(Stillness in the Storm Editor) I wrote the following preamble to an update by Ken, and will include this in future posts as a disclaimer for his content.
I am sharing this article from Ken of Redefining God—as always—for your consideration.
He has many views and conclusions which are contrasted by those accepted by the awakening community. As such, reviewing his perspectives helps expand our own vision and facilitates greater discernment and comprehension.
Note: This is clearly marked in the About Us section of SITS, yet when posting these updates from Ken, I often receive feedback from readers who assume I wrote the article or that I am endorsing his views.
To be clear, I share information and data on this site from many different sources, and in some cases, there are conflicts with the data.
My primary goal for this site and the work I do in general is to help myself and others become better truth seekers, which is essential so as to gain self-mastery, sovereignty or enlightenment. These are the qualities I feel we need to develop in everyone so that an awakened population can restore harmony and justice to this darkened world as well as simply living happy productive lives. Therefore, in order to constantly test and expand our knowledge of the truth, considering seemingly divergent perspectives is advantageous.
This being said the reader should not assume anything hosted on this site is my belief.
I usually offer commentary in green but even this does not fully account for what I am personally concluding in relation to content shared on this site. And frankly, what I believe or think has no bearing on how you—the reader—processes and absorbs information. In short, ignore the messenger, focus on and think about the message.
In my understanding, the act of thinking about something is the process of expanding consciousness to further individual evolution. Whether or not the thing contemplated is reflective of reality isn’t as important as the act of considering it.
Meditate on the idea that a fable, myth or parable need not be true in order to impart wisdom. In this way, reviewing opposing perspectives is often a powerful way to gain greater clarity and insight into what we think is true; or it helps us let go of false beliefs we maintain because of our attachment to them.
Related Globalist Agenda Watch Updates
by Ken, September 7th 2016
The most interesting thing about the just-completed G20 Summit was what happened before it began. In the lead-up to the event, China was trying to tamp down any talk of conflict so they could supposedly concentrate on real economic action. And did the US gracefully accede to their hosts’ wishes? Not quite.
First, on September 2, Obama did this interview on CNN…
As you can see, CNN chose a rather undiplomatic (and misspelled) title for the interview: President Obama on China’s Aggression in South China Sea. And they made sure to point out that “there will be consequences” to said aggression. So just two days before the Summit, here is Obama and the Western media insulting the Chinese and doing exactly what the Chinese don’t want by talking conflict.
Second, on September 3, the US (perhaps with Chinese complicity) staged a diplomatic incident upon Obama’s arrival in Hangzhou…
…From the Guardian. Fortunately, the President is quite experienced in exiting from asses.
Take special note of this passage…
>>> A Chinese foreign ministry official involved in the visit denied it had been a snub, telling the South China Morning Post the US delegation had declined to use the usual rolling red-carpet staircase.
“It would do China no good in treating Obama rudely,” the official, who declined to be named, was quoted as saying.
“China provides a rolling staircase for every arriving state leader, but the US side complained that the driver doesn’t speak English and can’t understand security instructions from the United States; so China proposed that we could assign a translator to sit beside the driver, but the US side turned down the proposal and insisted that they didn’t need the staircase provided by the airport,” the official added. <<<
So was this really a Chinese snub of Obama, or did the US deliberately engineer the appearance of a snub to embarrass China? Either way, the globalists’ dialectic conflict was well served by the event. The supposed snub overshadowed the beginning of the Summit — at least in the Western media.
Third, and also on September 3, Obama met with Xi and warned him about China’s activities in the South China Sea. Here is an excerpt from the White House report on what was said to Xi…
“The two leaders had a candid exchange on the recent arbitral tribunal ruling on the case between the Philippines and China, with President Obama emphasizing the importance for China, as a signatory to UNCLOS, to abide by its obligations under that treaty, which the United States views as critical to maintaining the rules-based international order. The President also underscored the United States’ unwavering commitment to the security of its treaty allies, and noted that the strength of those alliance relationships has contributed to the security and stability of the Asia Pacific region. The President reaffirmed that the United States will work with all countries in the region to uphold the principles of international law, unimpeded lawful commerce, and freedom of navigation and overflight. The President encouraged efforts by all parties to lower tensions and create conducive conditions for the peaceful resolution of disputes.”
Looking at these three actions, we see the US “insulting and embarrassing” China just like I outlined in Path 2 of Update 18. And the rest of the West piled onto the Chinese during the Summit. Have a look at this rather tellingly-titled RT article that came out today…
…Here is a notable excerpt…
>>> An inexperienced reader might conclude from this Western coverage that bickering between US and Chinese security guards over the intricacies of approaching the US president’s plane was more important than the agreement of the G20 to modernize the regime of international trade and the actual discussions between Xi and Obama, Putin and Erdogan, Theresa May and Putin – which all took place during these two busy days in Hangzhou.
There may be a deeper symbolism in this contrast of the positive Russo-Chinese approach to the summit and the US/EU push for “concessions via confrontation.” The two sides even used different language. For example, the chairman of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said that China “must” allow monitoring of its steel production, saying that losses for European job market due to China’s “overcapacity” were “unacceptable.”
It should be noted that Xi and Putin never used the word “must” when talking about problems with their Western partners. <<<
So this article highlights the West’s confrontational approach at the G20 and contrasts it with the “positive” approach of the supposedly benevolent Eastern Alliance.
With all this in mind – especially Obama’s warning to Xi about “freedom of navigation and overflight” in the South China Sea – recall that I’ve previously estimated the September war window as starting on or about September 11 and climaxing on or about September 25, then look at this…
…From the Huffington Post
So what would happen if the US and Japan conducted a freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea during that timeframe? It would cross China’s previously stated “red line,” wouldn’t it? Could we see an incident that gets the two sides shooting at each other? Could we see the two armadas circling each other with their fingers on their triggers? Could we see “Western provocations” also in Ukraine and Syria?
There are also three other notable things that are scheduled for the September 11 – 25 window. One of them is designed to celebrate the end of the September war, and the other two provide the globalists with a fallback crisis point should they choose to cancel their plans for this month.
1) Palmyra’s Roman Triumphal Arch is coming to New York City on September 19…
…but unless a portion of the Arch has been hollowed out to house a nuke or it is used as a terror magnet for “ISIS,” its erection in New York will play no role in the war itself. It will, however, play a symbolic role later, especially if its erection gets delayed until the war is over.
The fundamental purpose of staging a war this month is to “defeat the power of the West” and allow the Global Roman Empire (the United Nations, which is headquartered in New York City) to become the undisputed global authority and central hub for human interaction (all roads lead to Rome). So erecting a Roman Triumphal Arch after the war is complete makes symbolic sense.
Information on the other two notable things – the globalists’ resurrection of the “September Fed Mistake” and “Greek Revolution” scenarios – will be posted in Update 20. We’ll see how the two scenarios tie in with the US debt limit deadline of March 15, 2017 and the predictable confrontation between Congress and President Trump that will occur at that time.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.