Graduating Life With Honours  
Conscious Self-Governance in God's Kingdom
__________________  

My Spirit name is White Walking Feather
My vessels name is rob in the pagé family 

Copyleft 2015, 2017 

This book is free and to be shared with my brothers and sisters, no matter how rich or poor they may be. I do grant to every spiritual being the right and permission to distribute this work freely with the condition that any copies or adaptations are also bound by a copyleft agreement and will not be sold or commercialized in any way and remain unaltered. If you are not familiar with copyleft, you can read more about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

Donations
If the Spirit moves you to support my work, I will accept gifts of energy so that I may continue to write, explore, create and share along my journey. Donations can be made through White dot Walking dot Feather at gmail.com

Revisions
February 6, 2015 – Prerelease   
April 12, 2015 – Final Release Version 1.0
October 12, 2017 - Updated Release on Steemit.com Version 1.1     

Chapter Two 

Governance in the Fictional Realm

Do what you will, this world's a fiction and is made up of contradiction. - William Blake (1757-1827) 

I find that the Fictional Realm is by far the most complex, turbulent and confusing realm of them all. There is no way anybody can fully explain this realm as it exists in the vastness of our own imaginations. When it comes to our imaginations, there is no limit as to how far we can go. To keep this discussion focused, the scope will be limited to governance within the Fictional Realm. This level of discussion hurts the head of most people because we were not raised or taught to contemplate our relationship with each other and the institutions that grew up around us. To bring these topics into our conscious mind hurts, but it is something that must occur if we are to see past the smoke and mirrors of those who control the world through control of our own minds. Our minds are capable of creating any level and complexity of ideas. However, what if we were not consciously aware of the ideas or images that we were creating? What if there were people out there who realized that just the mere mention of an idea would result in others believing in that idea and start working to manifest it in the Physical Realm? How would we then be able to figure out whether these ideas were ours or from somebody else? Would those individuals be able to manipulate and control whole populations of people with the mere murmur of a thought or idea? Disturbing concept to say the least.  

It became clear to me that my imagination was used as a tool against me for my whole entire life. I cannot and will not blame those who did the manipulation. For in the end, my life and my mind is my responsibility, not theirs. For years my imagination and capacity to create images, ideas and concepts have been heavily influenced by my parents, friends, family, teachers, mentors, authors, film makers, leaders, government, and the church. These stories, images and concepts have been shared and expressed for thousands of years and built up over time. We were taught that the whole idea of family, community, countries, nations, corporations, treaties, constitutions, finance, commerce, etc, are all constructs created by our minds so that we may find ways to interact with one another. We are capable of making them as simple as we wish or extremely complex. I have believed for many years that these constructs were originally created with the intent of providing peace and security for those who participated. These ideas do not physically exist but rather are mental constructs that allow us to communicate or express our relationships with others and the protocols that have been established to help express that relationship in the Physical Realm.    

These constructs themselves are not harmful if all involved respected the initial intent and spirit of the construct – peace and security. However, they became harmful when specific individuals went outside of the intent of peace and security and decided to utilize these constructs to appease their greed, lust and desire for power. These constructs are also harmful if those same individuals use force or the threat of force to ensure compliance. We all entered into these relationships out of ignorance and with knowledge we can exercise our free will choice to leave them should they no longer serve the individual. Greedy individuals have been involved in this level of manipulation for thousands of years. The brilliant part of their plan is that they know how our minds work better than we do. So how did they do it?    

Language can be a tricky thing. Because most of us cannot read or see images and concepts in other people’s minds, we must find a way to communicate those thoughts to others. We utilize sounds, words, music, symbols, pictures, body language and any other form of communication we can find in order to get our point across. How do we really know if the other individual received our message properly? After all, our own life experiences, culture, beliefs and biases can have a huge influence on how we interpret all the messages we receive from others. Steven Covey in his book '7 Habits of Highly Effective People' wrote about one such habit. He wrote that we should seek first to understand and then be understood. This requires that the recipient repeat back to the sender so that he/she can confirm that the message was transmitted and received properly. How many of us utilize this method? My concern though is that even though we have all these methods to communicate with one another, how can we really be sure that the true feeling and intent that is being portrayed will actually get across? This is especially true when using words. I may believe that a word has a specific meaning but if anybody else has a slightly different interpretation of a word then are we communicating? There is a very simple yet powerful example of this point.  

Person

When it comes to governance, the word 'person' ends up being the most talked and least understood word. Most people who are just waking up to the word magic of our government institutions should have at least been introduced to the word 'person'. I have been taught throughout most of my life that the word 'person' is a reference to a human being. As a result I used that word to identify with and describe not only myself, but all those around me. I suspect that if you stopped the vast majority of people on the street they would agree with that assessment. What if you used that word within the construct of governments? Does the word have the same meaning on the street that it does within the scope of these constructs? Would it surprise you that the U.S. courts have thousands of different definitions of the word 'person'? One would have to read each case to see if it matches the ordinary English definition of the word or the people's normal use of the word in day to day conversation. This is the main problem that I see with many of our relationships with fictional entities. Despite all the technology and education people have, simple concepts like the definition of a single word can still send the whole relationship into a tailspin as a result of a failure to communicate. To this day the people of this planet are still confused and I believe it to be by design. What better way to maintain control than to make systems so complex and have the meaning of words so obscure, that the average individual cannot make heads or tails of it. As a result, experts are required to translate and they can ensure the integrity of their game is maintained.    

I'm going to step through some simple critical thinking processes here so that I can be assured that I, the author, am able to communicate with you, the reader. It is important that you fully comprehend the spirit and meaning behind the ideas I am about to share. This is an exercise that we must all use if we are to bring the truth of the Fictional Realm into our consciousness so that we can properly evaluate it. Does it serve us or do we end up serving it?

My Oxford Unabridged Dictionary (1958) defines the word 'person' as:

Latin; persona a mask used by a player, a character acted; in late use, a human being  
I. A part played in a drama, or in life; hence, function, office, capacity; guise, semblance; character in a play or story.  
II. An individual human being; a man, woman or child.  
III. The living body of a human being; either (a) the actual body, as distinct from clothing, etc., or from the mind or soul  
IV. Law. A human being (natural person) or body corporate or corporation (artificial person) having rights or duties recognized by law.  
V. Theol. a. applied to the three modes of the divine being in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) which together constitutes the Trinity. b. The personality of Christ, esp. as uniting the two natures, divine and human.    
  

Now, before we go any further, lets all agree that context is extremely important. Depending on the context of the word being used in a sentence, it will heavily influence which definition one should use. As you can see from these definitions, depending on context, we can use this word to describe concepts in the Spiritual, Physical or even the Fictional Realms. No wonder we get so confused. What makes matters worse, is that not everyone has a copy of this dictionary. There are other dictionaries out there that have very different definitions. It is no wonder that despite all the tools at our disposal, we all struggle greatly in communicating simple concepts to one another. I want to spend some time on this one word for it explains so well the problem we face with the Fictional Realm and steps we can take to diffuse the confusion.    

The etymology of the word comes from the Latin word persona which is defined as a 'mask', which fits what my Oxford dictionary said. For hundreds of years the word person was a reference to a mask or the character in a play. The word 'person' was not a reference to the actor at all but rather the mask that they wore. So in this context, person was a reference to a concept within the Fictional Realm to describe what people were doing when telling stories. Nothing more.    

Masks have been used for thousands of years in almost every culture. The pharaohs of ancient Egypt used masks all the time to represent the gods. They would put the gods' mask on and any words that they spoke would then be viewed as if the god himself were speaking those words. Once they took the mask off, then any words spoken by the pharaoh would be his/her own words. The Romans also had a huge affinity for masks as it represented those who passed on.    

What if this behaviour has continued throughout ancient times to this very day? Is it possible that the actual premise behind calling legislation an 'Act' is to let people know that the King is just acting and any words uttered by them is to be viewed as if the King (god) spoke those words? Is it possible that these Acts only apply to the actors acting in the Fictional Realm? I suggest that the only reason Acts have force and effect in the Physical Realm is because people participate in the Fictional Realm, without being consciously aware of the difference and then manifest it into the Physical Realm through their own actions. They don't recognize they are wearing masks when they act out their role. The third definition of person above references the legal definition and introduces us to two concepts: Natural Person and Artificial Person. We must be careful here because this definition is from an English Dictionary but when we start talking about words in the legal system, that system has their own dictionary. They define their own words, hence further confusion and communication challenges. The legal system words look like English but it is not English but rather Legalese. If we want to communicate with the legal system we must be very careful to ensure we learn the language and use the correct definitions of words to ensure they comprehend what we are talking about and more importantly, we comprehend what they are saying. This is a process that the vast majority of us fail to do, not because of our lack of effort, but due to the highly technical training required to fully comprehend how this system works.  

This is where my point really becomes clear. Now we are accessing multiple sources for word definitions. The Canadian Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c.I-21) defines a person as being a:    

"person", or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation.

Now does this describe a corporation or does it describe the human being or both? There are many researchers out there that would suggest that this legal definition of person defines the corporation only. That conclusion is based on the definition of the word 'includes'. This is a very common word where most people get it wrong. I found out a few years ago that I've been using it wrong for most of my life. The word 'includes' is not to add to but rather to shut or close in; to shut up, confine (Oxford Unabridged Dictionary 1958). There are even legal maxims and court cases to support this interpretation. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, “The inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others”. What that really means is that when you use the word 'includes' to define a word it means this and nothing more. When we utilize critical thinking we are forced to conclude that the Interpretation Act has defined the word 'person' to define corporations. Where do we fit in and why does this have to be so complex?    

The implications of doing this type of research into definitions of words is profound yet disturbing. If one was to extend their critical thinking to encompass all that we are, is this exercise really getting to the root of the problem? I think this is a complete distraction from the truth. Even in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, Justice Rooke eluded to the truth when he stated in paragraph 30 of his ruling:    

I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. I'm just going to deal with your person.

Justice Rooke made it clear that he does not have jurisdiction over the Spiritual Realm but instead has jurisdiction over the person (Fictional Realm). A key hint to our freedom that I will share later. When he talks about 'person', most of us think he is talking about the physical body but I suggest that he in fact only has jurisdiction within the Fictional Realm. The only reason he gets jurisdiction in the Physical Realm is because the individual did not comprehend the full scope and meaning of the words or who he was.  

This brings me to Oxford's third definition of person: “The living body of a human being; either (a) the actual body, as distinct from clothing, etc., or from the mind or soul.” For this is, in my opinion, the whole problem with the Fictional Realm and how words are defined. To view our body without the mind or soul and call it a person could be extremely problematic if most individuals are not aware of the distinction. The people acting as judges depend on this confusion.  

We have become so lost in the Fictional Realm that we have forgotten who we are. We are so ignorant of the meaning of words that we fall prey to those who use that against us. Are we just a 'body' without a mind or soul? Of course not! But how do we account for our mind or our soul in our language? Why are we using words to describe just the body without taking our mind and soul into consideration? Why are we letting others reference and take jurisdiction over our body with no regard to all that we are?     

Corporation 

The problem goes even deeper than the word 'person'. I see millions of people marching the streets protesting against corporate greed, government corruption and police brutality. Are these issues actually a reflection of the people working for these institutions rather than the institutions themselves? What is a corporation or a government really?  

The etymology of the word “Corporation” comes from the word 'corpus' which is a dead body. Corporations are nothing more than a construct of our minds of which the details have been written down on pieces of paper. Because a corporation has no life, it is a dead body and it needs a living Man to speak for it. If you read Blackstone Commentaries, a treatise written by Sir William Blackstone (1723 – 1780) to explain the laws of England, you will find that the lawyer’s primary function was to speak for these dead bodies because they are not alive and as such they cannot speak. The whole idea was that those who are living can 'present' themselves. As such they did not need a lawyer to 're-present' them because they have a 'living body' and are able to speak for themselves.    

So why do we need these 'dead bodies'? The idea of organizing people in a top down pyramid command and control structure (aka business) was first put into practice by the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, the people in the church were the ones that invented the concept of a corporation and ran the very first business. Why? Well years ago Kings and Popes had a problem. When they died, their estates would be locked up in probate for years and the new King or new Pope was stuck with the duty of governing without the resources from the previous ruler. They could not access the resources of the previous ruler until the estate was cleared. It was very difficult to rule without it. So they created the concept of a corporation that can own property. They then transferred all the Kings' or Popes' property into the corporation and made them the CEO. It is much easier to change the executive of the corporation than to put all the property through the long and laborious probate process. This resulted in an interesting effect.  

Does anybody remember when we were taught the power of compound interest in school? How many of us thought; how great would it be if I could live to be 400 years old? Imagine how rich one would be if they could have compound interest compiling for 400 years!  

Well, holding property in a body that does not die has this very same result which created other challenges for the king or the Pope. Over hundreds of years they ended up with empires that grew very large. The larger the empire, the more help they needed to govern, command and control. As such, they needed help. What better way to rule a kingdom than through the loyalty of others. Those individuals were more than happy to swear allegiance to their master in exchange for power, wealth and control. What better way to control all the wealth, land, property and people than to organize it all under a single 'entity'; the corporation.    

The challenge was to get everyone else to 'see' the corporation as an actual entity so that everyone would respect it and honour it. After all, what is the sense in putting all your wealth, power and control into an 'idea' when others don't respect or even recognize the idea? So the kings at the time passed 'laws' within their own kingdoms to give force and effect of these entities. Entities that were created out of thin air were created by the mandate of the king, which they called a 'charter'. These actions are nothing more than elaborate constructs for our minds so that we will believe and see what the king wants us to see. The king needed us to follow along with his plan.  

The Pope and king took this one step further. They wanted to make sure that all the wealth, control and power of that corporation was only controlled by them. Nobody else. So they created a very special corporation called a 'corporation sole'.    

In 1900 a law professor at Downing University, Frederic William Maitland, made a discovery and wrote about it in his paper entitled “The Corporation Sole”. What he discovered when he read through the British parliament gazette was that the 'king' was in fact a corporation, but not any normal corporation. This corporation could only be held by one individual, hence the term 'corporation sole'. Maitland also discovered that holding all the property under this corporation was problematic for the king as it was all governed by his legislature and courts. He had nothing with which he could use privately for his own personal use. So the laws of England were updated to allow the king to hold land privately as a Man and publicly as a king.    

What most people don't realize is that the Church has been doing this for well over a thousand years as well. Would it surprise you to find out that the office of the Pope is a corporation sole as well? In fact, all the cardinals, bishops and local parishes are also all corporation soles. Is it any wonder that the Roman Catholic Church is the richest organization in the world, followed closely by royalty and business tycoons? What better way to consolidate all the wealth of the world and control all the people by using ideas and concepts that cannot die?    

There are lots of people out there that continue to argue that CANADA or any other 'country' today is not a corporation. Other researchers have found that CANADA is listed on the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission, a U.S. agency used to keep track of public corporations. Lawyers and law students would argue that the listing is for the country rather than for a corporation and that this is not proof of CANADA being a Corporation. So we need to dig deeper to prove the point that it is indeed a corporation. 

The Crown

Some would argue that the head of this country is currently a lady who was given the name Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor when she was born. That woman draped herself in a corporation when she took her coronation oath and merged with that corporation to become Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, a corporation sole. When people reference HM Queen Elizabeth II, they are not only referencing the woman but also the corporation. The corporation sole can be very confusing for people, especially if one is not aware that it exists or how it works. I don't blame them for that as these concepts are the creation of the rulers of the world, not common people. The Queen's corporation sole also owns many other corporations. There is also the corporation called 'The Crown' which was created by the Crown of Chancery in England. The corporation sole called POPE also owns other corporations, one of which is called THE CROWN. There is also the Crown known as Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada. That means that the corporation sole called Queen Elizabeth II holds the title to (in right of) Canada. So is there any one corporation involved in the construct called CANADA? Absolutely not. To argue that CANADA is not a corporation based on single issue arguments is ludicrous. The world of the Fictional Realm is vast and complex. To unwind the truth requires digging deep and one often finds many layers designed to confuse and dissuade people from finding the truth. To prove the point, let's take a look at the Governor General of CANADA. After all, the GG is the Queen's representative in Canada.

In the Governor General's Act of Canada, section 2 states:  

Corporation sole  
2. The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole. (author's emphasis)

So the Man walking around as Governor General is, in fact a Man who has wrapped a dead body around himself (corporation), put on a mask (person) and is merely acting a part. All while knowing full well that the corporation that he wrapped around himself holds all kinds of property, duties, responsibilities and privileges. Because millions of people believe, submit, participate and even swear an oath of allegiance to these corporations, the people who wear these corporations then have authority over those who submit. It may surprise many to find out that each Lieutenant Governor of each province is also a corporation sole and held under the Governor General of Canada's corporation which is in turn held under the Queen's corporation which in turn is held under the Pope's corporation.    

To make matters even worse, the individuals who hide behinds these fictional constructs called corporations or corporation soles went one step further. They introduced the concept of limited liability. There is a very old saying in the Fictional Realm where the King can do no wrong. What that means is if the King makes a mistake, you cannot hold him liable or personally responsible for the mistake. This whole idea of limited liability has garnered so much attention over the years that most people now hold property, perform highly questionable tasks, etc, all under a corporation with limited or no liability. They have gone so far to argue in court that a corporation is a person and has the rights and duties of you or I under a constitution. There is a very good documentary that was released in 2003 called 'The Corporation' (www.thecorporation.com). It can also be found on YouTube and Netflix. The documentary explains very well the psychosis that these organizations or 'persons' exhibit. By using these fictional entities, we found a way to not be responsible for our actions. We can now give the responsibility and liability to these fictional entities. If anything happens, they will pay. As a result of this disturbing idea, nearly everyone is now operating under limited liability. People drive, work or do anything in the public with little or no liability anymore. Every single public employee who operates in the public must have an insurance or performance bond. This is to cover liability in the event that they injure somebody or fail to perform their duties. Imagine what the world would look like if we all started living our lives with full liability? I recognize the benefit of having limited liability, especially for those who govern the public. However, from an ethical point of view, I must rebuke those who take advantage of this unique idea in order to avoid responsibility or accountability. As a result we end up with a constant degradation of ethical behaviours of people who benefit from or hide behind the principle of limited liability.

Consent of the Governed

How is it that over time we managed to give away our power, control and authority to these fictional constructs and those who own and control them? From a very simple perspective, our participation with these corporations is how it happens. Our participation is our consent. There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to participate with their corporations, but let us take a look at voting as an example of how we consent to being governed by these corporations. Most people view voting as an opportunity to choose which representative will go to parliament to make decisions on their behalf. The belief is that they have the right to present themselves but it is not feasible to have millions of people attending parliament. What most people don't realize is that this simple act of voting is, in fact, a form of granting their own power and authority to a representative through a power of attorney. Because the individuals' authority was handed over to somebody else, that representative now has the authority to exercise the individual's power, leaving the individual with no voice. Granted this power of attorney is usually limited to a term of 5 years, but it is still a very powerful instrument that is not fully understood by those who vote. Even the courts have ruled that once the authority has been granted to the representative, the representative has no duty or obligation to the individual who cast their vote. What is even more disturbing is that you may not have even liked the representative and in turn you voted for somebody else. The fact that you participated is enough for the representative who won the election to then assume all authority for all the constituents no matter who they voted for.    

These individuals then go to parliament and swear an oath to the Queen instead of you. That is right. These representatives take your authority and use it to serve the Queen. The ministers in cabinet are there to minister to the Governor General, not the people. The ministers are advisers to the Governor General. As such the Governor General is the head of the corporation. He/She is the Chief Executive Officer, not the Prime Minister. The representatives are there to serve and protect the integrity and viability of the corporation. They are not there to serve and protect you. One of their highest duties is a principle called 'continuity of government'. It may seem like they serve and protect the people, but in fact those benefits and privileges are there to ensure your meager survival so that the flow of energy, control and wealth will be maintained for their empire. After all, without people, the wealth, power, influence and control that the corporation would literally evaporate overnight. I would also suggest that the primary reason these individuals now end up being corrupted is because of all the power that we give them. The number of people on this planet who have the character to handle the consolidation of power from millions of people into the hands of one Man are so rare, it is not even worth entertaining. The people, by giving their power away, are directly responsible for the corruption of these individuals.    

These lost souls who value greed, power and control have managed to infiltrate all levels of government under the premise that the Crown or State is responsible for governing the 'Public'. What is the 'public' anyway? By definition public is defined as: “Pertaining to the people of a country or locality.” (Source: Oxford Unabridged Dictionary 1958). People means EVERYONE. The moment you identify a single individual or group or remove a single individual or group from the whole, then it is no longer the 'people' and by definition is no longer 'public'. I would suggest that there has never been or will ever be a government or nation in the history of this planet that has succeeded in governing the people. They have always strayed from their mandate in order to gain control, power, influence or wealth. It is also important to point out that the public is considered a 'body politic' and as such is a fiction in its own right. The public is nothing more than a concept that is a fictional construct to group or describe people in the Physical Realm.    

Remember, all these concepts only exist in our minds. Technically the 'people' don't exist. It is only a matter of collecting a bunch of individuals into a group and placing a label on the group. When we do that, do we not diminish the individuals within that group? These concepts will never manifest into the Physical or Spiritual Realm unless we allow it through our capacity to create. So any construct within the Fictional Realm is absolutely dependent upon Man to keep it going. The moment the idea leaves our minds, it MUST disappear for the minds of Man is its creator in the Fictional Realm. That is how much power we have as individuals when it comes to dealing with the corporations and governments of the world. Guns may not bring down all governments, but ideas definitely could!  

This is simple in concept but difficult in implementation. The challenge we all face is that there are literally billions of people who do not have the eyes to see or the ears to hear. They all believe that corporations and governments exist in the Physical Realm and as such we will continue to face challenges with the people within these organizations. After all, they have a huge vested interest in ensuring that these constructs continue to persist. They will do everything in their power to protect it.  

So does it make sense then to protest against what the 'government' is doing? Are we accomplishing our objectives if we march against some 'corporation' for what they are doing to our air, food, water, plants or animals? I believe that focusing on the fiction itself is feeding it life. The more time and energy we spend focusing on the constructs of others is, in fact, supporting and propagating those constructs. It gives it validity so that when others observe the actions and behaviours of the individuals involved in the particular construct, they too can then engage their own imagination and join in on the illusion. That is how powerful our imagination really is. It is a necessary social skill that we have so that we can relate to one another. It allows us to form complex social bonds. What I am suggesting is that we be consciously aware of those bonds because there are people out there who are more than willing to take advantage of us should we choose to bond with them. Instead, perhaps focusing on the people rather than the fiction would be a much more productive use of our time and energy. Focusing on the physical rather than the fictional may be a more productive catalyst for change.  

The problem is that we have individuals engaged in parasitic behaviours who created these constructs called corporations, nations, countries or united nations, so that they can convince others that their construct is the best way to provide prosperity and security for those involved. After all, that is what most of us want, correct? We are all looking for peace, security, food, clothing, shelter, social interaction, rewarding lives, prosperity and love. What better way than to do it together as a nation? In principle I completely agree. The problem is that the current nations were set up on the foundation of consolidation of wealth, power, violence and control in the hands of the few; not prosperity, peace and freedom for everyone.    

Can we change the current construct? I don't believe we can. The current constructs are so deeply embedded in our culture and supported by billions of people, it will take a mass awakening that the world has never seen before. Great disturbance of biblical proportions is required to break the grip of these fictional constructs. They were also created with control, power and wealth collection as their core foundation. They are not actually broken but rather they are working perfectly for their masters. The probability of 'fixing' them is small because there is nothing to fix. What is required is that we use our imaginations to form new constructs to compete against these old parasitic constructs. I believe we can form new constructs with the proper intent and spirit that would vastly outperform the old paradigm. Through example, we can show others that there are new and better ways of living on this planet. The Fictional Realm is not good or bad. It is merely a tool and we need to be consciously aware of how we are using that tool to ensure others don't take advantage of us ever again. It is up to us to determine how it will serve us during our physical manifestation on this planet, rather than continuing to participate in a construct where we end up being the slaves to a fictional master. It is a matter of being consciously aware of what our mind is doing. Christ had a similar challenge that was described in scripture.

Again, the Devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them: And [the Devil] said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. - Matthew 4:8-10 (author's emphasis)

The word 'kingdoms' in context with the above passage is the right to rule over the kingdom rather than ownership of the land or the people. The individuals wearing the corporation sole called POPE, Crown, King, President, Governor General, etc, have all succumbed to this temptation. They have all succumbed to the glory, wealth, power and greed that comes with the whole idea of governing kingdoms. I believe that this third temptation of Christ took place in his mind. I don't believe that the Devil took physical form beside him to tempt him but rather took fictional form in his own mind. The temptation was there that allowed him to contemplate the idea where he could easily take over the world. Something that is clearly within the realm of the Devil (temptation). However, Christ knew that the Fictional Realm is not real. He knew that he would not obtain his objective in the Fictional Realms. His job was to show people what the Spiritual and Physical Realms were all about. He saw how lost everyone was within the Fictional Realm. I think what is important with this passage is to recognize that all that is required is the discipline to command the mind rather than let the mind run rampant and be susceptible to these temptations. This is a very difficult process and I believe that is part of why we are here. The mind is very powerful and requires discipline in order to consciously control it to ensure this tool is used appropriately to reflect our intent and spirit. If we let the mind control and govern us, then we will end up being stuck in the Fictional Realm and we will not find our way out.  

People were not born lawyers, judges, police officers, politicians or even kings. It took years of training to build up the skills to be able to perform these roles in this play we call 'society'. As William Shakespeare said so beautifully in his “All the World's a Stage”: 

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.  

For me I find this to be literally true when it comes to describing our participation in the Fictional Realm. The stage is this highly complex scene staged in the minds of Man. If we don't like this play we can exit stage left. This play was created by those who wear the costumes and play the roles of kings and popes so that they can continue to rule their empires, fight their wars, control the population and obtain great wealth and power. The directors are the people hiding behind the scenes who have obtained great wealth and control as a result. Their motives, ethics and morals must be highly scrutinized. The actors in this play go through lots of training to learn how to play their part, including you and I. This play is not designed to ensure prosperity for all. It was designed to enslave the unwitting participants through complex language and force if need be. We do not direct this play, so we cannot change it. This play is not broken. It is highly controlled by the directors.  

We continue to participate because we have been hoodwinked into believing that we are the actor that we are playing. Ask most people who they are and the first words out of their mouths would be the job they do. People identify with the fictional construct that they grew up learning how to perform; lawyer, doctor, accountant, engineer, etc. That is not who we are but rather what we do. How many famous actors do you know of that identify themselves with the character they played in the movies? You don't see Harrison Ford walking around introducing himself as Han Solo or Indiana Jones do you? So why do we identify with our roles in life?  

It is easy to see the Fictional Realm once it is pointed out. You know you are dealing with the fiction when somebody else defines the words to ensure you comprehend their story and the role you are playing. You will also be able to see that the vast majority of the actors also wear costumes. Robes, uniforms, suits, etc, are all used to communicate the position being played.    

It is time that we exit stage left, write, produce, direct and act in our own play. Our mind is ours to command rather than having others do it for us. Utilizing the powerful capacity to create in our imagination to manifest what we are looking for in our own lives. An opportunity to make a difference in our world. All it takes is the courage to pick up the pen and start writing and defining our own lives in our own play.