Anos: We're more varied than you realize

Hello my dear Earth friends,

This is Anos speaking. I am an Arcturian. I'm not as sexy to your eyes as Pleiadians are, unless you are into small bald blue men.

Although if you are into small bald blue men, I would like to congratulate you on your good taste.

Anyway, I greet you, for we are one.

This channeler was gracious enough back in mid-2022 to allow me to bring through a few messages. Time sure loops back in on itself, doesn't it? Because today I am happy that I can once again talk with you.

I would like to share that us galactics are much more varied than the people of Earth seem to think we are. I get the sense that many of you think that we're basically all more or less a stereotypical enlightened Earth master, whose primary motivation is spiritual growth. And sure, some of us can be reasonably compared to that. But even just in the Pleiadian race, there's a vast amount of difference in how different people are and how different their levels of consciousness is.

For example, you have someone like Emerelda, who is caring and loving and who wants to help, but whose level of consciousness isn't that different from that of a wise Earth woman, as you might have noticed from her messages during the last two weeks. It's not that she's spiritually incompetent, it's simply that spirituality is not her focus. Instead she is focused on her family, on serving in the military and recently on recovering from her traumatic experience. And there's nothing wrong at all with her choosing not to focus on spirituality. If all of us galactics were doing nothing except meditating and hanging out in gardens making wise observations about the universe, we would long ago have been conquered by the reptilians.

I think Emerelda comes across as personal and relatable to some people because her level of consciousness really isn't hugely different from yours.

There are also Pleiadians who primarily care about traveling and exploring the universe, and they're incredibly well-traveled and friendly and kind and have some amazing stories to tell, but some of them too also aren't focused on spirituality.

There are Pleiadians who focus on and become incredibly good at one craft. Then there are Pleiadians who just have a whole lot of fun, who enjoy talking to a whole lot of people and who are very pleasant and fun to hang out with. Some Pleiadians decide -- hey, I've been born into sort of a paradise, let's enjoy it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Others, like Emerelda, more or less decide: I've been born into sort of a paradise, let me make sure this paradise is maintained and kept safe in practical and physical terms. Again, nothing at all wrong with that. In fact  I'm grateful that she's defending us and you from invaders, so that I don't have to fight reptilians myself. It unfortunately turns out that some individuals will choose to keep being destructive even if you approach them with love and understanding, hence we do need a military.

So, just like not all Earth humans are focused on spirituality, so too are not all galactics focused on spirituality.

Then there are people like Tunia and Hakann and the average Pleiadian special ops soldier, who spend some time on spiritual growth but don't make it the primary focus in their life. They are more or less average in terms of their level of spirituality, in the context of Pleiadian society. They need to often simplify what they want to say to make it understandable for Earth humans. Also notice that people with an average spiritual level in Pleiadian context can have quite different personalities. From the point of view of his peers, Hakann is a workaholic and perhaps sometimes a bit over-serious, but he's also really good at being a commander. And he genuinely loves dancing and is good at that. Meanwhile, Tunia is friendly and loving and cares deeply about what happens on Earth and she really likes sex. She also wants to help Earth humans get into satisfying romantic relationships and hence she has discussed relationships and gender dynamics in quite a few of her messages. As you see, you really can't summarize the personalities of either Hakann or Tunia as them just being a stereotypical spiritual master.

Then there are Pleiadians who literally haven't moved a muscle in over a hundred years, because they're meditating and they're so advanced they don't need to ingest anything or urinate for their body to function. Yet they remain fully aware. You wouldn't believe how observant and psychically powerful some of them are. Some of them are focused on beaming love to Earth, and they're like super cannons of love.

Then there are Pleiadians who have focused on spirituality for many hundreds of years, yet who keep moving around. Even a typical Earth human who isn't particularly sensitive might start crying in their presence due to the love and peace they radiate. Usually, from the point of view of these spiritually advanced Pleiadians who are more focused on meditation than on practical matters, life is incredibly simple. Just align with your soul and then act, and that's it. Why worry, just be. If you want to do something, do it. If you feel love or joy, express it, share it so that it multiplies. If something painful arises, simply observe it. Don't like something in your society? Connect with like-minded people and change it, or contribute what you think is missing. Someone is hurting someone else? The hurter must have been hurt earlier, let's send love to both.

You also have non-physical Pleiadians or even non-physical galactic collectives, and it is hard to even find an appropriate metaphor for their level of consciousness.

But let's go back to a slightly lower level of consciousness and keep discussing physical galactics.

In particular, let's discuss physical galactics who are spiritual masters even by our standards, who also have practical skills and lots of responsibility. An example of this is Ashtar Sheran, but there are also other galactics who have a consciousness and skill set similar to that. Tourmalayne, who was channeled previously, is near this top as well.

And for someone like Ashtar, talking to you would be the equivalent of you trying to explain a concept to a nearly blind caveman. Good luck with that.

It's by now well-known in the spiritual community that channeled messages from Ashtar are often distorted because gray or dark beings frequently mimic Ashtar, and so you get a false channeling. That is one part of it, yes. But there are also cases where people channel the real Ashtar, but the message still gets distorted because for him, talking to an Earth human is the equivalent of you talking to a nearly blind caveman. The near-blindness is a metaphor for your near-inability to perceive and understand and work with energy, from our perspective.

Ashtar is too polite to point this out, but I'm not as polite as he is, so here you go.

SECTION: EXPLAINING THINGS TO NEARLY BLIND CAVEMEN

Suppose a nearly blind caveman and his tribe have been fighting people from another tribe, over hunting grounds and also there is an escalating cycle of revenge and honor-killings. This caveman asks for advice, and you decide that it's in the highest good to advise him to meet with the other tribe under a white flag, to treat people from the other tribe with respect, to say "these hunting grounds are exclusively ours and those hunting grounds are exclusively yours", to make peace and to give fair compensation to the other tribe because his tribe recently stole and ate a cow of theirs.

Okay, good luck communicating this. The caveman doesn't have words for and doesn't understand the concepts of "war", "peace", "dividing things fairly", "these hunting grounds are exclusively ours and those are exclusively theirs", "escalating cycle of revenge and honor-killing", why revenge and honor killing are bad things at all, about what a white flag means, about what respect is, about why peace is better than war, about what stealing is, about what compensation even means, about what fair compensation might look like and why giving the other tribe compensation would be a good thing to do at all. 

Don't forget that the caveman is nearly blind, so even if his language has a word for cow, the caveman might not have a very solid idea of what a cow is exactly.

Also, realize that the words that you may want to use to explain all these unknown concepts might very well be words and concepts themselves that the caveman also doesn't understand. For example, if you want to explain compensation as the act of giving a wronged party something of equal value, then the caveman may not understand the concepts of "wronged party" and the concept of "value." And even if you explain all of that, the caveman might argue that his tribe shouldn't need to give compensation because the other tribe did something bad too. 

Another issue is that arguments that seem self-evident and seem obviously morally correct to you, may not appear as such to this caveman. For example, the caveman might very well think in terms of: "we are good and the other side is evil, therefore it is our moral duty to fight them. Fighting them is good, because they are evil." Good luck convincing the caveman that this worldview is wrong. And remember, many of the arguments that you would want to use to convince him are concepts themselves that the caveman doesn't understand or necessarily agree with. The caveman might say: "What do you mean that conflict is bad, last week we stole a cow from the other tribe and I had a great meal, so clearly conflict is good. What do you mean, "but you wouldn't like it if they did that to you"? Well, my nephew is guarding my cow, and my nephew is big and strong, so they can't do cow-stealing to me, so you are wrong. Hence, why shouldn't we fight that other tribe? Maybe the real solution is just to fight that other tribe harder, and win, and take all their cattle and women for ourselves."

Then there is the issue that underneath every concept you try to explain, you realize that there are two more concepts that the caveman doesn't understand, like a multi-headed hydra. Every concept you want to explain reveals two more concepts that need to be explained first. 

For example, let's say that you want to make the caveman understand the idea of proposing that these hunting grounds are exclusively for his tribe and those hunting grounds are exclusively for the other tribe.

Well, before you explain that, you need to explain the concept of exclusivity. And when you have done that, you realize that the caveman now understands the concept of exclusivity in a theoretical sense, but if someone from the other tribe accidentally wanders into his lands, he's probably going to kill him and then it's war. So now you need to explain the concept of having a proportional response to the caveman. You need to explain the concept of investigating if the other party is being malicious or just making an accidental error, and what these ideas of maliciousness and accidental errors even mean. And you need to explain what to do if the other side is malicious and what to do if the other side is making an error. You need to explain that on one hand the caveman shouldn't be naive, because perhaps the other side is intentionally violating the agreement. On the other hand, maybe if someone from their tribe accidentally trespasses in your lands, it was just an accident and you shouldn't immediately kill them. You need to explain the concepts of diplomacy and of talking first before fighting. Yet you also need to explain that "talk first" isn't always correct: if the other side runs at you with weapons drawn, then it's not smart to just stand there and try talking. 

Remember that you need to explain all these new concepts not just in a theoretical sense, but also in a practical enough way that the caveman will actually apply them sensibly in the real world. And you need to communicate all of this in a very limited language. Also be aware that every word you say will be taken as the sole literal truth that is to be applied blindly and without common sense, in all situations, possibly for the next millennium. If you state a rule carelessly, and it doesn't apply in all situations, that might be used as an argument to discard literally everything you've ever said. Not to mention that the caveman might follow your rule blindly in a stupid situation and get into some serious trouble that he wouldn't have gotten into if you hadn't given him a message.

Okay, now you have provided one tree of explanations to the caveman. Great. Then there are multiple other trees of explanations that you also need to provide. Another such tree might be: how the caveman can actually convince his own tribe to go along with the agreement. The caveman shouldn't just use violence against everyone who disagrees with him, after all. Yet at the same time, the caveman should defend himself against other people trying to use violence against him to make him shut up. On the other other hand, the caveman also shouldn't flat-out murder anyone who tries to slap him. For you, it's obvious where that sensible middle is, but for the caveman that's not obvious at all -- and if you carelessly say something like "protect yourself" then the caveman may see that as this divine being telling him that he should murder anyone who touches him. And now you realize that you need to explain that if someone physically attacks him, that warrants a different response than if someone insults him verbally -- and of course, some verbal insults warrant different responses than other verbal insults. 

But it's not just that different wrongful actions taken by the other side warrant a different response. There's also a difference between a strong man trying to punch him, versus a woman trying to punch him, versus a child trying to punch him. On the other hand, while it may be fine to return a punch to a man but not to a woman, on the other hand it is fine to demand that a woman compensate him if she steals food from him. So in that specific case, he can hold men and women equally responsible and treat them equally. However, if the woman who stole food is a single mom and her child is hungry, then maybe it's best to just let her have the food. However if she has a husband and that husband is too lazy to get food for his child, then maybe don't let her steal the food and talk to her husband instead. You can see how this tree just keeps branching forever, and if you forget to explain a branch and make an overly general statement, then the caveman may feel that a higher being told him to take an action that you would consider to be immoral.

Let's say you have explained to this caveman not to use force against people who disagree with him. Now how do you explain that on the other hand, if his tribe makes this agreement with the other tribe, then his own tribe should use non-excessive physical means to make sure that everyone in his tribe follows the agreement, even those who disagree? Because after all, if you just tell the caveman to not use violence unless he is attacked, then he'll make the agreement with the other tribe, and then someone from his own tribe will break the agreement, and then the peace falls apart. Yes, to you it's obvious where the sensible middle is, but that's not obvious at all to the caveman. If you just tell the caveman to make sure that his tribe follows the agreement, be careful that you're not creating a tyrant.

So you think you've finally explained everything properly, and the caveman goes off to try and create the peace that you suggested. You sit back and observe. The caveman successfully convinces his own tribe to go along, great, and he only punched two people in the face to accomplish that. That's better than you expected.

You then see the caveman walk up to the other tribe and propose that his tribe gets exclusive hunting rights to all the good land, and the other tribe gets exclusive hunting rights to all the barren lands, where practically no animals live. Because why wouldn't he propose that? You didn't explicitly tell him not to do this, after all, and of course he wants the good land. Why wouldn't he want the good land?

So the other tribe is insulted by this unreasonable offer, and they kill the caveman for the insult, and now it's war. And half the cavemen from the tribe you were trying to help now say that you are a great deceiver, you are a devil, because you have brought war upon them and you have caused your caveman prophet to be killed. And you sort of did, because you explained 499 concepts properly, but you overlooked the 500th concept and now your prophet is dead and there's war. 

In fact, because you forgot to explain the 500th concept, you might have done more harm than good. Maybe the tribe you were trying to help now fractures into one half that wants to follow your teachings, and into another half that says that you are a devil and that everything you've ever said must have been a lie. And then maybe the two halves of the former tribe start fighting each other in a religious war. Sure you had the best intentions, but because you tried to help, now brother is killing brother, and a father is killing his son.

Okay, but let's say you made the Herculean effort of mapping out every single tree of missing concepts and ideas, and you've explained literally everything properly to the caveman, without overlooking anything, and you explained it in a way that's practical enough that he can apply it properly.

Okay, great. However, the caveman is still nearly blind and limited in his thinking, so the version of your message that actually gets into his brain will probably be some distorted, half-understood version of what you were saying. That is probably the best you can hope for, but is it good enough? And then the caveman has to dumb down your message into caveman words, because his language is very limited. And then he has to communicate via that limited language to his caveman friends, and more things will get lost or jumbled up in translation.

Also, those cavemen friends are probably more interested in profit and comfort and feeling good than they are interested in the pure truth and nothing but the truth. Also, those cavemen friends might already have a bunch of ideas in their head already, some wholly flawed, against which they will judge this new information. And so part of your message might get discarded, or get changed so that it fits with their existing ideas, some of which are quite flawed.

Do you think that much of your message will get through to those cavemen friends? Or do you think that your message will get hopelessly distorted?

What might very well happen is that the only part of your message that survives and that becomes accepted by the caveman tribe is the idea of "hunting grounds are exclusively ours." The other idea, that some hunting grounds should actually be exclusively for the other tribe, will conveniently get lost in translation, because that part of your message isn't pleasing to the ego. And then these cavemen will feel divinely justified in waging war, because this seemingly divine being has just told them that "hunting grounds are exclusively ours." And so you've tried to bring peace, but actually the cavemen are fighting more fiercely than ever before, because they've discarded every part of your message except the part that their ego could run wild with.

And even if everything goes properly and your prophet actually does establish peace, well, that prophet's ego might spin out of control in the following years and he might start a cult, saying that only he has the one true teaching. If he does start a cult, the people will follow him because this prophet has clearly demonstrated a link to a higher kind of being. Your prophet could simply lie and falsely claim that you made a statement that just happens to reinforce his power and the power of his organization. The prophet turned cult leader might think to himself that he's justified because he's establishing social order, and after all his organization is good and so it's good to deceive the people into thinking his organization must be followed.

Or the prophet might falsely claim that you instructed him to wage holy war, and then there goes the tribe.

Even if this prophet remains humble, his words might be twisted by future generations into something ego-reinforcing.

And yes, it has happened on Earth that high-consciousness beings brought messages of peace, but those got twisted into messages of destruction. And these twisted ideas became dogma, and then sometimes became religion. Although it has also happened that gray or dark beings pretended to be high-consciousness light beings, but their messages were always secretly meant to be destructive.

Of course, certain parts about religion are great, and many religious people are kind and wonderful. Certain ideas also did get communicated correctly. For example, the golden rule of Jesus or Yeshua, "do to others what you would have them do to you", indeed is a fantastic rule of thumb. Still, many other messages got twisted.

If you feel sort of horrified and exasperated at this whole process, well, welcome to the perspective of high-consciousness beings who are trying to communicate with you, either through channelings or when they're considering intervening or landing or beaming you up. 

We are trying to explain things as best as we can, but the situation on Earth is so complicated that humans aren't fully able to grasp it. And if we're not really careful, we can very easily do more harm than good if we interact with Earth humans. Yes, if we're not careful and if we intervene or land in a way that's just a little bit careless, we can easily do more harm than good, just like you could easily do more harm than good if you tried to help a tribe of cavemen.

Do you think that it would be a good idea for you to pick up a caveman in your car, drive him to your home, chat for a while face to face and then then drive him back to his caveman tribe? Well, that's the suggestion that people are basically making when they ask us to beam them up.

SECTION: BACK TO THE GALACTIC PERSPECTIVE

This whole situation is also why you have so many channelings that either contradict each other, or that don't quite hit the mark, or that don't quite resonate, or that excessively use metaphors. Or the galactics dumb down the message so much before sending it that it isn't really an accurate description of reality anymore. Or a message gets dumbed down to the point where it's just a bunch of spiritual cliches, and when you read these messages you feel that you're just being told the same spiritual cliches over and over again. But well, those were the cliches that certain high-consciousness beings decided probably wouldn't get twisted by anyone's ego, and they're a bit careful about saying anything to you except these cliches.

This situation is part of why us galactics have been hesitant to beam up some individuals or to land (although we will probably land this year or the next, and may allow some people onto our ships then too). It's quite easy for Earth humans to egoically misunderstand what us galactics might casually say to you, or to adopt a mentality of "save us, we're helpless, we can't do anything, please do everything for us", or to treat galactics as flawless gods to be worshipped, or to treat galactics as evil scum because we won't immediately do every single bit of work for you to turn Earth into a paradise. We intend to empower humanity, and it wouldn't be empowering for you if us galactics just crafted a new Earth society and then handed it to you. That said, we are happy to significantly help you.

We have also been a bit shocked to observe just how quickly a perfectly normal Earth human can become driven by ego if you give him or her a bit of power or knowledge or privilege or technology. What we don't want to happen is that we beam up an Earth human and interact with them a bit, and then this Earth human decides that everyone must blindly listen to him or her, because only he or she has the one true teaching after interacting with us galactics. We don't claim to have the one true teaching that everyone should follow, but this Earth human might. And an ego-driven person who has some genuine insight or knowledge or power or technology, can mislead a whole lot of people through flawed teachings and do a whole lot of damage indeed. There's a reason why the concepts of a false prophet or a destructive guru resonate strongly in the minds of many Earth humans.

Then there are the anti-beaming-up arguments that an Earth human who has been beamed up and is then later beamed down again, might become miserable, or might become a target for kidnapping by the dark controllers. Or they might refuse to be beamed back down and then there's one less source of light on Earth and everything becomes just a bit darker.

Also note that you are probably quite bad at relating to the lived experiences of a blind caveman. This was illustrated by Hakann admitting to being a bit naive about life on Earth, in his recent message: "Hakann: the gray hats have failed." Though, don't worry about that too much, it's precisely because Hakann lacks some amount of wisdom and perspective that he isn't in the top level of decision makers. Hakann is sometimes invited to give his input, but he's not one of the people who ultimately make the big decisions, such as when to intervene on Earth. To be blunt, ultimately Hakann is just a person who very competently executes the decisions that the people above him in the hierarchy make. 

I'm not saying anything that would surprise or offend him. We're all mind readers here, and he knows this himself. There is also no shame and no value judgement in any of this. He's making a valuable contribution and that's great, doesn't matter that he's not at the top of the hierarchy. And in time Hakann may well reach a higher level of understanding, although even if he doesn't that's okay too. It's all just life and experiences anyway.

To their credit, Hakann and Tunia are quite good at communicating relatively complex topics in a pretty accurate way, which is part of the reason why they were chosen to regularly work with this channeler. Galactic commanders have to be able to persuade people to do certain things, and hence being a galactic commander means that you need to be good at diplomacy and at explaining things. And for her part, Tunia is simply good at communication.

The people at the mid level of consciousness sometimes think that the high level of consciousness people, like Ashtar, are out of touch and don't understand what life on Earth is actually like. That's sometimes accurate, but not always. People like Ashtar have their ways. If they choose to do so, to grasp the horror of Earth perfectly fine. They're better at that, in fact, than the mid-consciousness people like Hakann are. Now yes, some high-consciousness people indeed are out of touch because they simply haven't taken the time to really understand what life on Earth is like. However, the high-consciousness people who choose to really take the time to understand life on Earth can understand it very well indeed (as Tunia mentioned, this is why a court recently sentenced galactic decision-makers to mandatory awareness). Now, high-consciousness people might not necessarily be great at communicating to Earth humans, because that's just a really hard job to do well, however high-sconsciousness people have ways through which they can understand your plight.

So it's not primarily them being out of touch. It's more that galactics at a high level of consciousness are considering so many different timelines and dimensions and unborn generations and reverberations of certain actions and dimensional entanglements and energetic effects and vibrations, that the suffering of the people of Earth becomes just one of many, many, many variables that is to be considered. It's like people such as Ashtar are an organic and caring supercomputer, while the people of Earth are only considering one variable, namely their own happiness or lack thereof. And I don't blame you for that at all, but that does make it hard for Ashtar to communicate, similar to how you would struggle to explain to a blind person what the sky looks like.

So, other than us being concerned we might do more harm than good, why haven't we intervened yet? The full answer is simply so complicated and involves so many factors and dimensions and types of energy that we're unable to communicate it to you. There's no dark secret or big hidden reason there, it's just really complicated, and we have been trying to explain it as best as we can for some time now. Through these messages, we are trying to give you more and more understanding of the world around you. It's just that in the process of turning this why-we-haven't-landed-yet explanation into words or images, we have to dumb our message down significantly, or just use a bunch of metaphors and feel-good sentences. In the process, we always lose meaningful information and meaningful considerations.

What I can plainly tell you is that the reason is complicated, and ultimately it's a matter of the galactic confederation being free to choose, and having the capability to land, yet choosing to not yet land or intervene. The reason why we haven't intervened and haven't landed yet is not that there's some law, or some divine law, or some law of creation, or some directive that says we're not allowed to intervene. After all, think about it logically. Argument one: anyone who makes a law can revoke it or make an exception, so arguing that there's a law that prevents us from landing just moves the discussion to: "why isn't the being who made the law, revoking the law or making an exception for Earth?" 

And no, your infinitely loving creator hasn't made a law saying that your star brothers aren't allowed to help you during your time of suffering. Why would an infinitely loving creator make such a law? And the thought pattern of "we can't understand, we must simply blindly believe and obey" is an enslavement thought pattern, not a thought pattern that's part of your upliftment or expansion. Just go by your gut and not by the enslavement pattern that's been drilled into you. Does it make sense that your infinitely loving creator would ban us from helping our brothers and sisters who are suffering terribly? Don't rationalize some explanation, just go by your gut. Is that a sentence that feels correct to you?

It doesn't feel right to me, and indeed, your creator hasn't made a law that bans us from landing or intervening.

Let's present argument two about why there's no law that prevents us from intervening or landing. Suppose that we really wanted to make open contact with you, but we're prevented from doing that by some law. Well, clearly we are allowed to actively show our ships to you in your skies, because we are already doing so all the time. Well, then why wouldn't we just blanket your skies with our ships, or spell out messages to you with our ships? Do you believe that there is some kind of divine law that says: "galactics are not allowed to intervene, but they are allowed to actively show themselves to Earth humans in their ships, but they are not allowed to show themselves more than a certain number of times each day, because Source has told us that we may show ourselves 16 times per day but not 17 times because that would just be madness"?

Doesn't that sound a little silly in your ears? Well, if it does, that might be because there is no law that is preventing us from intervening or landing. We're just choosing not to do so for now because of some very complicated reasons. To the extent that we can explain it to Earth humans, I think Hakann did a good job. And ultimately, yes, the bottom line is still that we are likely to intervene this year or the next, if nothing big happens such as a solar flash or a huge move towards freedom by Earth humans.

I think the lightworker community on Earth is actually doing great and are doing amazing work, given how harsh Earth is. I don't blame you for being born on a world that deeply hurts and disconnects just about everyone who is born there. It's really easy for galactics to reach a high level of consciousness due to our environment and support. Meanwhile it's really impressive that the lightworker community has held on to the light despite all the darkness on Earth. I deeply respect you.

There are also absolutely things that you are better at than we are. You have much more experience in being a light in the darkness, for example. You are better at holding on to your truth even if everyone around you is lying or deluded. You have more experience with standing up to your loved ones if they are sometimes treating you well but also sometimes not. We have no experience with these things, because being in galactic society we never were confronted with the kind of friction that you're confronted with every day. Also, many souls would simply do worse, in the conventional sense of the word, had they been born in your shoes. It's just really easy for us to achieve a higher state of consciousness, but that doesn't mean we'd do well if we had been born on Earth. 

I am hoping that you don't feel belittled by this message. If anything, I hope that you find it encouraging that the big decisions on our side are ultimately being made by loving, good-hearted people who are very, very wise and far-seeing indeed, to the point where it's actually hard for them to explain their reasoning with you.

Now admittedly, the Earth situation is tough, because it's not just a mathematical equation that has exactly one correct answer. There are multiple reasonable policies that can be formulated with respect to Earth, and which one seems best depends on the values and the principles that the person considers most important. I understand the galactic confederation's current policies with regards to Earth quite well, and these policies are reasonable and logical and understandable, but at the same time someone with different values and principles could formulate alternative policies that would also be reasonable and logical and understandable. Hence, there is a lively debate going on within the galactic confederation. But still, the current policies, which involve us likely intervening this year or the next if nothing big happens before then, are quite reasonable and understandable in my view. In other words, I understand that many of you are suffering right now and I'm sorry about that, but I do think that your future looks very bright.

Once we actually land and are able to offer you some healing and teaching and better nutrition and a round or two of downloading galactic information into your brain, if you wish of course, then things will become a lot more understandable for you. We're happy to explain everything fully, and explaining everything fully may get significantly easier after that.

Let's start winding down this message. I'll summarize the core points that were made.

I have pointed out that it's hard for higher consciousness beings to communicate effectively to lower consciousness beings, and if they're not careful their words or interventions or meetings might do more harm than good.

I have pointed out that one reason why channelings can sometimes be confusing or contradictory or use excessive metaphors is, one, some channelers get fooled by gray or dark beings. But also, two, to make something understandable for Earth humans often requires dumbing something down to the point where it's no longer quite accurate, or indeed the being just uses excessive metaphors in place of an actual explanation.

I have shared that in terms of consciousness, Pleiadians span a vast range, from the level of consciousness of not much more than an Earth human like Emerelda, to a level that makes it hard for these people to communicate with you because your consciousness and language and understanding of energy and time is so limited.

This channeler happens to resonate most with relatively low to medium consciousness galactics, who often have some noticeable flaws, which is part of why they're not yet high consciousness. Meanwhile, most channelers resonate more with high consciousness beings, and those beings more closely live up to the ideal of the almost infinitely loving, almost infinitely wise galactic. This doesn't make this channeler better or worse than other channelers, it just makes him a bit different than most (although not unique). Naturally, people are free to choose which messages they do and don't want to tune into.

Pleiadians don't just vary in levels of consciousness. They also vary in what they're interested in and what they focus on. Some Pleiadians are indeed primarily interested in spiritual growth or in performing acts of service, while others just want to have fun, and yet others have a truly wild range of interests. One Pleiadian I've talked to somewhat recently is currently on a journey to see every single kind of butterfly in the universe with his own eyes. What can I say, the man just really loves butterflies, and he loves the places he visits in his quest to see all of them. He hopes that someday soon Earth is safe enough that he can come see your butterflies too. And of course, he also hopes that you will be free for your own sake.

And that was it.

Next time you see a butterfly, I hope you will appreciate what a truly beautiful creature that is.

With love,

Anos

---

Speaking as the channeler, I would like to give a clarification.

Us Earth humans, including myself, often think in terms of "this was always going to happen" or "this was never going to happen." However, galactics understand that people have free will and therefore the future isn't set in stone. Hence, galactics usually think in terms of probabilities that things will happen. Or they think in terms of: if Earth humans make this choice, then that happens. But if they make that choice, then this happens.

For example, we might think in terms of: the gray hats were never going to quickly launch public mass arrests. Therefore, any galactic who didn't realize ten years ago that the gray hats were never going to do that is a fool.

Instead, ten years ago galactics correctly foresaw roughly the current situation as one possible future. They just also foresaw other situations as being possibilities. For example, there was a possible future where the gray hats would do timely public mass arrests, and if so today's world would look much differently. Instead, the gray hats chose not to do this, and that's part of why the world is as it is today. But it's not stupid that the galactics didn't know what the gray hats were going to do ahead of time. They couldn't know, because people have free will.

Also, galactics too have different things that they can choose to do or not do, and that also changes the probabilities of what will happen in the future.

The following are just examples that I made up as an illustration:

Suppose that ten years ago, the galactics could choose between: we can either do a large or a small amount of covert operations to help Earth humans. We can either send a large or a small amount of energy to Earth to accelerate the waking up process. The policies we choose now, will impact the probabilities that the gray hats will or won't take action, the probabilities that the dark controllers will take certain actions, it affects the probability that the average people of Earth will rise up, it affects the probability of a US civil war, et cetera.

So the galactics chose a set of policies, and then ten years later, the relatively bad outcome occurs that we're living in right now, which is that the gray hats don't do quick public mass arrests and Earth isn't liberated in a timely manner.

And so a person like Hakann might think to themselves something like: ten years ago, I was invited by the decision-makers to give input. Did I recommend the right policies? Did I judge the probabilities correctly? Did I quite realize how painful one of the relatively bad outcomes might be? Ten years ago, was I quite aware enough of the personality of these gray hats, or should I have looked more closely at them?

But the galactics don't think: the future actually is carved in stone, and ten years ago I should have known that this current situation was always going to happen with 100% probability, and I was simply a fool not to see it. No, the future isn't carved in stone.