Q & A


The reality that mainstream media, and many alternative channels, present us with the same narrative, almost to script, more so demonstrates how power is dictated from the top down. In the United States, for example, six corporations govern the entire media, and there are ties between these as well.

We deny the possibility of centralised power, because it appears information is coming from such a range of sources. This then feels like it couldn’t possibly stand up against one individuals claims, and so we debunk these as outlier minorities who hold controversial and misinformed/crazy viewpoints, even though we can’t explain what benefit would be gained from putting oneself in the firing line to disclose the information.

The MSM stifle open critical discussion by manipulating others words to justify their own narrative. They nitpick at convenient segments and distort their intention, and then extrapolate that to diminish someone’s entire conversation. This detracts from the wider message, to convince us instead to rely on institutions with conflicts of interest and financial power to source information – tools they use to fend of public scrutiny and manipulate science to suit their agenda.

The rampant censorship of free speech from numerous sources (including mainstream health professionals) by big tech violates human rights at a level tantamount to fascism. The public are not afforded the opportunity to make up their own minds, instead having their perception manipulated using undemocratic fact checkers (owned by the same conglomerates), as well as algorithms with no oversight or transparency, and the censorship of information that should be open for public discourse to allow for an informed decision. This is exacerbated by virulent slander by the mainstream media and their teleprompter reading obedient anchors and publishers who demonstrate no capacity to present a critical analysis, breaching the foundational code of authentic journalism.

Bill Gates arrogance in thinking he can control human population, his investment in Monsanto who have been sued numerous times, not to mention his keen interest in eugenics, using African and Indians as lab rats, shrouds a huge cloud of distrust over this man’s intentions, though of course he paints himself as a great philanthropist and humanitarian, masquerading behind his pink sweaters and sinister smiles. This individual has assumed himself the global arbiter of truth and best qualified person to dictate public health policies that restrict civil rights and freedoms, until a sufficient percentage of the world’s population has received one of the vaccines that he funds. A man with no medical background conveniently managed to predict a global pandemic and run a simulation activity for a corona virus outbreak (Event 201- which you can see online) just weeks before the outbreak.

By connecting enough dots, all signs point towards a wolf in sheep’s perpetrating gross medical negligence and unfathomable crimes against humanity. And such public figures are merely front men that are placed in strategic positions of power with a vast amount of wealth, enabling them to dictate and control public perception under the cloak of their establishments. But they answer to the higher authorities that govern from the shadows. Before blindly trusting information, it serves well to investigate the companies and individuals who are presenting the information.

Because the ‘fractional reserve’ banking system permits banks to lend out far more than they hold in deposit, and so money is printed that doesn’t exist and is loaned out at interest, repaid through hard labour. This only works because not everyone attempts to withdraw their money at once, in which case the scam would fall apart. This has allowed the global banks to completely control the economic climate and manipulate rates as they please for their own vested interest. The mounting debt keeps every nation indebted to the central banks who can then dictate policies, or the nation faces becoming impoverished or the subject of a coup to get them back in line. 

Libya’s Gadaffi proposed the return of sovereign gold back currency free from central fiat debt enslavement and then found his country enmeshed in civil war.

Cash was originally used as a receipt for gold held in deposits, because the gold was too heavy to transport. Now the world’s gold reserves have been siphoned and cash is set to be exchanged for digital currency, removing all form of tangible exchange and leaving the population completely at the discretion of the banks who will be able to create wealth and manipulate the market with a few clicks of a button, which ultimately funnels into greater centralisation of power.

As a resource extracted from the Earth, just like paper money comes from trees, gold does not directly contribute to human value, and as a centralised form of currency it poses the same risk of exploitation as money, despite the fact it is a more precious resource and may have other useful applications.

Both gold and paper currency have more value than digital currency, however, which can be created from thin air at the press of a button, and easily manipulated. But the whole economy is rigged anyway, due to fractional reserve banking and the fiat currency which was designed to fail. If gold were to become the new currency, it would be exploited by those who can acquire the most, fostering another competitive system. In many ways, this is what it was like in history. There is risk posed with any centralised currency lacking intrinsic value.

Whilst gold has been traded for thousands of years and retains its value better than most assets, it all ultimately feeds the control system until there is a paradigm shift in the way resources are handled and traded, free from the interference of centralised institutions. People have killed for gold. Countries have gone to war for gold and today the majority is locked away in vaults when the population was tricked into giving it away in exchange for IOU receipts that become paper currency, because the gold was too heavy to transport. We have never seen this again and most people have no idea about the history of currency.

I’d propose a system where we trade based on individual skill sets, without using an agreed upon centralised resource to exchange. But this would not be feasible at the moment, until we see the dimantling of globalisation and redistribution of wealth, without succumbing to socialist or communist regimes. These would be arguably worse than the capitalist model which has also failed us.

The more decentralised the networks, and the more ethical/valuable the resource/service, the more efficient things would work and the higher the quality of life for individuals, and at the least expense to the planet and its resources.

I’m skeptical of the ‘Q’ movement, or any that detracts from the individual and promotes an external saviour (inadvertently, or otherwise). For this reason, I only take what resonates and move on. Even some potential disinfo agents can offer some pieces to the puzzle at a time when needed. People feel safe attaching to belief systems and looking for a saviour, even willing to overlook obvious warning signs sometimes. In the end we can only trust ourselves and apply strong discernment in every situation, otherwise we may be led down a garden path.

However, I do feel most of the content in the Out of Shadows documentary is accurate and that will serve a benefit in providing a catalyst to higher consciousness for some people, as will many aspects of The Fall of Cabal series, though I must admit I was disappointed when it promoted Q as the saviour in the latter parts, because again I’d say there was a lot of useful information that dot connected well and resonated with my own findings.

In some cases, even with the strongest discernment, it can be hard to know the underlying intention and then we have to consider that no one is perfect and possesses all the answers. Ultimately, if we do not attend to our own shadow and actually embody the reality we want to create, then we will remain stuck in our rational mind and disconnected from the deeper aspects of reality that would enable our evolution.

All things considered, I think the documentaries (rather than the movement) do more good than harm and create a ‘net gain’. If there is useful information that can be extracted from anything, then we should take it and filter it through own reasoning, to build our own bigger picture, but a problem arises when we become identified/affiliated with any belief system/movement, at the expense of continuing to expand our perception and question reality.

The problem goes deeper than simply ‘male’ and ‘female’ gender and has its roots in the masculine/feminine principles, which every individual possesses, irrespective of their biological sex. Feminism, at least in its current form associated with the movement, can ironically lead to a greater schism between the genders, fueling the separation of humanity through polarisation (of which the gender divide has arguably been the most influential).

Feminism as a concept was rooted in striving for equality, which is fine, but it has been expolited as a destructive ideology to masculinize women, who in their efforts to demand equality, are compromising their more innate feminine traits, which as a society are more underrepresented at the moment.

For a long time now the masculine force has prevailed, prioritising logic, reason and intellectual pursuits over the feminine traits of emotional awareness, intuition, empathy and creativity, for example. What we should be encouraging is a resurgence of these qualities within society that would help transition humanity out of the scientifically dogmatic and materialist paradigm, whilst celebrating the natural and biological differences between men and women, which provide a beneficial synergy when harnessed in the right way.

In defending against ‘toxic masculinity’ and the ‘patriarchy’ many women have adopted the same traits they claim to be in opposition of, sometimes becoming aggressive and manipulative in their retribution against a perceived male dominated society. This disregards discussion about the other end of the spectrum where ‘toxic femininity’ can mean women can employ emotional manipulation, or exploit their sexual prowess to gain an advantage, in albeit more subtle, but arguably just as destructive ways. Both these unhealthy gender expressions work hand in hand, feeding off one another. Many men fall prey to emotional and sexual exploitation, even if it was unconscious on the part of the female.

I don’t think it’s fair to diminish the efforts of genuine individuals within the LGBT community by brandishing them all as complicit in a socialist communist agenda, which also exploits them and creates division within communities. This is why I raise caution against attaching our identities to any external belief system or movement, no matter how well intentioned. I can acknowledge how LBGT will have helped many men and women feel more comfortable opening up about their sexuality and having others to relate to. This kind of community spirit does have its benefits.

It’s a sad reality when moral causes are coopted, much like BLM, and in most cases these movements were intentionally created to homogenize the population. The feminisation of men and masculinisation of women is a part of an gener reversal agenda to dissolve binary gender. This ties into the transhumanist plot. It can be hard sometimes to speak of this without upsetting some people who may feel closer identification with other expressions, which is fine providing these haven’t been conditioned through social engineering programs. It’s a difficult conversation to have, but an important one nonetheless.

We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and disregard liberal attitudes completely. Every human should be able to exercise their free will without being given rigid codes of behaviour or relationship expectations that adhere to a status quo, which has led to many problems, particularly within family dynamics, for many reasons. Fractured family dynamics have resulted from adherence to specific societal norms and expectations, which have been exploited by the establishment and often lead to unhealthy relationships and single parenting, which have made it more difficult to focus on family priorities, due to work and other constraints, which are intentionally made hard to juggle.

I would add that family dynamics don’t have to be interpreted in a restrictive context. Monogamy doesn’t imply we can’t experiment with different partners, but showing commitment through honesty to one partner is important, as it can meddle with emotions when communication is not clear. I have seen this many times, and it usually always ends badly. Rigid relationship dynamics can also have negative consequences,  so we want to avoid polarisation where possible. The ideological pendulum often swings from one end to the other, fueling division. Ironically though, the liberal left has been hijacked to conform to an authority that they were ordinarily more outspoken against than the right wing.

I see many flaws with the ‘traditional system’ which is why I don’t endorse going back to ‘old ways’. The idea that kids could be a part of and looked after by the community rather than in a more regimented and typical home environment, is one that has its roots in tribal cultures and worked successfully. I think we have to be realistic however, and work to some degree within current conditions. Correcting family distortions could be a stepping stone toward individual development, where children are correctly nurtured and have the opportunity to think outside the box.

Restoration to living in accordance back with nature itself could lead to more community based ways of living that are more free and expressive (true liberalism), though as it stands male desire is largely untamed, inverted into sexual feeding programs, and it is every man’s responsibility to attend to their shadow and not to expect women to cover up and be modest in fear of being exploited. Again, modesty can have different interpretations, and shouldn’t instantly be conflated with a kind of religious suppression, which I absolutely abhor and am very familiar with within the context of the Abrahamic religions, especially outspoken about the devastating consequences of male circumcision and the impact this has on their sexual freedom.

Regardless of which party gets into power, the policies tend to polarise to one extreme and fail to address the underlying causes that give rise to dysfunctional expressions within society. There is no more ‘righteous’ party that exists in politics. There are pros and cons to right and left wing policies, which serve different people at different times based on numerous factors, such as their upbringing, home, economic circumstances, employment etc. This can change across the course of someone’s lives, which may shift their political stance. One man’s medicine is another’s poison. It all depends on which lens you are viewing through.

Not everyone who doesn’t vote is apathetic or disinterested. Point scoring, manipulation, corruption, backtracking and false promises are all deeply embedded into the political culture in general, regardless of who you vote for. As long as we pick a side, we are perpetuating division and giving more reason to be controlled from the outside. It’s a constant ‘I’m right and your wrong’ circus that has no end.

Sustainable change can only come as a natural consequence of individuals taking responsibility for themselves and acknowledging that we all have a ‘dark side’ that we project onto others. Name calling and hurling abuse at people who don’t share your beliefs is actually a bigger part of the problem, creating more negative energy in the environment and fueling separation. It serves well to take a closer look at home rather than solely pointing the finger at those in power who gain their power through exploiting ignorance and unresolved conflicts.

We have the ability to craft our destinies free from externalisation and political influence, but first need to do the work on ourselves. The more we do this, the more control we have to direct our fate responsibly and the less we will care about the charade that’s playing out externally.

Focus more energy on trusting and believing in your potential as an individual, and try not to let the political charade distract you from this.

We should not turn to that same state for a solution to a problem they created. Two party politics is illusory, no matter which politician is in power, because they only serve the interests of those above them who dictate the policies, economics and law.

Handing a vote to either party is wasted and perpetuates this idea that we need to rely on external authority to fix our problems. Yes, it would help if the government didn’t have vested interests and did what was morally right and fair, but we don’t live in that world, so best to opt out and stop giving central authorities more control over the masses.

Through taking individual responsibility, we are able to understand how collective external conditions result from unresolved underlying psychological pathologies which are exploited by external authority for governance.

When we turn our attention introspectively and focus on educating ourselves, healing our traumas, resolving addictions and healing our relationships, amongst other things, we are putting ourselves in the best position to then help others and transform the state of of society, without expecting those in positions of power to do it for us.

Focusing inward is not selfish. It’s the best thing we can do for the world. Through transforming the individual, by integrating the unconscious that governs unheathy behaviour, we are better equipped to be of service to others.

Casting a vote toward an illusory two party system, in servitude to the corporations and banks (and those above them too), is wasted and makes a statement that we need to be governed from the outside. Even those who may seem ‘better-intentioned’ would struggle to gain or maintain any influence, because the decisions are made higher up, from those who aren’t influenced by the ‘here today, gone tomorrow politicians’ and the political wings.

Those pulling the strings play off both sides to keep humanity divided in an almost direct split that serves dualism and keeps us distracted, largely from ourselves and our own inherent power, by making us feel powerless and reliant on the very establishment who have manufactured the ‘problems’ in the first place.

The same happened with the World Wars. The Rothschilds funded both sides of the war. Whenever we attach to any external belief system, we split from ourselves and divide ourselves from others. Vegan/meat-eaters, feminist/non-feminist, Brexit/remainer, Labour/Conservative……There are valid arguments to be made in favour of both sides, but integration, not extremism, is the answer.

This isn’t a left/right, labour/conservative battle. The deception runs so much deeper and change can’t be enacted on the political level. These higher ups don’t care who the common person votes for. The media might make you think they do, but they too are puppets and largely serving their own interests.

The only battle is against ourselves. As cliche as that sounds, as you heal internally, this is reflected in the collective. It is not a form of spiritual bypassing to not cast a vote. Spiritual bypassing refers to those who avoid confronting the harsh realities of the world out of fear, and turn to spirituality as a form of comfort to mask their insecurities.

Whilst Brexit policy isn’t clear, a huge statement would be made if a democratic decision was overturned, regardless of which side was picked, and even if that result was achieved through deceptive means. Only more division and chaos would ensue. ‘Divide and conquer’.

The world is a stage and the global population are manoeuvred like pieces on a chess board. How do you incite a global war? By playing superpowers off one another and getting people to pick their side and then playing them off each other through perpetual propaganda and Hegelian Dialectic ‘Problem-Reaction-Solution’ tactics.

In the end it doesn’t matter which side we pick, as long as we are identified as either a victim or perpetrator. They both justify increased control and surveillance and, in the end, highlight our inability to govern ourselves, which would bring about an end to the whole theatre show. No modern world leader can be trusted, because they are all strategically placed in their position in servitude to those who hold the real power.

People have been predicting this impending conflict between the superpowers for years, not because they are psychics or prophets, but due to knowledge of how the game works. This is what George Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World were warning us about.

I agree corruption is inevitable in a small percentage of successful business owners, but there are ties between the elite bloodlines who own the biggest corps, and it was designed that way. Gates is just playing his role alongside the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Soros, Kissinger etc, and when they have that level of top down control, they can infiltrate other establishments with enormous effectiveness. Bill Gates is known as the biggest philanthropist with his billions, but when you look deeper you realise it’s all a smokescreen for nefarious activities. There is an argument to be made that the world’s population is growing at an unsustainable rate (given the current economic model, consumption rate and environmental damage), but that does not justify forced sterilisation and eugenics. If individuals are to take back their own personal power, then first they need to be made aware of how their free will is being manipulated- especially to such a large degree.

Yes, we are all responsible for our mind and choices, and many choose to live in ignorance. That’s why a lot of people wilfully brush off revealing information, even when it’s staring them in the face. They choose to be governed externally and hand over the keys to their freedom to the state.  Others have had enough. They realise something’s amiss and that they are deeply dissatisfied and so are seeking valid answers. It’s everyone’s choice and I don’t believe in enforcing information on anyone unless they feel ready to make that transition within themselves. Though psychological self-work and spiritual development are paramount, there are certain stages of development that can’t be bypassed, and awareness of third dimensional manipulation of consciousness is one of them.

If people continue to question everything and look deeper, they will soon look inside themselves and discover the answers they are looking for. But we must each be prepared to undergo a kind of ‘dark night of the soul’ period first, where we shed away old layers that are no longer serving us, first on the external and then within our own unconscious shadow that governs our behaviour and feeds right into the unhealthy collective manifestations. So it’s a case of striking the balance between external awareness and internal development.

This is why I traverse the spectrum and cover information on multiple levels. Fear is the greater enemy, and people react in unpredictable ways to uphold their illusion. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful. I agree, the last thing we want is everyone projecting fear and anger onto one another and feeding separation. Like you said, this is a desirable outcome for those in ‘power’.

My outlook on the future is positive. It always has been. But I understand that there is a process that can’t be bypassed. Only by confronting and integrating the shadow can we bring more light to the planet. These elite aren’t as clever as they might believe. They lack creativity and operate mechanically. This is why they leave so many breadcrumbs. They also do it as a form of predictive programming to lower our vibrations and manipulate us into manifesting those outcomes. So I also agree that we don’t want to feed into undesirable outcomes and give them more energy to materialise. It is then our responsibility to access our potential from within and to transmute the negativity through mastering the mind. But mind control is very real and the majority of the population are still hypnotised within the dream spell, unable to direct their will through conscious intent. This is the reason why regressive systems of control still remain in power and control continues to centralise toward a synthetic singularity.

It’s unrealistic to try and expect or force people to go vegan. Unfortunately a vegan diet can in cases lead to malnourishment, even when the choices are nutritionally optimal for that diet, and well known vegan activists have been known to revert back to eating meat, because their health has suffered. The ethics should be considered but our bodies do seem to have evolved over the years to sustain on animal products.

Reality is complex. Higher consciousness feeds off lower all the time. That’s how energy is transferred. Sadly in the third dimension, this happens more often, but if we can elevate beyond that soon, we naturally won’t need as much energy to thrive from. But this takes time. Pushing for extreme change never works. Things have to change gradually. If we focused on cutting down consumption first then this could be more effective considering the rate of over consumption. This would then increase organic farming practices.

Arguably, polarising to any extreme, regardless of whether you believe one to be right, can create more conflict than it resolves. The vegan movement has become a belief system, not much different from a religion. The amount of hate and judgements I see coming from it is astounding. All religions begin with good intentions, and purport to have the truth – and many times they preach valuable information, but in the end it always becomes corrupted, and can have devastating consequences.

Beliefs become cults and cult mentalities lead to exclusion. They don’t accept others for where they are at in their own journey. Of course it can be frustrating, but others will move in the right direction when it is their time to do so. We don’t have control over that, nor should we assume moral superiority and stop questioning our own beliefs. There won’t be a vegan revolution, but if we can encourage people to turn inwards and focus on their own self-development, then they will be more likely to make more ethical choices that help mitigate the mistreatment of animals, which is a real concern that we shouldn’t ignore.


Subscribe To Newsletter

For successful registration, subscription must be confirmed by email link. This is to prevent spam.

*Please check junk and mark as safe sender to ensure optimal delivery.*

Contribute to Shifting Timeline

If you have gained value from the material at Shifting Timeline and want to give something back in exchange, please kindly donate here. Sami does not believe in using third party advertisements to generate revenue so your contribution, no matter how small, will help facilitate the creation of more content. Thank you!

* donate through paypal or credit/debit payment. *