The plan to undermine the Ottoman Empire, specifically to annex Palestine for Britain, coupled with the other (directly related) plan to create the One World Government (specifically the United Nations) has been going on for at least 1880. This specific plan, the WWI plan, had been going on since at least that long.
How long as it really been going on? I'm not sure, but a direct continuity of all actions that would lead directly to WWI (and Russian Revolution/WWII/Cold War) had been going on for at least this long.
It took them a long time to build all the ducks in a row which resulted in the culmination of WWI. All the propaganda designed to destabilize the Ottoman Empire, Prussia, and Russia took a long time. WWI was far over before the world realized it had happened in 1914.
Meh. WWI never ended. Some places on the world stage have had hot engagements, some have had cold engagements, but the entire world has been engaged in a singular effort, controlled by the exact same people with the exact same war, the entire time.
The "national debt" is a farce. We don't owe anything. The "money" we owe is actually just debt plus the usury on that debt. There isn't anything there. They didn't give us an asset, therefore there can't be anything owed.
There is no reasonable situation where we give the Fed all our gold in exchange for the debt that they gave to us. If we do give them real assets to "pay off the debt", that would be the greatest victory for the Cabal.
The only reasonable resolution is to end our contract with them and then say "fuck you," coupled with a resounding "fuck off." Since that act would technically be an act of war (since the Fed is a sovereign entity), the follow up proper act would be to then take all their gold. I mean, it belongs to us anyways, swindled from us over the past couple centuries.
I think we should throw a few billion Federal Reserve Notes at them.
What difference, at this point, does it make. -- HellenaHandBasket
Of course if we decouple the US Dollar from Federal Reserve Notes, that may be like putting out a fire with oil. I think that would be poetic turn of events, imo.
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.
“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” – Barbossa
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).
Technically (legally) the US has been Subject to the UN from day one of the UN (early 1940s). The Security Council has Ultimate Authority (legal Sovereignty) of the United States and all other countries who signed the UN (which is pretty much all). As just one example of the enumerated powers of the Treaty that we call the UN, they have conscription powers of almost every single person on the planet, including all people of the US, whenever the fuck they want. Most people don't realize that, since that has never happened in the US, but it has happened in some of the smaller countries on occasion.
These powers (and many more) were there from day one. This is how the UN was designed. It is absolutely the Sovereign of the World, and it has been for 80 years.
These new things that are happening are not "giving the UN Sovereignty," they already had it. These new things are just adding on specific enumerated powers so that people will see that the UN wants to have the powers they already have. In other words, these things are just for show. The powers are already there.
But what does it mean that the UN is "Sovereign"? Most people don't really understand what that means. And it is not straight forward, since it depends on which legal system you are looking at. Ultimately, Sovereignty is a function of Natural Law. By Natural Law every single Natural Person is Sovereign, and no one can be the Sovereign of another, whether they be other Natural Persons, or other incorporated entities (government e.g.).
But within any manmade legal system (and there are several in a semi-hierarchy), a Sovereign pretends to be the Ultimate Authority and enforces their pretense with coercion. You cannot be a Sovereign (other than yourself) by any other method. You can have a governor (which means, "to steer the ship,") by you cannot be a Sovereign, except by pretense and by force.
this is not how contracts work lol. Express, explicit consent is required
That's not really true. There is a scope in which it is true, but most of the really big contracts, the ones that really matter do not require explicit consent, but rather implicit consent. For example, the US Constitution, and the governmental corporation that it incorporates, is a Treaty, AKA a contract. I did not give my consent to enjoin that contract. On the contrary, I VERY MUCH do not want to be a part of that contract. I however do not have a choice. Well, there is always a choice, but I don't have an effective choice other than death, or being a part of a virtually identical contract with some other governmental corporation. I can't live in my home without being a part of the contract I didn't sign. Indeed, I can't even effectively live at all without being part of the contract I didn't sign. If were to try, the systems of force are so powerful, I would be squashed like an grasshopper in a crow convention.
Most people aren't even aware that they have enjoined the contract at all. They don't realize that they have given consent, thus it is implicit. And, as already stated, there is no exit clause.
Second, we can just withdraw from the UN all together
We can. It is just a Treaty. However, doing so will have consequences. There are always consequences. Because of the Treaty, breaking the contract would be an act of war. That could end poorly.
Frankly, I think the only way to effectively end our participation in the Treaty is for the entire population to understand the scam that we call the UN, and how it was created by Rockefeller/Rothschild to create their One World Government, under their control.
These are all statements made by Patrick Bryne. While I'm not suggesting we should ignore what he has to say, he is not bringing receipts, he is just making claims. Most of them are things he said a long time ago (at least what I heard by skimming this very long video).
While his testimony acts as evidence, this is not good evidence. It is at best a place to dig deeper. At worst he is a controlled opposition agent.
Lobbying is more of a pretense than any actual influence. The control of Megacorp on government is long, long ago complete. Lobbying serves mostly as an illusion to keep people from seeing the real systems of control. Please see my report.
Government regulations or industry support leads to monopolies
You have the cart before the horse. Monopolies create government regulations to ensure monopolies stay monopolies.
And, so that you can appreciate the scope, there is only a single monopoly in the world. That is the primary conclusion of my report.
the free market isn't doing it right now
Our market couldn't be further from a Free Market than it is. It is actually less of a free market than the USSR was because they had a semblance of a free market in their black market.
Build housing
We don't need the government to build housing. We just need a free market. With a genuine free market, opportunities would abound. People would be able to take care of their own shit. You wouldn't even recognize the world if we had one.
these last 4 years show what happens when real leadership is not present
No, that is not what has happened. What has happened in the past 4 years is a theatre show designed to show corruption in the system.
The solution has nothing to do with an increase in power in the government, but a desolution of it. I appreciate you think that we need to "effectively, and aggressively to dig our country out of the ditch," but frankly, that has already happened. We just don't realize it because of the kayfabe showing on a theatre near you.
As for FDR, he was nothing but a Rockefeller puppet whose entire purpose in his particular theatre act was to create the structure required for a One World Communist Government with the Capitalists as the shadow leadership of it.
For those that don't realize, "communism" is the end game for capitalism. Both are the same system with a few bits and bobs that make it look different to the masses. For the most part, the vast majority of people do not understand what either communism or capitalism are. Them being "at odds" in the common understanding is fundamental to The Grand Illusion.
Regardless of the truth of the alien thing, there is enough evidence that we have tech so far beyond our comprehension that if that was used against us, it would be indistinguishable to alien tech (or at least our scifi ideas of it). I don't think we need "project Blue Beam" to enact Battle of Los Angeles Part Deux. I would not be surprised if something like that was coming down the pipeline.
The "Precipice" has to look pretty damned Precipicy to make it be believable to everyone on the planet. Some bigger versions of tictacs would fit the bill nicely imo.
There is no conflict on that in the bible
Not for anyone who Believes (specifically Christians, because other Abrahamic religions do not adhere to that specific dogma). That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of controversy. You have rectified the two stories. That's great. Not everyone agrees. Here is just one example, but there are thousands.
The thing about "controversy" is that different people have some level of justification for their different beliefs. If it is a wide scale controversy (like this one), pretty much always there is some supporting, unanswered evidence for it.
You believe you have it all worked out. Have you actually listened to the dissenting opinions? Have you really listened to why there are so many people who believe otherwise? Can you offer a reasonable rebuttal for all of the dissentions?
It's controversial BECAUSE there are good arguments to the contrary. Your statements of "what really happened" all have such arguments against (with good evidence).
There is controversy on where exactly Jesus was born (according to the bible). It is not a straight forward statement. The problem is, there are two conflicting stories. If you believe the bible is the unerring word of the Source of All Things then you must rectify those two conflicting stories. Rectification requires you choose one, and Nazareth (because one story is slighly easier to interpret) is the easiest choice.
I won't link any of the scholarly sources on that, because no one who "Believes" will look (you already know the truth, and anyone who questions your truth is a liar and of Satan), but there are a ton of sources if you are interested. A simple scholarly article search (or even youtube search) will net thousands of examples of the controversy if you are interested.
The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.
I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are (or even Capitalism for that matter). The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.
Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.
Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than, for example, "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.
The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.
None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights, that we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction, and to understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.
Here is the flawed thinking of "IT'S THE JEWS".
It is not "the Jews." There is a power structure. At the top of the power structure (at least the visible top) sits a small group of people that can be categorized (though not without error) as the leadership class of Jews (an aristocratic Jewish group). Most of the Jews are as clueless as the rest of humanity. Indeed, most of the Jews have been victimized by the top level echelons of those top level Jews who rule the world.
The "Christian" replacements would be apart of the same network
There are people who don't call themselves Jews that are a part of the power structure. But that doesn't mean they aren't themselves also genetically, and by belief, part of the same group. Indeed, the Jews have been hiding themselves for millennia. They even have a word for it, it's called "cryptojew." It's not even a racial slur. This hiding of identity to take over power systems is so common throughout history, and so well known, that the word "cryptojew" is a historical word.
So who is, and who isn't a Jew is unknowable. Assuming that anyone isn't one, but is also a part of the power structure, is an assumption that has countless proven examples, throughout many centuries, of being flawed.
I am not suggesting that all those at the very top that aren't self-proclaimed Jews are crypto-jews. I am saying there is no way to know, so don't assume they aren't. It could be that everyone at the top actually is.
These so called "Jews" are fake.
Prove it. Hell, give me even the slightest bit of evidence that supports this claim. I've found nothing but evidence to the contrary.
You cannot go blindly by the bible to know the truth.
I think the bible is an excellent resource for research. I have spent decades investigating it. My research suggests however, that it is not "the unerring divine word of truth."
This guy is wrong. Whether he knows it or not, as unwitting dupe, or controlled opposition, he is pushing the Grand Illusion. Inflation was not a function of the American Rescue Plan, or any other spending bill. Inflation was a function of the M2 money supply.
It is simple Supply and Demand. If the money supply goes up, what we call "inflation" goes up; there is more money, thus the buying power of each dollar goes down. It's that simple. Because it takes a while for things to percolate a bit, it takes for about two years for inflation to adjust to fluctuations in money supply. This lag time helps feed the Illusion, but it is as regular as clockwork.
If you look at the graph (shown above), it shows without question that in Feb. 2020 the M2 money supply spiked faster than it had in modern history. The data gets a little difficult to show because of how these things work (real v. nominal data), but there has not been such a dramatic increase in M2 money supply since WWII.
The Fed determines inflation. All of our Policies are the theatre that lays on top of the actions of the Fed. If the Fed says "jump," public policy says "how high." It is all Theatre.
I'm not saying there is no interplay there. The Fed is more than happy to have their agents (called "politicians") give their pretense for the theatre. Then the Fed will create new money (debt) for the money laundering scheme that pretends to be "policy." But specifically in regards to the latest bout of inflation, the money printer went Brrr in Feb 2020. Most of the increase of money supply had already been starting to wind down by Jan. 2021, before the spending bill in question had happened.
The Fed is an autonomous agent (Sovereign entity). Because "money" uses Federal Reserve Notes, the US Government doesn't have the ability to determine the money supply. It is up to the Fed what happens. Anything else is Theatre.