Still attempting to facilitate ‘the other guys’’ effective use of their grace period, I’d like to present what I’ve learned about the situation thus far. Only, given their manifest Choice to interact on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis, I don’t ‘know’ with certainty anything more than I’d known before. I do seem to have encountered a few tropes indicating the sort of concepts they’ve been investing in directing My attention to however, and it’s only kindly to make them known.
Firstly, a trope about either an overt or a non-overt basis having been intended by them. Since the relevance of that with ‘Iran’ doesn’t seem to apply rather well, let’s evaluate it with regard to the other item. That would suggest that, for all their recent investment in a non-overt effort to hype the resurgence of a certain quasi-franchise, it was merely ‘for looks’ and the actual substance was always intended to remain lacking. [And what interesting ‘looks’ that effort received, certainly.]
If this is their intended presentment-by-implication, there are some concerns there. Such as that I hardly need to remind ‘the other guys’ not to invest their Will and efforts into things they don’t actually Choose to manifest, among other things. This is certainly a core tenet of their philosophy, given their symbolic lingo. Indeed their various applications of that principle, and some of the reprehensibly unworthy things they’ve caused to manifest with them, demonstrate the reservation which is in order whenever they invest their efforts into manifesting something ‘but not seriously’, ‘only for appearances’ sake’, or accompanied by any number of other such caveats. That said, I have researched and do acknowledge that their manifest investments of effort on that item recently had, at the time they’d done so, been clearly symbolically labeled by them as ‘for appearances’ sake only’. [How ‘their own’ personnel manage to successfully make a distinction between agenda items genuinely intended, and those only intended for the sake of appearances, given their core tenet I’d mentioned will probably have to remain a proprietary matter of mere personal speculation on My part.]
‘What you focus on, emphasize, speak, and so on, that is what you’re investing yourself in the Choice to manifest,’ appears to be a more or less accurate summary of their tenet. So they can surely acknowledge the manifest dissonance between us which results when they invest themselves so frequently in a counter-Divine Will position and basis. And certainly the various non-overt, implied contrivances and ‘psyche-outs’ towards Me while I’ve been striving to resolve and clarify the matter of Divine Will principles and derived authority.
There is another concern. In the scope and context of what we’re evaluating, whether their manifest effort was intended overtly, in ‘full force’ as it were, or merely for the look of the thing would appear not to have relevance or import here. A ‘globalization’ strategy implemented by social engineering through the use of various narratives and public fraud rather than brute force would appear to remain nevertheless a ‘globalization’ strategy, regardless of the specific methods used to effect it.
About the only other implication about all this that I’ve been able to glean recently has been something I’m not entirely certain I’m interpreting correctly. To paraphrase the implication as I’d encountered it [alas, it was presented on an unreliable counter-Divine Will basis of course], supposedly what was referenced as ‘a previous [authority]’ had granted ‘the other guys’ some manner of authority over everyone Choosing a counter-Divine Will basis. It wasn’t clear to Me whether ‘previous’ had been meant in an overt or non-overt sense. But as we surely know by this juncture, despite their current manifest presentation things on a counter-Divine Will basis do not genuinely exist, or do not genuinely exist on that basis. As such, assurances made by, from, to, or regarding such a basis have no actual substance beyond the investment of belief and acceptance they’ve been lent. [Much like the adage about verbal contracts not being worth the paper they’re printed on, if that helps to illustrate the concept.] For the record, ‘the other guys’’ seeming to use a counter-Divine Will basis as equivalent to a valid basis with a symbolic inversion applied appears to be merely a means of promoting an invalid basis to the general public as a valid basis, and encouraging the acceptance of something with no inherent validity. [And once again, the metaphor of financiers encouraging the public’s use and acceptance of baseless fiat paper currency becomes assistive in presenting the concept more effectively.]
That reminds, I’ve also encountered what appears to be non-overtly implied [and on a less-than-reliable basis] intimations that ‘the other guys’ have manifest Chosen to quash their ‘not-overtly-intended’ effort, and that it just hasn’t taken effect yet. Of course, things which aren’t quite said and not even directly implied are not inherently reliable, but then their grace period isn’t even close to up yet either. Presumably that will also enable them to attend to the other matter, which I notice is still making prominent appearance in the current events section like a sort of mantra.