Re: Enforcement, additional

Another covertly-implied argument from 'the other guys' on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. Essentially, 'We've manifestly Chosen a position in which we've rejected Divine Will, jettisoned our True Nature, and relinquished a position referred to symbolically as "living". Since we're existing without all the things that we hold so dear, surely an existence without those things is punishment enough?'

And what a perfect scenario that is, surely.

Everyone doing what nobody wants, living out unworthy scenarios, peoples' True Nature manifestly absent when you attempt to interact with them, our social, political, economic and moral systems increasingly dysfunctional, everyones' rights manifestly violated as a result of their Choices. Even the rights of those like Myself who don't share them. Without Divine Will and their True Nature being upheld, even My literal life isn't worth living.

It's a situation that's unworthy of us all. Relegating innocents to that is unconscionable, efforts by 'the other guys' to mitigate that by strategically transforming innocents into the somewhat guilty hardly recommends them, and even the knowing perpetrators deserve full well better.

It wouldn't be in accordance with Divine Will and My own True Nature to leave them to that situation, just as it isn't for any of us to do so.

I suppose it means that alignment with Divine Will and True Nature necessarily require actively upholding same. Which means that when someone manifestly isn't, they're manifestly not Choosing in alignment with Divine Will and True Nature.

I'm familiar with the argument. It's an argument that I've previously encountered from the assemblage of manifestly rogue telepaths and propheciers. It's almost as though a library of counter-arguments is available in common between the telepaths and propheciers and 'the other guys', which makes sense in that the latter appears to manifestly be a franchise of the former.

I recognized the argument immediately. Since they've been manifestly Choosing a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis I thought I'd leave them to propagate the argument through 'their own' agencies so the less enlightened could get a load of them before I provided the correctional information. It certainly does get to the crux of the matter here, and as such made a marginally better investment of their time and attention than most of their implied arguments have.

Nothing nearly so worthy as statements actually made on a Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned premise of course. But they've manifestly been refusing that.

As I'd said before, 'I miss Us.'. That is, everyone upholding and affirming Divine Will principles and their own True Nature, and as such acting in a natural accordance with each other on a genuine, valid, and worthy basis.

Whatever else it was doing, the Declaration probably summed it up best: that rights derive from Divine Will. I'm aligned with Divine Will and My own True Nature; why are My rights manifestly violated as a result of the invalid Choices of 'the other guys'? That's an encroachment, a crime, a 'sin'. It's when there's a violation that others have something to say about the Choices of others; how better than to use the principle of justice as a means of not only upholding Divine Will and True Nature, but also as a means to invest our Will into the joining of 'the other guys'' Will with Divine Will and with their own True Nature? Seems a healthy Choice on My part, and on the part of the People as they learn, adopt and uphold the strategy.

Because what I truly miss is everyone else. In their genuine, legitimate capacity: in alignment with Divine Will and their own True Nature.

And it's quite an imperfect manifest scenario to have those who've Chosen to relinquish "life", and thus all agency, nevertheless usurping the agency of others. As we already know, Divine Will is for worthy scenarios. It invalidates all arguments for 'suckage'; they cannot be supported.

Their recent, implied faux-argument attempts to rationalize extremely unworthy scenarios from a starting point of Divine Will. And that's "absurd".

And it's much like the hypocritical arguments of an addict when those who care about them initiate 'an intervention'. It's a good thing I know these people have not been making them sincerely, or I'd be genuinely concerned about their mental state. As things manifestly are, their behavior hasn't been a valid indicator of their mental state. That's much of the reason the manifest scenario is so unworthy of all of us.

Leave a Reply

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