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: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




NeoVain hit the nail on the head. By your definition of "existence," that is, something only exists if it has a physical presence


What about for a person who is blind and paralysed? They cannot see or touch anything. If this person could hear then sound would become their understanding of existence. There is a physical reaction as the sound moves through the air.

With the corporate entity we have the culture, organisation and capability providing many physical interactions. Try telling Bradley Manning the government cannot physical when it wants to.




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 

I don't believe that you exist. You see, I can't point to you, or point you out in a crowd. You're simply words on a screen to me, therefore you don't exist. Apparently my logic is not flawed.





posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
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.
You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself: We humans have the power to revoke the existence of fictional entities by simply refusing to participate in the consensus that instantiates them. Our power and right to refuse to feed this monster abrogates any human-granted "right" it has to exist. In fact corporations have no rights under substantive law but only under statute, which is itself a fancy way of saying, "corporate rules ".



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by glen200376

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?)
I don't have grammar hangups, as long as the intended meaning of the writer is unambiguous. The post I had a problem with was so poorly formed that I could not be sure what he meant. If, by rude, you mean that I call people out on their BS, yeah... I do that. Don't like it? Too bad.

[I]Typed on my droid.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Seamus has a point .

None of these entities have a self powering structure .
That is without one Human " acting " the role of " Corporate Enforcer " , these entities have no real power their own .

How can they ?
Can a rock throw itself ?

We give power to these entities by a way of our consent . Therefore , withdrawing consent is sufficient for voiding any and all contracts - implied or otherwise - which we presume to exists .

Never Apply , Never Submit , Never Register .




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


S&F for this valiant effort...







to cast pearls before swine. L
L



"People live their lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That's how they define "Reality." But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? Merely vague concepts... their "reality" may all be a mirage. Can we consider them to simply be living in their own world, shaped by their beliefs?"

Uchiha Itachi

as the poster above points out none of these entities are self-powered,
they require human consent and support
edit on 16-1-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


I agree with you they are abstract ideas. They have no reality further than out own heads. The illusion that they are real is what keeps us under their wings of control.

The reality of man is controlled by illusion. Things never use to be this way. The people of old where what is was to be human. The closest we can get to that state is through withholding internal dialogue inside our heads. When we do that we see the true nature of our reality..



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


I've been trying very hard to stay on the OP's side, but here is where he reveals himself; "You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself..." If you really have something to say, wisdom to offer, why can't you just come out and say it? It's so arrogant to think that you should speak in riddles and hyperbole and painstakingly guide us ignorant sheep to the Light of your Knowledge. We all know that Wal-Mart and the U.S. government are not giant monsters living in caves that we can go confront. Don't treat the ATS community like children. I understand trying to stimulate conversation, but you do so in a very condescending manner. Acting as if the people who have minor disagreements over single points in your OP and wish to discuss them are somehow ignorant or bullies is itself ignorant and rude. Thanks, have a nice day!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by kwakakev
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.
You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself: We humans have the power to revoke the existence of fictional entities by simply refusing to participate in the consensus that instantiates them. Our power and right to refuse to feed this monster abrogates any human-granted "right" it has to exist. In fact corporations have no rights under substantive law but only under statute, which is itself a fancy way of saying, "corporate rules ".


Absolutely, bankruptcy and the loss of support is one way to kill a corporation. Mergers and takeovers also provide another way that specific entities can be removed.

I can see why you did not want to say it, if we have the power to revoke its existence, then it must exist. Despite how flawed, illogical, nonsensical and incomprehensible a corporate entity may be, to call it fictional is not accurate.

I know there are problems with corporatism, but I cannot see how to remove it with removing a lot of civilisations other functions. Fixing up the issues one at a time is the best chance I can see for a way out that does not pull the entire house of cards down. At the moment limited liability is a big one for the corporate entity to accept its responsibilities.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I like this thought! I actually saved this to a text file and will add it to my collection! How ever I do not have a worthy reply!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
When I worked in electronics at Walmart they accused me of credit card fraud. They even have the cops come in and read me my rights. They didn't take me to jail they just told me I was apart of credit card fraud.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Looks like half this thread missed the point from the very beginning. This site makes me sad at all the close minded idiots that can't see the truth.

They are all concepts which we have been duped into supporting & eventually depending upon, with no real concern for, or responsibility to you or your neighbors.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


A long time ago, I'd heard that the CIA has offices in the basements of some Wal-Marts.

If I'm getting your drift, Wal-Mart is an illusion and is actually a facade for a government agency.

If this is true, I believe that the take over happened after Sam Walton died in 1992. When he died, Wal-Mart started importing everything when they used to only carry American made items. The whole company seemed to go bad and this is about the same time we also saw the country going downhill. Ten years later, the Patriot Act was enacted. If what I'm saying is indeed true, everything had already been in place and active ten years prior to the ultimate where American citizens could be terrorists.

How convenient that Sam Walton dies and Uncle Sam takes over with Big Brother in command. Then again, I'm probably delusional.
edit on 16-1-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
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)
Let me answer your objection by quoting my original post, since you obviously skipped this part:

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.
See? I qualified the existence of corporations. I acknowledge that they exist in the minds of men. What I contend is that they ONLY exist in the minds of men, just as pure abstract mathematics only exists in the minds of men, just as that itch you want to scratch only exists in your mind.

What follows from that is the more important issue. To wit: A creation of man's mind cannot ever have true substantive authority over man. The only authority that is capable of being wielded in its name (for an abstraction can neither will nor do anything) is that which men willingly or ignorantly give to it, cappice? This thread is about authority, and aims to shine a light on the origin of all authority. The U.S. Supreme Court (which I do not acknowledge, but I find this to be a bridge-building quote) agrees with me, that authority flows from men to government, not from government to men. Behold:

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, USSC 118 U.S. 356 )



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
[...] 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.
I appreciate your POV. However, the degree of personal empowerment I have experienced on a daily basis since I have eschewed dabbling in sorcery indicates to me that the hydra does indeed have a heart, and that heart is Limited Liability. All corporations are creatures whose native element is the muck of irresponsibility, and hide behind this mental construct called Limited Liability. Before limited liability, it depended upon "the divine right of kings"; another, now broken, wicked magic spell. The only way to take down the hydra that is threatening the very life of this planet is to kill the heart. Striking at the heads will only serve to wear you out, as it wore out the hippies, the american communists, the "little landers" of William Smythe's time, and every other movement of men who have wished to better the lot of all. I agree with the rest of what you said, but I maintain that YOU and I are the ones who can change this, and we would be best served to rid this universe of the stench of limited liability. We can deal with money later. We're in a crisis right now.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


I want to recognize what you said as a well-intentioned explanation of your POV. You're obviously not trying to shout me down or call me a kook (though I don't care much when people do). YOU are at a very exciting time in your life! You have one foot in and one foot out of the box that the PTB (our "opponents" in this game) have constructed for you. You already have all the information you need, you just need to examine it from more different angles. I would suggest "How I clobbered every cash-confiscatory bureaucratic agency known to man" by Mary-Elizabeth: Croft. You can get the pdf in a lot of places, and I'm sure it's on scribd, too. That short book helped me look at the game from a different angle that I could not have conceived of before, though it imparted no new information to me. How is that possible? You'll have to read it for yourself if you want to find out.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
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.
Hmm... now, who do we know that likes to reverse symbols and meanings? How does your reversal obviate the fact that you ignored my acknowledgment of the UN building as an artifact of stone, steel, concrete and glass? It doesn't. More smoke from a smokestack. Try again.


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.
Oh, I believe it, just as I have said it. However, a wiser man than I once said, "the most well-adjusted to a sick society are the most sick". Well, that's a paraphrase, but I'm sure you catch my drift.






posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by DJW001
 




NeoVain hit the nail on the head. By your definition of "existence," that is, something only exists if it has a physical presence


What about for a person who is blind and paralysed? They cannot see or touch anything. If this person could hear then sound would become their understanding of existence. There is a physical reaction as the sound moves through the air.

With the corporate entity we have the culture, organisation and capability providing many physical interactions. Try telling Bradley Manning the government cannot physical when it wants to.
You two obviously missed my qualification, "except in the minds of men". You get a pass. And no, the government cannot get physical, since the government is a mere golem-puppet, moved by the hands of men who are your equal before the Infinite Creator. When you think the government is 'getting physical', it is actually thugs who have been duped, just as you have, into thinking that the government has a will of its own and that it would be good for them to obey that will, who are getting physical. No corporation has a will of its own. NONE. If you want to say otherwise, support that statement with at least a smidgen of logic. Show me the money!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 




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 am starting to understand your point a bit better, is law nothing more than an idea? Law is a set of rules that establish the norms. Take 'Thou shall not kill for example', does this behaviour result purely as an idea or is this idea a result of behaviour?

Lets step back a bit before man with the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Did all the animals take on this idea or was this just the environment?

Lets step back even further with the laws of physics. At the core of all matter is a strict relationship on how matter works and interacts. Just because man did not have the idea of gravity, it did not stop apples falling on heads. We may just call this some abstraction and write it off, maybe we can better define what it is that keeps us together.
edit on 16-1-2012 by kwakakev because: added ", it"



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by seamus
 


I've been trying very hard to stay on the OP's side, but here is where he reveals himself; "You highlight here precisely what I was hoping not to have to say myself..." If you really have something to say, wisdom to offer, why can't you just come out and say it? It's so arrogant to think that you should speak in riddles and hyperbole and painstakingly guide us ignorant sheep to the Light of your Knowledge.
I can understand why you might feel that way, but unless you connect the dots for yourself, the understanding of the implications of the "knowledge" I have will be completely lost on you. I owe it to you not to hand it over on a silver platter. It would be ...criminal to rob you of the joy of discovery.

We all know that Wal-Mart and the U.S. government are not giant monsters living in caves that we can go confront. Don't treat the ATS community like children.
That was not my intention in the least. My intention is to do for others what was done for me a few years ago. I came across a discussion thread on the David Icke forum that discussed substantive law, and it led to me putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I already had all the pieces! YOU already have all the pieces! The only valuable thing I have to offer is a different perspective on the information that you already possess in your eternal being, and just maybe I might remind you of a particular bit that you might have forgotten (but it still belongs to you!)

I understand trying to stimulate conversation, but you do so in a very condescending manner.
I truly apologize for your feelings on my method of communication. If I knew another way to communicate from my paradigm to yours, I might give it a try. Truly, I am speaking from the perspective of an individual who has taken complete responsibility for his entire existence, from birth to present. That has connected me with insights that I cannot filter out of my perception for the sake of the comfort of others. I am communicating from that POV to a realm where the majority still exist within the box of limited liability, victims, perpetrators, chance, accident, insurance, and fear. I am not surprised you take my words as sounding like I feel I am superior to you, because your ego can't help but ring that bell. I assure you, I see all men as my equals. However, that does not free me from the responsibility of ruffling the feathers I came to this earth to ruffle.

Acting as if the people who have minor disagreements over single points in your OP and wish to discuss them are somehow ignorant or bullies is itself ignorant and rude.
I would appreciate a quote, if you wouldn't mind helping a social cripple like me to communicate better. You might be referring to where I made insinuations about another individual's maturity level? That was me pushing an ego button. Sometimes I just can't help myself, when they put it out there so big and red and shiny...
Perhaps I misinterpreted something that was said as an attack when it was more of a question? I don't know, because you haven't included the pertinent info in your... tirade?

Thanks, have a nice day!
You too, old friend.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join