lizzies have controlled this portal. They have used this area to create their underground bases and caverns, from which they operate. The ancient civilization of Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, was a space colony where a certain civilization was introduced. Kuwait sits at the mouth of this territory. This is a portal that involves manipulation of the human population to serve the needs of others.

Assuming for now that Marciniak's "radius of 1,000 miles or so" is in the ballpark, and that what was filmed above Aleppo occurred there because it falls somewhere within this 'portal', I came up with the following rough sketch diagram of its potential size/location.

Each red line is the length of the Google Maps-calculated 'distance scale' from Aleppo to a point 2,000 miles away (the portal's diameter being the radius, a 1,000 miles, multiplied by two). I intersected them on Kuwait just because Marciniak made reference to it. The resulting circle seems to 'fit' with what is considered 'the Middle East'.

Joe thinks he remembers another reference somewhere in the sessions to a portal in/over the M.E., but that perhaps a different term than 'portal' was used. Perhaps 'Energy/Dome of Destruction'? Does anyone recall what that might be, and in which session it occurred?

 

[zhenqing]

Thank you for the session!
It was fascinating, and as much to think about, as always.

 

[Michael B-C]

Not really. We have no idea if he was a good guy. He may have been willing to risk a war with Israel and, as a result, the destruction of Iran.

That's what I picked up as a possible inference of what the C's suggested happened. It may be that the leadership had tried to make Soleimani see 'sense' in terms of the implications of where his approach might take Iran and he just wasn't willing to listen or hold his fire... perhaps his ideological fervor was too implacable and he would not heed their reason; to save the people they had little choice therefore but to cut him loose in the worst possible sense of that phrase. The stakes were just too high and whilst they didn't risk doing their own dirty work (which would have been incredibly dangerous domestically) the willingness of their enemy to do it for them meant that everyone would win in the short term... apart from Soleimani and his family of course. RIP.

 

[Adobe]

Thank you all for the session and your dedication.

Although my opinion on Jordan Peterson’s work is quite high, I do have my own questions about it. but I would like to ask, as the group seemed pretty confident that there was a particular mistake that he made. Can some one tell us what that was?

As far as the virus, the answer D is quite reasonable. Throughout this process of trying to understand what is going on, it has concerned me more what the governments of the world are using the situation/opportunity for that gives me the most concern.

“If” the word “chills” from the last session was in reference to the virus, then it looks like, at least on that session the time frame of the C’s and our own are starting to match up. That is to say, they said something and in a few weeks it happened.

Thanks again!

 

[4d candidate]

Laura, Joe, Niall and the crew.
Your ability to understand the incoming events and translate it into the language of ordinary people is simply incredible! It wasn't until I read Joe and Niall's instructions that I understood what it was really about (Soleimani murder). These are very complex considerations about what, why it happened and who could actually be behind it, but your complete, consistent and true explanation of the events that took place there is astonishing. It requires a great deal of knowledge, understanding of the motivations, goals and patterns of thinking and behaviour of the power elites in these countries. Thank you very much for this session and many, many more.

And one more thing.
I don't know why when I watch Bibi Netanjachu in pictures and movies his face seems to be blue, dark blue and blue lips to me. I get the impression that he beats his anger, hatred from that face, as if suddenly blood has flowed into his head, as he would always be damn angry at something, even when he is smiling. Maybe it's just my imagination and I can't explain it to myself. I remember once during a session you asked a question about Hillary Cinton and Cs saying that a lie has its mark on the body, even though I don't know if it's. Maybe I'm looking too deep.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Joe]

That's what I picked up as a possible inference of what the C's suggested happened. It may be that the leadership had tried to make Soleimani see 'sense' in terms of the implications of where his approach might take Iran and he just wasn't willing to listen or hold his fire... perhaps his ideological fervor was too implacable and he would not heed their reason; to save the people they had little choice therefore but to cut him loose in the worst possible sense of that phrase. The stakes were just too high and whilst they didn't risk doing their own dirty work (which would have been incredibly dangerous domestically) the willingness of their enemy to do it for them meant that everyone would win in the short term... apart from Soleimani and his family of course. RIP.

Well said!