Natural Hierarchy—Soul of Humanity—Light—Love

There are two hierarchies.

The dominance hierarchy forcibly rewards those who are most tribal and conformist—the peak of animal evolution—the Soul of Animals—Darkness—Banality.

The natural hierarchy voluntarily rewards those most exemplary of nobility, honesty, integrity, open mindedness, courage, curiosity, progress, and independent thought—the peak of human evolution—the Soul of Humanity—Light—Love.

The eternal war of the Soul of Humanity vs. the Soul of Animals is also the eternal war of Makers vs. Takers, which is the eternal war of darkness vs. light. It is the eternal war of love vs. banality.

In the eternal war of Makers vs. Takers, the Makers were continually gaining ground against the Takers (i.e. kings, aristocracy, priest class, fiat bankers, organized crime, politicians, bureaucrats, cronies, slave owners, power brokers, spooks, players) until the 20th century, during which, the Takers were ascendant, and now in the 21st century, the Takers are thoroughly dominant.

The Takers have given themselves cover and buttressed the illusion of their legitimacy by manipulating just about everyone into becoming the worst version of themselves (entitled, tribalistic, conformist, angry, petty, bullies addicted to virtue-signaling). The Takers have allied themselves with the darkness in each of us more strongly than ever before.

As you may have intuited, the true battlefield is within each of us.

Of course, the Takers don’t want us to know that the darkness in one is allied with the darkness in all because then we might figure out that the light in one is allied with the light in all. Nor do the Takers want us to know that the world is the result of our individual choices because then we might simply decide to embrace the soul of our humanity and be the person we really want to be. We might rediscover what every little boy wants to be when he grows up, and in the end, what every man wishes he had been. We might ask ourselves: Do we want a natural hierarchy or a dominance hierarchy? A hierarchy of light, or a hierarchy of darkness? Eternal love, or eternal banality? We might figure out that we must win the battle inside ourselves and that we must help others to win the battle inside themselves.

Let’s start at an earlier point.

It could be that the dominant families had formed their globally dominant cabal as early as 1600 BC, but let’s start a little later than that.

We know from America’s initial systems at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, which equally distributed the fruits of the community’s labor, and in which every individual knew the consequences of slacking would be mass starvation and beatings, that only 10% of individuals were industrious, and that even those 10% were not as industrious as they could have been. What we also learned from them is that when those same individuals were no longer given free stuff, but were allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, and were allowed to own the land they worked, then about 90% became very industrious.

The dominance of work ethic, common sense, and respect for the individual, which arose in early America (1607-1624), was still dominant in 1692. In other words, the Makers were dominant in America, which was tantamount to a black swan event that conflicted with the rising power of the European Takers in America (European royalty, Harvard University, British Naval Intelligence, fiat bankers, slave traders, rum runners, Caribbean plantation owners, and crony merchants).

The Makers just happened to be American Puritans (a.k.a Pilgrims), which determined the nature of the false flag the Takers would use to wrestle power from the Makers, so in 1692 the Takers launched the false flag known as The Salem Witch Trials, and this poison pill injected into the heart and soul of America sent the Puritans on a permanent downward spiral. By 1700 some of the wealthiest Puritans were even participating in the slave trade.

Work ethic, common sense, and respect for the individual continued to be the ideal that appealed to most Americans (and many Europeans). It was an environment in which the Soul of Humanity could flourish, and thus it was two steps forward and one step back for much of the 18th and 19th centuries because if the players wanted to maintain the illusion of their legitimacy, they had to play along and consolidate power only when they had plausible deniability (e.g the Civil War). For example, Lincoln started the Civil War—just as the players have started pretty much all wars. He also attacked civilians, imprisoned legislatures, suspended Habeas Corpus, slaughtered Native Americans, and wanted blacks to be inferior and go back to Africa.

The 20th century saw a catastrophic setback to the Soul of Humanity. The players used a variety of manipulations to promote collectivism (socialism, communism, fascism, progressivism) to control individuals, and make us as dependent as possible on government (them). They even manipulated a large minority into demanding government dependence.

“Few things are more debilitating than a small but adequate stipend.”—(I thought Edmund Burke said this, but this quote appears to have been scrubbed from the Internet.)

Government dependency is one of the atrocities perpetrated on the black community, and some brave black men have figured that out. They know that government dependency is the new plantation and that collectivists put them there. They call themselves runaway slaves.

We will not fixate on government dependency because it is only one of the Takers’ major ongoing projects.

One of the few positive occurrences of the 20th century was when the Takers gave women the right to vote, but of course they would not have done that if there were any chance that women would find the wherewithal to vote for candidates outside their control, or if women would vote against collectivism or government dependency.

This brings us to another of the players’ major plays, which is to divide us (left-right, black/white, men/women, etc.). More specifically they manipulate individuals to dislike, distrust, and distance each other so that we are looking at each other instead of looking at them, and so that we cannot unite against them. Pretty much all of pop culture is infected with such toxicity.

If you have any doubt that they exist, just consider how they have exercised the power to cover up WTC 7 in the global mainstream for all this time. Not even the most powerful intelligence agencies combined have the ability to perpetrate such a total global mainstream cover up of such ubiquitous, self-evident, and earth-shattering proof that the official story cannot be true.

Though the players are guilty of every conceivable atrocity, do not fear these so-called elite. They must hide in the shadows. They are the sickest among us. They cannot compete in a free-market.

Rather than write pages and pages about how we are all being played, poisoned, and purged (that will be another article), let’s do exactly what the players fear most.

No, I’m not talking about zero squads. That may be their most immediate and visceral fear, but an even bigger threat, and one that is harder for them to manage is … What if a critical mass became the best version of ourselves?

The players are already explicitly fighting back against this threat. For example, in the film “Captain Marvel” the sneaky bad man tells Captain Marvel at three different points that he is trying to help her become the best version of herself—as if that is what sneaky bad guys do—as if anyone who says that is trying to trick you. (I don’t recall any previous movie mentioning that even once.) That movie contained more propaganda than most, and thus rightly garnered many critical reviews, but not one of those reviews mentioned this phenomenon. Ultimately such reviews exacerbate relations between men and women—just like the movie itself does. Hmm … Unlike those who have influence, before spouting off, I ask myself, “Am I making relations between men and women better, or worse?”

Let’s begin.

The light in me is allied with the light in you. The light in one is allied with the light in all.

I feel nothing but gratitude for having had the opportunity to leave the universe better than if I had never existed.

In the end its the things we didn’t do we will regret most.

The world is the result of our individual choices. We can change course any time we want.

Everyone can find their way again. Everyone is redeemable.

I will treat every living thing with dignity.

I will contribute more than I consume.

I will make more than I take.

I will continuously improve (and share) my understanding of human nature, the world, and the universe.

I will always be open to the possibility that I am wrong.

I will try to be aware of my assumptions and premises.

I will change course as soon as I understand that my actions are out of sync with my principles.

I will fix my principles as soon as I understand that my principles are out of sync with each other.

When I disagree with a position, I will try to find and articulate the strongest possible argument for that position, and if I still disagree, then that is the argument I shall try to defeat.

I will be tolerant of that which does not violate my principles.

I will accept the debt I incur when I violate my principles.

I will honor the expectations that I voluntarily allowed.

I will resist wanting something because others want it.

I will be the primary authority on whether I am on the right path.

Every sentient being owns himself, and I will respect that.

Every sentient being owns the fruits of his labor, and I will respect that.

I will respect every individual’s unlimited right to self defense.

I will respect every individual’s unlimited right to opt out of anything and everything.

I will respect the right of every individual to trade, create, and innovate.

I will only judge a person separately and individually, and only by that person’s actions and statements, and by empirical probabilities.

I will not say that people are bad. I may say that an action was bad, and I may say that people who possess bad motives or commit bad actions have lost their way, or are losing their inner struggle, but I will not imply that they are irredeemable.

I will not intend to damage any relationship between others.

I will not place an unreasonable burden on others.

I will not misrepresent others.

I will not hold double standards.

I will not tell other people what they think.

I will not be mean.

I will not be a bully.

I will not be petty.

I will not be rude.

I will not be whiny.

I will not be a poser.

I will not be an enabler.

I will not be evasive.

I will not virtue signal.

I will not scapegoat.

I will not project.

I will not overreact.

I will not abuse my authority.

I will have fun—I will be fun.

I will never use a monopoly (e.g. government), individuals backed by a monopoly, or individuals acting under duress by a monopoly, against anyone trying to be the best version of themselves.

Outside my private spaces, I will only fight words with words, and inside my private spaces, I may also fight words with disassociation (e.g. expulsion) if I believe the speaker is not acting in good faith.

I will not initiate aggression (force, theft, trespass, spying, fraud, or sabotage), and I will not threaten to initiate, plan to initiate, incite the initiation of, order the initiation of, or adopt a policy of initiating aggression; and I will not collaborate with those who do, and I may respond with sufficient aggression against such initiators and their collaborators in order to defend myself and anyone trying to be the best version of themselves against such actions. I may defend other victims as well.

Before I act with aggression or stand down, I will consider whether I am being played. I will consider what is the best tactical response, and I will consider what is the best strategic response.

Whenever I hear of an action or argument that could directly or indirectly further an unhealthy agenda, such as making good people more inclined to stand down, I will consider whether that could have been the goal.

I will think for myself. I will trust my conscience and experience. I will go wherever the facts take me. I will only be convinced by my understanding of the facts and logic.

I will not be convinced by a claim of truth because of the speaker’s: status or title, power or authority, name or rank, dress or uniform, promises or predictions, threats or bullying, credentials or merit, awards or honors, experience or age, reputation or fame, intelligence or education, vocabulary or wit, style or charisma … because the only things that can be proved by the characteristics of the speaker are … the characteristics of the speaker … and any characteristic of the speaker is just another claim of truth.

I will not be convinced of truth by: hierarchy or protocol, coincidence or correlation, tradition or majority, media or government, technology or magic.

I will not accept a statement as fact because it was in: a sign or book, a study or report, a movie or play, a poem or song.

I will not accept a statement as fact because it is part of: the mainstream narrative, the official narrative, the government narrative.

I will not be convinced of truth because the source is: aliens or angels, voices or visions.

I love you.

Everyone is beautiful.

About the Author