Passive-Aggressive Satanism

In Satanism, everything is inverted. Turned upside down, both literally and metaphorically.

In areas where Satanic activity is known to have occurred, Christian crosses that are present are often turned upside down, ostensibly by a diabolical force.

The inverted pentagram, for example, is a universal symbol of evil.

Other forms of religious art and symbolism are destroyed or defiled in some way when demons are present. In other words, tradition is shat upon.

Often, over time, possession occurs.

As I look around at the world today, I'm bombarded with disturbing examples of this.

Inclusivity is one of the catch words being uttered endlessly currently. But when studied closely, it really indicates exclusivity.

Diversity is another. But the intent is often meant to indicate something homogenous

Equity is perhaps the greatest culprit. In the current context it is often really meant to indicate power, more specifically power over someone(s), not power with someone(s).

Not only has the word gender been removed from sex, suggesting some hypothetical and bizarre distinction there, but the very notion of biological sex is now being challenged; I've seen college professors say that biological sex doesn't even exist....

...so men can now be women and women can now be men. And if you challenge that statement you will be regarded as a hateful bigot, and may even lose your job.

The LGBQT etc acronym has grown so hopelessly convoluted, and so dictatorial that, no matter how nonsensical it becomes, you cannot question it...lest you be regarded as a hateful bigot and assume all the risk associated with that.

Uttering scientific facts can get you cancelled, or fired, or worse.

Currently, there is fascist organization in America called 'black lives matter'. As un-American as it is, it is being held up as a symbol of nobility and courage

To utter the words "all lives matter" is now regarded as hate speech. Acknowledging the fundamental humanity in all of us is now considered hateful. And it will quite likely ruin your life.

There are only 2 types of white men, we are now being told: white men that are racist and admit it, and white men who are racist and don't admit it. If you attempt to defend yourself, you are considered "part of the problem"..all followed by the requisite loss of job and reputation and perhaps friends and family even..not to mention any kind of future prospects.

Any reasonable challenges to this inversion of logic and reason has been labelled "hate speech", and the consequences of engaging in it range from fines to incarceration, not to mention job loss and an irreparable reputation and so forth.

Everything is upside down or in reverse.....from our speech to our morality to our ethics to our actions and to our judgements of all those things. Objective reality and science has been obliterated in favor of "subjective truths".

Proponents of this inverted approach to society and life will defend it to the death, no matter how unreasonable and illogical it is. They seem quite literally possessed by this ideology, and will viciously reject any attempt at being talked out of it.

My feeling is that social justice is really a form of passive-aggressive satanism...a way to usher in confusion and moral ambiguity all under the banner of compassion and fairness. It's an attempt to undermine our society by not only challenging our most axiomatic truths, but by making it morally and sometimes legally impossible to even utter them.

I don't just mean this stuff metaphorically; I think a dark force is at play, something that is literally possessing large groups of people to do and say everything in a fundamentally backwards manner. Dare I call it Satanic?

Almost.

There is no such thing as an inverted pentagram.

The Pythagorean pentagram is often shown with two points up. That is because the center of it, a pentagon, symbolizes a house.

I would say, this world, as a whole, is upside down, or inside out, compared to the spiritual world. Hell itself. The grave. Torture.

"Whenever one's mind is bound to an external object, it is in the grip of a demon." (Yeshe Tsogyal)

The wrong orientation of the mind, or, belief in a reality of this inverse, dark world, is what we call Ignorance.

From Ignorance proceed other disturbing emotions, and, these definitely can hit other beings and spread like wildfire.

Demons are not going away any time soon. It is like a steam pipe and you keep blasting it in your face, but, hook it to a turbine, and you can use it.

Most people encourage demonic activity, and they are not Satanists.

Here is perhaps one way to explain it. In Tibet, they have an oracle, Pehar, who is a Gyalpo or Ghost King, or, rather, the King of Ghost Kings. The reason they are ghosts are because, in life, they broke vows. They are damned, angry beings of the worst sort, much as how Dante put dishonesty at the bottom of Hell. The magic of Tibet is such that they have oath-bound the Kings as Protectors. That is the major difference between what has been done in Tibet, and most of the rest of the world: oath-binding. Comparatively, they said another Pehar Gyalpo had got in control of China in the early 1900s, unbound. So they knew that trouble and an invasion was coming.

This is a bit like saying, you are not powerful enough to bind your ghosts. You are afraid of demons. All that is to be found in that state is misery and death.

I am not sure it is Satanic, but, broadly speaking, are there forces of a psychological nature? Certainly! Tibetans say it has become particularly cataclysmic now.

The Darth Vader force grip choking you so you can't speak has been coming up for a while, although I suppose we could say "new level" these days. The easiest way to get rid of Corporate Double Speak is to get rid of Corporatocracy completely. Leave them without a soapbox to stand on. None of this can really be "repaired", only amputated.

The avid-ness of "save the world" seems to rely on world government.

Don't enforce garbage on me. If anything those goons were saying with their free speech was worth listening to, I'd listen, but it's not. Danger of democracy, those big crowds will blot us out.

this short, 10 minute video is vital imo. crucially important. every time he says the word postmodernism, just replace it with passive aggressive satanism.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc

hi Shaberon, I enjoyed reading your post. thanks. good stuff there.

the one line that stood out particularly, to me, was this one: most people encourage demonic activity, and they are not Satanists.

my view is that it is being passive aggressively put upon them, packaged in a way that is palatable. all wrapped in compassion and love for our fellow man and equality.

how brilliant, right? the best way to spread evil would be to cloak it in the good and let the population do your work for you. gotta give the devil his due sometimes:)

Perfect example--Bill and Melinda Gates...

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

hi Shaberon, I enjoyed reading your post. thanks. good stuff there.

the one line that stood out particularly, to me, was this one: most people encourage demonic activity, and they are not Satanists.

my view is that it is being passive aggressively put upon them, packaged in a way that is palatable. all wrapped in compassion and love for our fellow man and equality.

how brilliant, right? the best way to spread evil would be to cloak it in the good and let the population do your work for you. gotta give the devil his due sometimes:)

---

Although the Green movement in its present form is far from a solution and has more in common with "passive-aggressive Satanism", all the philosophizing in the world is not going to solve the underlying problem of all problems, which is the rate and manner in which the planet is being raped, pillaged and polluted.

It's much more difficult to come to grips with the problem that all the freedoms we have enjoyed in the West have led to rampant consumerism, with no thought to the future.
Not that oppression is the answer either, but none of the isms seem to have anything approaching a solution to the real question of how the human race can live sustainably on this precious planet.
And time is running out.

I think Swedenborg is relevant in this context.

Apocalypse Revealed is a difficult read. Yet Swedenborg's interpretation keeps hitting the mark. I'd like to add a quote here but I don't want to bore people...too much:

So with that in mind, I'll paraphrase.

- Swedenborg is talking about the line, And to him was given the key of the abyss, in the context of previous lines when he talks of his own vision in this regard:

"...in the present case, they who in their own eyes, and thence in the eyes of many others, appear as learned and erudite, when yet in the sight of the angels in heaven they appear destitute of understanding as to those things which pertain to heaven and the church..."

- And for 5 months the keys to this hell (abyss) are given to them to loose upon the world their prideful foolishness:

"...because the confirmation of falsity is the denial of truth..."

- And so :

"...they keep their minds fixed in the falsities which they have confirmed, and they either veil over the truth they have heard with falsities, or reject them as a mere sound, or yawn at it and avert themselves; and this in the degree in which they are in the pride of their own erudition; for pride glues falsities together
(my emphasis)"

- Sound familiar?
It just gets better and better, almost outlining exactly the tactics being employed in this organized, fascist movement. But I'll skim over it to this gem:

"Every one sits at his own table, who in the world had confirmed justification and salvation by faith alone, making charity a merely natural-moral act, and its works only works of civil life, whereby men may gain rewards in the world; but if they are done for the sake of salvation, they condemn them, and this severely, because human reason and will are in them. All who are in this abyss were learned and erudite in the world; and among them are the metaphysicians and scholastics, who are esteemed there above the rest."

- He goes on at great length about the qualities of those who will follow this scorpion from the abyss and it is not pretty. He somehow was made to see them truly, and recognized their demonic possession.

- If interpreted as prophesied: This is the opening of the sixth seal.

To give the devil his due, the whole process may have been fast-tracked with 5G, the full deployment of which will probably "solve" a lot of problems simply through population elimination.
(And in the process, the elimination of many other life forms as well.)
The question we are left with is: is this actually the work of another race altogether which is in the process of altering the planet to suit its own needs?
Or is that jumping the gun?
For a "canary in the coal mine" like me, it seems like a timely question, since there are ever more 5G satellites in the air now to the point where I am no longer comfortable being outdoors... though four walls don't offer that much protection anymore, either.

Quote:

---

Posted by onawah

Perfect example--Bill and Melinda Gates...

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

hi Shaberon, I enjoyed reading your post. thanks. good stuff there.

the one line that stood out particularly, to me, was this one: most people encourage demonic activity, and they are not Satanists.

my view is that it is being passive aggressively put upon them, packaged in a way that is palatable. all wrapped in compassion and love for our fellow man and equality.

how brilliant, right? the best way to spread evil would be to cloak it in the good and let the population do your work for you. gotta give the devil his due sometimes:)

---

Although the Green movement in its present form is far from a solution and has more in common with "passive-aggressive Satanism", all the philosophizing in the world is not going to solve the underlying problem of all problems, which is the rate and manner in which the planet is being raped, pillaged and polluted.

It's much more difficult to come to grips with the problem that all the freedoms we have enjoyed in the West have led to rampant consumerism, with no thought to the future.
Not that oppression is the answer either, but none of the isms seem to have anything approaching a solution to the real question of how the human race can live sustainably on this precious planet.
And time is running out.

---

This is a great post and important because of how anti-human/soul/consciousness nefariousness is working through the sociopolitical world under the guise of positivity and morality.

The "devil" is not going to look like a vicious monstrosity from a horror movie. It's going to smile and put on a positive facade. So we have to learn to tune into the real truth of what we observe, the unspoken content of what's being sold to us.

Seeing Jordan Peterson pop up over the last few days I have looked at a few videos of him today.
Postmodernism is only half the story he tells as far as I'm concerned. Well at least on how his videos are used to make a point.


Because when taken to it's (my) logical conclusion It would suggest that blaming a ruling elite, dark forces or satan for the current state of the world and consequently our suffering would be equally false.


This actually ties in more closely to the first of the four fundamental truths The Buddha is talking about and would mean that outside the realm of direct experience nothing can be done about it. We can find enlightenment or at least some reprieve when working on an individual level, but that's about it.


With Love

Quote:

---

Posted by Catsquotl

Seeing Jordan Peterson pop up over the last few days I have looked at a few videos of him today.
Postmodernism is only half the story he tells as far as I'm concerned. Well at least on how his videos are used to make a point.


Because when taken to it's (my) logical conclusion It would suggest that blaming a ruling elite, dark forces or satan for the current state of the world and consequently our suffering would be equally false.


This actually ties in more closely to the first of the four fundamental truths The Buddha is talking about and would mean that outside the realm of direct experience nothing can be done about it. We can find enlightenment or at least some reprieve when working on an individual level, but that's about it.


With Love

---

yeah i would agree with much of that. the Buddha said life was suffering and i think he's right.

another way of saying that is that there is a baseline level of suffering everyone experiences in this world. that's what all the existentialist say.

the only way forward, according to Peterson, is to carry your cross, to bear your burden nobly. and most importantly to take personal responsibility for your life and not blame others and to not allow yourself to grow bitter and resentful.

there's that old wise saying, something like: before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment chop wood and carry water.

i feel the same way about personal responsibility. i'm not necessarily blaming satanism for all the world's ills, or mine. i blame satanism no more than i blame chem trails, vaccines, food additives, electrical pollution, and so on. at the end of the day, no matter what you're up against, it all comes down to personal responsibility.

so, i would say: before passive aggressive satanism, take personal responsibility; after passive aggressive satanism, take personal responsibility.

it's absolutely upon us to get our sh!t together, and blaming some outside agency for our failures is never useful

trying to outwit the "illuminatti", for example, is likely a pointless task in some sense, but knowing at least vaguely what they're up to is prudent so one can at least defend oneself against a few things that are obvious.

so, suffering will exist no matter where it's coming from. it's unavoidable. there will never not be suffering, but sometimes we can limit our exposure to it by identifying it's origins and motives. that's what i'm trying to do here.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

so, suffering will exist no matter where it's coming from. it's unavoidable. there will never not be suffering, but sometimes we can limit our exposure to it by identifying it's origins and motives. that's what i'm trying to do here.

---

Well our interaction has gotten me thinking, which is good.


With Love

this is absolutely fascinating. f#cking unbelievable:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t1N32SjZHYg

PS I wasn't meaning to be critical of the subject matter of this thread at all with my last comment, I was just making an observation.
I think the discussion is important and very relevant, :nod: but in usual INFJ fashion, I tend to focus on the big picture.
That doesn't always help everyone else to keep things in perspective.
(Although for me, it helps to keep me from getting side-tracked.)
With so many different levels of evolution present on the planet at this time, understanding which credos and behaviors are constructive and which are destructive IS both important and necessary, if common ground is ever to be found.

Correcting my own course, and hoping I did not distract.
:focus:

Before You Give Up, Watch This | Jordan Peterson
Jun 15, 2020

"Jordan Peterson explains how we can be our own worst enemy. Stop comparing yourself to others and begin to compare yourself to who you were yesterday."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5iQL1IfKTN4

(The simplest truths are often the most profound.)

I think, to keep coming out, reaching to others with your knowledge means giving them better chance to understand what’s going on.

It seems to us here and all the consciousness workers that we are all One and connected. It’s true tho from mundane dual perspective it requires conscious, willing educated participation with the Greater Whole so also, among the many biases we fall to the category of “somewhat careless” positivity bias.

Observe or never see the vast ocean of hidden negativity bias brewed in isolation, hidden from sight in nuclear families and inhumane institutions,
the fear that comes from history of endless mistreatments, wrapping all cultures like invisible cloak, the “stand against others”, hard to bend sense of gestalt,
the pride and the agony.
So illusory, so same. No matter where you go.

But reaching to others with your knowledge, connecting dots globally, empowering consciousness, beyond names, conferences and predictable events,
will help those who feel or are still disconnected to see the light and rise.


It’s the free power of our minds that will save us from ultimate destruction.

It too is a historical lesson and whenever a group of good beings, good thinkers, teachers and scientists stood up firmly for a cause like a one man
eventually the objective was achieved.

Do not give up on the power of bigger righteousness, we all have descended through this very last decade or more to state of moral agony, depression, fought the hatred, the poison of ignorance , we all worked on dissolving it fast as possible.

It’s not the end of the day and the situation is tough out there.

We are not fighting human wars here even , it’s kind of holy war we are fighting.


The tipping point of higher level consciousness have not been reached yet but we are on the way with it. Expand your minds, thoughts and protections onto all who really need and deserve them,
acknowledge the missing points and the Mandala of Humanity starts fixing itself spontaneously.


🙏

Thanks for sharing your take on all of this Mike. You have been able to articulate things that I have felt but have not been able to find the right words for. There is definitely a lot going on here and it is very hard to make sense of the different agendas and intentions.

I do think that despite all the problems you have raised, there is a legitimate call for freedom and positive change from people who are not only well intentioned, but also have a mind of their own. They have thought deeply about this world we live in and are coming from a place of maturity, not just going along with the tide. Conscious participants you could say.

I'm not sure what the truth is behind some of these groups, and if they have been hijacked or not, but you make some valid and interesting points.

I think the cry that 'black lives matter' is a timely and reasonable one myself. I mean, for so long the exact opposite has been said. My view is that this all started from a just, natural and necessary place, a balancing act. An attempt to replace a false belief with a true one.

Some of the things I have read and seen have really made me think though. You have brought up a few so I won't rehash them, but some of the behaviour we are seeing is concerning and should be at least questioned. The banning of movies/tv shows/books, the destroying of statues as opposed to moving them to a museum or having a frank conversation about what they stand for, for example.

Bill made an excellent post in another thread where he (paraphrase) contrasted how easy it is to shout a slogan or destroy a statue compared to digging deep and trying to develop some understanding or having nuanced conversations with people. It is easier to destroy than to build. Along the same line, I had the thought the other night that 'change doesn't really happen quickly and under big flashy circumstances, there are no fireworks, but instead change happens in the quiet of the night when you are still and receptive, and after much effort'. Real transformation is no small thing.

I think we desperately need people of integrity at this time. People with a mature and loving heart, and a deep and well intentioned mind. It's a tall order, but what other option is there? Without these ingredients, how can we create a truly peaceful and free society?

Without this flowering of the heart, I feel as though we will end up repeating the mistakes of the past. Even if we have visions of a utopia, I don't think we can make it a reality without there first being some permanent transformation within. Maybe we can reshuffle society to be a bit more fair without such a transformation. Maybe we can treat some of the symptoms of our sick society, but we will still be sick won't we?

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

this is absolutely fascinating. f#cking unbelievable:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t1N32SjZHYg

---

I've never responded to my own post before LOL

..but the more I watch this video, the more convinced I am that this woman may actually be possessed by something dark. I know I'm going out on a limb with this hypothesis but I'm becoming more and more convinced there is something to it!

here she is again, this time getting kicked out of seattle city hall. tell me this freak isn't possessed by something!:) she's absolutely crazy! there are thousands like her. this is what we're up against:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZBc7pXjh830

Quote:

---

Posted by onawah

PS I wasn't meaning to be critical of the subject matter of this thread at all with my last comment, I was just making an observation.
I think the discussion is important and very relevant, :nod: but in usual INFJ fashion, I tend to focus on the big picture.
That doesn't always help everyone else to keep things in perspective.
(Although for me, it helps to keep me from getting side-tracked.)
With so many different levels of evolution present on the planet at this time, understanding which credos and behaviors are constructive and which are destructive IS both important and necessary, if common ground is ever to be found.

Correcting my own course, and hoping I did not distract.
:focus:

---

not at all, great posts there Nat.

i should have said "dark forces" maybe, instead of satanism, specifically. and so many things fall under that umbrella, 5g being one.

the important thing i'm trying to explore is: why are these people, particularly social justice people, acting so bizarrely?

:bearhug:

Internet Subliminal Messaging to me is like a virus.  Some people are infected more than others, some people are immune, and there is a whole spectrum of mild to severe symptomatics inbetween.

Paranoia is briefly defined as: An unrealistic distrust of others or a feeling of being persecuted.

Repeatedly sending a subliminal paranoia virus/message could well manifest in the behaviour of Zarna Joshi in the posted vids. Evergreen vids are another example. For scholars it would manifest in ideologies hitting the streets from infected publishers. And on it goes.

For many people that live a reasonably comfortable, safe life the paranoia trigger would easily manifest into illogical overreactions to difficult life experiences.  And when there aren't any major personal challenges, infected people will be triggered to react to someone else's trauma.

A perfect tool for getting sane people to act insanely in support of political and power grabbing campaigns that focus on persecution.

This tragedy deepens because it can't be proven, so it can't be stopped.  Yet!

I have personally witnessed this insane behaviour emerge with loved ones.  It's breaking our hearts.  There is no rhyme nor reason.

And I do believe there are nefarious interdimensionals orchestrating it. Some directly one-on-one.  But that's difficult and time consuming.  Much cleverer to make the task easier en masse by targetting those who devise and perform the subliminal messaging strategy.

There may be another delivery system for this randomly selected en masse paranoia. Nonetheless it is there.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

the one line that stood out particularly, to me, was this one: most people encourage demonic activity, and they are not Satanists.

my view is that it is being passive aggressively put upon them, packaged in a way that is palatable. all wrapped in compassion and love for our fellow man and equality.

how brilliant, right? the best way to spread evil would be to cloak it in the good and let the population do your work for you. gotta give the devil his due sometimes:)

---

Well, I'd take it a step further.

It doesn't come from the media, it starts at home.

Is it not fairly common for a child to be a piece of property?

"You've got a roof over your head and something to eat, so you do exactly as I say."

The roots of fascism just seem to be dear old dad. Employers look at people the same way.

Yes, I think we have a lot of insanity bundled in marketable products. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's all we have. "Religion", in the modern sense, is worship of the manufacturing process. The finished products--whether hard goods or media content--are like germs purveying disease.

I am pretty sure on a psychological plane, it is a deliberate attempt to drive man by those characteristics he shares with animals, such as herd mentality and fear, and so on, out to the conditioning of response.

In the religious sense, the physical Demiurge or Creator has been exalted to over-write and replace spirituality.

"I gave you your body, now ingest herd mentality and fear".

That kind of thing. That is how scripture has been altered. So it is an ancient art of mind control, and, in order to steer clear, I avoid common usage of terms like Satan and things like that. I don't buy their first, ancient argument, nor the modern manufactured and advertised one. Same concept: flawed ideas kept in a book, flawed ideas in other forms for public consumption.

If some churches are smart enough to talk about fear as the devil's work, it suggests to me, the conversation keeps going, because they have not provided the means of dispelling fear.

Perhaps one of our main philosophical differences is that we do not see demonic-ness as a thing to be "cured", as in removed, like an appendix, but "converted". It doesn't exactly cease to exist; you are simply making it work in the opposite direction. Our first rite is Pacification. The second is Enrichment, or well-being; and so it is not possible without the first. Unless you Pacify--i. e., harness and control--the demonic influences, no actual step towards Enrichment can be made.

It would be a false, artificial one, something you might be told or find on your own, but it cannot ultimately work.

That is my reaction to almost everything we can find. It's like the Treaty of Versailles: some of it manages to look good on paper, but, in reality, it carries the seeds of its own destruction and future strife.

Our definition of "compassion" is "compassionate act, a successful one", it is not simply an emotion you can say "I have this", or just believe you agree with it, or do something that does not accomplish the purpose.

Yes, for the most part, tricking the population into doing your work for you, and believe it is something else, is the supreme method at play here. At this point, devil = man, or, one at the helm of this wickedness. The same forces of wickedness are perfectly alive and well in me, but, I have, to some extent, "seen through" them, and reversed their course, in a way that other people can observe. So it can be defeated. But this seems unlikely to arise from almost everything we have been "made aware" of.

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

the one line that stood out particularly, to me, was this one: most people encourage demonic activity, and they are not Satanists.

my view is that it is being passive aggressively put upon them, packaged in a way that is palatable. all wrapped in compassion and love for our fellow man and equality.

how brilliant, right? the best way to spread evil would be to cloak it in the good and let the population do your work for you. gotta give the devil his due sometimes:)

---

Well, I'd take it a step further.

It doesn't come from the media, it starts at home.

Is it not fairly common for a child to be a piece of property?

"You've got a roof over your head and something to eat, so you do exactly as I say."

The roots of fascism just seem to be dear old dad. Employers look at people the same way.

Yes, I think we have a lot of insanity bundled in marketable products. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's all we have. "Religion", in the modern sense, is worship of the manufacturing process. The finished products--whether hard goods or media content--are like germs purveying disease.

I am pretty sure on a psychological plane, it is a deliberate attempt to drive man by those characteristics he shares with animals, such as herd mentality and fear, and so on, out to the conditioning of response.

In the religious sense, the physical Demiurge or Creator has been exalted to over-write and replace spirituality.

"I gave you your body, now ingest herd mentality and fear".

That kind of thing. That is how scripture has been altered. So it is an ancient art of mind control, and, in order to steer clear, I avoid common usage of terms like Satan and things like that. I don't buy their first, ancient argument, nor the modern manufactured and advertised one. Same concept: flawed ideas kept in a book, flawed ideas in other forms for public consumption.

If some churches are smart enough to talk about fear as the devil's work, it suggests to me, the conversation keeps going, because they have not provided the means of dispelling fear.

Perhaps one of our main philosophical differences is that we do not see demonic-ness as a thing to be "cured", as in removed, like an appendix, but "converted". It doesn't exactly cease to exist; you are simply making it work in the opposite direction. Our first rite is Pacification. The second is Enrichment, or well-being; and so it is not possible without the first. Unless you Pacify--i. e., harness and control--the demonic influences, no actual step towards Enrichment can be made.

It would be a false, artificial one, something you might be told or find on your own, but it cannot ultimately work.

That is my reaction to almost everything we can find. It's like the Treaty of Versailles: some of it manages to look good on paper, but, in reality, it carries the seeds of its own destruction and future strife.

Our definition of "compassion" is "compassionate act, a successful one", it is not simply an emotion you can say "I have this", or just believe you agree with it, or do something that does not accomplish the purpose.

Yes, for the most part, tricking the population into doing your work for you, and believe it is something else, is the supreme method at play here. At this point, devil = man, or, one at the helm of this wickedness. The same forces of wickedness are perfectly alive and well in me, but, I have, to some extent, "seen through" them, and reversed their course, in a way that other people can observe. So it can be defeated. But this seems unlikely to arise from almost everything we have been "made aware" of.

---

the literal extent to which i think people are possessed i'm still unsure of. it would seem that sometimes we act as our own demons and sometimes those demon are put upon us.

i use the word demon a little loosely, just like i use the word satan a little loosely. they're certainly lacking in dimension but seem proximal enough to get my point across...whatever that point is lol

it's true that i'm kind of vacillating between metaphor and literality here. and maybe that's a healthy place to be. i'm always suspicious when someone assumes one or the other dogmatically.

but when i see that woman, zarna joshi, completely losing her mind in that video over nothing, and when i watch those unhinged, shrieking Evergreen students going bat sh!t crazy over nothing, i could be convinced that they are under the spell of something more sinister than mere ideology.

the reversal/inversion of logic and morality and reason immediately made me think of satanism. i believe the symbols in satanism reflect that phenomenon.

fascism beginning at home? interesting thought! you may be onto something there

i agree that all our evil should be integrated as opposed to transcended. it's the jungian shadow concept. however, i think some sort of transcendence is possible for a small percentage of people at the end of their earthly journeys. maybe transcendence really means complete and total integration. who knows?

What happens when the ideologically possessed convene in a globalist forum to discuss the subversion of a country, in this case, Poland. A lot of these points sound so absurd that it wouldn’t surprise me if the whole thing was filmed as a parody, but unfortunately, these points have all been rolled out in Western countries over previous centuries. Talk about passive aggressive satanism.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TXE8dWedfbY

Top of the agenda are:

• sending Polish passports to random people throughout the West so anyone can get access to Poland without any checks and balances.

• Resettling 3.3 million Jews into Poland and have German taxpayers pay for it.

• The abolition of Polish Christianity because the strong Polish ethos against abortion is an indignity to Jews.

• The government should only have 30% Polish, Jews will make up the rest.

• The Polish people must be discriminated against because ‘those that discriminate should feel what its like to be discriminated against’.

• “Anti-testosterone rules so that the banking sector won’t be dominated by men because they don’t want another case of what happened to the bankers in Iceland“ (At the 11minute mark - yes they actually said this :blushing:)

• “Men are in power should have a new experience of how not to be in power and be in a lower position” just because, you know, equality.

• Turn Poland into a tourist attraction where people can be tempted into sexual exploration - i.e. turn the country into a brothel (which is a tool that aids the international Jews movement).

• The Jewish renaissance movement in Poland somehow involves the subversion of relations between Polish and Israeli citizens - not even sure what they meant by this but guess they don’t like it when people from different countries hold each other in esteem, everyone must hate everyone else, I’m guessing).

• Creative warfare - put money into the arts to create a brain-drain from other countries to the new Jewish utopia they’re planning to set up in Poland.

• Birthright Poland - re-map history to change the narrative of the country to be more ideologically favourable to diaspora Jews, to encourage more Jewish migration to the country. (They already have a new myth they’ve invented towards this goal “the ancient forest Jews” :ROFL: another member of the council points out that Jews aren’t really forest people and prefer barren bunker type homes. (29mins)

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

i use the word demon a little loosely, just like i use the word satan a little loosely. they're certainly lacking in dimension but seem proximal enough to get my point across...whatever that point is lol


...i agree that all our evil should be integrated as opposed to transcended. it's the jungian shadow concept. however, i think some sort of transcendence is possible for a small percentage of people at the end of their earthly journeys. maybe transcendence really means complete and total integration. who knows?

---

Yes, I figured the words are approximations or descriptions; with these, Satan has become a kind of proper name with all kinds of assertions as to meaning. Because I have met a few kinds of self-professed Satanists, then for example I would say there is such a thing as what you might call Generational Satanism, in the form of its escapee, or, Satanic Ritual Abuse survivor. Real life is not an interview, I didn't dig into this like a reporter. The only thing I said about it was, "So this is the Board of Education and the Insurance Commission?", to which, I was told, yes, exactly. Then they go to church, too.

So you have that, which is not really the same as Michael Aquino, and so on.

In the simplistic views of Anton LaVey, Satanism is Machiavellianism, which is a pretty identifiable method of "working the system". And so he went back and called all sorts of historical figures Satanists, because they said or did something that agreed with his philosophy.

Well, our system is still pretty doggone close to Machiavelli himself standing there saying, "Jump higher!"


As far as integration into transcendence, I believe we are at a point where we should out-Jung Jung. He was a knee-high, average wanderer in the valley, and I think we can go beyond him. And again, this would be system-opposite: if one of its main Machiavellian manipulations is fear, placing you in that condition with respect to the Shadow, you remain dependent, or a terribly poor life student less than Jung. Integrating it is kind of one and the same motion as letting go of the chains of manipulation.

The hysteria is weird. It is like being so afraid you're shaking, except it is a slightly different emotion.

Possession means, if you are not in control of your body, who is?

It is possible to be partially or fully possessed.

The closely-related aspect of mental decay is perhaps better characterized as obsession. It seems to me it depends on the world, it depends on something "out there". "I believe something is out there, so I am going to react with forceful emotions".

The system breeds anxiety; but the first main target of spiritual struggle is anxiety. It is kind of a basic choice, a switch to flip.

So the displays are like spiritual mis-direction par excellence.

If it is in the interest of hospitals to have people believe they get sick over everything, a rollout of mental diseases serves the interest of other programs. You get slightly different chains of hypnosis depending on what you are most susceptible to. Here again, one of the most basic principles of meditation is Mindfulness, and so if we find this being gobbled away, something has gone wrong.




As for Poland, at one time it thought of itself as Sarmatian, the last known ethnicity to practice head-binding.

This is a very import and timely speech, thank you for posting. Peterson has insight into covet and overt mind control. He notes that conservatives want things to remain the same but acknowledges we still need change. I think Totalitarianism, which is now the Technocracy has its roots in those who follow a blood lines that believes that Satan is their savior. Like any movement not everyone who expounds it is a satirist or even understands its roots. We are in trims of tremendous change going into the Aquarian age and people are confused by everything being purposely thrown at them. Their good well-meaning ideals of equality, safety and care for the environment are being hijacked toward totalitarianism.

I believe we are moving toward enlightenment and will not need any form of governance and will care for each other as one and that includes our mother Earth. However we will never reach that ideal under Totalitarianism, we will need real democracy. We have never actually had real democracy in this country, it was hijacked from the beginning. If we can actually bring that back we may have a chance. Unfortunately what I see now are generations of MK ultra, Tavistock like mind controlled people lost , confused fighting for what they really believe but with all the wrong weapons and it will lead them right into the hands of the controllers again.

If you support our current administration you are perceived as deluded and mind controlled by conservatism, especially on PA. I never identified with any of these labels. I see the US/world as hijacked by the illuminate under the guise of Post Modernism, Satanism or the Technocracy, pick your title. I just asked myself what way can I and others move toward freedom to obtain my ideals and I can only see democracy as providing that path in the short term. I can only see right now of current administration fighting for that aim.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9BLHLIR_E54

The founders did not intend for the US to be a Democracy, but a Republic.
See: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Quote:

---

Democracy Republic
Philosophy In a democracy, the community of people are considered to hold power over how they are governed. Kings and tyrants are seen as threats to the innate rights of the people. As such, all eligible citizens get equal say in decisions. Republics are in opposition to rulership by a single person. All eligible citizens get equal say in decisions through elected representatives. Unalienable rights of individuals are protected by law to safeguard against a majority abusing the minority
Definition Rule by majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the power of the majority. In variations, people may also elect representatives. A republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or abused by the majority.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Savannah

However we will never reach that ideal under Totalitarianism, we will need real democracy. We have never actually had real democracy in this country, it was hijacked from the beginning.
I just asked myself what way can I and others move toward freedom to obtain my ideals and I can only see democracy as providing that path in the short term.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by onawah

The founders did not intend for the US to be a Democracy, but a Republic.

---

Not "a republic", but, a republican form of government:

Unlike the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.


There is not "a republic" anywhere in the world that allows you to retain sovereignty over private property.

The United States has a de facto democratic form of government (citizenship), which is optional, and if you dismiss it, you will revert to the republican form.

It is correct that the republican form is about as vehemently against democracy as it could be.

I might go for that on some tropical paradise island, but, here, certainly not.

The country was not, as a whole, deviated until Lincoln's Empire. It was, perhaps, rubber-stamped away by Woodrow Wilson to the British, the Federal Reserve, and League of Nations, those racist, totalitarian bastions of democracy. These, in turn, by spoon-feeding various idealists, lead to meltdowns about why Poland should be New Israel and the other types of over-excitement.

Again, "the Republicans" are more or less fascists, pretending to hide behind an imitation of original American freedom, and they don't want you to figure that out either.

About all a republican form of government will do to "you" is prevent Trespass.

We are familiar with signs, "No trespassing, private property", which is false because it is not private property, and trespass means a little more than setting foot over a line.

Trespass is a Biblical term that means "violation of sovereignty". See "The Lord's Prayer".

So if I am sovereign in my body, and you break it with a fist or knife, you have trespassed me. If I sovereignly own a knife, and you swipe it, you have trespassed.

We can "forgive" this--i. e., refuse to hold on to the anger and so forth--but it is still punishable, so, we do not mean an utter lack of government and no police, it is just not accompanied by all the statutory law.

If I am a citizen, I am not a sovereign, and so the rights no longer apply to me, I just get conditional privileges under tax-and-bribe schemes.

I am very sketchy about "no form of government". That is very close to the philosophy of Bakunin. He said church and state should be immediately destroyed, because, man was so noble, he would always do the right things every time. Maybe there are a few Russian Oblasts where this would actually work. I would say what is better is limitation of higher power, and more local discretion. Under a republican form of government, federal revenue would come from tariffs. That is not very much compared to everything they are stealing.

Republic Versus Democracy - Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul's Congressional Speech on January 29, 2010.
The text from the Congressional Record reads as follows.
http://www.thepillarsofliberty.com/g...cracy-ron-paul

"There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: ``The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.''

These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.

In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government's purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints.

The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people.

Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority's demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding
and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.

But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people even without bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws dealing with the serious
medical problem of addiction.

The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is
a predictable consequence.

The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century.

Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government's failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government
and protection of personal liberty.

The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people
how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired breach of action demanded by special interest, the propaganda machine goes into operation and the pollsters relay the information back to politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity.

The pretence of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients and even the victims of its necessity.

Since it was never a precipitous departure from the Republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed, but it is encouraging that more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by complacency.

The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word ``democracy'' does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.

Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call
``hard Wilsonism.''

A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.

Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The Republic is no longer recognizable.

Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has
developed precipitates angry outcries for even more fairness.

Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny. As our Republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the equality of education plummets, the role of the Federal Government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the Federal Government in medicine is greatly increased.

Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder and concern for liberty languishes.

A tax on our homeland form a massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers seen and imagined.

The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never left the Roman
Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.

Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.

Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special interest group receive a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands, but coalitions develop and the various groups ban together to form a majority, to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.

Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as a

good cause, the process is doomed to failure. Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. Administrators who benefit perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special interest.

Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats, insurance companies and financial institutions while the poor end up in drug-invested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the same reason, not only do business leaders not object to this system but they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.

Big business strongly supports programs like the Export Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign subsidies and military adventurism. Tax Code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and the rich welfare recipients.

Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate
in each election.

Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government employees, the military industrial complex, the education system and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations resulting in a high-stakes system of government.

Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. Yet the response,
unfortunately, is only more of the same.

More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse; but failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

We were adequately warned about this problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control of the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate.

It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government
counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority's demands.

It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.

Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process. And others, out of ignorance, view central bank money creation as a convenience with little danger. That is where they are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money, believing they know how to protect against its ill effects, many of them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always develop. It is not a new era that they have created for us today, but more of the same endured throughout
history by so many other nations.

The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government's goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and micromanaging
the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in all their activities.

The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to
decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials.

As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of all political action. Restoration of liberty, the market, and personal responsibilities are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical. Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures.

Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule of majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.

The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit and, at the same time, contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, are not allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with the collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward
democratic socialism is unachievable. Soviet-style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function, and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.

The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.

Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored
is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less productive citizens who can't pay taxes.

Even before 9-11 these trends were in place, and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9-11 the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social

programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty.

Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire-building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy. The dramatic shift away from the Republic that occurred in 1913, as expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of making the world safe for democracy was forcefully put forth by Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed
by a moral commitment every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.

With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed in 1919.

Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified
with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.

Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing
factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the case with Pakistan's Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have
harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction.

No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government
would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.

Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one man, one vote philosophy.

U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.

There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even
100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region.

The tragedy of 9-11 and its aftermath dramatizes so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone's life. Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous cost, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired of us, the South Koreans are tired of us, the Europeans are tired of us, the Central Americans are tired of us, the Filipinos are tired of us, and, above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us. Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying, and disgusted with having their own government
bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel's occupation expands.

There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to
pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on Congress and the administration? No. All we ever hear are the reassurances that the majority support the President; therefore, it must be all right.

The terrorist attacks are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about impending attacks, but too cumbersome to do anything about it. Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize by our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

What has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the Federal Government's policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy
with a currency collapse.

Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World
War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.

Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people in the world.

In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations with the most money will control the United Nations policy. Bribery, threats and intimidation are common practices used to achieve a democratic consensus, no matter how controversial and short-lived the benefits.

Can one imagine what it might be like if true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a world-wide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we are working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I am optimistic that this utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses.

The same will occur internationally, even if it miraculously did not cause conflict among the groups demanding the loot confiscated from the producing individuals or countries. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under communism. We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before
its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress.

With the additional spending to wage war against terrorism at home, while propping up an ever-expensive and failing welfare state, and the added funds needed to police the world, all in the midst of a recession, we are destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of deficit spending. Raising taxes will not help. Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit, plus the daily borrowing from foreigners required to finance our ever-growing account deficit, will put tremendous pressure on
the dollar.

The time will come when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the exorbitant size of our borrowing needs, and the risk premium will eventually send interest rates upward. Price inflation will accelerate and the cost of living for all Americans will increase. Under these conditions, most Americans will face a decline in their standard of living.

Facing this problem of paying for past and present excess spending, the borrowing and inflating of the money supply has already begun in earnest. Many retirees, depending on their 401(k) funds and other retirement programs, are suffering the ill effects of the stock market crash, a phenomenon that still has a long way to go. Depreciating the dollar by printing excessive money, like the Fed is doing, will eventually devastate the purchasing power of those retirees who are dependent on Social Security.
Government cost-of-living increases will never be able to keep up with the loss. The elderly are already unable to afford the inflated cost of medical care, especially the cost of pharmaceuticals.

The reality is that we will not be able to inflate, tax, spend or borrow our way out of this mess that the Congress has delivered to the American people.

The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval. Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic forces make it
clear we can no longer afford to pay for the extravagance that comes from the democratic dictates.

Democracy is the most excessive form of government. There is no ``king'' with an interest in preserving the nation's capital. Everyone desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians exactly what they want and need. Politicians are handsomely rewarded for being ``effective,'' that is, getting the benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though it is the

most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.

Spending is predictable in a democracy, especially one that endorses foreign interventionism. It always goes up, both in nominal terms and in percentage of the nation's wealth.

Paying for it can be quite complicated. The exact method is less consequential than the percent of the nation's wealth the government commands. Borrowing and central bank credit creation are generally used and are less noticeable, but more deceitful, than direct taxation to pay as we go.

If direct taxation were accomplished through monthly checks written by each taxpayer, the cost of government would immediately be revealed, and the democratic con game would end much more quickly.

The withholding principle was devised to make paying for the programs the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on debt to the next generation through borrowing is also a popular way to pay for welfare and warfare. The effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is difficult to understand and the victims are hard to identify. Inflation is the most sinister method of payment for a welfare state. It, too, grows in popularity as the demands increase for services that are not affordable.

Although this appears to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the bills, the economic consequences of lost employment, inflated prices and economic dislocation make the long-term consequences much more severe than paying as we go. Not only is this costly in terms of national wealth, it significantly contributes to the political chaos and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of a doomed democracy.

This does not mean that direct taxes will not be continuously raised to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore, not raising taxes, cutting taxes, or granting tax credits are considered ``costs'' of government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is merely getting back
control of that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.

Tax-exempt status for various groups is not universal but is conditioned on whether their beliefs and practices are compatible with politically correct opinions endorsed by the democratic majority. This concept is incompatible with the principles of private-property ownership and individual liberty. In contrast, in a free society, all economic and social decision-making is controlled by private property owners without government intrusion, as long as no one is harmed in the process.

The vast majority of the American people have come to accept democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to pursue Wilson's dream of making the world safe for democracy. But the goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.

There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government's abuse
of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.

In a free society with totally free markets, the votes by consumers through their purchases or refusal to purchase determine which businesses survive and which fail. This is free-choice democracy, and it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic efficiency. In today's democracy by decree, government laws dictate who receives the benefit and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and success or failure is too often
dependent on government action than by consumers' voting in the marketplace by their spending habits. Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not governments armed with mandates from the majority.

Even a system of free market money, a redeemable gold coin standard, functions through the principle of consumers always voting or withholding support for that currency. A gold standard can only work when freely converted into gold coins, giving every citizen a right to vote on a daily basis for or against the government's money.

It is too late to avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison warned us about. It has already started. But it is important to minimize the damage and prepare a way for the restoration of the Republic. The odds are not favorable, but not impossible. No one can know the future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an abrupt end with less violence than could ever have been imagined at the height of the Cold War. It was a pleasant surprise.

Interestingly enough, what is needed is a majority opinion, especially by those who find themselves in leadership roles, whether political, educational or in the media, that rejects democracy and supports the rule of law within the Republic. This majority support is essential for the preservation of the freedom and prosperity with which America is identified.

This will not occur until we as a Nation once again understand how freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 1947 classic, ``The Mainspring of Human Progress,'' explains how it works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government intervention tends always to tyranny. Liberty releases creative energy; government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the writing of
the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, the activity is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests. Freedom requires self-control and moral responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The principle of never harming one's neighbor, or never sending the government
to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend to peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses is impossible; and as a Nation we become more vulnerable to outside threats.

In a Republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit permission from the people or the Constitution.

Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people's representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm's way than the U.S. Congress. The Constitution no longer restrains
the government. The government restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the ``mainspring of human progress'' is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.

A system that rejects voluntary contracts, enlightened self-interests and individual responsibilities permits the government to assume these responsibilities. And the government officials become morally obligated to protect us from ourselves, attempting to make us better people and setting standards for our personal behavior. That effort is already in full swing. But if this attitude prevails, liberty is gone.
continued

continued from above
"When government assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of liberty and must resort to force and intimidation. Standards become completely arbitrary, depending on the attitude of those in power and the perceived opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone.

This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government dictating what one can eat, drink, smoke, or whatever. One group may promote abstinence, the other tax-supported condom distribution. Arguments over literature, prayer, pornography and sexual behavior are endless. It is now not even permissible to mention the word ``God'' on public property. A people who allows its government to set personal moral standards for all nonviolent behavior will naturally
allow it to be involved in the more important aspects of spiritual life. For instance, there are tax deductions for churches that are politically correct, but not for those whose benefits are considered out of the mainstream.

Groups that do not meet the official politically correct standards are more likely to be put on the terrorist list.

This arbitrary and destructive approach to solving difficult problems must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a society where the role of government is limited to that of protecting freedom.

The question I am most often asked when talking about this subject is why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have so little respect for the Constitution? The people of whom I speak are convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They also are quite certain that we have drifted a long way from the principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously elicits a big ``why?''

There is no easy answer to this and no single explanation. It involves temptation, envy, greed and ignorance, but worst of all humanitarian zeal. Unfortunately, the greater the humanitarian outreach, the greater the violence required to achieve it. The greater the desire to perform humanitarian deeds through legislation, the greater is the violence required to achieve it.

Few understand this. There are literally no limits to the good deeds that some believe need to be done. Rarely does anyone question how each humanitarian act by government undermines the essential element of all human progress: individual liberty.

Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it is the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice, here and there, of liberty is a small price to pay.

The results, though, are frightening and will soon even become more so. Poverty has been made worse. The drug war is a bigger threat than drug use. Terrorism remains a threat, and foreign wars have become routine and decided upon without congressional approval.

Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women of goodwill who are convinced they know what is best for the economy, others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a flawed central government directive compared to an individual or a smaller unit of government
mistake.

C.S. Lewis had an opinion on this subject: ``Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some times be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.''

A system that is based on majority vote rather than the strict rule of law encourages the few who thrive on power and exerting authority over other people's lives, unlike the many driven by sincere humanitarian concerns. Our current system rewards those who respond to age-old human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on those who produce. Those individuals who are tempted by the offer of power are quick to accommodate those who are the most demanding of government-giveaway programs and
government contracts. These special interest groups notoriously come from both the poor and the rich, while the middle class is required to pay.

It is not a coincidence that in the times of rapid monetary debasement, the middle class suffers the most from the inflation and the job losses that monetary inflation brings. When inflation is severe, which it will become, the middle class can be completely wiped out. The stock market crash gives us a hint as to what is likely to come as this country is forced to pay for the excesses sustained over the past 30 years while operating under a fiat monetary system.

Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, commented on this subject as well. ``Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep.''

Good men driven by a desire for benevolence encourage the centralization of power. The corruptive temptation of power is made worse when domestic and international interventions go wrong and feed into the hate and envy that invade men's souls when the love of liberty is absent.

Those of goodwill who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing they are building a class of rulers who will become drunk with their own arrogance and a lust for

power. Generally only a few in a society yield to the urge to dictate to others and seek power for the sake of power and then abuse it. Most members of society are complacent and respond to propaganda, but they unite in the democratic effort to rearrange the world in hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means and convince themselves they are helping their fellow man as well. A promise of security is a powerful temptation for many.

A free society, on the other hand, requires these same desires be redirected. The desire for power and authority must be over one's self alone. The desire for security and prosperity should be directed inwardly rather than toward controlling others. We cannot accept the notion that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the only option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility are crucial.

But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our Nation's Capital. A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits do not matter. Spending programs never shrink no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is cancelled out by special
interest protectionist measures. Support of international government agencies that manage trade such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and NAFTA politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.

The Federal Government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our government-run universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.

The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism, both domestic and international, serve to accommodate the unreasonable demands for government to take care of the people, and this, in turn, contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the few over the many.

We as a Nation have lost our understanding of how the free market provides the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not only have most of us forgotten about the invisible hand of Adam Smith, few have ever heard of Mises and Hayek and Rothbart, the individuals who understood exactly why all economic ups and downs in the 20th century occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But worst of all we have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic concerns and desire for security drive our national politics. This trend has been sharply accelerated since 9-11.

Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the best ever
devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.

The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty. Communists and other Socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists.

But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudocapitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.

Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid
obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.

Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.

Eventually the solution will come with the passage of the liberty amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know that the American people are considering the restoration of the constitutional republic and a protection of individual liberty."
source: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/congress/...ppid=596101578

Quote:

---

Posted by onawah

Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority's demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding
and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

---

Is there a bit more about how the Founders compromised on slavery?

Back then, and for all time, women were also a form of property. There is another group that still appears to be: children.

Yes I think it is accurate the Constitution was designed to prevent democracy, just as described in the article. That is its main point, i. e., legal limitations on the government.

It was not an answer about how humans could be a form of property. That is a reasonable criticism of it. However, it started none of that stuff.

Abolition begins by getting rid of debt slavery; the first person shown to have stopped slave trade is Emperor Ashoka.

One can see that it is world-wide, and extremely complicated.

Individual American states were able to turn it off, and there are other laws against it before 1865. The Constitution may not deal with it, in the interest of having Southern states join the Union. Abolition has only just now made its way around the world. At least on paper.


The Constitution does not say "Republic of the United States of America". If it is called "a republic", for convenience, that conflates with all the other republics which do not provide the same guarantees of this document. Mr. Paul could also be a bit more prominent in explaining "citizenship = democracy". And so if we look at all those republics, they are full of citizens, who are not sovereigns with private property, but subjects of a democratic form, which, at least in the case of Germany, clearly states it is a vassal of a higher foreign power.

Hear the emotional letter from a NYC Catholic after attending a SHOCKING, social justice fueled mass
Glenn Beck
434K subscribers
Sep 3, 2020

"A devout Catholic wrote to Glenn and emotional letter of frustration after experiencing a shocking moment during a Sunday morning mass. During a service at the Church of Saint Francis Xavier in NYC, the minister invited the congregation to stand with him and repeat biased statements about racial equality, white privilege, and police brutality. The church also provides on its website articles to learn more about each topics -- articles that advocate for defunding police, fighting white privilege, and more. But, none of these teachings are based on God OR the Bible. Glenn argues that this is proof our churches are in danger, and that evil is not only knocking on their doors...it's inside the walls, too. Things are just beginning to get tough, and we MUST stand up and defend the principles we know to be true -- ESPECIALLY within our places of worship."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AK0iOMH4IN8

*
*

After seeing the following video from the irrepressible Mike Adams a couple of days ago I wanted a suitable thread to put it in....and I think this is it....

People often say (with good reason) that what's happening in the world is a struggle between good and evil - God and the Devil - and this struggle must exist within each individual as well....(in differing degrees)..... that a spiritual battle is behind all the stuff going on...

Alex Jones also makes a point of describing those who are creating chaos, destruction and harm as Devil Worshippers .....

Mike doesn't hold back and presents his case with clarity and spiritual certainty -


All western nations are actually SATANIC DEATH CULTS masquerading as democracies (27:04)

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/25cc6f2e-eb4e-4099-b26a-4d5b3a033c83

Quote:

---

Posted by jaybee

*
*

After seeing the following video from the irrepressible Mike Adams a couple of days ago I wanted a suitable thread to put it in....and I think this is it....

People often say (with good reason) that what's happening in the world is a struggle between good and evil - God and the Devil - and this struggle must exist within each individual as well....(in differing degrees)..... that a spiritual battle is behind all the stuff going on...

Alex Jones also makes a point of describing those who are creating chaos, destruction and harm as Devil Worshippers .....

Mike doesn't hold back and presents his case with clarity and spiritual certainty -


All western nations are actually SATANIC DEATH CULTS masquerading as democracies (27:04)

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/25cc6f2e-eb4e-4099-b26a-4d5b3a033c83

---

As I was scanning the new posts I saw this thread title and thought, wow that's an excellent thread title! I was delighted when I realized it was mine LOL. And I was even more pleased with my O.P. ...I was reading along and thinking, hey I like this guy:)

I find many of my old threads to be deeply embarrassing, so forgive me for tooting my horn here a little.

Thanks for the video. Mike Adam's is great. I'm gonna dig into it now.

I feel even stronger now about all this than I did when I started the thread in 2020 (2020! Wow time is flying). Social justice or "woke" isn't necessarily repackaged Marxism, it's repackaged Satanism i.e. passive aggressive Satanism. My 2 cents anyway. David Icke calls the same process the "totalitarian tiptoe". So many more are hip to the game now...but is it too late? It's going to be a very interesting next 4 years.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

As I was scanning the new posts I saw this thread title and thought, wow that's an excellent thread title! I was delighted when I realized it was mine LOL. And I was even more pleased with my O.P. ...I was reading along and thinking, hey I like this guy:)

I find many of my old threads to be deeply embarrassing, so forgive me for tooting my horn here a little.

---

Ha - yes it's a good OP and a great title - that's how you 'won' the Mike Adams video - :)

Quote:

---

Thanks for the video. Mike Adam's is great. I'm gonna dig into it now.

I feel even stronger now about all this than I did when I started the thread in 2020 (2020! Wow time is flying). Social justice or "woke" isn't necessarily repackaged Marxism, it's repackaged Satanism i.e. passive aggressive Satanism. My 2 cents anyway. David Icke calls the same process the "totalitarian tiptoe". So many more are hip to the game now...but is it too late? It's going to be a very interesting next 4 years.

---

:thumbsup:

we have one hell of a problem (literally) and it's anyone's guess how things are going to pan out...?

It's a great thread and title, Mike, and the OP is spot on! It feels even more relevant today than it did in 2020. I thought the world was crazy five years ago, God knows what the next five will bring (I'm not sure I can take another five, not at this rate).


*
*
Attachment 54710

To add, and quite pertinent to the OP, this from Tim Walz. He seems to think, in a nutshell, that the Dems didn't win because they weren't woke enough... Is he truly that deluded? Am I reading this right?

https://x.com/Timcast/status/1905727137455443977

Thank you for reviving this thread Jaybee, I wasn't aware of it's existence until now, and thank you for starting it Mike.

I've been seeing it or something slightly more broad and much more subtle and gave it a different name for my own use. I've been calling it 'Luciferianism Lite' and had it roughly framed up in my mind (provisionally) as the realm of the well polished turd of upside-down-world intellectualism.

It's not "woke", but in it's entirety it's more dangerous than 'woke' because of it's clout and stealth capabilities.

Quote:

---

Posted by norman

Thank you for reviving this thread Jaybee, I wasn't aware of it's existence until now, and thank you for starting it Mike.

I've been seeing it or something slightly more broad and much more subtle and gave it a different name for my own use. I've been calling it 'Luciferianism Lite' and had it roughly framed up in my mind (provisionally) as the realm of the well polished turd of upside-down-world intellectualism.

It's not "woke", but in it's entirety it's more dangerous than 'woke' because of it's clout and stealth capabilities.

---

I agree....the 'stealth capabilities' are definitely what makes it the insidious and dangerous force that it is...

I just made a post on another thread about 'smart' phones... fashioned and controlled by (Satanic infused) AI programmes - that have inveigled themselves into most (unsuspecting) people's lives....

Quote:

---

inveigle
/ɪnˈveɪɡl,ɪnˈviːɡl/
verb
persuade (someone) to do something by means of deception or flattery.
"we cannot inveigle him into putting pen to paper"
Similar:
cajole
wheedle
coax
persuade
convince
talk
tempt
lure
allure
entice
ensnare
seduce
flatter
beguile
dupe
fool
sweet-talk
soft-soap
butter up
twist someone's arm
con
bamboozle
sucker
blandish

gain entrance to (a place) by using deception or flattery.
"Jones had inveigled himself into her house"

---

You have to wonder if the nano particles - billions of them in each 'covid jab' - are intended to interface with 'smart' phones in the not too distant future... ???.....

I remember years ago when the 'smart' phones were first getting going - Virgin Media sent me a fancy phone FOR FREE..... you just had to pay for the contract - I thought what's going on here...but I DID enter into a contract - it lasted about one day because I didn't like the phone and even though it was free I didn't want it - so I cancelled the contract and sent the phone back - and I'm very glad I did...

obviously, Richard Branson (who owned the company at the time) was tasked with helping to spread the used of 'smart' phones - 'they' needed everyone to get them and become addicted to having them.....

I see 'smart' phones as an example of passive aggressive Satanism... (thanks to Mike for introducing me to the term) not everyone will get pulled deep in - but if enough do then the next phase of our enslavement can be engineered... digital currency, social credit scores and whatnot...I notice that the big Tesco store down the road to me now has notices up around the tills saying - - - 'don't forget you can use your mobile phone to pay'.....

Tim Pool surprised me a little here by echoing something I've been saying on the forum for some time now, and that's this: ideologically possessed people may just be demon possessed.

This isn't a revolutionary theory for a place like Avalon, and I'm not the only one to have said it, but coming from Tim Pool - who is hardly mainstream but might be considered the mainstream of the alt podcasting space - it kinda caught me off guard.. particularly because he's not a woo woo sort of guy in the least.

Right around the 6:20 mark:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=57XXE3IeiSg