Re: Manifest culpability

'The other guys' have been demonstrating [via Newshour, for example] an investment in a covert effort to sound Me out about the matter of culpability in the context of seeking to affirm justice. Their main implied angle if I'm interpreting it correctly seems to be, 'Where is the demarcation between victim and criminal here? How are you differentiating between someone who's manifestly volitionally culpable, and someone who's only manifestly culpable due to ignorance, or duress, or psychological diddling on our part?'

Firstly, asking this appears to be yet another 'nisi prius' strategy on their part; they're presumably not asking as part of an effort to affirm My Will as it aligns with Divine Will, as for example in an instance of determining My criteria as part of an effort to uphold justice in a manner consistent those criteria. Indeed, if 'the other guys' so Chose, the capabilities of the telepaths and propheciers would allow them to remedy the situation retroactively by having remained in alignment with Divine Will; this manifest scenario is therefore evidence of their ongoing manifest refusal to affirm their own True Nature and the Divine Will that imbued them with it. And as we've seen, those manifest things which are predicated on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature position are non-credible and thoroughly suspect in motive, lacking in what the overt law terms 'good faith'. That said, clarifying My criteria is only proper in expressing clarity, My own 'good faith' and principles of fairness. I am however cognizant that those manifestly acting on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis could be seeking the information only in order to subvert it, not because that's their True Nature but precisely because they've manifestly been rejecting it. 'Good faith' is among the many quite natural resultants of positions affirming someone's own True Nature and the Divine Will that imbued them with it; where both are manifestly rejected 'good faith' is conspicuous by its absence, and it would be "absurd" to presume its presence, just as literal dogs do not mate and produce a stone as their offspring. Indeed, with 'good faith' lacking for all I know this could be just an implementation of the symbolic ambiguity implied in their recent "dialogue" covert reference.  But for now, it's a fair enough question I suppose.

Despite My current manifest inability to see at a whim events yet to manifest, I find that I've already provided that information and will expound upon it. Not only do I predicate My approach on Divine Will principles, but in terms of fairness I as I've already stated use the common law principles, many of which are shown here despite the manifest efforts of 'the other guys' to subvert it from the memory of the People, to evaluate the dynamics of fairness [genuine justice of course merely being fairness with a more official and formalized presentation]. These maxims emerged as general truisms found to be accurate in nearly all instances over centuries of overt court disputes. In them we find some extremely relevant truisms, such as:

'Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.'

'Actus non reum facit, nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty. This maxim applies only to criminal cases; in civil matters it is otherwise.'

And of course we have the additional insight of what comprises, and what principles affect, acts of Will in an overt physical sense because we're already familiar with parallels regarding acts of Will in a more metaphysical sense. Acts of Will must be done knowingly, deliberately, and avoidably in order to be genuinely acts of Will. To the extent that a person's agency has been removed from them, such as through ignorance, duress, and so forth, by another person, the brunt of manifest culpability ordinarily transfers to that other person who has manifestly usurped their agency. Ostensible Jesuits might find it worthwhile to notice that acts of Will which usurp the agency of another, such as through revisionist history, engineered calumnies or intentionally fallacious rhetoric, therefore result in a major and vastly disproportionate amount of culpability [both in man's laws and metaphysically] due to their usurpations against generations of other people... and the unworthy manifest resultants that sort of thing tends to beget.

As for when an act of Will is a crime, despite the now-prevalent subverted thinking a crime is not the violation of any whimsical or arbitrary baseless edict approved by an authority figure. A crime rather is the manifest violation of the rights of another, and this is so because those rights are an intrinsic attribute of that other, conferred upon them by Divine Will. A crime therefore would be a manifestly knowing, Willful and avoidable act which violates the rights of another, and the base reason is that it was a manifest transgression against Divine Will by transgressing against the rights of that person.

This could easily become an elaborate subject, and so I'll strive to keep this brief. In the overt Union, 'RICO' is the modern equivalent of the original conspiracy laws. A member of a conspiracy which violates rights is presumed to be a knowing, Willful and deliberate participant in all of the manifest rights violations committed by that conspiracy, because they've knowingly, Willfully and deliberately been investing their efforts and Will into manifesting the furtherance of the conspiracy which committed them. Duress is frequently assessed as an extenuating circumstance, and mitigates the culpability and therefore the penalty for that person in part or in sometimes in whole. Their intent is considered, which is certainly conveniently established through evaluation of their usage of covert messaging. In our context, what exactly constituted 'a knowing, Willful and deliberate member of a conspiracy' requires special evaluation, given that it will be necessary to assess culpability in a multi-layered cryptocratic pseudo-organization in which the rank-and-file are often unaware to varying degrees of the agendas of their professed superiors. This too is readily established and ascertained through evaluation of which layers of code they've been using, and what into what agendas they've been manifestly investing themselves. Someone who's merely been using prevalent symbolism to indulge in forms of recreation prohibited by some "absurd" statute has knowingly violated no rights nor knowingly enjoined any group which does; by contrast, someone complicit in a conspiracy of subversion, treason, and social engineering via public fraud is quite knowingly complicit, and their use of symbolism will of course demonstrate that. I understand that some franchises have shifted their emphasis and business model from the former to the later comparatively recently, with the result that the brunt of 'their' personnel have metriculated through the ranks to becoming complicit in, and culpable for, the latter. I genuinely empathize with the predicament they've Chosen, but not at the expense of upholding rights Divinely conferred upon the People.

Among the worthwhile benefits of common law is its impartiality by way of pre-existing the brunt of 'the other guys'' manifest wrongdoings. It's an overt application of Divine Will principles, and as such does not require My own personal edicts which would likely be influenced by My own personal preferences. In pre-dating much of the manifest encroachments, it also neatly avoids being 'ex post facto'. The principles of Divine Will of course presumably pre-date us all, and I've found no better implementation of those principles than in the venue of common law. Even the Scriptures, despite the extreme likelihood of their being the work of manifestly errant telepaths and propheciers tinkering with the temporal event sequence, tells the People in no uncertain terms to eschew any such conspiratorial pseudo-organization, well before the fact.

'Say ye not, 'A confederacy', to all them to whom this people shall say, 'A confederacy'; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.'
- Isaiah 8:12-13

While we're on the subject, let's take a moment to consider the dearth of overt common law venue in our manifest era. This of course has manifestly been the work of generations of Jesuit subversion, attributable to Babylon, itself attributable to the telepaths and propheciers behaving in a rogue capacity. It's going to be interesting trying to address this matter in a common law court, as a direct result of their manifest, systematic agenda. A fiat statutory court would of course not dispense justice and as such would satisfy neither Myself, nor the People, and their alternative if fair, overt common law courts were not re-established would likely be from the People themselves, and not at My direction, a much less formal and orderly means of seeking to enact justice. That is hardly My preference, just as it surely is not the preference of 'the other guys'. It would however be a resultant of their Choices as manifest in this revision of events. See My comments above, regarding the especial onus of revisionist history and usurpation of the agency of others. Were I in their position, I would likely find it to My benefit to ensure that fair and just common law courts were re-established in order to satisfy justice overtly, without which there is unlikely to be a satisfaction of this matter covertly. Candidly, it appeals to My quirky sense of fairness to notice that 'the other guys' now find themselves in a position in which they will soon urgently and desperately need and sincerely desire the very system of fairness that they've been systematically and methodically eroding at their leisure over the last few manifest centuries.

In closing, I'll address the more metaphysical implication of their implied culpability query. That of course would read, 'Satori, if our True Nature is fixed, absolute and constant, then regardless of what we manifestly did or do it would still be your duty per Divine Will to uphold your recognition of that True Nature as superior to, and displacing of, our manifest crimes. And if you don't, you've abandoned your recognition of our True Nature and thus the True State of Creation.'

Which is of course more sophistry due to their manifest Choice to reject both that True Nature and Divine Will both, and as such the 'good faith' which should be present in their communication is lamentably absent. It's just a permutation of the old argument that our shared Creator can only be graceful, at the expense of justice. Which of course would be imperfect... in fact, about as imperfect as this manifest situation which still lacks justice manifestly is. The ideal resolution of course would be retroactive prevention, both in a Christian context and here as well. As that's perfectly within the capabilities of the telepaths and propheciers as I understand it and they've thus far refused - refusing even to realign their position to affirm their own True Nature and Divine Will both in our era! - they not only have no legitimate grounds for complaint, but it becomes self-evident that those complaints they imply are non-credible ab initio by virtue of their manifest position [or rather, their lack of it]. Correctly stated, the argument instead reads: 'Satori, /because/ we were created by Divine Will, and precisely /because/ of our True Nature which it conferred upon us, we Choose to uphold both from the start and make the manifest, tangible state the same as the perfect, worthwhile, True State of Creation because our Will here will be the same as our Will there.' To reject What Is and relegate Me to addressing it, or passively enabling it through tolerance of it, presents Me with a no-win scenario as a result of their manifest Choice to reject their own True Nature and Divine Will both. And as I've described before, it's an "absurd" fallacy to suggest that someone's duty to uphold Divine Will requires them to instead pretend that a Choice to reject that Divine Will is the same as the Choice to align with it; such a position would self-evidently make their own duty to Divine Will only theoretical and therefore meaningless. To do so would self-evidently be an abrogation of Divine Will, not an upholding of it.

We find similar fallacies in the Holey Sea's attempts to subvert Christianity: 'God doesn't want division among His people, and dogma tends to cause division, so we should chuck out God's doctrines in order to form a cozy contented bliss pile together because we all worship the same God, despite having just chucked out His criteria and standards.' While we're on the subject, we find that our shared Creator's version of justice - at least as depicted by Christianity - amounts to much the same thing: to have 'at-one-ment' with Divine Will, you must have 'repentance' as a necessary prerequisite. The manifest scenario demonstrates their continued knowing, Willful, and avoidable Choice not to 'repent' and realign with Divine Will and their own True Nature, and though I was unaware of it when I began presenting openly to the public, the assemblage of telepaths and propheciers as the most knowing, Willful and deliberate principals are manifestly the most culpable of all involved, with the most onus. I see now that I was right to uphold Divine Will principles and manifestly reject them for Willful refusal to uphold standards; it is good that so many of them are in the media, where their use of symbolism becomes a matter of internationally public record. They can of course get out of that any time they so Choose; they have only to retroactively 'undo the crime', to 'undo the "time"'. While they manifestly have not, I can only infer that they have no sincere nor credible objection.

Indeed, by definition they had to see it coming.

Leave a Reply

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