Streetwise spirituality part 2

There sometimes seems to be a bug that suppresses the picture-in-picture (PIP) feature when accessing this website indirectly through a link. The PIP feature is normally available in the bottom right corner of the above video.

Also, the substack app seems to suppress the PIP feature much of the time, so I don’t suggest using the substack app, but rather directly access this site through a web browser, WITHOUT clicking a link. Simply type whatonearthishappening.wtf into the browser URL and PIP should work.

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.

---

¹

APPENDICES OF CONTENTS (AOC)

(Similar to “Table of Contents” but appears at the bottom of this document for navigation purposes)

² BALANCE OF SACRED FEMININE/MASCULINE

And we left off in the previous section talking about moral relativism and how that's really going to keep the dynamic on our planet the way it is. So with that having been said, I'm going to jump into some more of the topics regarding what it really means to be awake.

This past section that we just completed here with an explanation of what moral relativism is and what it basically brings into manifestation, has been all about natural law. And a big, a huge part of what understanding natural law means is about balancing what I call the two principles or pillars of enlightenment.

³

(00:00:48) So, being awake means knowing and living both of the pillars or the principles of enlightenment: both the sacred feminine principle of non-aggression and the sacred masculine principle of self-defense.

And this is actually a part of what it means to understand natural law as well.

To understand these two principles we have to become very, very, very clear about a specific dichotomy or difference that is very real and exists in the natural world. And when people talk about these two concepts, they often speak about them as if they are equivalents of each other. And I can absolutely assure you they are nothing of the kind. They are not equivalents. They are actually, people use them interchangeably often and that's a complete logical fallacy and an error. In fact, these dynamics that you're seeing here on the screen are complete diametric opposites to each other and should never be spoken about interchangeably or as if they are the same thing.

⁴

(00:02:00) Force and violence are opposites from each other.

Violence is something we should never ever be engaged in, but that does not mean that there aren't times when there is an appropriate usage and a rightful usage of defensive force. And force should always be used in a defensive capacity only, not for aggression.

So violence, the key thing to keep in mind when you try to understand what violence actually is, not what people say that it is, is that this key thing right here, it is the immoral initiation of physical power to do something, to coerce, to compel or to restrain. It's always immoral and it's always initiated.

Violence means that you started something that you didn't have the right to start. So let me give two examples here. I'll explain the difference between force and violence and then I want to give two clear examples that illustrate the dichotomy, the clear difference.

Force is the capacity for a human being to do work or cause physical change in the physical domain that we live in. It's energy, it is strength, it is active power applied in the world. It's ultimately action that is in harmony with morality and natural law because it does not violate the rights of other beings. That's what violence comes from. The word violence comes from to violate. We are violating someone's rights when we employ violence.

Force we have the right to take it. We possess the right to use force. And this includes acting in a defensive capacity when we are accosted with violence. Violence however is always immoral and therefore one never actually possesses a right to use violence. So you can't say, I had a right to do that violent behavior. There's no such thing as a right to do violent behavior. If you're doing violent behavior, you're violating someone else's rights, which you have no right to do. So, two examples, okay?

⁵

(00:04:19) Let's say, let's say there's two children who are in trouble in school because they were engaged in fisticuffs.

One child was accosted near the lunchroom in the hallway by another child, and the child who was acting as a bully demanded some of the lunch money of child 1, and said give me this lunch money or I'm going to do such and such to you. Well, that's a threat of violence. And if the other child then said, no, I'm not giving you my lunch money, it's mine, you don't have a right to steal that from me, just because you're bigger than me and you're threatening me, you know, with hitting me or whatever. Child number 2, okay, has a right to say no, first and foremost, and if child number 1 then were to turn that toward a violent encounter, meaning he tried to push or shove or hit the other child, child 2 would have a right to physically defend himself with the use of force in that situation.

Now, you'll see the examples where a teacher comes over when these two kids had been maybe possibly going at each other after an incident like that took place and they'll say something to the effect of, you know, the child number two might try to explain, here's why I defended myself and the teacher might say something to the effect of, I don't care who started it, you're both doing something that you shouldn't be doing, you're both being violent.

That teacher would be incorrect, okay, it's hard for that is, as some people to understand or comprehend. Only one act of violence had taken place, and that is by child number one coercing child number two and then using physical power to continue to try to coerce that child into giving up what was not rightfully the property of child number one.

So it's who started it does matter. As a matter of fact, that's really the only thing that matters. So when a teacher or a parent says to a child, it doesn't make a difference who started it. They're completely wrong. All that matters in an encounter that involves physical force is who started it. Because the violent one is the person who immorally initiated that physical power. The person who responded with defensive capacity of force was in the right to respond that way. Once that person didn't respond to the word no.

I would say you can tell an attacker or a person who is being violent to you one time, stop, no, I don't agree to this. And then if you use defensive force after that, that is within your rights to do so. And it's another thing, people have been well domesticated to not understand. Well domesticated.

And it's a big, huge part of the New Age movement, you know, propagating this notion that there's never a right to defend oneself physically, physically, in the physical world. Remember, the theme here today is spirit in the flesh. Not often some wonderland or fantasy world with our head in the stars, but having your feet firmly anchored on the ground and understanding what does happen here matters. Understanding yes we are spiritual beings, but we are having an experience in the physical domain that matters.

So this simple chart illustrates this difference very clearly in that when you're using force in a defensive capacity, that's only when you are responding to a situation where someone had already immorally initiated violence against you. That's when you have that right to use defensive force and that right always exists. Violence, once again, you never possess the right to take it because it is always starting something that you had no right to begin. That's the key point to keep in mind. Violence is the initiation of physical power in an immoral capacity. Now, here's another example.

You say to people, consider the sport of boxing. Is boxing violent? And most people will say, yeah, boxing is very violent. And I'll tell you, no, boxing is not violent at all. There's no violence engaged in the sport of boxing at all. Boxing is a forceful competition between two willing participants. You look at the action that's involved in boxing, tell me where the coercion of free will comes into the picture. Do both participants agree to be there?

Dog fighting is violent. Those dogs don't have that choice. They're thrown in there and made to perform that behavior essentially by putting them together in an unnatural way. That's violence. People doing that to animals when they have no right to do that.

Boxing, however, is two people using their own free will capacities to decide, we're both going to participate in this. So if rights aren't violated, violence hasn't occurred. And this is the danger of the obfuscation of the definitions of words. Most people cannot tell you the difference between these two things, they think they're equivalent. And hence, when somebody even uses that term boxing is violent, this further obfuscates the difference in people's minds. So it would be a very, very difficult thing to decondition people from saying boxing is violent, but to know it in your mind, it is not. It is a willful engagement in a participation of a competition that involves the usage of force by both sides. But since no one's rights are being violated in that competition, it is not violent.

The two pillars of enlightenment are about understanding both the sacred feminine principle of non-aggression and the sacred masculine principle of self-defense. No enlightened or awakened human being only has a halfway understanding of these. The understanding has to be total, it has to be complete on both sides, on both principles, for someone to consider themselves truly awake.

The sacred feminine or non-aggression principle is the first pillar of enlightenment. It states do not engage in violence, very simply. Can't get any simpler than that, because violence is always immoral, you never have a right to engage in it. In other words, do not immorally initiate the non-rightful use of physical power to coerce, constrain, or compel the rightful physical behavior or free will choice of another sentient being. That is the non-aggression principle. Don't attack someone else, don't stop someone else from engaging in their behavior if their behavior wasn't violent.

Now that has to be, most people who are of a more religious mindset or a new age mindset grasp this one, they get it, and they usually teach that one to other people as well. So they don't have a problem with that one. But many people have a problem with the second part of this, which is the sacred masculine principle of self-defense.

And there's a reason that this is so, something that is so ingrained in the population, because dominators, controllers, the people who claim that there are authorities, want to claim that they have a 100% monopoly on the usage of physical force, that no one else may engage the usage of physical force in a defensive capacity, as a right which they naturally possess, that you have to defer to someone else and beg them to do that for you if you're accosted by violence.

The second pillar of enlightenment is the sacred masculine principle, also called the principle of self-defense. This principle states that sentient beings have the inherent right to use force to defend themselves from violence that is conducted upon them by another. Inherently, you possess that right already. Every person here possesses that right. If someone were to start treating you violently, attacking you, using aggression against you, coercing you, trying to put you under duress or threat of violence and you did not comply with their will, you have a right to physically defend yourself.

I would say you first have the right to say no to that attack, and then if the attack continues, then you have a right to put it down by whatever amount of force required to do that. So, halfway understanding about either of these principles will not result in freedom. Anybody who is only understanding of one half of this equation is still asleep. They're still unconscious. And I look at two large groups of people that don't understand half the equation.

So you have what I call the My Freedom Movement crowd. These are the people that advocate supposedly for freedom, but really it's all about their personal interests. It's about my country, my political party, etc. It's not about freedom for everybody. It's not about freedom from suffering for all beings. It's not about freedom from ignorance. It's about what are my interests? I support that and if I am stopped from somehow doing that, then now I become an activist. Not because I'm here to do what's right and support natural law rights, because many of them don't even understand that.

So they often leave out the non-aggression principle, the sacred feminine principle, because you'll see these people still advocating for imperialism and war and aggression in other places that serve American interests. So they're leaving out compassion toward others in many cases because those others happen not to be just like them.

So I don't call them the Freedom Movement, I call them the My Freedom Movement. They're very different than the Freedom Movement, which we don't really have one. The opposite side, and that would be of course, we're talking about left brain imbalance in those individuals, right? Now, you see the right brain imbalance manifested in, of course, the New Age movement.

The New Age movement are other half-wayers that leave out the sacred masculine principle of standing up for your rights, standing up for your inherent right to defend yourself, saying no to violence, and using defensive force if necessary to defend yourself from it. These people want to leave that out of the equation and say, no, it's always about being passive. If you're defending yourself with force, you're no better than the person who engaged in violence. Really?

I'm exercising a right, an inherent right, but I'm no better than the person that just immorally initiated coercive violence? How does that make any logical sense? So this halfway understanding needs to go. You have to get both of those principles or you're not all the way there. And it's a very difficult thing because so many people are trapped in different illusory mindsets that deliberately wall them off from the complete understanding. Both of these principles have to be in effect. That's what real enlightenment looks like.

It means you're not engaged in violence at all. It means you're not going to conduct it and you're not going to take it either. It's called do no harm but take no shit. That's what real enlightenment is about. Defensive force is not violence. It is a right. It is a natural, inherent right.

So if this thug accosts me on the street with a handgun and I happen to be carrying my own, all I would have to do is ask him one time, Stop, you have no right to do what you're doing. And then if he refused to stop and I beat him to the draw, that's my right. I don't have to choose that right. I could allow him to continue to do what he's doing. That's also a right. I think it doesn't make much sense. I think you're not really engaged in any true...

See, I don't think you're really engaged in any true self-love if you would just allow violence to be conducted upon you unchecked and unanswered. I don't think that involves real self-respect. People always give me the argument that, well, you're so attached to things that you would shoot somebody over trying to rob your things. No, I'm not attached to things at all. I'm not attached to material possessions at all. It's not about the material possession. It's about someone just threatened my life, which isn't theirs, it doesn't belong to them, you know? That they would care so much about things that they're going to put my life in the balance by pointing a weapon capable of killing somebody at my face or body? And that action's going to go unchecked? You know, that doesn't make much common sense to me.

But would it be a right to just let it go? Yeah it would be a right because you’re not harming someone you had no right to harm, but would also taking that person out, if they refused to stop, be a right? Yes it would. Because I'm not harming someone that is undeserving of harm. That person has abdicated their rights to remain unharmed once they've performed an action like that.

Therefore, I have a right to respond defensively with whatever amount of force would be required to put that action down. And I know that is right. I'm not asking you to believe my position, I'm telling you that's the way it actually is in reality. I know that truth. People who are awake know that is a truth, because they have integrated the sacred masculine in with the sacred feminine principle of non-aggression. They need to be wed. They need to be wed in sacred union. That is the sacred union of alchemy, right there.

It's not about blending metals, it's not about even blending mystical forces or anything like that. Alchemy is about the marriage between those two sacred principles and bringing them into perfect union and balance with each other, such that you are not aggressing against others and you are not willing to accept aggression upon yourself. That's what real self-love and self-respect is about.

So does violent behavior suddenly become a quote-unquote right when government does it? Does that somehow make it a right? Can people delegate violence to a group of individuals and then somehow magically it turns into a right when it was a wrong a second ago? When government wages theft through taxation, coercion through taxation, that doesn't somehow equal violence? If they try to shut down free speech and assembly... This happened in the state of Pennsylvania, where I'm from. Right there. Okay?

People gathered to protest the G20 conference coming into Pittsburgh. And they, the city of Pittsburgh, with the police, the whole city council, in collusion with the police of that state, and every one of them went along with it like good Nazis, shut down free speech in the whole city, saying, we are suspending the right to assemble, no one can be on the street and protest, no one can be on the street and speak. And they used LRAD cannons, which is long range acoustical device, which means sound so strong it's capable of breaking the human eardrum and deafening a person, on people, who dared to stand up and speak their mind about the types of absolute slavery that they're being sold into by these multinational corporations and deals. And they would dare to withhold people, you can't be on the street and gather and speak, taking away your first inherent right of free speech and communication with others. You know?

But that's not violence, because somehow they have the right to do that. A group of people can get together and give people a magical right that doesn't exist for anybody else. Being awake means knowing ultimately that the whole entire concept of quote-unquote authority is inherently illegitimate, because it is based in coercion and violence, and that, quote, government is nothing but a euphemism for slavery. It always has been, it is now, and it will always be slavery, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. Once again, that's not my opinion, I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm telling you that's an eternal truth. It's not true because I say that it is. It's true because it's an eternal truth and it is capable of being discovered.

But the problem is we're so mind-controlled most people won't accept that. How does man's law differ from natural law? People will say, well if there's nobody in charge, how would things work? Well, things are going to work the same way they've always been working according to the laws of nature. We align ourselves to morality, we will have an orderly experience that is based in freedom. We refuse to align our behavior to the objective laws of morality operating in nature and you're going to have chaos and enslavement. The end.

Natural law is always based in principles and truth. First things, principles. We set our entire lives based upon those first and most important truths, and things will be orderly. We don't do that, we base them in rigid and dogmatic belief systems which may or may not happen to be in harmony with truth, more likely than not they're not in any kind of harmony with truth, and you're going to have chaos.

⁶NATURAL LAW IS HARMONIZED WITH RATHER THAN ENFORCED BY HUMANS

⁷

(00:23:36) Natural law is harmonized with by people, okay?

It's not complied with because you fear the retribution or punishment. It's harmonized with because you have arrived at an understanding of how it works. Are you complied to obey the laws of gravity? Has anybody forced you to obey gravity lately? You know, we just, on passing through Chicago, we went up to the top of the Willis Tower. It was a great experience. You know, they have a clear glass ledge that you stand on now. You could see 103 stories down like you're standing in the middle of the air. It was awesome.

But, you know, if someone were to go up to the roof of that building and decide to step off, does it matter what they believe regarding gravity? They could believe in it, they could not believe in it, they're going to end up as a splat on the ground, you know, like a grape someone just stepped on.

Gravity doesn't care about whether you understand it or not. It's not complying you or forcing you to understand it. It's just there. Well, that's how natural law works. It's harmonized with because of our knowledge and understanding of it. So, it would probably be a really bad idea to go up to the top of the Willis Tower and step off the ledge of the roof, because you'd have a pretty bad day a few seconds later. But you don't not do that because anybody's threatening you. You don't do that behavior because you know what the consequence will be if you perform it because you understand how a law of nature operates.

Well that's how natural law should work. That's how our understanding of natural law should work. We understand what behaviors lead to the betterment of our condition and order and freedom and peace and harmony. And then we understand what behaviors cannot lead to those conditions that we say we want.

It exists everywhere and applies the same way everywhere in the entire universe regardless of location or time. Just like gravity does. It's a universal law. The laws of morality work the same way. They are applicable everywhere in the universe with beings that have the capacity for holistic intelligence.

Man's law, however, differs with location based upon the whim of whoever are the legislators in that location. Again, in Pennsylvania, for the rifles that I may possess, I am allowed to have high capacity magazines according to man's law. So I could have a 30 round magazine for my semi-automatic rifle. I could have a 40 round magazine for my semi-automatic rifle. I could have a drum for my semi-automatic rifle that holds 75 or 100 rounds in it.

But if I were to take any one of those physical possessions two miles east of my current location where my house is, I could be thrown in a cage just for the possession of those items, not for ever using them, doing anything with them at all, for possessing them. So that makes a whole lot of sense. It's moral in one location, it's immoral in another location according to man's law. Of course it's not.

Possessing an item is neither something that is moral or not moral. And I would say possession of any item, except another person's life, is essentially moral, as long as it was yours and you lawfully acquired it. If you try to possess something that you don't lawfully own, that's called theft, and of course that's immoral.

⁹

(00:27:15) So the whim of legislators is what determines man's law and that is called, as we talked about before the break, moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. We get to make it up based on our preferences, our likes, our whims, and it can be, law can be different in any given location.

I give people the example, you go into certain countries in the Middle East and you can be jailed for listening to a particular kind of music that is outlawed by the government that essentially bases its laws in Islamic religion. Think about that. Listening to a particular style of music could have your body caged. And people think there's something to be so revered about man's law and put up on some kind of a lofty pedestal, when that's the kind of differences in range that can result in this legislator over here likes things like this, this legislator over here likes things like this, and that's the kind of differences that we can encounter, that have nothing to do whether anybody was harmed or not. And we think that we're somehow a moral people.

¹⁰

(00:28:29) Natural law is eternal and it is immutable.

It cannot be changed by any single thing that any physical being is capable of doing in the universe. It is there, it is eternal, it works the same way at all times and places. Cannot be changed, that's what immutable means. Man's law, however, as we've already talked about, changes with time, based upon the whims of legislators as well.

So what does this ultimately mean for man's law in light of the knowledge of natural law, in light of the knowledge of the laws of morality that govern the consequences of human behavior? Well, if it will apply some simple, if then, logical statements to it.

¹¹

(00:29:14) If a particular man-made law happens to be in harmony with the laws of nature and morality, then just think about it logically. That means that it's redundant.

It's like writing down on a piece of paper, the sun as observed from the earth rises on the eastern horizon and sets on the western horizon. Well, that's true. You writing it down had no effect on its truth or not.

This is what man's law does if it's in harmony with truth. It's just a redundancy. You're stating what is. You're just writing down, stating the truth about what is. So, that's not changing it. That's not doing anything to change it. But, think about the opposite. If it is saying that you must do something or must not do something, and that's out of harmony with natural law, you must turn over the product of your labor. That's violence, that's not in harmony with natural law, yet that's stated in man's law, and you must not put this particular substance into your body even though you're not harming anybody by doing it and therefore it is a right.

You can never actually reverse the condition of morality or immorality that is inherent in those actions. The action still remains either inherently moral or inherently immoral. So if it's in harmony with natural law already, it's stating a truth that is already inherent, it's stating a truth that is pre-existent, and it is therefore self-evident. Therefore that particular law would be irrelevant and unnecessary, just like writing down on a piece of paper, the sky refracts blue-colored light to the human eye when it is a cloudless day. Well, that's a self-evident truth. Writing that down doesn't change the fact that that's what is. Same thing when it comes to man's law.

¹²

(00:31:15) If a particular man-made law is in opposition to natural law, as we've briefly talked about, then it follows logically that it is both false, meaning that it is incorrect, and it is immoral, meaning it is actually doing something that is harmful, or supporting something that is harmful, or in other words, wrong.

Therefore, that law can never actually be legitimately binding upon anyone. Not legitimately. People think that it is, but it's not legitimate. What somebody believes versus what actually exists in nature are two different things.

So we've looked at the example, man's law is in harmony with natural law, it's a redundancy and therefore it is irrelevant. If man's law is out of harmony with natural law, it's always false, it's always immoral, and it can never legitimately be binding upon anyone, and so forth, it's also irrelevant and unnecessary.

There is always equality under the laws of nature. It doesn't discriminate. It doesn't change based upon whether you understood it or not, either. I give the example. A parent takes a toddler, you know, in their terrible twos on a picnic, maybe at a national park and the toddler wanders away from the picnic table and goes and wanders near a ledge that's maybe a hundred feet tall. Well, gravity doesn't care whether that youngster doesn't understand law and how it works. If she steps over the edge, she's going down. It doesn't say, oh my God, look at this cute little girl in her sundress on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. I have to suspend the law of nature because we can't let that wonderful little girl fall. It's an impersonal force.

Natural law isn't somebody standing there with a clipboard saying, let me take all these factors into account and then decide what to do. It's a computer program that's running in nature. It gives you unwavering results based on the input. You program the right code into it, it gives you the result you want. You program the bad code into it, it gives you the opposite of what you want, unwaveringly. And that's just how it works and there's nothing personal to it. It's not a personal force. That's what people have to understand about the laws of nature. They don't care about you. They don't care about you. They're just there and they work the way that they work. And it's up to you to understand them so that you can align your behavior for efficiency, working in accordance with them, working in harmony with them. That's it.

So, natural law is the same for everybody. It doesn't apply to specific groups differently. Every single individual, everywhere in creation, has the same rights. No one has any more or less rights than anybody else. Because the same behaviors is what we're talking about. If one person over here did this behavior, it's a wrong. If a person over there does that behavior, it's also a wrong. If it's a right for one person, it's a right for all people. There's perfect equality under natural law.

Also, since rights are not created by humanity and since they are the birthright of humanity, that's another place that the word right comes from, it comes from birthright. We have our rights not because anyone granted them to us, but because they are a birthright by the very nature of the fact that we exist in the cosmos. And that birthright was granted to us by the Creator of the Universe, not by any three-dimensional being in the Universe.

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 of, quote, granting rights to anyone else, nor is any human being capable of, quote, revoking rights that do exist from anybody else. Yes, they can do those actions, but what I'm talking about is the legitimacy of those actions. Is it real? Okay?

Yeah, my free speech rights were shut down in Philadelphia at one point. Passing information to people on a piece of paper, I was told I cannot engage in that behavior. Okay? I'll continue to engage in that behavior. I don't care what law is passed to say I can't do it. Okay? That person may have performed that behavior. I was violently accosted by people who believed erroneously, completely falsely, that they had such a right. But in nature, they did not possess that right and can never possess that right.

I’ll go even farther than that and I’ll tell you I did not choose to engage in this behavior because had I done that, the consequences would not have allowed me to keep teaching what I'm teaching and reach more minds, to wake more minds up. But if I decided I did want to put that physical behavior down by whatever amount of force required to do it, including deadly force, it would have been my right to do so. And if you don't know that, you're asleep. You're not awake if you don't know that.

Somebody would dare tell you you have no right to speak and then violently put their hands on you to prevent you from speaking? You wouldn't take that from anybody if they weren't in such a so-called position of quote-unquote authority. It's called mind control and bullshit is what it's called. Okay? That's what that's called.

¹³GOVERNMENT IS OTHER FLAWED HUMANS TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR MIND, BUT FREEDOM IS YOU VOLUNTARILY GOVERNING YOUR OWN MIND

¹⁴

(00:37:00) Government is mind control.

Government is mind control. It actually means mind control. The word means mind control. Yes it does. Yes it does. Not my opinion, not my interpretation. The word government means mind control. From the Latin guvernare, meaning to control, and the second part of the word does, ment, does come from the Latin noun mens, mentis, meaning mind. It means to control the mind, because to believe in it, your mind has to be controlled. You have to be under mind control to believe in the concept that anyone else is an authority over any other living being. And people want to debate that last part, that mens mentis isn't the root of ment, because ment in English means the state of or the condition of. Well, just go back to the slide that we did on how our reality is built.

Available information controls your processing of the data in the mind which leads to the behavior and therefore creates the condition. People who brought the English language and amalgamated it together were using older words that represented conceptual ideas. The state of or the condition of anything has to first exist in mind before it gets manifested in physical reality. That's why they use the Latin noun mens mentis, meaning mind, to mean in English the state of or the condition of.

So I don't even want to talk about the validity of that etymology, because it is absolutely valid. That's what it means, it's what it has always meant, and it's the condition that government will always be. The control of other people's mind to give up their sovereignty, not understanding their sovereignty as individuals, so that they can be controlled. It works through a concept known as jurisdiction.

When you start to break down words, you start to really understand what you're being told through the usage of those words. This is how these satanic systems work. It's all about spells. It's all about word magic and word games.

¹⁵

(00:39:24) Jurisdiction comes from the Latin just juris in Latin which means law. The first part, juris. And then diction. Diction is speech in English.

The word diction is an English word, okay? And diction comes from the Latin dictere, the Latin verb dictere means to speak, to say. So we put them together, to say the law.

Jurisdiction literally means to say the law. I'll say what the law is, and then it will magically be that way. That's why they call themselves authorities, author, author. What does an author do? They write things. So in your mind you're thinking they make things right. They make the rights. That's how mind control works, through words. And people never see it because they never stop to even break down the word or consider where it came from. Whenever you're hearing or seeing the word authority, you're seeing the word author, which in your mind you equate with writing something. W-R-I-T-I-N-G. Writing.

But phonetically, that is the same as writing. R-I-G-H-T-I-N-G, writing something, making it right. And the mind doesn't separate those concepts at a subconscious level, okay? Hence is why they call themselves authorities, writers, and that is what they do. They write down the law, they call themselves legislators. I write down what the law is and then it magically becomes so, on my whim or preference. And you know what that's called? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's called claiming to be God, is what that's called.

¹⁶

(00:41:25) Authority is nothing more than an illusion that only exists in people who are mentally ill.

If you believe in authority, there's disease within the human psyche. Period. I don't care who's offended by that, get as offended about it as you want. Authority exists only in a diseased mind because the concept is based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief system that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue arbitrarily chosen commands that they call their laws, and other people are the slaves of that ruling class who have some sort of a moral obligation to obey the master class. And we call this authority.

You know what I call it? I call it what it really is. Slavery. It's called slavery. It always has been slavery. It is slavery now and it always will be slavery. Let's stop euphemizing things. Let's call bullshit for what it is. Okay? There's no inherent legitimacy to the concept of slavery and never has been. And never will be. And we need to understand that's what that is. Authority is slavery but we're just euphemizing it and calling it something different.

Authority is the belief, the belief in the legitimacy of authority is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. If you believe in authority, you have legitimized the concept of slavery. All believers in authority, ALL, blanket statement. Ego hates blanket statements. ALL believers in authority are believers in slavery and supporters of it. 100% always have been throughout the entire time that the universe has existed and always will be for as long as the universe exists. Blanket statement.

Authority is nothing more man can become God and through jurisdiction dictate the law. That's man wanting to be the creator of the universe and decide for himself what right and wrong actually are instead of discovering those laws of nature that the creator has put into effect. It's the same old story, folks. It goes back for tens of thousands of years. Hundreds of thousands of years. There's nothing new. There's nothing new under the sun. There's nothing new here. It's the same story of slavery that's been going on since this species has existed on this planet. It was just called different things throughout time.

¹⁷

(00:44:24) You know, we had the Old World Order. It used to be called kingship.

Kingship, the sovereign on the throne. Yeah, we still have kings and queens in certain countries. The unimaginable, unmitigated gall. Somebody calling themselves a king over other people. They're my subjects. I mean you have to be joking.

This concept that authority is vested in one. That person is the representative of God on the planet. Has anything changed? Or have we just said, we've taken this old world quote order, you know I put order in quotations because it can't result in order. It's actually the ancient slavery chaos system. Both of these things. And nothing has changed. Okay? The so-called Old World Order. Nothing of the kind. The Old World Chaos. Now we have the New World Chaos.

¹⁸

(00:45:32) They call it the New World Order.

Well, I put new in quotes here and order in quotes. Because there's nothing new about it and there's nothing orderly about it. It's the old world chaos, the old world slavery. It just has a different name. We've wrapped it up in a more attractive package. Oh, oh, I see, we have diffused the authority. Now, it's not just vested in one person because people would realize the inherent bullshit in that. It's now vested in a few people that call themselves government. We’ve taken the same magic, the thing that doesn't actually exist, this magical thing that is based in violence and coercion, and we've just diffused it. We've diffused it to now several people have that magic. It can't get any more nonsensical, illogical, ridiculous and immoral. And yet people still believe in it, this is their religion. It's their religion.

It's their slavery, is what it is. Because it doesn't make a difference, authority vested in one, authority vested in few, it's the same thing. Slavery.

¹⁹

(00:46:37) And being awake means knowing that, definitively, deeply.

There's only one true divide that exists in humanity, all the other things that supposedly separate us are divide and conquer strategies. Race, ostensible religion, background, social status, amount of money people make, how people dress, how people talk, what people look like, divide and conquer. All divide and conquer strategies. Age, sex. It's all just ways of dividing people so that they're easier to conquer and rule.

But there is one legitimate difference, and it has to do with the level of consciousness that people are at. And again, consciousness meaning the demystified concept of consciousness that I talked about in the first section, the ability to recognize patterns and meaning with respect to what's taking place within you and around you in your environment. That's it.

So how much are you aware of the pattern? How much of the truth are you actually taking in and processing accurately and understanding? That's what I'm talking about by a different level of consciousness.

There's only one true division in humanity that separates us into two distinct types of individuals. And the criterion for that divide, for that difference, is whether or not an individual believes in authority and therefore believes that there is legitimacy to slavery or not. That's it. That's the only real difference between human beings. And this is what it looks like, the one true divide.

The statist or the anarchist? I searched for some memes on social networking to find a good image that represents the general concept of the statist and the anarchist. You could find a million of them for a statist. You just look at any police brutality image and there's billions of them online. But I took this kind of funny cartoon meme that says 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 the people who kidnap, harass, steal from, and kill people. It makes so much logical sense, don't you think?

I love the statist argument that we need to be protected from ourselves because human nature is fundamentally bad. So we're going to put the concept of authority into the hands of people whose nature is fundamentally bad to protect us from ourselves because we're fundamentally bad. Wonderful, flawless logic, as you can readily see. Flawless logic. Flawless logic. And it goes back to that worldview schism. That schism about how do you view human nature as well. The human nature schism, are we inherently good and wonderful beings, or inherently flawed and evil demonic beings? When the truth of the matter is, we're neither.

Those two conditions are just that, conditions. They're not our nature. Our nature is that we are programmable, such that we can become either of those extremes, if we're programmed well or badly. So when I was looking for an image to represent anarchy and anarchists, I didn't see any good ones because they give you these utterly ridiculous concepts of anarchists are people that are all about creating chaos and damage in society.

You look up anarchy on Google Images, anarchist on Google Images, you'll get the so-called Black Bloc, these children that are nothing but communists in disguise, who think that communism is anarchy, because they've read the absolutely polluted writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, etc., and advocate, yeah, let's take everything, give all resources into the hands of the state, will magically be free then. And then they think anybody who disagrees with them is a dyed-in-the-wool, you know, crony capitalist that believes money is the solution to everything. You know, and human greed should see no bounds. You know?

That's why people have a hard time with my work. I don't believe in any of it. I'm out. Out of the mind control. Out! 100% out! All of those systems do nothing but lead to control and slavery. Okay? And that's what other people need to get out. Out is the answer. Out is the solution. Get to the outside of that, so you can see it from the outside for what it is. Something that destroys human innovation, creativity, freedom, love, etc. It's all those systems do. It's all they ever have done.

So when I was looking for an image to represent a real anarchist, I didn't want to be too egotistical and just put my face up there. Or some of my other friends who are also real anarchists. I saw this meme on Facebook and I said, yeah, that's it. Christ, the ultimate spiritual warrior, the ultimate anarchist.

And again, please don't fill up my inbox saying don't you know all about astrotheology. I could write books on astrotheology, I probably may even do that in the future. I get it's allegorical, I get there is doubts to the historicity of the actual historical figure, and I don't care, because it's the message that matters.

Who is Christ warring against? He was warring against the established religious institutions of his time, the Pharisees and Sadducees. When he put out works that went against their so-called law, there was a big uprising against his word. Then, the banks of the day became involved, because when he went to the temples and they were charging ridiculous interest rates on temple coins, preventing people who actually wanted to go to the temple and worship, they couldn't.

So then he freaked out in the temple and turned all the bankers against him. And then, who ultimately did the crucifixion? The state, the Roman Empire, which was the police and military of his day. And people in the actual religion who say they're into the scriptures, can't even read them and see the institutions that this being was warring against was religion, money, and government. They can't even see that when it's right out in the open in their face. And these are the things they put up on a pedestal. It's a joke and they're fake-ass Christians.

It's called looking at the exoteric, the outside, and never getting into the deep fundamental core spiritual and moral truths that lie at the center. Because they're too concerned about all the trappings. So the ultimate anarchist is right there. And what I'm here today to tell you is that there is no such thing as an awake being that has ever been a statist. Never one.

²⁰

(00:54:15) Every truly awake being that has ever existed in the cosmos is an anarchist.

And can never not be one who is an anarchist, one who believes that there is no such thing as the legitimacy of ruling and owning other people, because that's what an anarchist is, someone who believes there is no legitimacy to the external rulership or ownership of other people, or in other words, that there is no legitimacy to slavery. That's what anarchy really is, and I'm going to explain that right now.

A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as authority vested in certain human beings, magically giving them the right to rule over other people. Without euphemism, if we stop euphemizing things and we're honest with ourselves for a moment, a statist is a person who believes in the legitimacy of slavery. By definition, that’s what a statist is.

Conversely, an anarchist is one who knows that there could never be legitimacy to authority or government because those terms are simply euphemisms for violence and slavery, which are always immoral and always in opposition to natural law, the laws of morality.

So once again, every single blanket statement, statist, every person in the history of the world who has ever advocated for the legitimacy of the state has always been asleep and always will be asleep. Only anarchists, true anarchists, are consciously awake.

²¹

(00:56:00) There is no such thing as a person who is awake and believes in the legitimacy of government or authority.

It cannot be done. You cannot have it both ways. What anarchy really means. Because you do a word association game on the street with people and they couldn't tell you what the word really means. See, this is how mind control works, folks. Like I said, the obfuscation of the definitions of words by endless repetition. Again, here's my pen slash laser pointer, okay? I kept telling a child from the moment they're born, this is a spoon, this is a spoon, this is a spoon, this is a spoon, and kept repeating that over and over and over and over every day of the child's life. Putting a pen in front of them and saying, that's called a spoon, that's called a spoon. The child would eventually believe that that object is a spoon. They would use the word spoon to represent the object that is actually a pen. Okay?

So here's what's been done. Controllers don't want you to know what anarchy really means. So they're going to keep repeating, anarchy means chaos, anarchy is chaos, anarchy is chaos, anarchy is chaos, over and over again. And that mind control technique of repetition works beautifully. I use it all the time. Okay? But for the right reason. You've got to keep repeating yourself for people to get something. They don't even start to consider it until it's been repeated about seven or eight times. It's in one ear and out the other unless it's said over and over again.

Anarchy as a word comes from the Greek language. In ancient Greek, a or an, the prefix, tacked onto the beginning of a word root, means without or the absence of something that you tack it onto. And then the second part of the word comes from the Greek noun archon. Archon means a master or a ruler. And there's a specific connotation to an archon.

An archon is not one who has mastered themself. It's not like, oh, that person who there, who understands the truth and is in true self-government, they are a master. No, that's not the connotation of the word archon in ancient Greek. Archon meant, we're driving up to the plantation now, there's the master of the house, who owns all the slaves on this plantation. That is what archon means in ancient Greek.

So it is the master over slaves, one who owns other people. A ruler over subjects. That's the connotation of the word archon. Now we put them together. An-archon. An-archon, which is where the word anarchy comes from. And it means the absence of rulers. As in the absence of slave owners. Well, if there's no slave owners, then that means there's no slaves. There's no masters, and there's no slaves. And that's all the word anarchy has ever meant. No rulers, no masters.

The word anarchy does not and never has meant without rules. When people equate, if there's anarchy there will not be rules, it's a complete logical fallacy. That's not what the word itself means. There's always got to be rules. You are never going to take the rules out of effect. You want to know why? You're not the maker of them. You didn't put them into effect. The creator of the universe did that, and you're not that force. You are not God. Okay?

So you're not going to take natural law out of effect. It's always in effect. It's always the supreme force operating in the universe, which is why I represented it as the tarot card of the king, which is called justice in the tarot deck. Justice, the law, natural law on its throne. The truth that will never be destroyed and never be unseated from its position of true authority. That's the only authority. That's it.

²²

(01:00:35) Anarchy does not mean without rules. It literally means without rulers, without masters. Anarchy means the absence of slavery, or in other words, true freedom.

If you told people the root of anarchy is without rulers, without masters. No rulers, no masters. And you said, please, in one word, tell me what that phrase, no rulers, no masters, means to you. 99.9% of people are going to say it means freedom. And yet, you do this rare association game with people in your family, your friends, on the street, and they'll tell you it means chaos. Which again is the opposite side of that chart about natural law expressions. How could you start at freedom and arrive in chaos when freedom is order by definition? It brings about order. It's the only thing that can bring about order because it's based in the awakening of consciousness or love. That's the only way you can have freedom. It's based in morality.

Anarchy means that... True anarchy is understanding that it's not man's law that we need to respect and put up on a pedestal and try to live our lives according to. It's the laws of the creator of the universe that we need to do that with. Which is natural law. Moral law. The true difference between right and wrong behavior.

²³TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF FREEDOM CREATES & INSPIRES RESPONSIBLE FREE WILL

²⁴

(01:02:06) Being awake means recognizing the critical importance of both free will and personal responsibility.

Two things many people don't want to even acknowledge or look at. And this means having a deep understanding of what moral culpability is. Because when we're talking about responsibility, what we really mean is, who's responsible for that having been manifested in the world? And this is another thing a lot of new-agers want to leave out and not talk about. You know, they want to wash right over this or say, oh no, we don't need to talk about who's at fault. It's nobody's fault. Nobody's at fault. Nobody's to blame.

Well, there are people to blame. There are people at fault. Through erroneous, bad thinking, bad decision making, bad judgment. There are people who are to blame for our condition. And I would say everybody who continues to support and condone those bad modalities of thinking are to blame. That's why I say I'm not involved in that process. I'm out of those modes of thought. I don't lend my behavior to those modes of behavior. So I'm not causing those things. Me individually, personally.

And there are many other people who are in that condition that through no fault of their own is the world keep going into a state of ever spiraling decay into immorality and slavery. The problem is most people are at fault for that condition because they will not change their thinking. They will not abandon their religions, their false religions.

²⁵

(01:03:45) Moral culpability is the determination of who is ultimately at fault or deserving of blame, or in other words, who is responsible for the commission of actions which have resulted in harm or loss to other individuals.

The word culpable literally means at fault or deserving of blame, from the Latin noun culpa, which means fault or blame.

A dangerous New Age movement deception is that blame is invalid as a concept, and it should never exist. We should get rid of the whole concept of blame. When people buy into this notion, it quickly descends into the idea that no one is ever truly responsible for anything that manifests in this world. That's what they're really saying when they say, don't judge, don't blame, nobody's at fault, nobody's... things just happen. It just magically got that way.

No, things don't just happen. According to law, every effect is preceded by its cause. Things are caused to happen, they don't just magically occur. The condition we're in now did not just magically occur. God didn't just throw us on the earth and say, I'm going to enslave you now. No, we did that to ourselves. Or it possibly had a lot to do with being done to us, which I'm not going to get to in this presentation, but we are continuing that condition, let's put it that way.

We have to understand, don't get trapped in the blame game, don't keep blaming everybody else and pointing fingers outside. But don't think that blame is a total illusion either and doesn't exist. That's the idea that moral culpability doesn't exist. And then hey, why don't we just allow everything because nobody is really responsible for what they're doing, right? You can see how a seemingly innocuous New Age so-called teaching can lead to a very imbalanced condition if it's left unchecked, which in many cases with right-brained individuals it is left unchecked. They're not applying that judgment and discernment filter.

So I'm going to show you a little meme I put up on Facebook one time and got hate mail as a result. Because people don't like this question. I say, here's a great party starter. Break this out at your next party, this question. They'll love you for it. You'll be invited back. Who is more morally culpable, the order giver or the order follower? Now, before we answer the question, let's emphatically recognize the question. Because people often don't hear the question. They hear what they want to hear being asked, but they don't hear the actual question being asked. Okay?

People, you know, John, oh, both of them are responsible. I didn't ask if either party was responsible. Of course both of these parties share in moral culpability when harm results. I didn't ask the question, do either one of these people or both of them have moral culpability when harm results for what they have done, put into effect. I said, who is more morally culpable, meaning that there is an imbalance in culpability here. One party is more culpable than the other party regarding a harmful action that takes place.

Is it the order giver who has more moral culpability or responsibility when they order an action to be done and then harm results? Or does the order follower have more moral culpability when they perform the action that they were ordered to perform and then harm results. How you answer this question is very simple. You just do a mental exercise and you envision the harm that has been done.

So here is what the harm that has been done in this instance looks like. Okay? And I think the problem in this country is that's not our children. That's the reason we continue to allow these behaviors. Because it's not bombs raining down upon our children. And there's that not really understanding the true self mentality, that schism. Okay? Seeing everything in a state of separation. Well, that's somebody else. That's their problem.

Now, when that happens to a six-year-old girl, in the countries we're bombing the hell out of because we want their resources, who is more morally culpable for that death? Here's the question that needs to be asked. Well, the politicians who ordered the attack say, my actions didn't cause that. And then the soldiers who are actually responsible for the death, through their behaviors, say, my actions didn't cause that. You envision that scenario right there. Both people are saying, I'm not the one whose actions manifested that condition. And then the question you need to ask yourself is, who is lying and who is telling the truth?

You could start throwing things at me any time now. You know? I'm telling you, I got so much hate now when I put this slide on Facebook one time. I couldn't believe, I mean, I think people would have tried to murder me if they were in my presence. Okay?

That's how much people don't want to deal with that truth. There will be a question and answer session after I'm complete. Okay?

So, read the question, not what you want to hear. Read the actual statement. My action didn't cause that. Okay, well you could say speech is an action, and they spoke to that person, told them, but I would say it's decidedly different than pressing a trigger, or flying a plane and dropping a bomb from it. Decidedly different. A little bit of speech from my mouth to someone else's ears is an altogether different action than actually blowing somebody up. But I could just be the weird one, I don't know. Maybe I'm weird for thinking there's a big difference between those two modes of behavior.

I would suggest that the people over here, as deplorable as we all may think that they are, and I certainly believe they're all deplorable, are telling the truth, unfortunately. And these people, if they were to say, the my actions didn't cause that, that's a lie. Okay?

And that's how you know who's more morally culpable. The painful truth is that the order follower always, again, blanket statement, the ego hates blanket statements, okay? Always, in every instance, bears more moral culpability than the order giver. Notice I am not saying the order giver does not bear any moral culpability. Please do not put those words in my mouth. Of course the order giver bears much moral culpability as well. Not as much as the order follower though, ok?

²⁶

(01:11:37) The reason the order follower bears more culpability is because the order follower is the one who actually performed the action, and in taking such action, actually brought about the resultant harm into physical manifestation in the world.

Without their behavior, the event could not have manifested. Without their behavior, the event, the harmful event, could not have manifested.

The politician could talk all they want, all day long, giving orders to as many people as are in their presence to go out and do this harmful behavior. It would never actually be accomplished without the order follower. Okay? That's how you know that they bear more moral culpability than the order giver themselves. And if somebody can't understand that, I can't help you. I'm sorry. If you don't agree with that, from that explanation, there's nothing I can do.

Again, I'm not telling you that this is my opinion. I'm telling you that's an eternal, immutable truth about how something in the universe operates. It's not my opinion. That is something I had to continuously ask myself until I discovered what was real there. And that's the truth. That's why I call this slide the painful truth because most people don't want to accept that.

The ego wants to look for an out. It wants to say, no, it can't be, it can't be, it can't be. That's what the ego wants to do. Always run, always go in circles, always say, but, but, but, but, but but……NO! That’s true. We have to accept what is true. And the problem is it brings so much pain, that most people shut down. They don’t want to hear it.

²⁷

(01:13:36) Order following is the problem on this planet. It is the pathway to every single form of evil and chaos in the world.

Because order followers always usher in evil and chaos. You think the dark occultists that I once worked with are going to actually dirty and soil their hands? They’re going to say words to people that they consider their mind-controlled dogs, and then have them go out and perform all kinds of atrocities and laugh at them while they're doing it. And I'm telling you that's exactly what they do. They call these people their dogs.

Satanists call police and military personnel our dogs, our pets. That's why they give them dog tags in the marines. It's a mockery, it's occult symbolism mockery. They're saying, we're your owners, like we own a dog. And here's your dog tag for your loyalty. Thank you, dog. I'm telling you, I saw Satanists at rituals, laughing hilariously at off-duty police officers that were part of their grotto, that's what they call covens in Satanism. Laughing uncontrollably at police, off-duty police that they had assigned to watch the ritual house for them on a high satanic holiday. Literally pissing in their pants, laughing at them, calling them our dogs, our pets. And you know what? It's true. They're correct. It's true. I would love, love, love to be able to pick up for these individuals and say, Oh, they're nobody's pets. They're on their leash. On their leash. And they take pride in that, as if it's something to take pride of. Pride in. I'm loyal like a dog is loyal no matter what my master does. I don't exercise any judgment or discernment. I don't actually think about whether the behavior I'm doing is right or wrong. I just do it when I'm ordered. There's no absolutely nothing that is of anything that should be looked up to when it comes to that kind of a dynamic. That should never be put up on a pedestal. That should be frowned upon.

Order following is the pathway to every form of evil and chaos in our world. It should never be seen as a virtue, ever, by anyone who considers themselves a moral or awake human being. Order followers have ultimately been personally morally culpable for every form of slavery and every single totalitarian regime that has ever existed upon the face of this planet. Every single one. And we think we're somehow exempt or different because it's us. Can't happen here. Can't happen here. Newsflash, it already happened here. Not future tense, past tense.

Order followers. By definition, following orders means doing what you are told without judging for yourself whether or not that action that you are being ordered to carry out is right or wrong. That is the definition. By definition. Is that not what following someone else's order means. Can anybody debate that that's what the definition of following an order means? That is the actual action that you're going to do. You're saying, the order has been issued. I am an order follower. What I do is carry out the order. Is an order follower a philosopher? Do they sit and consider and weigh and debate? No. These people say, it wasn't me that gave the order. As if that somehow lets them off the hook for what they're about to do. Take it up with the politicians. No, I'm not going to take it up with the politicians. I'm going to take it up with you. You're the one doing the thing. Doing the action. Why would I take it up with anybody else? Are they over there? Did a politician in Philadelphia City Hall come over and throw me in handcuffs for communicating ideas on a piece of paper with my fellow human beings? No.

Some punk little boy did. Okay? Who followed their orders thinking that he's God and can take away my rights. You know, that's who did that. The politicians didn't do it. They had something to do with it, but they didn't actually perform that behavior. Okay? That's the definition of what an order follower is. And it's called taking up your part in evil. That's what it really is. I don't care whether the order is moral. I'm telling you, if someone else gave you an order to do something that's moral, and you followed it without thinking about whether it was right or wrong, you just still engaged in evil. Even if you didn't cause one iota of harm, because you advocated your personal responsibility to judge the difference between right and wrong for yourself. And said, I'm going to give that over to somebody else. And that's evil. That's where all evil begins.

²⁸

(01:19:30) Those who are following orders by definition, can not be exercising conscience.

Because by the very definition of what is the exercise of conscience, exercising conscience means that one is willfully choosing for themselves right action over wrong action once they have distinguished between those two separate modes of behavior. That's what exercising conscience means by definition. So you can't have it both ways.

You can't be exercising conscience and following the orders of somebody else. The exercise of conscience is a process that you yourself engage in after you yourself have weighed the difference between right and wrong within your own mind. By definition. The people who do this are no different than these troops from Nazi Germany. Zero difference.

Were the people of Nazi Germany immoral people in the aggregate? No, they couldn't have been. Impossible. Just like it's impossible for us to be moral people in the aggregate with what is taking place in our society now. We're going down the same path. History repeats itself, not unwaveringly, not unalteringly, but people always leave out the second part of that, of those words of wisdom.

²⁹

(01:20:53) History repeats itself when we refuse to learn its lessons.

That's when history repeats. It doesn't just follow endless cycles that you can never change or get out of. When we made mistakes in the past, or people before us made mistakes in the past, and the people today in the present, refuse to look at what went wrong. They don't want to look at how the Nazi society was created. They don't want to look at how any totalitarian regime was created because, oh, that's disturbing. Why should I spend my time studying that?

Because when you ignore history, you're doomed to repeat the lesson that you refused. You're going to repeat it over and over and over and over and over again. That's when history repeats. When ignorance is present. Ignorance of the lessons that it has to teach us.

That is the result of following orders. That always has been the result of following orders. And if we don't get people to stop following their orders now, get used to that image because you're going to see it in your lifetime in person, not on a screen. I'm not saying that to fear monger, ladies and gentlemen. I'm telling you because that is a historical pattern that repeats unwaveringly when we start putting order followers up on a pedestal. And don't really deeply understand and integrate the lessons of morality in our own lives and then teach that to everyone around us, especially our children.

Order followers and people who support them always try to run, see this is what the ego does, it always seeks for justification, justifying, justifying, justifying. I need somehow a way to justify this when there is no justification, okay? It doesn't exist. But people want to look for one. That's what the ego does. The word justification. Let's break it down from its etymological roots.

Again, I keep doing this because I'm trying to impress upon people the importance of the origins of words. Get yourself a Latin dictionary, a Latin reader, a Greek dictionary, a Greek reader, ancient Greek, an ancient Latin, and study where words came from. We don't even understand what we're saying half the time, because we don't understand where these words that we're using on a day-to-day basis came from.

Justification comes from the Latin noun just, meaning law, we already saw that one before, right or law, and the Latin verb facere, which means to make or to create. It's where we get the word fake from, it's where we get the word fashion from, it's where we get the word fasci from, which underlies the word fascism.

It means to fake or to make something in the image and likeness of, to create something. But again, it's to fashion it, to make it look like something. That's why fashion is about dressing something up so it looks good, even though maybe underneath the surface it doesn't look that good. When we're trying to fashion right or fashion the law, to try to create a right or create what the law is, that's offering a justification, literally to create the law or to create what is right. We're looking to make a wrong into a right. I was 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. There is no justification when it comes to violence. You are responsible if you conduct violence. Passing the buck on to somebody else isn't going to work.

It didn't work for these people, and nor should it have at Nuremberg. Saying, I was just following my orders. Well, that didn't fly, nor should it have. And nor should it fly for these people. Because engagement in violence is engagement in violence and you had no right. Period.

It's about personal responsibility to gauge right from wrong. An individual's personal responsibility to choose right action over wrong action for themselves always belongs to them. That is always their own possession. This goes back to ownership. I don't care whether you don't like that you're in control of that, you are in ownership and control of that, and can never not be. That can never be. I could never, can, in nature, never hand somebody else my personal responsibility and say, could you please be responsible for judging right and wrong for me?

I could claim with my words, with my mouth, that I could do that, but in nature it could never be done. I'm still responsible for my own behavior. So is everyone else. One can only claim that they are abdicating personal responsibility for such choice to someone else. It can never actually be done in reality. More simply put, an individual is always personally responsible for their own actions.

Now, the only caveats I would give to that, and say it's not a 100% blanket statement, it's largely a blanket statement, is you could look at people with certain genetic conditions, palsies that have a deteriorated brain condition, they're unwell, they're sick, unwell physically, individuals. That I can understand, that person is not ultimately responsible for every behavior they're going to take.

Also, the one other instance I would say is people under hard electronic forms of mind control, which do exist, trauma-based mind control, which also exists as well. There is an ability, through different techniques, to actually remove free will to a very, very large extent from an individual if they are tortured enough.

So there are people who this has been done to, and they literally become like a mind-controlled robot. That technique does exist. It has existed for thousands of years. What I'm saying is that is the infinitesimally tiny minority in the world, the amount of people who have actually undergone trauma-based mind control, or direct electronic stimulus and control of the brain, of the central nervous system in the brain. Those are examples that I would say fall outside of that person is actually then not responsible for what they're doing. They're being deliberately, willfully, physically controlled by their handler. But it's the vast minority.

An individual who is not under those particular conditions is always responsible for their own actions. Most people erroneously believe that they can hand over their... and this is the second part of personal responsibility. One involves what you are going to do in regard to other people, especially if you're asked or ordered to do it, then there's this other part. What if somebody accosts me with violence? Well, is it my responsibility to deal with that? And I'm going to tell you, yes it is. It's not anybody else's responsibility to deal with that.

Now I'm not saying that that means that if you see violence being conducted upon somebody and you have the ability to do something, don't respond. That would be total passivity. Response ability is your ability to respond. If you were in the capacity to be able to respond and help somebody, I feel you have an obligation to do that. You're not just going to sit there and let somebody be violently accosted, unchallenged. And of course, you'd have to exercise common sense, like if that person has a semi-automatic rifle and you don't, you might not want to just go right into their path of fire either. Which is why I highly support and believe firmly in the right to arm oneself.

³⁰FREEDOM MUST SOMETIMES BE PHYSICALLY DEFENDED AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTRUDERS

³¹

(01:29:28) And I am a gun owner and anybody who is truly enlightened, I think, does not have any avulsion or revulsion to gun ownership.

That doesn't mean I say everybody should go out and buy a gun. If you're comfortable with it, I think you should own one, but I definitely think everybody who considers themselves enlightened should support personal, individual gun ownership that is unfettered by the state. Because everybody has the ability to defend themselves under natural law right. So that's a big part of it.

But here's the thing, most people have been convinced by the state that they don't have the right to personally defend themselves. And they think they could just hand over their natural law right to defend themselves to another individual, another group, another entity, namely the state. And that somehow they're the monopoly on force. I would say they have become largely the monopoly on violence, not force.

But in making such a false claim that somehow they're responsible for defending or protecting me, what that person is trying to do is they're trying to advocate a responsibility which always belongs to them. No one else has the responsibility to defend me. That's my ownership. That's my responsibility. And I have that ability. Okay?

I'm not saying I'm any kind of a big or bad individual, but I'm telling you, what puts me in a position to truly have that responsibility has nothing to do with my physical prowess or even whatever personal defense weapons I own. It's the knowledge that I carry here. And the first way that you defend yourself is you live under the shield of protection of natural law. When you do that, the universe is going to open doors for you before you even know they exist. It's going to offer protection. It's going to put you in the right place at the right time. It's going to keep you from the wrong place at the wrong time. So when you walk that path, you're being defended by the universe, first and foremost. And then my AK does the rest. So, you can never give away that personal responsibility. It can't be given away.

Self-loathing is the underlying psychological condition that causes people to attempt to abdicate their own personal responsibility to exercise conscience, and to fall into patterns of order following and justification.

In other words, nobody can go into a pattern of order following and trying to offer justifications for following orders and doing what is immoral because someone else told them to do it, unless they're in a deep underlying condition of hating themselves. Order followers hate themselves, and it cannot be any other way. You cannot have true self-love and be an order follower simultaneously. Sorry to burst anybody's bubble, that's the way that it is. Okay?

Nobody who truly loves themself would follow anybody else's orders. Let me just say that emphatically once again. No one who truly loves themself would ever follow anybody else's orders. That means you're telling them: I'm your slave, I'm your dog, walk all over me, tell me whatever you want to do, I don't care whether it's right or wrong, I'll do it. There's no self-love in that. There's no self-respect in that. There's no virtue in that. At all. At all. At all.

Following orders, just as it is not possible for an order follower to truly be exercising conscience, it is also not possible for an order follower to truly love themself. By definition. Because they have abdicated their personal responsibility to someone else who doesn't care about the karmic consequence or debt that's being brought down upon them for following their immoral order. They don't care.

People have to look, especially police and military, they've got to look at who's really calling the shots. Because if you look at who's really calling the shots, I'll tell you who it is. It’s people in dark, black robes that are murdering children and raping children before they murder them. That's who it is. That's who controls the police. That's who controls the military.

My friend Jay Parker, who you should all check him out, he's been interviewed on my radio show three times, he has his own radio show now. The things he's been through, unbelievable, they'd make you cringe, they'd keep you up at night. Things he's told me. One of his best friends, at the age of like, I think he was like 13, or maybe even younger at the time, no he was probably younger, I think he was like 7 years old or 8 years old, something like that. He was anally raped so viciously by the Satanists in the cult that my friend Jay grew up in, that they actually perforated his rectum and he bled out over time. Okay?

Jay went with an adult that he reported this vicious, inhuman crime to, to the police and his local community, who essentially told him, better luck in the next life, kid. We know about the cult that's operating in this location. They are the government. They own the government. They are all the banks here. They are all the businesses in this community. They are all the important people in this community. That's their religion. We follow their orders.

In the past, some police who did want to do something moral had tried to take them out, and this this coven in this location in Delaware started executing police and you know going to their homes and having them executed, and then asked you want to be next and so they said no we're done and just continued to follow the orders of this sick satanic cult. And I'm telling you this is going on in so many more communities than you could possibly even understand, that it's omnipresent. It's omnipresent. Okay?

³³

(01:36:07) And this is who these people who are self-loathing order followers are taking their orders from.

And again, if you don't understand that, you're not awake. You only believe you're awake. You believe you have some understanding of what's going on on this planet. I'm telling you, you don't know near the bottom of it. Not even close.

Now, this condition of self-loathing is what puts people into a prison. That's what's putting them in a self-imposed cage. Taking this attitude that, Hey, since I hate myself because of all the suffering I've endured, I'm going to go out and just call suffering to other people. Well, that's the surest fire way into a cage that you've locked yourself into and thrown away the key. Right there. I call that being the golem. They're the perfect mind-controlled robot slave of the person who's completely manipulating them emotionally and mentally.

A golem is an ancient semitic term of a being who was animated by having breath blown into it, but it was created by sorcery, you know, as a robot, as a flesh robot. A golem is like a flesh robot, okay? That doesn't really have a true animus or soul, okay? It is something that is just imbued with something that is like a soul that operates to basically pull the strings of the animated puppet or robot. And that's what an order follower is, a golem. And it's by their own choice. It doesn't have to be that way. They love it. They love it. They can't get enough of it. Because how they look at it is, if I did anything else, my God, I would have to think for myself then. I would have to study. I would have to read. Reading? Are you crazy? Reading?

I would have to learn the difference between right and wrong. It's not for me. No thanks. I'll have none of that, thank you. Let me go back to following my orders as a golem who is just, you know, laughed at by their owners. There's no self-respect there at all.

³⁴

(01:38:34) And I'm telling you, the only thing that can ever reverse that condition and bring somebody out of that state of self-loathing is true self-respect.

True self-respect. Not just doing this because, oh, hey, that pays the bills, that puts food on the table, that keeps my wife with me. That's not what self-respect is about. That's not what responsibility is about. I don't care how many children you have or whether they would go hungry if you quit your job. I'm telling you, if you're doing a job where your job is to follow orders, quit your job and it doesn't make a difference what happens to your family. That's the sacrifice you may have to make to do the right thing, okay? That's what I'm telling you. I'm telling people to do that.

That's what it means to be in real personal responsibility. Responsibility isn't keeping your home. Responsibility isn't keeping the food on the table in your home. I don't care how many kids you have. Responsibility is about knowing the difference between right I'm not saying, like a Nazi said, the party is going to pay for the food on my table. Well, did that make the Nazi any less evil? In the actions they were carrying out?

See, it's justification. And it doesn't work under natural law. Natural law doesn't say, like gravity doesn't say, was that the child in her Sunday dress? Who went off the edge of the cliff? Oh my God, then the law of gravity must be suspended. We can't have that.

³⁵

(01:40:07) No, natural law doesn't say that. It doesn't care. It says what was the action that was taken? There's the result. Period. It's a computer program.

You're not a computer program. You have free will. The universe, the way the universe is constructed, the whole universe is operating under boundary conditions of law. That makes us even more unique than the entire universe, because we're gifted with free will to choose what actions we will perform. The entire construct of the universe doesn't even have that gift. It's bound by law unwaveringly. And what the universe is going to... it's not going to say, hey, that Nazi, that cop who's shutting down free speech in America. Do they have kids to support? How many? Are they paying alimony? You know? It doesn't care about those things. Those are human-derived things, okay? The human justification searches for reasons for continuing evil.

Natural law doesn't care why you did something, only whether it was done or not. That's it. And this is what the ego does not want to hear. I get it, folks. I get how much people don't want to hear what I'm saying. I get it. Believe me, I'm under no illusions that this is in any way a popular message. No illusions. One thing, you know, I may be a lot of things that people will call me. One thing I am not is a naive human being. Okay?

The things I've seen have driven any naivete out of me a long time ago. So respect, I'm sorry let me go back a slide, respect comes from the Latin again, I've broken down probably 80 words in Latin and Greek already. It comes from the Latin prefix re which means again and then the Latin spectare which means to look at or to consider.

So when we're developing true self-respect it means we have to look at ourselves in the mirror again and again and again, to look at ourselves again. How many people, that's the most horrific thing that hell would be that for some people on this planet that would be hell. Okay? Personally I can do that not because I am in any kind of love with my own reflection, but I can look at myself at what I'm made of all day long because I know I'm standing within righteousness. I know the difference between right and wrong and I attempt to live that in every moment of my life. I'm not saying that makes me perfect. I'm not saying that makes me better than anybody else. I'm saying I'm comfortable with me. I could take a look in the mirror and say, who is that looking back at me and is that a good person?

And I could honestly say without justification, I'm living a moral life because I know the difference between right and wrong. Most people, that's hell for them. They never want to do one moment of introspection upon themselves and their own psyche and their own behaviors. So that's what real self-respect means, taking a deep, inner, hardcore look at oneself over and over again.

Only self-respect can heal self-loathing and therefore help to put an order follower on the path to conscience. Okay, another part of the schism when it comes to not understanding free will, okay, this section is about personal responsibility and free will.

³⁶THE ORIGINS SCHISM HELPS KEEP PEOPLE TRAPPED IN IMBALANCE

³⁷

(01:43:32) The schism that makes people stay in a state where they don't understand that free will exists and how important it is to changing the human condition is the origins schism about where we come from as human beings.

And there's two hotly contested, deeply entrenched, imbalanced paradigms about where human beings have come from. The first is Darwinian scientism, which postulates the notion that we simply came from matter that is evolving over eons of time, but that ultimately matter is supreme above everything, and so survival is the ultimate point of everything. That's the whole primary foundation and purpose for everything, is the survival and continuance of physical material, genetic material in this case.

So spirit is essentially non-existent or it is insignificant. We don't even need to consider that. Forget morality, because there's no underlying intelligence in consciousness or nature. That's not directed by mind. There's no creator. Nature is essentially a dead and mechanized clockwork with absolutely no purpose, except to continue to survive, of course. And genes are ultimately these little bits of matter that we call genes that code for certain traits and characteristics in a human being, are ultimately responsible for everything that we do, and they control a human being's behavior like pieces of a computer program code control a computer program. That's the Darwinian paradigm in a nutshell. And what it's essentially saying is, we're at the mercy of genes.

³⁸

(01:45:18) Now, what's the conflicting paradigm to this that these two dialectics war against each other constantly? Well, creationism.

That spirit is ultimately supreme, matter is inferior, it should be looked down upon. The creator and the creation are two separate things. Nature is something that is actually separate from us and we shouldn't see ourselves as an integral or holistic part of it, part of that holistic system. And God controls every single event within the creation, as we were talking about before with determinism, so no change can be created unless God wills it to be so.

So in this instance, we're at the mercy of God's will. What do both of these entrenched paradigms share in common in that they both completely dismiss and leave at the door? Free will. They both look at us as puppets on strings. Darwinism says since matter is supreme and controls everything in the universe, well, we're controlled by matter. We're controlled by our genes. If you were dealt a bad hand with genes, tough. Tough luck. It's the way things are.

And creationism says, well God did everything, man's will doesn't trump God's will in any instance, and we just are at the mercy of God's will, period. We don't really have free will. Both of these paradigms look at human beings as puppets on strings, with no free will of our own. What they share in common is a complete dismissal of human free will. And once again, like I say, I piss everybody off. I'm not going to leave anybody out, don't worry about it. Because most people fall into one of these camps or another. And that's the imbalance.

One is a left brain form of imbalance, one is a right brain form of imbalance. And that's why the world is in the condition that we're in. People have bought into either one of these erroneous notions and therefore they end up dismissing human free will to change things. Because what is going to change things doesn't lie in the epigenetic domain, and it's not just God's will that's going to change things. We have to align ourselves with the will of creation, yes.

³⁹

(01:47:32) What's going to do that is epigenetic evolution of humanity, which is evolution in consciousness, evolution in mind, not physical evolution of matter that just wants to propagate itself like some kind of a virus for no purpose other than to continue to exist.

Consciousness is ever seeking to learn and to grow and improve upon itself and to become more complexified and more moral, to understand wider patterns that are inherent in the universe, like the difference between right and wrong.

The other dangerous belief that is so propagated out there, especially by the New Age communities, is this notion that evil is necessary. Because good exists, so evil has to exist. Nonsense. This is a false notion of inherent dualism. Yes, there is inherent dualism. Love and fear, freedom and slavery, knowledge and ignorance, they are real dualisms that exist. They are not illusions. But to say for good to exist, evil has to exist, that's ridiculous. You know?

That's going to such an extremity. For good things to exist, there has to be things that are in such a complete state of disarray and imbalance, living totally out of harmony with nature. I don't think that's true. As a matter of fact, I know it's not true. Evil is not necessary because evil is born out of free will choice.

Evil doesn't exist because some program is running to make people behave a certain way. People are behaving a certain way because they're basing their behaviors on decisions that they've made, based on information that they've taken in that is bad. You take in bad information, the processing is bad, so is the output. And the output is behavior.

Evil is a choice based upon the information that we are working with that is corrupted. You program corrupt code into a computer, the computer is going to output bad output onto the screen or the internet. Period. Same thing for a human being. So this dangerous and deceptive notion that evil is necessary that's being propagated by a lot of the New Age communities is nothing more than a cowardly justification for them sitting back, you know, doing nothing in the face of all the evil that's going on in our world and just allowing it to run amok.

Because there's no New Ager that would ever get up on a stage and give a speech like this. They would never come out and tell you about the kind of evils that are going on in the world out in the open, unapologetically, whether you like it or not. Because they want to sweet talk you. See, that's what a New Ager wants to do. That's how you know we are completely and diametrically opposed to each other, me and the New Age community. And I laugh at people who say I'm propagating New Age thought because I talk about the interconnectedness of everybody, you know, and that we're all in the same situation together.

People equate that with, oh, this New Age notion of oneness and non-duality. Again, I started with the very concept. Head in the stars, feet on the ground, spirit in the flesh, balance. There's nothing balanced in evil being necessary. That's not a balanced thought. It's a bunch of bullshit is what it really is. Because it dismisses free will once again. We're not puppets on strings. We have a choice in the behaviors that we take. But those behaviors are going to be influenced by the information that we have taken in.

A new ager would get up here and tell you what you want to hear. I'm going to get up here and tell you what you don't want to hear, regardless of what you think about it. Because if it's true, it can do no harm in your life. You get up and start propagating things that just sound good and warm and fuzzy to people and make them feel all great, but ultimately you're giving them bad information or information that could easily lead to a form of extreme thought that is imbalanced and untrue. You're going to be doing harm as a result.

I'd rather get up here, tell you the truth that'll make you cry, than rather dress up a bunch of pretty new age bullshit nonsense and make you feel really good and then ultimately it does a lot of damage 5-10 years down the line in your life because you're operating according to things that weren't really truly based in principles and truth.

So we can't just let evil run amok. We have a responsibility to change this world. I heard a new ager, and I'm going to say his name. His name was John Lear. He's into the whole paranormal and alien communities. And he told people, we're not here to change the world. We're here to allow the world to change us and be changed by the world. But we're not here to actually put actual, real, physical, lasting change into the world.

And I heard that statement on an internet radio show, and I was so blown away it almost knocked me over. I couldn't believe that somebody actually bought into this notion that we're not here to make real change happen in the world for the better, to a point where he actually said, we're only here to be changed by the world. This is new age bullshit at its finest, ladies and gentlemen. And people who are believing in that nonsense are completely asleep and don't know at all what it means to be awoken.

⁴⁰

(01:53:28) Because to be awoken means you're doing the work here to change this world right here in the now where you're at now, from where you're at now.

And having to do with that, we can move to the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility, waiting for a Savior to come and rescue us from ourselves. And the Savior doesn't have to be a religious figure, you know. I praised Jesus as the ultimate anarchist and the ultimate change agent in slides ago. Now I'm going to tell you, you're waiting on that as an external force, you'll be waiting forever, and you'll be allowing evil to just take this place. Okay?

It's not about waiting for anything outside of ourselves. The Christ consciousness and energy lives within all of us if we awaken it, and then act upon it. Christ was an activist. Just read the stories, and the allegorical stories in the biblical texts. He was out there taking action, he was speaking to the lowest consciousness people of the community, trying to uplift their consciousness with his higher consciousness. That's doing the work. You know?

Now, we don't want to talk to our family members, let alone the next door neighbor or the people who are following orders in the military and the police. This idea, and you know it doesn't have to be a religious figure, it could be Buddha, it could be Shiva, or any of the other traditional saviors, you could have the Quetzalcoatl up there, or it could be the Zaydens, or the Andromedans, you know, the Galactic Federation of Light.

All of these so-called saviors are just tripping over themselves to get here to rescue us from our own ignorance. Yeah.

Well, listen, let me know how that's working out for you a decade down the line, and then two decades and three decades, because you'll still be waiting. The work is ours to do for ourselves, or we haven't learned the lesson. We haven't learned anything. It's about taking action in this domain because what happens here matters.

⁴¹NEGATIVE EMOTIONS ARE POSITIVE WHEN WORKED THROUGH AND CHANNELED PROPERLY

⁴²

(01:55:44) Being awake does not mean that you never experience so-called negative emotions such as anger, sadness, worry, frustration, etc.

The negative emotions are there for a reason folks. They're not to be purged. This is not the goal of awakening or enlightenment, it is to purge all negative emotion and never experience it. If you believe that, you're still asleep.

Being enlightened does not mean that someone has purged all negative emotions and exists in a state of permanent tranquility. Sorry about the typo on my slide, I'll fix it later. As a matter of fact, that is probably a surefire sign that you are still asleep, if that's what you believe, that all the negative emotions are there to be purged. Negative emotions are not something that is there to be purged, or they wouldn't be there, okay?

They're there to be felt and experienced and worked with and worked through. They help work you through the situations that we are in. Particularly anger. This is one the New Age movement doesn't want you to have. They don't want anger to be there. The state doesn't want anger to be there either. Because they're trying to keep you tranquil. That's why the state gives you religions.

The entrenched powers that be, the powers that shouldn't be, are the ones who have constructed the religions of passivity. They're the ones who put these religions forward as mind control techniques to prevent people from taking action, to change things and to end the condition of slavery that we are in. So they gave us these religions to just propagate passivity so that we will continue to accept our chains.

When righteous and channeled, anger can be a gift. Only when it is both righteous and channeled effectively. So I'm talking about righteous indignation here. The Hulk energy, I like to call it. The Hulk only hulked up when people wouldn't leave him alone and respect his boundaries, respect him as an individual. They kept trying to come at him and come at him and come at him. Wouldn't leave him alone.

If you so wish it, you have the right to be left alone by other people. And as the old saying goes, there's only two kinds of people. The kind of people that want to be left alone and the people who won't leave them alone. The people who won't leave them alone are the statists, the government and the supporters of it. The other people just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace.

So the New Age movement and religion is all about eradication of that Hulk energy because they're trying to tell you all anger is negative. No it is not. The kind of anger that's negative is when it's completely unrighteous. It's just you're getting upset over what you want. You're not getting upset over a valid, legitimate reason like, oh, I don't know, human freedom is being taken away? You know?

Which, you know, no, no, no, no, I'm sorry, the home football team lost the game today. That's something to get real angry about. Forget about human freedom, though. No, don't worry about that.

While non-righteous anger and unchanneled anger are counterproductive to both individual development and collective efforts to bring about positive change, righteous indignation when it is channeled productively can be a major motivation to create positive change in the world.

So this meme over here with Howard Beale from the movie Network, which is a phenomenal movie about the manipulation in mainstream media, and how it is basically used as a tool for mind control, which was put out, this allegorical film was put out in the mid-1970s, is still like a perennial favorite among people who look into topics such as this. He had that tagline in the movie, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore. That's righteous indignation, because it was about what was happening to the human condition and our rights.

So righteous indignation is positive channeled anger, which is there to be felt as an emotional compass to guide us to the way that we need to go, the right action that we need to be taking to create change in the world. Again, as the saying goes, if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. You know, the most enlightened among us feel rage at times. It's there to be experienced. It's not something to just purge and say, I want to feel good all the time. That's not what enlightenment is. And that's one of my other points coming up.

⁴⁴

(02:00:49) If you're not feeling like this, now, at the time we're living in, more likely than not it means you're not truly awake.

Because if you don't recognize that's what's really going on all around us, if you even have partially the picture, okay? And the reason that you would feel this condition of frustration that that person is displaying there is because you know the people around you are all still experiencing self-inflicted suffering because they don't know the truth, that they are still in ignorance of truth about natural law, and how that ignorance is leading to the human condition of slavery and perpetuating more and more self-inflicted suffering.

If the condition, knowing how few people really know the causal factors, that doesn't make you feel frustrated, something's wrong with you. There's something not quite working right in your emotional make-up if you don't feel that from time to time. I'm not saying dwell in that condition. Believe me, I’d be completely immobilized if I were to dwell in that condition. But I'd also be a liar if I told you I don't feel that way sometimes.

So being awake does not mean pursuing perpetual bliss in a world that is currently filled with suffering and slavery. Awakening, enlightenment is not about you being happy all the time. You hear so much in the New Age movement, follow your bliss. I was just told this on a radio interview. Mark, you're way too serious. Why don't you just follow your bliss? Because the whole world is in a state of complete ignorance and self-imposed suffering, and essentially completely immoral, and is bringing slavery down upon themselves.

So I should just want to go out and be blissful all the time. Not to try to educate my fellow human beings. No, no, no, no, no, no. Follow your bliss. Okay?

I mean, it's so childish. And I'm not putting down the overall happiness and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not saying people don't have a right to be happy. Please don't take my words, misconstrue them to an extreme and say, he said, if I'm ever happy, I'm an evil person. That's not what I'm saying, okay?

There is certainly a role for happiness in this life, and everybody is entitled to happiness, okay? But making that the sole pursuit or main objective of your life, that's called hedonism. And that's not why we're here, to pursue one pleasure after another, while the inequities and iniquities of our world are running rampant, that's not a sign of enlightenment or awakening, it's exactly the opposite. That's a sign that you're just pursuing self-pleasure, you're stuck in the lower self-identification, and all you want to do is hop from one fix to the next fix. There's nothing enlightened in that.

If hearing painful truth regarding the human condition is something that you'd rather not do because it brings you down, brings you out of your bliss state of mind, New Agers will tell you, hey, don't hit me with all that negativity, you're just being negative. Mind control, pedophilia, slavery, that's so negative, man, you're bringing me down, man. You know?

No, you're off in the clouds, not doing your work here on the ground, my friend. That's the truth of the matter. Okay? It's not about being blissed out. You might as well go smoke up some drug and just sit there all day. You know? That's what you want. Because you're doing the same thing with an emotion. You think an emotion isn't doing that. People who just want to sit and actually not take any real world action. All that's being done in a state like that, perpetually following bliss, you're pumping in native chemicals into the brain that are called endogenous morphines or endorphins. Endogenous morphines.

It's literally putting yourself into a drugged-out condition. That's what pursuing a lot of these new-age modalities can do, that are all about inaction. It's not about sitting in one place and meditating all day. It's about actually... I'm not putting out meditation either, folks. Don't take my words to those extremes either. Meditation is a very important practice to bringing consciousness into a place of balance and should be used as a mechanism to keep it there as well. I'm telling you there's valid applications for meditation, absolutely. And so much could be garnered spiritually from learning about it and practicing it. I'm telling you, that's not all there is to the story, to what's going on here. It's about understanding the self better through a methodology like that, to then get on the battlefield, get in the war.

This is a war that's going on here. It's a spiritual war. That is, what hangs in the balance is the freedom and evolution of humanity or humanity's enslavement and destruction. And if you don't think that's significant or important, I don't know what to tell you. Then what is?

So, when the New Ager tells you, man, you're bringing me down, or I'm trying to hold my space here. Pass the opium pipe, why don't you? You might as well. It's the same thing, it's wanting to just be blissed out all the time. And if you believe that that's what it's about, not looking at the ugly truth because you want to maintain your space of bliss, well, I would say you've probably bought into a whole lot of New Age bullshit about what the awakening process is, and the true awakening process has nothing to do with that.

⁴⁵TRUE FORGIVENESS IS TO CHANGE YOU, AND POSSIBLY THE OTHER(S)

⁴⁶

(02:06:56) Being awake means knowing what true forgiveness is.

And this could be another difficult one for some people, because we've also been lied to about what real forgiveness means. So let me talk about what real forgiveness is not. And first thing, let me state, I'm all for, absolutely all for true forgiveness. From the heart, forgiveness. I am for that. I think that is one of the things that we have to understand to truly learn and grow and advance our consciousness here. But that means we have to know what forgiveness really is. Not this notion that we've bought into about what it's about that it has nothing whatsoever to do with.

So this notion, forgive people even if they're not sorry for what they've done is not forgiveness. If you bought into that notion that that's what forgiveness is, you don't know what forgiveness really is. True forgiveness does not mean continuing to excuse the willful commission of wrongdoing an infinite number of times. That is naivete at best and cooperation with evil at worst. That's saying, that person I'm going to allow to remain in perpetual, no moral culpability, perpetual letting go of whatever moral culpability or responsibility that they have for their own behavior.

And there's nothing enlightened in saying that another person can do that by just continuing to do the same wrong action over and over again, and you just say, Oh, it's okay, it's okay, let it go, I'll let it go. It's not about letting things go. Letting go, letting too many evil things go is what has gotten us into the situation we're in. Because we don't want to get up in people's face and say, you're wrong about what you're doing there, and it needs to stop. And if you don't willfully recognize your wrongdoing and stop, I'm going to make it stop. You know, too many people won't go into that masculine dynamic. You know, by saying, I'm going to bring you this information, and you have a right to pay attention to it and then change your behavior if what you have been doing is violent, okay?

But that doesn't mean if you don't change your behavior after I've already given you that information, that I think you should just be allowed to continue to do that behavior that is violent and evil, unchecked. That's completely naive. That's asking for more. That's the abuse victim in a victim of abusive relationship that is being victimized and doesn't care enough about themself to say, I'm not going to take this anymore. And they continue to allow the abuse to happen. Now, they are complicit at that point.

That doesn't mean that they deserve what was happening to them, but they have become complicit in that abuse victim cycle when they refuse to say no. And that's where the powers that should not be want us. They want us in this state where we think forgiveness is something that it is not and we'll never say no.

True forgiveness is not about turning the other cheek in the traditional sense that people consider turning the other cheek. In biblical scripture, turning the other cheek was about continuing to give family members and friends and people that you care about more chances to understand the truth about what's really going on that they couldn't see before by continuing to go back to them and speaking the truth to them over and over again, even if they spit on you or slap the gift that you were trying to hand them out of your hand upon the first many attempts. And you continue to do that Okay.

I will continue to talk to people who have slapped the wisdom I'm trying to hand to them out of my hand okay in the in the you know reach of friendship to them. I'll continue to go back and do that until they say don't ever speak to me again. Then I'll respect that and I'll say, I'll never talk to you again. Okay? Most family members won't do that. I've told them, you want me to stop talking about this with you? This is my moral obligation to do it. This is what I'm going to talk about every time we see each other, unless you tell me you never want to talk to me again. Because it's my free will to talk to you about what I feel you need to understand. And it's your free will to say, no, I never want to hear any information from you. But I said, you're going to have to tell me you never want to speak to me again. And I'll go away and I'll never come back. I'll respect people's boundaries like that, sure. They have a right to be left alone.

But as long as I'm in their presence and they haven't told me I want you away from me for good, I'm speaking the truth in their presence. Period. And is that force? Yes, it is force. But it is not violence. Violence is remaining willfully ignorant in the presence of truth, and then the resultant actions continue to do harm to others as a result. That's violence. So going back to this notion of turning the other cheek, you know, if we do it in the sense that most people think of it, that's what it gets you. It helps to even out the scars. You know, when somebody who's being brutal with you, you know, is doing their work, and you just say, hey, let me have another, you're going to get another.

That's how a psychopath operates. A psychopath doesn't care about you. A psychopath is essentially an animal running on pure instinct. It's not really a human being. Human being has emotional capacity to empathize with other people. Unfortunately we're living here with more than one intellectual species. I almost said intelligent and I caught myself. We're living here with more than one intellectual species on this planet and the psychopath is one of them.

Purely instinctual creature with intellect and a whole lot of will to carry out their desires that doesn't have the capacity to feel emotion. What a psychopath will do is it will keep giving you scars all day long, and the next day and the day after that too, until you say no and make them stop.

True forgiveness does not mean continuing to excuse the willful commission of wrongdoings an infinite number of times. That's not what it is. That's setting yourself up for George Orwell's condition of the boot stamping on the human face for eternity, which we're already well down the path of, because we want to think we never have a right to say no and respond with defensive force.

I'm not telling you I want it to be done that way, folks. Let me overemphasize that. I think forceful revolutions are ultimately failure. Because until we can get it done in consciousness, it's not going to stick. That's why the last American revolution was ultimately a failure. Are we not right back where we were? You know it. What didn't change? The consciousness of the people didn't change. And guess what? If we have to do it again that way, then let it be done. I'll be ready for that eventuality too. I don't have all my eggs in that basket, probably not even half of them, but I have some in that basket. I have enough maybe to survive it, maybe not. But if it comes to that, I'll be there. I don't want it to come to that. I want to get this done in the realm of mind, in the causal realm, where it will stay. It will stay applied. And we won't have to do this in another hundred or two hundred years. That's why we call it a revolution. You just go round the wheel of karma all over again. That's why it's called a revolution.

We need a revolution in mind. Let's talk about what real forgiveness actually is. It's different than letting go. People want to equate these things of letting go. Letting go is a one-way process. That may, like, somebody, for example, I'll go back to my friend Jay Parker, abused by his own family members in a satanic cult when he was young. The family members are never going to apologize for what they did. They're psychopathic. They're satanic psychopaths. What he has done regarding that dynamic isn't forgive his family members, he has let go and is not saying, it's necessary for me to get vengeance or revenge. I can let go of a need for vengeance or revenge. That's not what forgiveness is about getting back at somebody.

Letting go means I can just do that, I can let it go. It doesn't mean I've forgiven you. Forgiveness is a two-way street. It involves the person who committed the wrong using those three powerful words, saying, I was wrong. Then, you can forgive them by saying, I acknowledge that you are sorry for what you have done, and I am taking your word beforehand, before you do anything else, and hence forgiveness. I'm taking what you are giving me in advance, your word that you will not continue to do that same behavior again. And therefore we're okay. I am not going to try to exact any vengeance or penalty or anything from you. Okay? We're even as long as you don't do the same thing again.

So true forgiveness is always a two-way street involving both the wrongdoer and those who were wronged. It is not a one-way process where the person who is wrong just says, I forgive you and it's done. That's not forgiveness. That is the process of mentally letting go, which is also very important and should be practiced in the condition where you know the person is not sorry and is not going to change. That's release from attachment, okay, to them, to you wanting them to change or be sorry for what they have done that they are not sorry for.

That's an important thing too, is that kind of release from attachment because that will eat you up inside. So if you let that go and you say, I'm no longer going to be angry about what happened, I accept it, violence was done, I can't undo the past, and I'm letting it go. That's not forgiveness. Forgiveness is when somebody says, I'm sorry, I was wrong, will you let this go, let us be even, I won't do it again. That's real forgiveness.

A sincere apology starts with the words, I was wrong, on the part of the wrongdoer, and what they're doing by that is they're telling the truth, admitting what they had done was wrong, and then they're going to, they're telling you they're going to cease in their engagement in their previously violent behavior. That's where true forgiveness begins. That's where true reconciliation must begin. It's a two-way street. Okay?

⁴⁷CHANGING THINGS & ACCEPTING THINGS

⁴⁸

(02:17:46) Being awake means knowing the difference between what can not be changed versus what should be changed.

Okay, now a New-ager once told me, Mark, never... Now listen to this statement, see if you could pick up the inherent contradiction in it. Before I started doing this series of lectures, somebody said to me, you should never say you should to anybody. Think about that for a minute. You should never say you should to anybody else.

This new age, the person that brought me to this new age nonsense had actually just broken the very thing that they told me never to engage in. Okay? Of course you should say you should not do something that is wrong with somebody else. The entire problem with the world is that too many people have sat back, watched violence and evil take place in their presence, and not said to the person that was engaging in it, you should not do that. That's why we're where we're at.

We need to know the difference between what cannot be changed and what should be changed. And I illustrate this concept with the original version, the original unadulterated version of Reinhold Niebuhr's Prayer of Serenity. This is given in a lot of the 12-step programs for alcoholism and other addictions. But in those 12-step programs, it's completely watered down. It's changed. It's not Niebuhr's Prayer of Serenity. It's a variant of it. It's more like a plagiarism of it, if you will. They've tried to take most of his words, but they've changed enough of it that it completely changes the deep core meaning of this very, very powerful invocation. And here's how it went in the original, before it was modified.

“God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that can not be changed. The courage to change the things which should be changed. And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other”.

Now, do you hear the difference in that versus, “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things which I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference”, which is how they're teaching this, the variant that they're using in the 12-step programs. First of all, there is no word I in this prayer.

It’s saying, “Give me grace, let me accept grace from creation to accept with serenity, with surrender, the things that cannot be changed”. And what are the things that cannot be changed? The laws of nature, natural law, moral law, that's what has to be accepted with grace and serenity. Those are the things that cannot be changed by anything we are capable of doing. Those laws work that way 100% of the time flawlessly and unwaveringly.

The next part of the prayer says, “grant me the courage to change the things which should be changed”. That's saying, give me the courage to take action when I recognize injustice is taking place around me. And I'm going to try to change the things that should be changed. It's not about you on the microcosmic scale saying, can I change these things in my life, can I not change these things in my life? It's not about you. This is something that goes back, this isn't about self-identification, this is about agape, wider care, universal care, about what's taking place in the world. That's what this prayer is about. Okay?

To change the things which I know are wrong and should be changed. And the wisdom to distinguish what is that which cannot be changed in nature, versus what should be changed in our experience here on earth. What is governed by free will, okay?

Therefore, if we change the behaviors that we're taking through our free will, the manifested result can be different. That's what we should change. What cannot be changed, the laws of morality, they have to be accepted, they have to be harmonized with. Our behavior has to be harmonized with them. That's all we can do, is discover them and then live in harmony with them.

So it's shortened often to “accept what you can't change and change what you can’t accept”. And I can get behind that. That's a nice, simple, abbreviated version of that. It says it.

While slavery, and this is all about distinguishing that one state from the other state, is slavery the current human condition? Yes, it is. We have to recognize that. But the human condition that we are existing in right now can be changed. I'm not telling you it's going to be easy. Because that would be blowing smoke up your rear end. If I was a new ager, I'd tell you, hey, let's just start meditating in this room today and we'll change the world. It's not going to be that easy, folks. As a matter of fact, it's going to be a whole lot damn harder than all that.

It's going to involve a lot of work, and struggle, and self-sacrifice and courage and persistence, persistence, constancy, willpower, effort. That's what it's going to take. That's what the great work to change the human condition is going to take. All that and then more.

The laws of nature, however, cannot be changed. They are eternally set in stone, so to speak. They are what is there, it has been that way, it is this way now, and it is going to be this way. See, people get these things confused. They think we can change the law, but the human condition is eternal. It's exactly the other way around. The human condition can be changed, but true law cannot be changed.

⁴⁹

(02:24:27) It's exactly the other way around from where most people have it in their mind. Oh, we can change that law, meaning man's law, you know. But, oh, the human condition, you want to change that human beings exist in a state of slavery. Oh, that's always been that way. It is that way now. It's always going to be that way.

No. That's a choice. That's that way because of the behaviors that are in effect. And then natural law is bringing us the consequences of those behaviors.

Well, when thinking that underlies behavior changes, the behavior will change and then the consequences will change. And you'll get a different result. That can be changed. The laws of nature, however, cannot be changed.

Humanity, the reason the human condition stays the way that it is is because humanity has not yet willed the human condition to change because we continue to ignore the laws of nature which govern the consequences of the human condition. Think about it for a moment. We ignore the laws of nature which govern the condition and we want the condition to change? You know? Unbelievable.

That's like saying, do me a favor, listen, can you reverse time for a moment so the glass I just dropped on the floor can unbreak and come up to the table? Well, it doesn't work that way. The laws of nature don't work that way. Sorry about that. Can I take my garden hose and keep spraying wet laundry and expect it to become dry so that I can put my clothes on? No. Because you're adding the same polarity that wets them. The laws of nature don't work that way.

Can you keep all the institutions in the world that have controlled people's mind and therefore led their behavior into immorality and thus led the people into slavery and expect, keep those institutions in place, keep government in place, keep money in place, keep religion in place, we want to magically have freedom. Yeah, that works about as well as stepping off the building and expecting not to get hurt. It works just as well as lighting your house on fire and expecting everything in the house to remain perfectly intact. You know? It's madness.

People want to be God in this respect. They want to be the arbiters of law and truth. They want to say, see, I ask people, do you want to suffer? And nobody says they want to suffer, and I believe them! I believe at their heart, even at a subconscious level, nobody truly really wants to suffer. Nobody hates themselves so much that they say, listen, I really want to suffer. I love it. Okay?

Here's what they're really... And then you say, well, are you willing to do the things that are required to change the condition that has led to suffering, and therefore the suffering won't be present? No, no, no, I'm not willing to do that. You know, please.

But, you know, I don't believe that that just means that the person just eternally hates themself, you know, or that they want to suffer. I think what they really want is they want to have their cake and eat it too. I want to be able to eat this slice of cake, but I still want it to be on the plate after I'm finished eating it. Well, it doesn't work that way. Sorry to burst your bubble. I want the eternally full bottle of water. I can drink the bottle down and then I put it down and it's magically full again. Well, the laws of nature don't work that way.

So if you're not willing to do the things that are required to change the condition, why would you expect the condition to change magically on its own? The laws of nature do not work that way. Period. That's it. So you cannot have all the things that are currently in place and say, I want freedom. Well, it doesn't work that way. Sorry. Sorry, but that's not how it works.

These institutions which are blocking access to true freedom need to be destroyed. When you're willing to do that and let go of those erroneous belief systems that are keeping you in a cage, then you'll be free. Until then, expect to live in the cage and enjoy your surroundings and circumstances. You know, that's it. That's all the universe is saying to us. Because the laws of nature do not care about you. They are giving you what you are giving you. That's the will of creation. The will of creation is what do you will for yourself. And creation is always going to say yes.

Well, here's the laws, here's how they work. You will this condition, that's what's required. That's a requirement under the law. You want to do that? You can have that. No, I don't want to do that. Can't have that then. That's it. And it doesn't care. You want to build a house? You're going to need building materials. You can't build a house from thought. You want to get that done? You've got to assemble the building materials. That's how a physical law works.

Well, you want freedom? There's building materials involved. And there's things that you, if there's a structure already built here and you want to build a different structure, well you can't build this and two things can't exist simultaneously in the same space.

Well, you've got structures that have built slavery here on the earth. You can't have them still built and still operational and have freedom at the same time. Laws of nature don't work like that, folks. Get over it. You know?

But that's what people want to think. I could be the arbiter of truth and law. And what that really is, is at a low level, of wanting to be God. So I call this our appointment with destiny. This is a new take on the old saying, what you resist, persists, which is a bunch of new age mumbo jumbo. No, if you resist tyranny, you'll probably put it down if you have enough resistance against tyranny. If you resist natural law, you'll definitely have slavery.

What you resist doesn't persist. Here's how this really works. This is the original teaching that was taught in the mystery tradition schools and was bastardized and watered down over thousands of years to come to us in the new age variant of what you resist persists.

⁵⁰RESISTING THE WRONG THINGS CONTINUES BAD MANIFESTATION, BUT RESISTING THE RIGHT THINGS CHANGES REALITY FOR THE BETTER

⁵¹

(02:30:50) The conditions that have manifested as a result of what you have been wrongly resisting is that which will continue to persist.

So has humanity been wrongly resisting natural law, morality, the moral law of the universe? Yes. What has it received as a result of that? A little thing called slavery has been perpetuated because of that. Will that continue to exist?

If you continue to resist moral law, yes it will. That's how the law of resistance works. It's not what you resist persists, it's what you haven't gotten. You're still resisting it. So now the condition that you've been receiving as a result of what you haven't understood and you've been resistant to understanding, you're going to get more of that. You're going to keep getting that. You're going to get it in ever greater abundance and frequency, too. Which is why we're at the tipping point, at the point where, you know, things are ready to really, really rapidly go downhill. Again, I don't say any of that because I'm fear-mongering. Nature is only going to take so much before a tipping point goes off. And then it's on. We mess with nature enough, then it's going to say, alright boys and girls, it's on. And good luck when it gets to that point.

We're already a long way into that. Because we're standing in front of a freight train saying, watch me stop this 200 mile an hour train with my own hand. Watch. You'll see. Yeah. Good luck. So, you know, you want to stand against nature? It's going to be a splat. Don't be that guy. Good advice.

⁵²

(02:32:46) Being awake means caring enough to take action to create positive change. Being awake is about action. It's about having enough knowledge to know what action is going to lead to a better outcome, not just taking action indiscriminately or randomly.

It's certainly not about remaining passive in the face of all the evil that's taking place in this world and just accepting everything as it is. Another New Age deception. When you accept everything just as it is, everything will stay just as it is.

So, by show of hands, how many people are perfectly comfortable with the human condition just the way that it is? And I mean, don't be embarrassed if you like life just the way that it is and you think everything is just, you know, just peachy keen and, you know, it's just so great here on earth, and there's no injustice, there's no inequities, there's no inequities, there's, you know, that shouldn't be to the extreme that they are at, and everything should just continue unabated along the course that it's going on. Hey, that's your free will, you know, choice to feel that way.

But for anybody that thinks that this place has a lot of learning and growing and evolving to do, okay, and it could be a whole lot better than how it is. Just accepting things how they are now are going to get you more of those things, and probably not just that, it's probably going to degrade ever steadily into worse conditions and worse states if we just accept the way things are.

You know, this means that we're not using will again. See, that's the ordering force is free will. The state you're going to get if you just let everything happen is entropy. Science will tell you that, right? Entropy is just the progressive force in the universe, how things tend. They want to be at their most undifferentiated state. Chaos, in other words. You do nothing, you get chaos.

⁵³

(02:34:49) You employ will, that will is the syntropic force that counters the entropic force.

It's the ordering principle, will. You don’t use will, nothing gets changed. You want to stay passive, nothing gets changed. Expect more of the same if passivity is what you want to do. Action will lead to change. Willpower will lead to change. Courage will lead to change.

The New Agers want to tell you, don't react to anything, just observe. So many people think that's being awake. I'm just going to be an observer of everything. I'll never react to anything. And people actually believe they're awake, they've bought into this and they believe that's enlightenment. Keep calm. Don't act. Don't change anything. Just stay calm. It's all about being as calm as possible. You know, the most calm people are some of the most asleep people, because they're not recognizing the importance of taking action to change anything here. Because again, they've brought into this notion that spirit is all that matters, and spirit is just by its nature totally calm and passive and doesn't do anything, you know, and therefore we shouldn't change anything here. You know, we're not here to change the world.

It's more new age bullshit. This is not a waiting game folks, you know, here's a great meme I just found on Facebook. Waiting for corruption to end itself should be any day now. Yeah, how's that working out? It should be any day now. Yeah, how's that working out? Yep, it's not going to happen that way. It's going to happen by collective acts of great willpower and personal responsibility and personal sacrifice. To step out of what you want in your own life, to learn the truth and then convey it to other people.

Like I said when I started, this isn't what I want to be doing with my time. I want to learn to garden in my yard, you know, because I suck at it. Okay? I want to learn to paint because I think I have a lot of creative talent that I could probably bring out in painting. And I've started doing a couple of pieces that I think I'm fairly proud of but I think could be way, way, I could get way, way better. And I don't pursue that creative ability because the world is in a state of total chaos and disarray, and I have a moral obligation to communicate the truth about what I know about morality and how it works to other people.

So I'm not here by my own, you could say I'm here by my own free will choice, because I could just say screw it, I'm not going to do it. But I'm not going to do that because I'm not that kind of a person. I recognize the moral obligation and so I will fulfill it. Because certainly nobody else is putting out anything like this. Or if there are, there's very few. I shouldn't say nobody, that's unfair to some people who are doing this work. It's very few. It's paltry. It's paltry. Okay?

That's the word I would use to describe who's really telling the truth about the human condition, what's going on in this world, and how to change it. It's paltry. We need so many more people involved in this work that it's almost incalculable. This isn't a spectator sport. I am not here for you to pay attention to me. I am here for you to pay attention and integrate this knowledge into yourself. Okay?

I'm just a conveyor of that knowledge. That's it. Taking it from one place to another place. Now you've got to be conveyors of that. I'm not here to have followers. I don't want you to follow me. I'm not your leader. I'm not your guru. I can't be any of those things for anybody. I can barely do those things for me. I don't want to do those things for me sometimes, to be quite honest. Okay? But I do.

And I'm here to tell you, you have to be your own leader. You have to be responsible for yourself. You have to set your own goals. You have to learn the truth yourself. And then you need to communicate that truth to other people.

They set other people, they say, here's the path to mastery. You want to be a master? Go down that path.

That's all a master does. After he's been down it, I can tell you what's at the other end. I went down it. You want to be a master? Go down that path, you'll be a master. Then you'll be ready to teach other people. Period. I'm not saying, knowing what it takes to know the truth and be awakened makes me a super better individual than anybody else. I struggle with doing the right thing just like other people will. okay. Every day. The whole point is I'm trying constantly. That's what it's about continued persistence. Trying all the time to better yourself. All right, so don't look at this as hey, what's that person going to teach today?

You know it's about what do I know right now that I can communicate to somebody that doesn't know this. You know it well enough to communicate it. Well, then do it. That's what doing the great work is about. This section about care is all about this lost principle of true care. Agape as I talked about it being known in the ancient Greek mystery traditions. This lost principle, the dynamic of care, what we care about on a day-to-day basis acts as the driving force of our thoughts and our actions.

Care is the ultimate generator. It's the generative principle, it has been called. It generates the quality of our experience. What we care enough about to act on is what generates the quality of our experience here. For this reason, care has been called by many traditions the generative principle. The word generative is derived from the Latin verb genere, which again means to create. Care is what we actually use. The heart energy is what we use to create our shared collective experience, which again why in this slide with all of the chakras being lit up in the individual, the central one is the heart or anahata chakra.

⁵⁵

(02:41:22) The heart is the true generator. The generative principle is about what we care about.

And again, this isn't about, oh I care about you in a fraternal love sense or even a romantic sense. This is about wider care, cosmic care, care about what's happening, what's going on, what's manifesting, and caring enough about wanting to change it because you know it's not right as is taking place right now. And people are suffering as a result.

What we care enough about to put our will behind and act upon is what ultimately gets created in our world. The world is the way that it is, unfortunately, because most people do not care enough, even if they say they want things to be different, to change the world through their actions. That's the sad truth about the human condition. And until the heart is expanded, and we care enough to get in on the battlefield and take right action in the world and teach the difference between right and wrong not only to ourselves and others around us, our children, future generations, those who come after us, don't expect any real positive lasting change. It doesn't just magically manifest on its own. It takes the ordering principle of willpower driven by true care. That's what it's going to take to get this work done. A couple more.

⁵⁶

(02:42:55) Being awake means knowing that enlightenment is not only about changing yourself regardless of what is happening to others, instead it is about actively being involved in the awakening process of others.

And that involvement in the awakening process of others is what is known as the true great work. Okay?

That means you've awoken yourself to the truth. Now you're going to help other people come online to what is. Okay? You're going to help them awaken in the same way that you awoke. The goal of awakening is not to feel good all the time, as we've already talked about in the past section. Anybody telling you that enlightenment is just all about feeling good, pursuing what feels good to you, following your bliss, it's new age mumbo jumbo, it's new age deception.

⁵⁷MASTERS CREATE MASTERS, NOT FOLLOWERS, WHO MASTER THE ART OF FOLLOWING OF TRUTH ONLY

⁵⁸

(02:43:52) With awakening comes responsibility above all else to truth.

That is, that's I only have one master, okay? And if there was never a truer statement than, God is truth. And that is my master. I bend the knee to no other force in nature. Thank you. I have 15 minutes. I was just thanking Ray for the point in time. That's perfect. I should end right on schedule.

This is about responsibility to truth. That's the force that we have to serve. See, service to others is fine. As a matter of fact, it's a very high level of consciousness. Certainly higher than serving the self and just feeling good all the time. But there is a modality of awakening and consciousness beyond serving others. It's called serving truth. Service to truth is the highest form of consciousness.

Truth can never be destroyed, but humanity can be destroyed when we refuse to act in service to truth as her defenders. Another big New Age nonsense deception is that truth doesn't need to be defended. Of course truth needs to be defended. The lie, the deceivers, the liars, the deceivers, they're speaking the lie 24-7, 7 days a week, 365 and a quarter days a year, non-stop. We don't defend truth. Truth doesn't have a voice for itself. We have to be its mediums for expression in the world. We have to be its voice.

It is possible for us to co-create a positive outcome, even in the late stage that we are in right now, even how far into bondage and slavery we are in, a positive outcome is possible for us to co-create. But this can only be accomplished if we care enough to learn the truth ourselves and then develop the courage to continuously speak that truth to other people so that they may also learn it.

It is an exercise in willpower and persistence and courage. Seek the truth, then speak the truth. That is the formula for the great work. Seek the truth, then speak the truth. You take it in, then you have to let it flow back out. And that's what the heart energy is all about. Caring enough to use your time and attention to communicate with other people. What is the true great work?

The true great work, it is our shared responsibility at this time to help awaken others by continuously speaking the truth unapologetically. Even if we feel burdened by this task, and even if it makes all of those involved feel uncomfortable, courage and persistence are required to perform this great work. We're going to have to drag people into uncharted territory, away from everything that they've known but has kept them enslaved. We're in a state of comfortable slavery.

Would you rather be in comfortable slavery or dangerous uncharted territory where you're free. Well, I'll take the unknown and freedom every single second of the day over safe, comfortable, known slavery. You know? People say, well, don't you want to be safe? Not at the expense of my freedom. I'll take cannibals lurking around every corner at the expense of my freedom, rather than the expense of my freedom. Okay?

Give me the world filled with cannibals where I'm not owned by somebody else or even claimed to be owned by anybody else. Those cannibals wouldn't claim they own me, they'd just claim they want to eat me. That's better than somebody claiming that they own me. It's at least a lot more honest, I'd say. So, you know, I'd take a world where danger lurks around every corner and be free than take perfectly safe and known slavery that doesn't involve unknown elements or the possibility of chaos.

Now that's no small order, that's a tall order. Because what you are, in no uncertain terms, asking someone to do is to abandon their religious, their false religious beliefs, because that's what the belief in authority is, false religion.

In short, what the true great work comes down to is to help people to abandon their false religions, the erroneous and dogmatic beliefs which hold back the progress of consciousness by impeding the reception of natural law, of truth and natural law.

So what is the goal of the true great work? Is there a goal? Is it just a continuous process that never ends? I would say no, it's not. I would say that's what evolution is all about, that's what consciousness is all about. There will be other challenges, right here and now on the earth, there is a goal to the true great work. There is a goal to it. There is an end that we are trying to arrive at. That's another thing. People want to tell you, oh, there's never an end to arrive at. Yeah, there are ends to arrive at. That doesn't mean life ends at that point or learning ends at that point or our personal journey and growth and development ends at that point.

⁶⁰

(02:50:04) What does the true great work here on earth end with? It ends when we end slavery.

The goal of it is to end slavery on this planet. And that is what the true spiritual warriors came to this planet to accomplish. That is the mission. To end slavery on the earth. And you know what derailed the mission? Religion. And the New Age movement. And the pursuit of endless hedonism. And the pursuit of money. And the belief in authority. And pursuing fake science. And all the other religions, the things that hold us back from where we say we want to go. We got derailed from that mission. We chose the mission, you know, volunteers for earth please, well we all stepped forward didn't we? Or maybe everybody else took a step back. You know, either way, we're here in the now, right here on earth, and there is work to be done and that is the goal of that work. I am not going to lie to you and say it's going to be easy or that we will even actually accomplish it. But I'll tell you what, as long as I draw breath, that is the end that I will work toward. That is the goal that I will keep in my sights, whether it is accomplished within my lifetime or is never accomplished within my lifetime.

⁶¹

(02:51:41) Being awake, this is the last point, and then we'll go to question and answer session. Being awake does not equate to perfection.

I'm right on time. Amazing. Rather, it is about doing your very best in the most difficult of circumstances. No one is perfect. If you are expecting perfection, you're in the wrong universe, folks. Because perfection does not exist here. I am far from perfect. Everybody else is far from perfect. We can aspire to that. We can set it as something to look to and aspire to. But to expect to achieve perfection is a pipe dream. And it's only going to set people up for disappointment. And that's another aspect of what religion is there to do.

Impossible standards only ensure that people don't bother trying. So what a lot of false religion has done is set up the saviors in these religions, or set up the archetypes in these religions as, “They led perfect lives”. They never made any mistakes. They never did anything wrong in their life. I mean, seriously? People buy into this notion that beings have led 100% perfect lives in the flesh, on the earth? Well, I don't think there's any greater example of a bullshit story than that. There's nobody on this planet who is perfect. There never has been and there never will be Okay.

We are here to learn and to grow in consciousness in truth in morality. That doesn't mean you're going to be perfect. You know you have to try in all moments to do the best that you can. But when you set up these big figures on pedestals saying that was part this person was perfect. This being was perfect, and that's what we have to try to be like. You know what everybody says? Oh, I'm out of here. You know, I don't even want to hear another word because how is that even going to be possible?

They intuitively and rightfully, subconsciously recognize that's not even possible in the kind of world we're living in. You know, that's what religion was there to do. Put people in that right brain mode, putting this archetypal concept up on a pedestal as the symbol of perfection and you have to try to aspire to that level of perfection, no wonder it turns so many people off. And people don't even want to try to discover what real morality is about.

What it's ultimately about is looking right there and improving what you see each and every day, a little bit at a time. It doesn't have to be done all at once. It's a stepwise progression, a stepwise process. You can't expect to awaken all at once. I don't expect everybody within the sound of my voice today to suddenly awaken to any or all of the truths that they've seen here today.

It took me eight and a half years about to undo the programming that I received when I was involved with the dark cult. I would say that process is probably still undergoing in small ways in subtle ways. Okay. It's a it's a stepwise progression requiring time, requiring patience, requiring courage, requiring persistence, and constant effort, constant effort.

But remember one thing, the more awake you are, the more awake the world is, because we are a part of the world. As you awaken to greater degrees, the aggregate quality of the consciousness of the people on this planet awakens to greater degrees, because we are part of that aggregate consciousness.

So never think that you can't make an effect as an individual. I'll tell you what, I made significant impact on this planet as an individual, and my words will resound into the cosmos long after I am gone, in this physical shell.

And I will make my Mark upon this world. Pun intended. We are not insignificant or powerless as individuals. We have more power than we can even imagine.

Never, ever, ever give up. Truth, love and freedom are worth fighting for. Way beyond that, folks, they're not just worth fighting for, they're worth everything. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention.

1

---

---

2

---

BALANCE OF SACRED FEMININE/MASCULINE

---

3

---

(00:00:48) Being awake = living BOTH sacred feminine & masculine principles.

---

4

---

(00:02:00) The difference between force and violence.

---

5

---

(00:04:19) Examples of the difference between force and violence.

---

6

---

NATURAL LAW IS HARMONIZED WITH RATHER THAN ENFORCED BY HUMANS

---

7

---

(00:23:36) Natural law is harmonized with by people NOT enforced by authority. Understanding brings harmonization but enforcement brings confusion.

---

8

---

(00:25:35) Natural law is universal, like gravity, and the laws of morality are universal as well.

---

9

---

(00:27:15) The whim of legislators determines man’s law, which is moral relativism, the idea there is NO objective right and wrong and humans just get to make it up.

---

---

(00:28:29) Natural law is eternal and cannot be changed by man.

---

10.

11

---

(00:29:14) If a human law is in harmony with natural law, it is redundant.

---

12

---

(00:31:15) If a human law is NOT in harmony with natural law, it is false, immoral, and wrong, and should NOT be followed.

---

13

---

GOVERNMENT IS OTHER FLAWED HUMANS TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR MIND, BUT FREEDOM IS YOU VOLUNTARILY GOVERNING YOUR OWN MIND

---

14

---

(00:37:00) The word government literally means mind control etymologically.

---

15

---

(00:39:24) Jurisdiction means making law with words, as juris means law and diction means speech (ie speaking/writing laws into existence). This is man wanting to be God and make up right and wrong, and a form of Satanic word magic, casting spells, as spelling words casts spells and controls mind. Words control how humans think rather than thoughts control our words to communicate clearly.

---

16

---

(00:41:25) Belief in authority is evidence of mental illness.

---

17

---

(00:44:24) The Old World Order was just Kingship in one person.

---

18

---

(00:45:32) The New World Order is just Kingship spread over many people and calling it government.

---

19

---

(00:46:37) Being awake = knowing deeply that government is slavery. Divide and conquer strategies government uses to enslave minds include: race, ostensible religion, background, social status, amount of money people make, how people dress, how people talk, what people look like, age, sex, etc… and redundant & immoral laws around such things exacerbate differences because it makes people easier to control. There is only one true divide, those who believe in authority and those who know the idea is a lie.

---

20

---

(00:54:15) Being awake = being an anarchist, which simply means NO slaves and NO masters. Any form of statism is condoning & endorsing slavery, something asleep people do.

---

21

---

(00:56:00) There is NO such thing as a person who is awake and also believes in the legitimacy of government or authority. At best, perhaps such a person could be said to be partially awake and needs to go all the way.

---

22

---

(01:00:35) Anarchy does NOT mean no rules, but rather NO rulers. Self-ownership and self-respect, and personal sovereignty and responsibility are necessary to be a mature conscious entity that rules itself according to natural law “rules” without any external rulers.

---

23

---

TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF FREEDOM CREATES & INSPIRES RESPONSIBLE FREE WILL

---

24

---

(01:02:06) Being awake = knowing the critical importance of free will & personal responsibility.

---

25

---

(01:03:45) Conscious people understand & accept moral culpability (ie blame and who is responsible for harm caused to others).

---

26

---

(01:11:37) Order followers are more morally culpable than order givers because order followers’ actions ACTUALLY brought the harm into manifestation.

---

27

---

(01:13:36) Order followers (ie police and military) are the pathway to all evil & chaos. Order following is closely related to belief in authority, but order followers are MORE morally culpable than order givers.

---

28

---

(01:19:30) By definition, following orders is NOT following conscience therefore is immoral.

---

29

---

(01:20:53) History does NOT automatically repeat itself. History repeats, like in Nazi Germany, because those who do not LEARN from history will repeat it. This is why the state run education system does not teach lessons from history, because governments have been overrun and taken control by globalists, who seem to be pushing for a worldwide Coviet Union. See PSYOPS for more details.

---

30

---

FREEDOM MUST SOMETIMES BE PHYSICALLY DEFENDED AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTRUDERS

---

31

---

(01:29:28) A truly enlightened person does NOT have a revulsion to gun ownership for self-defense.

---

32

---

(01:39:59) The people who are order followers are ultimately stuck in a condition known as self-loathing. Self-loathing is the underlying psychological condition that causes people to attempt to abdicate their own personal responsibility to exercise conscience, and to fall into patterns of order following and justification.

---

33

---

(01:36:07) Being awake = knowing that self-loathing order followers take orders from Satanic scum; most know it and do so consciously & willfully.

---

34

---

(01:38:34) Only true self-respect can bring a person out of self-loathing and following orders.

---

35

---

(01:40:07) Natural law doesn't care why you did something, only whether it was done or not. It is like a computer program that interfaces with your free will and brings consequences unwaveringly.

---

36

---

THE ORIGINS SCHISM HELPS KEEP PEOPLE TRAPPED IN IMBALANCE

---

37

---

(01:43:32) The origins schism helps keep people from changing their individual human condition (ie Darwinian scientism).

---

38

---

(01:45:18) The creationism dialectic is the other side of origins that keeps people from changing their human conditioning. Both Darwinian scientism and creationism leave people at the mercy of outside forces and deny free will, believing people are merely puppets on strings.

---

39

---

(01:47:32) Epigenetic evolution of humanity, which is evolution in consciousness, is what will propel humans beyond the mind control dialectics of Darwinian scientism and creationism.

---

40

---

(01:53:28) Being awake = to be awoken means you're doing the work here to change this world right here in the now where you're at now, from where you're at now. It is NOT just believing something, like New Agers tell people sweet things they want to hear, or abdicating personal responsibility and waiting on Saviors like Christ, Trump, etc…

---

41

---

NEGATIVE EMOTIONS ARE POSITIVE WHEN WORKED THROUGH AND CHANNELED PROPERLY

---

42

---

(01:55:44) Being awake = being awake does not mean that you never experience so-called negative emotions such as anger, sadness, worry, frustration, etc. and only asleep people think so, and purging all negative emotion is not the goal, rather work with negative emotion to galvanize action in the real world.

---

43

---

(01:58:10) The first natural law right is the right to be left alone and not bothered by those who refuse to leave you alone. Only two kinds of people in the world: those who want to be left alone (private individuals) and those who won’t leave them alone (statists who want to dominate them).

---

44

---

(02:00:49) Being awake = like the meme shows a man frustrated that everybody around him is asleep, because of ignorance of natural law.

---

45

---

TRUE FORGIVENESS IS TO CHANGE YOU, AND POSSIBLY THE OTHER(S)

---

46

---

(02:06:56) Being awake = knowing what true forgiveness is, which is NOT simply allowing the same bad actions repeatedly. Forgiveness is one-way when simply let it go AND do actions to prevent the other’s bad behavior. Forgiveness is two-way when the offending party sincerely asks for forgiveness AND voluntarily does not engage in the immoral behavior anymore (ie sometimes called reconciliation).

---

47

---

CHANGING THINGS & ACCEPTING THINGS

---

48

---

(02:17:46) Being awake = knowing the difference between what cannot be changed and what should be changed. Natural law cannot be changed, but our free will behaviors can. Shortened version of Niebuhr's “Prayer of Serenity”: accept what you can’t change (natural law) and change what you can’t accept (immoral actions in yourself and others). This will require: a lot of work, and struggle, and self-sacrifice and courage and persistence, constancy, willpower, effort, etc……

---

49

---

(02:24:27) Most people have the dynamic backwards and say, “we can change the law (ie man’s law) but we can’t change the human condition”. But the exact opposite is true, “we can’t change the law (ie God’s natural law) but we can change the human condition with education, time, and effort”.

---

50

---

RESISTING THE WRONG THINGS CONTINUES BAD MANIFESTATION, BUT RESISTING THE RIGHT THINGS CHANGES REALITY FOR THE BETTER

---

51

---

(02:30:50) New Age bullshit says, “that which you resist persists”. But really, the conditions that have manifested as a result of what you have been WRONGLY resisting (ie natural law) is that which will continue to persist. Stop resisting natural law and harmonize with it, and the outward world will change.

---

52

---

(02:32:46) Being awake = caring enough to take action to create positive change, and knowing what actions to take, rather than indiscriminate and random/occasional change..

---

53

---

(02:34:49) Will is the syntropic force (ordering force) that counters the entropic force (the tendency in nature for everything to devolve into undifferentiated chaos).

---

54

---

(02:39:08) A real master creates other masters, not followers. Most so-called leaders just want fame, fortune, and followers, rather than setting people free and creating another master-leader.

---

55

---

(02:41:22) The heart is the true generator (ie generative principle). What we care enough about to take action is what generates our experience individually and collectively.

---

56

---

(02:42:55) Being awake = enlightened people don’t just change themselves but are actively involved in awakening others by teaching natural law in both words AND example. This is the true One Great Work.

---

57

---

MASTERS CREATE MASTERS, NOT FOLLOWERS, WHO MASTER THE ART OF FOLLOWING OF TRUTH ONLY

---

58

---

(02:43:52) Being awake = responsible to serve truth above all else. Service to other created beings is secondary.

---

59

---

(02:48:14) The true great work is the arduous task of influencing others to awaken to the truth. It is to help others, those people, to realize that in supporting and condoning the legitimacy of authority and government, or in other words, man's law, based in moral relativism, that what they have actually been supporting and condoning is the legitimacy of slavery, and that they have been immoral for having taken that position.

---

60

---

(02:50:04) The true great work ends when we end slavery on earth.

---

61

---

(02:51:41) Being awake = NOT perfect. Nobody is perfect and such ideas only inhibit people from being their best and constantly improving.

---