The issue of danger to create fear -the underlying condition.
First I will say this. In getting rid of cancer, it is not necessary to get rid of the fear. Fear is a hard one to master because it is the normal response of the body when danger is perceived, whether directly or insightfully or believed to be present. However it is not necessary to get rid of it, even when fear is also used as the reactive condition; In other words when it is used to cause the person to perceive reactivity in some part of the body and not simply as an underlying condition, as for instance in the creation of bone cancer. I mention it though because it can be mastered and why not if it is possible. The key is that despite attempted exposure of the victim by the offenders to danger, the victim can take measures, in the mind, to minimize and even eliminate the danger. How?
[Note: In trying to cover this subject sufficiently I am again going to also discuss related issues that are important in gaining a better understanding of the big picture. And I am also going to make this more than one post because there is too much to put into one post.]
The first thing to recognize is that you can still be exposed even though you have your doors and windows locked and barred. If you have someone living with you in your house, eg a spouse, who is toxic, then you have an enemy right inside your stronghold. And appearances will in most cases belie the truth. Some may be hostile or indifferent but in most cases they will appear to be supportive and friendly. These people have a key to the house, which they can copy and give to a criminal whom they employ, or they can give information about a key left outside the house, or they can unbolt a door or window etc. And of course all of that is done without your knowledge. Furthermore it is useless to change the locks because they are entitled to a new key. Under such circumstances you might as well have your doors wide open for all the difference it will make. What can you do?
Remember danger is the possibility of harm. It is not harm in itself. And it is this possibility that the offenders are looking to create because they want to do harm indirectly, that is by way of your reaction and not directly, i.e., not to use the key to open your door and come inside your house. The offenders are looking to create fear and nothing more. However regardless of their intentions you can still protect yourself because ultimately the highest level of protection is brought about in the mind, the common platform and understanding the nature of reality at this level, even a little bit.
Fear arises out of an issue of danger that is why they use real criminals and yes they are armed. Yes they are in possession of a copy of the key to the victim’s house, or information about where outside of the house a spare key might be located etc. And yes they do hold criminal intent and would move if they were asked to do harm BUT only if they could. The irony is this, all of what is put into place does not constitute real danger. They need for the person targeted to gives them permission in order for there to be a valid danger issue. The chief perpetrator cannot give that potential go-ahead to the criminals if the conditions in mind block the road, ie there is no permission. And incredibly only the targeted person/victim holds the real key to the situation! No one is going to give an allowance to a criminal to do them harm. So how do they get permission out of the targeted person/ victim? It is done using the person’s ignorance.. not of the presence of the criminal because even though it is unconscious or subconscious, the person thus targeted knows of the presence of the criminals. Remember these people are relationally entangled with the targeted person/ victim. It is their ignorance of the laws of the universe that is employed.
This is a hard threshold to cross because we are taught and indeed heavily conditioned to believe in materialism only but it is not the truth. And most people intuitively understand that. You have only to see how much people believe in what is known as positive thinking. There are two basic reasons why it fails for some people sometimes and they are because firstly they don’t apply themselves correctly and specifically enough and secondly because there are toxic others in their lives who move to negate what the positive thoughts. Indeed anyone else, including other people in scientific experiments can act to negate the positive ideas and even make them detrimental and they cannot be detected because the whole of the foul play is in the mind. These people can be stopped. I will discuss this later but suffice to say here mental prescriptions should be strictly confidential to yourself alone and no one else no matter how close and trustworthy you believe the relationship might be and indeed might be. In the sort of world we live in at present you should always maintain some mental space, some measure of privacy that is your very own, that you never share with others. Apart from anything else there are security reasons to do so.
Information (in the form of Ideas set forth) governs everything. We can think of the universe as a giant matrix of possibilities in its non-physical aspect and forms in its physical aspect. Scientists want to accept only the physical aspects but they can’t altogether deny the non-physical aspect. That is why they skirt around the subject. They talk about theoretical, probability functions, “what happens backstage” and “nothingness” etc. They don’t want to call a spade, a spade. But like Shakespeare said “a rose by any other name is still a rose”. Out of the “soup of probabilities or possibilities” items of information/ ideas can be selected or de-selected at any time, subject to certain conditions and the rule sets. These we call for instance the laws of physics in its physical aspect. There are likewise conditions and a rule set in the non-physical or mental aspect of reality. Your body and the conditions of your life at any given time are a part of the universal system. The information selected gives the appearance of a physical form and physical conditions. There are two ways that your body can become affected. One is that you (and you alone) can make a selection or a de-selection. This is the very basic level. This is like the very nature of the pond of water. The other way your body can be affected is through reactivity. You can think of this level and reactivity at this level rather like the pond with a stone falling into it. The stone will make ripples in the water. This is not about the very nature of the water but the way the water reacts to any disturbances. The stone of course is an analogy to an idea and the reactivity is the emotional or other response. So here we can see that the idea of danger gives rise to the ripples in the pond that is, the reactivity in the body of fear.
As I mentioned earlier the person that is being made afraid cannot simply be made afraid by the presence of strangers. There is a tiny percentage of people who have enough awareness to get the most trivial glimpse but the most they are likely to feel is a little apprehension, if that and nothing more. They certainly would not feel hot if the danger issue giving rise to fear was deeply unconscious. To get the effect the person has to be strongly relationally entangled with the criminals as we saw earlier in the creation of panic attack. If you want to revisit this as a quick summary you will find it in the middle section of this post https://kyrani99.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/the-tail-end-is-in-sight/ where I go through an example pictorially (the man and his mother-in-law). You can use the back key on your browser to return. In both cases there is relational entanglement because even without prior entanglement, the moment you bring criminals into the vicinity of another person (ie with keys to get in etc) then a relational entanglement is formed, however it is too weak for the person to react with sufficient fear as to make it a viable nocebo card in this foul game. Relational entanglement has two very big implications. One is that the targeted person/ victim will become aware of the presence of the criminals subconsciously if it is strong entanglement or unconsciously if it is trivial entanglement. The other is that the targeted person/ victim gains a defense position against the offenders in the mind. And note that is all of the offenders and not just the so-called gun-carrying individuals or CGIs. Knowing all this then I will now discuss the pitfall to avoid and how to avoid it.
When a person by way of reasoning.. using logic says to themselves, “if they are a criminal and if they have a loaded gun and a key to my house or vested with powers to enter my house without my consent (eg federal police) and criminal intent then they can kill me or do me harm”. Right there is consent! “Oh no” you say “I am just reasoning!” Unfortunately the universe does not understanding it as reasoning. When you make that assertion you are selecting information. The reality is that where our body, property and those in our care are concerned we have absolute control but most people don’t realize it due to conditioning and public opinion. The beliefs we uphold individually and/or collectively by the community at large and which we accept affect us profoundly. Thus an individual can be influenced by the opinions of a minority group that have acquired some sort of power. Never make the above assertion/ statement no matter what!
What you can you do instead? Three things.
- Reject the evil suggestions of danger, ie possibility of harm. The whole set up, the criminals with their guns and their copy of your house key and their criminal intent.. all of it only really amounts to a suggestion and a suggestion does not instigate nor uphold any reality whatsoever. Suggestions are not selected information but information put forth for selection. You have to accept the suggestion for it to become an affirmative. You can simply say “I reject the evil suggestion (whatever it is)” and maybe add “all evil suggestions are null and void”, which is true after all. And I’ll add this too. Never agree that you reject something or affirm that it is null and void anyway because “anyway” can be used to mean “any possible way”, and they are looking to find a loop hole. Simply “the evil suggestions are null and void AND I reject them as well”. There is no need to say “anyway”. So a distortion of meaning cannot be made.
- Affirm, which means putting forth a directive to the universe (making a selection) as follows. I affirm that I and those in my care etc., always remain alive and healthy and all of my property remains untouched”. So even if they are a criminal with a loaded gun and have the means to enter my house and even if they hold all the criminal intent in the world, I refuse them access to me and reject all proposed and/or intended harm to me etc. They always remain powerless to do me harm of whichever sort. Note here that a corrupt government agent /employee may try to use the powers vested in them by the state to do harm but they are aiming to act in a criminal fashion, which is not included in the law. BUT even a law that is unethical is not supported by the universe. So the opening is really not there. They can only do harm through deceit or intimidation, if they can trip up the targeted person and have them believe that they can do whatever they want because they have ‘such and such powers’. A person who is awake to the reality cannot be harmed by them, and they can be the prime minister himself/herself or the king or queen even!
- You can go one step further and put forth a counter-padea. This avenue is open to you because of two conditions. One is that owing to the fact that the system (ie you and the criminals) are entangled, whether trivially or strongly doesn’t make any difference. An I mentioned an entanglement takes place even in the moment that criminals have agreed ‘to do the job’ and more specifically if and when they arrive on the scene to make you feel afraid. That is a crime, which leads us to the second reason. In agreeing to do a crime, in holding ill-intent and then in moving to arrive at the scene, what happens is that a condition is set in the mind (the non-physical aspect of reality) that is irreversible and you can use this to hit back at the offenders, in the mental realm. This is analogous to what we call decoherence in physics. I strongly recommend making use of this to create and use a counter-padea. It is the best deterrent that you have at your disposal and it’s free. I will discuss it shortly.
People tend to disbelieve that these things are possible and cite some about commonsense this and that and whatever else. But this commonsense stuff in this particular situation is only based on public opinion, which is molded by those who want power over you, which includes various minority groups, such as the toxic under-culture but also the medical industry. This is not “a conspiracy theory” as some people claim in order to trivialize the matter, but simple economics. On the one hand the toxic under-culture is all about manipulating and controlling others around them. So the opinions that they are likely to uphold and promote are those that help them gain the power and influence that they need to manipulate and control others. For instance there is so-called random violence. And the arguments go that in a public place this can happen and does happen, so it is commonsense that it can happen to you too. The problem here is that the so-called random events are not random. The whole thing is set up. However the perpetrators of such violence, even if they get caught cannot be tied to the victim by any means because of the way the toxic mob operate (ie they use go-betweens), so the event appears random. This sort of violence is then said “can happen in the market place” so it can be used to underpin panic and anxiety attack and a lot more. But if we do the experiments we can see how it all comes about, i.e., the medical conditions can be generated and experienced. So we can then appreciate how it can be used as a means of creating “underlying beliefs” to condition people. Furthermore if you have studied this blog and seen the sorts of foul games that are played you can see that they cannot be done by one or two people. You can appreciate that toxic people are motivated to form networks. Yet they vehemently deny the existence of any such networks and scream conspiracy theories instead.
The medical industry on the other hand, which of course includes doctors, needs people to be sick and sick in very large numbers (double digit percentages of a nation’s population). They need people to be sick over a considerable amount of time, if not all of their life so that they can sell their schedule of drugs etc. These people collectively have grown the largest industry in the world in the last fifty or sixty years. It is worth trillions of dollars. They cannot sustain that businesses, let alone flourish, without people being sick in large numbers and requiring a lot of “medical help”. AND in reality, when the truth is know the “sick people” don’t really need them, they can get well by themselves because it is only their own reactions that is causing the pathological stress and disease and their reactions they can change anytime, save they know how.
And I will go further with this here too. Any scientific experiments as can be conducted will be skewed, whether intentionally or not. The first reason is that if such danger is posed, it assumes that harm can be done because the scientific paradigm only accepts the physical and the “man is a machine on automatic” model. All of these are directives to the universe/ creation so that you are off with the wrong start to begin with. The other problem is that intent and conscious choice both count. You can see an example of this in the way evil people attempt to gain the upper hand. They look to throw the matter into the arena of “all probabilities are included”, so they make what appears as a statement of “try it and let’s see” or “we’ll see”. It is commonly presented, sometimes verbally, sometimes mentally by evil people. Beware of this, this is not a statement but just another suggestion. They want you to set the conditions to “all possible outcomes/ options/ selections can apply” AND give them the option of choice because “try it” is firstly all about chance, so it asks you to accept any one of the whole range of possibilities as possible. And while they want you to say make it chance, they know full well that directives can be given to the universe for desired outcomes!. So what they are really saying is “make it all possible options are on the table” AND then added to this we want the “let US see” and “WE will see” ability. This is all about the evil people (or the other person and not you) having an input and really not just an input but the input. Even the “you’ll see” can be used by a choice of attributed meaning and that means they are looking to betray you to agree that it too can allow choice by others.
I will continue here to make this point clearer. Meaning is not inherent in words. We tend to think in this way and have dictionaries to look up “words and their meanings” but it is putting the cart before the horse. We uphold meaning in mind, meaning is primary and we make up (create languages), choose and use words to convey that meaning. So the “you will see” can be used by evil people to give themselves a choice by a selection of whatever meaning they want. Thus you are given the possibility of seeing the outcome they have chosen can be the meaning of the words “you’ll see”. All of this is not what you want. You can see now that the science is skewed when we start with a hypothesis that says “let’s try it and see”, even under the best intentions! The universe doesn’t work like that. At best you will get all of the possibilities, which means on any given occasion or trial you will get something different.
YOU must put forth the conditions that you want ALWAYS. If they say “we’ll see” just reply with “the “we’ll see” is just a suggestion.. thus it is null and void.. AND I reject it as well”! If they insist you can then go to “I reject your suggestion, get lost!” or whatever. They cannot use it if they cannot get you to accept it. And I might also say do not use a negative because that means you will also use the positive word. For example “I don’t accept it” can and is often used against the person targeted. What they do in this case is use those very words but with a small pause as in “I don’t… (pause).. accept it”. A pause can indicate a hesitation, which then makes the second phrase stand on its own. And if the second part is said more emphatically then it can make that part even more like an acceptance, which again is not what you meant. This is just another “playing with meaning” trick but why not state the matter without the negative/positive pair. Simply saying “I reject it” is the best.
In the next post I discuss how the fear is used to empower a hateful idea, again with the second example of esophageal cancer.