Identifying NPCs and Knowing Their Purpose; Conception is Not Biological

Shweta Singh: What are we humans here for? I keep hearing its community and connecting deeply with others and the world. But why did I find peace and happiness all alone, from and in meditation? Why am I able to thrive intellectually when I work in solitude? Why do I not need people? Why do I keep reading ominous articles like ‘what isolation does to your brain”. It did the best thing possible, it restored me, gave me back my life!

Me: Well, Source Players (SP) are here to be challenged individually, which means interacting with the illusory surroundings (the provided perceptions), which includes NPCs/non-SPs, who are in the majority. Spending alone time in contemplation and meditation is good, too. Each SP is alone, in a void anyway. Interaction between two SPs is a meeting of consciousness; between an SP and a non-SP is consciousness-to-data.

Do you work on knowing self, the nature of this illusory Game, and why you’re in it?

Osmosis: What is the ultimate test to identify NPCs?

Wellenherr Twin: Turn all communication off I.e televisions, radio and social media’s for a week and then just generally talk to people on your daily routine. The ones who are repeating all the same rhetorics are usually the npc type. We give them default responses for that week similarly to how you press the D-Pad to interact with one of the npcs.

Osmosis: Do they have the divine-spark-soul in your opinion?

Wellenherr Twin: Yes, everyone has the spark of life. Unfortunately not everyone will wake up. In the end days of Rome people were still under the impression it would survive? Feel familiar today? You can’t create life without the spark of life ( reference to the colliding of two oscillatory organisms - in this case the sperms and the egg) that is what we call it on our framework. Mainstream calls it a zinc flash. We aren’t convinced, we feel a more energy side playing the part. And this new waveform is your blueprint.

Me: You give the standard, mass-assumed answer and can’t back it up. This reflects your lack of knowing self, the nature of this illusory Game, and why you’re in it. Sorry to be harsh, but you’re unlikely to be a Source Player (SP). There are only two kinds of “humans” in this experience: NPCs/non-SPs and SPs. You either unthinkingly regurgitate deceptive, New Age-like information (associated with your beLIEf?) or intentionally run a disinfo op.

You assume a physical world when you say “You can’t create life without the spark of life.” In this illusory Matrix Game, the data streams appear to make their own babies—they don’t. Even SPs’ bodies aren’t real, but we enter a timeline also looking like newborn humans. Everything must look normal, including assuming we’re all alike, to make for a challenging Game. Biological sperm and egg conception doesn’t occur. There is no process of conception in a conventional sense.

It’s not a biological or even a “spiritual” conception. It’s a Source Player-originated, AI-assisted, conscious emergence into an illusory Matrix Game timeline.

There is something behind the “energy side playing the part” that you don’t know about. It is directed, not a spontaneous action. What do you mean by “We aren’t convinced”? You mean “conceived”?

Ok, maybe you don’t envision such a physical world. I should give you some credit for stating “we aren’t conceived” (if that’s what you meant) and for mentioning energy playing a part, but those are only a fraction of the full meaning. You completely sabotage any hope of even partial comprehension with your first sentence.

Wellenherr Twin: Oh right because naming them soulless is not the narrative is it … haven’t heard that a thousand times in the echo chambers. Go read the framework I wrote with my brother. Then come back to me. You have replied because I called you out that’s it.

Me: Will you acknowledge anything I stated? Do you bypass it out of pride, remaining adversarial? I don’t have the time or patience to go in circles with a likely NPC and get nowhere. This is Source Truth I’m passing on, not some New Age beLIEf I invented. It’s your once-in-a-lifetime chance. You’ll never hear it again. You likely have an aversion to it because you’re an NPC.

I replied because your comments on NPCs caught my attention and were within the thread I was already involved in. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

I don’t go on an NPC-assigned task and then report back. They come back to me if they think they could be an unawakened SP. You don’t have that inquisitiveness, and you’re hostile. Adopt a little humility and know your place, ok?

Wellenherr Twin: I have acknowledged what you are saying. Not accepting your conclusions is not the same as bypassing them out of pride, and disagreement is not evidence that someone is an NPC. In fact, that is one of the main problems I see in your framework. You claim to want increased mutual understanding, yet you repeatedly classify disagreement, hostility, lack of inquisitiveness, or failure to recognise your “Source Truth” as possible evidence that the person questioning you is not genuinely conscious. That makes your position circular. If I agree, I may be an SP. If I question you correctly, I may be an unawakened SP. If I reject your claims, I may be an NPC. What possible response could demonstrate that your classification was wrong?

You also accuse me of speculation without substantiation. ELDA is speculative in places, and I have never pretended otherwise. The difference is that our ideas did not originate from me simply announcing that I possess privileged access to truth. They developed from studying observations, experiments, disputes, and models proposed by researchers outside the dominant framework, including Béchamp, Naessens, Popp, Becker, Gurwitsch, Hillman and others. We examine their work, connect recurring patterns, criticise the assumptions beneath both mainstream and fringe models, and attempt to construct a different ontology from them. You can dispute our interpretation, our evidence, or our conclusions, but saying there is nothing behind the speculation is simply false.

Nor do we follow New Age propaganda. ELDA does not begin with ascension, vibrations as slogans, manifestation, chosen people, spiritual hierarchies, channelling, or claims of privileged revelation. In fact, we criticise exactly that kind of authority structure. Saying “Source told me the truth” does not exempt a claim from examination. Calling something Source Truth does not demonstrate it.

You say NPCs are literally lifeless and soulless data streams, that Source Players possess genuine consciousness, that two NPCs cannot produce an SP, and that SP appearances follow matriarchal lines. Fine. Then show me how you established those distinctions. What independent observation separates an NPC from an unawakened SP? How was the matriarchal rule discovered? Who reproduced the observation? What would falsify it?

There is also a contradiction you haven’t resolved. You criticise me for using non-physical organisation to explain physical conception, yet your own supposedly non-physical Source status is transmitted according to physical maternal lineage. If reality is illusory, bodies are data streams, and consciousness originates outside the physical system, why does the reproductive genealogy of the mother determine whether a Source Player can appear? You still need a causal bridge between Source and physical lineage. Naming it “matriarchal” does not explain it.

You also call NPCs lifeless and soulless while admitting that an unawakened SP may appear indistinguishable enough from an NPC that you must investigate their behaviour to determine which they are. That creates another problem. If the two categories cannot be independently distinguished before someone accepts, rejects, or investigates your worldview, then your judgement becomes the measuring instrument. Your ontology depends upon the classifier already knowing the answer.

And finally, telling someone to “know their place,” calling them an NPC, and then claiming your goal is mutual understanding is contradictory behaviour. Mutual understanding requires both frameworks to remain open to examination. I am willing to expose ELDA’s assumptions, sources, speculative extensions, and unresolved questions. Are you willing to do the same with Source Player theory?

I am not asking you to accept ELDA. I am asking you to apply the same standard to your own claims that you apply to mine. If my framework requires substantiation, yours does too. If my causal bridges require explanation, yours do too. If my ontology must be distinguishable from speculation, so must yours.

So strip away the insults and answer the foundational question: what independent, repeatable observation distinguishes an unawakened Source Player from an NPC without using agreement with your worldview, curiosity about your claims, or your own personal judgement as the classification method?

If you can answer that, we have something worth investigating. If you cannot, then you are asking me to accept an unfalsifiable belief system on authority while criticising me for speculation.

Me: You now half-heartedly acknowledge by twisting my comments in the most negative way possible. In your previous post, you didn’t reject what Source Truth says about NPCs—which is the ultimate truth. Instead, you bypassed it completely to pridefully and forcefully spout your fraud. I know ego and confirmation bias when I see it. You earned the label “likely NPC” and the command to know your place.

I’ve sufficiently explained why I ignore these types of demands: from “So, strip away…” to “…while criticizing me for speculation.” That final phrase, with its feigned innocence, belies arrogant aggression. Separating “my agreement” (I do much more than agree with it; I live it and practice it every day) from my “worldview… or [my] own personal judgment” is lowering my vibration to unawake SP/non-SP levels. Only my personal experience exists. I won’t leave that elevated state to return to mental enslavement. I certainly won’t play your illusory consensus game to bolster my “claims.” Do you get me?

Not that NPCs face any consequences for their ignorance, as unawakened SPs do, but your beLIEf-boundness, cognitive dissonance, arrogance, and automated will to extract energy will ultimately drive your comeuppance, even if it’s only a steady descent into further chaos and slavery as the Harvest progresses.

Your bias includes relying on external consensus and your think-alike “experts.” My previous favorite researchers are better than yours, and I passed them up a long time ago. I finished the NPC issue a long time ago, too. I’ve dealt with so many stubborn programs that I’m weary of the psychological game-playing and energy extraction. If I can get some value from an exchange, alright, but I don’t think I’ll find it here.

Your first paragraph is psychobabble. Advanced Source Players don’t collaborate in groups, nor do they submit their findings for public scrutiny. You wrote: “Saying ‘Source told me the truth’ does not exempt a claim from examination.” My Source-Self does tell me the truth, though I also personally investigate. Regardless, I’m not available for low-level debate or negative external “investigation.” Is that clear? I refuse to submit to a rude cross-examination by a likely NPC of the kind shown in your comment beginning with “You say NPCs are literally lifeless…” and ending with “What would falsify it?” If you want to learn, fine, but I don’t think you want to. You want to defend your turf.

Here’s our major sticking point: you resent my assertion that “I just know I’m right.” You attack my rationale—and you’ll continue to do so if I give you an audience—and then refuse to have an open-minded discussion.

I am opinionated and confident because I found the solution to the accelerating trouble, chaos, and control. I put all the pieces of the existence puzzle together. I am certain neither you nor your group did, and you may be unable to achieve it. Your circle seems to operate as a limited-focus, mutually reinforcing group.

I know this: Your group misses key understandings of this experience which can only be accessed individually through one’s Source-Self. This knowledge is quietly and exclusively learned, not meant for mass sharing; hence, your group deals in speculative disinformation, no matter how reputable or authoritative the sources appear. By relying on external input, which is mostly deceptive, you mistake collective agreement for actual awareness.

By design, no known scientific studies or works by my six previous favorite researchers or famous thinkers of illusory history document the discovery of Source Truth. It can only be found within an awake Source Player. That’s why I can’t share it with you, especially under duress. There are intentionally embedded hints here and there, and these sources can help get unawakened SPs started, just as conspiracies and beLIEfs can if they’re carefully examined and questioned.

My understanding is both holistic and reductive. As an advanced Source Player, only I can synergistically connect seemingly unrelated concepts and reconcile them with my eternal self. I am coming into my god-like power and may eventually achieve Inner Alchemy before the Harvest concludes. René Descartes’ level of solipsism can’t compare to mine.

If you have the slightest inkling that you could be a Source Player, then adopt some humility and learn from me. That may be impossible for you to do, though, and you probably resent my suggestion. It’s not my business whether you are a non-SP or an unawakened SP, but you display characteristics of the former.

My classification is correct. There are only two types of “humans” in this illusory Matrix Game. To label you a non-SP for simply disagreeing with me would be ignorant. It’s good to hear your group doesn’t chase New Age deceptions, but I’m happier that my refrigerator and car are still running trouble-free.

Lineage goes through a matriarchal spirit line, not a physical one. This experience has no physicality.

Rather than ratcheting up the negative snap judgments, do yourself a favor: read my early Substack articles. There, I’ve dealt with all your underhanded reactivity line by line, and we’ve hardly begun to discuss either of our positions. Satisfied, or do you want more rancor? I’ll give you this: your take on conception, if I understood it correctly, was interesting. You could tell me more.