Even when I was a child, back in the 1960’s, I was not taught Ethics. Sometime in My early 20’s I met up with someOne – briefly and just that once – who explained the three Laws to Me. He did not call them the Laws of Ethics, but just told Me they were the only Laws, these three Laws.
At the time I was too young and distracted to really process what He had given Me. I nodded and We moved on to other things. It wasn’t until many decades later that the import of those words really hit Me. That the only – only – Laws are the three Laws.
By that time, the web was up and running, still free and unfettered, and I decided to search for “the three Laws.” I got back the laws of robotics, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of motion, the laws of logic, and more, but nothing on the Laws I was told are the only Laws.
So I asked Myself what these were Laws of.
The answer, “Ethics.” stood out starkly. For it is unEthical to hurt or kill anOther, willfully, and without Their fully informed consent. It is unEthical to take or damage anOther’s property without Their consent, and defrauding People is surely unEthical. And… I cannot think of anything, beyond those three things that is not a matter of taste.
And so I named them the Three Laws of Ethics. I made many posts and a video or two about them, and it came to be that when One searched for the “three Laws of Ethics,” My work came up on top. (And if One searched for “Amaterasu Solar,” I would fill half or more of the first page with recent work.)
Life was good!
The reason I became interested in the three Laws was because of the legal prohibition of cannabis. I had, in My “wild and crazy” youth, been curious about the herb. I heard all the horrors They attributed to it, and also all the praise from Those I knew who used it, and decided to see for Myself.
The most impressive thing about cannabis that I found in My exploration of that herb was that it made the pain – a background pain always there – go away. I have had psoriatic arthritis since I was six and vaccinated against DDT...er...”polio.” Fine one day, pain forever the day after.
So, discovering that My pain was “managed” away for hours at a time, and that I had no issues at all with the herb, I had to ask why the controlmind (I was still calling it the “government” back then) made the use of such a lovely herb “against the law.”
And thus I dived into the history, the experiments, and all of cannabis.
I discovered that it was first made illegal in 1937, four years after the prohibition of alcohol had ended. I discovered that there were a number of reasons why, including that Harry J. Anslinger, who had led the prohibition efforts, now out of a job, was aiming for something else to go after to maintain employment.
I discovered that cannabis threatened many industries: hemp threatened the cotton industry, the paper forest industry (that William Randolf Hearst was heavily invested in), and the oil industry (Henry Ford built a car that ran on hemp oil and this threatened John D. Rockefeller’s oil), that marijuana threatened the pharmaceutical industry (that Rockefeller was the major investor in), and that plastics (also Rockefeller’s oil interest) were threatened, because better, stronger, healthier plastics could be made made from its oil.
So. The legal push to make cannabis illegal was purely financial (money motivated, don’t You know?), and had nothing to do with “protecting society,” as it all was touted to the public as with lies that it caused brother to kill brother, and more.
Looking as these data, I had to ask… What is Ethical about that? The third Law was clearly broken. And if They can legally break the Laws, why do We accept that the legal system has any validity?
And if the three Laws are Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do, they clearly are above that Human-created mess called the “legal system.” And if they are above the legal mess, why are We not taught them?
Well, it’s clear that if We were taught them, We would see all the unEthical things the legal system does, and there would be far more than Me and the few Others rejecting the legal system wholesale. We would ignore prohibitions, licenses, unscientific demands like any and all “climate change” proscriptions, and other things that profit the legalate makers and screw Us.
Indeed, nothing in that system is a Law. And therefore, for it to have any hold on Us, We must consent to it. And They get “implied consent” because, in Their eyes, and even if We have never been taught the three Laws, if We do not say “no,” We have said “yes.” More unethical aspects.
For any implied consent to be taken Ethically, all efforts to inform Us of pertinent things must be made. And then implied consent can be Ethically applied.
Of course, We are not taught the Laws. They do all They can to get Us to think the legal system is the only “law,” despite absolutely nothing in that system being called a Law. Statutes, bills, acts, codes, ordinances, regulations, mandates, rules, and other such things inhabit that system, but no Laws.
Because none of it is Law, because We do not have to consent to that mess, We can stand on Ethical ground. We can be above that system if We do not consent, and stand under the only Laws there are – the three Laws of Ethics.
When enough of Us do, standing sovereign under the Laws, that system will fall away. Until then, They can be bullies, and We would best protect Ourselves and Others from bullies, whether They wear a costume or not. And thus Our right to arm Ourselves as We see fit becomes imperative.
Today, with the web unEthically (but legally) castrated, where so much You could once learn is no longer accessible, if You search the “three Laws of Ethics,” once again, nothing shows up – unless You include the quotes. Or unless You use Yandex. In which case, My work does appear.
Same for Me. Search “Amaterasu Solar” and only on Yandex will I pop up at all.
I’m sure They are not trying to hide the Laws (or My work). They wouldn’t do that! It would be unEthical! Heh. I am sure it’s legal, though.
Just stop consenting to that ghastly, psychopathic, and unEthical legal system.
Just Stop Consenting! (article): @amaterasusolar/just-stop-consenting
One UnEthical Thing They Made Legal (article): @amaterasusolar/one-unethical-thing-they-made-legal
Calling a Legalate a Law (article): @amaterasusolar/calling-a-legalate-a-law
Join Me as a Sovereign Here on Ethical Ground (article): @amaterasusolar/join-me-as-a-sovereign-here-on-ethical-ground
You Have a Choice – Will You Choose Wisely? (article): @amaterasusolar/you-have-a-choice-will-you-choose-wisely
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.
