Mark Passio & The Science Of Natural Law Documentary
There sometimes seems to be a bug that suppresses the picture-in-picture (PIP) feature when accessing this website through a link. The PIP feature is normally available in the bottom right corner of the above video. Also, the substack app seems to suppress the PIP feature much of the time, so I don’t suggest using the substack app, but rather directly access this site through a web browser, WITHOUT clicking a link.
Using the PIP feature is the best way to assimilate this site’s information, IMHO, because you can scroll the video with you, as you read along. NOTE: you must also have PIP feature turned on in the settings for your browse
Is humanity truly free?
Are there universal laws in effect that apply to human behavior?
Does our knowledge or ignorance of these laws impact our collective freedom as a species?
This documentary will explore these questions and our current understanding of universal forces that affect the daily lives of each and every one of us.
I'm an independent researcher and public speaker from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I lecture on the topics of human consciousness, morality, freedom, occultism, symbology, and spirituality.
Many years of unique life experiences have afforded me an extraordinary perspective on the current human condition. Through my website, whatonearthishappening.com, I continue to explore these topics with a worldwide audience. I grew up with a traditional Roman Catholic family background in South Philadelphia.
During my grade school years, I began questioning the beliefs and motives of organized religion, recognizing it as a system designed to control human thought and understanding. My unanswered philosophical and sociological questions eventually turned to discontent and anger. This drove me to seek out what I considered at the time to be the polar opposite of religion. My subsequent life path led me into membership and influence of what I now refer to as the Dark Occult, what most people might call nefarious secret societies.
But what actually is the Occult?
What does the word occult mean?
Occult? It means maybe supernatural or yeah.
Occult? Mystic, unknown, kind of stigmatized.
It's funny, I think by society it generally has a negative connotation. I'm not sure I could actually define it.
I think it's like palmistry, voodoo, like spirits, things like that. Ouija boards maybe.
I guess anything that is a Christian would be considered a cult.
Like something with a strong following, right?
Um, I don't know, honestly.
I don't know.
Um. I have no idea.
The word occult simply means hidden. The occult refers to hidden knowledge, knowledge that is not commonly known by the vast majority of human beings. Occultism is a body of knowledge which encompasses the study of hidden laws of nature. Laws which cannot readily be seen with our eyes or measured by traditional scientific instrumentation.
I became aware that the groups of occultists with whom I became involved were comprised of an eclectic array of people from every walk of life and every social institution, including politics, banking, media, law, military, law enforcement, entertainment, technology, medicine, and education. Among their ranks were many people of great influence and power, all working together toward one common goal, to increase their own collective power at the expense of everyone else's rights and freedom.
These dark occultists are able to do this because they have access to hidden knowledge to which the overwhelming majority of humanity still remains ignorant. These occult manipulators are actually master psychologists who utilize their deep and ancient knowledge of the human psyche and the hidden laws of nature to deceive and manipulate the masses of humanity into total subservience to their will. This allows the occult manipulators to easily convert their knowledge differential into a power differential in our world.
After a profound crisis in conscience, I eventually made the free will decision to cease my involvement in the world of dark occultism. I now teach people the very information which these dark occult orders have been keeping to themselves in order to stay in power behind the scenes. The ultimate hidden knowledge which they have been holding back from humanity's awareness is called natural law, and it is the secret of all so-called secret societies throughout human history.
What is natural law?
Natural law? I guess you could say just what, almost like first instinct kind of, you know what I mean? Like what would come simply just by the way that we are.
I'm not really sure. I'm actually a lawyer by training and education, so I'm probably the worst person to ask.
Law applies to the whole country.
I think it means like how law is interpreted by people on like a day to day basis.
Natural law, everyone is nice. Everyone was born nice and kind but they’re corrupted by society.
The term natural law. I mean if you break it down, and I guess in regular terms it’d mean. Damn actually now I'm thinking about it. I don't know what natural law means.
To understand what natural law is we must first know what it most certainly is not. Natural law is definitely not and has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's theories on evolution, the Darwinian survival of the fittest, the so-called law of the jungle, or the so-called natural order of nature as a dog-eat-dog world.
So, what actually is natural law? The definition of the word natural is, inherent to, and having a basis in, reality and nature. In other words, not man-made. The definition of the word law is, an existing condition that is both binding and immutable. Binding means having an effect that cannot be escaped. Immutable means unable to be changed by anything or anyone. Natural law, therefore, is a set of universal, non-man-made, binding and unchangeable conditions, which govern the behavorial consequence of beings with the capacity for holistic intelligence.
Natural law governs the aggregate or collective, free-will behavioral choices of entire populations by manifesting the consequences of the behaviors that we choose. The consequences which we receive are always dependent upon whether our chosen behaviors are either moral or immoral, or in other words, right or wrong. While we all have free will to choose which behaviors we will conduct, we are not insulated from the moral consequences of our behavioral choices.
Natural law is a body of laws that operate within the unseen or non-physical realm, so they may be considered to be occulted or hidden laws of nature. These laws are built into the fabric of reality, just like gravity and electromagnetism. However, since these governing dynamics operate in the non-physical realm, human beings must incorporate a much wider worldview in order to recognize and accept the existence and operation of these laws.
The understanding of natural law is absolutely not a belief system or a religion. The workings of natural law can be discovered and understood through its observable, measurable, and repeatable effects in our world. In other words, the understanding of natural law actually constitutes a science of morality, which requires no belief or faith. Belief or disbelief in these laws is completely irrelevant, as they exist as surely as any physical law, such as gravity, which we take for granted in daily life.
Natural law is also known as moral law, cosmic law, universal law, spiritual law, the law of cause and effect, consequentialism, the golden rule, karma, and many other names. Why is understanding natural law so important? The understanding of natural law is critically important to human beings who seek to live in freedom and peace together. Since natural law delivers the consequences of an entire society's behavioral choices, based on whether their behavior is moral or not, it is of fundamental importance for human beings to know with certainty what the difference between right behavior and wrong behavior actually is.
Do human beings have inherent rights?
Yeah, they do.
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
Yeah, I think every human has a right.
Human beings always have rights. No matter where you're from, no matter your religion, sex, no matter what happens, they should always have rights.
What is the definition of a human right?
A human right is something that by the fact that we exist as individuals, we are entitled to just by the nature of being.
Something that a human being would need in order to thrive.
Something provided to a human just for existing.
Something that everyone deserves, like just being born and being alive.
The right to have shelter and food and water and basic necessities.
You know I want to go with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness essentially, but food, shelter and basic needs I think are human rights.
Human right, I think it's, I don't know, I guess something allowed to a human, I guess.
Every human being deserves something, and that would be a right, and an example of human right would be safety.
A right is an action that does not initiate harm to another sentient being. Most human beings cannot correctly provide that simple definition when asked. This is the primary reason that human beings are losing their rights and freedom. How can we possibly keep what we cannot even properly define?
A right must be defined in the negative. This means that we can arrive at an understanding of the infinite amount of rights we have by knowing the very small amount of actions that are not rights. Actions which are wrongdoings. Behaviors which do initiate harm to other sentient beings.
This list of harmful behaviors includes: murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, coercion, and willfully lying. If we analyze each of the wrongdoings in turn, we can find that they are all variations of theft in one form or another.
Murder is the theft of life which is not rightfully ours to take.
Assault is the theft of another's well-being without right.
Rape is the theft of free will sexual association.
Theft is the stealing of property
Trespass is the theft of the security of one's living domain
Coercion is the theft of free will choice via violence or duress
And willfully lying is the theft of necessary information, which negatively impacts someone else's ability to engage in informed decision-making.
These immoral behaviors constitute the very definition of violence. Violence is the initiation of harmful behavior against other sentient beings. The list of harmful behaviors just explained are transgressions against natural law, because they are violations of the inherent rights of others. To violate the inherent rights of other beings through theft is actually what is meant to conduct violence. Since all wrongdoings are forms of theft, the natural law of moral conduct be summed up in two words: don't steal.
The non-aggression principle and the self-defense principle. The non-aggression principle is one of the main principles of natural law. This principle means that it is morally wrong to initiate aggression or violence upon other sentient beings. This brings us to another important principle of natural law, the self-defense principle. Individuals always reserve the natural right to use physical force to defend themselves against acts of violence conducted upon them. Self-defense is not, and should never be considered to be, violence. Self-defense against violence is an inherent right of all sentient beings.
Do human beings have the right to defend themselves against aggression?
Yes, yeah, if the aggression is physical I would say yes.
If physical force is acted on them first.
Equality under natural law
Does everyone have the same rights? Or do some people have more rights than others?
I think people should have rights that are equal to everybody else.
I think in a perfect world everyone would have the same rights but as the world is right now, people don't all have the same rights.
Not everyone has the same rights.
Some people have different rights, money, privilege, class, things like that.
In reality, some people have way more rights than other people.
There's definitely some rights that some people possess and others don't.
Most people would agree with the fact that the behaviors which initiate harm to others are immoral actions. The problem arrives when we fail to hold everyone to the same account regarding the morality of their actions. We must understand that everyone has the same rights as everyone else, and there are no exceptions to this law. If no individual possesses the right to perform a certain action because it initiates harm to another, then no one can delegate such a non-existent right to any other individual or any other group, and thereby magically turn a wrongdoing into a right. In other words, everyone possesses exactly the same natural, inherent rights as everyone else, and there are no exceptions to this rule for individuals in government, police, military or any other societal institution. This is what is meant by equality under natural law.
Legality does not equate to morality
Is government authority morally legitimate?
I mean I think we need laws and regulations, but I'm not sure our laws and regulations are always moral.
Yeah, I believe it is.
To some extent.
It depends on whether the authority was, at least in our democratic tradition, whether the authority was based on the consent of the governed.
No. No, I feel like we'd be fine without it.
If the laws of man happen to align with the natural laws of morality, then they are by definition redundant and therefore unnecessary. If man's law is in opposition with natural law, and therefore false and immoral, it can never be legitimately morally binding upon anyone. Because something is either legal or illegal does not make it moral or immoral. Recognizing this, we can then arrive at the correct understanding that all so-called human authority is morally illegitimate because it is not voluntary and it is based upon coercion and violence, which is itself immoral behavior.
Natural law versus man's law
Does government authority exist in nature?
Yes, I believe it does.
Yes. Yes. In some cases more than other cases.
In today's society, yes.
I feel like you are, whatever your mind convinces itself that it is, or that you are, that's just what it is.
Well yes, there's always a hierarchy. I mean, even in every animal species, there's a hierarchy.
Yes, because we follow orders from our parents from time to time. You know, they're the authority figures.
Yes, because of the punishments that can happen if you go against authority.
Yeah, it does.
They do, but it's up to you whether you want to care about it or not.
It does exist in nature. I mean, if you look at animals and birds, there's a hierarchy and there's some form of government, and I'm okay with that.
Governmental authority is an illegitimate, man-made construct that does not exist in nature. The belief system that certain people can somehow possess legitimate authority over others, or that some people have more or less inherent rights than others, is one of the most fundamental causes of unparalleled suffering and death in our world. Authority is, and always has been, an untrue, illusory, illegitimate, and immoral claim, which is unfortunately accepted and believed in by most human beings with absolute religious fervor. The so-called delegation of authority to politicians, police and military is inherently morally illegitimate and cannot actually be done in nature, since it is impossible to bestow or delegate a quote right to someone else which no one possesses as an individual.
The human condition is slavery
Is taxation by government morally legitimate?
Yes. It's morally legitimate because there are people who are not... Yes. I'm just going to say yes.
Yes, because we need to fund things.
Uh, to some extent, but I think it has to be fair taxation.
I think it would depend on what the taxes are going to.
I don't think it's morally legitimate. Again, I do think it is needed to fund resources and things like that, but I don't think it's a moral issue.
I think so because if we didn't have taxes we wouldn't be taking care of the greater good, roads, education, etc.
Well the way we've set up our culture that's the only thing that makes it work.
Paying taxes? No. Like, I mean where does it go? I mean, we all experience this. You work, get a check, and then you see a chunk of it missing, and no one's telling you why it's missing. Hell no. Yeah, no.
Money and taxes, I think there's a lot of bullshit involved, because a lot of money is thrown around, like huge amounts of it, at things like politics and war and a lot of taxes go into things that aren't really helping most people. They're helping a few people do not so good things.
Taxation is theft enforced by the threat of coercion and violence.
Are drug laws morally legitimate and necessary? Or do people have the right to put into their body what they choose?
If society is charged with the responsibility of funding the health and welfare of everyone in society, then I think there should be laws that prevent people from incurring health risks they would not otherwise occur had they not taken the drugs.
If they promise never to leave the house, but that doesn't happen, so yeah, we have to babysit people, unfortunately.
In my experience, it's kind of like, it is their own choice for what they put in their bodies, but at some point, you do want the government to step in, because you don't want it to become like an entire crisis where you're losing an entire portion of your country's population due to that drug.
Yeah, so people have the right to put whatever they want into their body, but they also must not let that affect other people around them.
Well, I do not agree with all of the laws, and I think that to a limit that everyone has a choice on that, but I don't think that it should be readily available if it's toxic.
It depends on the drug and how bad it is for you.
I believe they should have the right.
I think people have the right to I mean it is our body we're born into it.
I think they help they help but some of them I would say are a little over the top some of them are a little under.
People own their body and have a right to choose what they put into it.
Are driver's licenses morally legitimate and necessary? Or is travel an inherent right?
Driver's license is definitely necessary, otherwise there would be way too many accidents.
I think unlicensed travel is a right.
I think you do need a license, because that proves that you're able to drive safely.
I think driver's licenses are morally necessary and legitimate.
I would want someone who's going to be driving a car to know how to drive a car. So, yes, I would say that driver's licenses are pretty necessary.
Do you need a license? Do you see people driving in Philly?
Have you seen people driving? They're texting, they're not paying attention. We've got to babysit people, unfortunately.
Driving licenses are necessary because I feel like you shouldn't be able to drive after a certain age.
I think there could be even more rules with driver's licenses actually. I think they're too lax.
That's another interesting question. I know a few people without licenses who drive, but I don't think it's 100% ethical. I think there are some drawbacks to that, mainly the application process.
License drivers is morally legitimate.
Driver's licenses are a coercive restriction on the natural human right to travel.
If a government law prohibits an action that doesn't cause harm to anyone else, are people morally obligated to obey that law?
Yes, it brings peace to the society.
I think they should still obey it because it's a law.
It depends on what the purpose of the law was. It might have a purpose other than harm. It might be for a greater good or it might be... So that's a definite maybe.
No, I don't believe so.
No, I don't think so.
That would be the law, but I don't think that everyone... I think there are occasions or exceptions to that idea, so no.
I think legally they're obligated, but on a personal level, I don't think they are.
No, I don't feel like you should, because it's like they make it so that you have to or else you'll be punished for it. But I don't feel like you should have to. I feel like if it's not hurting anyone, why is it a big issue? Why are we focused on it?
Man-made laws that are in moral opposition to natural law are morally illegitimate and therefore not morally binding. The only legitimate human interactions are those which are voluntary, meaning they are mutually agreed upon by all of the involved participants. Man-made laws, including those which decree and enact behaviors such as prohibition, taxation, and licensure are not voluntary in any way. They are commands of compliance, which are always backed by the threat of violence or actual violent behavior. Man-made laws are arbitrary decrees of a ruling class, calling themselves government, who are believed to possess a magical right to rule. Their subjects, the people living under their so-called jurisdiction, are believed to have a moral obligation to obey this ruling class's arbitrary commands called laws.
Understanding that such a system is entirely based in behavior that is coercive, violent, and immoral, and conducted to bring human behavior into compliance with the will of a dominating ruling class, we can arrive at the unwavering truth that the term government is simply a euphemism for slavery.
And that is what the human condition truly is: slavery.
Slavery exists when certain individuals make a claim upon the body or the fruits of the labor of others, making them subject to them through violent and coercive means. Slavery can exist in an overt form in which those being enslaved are physically imprisoned and subject to the confiscation of all their labor. Or, slavery can exist in covert form where mental manipulation is used to legitimize or justify the duress, coercion, and violence that is used to perpetuate the immoral conditions in which people are unjustly kept.
There is a reason the condition of human slavery continues on and on. This immoral human condition is maintained by the occult ruling class by manipulating people into a state of ignorance and confusion regarding the actual difference between right and wrong.
Is morality objective or subjective?
Um, I think morality, to some extent, is human interpretation, but there is a clear right and wrong on other topics.
I think it depends on you know definitely depends on who you are because a different person can see it a completely different way you get what I'm saying.
I think it depends on the situation.
I believe morality is based on opinion. I mean I don't really believe that you're necessarily born with a good or bad morality. It's basically based on your life circumstances.
I think it's definitely subjective.
I think it depends on opinion and the situation.
I think it depends on human opinion.
No, I don't believe that there is such thing as objective morality.
I mean, I'm inclined to say that it exists, objective morality, but I don't think that we have the capacity to understand something that all-encompassing.
I think morality is objective.
Objective. I mean mostly on human perception, but I'd say there's like a societal viewpoint, yeah.
It's a tough question. I'm...The way I feel about it is if you're not hurting anyone and if it makes you happy, why not?
Sadly I think it's a subjective and that it's a open for agreement or discussion kind of.
I think it's written in stone. I think it should be pretty clear. I think it's written in stone uh...to some point with some opinion. I guess.
I don’t think it’s written in stone. I think it is subjective actually. I think it's subjective, yeah ok.
I'm believe I personally think it's more objective than than relative.
The difference between right behavior and wrong behavior is objective, meaning it is not based upon the perceptions or opinions of human beings, but rather, such a difference in behavior exists in nature, purely independently of subjective human perception or opinion. Morality does not change based upon feelings, religion, belief, location, time, or the preferences and whims of man's law. These things have no bearing upon true morality. What is moral in one place and time is moral at all places and times. And what is immoral in one place or time is immoral everywhere and at any time.
The knowledge of this objective difference between right and wrong behavior is called conscience.
Conscience is the knowledge of whether any particular behavior in question does or does not initiate harm to another, and therefore whether it is right or wrong. The problem is that most people do not possess this knowledge, or they are extremely confused regarding it. To behave with right action is moral, and to behave with wrong action is immoral, yet this fundamental understanding is often grossly misunderstood. People do not get to decide what morality is. Morality is based upon whether an action initiates harm or not. This dynamic exists inherently in the natural world.
Where do human rights come from
Religion, government, society.
I guess it depends on the country allowing human rights. I’m not sure.
Some from the law, some from, yeah, I think from the law.
They apparently are decided by many people.
Well since you're not bored with it, I think it's like a collective... I think they come from your fellow woman or man. More woman, quite frankly.
Realistically, human rights come from law, but I think they should come from the basic moral agreements that I described earlier.
Human rights, I think human rights are inherent. The moment we're born, we are entitled to certain rights, but then those rights are also, like I said, qualified by society.
Well, human rights come from what you believe that all humans should have in general. So like, if you believe that they should always have freedom, or if you believe that they are always entitled to something.
They should come from morality.
They come from, I guess, morality. Yeah, so.
Well, in the Christian tradition we say they come from God.
Human rights should come from within and should come from a natural place, but I think in our society they come from governments.
The inherent rights of human beings are their inalienable universal birthright and can never be granted or removed by any action or process of mankind. Our rights come from nature, meaning they are pre-existing and inherent to creation itself.
Unfortunately, after thousands of years of human civilization, most people still do not understand this eternal truth. It seems so simple that we as human beings should willfully choose to take right action, to honor and respect the rights of others not to be harmed, to treat others with the same respect with which we expect to be treated, not to steal the life, well-being, property, rights or free will of others. Yet it is not as simple as it may seem. True right action is elusive at best and deliberately ignored at worst. And this brings us to the crux of the matter, which is what I refer to as the Law of Freedom.
The Law of Freedom
The law of freedom governs the states of freedom or slavery of entire populations of beings who possess the capacity to comprehend the objective difference between moral behavior and immoral behavior. The natural law of freedom dictates that, as a society collectively becomes more moral, they collectively become more free. And as a society collectively becomes more immoral, they collectively lose their freedom and become more enslaved.
The freedom or slavery of an entire society is hinged upon whether that society behaves in the aggregate morally or immorally. Since most people still do not truly know the objective difference between right and wrong behavior, they are constantly making judgments that do not align with natural law. As more and more people act in such an ignorant capacity with respect to natural law, this conduct becomes a fundamental source of disorder and chaos in our society as a whole. In other words, the law of freedom could be summarized like this: as the aggregate moral behavior in any given society increases, the aggregate freedom of the members of that society also increases, and as the aggregate moral behavior of any given society declines, the aggregate freedom of the members of that society also declines. Even more simply put, as morality increases, freedom increases, and as morality declines, freedom declines. Therefore, human freedom is entirely dependent upon educated judgments that align with natural law-based morality, the objective knowledge of the difference between right behavior and wrong behavior. Believe it or not, you have just been given the secret of secrets of all secret societies throughout human history.
Moral Relativism is the belief that there is no objective difference between right behavior and wrong behavior. Moral relativists believe that morality is relative or subjective, meaning that right and wrong can change with respect to time and location, depending upon human perception and opinion, likes and dislikes, whims and preferences. Moral relativism is the belief that human beings may arbitrarily decide for themselves what right and wrong are, and that they may become the arbiters of moral and immoral behavior based upon their likes and dislikes at any given time or place.
It is absolutely essential for humanity to recognize that morality is objective, and that it is most certainly not based upon human perception or opinion. There is definitely an objective difference in nature between moral behavior and immoral behavior, because moral behavior does not initiate harm to others, whereas immoral behavior does initiate harm. These dynamics exist within, and are inherent to, the natural world.
The prevalence of moral relativism in human society today is one of the main factors which solidifies slavery as the current human condition. Since aligning human behavior with natural law hinges upon knowing the objective difference between right behavior and wrong behavior, if most members of a society accept that there is no truth regarding those objective differences, that society can never consistently behave morally and therefore they can never truly be free.
True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces moral relativism, a society where people believe there is no objective difference between right and wrong behavior. Knowing the objective difference between right and wrong, and then willfully choosing right action over wrong action, is the foundational basis for the manifestation of the condition of freedom. If human beings remove that foundation by declaring that there is no objective morality, they will never be able to manifest a condition of genuine freedom in their lives.
Understanding true objective morality will help humanity to recognize the fundamentally flawed belief in the legitimacy of human authority and government. By doing so, human interaction can become voluntary and free from the immorality of violence and coercion. If we want a world based in real freedom, we must understand that truth is independent of our perception and that objective morality exists and we can come to know it. If people learn the true difference between right and wrong behavior, humanity can become and remain free. If human beings continue to refuse this knowledge and continue to accept erroneous beliefs such as authority and moral relativism, humanity is going to remain enslaved.
Do human beings have free will?
We think we do, but I don't believe so.
Human beings for the most part have free will.
To some extent. We're not always free to do everything, which I think it should be left like that.
I don't believe so, no.
Yes, in my opinion, I believe that humans have free will. I don't believe that you're living your life under somebody's control.
Free will. I think we do, we do have free will. We do have free will. But that free will is also suppressed by social norms.
No actually no. I don't think human beings have free will.
Well we think we do, but in truth I don't think we do.
Yes and no.
Yes. Or they should.
Uh, in some cases.
All human beings have the free will to choose between moral behavior and immoral behavior. We have a choice as a people. We can use our free will to change our behavior and bring it into alignment with natural law by choosing morally right action. Or we can choose to behave immorally by condoning and perpetuating a system based in violence, coercion, and moral relativism.
Will we continue down the path of slavery, watching our inherent rights stripped from us little by little? Or will we embrace the moral principles of natural law, and create a society where each individual's life, rights and freedom are respected and protected, because we recognize our inherent sovereignty and the sovereignty of all other sentient beings. The law of freedom will manifest our reality in either direction, based upon our collective moral choices.
The Science of Natural Law
Our shared human experience on earth is collectively created and determined by the quality of aggregate human behavior. This demonstrates the effects of the natural laws of behavioral consequence operating within the physical realm. Our free will based behaviors operate in what is known as the plane of causality, because our behavior is the underlying cause of the physical manifestations which result in the world.
The consequences and repercussions of aggregate human behavior then materialize upon the plane of effects, which constitutes the shared human condition in which all of us must live. Our aggregate thoughts regarding morality are transformed into the aggregate behavior of our species, and that behavior is then transformed into resultant conditions and consequences. Truly, we collectively reap that which we collectively sow.
Wrongful action can never create goodness and harmony, and right action can never constitute a violation of rights. Two plus two will never equal five, and the apple falling from a tree will never fall upwards in elementary terms. Our behavior creates our circumstances. These dynamics can be repeatedly observed, and their workings can be known as a result of such observation. The study of these dynamics in human society constitutes a science of behavioral consequence. All living beings are endowed with self-ownership as an inherent birthright, and therefore possess the natural right to exercise their own free will to live in sovereignty, free from the initiation of harm or coercion by other human beings. These principles of human freedom and rights are the very basis of morality and are governed by the spiritual laws of behavioral consequence. Any and all violations of these principles are wrongdoings, chaotic actions working in direct opposition to the generative, self-ordering dynamics of natural law as designed by creation itself.
Though some may attempt to do so, these laws ultimately cannot be worked around, changed, skirted, or bent to suit human whims or desires. To choose to observe the natural rights and sovereignty of other beings is in alignment with spiritual law, and such choice will create the conditions for freedom to manifest upon earth. To choose to conduct wrongdoings in direct violation of these laws will manifest only chaos and suffering. Human behavior is collectively manifested into our physical reality based upon humanity's free will choice whether to act in harmony with natural law, thus creating the conditions of freedom, or to act in opposition to natural law, thus creating the condition of human slavery.
These are the universal, moral, spiritual laws of the universe that govern all of humankind. This is the science of natural law.
The One Great Work
My unwavering dedication to delivering the message of natural law in every conceivable form for the past thirteen years has gone virtually unnoticed by humanity as a whole, and society continues its rapid descent into immorality, chaos, and slavery. Far too few understand or take heed of my warnings, and even fewer speak out to teach others. I am seeking peers and allies in the war for our very freedom that is before us. Our one great work is to end the human condition of slavery. This arduous task begins with the self and extends to our friends and family, our communities and our world.
Speaking out is an extreme act of defiance because those who are currently in power seek to keep their power by exploiting the ignorance of mankind. There is so much human ignorance in the world today regarding the issue of morality that the situation can seem hopeless. Becoming aware of the level of ignorance that exists, we must also come to see that the only solution to the human condition of slavery is to spread the understanding of natural law and make it common sense knowledge for everyone.
The dark occultists who are currently controlling humanity seek to continue to hide this understanding and to prevent it from becoming everyday common sense knowledge on a worldwide scale. Ultimately, this documentary is a call to action for all those who have gained an understanding of natural law and its principles. A lot more teachers are needed to carry this message of freedom to the masses of humanity. There are not yet enough voices doing this. You yourself need to get involved in the effort of spreading the knowledge of natural law. The solution lies in not just knowing it, but in what you do to spread this knowledge once you have come to understand it.
Start a podcast, publish a blog, make a video, publish a newsletter, make music and art, contribute resources, do anything and everything you can to make natural law common sense knowledge to people all over the world. Only with a united effort will we have a fighting chance. We need more boots on the ground in this spiritual war for human freedom. Once you have expanded your world view to encompass an understanding of the science of natural law, it becomes your personal responsibility to help others to learn these inherent governing dynamics of creation.
Our very freedom itself depends on it. This has been an introduction to the philosophy and science of natural law. For further study, please watch my full video seminar entitled, “Natural Law-The Real Law of attraction and how to apply it in your life”. For more information on my work, please visit my website www.whatonearthishappening.com. I recommend studying my podcasts in order starting from number one at yoru own pace and watching my video presentations and seminars.
Thank you so much for your time and attention.