The Question of Morality

Introduction

In a world where lies and deceit are committed without any sort of conscious, all the way to upholding totally fabricated illusions, something is required to handle this. Especially when it is about truth finding revolving around misconduct and crime. Integrity should be of a high value within intelligence, justice and judicial powers, though not limited to these. This is certainly the case in the world of intelligence where one’s dealing with under-cover missions and controlled opposition. The latter also applies on a much larger scale to politics.

Since the dawn of mankind something was thought up of which they would hope this solution would promote integrity. We call it…

The Oath

The taking of an oath is actually that for one, one swears to speak the truth and nothing but this truth to their best of knowledge and intent, pursuing integrity. What’s meant with the concept of ‘truth’ in actuality is the concept of ‘realiteit‘. Thus, that one is as faithful to reality as possible. This implies that one is not going to put forth alternative truths or flat out lies in order to present illusions. Criminals generally will attempt to do this. However, this is absolutely not limited tot criminals, but goes for those whom we deem to posses integrity like judges, police, intelligence employees, politicians, governors and so on. But they don’t always seem to have!

Often, before these people take a position of power, they are ‘inaugurated’, at which they take an oath under the watchful eyes of those present, which should reassure that we will be dealing with honest, truthful people of integrity. Unfortunately, this doesn’t always appear to be in practice. Daily discussions among people talk about corruption with government employees every so often, but also about corruption in the corporate world although there generally oaths aren’t taken.

Also within government there’s the dealing with so called ‘controlled opposition’. Groups of people who suggest to have a level of integrity, though in a clever, witty way work together as a collective with those corrupted to keep out of sight their collective crime and misdemeanor from scrutiny from research and by commissions and if they have to, offer up one or a few guys and have them take all the blame. The term for this is the ‘sacrifice of fall-guys’, so that the bigger, corrupt collective can continue to exist all the while a perception is created where with the guys fallen, the case is solved and corruption has been thwarted.

Against this, the taking of an oath seems to offer little to no protection. Especially mental members of the cabal will continue to relentlessly lie as long as they, as a collective, know that the lies won’t be detected because those involved can not or may not synchronize their truths. In other cases they will fall back to alternative truths to create a false perception of reality through the use of numerous psychological warfare techniques. And all of this is to conceal organized crime at a greater scale and to demonize and falsely profile people who are on to them. Systemic perjury is perpetrated by malevolent elements within our systems to keep concealed (elite) criminal activity on domestic soil. As an example take (child) abuse cases of employees within our judicial system.

It’s this reason why I searched for something that could take this on, to reveal whether someone is justly or not; controlled opposition or not. And it should be made possible in a way that is independent of culture and religion. I have figured out a way and I can say that I’ve tested this way in practice with a 100% certainty on various research forums where it was important during research to find out whether forum users were controlled opposition or not. And the degree of certainty of this way has a deeper cause. A spiritual cause. Then, what would be this way? Well, it is..

The Question of Morality

The question of morality. It is a question that queries someone for their moral compass. Whether someone is good at heart and being or not. The question has been formulated such way that it will not be dependent on someone’s religion or culture. It’s a universal question. The question is based on the Absolute Duality and is a direct extension to it. The formulation is in such way that it leaves no opening to fool the questioner. Then, what constitutes that Question of Morality?

In which world would you want to live? The world of Good exclusively or the world of Mischief exclusively? Or alternatively, the world of Serve Others exclusively or the world of Serve Self exclusively?

Like said, the question is derived from the Absolute Duality. Most notably, the two opposite sets of (a)moral standards and values. Like explained the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are just two short words. It’s really about the (a)morals and values that they represent. The use of the word ‘exclusively’ is an essential addition. It leaves no middle ground for the answer to the question. With this, the question becomes an explicit binary choice.

But, I can hear you say already: ‘Those worlds don’t exist right? Those worlds are not a reality?’. That is right. However, as humans we do strive from within ourselves for an ideal world. The two worlds presented by the question suggest these ideal worlds even though in reality they are most likely never realized. The question queries for someone’s pursuance, for someone’s moral compass. As humans, we try to meet these ideals. We can work towards one way, but also work towards the other. The direction is determined by the pursuance we have. And that is what is being asked for.

But, couldn’t someone lie about it? How would this question pose a better guarantee for integrity over just an oath? That has, like I pointed out earlier, a deeper cause and that is..

Spiritual Alliance

Sometimes it is said that ‘God comes from within people themselves’. With this, the manifestation of benevolent forces into our physical world making themselves known, through humans, is being referred to. When one looks at people as a proxy to benevolent and malevolent forces or energies, then that statement doesn’t sound strange at all. The core of the Question of Morality is to be found within this.

Through a conscious choice between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ one could indeed state that one engages into an alliance with the good or with the evil. As a result, this principle is to be found within religions where, in concrete form, faithfulness to and a trust in a higher force or higher forces is expressed. And that is what makes that robust the Question of Morality.

A someone who from their perspective of their religion has an indefinite conscious trust and faith in for example ‘God’, will not want to abnegate their trust and faith. Not either when this person for example, in a practical sense is conducting an undercover mission. When this person is forced to renounce this trust and swear allegiance to a malevolent phenomena, no matter what this phenomena is called, this will be the moment where this person is going to drop out.

And this goes the other way around too! A someone who complied to an explicit alliance with malevolence will under no circumstance abnegate this alliance because it will make this someone unreliable in the eyes of peers as well as the higher power(s) they have allied themselves to. Mentally malevolent people for example forge such alliances during initiation rituals. It is therefore part of cabbalism. By the abnegation of this alliance they end up falling between two stools.

Accountability

By holding accountable through the Question of Morality someone is forced to abnegate their alliance with malevolence and their malevolent peers if it is there. The formulation of the question is of such nature that a positive answer leaves no room for possible malevolence. Someone who is of benevolent nature will experience no constraint by answering the question in a positive fashion and instead will only feel strengthened in their choice for the good. A someone who is of malevolent nature will try in every way possible to evade answering the question in a positive fashion. They may try by questioning the question itself, or just by stating they don’t want to answer the question. All forms of evasion can be interpreted as not having a strive for morality. Cabbalists therefore will pertinently refuse to answer to the Question of Morality in a positive fashion.

A someone who knows of themselves they have not consciously made a choice for an explicit alliance to malevolence and still can not answer to this question really should evaluate themselves some time; one can state that someone like that is on a path of subversion, most often induced by exterior indoctrination.

Groups of Trust

To be sure one can trust someone with regards to benevolence, one can validate each other through the Question of Morality in order to form groups of trust. This can be of importance in a world where perceptions and illusions are common place. This is something that certainly plays within intelligence agencies like with undercover missions, but also within other governing bodies. Is one dealing with pretense? With a double-spy? Controlled opposition? To someone practicing these professions out of a moral alignment, where the phrase ‘That what in the end it’s all about – preservation of and protection of benevolence, the family unit, the community and love.’ applies, the Question of Morality is the way to find out whether someone can be trusted when it comes to the choice between good and evil. Try it. One will find that the Question of Morality has a high degree of reliability. Significantly more than an oath.

Inauguration

An oath is no guarantee for a person’s absolute alignment. The taking of an oath does not force someone to abnegate an alliance to malevolence or otherwise a possible cabal. The taking of an oath to a cabbalist is no more than the expression of a lie that can not be validated at the time of taking. Afterwards, such someone will always try to uphold an illusion of having integrity at all times. However, if with the taking of the oath also the Question of Morality would be asked, then the person undergoing the inauguration is explicitly forced to abnegate a possible alliance to malevolence under the watchful eye of all who are present. And this would be a very valuable addition to an inauguration. Because; in the end our state systems should stand for the good side of the Absolute Duality, carried by people, for people for the preservation of all that is of value to the human being as a worthy, benevolent spiritual unit.