Remote Viewing; truth, or projective error of contagion?

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/06/%ef%bb%bffabricating-a-pandemic-who-could-organize-it-and-why/#comment-236354

Casting pearls before swine is no pejorative to those who are not open, interested or ready to see, and so MUST see something else.

But the swine flu scam has recently been encapsulated in a short video called 'The Jab - featuring Glaxo Smith Kline'. (I recommend giving a few minutes of attention to it).

As for the ability to cast your divisions out into a herd of swine and run them off a cliff - what for?

As I see, many points are extremely relevant to 'what is going on' but I share to a willingness of free alignment and this is the discernment of the heart - regardless the SHOUT of mind as archetypal expression.

Regardless whether you read, I am grateful for our exchange for what it brought forth.

- - -

 Anything appended to the I Am, is very real to the mind that accepts it in the moment of its action, and runs upon its archetype as linguistic and cultural constructs with emotional and sensate reinforcements.

Anything specifically denied the I Am sets up a negatively charged 'shadow', no less active for being excluded from acceptance, and release.

But the idea that anyone's remote viewing is infallible would require more shared witness than a personal bio and studies on the writing of history of anything.

The ability of the mind's deceit is that of being able to judge as if true, and then judge the judgement as guilt.

Truth is formless, and whole, and any attempt to put it into the old wine bottles of a world of judgements set in conflict, is the idea of making truth a weapon.

Regardless of anyone's training in how to think or see or articulate and extrapolate from their seeing as a communication within a world of deceits running as mind-control, the capacity to discern truth is not special to the learned - and can be specially hidden to them BY their learning.

I don't dispute your freedom to share what you hold true, in the way that you believe helpful. But regardless the packaging your message conveys the same archetypes as the 'psyop' of guilt, fear and manipulative mind-control.

If you already believe virus theory, (virus as the pathological cause of disease, rather than terrain as the determiner of the cellular expression, communication and function), then you are already looking though a glass darkly or indeed an inverted frame of accepted 'meanings'.

And so the very 'question' can lead the witness to see and report only in the frame of a 'question' that is also a statement, which filters and distorts the result lawfully - in the sense that the answer has logical fidelity to its premise or predicate.

I am not suggesting the possession, control and weaponisation of biology is not a core archetype of the 'control' mind of an active shadow agenda, but that its principle means is the deceit that persists the patterns of the denial that it represents or manifests as conditioned existence.

You suggest getting the concepts across is 'hit and miss' and this suggests to me that the 'processing' is operating an obstruction to the sharing of a willing communication, for at some level you are talking of a willing process of communication - are you not? Or have you been 'forced to see'?

Life IS - and insofar as we (who are life) form idea of what it is - we can say we are a process or indeed dialogue of communication and exchange. I cannot (ever) put a meaning into your reality-experience that is not already there (in which case I didn't put it there but offered a resonant communication to your own recognition. Or more accurately shared (in a) synchronicity.

The process of Communication or love's recognition, is filtered and distorted by the 'terrain' of the current focus that is both unique to each expression and yet within a greater 'patterning' or structure of mutually agreed definition - (but the agreements are energetic resonances - not what we think of as consciousness).

FWIW I see the same basic intent of possession and control - but operating through deceits. And the core deceit is to induce a willing compliance or 'consent' of resonant support for the illusion of possession and control, through the reiteration of 'Separation Trauma' - which we 'experience' as gapped or dissociative struggle, defence, flight or freeze.

Such as I 'see' is the growing of the willingness to recognise the mind by which we are framed or predicated by the self it gives us. But while there is a place for logical and deductive reasoning it must be empirically or better - CURRENTLY - predicated in the living - rather than in a conditioned take running from a previous 'identification'. Else the contagion of a mis-take persists as a mis-identification at odds with its Terrain - ie bubbled off and reflexively denying anything that doesn't  support its seemingly discrete and private domain of possession and control.

I take one paragraph from you and show what I read it as concealing:

"Remote Viewing is very real indeed, but conveying the experience to others that have not experienced the phenomenon is very hit and miss at best. Some people grasp the concepts and others reflexively deny them".

The reality is assigned to the fear-threat and the 'seeing' becomes a vector of contagion of fear-threat, weaponised by moral imperatives to 'infect' with the need for defence by 'grasping' concepts that are generated in response to the seeing.

Anything used as an 'answer' to a problem that is not where the problem can be truly addressed, is operating a diversionary and wishful pathway of thought, that can seem to push the problem from immediate concern or assign it to 'further away' as in separating, distancing, or fear of contagion - that normalises to reflexive defences running as normalise subconscious habit.

What's more, the domain of the wishful or imagined answer, now becomes the framework of the acting out or 'casting' of the now unrecognisable problem.

Anyone can ask and receive answer, but the mind of the question is trained to make statements in the form of questions, and thus seek and find the 'answers' that it had already decided to find.

In the Emperor's New Clothes, it was the untrained and innocent child who unselfconsciously saw truly and exclaimed without any private agenda. Many THINK to understand this in using it to point the finger of nakedness or lack (of substance or integrity) at Others. But when understanding is equated with possession and control, it has been divorced from love and appreciation.

If you think you can understand possession and control from within its predicate then you think to control an absence or lack of love - projected out and away.

Only love can see or recognise and resonate within its Own, and know truly. Not masking in the forms and symbols of love set in grievance, loss and treachery. But the intimate movement of the child's curiosity to ask and be shown according to the movement of the heart's desire.

I am not denying anyone the freedom to live out the timeline of bio-weapons - that use toxic leveraging to undermine innate defences under guise of protection and profit. But what does it profit a man to gain such a world and lose awareness of the qualities of existence of which he can never altogether escape because he does not create his own existence; but only extends the creative through desire for experience of existence.

The fundamental law of sowing and reaping is - as you judge, so are you judged. What then would you see?

Fear hides in the open by the setting up of secrets and lies. Masking in virtue is an attempt to clothe a sense of lack - and pass off as legitimate. Resting in virtue is the capacity to recognise truth in others, and world as self.

One conflicts and the other has no concept of virtue for it has never left its Source.

Both of these are 'in our mind' as potentials of experience.

The parable of the tenant pharma. like that of a prodigal's mis-taken inheritance, gives emphasis to reintegrative recognition and indeed expansion - rather than destruction, whereas Prometheus is framed in the guilt, penalty and pain of retribution cast out in hell as the price to pay for taking the Light in vain.

But did Prometheus ran off with a copy - by which we 'see' through a lens of self-illusion?

To be spellbound in fascination of our own imaged thinking - but for the gnawing at our liver - or is that the call of a long forgotten lover?