Channel: A.S.
My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.
From a high perspective, your current life is just one day in a very long journey back to Source.
Alternatively, you could see your current body as the vehicle you happen to be piloting right now, with your soul being the driver.
No matter what happens to your body, no matter what happens to you in your current life, your soul will be just fine.
Even if you sell your soul or commit heinous crimes, then yes after your death you might end up in an unpleasant place. But even that is a place you can work your way out of — it is not a hell that you’re sent to permanently. Even there, you can always turn to Source or to an ascended master like Jesus or Yeshua.
In very rare and extreme circumstances, beings can get unmade, if they violate the free will of very many people in a very serious way. But even then, an alternative way of thinking about that is that the being just instantly gets merged back into Source. Because after all, the energy corresponding to that being’s soul doesn’t just stop existing, it merely gets transformed — and Source is everything, so the resulting transformed energy is still part of Source. So it is valid to think of beings who get unmade as beings who just instantly get merged back into Source.
So from a high perspective, you can view your body as just the vehicle that you happen to be currently driving. And pretty much no matter what happens to your body, no matter what happens to you in this life, your soul will be just fine.
That said, very many people are afraid right now. We can clearly feel it all the way up here in our spaceships — not that we didn’t feel the energy of Earth last year, but the fear is palpable now. The gray hats are afraid, the dark controllers are afraid and the people of Earth are afraid. And this fear is understandable.
People are afraid about immigration, about a US civil war, about crime and gun violence, about being able to afford rent and groceries, about censorship, about being lied to, about health and healthcare, about the next US election and more.
People are also afraid of conflicts and about people dying in, among other places, Gaza and Ukraine. And now people are scared about a possible third world war. At the time of this channeling, three US soldiers just got killed. My thoughts are with them, and their families, and everyone else who has suffered or is suffering.
So, if you are afraid, then my thoughts are with you. And there’s nothing wrong with you, what you are feeling is understandable. Many people on Earth are afraid right now, you’re not the only one.
A lot of people are trying to get a handle on things by having a debate about policies. What should be done? Is Texas right in regards to the Southern Border? Should we send money to Ukraine or not? Is student debt forgiveness a good thing or not?
I would like to make a distinction here between what you might call a substantive debate, where both debaters are emotionally stable and are genuinely debating the substance, versus an I-want-to-feel-safer debate, which might appear substantive on a surface level but where at least one of the sides is actually trying to feel safer by insisting that the other party agrees with them.
Obviously, substantive debate is great. I’m all in favour of that. However nowadays, most debate is I-want-to-feel-safer debate. Usually nowadays when two people have a debate, it might appear to be about the issues, but the deeper layer there is two people saying to each other: “you must change your opinion so that I can feel safe.” “No, YOU must change YOUR opinion so that I can feel safe.”
Obviously, that kind of debate isn’t going to end in a satisfying way for either side. Which is why debates so often feel frustrating and pointless nowadays.
Really, that’s what a lot of debate comes down to nowadays: two scared people insisting that the other person changes their view so that they can feel safer.
Or perhaps one side tries to have a rational, substantive debate and the other side is trying to feel safer. However, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you and the people on your side are always rational and being substantive, and the other side is being irrational. Pretty much everyone, including people who are being irrational and who are trying to feel safer, has some reason for thinking that they are the rational side and the other side is “ignoring experts and ignoring the science”, or the other side is “ignoring obvious reality in favor of virtue-signalling”, or some other reason. Pretty much everyone, including irrational people, think they are the rational ones and the other side is irrational. So don’t be too quick to label yourself as someone who always tries to have a substantive debate and who never tries to feel safer through demanding that the other side agrees with you. Probably you have had some moments where you were indeed debating substantively, but also some moments where you were trying to feel safer through asking that the other person agrees with you.
Also, I’m presenting it as a binary now — either people want to have a substantive debate, or they want to feel emotionally safer — however people often have both motivations, to differing degrees. Most people have inner fragmentation, and one part of them may want a genuinely substantive debate, while another part might just want to emotionally feel safer by demanding that the other person agrees with them.
Note that a person’s feeling of unsafety doesn’t necessarily need to come from there being a physical threat towards them personally. It can also come from someone feeling unsafe on behalf of someone else whom they consider to be part of their ingroup. For example, someone who empathizes with Palestinians or Ukranians or Jews or Texans or immigrants might currently feel unsafe because people in these groups are suffering or under threat (not necessarily to the same degree, but still). An empathetic person might feel unsafe because other people, whom they more or less consider to be part of themselves, are unsafe.
This is logical when you consider that humans are a communal species. It makes sense to feel unsafe if people in your tribe, in your in-group are in danger. Obviously you don’t literally live in tribes anymore, but most people still label some people as being part of their in-group, as being part of their metaphorical tribe, and other people as their out-group, as not being part of their metaphorical tribe. And so people can literally feel unsafe because they consider Palestinians or Ukranians or Jews or immigrants or Texans or whoever to be part of their in-group, and their in-group is currently suffering or under threat.
So a Jew currently might feel unsafe because of the awful Hamas attack on October 7th, where Jewish civilians were killed. It’s logical to feel unsafe if people in your in-group were killed recently.
A Jew might currently also feel unsafe because certain people are turning against the Jewish people. I don’t support condemning Jews or discriminating against Jews, or against any other people for that matter.
What I do think is acceptable is criticizing the policies of the state of Israel. Now, this too will make certain people feel unsafe, even if the criticism is directed at Israel and not at Jews in general. This is because certain people (including some non-Jews) have the state of Israel itself as part of their in-group. I don’t necessarily recommend having a nation or a philosophy as part of your in-group, but people do this all the time. There are also Americans who have the USA as part of their in-group, for example.
Another factor is that people can feel unsafe if someone says something that threatens their self-identity, or threatens the self-identity of their in-group. For example, a Jew might currently feel unsafe because people are saying that Israel is committing genocide, and that may be threatening to their self-identity or to the self-identity of their in-group.
And so you can see the problem with many modern debates. One person says: “you must change your opinion and agree with me that Israel is committing genocide, so that I can feel safer, because I see Palestinians as being part of me and they’re under threat.” The other side says: “no, YOU must change YOUR opinion and agree with me that Israel isn’t committing genocide, so that I can feel safer, because I see Jews as being part of me and they’re under threat.”
Obviously this discussion isn’t going to go anywhere, because both sides feel unsafe and both sides try to solve that feeling of unsafeness by insisting that the other side changes their opinion. If both sides take this position, then obviously both sides will feel unheard and annoyed and even more unsafe after a debate.
Humans are a communal species, after all, and it feels safer if the other people around you think like you do. Hence, the hidden motivation of many discussions nowadays is people constantly telling each other: you must change your opinion, so that I can feel safer.
Now yes, it is my opinion that certain countries should stop supporting the, in my opinion, Israeli genocide of Palestinians. I am not saying that the nation of Israel should get to commit, in my opinion, genocide just because the people of Israel feel unsafe. That said, It is also my opinion that the Hamas attack was terrible and I don’t condone it. With these disclaimers out of the way, I am just pointing out the underlying dynamic that effectively both sides want the other to agree with them so that they can feel safer.
Or let’s look at another example. One person feels that illegal immigrants are a threat to him or to his in-group, which might be his friends and family or the people in his state. This person wants to make illegal immigration harder, and feels left-wingers are opposing that effort and thereby making him less safe. The other person in the debate sees refugees as being part of herself, to an extent, and therefore sees a person who tries to block illegal immigration as making her in-group less safe. Because after all, these refugees are suffering and we must let them in. No human being is illegal.
In this case, both sides may end up effectively telling the other side: “you must change your opinion so that I can feel safer.” And of course, this doesn’t work.
This debate might end up in name-calling, or people might negatively stereotype the other side and create a strawman. For example, the pro-immigration side may call the anti-immigration side selfish or heartless or xenophobic or call them a bunch of racists or far-right extremists, overlooking the legitimate concerns about illegal immigration that people may have. The anti-immigration side might overlook the genuine empathy for refugees that the pro-immigration people may have and just accuse them of not living in reality and of hypocritically wanting other people to take care of refugees so long as the refugees don’t have to be housed near them. The anti-immigration side might also pick up that left-wingers often have immigrants but not right-wingers as being part of their in-group, so the right might accuse the left of not actually being empathetic. Though to be fair, very few people genuinely have all humans as being part of their in-group. Most people are only empathetic, to varying degrees, towards people in their in-group.
The anti-immigration and pro-immigration debaters might employ thought-terminating cliches, such as “you’re a racist” or “you’re just virtue-signalling, that’s all it is.”
Both sides may also construct a self-serving picture. The left self-servingly pictures immigrants as women and children who are fleeing from terrible conditions and who want to integrate and contribute to society. The right self-servingly pictures immigrants as so-called military-aged men who come from stable but relatively poor countries, who just want to make more money by coming to a richer country, and who very well may end up intentionally abusing social services or committing crimes.
The reality is that immigrants can be both.
So as you can see, a large part of this debate isn’t really a rational, substantive discussion about the facts. Instead, a lot of it is about people feeling that their in-group is under threat, and so both people emotionally try to feel safer by trying to convince the other side to change positions. You can see this because both sides often create a self-serving picture and strawman the other side and pretend that everyone on the other side of the issue is bad or hypocritical in some way. People who are genuinely substantively debating don’t do that.
Of course, I’m not saying that no one is making substantive arguments either for or against immigration. I’m just saying that most arguments are seemingly substantive but if you look under the surface, it’s mostly people saying: “you must change your position so that I can feel safer.”
Insisting that the other person must change their opinion so that you can feel safe, or applying labels to them, ultimately just makes the other side feel less safe and less heard. No matter who is right, you don’t solve a crisis of people feeling unsafe by doing something that makes them feel more unsafe. So they are likely to further dig in their heels and possibly become more extreme.
If the other side is clearly emotionally invested in being right, which is usually the case on Earth, then it’s usually not productive to have an emotionally charged debate. Instead, it’s more productive to actually listen to the other person. How are they feeling, what are they worried about? If there are even tiny areas and tiny things where you genuinely agree with them or that you genuinely appreciate about them, tell them. Do all this, and the other person will feel safer and more heard, and in time they will become more reasonable and rational. In time, they may also develop more empathy for your position, and possibly start including your group into their in-group. And once the other side is emotionally stable on a deep level, then you can finally have an actual, rational, substantive debate.
Of course, if you don’t have the space to listen to someone, that’s understandable. But I do want to communicate the idea that arguing with someone typically makes them feel more unsafe and therefore dig in their heels, while listening to and empathizing with and expressing appreciation for people typically makes them feel safer, and therefore over time it makes them more rational and reasonable and empathetic with you.
Note that if two people argue, often they have a different in-group. For example, an anti-immigration Texan might have Texans and New Yorkers in their ingroup (“New Yorkers are still Americans, I don’t think they should be censored”), but not illegal immigrants. A pro-immigration New Yorker might have illegal immigrants in their ingroup, but not Texans (“they’re far-right Trump voters, they’re the problem, screw them”). In this case, just arguing with each other often isn’t very productive, as we saw before. By listening, both listener and speaker can widen who they think of as their ingroup.
Empathy means that both sides should consider how they would feel if you were in the other person’s shoes. For example, an Israeli person should consider how they would feel if they were a Palestinian. But also, if an American wants to accuse Israel of genocide, they should at least take a moment to reflect how they would feel if someone accused America of committing genocide. I’m not saying: don’t say those words. I’m just saying: take a moment to imagine what it would be like if you were in another person’s shoes.
So: rather than telling people they must agree with you, rather than labeling people, it’s more productive to just have an open conversation and listen to people. You may have to be the one to listen first, but when they feel heard, maybe in time they will have the room to listen to you too. And sure, listening to an unreasonable person doesn’t instantly make them reasonable, those things take a bit of time. However, telling an unreasonable person that they’re wrong also doesn’t instantly make them reasonable. In fact, telling an unreasonable person they’re wrong probably makes them feel more unsafe, and therefore makes them even more unreasonable. Even if you’re 100% right, telling a person who feels unsafe that he’s wrong often only makes him dig in his heels.
Empathy also means that you should consider the viewpoint of other people, including people you don’t necessarily like, or people who you think are on the wrong side of a certain issue. If you can’t formulate an non-strawmanned argument in favor of their viewpoint, if you don’t understand the legitimate parts of their position and think they’re all just a bunch of racists or hypocritical virtue-signallers, then you might need to listen to them more.
Be careful if you feel the urge to label an entire group as being bad and therefore that their concerns shouldn’t be listened to. Sure, perhaps the group by and large is behaving poorly, but probably not everyone in that group is, and probably even a largely-unreasonable group has some valid concerns in there somewhere.
Now, what I’ve mostly been discussing is people getting emotionally triggered. And that’s one possibility. But what can also happen is that someone calmly and seemingly rationally points to a self-serving picture, and pretends that is proof.
I’ll give an example of a stereotypical libertarian and a stereotypical communist, although note that there are libertarians and there are communists who have more nuanced views than this.
Still, suppose that someone says that libertarianism would just lead to massive inequality, environmental destruction and companies becoming monopolies and creating a dystopia, then a libertarian might point to their self-serving picture of a perfect libertarian society and say that in true libertarian society, everything is great. And the supposed proof is that the libertarian has constructed this self-serving picture, and so he just points to that picture and pretends it’s proof. And of course, this isn’t actually an argument, and in fact this makes the non-libertarian people feel a bit less safe. After all, this libertarian appears to be living in an entirely different world than them, and for a communal species like a human that feels scary.
A communist might do basically the same, pointing to his self-serving picture of communist utopia, and act like that is somehow proof that communism works.
Sure, some libertarians and some communists have better arguments than this. But still, sometimes this is what happens. And this kind of “just look at my self-serving picture, observe how in this picture everything is great, now agree with me” kind of argument is closer to “I need you to agree with me so that I can feel safer” than it is to a truly rational, substantive debate.
Now, actually, the Pleiadian society I live in could be seen as both libertarian and communist. No individual owns the means of production, which is communist, yet on the other hand we have no taxes, practically zero laws and zero coercion from the government. From my point of view, both communism and libertarianism can work, just perhaps not in a pure version at the current level of human consciousness. Ultimately, the way out of Earth’s political deadlock will be for the people of Earth to increase their level of consciousness. And at that point, libertarianism and communism, or even both at the same time, may become feasible.
And how do you help increase the consciousness of the people of Earth? Well, actually listening to other people, including those whom you disagree with, is a great contribution to that indeed.
So, to summarize today’s message: many people are feeling afraid, and are saying to each other: “you must agree with me, so that I can feel safer.” Of course, it doesn’t work if both sides do this.
Most people feel unsafe. And if you tell a person who feels unsafe that he’s wrong, he’ll probably feel even more unsafe, and he may further dig in his heels and become even more unreasonable as a result. Doesn’t matter if you’re 100% correct, the other side may very well still feel more unsafe and become more unreasonable as a result.
What works better is asking the other side how they are feeling and what they think is important, and genuinely listening to them, with the intention of understanding them and not with the intention of finding something that you can weaponize against them.
While listening, feel free to ask clarifying questions so that you can understand them better. If you can express genuine empathy or genuine understanding or genuine appreciation for them, even if it’s just about something tiny, then it can be very helpful to do so.
If all you care about is a particular social or political issue, even then it’s more productive to ask the other side how they are feeling and what they think is important, and to listen to them. That makes them feel safer, and as a result they will in time become more rational and reasonable as a result. Whereas if you tell them they’re wrong, they will likely feel less safe and they may become more unreasonable as a result. So even if all you care about is a particular issue, even then listening is more productive than telling the other side that they’re wrong.
You might be tempted to subconsciously think: “but people in my in-group are suffering, therefore I need to tell those people over there that they’re wrong, to help people in my in-group.” I understand the temptation, but you probably help your in-group the most by actually listening to the people on the other side of the argument, so that those people feel heard and understood, which will make them behave in a more reasonable way in the future.
Telling people that they’re wrong almost always doesn’t work, because almost everyone is currently feeling emotionally unsafe, and from that place people can’t rationally evaluate new arguments. Listen to people first, so that they feel safer, and then in time maybe you can actually have a substantive debate.
If you have the emotional space for it, it’s best to only start giving your opinion once the other side feels fully heard and seen and understood, which may take quite a long time. Of course, you’re not obligated to do so, but that is the ideal. This also works well in relationships, by the way.
So many people are willing to help improve the world, but they have no idea how. Often, these people end up trying to promote a political or social issue that they like, which in turn makes people on the other political side feel more unsafe. If some of these people would switch to listening first, that would help a lot.
I hope this was helpful.
You are very in my thoughts in these dark and scary times. We are actively working to help you behind the scenes. Please take good care of yourself. The medium-term future looks very bright, but the coming weeks and months may very well be intense.
Your star brother,
Hakann
—–
Note from the channeler: this message contains the opinion that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. I also live in the Netherlands, where certain kinds of speech against Israel will get you into legal trouble. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if this particular statement can actually get me into legal trouble, but I don’t want to find out.
Therefore, I will include the following disclaimer for my legal protection:
—–
Disclaimer: I am not denying the Holocaust. I am not denying the right of Israel, or the right of the Jewish people to exist. I am opposed to the murder of Israelis, by Hamas and other groups. I don’t think Jews should be killed or removed from the lands of Israel.
I actively discourage violence of all types. I also actively discourage discrimination of all types, including (but not limited to) discrimination against Jews.
Information in this message is for informational and educational and entertainment purposes. This message contains humor, parody, and satire.
There is a comment section. Comments do not necessarily reflect my views and opinions.
End disclaimer. Have a good week.
—–
For Era of Light
**Source
**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.
AS, how do record these channeled messages. Does one of your Pleiadeans or the big Lizard just take control of your body and start typing these essays? Or do they speak through you and you use voice to text technology to get this into written form? Or do you have some dictation specialist record as you speak? Internet hyperlinks and all?
I went to a channeling of this fraud who alleged this being of non-coporeal form spoke through him named Jonah. The “psychic” would nod his head forward and close his eyes and twirl his index finger around and when he lifted his head Jonah took control of his body and from then on Jonah was talking. He had this Schtick where he spoke in this kind of exaggerated Hungarian Uralic accent.
It was all bullshit. He goes around the world delivering messages from Jonah. The funny thing is even though Jonah is a purely spiritual being with a 50,000 ft view, the only language he knows for Earth is English. When he goes to Holland he can’t speak Dutch and when he goes to Denmark he can’t speak Danish.
Sp please tell me what are the mechanics of getting these messages in digital form from your psychic mind meld with Hakann, Tunia and the big Lizard guy
Hi A.S and Hakaan Thank you for your time in bringing this message forward. All you mentioned here makes perfect sense to me, it is something I struggle to do and put into practice, is to not react and listen… my emotions take over first 😂 very useful message. Hakaan you are like a wonderful wise big brother 💖 I appreciate you so much and A.S too because without you we wouldn’t be connecting with Hakaan and these beautiful souls. God bless and I hope you have a wonderful week 🙏
Thanks for offering your thoughts on this issue, Hakann. I agree that most people nowadays are afraid, and they have every right to be. The news is extremely negative and polarizing, and it is very hard right now to survive on Earth. The future looks very bleak. Even with all your assurances of a bright medium-term future, I must say I am very skeptical. I will still however do my best to work towards a positive future for the Earth. One thing that I have found works well in situations where a person is demanding that others accept his or her own opinion or perspective in order that he or she can feel safer is to feel into what that person is really afraid of and plant a seed of positive thinking. Instead of listening to someone go on and on about a particular topic or go about trying to have a debate with them, it seems to work better to feel into what they fear the most and plant a seed that you feel can stick and grow on their mind.
Most people come away from an argument or discussion only remembering one or a few things that the other person said. I feel this is typical in a situation involving people with scared and closed minds. This is usually why debates end up being the way you have described. This is also an ego defense mechanism. If you disagree with someone, you are probably only going to remember the things they said that you have the best argument against, and ignore the rest. I have even caught myself doing this many times. For this reason, many debates just simply go in circles, and will even pick back up at a later date right where they left off, only to continue going in circles.
A better approach is to feel into what the other person is really afraid of and inject into that space either a personal anecdote, a non-threatening piece of information, a positive affirmation, or a good piece of advice….and just leave it at that. Walk away even and just say, “I’ll leave you with that.” Sometimes even a funny joke will suffice. People feel better when they think they have come to a conclusion on their own, and by not attempting to debate them or change their minds about something, you have not assaulted their space. Instead you have planted a seed that can possibly grow over time and yield beautiful revelations. Just choose your seed wisely, and walk away knowing you have just made the world a better place with as little effort as possible.
Namaste
Since it is both the grey and black hats plan to create fear and chaos…..no surprise.
The black hats plan is to control us through fear and prevent our ascension.
The grey hats plan is to hope the fear and chaos will “wake people up”. So the grey hats are just perpetuating more fear propaganda, and consequently accomplishing the black hats plan on lowering everyone’s vibration through fear, that is delaying everyone’s ascension.
So everyone “in control” is delaying our ascension.
Everyone in control is creating fear and chaos.
As one of the 144,000, I didn’t come here to peacefully co-exist with Satanists in any of their forms. This requires opposition. Especially since we are fighting the final battle to end all darkness. I came here to liberate Earth and her humans from the darkness and oppression of slavery.
Just as Source love energy agitates those of lower energy profiles, it causes friction in them, which is a resistance to their current state of being. It is not static, negotiable, or conciliatory. It is love and only love. And it burns away everything that is not love.
It is all powerful, all encompassing, and all dominant.
And Source will remove this present darkness, even if Source’s moving parts fail.
No fear here, Hakann.
More apt words would be; disgust, anger, and dismay. Because on Earth, the power of love and truth is losing to the side of deception and fear mongering. That is the evident truth at the moment.
And what is worse, is that both the grey and black hats are both guilty of deception and fear mongering. And they are both failing in their objectives. So I can see why the grey hats are in fear along with the black hats.
And that is why, Hakann, that at this point, I look to Source, and Source alone for the solution here on Earth.
Source of us ALL, send your transformative love light to Earth. May your will be done on Earth as it is in the Pleroma.
I call this forth upon the Earth now, now, now. So be it. It is so. 54321 333
Melinda Siebold
1. You can’t sell your soul, it’s impossible. You should know that, “Commander.”
2. Imagine being on a spaceship yet not knowing that Israel was behind the October 7th Hamas attacks by changing the venue and not responding for hours while Israeli civilians were massacred.
3. Imagine a Pleiadian “commander” arbitrarily choosing “Jewish” people as his example of victims when it’s getting quite noticeable that this particular community is the one who has been kicked out of over 109 countries for unfair moneylending and usury practices. Imagine using THAT group of people as the victim when the people of America have been used and abused by Israel for DECADES.
4. Are you IDF, “Hakann”?
5. We see you and your lies.
6. PS, you never walked back your “Trump is dead” comment. He’s clearly still alive and you’re clearly afraid of him.
7. “Peace and love” to you too, Commander. We are noticing.
The following are my words, they’re not channeled:
I think that when people hear the words “sell your soul”, what they picture is a process that causes a person’s soul to be lost for eternity. And indeed, that doesn’t happen, as Hakann indicated in this message.
However, what can happen is that you sell your soul and you end up in a worse place after death — not irrevocably so, as Hakann mentioned, but still. Maybe “selling your soul” is a phrase that sounds a bit misleading, but that’s the phrase that’s commonly used.
Note that there are a LOT of artists, songs and celebrities claiming to have sold their souls. If there’s that much smoke, there’s probably some fire. But, yes, maybe the commonly used phrasing is a bit misleading.
I think that it may not be so much a difference of opinion but rather a difference of perspective. To one who considers themselves primarily as their soul, the concept of selling it doesn’t make any sense; as seems to be the case with Mrs. Graham and other commenters.
However the personality does have relative autonomy and can indeed relinquish their connection to their higher aspect within a variety of unfortunate contexts that include what is known as ‘selling your soul’. Classically, the perpetrator is the Devil, who bargains the victim’s soul in exchange for whatever is their innermost desire. The ruse is that unbeknownst to the victim, without a soul it can no longer feel any joy at all for anything, regardless of the reward…
In practical terms though, this usually translates to an entity (commonly an ‘alien demon’) bargaining varying degrees of control over a person’s thoughts, feelings and general life in exchange for something they ‘consider’ the manifestation of a desire. (And I say ‘consider’ because in reality all desires stem from the soul’s formless essence, until one eventually grows obsessed with a single possible format)
This is indeed exerted through a contract and non-physical implants on one or several of the victim’s subtle bodies, which can sometimes span several lifetimes beyond the one in which it was made. And since they prevent a soul’s proper guidance on it’s personality’s fate (or blocks it altogether) in favor of a foreign entity, one could say such soul has been ‘sold’. Undoing these contracts and removing implants is also possible, but it usually requires a certain level of willpower and also help from St. Germain and the Violet Flame of transmutation.
I can’t seem to be able to elude the URL-smashbot to suggest an appropriate soundtrack for the topic so I’ll just challenge anyone interested to reach that ‘Youtube’ place in the URL bar and… watch?v=RicZSy1JcFU
My understanding is that it’s all trickery. If a person can be made to believe that their soul is truly lost, they will begin to act immorally without conscience because being good doesn’t matter to them anymore. These actions of harm can impact you in the next life when you reincarnate but you are never lost forever to eternal torture.
If you ever worry about your soul being in peril, it’s even more important to act morally. You then find the trick doesn’t work and you come to understand that your soul- the essence of you- can never truly be lost. Even the worst criminals of all human history wake up after death and go, “Wow, that dream was so real.”
Well there you have it: the “conscience” you refer to as in ‘act immorally without conscience’ is regarded by some as the actual “soul”; it may be a trickery indeed but “eternity feels endless for as long as it lasts”.
(If you hide a kid’s lollipop in their own pocket, you’re still a mean person and they are still gonna miss it and cry very loud!)
But note that Hakann’s words (“Even if you sell your soul or commit heinous crimes, then yes after your death you might end up in an unpleasant place.”) is almost the same as what you’ve just stated; he only adds the possibility of one not going “Wow, that dream was so real” immediately afterwards because the physical death itself does not instantly rid one of their own self-judgement. It HAS subtle substance that must be dealt with, a ‘purgatory’ state if you will.
And it can be unpleasant, since ‘time’ is not perceived linearly by consciousness in the afterlife… seconds or decades can go by before a ‘light’ is perceived depending on their vibratory state upon the shift, hence the dubious ‘eternal’ darkness.
As for Oct 7th, yeah, fair comment. Thank you for pointing it out.
Next week’s message contain the following paragraphs:
The channeler isn’t a law expert but has noted that his country of The Netherlands seems to somewhat regularly sue people for perceived anti-semitic positions. For example, David Icke was banned from entering the channeler’s country, and Holocaust denial is illegal. Therefore a while ago, the channeler asked us galactics not to comment on the theory that Israel enabled the October 7th attacks or let them happen, or the theory that Hamas killed some Israelis but also Israel killed some Israelis, or the theory that the Hamas attack was in some ways understandable because of recent Israeli attacks on the Al-Aqsa mosque. Because the channeler asked us not to comment on these theories one way or the other, we have not done so. The channeler for his part would like to officially state, on the record, that he rejects these theories.
The channeler apologizes for this lack of transparency, and thinks that he should have been clearer about this request that he made to us. He promises that if in the future he feels that he needs to make such a request to possibly protect himself legally, that he will be transparent about this.
That said, this was the only such request that the channeler made, in the past and present, about this and other topics. We honor this request, but we also do not lie in our messages. If I, Emerelda, were to think that Israel should get removed from the map — I don’t think so — then in that case I wouldn’t lie. In that case I just wouldn’t talk about Israel. So yes, we do mean what we say in these messages. We just haven’t commented on theories about October 7th, that’s all.
Well, you did just comment on these theories regarding Zionist Israel’s participation in attacking it’s own people, and said you didn’t agree with those “theories” – which are in fact, truth. So thanks for showing your true faces as minions of Satan. I won’t be letting any of you irritate me ever again.
I’m pretty sure calling someone a ‘minion of Satan’ kinda ruins any prospect of civilized conversation, but in any case, not letting yourself be irritated again seems like a great start!
Completely unrelatedly, my viewpoint is also that I like not getting sued. And I have more or less zero faith in courts to be reasonable.
But, sure, you’re entirely free not to read my messages. That’s fine.
Best wishes to you.
Also completely unrelatedly, when I write things, I am assuming that people have some reading comprehension and ability to understand context.
I personally think that because the pro-Israel anti-Israel discussion is so fierce right now, it’s very productive to point out: “if you are in a discussion with someone who is emotionally very pro-Israel or anti-Israel, then listen first.”
Listening to someone isn’t the same as agreeing with them. You can listen to people you don’t agree with. That’s not weakness, that’s wisdom, in my opinion.
Also note that this message says:
“Now yes, it is my opinion that certain countries should stop supporting the, in my opinion, Israeli genocide of Palestinians. I am not saying that the nation of Israel should get to commit, in my opinion, genocide just because the people of Israel feel unsafe.”
I don’t really think that if Hakann were somehow IDF, he would be saying that in his opinion Israel is committing genocide.
(Or if you want to accuse me of fake-channeling: if I were IDF I wouldn’t do a fake-channeling that contains the opinion that Israel commits genocide.)
I like this Mrs. Graham.
Mrs Graham is Paladins alt confirmed lol
Incorrect, there are just many of us who notice that anytime Jewish people are named as “the real victims”, the people making those statements are generally those loyal to the Zionist globalist movement of slavery and control. I know not every Jewish person is involved in this, but when you’re the only religion to have a law saying you can abuse children and then escape to Israel with no consequences, while that nation’s intelligence community blackmails the US lawmakers with crimes against children, it stands to reason that maybe your “religion” is detrimental to humanity as a whole.
If that is so then perhaps reading Hakann’s stance on the abuse of children would balance your current perception of his alleged pro-zionism?
It’s more than a religion; they are a race. I don’t think they are human or entirely human.
I don’t have sock puppets, although others in these comments do.
Aaaaw Mr. Wiggles thinks you need a hug! 🧦
I don’t need a hug from you CD. Who is Mr. Wiggles? Is that you when you wear your dog mask or furry costume?
Well it’s hard to make up a veritable name for a sock puppet on the spot, and a hugable furry costume is way above our paygrade.
My point was just that the boot fits me.
I needed a lot of socks though. 🧦🧦🧦 🥾
The “divide and conquer” tactic of the dark ones, is still pretty effective, it seems.
“Nothing is as it seems” is decloaking itself so strongly today I can hardly believe what I’m getting “VIA A.S.”, yet it makes too much sense not to trust it.
Remember dear Klaudia, the Romulans have to decloak before they can fire their Photon Torpedoes.
Oh Paladin you clever rascal, I celebrate you for your reliability. 😁😘😍
I must say I wasn’t taking the so called polarization phenomena so seriously until I realized people are actually serious about how radical they are turning out to be in their opinions lately. I though it was all just humorous but you’re right: this is divide and conquer down to a T.
But HOW COME you’ve realized “THAT NOW”? I’m asking you “for a friend” of course… 🙃🙂
[“No joke question” because only a few hours ago I (sooo 🙏🙏🙏) NOTICED “THE ELEMENT OF DIVINE HUMOUR” showing up in “a dream” I had… as if “IT’s coming alive”… ]
Because lack of follow-up is a symptom that takes a while to be confirmed!
We can’t assume people are simply rationalizing their emotional complaints until they’re met them with an honest rational argument.
Or at least I couldn’t, which is why my job pays off either way.
send the illegals home! gimme a house and medbed!
fix earth now amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You forgot a hot Pleiadean wife. Or have you given up on that?
Paladin, I think all guys want a smoking hot, nympho, Pleiadian wife with super yummy energy. (Well, maybe not gay guys…)
Can confirm
At the risk of replying in too serious a way:
Dating a Pleiadian is quite attractive in some ways, and yes there is a small minority of Pleiadians open to dating Earth humans. This doesn’t mean that every lightworker is guaranteed to get a Pleiadian date, but some will.
However it’s not necessarily easy to date a Pleiadian, because their consciousness is significantly higher than ours. Which means that it’s hard to have an equal relationship. I also find that when interacting with Pleiadians, I tend to sometimes get irrationally triggered, for various reasons.
Some of the things I’m currently learning, both in terms of wisdom and psychic abilities, are things that Pleiadians learn when they’re small children. Now the level of consciousness varies quite a bit between Pleiadians, but still.
So trying to date a Pleiadian might look like: “I’m open to dating you, but only once we’re roughly at the same level of consciousness. Would you like me to refer you to a galactic spiritual teacher?”
And then after a certain amount of practice and development, the dating can perhaps begin — which is much easier and more fun when you’re both mind readers.
A.S. I was half joking. I’m a Sirian male incarnated on Earth and find female Pleiadian energy irresistible. (Arcturian and Andromedan can also seem quite alluring). I feel like my future wife is Pleiadian in origin and also incarnated here. I’m healing/working on myself and waiting patiently. I wasn’t referring to ET women who haven’t been exposed to the darkness and brutal tests we have here on Earth. I realize it would take a ton of work to get back to their frequency level.
I totally get it; I had a psychic girlfriend once but she left me before we met.
You get triggered because of not yet reaching a certain level of balance. Their high energy has that effect on people.
That’s one of the reasons ETs give for not doing a mass landing. Most people on Earth have not achieved that level of balance and would feel irrationally triggered by them – with catastrophic results
I have a smoking hot wife. She looks very Pleiadean, so I’m good. I’ll take a spaceship if they have one lying around.
stop pretending to be psychic and continue to make up this information, there is no point
This is the article from A.S. , so far as I know, and the article before this one, was misunderstood by a lot of people.
I am glad the channeler has the power to go on and this is great news for me : a new chance for Hakann !
En voor A.S. : ik was boos na al die reakties,
laat je niet kennen hoor, gewoon doorgaan. Van een Hakann-fan en lichtwerker Heleen uit Friesland.
Dank je, Heleen.
(Which is Dutch for: Thanks, Heleen.)
Thank you Hakann and AS. In my opinion, as I’ve experienced it, it’s not just about dealing empathically with completely brainwashed people who don’t question anything, and talking in a way that doesn’t hurt them and their false reality. The real problem I’ve faced before is because you’re authentic you would just speak freely. Not call them names or anything like that. Just speak freely as you please; but that’s where you’ve completely lost out, especially in the family.
Everything you want to say honestly out of yourself as an authentic being, but have to wrap up in diplomatic words due to the other person living in a false reality, i.e. not speaking honestly and authentically, is likely to damage yourself. Especially when it would be necessary to stop them immediately in order to avoid greater damage. In one such case, my throat chakra closed up immediately and I could no longer even speak “diplomatically”, only croak a hoarse “NO”.
For me, that is the true art of the matter and I admire the deeply informed people from the AfD who are constantly fighting for Germany and I wonder, how they still emerge from the conversations in a reasonably healthy state. I avoid conversations with the MSM believers. Especially when they think they are enlightened and intelligent and can’t even manage a trace of logical thinking.
And the Holo…X is daily still brainwashed into people in order to keep the button alive and push it, when it is needed – like in these days. Triggering an implanted lie….
Diplomacy is energetically draining because you’re _trying_ to see someone else’s point of view without abandoning your own judgement. Empathy is _effectively_ feeling someone else’s point of view, without fear of losing your own identity in the process.
The apparent contradiction to be transcended is being “authentically empathic”, and I believe accomplishing it has to do with surrendering your ego (which is basically self-judgement), even if only in a temporary basis.
this channell, at best ,someone with nothing more than an opinion, within the world of perception. the peace ,the world needs ,is the peace of GOD . not the debate of perceptions.
I Agree. Nothing like God, nothing like Solace in God. Refuge from opinions. Being in the world, yet, not of it. Piscean sounding words for another Age that’s here.
God help us in the ‘real world’ out there, should be less opinionated, I hope!!
I’m in Germany and first started this “listen to people with different opinions instead of arguing with them or starting a debate” method in 2015 when our right-wing AfD party was strong and there were a lot of refugees coming to Germany. And it really worked! Even though I didn’t agree with the other person, we both left the conversation feeling better! It’s just that now, after a lot of spiritual growth and me generally feeling good, suddenly these conversations are energetically draining to me. Maybe that’s because NOW I’m used to feeling balanced and calm, and encountering fear and hate throws me off balance. I can feel the fear, but a while ago it wasn’t exhausting. Now it is. When I energetically connect with “lower consciousness people”, their energy makes me anxious, and it takes me a while to work through it to feel balanced again. So I guess what I’m trying to say is, “This is a really good approach in general, but lately connecting with insecure or anxious people has become very draining.” I remember Tunia saying (in 2022, if I’m not mistaken) that being exposed to the energies on earth made her anxious. I think I get what she meant now…
Diplomacy is energetically draining because you’re _trying_ to see someone else’s point of view without abandoning your own judgement. Empathy is _effectively_ feeling someone else’s point of view, without fear of losing your own identity in the process.
The apparent contradiction to be transcended is being “authentically empathic”, and I believe accomplishing it has to do with surrendering your ego (which is basically self-judgement), even if only in a temporary basis.
That’s a high-quality and thought-provoking comment, TCD. Thanks.
I like your comments. If you ever want to submit an article to this website, I would love to read it. You can just mail it in, that’s how I got started too.
Thank you A.S., I appreciate it. While I can’t work up much of interest outside the scope of a complaint; I am very grateful for all you and other authors and commenters publish in Kejraj’s site, it gives me an opportunity to learn so much and hopefully be of service.
TDC: Do you have any concept that explains THE CAUSE of NOT BEING ABLE to feel/know empathy as in narcissism? If so I could use a little help.
The diversity in the ‘galactic component’ of humanity’s genetics can explain the empathy factor to an extent: for instance a heavily reptilian component tends to impart ‘lack of empathy’. Many so called ‘psychopaths’, who learned to emulate emotional behavior as means to an end are misclassified as mentally sick people or ‘ethically impaired’ individuals.
But I wish to be careful exploring this ‘labeling genetics’ trend because it’s my understanding we are in delicate times regarding our underdeveloped group consciousness and this notion might instill further division among our species.
Psychologically, every person has it’s healthy balance of empathy: it derives from how strong/frail is their sense of SELF-IDENTITY. In order to protect it, the Ego can create barriers of different natures that, under extreme circumstances, might completely shut down any form of empathy (this is why we accept some typical behavior in children and teenagers and not in adults: we know there are identity developments in progress) – but this is clearly the same emotional safety Hakann refers to and there’s no point in me repeating the article.
In the Astrological perspective, the Sun rules Leo and their relative situation in a natal chart reveal how much of a self-importance aspect the soul has decided to experience in a particular lifetime and to what purpose. A Sun in Leo is therefore self-reliant in that aspect and tends to be perceived as either narcissistic or charismatic depending on how evolved their soul is and, naturally, WHO is judging it. Any exploratory venture regarding what is “correct” behavior should remain guided by the question “where is suffering (if any) deriving from this behavior?”
Mmmhhh… I’d hoped for an answer a little less cryptic but thx either way.
Well I’m never intentionally cryptic; but I’d learn a lot from seeing whatever you find a non-cryptic answer to your question to be.
“Non-cryptic” for me is AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, in all ways possible. MY BRAIN is wired to understand/receive “ONLY HIGHER/DEEPER meanings” that are encoded everywhere.
“Kind of” imagine talking to a smart but only 6 years old kid, those words translate themselves easily.
OR simply answer FROM “YOUR HEART” only, like what YOU PERSONALLY think. “The smaller the better” which then ALSO INCLUDES what you NORMALLY wouldn’t say “here” because of this and that…
[“WITH that said” I already see clearer what was PAINFULLY making me ask you for help. Hence THANKS A LOT for inviting me to find words for “a non-cryptic answer”. 🤓😎❤]
I think empathy is love. I think narcissists are self-empathic and mistaken about who they are.
Aren’t the German people tired of being dominated, exploited, displaced and humiliated by the International Jew?
Here is America the average insouciant self-propelld stomach will tolerate anything.
When this bla-bla-bla finally stops? Why so much words? I am exhausted. I am not angry, I dont feel fear, I am not disappointed etc. These feelings are gone long time ago. Now I read, hear and observe. I am intelligent human beeing. I can see with my own eyes and I am capable think with my own head. Past lives, soul contracts, contact with higher self and ET-s, darks failed, light prevailed, first contacts, solar flash etc – in real world cant human see any of this theoretical things. This is the truth. It causes generally frustration in real world for real humans. I know it, I felt it. Promises and no results of any kind, isnt it? Only promises and long talks about theoretical things. For me is very important given promises and keeping them, this shows REAL intentions and nature behind the words, it reveals the truth about a person. I can remember 2-3 years given promises for humans (not solar flash and outside world events): you can contact with your higher self, you remember your past lives, you have abilities (telepathy etc), you can contact with ET-s, Veil is gone, you live already in 5D etc etc etc. “You” means every messages received and believing human. How many humans can contact their higher self, remember their past lives, have abilities etc? This is a moment of truth: if you dont have any of these promises fulfilled, this means in real world deceptions. This is not judgement, but matter of fact. Be honest. No more wishful thinking. What is the truth for you? Can you name 1 promises what is really happened to you?
If my words are logical and truthful, what happens next? What do you think really, my fellow human beeig with brains? ;o)
I deny the Holocaust. I refer to it as the Holohoax. I want Jews to get out of America and all go to Israel and fight for Israel without anyone else’s blood and treasure. And I also deny that Israel has a right to exist.
I predict this thread will generate around 40 comments, not as much as a Tunia sex thread, those are always chock full of opinions.
I’m not right because I want to feel safe. I’m right because I’m right.
ha!
reptilian denier! too probably! jk
It is somewhat funny to me that out of all the controversial positions that my messages have taken, one of the things that is “up there” in generating controversy is channeling a woman who likes sex and who enjoys talking about that.
Sex sells AS.
And what is the point of contacting ETs, your higher self and everything else that you claim was promised if you already have such an observing, intelligent and practical perspective of things?
Agreed.. ‘Blah-Blah’ is right!
He essentially sounds like two older women have a gossip at a bus-stop.
Surely our aim is to have NO ‘fear’?
..Instead perhaps some ‘concerned interest’ is allowable!
Thanks Hakaan 🙏
You’re welcome. Thanks for your comment, David.
Kudos on your disclaimer, it is very thorough! Under Danish law, what you write (without the disclaimer) is fully legal and cannot be construed to be libel. I do hope the same is the case in the Netherlands, otherwise the laws there need to be changed.
Thanks, Francis.
I don’t know Dutch law well enough to really know if I need this disclaimer.
Not to mention that sometimes nowadays we see that people change the law, and then retroactively punish people for violating the newly updated law. Or that activist judges bend the law.
I was also a bit alarmed at my country banning David Icke from entering.
So maybe you’re right that the disclaimer isn’t needed, but better safe than sorry.