19 Jan 2014 13:31:01
I am going to ask a question to everyone, do we as a species need to be governed? let's face facts we all know we are getting screwed but would you rather have it that way or a lawless society? devils advocate question!
{Ed033's Note - Before this country got took over by the corporation (with shareholders) that also took over and replaced any legal system we had and replaced any type of 'administration/government' we had, we had a lawful society.
When this corporation took over, they brought with them their version of a legal system and their version of a language called legalese and in 1666 while their agents were burning down the [rat infested/disease ridden] London to remove the people that were living there and give them a cleared location to do business (now called the City Of London) and a another cleared area they could create a new modern city in we call London, this corporation's agents in parliament declared everyone who was living here, dead and lost beyond the seas.
Now with no one living here, their legal system could perform a salvage operation on this country and all the proceeds from this salvage operation could go to the shareholders of the corporation.
This salvage operation is still going on today. Everything the government and the legal system does is to benefit the shareholders of this corporation that took over.
All what we the people owned, all the natural resources and anything we the people pay for are supposed to be held in trust by a lawful 'administration/government' for we the people's benefit. If any natural resource was to be sold, then we the people (who were born here and therefore are the beneficiaries) should be giving an equal share each of any profits.
But because this corporation's legal system/government doesn't recognise we the people, then the corporation's shareholders get the money.
Politicians and all public/civil servants/ employees(persons who work for the corporation/government) should be working for we the people but it's obviously they don't. Why not? Because they're working for the shareholders of this corporation, whether they know it or not.
So we are already living in a lawless society, we're actually living in a legal society.
If this corporation and the government that creates legislation to serve the shareholders of the corporation were to leave, we could return to a lawful society.
Hidden law history and what happened in 1666
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv2YUMsG5A0
What the FUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umVj5XQYAi8
When this corporation took over, they brought with them their version of a legal system and their version of a language called legalese and in 1666 while their agents were burning down the [rat infested/disease ridden] London to remove the people that were living there and give them a cleared location to do business (now called the City Of London) and a another cleared area they could create a new modern city in we call London, this corporation's agents in parliament declared everyone who was living here, dead and lost beyond the seas.
Now with no one living here, their legal system could perform a salvage operation on this country and all the proceeds from this salvage operation could go to the shareholders of the corporation.
This salvage operation is still going on today. Everything the government and the legal system does is to benefit the shareholders of this corporation that took over.
All what we the people owned, all the natural resources and anything we the people pay for are supposed to be held in trust by a lawful 'administration/government' for we the people's benefit. If any natural resource was to be sold, then we the people (who were born here and therefore are the beneficiaries) should be giving an equal share each of any profits.
But because this corporation's legal system/government doesn't recognise we the people, then the corporation's shareholders get the money.
Politicians and all public/civil servants/ employees(persons who work for the corporation/government) should be working for we the people but it's obviously they don't. Why not? Because they're working for the shareholders of this corporation, whether they know it or not.
So we are already living in a lawless society, we're actually living in a legal society.
If this corporation and the government that creates legislation to serve the shareholders of the corporation were to leave, we could return to a lawful society.
Hidden law history and what happened in 1666
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv2YUMsG5A0
What the FUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umVj5XQYAi8
It would take something monumental to go back to them times would it not edd? Only thing that springs to mind is a world wide event like a disaster and start from scratch!
{Ed033's Note - The biggest nuisance is that those people who have woken up have to live in a ridiculous slave system on a planet that's being turned into a radioactive wasteland because of the brainwashed people who can't 'wake up'
Agree · 3 · Disagree · 0
Not going to argue there like I said it would take a worldwide event, plus it does not have to be a disaster, first contact, I mean first official contact!
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
The answer to that question is likely always going to be 'yes' from the majority who believe there is always "some mob" or "that lot" who need to be governed.
The better question would be for everybody to ask of themselves "do I need to be governed?" and there lies your answer.
One of the by-products of Governance is that it creates people who don't think for themselves or take responsibility for themselves because "someone does it for them" so they "don't need to worry (think) about it". It doesn't make smart people it makes dumb people.
Personally I have been asking myself lately what have we done to end up being herded by these voids, these witless dullards and borings? Every time you vote for Legion you are giving your consent to be herded by them. pea
The better question would be for everybody to ask of themselves "do I need to be governed?" and there lies your answer.
One of the by-products of Governance is that it creates people who don't think for themselves or take responsibility for themselves because "someone does it for them" so they "don't need to worry (think) about it". It doesn't make smart people it makes dumb people.
Personally I have been asking myself lately what have we done to end up being herded by these voids, these witless dullards and borings? Every time you vote for Legion you are giving your consent to be herded by them. pea
Agree · 3 · Disagree · 0
Brilliant understanding of a very convoluted subject Ed033.
The psychological implications arising from the view that without a ruler people would run amok and society would collapse are something that should be taken seriously.
People have been conditioned to feel incapable to decide for themselves in regards to issues commonly portrayed as complicated. It is time we liberate ourselves from implanted dualistic paradoxes.
How about we the people decide for ourselves, maintain the benefits that being organized into a society offers and do away with illusory terms such as government.
The cosmetic changes we have been presented with, from rulers, to governance and now to government are just that. One label might be less insulting to the ego than the rest due to conditioning but they are the same.
We are not being represented by politicians as evident by the fact that their appointment is irrevocable. Additionally, by investigating the inner workings of organizations it is easy to discover that appointed officials are figureheads and their non-appointed colleagues are the ones with authority.
When we ask for a better government is akin to asking for a considerate ruler. Something justly described as a ludicrous notion.
Zari
The psychological implications arising from the view that without a ruler people would run amok and society would collapse are something that should be taken seriously.
People have been conditioned to feel incapable to decide for themselves in regards to issues commonly portrayed as complicated. It is time we liberate ourselves from implanted dualistic paradoxes.
How about we the people decide for ourselves, maintain the benefits that being organized into a society offers and do away with illusory terms such as government.
The cosmetic changes we have been presented with, from rulers, to governance and now to government are just that. One label might be less insulting to the ego than the rest due to conditioning but they are the same.
We are not being represented by politicians as evident by the fact that their appointment is irrevocable. Additionally, by investigating the inner workings of organizations it is easy to discover that appointed officials are figureheads and their non-appointed colleagues are the ones with authority.
When we ask for a better government is akin to asking for a considerate ruler. Something justly described as a ludicrous notion.
Zari
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
I think that our 'need' for a government reveals an innate lack of faith in our own abilities to govern ourselves on a personal level.
We distrust so others so much that the idea that we could simply trust them to not commit immoral actions is long lost.
Instead, we decided to nominate certain figures in society to a status higher than our own in the hopes that we live a safe, equal life.
Obviously, this makes us extremely vulnerable to corruption from within those who have been elected to keep the equilibrium, which is sadly what we are seeing across the world in the goverments and police force abuses.
Exotiva.
We distrust so others so much that the idea that we could simply trust them to not commit immoral actions is long lost.
Instead, we decided to nominate certain figures in society to a status higher than our own in the hopes that we live a safe, equal life.
Obviously, this makes us extremely vulnerable to corruption from within those who have been elected to keep the equilibrium, which is sadly what we are seeing across the world in the goverments and police force abuses.
Exotiva.
{Ed001's Note - actually it originates in the desire of the ordinary person just wanting to live their life, tend crops, look after animals etc, rather than spend their time looking after the minutiae of governing a larger whole. That is why, as hamlets grew into villages, they created the elders, those too old or weak to work the fields etc, that had the time to make the decisions. Then, as villages grow into towns, they were no longer enough to run everything, so it gradually evolved into the government systems we use now. It was more about trust, than a lack of trust, as you are trusting that the person appointed is going to do what is right for you.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Yeah your right the elders were the rulers as they have walked in your shoes and have gained experience and on the whole were wise, maybe we could follow Sith America's politics were Bolivia or Peru there prime minister is a sheet metal worker and after three years he goes back to his job, why is it the most privileged people who have cone from a wealthy family decide what's good for the working people? Just imagine Miliband was a electrician and said listen guys and girls we have to tighten our belts, it's going to be a tough few years, you might not like what they are telling you but you know they have been in your shoes!
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
Thank you for the insight Ed001! Wonderful stuff. Always nice to have someone present an opposing opinion without trashing you for your own. I think perhaps you are right.
Exotiva.
Exotiva.
{Ed001's Note - it is just a shame that our trust has been misplaced, as we no longer have people in positions of trust with years of experience of handling the very problems that affect our daily life. Nowadays they are people who want to have power and control, which is the exact opposite of the type of person who should lead. I can't remember who it was that said it, but I agree totally with the saying that anyone who wants to be a politician, by the fact that they would want to be one, immediately becomes the wrong person for the job. Rome has some great examples of it, in their early days they would force the highest powers on their best general, to lead them in the face of crisis. After the crisis was done, they would then have to hand back power. It was when that stopped happening that Rome became corrupt and began a very slow gradual decline. We have the same problem now, politicians are able to make it a lifetime career, when it should be a short term job. No MP should be able to stand a second time, no matter how good a job they do, as power corrupts even the best of us.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
20 Jan 2014 14:45:52
Is saying about great people have greatness thrust upon them. Rome is great example.
I think should be limited to just 2 terms, 5 years per term then out. Any longer is bad.
Have you seen suggestion in America to remove term limits on president? Dangerous.
Kim Philby
Is saying about great people have greatness thrust upon them. Rome is great example.
I think should be limited to just 2 terms, 5 years per term then out. Any longer is bad.
Have you seen suggestion in America to remove term limits on president? Dangerous.
Kim Philby
{Ed001's Note - there should always be a limit, there is a very good reason for those limits having been placed there to begin with!}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
20 Jan 2014 14:56:35
Yes they bring it in after FDR win 4 terms! But never limited Congress.
Russia have 2 term limit but circumvented by VP by using dummy as president.
Kim Philby
Yes they bring it in after FDR win 4 terms! But never limited Congress.
Russia have 2 term limit but circumvented by VP by using dummy as president.
Kim Philby
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Fascinating thread, thanks for all the input. Just goes to show how backwards the society that has been built for us, really is! We are told it (government, establishment) is there to look out for us but in reality its there to control us for the good of the secret rulers.
I love the idea of representatives of the public only serving on a short term basis and I think they should be paid very little too (maybe paid leave from day job plus expenses?). Of course, this will never happen, as we know, the corruption is there for a reason - to take even more of the money and power away from us I. e. The people.
Although its depressing, it is at least a small comfort to know that others see it too, by visiting forums like this.
Harold
I love the idea of representatives of the public only serving on a short term basis and I think they should be paid very little too (maybe paid leave from day job plus expenses?). Of course, this will never happen, as we know, the corruption is there for a reason - to take even more of the money and power away from us I. e. The people.
Although its depressing, it is at least a small comfort to know that others see it too, by visiting forums like this.
Harold
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0