One of the things I have come to the conclusion of. In relation to the Law of One. Is that a significant portion of what the Law of One contact talked about with the trio was "lying".
They stated, when talking about the moon archetype, that "the light can conceal as well as reveal". So we know that from their perspective, by their own words. "Maximum service" doesn't necessarily mean "maximum truth".
One of the places that this seemed obvious to me is when talking about the events of the second world war. The contact, in one of the earlier sessions, brought up without being prompted, Hitler as a negative, service to self, force.
Since that time, on this and many other issues, I have found things within the Law of One that I don't think are correct. But importantly, none of these things distract from the more emotionally lead message they prioritised. It seems that their mission in what they were saying was to communicate a more faith based message, and whenever literal people were involved, or more solid events. They used a large dollop of metaphor, rather than strict truth in their telling.
I have questions about the events of World War 2... These are NOT sure things. Like, I'm not a hardcore revisionist of some sort. But the story never made sense to me, and there are enough questions, enough unanswered questions, to make me suspicious of a lot of the narratives.
For instance, as an example. I heard that at the end of World War 2, the allies were bombing Germany so mercilessly, and they had very little intelligence as to what was where in Germany, that the pictures of concentration camp bodies came from bombing the food trucks that were meant to have delivered food. Not from, as was claimed, gassing deaths.
The questions, just go on and on. But the Law of One went clearly with the official narrative. I think this is a good example to show free will in action. The people involved and 99% of those reading the Law of One passionately, evangelically, not only believe the official historical narrative as a matter of fact. But are emotionally invested in this story to a huge degree. The label of "Nazi", is today one of unrepentant, unyielding, malevolence.
Had the Law of One calmly came out with an other than official narrative. Then this would have caused a great deal of stress, probably violated the free will of those reading who are there seeking spiritual information, not a changed history. It would also alert those in power with an interest of propagating the official narrative. To the danger the Law of One posed. It is a crime in France as an example to question the holocaust. Similar laws could easily be passed in America to shut the Law of One down. Carla, Don and Jim could have found themselves in jail. People have been jailed in some countries for questioning the holocaust when it is not in those countries laws that it is not allowed to be questioned.
I believe this pattern is true of a lot of the Law of One. Wherever legitimate history conflict with free will understandings. The Law of One will go with the understanding of history that does not conflict with free will.
Having said all that, I wanted to think about this quote a little:
Questioner: I was really questioning more about the more basic cause of the disease rather than the mechanism of its transmission. I was going back to the root or thought which created the possibility of this disease. Could you shortly tell me if I am correct in assuming that the general reduction of thought over the long time on planet Earth with respect to an understanding of the Law of One created a condition in which this— what we call disease could develop? Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and perceptive. You, as questioner, begin now to penetrate the outer teachings.
The root cause in this particular society was not so much a bellicose action although there were, shall we say, tendencies, but rather the formation of a money system and a very active trading and development of those tendencies towards greed and power; thus, the enslaving of entities by other entities and the misapprehension of the Creator within each entity.
I wonder about this line. I think it is very accurate and I have seen this in real life. I used to work in an office and the managers did expect unpaid overtime from staff and all sorts of other things. Those who would not co operate were fired. This economy IS laid out so certain people do not have the money, and probably have to make pretty terrible concessions.
Being a very pro free market, pro business person. This was also my first instinct when I was a leftist when I was about 20. It was not easy to see this, and a lot of other, examples of unethical business practices now that I am more right wing though.
However, like many things in the Law of One. I think a more rounded understanding can be offered. I was quoted this on the Law of One subreddit when offering free market arguments. It seemed to me like a kind of get out clause so people didn't have to lose an argument. They didn't like that I mentioned the positivity of the market, free trade etc. So they wanted to say that in this magical land of imagination. This utopia where there is no money system. That things would be as they have said.
Like I said, a lot of things to say here. Firstly, is that taxation taking like, 50-70% of the money in the world (they tax a transaction like five different times) is changing the situation a great deal. There is also, importantly, inflation.
Paul Wallis talks about how there are ancient records of a group of people that were living a good life under a barter system, then an extra terrestrial group came about. The extra terrestrial group instigated a money system and the money system inflated. So eventually, the people in those places were forced into rented accommodation, and had to continue to struggle as that got harder.
Peter St Onge talks about how almost all of our best achievements, including the beginning of the internet, were actually started in a small period of American history when they had a gold standard. So the money was not able to be inflated.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If you have a gold standard and money that is not able to be inflated. It becomes more difficult to support entities and organisations that are serving nefarious purposes but that actually don't produce any wealth. Such as leftist organisations in general. An example is women in video games. Video games became terrible once women went into them, on government threat, and turned everything into a nannying, progressive politics fest. Getting out the male coders who are interested in coding than their personal power.
If money was really valuable, and couldn't be just printed and given out to people that didn't produce anything. The feminist organisations that campaigned for this kind of thing with the government simply wouldn't get funded. They do not produce anything. All they do is whine. So money that is actually valuable wouldn't go towards them, as there is no return on investment.
But with printed money you have nepotism and agendas. With the gold standard, I imagine, meritocracy returns. Because high performers become valuable again. Rather than what we have now where they are overworked and not appreciated, to subsidise the special interests.
This is my take on this quote and my take on bringing this quote down to a real level. A real grounded everyday level. We have never, not in recorded history anyway, had a suitably large society without a money system. The Law of One might state this but in practice. I think any society we have will have a money system. It's just how things are now.
Perhaps things are done differently on this planet? But I suspect, firstly, that the real problem here might be these manipulations (such as inflation) that were not spelled out. Secondly, that a money system that doesn't inflate might work just time. And as a side note, anyone arguing for leftism by this quote isn't taking in the fact that leftism has super high taxes. So it increases the service to self aspects of any money system we have.
No comments:
Post a Comment