In this video, important concerns are raised about the resistance people often display when admitting they were misled, especially when it comes to polarizing issues like mass vaccination and fluoridation. The discussion highlights potential side effects of mRNA vaccines and critiques the speed at which they were implemented. It emphasizes how many seem to overlook the consequences of COVID-19 measures and vaccine-related problems. The video introduces the concept of “Bio-PsyWar,” a combination of psychological manipulation and biological warfare, and critiques the healthcare industry’s profit-driven motives and lack of accountability for harmful products.
Additionally, the video questions gain-of-function research, the existence of viruses, and the potential for bioweapons. It explores the true cost of compliance, including physical and psychological harm, as well as the erosion of public trust in institutions. The message stresses the importance of critical thinking, independent research, and taking a stand to protect future generations.
In this episode, we delve into the deeper issue behind the perceived collapses of the world—the economy, the climate, and even society. While many focus on these external crises, the real collapse is within. It’s a collapse of consciousness, morality, and our connection to Nature and its laws.
We expose how the “truth” and “freedom” movements are often distractions, filled with false gurus peddling quick fixes, tax evasion schemes, and fear of centralized digital currencies (CBDCs). Falling into these traps only perpetuates the disconnection from our true nature and the principles that guide human life.
This episode challenges you to rethink the true crisis of our time: not the collapse of external systems, but the internal collapse of human awareness and values.
How much of yourself do you leave behind in order to justify whatever it is that keeps you busy and fills up you daily routine…how much do you sacrifice yourself?
Perhaps, this question is best assessed during those times when you’re feeling belligerently dedicated to a path. It’s a good time to question that path. It’s a good time to question your behavior, your action, when you’re feeling intoxicated with something that is really driving you.
It’s good to have passion, but it’s also good to control your delusions about something that may seem to be calling you. I’ve seen a lot of people leave ruin and wreckage behind them in life. Running away from their problems, creating problems for others and abandoning ship with things get real, but at the same time are feeling fulfilled from the dedication and moving on to serve the “greater good” and all it’s problems.
Sacrifice, in this light is much more a Randian perspective on what is meant when I’m discussing Self-Sacrifice in this way. I’d like to include some context from that perspective here.
“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.
This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible.
“Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.
If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.
If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.
A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.
Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.
If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.
Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.
The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.
The human mind is highly malleable and so is the human condition. As a programmable organism, if you want to use that terminology, we can be controlled and our perceptions manipulated and deceived. This practice has been done for thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years (or more, possibly..?).
The thing about our perception is that we really don’t know a lot about this planet or the history of it and our part in its history. However, one thing we do know, even just based on what we can go out and witness in the modern-day, is that people are highly conditioned by their upbringing and surroundings. In that upbringing, there’s a generation or multiple generations now of people that have been brought up in the technocratic, cybernetic control grid.
The Media, being a reflection of our own entrainment into a window of controlled reality in which our perceptions of reality can easily be formed and manipulated.
In modern times, there has been a massive amount of engineering and a plethora of techniques that have created models of utility to make individuals conform to corporations, governments, militaries, to authority, to white lab coats, to people with flattering titles, and so on. “He’s a lawyer”, “he’s a doctor”, “she’s a doctor.” These titles of which “authority figures” in our lives that we should listen to.
In the upcoming series on Mind Control, we will cover the belief in, and appeal to authority as being a logical fallacy. However, we will also go into basic methods of mind control in the media and talking about things like frequencies, colors, and fear and really drill down into basic methods that are used in manipulation through media and topics such as groupthink and collectivism.
Another walk-n-talk I did a back a few months ago called End Mind Control in Media – End Slavery also covers some of what we’re talking about here, with ending slavery. It’s not like I’m claiming to be some victim of a nonconsensual arrangement because I’m too dumb, weak, and powerless. Rather, it’s an exploration into the psychology of mind control and the current human condition.
What we are talking about is mental, psychological slavery. It’s in the mind.
God is the Universe. Everything you see, everything that we know, everything that is in the Universe is Mind. One mind unfolding itself through the All. It’s not like we’re all the same and “one”. We are all part of the All and focusing on the fact that Mind is at the center we can then extrapolate out from there.
This is a starting point that I’m claiming, and it could be argued. The other side of this argument would be Materialism. It’s an argument against mind and spirit. However, when you’re experiencing the mind and you’re even asking yourself about the mind, well, what’s the question, and who or what is asking it?
Who is it asking? Right, there is a mind. There is a dualism principle in operation, and in the Mind Control series, we’ll go into dualism and the dualistic aspect to reality. If it is unconscious to us, then that can be another form of leverage used to manipulate human beings.
Thus, we need to study the mind. We need to study how the mind generates reality, how creation works, because we’re a part of it.
This is obviously a massive point of interest and study, that our minds can be controlled.
Although, I agree that the tech giants such as Youtube or Facebook are anti-human, anti-free speech, pushing a new-world order, technocratic agenda… I also don’t agree with the sentiment that the big-tech censorship is the main issue with peoples voices not being heard.
What I address in the walk-n-talk is the issue of Self-Censorship. Yes, self-censorship could be a good thing in some cases. I personally strive to be my true and open self in most cases, but there are times that being fully open may not suit the situation.
There are also times when we must speak out. We are living one of those times now. We have all the tools necessary to let our voices be heard, regardless of all the censorship that does occur on these main-stream platforms. If there’s a will, there’s a way. In today’s world, this is ever more true.
If we end up holding ourselves back from reaching our potential and are afraid to speak up, we are mentally enslaved to the fear of what society, our friends, and families may think of us. “What if I say something silly”, “what if I sound dumb, or am wrong about the facts”… or an endless amount of other negative self-talk that can go on.
One way to work through the issue of over-active Self-Censorship behavior is to practice speaking and working with others to practice their abilities to communicate. Currently, Benny Wills is building a course in the University of Reason called Parrhesia. The Parrhesia course helps people to free their speech, and “Be Undeniable”, as Benny would say.
If you’d like to get a preview of what the University of Reason has to offer, check out the Autonomy AppeTEASER Course. It’s a free, value-packed offer to help you learn your way to a more thriving and prosperous life, and Free Your Speech! Working with Benny has been amazing and the course he offers is just one of the many amazing features available when attending the University of Reason.
What are your principles? Simple enough question, isn’t it?
I’ll include an excerpt here from the Infogalactic page on Principle:
Principle
A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system’s designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored….
Examples of principles are descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption, the normative rule or code of conduct, and the law or fact of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.
As cause The principle of any effect is the cause that produces it. Depending on the way the cause is understood, the basic law governing that cause may acquire some distinction in its expression.
Below we can find the Websters 1828 definition of Principle:
1. In a general sense, the cause, source or origin of any thing; that from which a thing proceeds; as the principle of motion; the principles of action. 2. Element; constituent part; primordial substance. Modern philosophers suppose matter to be one simple principle or solid extension diversified by its various shapes. 3. Being that produces any thing; operative cause. The soul of man is an active principle 4. In science, a truth admitted either without proof, or considered as having been before proved. In the former sense, it is synonymous with axiom; in the latter, with the phrase, established principle 5. Ground; foundation; that which supports an assertion, an action, or a series of actions or of reasoning. On what principle can this be affirmed or denied? He justifies his proceedings on the principle of expedience or necessity. He reasons on sound principles. 6. A general truth; a law comprehending many subordinate truths; as the principles of morality, of law, of government, etc. 7. Tenet; that which is believed, whether truth or not, but which serves as a rule of action or the basis of a system; as the principles of the Stoics, or of the Epicureans. 8. A principle of human nature, is a law of action in human beings; a constitutional propensity common to the human species. Thus it is a principle of human nature to resent injuries and repel insults. PRIN’CIPLE, verb transitive To establish or fix in tenets; to impress with any tenet, good or ill; chiefly used in the participle. Men have been principled with an opinion, that they must not consult reason in things of religion. 1. To establish firmly in the mind.
When we define a principle in which we wish to align our behavior and thus live according to the ethics deduced using logic and reason to explain or predict causality in regards to the principle discovered, there may be contradictions that are possible to ignore or explain away. However, if we are also incorporating the classic law of noncontradiction, it becomes evident when analyzing our own behavior or the behavior of others that it’s not so easy to explain away the glaringly obvious contradictions on many forms of ones proposed ethical philosophy.
Below, you can find a recording of Derrick Broze reading Chapter 2 from the Holistic Self-Assessment on Principles.
Today, I ask the question, how much of your worldview is something you’ve accepted without question? Something that’s been given to you by your upbringing, by your environment, and by people around you when you were younger and their habitual patterns? Have you accepted a worldview without judgment or critical analysis?
