Uploaded January 2015 | Updated September 2026, 1 day ago
Moral Relativism: The Foundation for a Hostile Takeover
divinepollination.com/moral-relativism-the-foundation-for-a-hostile-takeover
Moral relativism is the belief that sends the message, “that which is true for me may not be true for you.” If moral relativism is how we should live, and there is no right or wrong, then by extension, humans do not have rights either, because there are no wrongs that can be done against them. You cannot believe that we all have basic human rights while also believing that there is no right or wrong, for beliefs about morality are the foundation of our experience within any particular societal structure. If moral relativism is the foundation of a society that has no rights, then moral absolutism is the foundation of a society that does have rights.
Believing in moral relativism is an unconscious agreement that you have no rights, for it grants your individual consent to living in a society that lacks basic rights for people, and to a police state which enforces this lack of basic rights. Once the agreement has been made, via your belief that there is no right or wrong, then you have added your consent to the collective unconscious, and by extension to your government, to remove your rights as an individual within the country in which you are dwelling. The government does not give you rights, nor does it take them away, your beliefs are what do that; governments simply reflect and enforce your beliefs, and the beliefs of the collective unconscious.
However, if it is beneficial to have morality as the foundation of our society, this begs the question, whose moral absolutes should humanity collectively adhere to? The purity of the moral code that is believed in is also a factor in the individual rights that each person has, for if a person believes in a strictly left brained analytical, survival of the fittest based code, or a right brained religious zealotry, the government will most likely reflect those extremes. But if the majority of people are psychologically whole, individuated, full of self-love, and utilizing their full brain for thinking, then they will experience an entirely different form of government that highlights individual rights and minimizes governmental interference; a sort of love based anarchy (an = without, arkhos = rulers).
Video edited from the presentation: The Difference between Satanism and Luciferianism - youtube.com/watch?v=fTSpkffdBnI
Moral Relativism: The Foundation for a Hostile Takeover
divinepollination.com/moral-relativism-the-foundation-for-a-hostile-takeover
Moral relativism is the belief that sends the message, “that which is true for me may not be true for you.” If moral relativism is how we should live, and there is no right or wrong, then by extension, humans do not have rights either, because there are no wrongs that can be done against them. You cannot believe that we all have basic human rights while also believing that there is no right or wrong, for beliefs about morality are the foundation of our experience within any particular societal structure. If moral relativism is the foundation of a society that has no rights, then moral absolutism is the foundation of a society that does have rights.
Believing in moral relativism is an unconscious agreement that you have no rights, for it grants your individual consent to living in a society that lacks basic rights for people, and to a police state which enforces this lack of basic rights. Once the agreement has been made, via your belief that there is no right or wrong, then you have added your consent to the collective unconscious, and by extension to your government, to remove your rights as an individual within the country in which you are dwelling. The government does not give you rights, nor does it take them away, your beliefs are what do that; governments simply reflect and enforce your beliefs, and the beliefs of the collective unconscious.
However, if it is beneficial to have morality as the foundation of our society, this begs the question, whose moral absolutes should humanity collectively adhere to? The purity of the moral code that is believed in is also a factor in the individual rights that each person has, for if a person believes in a strictly left brained analytical, survival of the fittest based code, or a right brained religious zealotry, the government will most likely reflect those extremes. But if the majority of people are psychologically whole, individuated, full of self-love, and utilizing their full brain for thinking, then they will experience an entirely different form of government that highlights individual rights and minimizes governmental interference; a sort of love based anarchy (an = without, arkhos = rulers).
Video edited from the presentation: The Difference between Satanism and Luciferianism - youtube.com/watch?v=fTSpkffdBnI
