The 3D/4D division *actually* happening through the Vax debate.

[Woodsman]

I just finished reading this article from the front page...

"Aluminum adjuvant, cytokines, brain inflammation, autism: Did China discover the missing piece of the autism puzzle?"
https://www.sott.net/article/344048-Aluminum-adjuvant-cytokines-brain-inflammation-autism-Did-China-discover-the-missing-piece-of-the-autism-puzzle

-I love it when the Common Smart Person gets fed up, rolls up their sleeves to perform earnest deep research and finds their own connections. -And when those connections make such solid sense as they do in this essay.

There's just something so grounded and un-bullshat when an outsider wades into a topic which is otherwise entrenched with institutionalized thinking, -and comes out again with clear and useful insights.

Anyway...

A thought struck me while reading through the article; while sharing it actually. The subject, as everybody realizes, is powder keg stuff, and many people I know just tune me out these days when I bring it up -which is a real shame as this particular article represents such a profound step forward. -In our understanding of the mechanisms behind vaccine injury and autism. I don't think I have read anything really new in this area in well over a year. (The last new thing I remember was learning that the early polio epidemics were probably the result of bug spray rather than a virus, -and that some types of viruses might actually be created by our own bodies in order to communicate DNA updates between cells and even other people! Whoa!)

This essay tells us something new.

-In the past, so many stories written about vaccines have been studies showing links and correlations, recommending caution and avoidance, (or doing the exact opposite depending on which camp wrote it). This article, however, offers a good deal more; a possible "why" and "how" behind the phenomenon of autism. Though, at this point, I think people may simply have stopped listening to me when I share items like this. Past debates were so exhausting and painful that it takes a real soldier to keep returning to the information stew pot.

But here's the thought I had...

Rising up a Density level, as I have come to think of it, would seem to me a function of increased ability to perceive information. -That the word "Density" refers exactly to that; the density of information available to a being's cognitive system.

The divide between the Haves and Have Nots (in terms of perceptive abilities capable of managing 4D information throughput) is going to become very apparent at some point in the human evolutionary process. Some people will be able to see. Others wont. -And their realities will very simply have to diverge.

Perhaps this debate over vaccines is more than just a debate, but also a powerful, direct expression of exactly that population division.

If you don't pay attention, if you seek refuge in old, comfortable systems of mind management (authoritarian following, for instance), you literally choose to pursue a life of lesser information density. You cut yourself off from cognitive advancement. You breed cognitively impaired children, you accept brain damage within yourself with every flu shot.

Those souls being born today which want to advance or experience 4D will have to choose parents who aren't going to poison them. Choices abound on both sides of the birth canal doorway!

How does one choose to be a Dog or a Cat or a Human upon incarnation? And now.., a 3D Human or a 4D Human?

The race is dividing, and these hot and emotional debates are hot and emotional exactly because there is SO much at stake. No wonder! People are choosing which species to become.

Anyway... that was the thought I wanted to share.

 

[Cosmos]

Sounds reasonable to me although I think the Vax debate is just one aspect of it. There are so many topics in which a crucial devide seems to take place between those "that can see reality for what it is" and "pay strict attention to reality right and left" and those who choose to remain in their old ways. although enormous quantities of information get accessible now that can be accessed if wanted.

Having said that, maybe there is also something to reconsider in regards to the following statements:

[...]The subject, as everybody realizes, is powder keg stuff, and many people I know just tune me out these days when I bring it up -which is a real shame as this particular article represents such a profound step forward.

[...]Though, at this point, I think people may simply have stopped listening to me when I share items like this. Past debates were so exhausting and painful that it takes a real soldier to keep returning to the information stew pot.[...]

As the saying goes: "Give only to those who ask". Maybe there is a reason why "people may simply have stopped listening to me when I share items like this"?

I don't know if it is the case, but maybe instead of trying to push our understanding of things on other people, it would be more productive to just stay put for only giving when it is asked, and not judge them for what is their lessons, if they don't conform to our expectations. Most often people will be even less likely to "understand", if we dogmatically try to change what they think about any given subject. Worse even, they get pushed even farther away by things like this, even though we hope to archieve the opposide by it.

They are far more likely to respond "positively", if we don't try to convince them or change them. It is hard I know, but also a very important lesson.

 

[Woodsman]

Sounds reasonable to me although I think the Vax debate is just one aspect of it. There are so many topics in which a crucial devide seems to take place between those "that can see reality for what it is" and "pay strict attention to reality right and left" and those who choose to remain in their old ways. although enormous quantities of information get accessible now that can be accessed if wanted.

Having said that, maybe there is also something to reconsider in regards to the following statements:

[...]The subject, as everybody realizes, is powder keg stuff, and many people I know just tune me out these days when I bring it up -which is a real shame as this particular article represents such a profound step forward.

[...]Though, at this point, I think people may simply have stopped listening to me when I share items like this. Past debates were so exhausting and painful that it takes a real soldier to keep returning to the information stew pot.[...]

As the saying goes: "Give only to those who ask". Maybe there is a reason why "people may simply have stopped listening to me when I share items like this"?

I don't know if it is the case, but maybe instead of trying to push our understanding of things on other people, it would be more productive to just stay put for only giving when it is asked, and not judge them for what is their lessons, if they don't conform to our expectations. Most often people will be even less likely to "understand", if we dogmatically try to change what they think about any given subject. Worse even, they get pushed even farther away by things like this, even though we hope to archieve the opposide by it.

They are far more likely to respond "positively", if we don't try to convince them or change them. It is hard I know, but also a very important lesson.

That's a valid assessment in most cases, though the debates I'm referring to have largely been related to posts I put on my Facebook page; just re-linking articles and responding to those who post their objections or questions.

I've lost a bunch of "friends" in this manner, despite my trying to remain polite and reasoned, leaving only those who are already on board with certain ways of thinking. It's a self-regulating kind of process, it seems, which has the now fairly well-known effect of "bubbling" or stream-lining news feeds in a way which appears to be both natural and negatively limiting at the same time.

I started steering well clear of commenting objections on other people's offerings on their own pages unless I think I can do it in a way which isn't off-putting. -Which is very rarely, when it comes to such matters as these.

 

[manitoban]

Sounds reasonable to me although I think the Vax debate is just one aspect of it. There are so many topics in which a crucial devide seems to take place between those "that can see reality for what it is" and "pay strict attention to reality right and left" and those who choose to remain in their old ways. although enormous quantities of information get accessible now that can be accessed if wanted.

It makes sense to me too, and often lately it feels as though people really are already living in different realities, as their perception of what is going on in the world seems so removed from what we are seeing. And true, it's not just vaccines, although that is one of the major ones, it's the weather changing, the transgender stuff, political leaders, health and well practically everything! It is a strange feeling at times, knowing just how much information is available, yet people are actually choosing at some level to either ignore or convince themselves it's simply not true.

As the saying goes: "Give only to those who ask". Maybe there is a reason why "people may simply have stopped listening to me when I share items like this"?

I don't know if it is the case, but maybe instead of trying to push our understanding of things on other people, it would be more productive to just stay put for only giving when it is asked, and not judge them for what is their lessons, if they don't conform to our expectations. Most often people will be even less likely to "understand", if we dogmatically try to change what they think about any given subject. Worse even, they get pushed even farther away by things like this, even though we hope to archieve the opposide by it.

They are far more likely to respond "positively", if we don't try to convince them or change them. It is hard I know, but also a very important lesson.

Yes, and it helps to remember to respect their free will. We don't and can't know what their lessons are.

 

[Glenn]

Woodsman,
I think your thinking, or observations are valid. I too am seeing or experiencing small ah ha type moments when I am watching something, or someone, or reading something. But rather than seeing it as one thing, like the Vaxx debate, (that may be just one of your ah ha moments). I think it is a combination of things that sort of take you up a level, or give you the recognition that you are moving up a level. For me, I didn't start thinking clearly on things until I started to clean up my body and my diet. Just doing the detoxing, and Iodine, and diet seemed to take a fog away, Then I seemed to be able to absorb much more information. And then absorbing that information, I would put some of that new information to use, creating I guess you could say an ever growing advancement to my being. Sort of a small, positive feedback loop, or like planting and watering flowers that started to grow.

Rising up a Density level, as I have come to think of it, would seem to me a function of increased ability to perceive information. -That the word "Density" refers exactly to that; the density of information available to a being's cognitive system.

The divide between the Haves and Have Nots (in terms of perceptive abilities capable of managing 4D information throughput) is going to become very apparent at some point in the human evolutionary process. Some people will be able to see. Others wont. -And their realities will very simply have to diverge.

I think that could be true. The way we are gaining knowledge is kind of a long slow process. So when there is some type of cataclysm there won't be any short cuts for those who have not done the work.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Woodsman, thanks for some interesting ideas. I've been thinking along the same lines lately, but in terms of the divide between the mechanical, reasoning-impaired, left-wing extremists/Trump protestors and the rest of society who see the dark underbelly of America / "man behind the curtain"--or at least, haven't lost sight of common sense (the sense of reason/values common to our species of non-pathological 3D humans).

 

[Woodsman]

Woodsman, thanks for some interesting ideas. I've been thinking along the same lines lately, but in terms of the divide between the mechanical, reasoning-impaired, left-wing extremists/Trump protestors and the rest of society who see the dark underbelly of America / "man behind the curtain"--or at least, haven't lost sight of common sense (the sense of reason/values common to our species of non-pathological 3D humans).

The understanding has been around for ages now, how our food, drug and telecom industries put real downward pressure on cognitive development, and in reading this article, it struck home for me once more in very visceral terms.

The reality around us doesn't just provide an abstract mental concept to explore and base choices upon, "Truth or Lies", but it also manifests as a set of hard, physical facts extant all around us. Brains are actually developing or decaying in clinically measurable ways based on these choices. We're seeing it happen in real time. (In so far as there is 'time' that is :) ).

 

[Mark7]

Seems that many of these debates on social media are fueled by peoples' desire to win the argument - and not have to rethink their position on a particular topic. There could potentially be a high price to pay for winning, and much to gain by losing, even more so when that requires the sacrifice of a sacred cow or two. Being supple will help to survive the transition - still much to learn. Thanks.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Along the lines of "as above, so below", the concept of dividing into 2 different divisions, worlds, densities etc. always reminds me of the process of cell division. Of course, it's not a perfect metaphor because the 2 new cells end up as exact duplicates, instead of one evolving ahead of the other.

I think we're in "early" or "late anaphase". What do you think?

 

[HiThere]

The understanding has been around for ages now, how our food, drug and telecom industries put real downward pressure on cognitive development, and in reading this article, it struck home for me once more in very visceral terms.

The reality around us doesn't just provide an abstract mental concept to explore and base choices upon, "Truth or Lies", but it also manifests as a set of hard, physical facts extant all around us. Brains are actually developing or decaying in clinically measurable ways based on these choices. We're seeing it happen in real time. (In so far as there is 'time' that is :) ).

I have been getting the same impression these last years, espescially concerning vaccines and the American election.

 

[Woodsman]

Along the lines of "as above, so below", the concept of dividing into 2 different divisions, worlds, densities etc. always reminds me of the process of cell division. Of course, it's not a perfect metaphor because the 2 new cells end up as exact duplicates, instead of one evolving ahead of the other.

I think we're in "early" or "late anaphase". What do you think?

Well.., I can see the similarities. -When medieval tribal cultures split to form new communities, from what I recall from some of the reading I've done on the suggested lists here, it happened when populations grew past points where everybody could know each other, and sounded like a natural process. -Splitting off much like the cells in those diagrams, with new but similar-minded leaders (copies) and an appropriate collection of people/resources needed to make a new community successful.

With a division of a species, which is what I think a Density split would suggest, it would appear to carry a different nature. The split is happening not due to a critical population mass (or lack thereof), but rather an incompatible difference in how life and the creative principle wants to express itself.

Perhaps it might be looked at more in the way stem cell cultures work, with a primary origin cell design which differentiates upon splitting into something new..? A finger nail cell being different from an eyeball cell, but both having followed a thread which leads back to a primary template.

I can't say I know enough about how evolution worked, but just from looking at the popular official model, there would presumably have been a time when some of the early apes decided that they didn't want to continue living like all the other apes. These "break away" apes wouldn't have necessarily known what their decisions would lead to, but they might have felt a kind of pressure within and without which made it increasingly difficult to continue living among the regular apes. -Apes which were perfectly happy to remain as they were, to just keep on eating bugs and living in trees, (or whatever passed for ape culture at the time), taking no interest in tool culture or abstract problem solving. There might have even been some growling and violence involved as the differential pressure between old and new outlooks grew.

I bet if apes had social media at the time, :P it would have been just as full of friction and frustrations as they hashed out the divide between trying to know and understand and act upon more information, -and shutting off their perceptions to stick with comfortable "known" quantities.

Cell division might be seen as a lateral move, whereas evolution might better be seen as up/down.