Re: ‘Another context’, confirmation

Getting a better sense of what 'the other guys' are presenting.  Ms. Haley's recent speech at the 'United Nations Security Council' was most informative as a presentation of the covert pattern.

On a non-credible counter-Divine Will basis, 'the other guys' covertly appear to imply a Choice to align with Divine Will which, they imply, will take literal time for retooling to implement.

Simultaneously, they continue to implement globalist agendas such as the 'Deep State' overt narrative.

I've stated before that what with the telepaths' and propheciers' capabilities, no 'retooling time' is necessary.  And that the Choice to invest in counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature efforts is mutually exclusive with the Choice to uphold and to affirm Divine Will and True Nature.

I've also stated that the Choice of an organization to uphold Divine Will and True Nature to the best of ones' ability cannot be 'a sometimes thing'.

Alignment with Divine Will and True Nature prompt Myself and anyone else to a duty to reject what is manifestly presented on a counter-Divine Will and counter-True Nature basis to the best of our ability.  Such things are inherently non-integrous, non-credible, unworthy and inherently unreliable.

Another way to state that formula is that I cannot "tarry" with those manifestly, Willfully Choosing to act against their own True Nature.  If I were to align with them, I would be doing the same.  And such a Choice would be inherently dysfunctional, for Myself, for My "House", and for them.

That they can do better than act on a basis that's mutually-exclusive with their own True Nature, and with the Divine Will that conferred it upon them, is self-evident.  It's a given.  But it has not yet manifestly been given; it's so far been withheld.  That's been a manifestly unworthy scenario with a deficiency of value for all concerned and for many innocents who are not.

Ms. Haley's presentation of symbolism was mildly interesting, in that it appeared to us a combination of the Babylonian Gnostic "not [this]" and "anti-[that]" motif and counter-Divine Will imagery and symbolism as a sort of 'double negative'.  But a 'double negative' does not equal a 'positive' any more than 'two wrongs make a right'.

Through its manifest organizational career Rome has 're-formed' itself in shape only, as a response to the impracticality of its various strategies.  For that reason, it seems likely that they themselves gave the modern resistance effort to it the name by which we now know it, the 'Protestant Reformation'.  In its original incarnation, it attempted to suppress Christianity through raw brute force.  When that was ineffective, it 're-formed' to present itself as Christianity to subvert it from within.  And after Martin Luther, et al. it 'went stealth' and subverted using covert symbolism in media and social networks, incidentally leaving behind quite a record of events throughout the international public media since that time.  What I'm getting at here is that just as it's likely they were responsible for the application of the term 'Reformation', they were also very likely to have dubbed the term 'Protestant' as well.

We often consider to 'protest' something as being a rejection of something, usually something negative.  Thus, a sort of 'double negative'.  But the etymology of the word tells us that it means 'to publicly assert' something.  It comes from the same core word as 'testify' does.  That originated by men publicly stating the truth on the lives of their as-yet unconceived progeny.  Presumably their Will was that if their statements were not true, it would have an undesirable effect upon those progeny.  This appears quite an apt metaphor for the current situation.

We publicly state what is true because it is true, and an alignment with our True Nature quite naturally prompts us to do so.  My approach is in the affirmative sense of the word; I seek to uphold and affirm Divine Will principles and our True Nature.  A 'double negative' as a means to an end plainly would not be sufficient.  It's true that in doing so, things which have more inherent value typically displace those things which have less; this too is part of our True Nature.  We inherently desire what is worthwhile.

What 'the other guys' manifestly seem to be presenting is a sort of 'double negative', predicated on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis, which I might be induced to accept as a means to an end.

I should hasten to add that making such offers are not in accordance with their True Nature.  As such I have every reason to expect better of them, and refuse to accept less.  Were I to do so, I would be accepting a counter-True Nature basis from them and the result of that Choice on My part would be a foregone conclusion.

Contrary to their True Nature, I appear to have manifestly been presented with such a 'double negative' when what they can only truly and genuinely desire is a basis which upholds and affirms, continually, Divine Will principles and their own True Nature.

In clear and plain language: They can do much better than this.

To attempt to 'stiff' others is nobody's True Nature.

As such it will presumably be readily apparent when they do, inevitably, Choose to 'get real'.  Given their capabilities, the contrast between that and this would presumably be near-total.

In the meantime, accepting integrity from those manifestly Choosing a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis which is inherently mutually-exclusive with credibility and with 'good faith' would be rather silly on My part, I think.  My True Nature is both more knowledgeable and more responsible than to accept that, particularly as it would manifestly cause Me to be a partial shareholder in the Choice for wrongdoing.

I should probably add that I've researched these literal historical behavior of quasi-organizations in this sequence of events.  I'll do us the courtesy of avoiding needless specifics here which would be repugnant to the dignity of our souls, but suffice it to say these quasi-organizations self-evidently lack a benevolent record.  Surely this will be retroactively revised once the telepaths and propheciers themselves 'get real', but in the interim they appear to remain, alas, manifestly present.  The Choice to continue their agenda but adjust their strategies from an emphasis on raw, brute force to public fraud, and from that to espionage and subversion, did not somehow restore to these quasi-organizations a benevolent and acceptable record.  Public acceptance of them appears to be the result of a prevalent unawareness of their manifest history; this is surely remediable even by non-telepaths and -propheciers, particularly with the use of modern innovations in information technology.

I'll add that "Resurrection", in the Christian context, pertains and becomes accessible to ordinary, individual humans when their Choice genuinely becomes to accept it.  To the best of My understanding it does not apply to 'corporations' and other quasi-organizations, which were always the hypothetical creations of man to begin with.  The legitimate continuance of quasi-organizations which manifestly have forfeited their own "life", such as they'd had it, appears to Me as something of an "absurdity".  I'm of course open to correctional information on that matter, provided it's presented by those manifestly Choosing a basis which is aligned with Divine Will and with their own True Nature.

A serviceable financial parallel might be that these quasi-corporations have manifestly 'hyper-inflated' to the extent that they've manifestly lost all inherent value.  Without a retroactive correction of this, a resulting 'market correction' seems inevitable.

For their part, the telepaths and propheciers manifestly continue to attempt, occasionally, to interact with Me on a trusted basis despite a position predicated on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True nature Choice.  This of course is not up to standard.  And it appears to be more or less what 'the other guys' as a quasi-organization have been manifestly presenting: all manner of counter-Divine Will imagery and symbolism which, it seems, they hope to be ignored or accepted due to the supposed other content being presented alongside it.  It seems to be a case of trying covertly to 'speak My language' while continuing to reject the standards which are the prerequisites to 'being heard' in that 'language'.  For them to do so negates its value as a form of communication, and must be regarded as such.

I trust this clarifies the matter.  I'm almost entirely certain that they knew this already, but Chose to clarify it regardless in the spirit of benevolence and 'good faith' which is a natural part of our True Nature.

Leave a Reply

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