This statement in item #2 is just ridiculous new-age nonsense:
We no longer see life choices and right or wrong, good or bad, just choices defined by the neutral frequencies that we later define.
The author says "Our minds are light years ahead."
Then he says: "We won't like you if you're egotistical."
Whenever I see these odd lists, I always take them seriously at first, and then study them, to see, if they come from a pure source or just someone's
messed-up ego. Usually, it's the latter.
This list seems to have lots of ramblings, contradictions, egotistical self-praising (why else would it be written in the form of "WE" instead of
"THEY"?) and just general silliness.
Also, a lot of the time, a statement is made, but the explanation does not match the statement. Instead of an explanation and elaboration, it is often
a sudden push of a theory that may or may not make sense or ring true, or even have anything to do with what was said.
There are some really vague statements in there as well, and their explanations are a chaotic mess - hard to even try to properly reply to. Many
people here have already given good replies and dissected some of the stuff.
A lot of it is self-explanatory - who really likes crowds? It's easy to be overwhelmed in public places, unless you really thrive from it, even if
you are not a Special Holier-Than-Others Chosen One that's Awakening.
We all have intuitions, and we all have probably sometimes 'known' something without intellectual process. For example, anyone who is learning
another language, can stumble into the phenomenon of simply knowing what some word in english is in that other language, without having specifically
studied for that exact word whatsoever. But this doesn't make you any kind of Special Divine Chosen One that All Must Bow to.
The statement about the mainstream media is a bit superficial. On one hand, it seems to be true - there's mostly manipulative stupidities that people
are hooked to watch. But on another, there ARE good things even in the mainstream media (or at least used to be), like documentaries, travel videos,
and the like. I have found great treasures from television programs, movies, musicals, concerts, musicvideos and the like, so this statement is too
quick to dismiss EVERYTHING with one, general sweep.
Granted, perhaps 80-90% of any human-created entertainment (books, computer games, movies, TV shows, etc.) is awful and manipulative, but there -are-
good things amidst it all. The writer of this sentiment just didn't take their time to search for the golden straws in the hay pile.
What's 'current paradigm'? And what does '..choises defined by the neural frequencies' have to do with it, and how do you move from 'current
paradigm' to 'unity consciousness', especially without defining it first? Zen masters never needed any paradigms or unity consciousnesses. And I'd
trust each and every one of them before the writer of this text.
Besides, isn't the whole "this many these"-type titling very mainstream anyway? Isn't that populist and crowd-pleasing? The junk food of
journalism / writing.
"25 easy ways to lose weight!"
"10 reasons why The Matrix sequels are junk"
"14 Spiritual Practices They Don't Want You To Know About!"
And so on .. (I deliberately avoided the masonic numbering that's also popular with such articles)
When there's a number, it speaks immediately to the lowest common denominator, who thinks that it's going to be easily defined, easy to digest, easy
to read and it's nice, packaged, limited, rounded up and pre-processed, so it will also be easy to swallow.
I noticed this list didn't include "critical thinking" or "questioning of weird lists"... but it did include "NOT questioning" at one point.
And it used the word "love" quite a lot, which is always nowadays a bit of a red flag. It's easy to get women's attention with that word in
articles, and the junk-journalists know this.
The bit about "they don't feel the need" is also weird. Why would this be included? Including a negative statement like this seems a bit odd. You
could write huge lists of what certain people DON'T feel or AREN'T like. Why not just stick to what they feel and what they are. Surely it can be
done without resorting to writing about 'lacks of feelings'.
There's so much fluff in this article anyway - there are the obvious generalities, like 'creative' and 'bring truth to light' (which is a weird
way of saying they are honest and truthful and gladly explain the truth to people - the usage of the word 'light' is suspicious, because we all know
about the names and obsessions of the group of oligarchs that want to control the world, and mostly do)
Who wouldn't like solitude in a world like this, that's populated with this kind of denizens? Most people on Terra are far away from the true
definition of 'human'.
So, they like actual, do-no-harm-healing better than the official, injuring, damaging, traumatizing and side-effect-causing knife+pill-quackery
that's violently and powerfully pushed to the masses. What rational human wouldn't?
Then there are those bits that either do not make any sense, or are the products of a chaotic mind.
What does "They fully accept that they can only attract what is within their vibrational field" even mean? Can anyone explain this simply? The
explanation this list offers just confuses it more (if that's possible).
A lot of people can spot liars easily, and a lot of people have no sense of time.
Besides, how can they be 'obsessed' of anything, especially 'bringing truth to light', if they 'have no need to awaken others"?
Some routines can be good - not all routines should be abhorred by anyone. There are helpful routines, like good eating and exercize habits, and there
are oppressive routines, like working in a factory product line.
There's also no mention of humility, or keeping the connection with the Omnipotent Creator open, or not letting your left hand know what the right is
doing, etc. It's more like the glorification of the ego - oh, we are so superior, and we are awakening, and the Universe loves us, and we have
amazing imaginations (this kind of adjectives do not belong to a neutral description, but women put them even to describe a sales item on eBay, etc.
.. I never understood, why they think some shirt or chair can be 'lovely' in an absolute sense - I can understand 'red' or 'worn', but not
'lovely' or 'amazing')
This whole article sounds like just another women's magazine list that some "I am so spiritual, because I bought an indian scarf and aroma
candles!"-hack has written, in the typical fashion of these self-congratulatory egomonsters. Everyone praises women, so they start feeling they are
omnipotent, special Chosen Ones and then they get a free computer because, vagina, and then start writing these articles and get promoted and no one
ever gives them proper criticism, because women can't be critisized in this world.
But this article is certainly not truth, it's actually quite disgusting, and I can't waste more time on it (though there's a lot more to
Just a last note: there are a lot of things that are actually missing from the list, that could replace some of the goofiest bits easily, but I'll
let the reader figure them out, just to keep things alive.
Btw, one of the "Indigo"-lists is actually pretty good - at least, after I modified it somewhat (it wasn't really imaginative or interesting enough
in its original form), so there's some point to the 'Indigo'-thing - though I must admit, EVERY single individual that I have been in any contact
with that have identified themselves with being 'Indigos', have definitely been contradictory to what the list said Indigos are supposed to be.