Entry Submitted Anonymously at 1:16 PM EDT on October 5, 2016
The title of the SITREP, followed by the provocative photograph of a young, sexy, practically nude, white woman, along with specific language in the SITREP itself, (all subtly or blatantly - take your pick) imply that the latest series of false starts, deliberate confusion, dis-information, psy ops, continued preferential private exchanges or even possible squeezing out tactics are being caused by a certain young, beautiful, white, fickle, drunken, seductive female (the classic archetypal persona of the prostitute/whore) who's primary goal is to use her sexuality specifically to manipulate, "tease", control and exasperate men, even "keep them waiting" for her personal financial gain and twisted emotional gratification.
Well, tell me how in the world, by any stretch of the imagination, is this image and the explicit verbiage of this SITREP a good or accurate analogy for what's actually happening during this so-called "spiritual transition" when in fact, nothing could be farther?
First of all there are just as many, or maybe even more, WOMEN, waiting in line as there are men, AND, I could be wrong, but for the most part we are generally not seduced or manipulated by sexy, provocative young women. In fact, believe it or not, many, if not most, women are fed up with and insulted by the persistent objectification and sexual exploitation of young women in cultures worldwide, particularly by instigated by western media. That type of mass media objectification of women absolutely sends the wrong message to young girls (and boys) everywhere and actually perpetuates the inequities between men and women.
And, hmmmm, please remind me...who's actually in charge of and benefits most from the global financial, military, political, governmental and corporate elitist structures that control the international media as well as the international drug trafficking, sex trade and child slavery industries? Women? Really? And more specifically - Young, white, fickle, sexually manipulative women? Yes, they must be the hold up, and their conglomerate obviously uses the code name "Rachael Victoria". Now we know. Be on guard, everyone. You've all been duly warned!
Of course I'm being sarcastic and for good reason.
I've heard Yosef speak quite passionately and eloquently about the urgent need for men to honor the reemergence of the divine feminine energy as we transition into the golden age of Aquarius. And being a woman myself, I couldn't agree more. So I've listened with admiration and hope as he's called men to task in this regard.
Yet here we are, still surrounded by men who don't seem to fully get it. Who don't walk the talk. There's still a persistent, insidious even, undercurrent and discernible tone of superiority that exists even among the most "enlightened" groups. The talking over, the dismissiveness, the use of random terms of endearment to address all women. And how many women are taken seriously, even actively included and allowed to share their points of view in open discussions? Not many...I dare say.
So, how can we expect sweeping changes to occur that will truly invite and allow the much needed return and rebalancing between the divine masculine and feminine energy if the most enlightened men among us do not recognize or acknowledge the subtle behavior and hold themselves to a higher, more conscious and purposeful engagement, then lead clearly and openly by example through their actions as well as their words?
I know Yosef must at times feel just as frustrated and exhausted as we all are. Or even more so. Yet he has freely and willingly stepped up, taken on the role, defined who he is, and set the bar high for himself. And as a result so many currency holders now look to him for leadership as well as the latest "Intel" and that must also feel like a very heavy burden sometimes. Perhaps Yosef was tired and exasperated when he wrote this SITREP. But that's no excuse.
So, Yo, Yosef, what say you? Care to clarify or perhaps even apologize to at least half of your reading audience for this obvious blunder?