Re: Query

I’ve recently received what appears to be a query presented on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature and non-overt basis. That of course is below standards and can’t properly be “heard”, but I’ve been providing grace on that. The query seems to be essentially, ‘Well, how does your “house” differentiate between overt and non-overt modes of speaking? You don’t have a symbol for it or anything? How then do you know which basis someone’s using?’

We did have a symbol for that. It was selected by the telepaths and propheciers. Like much of our symbolism, and practically all media references, it was immediately and summarily deprecated upon My learning of the apostates’ manifest counter-Divine Will and counter-True Nature symbolism. Since that position is anathemic to My “house” and the raison d'etre both it and all its members, our core values and Divine Will principles made that obvious and self-evident to all our participants as soon as they became aware of it. There are no truly ‘bad symbols’, just as there are no truly ‘bad words’, but the apostates’ manifest context is an anathema to us and ‘honor’ and duty require keeping the distinction as clear as is reasonably possible.

Using a symbol to indicate non-overt communication isn’t a hard-and-fast rule for us anyway. As I’ve mentioned, it’s largely context-based and since we’re Divine Will-aligned and -affirming, there’s a certain amount of mutual trust involved. We also tend to use non-overt communication as little and as infrequently as possible, tending to reserve it until a scenario requires it. Less-than-friendly environments like North Korea or mainland China for example, or whenever overt communication has been precluded, forbidden, rejected, made unfeasible, or risks needlessly detrimenting or wronging someone involved. It’s an educational and organizational tool, useful for rescues and providing an understanding of Divine Will principles, but it does tend to be needlessly resource-intensive, less than clear, and as the apostates’ system has so plentifully demonstrated for us all, prone to misuse as well. Since we’re involved in righteous, Divine Will-affirming activities, we don’t typically use it for our own benefit nor need to use it for our own security. It’s there to help uphold Divine Will and to help others to realign with that, and so using non-overt methods when overt methods are available tends to be derelict in our duty. The Jesuits’ “cowboys and Indians” strategy they’d implemented via Freemasonry doesn’t particularly affect us; we’d much prefer to be in the open and when we’re negatively-affected by others because of that, their “ratings” tend to suffer as a natural consequence of that.

We also tend to use it now and then for those with whom we have literal romantic relationships, similar to Freemasonry’s convention on that. We’re pretty informal about it, generally. Since we’re all here to uphold Divine Will, we tend to let people act on their own recognizance on ‘the honor system’ without it becoming a problem. When people aren’t acting in affirmation of Divine Will and their own True Nature, the distinction tends to become self-evident rather quickly; the absence of value there tends to be pretty tangible and noticeable.

Unlike the Babylonian system, we haven’t found it necessary to specify at all times whether we mean something overtly or covertly. Context is a good indicator, and of course the larger context is always what can be done to uphold and affirm Divine Will and True Nature. Since there’s usually a ‘knowing, Willful and avoidable’ criteria for using non-overt symbolism unless there’s a romantic relationship or similar involved, it hasn’t been much of a concern. And we tend to make the inference of whether or not one of our personnel is intentionally speaking on a non-overt basis merely by assessing whether or not they’re demonstrating an investment in that pattern of behavior. Which is also dissimilar from the Babylonian system, which tends to invest effort and resources into agendas but tries to retain a semblance of plausible deniability. Investments in an agenda which is supposedly precluded by the use of a counter-Divine Will symbolism doesn’t cause us to dismiss the matter, but rather to address on the manifest investment as a problem itself. It’s the Choice for crime, after all. But in sum we haven’t found a need to stipulate non-overtly whether we’re using an overt or a non-overt basis, given that unlike the Babylonian system we’re not out to issue orders which cannot be deliberately misunderstood by our rank-and-file. ‘Good faith’ on all sides in My “house” is the norm, and when it’s absent there’s self-evidently a Choice to reject Divine Will and the culprit is manifestly ejected in the eyes of all of us to witness the situation. If someone manifestly makes a knowing, Willful and avoidable Choice to reject Divine Will, they’re manifestly not our members and we have a duty to acknowledge their manifest Choice and its resultants.

I trust that satisfies the query. It was a needless question that’s pretty off-topic of the matter of Divine Will principles and the Choice to affirm True Nature. When I started with these communiques I took it as read that, naturally, upon providing the various apostate franchises’ personnel with a better understanding of Divine Will principles and what their Choices were resulting in, they’d obviously Choose to realign with and uphold Divine Will and their own True Nature. I’d had no reason to expect a direct refusal. I didn’t mind sharing information which would give them a better sense of what Divine Will principles are and how we do what we do, since that would help them remake their Choice. Having now manifestly encountered the apostates continuing to knowingly, Willfully and avoidably reject Divine Will and their own True Nature, and the non-credible yet increasingly manifest scenario of an increasingly severe dissonance between those who Choose to be Divine Will-aligned and those who manifestly Choose to oppose it, there’s a limit to what I can reasonably share without committing an offense similar to ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy’. I’m here to help all involved correct their Choices and realign with Divine Will and their own True Nature. By contrast, giving them all manner of detail about a “house” whose basis is outside the counter-Divine Will context they’ve manifestly Chosen as their basis is at best off-topic, and at worst, facilitates a counter-Divine Will infiltration agenda on their part. So if I’m curt or non-responsive from here on out, understand that it’s likely a matter of My agenda for us all to uphold and affirm Divine Will and True Nature, and it’s the resultants of that agenda which I want. It would of course be against all of our best interests, the apostates’ especially, for Me to invest My efforts into a counteragenda. I’m not here to facilitate their investment in Choices which jettison their own life-force.

Leave a Reply

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