a reply to: zosimov
Kind of expected rant about 'current situation', but where were ranters like this back in the day when I was trying to tell about this kind of future
to people? These same people pointed and laughed, and called truthspeakers all kinds of vile names, that are now ranting about being SHOCKED about
what's going on.
I have been WAITING for a long time for this kind of stuff to happen; I didn't know the details of HOW it was going to happen, but this has been
predicted for a long time, it was just the sudden nature of pushing the agenda forward such a big leap that surprised me. People have been knowing
about this stuff for decades, trying to tell people not to have a family, not to be complacent, but alert, not to trust, but look at what the
governments are actually doing, and so on.
However, what's on TV was more important, what celebrity did what with whom to whom was more important, believing the news and media and official
story was more important. Only people that have been asleep for a long time can be this shocked and ranty about the expected.
This kind of rant doesn't really do much more than say 'hey, current situation is unpleasant' without exposing the agenda or the people behind the
agenda, without seeing the big picture; the current situation is just a tiny grain of sand in the whole evil agenda TPTB are continuously unfolding
upon this planet, and HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR DECADES (and actually, probably centuries, because they don't see time the same way or limit their vision
to a mere few years or decades).
There's also a bit of confusion going on..
..has clawed its way to the top of the hierarchy
Clawed? Its way? Who are you talking about?
What hierarchy do you mean? There are overlapping structures and infrastructures of power, resources, wealth and ability to control the world. There's
the governmental side, the corporate side, the military-industrial complex, the wealthy families, the Bilderberg Group and .. well, the list is pretty
big. So what hierarchy are you talking about?
To be on top of a governmental hierarchy, for example, isn't the same as being any kind of higher entity than human beings. Human beings are right
below the Creator, and governments exist below human beings. A president of a 'country' is usually really just a 'president of a government'.
Government needs the consent of the governed to have any power.
So being the president of USA, for example, does not make anyone more valuable entity or even higher in the normal power hierarchy than a regular
human being - the power comes from people having been duped to consenting to being governed by 'legal system' of governments, so that way, the
president becomes a more powerful entity than a 'person' (which is just legal fiction that people sadly lawfully identify as).
Another point about this 'clawed its way' - think about it historically. What do you mean by 'clawed its way'? Pushing other people aside or killing
them? Do you mean there has been a sudden shift in power from good to evil?
I hate to be the bearer of disappointing news, but if you look at all this historically, the evil entities that would want to 'claw' anywhere, have
always been at the 'top of the hierarchy' (whatever this means). The wealthy and powerful families, bankers, psychos and such groups have always been
at the handle of power, for the very reason, that good people, regular people or just human beings have no psychotically obsessive need to control
others, so they wouldn't even think of 'clawing their way' to any top position. Only powerhungry megalo-maniacs are obsessed and lust power like that
enough to do it, so that's what happens every time; regular people give way to the obsessed psychos that want to control others, as those obsessed
freaks have the most motivation, determination and will to be the 'top' (whatever this means).
You can't get to 'the top' by being a considerate, compassionate human being with no enormous ambition and ego.
This means, even if we just look at it logically, that those kinds of people are always 'clawing their way to the top', because no one else is
ambitious enough to grow claws like that.
Let's clear up some more confusion..
The right to our own body and the right to breathe and eat and feed our family is ours and ours alone.
First of all, you have it backwards; we don't magically have a 'right to our own body', but the right COMES from ownership, and by default, we own the
physical body we utilize and inhabit. From this ownership, all the other rights also arise.
Right to breathe? That's not much of a right, because you can't stop doing it, and if someone else stops you from doing it, you can't exist in the
physical body, it will die. It's more a necessity and requirement than a right. Obviously you do have 'the right to breathe', but it's a bit impotent
to mention it specifically as a RIGHT; you might as well include 'right to a heartbeat' or 'right to own skin molecules. Sure, they are rights, but
not very powerful thing to mention as rights.
Same goes with 'right to eat' - except that it's a bit more questionable one. To eat, you need food, and you don't have an unalienable right to food,
as stupid as it sounds. Food is something external to your body - if you own food, you have right to do whatever with it, including eating it, but
it's not an inherent right to any food, especially food that osmeone else owns.
Right to eat is meaningless if you don't own food, and if you own food, it's meaninless to mention that you can eat it, because OF COURSE you can eat
it if you own it.
There's no such right as 'to feed your family'. Your family is not part of your body, you do not own your family, and by default, you don't own food
to 'feed your family with'. Therefore, 'feeding your family' has never been, and can never be a right, and thus isn't one. Where do you think rights
come from and how do you think they are defined? Do you think anything you want to do is a right?
'Feeding your family' involves OTHER people, each of which has their OWN rights, so they might choose to not eat even if you want to feed them. Then
what? Do you have the right to FORCE-feed some family? Does 'owning' a family create some kind of right to 'feed' someone? You have the right to give
food to anyone, if you own that food, regardless of family status, so again, it's useless to even mention 'family' or 'feeding'. Giving food is not
the same thing as 'feeding'. When you use a word like 'feeding', the receiver of food is rendered completely passive.
In any case, I hope I have cleared up some of the confusion here - 'feeding some family' is no more right than 'healthcare' is, because it doesn't
come from your ownership of something, it involves other people and their consent and will, and so on.
I do wish people would research what rights actually are and where they come from and WHY they are unalienable, so they wouldn't be listing all kinds
of weird trivialities and other oddities that have nothing to do with rights, as rights.