Editing Openai/69231e78-5a78-8013-81a7-f2dd38762292 (section)

=== User: For example, the Putin quote is relevant, but it could be shortened or summarized to emphasize the point about cultural… ===
For example, the Putin quote is relevant, but it could be shortened or summarized to emphasize the point about cultural manipulation, without losing your perspective.

I was going to do that but decided I would rather it read like he said it. People changing things is what makes this so difficult. I didn't want the reader thinking "I wonder what he's leaving out of this? If they look they will see I didn't leave anything out. Just trying to relay the story and let the reader decide if they think it's true or not.

When I first came across that word—Sovereignty—it didn’t hit me like something new. It hit me like something I’d always known but never been allowed to say. Like breathing under water for the first time. Everything I had been searching for—freedom, truth, balance—was wrapped inside that one word. And once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it. 

It's very difficult to find people that have thoughts of their own. Most of the time when I ask questions, they want me to watch a video or repeat what they are hearing from the news, their Church, or their friends... I've found that if you're in the majority, then you are probably wrong. You've just become part of the masses AKA the mob. This wasn't just the media I was watching, but all media was doing it. Even outside the mainstream, and not because there was some kind of conspiracy to destroy the world and they were all in on it, but because they are doing like I had done. The reporters and teachers are told something and bobble their heads up and down (Listen and repeat), being completely ignorant to the rest of the story, the faith, the history, or even the language being used. They spin those half-truths they were given to favor whichever political direction they swing. This taps out the already limited amount of truth they were given in the first place, then pass that on to us as truth. They could care less if it's true or not, they're paid just fine for their ignorance.

1880 in America, John Swinton, then the pre-eminent New York journalist, was the guest of honor at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying,

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings, and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Now when I do my research, I don't just look up the words and listen to what they said. No more programmed responses were going to come from me. This taught me very well that anyone can say anything, and not that they are lying, they are just given incomplete information that leads to the Mandella effect. I don't listen or look up anything from media anymore. It's a waste of time. I'm always asking myself what I want to know about something, asking what questions do I have? Not just accepting what is told to me and nodding my head. If I want to find out about the Radicals, I look at history to find out how these groups started. What are their origins? If I know their origins, I know who they are, and I can identify them through history by their actions no matter how many times through history they try and change their name. How do I know who the Radicals are? They act like Radicals. A better question to ask is, "What is a Radical?" and "What does it mean to become Radicalized?" The answer is going to surprise you.

I started reading the Qur'an from the beginning and as I learned more and more history, I found myself getting into more and more arguments with the same people I used to agree with. I started to see how people were just arguing bits and pieces of different stories with no understanding of the Law, the history, or the different faiths. This is what made me realize I had to just stick to what we know. What's common to all of us. Take out all the media garbage, secret sources, unnamed whistle blowers, crazy translations, well my friend says, my belief is ... and all the just plain hearsay. This is what opens us up for the Mandella effect and adds to the confusion of, "what do we actually know?" That's where I was at. Since then, I have learned to try and keep everything within a realm of what history is saying, then telling the story from the Bible, Qur'an, maybe an ancient Native American Prophecy ... that follow that same history I'm telling. I try to add the different aspects to how the different faiths or tribes that are interpreting that same story and what they may say about it that adds to the story or was maybe left out of another. I'm trying to relay the complete information to the reader, so they can make up their own minds about what to believe, or what to make of it.

As I was relearning and reading through the history, I noticed that there's a story that tells the same story as the Tower of Babel but was in a different location than Iraq. I eventually figured out that the reason it was telling the story from Iraq, was because the story I was reading about in Mongolia is what was causing the Tower of Babel story in Iraq. The story in Mongolia comes straight out of the history books. It's about the beginning of writing and talks about the split between the Hua elite and the Barbarian Yi. The Hua were the Huaxia peoples that discovered writing around 5000BC. It was starting to appear on Chinese pottery around 4800BC. 

The Hua elite were the ones that created the Silk Trade Route. Before Silk came along the route was used to trade jade, horses, and other goods. These business owners along the route became very wealthy. They used their wealth to control the cities through a system of laws which became known as legalism around 300BC. Before writing came along, legalism was decreed by the Monarchies. This is where the Mongoloids are split in 2 and become the Chinese and the Mongoloids. There is no Chinese race. The only difference between a Mongoloid and a Chinese is language. It would be like Catholics. All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic. The Chinese are the same. All Chinese are Mongoloids, but not all Mongoloids are Chinese. The Huaxia people that lived inside the Great Wall of China along the trade route were seen as "civilized". The Hua elite would allow the Barbarian Yi to live inside the city walls, but only if they gave up their Sovereignty. The Barbarian Yi were seen as "uncivilized". They lived outside the city walls and seen as barbaric. They were the Monarchies that believed there was no one above them except their creator. To give up their Sovereignty would be giving up their faith. Many of the Yi gave up their Sovereignty to live within the security of the Great Wall. Many of the Yi refused and formed large Nomadic tribes called the 5 Barbarians. These Monarchies went to war with the Hua aristocracy and split the people in 2.

The Tower of Babel tells the story where in the end their languages are split, and the people divided. The same story as the history of the Mongoloids and the Chinese. I haven't seen anywhere else in history where the languages were changed, and a race of people split. The only thing that separates a Mongoloid from a Chinese is language. What was happening to them is what was happening in those cities along the Trade Route. Babel would have been 1 of those cities. The fall of Babel was talking about the fall of the Monarchies and the aristocracy. The history about the Hua and the Yi is the written history of the rise of govt. that came about after their fall. So, while the Tower of Babel is concluding the story of the rise and fall of the Monarchies and aristocracy, which we will cover in the second half of this book, it's also starting the story of the rise and fall of govt. The rise and fall of the state are the story told by the 4 rivers mentioned in the Bible the Pishon, Gihon, Euphrates, and Tigris. There's also a Native American Prophecy that talks about 1 race becoming 4. They are also telling this same story of the rise and fall of the state.

What I'm trying to accomplish here is to just stick to the history that we know, in which I will be much more detailed in the history I give you at its appropriate time when we get there. This lets the reader hear the history of the Hua along with what the Bible and other faiths are saying about them without all the hearsay, gossip, mistranslations, ... This also lets the reader decide for themselves if the stories and the history are the same, like the Tower of Babel. You may think that even though it's the same story, doesn't mean they are the same. This is fine, I'm just pointing out the stories are the same. It gives the reader a chance to see "What is history saying about this or that, without all the media and "Religious beliefs" attached. Let's me tell the history without having to ask anyone to believe anything and lets the reader decide for themselves what they want to believe without all the non-sense attached to it. I'm not saying religious beliefs are non-sense. Those beliefs taught me the Law (I'll be explaining this). I'm simply saying I would rather tell people what I know. I don't see any need to ask them to believe what I do. Let people see the raw info and believe anything they want.

Before I get into the history of the rise and fall of the state, we have to know some things about Law and the definitions of some terms. Much of what we will be learning in this book is Law, not legalism. Legalism and Law are exact opposites and mean different things. The public in general uses language very loosely. To understand Law, we have to know and understand language that is used. 1 of the terms we are going to start with is 1 of the most misunderstood terms I know of. "Religion". Let's get started.