PR
New Era Transition #044 – Leadership; Exclusive vs. Inclusive; Crimes Against Humanity – July 30, 2018
Machiventa Melchizedek, Planetary Manager
Topics:
Leadership
Social media is having great moral and ethical problems
Effecting the 7th generation after this one
Linking communities, societies and families
The future is now up to us to be co-creative
Is there an advantage for either large or small governmental units?
Religious tolerance
Exclusive leaders versus inclusive leaders
This model will be emulated by other organizations, corporations & governments
Churches with exclusive leaders
Current changes in our culture
The Golden Rule
We must now work together to survive
We need to learn to live in a world of non-constant growth
A question on having stock in various corporations
Gene manipulation and style of leadership
Being personally liable for corporate decisions
Predators and crimes against humanity
Will Urantia evolve to include death penalty for crimes against humanity?
Traditional morality versus proactive morality based on the 7 values
The definition of Life has several degrees
Being “fully human”
The definition of “human”
Is removal of predators a good place to start?
What do we need to do before the decimation?
A need to expand teaching of ethics
TR: Daniel Raphael, PhD
Team members present: Roxanne Andrews, Craig Carmichael, Liz Cratty, Jeff Cutler, and Stéphane Labonteé.
Invocation: Stéphane
July 30, 2018
MACHIVENTA: Good morning, this is Machiventa Melchizedek. It is a pleasure to be here with you again; there is much to share as we know that your developments are proceeding. Some of you have noticed that the amperage and the voltage have increased from Nebadonia and that this is crossing the lines with many organizations. You will see this continuing for the long-term as it is necessary to get as many people on board with our mission, our orientation and the future that Christ Michael has envisioned for your planet, for Urantia.
Leadership
This morning I would like to present you with another topic, which is familiar to all of us and which we have developed more and more with other people around the world, and that has to do with leadership. You must discard the old traditional vision, portrayals of leaders that you have had in the past, those historical, those traditional, those archetypes of history that you have seen throughout your education and throughout the world — the alabaster and marble busts of great leaders such as Alexander the Great, and the Caesars with their curly hair, and so on. Those were the leaders of the times and the circumstances that were needed then, which offered them the opportunity to lead their nations, however they could, or however they didn’t. In this case, there is a huge change of culture going on in your world, one that will eventually be dominated by spiritual people, those individuals who have an intention of their lives to work with Christ Michael, the Teaching Mission, Magisterial Mission and most of all the Correcting Time, which will be expressed in many more missions as time goes by.
The leadership we are speaking about is the leadership that we have spoken or written about numerous times in the materials about the co-creative design team process, where there is an initiator, that unique 1% of any population in any community or nation where the individual sees that something needs to be done and comes forward and does it. That may be a young woman who initiates a sewing class for other young women in her neighborhood; it might be a local soil conservationist who is interested in eliminating soil erosion; it could be someone who wanted to help the community embrace the new immigrants who are in their community and on their street; it may be someone who sees a vision that the culture that is around them is going nowhere and definitely is declining in its moral and ethical aptitudes and needs a boost along the lines of improvement for good decision-making. This is the leadership that we are talking about, the leadership in the local communities. The leadership we are speaking about is not that of a national leader; it is not that of a political, economic or social leader, but really and simply the leadership of community members who see that something needs to be done.
Social media is having great moral and ethical problems
What is occurring, and you are seeing this in many areas if you watch the news and you stay in contact with your friends, is that people who think alike are coming together, that they are finding each other one way or another, and the most useful source is through the Internet. Where your social media are now having great moral and ethical problems, nonetheless they provide a source for connecting individuals who have the same interests and same ideas and same values, the same perspective of the future. This kind of leadership thinks about the future—not of their future, or even their children’s future—but their grandchildren and those children’s great-great-grandchildren. So this leader is thinking in terms of 5 generations from now. The American Indian Nations have always thought in terms of 7 generations, that what you do today has an effect for 7 generations, and surely it most certainly does.
Effecting the 7th generation after this one
The work that we are doing now has that purpose, that intention and that direction, that verve and that energy to affect that 7th generation after this one. In this society, a generation is 25 years, so we are speaking about a society 175 years from now. This is the level playing field that we are striving to achieve meaningful outcomes. You are now a part of the team; think of an immense soccer pitch that is 4 times as long as one you have for your soccer playing; this is the soccer field that we are playing on—we play for the long-term. We are inviting and training our team members for the long run, the long haul, the long game as some people say. It is important to have this perspective. Short-term goals no longer serve well, in fact they actually create a detrimental decline in the long-term, as they do not fit into the long-term, long game of shingling and dovetailing of various programs that must fit together and support each other for the long-term.
Linking communities, societies and families
The emphasis is on the supporting of what is to come that we want to empower the future with the connection between programs that link together and make your communities and your societies and your families strong. This is what we are looking for; this is the leadership which will be dominant throughout your culture within 2 generations; there will be huge changes in the world within the next 25 years, and surely you know this as well as we do. Social change is occurring on such a wide scale and so rapidly that it is no longer possible to remain effective as a traditional leader, but requires one who thinks out of the box and thinks in inclusive terms, not separation, but inclusion, and expecting the best attributes, assets, and energy of everyone who comes together in this inclusion.
The future is now up to us to be co-creative
We are here to support you; we have done so much to prepare the way that when there is a success that supports what we are doing, you will see one success follow another after that initial success. This is the way we lead you into the future. You and we have a co-creative relationship; we have prepared this soccer pitch of the future for your generation to support those future generations. You now must of course sign up, put on your uniform and start kicking the ball.
Is there an advantage for either large or small governmental units?
Jeff: I have never been a natural athlete (laughing), I don’t know if I could kick a ball if it hit my foot. But along these lines, Machiventa, we as a planet seem to be grappling with the roles of small states, most of which that were based upon ethnicity and small genetic pools; and large states that have a wide and expanding ethnic gene pool. With the technology available thus far in the 21st Century is there any real advantage of either very large or small governmental units?
MACHIVENTA: One moment. It is not so much that the size of the units affects the future, but the attitude of those behind those façades of large and small political units. It is a degree of separation; it is the idea of exclusiveness, of exclusion rather than inclusion. It is a process of thinking of their own uniqueness and individuality, and this is the main impediment to the future of inclusion and to the coordinated political, social and economic work that is ahead of you.
Religious tolerance
Jeff: So is religious tolerance achievable in small states? I’m thinking of things like Kosovo or Israel, or small states that are essentially religious in nature, and not inclusive. Are those going to end up being not viable over the long period of time?
MACHIVENTA: You have two questions here: one is that there is the same kind of thinking for the governmental units; as you began your first series of questions is similar with religions, they are almost identical. As concerns the amelioration of the eventual individuality of individual religions that will be one of the last bastions to be dissolved in the long-term future of say a millennium. The ideas of God given rights, God given power, God given ascendency in the political nature of religious organizations will persist simply because it gives the individuals in power more control and authority. However, as this world moves from its traditional mode of separation and male dominance, there will become more of a familial feminine ideology among all religions that find the commonality of the Spiritual Father, Creator of the Universe in Nebadon, of our Local Universe, as the family of one. They will find they have more in common than apart.
Finally, this will be the separation of religions and those positions of authority and domination and control in religious/political organizations when finally the Avonal Son arrives and presents himself to your world. This will have a tremendous impact. As you see now from the scathing and withering criticism of male dominated religious organizations, the influence of those organizations, particularly those which are insincere and want to verbally, emotionally, socially abuse their followers, these are beginning to dissolve. Even though there is a resurgence of Conservative Christian Religions, these [??unclear??] into existence to replace those other long-term mainline religions, which have overstepped and outgrown their use.
Exclusive leaders versus inclusive leaders
Stéphane: Machiventa, I have a question about exclusive leaders versus inclusive leaders. In my corporation I see both types. I see the exclusive leaders try to surround themselves with the best performers, the A team, and then let the B team kind of sit in the background. And the inclusive leaders try to involve everyone and get the best out of everyone working on the project. It seems like the exclusive leaders are doing this to build their empire; they have personal goals for personal use and for personal excess, they surround themselves with the best people. Can you comment on including a fully diversified team for the benefit of success of a given initiative?
MACHIVENTA: Yes, most certainly. Thank you for your question. The exclusive leader wants the very best performers to support him or her to help put themselves in the more superior position of performance themselves. Whereas the inclusive leader has a sense of participation, their sense of individuation is far less than the exclusive leader. The inclusive leader realizes that everyone comes with a mind and the background of the culture, the thinking, the education and preparation and experience in the organization that cannot be tapped unless those individuals become an empowered participant in the team environment. You have seen, perhaps—maybe not—that in the design team process, this process through its roles taps into everyone’s excellence, their best ideas, the greatest attributes of creation and imagination and are brought forward. Everyone is of equal authority. There is a facilitator, as you know, and other roles and the most important roles are those of the inquiring members, who have been skilled in the arts of listening.
[Break in the recording.]
MACHIVENTA: Thank you for your patience. The inclusive leader provides the best evidence of the Christ-like/Jesus-like inclusion of the Apostles and his broader audience. It is not about religion; it is about attitude; it is about the leader being one with all the others, rather than being exclusive or separate or better. It is not a matter of better or worse, good or bad, but of what works. Exclusion does not work; it has a termination date; it has an expiration date which will eventually come around. With inclusion, the process of succession is already in place so that when team members become more and more skilled at playing various roles in the team. While participating, they learn the skills of the other members and eventually will move up in the situation to take on the roles of other positions. However, with the exclusive leader, those processes of succession oftentimes end very abruptly and traumatically and are inherently destructive. They are ego-driven rather than participation driven; rather than being one of many, it is one alone by itself. The model that is portrayed by the exclusive leader is one that leads to more and more exclusion and then more infighting.
It is important that the inclusive leader be emphasized in practice and taught by the superior organizations as the model by which to achieve the greatest good for the company and for individuals. The returns are manifold in the inclusive teams and by the inclusive leader. The inclusive leader then becomes the facilitator, much as the design team process which we have described.
Stéphane: This matches well with my observations as well, in observing these different styles of leaders, although it is beginning to be recognized by the corporation and the employees, and now Human Resources are promoting the inclusive leaders, and they are starting to recognize the detriment that the exclusive leader brings to the value for the corporation as a whole.
This model will be emulated by other organizations, corporations and governments
MACHIVENTA: Yes, your experience with your organization is in fact a demonstration of the worthiness and superiority of the inclusive leadership model. Our team is nodding acceptance of what you have said as the best way to proceed. The model that your corporation is using and will use in the future is one that will be emulated by other organizations and corporations and even governments. What you are seeing in this process is in fact culture-change. You are beginning to see the culture-change occur with your own organization; this will have wide repercussions in the culture of Western Civilization, particularly in democratic nations.
If you project this into the future, you will see how it supports an evolved democratic process, one that is necessary for this nation and other democratic nations to evolve into. With an organization such as yours, the profits are there, the evidence is immediate to some degree, and that this superior participation of many employees in the solution making and problem resolution is very evident soon. I will leave it at that, though there is much more to say regarding the democratic process.
Stéphane: What works is the driver, so in a corporation everyone tries to make a profit so an exclusive leader is trying to get a bigger piece of the pie. When we talk about the Teaching Mission and the Correcting Time, people coming to the place are volunteering their service for this cause. Do you see the risk of finding exclusive leaders within the Correcting Time?
[This is Daniel: I missed the verb in that last sentence.]
Stéphane: The risk of finding exclusive leaders within the Correcting Time.
Churches with exclusive leaders
MACHIVENTA: We have seen this occur in religions and individual churches where the church benefits from an exclusive leader, but eventually to its detriment of the very organization that they have saved. In business there is the corporate savior, the individual who comes in and cleans house, puts things in order and then is given a golden parachute and sent on their way. This does not occur in religious or spiritual organizations very often. What occurs is the individual who is the exclusive leader comes forward and proceeds as a deliverer of solutions but then fails to relinquish the authority and control to the team. Team training begins almost immediately. If you have an exclusive leader, they must step forward to use their power, authority, and control to immediately begin developing teams so that they become successful.
You see the example in the mega-churches around the world. They have a strong leader, and then they have many associate ministers and group leaders to provide the services to individuals who have an affinity for those activities. For corporations, and particularly for the Correcting Time, the inclusive leader is truly a facilitator, leaving very little room for individuals to come forward as exclusive leaders. Even though it may seem as an exception that the lead facilitators tell the individual, “This is an excellent idea! Go ahead and independently develop this.” What is inherent in that authority and that permission-giving is that they develop a team to support that exclusive work and then bring it back to the larger group later on.
Current changes in our culture
Stéphane: We see many examples of this change of culture appearing right now. An example is the #MeToo movement where people that were oppressed for many years with this exclusiveness are now speaking out against that. You could see that in the #MeToo movement, you could foresee it in this Volkswagen scandal, in the Wells Fargo scandals, people are now speaking out and that is an outcome of inclusiveness. Is that correct?
MACHIVENTA: That is correct. What you are seeing is the swing of the pendulum now moving towards the conservative moral and ethical process of leadership. Our work with the morality and ethics that we have developed with the 7 core values is a means to then still that oscillation. What we wish for a society is not to move from ultra-liberal, unethical and immoral to the ultra-conservative moral and ethical, but rather to still the pendulum to the middle where everyone understands the morality and acts accordingly. These movements that you see with #MeToo and others is a process of culture change. What has failed to come forward, but is now present in existence are the unchangeable timeless, irrevocable and irreducible values and morality of the 7 values that your species was given in its creation. This is the firm ground for all moral and ethical actions and leadership.
Jeff: You told us that these 7 core values are part of our DNA; is it part of the human DNA to want to follow rules?
MACHIVENTA: Quite the contrary!
The Golden Rule
Jeff: So, if that is the case, then the Golden Rule is found worldwide in one form or another, but it in of itself is not part of our DNA. Is that correct?
MACHIVENTA: That is correct. I’m waiting for your next question.
Jeff: (Laughing.) About your next question, if I can capture my breath, Sir, if in our teaching process, should we not include the Golden Rule, or is it worthy on its own to be part of this discussion?
We must now work together to survive
MACHIVENTA: Let me give you some foundational information and education first. The 7 values, particularly the first 4 values: Life, equality, growth, and quality of life help you survive. These four values help individuals survive, grow, and develop their talents, and helps your species survive. The 3 secondary value emotions of empathy, compassion and a generalized love of humanity give your species its capability and the possibility of becoming civilized, social beings living in moral and ethical families, communities, and societies. Detrimental individuality, that we spoke about earlier, comes from the first 4 values; these cause separation from others. The 3 secondary emotions motivate you to integration and inclusion and provide the possibility of social existence. What most of your society is now experiencing, in the United States and the world, is a transition from survival to social existence.
It is our hope, our teaching of these 7 values that your governmental, social agencies, foundations and all organizations begin to understand this division and the necessity of using inclusion and particularly the 3 secondary values to maintain your families, your communities, your societies. You can no longer live out in the bush by yourself and off the land with your spear, bow and arrow and stones. You must now live with each other to work with each other and produce together a future and existence that supports many other people. You live in a social existence and it cannot be separated any longer. The penchant for individuality and unique personal dominance to the full that most males exhibit is no longer useful to the maintenance of your society and the interaction for the survival of your nations. Once you understand this two part aspect of the values and the movement of individuated exclusiveness to inclusion and participation, then you begin to understand the answers to your question.
We need to learn to live in a world of non-constant growth
Stéphane: Machiventa, I would go a step in-between from survival to social sustainability that the current generation has seen, for instance the 1960’s, is the cost in growth, the constant increase in opportunities at every level, and that is through the mark of time since the Second World War, that this is truly unsustainable. So what we need to change from this generation moving forward, having forgotten the basic idea of survival is that we need to learn to live in a world of non-constant growth in every aspect of society. Is that correct?
MACHIVENTA: You are very correct in that. The attitude and perspective we are striving to convey to individuals who will be involved in time is to become an active participant and co-manager in planetary management. The motivation to bring stability to your world must cross the moral hurtle of population management. We do not use the word “population control,” but “population management,” where individuals understand that the individual has a powerful effect on the whole, as much as the whole has on the individual. It simply takes more time for individuals to reproduce to the capacity of 7-10 billion people on a planet with limited resources.
The problem that exists now is that the solutions that we have cannot come to bear and cannot come into force until the population has been balanced with the resources of the planet. Perhaps, you understand now why we have come here with the Correcting Time at this time — it is because of the eventual decimation of the human species. There will be a depopulation of the species to a vast extent. It is our hope that at that time the principles of planetary management are in place and appreciated by governments, nations and all organizations, whether they are corporations or non-profits and foundations. The difficulty now is the “have nots” are moving from opportunity to want to have everything that those other individuals have already achieved in their lifetimes and in their lives. This is one stone grinding on another, and these stones are not going to polish each other, but eventually will destroy the grinding machine itself.
Liz: Good morning, Machiventa. I’m sorry that I was not on the call last week, and I read the transcript very carefully with great interest about gene splicing and the power that your scientists are having and the moral dilemmas that come with that. I had a question—I don’t know if you are willing to answer this—but it has to do with the autism spectrum and whether or not that is the stuttering beginnings of an evolutionary leap in our species?
MACHIVENTA: We have spoken about this once before and I will not cover that again.
Liz: Thank you; I’ll have to look that up.
A question on having stock in various corporations
Roxie: Machiventa, in my IRA portfolio, my broker has me invested in several different corporations. I HATE dealing with money, so I let my broker make all the decisions as to what corporations he invests my IRA into so that I can live off the dividends. Am I being a moral coward for not being more involved by avoiding corporations which are unethical? I have neither the interest nor the time to research each one.
MACHIVENTA: You present two situations: One is that no, you are not a moral coward. We appreciate you and know you make moral decisions and you are a highly ethical individual, and that you provide service and caring for many people. As for your investments, you should perhaps ask the question and find out what general areas your investor manager is investing in, and particularly the credibility and the fiduciary capabilities of your manager. Do you understand?
Roxie: Not quite; not your last comment.
MACHIVENTA: Is he honest?
Roxie: As far as I can tell, however he has a very strong leaning in the opposite political direction than I have.
MACHIVENTA: Money does not choose favorites; it chooses that which produces.
Roxie: I see. He seems to choose the ones that produce, yes. Thank you.
Gene manipulation and style of leadership
Stéphane: Getting back to our lesson topic for today, would you say the inclusive style of leadership is that of a safety net in making bad decisions such as the genetic modification of grains and corn. Had this been supervised by an inclusive leader he would have gotten everyone’s point of view from this and might have acted differently from generating these products. Is that correct?
MACHIVENTA: That is correct. The genesis of the moral, ethical inclusive leader is that they have become aware of many points of view. The organization that started the gene manipulation knew long decades ago of the detrimental effects of the genetic modifications that they had made. The question that the accountants and the long-term projectionists/actuaries must take into account is “can we make more profit off of this than we will lose in the end by being sued in a group action suit?” And, the answer that they came up with was that they would make more money than the suit would take away from them. You are seeing the effects of unethical decisions that have a moral impact that effectively relies on those who use those products; the secondary effects as well. Now that the morality and ethics that are based on the 7 values is known, there will be no escape from that in the future as this morality and ethics becomes inclusive to corporate structure and decision-making, they will become more and more personally liable for the decisions that they make. Anyone involved in making that decision could be sued collectively, and as they say “severally” to the very great detriment of their own personal wealth, and the corporation would have to make recompense for the damages to the users of the products. Did this answer your question?
Stéphane: Yes, it did. Is it similar to the tobacco industry class action law suits, although that is a bit different as people have a choice to smoke, whereas everybody has to eat, and currently there is no choice as to whether or not we can eat genetically modified foods or not, since there is such an infiltration of these products in our society and diets.
MACHIVENTA: That is correct.
Being personally liable for corporate decisions
Craig: I’m intrigued by the concept of the people being personally liable for their decisions within the corporation, because that is something that I’ve seen as being very missing in today’s society that when someone in a corporation has made some egregious decision or other, nothing happens to them, the corporation pays the fine and they don’t go to jail or anything happens to them personally; they just seem to have no liability for making such detrimental decisions. This is just a comment.
MACHIVENTA: It is definitely in the interests of the Correcting time that individuals, whether they are corporate executives or not, become aware of their personal liability for the decisions that they make. There is a great history as to how this occurred, but we do not need to discuss that now. You are very correct in your analysis and in how we hope to change this.
Predators and crimes against humanity
Jeff: To take that one step further, you commented several times that predators, particularly sexual predators, essentially are committing—you haven’t used the phrase “crimes against humanity”—but that’s the way I interpreted your words. Is it possible that one of the solutions in our Correcting Time is to label sexually predatory behavior as a crime against humanity, and would that behavior of individuals who were involved knowingly bringing a product to market that would harm millions or billions of people, would fall also into that category?
MACHIVENTA: That is a broad leap, but it is possible to make that association. An example would be if the companies that made foam insulation that was injected into the walls of homes, knew that the formaldehyde in the compound was lethal to the occupants, then yes, that would constitute a crime against humanity. I would leave it at that.
Will Urantia evolve to include death penalty for crimes against humanity?
Stéphane: I recall a connection in one of the Papers of the Urantia Book where it talks about a government on a neighboring planet where if such an action is discovered from governmental officials, the death penalty is incurred. Do you see the same treatment evolving on Urantia?
MACHIVENTA: Yes, most definitely.
Jeff: My comment is a leap, because we have many countries that will not impose a death sentence, but they have at the moment no means of removing predators or predatory behavior from their society, yet crimes against humanity I thought were established in the Trials of Nuremburg and would the decisions at Nuremburg actually embrace the death penalty for perpetrators of many of the most horrible atrocities of today?
Traditional morality versus proactive morality based on the 7 values
MACHIVENTA: The association breaks down when you consider that the difference between traditional morality and the proactive morality based on these 7 values. The emphasis on traditional morality is historic in nature. Its orientation and assumed intention is to eliminate the individuals who created the problem. This would not change with the new morality, but the intention would change immensely. The intention is to remove predators from society permanently, so they do not reproduce and do not infect future generations with their predatory behaviors. There would be a tremendous detrimental impact upon those potential predators because they would know in the first instance that if they violated a child or another adult, or whomever, on the first instance that they would be placed in a situation of either being removed or being treated in a way that they would not be a danger to society ever again. We are speaking about a proactive morality that has a conscience, a conscience for the welfare of future generations. The traditional morality does not have any such intention. It was concerned about “correcting” the faults of the predators, and this may mean that the individuals may have been guarded at a concentration camp, as in Germany,….
[This is Daniel: Lost it.]
MACHIVENTA: The issue of removing an individual from a society on a permanent basis which removes the lifeforce from them has come under the title of many things—to assassinate people by the authority of society, the death penalty, and so on. The intentions of all those processes are historic and ineffectual. The process of amending and removing individuals who predate on your society is an important step in the maturation and evolution of an evolving society, one that has the capacity to become self-sustaining.
Maintaining the lives of those predators in a society works against the social sustainability of a society. A society that maintains such a position will never mature to the point of ever entering into the Days of Light and Life. There is a morality for society and a morality for individuals. Individuals are prohibited from harming or taking the life of another individual unless it is morally necessary that they do so. Societies on the other hand have the moral obligation of protection and maintaining that society for hundreds of years. It cannot do that by letting predators to remain in that society, and provide for the safety of future generations of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the safety and security that they need to thrive in the future. If you cannot go to the grocery store or shopping mall for fear of being raped, murdered or beaten and having your car stolen, and so on, then you live in a very desperate society that is in desperate need of correction and modification of its own morality.
The definition of Life has several degrees
Liz: Thank you, Machiventa; I appreciate what you just said, and yet the very first of the 7 core values is that of Life. If we are talking about capital punishment, it seems like even that very first value has degrees and different definitions. Life is the first value and yet there are exceptions to that rule.
Craig: If you go just straight with that value of Life, generally when you get rid of a social predator, you are actually saving lives, so the value of Life is increased because the social predator goes on to harm life after life if they are not stopped, so if you stop them, it does the least amount of Life removal.
Liz: I understand that, Craig, and I agree with you 100%, but when we are trying to promote the 7 core values as a way of decision-making, people are going to look at that and they are going to talk about abortion, they’re going to talk about capital punishment, and they are going to talk about vegetarianism and these are things we must have answers to, or we must know where we stand. I don’t know if I want clarification, or if I am just confused, or if you are going to suggest that I just work this out for myself.
Craig: I’ll keep quiet.
Being “fully human”
Jeff: Liz, I’ll just chime in here because we are not hearing anything at the moment from Machiventa, and I think that the reason that I kept harping on this concept of crimes against humanity is that if we are talking about people, who for whatever reason, either it’s deformed DNA or something else that leads them to act out in a manner that is compulsively damaging to other human beings, the question is, are they in fact, “fully human,” and if a society under these circumstances we are going to remove you because you are a danger to humanity, then you are not really quite human. Is that good enough of a bright line to make the decision on capital punishment?
Liz: Machiventa, where are you?
MACHIVENTA: I have been listening to your discussion. You have not formed a question or made a statement.
Jeff: Alright, I’ll pose this question directly, Machiventa. Is someone that has a genetic, or for whatever reason, a natural, personal, predilection to rape or molest a child, or something that is some perversion of the normal genetic makeup of the rest of us, are they in fact “not fully human?”
MACHIVENTA: You are correct.
Jeff: So, adding onto that, if a jury of competent people convicts him…
MACHIVENTA: One moment. This is not about juries.
Jeff: If a person is convicted of behavior that proves that they are not fully human, is it reasonable to the 7 core values to say it is not an immoral act to remove them from the gene pool, or from the existence on this world to send them to the next?
MACHIVENTA: You are correct.
Jeff: So, in the old language of English, when someone was put to death, they were “dispatched” with the idea that the Ancients of Days, or the judgment would come to them and it wouldn’t be upon us as a human race to fully judge them; it would be up to the workings of the universe to determine whether or not their souls moved on, etc., but the word “dispatched” was used hundreds of years ago about executions.
MACHIVENTA: You are correct.
The definition of “human”
Stéphane: What is the definition of “human?” Is it purely adherents to the 7 core values, or can you bring a definition to the table?
MACHIVENTA: Yes, most certainly. It is the position and expression of the 7 core values. A person who is a serial killer obviously has violated all 7 values. That individual has violated the morality of your species. The definition of non-human is someone who is not necessarily incapable, but who has chosen (made a decision) not to conform to and use the 7 values with respect to other people. You are talking about a person who is taking their own individuality and their separation from others to an extreme. This being does not feel they are a part of the human race and that they have the authority and independence to predate on others in whatever way they deem suitable. When you take this definition into consideration, then there are many crimes that your society has accepted as normal, which are incredibly abnormal and which do not work toward the benefit and the good of all people.
Their removal from the gene pool of humanity is necessary as a preventative for the destruction of other personalities. If any of you in the team or audience has ever witnessed or has known an individual who has been raped, a child or an adult, or who has been in the presence of a murder or severe physical abuse, you know as well as the rest of us that this individual is not human, and the most damning aspect of that crime is the damage that occurs to the victim can never be remediated. And further, that it damages the family, siblings, friends and associates. The stain of such crimes is so pervasive that the damage would include many hundreds of people beyond the individual victim.
Is removal of predators a good place to start?
Jeff: Machiventa, I’d like to follow-up with a question, and that is, we talked earlier about the technology of the 21st Century and what has been made available to large governmental units and small governmental units, and you said it doesn’t make any difference, it is a matter of inclusion. Is it possible going forward that what you just expressed to us about the necessity and the benefit of physical removal of predators could be established in a small political jurisdiction, either a county or a state or a smaller government, and then by example of the harmony that it would bring. Would it bring population movement in where people would want to live in such a society, and would it be an example for others? Is that a good place to start with this concept?
MACHIVENTA: It must start with a broader education of the public to get a consensus that the public wants to move in this direction, that it would be beneficial to that generation and to future generations. You have jumped into the middle of a proposition without having formed the introduction of such a concept and such an idea to the public. We are doing this through this transmission today, with you and to our audience, and to an audience who find many of these ideas very repugnant. The possibility of taking a life of another individual seems to be so universally immoral to them that they cannot accept this possibility as a good thing, but see it as a bad thing.
However, if you have ever visited an individual who has been in prison for 5, 10 or 40 years, you will see the waste of a life. How much more, many more lives are wasted because of that individual? So in the end, if you preserve the life of an individual without the possibility of them exploring the 7 values to become a whole, complete individual, you might be protecting their life, strictly as a breathing organism, but you are denying them through incarceration the possibility, the equality of growing into their potential and to do so and to improve the quality of their life. You see the morality of the 7 values works for that argument and against that argument to maintain life. Simply locking a person away to keep their life may be a nice moral cushion for you to accept and make you feel good, but on the other hand it is a highly immoral activity to pursue, as it denies that individual the possibility of growing. There is the crux for your moral questions about capital punishment versus maintaining their lives.
Liz: Thank you very much for that answer!
What do we need to do before the decimation?
Stéphane: In light of this, where do we need to evolve before the decimation to guarantee the new society will be built based on these principles after the decimation?
I would think that we would need to evolve to the point where the 7 core values are ingrained in some parts of our legal system.
MACHIVENTA: Let us quickly answer this as This One has to move on in the day. The answer is to begin as a generational development of culture-change by teaching children the 7 values. It begins through a conscious and intentional process of the enculturation and socialization of children and parents so that there become individuals who understand the values and the morality that it conveys. This morality is proactive because it proactively gives people much freedom, but there are many obligations and many responsibilities. I wish to now bring our session to a close.
A need to expand teaching of ethics
We are very heartened by the questions you ask; we wish to have our audience respond to this course of inquiry. Nonetheless we will pursue the idea and teachings of ethics as it is so vastly different than your traditional morality and ethics that it will need continual examination. You have seen today the examination of maintaining life in the face of so many things, to maintaining the life of an incarcerated individual is also a highly immoral activity by a society. This is one of the obligations and responsibilities of a moral society and moral individuals. In all this discussion, know that Christ Michael loves you, we love you, we care for you, and we want you to be safe in this world and in the next world, and know that all is well for you in your life. We embrace you with the light of Christ Michael and the First Source and Center and know that even now, Nebadonia surrounds you with her angels individually—dozens of them individually with you now, keeping you safe from harm and danger and giving you the greatest possibility to grow. Good day.
