By joining the PACT OF THE FUTURE, America lost its sovereignty as a nation and is now under the rule of the United Nations.
DR. SHERRI TENPENNY VIDEO: 9/24/2024 - https://x.com/myhiddenvalue/status/1838699486958571987
KEY POINTS:
- Has 2 PARTS: #1 Science and Technology #2 Youth and Future
- Passed by “SILENCE PROCEDURE” - If no objection, you are automatically signed up. (America did not object).
- Accepted now by 193 countries in the world (out of 195). Accepted by our current admin.
- Fully digital and maximized for the control of the masses.
- Everyone will have a biometric digital ID that marks them as a global citizen.
- AI will fact check, enforce and punish perpetrators.
- Dissidents will be monitored, punished, and labelled misinformation, disinformation, malformation and memory holed.
- Punishments will include being locked out of ones bank account, unable to make certain purchases, unable to get on an airplane, subway or drive on public roads. (I'm sure additional punishments will be added in the future).
- This will be our future according to the world’s self-appointed overlords at the United Nations.
- These are unelected bureaucrats that are making decisions about our country, our sovereignty around the world.
- Nothing could be more important at this time than to get involved and get prepared.
- There was a Sept 17, 2024 Press Conference and no further action has been taken since that conference.
Excellent, detailed comment, and a great argument for Abolitionism / Voluntaryism (which might not be quite what you're going for, idk, but a truly civil society is the only way to free people from the tyranny you describe).
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Abolitionism" or "Voluntaryism." You may not have meant it that way, but since you capitalized the terms, it suggests they are formal ideas/philosophies.
I am not advocating any specific "ism," rather, I am attempting to clarify a simple understanding of what Sovereignty is and how it has been convoluted. Our ubiquitous misunderstanding is caused by our purposefully designed systems of Civil Law (which itself, as an idea, is completely misunderstood by almost everyone). One of the greatest offenders of that system is that our current Civil Law purposefully obfuscates Natural Law. That is no where more potent than in our understanding of Sovereignty (or lack there of).
You cannot have both a true understanding of Sovereignty (who is really the Ultimate Authority) and our current system of Civil Law. They are completely incompatible. In other words, a "truly civil society" cannot exist without a ubiquitous fundamental understanding of an Individual's Sovereignty. Any other attempt to define Sovereignty other than the one defined by Natural Law subverts the fundamental nature of the Universe, and, in "civil society" is always (can only be) a power grab.
Civil Law can only be used as a guideline. Any other application becomes a subversion of Natural Law.
Another essential misunderstanding related to Natural Law that seems to be ubiquitous is that there are always consequences. There is no free lunch. People believe (mistakenly, because of purposeful fuckery) that if we didn't have the type of system of law that we have, there would be "lawlessness," "anarchy," and "chaos." Nothing could be further from the truth (not the least of which is that people don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, another purposeful fuckery). In truth, a "lawless" society cannot exist. There are always consequences.
These then are essential components of civility (if not necessarily a formal system of "civil society.") We must grok our Sovereignty (what everyone's Sovereignty is), what our Jurisdiction is (what everyone's Jurisdiction is), and that there are always consequences, no matter what anyone particular "law" (stated guidelines) may say about "allowed actions" or consequences.
With these things, which is a matter of reteaching people what they have been mistaught, our society, and the individuals made up of it, would be what we were always intentioned to be (whatever that may imply).
Auberon Herbert's writings are a good introduction to Voluntaryism, which is exactly what it sounds like:
The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, and Other Essays
Back to your comment:
I agree wholeheartedly, and in fact I doubt there is very much that we DO disagree on.