Is it moral for one man to rule over another man, to require one man, against his own conscience or desire, by force or violence, to carry out another man’s will? I would argue that it is not. For social participation to be moral or ethical, the mutual consent of both parties must be established.

The only reason why so many are willingly participating in their own immoral enslavement is because they have been programmed by layers of lies to believe that it is good and essential to their existence. Or perhaps they believe that there are no other alternatives because their spirits have been beaten down so badly for generations that they have forgotten they are free men and women by design and by birthright.

We do not need to consent to the tyrannical, whimsical desires of other men or women, whether they call themselves “government” or not. No man has a moral right or duty to rule another by threat of violence. This is evil. We are all free unless we CHOOSE otherwise.

Are You Living Your Dream?

Channeled Messages 9-3-2022

https://starfirecodes.substack.com/p/are-you-living-your-dream

Excerpt: "Your meditative practice causes a breakthrough. You end a state of fragility by removing residual rejection and abandonment energies from your emotional body. Those who are most loyal, the closest ones to you, have been instrumental in keeping your heart centered and balanced, even when you felt off kilter or wondered if you were going to break...."

Follow @StarfireCodes 🙏🏻💜💫
Substack | Truth | Gettr | IG

Inoculations every 90 days? Will you listen to us now? 😳🤷🏾‍♂️

I want to address an argument that many in the so-called truth movement make in regards to "viruses" which is that the germ theory and terrain theory are not mutually exclusive. These are even false terms in my view, the correct terms are the germ hypothesis & terrain model.

I truly understand this false perspective that people may have and it's easy to demonstrate this level of thinking by just throwing seeds on the concrete where nothing will happen with the seeds due to terrain being wrong but if we put the seeds in the soil they will start to grow because the terrain is in alignment with the seeds. Now I will only address this false argument in relation to "viruses" and not bacteria, fungi & parasites because bacteria, fungi & parasites actually exist while there is no evidence for the existence of "viruses".

To all of you that hold this position, I would like you to answer this question: how can something that never been proven to exist in nature by the use of the scientific method ever be a cause of something regardless of the status of the terrain? To even entertain that argument we would first have to prove the existence of the "virus", then and only then could we begin to argue from the experimental evidence if the germ hypothesis & terrain model are complementary in regards to "viruses".

I would also like to say that in my view the terrain model got nothing to do with "viruses" because we would first have to prove the existence of "viruses" before we can begin to argue about how they may behave in various environments. This is why I constantly state in my interviews that there is nothing to debate here in regards to "viruses" because all "virologists", institutions, scientists and researchers around the world are all in full agreement with the fact that they have never found an alleged "virus" directly from nature. This is also one of the reasons I have turned down debates because what is there to debate, either something exists or it doesn't. It's like arguing about the existence of unicorns, either we have found unicorns in nature or we haven't.

There is no ambiguity here, there is no middle ground, period.

Another rinse and repeat virus yarn fools the public with identical 'symptoms to look out for'. The same symptoms of course that can have a multitude of causes in the bioterrain model.

A U.K. government program is *raising red flags*
tinyurl.com/3b3hx8en

Larken Rose, Most Dangerous Superstition:

What is this thing we call "government"? It is an organization that tells people what to do. But that alone does not provide a complete definition, because all sorts of
other individuals and organizations that we do not call "government" also tell people what to do. "Government," however, does not simply suggest or request; it commands. Then again, advertisers and preachers could also be said to give commands, but they are not considered "government." Unlike the "commands" of preachers and advertisers, the commands of "government" are backed by the threat of punishment, the use of force against those who do not comply. But even that does not give us a complete definition, because street thugs and bullies also enforce their commands, but no one refers to them as "government."

The distinguishing feature of "government" is that it is thought to have the moral right to give and enforce commands. Its commands are called "laws," and disobeying its commands is called "crime." In short, the defining factor which makes something "government" is the perceived legitimacy and righteousness of the power and control it exerts over others--in other words, its "authority."

"Authority" can be summed up as the right to rule. It is not merely the ability to forcibly control others, which to some extent nearly everyone possesses. It is the supposed moral right to forcibly control others. What distinguishes a street gang from "government" is how they are perceived by the people they control. The trespasses, robbery, extortion, assault and murder committed by common thugs are perceived by almost everyone as being immoral, unjustified, and criminal. Their victims may comply with their demands, but not out of any feeling of moral obligation to obey, merely out of fear. If the intended victims of the street gang thought they could resist without any danger to themselves, they would do so, without the slightest feeling of guilt. They do not perceive the street thug to be any sort of legitimate, rightful ruler; they do not imagine him to be "authority." The loot the thug collects is not referred to as "taxes," and his threats are not called "laws."

Teach your kids to question authority. Most who fancy themselves as “authorities” are full of shit.

"Viruses" - Baileys, Cowan & Kaufman Respond To Del Bigtree

In a recent interview, Del Bigtree suggested that the world is not ready for the "no virus" conversation.
We take a different view, watch our take 👇

https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/interviews/viruses-baileys-cowan-kaufman-respond-to-del-bigtree/

William Happer is probably the greatest climate scientist in the world.

He advised Clinton and Trump, but was fired by Clinton.

Basically, there is no climate emergency, and humans are not changing Earth's temperature.

Take a listen.

Brilliant comment from a woman in this channel, Livvy Hexum:

“For everyone that believes voting is a good solution. By voting you will inevitably be subjecting your will upon others or have their will subjected upon you depending on which side "wins." The only way we all win and can truly be free is to stop acting like we have the right to give a group of people a special set of powers that the rest of us do not even have. First of all, no one has the right to give anyone else, something they themselves dont already own. Do you have a special set of powers that gives you the right to control others? Then how can you vote to give that to someone else, especially claiming they now, not only have the power to control you, but other people as well? In a world where everyone is created equal, no one person or group of people should ever have the power to control another person unless that person specifically gave them that power. I dont know about you, but I never agreed to the "democratic process." That process sucks because there will always be people who feel and think differently from me and I dont feel the need to force them to obey any laws other than the natural laws we were all born with.
The Democratic process does not follow natural law. Majority rules means the people who dont agree, will have things forced on them they dont agree with. Do you aporeciate it when something is forced on you like masking or injections? Is that freedom? It involves demands and threats that must be obeyed, big or small, that are completely unnecessary and are certainly not part of living free!!! Participating in voting only perpetuates more slavery as its' end result. Voting does cause harm. By choosing to vote, You are choosing the path of least resistance that ultimately keeps us from acheiving freedom. Sure there may be some great people with great intentions that can make great changes running for office now, more than ever. If they get electected,.... sure, you will have a nicer slave master and your life will feel a lot less uncomfortable, but you are still a slave. Look up the definition of freedom and the definition of government. Now explain to me how the definition government and the action of being governed has anything to do with freedom?! Voting feeds the slave system, Voting is exactly what keeps you from being truly free. Government means there will be rulers with rules, ruling over you.
You still have leaders w/o government. You still have cooperation w/o government. What you dont have is other people ruling over your life. ( unless that's youre thing , you're certainly still free to do so.) Everyone is free to choose for themselves. That is freedom.”

A Matter of Trust

I did not want to write this as I really do believe Poornima Wagh has been through a smoldering ring of fire as of late. Sadly, it is an inferno that she seemingly created for herself through her own actions. In any case, it is not my intent to pour on the metaphorical lighter fluid and fan the flames. However, due to the response that I have seen to the vetting of Poornima, I felt that it was necessary to present the case for why it was imperative that Poornima’s claims and credentials were ultimately verified. I want to also ask those who found themselves under the spell over the last few months to use this unfortunate situation as a much-needed wake-up call in order to re-evaluate those that they view as trustworthy. It is easy, especially during these challenging times, to look for and cling to a savior, the expert in shining armor ready to slay the legendary “viral” beast. When one seemingly steps out from behind the shadows, it is easy to push aside and abandon all critical thought and healthy skepticism in order to latch onto the savior with welcoming and open arms. However, if one takes a moment to step back and view the savior with the same discernment and logic that led them to see through the “viral” delusion in the first place, they will many times see that these saviors are sadly not who they claim to be. Unfortunately, it appears as though this trust that was easily given by many may have been entirely misplaced in Poornima Wagh.

https://viroliegy.com/2022/09/04/a-matter-of-trust/