This is another piece written from a video, 2-minutes, 40 seconds, I produced six years ago. The video was made with poor equipment (the cheapest headset for the microphone because I could not afford better) and a ghastly location, so the sound is quite poor. The video is linked below.
I have added to the video’s script here, because there is more to say and the video was very short – the original script was about half a page:
Many have expressed issues with the three Laws of Ethics, in that They see the first Laws as suggesting They cannot defend Themselves if They are being attacked, or Others are being attacked, physically and personally. To begin this examination of Self-defense and Ethics, Let's start with the three Laws of Ethics.
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Many have asked Me this relative to the first Law of Ethics: "Can We not kill an assailant coming at Us to kill Us?" At initial acquaintance, They see that first Law to mean We must remain passive even if someOne is wielding a knife (or other weapon) and/or threatening to come at Us.
In answer to the question: Yes, We can Ethically kill someOne bent on doing harm in an immediate frame.
There are two reasons Self-defense is an Ethical choice. First, though there is an element of will in choosing to kill an assailant, the behavior is reactionary at the root. If no One attacked Us, We would not be looking for ways to stop an attack. We are reacting initially.
And second, any assailant knows that Self-defense is expected from anyOne They target. Given Their awareness of that, when They choose to attack, They are giving (truly) implied consent to the actions the intended victim may take to do whatever is deemed needed to defend Themselves.
This too would include a reactionary effort to protect Others – again, the assailant gives consent to this. And protecting loved Ones and Others is a form of Self-defense, defending from anguishing loss or Self-recrimination.
Only in immediate Self-defense is the willful hurting or killing of the flesh of anOther Ethical.
But what about when psychopaths are poisoning Our food, water, and air? Are destroying the infrastructure such that Many will starve? Are bombarding Us with unhealthy frequencies? Lie and indoctrinate Us about viruses (no such things), contagion (again, no such thing), and claim “safe and effective” to jab nanotech and toxins into Our flesh?
In all these cases We can Ethically arrest Them for the unEthical things They create against Us, try Them, and mete Ethical consequences. None of those things is Them personally attacking Us personally.
In these choices of unEthical behavior, most often They plan it and pay for it, but the Ones who are doing the work very often have no clue They are part of an effort to mess with Us. Either They believe the actions are for Our benefit, or They cannot see the whole of what They are contributing only a part to.
And yes, the initiator of the unEthical things, the One(s) who plans and pays for the unEthical things, is equally culpable. I saw a quote the other day – forget who was quoted – but it basically said that the Ones doing the work are the Ones culpable, not the initiators. But to be sure, the work would not be done without the initiators. Ergo, They are equally “at fault.”
Yes, if You planned and/or paid for unEthical things, You can be arrested, tried, and receive Ethical consequences, even though You did not do the dirty work Yourself.
I hope this answered questions and clarified for any of You who were unclear on the first Law of Ethics. If You still have questions, I welcome them below!
Self Defense and Ethics (3 min):
The Three Laws of Ethics (article): @amaterasusolar/the-three-laws-of-ethics
Solving for Poverty (article): @amaterasusolar/solving-for-poverty
Blueprint for a Society of Ethical Sovereigns (article): @amaterasusolar/blueprint-for-a-society-of-ethical-sovereigns
Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): @amaterasusolar/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern
Join Me as a Sovereign Here on Ethical Ground (article): @amaterasusolar/join-me-as-a-sovereign-here-on-ethical-ground
Signature:
Endia – A Short Story by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/260/endia
Quite the Opposite – A Short Story for Change – by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/72/quite-opposite-short-story-change
The Abundance Paradigm – A Novella by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/242/abundance-paradigm-novella
My father taught Me never to believe anything. He told Me to place probabilities and adjust them as new data come along, asking the question, "Does that explain what I see?," when evaluating data. He was an aerospace engineer, and worked with T Townsend Brown (see My featured vid on Odysee or YouToilet). From a very early age I was concerned that the way I was told things worked, in terms of government and social affairs, did not explain what I saw. So the first few decades I worked to determine WHY this was.
I wound up in banking, seeing the flow of things in the headquarters of a major bank in Los Angeles. I became intimately familiar with the flow of money, and economics. I asked the question, "Why do We use money?"
When the web arrived, My research capabilities flourished, and I learned much that explained what I saw, but the only explanations I found for why We use money started with trade and barter, which are still money in a direct form, and did not answer the WHY. Then, I came upon the explanation that these were used because, with a finite amount of stuff, it was to ensure that We got Our "fair share" in a scarcity environment, in exchange for the work We added.
From this I realized the WHY. We were accounting for Our energy input into things. And that We needed to do this because the Human energy was scarce compared to what We needed to be produced (back then).
I also discovered that over half Our planet's wealth was "owned" by fewer than 100 Humans...
I was very interested in psychology, too. And studied it deeply, being fascinated by psychopathy, focusing on that aberration, learning that They had discovered a gene that manifested Individuals who were incapable of love, compassion, caring, and empathy for Others – primary psychopaths. Seeing that the wealth was so disproportionate, and that the families who "owned" it inbred, what would explain what I saw would be that They wanted to retain that psychopathic gene. Given that the wealth could feed, clothe, house ALL of Us (and give Us freedom) abundantly and many times over, and yet None set forth to care for Humanity, I had to give probability approaching 100% that They are psychopaths, as that explains perfectly what I see, and answers My quest for why the way I was told things worked did not explain what I saw.
And I asked... If I was a psychopath, with enough wealth to buy anything and anyOne I wanted to, and given that money = power (power over Others is something psychopaths seek), would I be motivated to create a false "reality" for the masses and thereby manipulate Them? I think You can figure out what answer I came up with. And would that explain what I see? Absolutely.
Now, given that money is merely the accounting token used to account for Our Human energy, it would follow that free energy would threaten fully the accounting for Our energy. If I was a psychopath, with enough money to buy sites like Wikipedia, the media, the education system, etc., would I do all I could to suppress and hide free energy?
And given I personally know that electrogravitics offers both gravity control and energy from the aether (the electromagnetic field that pervades the universe), and that it went into black projects, such efforts to hide and suppress would explain what I see completely.
So I am neither a "conspiracy theorist," nor am I a "conspiritard," but rather... I am a conspiracy analyst. And given this analysis, knowing that conspiracies are the NORM in history and that they didn't just stop some years back, I conclude that conspiracies abound. That explains perfectly what I see.
Love always.
