Channel: A.S.
Note from the channeler: recently I said to Ashtar: “I know that you can be in multiple places at once, and sometimes you move to end conversations with me that have run their course. Still, you must be very busy, and you always make time for me and are always centered and present. You never hurry me up or seem stressed or are in a rush. How do you do that?”
Ashtar responded: “Just because I am very busy, does not mean that I have to act or feel very busy.”
On to Hakann’s message:
My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.
Often, the modern American left claims that some position they like is supported by science, and therefore it is right, and anyone who disagrees is anti-science. Or they say that there is no evidence for a certain position that the left happens to dislike.
These arguments might seem convincing at first glance, but ultimately aren’t logical.
First of all, in science, things are rarely definitively settled. Disagreement and discussion isn’t anti-science, it’s actually part of the scientific process. So people who say “the science is settled, shut up, don’t question it” are actually anti-science people.
Secondly, the left sometimes chooses their data set or their process in a way that skews the results. For example, some people have concerns that illegal immigrants from quite different cultures commit more crimes. But if you’re an American researcher, you can produce a paper that says that immigrants don’t commit more crimes, if you sample plenty of legal immigrants from similar-culture countries, and you massage the data set a bit, and cops are being nudged not to report too many crimes done by illegal immigrants. And then people can point to that paper and say: “see, immigrants don’t commit more crimes.” Which seems to be a strong argument on the surface, but the argument falls apart if you look a bit deeper.
What frequently happens is that the left first decides for emotional or ideological reasons which position is correct. Then they heavily push science into that direction. And then, ta-da, science shows what the left wants it to show. But this isn’t actually science. It’s an ideological process that wears the skin of science.
Or as another example: the left has decided, for emotional and ideological reasons, that children have equally good outcomes with same-sex parents (two moms or two dads) as they do with different-sex parents (one mom and one dad).
This isn’t actually true. In reality, children have slightly worse outcomes with same-sex parents.
To get some intuitive sense of this, picture a household with two dads and a boy. That household seems a bit skewed towards the masculine, doesn’t it? Indeed it is. And if you have a household with two dads and a girl, that also isn’t great because then the girl doesn’t have a parent who has been a female child and a female teenager herself. Furthermore, does a teenage girl really want to learn about her periods and the changes in her body from her father?
Similarly, a household with two moms and a daughter is too skewed towards the feminine. And if you have a boy with two moms, then he grows up without a father figure and it’s entirely possible that he’ll be severely blocked in his masculinity when he grows up.
Adding more children doesn’t fix this. If you have two moms and two daughters, it’s still too skewed to the feminine. If you have two moms, a daughter and a son, then the son is still growing up without a father figure. Et cetera.
Now, whether a child has same-sex or different-sex parents isn’t a hugely influential factor. For example, it is better for a child to grow up with two moms or two dads in a prosperous and stable household, than it is for a child to grow up with a mom and a dad in a poor and unstable household. Some same-sex couples are better parents than the average different-sex couples.
I’m not saying that same-sex parents should be banned from raising children. There are factors that have a bigger impact on the probability that the child has a good life, and parents who score poorly on those more influential factors also aren’t banned from raising children. For example, it’s better for a child to be raised by two moms than by a single mom, and single moms also aren’t banned from raising children.
But, yes, children raised by same-sex parents do have slightly worse outcomes.
However, the left doesn’t like that fact for emotional and ideological reasons. And academia is dominated by the left. So the scientists themselves may be left-wing. Even if they’re not, they will understand that should their research conclude that children in same-sex households have worse outcomes, then they risk being defunded, deplatformed, getting into huge problems with the administration of their research institute, they risk getting harassed by ideological activists, et cetera.
If someone knows that they risk being fired or defunded if they conclude something, then of course the vast majority of people aren’t going to draw the forbidden conclusion. It’s the famous saying: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Even if you have a researcher who happens to not be left-wing (somewhat rare in left-wing dominated academia), and they are courageous enough to stand up to potential pressure from activists and their peers and the research institute itself, and they are brave enough to risk being defunded and deplatformed and fired… their research might still simply not get through peer review and hence not be published in a respectable scientific journal. Or it gets published somewhere, and no one reports on it, and the public at large doesn’t become aware of it.
Because, after all, many on the left consider it harmful and hate speech to say that children of same-sex parents have slightly worse outcomes. Even though that’s true. And harmful or hate speech of course shouldn’t ever be allowed, by definition, because it’s harmful or hate speech.
Note that at no point was there ever an investigation about whether it was actually true: it was just labeled as harmful speech or hate speech for ideological reasons, and then of course harmful speech or hate speech isn’t allowed.
So what nearly always happens in practice is that the only people who will research these kinds of “only one conclusion is allowed” topics are ideologues who already agree with the one allowed conclusion, and they are very eager to indeed confirm that conclusion.
And they often manipulate or even torture the data until it says what they want it to say. Non-statisticians don’t quite understand that you can very easily get rid of these kinds of “real, but not hugely influential” factors through statistical manipulation.
And the result is that the scientific literature will indeed say that children of same-sex parents do not have worse outcomes. But how did the scientific literature end up saying that?
Where in the scientific method does it say that you should defund or censor people who say things that you ideologically don’t like, or manipulate data in order to get ideologically pleasing results? Because that happens all the time nowadays. Is it really science at that point, or is it just an ideological process that wears science as a skin?
Similarly, suppose a historian makes a case that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Well, likely the case by this historian won’t be seriously considered, and instead the historian will get defunded or censored or called a conspiracy theorist or something like that. And then of course people can say that the consensus among historians is that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition. But in what way was that consensus reached? Did historians ever seriously and objectively look at the case that 9/11 was a controlled demolition?
Are historians even being objective at that point? Are scientists even being objective at this point?
And if not, does it make to act like “scientists say X” is the final word and any discussion or disagreement beyond that is anti-science?
So the next time that someone on the left says that science or experts agree with some position that the left ideologically likes, ask yourself: if some scientist or expert found a result that the left didn’t like, would the left-dominated academia attempt to deplatform or defund or censor them, or block them at peer review for ideological reasons? If yes, then what you are dealing with is not in fact science, it’s an ideological process that wears the skin of science.
I hope this was helpful.
I love you very much and I wish you a good week.
Your star brother,
Hakann
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.
Very good.
You described the Left’s dishonesty so well.
Thank you Hakann.
Reminder: Experiences on Earth are agreed to by contract by bored eternal beings that want experiences and soul lessons. While agreeing to be in 3D, you agreed to witness and partake in this particular reality. Due to agreed-to-circumstances, don’t expect friendly space friends to come to your aid or anyone else’s aid to any degree beyond what has been agreed to as infinity is a long game. It is best to maintain a high vibration and be one with your higher self as much as possible to be in unison in such a way that all are in agreement of your and others having a positive experience at all times. What else are you going to do? Fighting against gives energy to that which you don’t want, so there’s that. Wishing you and all the most pleasant outcomes. Namaste 🙂
How do you know that information?
Are you an alien?
How amazing.
In 2023, you will have over 100 comments on the Hakan channeling post.
Do you know what it runs?
I heard he is scheduled to intervene in 2024-2025.
Is it strange that you continue to be interested in it?
This year is 2024, so of course we should ask him if he wants to intervene.
A word of advice to you, if you continue to fabricate information or impersonate Asta, I think you may be punished after the liberation of Earth
You should also pay attention to countries other than the US, Canada, Switzerland, Iran, Israel, China, UK and France.
Do you care about South Korea?
If you care why does crime continue?
Rather than hearing you divide left and right, I want to know when you will intervene and what will happen.
Why hasn’t it been solved until now? Are people still aware of the reality of crime, human rights violations, and torture?
And what is the reason why things like solving crimes, extraterrestrial channeling, and some prophecies related to the Golden Age have not been realized yet, when will this happen?
There are still many crime victims in our country(South korea). Your people aren’t just looking at places like the United States, Canada, Israel, Iran and China, are they?
Unlike the division between left and right, wasn’t your tribe’s ideology a bit different?
I doubt that’s really who they are.
They say they will decide whether to intervene or not in 2024. Has that been decided yet?
It is suspicious that we are still unable to solve crimes, perhaps due to our lack of technological capabilities to begin with. We talk about it every day, the rising or the golden age, the solar wind darkness is removed, abilities can be used, money comes in, abundance comes in, when will this happen? At least one of these has to happen. Simply waiting is something that almost anyone can do.
Of course, I think you can search and ask questions as well. You will be able to understand the reality of torture, human rights violations, and voyeuristic and perverted sexual crimes. Is that even difficult for them? Being able to convey words to the people of Earth like this means being able to know their reactions. It doesn’t mean you didn’t realize it.
I agree with you. Dark controllers through A.S. promote LGBT ideas among people reading information about the Ascension. In the past they corrupted the Atlanteans in the same way.
Notice how AS tells us (not Hakann) that money equals good parenting and two homosexuals with high income equals a better outcome for a child being raised by them then a poor family with a mother and father.
Good parenting is not dependent upon lots of ZOG bucks.
This guy thinks this moral relativism nonsense he writes is very clever.
He is anything but clever and the gibberish he writes is garbage.
More of AS’s meandering gibberish going over a miniatua of detail and distinctions of the degree of outcomes in parenting by sexual degenerates (homosexuals and lesbians) supposedly having slightly worse outcomes than normal family i.e. a man and a woman.
AS, is always promoting his woke left wing agenda even as he ostensibly is telling us that “science” for the left is being used to promote the left’s agenda.
Duh! I need space boy Hakann to tell me that? Gimme a break. But in the same breath he also says children raised by “homosexuals and lesbians” only have slightly worse outcomes. Well, Hakann, where are getting that data from? Why is the outcome being framed in degrees of negativity? I don’t think a nuclear family has a negative outcome at all when compared to homosexuals raising children.
Homosexuals only want access to children for one reason, and that is sexual molestation of those children. They have already made it known they are anti-family, anti-normalcy, anti-nature by sticking their penis in another man’s anus. They have no limits to their behavior. It’s an anti-life itself lifestyle that most often leads to an unhappy life and a shortened lifespan. It is against children since it is about perverting sex into something that cannot create life.
None of these channels come from space people in skin tight jump suits. This is all the fevered sexual fantasy of AS himself.
Remember his previous messages, Tunia fucking her husband while their children watch. Tunia’s husband getting shit on his dick for sexual fulfillment outside the marriage while Tunia has cunnilingus filled lesbian sex to get her rocks off. Normal conjugal sex between a husband and wife? How vanilla. Get with it Eartlings, and tune into Pleiadean Porn Hub courtesy of AS’s pent us sexual frustration.
I agree with you. Dark controllers through A.S. promote LGBT ideas among people reading information about the Ascension. In the past they corrupted the Atlanteans in the same way.
Actually, it is you who always bring up the sex topic lately; more often than any other person or chanelled entity in the entire website. And your ranting about it is becoming increasingly grotesque and distortive, I hope you figure it out before you start calling other people ‘Paladin’…
I knew you’d chime in with quibbles and sophistry and incoherent sentences.
Actually, this topic is about sex or can’t you read. Now don’t give your cute answer, I don’t mean any physical act of sex, I mean as with many of AS’s messages he is in one way or another promoting the LGBTQ agenda while appearing to question it.
And in case you have a short memory or maybe a selective one, many of AS’s posts are about sex, specifically Tunia’s lesbian assignations and her husband’s on the down low homosexuality, and let’s try and forget AS’s fantasy of Tunia and her husband getting off to having sex in front of their children.
Haven’t you ever noticed a commonality amongst AS’s channels regardless of who he is allegedly channeling? They all sound the same, read the same, and all have meaningless topics that have no bearing to the horrors going on here daily.
None of AS’s messages are coming from Pleiadeans or big lizards. They are essays written by AS. Haven’t you ever wondered how he channels hyperlinks? Lol, it’s a joke.
I don’t respond to your posts CD, unless you say something to me. That’s because you are loathsome and detestable. You truly sicken me.
I dont read your idiotic word salads either.
There you go again, Freud would be proud…
Indeed it’s quite difficult to pursue a dialogue with you because you blend opinions with facts and they’re both so objectionable that if I address one separately, I fear implying that I agree with the other for even a moment.
So I’ll settle for holding out this mirror:
You’re arguing that a person who claims they channel representatives of an alien civilization is lying (about being a channel) because their messages occasionally contain, allude to or refer to sexual practices you personally do not condone. You furthermore accuse this person to be covertly pursuing a ‘leftist agenda’ under the guise of being politically neutral.
You regard yourself as politically neutral, and NOT defending a ‘rightist agenda’ (it’s important to note that, otherwise you would have no parameters to judge another person’s neutrality).
You also uphold your claim because this person’s has a consistent language and mannerisms that remain the same despite the entity being channeled. You don’t perceive or question this in any other channelings in this site.
You don’t understand what raising your vibration is, call people with spiritual concerns ‘love bunnies’, and yet considers yourself apt to evaluate and rant about what makes a sexual activity or a channeling appropriate.
You just ‘like to occasionally poke fun at luv bunnies’, while I shouldn’t be ‘cute’ with my answers. You think I write word salads, I’m loathsome, detestable, I sicken you, I’m not your sock puppet… and yet you don’t have a clue what a projection is.
You really are a small minded person. Try to think like a man rather than taking the weak path of arguing to defend your ego.
The last resort of a pompass and egotistical twit is to accuse someone of “projection” when that person espouses an opinion he disagrees with. This way the twit accuses the person of the opinion or fact he disagrees with without any proof. It’s an old and tired method of attacking someone whose opinion you find disagreeable, rather than animadvert that opinion or position.
So how this works CD, is someone says they are opposed to let’s say pedophilia because it’s evil, degenerate and demonic, and you CD being a moral relativistic degenerate accuse that person of projection and they are the Pedophile. This way you stifle criticism of Pedophilia because of your moral relativistic position of do as thou wilt.
You think your mirror and the psychological concept of projection makes you oh so clever. It doesn’t CD.
Projection? Whoa, big words CD, I’m impressed by your erudition.
Yes, you are right that you are loathsome, detestable and sickening. Thanks for that acknowledgment.
You are also correct, I don’t understand this raising my vibrations and feeling “love” all the time. It’s nonsensical.
Apparently, you don’t understand it either.
Funny you should refer to Freud, one of the most destructive Jewish degenerates in history.
Is he your hero?
Not really, projection is just a natural fact – but you expect everything to be an accusation, thus not realizing how agressive yourself are. The opinion/moral judgement has always been in yourself, I refrain from making it because it would only fuel your vicious cycle.
When you can’t back your facts -which happens often- you resort to your personal opinions of facts and people. And when people fail to respond to your moral provocation without any judgement, it only enrages you and further blinds you from the facts.
You expect an attack from the outside, but forget that mirrors reverse polarities… my opinion of Freud is that he was very similar to you.
[correction to last reply to Paladin]: “(…) when people fail to respond to your moral provocation WITH any judgement (…)” – not ‘without’ – sorry, double negative not intended.
I saw what a weighty argument for the intellectual is the most ordinary slap in the face.
Varlam Shalamov
Try opening with that next time, it’s closer to the actual article theme.
I’d really like that…if only we crossed paths in real life.
[To Angela:] Would love to know what you consider an example of that and why.
If I remember correctly paladin it was only their daughter who stopped to watch tunia and her husband. I will admit it can be weird and probably off-putting for a child to watch mommy and daddy having sex.
This piece is every bit as guilty of the same cherry picking and hearsay that it accuses so-called left wing science of. It’s a bunch of just so stories with no evidence. The only point I will concede is that political meddling in science is not a good thing, but that is true for all of the political spectrum, not just one part of it.
I’m confused. Your complaint seems like a compact enactment of the behavior it describes; what exactly are you missing evidences for? The point you’re conceding to seemed to me like the whole point of the article, can you provide an example of political meddling in science from other stances of the ‘political spectrum’?