Replacing objective morality with subjective morality
A trick of the cabalists
Right to the chase: I have been thinking about this a lot and where once I might have claimed that there was no such thing as subjective morality, I think now a better way to look at it is like this: subjective morality exists, but it is something that should be invoked under specific (perhaps even rare) circumstances.
What is subjective morality, objective morality and morality in general (definitions based on my thoughts and observations)
Morality to me is actually knowing that there is a difference between right and wrong. To act in a moral way, is to act in the “right way”, which embodies a decision to “do the right thing”. In my opinion, every single human being knows the difference between right and wrong. It’s a heart thing. Logic is more a brain thing. We can argue about what is right, and what is wrong, but I don’t want to now.
Subjective morality is thinking that what is right for you may not be right for others or vice versa. Subjective reality might be applicable according to age and circumstances. An example of this could be a child being raped, getting pregnant and wanting not to have the baby. Terminating the pregnancy might be considered to be subjectively good for this little girl, even though objectively, it might not be considered to be so. This particular morbid example of something we must all think about (because this is happening all the time) is a good example of when subjective morality can over-ride objective morality for the benefit of the community of all. Just so that you know, I think child rapists should be castrated. This would be objectively good because they wouldn’t be able to rape children anymore.
Objective morality is the big gun morality of us humans. It refers to the good and bad that certainly applies universally - the governing dynamics of humans. We all know (or perhaps feel is a better word) that some things are good, and that some things are bad. For example, hurting animals with the intention to inflict pain and suffering is bad. Objectively, it hurts the whole and breeds unnecessary conflict, chaos and pain. Making another person laugh is good. Objectively, the ripple effect of a laughing human would be beneficial for the mood of all, at least locally. But what about our little girl who was force-impregnated who does not want to be a mother yet? What is good for her? What is bad for her?
To illustrate the deployment and the nature of the balance of these moralities in decision-making, we can use the morbid example from above. Again, a person may believe that terminating pregnancies (objective morality) is bad, but this same person might also believe that in the case of this little girl, the objective morality thing doesn’t cut it, and that perhaps there must be a subjective morality invoked and deployed in her case. In other words, what is generally the right thing to do is not the right thing to do in this specific case and under these specific circumstances (age, force). This is the invocation of subjective morality; not really in lieu of objective morality, but a balancing of both.
After quite a bit of thinking about this, I have decided that both must co-exist, but that subjective morality must only be invoked in specific circumstances wherein violations of objective morality dwell and ultimately, the integrity of objective morality is maintained.
This is where it gets interesting on the subject matter of the cabalists. I call them this - rather than globalists (in this article) - because I believe that the globalists are just an off-shoot of a much older, darker, sect of human cults.1 Everyone should watch the following, by the way. Thank you to Matthew Ehret and Del Bigtree for one of the most interesting conversations I have listened to in years.
It seems to me from my own considerably shallow investigations into the history of these ‘underground’ culty people that they share a characteristic that is seated in hubris, narcissism and most importantly, ego. From what I understand, there is a separation of God as an ‘outside’ entity, and God as some kind of manifestation of man. Sort of like the idea that God made us versus we made/are God. I might be wrong about that. But it makes sense to me. If ideologies from a long time ago were passed on through the ages in the men and women who took ‘an interest’ in these cults, then who’s to say this isn’t exactly what we’re being put through now? Who else here thinks this is the ‘culmination’ of another cycle of “God purging” going on right now?
The reason I brought up the difference between - and balance of - subjective and objective moralities is because I believe that in order to be the type of person who thinks that there is no objective God (like many cultists), they must also believe that subjective morality far outweighs any notion of objective morality. A ruler, for example, rife with hedonistic, war-mongering ideals, would likely be characterized as being very egotistical, self-important and truly believe in the idea that they are subjectively right about everything, including what’s right for you according to them. How else would they believe they had the right to command others?
Side note: I would argue that a true leader would be far less egotistical and be found on the objective morality side of the scale in a far more pronounced way. In other words, in order to be the type of person who might succeed at leading others in a productive and sustainable way, one should suspend the ego. One should be able to acknowledge the existence of both subjective and objective moralities, but place far more importance on the latter, and again, invoke the former upon careful and specific examination.
What I think the cabalists do, and have been doing for a very long time, is abuse and abscond the balance between these moralities with the intention of confusing people when in a weakened state to adopt the belief that only subjective morality - not only matters - but exists.
Think: ENTITLEMENT/woke/DEI
THM: Do not succumb to the tricks of the cabalists. They will try to convince you - once in a weakened state of their making - that you are entitled to your own version of right, AT ALL TIMES.
Think about the entirely outlandish and in some cases, revolting, bullshit that we are subjected to every day, whether we want to tolerate it or not. Remember how they abused the notion of “do the right thing for everyone” by brainwashing us into believing that letting our loved ones die alone and in horrific mental and physical pain was best for them and us? This is literally the invocation - on a global scale - of what I believe is a plan to confuse people to the point of not living by an objective morality. This might be why a whole lot of Christians are having big ass problems with all the garbage being tossed at us by the truck load every day by the cabalists. It’s on the TV, it’s in the media, it’s on the Olympic stage, it’s everywhere. And why are so many churches, including Notre Dame in Paris, being burned?
Think about it. If the goal of the old-age cultists was to destroy objective morality because they themselves didn’t believe in it, how would that manifest today?
Hold tight to your sovereign, unique and creative self by living by an objective morality balanced by a subjective one, and don’t fall for the cabalist tricks to divide and confuse. Stay grounded in a solid and binding unspoken ‘code’ that serves us all.
All in all, good stuff is better than bad stuff. Knowing is easy. Look to your heart. And use your brain.
I asked Venice.ai to generate an image using the keywords “destruction of objective morality cultists”. I think it’s good that this AI sees cults this way.
I'd like to suggest a slightly different but compatible model that I've also been contemplating recently too. The a-morality being propagandised to us, especially young people, is perhaps a form of post-modern relativism-on-steroids (overshot big time) in which THERE IS NO GROUND upon which to stand because it's all relative. It's like the cultural relativism that sees every cultural practice as fine, except now it's applied to every individual practice as well. This leaves us in a moral vacuum which can be filled by a totalitarian "greater-good" morality as defined by them. The antidote is to refind our ground, our bones, our heart, our embodied felt sense of empathy and compassion - a very somatic-emotional morality as contrasted with the disembodied "transhuman" and mentally (or algorithmically) calculated one. I believe that humans have an innate capacity for empathy unless it has been extinguished by early trauma (which may be what happened to the cabalists), so perhaps it can be reawakened or rehabilitated in those not too far down the PsyOp path?
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis deals eloquently with this topic in Book 1. It is well worth the read.
The title for Book 1, "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe," tells the reader that the first five chapters will argue that morality is the key to the existential questions that have preoccupied humanity throughout the ages. The need to understand who we are, where it all came from, and what it all means has driven humankind to some of its greatest achievements in art, philosophy, science, and religion. Humans have approached these foundational questions from all conceivable angles. Some have found answers, while some have found only more questions.