[tmtranscripts] NET #44, Jul. 30, 2018

[Roxanne Andrews]

PR

*New Era Transition #44 – 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.

# #
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://circuit1.teamcircuits.com/pipermail/tmtranscripts/attachments/20180810/f0f755ab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2018-7-30, NET #44, Machiventa.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 81408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://circuit1.teamcircuits.com/pipermail/tmtranscripts/attachments/20180810/f0f755ab/attachment-0001.doc>