Right, so I was just thinking about something today and it kind of fits in this thread. It's metaphysical and / or philosophical in nature and by no means is it meant to come across as true or applicable to anyone who makes a choice that best suits them and their situation in life. This is just stress testing thoughts - testing ideas and concepts.
So in hearing about the "fall of man" in the last cycle, it dawned on me what would be the thing they'd play this time round to try and ensnare humanity into another similar cycle. If we're truly near the border of the realm border crossing then it follows that they'd try something, they won't just sit around and wait to see what choices people made without being manipulated, deceived or coerced. Like, are the overlords dumb or something?
What are the choices those people made at the backend of the last cycle. What was their rationalisation. Did everyone make the same choice or was it that a certain critical mass had to be reached before ALL were locked in with no escape. Were there some who made a different choice and perhaps weren't ensnared or did the whole "group" suffer the same fate once a critical mass was reached. What were the pressures within that society that swung everyone or the majority towards a certain decision. All very interesting.
Assuming and this is a huge assumption, if the choice around these vaccines which are primarily driven by fear and misdirection is their BIG play at the tail end of this cycle then how would the consequences of one's decisions work? Assuming we're moving towards coalescing and crystallising enough polarisation "energy" so that our path after the realm border can be decided because after all, apparently this is the density of choice? So, what are the consequences of saying no... would one accumulate STO crystallisation at a somewhat faster rate due to the things that such a decision leads too - e.g. exercising knowledge, networking, saying "no" to the overlords, thinking about what your decision means both to yourself, others and your kids etc. What about making the opposite choice, what does it mean, for sure at face value it appears to provide quicker access to a life supposedly lost or on the verge of being lost, it for sure provides reprieve from psychological torment from the beaming about how you'll implode and disappear to nothing if you don't make this choice, it for sure allows you to step on the sidelines and watch those who resist get cornered, surrounded and? At least this is how it looks like, right? This is the sell for taking the yes decision. Maybe you can support the "resistors" from the sidelines? I don't know, I mean, if I provided support to prime Usain Bolt whilst chilling on my sofa eating Doritos, would I also benefit from the benefits he personally experienced from exercising and working so hard? Like will I also get a 6 pack if I sent him half my paycheck each month because you know, I couldn't exercise for some reasons or maybe considered myself not "talented" enough? What about if my reason for not exercising was legit and not just laziness, what about if let's say you had a health condition that meant you couldn't... does that mean I'd get a 6 pack if I supported him? I don't know, the universe appears cruel. It appears that one can benefit from others to a certain degree, the extent of this is limited and the real mechanical benefit is conferred from directly taking action upon yourself.
So it's all quite interesting if you ask me what all these means, if anything.
In all likelihood it probably all means nothing really and all will be a-okay in the end. The sun will rise tomorrow as it has always done, the world will be as it has always been. Your alarm clock will ring and you'll have your morning coffee like you've always done. We'll all be sat here 40 years from now talking about the same things we talk about today. Politics will still be a thing and so on.
