My dearest brothers and sisters,
This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.
The influential right-wing American Charlie Kirk has been assassinated.
This is awful. And what is also awful is the celebration of this murder by a disturbingly large number of left-wingers (although there absolutely are many people on the left who don't agree with political murders).
As someone remarked online: "if they can justify Charlie's death, they can justify yours." And I get that that is a really scary and disturbing thought.
I sense a great emotional outpouring of anger and fear and division and grief and glee and uncertainty and determination across Earth right now.
Yet, in time this may prove to be a powerful awakening catalyst.
I think one fundamental reason for the division and the inhumanity of some people is that you currently do not have a functional, widely agreed-upon bedrock of society.
This bedrock is like the soil that your society grows from. Without it your society might survive a while longer, but it will ultimately decay.
Some would argue that your society's bedrock is families. However, it's not a bedrock unless the vast majority agrees with it, and many don't: only a minority of people have both a partner and children.
Plus the left will be suspicious of people trying to proclaim families to be the bedrock of society.
Some would argue that your bedrock is Christianity. However, it's not a bedrock unless the vast majority agrees with it, and many don't.
Also, while Jesus was a great master and while there are many valuable teachings in the bible, fundamentally "let priests be intermediaries between you and the Creator" is outdated.
Plus the god from the bible and satan are two (now-uncreated) demons who ran a good-cop-bad-cop scheme. Just read the old testament and you'll find countless examples of the Christian "god" behaving, well, demonically. For example, he orders genocide, explicitly including the killing of children and infants (1 Samuel 15:2–3).
So while the organized religion Christianity has genuinely also done good things, I don't think it would be a solid bedrock for your society moving forward. And as your consciousness increases, you also won't be dependent on it to maintain stability as you were at lower levels of consciousness. Although obviously this is ultimately up to you to decide; I'm only giving my perspective.
Others would argue that the bedrock of your society should be social justice for oppressed or marginalized groups. However, it's not a bedrock unless the vast majority agrees with it, and many don't.
Often in practice "social justice" or "equity" means discrimination against white men, which isn't actual justice and which can never form a true bedrock.
Some would argue that your bedrock should be socialism or communism. However, it's not a bedrock unless the vast majority agrees with it, and many don't.
Us galactics live under non-coercive communism with no taxes and practically no laws. And it's great. However socialism or communism doesn't work very well yet at your current levels of consciousness.
Some would argue that your bedrock is capitalism, or free markets. However, it's not a bedrock unless the vast majority agrees with it, and many don't.
There's an inherent contradiction here because "free markets" means unregulated markets, and it simultaneously means competitive markets that make everyone richer. However at your current level of consciousness, big companies will take unregulated markets and make them noncompetitive to benefit themselves. Therefore at your current level of consciousness you can't have "free markets" in the sense that they're unregulated and competitive and they make everyone richer.
It's like someone invented a word that simultaneously means "ice cream" and "food that makes you lose weight as you eat it." And sure, it sounds really good to have ice cream, which also causes weight loss as you eat it. But just because you can invent a term and give it both these meanings, doesn't mean that ice cream actually works like that in reality. Just because someone is in favor of ice cream that causes weight loss, doesn't mean they'll lose weight if they eat ice cream.
Also, capitalism decays more and more over time, because over time rich families snowball their wealth more and more.
Billionaires and huge companies use their wealth to destroy nature, poison and brainwash the citizenry, establish quasi-monopolies, make markets less competitive, rewrite laws in their favor, bribe politicians, turn houses into an investment vehicle, reduce citizens to quasi-serfs and limit upwards mobility (because if you're in control, you don't want others to also climb up to your level and demand a share of the power).
And you can't pass a law to end bribery of politicians because politicians will be bribed to vote against that.
And all and these problems become worse and worse over time, as wealth snowballs.
Therefore, just because capitalism worked pretty well in the past doesn't prove that it will work well in the future.
Do you really want to be more or less ruled by whoever happened to be born into the rich families of this generation? What if they're evil? What if they're idiots? Even if they're neither, they'll still be hopelessly out of touch with the rest of society.
Now I'm not saying that you must abolish capitalism today. Frankly, at your level of consciousness, other political systems don't work very well either.
Note that if you press either a socialist or a capitalist hard enough on the flaws with their system, ultimately they'll reveal either a blind religious devotion towards their preferred system, or they'll say "yeah well my system isn't perfect but the other systems are worse."
So what you need most at present is a raising of consciousness, rather than implementing a certain specific system.
So I'm not saying you must abolish capitalism today. I'm just saying here that I personally wouldn't try to make capitalism the bedrock of my society. Plus in the future, you will have the level of consciousness where you'll likely leave capitalism behind.
So, what is the bedrock of society? Is it rule of law? Well, it's not a bedrock unless the vast majority agrees with it, and many don't. Recall that lots of people were celebrating when Luigi Mangione allegedly shot a healthcare insurance company CEO. The left doesn't see rule of law as a top priority. And just saying "screw the left" isn't going to lead to a harmonious society.
Also, while laws are needed at a lower level of consciousness, they're stifling and hindering at the higher level of consciousness you're moving into. At present laws are perhaps still needed on Earth, but soon you'll have a level of consciousness where they'll be outdated and where you very well may abolish pretty much all laws. I'll discuss this in detail next week.
Okay. So all these things aren't good bedrocks of society at present. Then what would a functional bedrock of society be that most people can buy into?
Ultimately that's a question for Earth humans to answer.
Still, let me share the bedrock of our Pleiadian society. Maybe you'll get some inspiration from it.
The bedrock of our society is that when people are raised in truth and love and freedom, they will naturally grow up to be good-hearted, productive members of society who treat others well and who charitably take care of others.
If you have this "truth, love, freedom" bedrock firmly established, more or less everything else just clicks into place automatically.
With this bedrock in place, people will just naturally want to contribute to the society that is giving them so much.
To greatly simplify our complex society, we prioritize truth first, then love, then freedom.
So: truth before love. You have to ground your society in truth first and foremost. Western left-wingers often try to put love before truth, but that leads to censorship of truthful statistics and censorship of speech just because it's "harmful" or "dangerous". And censorship is never good for a society.
Putting love before truth also leads to various policies that sound superficially loving but don't work (such as unrestricted illegal immigration, or covid lockdowns to protect grandma).
Ultimately that just leads to suffering and dysfunction.
If you put love before truth, then society stops working. And as society stops working, people start fighting each other about how the shrinking pie should be divided up. This only further damages trust and only further pits people against each other.
Whereas if you have a truth-based, functional, growing society, then it's much easier for different and differently-minded people to get along. Growth and success unites people.
How do you create a tolerant, loving country? By having that country be truth-based, functional and growing.
Hence, you have to put truth before love.
Then: love before freedom. Otherwise you end up with a society of beggars and billionaires, where billionaires have the "freedom" to bribe politicians, where billionaires buy news networks to endlessly repeat certain messaging, where companies destroy nature and people's health for short-term profits, and where companies destroy the free market by establishing pseudo-monopolies and by bribing politicians.
Love means that all well-meaning people should have enough -- through charity and mutuality, rather than through an extractive state. After all, love means love towards all, hence taxation isn't loving. That said, trying to implement galactic society on Earth today today may not yet work because the people aren't quite ready yet.
If "love before freedom" makes you worried about free speech: free speech is covered by the first priority, namely truth. On your world, you can get into trouble for so-called "hate speech" even if it's never proven that this "hate speech" is actually wrong. Whereas we put truth before love. So in our society, you can say whatever you want, and the only time you may get pushback is if someone can clearly and objectively prove that what you say is not true.
Now yes, you can perhaps think of specific situations where "truth, then love, then freedom" would steer you wrong, but this is a rule of thumb for us, not an absolute law. We don't strictly apply it always. We have high-consciousness people who are there to make the tough decisions.
In the Earth context: truth means suppressed technology gets released, and love means that it gets used and shared productively. This will create huge amounts of abundance, which in turn will unite people.
So our bedrock is: truth, then love, then freedom.
If you agree with this bedrock, then just take it one step at a time. And step one is: truth.
You may find that after you've established the truth, everything is much clearer and all the subsequent steps are much easier. So just focus on establishing the truth first.
This means: call out liars. Call out censorship. Demand transparency. Demand disclosure. Demand a release of suppressed technologies. Demand a release of suppressed files and dossiers.
A clarion call for truth can be a powerful rallying cry, and it can unite people on the left and on the right.
While all lies and secrecy should eventually be called out, in the short term it's smart to focus on the release of the Epstein files first. You can make further demands for more truth after that's accomplished.
After all, the Epstein files are important and it's something that average people on both the left and the right can agree on.
So: keep relentlessly pushing for a release of the Epstein files. Don't let up. And metaphorically hold everyone's feet to the fire who stands in the way of that, regardless of which political side they're on. This isn't about trying to make your political side win, it's about establishing the truth.
If you believe in your political side, then your political side will ultimately benefit from establishing the truth, right?
If you're not an American, ideally formulate some information request towards your national leaders that average people on both the left and right of your country agree on. And insist on a true answer, and not just some sugary "nothing to see here" political answer.
If you're asking questions, you're as - a - king. So write politicians and for example ask why exactly your country is sending money or weapons to Israel, when the UN has just found that Israel committed genocide.
It's probably more powerful to ask for an answer on why your country is sending to Israel, rather than demand an end to that, because if you ask a question you put the pressure on them. Whereas if you demand that they do something (such as stop the aid) they can just say "no" and then there's no pressure on them.
If you're not getting a real answer, just ask a follow-up question. Don't be afraid to be impolite. The more you make them defend a stupid or evil position, the stupider they'll feel, and the more pressure they'll feel they're under.
So long as you're asking questions, you're as-a-king.
And if eventually the conversation gets cut off, just send your question to another politician or representative and repeat the process.
Politicians are supposed to work for you, after all.
Anyone who opposes truth and disclosure simply isn't a part of the solution. Easy as that.
You might think that politicians are never going to release Epstein or Israel related truth, however disclosure pressure may facilitate more people waking up. It may build a bridge between the left and right. It may facilitate whistleblowers stepping forwards. It may nudge the gray hats to take more open action. It may nudge neutral politicians to stand on the side of the people. And it will stress out dark controller puppets even more, causing them to make even more mistakes.
A public demand for truth and disclosure and real answers will absolutely move your society in a positive direction.
Maintain the bipartisan nature of this truth movement. Don't turn it into yet another partisan attack vehicle that pretty much only attacks one political side. To do that, at first just focus on topics that the left and the right can both agree on.
Yes, eventually you'll also want to call out lies that only one political side engages in, but start with stuff like Epstein and money to Israel that the left and the right can both agree on. Start with the stuff that most people are already united on.
Now especially just after Charlie Kirk's murder, I get that it may feel that it's critical that your political side triumphs. Still, I guarantee you that prioritizing truth and disclosure first will be more effective than engaging in partisan politics.
What do you think the dark controllers want you to do: attack the other political side, or form a bipartisan movement that calls for the release of the Epstein files?
Keep in mind that on the same day Charlie Kirk was killed, US politicians voted against a release of the Epstein files.
Now, I understand the argument that calling some normal right-winger a nazi or fascist or far-right is perhaps an incitement to violence, or stochastic terrorism, given the prevalent idea that it's virtuous to kill nazis.
Plus it's obviously a lie, as discussed in the previous channeling "Tunia: Nazism was left-wing." If you refuse to believe that nazism was left-wing, well, it should still be obvious that it's a lie that your average right-winger is a nazi.
The harsh truth is that if you just let certain people pump out propaganda constantly, then a portion of the population will lose touch with reality. That's what propaganda does.
It's overly simplistic to think that if you don't stop speech and you just have people talk to each other, then pretty much everyone will find the truth. That's not what happens, because propaganda is powerful, especially in this era of smartphones.
Then again, an argument could certainly be made that trying to stop "nazi" speech via either enforcement of existing laws, or new laws, would limit free speech too much. That could get abused later. Perhaps it would do more harm than good.
One approach is that you only stop speech that is both an incitement to violence and a very clear lie, as in the case of "MAGA are nazis." Although this, too, might get abused if nefarious actors get into power.
The gut reaction of most Pleiadians here would be "you can't call normal people nazis, that's a very clear lie" rather than "you can't call normal people nazis, that's hate speech" or "yes you can call people nazis."
In any case, I still think it's less productive to focus on this than it is to put your energies towards insisting on a release of the Epstein files.
Ideally a truth movement is formed, which focuses on bipartisan truth disclosure requests such as Epstein.
If forming a truth movement sounds like too big a project, well, consider writing or calling a politician. Or talk to someone in real life about the importance of the Epstein files. Or just keep writing about it online. Any small contribution helps. Keep the conversation alive. Keep insisting on the truth.
Why is truth so important? Well, your country chooses leaders by voting for them. And voting as a system simply won't produce good results if the people aren't being told the truth.
Furthermore, the dark controllers simply can't exist without secrecy.
If truth is revealed and disclosure is provided, then you're like 95% of the way towards New Earth already.
It's also incredibly hard to argue against a truth movement, so long as this truth movement remains reasonable and bipartisan.
If you feel called, this is an invitation to start such a bipartisan truth movement, perhaps together with others. After all, it's powerful when individuals demand answers, but it's even more powerful when people together demand answers.
Yes, this invitation is also extended to you, the person reading or listening to these words.
Some of you complain that most of your leaders are awful, and I agree, but then: be the change you want to see in the world, and stand up.
As JFK said: "the very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society."
Make secrecy repugnant again.
With all my love,
Your star brother,
Hakann
