My dearest brothers and sisters,

This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.

Today I would like to discuss a concept that frequently inflates the ego of Earth humans and divides them. It is the concept that some people are good and some people are bad or evil.

On your world, a false binary is often presented: either you're a coward who doesn't protect innocents, or you're someone who does protect innocents and who also dislikes and judges evil people and who wishes harm upon them. 

But in fact, those aren't the only two options. The military type galactic people I know do fight to protect the innocent, while not hating evil people or labelling them as inferior or wishing more harm upon them than is needed to stop them from hurting innocents.

The part where you label people as evil, judge them, think of them as inferior and think of yourself as superior to them isn't actually a necessary part of working to protect the innocent. In fact, it's ultimately counterproductive.

One example of how it's counterproductive is that if we followed Earth logic, we would have either executed R'Kok, or at least thrown him in a cell for the rest of his life. But by actually treating him well once it became clear that he was no longer a threat to innocents, we offered him a door through which he chose to walk, and he's probably saved somewhere around a million to a million lives after his redemption. Now, that's still less than the number of people he killed, but it's obviously still very significant. He's also helped advise on Earth operations. 

I'm sure that there are people out there who wanted R'Kok executed and who would have called that justice -- but if we had engaged in Earth justice, then half a million to a million other people would now be dead.

So, should you just always forgive everyone? Well no, that's not what I'm saying. Obviously bad people can just lie, so if they did horrible things in the past and you can't be sure that they won't do them in the future, then the risk to innocents is unacceptably high and locking them up makes sense. You could even argue for the death penalty in case people have done horrible things and are completely unrepentant, because then those people no longer drag down the collective subconscious, whereas they do if you lock them up. It's up to you to decide if you advocate for the death penalty in that case: some Galactics do, some Galactics don't.

So I'm not saying, "don't fight evil" or "be naïve." I am saying: "if you fight evil, then there's no reason to hate them, to judge them, or to label them as inferior to yourself, or to label yourself as superior to them"

In fact, I wouldn't even talk about good and evil, because those terms have become so laden there on Earth, and they trigger so much old programming.

I would talk about people who are a direct threat to other people, and people who are not a direct threat to other people. 

That way, you can still communicate that this person is dangerous and we need to take measures to protect ourselves and other innocents, without all the moralizing and finger-pointing and separation and personal ego-inflating that comes with labelling people as good or bad.

I'm talking about "direct threat" because otherwise you get people saying that this person says things that create an environment in which harmful things may occur, and therefore we need to censor speech. Obviously, I don't agree with that argument, hence I use the term "direct threat."

And I'm talking about people being harmed because otherwise you get arguments like: "John is saying things that hinder this social cause that I deem to be beneficial, so therefore we must violate John's rights" even when you can't actually point to anyone whom John is actually hurting. I also don't agree with that.

The benefit of this is that if you say a person poses a direct threat to other people, then that opens the door to have a dialogue with them and see if both your and their needs can be met at the same time. Whereas if a person is just evil, then that only points to force and coercion as being the solution.

Another benefit of not talking about evil is that it's otherwise tempting to label other people as evil just for having the wrong political or societal beliefs. But that just creates a huge divide between people, when that really isn't necessary. Even if it's objectively true that someone has the wrong political beliefs, well, that by itself doesn't warrant treating them as inferior or treating them harshly, which the label "evil" would nudge you to do. Whereas if you think "is this person on the wrong political side a direct threat to other people" then probably the answer is no.

Furthermore, talking about direct threats to innocent people, as opposed to evil, stops you and stops your group from doing bad things for the so-called greater good. Whereas if you think of yourself or your group as good, and the other as being evil, then it's all too easy to justify doing bad things to them.

More subtly, labelling yourself as good and others as bad inflates your ego, which can hold you back spiritually.

Moreover, if you talk to people on both sides of any bitter and intense conflict, then most people on both sides will tell you they're the good ones and the people on the other side are the evil ones. Obviously, that doesn't contribute to solving the conflict. And obviously that can't both be true, which suggests in most cases a labelling of "good" and "evil" isn't some kind of objectively correct label. In most cases, people simply label themselves and their ingroup as good, and anyone who opposes them as evil. Which suggests that it's not productive to use the labels "good" and "evil."

Furthermore, almost certainly there's someone out there who thinks you're evil. If you're politically left-wing or politically right-wing, then some people will think you're evil. If you're in the political centre, then some people will think you're evil because you're not actively on their side. If you're not a vegan, some people will think you're evil. If you're not actively working for their preferred cause, some people will think you're evil. Most likely you won't accept this, but this just further points to the label of "evil" not being particularly objective or useful.

So, I suggest just dropping the concepts of good and evil, of good and bad people altogether. Instead I suggest labelling people as either being a direct threat to others, or not being a direct threat to others. That way you can still communicate that some person or some nation is dangerous and measures should perhaps be taken.

Let's illustrate this. Under the old good versus evil thinking, under the conventional narrative, Russia is evil and Ukraine is good. Therefore we must help Ukraine beat Russia.

Now, even if we do use the labels of good and evil, I still wouldn't agree with that narrative. Hakann discussed this in his previous message: "Hakann: Your leaders treat citizens as citizens treat animals."

But for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that Russia really is evil. Even then, we see that labelling them and treating them as evil doesn't actually work and isn't productive, not even from the perspective of those Westerners who do think Russia is evil.

After all, sending money and weapons to Ukraine is done with taxpayer money, and the sanctions are strongly hurting Western economic prosperity (while only slightly hurting Russia's economy). And all that it's achieving is more dead people on both sides and more Western economic decline, which obviously your average Westerner doesn't want. It also means more Ukrainian refugees fleeing to the West. And this outcome also isn't good for Western non-dark controller politicians, because this isn't good for their re-election chances.

But then again, if you label Russia as evil, this outcome is more or less inevitable, isn't it? If Russia is evil, you have to fight them. Even though in this case fighting them just means more dead people and more Western economic decline and more refugees with ultimately the same outcome of Russia winning the war.

Sure, sending weapons to Ukraine is good for the dark controllers, but that just reinforces my point that it's not beneficial to label some people as good and some people as evil.

Now picture the alternative: Russia was never labelled as evil, and people looked at the conflict through the lens of: how can we stop innocent people on both sides from being directly threatened?

Well in that case, the war may not have started at all. Or the Istanbul deal would have been signed a few months into the war (in 2022), and there would have been peace for two years now, and Russia never would have annexed the Donbass. From the perspective of both Western citizens and Western non-dark controller politicians, that would be a preferable outcome than the outcome that is likely now going to unfold, where Russia wins the war and keeps the Donbass, and the West has to deal with severe economic damage and more Ukrainian refugee flows.

But in our timeline, Russia was labelled as evil, and evil must be defeated, and so the West told Ukraine to reject the Istanbul deal and to fight and that they'd send over Western weapons to Ukraine. And so here we are.

Some people might argue that it doesn't matter whether or not Russia was labelled as evil, because the dark controllers were going to push for war and weapons regardless. Well, I think it does matter. In the present moment, the dark controllers aren't powerful enough that they can just do what they want. That is why you haven't been locked down since covid, you're not subject to a sky-high carbon tax, there isn't a direct and hot war between Russia and NATO right now, the population hasn't been reduced by 90%, et cetera.

In the present moment, the dark controllers can only get their way if they convince a large group of non-dark controllers to go along with their agenda. That's why covid lockdowns were implemented -- many people at the time agreed with the lockdowns. That's why some anti-Trump initiatives are indeed unfolding, because many people do hate Trump. It's why weapons are sent to Ukraine, because many people do believe Russia is evil. And so, it does matter whether or not Russia is labelled as evil or not.

Also, in the present, the West is completely stuck policy-wise with regards to Russia. Because many Western people still believe Russia is evil, and evil must be fought. But at the same time, sending weapons to Ukraine won't stop Russia from winning the war, and NATO directly fighting Russia is too painful and costly and destructive and unpopular. And so the West is stuck, unwilling to accept any of the options it has. The West refuses to make peace with Russia because Russia is evil, and it also refuses to just let Russia win the war and dictate terms to Ukraine, and the West also refuses to directly go to war with Russia -- and yet, one of those things is going to happen.

The West is trapped by their own ideological view that Russia is evil and evil must be defeated.

Now let's look at things from our suggested perspective, that we don't look at good vs evil, but that we instead look at direct threats to innocent people. Now with our way of thinking we would never have gotten to the place the war is in currently, but let's see how we would untangle this knot anyway.

Currently, who is being a direct threat to other people? Well at present, both Ukraine and Russia are.

Even if we somehow could defeat Russia completely, then Ukraine would still be a direct threat to people. After all, Ukraine was arguably committing genocide against Russian speaking Ukrainian civilians in the Donbass before the war. Most likely they would continue if peace were signed -- if anything Ukraine hates Russia even more now than they did before the war, and Ukraine hated Russia even before the 2022 war due to Stalin's Holodomor.

So, just defeating Russia, even if it could be done, wouldn't stop Ukraine from being a direct threat to people. So it wouldn't be an actual solution.

Even if Russia could be convinced or threatened or tricked into signing a peace where Russia doesn't get the Donbass, that still wouldn't create long-term safety for the same reason: Ukraine would most likely resume their arguable-genocide in the Donbass.

What if the peace agreement contained a promise by Ukraine to not commit genocide? Unfortunately, Ukraine has lied so much and has done so much terrorism that Russia isn't going to believe them. I wouldn't believe Ukraine if I was Russia.

What if the peace agreement contained a promise by Ukraine to not commit genocide, and a guarantee by the West to enforce that? Well, that was basically the formula of the Minsk agreements before the war. And Ukraine broke their word and resumed killing civilians, and the West did not in fact stop Ukraine, even though they promised they would. So Russia can't trust the West. Frankly, Russia would be foolish, now that they are winning the war, to sign another Minsk agreement that the West and Ukraine broke twice already.

Moreover, even if a given Western president or prime minister can be trusted, it's entirely possible that a few years later they get replaced by a dark controller puppets who pushes Ukraine to resume their arguable-genocide. And Russia knows this. 

Now, the energies are rising so this sort of thing might not actually happen for much longer in the future, but it's understandable that Russia isn't planning around the rising energies on Earth.

So, if we're interested in actually stopping threats to innocent people, and if we keep in mind that Russia simply can't trust the West or Ukraine, then either we have to get very creative or we would have to agree that Russia gets the Donbass. Because then those civilians won't get arguably-genocided by Ukraine anymore.

If the West is still interested in limiting Russia's power as much as possible, it could propose to Russia: we stop funding Ukraine and giving them weapons and sending them experts and trainers and spec ops soldiers and so-called volunteer soldiers. We will drop the sanctions, and we will not go to war against you. In return, you can take the Donbass but not more than the Donbass. Also, let's discuss a comprehensive security framework that solves the security issue in Europe in the long term.

Some Russians would say that this would be justified under international law by pointing out that Ukraine arguably committed genocide in the Donbass, which legally allowed the Donbass republics to secede from Ukraine via the Kosovo precedent that the West set. And then those independent republics could legally vote to join Russia (as they have already done). Of course most people in the West disagree with this line of logic, but it's an argument that could be made.

Alternatively, the West could simply say that they condemn the annexation of the Donbass and consider it illegal, but that they are nonetheless not going to support Ukraine or fight Russia or sanction Russia anymore if Russia doesn't take more than the Donbass. After all, if you don't label Russia as evil, then you don't force yourself to fight Russia even if it's unproductive or unwinnable.

Now Russia may have more demands than just getting the Donbass at this point, in part because they'll fear that if they sign peace now, NATO will spend a few years re-militarizing Ukraine and then this war will be re-fought a few years later. So that topic should certainly be discussed. But at the very least, this proposal will likely get Russia to listen and to start engaging in peace talks. And dropping the sanctions and stopping the Ukraine aid will be good for Western economies and will prevent further migrant flows. Furthermore, peace means that people stop dying, on both sides, and that there's less chance of things spiraling into world war three.

People might make arguments about justice and about stopping evil at this point, but what are the real alternatives? More weapons to Ukraine means more dead people on both sides, more refugees, more economic damage to the West and eventually Russia wins anyway and unilaterally enforces demands on Ukraine, likely ending up with more than the Donbass. Or alternatively, the West could directly go to war with Russia but obviously that's also an even worse outcome.

There's a saying in Earth diplomatic circles that anyone who talks about finding ways to satisfy everyone's interests is after peace, while anyone who talks about morality is after war.

Some people will argue that Russia must be defeated now or they'll invade, I don't know, Poland next. However, Poland is a NATO member and as such protected by article 5. Ukraine isn't and wasn't a NATO member. So I really don't think that Russia is going to invade Poland. Poland also isn't ruled by leaders who are at least flirting with neo-Nazi ideology, as Ukraine is. Poland also isn't arguably-genociding Russian speakers. So the logic that caused Russia to invade Ukraine simply doesn't apply to Poland.

This is why I'm arguing to try and limit direct threats to people, not imagined or possible future threats to people. If the possibility of someone possibly threatening someone else in the future is enough reason to go to war, then you can justify any war.

But of course, the people who would say that we need to fight Russia because they might invade Poland in the future, won't agree with the statement that other countries should fight America because America might invade other countries in the future, like America invaded Iraq, and like America is currently illegally occupying Syria. Because after all, we are good, and people we dislike are evil. Right? That's why we should fight other people, but others shouldn't fight us, because we are good and they are evil.

Finally, people might argue that Ukraine is being harmed if Ukraine loses the Donbass. However, note that Ukraine isn't actually a conscious entity. Countries aren't sentient beings, people are. And the dirty secret of this war is that most people in the Donbass actually want to be part of Russia, because Ukraine was arguably committing genocide in the Donbass.

Furthermore, I didn't propose that the West forces Ukraine to sign peace. I proposed that the West stops sending aid and weapons to Ukraine. Then it's up to the people of Ukraine if they want to sign peace or if they want to keep fighting. Once we drop the concept of good and evil, the West doesn't actually have an obligation to send money and weapons to Ukraine.

So rather than good versus evil, I suggest thinking in terms of who in this conflict is a direct threat to other people. And how can we resolve this conflict in a way that neither party will be a direct threat to other people afterwards?

I hope that was helpful. Better times really are coming. You have all my love and respect and empathy for holding on to the light in these very harsh times.

I love you so very much.

Your star sister,

Tunia

Blog Post Layout © 2024 crystalwind.ca. All rights reserved. Hidden tracking code is embedded for monitoring purposes. We employ sniffer technology to track all IP addresses. Please note that using a Proxy/VPN/Tor will not conceal your IP address. The title for this article was created by CrystalWind.ca.