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 real solution: Do Not Vote, revoke consent... PEACEFULLY

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Now, you might think that this is some kind of activist rant. Far from it. In fact, my metaphysical views on activism are very plain: BE the change you want to see in the world.

Now, that's an old hackneyed saw, to be sure, so lemme 'splain, Lucy.

1. Do not try to MAKE the change you want to see in the world happen outside yourself. You are both the source of the problems you see AND their solution.

2. Activism is a form of egoic projection, plain and simple. It reinforces the illusion of separation and prevents seeing the way clear to 1. above (and the One Above,
)

With that out of the way, I'd like to share something with you all that many already have well in hand, but from the looks of the political forum, many do not:

When you vote, you are giving consent to be governed by a man of your choosing. You are giving up responsibility for your own experience and for the disposition of your own affairs. You are making yourself a ward of the state.

Worse, you are indulging fiction, because the corporate institution known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ceased to be a functioning trust in March of 1861, when enough member states LEFT the assembly to prevent a quorum. (If you don't know what a trust is, and you post in the Political Madness forum, you probably need to be a ward of the state, so don't bother with this thread.) What that means is that the farce of the corporation that was formed in France and now poses as a legitimate government is NOT the same entity that was bound by the Constitution. You've seen the Constitution played hard and fast for a long time in this country (most obviously since 1913, when the Federal Reserve Bank, a private, for-profit corporation was put in charge of the henhouse). The reason this is allowed to happen is a simple one: consent.

You give your tacit consent to all these things unless you withdraw that consent. Therefore whatever is done under the color of law, that you do not personally denounce, at least to yourself, has your approval and is done as a manifestation of YOUR WILL. That means you are culpable for crimes you see committed "on the news" yet do not recognize as crimes, or worse, agree with.

Here's the good news: the One True Living God, or, that which man calls God, or, the Universal Information Field, or however you like to call the Supreme Authority understands that you are given a survival mechanism called the Ego, and this mechanism normally brings fear into your experience when you consider doing things that "might endanger" your physical existence in this plane of reality. This is not a problem. All that is required to cause the necessary shift in consciousness on this planet, to begin moving into an abundance-based paradigm instead of the manufactured scarcity paradigm we've had fed to us for the last 6000 plus years, is for you to rescind your consent. Just that. Consciously decide that you no longer consent to the crimes being committed IN YOUR NAME every day by corporations from Monsanto to BP Oil to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and that will be sufficient for your part of the mass consciousness of the Earth. But there's a catch: you need to see those entities as having served their good and necessary purpose in bringing humanity to the desperate state that we are in. It is only under this sort of desperation that we will consider questioning the Egoic assumptions that make the scarcity-based paradigm so appealing. We had to get our backs put up against the wall.

That's it. You don't have to have the courage of Malala Yousafzai and speak openly about it. The consciousness field pervades the entire universe. All you have to do is decide that you no longer consent to be governed by others, and decide that you will govern yourself. Some people say I'm an Anarchist, but I'm not. I'm a Pan-archist. EVERYONE needs to step up and govern themselves.

Yes it's true, many (the majority) are still comfortable being slaves in Babylon. But to be human is to want the best for ourselves, and that can only happen if more and more of us decide not to settle for the leavings of our self-appointed masters (who have forgotten their own duty to their slaves). We need to be the change we want to see. Ignore the barking dog. Once you have revoked consent, all it can do is either bark at you or usher you into the next world. I would much rather go to the next world than to consent to what is being done in this one.

No violence is necessary. No anger, either, though it's normal at some points to experience anger, pain, and frustration with yourself. Just remember that the "evil criminal elite" are other aspects of the Infinite, and as such have their own function and purpose that we aren't privy to, except to determine how we are going to react to their apparent mismanagement.

In sincerity,

Jim Farley

P.S. please see some of these videos for the chain of events that spelled this out to me (No, I'm not Roage, but a friend of his)

















edit on 18-10-2012 by seamus because: Added Video Links

edit on 18-10-2012 by seamus because: Added Video Links




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Cool,another who realizes that we "consent",to this abuse we tolerate.

We consent,therefore we tolerate.

Sovereignty is gained through hard work.

I'm lazy.

Anyone who would surrender liberty for security,deserves neither.

Anyone who would surrender



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Your damed if you do and your damed if you don't..VOTE..I personally optraumatize a conspiracy for the none of the above....so the big whigs can buy the rest out---make it look so bad=less sheeple vote...I'm a canuck and don't know better



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
First, I will say that (since I am new here), I have no idea what you are on about when it comes to the Corporation of the United States, and all that jazz. I'll just smile and nod on that one.


But, that said, the "don't vote, you'll only encourage the bastards" mentality is one that is far from new, and far from effective. In order for that to even remotely work, you would need 100% buy in from the eligible voters. Elections aren't determined based on the percentage of votes a candidate received out of the total percentage of eligible voters. They are determined based on how many votes were received out of how many voted. If one person, JUST ONE, votes in an election, a candidate will win and the system you seem to hold so much antipathy for will keep on keeping on. And, if you think that you deciding to revoke your consent to be governed means squat, you are living in a dream world. The government (no matter how you define that term) are the ones with the guns, the army, the police, the courts, and the jails. Go ahead, revoke your consent to be governed, then see how well that goes for you if you decide to violate a law because you don't think it applies to you.

Your plan may sound good in theory, but it is an impossible goal. Any plan that requires 100% participation to succeed will fail. Period.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I've really got to ask this because I work my butt off daily pushing the 100% opposite message. I'm in the middle of a major ongoing project for an original short animated movie on the topic, in fact. A lot of effort for something I deeply believe in with all I have.

So..knowing where I'm coming from to ask, if that helps any, what does anyone figure is gained by not voting? The OP says it withdraws consent, and in a way...that's true. However, that would be assuming we have leaders that would even care either way? The party Faithful will vote blindly, every time regardless of who it is, and so numbers will never be totally unacceptable. Even the most boring OFF years pull 30-35% voting ratios to the general registered public. National Election years are 40-50% usually.

I can see where not being involved quite literally cedes everything we have left to those who will happily take it as opposed to feeling put out by the fact we're mad......but I can't see where the lack of action does more?



I can say this and say it with the 100% confidence of absolute fact. Ron Paul lost Missouri. He shouldn't have. He didn't lose by being cheated (outside of a couple WELL publicized cases that got criminal by how far the GOP went against him) He lost because NO ONE BOTHERED TO VOTE.

We have the Caucus system here. PURE numbers CARRY that system 100% and totally. Period. We didn't have them. 1,500 were estimated to have attended the rally I was at for Dr. Paul a few days before the caucus. I'd guess 150 were in the training session I also attended on how the Caucus worked and how to conduct ourselves. A FRACTION of that attended the real caucus and the ONLY place that showing up made ANY difference at all. He lost by apathy of the very people who claimed to care the most.

Apathy for decades and a disregard for who got elected in the bigger picture is what GOT us here. More apathy in the name of protest won't reverse it, but solidify our futures to what it's been.

THIS isn't even political. Not one bit. I don't care WHO someone votes for...just be active. It's the only thing we have left as Americans that IS 100% and totally our own choice to make and act upon. Don't give up the very last thing we've all got....by choice? (Hops off Soapbox)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koros
First, I will say that (since I am new here), I have no idea what you are on about when it comes to the Corporation of the United States, and all that jazz. I'll just smile and nod on that one.


But, that said, the "don't vote, you'll only encourage the bastards" mentality is one that is far from new, and far from effective.
You've misunderstood the metaphysical ramifications of making a choice. When you choose someone to run your affairs for you, you are choosing NOT to run them yourself.

In order for that to even remotely work, you would need 100% buy in from the eligible voters.
That's the beauty of this. Your assertion is not true, because consciousness is the cause of physical events, not the other way around. We're given the illusion of being causal, but we are all effect.

Elections aren't determined based on the percentage of votes a candidate received out of the total percentage of eligible voters. They are determined based on how many votes were received out of how many voted. If one person, JUST ONE, votes in an election, a candidate will win and the system you seem to hold so much antipathy for will keep on keeping on.
But it will only have the consent of the one you mentioned. Consent is required for lawful governance. And all current governance, no matter how criminal it looks, is lawfully doing the will of the people they work for.

And, if you think that you deciding to revoke your consent to be governed means squat, you are living in a dream world.
I've known this is a dream world for a long time, friend. Seems like you think it's "real", as in immutable, "out there", happening when no one's looking. Read up on some quantum physics and metaphysics...

The government (no matter how you define that term) are the ones with the guns, the army, the police, the courts, and the jails. Go ahead, revoke your consent to be governed, then see how well that goes for you if you decide to violate a law because you don't think it applies to you.
I comport myself lawfully. Why shouldn't I? I don't "obey" the precepts of man, but my proper comportment miraculously has the effect of keeping me from going afoul of the (so far) lawfully-dispensed corporate agents.



Your plan may sound good in theory, but it is an impossible goal. Any plan that requires 100% participation to succeed will fail. Period.
You don't even know what a trust is, or that the US gov't is a corporation, and you come to me with this? Meh. I'm not going to waste the calories to type a well thought-out answer to that knee-jerk.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Seamus,

Don't worry about "wasting the calories to type out a response" to me. Honestly, nothing you've said even resembles rational thought anyway, so I don't feel I'm missing out on much. If you want to rant and rail against the "trust" and the "corporation of the United States," all the while insinuating I'm ignorant and need to read books on quantum physics (as if the two topics are even remotely connected), feel free.

I'm just going to file this thread under tin foil hat territory and move on to rational topics.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
OP, great post. I enjoyed the read.

I wouldn't say I'm all in favour of self-govermence, but it definately beat the hell out of our current system.

I've given it some thought and I'm still not sure whether or not 'not voting' is the way to go. Voting in itself is utterly ludicrous and futile (as there is no difference between the people who you are voting for), but not voting - what does that change? Not much.
No, I do not believe the system can be changed from inside with tools the system provides - too late!!
Only through active non-cooperation (or through lots of violence) can things change, but unfortunately for that to happen a whole lot of people are going to have to wake up from their zombie state. I don't see that happening very soon either. Maybe we are just screwed!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I've really got to ask this because I work my butt off daily pushing the 100% opposite message. I'm in the middle of a major ongoing project for an original short animated movie on the topic, in fact. A lot of effort for something I deeply believe in with all I have.

So..knowing where I'm coming from to ask, if that helps any, what does anyone figure is gained by not voting? The OP says it withdraws consent, and in a way...that's true.
Actually, the revocation of consent comes before the decision not to vote, but the two come together as a unit.

However, that would be assuming we have leaders that would even care either way?
It doesn't matter. There is an Entity in charge that does care, and the "leaders" can only do as they are empowered to do by that Entity. I believe the relevant quote is "You would have no power over me at all if it were not given to you by God" (John 19:11) Get it straight, I am not a Christian, nor am I a Bible Thumper, but I recognize truth when I read it, and the Bible has a LOT of truth in it. Enough, in fact, that through careful study, you can actually reach the Truth. Of course, you have to develop a good B.S. meter, because there's a bit of that in there, too.

The party Faithful will vote blindly, every time regardless of who it is, and so numbers will never be totally unacceptable. Even the most boring OFF years pull 30-35% voting ratios to the general registered public. National Election years are 40-50% usually.
I don't dispute that, but what I'm getting at is a metaphysical issue and not a physically-based one.



I can see where not being involved quite literally cedes everything we have left to those who will happily take it as opposed to feeling put out by the fact we're mad......but I can't see where the lack of action does more?
You can't get there by being mad. You have to accept responsibility for all the crimes that THEY have committed in YOUR name. Because, they are your responsibility. It is your support that continues the charade. You will only "cede everything we have left" of THEIR SYSTEM that THEY CONTROL. There's a whole real world governed by real law that they do not control. They can only take from you what they have given you. I really encourage you to watch "Spot Ø" in the videos above. Roger goes through a very thorough explanation of why it is that you won't lose "everything we have left".


I can say this and say it with the 100% confidence of absolute fact. Ron Paul lost Missouri. He shouldn't have. He didn't lose by being cheated (outside of a couple WELL publicized cases that got criminal by how far the GOP went against him) He lost because NO ONE BOTHERED TO VOTE.
Ron Paul was controlled opposition. You can't turn the fiction against itself. Those who make the rules will not allow it. Your leaders, if you want to participate in that system, are SELECTED, not ELECTED.


We have the Caucus system here. PURE numbers CARRY that system 100% and totally. Period. We didn't have them. 1,500 were estimated to have attended the rally I was at for Dr. Paul a few days before the caucus. I'd guess 150 were in the training session I also attended on how the Caucus worked and how to conduct ourselves. A FRACTION of that attended the real caucus and the ONLY place that showing up made ANY difference at all. He lost by apathy of the very people who claimed to care the most.
Apathy is another form of consent.


Apathy for decades and a disregard for who got elected in the bigger picture is what GOT us here. More apathy in the name of protest won't reverse it, but solidify our futures to what it's been.
I respectfully suggest that my way is not apathy, but 100% self-responsibility. I have waived ALL benefits. I don't even expect a fire truck to come to my burning house unless I pay them. (not that one can really pay with fiat currency, but that's outside the scope of this discussion) The only thing I expect of the system is to keep its chattel in check. That is, if someone comes to my house hassling me, I'm calling the Sheriff (farmer) to come and remove his yahoo (cow) from my yard.


THIS isn't even political. Not one bit. I don't care WHO someone votes for...just be active. It's the only thing we have left as Americans that IS 100% and totally our own choice to make and act upon. Don't give up the very last thing we've all got....by choice? (Hops off Soapbox)
You really, really need to see "Spot Ø" Trust me, you'll laugh all the way through. That is, when you're not crying.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koros
Seamus,

Don't worry about "wasting the calories to type out a response" to me. Honestly, nothing you've said even resembles rational thought anyway, so I don't feel I'm missing out on much. If you want to rant and rail against the "trust" and the "corporation of the United States," all the while insinuating I'm ignorant and need to read books on quantum physics (as if the two topics are even remotely connected), feel free.

I'm just going to file this thread under tin foil hat territory and move on to rational topics.


I really, REALLY like the symbology in your avatar. However, I advise against allowing yourself to think it protects you from the truth that is coming home to roost.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiroy
OP, great post. I enjoyed the read.

I wouldn't say I'm all in favour of self-govermence, but it definately beat the hell out of our current system.

I've given it some thought and I'm still not sure whether or not 'not voting' is the way to go. Voting in itself is utterly ludicrous and futile (as there is no difference between the people who you are voting for), but not voting - what does that change? Not much.
No, I do not believe the system can be changed from inside with tools the system provides - too late!!
Only through active non-cooperation (or through lots of violence) can things change, but unfortunately for that to happen a whole lot of people are going to have to wake up from their zombie state. I don't see that happening very soon either. Maybe we are just screwed!

Violence is not even necessary as a last resort. What, you want to stay on a planet that doesn't allow peaceful, responsible co-existence? I sure don't, and I am (and have been) calling their bluff. So far, four summonses rebuffed (almost a year ago now) with no fallout. They can't force me into their venue without my consent. Consent is the key. Consent is what "God" sees.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
By the way, Wrabbit, I usually enjoy your posts... I notice we frequent the same circles.

And as to your sig:

Ignorance does indeed beget slavery. But the question is, ignorance of what? Ignorance of what you are, is what. What, not who. Who is just a facade, a flesh suit that this infinity has chosen to parade itself around in and pretend to be different beings.

Deep inside we're all the same... Heard that in "The Grand Illusion" by Styx tonight on the ride home...

Yup, it's been right in my face all these years.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by Koros
Seamus,

Don't worry about "wasting the calories to type out a response" to me. Honestly, nothing you've said even resembles rational thought anyway, so I don't feel I'm missing out on much. If you want to rant and rail against the "trust" and the "corporation of the United States," all the while insinuating I'm ignorant and need to read books on quantum physics (as if the two topics are even remotely connected), feel free.

I'm just going to file this thread under tin foil hat territory and move on to rational topics.


I really, REALLY like the symbology in your avatar. However, I advise against allowing yourself to think it protects you from the truth that is coming home to roost.
I'd like to know why you think that I'm under the impression that my avatar would protect me from anything (except, maybe, NOT having an avatar...it protects me from that).



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koros


I'd like to know why you think that I'm under the impression that my avatar would protect me from anything (except, maybe, NOT having an avatar...it protects me from that).


I know what it signifies. I suspect you do, too. Unless, perhaps, you picked it out at random? Or thought it "looked cool"? I worked a long time to come up with a good avatar. I think most people who care enough to post what you have, would put the same work into it, or even more.

4444
5



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by Koros


I'd like to know why you think that I'm under the impression that my avatar would protect me from anything (except, maybe, NOT having an avatar...it protects me from that).


I know what it signifies. I suspect you do, too. Unless, perhaps, you picked it out at random? Or thought it "looked cool"? I worked a long time to come up with a good avatar. I think most people who care enough to post what you have, would put the same work into it, or even more.

4444
5
Enlighten me. I know exactly why I picked what I did as my avatar. I'm curious to know what you think it signifies.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Well OP.... The days are getting stranger by the one. I never thought I'd hear a reasoned and thought out basis for not voting. I'll be right up front in saying we couldn't disagree more strongly....but it's disagreement from respect after reading your reply to my message.

I honestly never believed I'd see a solid reasoning for this position and never have in all the years I've been in and out of debates. I'm absolutely not being sarcastic either. Disagreement, indeed...but outside of disagreeing, I can't fault your position. It's what you truly believe. As do I, equally, in my position ..that pretty well covers it on a topic like this.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koros

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by Koros


I'd like to know why you think that I'm under the impression that my avatar would protect me from anything (except, maybe, NOT having an avatar...it protects me from that).


I know what it signifies. I suspect you do, too. Unless, perhaps, you picked it out at random? Or thought it "looked cool"? I worked a long time to come up with a good avatar. I think most people who care enough to post what you have, would put the same work into it, or even more.

4444
5
Enlighten me. I know exactly why I picked what I did as my avatar. I'm curious to know what you think it signifies.
I don't think so. What it signifies to me is probably different from what it signifies to you, but that's to be expected. I know what it signifies to me, and that is the message FOR me. From your point of view it probably looks more like how I see mine. I expect those with your mindset to add their service to my ideas. It happens like clockwork. I appreciate the help, though I know it's taboo for you to acknowledge it.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by seamus
I don't think so.

Just as I expected.


Originally posted by seamus
What it signifies to me is probably different from what it signifies to you, but that's to be expected. I know what it signifies to me, and that is the message FOR me. From your point of view it probably looks more like how I see mine.

Yes, most likely. I know what your avatar signifies to me, though it is probably different than what it signifies to you. That is the nature of symbolism. It is culture-bound, context-driven, and highly subjective.


Originally posted by seamusI expect those with your mindset to add their service to my ideas.

Uh huh. Well, if you think you know my mindset from a few brief posts on here, then I'll leave you to it. Good luck there.


Originally posted by seamusIt happens like clockwork. I appreciate the help, though I know it's taboo for you to acknowledge it.
Glad I could help? Whatever it is you are doing that I apparently helped with, I hope it works out for ya. Best of luck there, dude!

edit on 10/18/2012 by Koros because: Typo



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koros

Originally posted by seamus
I don't think so.

Just as I expected.
Just as you should. I'm not interested in entering into contract with you in any way. I don't like getting jelly on my shirt. I thought that was obvious from my tone.




Originally posted by seamus
What it signifies to me is probably different from what it signifies to you, but that's to be expected. I know what it signifies to me, and that is the message FOR me. From your point of view it probably looks more like how I see mine.

Yes, most likely. I know what your avatar signifies to me, though it is probably different than what it signifies to you. That is the nature of symbolism. It is culture-bound, context-driven, and highly subjective.


Originally posted by seamusI expect those with your mindset to add their service to my ideas.

Uh huh. Well, if you think you know my mindset from a few brief posts on here, then I'll leave you to it. Good luck there.
Promise? Thanks!




Originally posted by seamusIt happens like clockwork. I appreciate the help, though I know it's taboo for you to acknowledge it.
Glad I could help? Whatever it is you are doing that I apparently helped with, I hope it works out for ya. Best of luck there, dude!

edit on 10/18/2012 by Koros because: Typo
I don't believe in luck.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
If you are misunderstanding what the OP is saying, look at it like this:

Would horses seeking to be able to roam free and naturally succeed by voting for a new ranch owner who is promising to make improvements to the ranch?
edit on 18-10-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join