Guest guest Report post Posted October 5, 2008 At 02:52 AM 10/5/2008, you wrote: Brandi you already have the number that allows you to sell and buy (do commerce) that is the social security number or tin number. Umm I do have a number but it's not an SSN - I'm Canadian. I don't object to that, nor do most fundamentalists - because it's not physically altering my person. I consider the whole idea revolting and invasive. I don't share the religious paranoia about it - but the health concerns are another story. I'm just glad the far right are out there protecting people's rights, I don't care in this case that it's based on their fears about the antichrist <g> ... They will only be able to chip persons, though the people who know who they are, the financial institutions will only be able to chip there birth certificates. Now I hear these chips cause tumors in animals. I won't have my pet chipped and I'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming before I let them put one in my body. See www.spychips.com Brandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 5, 2008 Hi Steve... Communism and socialism and marxism have never worked anywhere, and they have not given freedom at all, but imprisoned people. How can imperfect people run a perfect system? Also in Tibet, how could Mao say he invaded Tibet to give the Tibetans their freedom, when they are restricted in every way? Such is life. I agree with you that freedom is something to strive for, but it seems to me that freedom is a state of mind? CV , Steve Lynch <mrcrazygonuts wrote: > > so what would you want instead? Anarchy? *gasp!* hehehehe. As much as i'd love to live to see the day when anarchy works (folk anarchy to be specific, that's my personal preference) there's no way human society will be able to function in an anarchist state. That's not to say it's not a good goal to have in mind, an ideal to strive for, but like any ideal it's just an ideal and will not work exactly as planned in real life (a good example is the diffrence between little c communism and big C communism. Lennon's idea worked on paper, but not nessisarily as well in real life). So people are probably going to have to have leaders for a while. I for instance don't mind the fact that we have leaders right now even though i'm an anarchist although i would like to see good leaders in place... But who's good and who's not is all subjective really :-P. > > --- On Sat, 10/4/08, johndplumber <jaganatha wrote: > johndplumber <jaganatha > Re: 2012 Apocalypse > > Saturday, October 4, 2008, 9:31 PM > > > > > i dont know why people still want to have a leader. > > Reminds me of a song from the late sixties > > they sing will they ever learn > > > > John > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 5, 2008 Hello John! :-DI must admit you've gone a bit over my head with your response :-o!! Argh! I tried looking up ecclesiastics a bit, and could only gather it's a book written with a somewhat fundamental concept being the idea that all actions of man are inherently vain, futile, meaningless, etectra, basically sounds a bit like the negative side of nihalism :-P (is there a positive side to nihalism, i think so!) But could you explain a bit more what you ment by people becoming persons and giving up their birth rights?And me a king among kings? I smile, and shake my head at kings and their concept of ownership, even ownership of themselves! I am one among many, myself among myself, the i who is a we, and the we who is an us. we hold no value in kings nor queens nor serfs, nor poloticians nor anything whatsoever really other than things made of awesome :-3. I am that which is myself among a group that is made up of others that are nothing more or less that which they choose to be, and no matter how different or similar those beliefs are, we know they are welcomed and celebrated as long as they can make room for the celebration of that which is different from themselves. We are closer to anarchy than others have come, but nowhere near the ideal that is the goal, so room for improvement is vast and welcomed :-3. One day kings will be a lesson in history and we'll all laugh at how strange and horrible we used to be :-3.Personal responsibility is that which should be the only thing governing any person. K seems to be teaching me this more and more, and my experiances have done nothing but to reafferm that this is a truth worth believing. But one last question, what do you mean by site pat?hope you're having a wonderful day :-Dlock--- On Sun, 10/5/08, johndplumber <jaganatha wrote:johndplumber <jaganatha Re: 2012 Apocalypse Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 4:26 PM dear mr crazy go nuts No! Anarchy does not exsist when kings of rule are about. if you take responcability for your self you will be a king as well. Site pat is very strong and if I was you i would be wary because as you hang out with this group things will rub off on to you. until then you may be under control of ecclesiasties law where as people become persons and gave up there birth rite John. Kundalini-Awakening -Systems- 1 , Steve Lynch <mrcrazygonuts@ ...> wrote: > > so what would you want instead? Anarchy? *gasp!* hehehehe. As much as i'd love to live to see the day when anarchy works (folk anarchy to be specific, that's my personal preference) there's no way human society will be able to function in an anarchist state. That's not to say it's not a good goal to have in mind, an ideal to strive for, but like any ideal it's just an ideal and will not work exactly as planned in real life (a good example is the diffrence between little c communism and big C communism. Lennon's idea worked on paper, but not nessisarily as well in real life). So people are probably going to have to have leaders for a while. I for instance don't mind the fact that we have leaders right now even though i'm an anarchist although i would like to see good leaders in place... But who's good and who's not is all subjective really :-P. > > --- On Sat, 10/4/08, johndplumber <jaganatha@. ..> wrote: > johndplumber <jaganatha@. ..> > [Kundalini-Awakenin g-Systems- 1] Re: 2012 Apocalypse > Kundalini-Awakening -Systems- 1 > Saturday, October 4, 2008, 9:31 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > i dont know why people still want to have a leader. > > Reminds me of a song from the late sixties > > they sing will they ever learn > > > > John > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 5, 2008 Ah, i agree that freedom is a state of mind, but it's also a state of mind that can be appreciated far better when certain social needs have been met, for instance, a slave can be free of his/her captors in his own mind, but in the reality of his/her situation, they are not fee in the same way we in our modern society are free. Just like someone who lives in a society that is not increasingly run by fear based politics seems to have more freedom than a society that is. But i agree that one must believe themselves to be free in order to be so. K has definitely reinforced that idea for me. one's state of mind seems to be a powerful thing :-3.--- On Sun, 10/5/08, celticvoice6 <celticvoice6 wrote:celticvoice6 <celticvoice6 Re: 2012 Apocalypse Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 4:42 PM Hi Steve... Communism and socialism and marxism have never worked anywhere, and they have not given freedom at all, but imprisoned people. How can imperfect people run a perfect system? Also in Tibet, how could Mao say he invaded Tibet to give the Tibetans their freedom, when they are restricted in every way? Such is life. I agree with you that freedom is something to strive for, but it seems to me that freedom is a state of mind? CV Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 6, 2008 ecclestices marks the time when mans laws as statutes where written it was written by the current initiattes of the time. it is when these initiates become gods representitives. the people surrendered to these kings and become personages to them. In the common english language persons is not a word, the correct word when refering to a person as plural is people. how ever when we look at statute laws a person or plural persons is reference to chattel (derived from the word cattle), buisneses and all other comercial entities. , Steve Lynch <mrcrazygonuts wrote: > > Hello John! :-D > > I must admit you've gone a bit over my head with your response :- o!! Argh! I tried looking up ecclesiastics a bit, and could only gather it's a book written with a somewhat fundamental concept being the idea that all actions of man are inherently vain, futile, meaningless, etectra, basically sounds a bit like the negative side of nihalism :-P (is there a positive side to nihalism, i think so!) But could you explain a bit more what you ment by people becoming persons and giving up their birth rights? > > And me a king among kings? I smile, and shake my head at kings and their concept of ownership, even ownership of themselves! I am one among many, myself among myself, the i who is a we, and the we who is an us. we hold no value in kings nor queens nor serfs, nor poloticians nor anything whatsoever really other than things made of awesome :-3. I am that which is myself among a group that is made up of others that are nothing more or less that which they choose to be, and no matter how different or similar those beliefs are, we know they are welcomed and celebrated as long as they can make room for the celebration of that which is different from themselves. We are closer to anarchy than others have come, but nowhere near the ideal that is the goal, so room for improvement is vast and welcomed :-3. One day kings will be a lesson in history and we'll all laugh at how strange and horrible we used to be :-3. > > Personal responsibility is that which should be the only thing governing any person. K seems to be teaching me this more and more, and my experiances have done nothing but to reafferm that this is a truth worth believing. But one last question, what do you mean by site pat? > > hope you're having a wonderful day :-D > > lock > > --- On Sun, 10/5/08, johndplumber <jaganatha wrote: > johndplumber <jaganatha > Re: 2012 Apocalypse > > Sunday, October 5, 2008, 4:26 PM > > > > > dear mr crazy go nuts > > No! Anarchy does not exsist when kings of rule are about. if you take > > responcability for your self you will be a king as well. Site pat is > > very strong and if I was you i would be wary because as you hang out > > with this group things will rub off on to you. until then you may be > > under control of ecclesiasties law where as people become persons and > > gave up there birth rite > > John. > > Kundalini-Awakening -Systems- 1 , Steve Lynch > > <mrcrazygonuts@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > so what would you want instead? Anarchy? *gasp!* hehehehe. As much > > as i'd love to live to see the day when anarchy works (folk anarchy > > to be specific, that's my personal preference) there's no way human > > society will be able to function in an anarchist state. That's not > > to say it's not a good goal to have in mind, an ideal to strive for, > > but like any ideal it's just an ideal and will not work exactly as > > planned in real life (a good example is the diffrence between little > > c communism and big C communism. Lennon's idea worked on paper, but > > not nessisarily as well in real life). So people are probably going > > to have to have leaders for a while. I for instance don't mind the > > fact that we have leaders right now even though i'm an anarchist > > although i would like to see good leaders in place... But who's good > > and who's not is all subjective really :-P. > > > > > > --- On Sat, 10/4/08, johndplumber <jaganatha@ ..> wrote: > > > johndplumber <jaganatha@ ..> > > > [Kundalini-Awakenin g-Systems- 1] Re: 2012 Apocalypse > > > Kundalini-Awakening -Systems- 1 > > > Saturday, October 4, 2008, 9:31 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i dont know why people still want to have a leader. > > > > > > Reminds me of a song from the late sixties > > > > > > they sing will they ever learn > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
