Session 21 March 2026

Maybe it was something Netanyahu said..... or been trying to do, ever since he arrived at some level of power in Israel (go to war with Iran)?

This has been a fond vision of his for decades (and he's said so - repeatedly - especially when he's in Washington). Infact, he's not shy about saying so. So, a lot of people were very well aware of it. Many even agreed with him.

James Corbett thinks that the part that may not be true is the Chinese professor part.
Well yes, but on another side I feel reality was that it would be irrealistic for Israel than to engage against Iran. I think it's more or less a sort of constatation that we would unconsciously have been reaching: on one side, we've got little barking Netanyahou, but not seriously willing to fight Iran.

A thought that has been keeping my mind busy is that Trump may have been made to go to war against Iran because of blackmail. This wouldn't make a conflict becoming useful - in fact we see the US and Israel cannot really win that war. So, perhaps, going to war against Iran is something that was out of the tables - but it nevertheless happened.

Ideas are not contradictory, after all. Netanyahu ever dreamt of going against iran, but couldn't (or at least, he boasted about that war, years after years... But we know those types of bullies... They speak a lot and do nothing except targeting the weaks - See Palestine - they don't attack a stronger person). A good question would be to know if Israel really wanted to become involved into a conflict with Iran. I think Israel is stuck in and will have to face the consequences of it.

But the main point of all of this would be if Trump never ever wanted to go to war against Iran. I think it's a possibility, and that he has been forced to do it. if such a case, I mean, we'd need to re-think all & everything based on this observation, like a dual-consideration. Trump being committed etc etc.
 
Well yes, but on another side I feel reality was that it would be irrealistic for Israel than to engage against Iran. I think it's more or less a sort of constatation that we would unconsciously have been reaching: on one side, we've got little barking Netanyahou, but not seriously willing to fight Iran.
No, of course Netanyahu's not willing to fight Iran. It's why he (and others of his ilk) spent so much time and money infiltrating American society - including politics. The Israeli's expect America to fight Iran FOR them. Most people are aware of this. It's very manipulative and it's been happening over a long period of time.

Perhaps you ask "how long"? Well, how about starting in the early 1960's, for politics (forcing LBJ onto Kennedy)? And the turn of the 20th century (and early part) for organised crime and law inforcement?

This didn't just happen in the last five minutes and Trump was never a free agent.
 
No, of course Netanyahu's not willing to fight Iran. It's why he (and others of his ilk) spent so much time and money infiltrating American society - including politics. The Israeli's expect America to fight Iran FOR them. Most people are aware of this. It's very manipulative and it's been happening over a long period of time.

Perhaps you ask "how long"? Well, how about starting in the early 1960's, for politics (forcing LBJ onto Kennedy)? And the turn of the 20th century (and early part) for organised crime and law inforcement?

This didn't just happen in the last five minutes and Trump was never a free agent.

I hope the US can find a way to stop the hemorragy because it is counter-productive. I could swear I noticed a freshly elected Trump stating "we are about to rebuild the country, now that Biden ransacked it".
 
This is probably a stupid question, but does there need to be a space between the a and the b here? Can't find the darn thing in the Sessions! Sorry.
I presume you're thinking a biotic oil? No, it's definitely abiotic. And btw, I usually have a very difficult time trying to find specific references in sessions, particularly past ones. But, as to your question:
(Ellipse) Does oil extraction have some nasty effect on Earth?

A: Not really. Oil is abiotic.

Google AI:
Abiotic refers to the non-living physical and chemical components of an ecosystem that affect living organisms and the functioning of the environment. These include factors like sunlight, water, soil, air, temperature, and nutrients. Together with biotic (living) factors, they form ecosystems.
Abiotic oil is the theory that petroleum is synthesized deep within the Earth's mantle through high-pressure, high-temperature chemical reactions between hydrogen and carbon, rather than from ancient biological organic matter. Proponents suggest this primordial material travels up through faults, meaning oil is not a finite fossil remnant but a continuously generated resource.
  • No Dependency on Fossils: Because the ingredients (carbon/hydrogen) exist within the Earth's core, the process can theoretically produce hydrocarbons without any biological input.
  • Presence in Inorganic Environments: Proponents point out that hydrocarbons have been found in spaces where no life ever existed, such as on Titan (Saturn's moon) or in volcanic rock on Earth.

Considering all the discussion on this forum regarding water, should water be considered non-living?

AI again:
Water is generally not considered conscious by scientific standards, as it lacks a nervous system or biological mechanisms for awareness. However, some alternative theories and spiritual viewpoints suggest water has "memory" or reacts to human emotions and intentions, proposing it is a carrier of consciousness.

And to really get off-topic here, remember in the session about stones having consciousness and I believe holding ancient memories? 🤔
 
I completed the session tonight. Great questions, answers and discussion. This idea of doing our own research, coming to our own conclusions, and then finding out stood out. I am working on the networking and thinking.

Thank you for this session and for sharing it :-)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom