Re: Democracy

Still encountering the covert motif of 'people or groups remembering how others voted and retaliating at them for it', and 'people or groups ceasing to fund others as the result of their choices'. All implied under a counter-Divine Will position of course, which makes it a non-credible argument, but it's not entirely clear to Me whether some people actually believe this fallacious argument. So I'll clarify My position here for them, and I'll additionally use some events and shifts in ideology in our current manifest temporal event sequence to make the application of Divine Will principles clearer for them here, and help recover an understanding of Divine Will principles that appears to have prevalently gone missing.

I've stated that "elections" aren't the appropriate response to manifest wrongdoing; law is. Just so. But why all this emphasis from 'the other guys' on "democracy"? I think we'll need to get into that a little more to dispel and clarify a few things here and correct our understanding.

There's a lot to be said against literal, overt aristocracies and monarchies. However, what they did have going for them was that at least in theory, the absolute sovereign was the absolute sovereign precisely because they were the most aligned with Divine Will principles and the best exemplification of them that humanity could find available at any given moment. I'll state clearly at the onset that societies in which sovereignty was reserved for just a few people were inherently dysfunctional; in actual practice that encroached against the rights of the People generally, because our shared Creator has made us all with the right to our own agency and the ability to Choose. Exclusive sovereignty encroached against and violated that right to agency, and made a sort of overt 'second class citizenship' for the majority of the People. Perhaps the best - and quite unique - correction of this model was with the founding of the overt united States in which sovereignty was deemed to have devolved back upon the People themselves. Just so.

However, the abolition of aristocracies and monarchies in favor of overt democracies didn't manifestly happen as a result of them being an imperfect expression of Divine Will principles. My reading of events indicates that it was as a result of the Jesuits and their precursors, who had knocked over entire nations and economies so hard that not only were the People outraged at them, but even the aristocracies and monarchies that the Jesuits had emplaced couldn't continue to accept them. Rather than conclude, 'What we're doing is inherently unsustainable and dysfunctional, and we really need to cool it', the Jesuits concluded that, 'Monarchies and aristocracies are inherently inconvenient, and we need to swap them out for some other overt political model'. The substitute model was of course literal democracy, which originated in the Greek Empire which was a subverted franchise of the Babylonian Gnostics.

Literal democracies sound great to the uneducated, but don't uphold the rights provided by Divine Will to us all. Rather, they present the appearance of freedom by making the choices of the People a mere intermediary between the agendas and disinformation efforts of 'the other guys' and their implementation. Rights are inherently up for grabs in literal democracies, precisely because they aren't absolute and inviolate. Instead, recognition of the intrinsic, absolute rights provided by Divine Will are contingent upon the approval of a majority of the People; if the majority choose not to recognize rights, that society blithely usurps and disregards them. This appears to have been acceptable to 'the other guys' as we're all aware how readily the uneducated and miseducated - so frequently an easy majority of the People - can have their beliefs and opinions determined not by themselves but rather by 'the other guys', and when rights are encroached against and usurped you have a society that violates rights as the result of massive public frauds perpetrated against them.

The violation of rights is of course what the original, genuine concept of 'crime' is. The prevalent public perception of what 'crime' is was manifestly revised by 'the other guys' to mean the violation of any statute, code, policy or ordinance that happened to fall out of any legislator, regardless of whether or not said legislator had ever actually had the authority to establish said code, statute, policy or ordinance conferred upon them by their own People. It was effectively redefined to give apparent credence to the fiat of 'the other guys', and that redefinition appears to have been founded on the same kind of manifest public fraud efforts that we regrettably encounter from them so frequently in our time.

The result is a society in which rights are routinely violated, but it has the semblance of legitimacy and respectability. It's not altogether much different from a scenario where you have a 'U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights' emplaced by the same quasi-organization that spent much of the Middle Ages violating the rights of people to their own property and even their own lives merely for owning their own Bibles. When the recognition of rights are merely used as the means to an end, there does appear to be a certain amount of manifest hypocrisy going on.

Literal, overt democracies are manifestly so frequently used as part of efforts to legitimatize and routinely violate intrinsic, absolute, and Divinely-conferred rights of the People. Similarly, the covert equivalent appears to be manifestly used in much the same way. Even with all the subversion and disinformation in our time, make that clear to the People and even the average hyperliberal or 'social justice' seeker would find themselves outraged at the inherent injustice.

Using either version of democracy to violate rights or other aspects of Divine Will is... well, 'crime'.

Ultimately, it's an argument which takes the position that the Choices of the People have an absolute sovereignty, and that they are the ultimate arbiter of What Is. People of course have a sort of derivative, manifest sovereignty which derives from [and as a benevolent gift from] our shared Creator. This gets back to what the imperfect model of monarchy at least originally attempted to show the People: that sovereignty derives from Divine Will and is contingent upon retaining an alignment with Divine Will.

Allowing a society, whether overt or covert, to systematically and routinely violate the rights held by them by virtue of our Creator would of course be complicity with a counter-Divine Will position. It doesn't matter if the justification is democracy or any other thing. People are not the ultimate arbiters of What Is, and to suggest that they are is not only a dysfunctional argument but results in an inherently dysfunctional model. When stripped down, we find that the argument is just another permutation of the position of 'idolatry'; that is, that the ego is superior in authority to the Ultimate Authority, that of our shared Creator. Basic metaphysics shows us that this isn't so, and cannot become so. Nor per our True Nature would we ever truly desire for it to become so. It is not the genuine Will of the People, nor is it My own.

Consequently, we find the argument for democracy [of either kind] an argument for a defective, counter-Divine Will position. Additionally, it's not particularly 'Loving' to advocate for investment into systems which violate rights, defraud the People and behave counter to Divine Will principles. As such, arguments for it are not representative of anyones' True Nature and cannot become so.

Now, to address and correct the implied [if from an invalid counter-Divine Will position] argument about justice being the result of conditional rather than unconditional 'Love' towards others. Genuine justice upholds the rights of all impartially, and that's very 'Loving' to all, unconditionally. By contrast, partiality to some and violating the rights of others is not only manifestly wrongdoing, it's the very essence of a 'Love' which is conditional. I find the latter with disappointing frequency in the manifest agendas and methodologies of 'the other guys'.

I encourage readers to consider the [overt] implications of the preceding paragraph quite carefully. The eventual result of Choices in conflict with Divine Will and our own True Natures is behavior which is in conflict with the rights of others. And that of course is manifest 'crime', for which justice is needed and is unconditionally 'Loving' to provide.

A free system requires accountability for ones' own Choices. In a Divine Will-aligned system, those Choices are of course aligned with Divine Will and while justice and accountability are found everywhere, retribution is absent because 'crime' is too; Choices are consistently righteous. Justice is a constant, in an absolute, metaphysical sense. Retribution only manifests to the extent that Choices in conflict with Divine Will and True Nature are invested in. That is to say, retribution for counter-Divine Will and counter-True Nature Choices and investments in same are only manifest as a result of the disharmonious manifest Choices of the telepaths and propheciers [and the rank-and-file which have Chosen similarly as a result] for a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature position. They can of course presumably 'undo' such an errant Choice retroactively should they decide to. While they manifestly have not, there remains manifest accountability by them for their manifest conflict with Divine Will and with their own True Nature. To disregard that would be an inherently dysfunctional Choice on My part, and on the part of anyone who manifestly made it.

Fairness ['justice', formally] and accountability are absolutes, and what an imperfect system Creation would be if they were not. Manifest retribution, however, is the Choice that's up to each of us. We cannot remake the fundamental rules of Creation nor would we genuinely want to if we could. We can only Choose whether to 'get with the program' or live in conflict with it. The latter of course is "absurd".

Leave a Reply

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