The Fabian Society
(www.omegatimes.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Interesting read. It is treason for all of them.
My thought...how could normal free minded humans with souls think these philosophies are acceptable in treating your fellow human beings?
How could sane honest people want to oppress others with socialism, knowing it is unfair and unjust?
I am really struggling with understanding this.
It's not socialism, it has rarely been achieved historically, this is globalism. Owning everything, or capitalising off of it. Socialism is a buzzword, often shouting, diversity, and opportunity but has failed to ever provide it. Instead it has achieved globalism in the form of credit and even more debt. Where you're also still trying to understand the benefits of a nation who cannot even feed its own population but instead relies solely on the debts of another. Any other socialists, are often even more oppressed, by some other form of tyranny.
Only the few suggesting the -isms can define; redefine and contradict them; while the consenting many can only reason (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; is vs isn't etc.) among each other about the suggested meaning.
Have you ever defined an -ism for the many? How could your suggestion reach them without a mass communication infrastructure? Does the world wide web represents such an infrastructure and was it suggested by the few towards the consenting many?
How could a perceivable "it" aka something; be a "not" aka nothing?
What I struggle with is this society and the people to subscribe to its beliefs.
What person in their right mind, with just a modicum of human decency would believe that their beliefs will benefit mankind?
How could anyone believe that oppressing others is some how the appropriate way to treat others.
I imagine the WEF people sitting around discussing the things they put out and think how can they look at each other and think "Yea, this is going to help people". They have to either be sociopathic, lunatics, or not human.
It's not about helping people, it's about bettering yourself. It's the only rationality they have adopted. They want and need to control everything. Then society is how they intended. More for them of course. Geed rules the planet. They take a good intention, and corrupt it into their own. Because they sold their souls along long time ago. Or please convince me how they gained another intention.
Socialism isn't about helping people. What a load of bullshit. It's about controlling them all into the same power structures. Of course there are socialists, but these tend to be people away from civilization, and they aren't very sociable. But they live, trade, and whatever rather equally in the broader sense of it. There have been other attempts at it, but power corrupts.
Socialism today is either globalism, or tyranny. It's never anything else. Globalism has become tyranny. What kind of an idiot let's those people feed them. But their government does.
Benefit to mankind, hahaha, mankind was doing just fine without it. I mean seriously it's such an absurdly fictitious ideal of some quasi messiah, but but I taught them all math. No sooner did they get screwed. Or what? You invented the phone to hear all of them? Come on. Benefit to mankind. It was fine before and now it's probably going extinct. If these socialist would have it even sooner. But at least they're driving the EVs. Yawn.
Helping people to help you. I mean you got paid, you gained fame. Or are you really genuine? Some kind of teacher, writer, or simply religious? Perhaps even more useless a singer, painter, chef? It simply isn't found in so many cultures. Instead there is this blissful naivety you've provided something else. Perhaps because by larger comparison poor people of certain backgrounds and cultures are often more generous, rich people often didn't become it by being anything else to anybody else. A proven argument, who helps you first, culturally, you can literally knock on a poor person's door, they will provide, but a rich person will often turn you away. Philanthropy has nothing to do with it. Attitude. Of course I am not talking about begging. But genuinely in need. A timeless argument of the ages, nothing has changed, it's simply greedier. I should finish that thought. No need. But hardly western culture, possession and gain have caused the pursuit of, the removal of religion has caused, no, not always, depends on the locality. Certain people will always swear to benevolence of their benefactor, and the wickness of their class. Because fiction often provides something else. The expectancy of some other movie or vivid dream. All part of the con at betterment. The argument still holds. But suddenly you expected socialism to create equality. Nope?
They are above the law. No national laws governs them, but their own. They are a country, within a country. Not answering to local government. Perhaps the Monarchy? Although they probably don't even care. Because their's is a particularly special contract with the Crown granting them extraordinary circumstances. It goes back for centuries. Today, it goes beyond simple borders, and they'd as easily set up shop in another profitable venture. If it weren't for the protections afforded. It's not the Fabian society, I refer too. But their backers/financiers mentioned.
Questionably could Congress hold the FED treasonous. Whoops what went wrong? Does not compute, collapse. And if it got a bright idea, I know I know, we will make the people's bank of our own national reserve, there's another assassination?
The few suggest the laws of men aka the rules of behavior for the many who consent to submit to the suggested.
Everyone exists within the laws of nature; as the ones perceiving within all perceivable, as choice (free will) within balance (need/want); as form (life) within flow (inception towards death); as temporary resistance (living) within the ongoing natural order of velocity (dying).
The many ignore to grow within perceivable; hence lowering themselves underneath the suggestions of the few; who parasitically exploit mass ignorance with suggestion, as the merchants of temptation, utilizing choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law.
They are literally above the law almost on the same scale of the Queen is exempt from prosecution. But not quite.
Seriously they stone wall. Sure they might provide a scapegoat, if it hits the fan. But they're practically exempt. Unless they commit cold blooded murder or some other national violation. But when it comes to anything else mundane, not a chance.
I think it goes back to the Norman conquest of London. They struck a deal as the rest of London was invaded. To this day they remain quite sovereign.
Huge thing about it, not many know of it. Most have seen it. The London mile. They have their own mayor, police force, and territory. Research it, instead of providing definitions. It's similar to the Vatican. But this is banks, and corporate investment, tax havens, and heaps of proxies.
Conspiracies abound. Yea it's a documentary in any event.
When you say it like that you imply your belief in "the law" above us and them. That law was suggested by the few and consented to by the belief of the many.
Ask yourself why "they" can use their free will of choice to stand above "the law" if the law governs us and them? What if choice is bound to a different law...to natural law?
Ask yourself why you want to PROS'ECUTE, verb - "to follow or pursue with a view to reach" when living implies resisting outcome (dying)?
KING (sovereign) + QUEEN (consort of sovereign)...what if those represent enacting balance and reacting choice?
And yet the lives of us and them are being moved from inception towards death, no matter how many stone walls the masons of free will are putting up within the minds of the many.
Try to resist the temptation of suggested restrictions and question the ongoing, perceivable system underneath. The use suggestion to tempt the many to ignore the perceivable system and the more the perceivable is ignored; the less power (resistance) the perceiving have within.
Your consent to suggested moralism is what allows the few to shape "sin" within your head, which only then allows further suggestion of a scapegoat to shirk response-ability (choice) onto.
There's no such thing as forgiveness within a moving system...those within shape as responding choice, on the fly, the consequences of their choices.
The anticipation of outcomes is based on the many consenting to the suggested "progressivism" by the few. Life isn't outcome oriented (dying); but resistance to origin for sustenance of self (living).
Have you ever committed cold blooded murder? Turns out very few have; yet so many blame others for doing it. What about self destruction? Turns out many do; yet so few reflect upon self for doing it.
NATION; noun - "a people". Is there any nation that is controlled by its people instead of so called representatives? Isn't the biggest national violation the ignorance of being one of "a people"; hence already partially representing the whole nation?
CHANCE; noun - "the effect of an unknown cause"...how then could the perceiving ones exist within all perceivable as the effect of the cause?
Also; if the perceiving ones exist within everything perceivable...where does "nothing" comes from? Could it be a suggestion by others.
The so called "Crown Corporation" represents the corpus oration (whisper of the death) of the ornament (crown) aka the ORNA (from adorn - "to set off to advantage") MENT (from mens; mind; memory).
The state of nations within nations represent the suggestion of others within your consenting mind.
LONDON aka LONE (alone; solitary one) DONE (performed; expressed) represents "alone" ALL (perceiving) within ONE (perceivable) as form (life) expressed within flow (inception towards death).
Been there; done that. Digging into suggested information doesn't grow ones comprehension within perceivable inspiration; it buries it down the "rabbit-hole"; while spending resistance seeking information from others.
As for providing definitions...I try to take the provided (suggested) definitions apart; while try to express the predefined; perceivable inspiration this system communicates itself with. Nature doesn't provide one defined word; it offers predefined sound towards responding choice to resonance (need) or dissonance (want).
VATICAN; noun (Latin vates; seer) - "fore-teller" aka one who suggest that which isn't to tempt others to ignore resisting that which is. The temporary living within the ongoing process of dying can only foretell death.
Treason aka high treason implies overthrowing government; while the parasitic few are utilizing suggestion to undermine government, until the many consenting to them, are overthrowing their own government; hence being tempted to treason against themselves.
Why does all of this work? Because GOVERN (to control) MENT (mind; memory) implies as free will of choice within either perceivable (need) or under suggested (want). If one consents to a suggested government; then one ignores to control ones mind within perceivable by choice.