Natural Law part 3

Nov 27, 2023

Using the PIP feature is the best way to assimilate this site’s information, IMHO, because you can scroll the video with you, as you read along. NOTE: you must also have PIP feature turned on in the settings for your browser.

Okay, so we ended before the dinner break. I hope everyone enjoyed their dinner. The concept that if there is no victim, if no actual wrongdoing has taken place, resulting in harm to someone else, there is no crime.

And many people are being jailed for victimless crimes that they've actually never actually harmed another being, and yet their freedom has been taken away. Another aspect about this concept of the difference between right and wrong behavior is we have to understand that there is no such thing as the ability to delegate a wrong to someone else. No one can say to someone, you may harm him unchallenged or unaccosted, okay? That you're allowed to do that morally, okay.

No more than anybody can say a group of people may commit a wrongdoing and they have the moral right to commit it, to commit that wrongdoing. There's no such thing as that. So this is what many people who believe in things like government believe in. That we can delegate to a group of people who are calling themselves a government, something that is not a right and agree, all come together and agree upon, they now possess this right.

Rights can't be granted by human beings to other human beings. Everybody is born with the same rights, because rights don't come from human beings. Rights, like the laws of nature, come from the creator of the universe. They don't come from human beings. Human beings don't make up what right and wrong are. Right and wrong are inherent to creation and are up to us to discover and recognize what they are and then live in accordance with those principles.

So, if a specific action is not a right for any individual, that action cannot be, quote, delegated, granted or licensed to any other individual or group and magically called a right. It does not become a right. If it's wrong, it remains a wrong, no matter how many people believe they can do it or delegate it or otherwise.

Similarly, a right can't be turned into a wrong. If it's a right, and you're not harming somebody by doing it, somebody can't magically say, well, that's a wrong and you're not allowed to do that. And yet we have things that go right hand in hand with that, and it's called government.

An action that is a wrong would forever remain a wrong under natural law. So how do we know what rights are? Part of knowing rights is understand that natural law, the difference between right and wrong, always holds true regardless of a population's belief system. Like natural law being in effect, the difference between right and wrong are not dependent on anybody's belief. They are eternal truths that need to be understood.

So this means it does not matter how many people agree that a wrong can be turned into a right or that a right can be turned into a wrong. Such things can never be done in reality. We can believe we can do that and act like that, but in reality it cannot actually be done. A right forever remains a right, a wrong forever remains a wrong.

People can only believe that they can claim such reversals and that this will magically make it so. Unfortunately, most human beings erroneously believe that it is morally possible for them to create and delegate rights, quote unquote, which do not exist, or to take away actual rights from people which do exist. They believe we can do that.

So when in doubt as to whether an action is or is not in harmony with natural law, the visualization exercise that I always ask people to do is to imagine a scenario of a planet, a world, where there is only two people, where only two people exist on an entire planet. If the behavior in that circumstance, in that visualized instance, is either a right or a wrong, in that instance, it remains a right or a wrong in any size population, regardless of how many people may believe otherwise. Okay?

So, if a right is a right for one person to do toward another, okay, or if it's a wrong, the action is a wrong for one person to take toward another, population is irrelevant. People will say, well, yeah, if there was a couple of people, that would be okay, but if in a world of seven billion people, we can't let people do that. Well, this has nothing to do with what right and wrong is. You know, as if they're changeable. Let's look at this scenario.

So there's our world, and there's two people, two well-groomed businessmen. And we're going to look at an instance. Let's look at taxation, the concept of taxation. Is taxation of any kind a right or a wrong? Is it morally acceptable and justifiable, or is it something that is actually a wrong?

So let's look at what taxation really is. And again, we're not going to euphemize. We're going to talk about it straight on. So here's what taxation is. It's not what I believe it is. I'm getting down to the heart of the matter and describing what it actually is. Taxation is the claim that a specific group of people who call themselves government have been given a quote, right? They've been delegated a right. Okay, we've written down a law and we say the this people calling themselves government and the IRS have a right to do this particular action this activity. Okay, this behavior

They've been given a right to confiscate, unwillingly, I might add, an arbitrarily chosen percentage of the product of another individual's labor. Now let me just start with this, right? You ask anybody, how many are you going to voluntarily pay more taxes? Nobody will raise their hand. And you say, why not? Well, because I can barely afford to pay the ones I'm paying now and I don't want to volunteer any more money toward that endeavor. Quite frankly, I want my resources for myself to use as I see fit voluntarily.

But if the government then said, well, your taxes are going up by 5%, how many people would pay them? Most people would. Because subconsciously or consciously, they recognize this is, they're under coercion. They're actually under duress. They're being told that if they don't give this at the command of the people who are confiscating it, that some form of violence will be conducted upon them, whether through the form of fining them and saying we're going to take more of your resources, whether by saying we're going to throw you in a cage and make you stay there for as long as we say you need to stay there, okay? Or by actually conducting actual physical harm upon them.

So, again, we're saying that this quote unquote right is given to individuals who call themselves government, and then they have the right to confiscate this arbitrarily chosen percentage of the product of another individual's labor. Because that's what money is. That’s what, you know, whatever we make through what we work, that's the product of our labor. We work and then we get compensated for it.

So that's an exchange for labor that we have done. That's our property. We gave labor in return for that. So, this is done whether or not the other agrees to share that product voluntarily. It's not a voluntary process. Coercion is involved. Taxation is enforced by the threat of violence, which is behavior that will result in bodily harm, or imprisonment, which is the taking away of physical freedom of movement, if those from whom the product is being seized attempt to resist this confiscation.

This practice is always, quote, justified. And the word justify actually breaks down etymologically. It means, the word justify means to create a right. That's what justify actually means. Jus in Latin means right or law. And then faccio, facere means to create or to make. So to justify means to create right, to make a right up and conjure it into existence.

So it's always justified or made into a right, quote unquote, by those who claim that such a practice is necessary and required to, quote unquote, uphold the common good. This is the justification offered for the seizure of the product of people's labor, involuntarily. Now, if we are honest with ourselves, if we define the concept of slavery, and I think this is a good definition for slavery, would it be fair to say slavery is the involuntary confiscation of 100% of the product of the labor of another human being. That be a fair definition? You're saying, you're working, I'm going to take whatever you generate as a result of that work that you're doing. It doesn't belong to you. The product of your labor doesn't belong to you. All of it belongs to me. So you work for me. I take everything that you have been able to amass or create through the labor that you have done.

I think everybody here would agree that's slavery. It's as good a definition of slavery as you're probably going to get. I mean, we can come up with some other definitions that involve coercion and physically shackling and keeping people. But if we really are honest with ourselves, what is the purpose of slavery to begin with is to make others work for free and then take all of the product of the labor. That’s what slavery was conducted for.

So if we’re defining slavery as the involuntary confiscation of 100% of the product of the labor of another human being, we should be able to clearly see that there is no magical percentage to which we could lower this number that would no longer make it slavery. So I ask people, if the person who's saying, I'm going to confiscate 100% of your labor and keep it for myself would say, well, I'm going to take 75%. I'll take three quarters. You can keep a quarter of what you've created. Would that no longer constitute slavery?

And I don't care what you say I'm going to use the 75% for. Okay. If you're telling somebody you have no choice, 75% of your labor belongs to me. Would that no longer be slavery just because they allow them to keep 25? Okay, let's lower it to 50. Is it still slavery? Okay, well what percentage could it possibly be lowered to for it not to be slavery anymore? Only zero. There is no percentage that it could be lowered to for it not to constitute slavery.

And again, if we're being honest with ourselves, many people want to justify this in many ways by saying, oh, it's used for services, services which someone doesn't have a right to refuse. You know, I tell people, hey, if I said to you, I'm a computer technician. You own a computer? Okay, I'm now your computer technician. You're not allowed to refuse my services.

Think, just think about that for a moment. You may not refuse that I am now providing the service for your computer to keep it in good shape. Okay. First of all, what have I just taken from that gentleman? Right to choose. Free will. Right there. That's slavery. I don't even have to keep going and say, hey, if you refuse or, you know, if you whether you want or don't want my computer services, I'm now your technician and I need two hundred dollars every year. I'll come over a couple of times. I don't care whether you're happy with my service or not. Okay. And if you don't pay me, I'm coming and taking the computer.

Now is that really your property? If you're living under that kind of duress? Or am I just a violent criminal who's saying I'm going to steal your stuff if you don't give me what I say. I'm holding you under extortion. That's duress. That's called duress. It means I am threatening violence onto the person unless they conform to my will. And that's what we're all held under. We're held under duress. All forms of taxation are duress. It is a master class telling people you have no right to refuse the arbitrarily set confiscation of your labor that I deem is going to be necessary for what I say it's necessary for.

So how could you possibly claim that your home belongs to you if you're paying something called a property tax that somebody is saying for the services we provide in this community, you must pay us this percentage. And if you don't pay it, your house is going to be turned over to the government. And it's you know what that's called? There's a term for that, when a society doesn't actually have true private property ownership rights and a higher class of you know, masters actually owns the land and owns the property and only allows the peasant class to live upon the property for as long as they pay tribute to the master class. Who can tell me what system of government that is?

That's called feudalism. And that's the United States government and just about every government on the earth. You live in feudalism. There's no such thing as democracy. There's certainly not a constitutional republic, that's for sure. The de facto state of government, which means indeed, in action, is feudalism. And feudalism is just another euphemism. It's a euphemism for slavery. Okay, because slaves aren't allowed to own property. Slaves aren't allowed to keep the product of their labor. You know, that's all it really is. If we're being honest with ourselves, once again, there's my catchphrase for this section. Okay, we want to euphemize it, justify it, call it something else?

I said this to that new age woman at the UFO conference, and she said, again, I prefer not to see it that way. Well, you're not being honest with yourself. You're lying. It's called lying to yourself. That's what cognitive dissonance is. It's called lying to yourself. So, if we're being honest with ourselves, taxation is merely a euphemism for theft, violence and slavery, the practices upon which it is actually based, and since no individual anywhere on earth has the right to claim ownership of the product of another's labor, such behavior can never be, quote, delegated to a group of people and called a right.

Therefore, it follows logically that all forms of taxation, I don't care what they are, excise tax, property tax, gift tax, inheritance tax, income tax, I don't care what form it is. Taxes on corporations even. All forms of taxation are always wrong according to natural law because they are all based in the destruction of free will, they are based on coercion and they are ultimately based upon violence. All of which are wrongdoings, all of which are forms of theft, and all of which not one individual has the right to perform upon another.

And this is what people want to justify and believe can be magically turned into a right, just because they want to euphemize it and call it taxation. Let's look at another example. Prohibition, one of my favorite, it's one of my pet peeves. You know, I'm big into health, into eating right. I'm huge into juicing. It's one of my favorite things to do. Purification of the body is part of purification of the mind.

But I'm going to tell you, I'm 100% for anybody being allowed to put anything into their body because they own their body. If I want to break up this remote control in little pieces and eat it with a sprinkling of pepper, then that's my right to do so, regardless of what the chips may do to my intestinal tract. Okay? There's a reason I have the right to eat this remote if I want to. You want to know why? My body is my property. It belongs to me. Now, we did this in the natural law seminar. We asked people, do you own your own body?

Almost every single student in the seminar, now of course they immediately answered yes, I own my own body. The students grasped this. The people they were asking the questions too, because the students were doing the tabulation of, you know, accumulating the answers from people that they ask the questions to. And they had one of the questions I asked them to ask people is, do you own your own body? Almost every student in my first natural law seminar, when they asked people if they own their own body, they came back to the next class. And almost every student said almost everybody they asked that question to paused for a long time and thought about it.

Had to sit and think about this question. Could not immediately spit out, absolutely my body is my property. You know, because I think people want to overthink things and say, well, am I going to own my body forever? I'm going to die one day. Does that mean I don't own it now? What's the over-intellectualization and mystification of this concept? I tell people, I recognize fully I'm going to die one day, and this flesh is going to crumble and pass into the earth. Does that mean I don't own my body right now? I'm using my body right now, that's why I own it, specifically. Specifically because my consciousness inhabits this body, and I'm using it as the vehicle for the expression of my consciousness, is the very reason I own my body. Okay?

And people can't spit that out. It's like unfathomable to me. The ridiculousness of some of this, that the human mind could be worked into the situation that it has been, is almost incomprehensible. So, let's go forward with prohibition. It's the claim that a group of people who call themselves government have been given the right to prevent others from putting any given substance into their own bodies, and if others refuse to comply with those terms, that they will be fined or imprisoned.

And it should be self-evident that if an individual's body is actually their own property, and it is, then that individual always maintains the natural right to decide what will or will not be put into their property, which is their body. Why can you put what you want into your car or your home? Because you own it. It's your property. Okay?

Technically, it should be. I mean, you know, technically it isn't really, but my whole point is nobody else can tell, no other individual can tell you what you can and can't put into your home. Okay? You know? You know, could I tell you, hey, I don't want you putting that jacket in your car. You're not allowed to put it in there. Well, who am I to tell you you're not allowed to put that in there? It's your property. OK, so why would we accept that? We would not accept that, but we would accept I can't put something in my own body that I deem that I want in it. OK, because people can't separate the act of imbibing the substance or or putting the substance into the body. OK, from the action that people may subsequently take and they're two different things.

So, somebody might go out and want to get smashed tonight and do a bunch of drinking, but if you then go out on the street and start clubbing somebody with the nearest available blunt object, you don't have a right to do that. You had a right to go drinking, okay, any more than you have a right to go snort some cocaine or bang some heroin into your arm. Okay? I don't think those two things are particularly good ideas, but I support your right to do it. But hey, if after you do those things you go and hurt somebody else, you've got to be held accountable for the actions you just took. That's what personal responsibility is all about. And these two things need to be delineated from each other.

We have to clearly be able to separate the act of the right to put something into my body and me still being personally responsible for what I do with my body. OK, so understanding that this is a claim made to tell people that they're I'm going to make the decision about what you put into your body. We can easily see this claim of this right to command what will or will not be put into the body of another person. What it actually amounts to is a claim of ownership upon the body of another person.

If I'm telling you you can't drink orange juice, I'm making a claim. Your body belongs to me because I'm going to decide what goes into it or what does not go into it. OK, so if I say carrots are off limits for your consumption, sir, and they may not be ingested, I've just made a claim that I own your body. Well, what's the claim on the ownership of another person's body called slavery?

Slavery, if we're not euphemizing it and if we're being honest with ourselves. Okay? Prohibition is merely the claim of ownership upon another person's body is called slavery. Therefore prohibition is merely a euphemism for slavery that is backed by violence, regardless of the justifications made by those who claim such practices are, quote, necessary for the common good. That's always the justification.

Since no individual anywhere on earth has the right to claim the ownership of another person's body, such behavior can never be delegated to a group and magically termed a right. Therefore, all forms of prohibition are always wrong according to natural law. It doesn't matter what the substance is. It doesn't matter what it is. How destructive it may be to the body or brain.

Look, if I want to go under my sink, take some cleaning supplies and make a nice cocktail with some lye and some roach poison and some rat poison, stir it up in a water solution and go glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, That's my right. Want to know why? Because I own my body. I own my consciousness and my body, period, the end. So if I want to do that, that’s my right to do so. Nobody has the right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.

Yeah, we accept this because of these justifications, it's for the common good. Forget what rights are. It's for the common good. We need to accept slavery for the common good. Yeah, it works out like that.

So how about licenses and permits? These are claims that a group of people who call themselves government. And again, we're going back and visualizing. Imagine one person trying to make this claim to another person. Nobody would find it legitimate. Nobody would find that one person may make that claim to another person. Yet we think these other people called government have rights that individuals don't have. That's what we think. That's called mind control.

Mind control is getting people to accept some people have rights that other people don't have. That's what it is. So go back to that visualization exercise. Can one person make that claim over another and have it be legitimate? Of course not. So if nobody has that right, how could that right be delegated to somebody else? It can't.

Licenses and permits, they're claims that a group of people who call themselves government have been given the right, quote unquote, the right to prevent others from exercising specific behaviors, even if such behaviors cause no harm to others or their property. Unless those others petition, meaning beg, or pay the government for permission, that's what a permit is, it means permission to be allowed to exercise those behaviors.

This amounts to the claim that rights are actually merely privileges that may be granted or revoked by government at any time. Based upon the people in government’ preference, their discretion. Alright? Remembering that the definition of a right is any action which does not cause harm to another living being or their property. There is no such thing as the right, quote unquote, to stop another person from exercising a right. If something is a right, meaning it doesn't cause harm, there is no such thing as someone's right to stop you from performing that action. That would be called coercion, which is a wrong.

So, the actual ingestion of, let's say, marijuana, for example, harms no one else. You can put that into your body, sit there perfectly peacefully, and not cause harm to another living being. That's called a right. For the very specific definition that it caused no harm. Okay?

I would not have the right to tell another individual, you may not do that action. That would be a wrongdoing. Well, it's the same thing for something when it comes to licenses and permits. You're telling people, hey, if you pay me $50, I'll let you smoke that marijuana without doing violence to you. Unless I change my mind, and then I won't give you a permit. I'll just say, hey, you're not allowed to do that. Even something that is a right, like assembling and speaking. Like what was done in the state of Pennsylvania a few years ago when the G20 visited in the city of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, okay?

The city telling people, we have revoked the right to assemble and speak and petition for grievances. You don't have the right to come and speak. No protests will be tolerated or we'll hit you with sound and water cannons, you know? And people just laid down and accepted it. The whole city of Pittsburgh, you know? Because, oh, we're going to go and ask them for a permit. And they just said no. Nope, you don't have that right anymore. We find you on the street, you're getting blasted with a sound cannon and deafened. Some people went permanently deaf. Permanently deaf. Lost their hearing from what happened in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

You see, the stuff that was happening in, it wasn't Egypt, where they were hitting people with water cannons recently and killing some of them. It was in the Middle East somewhere, Turkey, correct. You know, hitting people, some people died, getting hit in the eye with such pressure it hits the brain. People dead from water cannons, they call these non-lethal weapons, is they're telling you, you may not speak, you may not assemble. We're going to revoke that right, really.

See, there is no right to stop someone from exercising a pre-existing right. That's you making the claim, I own your rights. That's what that's really doing. That's saying, I'm God, I get to grant what a right is or revoke what a right is at any given time. It's basically what it is. It amounts to someone claiming to be God. The claim over the rights of another person is called slavery. Even more so, it is the claim to be God. The claim that the rights of another flow from you.

Therefore, licensing and permits are merely other euphemisms for slavery, regardless of the justifications made by those who claim such practices are, quote, necessary for the common good. Since no individual anywhere on earth, no single individual, has the right to claim the ownership of another person's rights, such behavior can never be delegated to a group and magically called a right.

Therefore, all forms of licensing and permits, according to natural law, are always wrongdoings, because they are always based in coercion and the theft of someone else's rights. So again, that's the visualization exercise. There's three quick examples. You have to envision there's only two people. Would one person have a right to conduct that action against another? If the answer is no, the right cannot be – there's no such thing as calling it a right and delegating it to other people and telling them, now you're allowed to perform that behavior. It's always a wrongdoing.

But people, because of this idea, this mind control called government, want to believe that that right exists, that we can delegate something that is a wrongdoing. Force versus violence. We need to understand that these concepts are complete opposites of each other. They are not the same. The terms should never be used interchangeably with each other, because not only are they not even remotely similar, they're direct diametrically opposed opposites. Let's look at the difference. They're often spoken about as if they're the same, and they're used interchangeably, when in fact they are actually diametrically opposed to each other.

Force, the definition of force, is the capacity to do work or cause physical change in the physical world. For any change to be created in the physical world in any capacity, force must be used and applied. There's nothing you can do that doesn't require force if you're going to make a change happen in the physical. So, to set up this equipment, force was required. We had to lift it, we had to set it up, we had to plug in the cables. Force is required to do all those things. It's the capacity to perform physical activity, physical work. Okay? Action, force is actually action which is in harmony with morality and natural law, because the taking of it, the usage of it, doesn’t violate rights of other people. So as soon as you’re stepping over the line into coercive usage of force, that becomes violence.

The initiation of force for coercive reasons, for coercive applications, becomes violence. That's what makes it violence. Force itself is not violence. As such, force is action which one always possesses the natural right to take, and this includes the defense, the physical defense of someone's person, their body, against the act of violence. Force may be applied in that situation. When you are accosted with violence, you do reserve the right to use physical force defensively against such an assault.

Violence, on the other hand, and this is the key to keep in mind with violence, it is the immoral initiation of physical power to coerce, compel, or restrain unrightfully. No one has the right to ever enact violence, because violence is always starting it. Initiation, that's the key word there. It's the immoral, the unrightful initiation.

So, you know, teachers in schools will, you know, if there's a skirmish that happens between a couple of male students one day, they'll say, it doesn't matter who started it. All that matters is who started it. All that matters is who started it. All that matters. Because the person who actually conducted violence is the person who struck first. They initiated the immoral use of physical behavior, of physical force, physical power to coerce, compel, or restrain. Therefore, when the person beats back that physical assault with force, they have not committed an additional wrongdoing. It's difficult for many people to understand who are in right brain imbalance. They don't want to acknowledge that you maintain the natural right to use force when you are accosted with violent behavior.

If someone just came up to me on the street and started swinging, okay, because they want something I have or just because they don't like the look of me for whatever reason, they don't have the right to do that. If I replied by beating back their attack with sufficient force to put that action down, how many wrongdoings would have been committed? One. Correct. One. Not two. One. Because I maintain the right to defend myself with physical power, with physical force, when necessary, when violence, meaning someone else, started the immoral behavior.

That's what matters, the initiation. Who started it is all that matters. All that matters. And again, it's a very difficult thing for the ego to comprehend. The ego doesn't want to hear that. It's been conditioned so long that responding with force is also violence. We are verbally and mentally equating these two things. And when they are in fact, they are actual complete opposites.

If a kid got hit by somebody else in a school and then that other kid said, maybe even said once, stop what you're doing, and then when the other kid wouldn't stop, he punched him and knocked him out. I would ask other people, who struck first? And if the kid lying on the floor struck first, I'd say you got what you deserved. That's it. Because that person had a right to defend themselves. You had no right to strike them. You initiated the violence, he responded with defensive force. Many people don't want to hear that. Because they're very conditioned.

And I'm not saying you have to do that. You also reserve the right not to do that. But the right does exist. Both things, both rights exist. You would have the right to not respond with physical force, but you would have the right to respond with physical force. See, that's a free will decision that the person has the right to choose between those actions. I don't even look at either one of them as the high road. You know? Personally, I think if somebody keeps beating somebody and keeps conducting violence to them, and the other person keeps accepting it and never rebels against it, and never uses any force to put it down, I almost look at that as the low road. I'm not a pacifist, not a pacifist. OK, I am 100 percent about nonviolence, meaning don't initiate harm to other people. Don't start it. Don't start none. Won't be none. In street lingo, that's how it really is. OK, but if somebody else starts it, they're asking to be put down with the amount of physical force that is required to put down the act of aggression.

Violence is coercive action. See that's the key. It's always coercion. Saying, you're going to do what I want you to do or then I'm going to strike. Then I'm going to commit the act of violence. It's coercive. It's action which is always in opposition to morality and natural law for the very reason that it involves the violation of others' rights. That's why it's called violence. It's a violation. The act of violation caused, it resulted in, violence. Your rights have been violated. That's why it's called violence. It's the same root word.

Violence is action which one never possesses the right to take, ever. There is no such thing as the right to commit violence. It doesn't exist. Because violence is the immoral initiation of physical power to compel, coerce, restrain, which no one has the right to do. No, you don't have the right, no one does have the right to initiate that type of action. Force, on the other hand, there is a time and a place to exert that force in a defensive capacity. All right, so we'll talk about that here.

This piece of trash comes up to somebody on the street and says, give me all, everything's valuable. I want your shoes. Are they leather? Take them off. Take the wallet out, all the jewelry. Give me your purse. Give me your wallet. Okay? It's called a thug. Nobody would believe he has the authority or the right to do that, and we would have the moral obligation to obey this criminal. You know, if the criminal started calling himself government, we might start believing him, right?

But let's say somebody on the street saw what was being done, took out their own 9mm and blew this guy away. How many acts of violence were committed? One. One. But I understand. But again, that's somebody saying, I prefer not to see it that way. Again, perception and reality do not really align in many cases. They're not the same. That person is incorrectly perceiving what is. They're not seeing the truth. And many people don't want to hear that that's the truth. Because they're very conditioned and they are very well-behaved slaves. You know, as harsh as that is to say, they don't want to understand that the inherent right to use force against violence exists and is always our right. Always.

Now I'm not telling you to go out and immediately do that either, because the perception is so screwed up in the body of humanity that the majority of people don't believe that would be a right. And they'll persecute you for doing it. You see, the self-defense principle is continuously being eroded. Human beings possess the natural right to defend themselves from violence with defensive physical force. A person who is accosted by violence possesses the right to stop the person who is conducting the violence from continuing to do harm to them with any amount of force that is necessary to stop the attack or the assault, up to and including deadly force.

I would say, if you want to be nice about it, give the person one verbal warning to stop. Say no once. After that, it's on. That's it. And that's really my policy. OK, that would be my policy on the street with an individual. The problem is here, the so-called authorities of the government, like you say, don't want to see it that way. And they're constantly trying to take this right away from somebody. They're constantly trying to say, no, we own the monopoly on the usage of force. And all you may do is wait and be accosted and assaulted until one of us shows up. Well, you know what that's called? It's called a big crock of bullshit, is what that's called. And it shouldn't be accepted by anyone who has any common sense. Shouldn't be accepted by anyone.

Unfortunately, again, like I said, people are very, very well conditioned, and they think that this is an example of two wrongs don't make a right. There's no two wrongs committed there. There's one wrong committed, and then there's a right that is being exercised. Big difference between exercising a right that involves the defensive use of force and committing a wrongdoing which involves the initiation of violence. And people got to get clear on this. They have to get clear on it.

So the question becomes, does violence magically become a right when it's conducted by government? When they shut down people's free speech rights and assembly rights? Or when they conduct direct theft from people through what's this euphemized form of slavery called taxation? And like I said, I'm not asking you to accept or believe taxation is slavery. I'm telling you if you don't understand that, you're wrong. I don't care what you think. I'm telling you it is that way in truth and in reality. Taxation is slavery. Shutting down a people's rights is slavery. Telling people what they may or may not put in their body is slavery. It's not my perception. That's what is. Okay? And that's what we're accepting as a people. We're accepting that.

These people have no more right to do it than any other individual would. And this concept brings us to what my, the way I try to define and explain to people what real spiritual enlightenment is. Because what the New Age community is telling you that an enlightened being looks like is equally as a big crock of bull of what people who don't understand the self-defense principle believe. Okay?

Enlightenment is not what this new age nonsense community is trying to tell people that it is. Alright? It's not about not taking action and sitting under a tree and meditating until you're magically enlightened. Okay? Enlightenment means knowing what's going on around you. Enlightenment means knowing what's going on within you. Enlightenment means truly knowing the true objective difference between right and wrong and living that in your life on a daily basis. Enlightenment means not aggressing upon your fellow human beings, but not agreeing voluntarily to be aggressed upon by them either.

There's two pillars, two dynamics that go hand in hand with real enlightenment. I call this the two pillars of enlightenment. So here they are. The first pillar is the sacred feminine principle. This has been called the non-aggression principle. It is the simple, simple law of don't engage in violence. Or quite simply put, don't steal. Don't steal. We talked about that. That's what all spiritual law can be boiled down to. Don't steal from other people. Don't take what isn't yours. Don't take life that isn't yours. Don't take property that isn't yours. Don't take rights that aren't yours. They're the property of others. Respect their ownership.

Most people can grasp this pretty readily. Okay, and even in the New Age movement they grasp this. In other words, don't immorally initiate non-rightful use of physical power to coerce, constrain, or compel the rightful physical behavior or free will choice of another sentient being. Respect other people's free will, their rights, their property, their life, period. Real simple. It's the golden rule. Don't do things to other people that you don't want done to you. I always state it in the apophatic, in the negative. It's much more powerful that way.

But there is a second principle, a second pillar or tenet of enlightenment, if you will. This is the sacred masculine principle. This is what religions of the world, whether they be governments, organized religion, of different regions of the world, and cultures, the New Age movement, this is what they are seeking to suppress. Because religions are right-brain modalities, they're right-brain methods of mind control. Just like government, who thinks it's a monopoly on the physical use of force, that's a left-brain imbalanced mindset.

The second pillar of enlightenment is the sacred masculine principle, which is also known as the self-defense principle. Your body is your property, you have a right to defend it when it comes under attack by violence. This principle states, sentient beings have the inherent right to use force to defend themselves from violence conducted upon them by another. This is the part many people don't get. That's why we're not rebelling against our slave keepers, our slave masters, who are masters of other people in their own sick, distorted, psychopathic minds and are nothing but thugs and criminals that people magically believe have the moral authority to continue to do what they're doing just because they euphemize slavery and call it government now. That's the sacred masculine principle.

There is no such thing as an enlightened being that doesn't fully grasp both of these principles anywhere. Never has been. There's no such thing as half measures. You've got to get them fully, both, or you're not there. And that's the problem. We're not all the way there. If people were already there, they wouldn't be tolerating what we're putting up with. More aggression against people's rights is being conducted in this country than when the founders of this nation actually separated from England.

They would have been horrified. I tell people, look, not to get nasty, but I tell people, if the founders of this country could magically come back to life somehow and see what's going on in this country, they'd take a piss on people. That's what they would do. That's how much disrespect they would have for what we're putting up with. You know, again, just to just say it the way it really is. That's what they would want to do to us because they would tell us, we warned you about all this. We warned you about it all. And you know what you did? You ignored it. Ignored it.

So what did all those people who died in that revolution die for? We have to understand true ownership real deeply, not peripherally, super deeply. We've got to know what we own and what we don't own. We have to understand why is this our current condition? That's the question we asked at the beginning. And here's the reason. The reason our species continues to experience a systematic and growing loss of freedom is because we collectively do not deeply understand ownership and we continue to commit and condone theft.

This is a prison for thieves. That's what Earth is. It's a prison for people that don't want to respect ownership. They want to take things that aren't theirs. And that's what we're here to learn. We're here to learn that there's only one natural law. Stop stealing from other people. Stop taking things that you don't own. Stop condoning theft of things that other people don't own. Don't condone that activity, that behavior either. So what is ownership? What's the definition? What does it entail?

To own a thing means that regarding that thing, an individual maintains three basic things regarding it. The first is rightful possession. It means you acquired it without doing harm to somebody else. You rightfully own it. Lawfully own it. You're in possession of it. You have it in your possession. It is yours.

The second thing is you control its usage. So your house, you control its usage. Your car, you control its usage. Your clothes, you control their usage. My computer is mine, I control its usage. I'm using it. Control of the usage of something means that you own it. And most of all, maintaining personal responsibility for that possession is the third aspect of ownership.

So to own something means I'm in lawful, rightful possession of it. I control the usage of that thing and I maintain personal responsibility for it. All right? And this is what we have to understand. Natural law can be essentially reduced to one single spiritual law. I gave you the working definition, the soundbite definition before. Here's the super simplified, two-word, concrescence of all of this information. Natural law gets boiled down to two words. Don't steal. That's it.

You want the key out of the prison? You got to understand property. You got to understand all rights are property rights, stop taking the property of other beings, stop condoning the taking of the property of other beings. The end. You know? I could just get up here and say, don't steal the end, everybody go home. It should be that simple. That's the key, folks. That's the key to the prison door. And what we're really talking about here is common sense. That's what conscience is. People don't think of conscience as common sense.

You know, they don't think of conscience as knowledge. Conscience is knowledge. It's not action, it's not behavior. It's knowledge. Again, knowledge is the way out of this. And this is the knowledge that has to be developed. Conscience comes from the Latin prefix con- meaning together, and the Latin verb schiare- meaning to know or to understand. You put them together, to know together, to understand together.

Conscience is common sense. Common sense knowing, common sense knowledge. Literally, from the etymological breakdown of the word. Con together, science to know. That's why the problem is people don't have common sense. That's why I'm sitting there almost laughing hysterically that I need to try to teach common sense to people. The ridiculousness of it. What we all need to be doing is doing that work. I know you guys get a lot of this. We need to start reaching out to other people. I'm going to talk about that in a moment.

Conscience, the definition of it, is the definitive knowledge of the objective difference between right and wrong according to natural law. Objective. Definitive. Okay, it's not up for debate. It exists inherently and objectively. It can be understood, known, discovered. This is different from action.

Conscience is the knowledge, then we act upon it. Okay? So it's different from understanding something and acting upon it. Right? To have conscience is to have common sense. It's to know the difference between right and wrong and understand that difference deeply. Then, we're going to convert that into action. We exercise conscience. The exercise of conscience is actually action. The exercise of conscience is the free will choice of right action over wrong action, once the definitive knowledge of the objective difference between right and wrong, according to natural law, has been acquired and integrated into the being.

We acquire that knowledge first, understand it, then we act in either accordance with it, or disharmony with it. If we act in accordance with it, it's called the exercise of conscience, that's action. The law of freedom, this is one of the basic laws within the body of natural law. It's real simple. The law of freedom states that freedom and morality are directly proportional. It's a mathematical equation that works 100% of the time flawlessly.

As morality increases, freedom increases. As morality declines, freedom declines. This means the more moral a population is, the freer it becomes. The more immoral a population is, the deeper into bondage and slavery it goes. Another way of saying this is to say that the presence of truth and morality in the lives of the people of any given society is always inversely proportional to the presence of tyranny and slavery in that society.

The more truth and morality there is, the less tyranny and slavery there is. The less truth and morality there is, the more tyranny and slavery there is. That's the law of freedom. And many people don't want to understand that. That these two things are inextricably interwoven and connected and can never be separated from each other. The presence of truth and morality in a society and the presence of freedom or its lack in a society.

True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces moral relativism, which is the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong. So humanity may just arbitrarily create or decide right and wrong for themselves. That's the ideology called moral relativism. As I've said before, it is the second tenet of the satanic religion. And it is deeply entrenched in this country and in the world. In our polls that we conducted, the psychological little tabulations that we did asking several people questions, two-thirds of people were moral relativists, 66%. Think about that.

Two out of three people believe there's no such thing as an objective difference between right and wrong and feel these are just constructs that exist by human beings and we get to make up what's right and what's wrong. Two-thirds of people. That's where we're at. That's where we're really at.

Natural law versus man's law or government. Here's the differences. Natural law is based upon the principles, it’s based upon principles and truth, meaning things that are inherent to creation and are not made by humankind. Natural law can only either be harmonized with due to knowledge and understanding or rejected due to ignorance.

So it's not something that is based on compliance because we fear the punishment that would result of not understanding it. If you don't understand it and live according to it, the result is inescapable. Because men and women are not actually creating the result. The universe is bringing that result to us, intelligently and dynamically. In other words, once again, this is about consequences. You behave a certain way, there are certain consequences. You change the behavior, you'll change the consequential results.

Natural law is universal, which means that it exists and applies anywhere in the universe regardless of physical location. There is no place you can go in the physical universe to escape natural law. Let me know if you find a way out of this universe and into another where natural law no longer applies and we'll take a look at it together. But, until you figure out the way out of this universe and into a place that's not governed by law, you're bound by natural law. Okay?

Natural law is eternal. It will exist for as long as the universe exists, and it is immutable. It exists and applies for as long as the universe exists and cannot be changed by anything humanity is capable of doing, or any other species in the universe is capable of doing for that matter.

Man's law, on the other hand, let's look at how this contrasts with natural law. It's not based on principles and truth. It's based on dogmatic beliefs that are programs that are running in the human mind. These are constructs of the mind that operate like programs. Man's law is complied with due to the fear of the punishment that will be conducted upon people who attempt to not comply with it. It's most of the only reason people ever comply with the law of man. And that's a very low state of consciousness, fear. That really is only going to get you all the negative things that we say we don't want, if we're in that vibration.

Man's law differs with location based upon the whim of legislators, like prohibition. Well, I'm allowed to smoke marijuana in one state and then I could be jailed for it in another. My freedom could be taken if I cross this imaginary line. Hey, I'm a gun owner. OK. If I take one, if I take certain weapons that I own across an imaginary line, I could be jailed for years. But over this side of the imaginary line, it's OK. And you're just exercising a right. Over here, it's morally wrong. We'll cage you for it. Over here, yeah, you're allowed to do that. You can have that high-capacity magazine. But over here, you're going into a cage for it, just by crossing an imaginary barrier called a state border.

And people think that makes sense. They think the moral relativism of man's law makes sense. They actually believe something can be moral in one place and immoral in another place. You know? That's cognitive dissonance. That's holding two contradictory notions in the mind simultaneously and accepting them both, when they're clear contradictions with each other. It's called lying to yourself. Let's be honest about what it really is. It's called lying to yourself.

Man's law changes with time based upon the whim of legislators, which is also moral relativism. Prohibition in the 1920s. Well, it was legal to possess and consume alcohol. Then for years it became illegal to do so. Then it switched back to becoming magically moral again. We won't cage you for doing it. Well, it changes over time based on our preferences and likes and dislikes. Yeah, we get to make up what law is, what right and wrong are. It's called moral relativism, all right? And it's one of the tenets of Satanism.

So what does this mean for the law of man, actually? You know, the people seem to have so much respect for, you know, we’re a nation of laws written by men. You know, we don't give a damn about moral law. We don't really give a damn about what's right and wrong, you know, but we have so much respect for the law of man, which we people actually believe is somehow based in morality, when it's nothing of the kind could be further from the, it's not, couldn't get any further from the truth than that. It's based in moral relativism, which is about the whims of the legislator at any given time or place.

You know, you listen to certain forms of music in certain countries in the Middle East, you could be jailed for years just by putting a certain song on. Imagine this. And we would think that's unacceptable and deplorable. Yeah, we think you have this 30-round magazine here, this state only allows 10 cartridges to go into a magazine. I bring the physical object, even if it's not loaded with any ammunition, into another state, I can be put in a cage. Physical piece of plastic. You know, it's just total nonsense. Either something is a right and you're allowed to own it, and you need to be responsible for it, or it's not a right because you're harming somebody. You know, it doesn't get any simpler than that.

So what's this all mean for man's law? In light of natural law, what does it mean? To understand natural law, what does that mean for the laws of man here on earth? What it actually means, it's simple if then logic to apply. If a particular man-made law is in harmony with natural law, then it follows logically that it is redundant. It is stating the obvious. It is stating what is already known. It's like saying, I'm going to write down, yes, during the day the sky refracts a blue frequency. The sky is blue. I'm going to write that down and make it so. Well, it's redundant. It's self-evident. You can go out in the sky and look at the natural color of the sky on a clear day and see what the frequency is with your own eyes. You don't need to have it written down. Okay? It's a redundancy.

So, if it's in harmony already with natural law, it's stating a truth that is already there. It's an inherent truth. It's pre-existing. It's self-evident. Therefore, the writing down of that concept and calling it a law is irrelevant and unnecessary. Now, let's look at the opposite. What if something that man writes down as a law is in direct opposition to natural law? So, if a particular man-made law is in opposition to natural law, it follows logically that it is both false, meaning that it is incorrect. That's what natural law is. It's based in truth, that which is. And it's also immoral. Because if it's not based in natural law, it means that it is doing something that is actually harming somebody by taking something from them that doesn't belong to you like taxation, like permits and licensing, like suspending rights that do already exist, etc. so forth.

So therefore, it's wrong, and it cannot be legitimately binding upon anyone. You can't write down a wrong and say, this is morally binding upon you, even though it creates harm, it causes harm, yet you must follow it. And people believe this. We asked in the Natural Law Seminar, how many people believe that if a law is passed, and it restricts a right that you feel you have naturally, because that action that it's saying you may not do, causes no one else any harm. Do you have any moral obligation to obey that law until you can find a way to get it changed?

And over two-thirds of people said, yes, you have a moral obligation to obey that law. Because these people have the moral right to issue commands and write down laws that constrain you, even if that behavior actually doesn't harm anybody and therefore is a natural right. You would still have to try to find a way to get that law changed. Nonsense. Nonsense. No one can be legitimately bound to a dictate of man that prevents somebody from exercising a natural right.

It's called mind control, is what it's called. So in light of the differences between man's law and natural law, in light of natural law, man's law is both irrelevant and unnecessary, as it is either redundant, because it is in harmony with natural law, or it is completely immoral, because it is in direct opposition to natural law. This is a system of slavery that is not needed. There is equality under natural law, perfect equality. Everyone has the exact same rights, no one has any more or less rights than anyone else. Also, since rights are not created by humanity, and since they are the birthright of humanity, gifted to us by the creator of the universe, no human being or group of human beings is actually capable, in reality, of granting rights to anyone else. Nor is any human being capable of revoking rights from anyone else. Everybody has the same rights, no one can make up a new right. No one can grant a right to somebody that is actually wrong. Does not exist. Never has existed. Never will exist. This is an illusory belief system. Alright?

I'm not telling you people don't believe that can be done. I'm telling you in reality, in truth, it can never be done. Chris Leispooner phrased it pretty well. He said, Government is nothing but men acting in concert. The morality and value of government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the morality and value of the men comprising it. Since government is nothing but men, its inherent, quote, authority to act is in no way greater or different than the, quote, authority to act of any individuals in isolation, like that example of two people on the planet.

Government has no magic powers or, quote, authority that is not possessed by private individuals. Let he who asserts that government may do that which the individual may not do, assume the onus of proof, that means the burden of proof, and demonstrate his contention. And you know what? There's nobody on this planet that can do that. Because when it comes down to it, if you're telling somebody else they may either commit a wrong against somebody else or prevent someone else from exercising a right, that's a lie. And that does not exist. Not in reality. It exists in a diseased mind is where it exists. Only in a sick mind is where that belief exists. You have to be imbalanced in the mind, in the psyche, to believe that that's true. It's a mental illness. That's what it really is.

The word government, you break it down. People say this word every day almost, and yet they've never looked at the etymological roots of the word. It comes from the Latin verb gubernare, once again, no V in classical Latin. No V. So again, Vs were rendered as either Bs or Ps in classical Latin language. So you could write this in what would be more modern Latin as gubernare, with a V. But in classical Latin, or ancient Latin, there is no V, so it would have been rendered with a B, gubernare. Now, what's the election of a governor called? It's called a gubernatorial election. Gubernatorial, gubernare is in there, okay?

Gubernare means to control. The verb gubernare in Latin means to control. The Latin noun mens, which is where the second part of the word meant is derived from, means mind. So you put these together and the word government actually literally from its etymological roots means to control the mind or in other words mind control. Now, I'm going to put something else up here for a moment. The etymological origin of the English suffix "-ment", is often debated in this etymological breakdown. And I've gotten stuff about this constantly, and I've told people I'm not interested in hearing about it anymore. I know where this comes from. I know why the creators of the English language made it so. Made it like this. It is overwhelmingly clear by people who have studied linguistics and the origins of words in English from ancient languages, that the creators of the English language deliberately chose the Latin noun mens, meaning mind, to represent or mean in English the state of or the condition of.

And this was done in direct keeping with the first principle of natural law, as we've already discussed, the principle of mentalism, which demonstrates that in order for any particular thing, event or circumstance, any state or condition to exist in manifested reality, as it currently does, which is known as the plane of effects, it must have first existed in the plane of causality or the mental realm, the mind. We've already looked at that principle of natural law. So anything that ends in meant, the original etymological derivation means that it was made that way first by a state of mind which led to its creation in physical reality. Any word you can think of that ends in M-E-N-T, meaning the state of or the condition of, means it happened in mind first and therefore it led to the state of or the condition of in physical reality.

So, when I say that government means mind control, it literally does, and that is an accurate etymological breakdown. The word men's was deliberately chosen for specific reasons, and I just explained the reason of that meaning, the state of or the condition of. Many people want to hotly contest that, I'm telling you outright, they're wrong. They don't understand why that was chosen. Men's, meaning mind, was chosen deliberately to mean the state of or the condition of.

Government is based on this illusory and false concept called authority. People think certain people are authorities, that they actually have rights that other people don't have. The right to command, compel, coerce, and tell people, this is right, this is what you're going to do, and if you disagree, I have the power to actually compel, coerce, or constrain you against your will. If you're not harming anybody, even in the taking of that action.

Authority is based upon an equal illusion that is called jurisdiction. Now, if we break down this word, it comes from the Latin noun. Jurisdiction comes from Latin. Jus juris. Jus juris in Latin means law. Juris is the possessive case. And the Latin verb dictere. So jus dictere, juris dictere, jurisdiction. Okay? Dictere means to say or to speak.

Thus, jurisdiction literally means to say what the law is. Or in other words, we get to make up what the law is. The law is not something that exists in nature and is based upon right and wrong and truth and morality. No, we get to make it up. We're God. We get to say what's right and what's wrong. And therefore, since we make the law, we're the owners of these people. They're in our jurisdiction. You know, we own them. And we get to make up what they're allowed to do and what they're not allowed to do.

Authority, ultimately, is an illusion, again, of a diseased mind, a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the commands of the masters. I don't care what you want to call it. You can euphemize it any way you want. I call it what it really is. Slavery. That's what it really is. It doesn't come down to anything else. You can call it whatever you want, euphemize it, try to make it sound as nice or as pleasant as possible. It's all one thing. It's called slavery.

It's always immoral and it needs to be ended. That's it. And we have to develop the knowledge and the courage to end it. The knowledge, the care and the courage to end it. The belief in the legitimacy of, quote, authority, this illusory nonsense notion, is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. Anybody who believes in that authority is legitimate and government is legitimate, whether they want to admit it or not, or know it or not, or understand it or not, I don't care what they believe. They are advocating the legitimacy of slavery. That's not my belief. I don't care who calls that my belief. I'm just looking right into the camera and saying this. I know the people in this room know that that's not my belief. I'm telling anybody who's listening to this. That's not my belief. That's eternal truth. Eternal truth. Okay?

You believe in these concepts, you are a supporter of slavery. The end. That's how it really is. Not because I said so. Because that's how it really is. Okay? And that's called mind control. For somebody to believe that slavery is legitimate, you've got to be under deep mind control. You've got to be either that or a sick, psychopathic, absolute piece of garbage. Okay? One of those things or another is true if you believe in those concepts. And again, I'm not afraid to tell it to somebody right to their face like that. I don't care. I'm not here to serve truth, make friends, or be liked. I'm here to tell people the truth. I'm not here to serve human beings, make friends, or be liked. I am here to serve the truth. Whether it will be accepted is not up to me. I'm doing what I'm charged to do by creation.

Whether it's accepted is somebody else's karma, not mine. Ultimately, authority is the idea that man can become God and through, quote, jurisdiction, dictate the law. What the dark occultists of this world, who are behind ostensible governments in the world, you know, they set up all these institutions as temples, right?

What this sick, psychopathic priest class ultimately believes is they're going to become God. We're going to turn natural law on top of its head, and we're going to rule in hell. That's it. We're going to rule in hell. It's a religion. This is a religion. Government's a religion. The concept of authority is a religion. Most people don't see it that way.

And I mean religion in the term of false religion. It comes from the Latin religare. I laugh when I hear people say it comes from religare, or relegare, R-E-L-E-G-A-R-E, or relegare, which means to read over again. To go back over something that you've already read and read it again. It's the most ridiculous, nonsensical derivation I've ever heard for the word religion. To re-read. I mean, please, let's put this to bed, folks.

Religion does not mean to re-read. It doesn't come from re-ligare or re-legare. I can't remember which infinitive is used for that verb offhand, but it comes from religare, hence religion, R-E-L-I-G-A-R-E. Alright? Religare means to tie back, to hold back, or to thwart from forward progress by tying or binding, tying up so that you can't move forward. That's what religare is, and that is the etymological root of religion.

Because a false religion is a system of control that is based in unchallenged dogmatic belief, which keeps the mind in a prison in order to hold back the progress of consciousness. And that's where the bulk of humanity is at, in a brain cage. They’re in the mind cage, okay?

There is a positive connotation of religion. It also means to reunite with. And what we need to reunite ourselves with is the truth and common sense and natural law and a knowledge that there's no such thing as legitimacy to slavery. That's what we need to reunite with. You know? And then we'd be living with true religion. We'd be practicing true religion instead of fake religion.

We've got to stop trying to make our religion truth. And we've got to start making truth our religion. That's what needs to be done. So what's the one true divide that exists in humanity? People say, oh, this is separation talk, we're all one. No, we're not. There is one true divide that does exist in reality. And here's what it is. The one true divide that separates humanity into two distinct types of individuals. The criteria for this divide is whether or not an individual believes in quote, authority, and therefore believes that there is legitimacy to slavery.

The two groups of people are the people who know slavery is never legitimate, and people who believe that it can be legitimate. That's what actually separates humanity. That's the... See, all the other things, divide and conquer. Race, religion, sexuality, income, you know, religious belief systems, these are all divide and conquer techniques. There's one real difference, whether somebody believes in slavery or not.

And of course people have called these, the difference, statists and anarchists, right? So here's a couple of memes that I picked up on Facebook. Statism is the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from, and kill people so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal from, and kill people. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense if you ask me. I think it's going to work out brilliantly with that system in place.

An anarchist, I couldn't find any good pictures of anarchists because they're all fake anarchists who want to destroy property and think that they're somehow doing the world some good. The black block, that are really communists in disguise. Okay, when you really boil down to it, they don't know what anarchy is at all. They're just some, you know, Marxists who thinks that that's some, that ideology, that junk ideology is some kind of a pathway to freedom. You know, it's a bunch of left-brain clowns who have no understanding of natural law. You know, go put your polka dot jumpsuit and some floppy shoes on and go get yourself a nice clown nose. Seriously, because that's what those people are. They're a joke. They're a joke. They don't know the first thing about what freedom is, not the first thing.

So I was looking for good pictures of anarchists. I was going to put myself, Larkin Rose, Freeman, Freighter X, people who get all the stuff, who I personally like their work, Michael Tesarion, etc., David Icke. But I said, hey, let's put a meme up there that really expresses it. So I found this picture of Jesus, a meme that says, I'm an anarchist, but most of my followers are statists. You know?

People who are these fake-ass Christians who believe they somehow are following the teachings of Christ and they believe in government, they believe in financial institutions, they believe in organized religion? These are the three things that killed Christ. If you even accept the historicity of the event. Who was Christ waging basic conflict with? The Pharisees and Sadducees, the organized religious order, and controlling religious orders of his day. Okay?

What really got him in deep trouble, he was pissing them off, but they were already on the wane. The old world order was on the way out, and the new world order was already on the way in at that time. You know? He got himself in real trouble when he went against the financial institutions, the money changers at the temple. Taking people for a ride for temple coins. Right? And he flogged their ass. He took out the switch on them. Right? Not somebody who never got angry, who accepted evil, and said, oh, it's just an experience, you know, none of it matters, took out the switch and beat their ass for usury. Okay?

And then who finally put them to death? The police of their day. The Roman Empire. You know, Roman centurions. The operating standing army and police of their day. The government. So, who is he waging spiritual warfare against? To try to bring righteousness into the world. And again, I don't care whether you accept it as historical fact or spiritual allegory. Could care less. Believe what you want. It doesn't matter. All that matters is the teaching.

He was waging war, spiritual war, against the three entrenched, mind-controlled, religious establishments of his day. Organized religion, organized finance and government. And people don't see it that way, so-called Christians, you know? Because they're not interested in the real teachings. They just want to call themselves something and identify it and say, oh, that magically makes me this, you know? Because you go to church on Sunday, it doesn't make you a Christian, you know? No more than going to a synagogue would make you align with the true teachings of the Torah. No more than attending a mosque would align you with the true teachings of Islam or any other religion. To take the core essence of the teachings of morality from those systems.

They're all people who claim these faiths in name only when they don't understand real freedom. So a statist is an individual who erroneously believes there's such a thing as authority that is vested in certain human beings, magically giving them the right to rule over other people. This authority means that certain people who we call government have the quote moral right to issue commands to those whom they rule, those under their jurisdiction, and that their subjects or slaves have a quote moral obligation to obey the arbitrary dictates or laws quote unquote that are set by their masters. Most simply put a statist is nothing more than someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery.

Conversely an anarchist, a true anarchist anyway is one who knows that there could never be legitimacy to authority or government because those terms are simply euphemisms for violence and slavery and coercion, which are always immoral and in opposition to natural law. Let's look at what the word anarchy really means. Again, you've got to break it down. From the Greek prefix an-, which means without or the absence of, and the Greek noun arkan-, they're written in Greek script, which means master or ruler. And again, I mean externally. One who externally rules another or claims to be the master of another. That's what the term archon means in its connotation.

Anarchy, as we can see by putting these together, does not mean without rules. The word archon does not mean rules. Because there's always going to be rules in effect called natural law, the laws of morality. It means rulers, imposed rulers. That's what archon means in Greek.

It literally means anarchy, now putting it together, an absence of archon, master or ruler, the absence of masters or rulers, externally imposed masters or rulers, meaning when we put it together, OK, it means without rulers, without masters. Now, if you give people that term, no masters, no rulers, no masters, no slaves, what were they going to associate those phrases with? Freedom.

But if you tell people what does anarchy mean to you, what are you associated with, what are they going to tell you? Chaos, which is the exact opposite. That's in that other column. They have deliberately obfuscated the meaning of the word through a mind control technique called endless repetition. If I could keep telling you a word doesn't mean what it means. That's not a projector. That's a hammer. Hey, could you check out my hammer over there and make sure it's projecting the image on the board correctly? You know, the bulb burned out in my hammer. I might need to go buy a new hammer. If I kept doing that endlessly, endlessly, endlessly for years and years and years, people would start calling that device a hammer. If I got enough people to keep calling it that.

So they've got enough people to call freedom chaos. Think about that. They've got enough people to believe that the absence of the state of slavery means chaos instead of freedom. It's almost unfathomable. It's almost incomprehensible. The mind job that’s been done on this species. It’s almost incomprehensible.

Anarchy is the state of existence where there are no masters and no slaves. Therefore, what it really means is the absence of slavery, or in other words, true freedom. That's all it means. I prefer to call it an-ar-con-y. Keeping the entire word ar-con instead of taking out the o-n. If we keep that there and call it anarchony, and I say I'm an anarchonist, people will ask, well what the hell is that? And then you could really break the word down and say the absence of archons, the absence of those who would claim to be masters over a population of slaves. That's what an anarchonist is. It's saying that's illegitimate, that's unnecessary and that we need to do away with that state of existence.

So we look at these two, this true divide again, the statist and the anarchist. I call the statist the archonist. This is somebody who believes in the legitimacy of the archons, the rulers. And I'll be talking about in future presentations the concept of the archons more in future presentations. And the anarchist, as it's been called, I think should be called the anarchonist. Because that's somebody who knows that there's no legitimacy to the mastery over other people. Or the rulership externally over others, keeping them as slaves or subjects. There's no legitimacy to that. And that's the one true divide that separates all consciousness here on the earth. The real divide and the real enlightenment comes, do you understand there's no legitimacy to slavery, or do you continue to believe that there's legitimacy to slavery? That's the divide in consciousness that has to be bridged.

The fear of chaos. This is what keeps this system going. Chaos can't be viewed as something to fear. It's got to be viewed as a teacher, a harsh teacher, but a teacher nonetheless. See, chaos teaches us through the apophatic process what not to do. Okay, that's a bad idea. You probably shouldn't do that if your desire is not to burn your hand to the point where it's blistering and flesh is starting to peel off of it. If you don't care about whether that happens, by all means keep it right on that stove. Right on that electric stove.

But see if you say, I don't want to be burned, there are requirements for obtaining that condition. It means you can't keep your hand on something that is extraordinarily hot. Or natural law will take over and burn your flesh. Doesn't require your belief. That's how it works. Well, this is humanity. Humanity is the little child that is a little slow and they want not to be burned, yet simultaneously they insist, no, I want to put my hand on the burner while the range is on and not be burned simultaneously. Well, good luck with that, folks, because it doesn't work that way.

You don't want to be burned? The hand can't be kept there while the stove is on. The end. You don't want negative, self-inflicted suffering and chaos in your life. You've got to align your behavior to natural law, which means you've got to know the difference objectively between right and wrong, and willfully, through your free will, choose, deliberately choose the right action over the wrong action. Then you won't be burned. But as long as you have your hand on that stove, which means you're in opposition to natural law, enjoy the burn. Enjoy it. Right? Get used to it till the flesh melts off the bone and then the bones turn into dust. Because that's what you're going to get. That's how it works. And again, nobody wants to hear that. They don't want to hear that the natural laws don't care about you. They work flawlessly all the time and bring you the result that you're creating.

The control and slavery system is actually about the limitation of free will through the destruction of possibility. See, all they've done, right? The old world order used to be religion and priest kings, right? We're in between you and God. We're the intercessors, the intermediaries. We make the law. You're our subjects. You're our slaves. You obey, or it's our wrath. All they've done is take the concept of a singular ruler, which was the old world order, and they've converted it into the concept of now there's a ruling class called government that gets to make up what we tell you you may or may not do. And they're up here at the top of the pyramid now. That's all. They turned it from a monarchy to somewhat of an oligarchy. But it's the same concept.

We're the moral masters that you have a moral obligation to obey and you’re the slave class that has an obligation to obey our commands. That's it. Nothing changed. All they did is say, well, people no longer believe in the priest-king, so we need to create an institution where this, quote-unquote, authority is seemingly diffused through many people. It's always been nonsense. It’s always been mind control. It's not going to be anything else other than that till it goes away.

True freedom includes infinite possibility because infinite possibility by definition includes the possibility for chaos. For real freedom to exist we have to accept, hey things might not go or it right all the time. We live in a physical domain a physical world, hey, there could be dangers, you know. Nothing could ever be sanitized or made completely safe as far as physical world activities are concerned. There's always going to be the possibility something could happen, go wrong, somebody could get hurt, chaos could happen.

If you live in that state of fear that that's going to happen, what is that? Is that high consciousness or low consciousness? It's low consciousness. Low consciousness can only create what? Chaos! The fear of chaos itself can only get you more chaos because it's based in fear. As we see, just keep referring to that expression chart. You know, go online. I have slides of it online. It's in videos I've done. Print it. Read it. Look at it. Print it and stick it up in your home. Understand how that chart works. You know, those expressions that I went over, those ten expressions.

The possibility, okay, of chaos from manifesting, the possibility that it may manifest, has to be embraced without fear if we're going to be truly free. It must be embraced. You have to say, I am going to allow for the possibility that chaos may occur. Because that's getting out of the consciousness of fear. Which that's what will lead to freedom. Removing that fear. The fear of the possibility of chaos is actually equated to the fear of true freedom. When somebody says, I can't ever believe that a system with no masters could work out, I can't even envision how it could work out. What's that called? What's been deadened in that person? What have they lost? Imagination. There it is. That is actually the equivalent of the death of the imagination.

Now, what is the imagination? The imagination is the powerful ability of the human mind to envision a different state or condition than the one which is already manifested in the present. So, imagination must first be present in the mind in order to create a different state of existence than the one currently being experienced. And this is because, according to the principle of mentalism, for any different state to manifest in the physical world, the plane of effects, it must first exist within the mind or the plane of causality.

If the imagination is stifled or destroyed, and the destruction of the imagination is what I refer to as total mind control. You can't go into any more total mind controlled state as the imagination being dead. Alright? If that happens, any positive change to our state of existence becomes completely impossible. And this is where many people are already at.

The fear of the possibility of chaos is more than even the fear of true freedom. It is the death of the imagination. It is putting the mind permanently in the cage. You can't let that force within us call the imagination die. Because that's the only way to envision a way out of the prison. You have to envision it first. Then you have to put that that of those thoughts and emotions that you used for that in envisioning process into actual action so that it becomes manifested in the physical world.

Through their fear of the possibility of chaos, which is actually the fear of true freedom, most people advocate the legitimacy and continuance of authority in government and are therefore actually advocating the legitimacy and continuance of violence and slavery.

Those who believe that authority is necessary and that it must continue because of this fear of chaos have actually been duped into believing that human slavery is necessary and get this folks human slavery must therefore continue in order to prevent chaos.

Now imagine that. Imagine that. That's what statism is though. That's what the religion called the belief in government or statism is. It is the belief that human slavery is necessary and must continue indefinitely in order to prevent chaos from manifesting. Now, tell me how that could possibly work? Can violence and slavery, which is actually what government is a euphemism for, statism and government are just euphemisms for violence and slavery. Can violence and slavery ever possibly prevent chaos? Why? What? Why can't it?

Because they are chaos! Violence and slavery are chaos! We are already in the state of chaos. Being held under the threat of violence and duress, which is slavery, is the state of chaos. So forget about fearing chaos coming on. You're in it now. Surprise, surprise. Hate to break the news to you all. Okay? We're already in the state of chaos. We need to create real order, by getting rid of violence and slavery.

Order followers, these are the people who keep the system of slavery in place. They're the people who keep the system of slavery in place. Let me just say this again. Order followers are the people who keep the existence of slavery in place. Not the ruling class, not the masters, not the so-called elite, which aren't the elite of anything but the bottom of a trash can.

The people who keep slavery in place are the people who willfully follow their orders. Nobody wants to hear that. And people will hate you for saying it. Following orders means, by definition, doing what you are told to do without judging for yourself whether or not that action that you are being ordered to carry out is actually right or wrong. That's the definition of following orders. I mean, can anybody refute that? Is that not the actual definition of following someone else's order? By definition, if you're following the order, you're given the order and then you just act. You just do it because you're following the order. You don't sit there and go, what that person told me to do right? Do I have a right to do that? Is that moral? Should I do that because it's okay and it doesn't hurt somebody else? Or should I not do that because it actually does cause harm?

It's not what an order follower does in their mind. An order follower says, Yes, sir! and follows the order. That's why it's called an order follower. That's why it's called following an order. So, that's the definition of what an order follower is. It's not my perception of what an order follower is. It's the actual definition of order following. Okay?

If an individual, this is key to understand, if an individual is performing the task of following orders, by definition, that individual cannot be exercising conscience, since by definition, exercising conscience means that one is willfully choosing through their free will, for themselves, right action over wrong action.

So, the concept of following orders is completely polar opposite to the concept of exercising conscience. You cannot be doing the same things simultaneously. It's impossible to do those two things simultaneously. They are contradictions in terms, by definition. Most people don't grasp that. By definition, if you're following orders, you cannot be actually exercising conscience, which involves free will choice based on the knowledge of right and wrong.

Here's what order following gets us as far as a nation is concerned. You know, not that we're not already there, not that these people already didn't take us, because we're taken by them already, covertly. They took us through the school systems. They couldn't beat us militarily. So they said, well, let's send our ideologues over there and get into the minds of their children. If you don't believe that's what happened, you're very, very, very naive. Not only the Nazis, but the communists as well, because really it's all just forms of socialism. That's what feudalism is.

Worldwide socialism is there's no such thing as private property. State owns everything. Rights don't exist. Property rights don't exist. Everybody's a feudal serf again. It's called neo-feudalism. I don't care which branch you come at it from. You want to come at it from the left, that's called communism. You want to come at it from the right, that's called national socialism. Communism, international socialism. They're both the same force. It's called feudalism. Let's just call it what it is. It's called feudalism, which is in itself just another euphemism for slavery. They want neo-feudalism, which is the new world order of slavery. And it's already here. It's not something that's coming. It's here now. The object is to get out of it.

This is the result of following orders. That's what following orders gets us in society. Following orders should never be seen as a virtue. Following orders is evil. I don't care if somebody who is considered a holy man gives me an order and I follow it. I've just committed an act of evil, as far as I'm concerned. If I'm acting based solely on what somebody else has told me to do, that's evil. There's no morality in it at all. At all. At all. It's not a virtue. It's evil. Let me just make that so abundantly clear and state it so unequivocally. There's no such thing as any possible moral following of orders. The two terms are contradictory. All right?

I was just following orders is never a valid excuse or justification for immoral, criminal, behavior, and this lame attempt to abdicate personal responsibility should never be accepted as a valid excuse for such behavior. And why it's done is through justification. And again, that means to create a right. From jus, meaning right or law, and the Latin verb facere, which means to make or to create. And this is what they say, I was just following orders, I was just doing my job. I was shutting down your protest. You don't have a right to speak. The politicians commanded me so. So I just came out and I was just doing my job, hitting you with a sound cannon. You know, just doing my job, just following my orders.

It's a justification. You're a criminal. There's nothing moral in that. There's nothing virtuous in that. It's called criminal behavior, criminal activity. And what they do is try to create it into a right, make it into a right by a justification. And nobody should ever accept their justifications. Because you know what their justifications is? You know what they are? It's called a 100% crock of bull that is a complete lie. It's a lie. They're just straight up looking you in the face and saying, I'm not responsible for that. I just did it, but I'm not the one who's responsible for it, because I was acting on orders.

Well, see, this defense didn't work as the Nuremberg defense, and nobody in America should be accepting it. Nobody in America should be accepting it, because they believe in the legitimacy of authority in government, through mind control. That's what they believe it. They believe there's legitimacy to it. Most people actually believe that there's legitimacy to this criminal behavior because a class of people calling themselves government have magically been imbued and gifted with such rights.

They believe they have rights other people don't. They themselves believe it, but worse is that the people who are actually affected by that criminal behavior, they believe they have the authority to do it. Gandhi said, you assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.

A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul, which means saying no. Moral culpability. What does this mean? The determination of who is ultimately at fault or deserving of blame. Again, this is a legitimate and real concept. There is fault. There is blame. We got to get over this new age nonsense that nobody's at fault. Nobody's to blame. You should never say, hey, you shouldn't have done that. That caused a lot of chaos and trauma for other people. You're not to blame. It just happened. No. Wrong.

The people who did the behavior are to blame. Who carried out the holocaust in Germany? The people who followed their orders to do it. That’s who carried it out. Order followers is the answer. Who carried out the purge of political dissidents in Soviet Russia? Order followers. And they're always in the form of police. Why do you think they call a totalitarian system a police state? Why don't they call it a banker state? How come they don’t call it a politician state? What about a lawyer state? How about a judge state? Why not call it any of those things? You want to know why?

Because none of those people are ultimately responsible for bringing that condition into manifestation through their behavior. They're the order givers. The order followers carry out their commands and through their behavior make that condition a reality. That's why it's called a police state. Because every police state that has ever existed has always been created by police who follow their orders because they don't want to take responsibility and think for themselves and know the difference between right and wrong for themselves, like an adult. Instead, I want to be a child who obeys daddy because I have daddy issues. All right, and that's what it's really about, folks. We're going to get to that.

There is such a thing as blame for the commission of actions which have resulted in harm or loss to others. This is what culpable means. It comes from the Latin culpa, meaning fault or blame. It means at fault or deserving of blame. Now, who's more morally culpable? The order giver or the order follower? And please recognize, I've underlined and capitalized the term more. I'm not telling you the order givers are not morally culpable. They are. That's not the question. Are any of these people morally culpable is not my question. My question is, look at the full question. Who is more morally culpable? The order giver or the order follower?

Always. Always. At all times and places. At all times and places. I put this meme up on Facebook and I mean I got some hate back for it. Okay? People don't want to hear this. Like I said, I'm not here to be popular, to make friends. I'm here to tell people what the truth actually is, and they have to accept it or reject it on their own. I put this meme up, I made this meme and put it up on Facebook, and it had politicians on the left that said, my actions, underlined and capitalized, didn't cause that. And then there were some soldiers or Marines, whatever they are, order followers on the right side, and they're also saying the same statement. My actions didn't cause that. And at the bottom, I just put this question. I'm sorry, I looks like I'm sorry. At the top, I put this question. Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

So who's who's lying here? And if people can't see, I hope that they can see this horrific picture. This is the result of bombings that took place in the Middle East, I think around Iraq. And it's a father carrying his dead child in his arms. Maybe if bombs were raining down on our children, we might think differently about going in and waging imperialism on other nations. I don't know. Maybe we might think differently about it, right? But when it happens to somebody else's child, that's okay. That's done in the name of freedom. Okay?

Well, who caused this? Did they cause it? No, they didn't cause it. They are not the actual cause of this. Because you know what all they did? They signed some pieces of paper, wearing their expensive suits. Okay? And they told these guys, they said, well, you're under our orders now, go and bomb these people. And you know what these people did? Say, yes, sir, and go and drop the bombs. And fire off the ammunition. These are the people whose actions create things like this. Not these people. All they're doing is speaking into somebody else's ear. All they've done is speech. Speech, not actions. Again, really look.

My actions didn't cause that. Yes, it is. If these people are saying my actions didn't cause that, they’re lying. They're very, very, very, painful and difficult thing for people to comprehend and accept. I'm not telling you you shouldn't feel bad hearing this, but I'm telling you it's true. The painful truth, the order follower always bears more moral culpability than the order giver for the reason that the order follower is the one who actually performed the action and in taking such action, actually brought the resultant harm into physical manifestation.

Order following is the pathway to every form of evil and chaos in our world. It should never be seen as a virtue by anyone who considers themselves a moral human being. Order followers have ultimately been personally responsible and morally culpable for every form of slavery and every single totalitarian regime that has ever existed upon the face of the earth. That's the painful truth that people don't want to accept, because they want to believe the absolute nonsense that order following is a virtue of any kind. And it needs to be obliterated from the face of the earth. Because it's not the way to any kind of virtues or order. It's the pathway to evil and annihilation. That's what it is.

Responsibility versus abdication. Why don't these people want to think for themselves? It's too easy to just follow the orders of somebody else. They believe somehow magically this absolves them of personal responsibility to choose right from wrong.

An individual's personal responsibility to choose right action over wrong action for themselves always belongs to that individual. And that responsibility can never be given to another person or passed along. One can only claim and imagine that they can abdicate their personal responsibility for such choice to someone else. It can never actually be done in reality. You're only making a claim, I'm not responsible for that behavior because this person told me to do it. That's just a claim. And moreover, what it really is, is just a damn lie. Okay?

More simply put, an individual is always personally responsible for their own actions, period, in the end. You did it, you're responsible for it. There are no cop-outs. Stop trying to make excuses or justifications for criminal behavior. Own up to personal responsibility. If you did wrong action, you did it. You caused it. I like how David Icke words this. He says, accept responsibility for yourself and your actions, thoughts, and words. You alone make these choices, so you alone are answerable to the consequences of your behavior. The feeble excuse that your boss required it, that the establishment expected it holds no truth or justification.

What is the point of having principles if you allow others to dictate your behavior? Really, those who allow others to dictate their behavior don't have principles. And there's a reason they don't have principles, because they hate themselves. They're in psychological self-loathing, and there's a reason they're in that state, which my future work is going to cover in depth. In extensive depth and detail. At the end of the day, you will judge your performance and the contribution you've made to creation. It will not be based on what another expected of you or what you did because you felt trapped. Like oh, there's no other way. I can't envision my way out of this. I can't envision doing something else. I might have to get another job. I might have to read and learn. I can't envision becoming a different person than the identity I've already forged for myself. How could I possibly imagine that? I have all my eggs in this basket. My whole ego identity is all wrapped up in my job and what I do. That defines who I am. You know, I can't go against that.

It's all nonsense. It's all what people are doing just because they feel trapped and they can't imagine that there's another way. Most people erroneously believe, this is the second part of the abdication of responsibility on the part of the people, most people erroneously believe that they can hand over their natural law right to defend themselves to another individual, group, or entity. In making such a false claim that somebody else is my protector, somebody else, it's their responsibility to protect me, okay, and defend me, they have attempted to abdicate a personal responsibility which actually always belongs to them and can never be given away.

That's the self-defense principle. You own it. It's yours. You can't give it away to somebody else. Shock and amazement, okay? That is your responsibility already. And guess what? You know what? They're all too happy. These controllers are now even all too happy to say, it's not our responsibility to protect you. Because what their actual goal is, is they're just revenue men for the new king. That's all they are. And to slap people back in the line if they try to exercise rights that the new king called government has decreed that they may not exercise. That's what their real role is. They don't serve and protect the people. They serve and protect the ruling class. And they don't want to admit that to themselves. You know why? Because they're liars, most of all to themselves. It's a bunch of childish liars.

Franklin said, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both. And this addresses the fear of chaos and the desire to abdicate your personal responsibility to defend yourself to other people just because you're afraid and you don't want to take the responsibility of doing it yourself. You want to stay in that mindset? I'll give up my freedom to be safe? Well, enjoy your safe slavery. I, for one, will take my dangerous and chaotic freedom, ok. I’ll take the absolute cannibal lurking around every corner. And I’ll take my chances, thank you very much. Give me my freedom and my assault rifle, and I'll take my chances. Thank you. Okay?

So, the idea that you just want to be kept safe, and you'll give up your freedom to do so, it's just a child. That's how a child thinks. And that's what this is really about. Not wanting to grow up and become adults. And again, there's a reason for this. This is the underlying psychological reason, but there's an even deeper one. But I'm going to touch on this one first. Self-respect versus self-loathing. People who don't want to take personal responsibility and become an adult are in this psychological condition. It's called self-loathing. What it means is you hate yourself.

Nobody who wants to perpetuate slavery can possibly like themselves. They cannot love themselves. It's impossible. You are already in a state of self-hatred if you believe in government, if you believe in its legitimacy. OK? Because you believe in slavery and therefore you're in that slavery system and you want it to continue. How can you possibly love yourself? It's not possible.

Self-loathing is the underlying psychological condition that causes people to attempt to advocate their own personal responsibility to exercise conscience and fall into patterns of order following, and justification. Just as it is not possible for an order follower to truly be exercising conscience, it is not possible for an order follower to truly love themselves. These two states cannot exist simultaneously. You cannot be an order follower and love yourself. It is impossible. They are contradictory psychological conditions. Okay?

Here's what a self-loathing person really is. They're trapped in a trauma-abuse-victim cycle. A trauma happens. There's an abuser, there's a victim, and then it repeats itself. Because often, the one who's abused becomes the traumatizer, and then the cycle repeats again. I've talked about this pretty extensively on my podcast series. That's what self-loathing is, that's what this mind state is. This is a golem creature.

It's a 100% programmed and lifeless thing that is imbued with the ability to actually move like a robot. You can liken it to a flesh robot. And it's a concept in ancient dark occultism. And the golem is driven by the force of self-loathing. And that's what the Order followers are. They're golems. I'm not saying this to insult people. I don't really care how people take it. I'm telling them what they really are and what the darker cultists think of them. They call them their dogs and their pets. That's their name for the police and the military. I did a whole series on that.

And I'm not telling you that from book knowledge. I'm telling you that from their lips to my ears. That's what they call them. The golem is in this mindset, since I have suffered, I will cause suffering to others. Since I can't deal with my nested psychological traumas and childhood issues and inadequacy issues, I'm going to take all of that nested, subconscious, psychological frustration, out on other people that I have no right to take it out upon. That's the golem mindset.

Self-loathing is created when an earlier trauma has been suppressed and buried deeply into the subconscious. That's the role of the subconscious, to protect the conscious mind from traumatic experiences so that the conscious mind doesn't keep reliving it and therefore re-experiencing it in the physiology. However, if we never bring up that shadow material to the conscious level, it builds and builds and builds until it ultimately destroys us, psychically and spiritually all right.

Instead of confronting dealing with and healing that trauma, people don't want to do that work. It's too hard to dredge up that shadow material. It's hard work. Believe me to come out of the mind state I was in I had to do that shadow work for years, years of more suffering and pain, saying, what do I have to look in the mirror and confront about myself and then work to change and admit thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of times I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong. I don't know how many thousands of times I had to look in the mirror and say that to myself. Sometimes to a point where I was so depressed I couldn't get out of bed for days. I would just sit, lay in bed and play doom metal all day. Literally. Endlessly, repetitively. And just sitting there in that condition of total self-loathing and total depression because of what I know I took part in. And that I know was still my mental makeup, was still my psychological makeup, that was going to take years to get out of. And I'm trying to explain this to prevent people from having to go through all that suffering.

This knowledge can be gleaned without having to go down that path. It can be done. I'm not telling you that's easy work, but it is possible. Such trauma could take the form of feelings of inadequacy, whether they are real or imagined. And you know what that mind state ultimately is? It's self-prison. That's somebody putting themselves in a cage. These people who want to take out their psychological frustrations on other people, they're prisoners. They are in the cage, and they love being in the cage. They don't have any desire for freedom. The only kind of person that would have no desire for real freedom is a person who is in the psychological state of self-loathing and hates himself, and does not love themself.

Now, what heals self-loathing? Self-respect. And we have to know what the word respect means. And this is about looking at yourself. Introspection. Respect comes from the Latin re meaning again and the Latin verb spectare which means to look at. You put them together to look at again, to take another look at. Well, what are you taking another look at? You're taking another look at yourself. That's what respect starts as. You can't give something to somebody that you don't have.

If I don't have ten dollars in my pocket, I can't give it to you. If I don't have a, you know, a coin in my pocket, I can't give it to somebody else. You've got to have it first to give it. So nobody can give respect to anybody else unless they first develop it inwardly. Self-respect has to come first. And that's why these people don't respect anybody, order followers, most of all themselves. Until they do that work of self-introspection, they're not going to develop that self-respect. And I'm not telling you that's easy work. It's hard work that can take a lot of time. And it's dredging up shadow material that most people want to run away from. They don't want to confront that about themselves.

Only self-respect can heal self-loathing, and therefore help to put an order follower on the path to conscience. We need to take another look at ourselves. The lost word. This is the end of the natural law segment, and I'm just going to talk about solutions toward the end a little bit. All right.

The lost word. It's a concept in esoteric Freemasonry, which represents a state of consciousness that has been largely, quote unquote, lost to the majority of human beings. In order to speak the, quote unquote, lost word, a human being must work upon themselves in order to achieve a state of equilibrium or balance between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. In such a state of balanced consciousness, the being has come to know oneself, as well as the working operations of the macrocosm, meaning natural law. In doing so, that person has also come to understand the objective difference between right and wrong, or, as these concepts are referred to in the tradition of Freemasonry, they have come to understand the difference between light, which is right, and darkness, which is wrong. Or, light which is knowledge of right and wrong, and darkness which is ignorance of right and wrong, respectively.

What is the lost word, though? That's the lost word, ladies and gentlemen. You know the knowledge of the highest levels of Freemasonry now. Most actual Freemasons in the Lodge system don't know the lost word. The lost word is no. I would suggest to you it is a dual word. The lost word is dual, meaning it's two things, it's not just one. It is the word no, N-O, and it is the word know, K-N-O-W. Those are the lost words. Okay?

In the enlightened state of consciousness generated through the knowledge of natural law, a human being is finally able to speak the so-called lost word, which is no. No is the word of all power. Only when we say no to those who would claim to be our owners, those who would claim that it is they who will decide which rights we have or do not have, do we stop externalizing our power to anyone outside of ourselves and in doing so reclaim all of our rights, all of our property that has been taken without right?

Sadly, very, very few people in our world have the knowledge, care and courage that is required to do this. This is why this all-powerful word is considered lost. And there's the other variant of the lost word. Know.

Know your rights. The reason you have to know what the difference between right and wrong is, and therefore know what rights you have and what rights you do not have is because those who do not know those things will never say the lost word to someone who claims to be their owner. They will not say no, N-O.

Let's look at some solutions. I call this section teaching natural law to others. Because as we're talking about, education is the only solution. Knowledge is the solution. The propagation of that knowledge is education, which means to lead out from. Educare in Latin means to lead one out from something. And what is education? It means to lead one out of darkness, out of ignorance. That's what a real teacher does. You know, doesn't push somebody out. It says, I'm going to go first and show you the way. And you could follow, if you feel that this is the accurate path, but you could do the same discovery process. It's a repeatable process. That's what a science is, which I've said this is not a belief system or a religion. It is a science.

This is also known, teaching natural law to others, which is what I am doing, has been called in all of the positive occult traditions the great work and I call it the true great work because the dark occultists take everything and twist it around and they have their own variant of the Quote great work, which is creating a world of total slavery. That's all that's the dark great work. I call this the true great work or the light great work. However, you want to refer to it as. It's just a piece of jargon. It's just a tag we put on it. Shift happens, well maybe but maybe not.

The results not guaranteed here folks. The New Agers want to tell you it's all guaranteed it's all in hand you know the. The Zeta reticulians are going to be coming in from orbit any moment here, give us all the secrets to the universe, save us from our own ignorance, you know. You just got to wait a few more years or decades or millennia, but they'll be here soon.

A quantum shift in human consciousness is required for humanity to become free of its self-imposed state of slavery. Unfortunately, this great change is not an automatic process, nor is it guaranteed to happen at all. We can be in this condition for a very, very, very, very long time, or it can snowball and lead to total annihilation and the extinction of the human species. The positive outcome is not guaranteed. Anybody who thinks it is, is very naive and extraordinarily right-brained and overly positive. I'm not telling you the negative outcome is guaranteed either. I'm telling you it can go either way, depending on how consciousness goes. About how many people in quantum numbers are going to choose truth over deception. That's what's going to guarantee the, that's what's going to determine the outcome.

Whether or not it will occur is a function of the human will to learn the truth and to teach it to others. This involves enormous effort, enormous dedication, and most of all, enormous persistence. You can't give up. Continuous application of will is required. Continuous work. In alchemy, there's a saying, it's like the catchphrase for the alchemical tradition, Labore et Constantia. It means work and constancy. Continual effort. That's what's going to get this boulder up the mountain. That's it. And it's going to go kicking and screaming, folks, because of the level of calcification the human mind is at. I don't expect this to be an easy process. I'm not blowing smoke up your rear end and telling you, Hey, come on over and do the great work. It's going to be so much fun, it's going to be so easy, we're going to get it done real quick, and everything is going to be fine.

If I was some new age guru who was trying to get you all to believe what I'm saying, that's what I would tell you. Because all I'd be worried about is how popular I am and how many followers I can accrue. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in telling you how it really is. That doesn't make me popular. As a matter of fact, that makes me hated by a lot of people. Okay? This is not going to be easy.

A quantum shift has requirements. Quantum. The word quantum is derived from the Latin noun quantum. It's the same word in Latin as it is in English. Quantum in Latin means an amount of something. In order to tip the scales of truth and justice back to balance, a certain amount of people actually need to be doing the great work to help others to receive truth. If we don't have enough people doing that, those scales are not going to tip in the opposite direction. Got news for you. We need to hit a critical mass number. Numbers are required. The New Age movement wants to tell you, no numbers aren't required. A tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny portion can make great, great, great change happen. Nonsense.

It's not called a quantum shift for no reason. It's called a quantum shift because quantum means an amount. You need to put enough force on that scale to get the truth to tip in the other direction. If you don't have that amount, it's not going to tip. Alright?

So, individual behavioral choices, whether they are either based in harmony with natural law or opposition to natural law, they combine in their energy and effect and in the aggregate, meaning in the sum total, they influence the quality of the manifested shared human experience. That's how reality is created. We're not very contradictory to the New Age notion. Each individual is not creating their own reality. In the aggregate, humanity is creating, co-creating, the collective shared experience that we are all undergoing. We collectively create our shared experience. Not each individual creates the reality that everybody experiences.

Yeah, you do create a microcosmic aspect of how you experience your life, whether you're experiencing self-inflicted suffering, large amounts of it or not. That's how the laws of attraction work at an individuated level. But at a mass level, they work in the aggregate. We need a population who understands and lives in harmony with natural law. And numbers are required for that to happen.

This dynamic acts as a perfect expression of the principle of correspondence. As above, so below. As below, so above. As the individuated units of consciousness are co-creating reality, so the macrocosmic reality shall become and shall be experienced.

Decisively, contrary to the New Age view, in order for a quantum shift to take place, numbers are required. So what is the true great work? The true great work can only be performed after one has already realized the truth regarding natural law and brought oneself, one's own actions into alignment with natural law. That's when it begins. Because once you do that and you're no longer in that internal contradiction or opposition, that's when you can legitimately start teaching it to other people because you know it deeply enough and you've actually aligned your behavior to it.

So the true great work is what comes after that. And here's what it is. This is actually what the true great work is now. It is the arduous task of influencing other people to go through the very same process of change, of positive change in consciousness that you have gone through. It is to help them to realize that in supporting and condoning the legitimacy of authority and government, in other words, man's law, that what they have actually been supporting and condoning is the legitimacy of slavery, and that they were immoral for having done so.

Now that is hard work, because people don't want to hear this. They want to believe what they want to believe. They want to be true what they want to be true. They filter their perceptions through those lenses. In short, what the true great work comes down to, is to actually get people to abandon their religions, their false religions, really I should make this slide say. The false and dogmatic beliefs, which hold back the progress of consciousness by impeding the reception of truth and natural law. They're calcified religious belief systems. That's what has to be broken down and abandoned.

Carl Jung described the great work beautifully. I consider him a modern-day alchemist, as I consider many other teachers of the great work. He said, one does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. Making the darkness conscious. Not wishing for it to become conscious, not meditating upon it, by making it happen through an act of will. And that can only be done if enough are doing the great work. Okay?

This latter procedure that he's just described, he says, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular. So few people are doing this work. The answer is to actually become the teacher. I don't do this because I want a lot of people to be students and follow what I'm saying. I care less whether you follow me. Believe me, I'm telling you the wrong thing to do would be to follow me. That's a bad example. You follow me, you're going to go down a deep path of suffering for many, many years before you come out of it. It would be a bad choice.

I'm telling you to follow truth, to know truth. It has nothing to do with me. When people hear that's what the great work is to help change other people's minds, once you change your own, it's like this. Let me run away from that as fast as possible. Are you crazy? You want me to do what? That's the hardest thing there is to do. Exactly. That's why so few people are doing it. Many hands make light work. If we had more people involved in the effort, it might go smoother, it might go faster.

Jefferson said, educate and inform the whole mass of people. That is the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. Education is the answer. Researcher Donald McAlvaney said in his book toward a new world order in every declining civilization, there is a small remnant of people who adhere to the right against the wrong. Who recognize the difference between good and evil and who will take an active stand for the former against the latter. There is a small group who can still think and discern for themselves and who will courageously take a stand against the political, social, moral, and spiritual decay of their day. Brilliant.

The words that are attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and many people will never have heard this quote, he says, "...do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. We're going to talk about who the enemy really is. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

These are words attributed by Jesus, but what you want to put in place of Jesus is the word truth, the way, the truth, the light, knowledge, knowledge of natural law, Christ consciousness. He's telling you there are going to be people in your own family that aren't going to align themselves with right over wrong. They're going to continue to choose slavery. They're going to continue to advocate slavery. These aren't people who you want to continue to align yourself with if you have made an effort to truly explain what's really taking place.

See, this is the concept of true forgiveness and turning the other cheek. It doesn't mean turn the other cheek and continue to ignore evil and excuse evil indefinitely while it destroys you. It means you have to give people who you're close with and you have an affinity with more chances than you would give just somebody you don't know to learn the truth. It's like saying, because I really care about this person personally, I'm going to keep going back, keep going back, keep going back, and I'm going to keep hitting them with the truth. And eventually, if they come over to the side of truth and right, fine. But what he's saying here is eventually this spiritual war is going to go hot, so to speak. And the people, even who are closest to us, if they don't align themselves with right, are the people who are ultimately continuing the evil in the world. They're the real spiritual enemy.

What will this battle really be against, this spiritual war? Well, I say it will really actually be against inner demons that exist in the psyche of mankind. And these inner demons are egos that are hardened into what I've referred to as negative knowledge, emotional mind control and the fear of true freedom.

So negative knowledge is the concept that somebody already knows. They don't want to look at something because, hey, I already know what's really going on. It's the illusion of knowledge. The greatest enemy may not be ignorance, but rather the illusion of actual knowledge. And people don't have the truth. And not only don't they have the truth, so they're at zero there, right? They're at the zero point there because they haven't really started looking in the truth for themselves, but they're attached to all this stuff that isn't true.

So that puts them in the negative. They've got to do work to get back to zero of knowing nothing. That's why I call it negative knowledge. Got to do hard work to get back to a clean slate, to start taking in some good stuff. Many people are in that state, and the people who are in that state largely are the overly intellectual, the super left-brained, the left-brained prison folks.

Emotional mind control is the second inner demon. I encounter this all the time through people with my work. Many people don't have the thick skin to listen to somebody like me. And that's okay. That's all right. Again, what Art talked about is that in the ancient traditions, they talked about reserve the meat for the strong men and furnish the milk for the babies. I'm not here to convert the babies. I don't have the patience for that. I don't have the energy for that.

What I’m trying to do is get the other teachers ready who might have the energy and patience for that, because that’s not me. And I'm being 100% perfectly honest with you that's not me. I'm not here to do that. I'm hoping to bring some other people that are most of the way there, all the way there, so they can start doing that on a wider scale. They're going to be the people who are going to work with people like that, not me. I'm just being honest with you about it.

Emotional mind control comes in a couple of forms. Well, if this is unpleasant, the new age variant is this right here. If it's unpleasant, I don't want to hear it, I don't want to see it, and I certainly won't want to tell others about it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I'll just ignore it and it'll go away on its own. Well, what happens when you do that with any kind of a sickness or a problem? Does it get better? It gets worse.

The second form of emotional mind control is people have a problem hearing truth because they don't like or prefer the way it's delivered. I'm not going to stop delivering truth the way I deliver it. This is my style. I like my style personally. I don't think I have a problem at all in the way I present. I listen back to my presentations and I don't totally pat myself on the back, but I say, I did a damn good job there. I'm proud of how I did, personally, okay? I'm making an honest assessment about how I present.

And again, I realize my presentation style is mostly for the thick-skinned. It's not for the people with super delicate sensibilities. So be it. That's not really who I'm trying to reach. I'm trying to do vertical integration, not horizontal integration. You know, build up the community of people who really get it, and they can start propagating it to the masses.

This concept is about, you know, the attractive newscaster on the nightly news. She can whisper sweet nothings in your ear all night, with the blue frequencies behind her, you know, okay, and say 2 plus 2 equals 5. 2 plus 2 equals 5. And she's gonna get a lot of people to believe that nonsense, right, but the person who's actually telling you the truth that you might not like the sound of his voice. You might not like the harshness that he comes to you with the truth with the truth with.

He might be screaming through a bullhorn and saying hey, you're in danger. You are actively in danger. There is an imperative here. There is a time consideration here. You don't have all the time in the world to correct this. People say, well, I don't like the way he said that. That comes off as negative to me. I think he's fear mongering or making a bigger deal out of this than it is.

They're not interested in the content, the actual information. They're saying, the way that was said offended me. I don't prefer the sound of his voice or the tone he just took. Well, does that have any damn thing to do with whether the information was true or not? The people who are in this mind state are under emotional mind control. They believe you can determine the veracity of informational content based upon how it makes you feel. And this is a logical fallacy. That cannot be done. You cannot think with the emotions. And I'm not telling you to disregard the emotions. They're unbelievably important. They are our compass for morality in our lives. They're the compass through which we should set the direction of our behavior.

But you can't come to determine and analyze and break down what's true or not and make a filtering system based on just how the information made you feel when you heard it. OK, you have to actually think with the mind, with both hemispheres of the brain. With true intelligence to come to filter and determine what's true. OK, no matter how much anybody wants to, you know, give you that soft, sweet, pleasant, emotional voice. OK, that person is still lying to you. And no matter how much the person who comes with an abrasive, harsh, nasty or scratchy voice might keep telling you two plus two equals four and you don't personally like their tone. Guess what, folks? It still equals four at all times and places. That's the truth. No amount of pleasantry or wrapping up the lie is ever going to make this statement on the left here true ever.

But yet that's what people would rather prefer to hear if it's told to him in a nice, pleasant tone. Truth is belligerent, as I said at the beginning of the presentation. It is, by its very nature, at war with the forces of falsehood and deceit.

We literally believe that we are in the right to ignore a message of truth if the messenger is somehow distasteful to us. I would argue this to be a symptom of total madness. That's an anonymous quote I also found on a forum. And that's a great piece of wisdom, that's a gem of wisdom right there. It is total madness to disregard truth just because we don't like the way it was said. It's called emotional mind control. It's been a big part of my work that I've tried to explain to people.

Where does the fear of true freedom come from? All right, and this is going to lead into my future work, which is a whole other series of presentations. I'm going to go deeply into this in the future. I call it's very difficult to see here. There's actually a tree there. It's kind of in a deep red because I'm going to put some text over top of it. I should have started it in a more bright red and then faded into the background. But forgive that on this slide.

You can look it up here at the top of the tree, there's the leaves, all right? The leaves are one's refusal to own their own personal responsibility. Now, you would think, oh, that's way down at the root. No, that's the symptom that's manifesting up at the top of the tree, that's actually the leaves on the tree, the leaves and the twigs, right? Then we get down to the big branches in the trunk of the tree, we're getting closer to the heart of the real psychological issues that are at work driving the negative aspect of the problem. And this we've already talked about, self-loathing due to lack of self-respect.

Now, what am I really describing here? What have we actually been describing? What kind in people want to live in perpetual refusal to own personal responsibility because they have some nested traumatic issues that have led to self-loathing and lack of self-respect. What am I really describing there? What? Well, yes, it's a slave mindset, but there's something else that I'm describing. What kind of person is that? A child. Thank you.

We're talking about people who are psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually immature. They have not grown up. They have not accepted personal responsibility, which is a hallmark of true adulthood or maturity. And this is due to the trauma that they've undergone that's led to self-loathing, okay, and the lack of self-respect, which is why they don't want personal responsibility. They want to remain an eternal child. Now, let's find out what is at the root of this tree of evil. Because until we go into this space, into this causal factor of these other manifesting psychological conditions, we're not actually hitting the actual root of the problem.

If a child doesn't like themselves, they hate themselves, they feel they're not good enough, they're not worthy, they have all these imagined feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing, and that's expressing their refusal to grow up and take personal responsibility for themselves in their adulthood, what kind of trauma specifically has that child more likely than not, psychologically undergone.

They've gone through a specific type of childhood trauma. And I would argue that most people on earth have gone through this type of trauma. And that type of trauma is called abandonment. The human species is suffering from very deeply-seated parental abandonment issues that lie at the very core of the psychological condition that we call the human condition.

Until we deal with that nested psychological trauma that has been created through abandonment issues, we're not hitting the roots of the tree of evil. We're not getting down to the very core issue that needs to be understood. My future work, I'm going to be presenting this on December 12th in Philadelphia, for anybody who's in the Philadelphia area. It's going to be what I would call a synthesis, an explanatory synthesis of why this is the root psychological condition of humanity. I call it cosmic abandonment. And this is going to be one of the biggest, biggest aspects of the next part of my work. I think it’s going to really set my work apart from others in the truth and freedom community and the alternative research community.

Until we wrestle with those psychological abandonment issues, we're not getting to the heart of what's causing these other problems in the human psyche like self-loathing, the lack of the development of self-respect and the refusal to own the responsibility for one's own actions.

And I'm going to connect this with human origins. And I'm going to make the case that it has always been like that. It has always been like that. We have been children on this planet since we have been on this planet. And we have never actually psychically, psychologically, and emotionally and spiritually grown up because as a species we have undergone what I term cosmic abandonment. So that's going to be coming up in future aspects of my work.

What will be required on the part of those performing this great work? And you know it is like Sisyphus rolling that boulder up the hill. We just got to get it up to the top and give it that one last push so we don't have to keep doing it again. Who knows how many times we've already tried to do this and it's ended in failure.

We need the knowledge of the real enemy, the real enemy, okay? And we'll get to what that is. We need to devote ourselves to service to truth, not even service to humanity. I'm not saying that's not a great virtue to have and enact. I'm telling you we need to go beyond that. This isn't about service to me, you, or any other individual. It's about service to truth and principles first and foremost. And we need courage and persistence and then we need practical real-world skills.

The knowledge of the real enemy needs to ultimately come first. And this isn't it, folks. This priest class that goes and meets and has the rituals at Bohemian Grove, I'm not telling you they're not evil. I'm not telling you they're not psychopaths. I'm not telling you that we don't need people like that in the world. Okay, I'm telling you that in this spiritual war, this is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, insignificant, as far as numbers are concerned, fraction of the totality of the human population that could not possibly control the minds and the behaviors, and therefore the behaviors, of the masses of people without our compliance, without our ignorance.

So, while I'm not telling you I, you know, like these people, do I have respect for them as an opponent? Oh yeah, you damn well better believe I do. I don't underestimate these psychopaths. Not a bit. You want to know why? I worked with them. I know what their will is like. I know what their intellect is like. And I'm telling you, don't underestimate either one. I'm telling you, don't underestimate their care. They don't have, like I said, they don't have care in the terms of compassion and the normal range of human emotions like we do. But don't think that means they don't have care. They deeply care about what they're enacting, what their agenda is. They have the will to carry it out and they're not slowing down. They're unified. They're on a unified front. They're on the same page. Believe it. Know it. I'm not telling you that from, like I said, reading about it or book knowledge. I've been around these psychopaths. I haven't specifically been to this psychopathic gathering, but I've been around them enough.

That's not the real enemy, that is. The sleeping masses, hypnotized masses, they're your enemy. People will say, the Illuminati enslaves humanity. No, it doesn't. Humanity enslaves the real Illuminati. Think about that for a little bit.

Do those psychopaths in the last slide really enslave us? And first of all, people who call them the Illuminati, they're no such thing. Illuminati means that you're enlightened, the illuminated ones. You want to know who's the enlightened ones? They're in this room. We're the Illuminati. The people who know what I'm talking about here are the Illuminati. They're the illuminated ones. They're the ones with the light. They're the ones with the real knowledge.

They want to refer to themselves as the enlightened ones. They might have the dark sun, they don't have the true sun, you know? They're imbued with the black sun. That means it's all intellectual knowledge and then you're applying it for the totally immoral, wrong reasons, which is to control and manipulate other people. There's nothing illuminated about that.

So, the real Illuminati, they're not the enslavers of humanity. The dark Illuminati are not the enslavers of humanity either. Humanity enslaves itself, and they're enslaving the true Illuminati, the teachers who are actually living under the conditions of slavery because they're here with the ignorant people. That's who's being enslaved by humanity. Humanity are the enslavers. And this is another thing that's highly unpopular. People don't want to hear it. They want to think we're powerless victims. There's no choice involved here. This is something that's just being done to us.

And I'm here to tell you, free will is always in existence. And it's a matter of changing one's thoughts and therefore changing one's choices. And that's our own personal responsibility that can never be given away or shirked or shunned. You’re always responsible for what we’re doing. Service to truth is required. Truth itself is eternal. Can never be destroyed. But you know what? Humanity can be destroyed. We can be destroyed when we refuse to act in service to truth as her defenders.

People say, oh, truth doesn't need to be defended. Nonsense. Truth needs to be defended at all times and places because the attack on it never-ending and non-stop, continuous. And if we don't come to Her defense, you know what happens? The voice of untruth and deception and evil and mind control rules the day. And the voice of truth doesn't get heard, because the truth itself doesn't have a physical voice in the physical domain.

You know, we have to be its mediums, and we have to be its voice. It's possible for us to co-create a positive outcome in this scenario, but this can only be accomplished if we care enough to learn the truth ourselves and then we develop the courage to continuously speak it to other people until our voice of truth becomes a non-stop chorus like the voice of lies and deception and mind control has been for millennia on this planet.

Courage is required. Samuel Adams encapsulated this brilliantly. He said, The liberties of our countries are worth defending at all hazards. It is our duty to defend them against all attacks. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without any struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.

If you love wealth greater than liberty, if you love the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, then go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen.

Now that's about as powerful as it gets as far as I'm concerned. Because he's telling you if your allegiance isn't to the truth and freedom, I don't want to know you. I don't want to know you. We hope history forgets that you ever were with us at this time and place in history, because you deserve to be forgotten. That's what he's saying here. I couldn't agree more.

Persistence is required, constant effort. We are the actual vehicles by which truth operates in the world. Therefore, it is our shared responsibility at this time to help to awaken others by continuously speaking the truth, even if we feel burdened by this task, even if we feel no one is listening, and even if it makes all involved in this process feel uncomfortable. It's not about feeling comfort, folks. It's not about being complacent. It's about shaking things up, making people feel uncomfortable. Who said, whoever told anybody that the truth would make you all warm and fuzzy inside? Whoever told anybody that? Why do people want to believe that? Whoever said that that was the case?

The truth is horrible and yet needs to be embraced as a lover, okay? With dedication to it, even in its full horror. Thomas Paine, who I feel is the most enlightened person on the continent at the time of the American Revolution, personally, he's one of my personal heroes, walked in the vicinity where I walk sometimes now. He said, these are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country. But he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

I think he was one of the true anarchists that was living amongst us in the colonial days. Words attributed to the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, he said, there are only two mistakes that one can ever make on the path to truth, not starting and not going all the way, all the way: I wrap up a lot of my podcasts with this quote. I love it so much.

It's about persistence. It's not about saying hey, I went this far and now I'm uncomfortable to see the rest of the picture. I made it three-quarters up the mountain. That's far enough. Let me set up my base camp here. I'll pitch my tent and I'm staying here. No farther. I don't want to see the peak. Okay. Until we become fully enlightened and go all the way to the summit, don't expect things to change. Don't expect them to get better. The truth has to be taken in its fullness.

We need real world practical skills. You know, this isn't just about, oh, I know this now and I don't actually need any skills. OK, to communicate truth, skill is required. Knowledge is required to reach a good amount of people. Yeah, you can just talk to the people around you. You can communicate to a small fraction of people that way. I'm not saying don't do that. Even if you don't have these other skills. I'm saying if you want to get it out in a big way, to the masses of people, and in the new form of media, which is doing things like this, through the correct and positive and empowering use of technology.

People want to say, oh, technology is not, there's no role for it, we've got to get rid of technology. Technology is a thing that improves life at every scale and level. It's a tool, it's how it's used, exactly. We're using technology for a powerful and enlightening purpose right now. And that's its intended use. It's to serve humanity and to serve truth. OK, so real world skills in the technological era, I feel are absolutely required. And here's some of them.

You need good organizational skills. You know, like, hey, Art and Chris did this right today. They set this up right. I've seen people set things up real badly. I've seen it done the correct way, which is this way. And Richard and Lisa, they've done a brilliant job here getting this all on film and you know that this will be going online and reaching a ton, a real wider base of people as a result. Alright

So you need organizational skills? Some people are better than that with others. I'm pretty good with organization. I feel I have good powerful organization skills. Communication skills. You need to have a way with words. You could have a good vocabulary. You need to organize words correctly. You need to be able to communicate concepts in often a very linear fashion to people so that they can readily absorb it easily. You know?

If you're all over the place, you're not going to get the concept. You need graphic design skills in many cases. You know? I couldn't build a presentation like this without my background in graphic design. And, you know, thank God I have it. You know, it's like I got jobs like I did in the past and sort of they prepared me for everything that I was going to do in my future. Synchronistically worked out like that.

But you know, you got at least I don't know how to lay out a flyer folks. How many people here can lay out a simple flyer? That's awesome. I'm so highly impressed by that. I'm telling you, I've asked people that in other presentations, like two people raise their hand. That's awesome, okay? You should be proud of that.

Presentation skills, like putting something like this together. How many people have basic presentation skills with a computer? All right, a little less, but not bad either. I'm impressed, okay?

Audio skills, you know? Sometimes you gotta work with audio, podcast audio, et cetera. Video, video editing skills. I know Richard's a master at that.

Website development. This was laborious in the past, just 10 years ago. We have free open source content management systems now that make this almost a breeze. It's just somewhat, little bit of a learning curve, but once you get there, hey, you're off to the races. You can maintain multiple websites then, right? So how many people can build a simple website by a show of hands? That's also awesome. I mean, you know, kudos, whoever hates that word, you know, whatever. But I'm telling you, that's impressive for an amount of people in one room to have all those skills. I'm impressed. It's very rare. All right.

Networking skills. I mean, literally like people skills. I'm weak on this. All right. I can do it. I don't like doing it. I don't like marketing and promotion either. I'm not a good marketer of my work. I'm trying to get better at that, but I need some work with that. And maybe there's people who can help me with that. But, you know, I have a good chunk of all these skills. I could do all of them. I'm not so good on the last two, I need more work. But if most of us don't have these skills, we're not going to be reaching the optimum number of people.

We need to become the new media that is dedicated to truth. And put that out there for other people's consumption and other people's edification. We are the answer. We are the illuminators, the ones who will help to enlighten other people once we've taken this knowledge into ourselves. And that's only the beginning, folks. You got to put it back out there. I tell people the story. I had all this knowledge for a long time, sitting on it, doing nothing with it, just taking more in. I want to make sure I got it all right. I want to make sure I got the whole picture. Go to a meeting in the state of Virginia. Virginia, virgin, the goddess, okay? Care. Very synchronistic.

A woman comes up to me, she says, you’re one of the most knowledgeable people I've come across, what are you doing? I said, what do you mean, what am I doing? She said, I mean, what are you doing with all the knowledge you have? You're doing lectures, presentations, videos, audio, what are you doing? I'm not doing any of those things. I'm taking a lot more in, downloading a lot more videos. She goes like this, and it's just so matter-of-factly and harshly, what makes you think you have the right to do that? What makes you think you can keep taking all of this in, all of this in, all of this in, and not put any of it back out? What makes you think you even have a right to do that? It was like somebody hit me in the face.

She said, this was her phrase. She said, I'll never forget it. You're Niagara Falls in a water balloon. You're taking all this in and all this pressure, pressure, pressure building up, it's got no outlet, it's going to burst. She said, you have to put an outlet valve on that knowledge and let it flow out of you and go out to others and then more will come in. Right now, there's no pressure release valve. You're Niagara Falls in a water balloon.

It's like a truck ran me over, you know? Literally like I got hit by a truck. I came up with the idea for What on Earth is Happening like a couple weeks after that because that's all I could think about. All I could think about is what she said. It kept echoing in my head. What makes you think you have a right to do that and didn't say it nice, like said it like, you know, you're not doing the right thing here. Get up off your ass and do something, that was the tone that was said in, and I totally appreciate it. You know.

Who knows man, if that wasn't said to me at that time, I might not be doing any it might not have done a thing, you never know. I like to think at some point I would have, but…

At the crossroads, this is the last section, then we'll get to some questions. Quote by R. Buckminster Fuller, the dark ages still reign over all of humanity and the depth and persistence of this domination are only now becoming clear. This dark ages prison has no steel bars, no chains or locks. Instead, it is locked by misorientation and built upon misinformation. Caught up in a plethora of conditioned reflexes and driven by the human ego, both warden and prisoner attempt meagerly to compete with God. All are intractically skeptical of what they do not understand. We are powerfully imprisoned in these dark ages simply by the terms in which we have been conditioned to think.

The conditioning of our thought is what has kept us in this prison. And only now, the actual depth of the dark ages that we are in are starting to become clear to some people. We are in the time that I call the Apocalypse. And actually, I want to start rephrasing this. I want to actually explain to people we're not in the Apocalypse anymore. We are now in post-apocalyptic times. We are living in post-apocalypse. The apocalypse has already occurred. It's over. We are living in the time after the apocalypse. And what do I mean by that?

Well, we've got to look at the meaning of the word. From the Greek prefix, apo, which means away from, off of, or removed from. And then the Greek verb, calyptein, which means to cover or to conceal or to hide. So, apocalypse means literally to take the cover off of, to remove the veil from or to take something out of hiding. Well, ladies and gentlemen, another big surprise. The veil has already been lifted. The truth is already out there. It's out.

The truth about what's going on here and has been going on here on the earth is out. It has been de-occulted, not just by me, by many, many other researchers. Okay? There's a laundry list of them out on my website and I talk about in the podcasts, it's all out there. It literally means to reveal or to take out of hiding.

The apocalypse is the great revealing of the truth to the masses of people, or it is what I simply refer to as the process of de-occulting the truth, removing it from being hidden.

What humanity needs to do is make what I call the cosmic apology. And I'll get to what that means. See these words right here? I was wrong. That's the most powerful phrase that can ever be said by a human being. The second most powerful phrase I would say, I would acknowledge, is I love you. But this is more powerful than even that. Because this is about internal change, not just a dynamic or an interaction or a relationship with another. This is about an internal metamorphosis. When you say these words, this is the phrase of all power. No is the word of all power by which we reclaim our power, but this is the phrase of power.

Okay, the word apology comes from Greek, apo meaning away from, off of, or removed from, as we've just seen, and the Greek noun logos. Logos means word, okay? So, hence, an apology literally means to go away from the word, or to give back the word, okay? You are taking it back. So, if I make an apology, I said something, I didn't really mean it or I want to retract it. An apology means let me take back what I just said. OK, I'm taking it back. I'm removing the word. All right. I'm going away from the former word or phrase that I just said. That's an apology in standard colloquial English understanding sense. All right.

Let's look at what I call the cosmic apology, and where this term really comes from, what it really means. See, the Greek noun logos, which is written there in Greek script, which means word in Greek, it comes from the Greek verb lego. Alright?

Lego in Greek means to speak or to say. It's where we get the English word lexicon from. The Latin noun lex, legis, is related to the Greek verb lego, to say. Again, because who put the laws into manifestation? The Creator did. How did the Creator manifest the physical universe and all the laws? Spoken into existence. Reality and truth are spoken into existence by the power of vibration, the vibratory power of voice. Okay?

So, the Creator created the universe by the phrase fiat lux in Latin. It means, let there be light. Okay?

The Latin noun lex legis, meaning law, is actually derived from this Greek verb lego, meaning to speak or to say. God, and not man, is the logos, the author of law, the one who spoke the law into existence at the creation of the universe, because natural law is the boundary conditions of the manifested reality called the physical universe. These are the boundary conditions which govern it.

Humanity's work is to learn to listen to God's word, not man's word, not man's law. Natural law, spiritual law, moral law, God's law, karmic law. I don't care what you want to call it. Call it whatever you want. Okay?

Consequentialism. This is the truth. That's what... You want to talk about what all these phrases really mean? It all comes back to the word truth. That's it. It's the truth about what is, what's operating here. And humanity needs to align its behavior to this law, God's law, natural law. Without alignment of its behavior to natural law, don't expect a thing to change here. Expect it to rapidly grow worse.

Humanity must make a cosmic apology by giving the word, which means the authorship of creating law. So we think we're the authors, we're the authorities. That's what author means, right? Author. What's another word for author? This is just a quick, this is how mind control through words works, right? An author is a what? A writer. Well, what are you saying there? An author who has authority, they are authoring something, is a writer. They are a writer. R-I-G-H-T dash E-R. Okay? They're making it into a right. This is what you hear when you hear the word authority. You hear author, which means a writer, meaning one who makes rights, which means someone who believes they're God. That's all this really comes down to. In a nutshell, we're up against a class of people who believe that they can be God and own and rule everybody else. That's all the dark occult comes down to, folks. People who believe they're God. Sick, psychopathic lunatics who think they're God and are going to rule the hell of the prison world that they're going to create, that they call their dark new world order.

We need to give the Word back. That's what an apology is, and who it needs to be given back to is the Creator of the universe because that's the author of the law. That's its rightful owner. The Word doesn't belong to us, folks. The Word belongs to God. That's why it says at the beginning of the biblical text, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. You know? That's what the Logos is. Natural law. God is law. You want the best definition I could ever give you for the word God? Law.

People don't want to look at it like that. Very few people ever look at it like that. That's what the force of creation is. It's natural law. It's how we co-create our reality, whether we do it consciously or unconsciously. This apology is accomplished when we open our minds and hearts to truth and we start saying the lost word, no, to evil, to the presence of evil in our lives. This is an initiate inside what was known as the Jed, or the Jed pillars, depending on how certain people pronounce it.

And these Jed Pillars represented stability and enlightenment. And they represent the two principles, the sacred feminine principle of non-aggression and the sacred masculine principle of self-defense. The Initiate is the enlightened one who has incorporated and bridged both pillars and has come to the place of cosmic illumination, which is represented by the winged disc of Ma'at in the Chemesian tradition, which is over the lintel between the two pillars.

That winged disc of Ma'at, Ma'at was considered a great mother goddess in the Chemesian, the ancient Egyptian traditions. She was the force. She was a personified deity. The ancient Chemesians didn't actually worship a physical woman. It's not what this was. It was the personification of truth and justice and order and natural law that was encapsulated as the sacred feminine essence.

And she was above all the other deities in the pantheon of Egyptian deities, of Chemesian deities. Ma, there was no god or goddess higher. And how they looked at alignment with Ma'at is if you wanted to have order and you wanted to avoid chaos, you learned the teachings of Ma'at because she was the goddess of justice and she was the goddess of righteousness. She was the goddess that brought order if you aligned yourself to her teachings, and her teachings were natural law.

So that's what this is here. This is saying we need to take away the word. It's not saying remain silent and don't use your voice. It's not what it's ever been saying. This is a symbolic allegory for the apology. Right? You know what else the G in the middle of the compasses and square is? Apollo G. The sun, the light, the generative principle. We need to make the Apollo G. That's what the G in the middle of the compasses or square, in allegory, also represents, because one of the big deities, the Greek deities that is often kind of exemplified in the Freemasonic tradition is Apollo. He was a sun god, and he was a corollary to Horus in the Egyptian tradition, and Jesus in the Christian tradition, and Mithra in the Persian tradition, and many other sun gods that represented truth and light. All right.

So that's the middle way, the middle pillar. That's what the initiate represents. I started this presentation with the slide before we begin. Now we have begun and it's up to you to take it further. What you'll do with this knowledge is entirely up to you.

See, this is a painting by Alex Gray that shows the worldview schism. Are we going to stay embedded in the left brain and in other forms of imbalance and we're going to create the negative worldview? Right? Or we're going to live in harmony with natural law? Which can create this path, when we incorporate the creative and nurturing and sacred feminine aspect of our beings.

Natural law, living in harmony with it, can only lead to these conditions. Freedom, peace, prosperity, the continuation of our species, our actual physical survival, and our evolutionary progress in consciousness. That's what living in harmony with natural law leads to. Conversely, living in opposition to natural law will get us this side of the world tree. It'll bring this world, this hellish world of chaos and destruction. Because living in opposition to natural law can only lead to these states. Control, enslavement, war, chaos, evolutionary stagnation, and ultimately the extinction of our species.

Which rule we choose? You know, that's still up in the air. I can't tell you that. Only each individual can make that decision for themselves, and then that will play out in the aggregate, in the mass consciousness, the numbers.

Thomas Jefferson said, a free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and this was also embedded in the Declaration of Independence. The laws of nature and of nature’s God, and not as the gift of their magistrates.

John Locke said, the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. Former Grand Master of the Order of the Rose Cross, the Rosicrucian tradition, Francis Bacon said, nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed.

If we want the forces of the cosmos on our side, we have to learn and adhere to the principles of natural law. If we do not align our behavior to that, nature will not stand with us. It will continuously stand against us, and it will itself create more strife and suffering in our lives. And we certainly won't command it. We won't command its forces with things like free energy used for any positive purpose. It will only be used for destructive purposes.

The psychologist Alfred Adler said, there is a law that man should love his neighbor as himself. And he's referring, of course, here to the golden rule. In a few hundred years, it should be as natural to mankind as breathing or the upright gate. But if he does not learn it, he must perish. And you know, folks, I would really hope this is going to take less than a few hundred years, but based on where we're at I'm not so sure, you know.

I think we could do it a lot faster than that if we accept the key that's been shown here today, that as I said before, has the power to unlock all the locks on all the doors to all the cages, and that's what the knowledge of natural law comprises.

Will we make the choice to climb the ladder of consciousness through an act of our own free will, choice and effort? It's not a simple climb. I mean, it's a difficult climb. It's not overly complicated to learn these concepts, to learn these truths. It involves abandoning many things that we've already been conditioned with that don't serve who we are. Okay, I'm not telling you it's going to be easy. All right. It involves a lot of deep introspective work.

But if we do it, we can step out of the prison that we've imposed upon ourselves by balancing the sacred feminine and masculine forces within each one of us. And by recognizing our own inherent sovereignty, and that there is no legitimacy, and never has been any legitimacy to slavery, and control, and the external rulership of human beings as subjects.

That recognition of sovereignty has to go hand in hand with our knowledge of natural law. It's a totally integrated component of it. This was the title slide, this card, this tarot card was on the title slide.

When you understand, and I've talked about this in some of my work online, when you understand the deep connection to the tarot tradition and other mystery tradition teachings, specifically its very deep interwoven relationship to the Kabbalistic tradition of the Middle Eastern mystery traditions. You understand that this card right here actually represents the will of creation and what creation itself, what the mind of the universe itself ultimately wants to manifest in physical reality. Not in some other worldly dream world or fantasy realm or spiritual reality that is to come or not come. Right here in the physical domain, which is not separate and distinct from the spiritual domain, they are one and the same.

This card is known as the Justice card. And it's based on the Latin word, jus, which means right or law. Okay, that's where we get the English word justice. This card represents balance between the pillars, as you see on the right side of the king, holding the sword of truth in hand and the scales of truth and justice have been perfectly balanced and are in the other hand, and it represents sovereignty, and it represents alignment with natural law, and most of all, it represents alignment with truth and the manifestation of order.

That can only happen when we align our behaviors to the principles of natural law. Only then will we see the manifestation that the universe itself is wishing for us and trying to help us create, which is justice and order. If we let go of the things that are holding us back and break our mental chains of bondage, we can create a world that is based in actual, real freedom. It is possible. I'm not telling you it's not going to be arduous work or a difficult journey, but it can be done. OK.

If we choose to do that, we're going to see advances and things that are going to be created, that the world is going to look so drastically different if we go down that middle path to the truth and to order and to justice, through the understanding of natural law and actually applying it and living it in our lives, that the changes we're going to experience are going to be so positive and so transformative that we can scarcely even imagine what the world will be like on the other side of that work, on the other side of that transformation.

Will that be done? Maybe. Maybe not. The answer will come from what you see in the reflection of that device right there. That's what will determine it. Nothing else. It's up to each individual.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for your kind attention.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Finally, this right here, Lex Rex simply means the law is king. The law is king. Lex Rex. That's that's my final slide. Thanks so much. Let's do some question and answer. How much time do we have, by the way? Did I run way over? Did I leave some? Oh, my God. Hey, I'm very happy that the venue allowed us to go over by this much. Okay. And that they didn't just come in and say, you got to get out of here.

So I really did want to leave time for questions, but I think it would be I don't know if it would be really just you know intrusive and ignorant at this point to just stay even beyond this time. So maybe we should start packing it up all right. I apologize for going so far over. I think the infer I think the information speaks for itself and is worth it. And I hope I was clarified on that.

Listen I'll tell you what. If anybody has specific questions, since there's no time for questions, let me just get this across. Since there's no time for questions, I'll make a personal effort, and I rarely tell people I will respond to email questions. Tell me specifically that you attended this seminar here today in an email. And if you have a specific question, get to the specific question quickly in your email, and I will make the time over the next few weeks to try to respond to everybody. I promise that. How's that? Does that sound OK? All right. All right.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you guys all so much for being here, for staying for the whole thing. Thank you. I'm very impressed with you guys today. That takes a tremendous effort of will and attention. So thank you. Thank you guys so much.

<- Previous

Share What on earth is happening (WOEIH)->transcriptions for study

What on earth is happening (WOEIH) -> transcriptions 4 study

Discussion about this post