Nationalization of resources, Expropriation (which simply means making someone’s claimed private property an EX ownership) and every argument/thought around them, seem to go against the very treasured teachings of the Value -and the Right- of/to Private Property.
Maybe it will be in this very point that we can start to wake up to the damning reality of our brainwashing, how do we worship something most people never have access to, never had and never will?
Wasn’t One God enough to uphold as Precious in our Fantasy World?
This world is not designed to guarantee an Equal share of everything to All, crazy if you really think about it because no one was born -in theory- with more or less rights to benefiting from what the planet provides.
I recently went through our National Laws on the point of Nationalization and Expropriation for land, buildings and businesses in the name of…
View original post 768 more words
“Equality as “I must be the SAME as him/her” vs Standing in/as the starting point of what is best for all INDIVIDUALLY and within that principle we’re EQUAL”
Firstly, we’re going to have a look at the Mind’s interpretation of “equality” to ensure that we “iron out all the subtleties” of perception and ensure there is no ‘misunderstanding’ with regards to equality
In one’s thought/backchat/imagination one might think/imagine oneself to “be LIKE someone else” – like, exactly the same/similar. Utilizing another individual as “who they are” for your inspiration to be/become the same/similar. When, what one have to realise here is that:
One cannot look at another person in the totality of who they are and compare you to them from that perspective – that is comparing one individual to another individual, when in our individuality – we’re DIFFERENT, but do have a potential to even within that difference be EQUAL/stand together
What one can, however, consider is THE PROCESS an Individual walked, what did they walk/how did they walk to emerge/express themselves as they do, and then the question should not be “how do I become like them”, the question should be “how do I discover MY individual expression/point/purpose” through walking the same process?
Make sense? The slight change/shift in starting point – where one would create an external relationship to someone, place THEM in your Mind and then use THEM as a mirror for you to be “equal to” VERSUS you placing ONLY YOU in centre of yourself/mind/body and finding out/discovering your different/individual expression/purpose
Now, what dynamics do one create if you want to try and be the Equality-Sameness of someone-else, instead of you finding out who you are when standing within/as equality and oneness in/as the principle of what’s best for all? The following:
Do you notice that, when you want to b the SAME as another, that only that ONE person, or a handful would occupy your mind? Where are YOU then within it all? What about your relationship to everything/everyone else? Can you then walk actual equality and oneness, if your main focus is to try and be the SAME as one or a few people?
Additionally within this, you will find that the SAMENESS-equality point, can only be done through COMPARISON – which brings forth the game of superiority and inferiority, which means you are split within yourself, comparing you to others to try and be the same, constantly in comparison to them shifting between inferiority and superiority in relationship to others as you ceaselessly try and “sameness” yourself to them -while the mind is laughing in the background cause it can for a lifetime keep you competing within your comparison game, juggling you between the polarities
So, therefore remember: the Process is that we all stand in the equal starting point of Principle as what’s best for all, from that starting point, we walk the same path/process – writing, forgiveness, application…and chats lol for assistance/support – in this stand of ourselves Individually, your concentration should be on WHO YOU ARE within YOURSELF, expanding YOU, changing YOU, directing YOU and LEARNING from others, rather than holding one/afew on your mind that you use to compare to. So, taking “sameness, competition and comparison” out of the equation – sets one free to focus on oneself, which is where the main focus is supposed to be
See, science is looking at the physical body like it’s “god” – meaning: “what’s the physical says – GOES, and that’s it”, when in fact, the physical has been programmed through the MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS over a lifetime, and will accordingly be thus a process to change from consciousness/mind to awareness and ensure it’s LIVED into the physical, which is the importance of actual SELF APPLICATION/change in reality
with ‘fearing to become like others’ as the other polarity, here – remember “what you resist, persist” – meaning: if you fear something in someone/judge something in someone and you resist it, you’re trying to fight a part of you that exist within this existence. So, I would suggest, rather than resisting/fighting such points/people/characteristics – ask yourself the question “why am I not liking this/reacting to this/fearing this/judging this? how can I rather UNDERSTAND it, why/how it exist, what are its consequence, place myself in their shoes and in this process – with understanding such things, I can assist/support others who may/might face such points in themselves/their lives/others”. See, people tend to resist/push away others because of reactions – rather than understanding them/assisting/supporting them
So, to make one’s process more direct for oneself – rather than looping around comparison and competition, suggest investigating the people you wanted to be the SAME as – invert yourself/focus to you, and start with your own Mind and what’s going on in there
Yes, everyone – people’s Minds are becoming more and more unpredictable, please – you have to become more aware when communicating/interacting with people, you don’t want to be in reactions/ego, you want to ensure you’re at all times stable and aware to not “initiate/activate” things in others unnecessarily
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.