Hakann: Integrated Politics; Address the Other Side’s Concerns

My dearest brothers and sisters,

This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.

Many of you have asked that we galactics take over Earth’s mainstream media and that we broadcast our perspective.

There are several issues with that. One of the issues is that everyone imagines that we’ll take over Earth’s mainstream media and that we’ll publicly broadcast their perspective, and then everyone else will say “you were right all along.”

First of all, many people will not change their opinions, even if presented with evidence. Have you noticed yourself that presenting evidence to people seems to do little? Most people on Earth right now have opinions and a worldview that is very much tied into their emotions and their self-image. Furthermore, many people on Earth are in a psychological survival mode, which means that they will more or less automatically reject anything that causes them to feel stress or fear, and certainly that includes information that contradicts their worldview.

But also, both left-wing spiritual people and right-wing spiritual people are expecting that if we take over the mainstream media, we’ll proclaim that their worldview is correct. Some left-wing spiritual people are expecting us to say that Trump and Putin are monsters and that we need open borders and a big government that does much to make sure the poor are taken care of. Meanwhile some right-wing spiritual people are expecting us to say that Trump and Putin are amazing men and that we need to stop illegal immigration and that we need a small government that doesn’t tax or infringe on people’s freedoms very much.

Purely from a logical perspective, we can’t say that Trump is both an amazing and an evil man, Putin is both an amazing and an evil man, borders should be more open and also more closed, and governments should be larger and also smaller.

If you are wondering what our political views are: generally they are what we are going to call integrated politics in this message. Integrated politics are an integrated mix of what you on Earth would think of as left-wing and right-wing perspectives. Integrated politics involves taking the concerns of everyone on board, including the concerns of the other side.

We think Putin and Trump are neither white hats nor black hats, but gray hats, as we explain in the message: “Hakann: Your leaders treat citizens as citizens treat animals.” This message has either been posted recently or it will be posted in a few days.

We are fine with letting people immigrate into our society so long as this doesn’t damage the structural integrity of our society, and so long as specific destructive and dangerous immigrants are kept out. Our economic system is both communist and libertarian. It’s communist in the sense that people can just ask for things within reason and they will receive it, and also people aren’t allowed to own means of production. Our society is libertarian in the sense that our economic system is non-coercive: there are no taxes and practically no laws. Our society works because people enjoy living in our society so much that they are happy to volunteer their time towards the maintenance and betterment of this society. Also, we choose to spend much of our time in subgroups where everyone knows each other, which creates a sense of community and support and also most people aren’t inclined to be unreasonable in small groups where everyone knows each other. Admittedly it also helps that we have enough technology that a lot of chores are automated, but then again there is a lot of technology on Earth that is being suppressed by the dark controllers that would make your lives much easier if it was released.

Of course you’re free to have a different perspective from us, but from our perspective: if you are 100% on the political left or the political right, and believe all the commonly held talking points of “your” political side, and if you think that the opposite side is completely wrong, then you might want to study the arguments of the other side a bit more closely. From our perspective, neither the political left nor the political right is correct on all counts.

Furthermore, both political sides have concerns that aren’t going to go away no matter how hard the other political side pushes. Eventually the concerns of the other side will have to be taken on board, because the more that your political side ignores complaints of the other side, the more that neutral people are driven to the other political side.

As another example, not everyone on the left, but the mainstream political left has a tendency to say that everyone who opposes immigration is a racist, and there are zero real problems with immigration. This is a roadmap for an eternal left vs right conflict, because some people do have valid and understandable concerns about letting in anyone, without any kind of check about whether for example dangerous criminals are coming in. The fact is that in some countries, colored immigrants do commit more crimes and more rapes than average, and people are not evil for wanting to protect their loved ones by keeping out dangerous people. This isn’t a concern that can be solved by calling people racists or by insisting that there are no problems with immigration. Doing so, i.e. ignoring the concerns of the right, just leads to people siding with the right. And that’s one, though certainly not the only, reason why Trump was elected in 2016 against the left’s expectations.

Conversely, left-wing people also have a very understandable position on immigration that should also be taken on board, and neither Tunia nor I are saying that the ideal solution is to completely close all borders and let zero people in.

Similarly, the left has very understandable concerns that aren’t going to go away about unrestricted capitalism producing undesirable outcomes and not necessarily producing the optimal quality of life for the average citizen. At this specific moment in time, with the current level of technology and current level of human consciousness, just simply deregulating everything and shrinking the government to a speck isn’t optimal, and that right-wing idea doesn’t sufficiently take left-wing concerns on board. If the right goes completely “deregulate-everything, zero-social-safety-nets” and doesn’t address the concerns of the left at all, then eventually non-rich people will see their living standards erode and most people will side with the left.

The way to unite people is to let everyone’s concerns be discussed, without censorship or shaming, and ultimately taking these concerns on board.

Often people think in moralistic terms: my political side is good, the other political side is evil. This is not very productive, because the natural inclination is to say that goodness is good, evil is evil, and hence your side is completely right and the other side should be fought. But so long as the other side has unfulfilled concerns, the other side will never be completely defeated, and in fact the harder you fight against people who have concerns, the more unreasonable you look and the more that neutral people will flock to the other side.

So instead of thinking about it in moralistic terms of “my political side is good, the other political side is evil”, it’s more productive to think in terms of concerns. My political side has concerns, and the other side has concerns. Can we find a way in which both of our concerns are at least somewhat satisfied?

If you want to completely and permanently defeat the other political side, then take all their reasonable concerns on board and satisfy them. That way, the other political side will have almost no more way to attract new people to their movement. Sure, there may still be for example a few actual racists who genuinely want to deport all colored people, but this isn’t a reasonable position and so there won’t be a significant number of people who support that movement.

And don’t be so quick to say “but Hakann, there ARE huge political movements that seek to deport all colored people.” Is that actually the position of the leaders of those movements, or are you creating a strawman out of their position? For example, Trump hasn’t made a move to deport all colored people.

Needless to say, it’s also more productive to actually listen to people than it is to create strawmans out of them that are so horrible that these people look like monsters who must be fought. It’s more productive to view the other side as people with concerns than it is to view them as monsters who secretly plot to do terrible things. Well sure, if you want eternal division and conflict, do see the other side as evil monsters. If you want unity and progress, then it is better to see the other side as people who have concerns. And make no mistake, progress isn’t squashing the right wing. Progress is taking the reasonable concerns of the right wing on board and trying to find a way to satisfy them, without trampling over the concerns of the left. And yes, the right wing does have valid concerns.

This is integrated politics, where you take the concerns of the other side on board and satisfy them to the extent that it’s reasonable. If the other side points rallies around a certain concern, then see if you can address that concern, instead of trying to mock or censor the other side. Integrated politics is very effective in terms of electoral results. If the left satisfies the reasonable concerns of the right, then the right is only left with unreasonable concerns, and hence not too many people will vote right-wing. You actually defang and depower the other political side by addressing their reasonable concerns.

Plus that is how you actually re-unite humanity.

Thank you for listening. I love you very much.

Your star brother,

**Channel: A.S.


**These channelings are exclusively submitted to Eraoflight.com by the channeler. If you wish to share them elsewhere, please include a link back to the original post.

12 Replies to “Hakann: Integrated Politics; Address the Other Side’s Concerns”

  1. the dave

    Sounds good but is impractical at the moment. Those compromises btw sides dont seem likely at all to happen.

    This was a depressing message. It really says nothing. Of course someday ppl may compromise, but for now its far far away and this message is a reminder that we may never get there.

    With all the knowledge and technology that team ET has, they just let us continue to cook in the fire while they preach about how it should be – like a pie in the sky idea.

    OF COURSE everyone should compromise and get along – but theres no sign of that happening anytime soon, so its like reading a fairy tale, while reality is Nothing like the happy ending of the fairy tale.

    I think team ET may be out of ideas. I know we are becoming out if hope, and pie in the sky messages like this add to the hopelessness.

  2. WK

    “Follow the middle path” — I think it is attributed to Budha the saying, and indeed this may be a short statement that encapsulates much of the reconsiliation that our Beloved Hakann is attempting to produce.

    A whole can never be without one of its parts, regardless of how small or unwanted. We ourselves are shattered mirrors inside in our mind and in our heart. “I Love her, but not him” is a simple proof of that shattering. Conditional Love is to be and live shattered. Reconciliation starts by admiting the common ground that both antagonist sides share. Both left and right wings are human beings. Both sides are tired, frustrated, worried and scared. We all agree on that. It is healthy to say “I am right-wing, and I am scared. He is left-wing, and he is also scared.” Maybe we are not so different afterall. We are both humans trying not to be scared anymore. I will remember that, I will “see” that next time I look at him/her. All problems are multi-faceted cristals. Cristals have many many more than one side, not just “yes” and “no”. Let us evolve passed that. And we are all part of the same cristal. Just because I happen to be on one side, and the other person on the other, does not make it two different cristals. Here, humanity is the cristal. Recognizing all aspects of the cristal is recogninzing that humanity is One as a whole. And that is always the perfect basis for healing of any species. We are One, and they are the other side of the same cristal (of which I am part of).

    Many blessings to us all, and much Love to Hakkan and A.S. for caring for our reconciliation and unification as One Human Species.

    In Love with Healing of Light !
    your Earthling Brother,

  3. kieran laffan

    and what of God hakann. do you have any desire ,to return yourselves to GOD,.where nothing is needed, as all is given.

  4. brazilbilly

    Hakann, you guys make so much sense, and express views so consistent with my own, that I sometimes wonder if I might know or have known some of you, i.e. that I might have lived there, or somewhere similar, once upon a time. Thanks again for sharing your wisdom.

  5. Sarah Wallick

    I’m concerned about your statement that in your ideal system, the people will not be allowed to control any means of production. To my understanding, this is contrary to decentralized society and freedom from global control. It’s a big red flag In terms of who might be your influencers.

    1. Lori

      The article seems reasonable. It somewhat describes a “Republic” which the U.S. was founded as; it was turned into a “Democracy” wherein the minority can be tyrannized by the majority rule (a majority that does not think for itself and can be influenced by powerful voices).

      But your statement “It’s communist in that people can just ask for things within reason and they will receive it, and also people aren’t allowed to own means for production” does provoke questions. Who is asked for things? Who decides if it’s reasonable? Who oversees the cache from which things are bestowed? Who does own production if not the people? It whispers of, “You will own nothing and be happy.”

      I do believe that an equal and bounteous civilization is possible, but only after the common third dimensional mindset has been transcended. And such a society would allow for different groups to form holding varying ideals, as long as no one attempts to impose their standards on any other individual or group, each sovereign being choosing their level of learning and interaction. Everyone adhering to the very same modes of thought might become stagnant after the euphoria wears off.

      1. WK

        I also agree with the article, and with your foreword. To the provoked questions, I would like to share my view: in a society where all beings have an expanded consciouness, there is no need to own anything — simply due to the fact that owening emerges from a sense of insecurity (of an individual or a group) within an unbalanced society. Owning emerges from a need to control, which ultimately leads to conflict (as if I own something, someone else does not, leading to division, and thus unavoidably to the path of conflict and war). When all beings in a society are consciously expanded, then all agree on the foundation of being loving in all actions and decisions, and thereforfe there is no need of a leader. Mutual respect dictates that all individuals project their will to the collective, and the end mix of the sum of influences defines the decision as a whole. It’s like voting, but done spiritually (where the more spiritually awaken the being is, the more loving she/he is, and thus the more influencial she/he will be on the decision of the whole). In the golden age of humanity, the word “own” will disappear, as all questions involving this attachment will become non-applicable. Expanded consciousness naturaly removes ownership.

        Living in Love is not living in euphoria. Euphoria is a finite duration of a expansion of consciousness followed by a contraction (back into the previous unconscious state), leaving a sense of gain and subsequent loss. Living in Love is alwyas continuous expansion (without contraction), which never leads to stagnation. I hope this view is also helpfull.

        Many greetings with Love,

        1. Lori

          Thank you, your perspective is understood. The question, though, is not so much about ownership, which I agree becomes irrelevant as one advances and can manifest what is needed. The issue is that the scenario given suggests a hierarchy where someone supplicates and someone else decides. Aspiring to a lightened existence as a sovereign being, I have to say, “Hmmm,” and instead reach for a state where everyone is self-responsible with no one feeling the need to nanny anyone else.

      2. John

        I think they call it ‘post-scarcity’ civilization meaning the technology makes it possible for every single person to own anything they could possibly need or want individually, which in earth-logic is a concept that would lead to chaos (and is probably held behind the counter by certain gray-hats, who are inadvertedly buying into the devil’s deeds) because we are conditioned to only perceive as wealth what we can obtain at the expense of each other. But paired with a proper sense of collectivity and unconditional love, it actually leads to people not wanting to own production means for themselves, but only for what service they can accomplish with it. Abundance does not necessarily conflict with elegance.

        As a matter of fact, even our abundant scarcity has only prevailed for as long as it was of service to us.