Reaffirmation, and constructive details

I’m hereby reaffirming My Choice to retain My alignment with Divine Will, and with the True Nature with which it has imbued Me.

For readers who are unfamiliar with and distinct from the apostates, what has prompted that is the apostates’ investment, as ever on a non-credible counter-Divine Will and counter-True Nature basis, to seemingly imply that something I’ve recently said or done has caused them concern as to whether I’ve retained My Choice to remain aligned with Divine Will and My own True Nature. It appears to be the third time they’ve done this recently, and it’s becoming quite “absurd” in My assessment. I’m not entirely clear on what the implied cause for concern is here; given the timing involved it seems most likely to Me to have been a response to this comment.  Goodness, such a cause for concern.

The literal delay in My response was as a result of an intended courtesy shown them. Because I strive not to accuse someone of something needlessly, particularly given the effect that would likely have on their reputation as the result of an error, it’s My policy to confirm a non-overtly implied organizational message from multiple sources, ideally including a source in the public media. Among other things this provides a better likelihood of good communication, verifiability, and representation of an organization as a whole. I additionally found it so unlikely that someone would find it a cause for sincere concern that ensuring accurate organizational representation on this was a vital prerequisite for Me. Non-overt corroboration arrived recently via 'Newshour', so a response from Me is now appropriate.

So what we’d appear to have is yet another investment in a non-overtly implied accusation, concern, or perhaps tentative assessment from the apostates that they perceive My behavior, imagery, symbolism or wording to demonstrate a lack of a Choice to remain Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned. I’ll state right at the onset that I don’t find it to be credible; it’s not in accordance with their own True Nature as I’ll detail further on here, and they’ve manifestly been organizationally on a systematic counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis for practically the entirety of recorded human history. Such a basis is inherently non-credible, for spiritual and metaphysical reasons which I’ve detailed already on numerous occasions.

Since this is the third time I’ve encountered them doing it this month, and due to an apparent effort on their part they seem to have implied this time as part of it [which I’ll get into further on as well], I’m going to provide a slightly different and much more comprehensive response this time. Manifest PR and the effects of the level of public perception of credibility tend to be unconcerned with whether or not an accusation is sincere, genuine or legitimate. So I’m going to address those by providing a detailed and constructive response on the premise that the apostates’ implied concerns are sincere, genuine and legitimate. I can’t prove that they’re not; I can only demonstrate, as I have throughout, that what they’ve presented on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis is inherently non-credible and has no guarantee of acting in what man’s law terms ‘good faith’. So My intention here is to respond to this constructively, irrespective of how deserved that is.

If I’ve managed to parse their symbolism accurately, the apostates have been implying a new investment in an effort to attempt to get personnel who non-overtly self-identify as ‘theirs’ to seek to pass themselves off as members of My “house”. This has manifestly been the standard operating procedure of Babylon throughout recorded human history, and is a typically very effective means of exploiting marginal or negligible standards within an external organization. Frequently, these minimal standards come about as the result of authority figures within them who have been induced not to retain a Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned basis. Since as I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions I do indeed retain a Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned basis, and since My “house” already has some very sophisticated criteria for standards which I haven’t detailed for the apostates, I find the outcome of such an effort on their part something very likely to have atypical results for them here. If nothing else, ‘their’ rank-and-file personnel, other than the telepaths and propheciers of course, are almost certainly unfamiliar with the standards and criteria of My “house” for evaluating and assessing a speakers’ Chosen position and basis given their non-overt communications and Choices of imagery and symbolism.

As I’ve said, I’d like to address this matter constructively. So perhaps I should provide them, and the rest of My readership, with a clearer understanding of the standards and criteria of My “house” in assessing the Divine Will and True Nature alignment of those they encounter. Why not?

In actuality, there are a few very good reasons why this isn’t usually done. Since the apostate system has manifestly attempted to exploit negligible standards and moral lapses of organizations and individuals as the mainstay of its efforts [the rest of its mechanisms typically rely on this strategy as their basis; they’re merely the ‘optional extras’, as it were], there’s a tendency not to want to make the specifications of an organizations’ system readily comprehensible to those who would exploit them. There’s often no reason to make its vulnerabilities apparent. But ‘security through obscurity’ is a rather weak philosophy that’s arguably a vulnerability in itself, and I think it’s only appropriate, not to mention iconoclastic and magnanimous, for Me to make a clearer understanding of My “house”’s standards and criteria for assessment openly available. Particularly given that I’ve shifted our emphasis to a predominantly more overt method of teaching Divine Will principles. If the apostate system is determined to try passing ‘their’ personnel off as loyal and legitimate members of My “house”, let’s give them a sense of what that involves. I’m quite Willing to address and correct any manifest vulnerabilities in My system as they become evident; all involved would find themselves better-equipped to learn and understand Divine Will principles from My having done so. It’d certainly put what’s typically deemed theory into prevalent application. And if nothing else, it would neutralize the apostate systems’ recent and recurring implied criticisms, accusations, concerns, or calumnies; their manifest Choice for a non-overt basis has made it less than clear which of those is appropriate here.

As I’ve mentioned a number of times, the basic foundation for assessing a Choice is whether it’s ‘knowing, Willful and avoidable’. This is consistent with common law maxims, and presumably with what a Choice actually is. Lacking any of those things, it can hardly be properly called a Choice at all. This is for example why the efforts of the apostate system for public fraud, misinformation, propaganda and so on are such ‘attacks’ on the Divinely-conferred ability to Choose.

So let’s assess the manifest scenario in which refraining from counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature symbolism entirely is indeed ‘avoidable’. As I’d mentioned in another communique, the apostate system has assigned a counter-Divine Will or counter-True Nature symbolic definition to some very basic, and rather prevalent, symbols. Try as we must, and should, I don’t think it’s within any of our ability to avoid using them [or secondary and tertiary derivative symbols of them] entirely. It’s just not practicable, and frequently even attempting to limits conversational and phrasing options in ways that encroach against the Divinely-conferred right of free speech. All the moreso currently, in this manifest scenario in the present era in which the prevalence of those who’ve opted into the apostates’ counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis mean that this symbolism has been intentionally placed into the symbolism of practically all the media, products, and technologies. Literally, look at the items around you right now and seriously consider how many you’d be precluded from even mentioning, lest someone who was determined enough misinterpret you as intending some counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. When practically everything is interprable as intending such a basis, it’s not truly ‘avoidable’.

Communication requires context, and non-overt communication depends on it even moreso due to its difficulty in establishing another basis; symbolic definitions are context-dependent, and for the apostate system that context is always theirs. I don’t think I’ve even witnessed it non-overtly describing Divine Will principles or even manifest facts which aren’t already in alignment with its own agendas. When something isn’t to its organizational liking, it isn’t described in terms of what it is. Instead, it’s described in terms of what their manifest intention to do about it is. When it can do absolutely nothing about a situation [the ‘Second Coming’, for example], it either doesn’t mention it at all or else recontextualizes the situation in terms which are more likely to improve personnel morale internally.

When something isn’t completely ‘avoidable’, Divine Will and common law seek merely a ‘good faith’ effort. In My “house”’s formulation of this, a demonstrative ‘reasonable best effort’ tends to suffice. While I’ve made for example a ‘reasonable best effort’ to remove colloquialisms and things which would likely be misinterpreted in My communiques, the result is too often stuffy and tends to look like it came out of some legal and metaphysical ‘random text generator’ full of terms like ‘manifestly’, ‘Divine Will’, ‘True Nature’ and the like. I’ve been trying for a clear and technical communication, but the result hasn’t been a particularly easy read or draft. But it’s been a ‘reasonable best effort’; despite limiting communication and readibility, it’s usually technically-specific and typically free of extraneous terms that would cause needless concern. Though some would likely find themselves aghast at this, I tend not to use this sort of technical wording in My unofficial capacity. That’s only natural and healthy, but I remain in alignment with Divine Will nevertheless.

Back on topic. Context is vital to communication, and ultimately the only viable and worthy contexts are Divine Will and True Nature. It’s up to the personnel of My “house” to determine for themselves, on an individual basis, whether the speaker they’re encountering is speaking from the basis of a Choice to align with and uphold Divine Will and True Nature. [Other than the telepaths and propheciers of course, who know quite well already with a certainty. But as they themselves are manifestly, systematically rejecting a Divine Will and True Nature-aligned basis, their assistance is non-credible and in large part unacceptable.] Privately downgrading levels of trust and eventually dissociating completely are the usual responses to an unworthy basis, along with spans of estrangement, and sometimes giving undue grace out of a desire to teach and rescue if at all possible. So what establishes context?

A pattern of behavior, and for literally how long it’s gone on. Demonstrating the Choice for a Divine Will-aligned position doesn’t happen literally instantaneously. So it’s outré for example to encounter in My “house” what I’ve been encountering here; I’ve been demonstrating a Divine Will-aligned position for much longer than I’ve been drafting these communiques, and I started these literally years ago. Throughout it, I’ve consistently made the case for Divine Will-alignment. I’ve demonstrated why the manifest apostate system is unworthy and contemptible. From My perspective, context has been clearly established. It would require quite a lot for someone to genuinely start interpreting them in quite another context entirely.

So we have avoidability, ‘reasonable best effort’, and context thus far. How frequently symbolism of reasonable doubt is used by someone is also taken into consideration. The apostate system for example uses counter-Divine Will and counter-True Nature symbolism quite systematically. An incidental occurrence by contrast would happen much less frequently. Also taken into consideration are general standards of behavior and speech. When someone generally makes a best effort to rephrase something or avoid counter-Divine Will symbolism, an occasional gaffe is more likely to be overlooked.

Which brings us to grace. Personnel of My “house” have manifestly Chosen to maintain, as well as they’re able, to uphold and affirm an alignment with Divine Will and their own True Nature, and make a reasonable best effort to present that distinction clearly to others. They know they’re ultimately accountable to our shared Creator and to themselves; they’ve opted into My “house” because it’s an implementation of worthy values and though I’m in a position of authority, My sovereignty and authority derive from that shared Creator and I’m only here ‘pro tem’, as it were, by comparison. Here to help teach and organize. But all My “house’s” personnel are representatives of the Divine Will of our shared Creator, to whatever greater or lesser extent they know what that is. As such, concepts like ‘due diligence’ and grace are only worthy and due to others [such as I’ve demonstrated it in My response to this situation, in the third paragraph of this communique]. This is a value which limits a personnel member’s tendency to ostracize or criticize what is likely to very well be someones’ ‘reasonable best effort’. In a desire to represent Divine Will and their own True Nature, grace is quite natural for them to provide. The criteria for grace in something like this is of course whether someone is likely actually making a ‘reasonable best effort’ or even likely Choosing to align with and affirm Divine Will at all. In other situations grace is often applied even where that isn’t so; in the case of those unknowledgeable in Divine Will principles for example, in an effort to educate them. That’s purely at individual discretion, but in the interim the recipient of grace certainly isn’t going to be accepted as someone who’s on a credible, integrous, trustworthy and competent basis. Without upholding and aligning with Divine Will and their own True Nature, they just manifestly aren’t reliably on such a basis.

It’s this grace that not only helps us to better represent Divine Will and our own benevolent True Nature, as well as helps us teach the unknowledgeable, it’s also done well to neutralize the effect of Willful calumny. It’s known that criticism isn’t always the due of its recipient, but instead sometimes manifestly the result of the individual or organization issuing the criticism Choosing a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis. In the event of criticism, personnel decide on their own who is more likely to be Choosing a Divine Will-aligned basis, and whether someone involved is not. In this manifest scenario for example, we have non-overtly implied criticisms from an apostate system that’s been Choosing a counter-Divine Will basis systematically throughout the majority of recorded human history, and Myself who’s been Choosing to uphold and affirm Divine Will and True Nature to the best of My ability throughout here. As I’ve said elsewhere in these communiques, ‘The situation is Mine to lose here.’ My personnel know not to give the criticisms or condemnations from those known to be manifestly Choosing a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis any credence, as do I.

[Incidentally, that being the case the recent non-overt messaging could also be interpreted another way; namely, that of using the counter-Divine Will symbolism to ‘invert’ the “tw█n” symbol, which would supposedly leave My “house” the recognized superior authority and suggest a recognition by personnel of the superior, Divine Will-derived authority of My “house” and an abandonment of adherence to the apostate system. That interpretation hasn’t escaped My notice, it’s simply unworthy due not only to a lack of clarity, but also for attempting to ascribe legitimacy and systematic usability to counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature symbolism. I’m precluded from accepting that due to its counter-Divine Will basis; it would be no different than any of the other quasi-offers presented on a counter-Divine Will basis thus far. Yes, the telepaths and propheciers have manifestly been ostensibly using the ‘counter-Divine Will symbols are inversion symbols’ pretext throughout, but then, they’ve also manifestly been retaining a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis as well and it’s quite unworthy of all of us. I have every fond desire and reasonable expectation to see the telepaths and propheciers do what’s in alignment with a Divine Will and True Nature aligned basis, however this self-evidently isn’t it coming as it does on a knowing, Willful, avoidable and carefully-selected basis of counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature symbolism. That and it would of course have manifest retroactively if they were manifestly doing their best.]

So demonstrating the Choice to uphold and to affirm Divine Will and True Nature doesn’t require perfection. It merely requires ‘doing your best’, a ‘good faith’ effort, an understanding of Divine Will principles, and of course making a clear distinction between that and the manifest Choices around you, apostate system included. It’s not always practicable to do that completely, totally and constantly, but context and a certain amount of naturally expectable grace keep things functioning well. We’ve been able to successfully make the distinction between our position and those not sharing it, and it’s quite apparent to us who the latter are and they need not apply.

If the present era were manifestly an era in which the prevalent number of people were making the Choice to uphold and to align with Divine Will principles and their own True Nature, both the prevalently-expected context and the media, colloquial lingo and technology would be in much better alignment with Divine Will. We’d have better options from which to Choose. We’d also have to improve our standards in order to maintain the distinction effectively compared with the majority. As the colloquial expression goes, ‘I’m good with that.’

If the apostate system manifestly Chooses to invest convincingly in a “tw█n” strategy with regard to My “house”, they’ve got quite a project ahead of them. And should they manage to explain to ‘their’ personnel how to manage to do so convincingly, they’ll find that Myself and My personnel improve our standards as well to continue making the distinction and manifestly surpass them.

To the best of My understanding, humanity manifestly had a scenario like that already. Common law and Christianity had resulted in recognition of solid moral principles, Divinely-conferred rights, and a meritocracy of demonstrated position in alignment with, and upholding of, Divine Will and True Nature. Eventually the apostate system appears to have persuaded them to take on recognized authority figures, aristocrats and monarchies, with the argument that the meritocracy could and should result in representatives which were the best available examples of upholding Divine Will. Public perception of sovereignty then shifted from prevalent sovereignty to sovereign monarchies, and these monarchies and aristocracies were consolidated authority structures which were then more readily subverted and controlled.

If now the apostate system prefers to attempt to emulate allegiance to My “house”, to have any chance at doing so convincingly they’d have to demonstrate a supposed Choice for Divine Will and True Nature vastly moreso than they’ve manifestly been doing. And My “house” would quite naturally make improvements to maintain the distinction. The rank-and-file would of course have to learn how to upgrade and improve, nearing ever closer to an actual Divine Will- and True Nature-aligned basis. The inevitable result would become a restoration of prevalent individual sovereignty. And we’d all ‘learn’ much in the process, surely.

It’s certainly an option they have available to them, with a fair amount to recommend it. I expect My “house” will thrive regardless of whether they Choose it. We’ll certainly retain our Divine Will and True Nature aligned basis, and continue to demonstrate that distinction.

Leave a Reply

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