"If I know one thing about people who want to rule empires, "

Ummmm.... I want to rule empires!

It's because I've seen just how badly humans can f*ck things up, and so someone needs to be appointed to ensure they don't again.

Oh, I just found out that this forum doesn't like correct spelling of some bad words..... how fkd is that?? :p

I really like Mackler's quote! I've been saying something similar to this for decades (but without the 'fully enlightened', as that makes it very controversial, and difficult to judge).

There are SOOOOO many flaws with this..... (and I'm not merely saying I disagree - which I do - but that his arguments are *fundamentally* (as in, literally at the very basis of his scenario) *flawed*.

No, I'm not going to enunciate them - I'd rather you do that, so that you can display critical thinking. (I often get my students to argue the *opposite* of their actual stance, just so that they can see what might be wrong with their position, and to prepare for counter-arguments).

He sounds like a far-right Republican, with a total 'anarchy' bent. I mean, just listen to the quote at 9:59 - "using threats and violence, because that's what laws and government are".... yeaaahhhh......... enuff said!

This video works every time.

You wrote:

"It's because I've seen just how badly humans can f*ck things up, and so someone needs to be appointed to ensure they don't again."

How will you do it without threats and violence? In other words: Without f*ing things up yourself?

"This video works every time."

I don't know what you mean/are referring to here.... the 'arguments' he's pushing are deeply flawed at the most fundamental level.

"How will you do it without threats and violence? In other words: Without f*ing things up yourself?"

Ok, you've got two assumptions in there, and you're linking them by what appears to be a sequitur... yet, you don't offer any suggestions for why they are logically connected.

I presume you're not willing to take my challenge... to try to see things from someone else's perspective. (wait - isn't that *EXACTLY* what the narrator was trying to say, and why being king doesn't work???)

Many advanced ET races don't have rulers who tax, since anything can be produced as quickly as it can be destroyed or consumed. It doesn't mean that people are useless. Spiritual beings are superior to artificial ones, because of their connection to Spirit. Therefore there is a "military," in that sense. That's the only command structure. But ultimately, God is in control of that, because God has a superior intelligence to any artificially produced item. So, one could say that God is the ruler.
I imagine there's everything in-between. I believe ISBEs primary goal is mostly to evolve closer to God.
But God respects free will. That's obvious. So, if we want to evolve to closer, we should as well, and not exert force over those who just wish to be left alone.

I won't touch upon your last comments regarding 'god', as it's not part of my beliefs, however...

"Many advanced ET races don't have rulers who tax, since anything can be produced as quickly as it can be destroyed or consumed"

Yes, this is substantial.

Earth would be in a similar situation, except for the greed and arrogance of the 'elites' who wish to maintain power. And, personally, I think they need to be put up against a wall, or hung from a tree... or whatever... (although, those ends are rather quick, so perhaps something else????) In this, I'd include all those who hold the patents to various inventions/devices that would make the world a whole lot better, and would alleviate so much suffering (including the continual wars this planet has).

I'm sure some people on here would be abhorred by this idea, and suggest that absolutely nothing good can come of this. However, that would be wrong. History has a way of forgetting and ignoring such things, and yes, people can actually learn and change!

@Manuel - I'm still waiting for you to address my challenge!

We've discussed this idea of 'rights' before - they mean absolutely nothing if they're not accepted. So just saying that something is a 'fundamental right' isn't going to change people shooting you in the head if you don't do what they say.

Honestly, as I got to the end of the video (yep, I watched it), I thought that this guy is SOOOOOOO incredibly naive, and seems to know absolutely nothing about human nature. He lives in a fantasy world where everyone operates on the same 'enlightened' wavelength. This is not humanity as I know and experience it.

So, if *I* don't take the throne, then I'm pretty sure someone else will... and personally, I don't trust that anyone else would do a better job. (I'm sure you'll say something like "but nobody should take the throne".... yeah, well, 'should' is a great word, and I could probably point to a dozen things that you 'should' have done today... but didn't.)

("Can you do it without threats and violence? If not, you will f*ck things up like all the emperors before you. Because you will violate self-ownership, which is a fundamental right in nature."

I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas of how society should work... and how individuals operate. And, thus, we will never see eye to eye. For one, I recognise that humans will always want more and better... and that means more and better than those around them. And while there's a lack of resources (real or propagandised) and the ability to wisely use those resources, there's always going to be conflicts between people (at the individual, societal, and national levels).

"So just saying that something is a 'fundamental right' isn't going to change people shooting you in the head if you don't do what they say."

That's called aggression, and it's not a right. That's why people say, shooting someone in the head is wrong.

"He lives in a fantasy world where everyone operates on the same 'enlightened' wavelength."

No, he doesn't. If he was living in such a world, he wouldn't make videos like this to tell people the difference between right and wrong.

"So, if *I* don't take the throne, then I'm pretty sure someone else will..."

You have the right to defend yourself against the one on the throne. That's the story of every single rebellion in history. That's why the rebellion in Star Wars are the good guys.

"I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas of how society should work... and how individuals operate."

So you're saying that you have no idea how to live without threats and violence. As I already explained, what you're missing is a differentiation between violence and defensive force. Violence is wrong, a violation of the self-ownership of others, because you are attacking them. Defensive force is a right, because it's not a violation of self-ownership, but what is necessary to restore self-ownership.

Regarding that knowledge, do you still need violence?

"That's called aggression, and it's not a right. That's why people say, shooting someone in the head is wrong."

It doesn't matter what it's *called* - it's the action that is the thing with the greater meaning. Hence, screaming "I have my rights" means nothing to the people dragging you away... and neither you nor your hero have anything to stop that. Gandhi's way got many people severely injured and killed... for only a relatively small change.

"You have the right to defend yourself against the one on the throne. That's the story of every single rebellion in history. That's why the rebellion in Star Wars are the good guys"

And yet, not every single government has ended in revolution. In fact, very few have.... (a point which seems to be fundamental, and missing from this 'argument')

"So you're saying that you have no idea how to live without threats and violence."

I have no idea how to deal with people who are going to abuse any 'right', take unfair advantage of any and every situation, stamp over the rights and freedoms of others with careless disdain, without some form of 'threat and violence' against them which has been given some level of authority to deal with such individuals, and remove them from society... again, something which I haven't heard from you about how to deal with. There *ARE* psychopaths and sociopaths in the world... how do you expect to deal with them???

I am going to say it again (and probably again and again) - will you take the challenge to try to counter your own arguments? It's what intelligent people do when engaged in debate.

Government literally means "institution of control" – Mark Passio even translates it with "mind control".

A blinking warning sign is a recommendation. The driver is not forced to slow down.

The problem with the belief in government is: People think they gain control over other people or even nature, while in reality, the government doesn't control anything – it's just able to punish after the fact. The idea is to instill fear of punishment, which is an indirect form of control. That's why calling government "mind control" is not false.

The problem with fear is: Evil will create more and more fear in order to manifest more and more control. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It works like cancer. Evil eventually eats itself.

The solution is to understand that the only form of control that exists is the understanding of natural law, that natural law is there to bring stability, not punishment, and that no being in existence can make law. Every attempt of creating individual law – which is called privilege – will result in harm and chaos for other beings.

Just from a birds-eye-view, manmade laws, to me, are used like spell books by those in power to exert controls over others to gain a certain outcome for their benefit.
The problem is, those who start making and using laws begin to see the world solely in that way, and forget about everything else, including the rights of the individual. They only see that these spell books provide them what they want. Laws make people lose their natural sense of compassion and fairness.
Jesus basically said something to that effect when asked if he came to destroy the law. He said that he came to complete/restore it, meaning to restore that feeling in their heart that creates a just society. The laws often were abused, because they cut off the heart.
Its a big reason Christianity took off. The Roman Empire became so heavy handed with taxation and control, that people had had enough.

I am very much aware that Gobierne and Mentis are Root-Etymologies of the word Government as mentioned by Mark Passio; how-ever, Mark Passio has been expressing extreme anger in recent releases that he's been publishing, and, therefore, similarly to how anybody consumed by Pure-Liquid-Fear has lost their sanity and rationality, one who is consumed by Pure-Liquid-Anger also does not make decisions that are rational;

Whilst he (Mark Passio) has certainly made great-contributions to exposing how corrupt and «satanic» the whole entire system is or has become, the DEEPER common-denominator are peoples' ideological-beliefs, for it is the BELIEF in PUNISHMENT and «authoritarianism» which IS the REAL «error» as a «system» in of itself is simply a system; a «system» in of itself does not make it inherently evil nor inherently good, similarly to how fire and electricity are «amoral» forces that can provide great comfort to multitudes yet simultaneously cause extremely devastating destruction to whole entire populations, the same can be said for the various «systems» of «social» structures, for, much of it is simply «text» on «paper» that is then «elevated» into the «status» of «scriptures» after all.

And IF you are following or heeding any named or known «religions» then you ARE in fact part of a «government» which IS in «error» when there are ANY «punitive-attachments» contained within its text for «non-compliance» or «non-conformity» to its DICTATES; I will list the parallels as follows in order to demonstrate that government and religion are essentially the SAME with varying degrees of how it «controls» its own believers and worshippers in its system...:

Government : Calls you a Conspiracy Theorist or Non-Conformist or Criminal
Religion : Calls you a Heretic or a Sinner
Psychiatry : Calls you Mentally Ill

Gov : Uses Court-Rooms
Rel : Uses Inquistion-Chambres
Psy : Use Psych-Wards

G : You are expected to Plead Guilty to the Charges that offend some Statute
R : You are expected to Confess Your Sins for offending some Passage
P : You are expected to Admit to having some sort of Mental Illness per DSM

G : When deemed Guilty you are then Sentenced and Incarcerated
R : When deemed an Enemy of God you are Judged and Ex-Communicated
(And that's getting off Lightly as the so-called Witches were Burned at the Stake)
P : When deemed Mentally Ill you are then Forced into Involuntary Commitment

G : Just pay your Fines and Taxes if you wish to be Saved from Punishment
R : Just devote your Life to some Church to be Saved from Eternal-Punishment
P : Just take your Meds in order to be Saved from some Arbitrary Mental-Illness

G : Uses Man-Made Pseudo-Law Books to Force Everyone Into Conformity
R : Uses Pseudo-Holy Ancient Text-Books to Compel People into Conversion
P : Uses the DSM to make its Pseudo-Science sound more Scientific

G : Legislators write down various Commandments into Statutes called Law
R : Scribes write down Commandments into Verses that are called Scripture
P : Pseudo-Scientists write down literally «voted in» diagnoses into the DSM

I could add and include more parallels, but, this should be sufficient to illustrate my point that all of these systems contain some form of «Sharia-Law» wherein the «punishment» (such as getting one's hand cut off) factor is typically often dozens if not hundreds of times in excess of the initial so-called offense which is often not even a real offense at all.

Also, only ONE «Law» exists, and, that IS the LAW of GOD.
That particular «Law» stipulates the following...:
«Everything that you or your servants do/express unto others (primarily applied to interactions amongst sentient-beings) will be done/expressed unto you.»
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/godslaw1.htm

And, yes, the very returned (re-incarnated) Messiah (Imam Al-Mahdi) himself, most-certainly did NOT promote nor encourage the paying of taxes or submitting oneself to taxation, his clarifications from his very own pen (or key-board) and mind and «sin-free» hand can be read at the following...
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/caesar.htm

"Messiah is not a Government. Messiah simply means Messenger."

Then everybody is a Messiah, because everbody has something to say.

"See and hear him speak for yourself as he was being interviewed here... "

I see a man like everybody else. How do you know God has chosen him for a special purpose. Did God tell you?

I have already provided more-than-enough information to explain all of the reasons why; I do not believe it is productive for me to be spending much more time on trying to go over all of the history behind this as there is a far greater importance to bring about Catastrophic-Disclosure.

Are you aware that NATO is actually involved with UFOs and that NATO itself is ACTIVELY INVOLVED in PREVENTING the Disclosure of Aliens/UFOs/Extra-Terrestrials/etc. ?

"Messiah simply means Messenger.

Source A : «“Messiah” comes from the Hebrew word “mashiach” and means “anointed one” or “chosen one.” The Greek equivalent is the word “Christos” or, in English, “Christ.” In biblical times, anointing someone with oil was a sign that God was consecrating or setting apart that person for a particular role. Thus, an “anointed one” was someone with a special, God-ordained purpose»"

So, 'messiah' *doesn't* mean 'messenger'... It quite clearly has a very different meaning.

From Etymonline (which I trust more than most other sites when it comes to such things):

Messiah (n.)

c. 1300, Messias, a designation of Jesus as the savior of the world, from Late Latin Messias, from Greek Messias, from Aramaic (Semitic) meshiha and Hebrew mashiah "the anointed" (of the Lord), from mashah "anoint." It is thus the Hebrew equivalent of Christ, and it is the word rendered in Septuagint as Greek Khristos (see Christ).

In Old Testament prophetic writing, it was used as a descriptive title of an expected deliverer of the Jewish nation. The modern English form represents an attempt to make the word look more Hebrew, and dates from the Geneva Bible (1560). Transferred sense of "an expected liberator or savior of a captive people" is attested from 1660s. Related: Messiahship "the character, state, or office of Jesus Christ as savior of the world" (1620s).
also from c. 1300
Entries linking to Messiah
Christ (n.)

"the Anointed," synonymous with and translating to Greek Hebrew mashiah (see messiah), a title given to Jesus of Nazareth; Old English crist (by 830, perhaps 675), from Latin Christus, from Greek khristos "the anointed," noun use of verbal adjective of khriein "to rub, anoint" (from PIE root *ghrei- "to rub").

In the primitive Church it was a title, and used with the definite article, but from an early period it was used without it and regarded as part of the proper name of Jesus. It was treated as a proper name in Old English, but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Irish missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The ch- form, regular since c. 1500 in English, was rare before. Capitalization of the word begins 14c. but is not fixed until 17c. The Latin term drove out Old English Hæland "healer, savior," as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus.

As an oath or strong exclamation (of surprise, dismay, etc.), attested by 1748. The 17c. mystical sect of the Familists edged it toward a verb with Christed "made one with Christ." Christ-child "Jesus as a baby" (1842) translates German Christkind.

"For all intents and purposes, I am going by what Terence de Malahèrre himself says about himself, how he regards and considers himself, and, you are already astute enough to know how what someone says can easily be taken out-of-context from what they originally intended to say;"

Why would you do that????? Why take just one person's interpretation of any particular word, instead of common usage, or at least dictionary definitions that have been established for FAR longer than any single person's lifetime??

It's *BEGGING* to cause confusions (as you've already done on this site). And then arguments... followed by either shouting matches, or dismissal and ignorance of posts.

The absolute baseline in any debate is that we all agree to the language and terminology being used. If we can't agree to even that, then there's no real point in continuing ANY discussion!

Regarding this... I am not so entirely sure that the Etymology entries on a primarily English-language Etymology web-site adequately cover the full entire language-spectrum-history of historical-meanings, and, I had already referenced entries that do regard Messiah as meaning a Messenger, even though, for some reason, they seem to tend to be primarily Muslim; thus, Messiah being regarded as Messenger is not just solely the opinion of one guy, nor only one man's interpretation, and, billions of Muslims are on Earth right now (something like two billion if I am not mistaken).

Let's dig even deeper though...
https://jisho.org/search/Messiah and https://jisho.org/search/救世主
The Japanese-language dictionary has the word «saviour» in-common as its meaning when looked up in both English and Japanese, and, according to Terence, the *message* that he brings from Him is what «saves» people IF they were to heed its Call of Peace Unto All; I know it's probably hard for people to believe that Yeshua ben Joseph himself, the very man whom many know as Jesus, has returned/reincarnated as a simple man, Terence, but, his mannerisms do match the most-closely out of all people I can think of to the historic-Jesus, for example, biblical-scholars who've studied the ancient-languages and manners of speaking do conclude that Jesus often spoke in poetic-verse (i.e. : his speech often rhymed). His writings are also quite verbose which allude to the John 21:25 passage; he is also extremely anti-government and anti-religious-establishment which is yet another closely matching feature; the Jews rejected him as Messiah just as today's Christians (and even many Muslims) reject him as being Messiah or Imam Al-Mahdi; there simply isn't anybody else existing right now, nor has ever existed, who parallels so well with the «Jesus» personality; for additional side-by-side comparisons between what Jesus and Terence said/say see http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/clem/forgive/essenes.htm

«The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.»
-Philip K. Dick

Etymology is a great tool, and, Etymology is also certainly a great web-site, but, Etymological-Records will also have its limitations, especially if you are restricted to looking things up in only one language. You might find the search-results and historic-entries surprisingly different when you search in the language of other cultures using their record-keeping and search-tools, such as https://www.baidu.com/ when searching and looking up information in Chinese, https://www.yandex.ru/ when searching and looking up information in Russian or other Slavic-Languages, etc.

Additional Relevant-Entries Related to my Response(s)...
http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/truth/web/rule.htm
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=religion (related to above-link)
https://languagehat.com/japanese-etymological-dictionary/ (and if you pull up this page then be sure to scroll down to the comment about Korean-Origins to get an idea of how original-meanings or roots of words can indeed have been buried due to things like cultural and/or national-pride, winners write and/or re-write the history books, etc.)

Bonus Info...:

「The word 'messiah' is the anglicisation of the Hebrew 'moshiach'. The word moshiach translates to 'anointed'. The title of moshiach was given to any person who was appropriately anointed with oil as part of their initiation to their service of HaShem. We have had many moshiachim (pl) in the form of kings, priests, prophets, and judges. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about a moshiach.

This being said, there is a prophecy of a future moshiach, however, this is a relatively minor topic in Judaism and the Tanach.

The Jewish requirements of hamoshiach are:

* Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
* Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6)
* Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
* Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "HaShem will be King over all the world -- on that day, HaShem will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)
* Hamoshiach must be descended on his father's side from King David (Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1)
* Hamoshiach will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

There is no prophecy of a virgin birth - Isaiah 7 contains a short term prophecy that was fulfilled in Isaiah's lifetime. The prophecy itself makes no mention of a virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'b'tulah' which Isaiah uses throughout his writings. However, in this chapter, the word 'almah' is used. Almah means young woman and in this chapter, the young woman in question was already pregnant. The issue was that the Greeks did not have a word that was the equivalent to 'almah', instead, the translators used the word 'parthenos' which can mean either young woman OR virgin. In the prophecy itself, young woman's child simply served as the timeline for the prophecy itself: by the time the child is old enough to know good from bad, X would have occurred.

There is no specification as to where hamoshiach will be born. Mentions of Bethlehem are in reference to hamoshiach being a descendant of King David.

There is no specification as to when hamoshiach will be born. Daniel was talking about the destruction of the first Temple, construction of the second Temple, and then the destruction of the second Temple.

As to whether Jesus met any of the requirements of being hamoshiach, the answer is that no, he did not meet a single one. This includes his complete lack of tribal lineage - according to Jewish law tribal lineage is determined solely by the biological father, there is no concept of adoption in this scenario. In Jesus's case, the two lineages provided in an attempt to claim his status are invalid on several counts:

1. Biological father determines tribe, when a man and woman marry, the woman belongs to her husband's tribe. The lineages given for Jesus attempt to through Joseph via Mary's father which is invalid.

2. Kings must trace their lineage through King Solomon. The lineage provided in the book of Luke 3:31 goes through Nathan, Solomon's half brother. The lineage provided in Mathew 1:11-12 and Luke 3:27 goes through Shealtiel who was cursed so that none of his descendents could be king.

3. Regardless of the above lineages disqualifying Jesus, his lack of biological father completely disqualifies Jesus, so the above two points are actually irrelevant. As mentioned above, there is no concept of adoption when it comes to tribal affiliation. As Jesus is supposed to be the son of G-d, as opposed to being Joseph's biological son, Jesus does not belong to any tribe according to Jewish law. (Note: The concept of a literal child of HaShem is an abomination according to the Tanach (Jewish Bible) and the teachings of Judaism. This concept was adopted by Christianity from the various pagan religions of the region at that time.)」 -Quoted from a post/message that I came across many years ago that was written (typed) by a self-professing Jew

Edit/Addendum : The entry in https://popular.academic.ru/2082/Мессия also has a line «Постепенно оформляется учение о грядущем пришествии в мир Божьего посланца Мессии как избавителя евреев от иноземного гнета.» when translated into English contains «God's messenger the Messiah» so it does not seem to be limited to «Muslim» sources which equate Messiah to messenger; God's messenger to be more specific...