Written by Mathew Naismith
Protectorate: A state or territory partly controlled by (but not a possession of) a stronger state but autonomous in internal affairs; protectorates are established by treaty.
I remember a time way before my present life that the true authorities protected the benign of human nature. To be human is to be vulnerable to environments which includes environments of nature and environments of the malign. It was by no mistake that the feminine was revered in the same way as the masculine.
A state of authoritative consciousness that was benign and virtuous by nature, in other words divine, oversaw the development of human consciousness. In this case there was no control but a strong influence of the benign in the absence of possessions. In the case of the malign, possession and control is the main stay of this consciousness, this of course takes the firm use of the masculine while denouncing the feminine. The way the feminine is denounced is through the use and abuse of the feminine, this leads to the feminine simply becoming an object of control and possession by the masculine. No, the masculine does not represent the malign, the masculine is simply used by the malign to take control and possession of whatever is desired and lusted after.
Believe it or not, Freemasonry true beginnings goes way back to the antediluvian period as does Hinduism and yes, both Freemasonry and Hinduism where benign protectorates of the human benign, I mean really. As of many authoritative establishments today, Freemasonry in particular is not for the protection of the benign but the malign, like in Australia where the police and even the arm services literally protect the malign while abusing the benign. This is very evident in the state of Victoria at present.
All of a sudden in ancient Egypt the rulers became the God's, at the same time these authoritative figures stopped protecting the benign. As soon as authority stopped protecting the benign is when establishments like Freemasonry change course from being benign to being malign. Yes, the ego took control even while being aware of the controlling ways of the ego. You see once the ego is in charge, the benign becomes abused at the same time the malign is revered.
So why didn't the benign take control over the malign?
The malign is all about control and possession where's the benign is not of control and possession. The benign must allow a consciousness freedom to do as it will, to develop in the way the consciousness feels fit. If this entails allowing the ego to take control of a collective consciousness, this is the way it will be allowed to go, however, right throughout human history humans have been given directives from the divine. If the human collective consciousness chooses to ignore these directives, then so be it.
Establishments like Freemasonry today couldn't be further away from their initial establishment, their true being if they wanted to. The very fact that they are not protecting but in fact are abusing the benign is a sure sign of their lost initial established beginnings. Once you loose the root core of an establishment like this, the establishment is no longer of the divine. We could not separate more from the core of our being if we wanted to, in the process replacing this core with an illusion, a false representation of who we really are.
What would a true divine nature do, protect the benign or abuse the benign especially in favour of the malign? As I have stated for some time now, we are simply lost within our own creation but like anything with a starting point of creation, there is always an ending point of creation. Watch from here which establishment actually truly protects the benign, for this is a true reflection of our being.
