Sharing more results and providing evaluation

Getting a few of covertly-implied responses back, though on a counter-Divine Will basis.

The first appears to be a miscellany of implied disrespect, claimed inability to comply, unwillingness to comply, and so on. In addition to not only being non-credible, some of these have been mutually-exclusive with each other. Spurious responses on a counter-Divine Will basis would seem to indicate a rejection of the opportunity for grace [through dis-grace], but I don’t think it would be just to deny them grace due to a possible misinterpretation on My part. As regards an implied inability to comply, that would supposedly be on individual level due to duress supplied by ‘the other guys’ as a quasi-organization, and it’s the manifest position of that quasi-organization which is at issue at this juncture. [Additionally, individuals always have a Choice. It’s just not always especially convenient.] As for implied unwillingness, which is of course spurious given their True Nature, a refusal to acknowledge and uphold the authority of Divine Will is the same as the Choice to manifestly jettison Divine Will alignment, which would merely be demonstrating a default on the matter. In sum, countering Divine Will authority on a counter-Divine Will basis would reduce to an alignment with and an upholding of Divine Will once the ‘inversion’ was removed, but their behavior manifestly demonstrates that it hasn’t been what they’ve been Choosing.

Next, an emphasis on the implied invalidity of My calling them to account for their investments in efforts made on a non-overt basis. To paraphrase, ‘What, you’re going to officially notice and take issue with things we’re doing on a non-overt basis? Then that means you are accepting a non-overt basis yourself! That’s very silly, you know! It’s an unsound premise!’ If I’m interpreting their implication correctly, that would seem to be another iteration of a fallacy I’ve already addressed; namely that the matter has to do with their manifest investments into Choices on whatever basis, when they’re in conflict with Divine Will. Overt, non-overt, technological, financial, social, legal, political… the venue itself is irrelevant. It’s about into what they’re Choosing to invest themselves, their efforts, their Will, and their resources. Why should that matter, if it’s themselves, their efforts, their Will, and their resources rather than Mine? For a couple of reasons. For starters, the results of their manifest Choices violate the rights and detriment the quality of life of others, My own included. Just as any common law overt crime does. When someones’ manifest Choices encroach against others, it’s only right and fair that those others have something to say about it. And it would be self-evidently “absurd” to suggest that neither crime victims nor law enforcement are allowed to recognize and address rights violations on the basis that those violations are ‘outside of their scope and venue’, being on a counter-Divine Will basis.

Which provides a nice segue to the other implied response I’ve been noticing. It seems to hearken back to an assessment I’d made ‘previously’. That is, that to accept ‘their’ manifest quasi-organizations and assert My Divine Will-derived authority over them would also involve My claiming them as My own, and in the process necessarily also mean accepting personal and professional liability for their various manifest unrighteous activities. I already know that this implied protest on their part isn’t sincerely meant by them; it would contravene both Divine Will and their own True Nature, looking for arguments and justifications to continue manifestly committing more of the same. But as a metaphysical and philosophical matter, let’s evaluate the situation using Divine Will principles and more experiential data I’ve gleaned since ‘originally’ making that assessment, both so we can better understand the scenario in the context of Divine Will principles and so we can see whether the assessment proves valid.

We’ll take it as read that everything which genuinely exists does so as a result of an act of Creation by an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent and perfect Divine Will. Even if that were somehow not so, we’d still want to live based on that premise. Because if it were not objectively true then our Will alone, sans any Creator of ultimate authority, would be the defining force of our manifest lives. And in those circumstances this manifest realm could only be an intensely unworthy clash of individual Wills [or perhaps a groupthink of Wills colluding with someone else’s Will on a premise very likely less than healthy, functional and benevolent for all concerned] without a shared act of Will to subjectively manifest an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent and perfect Will and set of Divine Will principles. In other words, life and civilization can’t function properly without fair, healthy and impartial principles which enable harmony between the Wills of all involved. So genteel and civilized Willworkers should reasonably be able to presuppose a shared premise of acceptance of Divine Will and Divine Will principles, if for no other reason than because *not* to share that premise would be self-evidently dysfunctional and sociopathic.

Starting from a shared premise of Divine Will as the source of all Creation, what then is something which self-identifies as having a counter-Divine Will basis, nature, or affiliation? Something which is manifestly either greatly in need of clarity, interacting on a non-credible basis, or both. Our True Nature and our vital life force derive from Divine Will. Investing in an effort of Will to reject the source of those things is not only figuratively unthinkable, but manifestly invalidating as well and hardly beneficial to anyone, themselves or others. It’s a metaphysically spurious premise. A literal, overt equivalent to illustrate might be when someone objects to a duly-elected and lawful President serving in office, but obstinately asserts, ‘He’s not my President!’ while nevertheless continuing to retain citizenship in that country. As if their own individual Will could somehow negate the larger system.

The Babylonian model appears, by contrast, to regard Divine Will and counter-Divine Will as though they were both separate, legitimate, authorities. As if they were perhaps independent kingdoms and individuals could transition between them or even Choose their citizenship in either of them. [Indeed, much of their manifest public relations efforts appear to have involved attempting to convince the general public that they could even have dual citizenship between them.] Even the Judeo-Christian model appears to suggest this, although it admits that everything, even those rejecting Divine Will, have a Divine Will basis and that to reject it ultimately is the Choice to reject their whole existence. By contrast, the Babylonian model appears to not only predicate itself on the basis of faux-dualism, but attempts to legitimatize it by taking naturally-occurring phenomena such as genders, seasons, classical elements, natural biological symmetry and plenty of other things deriving from Divine Will, and symbolically recontextualizing those to reference its model of a dualism between Divine Will and counter-Divine Will. In sum, it manifestly co-opts things which it did not make and attempts to misuse them to support its own position and agendas in conflict with the very thing that *did* make them, and which gives us all our consciousness, Will, and vital life force. ‘Grand theft’ on a large basis, in a metaphysical venue which has then manifestly encroached upon and through practically every other venue; legal, moral, philosophical, financial, political, social.

Both that manifest co-opting and the resulting encroachments transgress against others, Myself included, and the authority of Divine Will, which gives us something to say about it. And when someone in alignment with Divine Will and the True Nature it confers applies some of that derivative authority to establish clearly, openly, firmly and directly that to continue to manifestly transgress against the things of Divine Will is precluded, and any supposed directive to do so countermanded, and any authority Willfully, knowingly and avoidably Choosing to do so self-evidently “absurd” and invalid, any organization or quasi-organization must recognize, acknowledge and respect that in order to retain any semblance of Divine Will-derived authority. Not to do so would manifestly, publicly jettison any claim to Divine Will-alignment of that organization. I suppose it theoretically could be nullified or opposed by another authority figure with greater Divine Will-alignment and thus superior authority, but I’m aware of none. The major quasi-organizations have been manifestly and demonstrably interacting on a counter-Divine Will basis [more’s the pity] and the Babylonian model, as described, appears to advocate that Divine Will and counter-Divine Will alignment are optional, interchangeable, discretionary and more or less up to individual or organizational whim at any given juncture.

A model of metaphysics which takes a relaxed and casual attitude towards the fundamentals is certainly interesting, but where accuracy is a concern various Choices made on that basis can only manifest unworthy resultants. To demonstrate this, we need only examine the vast majority of manifest recorded human ‘history’. But of course the Babylonian model and indeed the Babylonian quasi-organization itself can only be the manifest franchise of the telepaths and propheciers, and where the principal manifestly errs so does its agent. The manifest core error is the rejection of Divine Will and True Nature on their part, for which even now no sincere motive can be found. If the manifest dissonance between My position and that of the quasi-organizations of Rome and Babylon seem pronounced, how much more internally must exist manifestly within that assemblage. Between their own True Nature and their manifestly-Chosen position. Between soul and ego. They’re mutually-exclusive, and the former has genuine existence. The latter never truly did. “Light” will only make that clearer. If not to them, then to others.

The manifest circumstances of humanity will drastically improve in the event that Babylon either abdicates or its model genuinely recognizes the concept of ‘sin’ against Divine Will. It has the ego’s Will accommodated quite effectively, but the closest thing it seems to recognize as actual Divine Will appears to be its substitute. But that seems to be the resultant of the manifest Choices of its principals, the telepaths and propheciers systematically Choosing a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis despite anything they actually want. Both the telepaths and propheciers and those self-identifying with the Babylonian franchise seem to want a manifest ‘Us’, but have manifestly been systematically and continually rejecting the basis of Divine Will and True Nature which would enable that. Which Choice has been manifestly responsible for enacting all manner of unworthy resultants for all concerned.

And for the sake of complete and utter clarity, if it’s not obvious from everything I’ve presented in this, My Choice is of course still for Divine Will and True Nature.

Leave a Reply

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