It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UN, the USA, and Wal-Mart do not really exist! Proof positive here.

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
DISCLAIMER: Don't believe a word of this that does not line up with logic, your experience, and common sense. Also, I am not permitted to transmit truth error-free. I will have made mistakes in the writing of this document, and I perceive some things wrongly. I say this to encourage you to BE RESPONSIBLE!

I've been reading threads here on ATS for almost 5 years, and there is one thing that has always disturbed me. I do not recall anyone really getting to the heart of the matter as concerns the actual nature of corporations and governments. The information I am about to share may be outside what you can perceive from within your paradigm. That does not affect the veracity of the title of this thread, or the fact that you have all been bamboozled. (so was I, until I ferreted these things out for myself)

Corporations and governments (which nowadays are ALL corporate entities) have no substance and therefore do not exist in the real world. They only exist in the minds of men and women. I exclude children, because most children do not have the capacity for abstract thought that is necessary in order to perceive a pure abstraction such as a government. Corporations are fictional entities created for the sole purpose of shielding men (in this post, when I say "men", I mean women, too) from the consequences of doing harm to other real human beings. Companies existed prior to the invention of corporations, so it is fallacious to say that it was done to streamline business. No, the corporate structure which has enveloped the whole of the civilized world, was created in order to facilitate rapine, greed, and wanton slaughter.

It is a trivial thing to prove the nonexistence of any corporation. Simply ask the question, "Where is it?". No one can point to the United Nations. He may point to a building, but that is simply an artifact of stone, steel, concrete and glass. Press him further, and he might point to the Secretary General, who is merely a man with a fancy title, who himself can provide no authoritative proof that the United Nations has authorized him to be its representative. All he can show for his title is a slip of paper with ink on it, purporting to confer this authority that belongs to the United Nations, the existence of which is still in question. This is the essence of true sorcery; the ability to cause men to perceive that which does not exist, and to acknowledge "it". This concept extends from the corporation sole having the name spelled similarly to that of each man in the "system" (which of course does not technically exist, but through the power of creation inherent in us as children of the One Infinite Creator it is instantiated by men behaving AS IF it actually does, even when we don't know we are doing so) all the way up to mega-corporations like the Crown or Wal-Mart. In fact, I have seen some evidence (I'm not certain it is enough to positively convince me) that all corporations are actually subsidiaries of the grand-daddy of them all: the Holy See.

Why would those who are in control of "the system" create such a charade? Because, when men are aware of having a choice, even on a subconscious level, they are so much easier to control (and milk, like the cattle the unconscious are). The truth is that humanity has allowed itself to become blinded to the truth that we are ALL completely responsible for the totality of our experience. JC was getting at this when he quoted the Hebrew scriptures to the pharisees of his day, "Ye are gods." It is true, we ARE gods, and the mess this world is in is exclusively OUR responsibility. Yes, we had a contract with certain entities, that they would bring us catalyst for evolution, and they have done so outstandingly. However, the contract is just about up, and we need to reclaim our responsibility before we do something stupid, like try to execute those who were only helping us to evolve (the power elite). Sadly, many of the elite have forgotten the nature of their deal with us, having fallen into a torpor, and they themselves must also be awakened.

The current distraction of the multi-trillion-dollar lawsuit "against the NWO" (among other red herrings) is being orchestrated to keep us from taking the last few steps to total personal responsibility. I encourage you to determine for yourself whether you live in a friendly universe or a hostile one. Even a neutral universe can be made friendly by the aggregative power of god-beings like ourselves declaring it to be so.

So what's it going to be, Fear and Loathing, or Acceptance and Trust?

You take a chance either way. I leave it to you.
edit on 16-1-2012 by seamus because: changed 'of' to 'or'




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
They aren't fictional entities. They are abstract terms to explain the link of certain assets which are meant to be working together for some goal. The assets exist, that is the corporation or government.

Just because something is an abstract idea it does not mean that it has to not exist. Many everyday things are considered abstract that you wouldn't say don't exist.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Okandetre
They aren't fictional entities. They are abstract terms to explain the link of certain assets which are meant to be working together for some goal. The assets exist, that is the corporation or government.
I'm sorry, but you've lost the plot. There IS no "link of certain assets". Define assets. Now define link. Your post is pure misdirection, verbal legerdemain. You didn't even bother to use proper grammar or punctuation.


Just because something is an abstract idea it does not mean that it has to not exist. Many everyday things are considered abstract that you wouldn't say don't exist.
But those things are not "pure abstraction". Governments are. The "divine right of kings to rule" is. Corporations are. If you are a lawyer working for Wal-Mart, even with your expensive legal education you will never be able to prove that "Wal-Mart" has hired you. You only have hearsay and secondhand information. That is my point. NO ONE has first hand information on a corporation, because in order to have such information, you would have to be able to speak directly to it, and you cant! There is no "horse's mouth" from which to get that information.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
The assets say of Wal-Mart, in your examples would be buildings owned, or rented, staff contractually working for the company, stock paid in full, liquid assets and shares, amongst other things. I didn't really think i'd need to actually spell out assets, I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand.

On another note, I didn't think my grammar was too bad, and i'm hardly going to be sorry for it's standard compared to many others atleast.

As to having lost the plot, I don't quite see how this is so. I wasn't saying the whole of your arguement is wrong, infact I was actively ignoring the rest of it. I was just pointing out that to say these things don't exist is wrong in practical terms. You could say in a purely logical way the 'Corporation' doesn't exist and this would be true, but it's not the way the world works or how language works to explain these terms.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
My daughters went to Walmart last night.

I am going to drive by one of their many stores this morning, just to check if it is still there.

I've seen the UN Building from the outside, but I didn't go inside, so I suppose that it is possible that it's a huge holographic projection.

As far as the US Govt goes, it takes enough money from my paycheck each week that I am going to have to go with.... It's real.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Okandetre
The assets say of Wal-Mart, in your examples would be buildings

A building is a physical form. It has no will or consciousness.

owned, or rented, staff contractually working for the company,
prove it logically.

stock paid in full, liquid assets and shares, amongst other things.
Those things are mere colors on paper. Whence the substantive existence of the entity?

I didn't really think i'd need to actually spell out assets, I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand.
You assumed I was intelligent enough to parse your badly-written non-sentence. Sorry. I have some skills, but gobbledegook isn't among them.


On another note, I didn't think my grammar was too bad, and i'm hardly going to be sorry for it's standard compared to many others atleast.
Yes, let's keep everyone at the LCD, shall we?


As to having lost the plot, I don't quite see how this is so. I wasn't saying the whole of your arguement is wrong, infact I was actively ignoring the rest of it. I was just pointing out that to say these things don't exist is wrong in practical terms. You could say in a purely logical way the 'Corporation' doesn't exist and this would be true, but it's not the way the world works or how language works to explain these terms.
My whole point is that unless humanity puts common sense (that a small child can understand, as their bullsh** detectors are still intact) before its currently warped sense of practicality, there will be painful consequences.
edit on 16-1-2012 by seamus because: added "logically"



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
My daughters went to Walmart last night.
Your daughters went to a building purported to belong to an entity the existence of which cannot be proven. That may seem to you to be a small difference, but it's the difference between a unicorn and a horse.


I am going to drive by one of their many stores this morning, just to check if it is still there.
And you are expecting your snarky remark to accomplish exactly what? You know full well that I'm not talking about buildings or physical objects of any kind. Why are you setting up a strawman? Is it that my point hits too close to home for your comfort, and you feel the need to ridicule it?


I've seen the UN Building from the outside, but I didn't go inside, so I suppose that it is possible that it's a huge holographic projection.
And I explained what that building is. You obviously ignore that fact, and so try to heap dung upon the truth. Bad form, kiddo!


As far as the US Govt goes, it takes enough money from my paycheck each week that I am going to have to go with.... It's real.
Isn't that convenient? You get to absolve yourself from the responsibility you have to yourself and your children to call a spade a spade. Gosh, it's so easy being an infant. That's why humankind have the NWO breathing down their collective neck.
edit on 16-1-2012 by seamus because: pronoun revision.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I know the legal lingo that defines a corporate entity as having the same rights as a human entity has been one of the biggest balls up of the ages. It is like saying a rock has the same rights as a human. There are certain rights and responsibilities that all entities share, a right to exist. From there it does get more complex as different capabilities and requirements take shape.

There is a force behind all this teamwork and hierarchy. Capability, resources, assets and influences all working towards a common goal or shared direction. The corporate entity is a consensus, kind of what like unites the ants when you start jumping on their nests.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
seamus I agree with you and see what you're saying. I've been thinking like that for a while, it's nice to know other people see it too. I hope more people grow to understand the ideas, as they apply to everything, and are a good way to clean your mind up. Think for yourselves people. Look at things the way they are, not the way you "want" them to be.
edit on 16-1-2012 by thejlxc because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2012 by thejlxc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Entities created by man to facilitate business and protect the individuals (controlling interests and member parties) from personal lawsuit and prosecution. It would not be a good thing if the President had to represent the Corporation in court every single time there were a lawsuit.

I understand what you are saying and hope you understand what I am saying. The Corporation is spearheaded by the controlling interests and hired or elected officials. Public traded companies vote for the direction by way of investment. With a .GOV you don't get to vote many times over based on how much money you have though unless you are living in Haiti or Florida.

I just wanted to add that the employee that hires you has a position of authority. They are legally able to hire and fire individuals of the companies they represent. The companies with good management succeed while the ones with poor management often fail. General Motors is a good example and to be quite frank, the US Gov. in general is another great example of mismanagement.


edit on 16-1-2012 by TheRemedial because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
All of your cases are abstract, yes, but they are more than merely and purely abstract. They are commonly defined groups of actual things...i.e., the USA is a collective entity, or group, which consists of literal physical boundaries of land and many people contained within those boundaries that meet specific qualifications. I can't point to the USA, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It seems to me that your logic concedes that there is no such thing as a group of anything, and if that's the case, what is a cell? Taken microscopically, if you zoom in far enough, you can't point to a cell. You can point to mitochondria and various things, but if those things are in view the cell as a whole is hidden. Zoom out a bit, and you can then see a cell (which is obviously less abstract than gov't entities, nations, or corporations, but still abstract given a certain viewpoint). Perhaps you are examining these entities too closely and are thus unable to see the entity as a whole? So to speak.

Another example to illustrate my point: a flock of geese. I can't point to a flock. I can point to each goose flying in a v formation, but that doesn't reveal the 'flock.' Yet, I am able to talk about a flock as a thing which actually exists. I can even demonstrate how a flock exhibits certain patterns of behavior (flying in a specific formation) that can't be explained by merely looking at one goose. Such is the case with the UN, et al. Though the UN isn't a concrete object, it is an abstract idea that absolutely exists because we have specific parameters for what constitutes the term "United Nations."



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
wal-mart exists, i was just there today, the u.s. exists, we bully people all the time, what doesn't exist is any shred of common sense in what the OP wrote, if you've read this far then stop and click out of this thread, its rubbish



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 
Good post ...You are correct in what you say ...I recently watched a lecture by (4 arrows) Don Jacobs ...He explains it something like this ...We are Hypnotized by words ..We often take the meaning of a word to imply something ,but when looked at and understood its not what it seems ...It is probably the ambiguous nature of the English language .
Rob Menard shows how we are bewitched by legalese and shows how learning about the persons fiction one never needs to truthfully claim to be that person ....Its all a game they want us to play and need us to play in order to exist ..peace

another thing I want to mention ...I live in a geographical location with a government identified as a Crown Corp .The name is called Canada .Any one within this structure could be considered a citizen and and belong to the society ..Well we have the right to create a society I say we as meaning more than one human and put conditions on who can join and who cannot .
A example of this would be the Law Society ... Every one has the right to leave any Society they may belong to for what ever reason they choose.But joining and expulsion are set up around the rules agreed upon by ?..could it be a Constitution or other document? How is it possible for one society (Law) to impose their laws they make on another Society legally unless you agree to except them ? just a few things to ponder and think about ....peace



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroUnlmtd
wal-mart exists, i was just there today, the u.s. exists, we bully people all the time, what doesn't exist is any shred of common sense in what the OP wrote, if you've read this far then stop and click out of this thread, its rubbish
just about to take your great advice and go to a different thread but first must say the op is rude and has hang ups about grammar etc.so i thought i'll write this with no capitals etc. just to annoy him!(or am i on my droid and can't be bothered to?)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


Not existing in a physical manner does not mean something does not exist. Take language, does it not exist? There are many things that exist in practice, as abstractions or projections of physical entities. Thought, will, unity, an itch, to name a few others. One can argue that neither exist in a physical manner, but the fact remain that we manifest them through our consciousness just as we manifest the physical world through our senses. To a human without senses, what physical objects would seem to exist?
edit on 16-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Numbers and letters as well as mathematics and alphabets as a whole are all "abstract ideas", do they exist? I do get your point but your argument is not well constructed. I think you'd be better served to focus on the idea that gov'ts and corps, including Wal-mart, are at odds with the "abstract idea" of Justice. They only exist because of another "abstract idea" called money, and in the case of corporations their stated purpose in life is only to attain as much of this abstraction (money) as possible. The corporations grow into fantastically wealthy and powerful entities, such as Wal-mart, with an enormouns amount of political will and influence (in the form of money) yet they are not bound to the same laws of actual people or entities. Corporations can lie, cheat, and steal without fear of every going to jail...or hell. You can't whip a Corporation's ass, you can't reason with it, you can't really change its behavior because it is a greedy endeavour by nature with only one line of reasoning, "how much profit will this decision generate?" This is obviously at odds with the decision making process and will of actual people who have to actually eat the food, drink the water, breathe the air, and live in the world that is increasingly becoming the political domain of "abstract ideas" such as corporations. Gov'ts, are abstract ideas that were created to wield force, and every one in history has ultimately become a coercive force, fueled by money.

I could go on, but gotta go to work now...hollar at ya later.
edit on 1/16/2012 by budaruskie because: forgot an s and a y



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 



And I explained what that building is. You obviously ignore that fact, and so try to heap dung upon the truth. Bad form, kiddo!

Reverse it, maybe you would have it right. I'm heaping truth on dung.

Your premise that none of your listed entities exist is just so much babble. If you believe this babble, then you are seeing the world through a perspective that not a lot of people have. That is indicative of something.

If you don't believe it, then you are a troll.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 



Isn't that convenient? You get to absolve yourself from the responsibility you have to yourself and your children to call a spade a spade. Gosh, it's so easy being an infant. That's why humankind have the NWO breathing down their collective neck.
And you have done what? Since you blame me from absolving myself, what is it that you do that has caused any change in this system?

You are rude. Resorting to name-calling this early in your own thread. You have referred to me as kiddo and an infant. You have no idea of my chronological age, and if you are referring to some mental age, you may want to take a close look at yourself before doing any more name-calling.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
NeoVain hit the nail on the head. By your definition of "existence," that is, something only exists if it has a physical presence, language does not exist. You can point to a word, but that is merely an arrangement of geometrical shapes; the meaning of those shapes is created by the human mind. Language is nothing more than a series of arbitrary rules and definitions, and yet language affects human behavior and, through human reactions to it, can interact with and shape the material world. Ironically, your argument falsifies itself, as it is expressed in language, which does not "exist."
edit on 16-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Lol, this is why i like this site, there is always some crazy guy or gal posting stuff like this, very funny.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join