This post was made in response to the individual the previous post was responding to: rather than consider my points they simply chose to call me crazy, certifiably insane and the usual disinteresting hysteria that the heteronomy likes to whip up when it can’t deal with being triangulated.
This was my response.
-well, that was rather unsurprising, resorting to verbal abuse and insult instead of considering the points I was making regarding fictions. Ad hominem attacks are always a winning go to for this kind of response, as are appeals to authorities (in this case ‘the govt’) and strawman deflections (ignoring the subject matter of my post by focusing on your own insistence about gold money rather than looking at and addressing the deeper fiction I was addressing).
I don’t need to resort to derogatory assertions about ‘sanity’ and insults about intelligence, I’ll simply point to some more history.
This was a response detailing the fictions still embedded within ‘lawful money'(gold backed), how there is very little difference between a gold backed system and a fiat system:
I note that in your response you did not address the points regarding *conversion* that I have made nor the underlying fiction that allows these conversions to occur and be accepted by the majority. I’m going to re-state these because they are pertinent to the discussion *I’m* having which is about getting to the foundation of the fictions that are being pointed at individuals all over the globe.
Let’s look at what I was *actually* talking about: the fiction known as ‘gold backed money’. You said “gold is money because it has intristic [sic] value since it is rare and it takes a lot of work to dig it out of the earth.”
There are two broad issues embedded within your statement here: the first is, who says the gold is the money? Who decreed that the world needed money and that this was how it had to be? Who sets the intrinsic ‘value’ of gold in order to make it the money standard? Who is it that decides ‘this is how much it shall be worth’ and how is this value enforced?
I am very clear in my Self: for me there is no necessity of ‘authority’ because the sui generis demonstrates ‘authority’ to be anathema to evolution and free will. The cosmic Consciousness recognises the necessity for sui generis if there is to be any evolution: in my multiverse this Consciousness is as delighted to evolve and grow as I Am, because I Am part of that Consciousness. There is no ‘god’, there is Consciousness creating layer after layer of Beingness in order to both explore its Self and expand- evolve- its awareness of this Self through infinite layers of Being. Consciousness is aware that in order for this fractal expansion to happen in ways that creates new expression, there can be no ‘authority’; it creates its creations in a sea of absolute freedom, knowing that sui generis free will must be present if there is to be any exploration. There is no ‘authority’ because ‘authority’ purports to state what ‘is’ and ‘must be’ as ‘this is how things are': as soon as this happens dogma begins, dogma strangles evolution and recreates Empire.
This was written in response to an individual asking if ‘do no harm’ was part of the sui generis:
Absolutely there is a ‘no harm to others’ embedded in the sui generis- or Eneris, as I’ve come to call the expanded platform I observe within the foundational ‘law’ element: the premise of sui generis is that the authority of the individual begins *and ends* within their own sphere (auric field, etc). How does this happen? They are *without peer*, unique, which means they can neither be judged by others OR JUDGE OTHERS; to move from one’s sui generis, unique *autonomy* and into the realm of harming another moves the harming individual from sui generis- without peer- to heteronomy: the demonstration that they believe, for whatever reason, that they can dominate and control another. This takes them out of the realm of the free will/sui generis frequency and into heteronomy. Sui generis Beings act *without charge* in those situations; there is no energetic ‘load’ of the fictions of ‘justice’ and ‘retribution’- these are fictions of the heteronomy to serve the purpose and intentions of the heteronomy. There is instead a firm boundary keeping that individuals can choose as individuals or, if they are moved to, as a group- take for instance the shunning of individuals that is practiced by certain Tibetan villages when an individual chooses to do harm to another. There is no load expressed in a sui generis Being keeping their autonomous boundaries, just as there is no judgement from others as to the kinds of boundaries individuals wish to keep; all the criticism of boundaries and the choices within those are again part of a heteronomy that does not wish for individuals to have their true autonomy.