DWQA Questions › Tag: hive mind
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
One of the most maddening things for independent thinkers to put up with is the widespread tendency for people to first vet the source of recommended information before deciding whether they will even look at the new information or not. This can get downright comical when people will refuse to click on a link to a “questionable” website, that is in fact a link to a story on another site they actually approve of, or appears to support something they believe. Can Creator share why this seems like “enlightened” behavior to these people?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
478 views0 answers0 votes
Airplane pilots need to know which way the wind is blowing before attempting a takeoff. To do this, they will lick their finger and stick it into the air. This same kind of “check,” to see which way the “right consensus” is thinking, is observed almost everywhere. Another analogy would be to think of people walking around with a mini satellite dish on their head, that is connected 24-7 to their consensus database, like social media or a particular news outlet, so they’re never confused about what is “safe” information and what is “dangerous” information? What is Creator’s perspective of these analogies?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
652 views0 answers0 votes
It has been observed that many people genuinely fear information that has been deemed by their consensus to be dangerous, to the extent that they risk exile and banishment (or worse) if they even reveal that they know something they shouldn’t. Not unlike discovering that the car you’re driving is a stolen one, or that you are a carrier of a deadly virus. But the dilemma is, once you are exposed to information, it is very difficult to unsee it, and so people go to great lengths to avoid being exposed if they can help it. This creates some remarkable “gymnastics” at times. Can Creator comment?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
600 views0 answers0 votes
Placing one’s full allegiance with a consensus, and making consensus approval their top criterion for conducting their lives means that consensus acceptance can be more important than facts or truth—to the extreme extent of people not believing their own eyes, or ignoring fundamental standards of fairness and decency they learned at age five. Can Creator share the karmic hazards of living this way?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
629 views0 answers0 votes
It would seem that one of the core operating principles of effective mind control manipulation is to win people’s obedience to a consensus, by simply controlling the content of that consensus. Controlling the content of a consensus can frequently be done with simple, repeated propaganda. And yet, so few people seem to recognize just how easily a consensus can be socially engineered and manipulated. They are certainly made aware this happens, especially when it’s pointed out to them in an obvious way. Yet they continue to resist. How much stress does shutting out this awareness cause, and how damaging can it be?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
700 views0 answers0 votes
Gaining wisdom would seem to be the proper way to graduate from consensus thinking—knowing the truth but having enough awareness that putting it on full display can be hazardous to one’s health. Can Creator share how prayer work and the Lightworker Healing Protocol can help every human obtain that wisdom in the least painful and traumatic way possible?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
658 views0 answers0 votes
It has been observed that creation is filled with uniqueness. No two snowflakes or grains of sand are alike. It seems that one of the hallmark characteristics of souls that makes them unique is the uniqueness of their “intentions.” It seems our intentional inclinations are something that has been endowed to be a product of intentional design on the part of Creator—at least to some extent. Can Creator comment?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
599 views0 answers0 votes
A statue of George Washington was torn down recently in San Francisco, ostensibly in response to the George Floyd death. Yet, it seems reasonable to assume this would not have been allowed the very next day after his death, but was allowed weeks later only in response to the extreme outrage sparked by the death. The thinking appears to be, that the more the outrage, the more concessions have to be made—regardless of the appropriateness or lack thereof of the outrage itself. The accused are not entitled to question the aggrieved it appears. The unfolding perspective is that the outrage is ALWAYS genuine and reflective of actual reality. Therefore, the more the outrage persists and increases, the more and more and more concessions MUST be made to appease it. Will this ever end on its own? Or do people of conscience have to take a stand at some point? And is that even advisable in the current situation? What is the divine perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
508 views0 answers0 votes
More startling, in London thousands of people turned out “cheek by jowl” to protest the death of African American George Floyd while under police restraint. Not only are they turning out to protest an event 4000 miles away in a different country, with different rules, different histories, and different cultures, but they are ostensibly doing it at grave personal risk given the ongoing problem of COVID-19. How can anyone possibly think showing up for such a protest in a massive crowd where they are essentially an anonymous member, is a worthwhile use of their time and energy, especially considering the individual and collective risks presented by the ongoing pandemic?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
561 views0 answers0 votes
We’ve been told that the overwhelming turnout at President Trump’s rallies, is largely due to mind control manipulation. Now we are seeing a similar response in attendance for George Floyd protests. Yet, people just cannot see the inherent lack of logical explanation for both these phenomena. Can Creator provide the missing explanation?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
643 views0 answers0 votes
Everybody has heard the term “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” And if you were to ask everybody, the overwhelming majority would agree with that statement. Yet, when it comes to the ongoing violence accompanying protests of George Floyd’s death, critics are shouted down by many of these very same people who inexplicably not only seem to think there is something noble, virtuous, or at least compensatory in allowing the violence to take place and persist, these same people will go even further and attempt to silence critics of this very same violence as if two wrongs DO make a right. What is going on here, especially when some of the victims of rioting are black business owners?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
548 views0 answers0 votes
Humans, at heart, are a compassionate, generous, caring species, and this is demonstrated on a regular basis. However, we’ve also seen how these traits can be WEAPONIZED and turned against both individuals and society at large. Seeing that the interlopers lack these virtues altogether, they must think such virtues are weaknesses. Is it a source of great delight to use them as weapons as it reaffirms their opinion of the silliness of human virtue?
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
578 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Another barrier to rational thought I would characterize as “entitlement belief” regardless of its genesis, and “expectation and anticipation equity.” Having just done a sports show, this is conveniently illustrated by the fan experience. Fans are not direct stakeholders in a sports franchise. They don’t own the team, the intellectual property, trademarks, the stadium, or anything of a tangible nature. They even have to PAY to consume the product, buy tickets, pay for parking, or suffer through commercials on television when watching a sports event. Yet, fans everywhere feel ENTITLED. They feel the team “owes” them something in exchange for the INVESTMENT the fan has made with them. And the more time the fan has spent being a fan for a particular team, the MORE they feel they are owed.”
ClosedNicola asked 5 years ago • 
533 views0 answers0 votes
« Previous123
Ask Question