Re: The ‘Double Negative’ and self-deprecation

As more instances of 'the other guys'' implied new layer of covert messaging format appear, the larger My dataset and My ability to evaluate it become.

It would seem terming it merely a 'Double Negative' was an oversimplification.  That would simply involve inverting their messaging format twice to glean the intended meaning, a format some of 'their' Asian franchise groups for example occasionally use.  Instead, it appears that the format uses a varying amount of inversions, and that gleaning the intended meaning relies on familiarity with their existing symbolic format, context and methodologies.

In that, it's not altogether unlike the 'rebel' 'psychedelic' covert messaging format, such as that used by Douglas Adams.  Which, on consideration, was presumably developed by the same organization.  The idea there of course was that would-be 'rebels' would read what they'd assumed was the intended benevolent meaning, while 'the other guys' loyalists would read their own meaning; a sort of prevarication which 'the other guys' have thus far manifestly used to great effect, implementing an agenda with great effect that even they themselves don't truly want per their own True Nature.  Poignant.

What prompts those who don't identify themselves with 'the other guys' to read a benevolent meaning is pretty self-evident; people generally make inferences based on what makes the most sense to them.  Even in overt communication people typically infer what seems to them to be the most likely meaning; this is even more true in a covert medium.  What isn't quite as clear is what prompts 'the other guys' to infer meanings which are often less than benevolent, sincere or forthright.  But I suppose that derives from the same matter of the "absurdity" of Choosing a counter-Divine Will position in the first place.

And then of course there's this often re-used metaphysical concept.  It's certainly reassuring to find that the Babylonian Gnostics et. al are aware of basics like how the focus of Will actually Works, but then it brings into consideration that underneath any counter-Divine Will position or rejection of Divine Will, there's a Truer core Nature which nevertheless actually affirms it.  It's such a remarkably salient and relevant matter that I could almost believe that this was the intended reason for doing all the rest of it; if, of course, there could ever be a reason or justification for Choosing knowing, Willful and readily-avoidable 'suckage', or any reliable meaning to be found on such a basis.

Consider: With a mutual recognition of the fact that beneath any competent counter-Divine Will position there's a truer and more solid foundation of the Choice to align with Divine Will and our own True Nature which it confers, then of course there's no justifiable reason to knowingly, Willfully and avoidably Choose such a counter-Divine Will basis anyway.  Even if it were somehow acceptable within Divine Will standards.  A conclusion which reduces all these various gyrations and implied evasions by 'the other guys', to seemingly attempt all manner of alternatives to actually Choosing to align with Divine Will in the first place, "absurd".

If you know something, find value in that thing, and know that thing to be the True State of Creation, then quite naturally you Choose it.  Manifestly of course, we have quite a different scenario that's been taking shape.  They've demonstrated that they know the former, so naturally the latter is quite unacceptable and less than worthy.

And then of course we have their investments in the recent pattern of 'propagation through self-deprecation'.  That is, using the same covert group-identification symbols and so on, but doing so mockingly or with aspersions supposedly cast against the whole thing.  Not entirely dissimilar to the Freemasonic use of "The Fool" symbol, not to mention its underlying Babylonian Gnostic usage.

This is of no special concern, inasmuch as My "House's" standards already preclude personnel from such ambiguity.  That is, when there's a situation in which there's a reasonable likelihood of what was acceptable standard usage before now instead providing such ambiguity of position, that usage is deemed by My personnel to be, in the circumstances, unacceptably non-standard and errant.  Sincerity, forthrightness and honesty prompt My personnel, on their own recognizance, to refrain from those temporarily non-standard usages, since not only is honesty a necessary prerequisite for successful communication, but an understanding of Divine Will and our own True Nature mean that not making reasonable efforts to do so would be in violation of our sense of dignity, not to mention our duty to Divine Will.  Self-evidently, to intentionally enable such ambiguity would make us passive enablers of a counter-Divine Will position so there's an inherent responsibility to make reasonable efforts not to do so.

Of course, all this clarity is merely responding to a 'fluff' situation in the first place.  'My personnel' is a bit of a moot point, given that just about everyone from the manifestly errant assemblage of telepaths and propheciers on through the personnel of the lowliest franchises are supposed to be 'My personnel', but manifestly don't appear to be in this temporal revision due to the 'suckage' of the telepaths' and propheciers' Choice for a counter-Divine Will position.  And the manifest lapse in behavioral standards which apparently resulted.

Which in a sense gets slightly interesting; the telepaths and propheciers accepted My original condition of only wanting to Work with them provided they continued to affirm a basis aligned with Divine Will and with their own True Nature.  This, they've manifestly reneged on.  Babylonian Gnosticism, and pretty much all the rest of it, manifestly derived from that renegade basis... without which there'd be none of that pretense throughout the temporal event sequence.  Both the Choice for 'suckage' and the international proliferation all these quasi-organizations is all predicated on such a manifest Choice to renege: on their arrangement with Myself, on their own True Nature, and on the Divine Will of our shared Maker.

It gets interesting for a couple of reasons, the smaller of which is procedural: I'm not sure there's a means, other than possibly by force, duress or fraud, that any of the resulting quasi-organizations or even the assemblage of telepaths and propheciers can require loyalty of 'their' personnel which the principals have already reneged on themselves.  There certainly doesn't seem to be a valid moral basis for it.  That tends to do interesting things to a quasi-organization's internal integrity.

The larger of these reasons gets a little more metaphysical.  It seems to be a sort of admission by the telepaths and propheciers that these quasi-organizations, though there's certainly an abundance of manifest evidence of them, don't genuinely exist in an objective sense beyond any investments of Will and other resources with which the telepaths and propheciers have manifestly imbued them.  As I'd mentioned, they used to come up with all manner of purported quasi-organizations and for a while they'd convinced Me of their existence, mostly due to a covert symbolism that appeared in use everywhere around me suggesting that these fictional groups indeed manifestly existed.  As any competent metaphysical practitioner understands, 'seeing isn't believing'.  Evidently there's even a symbol in Babylonian Gnostic covert nomenclature which references this, indicated by an artificial form shaped like, typically, a human.  It's beginning to seem like that symbol on their part is actually intended to be rather self-referential.

As regards the self-deprecation, not only is it undignified, but when someone unnecessarily invokes a quasi-group's symbolism and agenda, not to mention repeatedly, not to mention to the veritable exclusion of a viable, Divine Will-aligned, True Nature-affirming organization and its agendas, it becomes rather clear that the self-deprecation is insincere and into which agenda the fellow is actually investing himself.  That is, it becomes clear that the fellow is investing himself into an inherently unworthy Choice that's beneath his dignity as regards his True Nature, and committing the error of 'idolatry' in supporting an illegitimate quasi-authority and ultimately unreal agenda at the expense of a legitimate authority and worthy agenda of affirming What Is.  To get even deeper into the metaphysics of it, it indicates that they're alleging two alternative things where in actual fact there is only one... and then attempting to invest in manifesting 'both' of them.  Not a particularly reliable nor trustworthy position, surely.

I suppose that's in essence what I've been trying to do here: to show people that there isn't, despite manifest appearances, actually a 'dualism', that there's only the genuine article [Divine Will, True Nature, and the True State of Creation] to better equip them to divest of 'the other thing' and reallocate their investments of Will and other resources into affirming the genuine article.  I mean, that's surely the obvious thing.  Not to mention the worthy thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *