Is The Principle of Ownership a Core Deception? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is The Principle of Ownership a Core Deception?

singular_me

9th June 2013, 04:39 PM

metaphysically, we get everything from earth and when we die we are buried. Even when incinerated, smoke and ashes go back to her. It has been this way for 6 billion years. This is FACT that has nothing to do with gaia worshiping. Meaning that we owe earth, more that she is indebted to us. This is precisely why ownership cannot work out, has rather been manipulated by the elites to use the concept of ownership to instigate wars, make us fearful to lose the little we'd ever possess. That is how they have been TRAPPING populations since eons, without the **threat of being dispossessed**, the elites wouldnt exist at all. It is the principle of owning anything that is misleading. Of course as the concept of ownership is itself a illusion, it is no surprise that all monetary systems have been just another layer mirroring the deception that is the concept of ownership.

Again, NOTHING to do with gaia, folks.... just facts as old as 6 billion years.

ps: before posting this video, I listened to it 4 times.... extremely powerful.

and what is the alternative??............. custodianship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OlxdPSMVRqI

JohnQPublic

9th June 2013, 04:45 PM

I post, therefor I am.

Cebu_4_2

9th June 2013, 05:05 PM

I post, therefor I am.

So your a post. I will watch this later, looks promising.

Glass

9th June 2013, 05:19 PM

"I want to own nothing but control everything."

monks abandond possessions. ghandi promoted that people should live without them. indiginous people are generally the same. They have the odd thing they use or fashion to tools but they just pick up what they need when they need it.

in australia the aboriginal people are abused to be drunken, drugged out loosers. This is the symptom. White people say, well after 40,000 years here, what did they do with it? Nothing. Didn't build a town or a road or electricity and so on. This proves the point beyond doubt in a white mans mind. But what it means is that they didn't have to do any of that because there was no need. Very little competition between tribes for things. All the food they ever needed was there to be plucked.

While the life is full of bugs, flys and dirt, the carefreeedness (relative to white mans carefreedness) is pretty high. So I'm not painting it as idyllic. They just go and pick up or spear what ever they need when they need it.

The lack of an ownership gene seems to make a difference imo. The problem of course is that white mans answer to this is communism, which is a very deadly system.

midnight rambler

9th June 2013, 05:27 PM

If one goes by the Law of Nature aka the Natural Law that goes back far into antiquity and is recognized as the Pentateuch. Contained in the Pentateuch is the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" which clearly implies ownership.

Ponce

9th June 2013, 05:29 PM

Nothing that I own is mine, I only have custody of it for as long as I live.....and then.....someone else take custody of the same.

V

Spectrism

9th June 2013, 05:49 PM

A custodian reports to someone. Earth does not take reports. Earth is a mass of lifeless mineral to which life was introduced. Life did not come from earth any more than a horse comes out of a bottle of water.

aeondaze

9th June 2013, 06:58 PM

Life did not come from earth any more than a horse comes out of a bottle of water.

Sure it did. The requisite materials to enable 'life' were already here. It just took a long time and chance organisation at the molecular level. There is even evidence that the degree of chance is a lot higher than originaly thought. Mineral types like aluminosilicates are prone to the forces of nature and eventually grow into types predominantly suited to weathering and fine dispersion which allow more of the same type of mineral to crystalise out on its surface, which disperes farther until the whole thing reaches a critical mass whereby certain mineral grours predominate over others. Which brings us to carbon...it has an afinity with certain mineral groups which act as templates for complex carbon based synthesis, left for four billion years and with the right conditions then bingo you have self replicating carbon atoms -----> ergo, what we call 'LIFE' albeit primitive.

Hatha Sunahara

9th June 2013, 11:50 PM

The Buddha figured it all out about 2500 years ago. One of the main principles of Buddhism is that attachment is the source of all suffering. Ownership is attachment. The objective of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana--a perfect peace of mind. They use a term, MAYA, which in both Hinduism and Buddhism means illusion. Or distortion, or some deviation from truth. Maya apparently is the absence of Nirvana, and this is where the vast majority lives.

I think that the closer one is to one's spirit the further away one is from the concept of ownership. Money is an instrument for establishing ownership. In a world of money, there are two statuses: Owners and 'the owned'. Usury is the most egregious tactic for establishing ownership. The more a legal system supports ownership, the more corrupt it is.

Think about this. When you are born, you own nothing, yet you are pure spirit and completely uncorrupted. You can be led by your culture to embrace ownership and attachment, and you become corrupted--you lose your innocence. What will you do for money? Will you kill people? Are you more attached to money and ownership than to other human beings?

Max Igan isn't the first person to observe that the idea of ownership is an illusion, one that is used by people possessed by the devil to enslave others and turn them into the 'owned'. You can usually tell about peoples' character by observing their 'drive to ownership'. Reminds me of what Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street--"I create nothing, I OWN." And he did his best to convince people that this was not a sickness of the spirit. "Greed is good."

One thing that has had me thinking in circles for a very long time, and is still unresolved in my mind is this, When a banker loans you money that he creates out of thin air, and you buy a house with that money, and subsequently you are unable to repay the banker, why does ownership of the house you bought revert to the banker? Is it because you signed an agreement to repay the loan and agreed that if you couldn't you would give the banker ownership of the house? Why does the banker have any more right to the house than you do? Is it because he won't loan you the money--that only he can create--unless you agree to let him own the house if you can't repay the money that he created on the basis of your signature? Why is that a condition of a loan? Why doesn't anyone question that? Is it part of the culture that bankers are allowed to swindle people? Because they control the creation of money?

Hatha

Jewboo

9th June 2013, 11:59 PM

It is the principle of owning anything that is misleading. Of course as the concept of ownership is itself a illusion...

http://i.imgur.com/toxzF.jpg

Meanwhile...back on real planet Earth...the birds passionately debate the meaning of this esoteric illusion of ownership with the squirrel...lol.

http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/emote_hippie.gif

Spectrism

10th June 2013, 06:05 AM

Scientists are UNABLE to create life using the best concoction of minerals and processes found on earth. Not one single time can spontaneous generation of life be replicated!! And considering all the protein matter now prevalent on the earth, that fact is even more resounding.

The separation or carelessness of buddhism is absolute rubbish. It is unprincipled crap. A father cares for and is attached to his family. The buddhists would have you ignore those concerns to be "set free:. Pure crap.

This whole thread is crap. Ownership is wrong? Do you own yourself? Do you own the food you eat? Do you own your choices? Can anyone give a gift of something they don't own? And if they cannot own anything, how can they receive a gift?

This is philosophical stupidity. It confuses the valid concept of stewardship and custodianship with new age moronic deception.

Neuro

10th June 2013, 07:06 AM

Meanwhile the banksters rob us of everything, while we delude ourselves that ownership is an illusion. Possibly some will wake up to the fact when we are destitute and hungry on the street with NOTHING left to lose... Someone said if you don't hold it you don't own it. Western civilization is built on the notion that you work hard, to build something of value to your customers, that you trade for something that has value in your life... To test how life would work without ownership, go out in the forest without any clothes, and try to kill something nutritious with a stick or a stone, don't make clothes out of fur from the animal you managed to kill, because you don't own it after you made it, don't make spears or tools out of materials you find to make your life easier, because those tools of survival belongs to no-one, you have no right to them.

Ownership is an integral biological part of being human, sure be compassionate and share of your wealth if you can, lend or rent or sell what you have made to people who may have greater need for it at the moment, and realize that the utmost limit of ownership is your passing and act accordingly, don't become overly attached to your material belongings but don't delude yourself that ownership is an illusion...

palani

10th June 2013, 07:53 AM

http://i.imgur.com/toxzF.jpg

[SIZE=2]Meanwhile...back on real planet Earth...the birds passionately debate the meaning of this esoteric illusion of ownership with the squirrel...lol.

That 'squirrel' has never clumb a tree. Have you never seen a ground hog before? Surely the shadow would have given it's nature away.

palani

10th June 2013, 08:00 AM

This whole thread is crap. Ownership is wrong? Do you own yourself? Do you own the food you eat? Do you own your choices? Can anyone give a gift of something they don't own? And if they cannot own anything, how can they receive a gift?

Unfortunately this thread is no entirely incorrect. What it lacks is the concept of a 'plane'. You find yourself in a plane which by its very nature precludes private ownership of property. All property belongs to the state.

The question should be whether you are in this 'no-property' communist plane of you own volition and whether you choose to stay there. How did you get inducted into this plane? Was it by voting demon-cratically? Was it by paying property tax (a bribe to allow you to continue the illusion of private property)? Was it by social insecurity? By use of fiat money rather than using proper weights and measures?

Could be it was all of these things and probably others that have not been recognized yet.

As to getting out are you waiting for the 100th monkey? Or would you prefer to be the only common law man standing on the land while everyone around you subscribes to the illusion that they own a car or a house or that their children belong to them?

Ultimately you get to choose.

JohnQPublic

10th June 2013, 08:23 AM

I think the idea of ownership stems for our innate ability to create, which is related to our being created in the image of God (the Creator). In order to build things of lasting value requires substantial effort. Once great effort is expended to build something, the builders want to be compensated for it. They need to live, feed their families, etc. They would like something built for themselves and their families. This process of building things and being compensated for it, and all the inputs, outputs, etc. lead to an organized society such as ours (ignoring the collapsing bit for the moment). No system is perfect, but I think I prefer our type of society to being a nomad, and certainly am not interested in communism.

7th trump

10th June 2013, 08:56 AM

Unfortunately this thread is no entirely incorrect. What it lacks is the concept of a 'plane'. You find yourself in a plane which by its very nature precludes private ownership of property. All property belongs to the state.

The question should be whether you are in this 'no-property' communist plane of you own volition and whether you choose to stay there. How did you get inducted into this plane? Was it by voting demon-cratically? Was it by paying property tax (a bribe to allow you to continue the illusion of private property)? Was it by social insecurity? By use of fiat money rather than using proper weights and measures?

Could be it was all of these things and probably others that have not been recognized yet.

As to getting out are you waiting for the 100th monkey? Or would you prefer to be the only common law man standing on the land while everyone around you subscribes to the illusion that they own a car or a house or that their children belong to them?

Ultimately you get to choose.
Jurisdiction setting.
Social Security Title 42
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/410

(h) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(i) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa

Reproduced verbatum in Title 26
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3121

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

And how the government treats those who fall within their jusrisdiction from participation of Social Security.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

I dont see this jurisdictioanl language anywhere in Title 12 relating to possession and use of FRN's.....period!
The 1st nor even the 100th monkey is going to show up if you are looking at FRN's as the answer!

messianicdruid

10th June 2013, 09:05 AM

All property belongs to the state.

Wrong. All property is claimed by the state. This does not make it theirs.

5001
Freedom is being able to eat grass, and fly.

Men desire liberty. Specifically christian liberty, although few will call it that because that requires and acknowledgment of an obligation to the Creator who owns all things by right of creation. We are stewards only. Why would someone choose the term "custodianship" instead of steawardship?

Making arguments against poor or malignant stewardship, or simply refusing responsibility for good stewardship is to attempt to make yourself a goose.

Ponce

10th June 2013, 09:21 AM

This debate is to advanced for me......all that I know is that all generations are messing up planet Earth more and more for the next generation till we reach the point of degeneration.....we are almost there.

First post of the day.......good morning to one and all.

V

palani

10th June 2013, 01:01 PM

I dont see this jurisdictioanl language anywhere in Title 12 relating to possession and use of FRN's.....period! So who claims the world starts and stops at Title 12?

The 1st nor even the 100th monkey is going to show up if you are looking at FRN's as the answer!
The FRN is only PART of the answer. Status is how to jump from one plane to another. Who is to say the MAN ON THE SOIL private property plane is where you ultimately end up? I have not stated that this is the last plane you will ever need. What is beyond that one? Just because I have not created the next plane does not mean it does not exist. It exists but simply lacks definition. Once it is defined then I might want to think about jumping to it.

As far as you are concerned though whatever I choose to do or wherever I choose to be does not mean I need to drag your sorry a$$ along with me.

palani

10th June 2013, 01:08 PM

Wrong. All property is claimed by the state. This does not make it theirs.

All property IN THE STATE is claimed by the state. Who says all property needs to be IN THE STATE? A good grasp of the trivium might be necessary to understand what I am about to say but that is your problem rather than mine.

Do you have property within the INTERIOR boundary of the state or within the EXTERIOR boundary of the state? Property within the INTERIOR boundary unquestionably belongs to the state. This is by virtue of you being a member of the body politic of the state and agreeing to abide by their rules. On the other hand if you choose to be a non-commie then maybe your property is located within the EXTERIOR boundary of the state.

In either case you have been advised not to argue with your adversary lest he drag you into court and cause the bailiff to place you in a gray bar hotel for a number of years. I find it is best not to go against this advice so I conditionally accept the state's claim to ownership of all property within their plane if they can provide evidence that this same item cannot be within their EXTERNAL boundaries.

Uncle Salty

10th June 2013, 02:22 PM

The Buddha figured it all out about 2500 years ago. One of the main principles of Buddhism is that attachment is the source of all suffering. Ownership is attachment.

Nope, ownership is not attachment. Attachment is attachment. Ownership is a word, an idea.

messianicdruid

10th June 2013, 02:32 PM

This is by virtue of you being a member of the body politic of the state and agreeing to abide by their rules. On the other hand if you choose to be a non-commie then maybe your property is located within the EXTERIOR boundary of the state.

The [internal/external] boundaries of men are signs, not substance.

When God gave Israel the land of Canaan as their inheritance, they were not given sovereignty as creators. They were given only limited authority over that land. There are two different words to describe sovereign power and authority. Dunamis is power (Acts 1:16). Exousia is authority (Matt. 8:9). These terms are relative. A man under authority looks up to a higher “power.” But that same man may have people under him who look to him as a higher “power.” Thus, a man may have “power” over men, but at the same time is under “authority” given by a higher power. "Let every soul be subject to the higher power" includes people in government.

God --> the Son --> We the People --> Our Delegates --> Our Employees --> Our Contractors: by fraud most of We the People have been turned into Contractors.

We often speak of a king [ruler] being a “sovereign” or having sovereignty over the citizens of the nation he rules. Yet at the same time that same king is subject to the King of Kings. Thus, the earthly king has authority under God to execute the will of God. Kings are not supposed to act according to their own “free will.” If they rule by their own will {legislation}, God will hold them accountable. He may use We the People to do it.

It is the great deception of kings that God gave them absolute power, even to overrule the will of God and His laws by their own free will. God retained sovereignty; man was given authority that was subordinate to His sovereignty. Everyone needs to know that distinction. Authority is always limited by the will of the one who is sovereign.

iOWNme

10th June 2013, 02:35 PM

The answer is NO to the question of "Is the PRINCIPLE of ownership a core deception?"

Ask ANYONE in ANY position of 'Authority' throughout history if 'ownership' exists.

Spectrism is the only one who got to the core: SELF OWNERSHIP. To argue against this is to argue for for your own SLAVERY.

If you dont own yourself, then who does? And the moment you recognize who that is, you have just proven that ownership DOES exist, because you are owned.

This is nothing more than Cultural Marxism.

And we havent even gotten to the 'Control' aspect of what you 'own'.

Hitch

10th June 2013, 02:37 PM

There are islands in South Pacific where folks don't own anything. Everyone shares everything, they don't even really own their homes/huts, if you will. If you build a row boat, the whole village uses it. Boys and girls stay with their parents until they get married. Then, the whole village has a big party, and they build the new couple a hut to live in.

Seems to work for them as they live peaceful, stress free, lives.

We own things in Western Cultures because it's how we measure ourselves, typically. People chase wealth for example, men to impress women and compete against other men. If it weren't our messed up view on property and ownership, the banks wouldn't be sitting there laughing while the masses slave away chasing bigger TV's, bigger McMansions, or fancy cars and watches.

The folks in those South Pacific islands don't worry about banks or money, they seem to do just fine. I'm sure the banks hate them however.

iOWNme

10th June 2013, 02:42 PM

A man under authority looks up to a higher “power.” But that same man may have people under him who look to him as a higher “power.” Thus, a man may have “power” over men, but at the same time is under “authority” given by a higher power. "Let every soul be subject to the higher power" includes people in government.

Are humans the top of the food chain? Are humans the dominent species on earth? If yes, than how can some men have 'Authority' over others? Was man created to be dominated and subjagated by other mere mortal men? Where did these mortal men get these mythical powers from? Please explain this to me......

Neuro

10th June 2013, 03:04 PM

Are humans the top of the food chain? Are humans the dominent species on earth? If yes, than how can some men have 'Authority' over others? Was man created to be dominated and subjagated by other mere mortal men? Where did these mortal men get these mythical powers from? Please explain this to me......
I know of people who let cats be their authority in life. I am not yet sure who are the greatest psychopaths cats or some men or women in authority. There are some nice cats of course, but they are far in between...

Ponce

10th June 2013, 03:17 PM

Serpo

10th June 2013, 03:28 PM

At last everyone is wrong , I just looked up OWN and guess what ,this is what it means............................................. ...................

Oprah Winfrey Network
http://www.oprah.com/own

so now you know

palani

10th June 2013, 03:34 PM

The [internal/external] boundaries of men are signs, not substance.

Marks, metes and bounds are either a matter of Record or of Prescription.

Hitch

10th June 2013, 03:41 PM

Hitcher? in some cultures the kids belong to everyone, they eat at whatever place they are at and run to the closest grown up when scared............ and take the (forgot the name) monkeys, they have sex with withchever female is the closes ones but for their own mother.

V

Are you referring to the bonobo monkeys? The female bonobo's have been studied and found that they actually prostitute themselves, the males will walk up with some food they gathered, lay it down at the females feet. Then a transaction has been formed.

Horn

10th June 2013, 04:06 PM

The Buddha figured it all out about 2500 years ago.

One of the main principles of Buddhism is that attachment is the source of all suffering.

I'm not planning to be buried with my silver.

If it can't be applied towards a meaningful society in my lifetime, I will leave to my son to decide what to do with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LjaCu_NA2Q

Spectrism

10th June 2013, 04:15 PM

messianicdruid

10th June 2013, 05:28 PM

Was man created to be dominated and subjugated by other mere mortal men?

No. He was created to be self-governing according to God's Law, and be a steward over creation.

Where did these mortal men get these mythical powers from?

God's people asked to have a king over them like the other nations. They rejected God from being King over them.

"And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods [rulemakers], so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city."

Hitch

10th June 2013, 06:52 PM

All is well in the land of fat & happy. To test a principle, you must go to an extreme. Over populate that island and make resources scarce. Inflict hardship of climate... maybe like a north Korea. Then tell me how wonderful the islanders are.

Spec, I don't think they are fat and happy. I think they just figured out what works naturally, with their climate and resources.

Include an evil bank in their system, yes hardship would follow. Include greed, more hardship.

Those folks are content and happy, no point in trying to corrupt them unless evil and greed are the driving forces.

FreeEnergy

10th June 2013, 11:10 PM

FreeEnergy

10th June 2013, 11:19 PM

Jewboo

10th June 2013, 11:55 PM

...Of course as the concept of ownership is itself a illusion...

https://thekitchensgarden.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/puss6.jpg?w=1024&h=680

https://thekitchensgarden.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/puss-7.jpg?w=1024&h=680

https://thekitchensgarden.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/puss-8.jpg?w=1024&h=557

This young kitten can teach Goldy the simple concept of ownership here on planet Earth...lol.

http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/h/hippie-3500.gif WAKE UP GOLDY

Jewboo

11th June 2013, 12:03 AM

This whole thread is crap. Ownership is wrong? ...This is philosophical stupidity. It confuses the valid concept of stewardship and custodianship with new age moronic deception.

Exactly.

:)

Twisted Titan

11th June 2013, 09:12 AM

http://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I

Much better said by others then me

singular_me

11th June 2013, 11:44 AM

thank you Glass, humanity as a whole has a serious dilemma here... we are born naked and die naked.... so why being so much bend on possessions?

this is very serious - but the elites GOT it.... yet Christ says "leave everything behind"... you are correct, ALL great spiritualists warn about this.

"I want to own nothing but control everything."

monks abandond possessions. ghandi promoted that people should live without them. indiginous people are generally the same. They have the odd thing they use or fashion to tools but they just pick up what they need when they need it.

in australia the aboriginal people are abused to be drunken, drugged out loosers. This is the symptom. White people say, well after 40,000 years here, what did they do with it? Nothing. Didn't build a town or a road or electricity and so on. This proves the point beyond doubt in a white mans mind. But what it means is that they didn't have to do any of that because there was no need. Very little competition between tribes for things. All the food they ever needed was there to be plucked.

While the life is full of bugs, flys and dirt, the carefreeedness (relative to white mans carefreedness) is pretty high. So I'm not painting it as idyllic. They just go and pick up or spear what ever they need when they need it.

The lack of an ownership gene seems to make a difference imo. The problem of course is that white mans answer to this is communism, which is a very deadly system.

singular_me

11th June 2013, 11:49 AM

okay but look at what we have done to the planet... all the result of owning this and that in the end... feeding off the ego endlessly to mask our fear of being dispossessed... we raped nature in the end. Nothing about new age here, trust me. It is a fact!

If one goes by the Law of Nature aka the Natural Law that goes back far into antiquity and is recognized as the Pentateuch. Contained in the Pentateuch is the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" which clearly implies ownership.

Horn

11th June 2013, 11:51 AM

Exactly.

:)

I don't remember anyone saying ownership is wrong.

Though someone did say it is a deception, which is true.

Many people are deceived by it, some here may even think that by stacking silver rounds it will somehow defeat all their demons.

singular_me

11th June 2013, 11:51 AM

what is yours is theirs (NWO) ... they can crash everything they want. When they see it fit.

Nothing that I own is mine, I only have custody of it for as long as I live.....and then.....someone else take custody of the same.

V

singular_me

11th June 2013, 11:54 AM

great post Hatha, I concur... :)

The Buddha figured it all out about 2500 years ago. One of the main principles of Buddhism is that attachment is the source of all suffering. Ownership is attachment. The objective of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana--a perfect peace of mind. They use a term, MAYA, which in both Hinduism and Buddhism means illusion. Or distortion, or some deviation from truth. Maya apparently is the absence of Nirvana, and this is where the vast majority lives.

I think that the closer one is to one's spirit the further away one is from the concept of ownership. Money is an instrument for establishing ownership. In a world of money, there are two statuses: Owners and 'the owned'. Usury is the most egregious tactic for establishing ownership. The more a legal system supports ownership, the more corrupt it is.

Think about this. When you are born, you own nothing, yet you are pure spirit and completely uncorrupted. You can be led by your culture to embrace ownership and attachment, and you become corrupted--you lose your innocence. What will you do for money? Will you kill people? Are you more attached to money and ownership than to other human beings?

Max Igan isn't the first person to observe that the idea of ownership is an illusion, one that is used by people possessed by the devil to enslave others and turn them into the 'owned'. You can usually tell about peoples' character by observing their 'drive to ownership'. Reminds me of what Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street--"I create nothing, I OWN." And he did his best to convince people that this was not a sickness of the spirit. "Greed is good."

One thing that has had me thinking in circles for a very long time, and is still unresolved in my mind is this, When a banker loans you money that he creates out of thin air, and you buy a house with that money, and subsequently you are unable to repay the banker, why does ownership of the house you bought revert to the banker? Is it because you signed an agreement to repay the loan and agreed that if you couldn't you would give the banker ownership of the house? Why does the banker have any more right to the house than you do? Is it because he won't loan you the money--that only he can create--unless you agree to let him own the house if you can't repay the money that he created on the basis of your signature? Why is that a condition of a loan? Why doesn't anyone question that? Is it part of the culture that bankers are allowed to swindle people? Because they control the creation of money?

Hatha

singular_me

11th June 2013, 11:57 AM

we can argue about everything spectrism...but I dont agree with you as usual. Everything is a manifestation of God... every cell... that is where you and I differ....

A custodian reports to someone. Earth does not take reports. Earth is a mass of lifeless mineral to which life was introduced. Life did not come from earth any more than a horse comes out of a bottle of water.

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:02 PM

then problem continue to be part of the problem...

http://i.imgur.com/toxzF.jpg

Meanwhile...back on real planet Earth...the birds passionately debate the meaning of this esoteric illusion of ownership with the squirrel...lol.

http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/emote_hippie.gif

Horn

11th June 2013, 12:06 PM

then problem continue to be part of the problem...

Must be God's will.

I secretly believe Book is in love with you, as you offer him the other end of the Spectrum that he would not have otherwise. :)

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:06 PM

leave everything behind sez Jesus and follow me... have you ever had ponder that one???

all forms of attachment bring about sadness and/or despair in the long run... all of them. thats a fact. Nothing to do with budhism... any wise man can grasp that.

The separation or carelessness of buddhism is absolute rubbish. It is unprincipled crap. A father cares for and is attached to his family. The buddhists would have you ignore those concerns to be "set free:. Pure crap.

This whole thread is crap. Ownership is wrong? Do you own yourself? Do you own the food you eat? Do you own your choices? Can anyone give a gift of something they don't own? And if they cannot own anything, how can they receive a gift?

This is philosophical stupidity. It confuses the valid concept of stewardship and custodianship with new age moronic deception.

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:17 PM

no theory is completely false in the end... as long as one act out of benevolence.. the problem is knowledge... there is nothing voluntary when one is ignorance and since we never know enough.... regardless of religious beliefs and speculations about the soul, on her level earth takes all our materialism back. So why the rush to possess?

Unfortunately this thread is no entirely incorrect. What it lacks is the concept of a 'plane'. You find yourself in a plane which by its very nature precludes private ownership of property. All property belongs to the state.

The question should be whether you are in this 'no-property' communist plane of you own volition and whether you choose to stay there. How did you get inducted into this plane? Was it by voting demon-cratically? Was it by paying property tax (a bribe to allow you to continue the illusion of private property)? Was it by social insecurity? By use of fiat money rather than using proper weights and measures?

Could be it was all of these things and probably others that have not been recognized yet.

As to getting out are you waiting for the 100th monkey? Or would you prefer to be the only common law man standing on the land while everyone around you subscribes to the illusion that they own a car or a house or that their children belong to them?

Ultimately you get to choose.

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:20 PM

I am going through the thread right now and havent seen his post(s) yet... yes opposites attract. LOL

Must be God's will.

I secretly believe Book is in love with you, as you offer him the other end of the Spectrum that he would not have otherwise. :)

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:23 PM

un-um.... attachment to whatever wealth we take for granted and/or establish for ourselves.... ???

Nope, ownership is not attachment. Attachment is attachment. Ownership is a word, an idea.

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:29 PM

bump... unless caused by a natural disaster, ALL forms of scarcity are man-made.

exactly

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:33 PM

singular_me

11th June 2013, 12:39 PM

have to go folks, thanks to all....

but yes, I agree with Igan... the only game in our 3D world is the possession vs dispossession game.

Horn

11th June 2013, 12:51 PM

The video centered around ownership of the land,

I agree, ownership of the land is wrong, as is taxation of it.

Its mid-evil in its creation at the very least.

Reminds me of conversations with Awoke here, where he claims God is a Real estate agent in Jerusalem.

Jewboo

11th June 2013, 01:30 PM

...all forms of attachment bring about sadness and/or despair in the long run... all of them.

http://ak4.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/2542841/preview/stock-footage-hitchhiking-young-adult-woman-holding-board-with-various-texts-happiness.jpg

Tell us more about your happy vagabonding through New Mexico and Arizona owning nothing.

http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/h/hippie-3500.gif

Horn

11th June 2013, 01:47 PM

Tell us more about your happy vagabonding through New Mexico and Arizona owning nothing.

Getting pictures of Book pickin up Singular on the back of his Harley. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN-p3e7jl0g

7th trump

11th June 2013, 01:48 PM

you and spectrism cant even read the bible... AGAIN, what did Christ MEAN by "LEAVING everything behind"... ???

back to square one... you and spectrism have been so "conditioned" that you see the new age threat everywhere. Actually very sad.

Depends on the subject of the verse.
Most here cant differentiate between the "subject" from the "object" and completely take the verse out of context.............what verse are you reffering to?

Spectrism

11th June 2013, 03:12 PM

bump... unless caused by a natural disaster, ALL forms of scarcity are man-made.

How did man cause the scarcity of oxygen in outerspace? How did man cause the scarcity of sunlight at the bottom of the oceans?

you and spectrism cant even read the bible... AGAIN, what did Christ MEAN by "LEAVING everything behind"... ???

back to square one... you and spectrism have been so "conditioned" that you see the new age threat everywhere. Actually very sad.

Cite the verse and I will explain it. You CANNOT make a silly comment like that without knowing the true words and context... unless you want to be a liar or fool.

Horn

11th June 2013, 03:49 PM

Perhaps you should think on a new handle other than singular_me, lest the jews of this temple stone you.

St. Stephanie perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AtVtx6H738

singular_me

12th June 2013, 04:57 PM

yes of the land but it all starts with the land and then extended to other areas of life... if one gets the very premise wrong, then the rest follows the same outcome. I am talking of a mindset of course.

The video centered around ownership of the land,

I agree, ownership of the land is wrong, as is taxation of it.

Its mid-evil in its creation at the very least.

Reminds me of conversations with Awoke here, where he claims God is a Real estate agent in Jerusalem.

singular_me

12th June 2013, 05:06 PM

How did man cause the scarcity of oxygen in outerspace? How did man cause the scarcity of sunlight at the bottom of the oceans?
ave
since we live on this planet, we have to obey natural laws applying to earth since LIFE depends on it. There is LIGHT at the bottom of the oceans, have you ever seen those life forms and fishes that are luminescent?

Cite the verse and I will explain it. You CANNOT make a silly comment like that without knowing the true words and context... unless you want to be a liar or fool.

Jesus didnt care for material possessions, the bible makes it clear in many occasion... but you want a verse nonetheless....

Mark 10:28-31
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all the things you own. Give the money to the poor people. If you do this, you will have a rich treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me!"

Buddha and Jesus were speaking the same way

singular_me

12th June 2013, 05:21 PM

Book, nobody can escape the matrix completely. The best we can do is acting at our own level to counter the hyper-consumerist trends... the majority of people we deal with are not materialistic. Most of them are survivalists living in self-sustainable homes. The least we interact with the system happier we are. And this makes me feel good at the end of the day. We no longer trade work for room and board, which was a way to learn about farming. We did this for about 3 years. Now have our own garden, and poultry. and for a living we clean-up properties, fencing, building chicken coops, etc.... in short, we have jobs that help others out become self-sustainable. Our car runs on veggie oil most of the time, but looking forward to buildng our own electric car. We also do long term house sitting in area, and we NEVER have remained without a roof. On the the creative side, I will be shooting my first documentary this summer, which will be posted on youtube eventually.

http://ak4.picdn.net/shutterstock/vid weos/2542841/preview/stock-footage-hitchhiking-young-adult-woman-holding-board-with-various-texts-happiness.jpg

Tell us more about your happy vagabonding through New Mexico and Arizona owning nothing.

http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/h/hippie-3500.gif

messianicdruid

12th June 2013, 05:23 PM

yes of the land but it all starts with the land and then extended to other areas of life... if one gets the very premise wrong, then the rest follows the same outcome. I am talking of a mindset of course.So, if God tells someone in the bible he should go and build a large boat, we should all build a large boat? Or does He just tell a person who trusts in his riches to change what he trusts in? Would Jesus tell a Jedi to dismantle his lightsabre?

Mouse

12th June 2013, 08:12 PM

Wherever (s)he goes, the people all complain....

Spectrism

12th June 2013, 08:32 PM

Jesus didnt care for material possessions, the bible makes it clear in many occasion... but you want a verse nonetheless....

Mark 10:28-31
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all the things you own. Give the money to the poor people. If you do this, you will have a rich treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me!"

Buddha and Jesus were speaking the same way

No! Buddha was a liar and made up crap for fools to believe. Yahsua spoke with authority because all that was created was created through Him.

You cite the wrong verse.

Mar 10:20 And answering, he said to Him, Teacher, I observed all these from my youth.
Mar 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him, and said to him, One thing is lacking to you. Go, sell what things you have, and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me, taking up the cross.
Mar 10:22 But being sad at the Word, he went away grieving; for he had many possessions.
Mar 10:23 And having looked around, Jesus said to His disciples, How hardly those having riches will enter into the kingdom of God!
Mar 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at His Words. And answering again, Jesus said to them, Children, how hard it is for those trusting on riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

The Messiah spoke here about trusting in wealth and works as the ticket to the kingdom of heaven. He made it clear that these are only obstacles at best. The kingdom of heaven is attained by faith in Messiah ALONE. Not Buddha. Not Mohamad.

He did not say that possessions are evil and He did not say that money is evil. He said the LOVE OF money is the root of evil.... and the love of possessions then, is the hindrance.

This little lesson is not to be distorted as the pharisees were wont to do. So, you want to be a little pharisee and preach the new world order religion.

Jewboo

12th June 2013, 09:01 PM

... Now have our own garden, and poultry...Our car runs on veggie oil most of the time, but looking forward to building our own electric car....

What was this thread about again Goldy?

:)

Horn

12th June 2013, 09:25 PM

yes of the land but it all starts with the land and then extended to other areas of life... if one gets the very premise wrong, then the rest follows the same outcome. I am talking of a mindset of course.

Probably best left to and in the eye of the beholder.

Why take what was so clearly defined as wrong in the video, and try to apply it to all things?

You'd first need your own video to explain the reasons for those other possessions to be included along with the "un-possessible" land.

vacuum

12th June 2013, 11:27 PM

He brought up some good points, and I think there is a balance needed.

I think scale - time and space - change the nature of our relationship with the world. For example, are we individuals or part of a singular whole? Well at the cellular level, individual cells are independent when you zoom in. But as you step back, they are part of a mass of similar cells which form organs, which in turn are just part of a subsystem, which in turn are part of an autonomous human body. But individuals are part of a family with a language and culture and education, which form a society. Things like law, an economic system, and languages are non-physical yet massive structures which have a life of their own. Races and nations behave as autonomous living things where each person forms only a small component.

We can see that it oscillates between individual toward a collective back to individual and so on and so forth.

If you spend a week making a pair of pants, you own those, no questions asked. But their length of duration and physical size are both comparable to your own size and lifetime. You can't really own things that are too small, like a drop of water. Or perhaps too large or permanent a thing either, like land as this guy is saying. The reason is that it transcends our individual existence paradigm because it's a few notches too far up or too far down where a few individual vs collective boundaries have been surpassed. We can only own things as individuals which are roughly greater than the cellular level and smaller than the social level, because we cease to be individuals beyond those scales.

iOWNme

13th June 2013, 06:40 AM

We no longer trade work for room and board, which was a way to learn about farming. We did this for about 3 years. Now have our own garden, and poultry. and for a living we clean-up properties, fencing, building chicken coops, etc.... in short, we have jobs that help others out become self-sustainable. Our car runs on veggie oil most of the time, but looking forward to buildng our own electric car. We also do long term house sitting in area, and we NEVER have remained without a roof. On the the creative side, I will be shooting my first documentary this summer, which will be posted on youtube eventually.

Do you feel you 'own' the garden, the car, the roof?

In other words, if a stranger showed up tomorrow and demanded some of the veggies in your garden, demanded to drive your car or demanded to sleep under your roof under threat of fine, being caged or even death would you agree with the violent criminal and hand over part of your stuff because you feel you dont 'own' it?

You asked if the 'core principle' of ownership is a deception, and again i just proved to you that the answer is NO. You didnt ask if all ownership is a deception (land, resources, etc) you asked if the PRINCIPLE is a deception. NO ITS NOT.

Spectrism

13th June 2013, 09:43 AM

The OP is confusing the idea of temporal existence with the idea that you cannot take material possessions with you when you die. It is a sad confusion because it is born from misunderstandings layered on faulty worldviews.

singular_me

13th June 2013, 11:41 AM

MD, in my view what you say is a very far fetched digression. The topic is the serious downside of the ownership concept.... and you are talking of (a) Noah arche(s) . I dont get it. sorry

So, if God tells someone in the bible he should go and build a large boat, we should all build a large boat? Or does He just tell a person who trusts in his riches to change what he trusts in? Would Jesus tell a Jedi to dismantle his lightsabre?

singular_me

13th June 2013, 11:43 AM

no confusion at all, WHY should we give ourselves a headache for nothing ?????.... (regardless of the soul's destination after death)

The OP is confusing the idea of temporal existence with the idea that you cannot take material possessions with you when you die. It is a sad confusion because it is born from misunderstandings layered on faulty worldviews.

singular_me

13th June 2013, 11:56 AM

You asked me for a verse and I found one for you... the problem, as I see it is that you seem to be suffering from a lack of intellectual flexibility... and this is what killing this planet and mankind with it.

It doesnt matter WHO/WHAT one believes in as long as one follow the ethics of non-coercion. This is the only way for us to all get along and stop this madness. .. I think its very sad that ownership has been used to dispossess populations, make them believe in a fairy tale. Like many, you have no idea of the Illusion we all play in.

This thread wasn't really meant to become a religious one... but materialism and spiritualism are two sides of the same coin, each mirroring the other.

No! Buddha was a liar and made up crap for fools to believe. Yahsua spoke with authority because all that was created was created through Him.

You cite the wrong verse.

Mar 10:20 And answering, he said to Him, Teacher, I observed all these from my youth.
Mar 10:21 And looking at him, Jesus loved him, and said to him, One thing is lacking to you. Go, sell what things you have, and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me, taking up the cross.
Mar 10:22 But being sad at the Word, he went away grieving; for he had many possessions.
Mar 10:23 And having looked around, Jesus said to His disciples, How hardly those having riches will enter into the kingdom of God!
Mar 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at His Words. And answering again, Jesus said to them, Children, how hard it is for those trusting on riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

The Messiah spoke here about trusting in wealth and works as the ticket to the kingdom of heaven. He made it clear that these are only obstacles at best. The kingdom of heaven is attained by faith in Messiah ALONE. Not Buddha. Not Mohamad.

He did not say that possessions are evil and He did not say that money is evil. He said the LOVE OF money is the root of evil.... and the love of possessions then, is the hindrance.

This little lesson is not to be distorted as the pharisees were wont to do. So, you want to be a little pharisee and preach the new world order religion.

Spectrism

13th June 2013, 12:06 PM

the problem, as I see it is that you seem to be suffering of a lack of intellectual flexibility... and this is what killing this planet and mankind with it.

You are correct in this... and thanks for noticing. When I add 2 + 2, I ALWAYS get 4. Truly inflexible.

It doesnt matter WHO/WHAT one believe in as long as one follow the ethics of non-coercion.

That is hilarious! And such bullshit.

This is the only way for us to all get along and strop this madness. David Icke said it at the Bilderberg protest, we all are experiencing different aspects of Reality comprise in a Greater Reality... I think its very sad that ownership has been used to dispossess populations, make them believe in a fairy tale. Like many, you have no idea of the Illusion we all play in.

I am more aware than you have a clue. You say in one line that it matters not what we believe... and then come back to contradict it in: make them believe in a fairy tale. So you want to be intellectually dishonest and weasel in your false beliefs under the banner of us all getting along, yet others are scolded for their "false" beliefs.

singular_me

13th June 2013, 12:10 PM

didnt I acknowledge that nobody can escape the matrix completely... as I traveler I do not own any land and do not plan to. I see owing land as string attached that I cannot imagine... How can I be free to move if having such a housing commitment/responsibility? By the way, Ecuador seems like a place to visit, this said, they give long term visas quite easily.... the skills I have gained with only with hard labor are priceless.

but hey, thanks again for selective quoting to suit your agenda, Book. You will never change.

What was this thread about again Goldy?

:)

singular_me

13th June 2013, 12:13 PM

you said: You cite the wrong verse.

What if this verse does it for me??? thats is kinda scary, now people can see that selective verse selections cannot resolve a thing in the world. If we dont see ALL the same verses at the same time....kinda scary, indeed

take care spectrism, blessings

You

are correct in this... and thanks for noticing. When I add 2 + 2, I ALWAYS get 4. Truly inflexible.

.

That is hilarious! And such bullshit.

I am more aware than you have a clue. You say in one line that it matters not what we believe... and then come back to contradict it in: make them believe in a fairy tale. So you want to be intellectually dishonest and weasel in your false beliefs under the banner of us all getting along, yet others are scolded for their "false" beliefs.

Spectrism

13th June 2013, 12:37 PM

you said: You cite the wrong verse.

What if this verse does it for me??? thats is kinda scary, now people can see that selective verse selections cannot resolve a thing in the world. If we dont see ALL the same verses at the same time....kinda scary, indeed

take care spectrism, blessings

I did not say you chose the wrong verse. I said you cited the wrong verse. Your reference for the words did not match the words, so I provided the correct reference.

If someone tells you to meet them at 25 Main Street, and when you get there, it turns out to be the wrong house, how would that make you feel? Later you find out it was 35 Main street- 10 houses down the road. For you it is "scary" to have accuracy in speech and thought. You prefer cloudy mystification where the only thing that matters is YOUR imagination.

singular_me

13th June 2013, 01:56 PM

messianicdruid

13th June 2013, 02:15 PM

How can I be free to move if having such a housing commitment/responsibility?

Right. A commitment that overshadows other commitments you may have, or wish to have causes one to make choices. Jesus was aware that the rich young ruler trusted in his wealth too much, so Jesus asked him to get rid of a commitment that would hinder him from following Christ. IOW: "Or does He just tell a person who trusts in his riches to change what he trusts in? "

Most of us have just enough, as it is, so this advice {or command} is specific to one class.

Spectrism

13th June 2013, 02:21 PM

My quote was a good example... sorry pal. it has been proven that even Christians do not interpret verses the same way, additionally some Bibles (slightly) differ in translation.... you are not out of the woods, trust me, pal. In no way one can prevent people from understanding the Bible according to their own life experience. Thats why every dogma contains so many sub-dogmas.

You want to change the subject to bible interpretation when you couldn't accurately cite a reference? And then you cite a straw argument: it has been proven that even Christians do not interpret verses the same way. You know, it has been proven that most women have brain damage. LOL... chew on that one for a while.

Again, you are back to your muddy waters syndrome where everything that you don't like is all confused and impossible to know, so let's just ignore it. I bet you were a real achiever in school. Anyway- Its nice to know I;m your pal.

yet Jesus spoke of giving to the poor... but if all riches where doing just that, that would result in a wealth transfer and the poor now rich would also have to get rid of his new wealth, one way or another. ???

He spoke of alot of things. If you gave everything you had to the poor, how many times could you do that? Now, if you knew how to run a farm and owned one, how much sense would it make to give your farm to the poor so they could destroy it?

You read into things what you want but you don't want to see truth.

I never said that possessions are evil either.... just happen to DEEPLY question a pseudo-logic: WHY should we be bent on possessing if we cannot take anything with us in the after life. To pass it on to our kids? Passing on to them values absolutely senseless ??? it all starts with the land, then the house, then the bank account, then consumerism and speculation, then corporations and banksters...

If you dont see the absurdity here, I surely do.

You have an obsession for others' possessions. You are jealous and in that jealousy you think you are taking the higher road in pretending not to want what others have. I am sure you will deny this because you do not have a love for the truth. You are an entitlement mentality.

Spectrism

13th June 2013, 02:27 PM

http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by singular_me http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?p=639866#post639866)
How can I be free to move if having such a housing commitment/responsibility?

Right. A commitment that overshadows other commitments you may have, or wish to have causes one to make choices. Jesus was aware that the rich young ruler trusted in his wealth too much, so Jesus asked him to get rid of a commitment that would hinder him from following Christ. IOW: "Or does He just tell a person who trusts in his riches to change what he trusts in? "

Most of us have just enough, as it is, so this advice {or command} is specific to one class.

If one does not have the responsibility of caring for children, the "free" lifestyle is appealing. But the free lifestyle has its cost. The want for things must be hidden in self-righteousness.

I prefer to raise my children in a secure home. Thanks to zombies like this, our government is making it harder to live free at home. I (and my family) am prepared to be slaughtered bythis beast government if that is what it comes to. I will not bow too them. But the mindless morons of this country have bought into new age crap philosophies. They are mystified and entranced by little baubles of stupidity. For such will great calamities hit. Not much time left.

Jewboo

13th June 2013, 03:59 PM

...I do not own any land and do not plan to...

http://magickalgraphics.com/Graphics/Miscellaneous/Gypsy/gypsy8.jpg

Oh. You own stuff but are landless.

Please respect fences as you expect others to respect ownership of "your" stuff.

http://americanadventurist.com/Forum/images/smilies/cowboy.gifWHAT WAS THIS THREAD ABOUT AGAIN?

7th trump

13th June 2013, 04:00 PM

You want to change the subject to bible interpretation when you couldn't accurately cite a reference? And then you cite a straw argument: it has been proven that even Christians do not interpret verses the same way. You know, it has been proven that most women have brain damage. LOL... chew on that one for a while.

Again, you are back to your muddy waters syndrome where everything that you don't like is all confused and impossible to know, so let's just ignore it. I bet you were a real achiever in school. Anyway- Its nice to know I;m your pal.

He spoke of alot of things. If you gave everything you had to the poor, how many times could you do that? Now, if you knew how to run a farm and owned one, how much sense would it make to give your farm to the poor so they could destroy it?

You read into things what you want but you don't want to see truth.

You have an obsession for others' possessions. You are jealous and in that jealousy you think you are taking the higher road in pretending not to want what others have. I am sure you will deny this because you do not have a love for the truth. You are an entitlement mentality.

Spec...I shut that delusional woman off a long time ago.
She's a false teacher....make no mistake about it.......she'll receive her reward.....may not like what her reward is, but she'll receive it if she likes it or not.
Its best not to cast your pearls before swine.

Spectrism

13th June 2013, 04:09 PM

Spec...I shut that delusional woman off a long time ago.
She's a false teacher....make no mistake about it.......she'll receive her reward.....may not like what her reward is, but she'll receive it if she likes it or not.
Its best not to cast your pearls before swine.

I am more talking to any by-passer who might be entertained with her thoughts. I would prefer to snuff out the embers before someone gets burned.

Mouse

13th June 2013, 06:20 PM

Welcome to New Mexico. The land of enchantment. You will find that the temperature in Albuquerque is approximately 10 degrees cooler than it is in Santa Fe. Our shuttle will be arriving at the spaceport location in approximately five minutes. Please note that it is against the law to talk on a hand-held cell phone while driving in New Mexico. Welcome to the land of enchantment. Feel free to leave your belongings behind as we depart on a great journey of impoverishment, suffering, fear and dependency. You will meet many fellow travelers aboard our communal space ship and may feel free to share any of their belongings, as they will also help themselves to yours. There is no need to prepare for the future or produce any more than is necessary to feed yourself. You may find that very good scraps abound in the back parking lot behind the 7 Eleven, which may provide you and your fellow passengers with sustenance for the journey to your own private utopia. Feel free to spread the compost of your brothers and inhabit the land freely which your government owns, so you needn't worry about trivial things.

Neuro

14th June 2013, 02:25 AM

didnt I acknowledge that nobody can escape the matrix completely... as I traveler I do not own any land and do not plan to. I see owing land as string attached that I cannot imagine... How can I be free to move if having such a housing commitment/responsibility?
If there were no landowners, how do you figure you would have traveled the last years. Land ownership/right is the most important principle for farming in a society. No one would prepare a field if they didn't have a reasonable guarantee that only they have the right to its harvest. No one would let you house sit, their houses, if they didn't have the supreme right to the house. No one would build a house if they didn't own the right to the land it sits on.

vacuum

14th June 2013, 02:40 AM

If there were no landowners, how do you figure you would have traveled the last years. Land ownership/right is the most important principle for farming in a society. No one would prepare a field if they didn't have a reasonable guarantee that only they have the right to its harvest. No one would let you house sit, their houses, if they didn't have the supreme right to the house. No one would build a house if they didn't own the right to the land it sits on.

The problem is when people own land but they don't do anything with it. For example a rich guy owning the prime land and requiring others to pay him rent to use it.

A person should only be able to own land that they can actually personally develop and use, not reserve it such that others can't use it. So farms and houses are great for people to have, but it's not great if someone that doesn't actually create any of that claims ownership of it.

This is the basic problem in society that Henry George saw and wrote about.

Horn

14th June 2013, 05:25 AM

Serpo

14th June 2013, 05:37 AM

what are you talking about owning land , Ponce is going thru a complex process to try and own his.

believe what you like own this or own this ,its basically what we have been taught from a young age that we own anything.

People dont need to own anything to have everything and people that have everything can have nothing.

Its the way we look at things

Serpo

14th June 2013, 05:45 AM

The problem is transfer of ownership to the 4 major banks, which is inevitable as stated in the video.

The only way to alleviate is a redefinition of ownership to stewardship.

Laws could then be written so as to include a steward on each parcel and plot.

in the end the banks will try and "own" everything

its like fiat "owning" is only true if you believe in it//////////////

Im not sure what a principal of ownership is as in the heading but I do know that the ownership of stuff is something we all pretend to do and if everyone else is agreeable then sweet.

But its all in the head,the brain.Really everything just is, its only humans that say they own anything,so at the same time this is a true reality ie I own my gold and silver(strong pretending here)

Serpo

14th June 2013, 05:47 AM

Serpo

14th June 2013, 05:49 AM

TRUE FREEDOM is beyond anything a person can imagine and believe me there may come a day when we can actually own our own land, instead of being a serf to the crown.

I have tasted it ,and it is GOOD\uu\

messianicdruid

14th June 2013, 07:12 AM

The only way to alleviate is a redefinition of ownership to stewardship.

Laws could then be written so as to include a steward on each parcel and plot.

These Laws are already written, just ignored. "...the land shall be DIVIDED and never sold."

It is to be allotted according to family size. Poor land, you get more, excellent land , you get less depending on family/clan/tribe size. If your family allottment is in someplace you can't abide, you lease it until the Jubilee {that's all you have right to}. Then the land is re allotted within the tribe/clan/family according to size. Rich and poor all get an allottment, anybody with means/gumption can lease land from the allottee. Land inside a city just big enough for a house - is just a house = can be sold.

All wealth comes from the land. God will prosper us according to how we implement His Laws - all of them {NOT the sacrificial stuff added by Moses and taken away by the New Covenant}. But they must be administered by spiritual people with the mind of Christ {who showed us how to be a servant of His people}.

I agree that "ownership" of the planet by anyone but the Owner is a deception. And those usurping authority must be held accountable.

singular_me

14th June 2013, 07:53 AM

NO, you came up with the Bible when attacking and demonanizing buddhism.... and when I say that the Bible does NOT present Jesus as materialistic and that the greatest spiritualists warn again any form of attachment... you ask for verses.... I am not a christian, nor buddhist, nor muslim.... so my guess is that you will always something to say, so why bother discussing with you. ???

You want to change the subject to bible interpretation when you couldn't accurately cite a reference? And then you cite a straw argument: it has been proven that even Christians do not interpret verses the same way. You know, it has been proven that most women have brain damage. LOL... chew on that one for a while.

Again, you are back to your muddy waters syndrome where everything that you don't like is all confused and impossible to know, so let's just ignore it. I bet you were a real achiever in school. Anyway- Its nice to know I;m your pal.

He spoke of alot of things. If you gave everything you had to the poor, how many times could you do that? Now, if you knew how to run a farm and owned one, how much sense would it make to give your farm to the poor so they could destroy it?

You read into things what you want but you don't want to see truth.

You have an obsession for others' possessions. You are jealous and in that jealousy you think you are taking the higher road in pretending not to want what others have. I am sure you will deny this because you do not have a love for the truth. You are an entitlement mentality.

singular_me

14th June 2013, 07:59 AM

I own what? a few chickens that I will donate when I have decided to travel south. Any real traveler possess very little but can create temporary wealth (for non-coercive use) anywhere he goes until he moves to the next destination.

I am happy Book, trust me

http://magickalgraphics.com/Graphics/Miscellaneous/Gypsy/gypsy8.jpg

Oh. You own stuff but are landless.

Please respect fences as you expect others to respect ownership of "your" stuff.

http://americanadventurist.com/Forum/images/smilies/cowboy.gifWHAT WAS THIS THREAD ABOUT AGAIN?

Spectrism

14th June 2013, 07:59 AM

Santa

14th June 2013, 08:11 AM

What would be the result in heaven itself if those who get there first instituted private property in the surface of heaven, and parceled it out in absolute ownership among themselves, as we parcel out the surface of the earth? –Henry George

Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. –Thomas Paine

EE_

14th June 2013, 08:30 AM

It must be getting increasingly more difficult to live outside the system like you do singular. The system is set up to trap you. Soon we will live in a cashless society...a cashless society that newer generations and many older generations have welcomed in. Once we reach that point, the system will own everyone. You will choose to live within it, or die.

5 THINGS NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT BEING POOR
Posted on 13th June 2013 by Calamity in Economy
By: John Cheese

Being poor is like a game of poker where if you lose, the other players get to fuck you. And if you win, the dealer fucks you. A bunch of you reading this are among the 45 million “working poor” in America, and if you’re not, you know somebody who is. Like me.

I’m not blaming anybody but myself for getting into this situation (I was drunk for two straight decades) and I’m not asking for anybody’s sympathy. What I am saying is that people are quick to tell you to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and just stop being poor. What they don’t understand is the series of intricate financial traps that makes that incredibly difficult.

If you’re not poor, that’s awesome. I’m not mad at you, or jealous. Hopefully you’ll never find out that …

#5. You Get Charged for Using Your Own Money

This is the future, where many businesses no longer accept cash as payment. That means you are required to have a checking account to function in the economy. And if you’re poor, that means at some point you’re going to get bank-fucked.

Because having a checking account while poor doesn’t just mean you have to be responsible and good at math — you have to be perfect. Meticulous, flawless record keeping is the difference between surviving and having the bank seize your next paycheck.

Let’s say you’re running late for work and hurriedly stop to get gas, paying with a bank card. In your haste you forget to write the $55 down (gas being $4 a gallon, you know). So while you spent the last week until payday thinking you had $50 in your account to absorb minor purchases, you actually were $5 in the red.

So payday comes. You go to the bank to deposit your check, at which point the bank takes it, sticks it in their pocket and says, “Thank you very much! I’m buying myself a new pair of shoes with that shit!” They then inform you that your account was at -$200 at the moment you deposited your check.

The bank can hit you with a $35 fine for every charge that comes in while you are in minus territory. The bank will not tell you they charged you this money. You will have no idea anything is wrong.

It’s a silent chain reaction in which every charge that comes through during those few days before payday draws the $35 fee. The $8 you spent at the gas station for cigarettes, the $24.99 that automatically comes out for your Internet access … for each, the bank silently zaps out the charge and $35 on top of it, until your next paycheck is gone. Five seconds of oversight gave the bank the right to take away a week’s worth of your labor.

Some of you are saying, “Fine, just tell the bank to go fuck itself. Walk out the door and just do everything by cash or money order.” Ah, but now when you get paid, you have to go somewhere to cash your paycheck — and businesses charge up to $8 to do it. If you’re working in the service industry, congratulations — an hour of your labor just vanished … just so you could use your own money. Some describe this as a “poverty tax.” Others refer to it as a “Because fuck you, that’s why” fee.

The one piece of advice I can offer here is that you’ll be surprised how many businesses will give you some leeway if you just call them and beg. Banks are run by human beings (as of the writing of this article) and if you get a person on the phone you can get them to waive overdraft fees, particularly if it’s a first offense. Even businesses waiting on a payment will give you an extra week or two if you call and explain it. In this economy, they’re so used to people just taking the money and disappearing that they’re happy to hear you’re operating in some kind of good faith.

Otherwise, you’re going to be in a bind. And this is when you’ll find out …

#4. There is an Industry That Profits by Keeping You Poor

Think you’re too smart to ever use one of those shady “payday loan” places? Well, you should know that nobody thinks they’re a good deal. People go there because they’re choosing between which fucking provides the most lube.

Say the gas bill is a month past due, and they’re threatening to turn it off (if so, it’s $150 to get it reconnected). Or you’re about to be late on a credit card payment (which would be a fee and a doubling of your interest rate). Or your favorite S&M whip broke, and Whipfest is coming up (entry fee is nonrefundable). That is when you find yourself swallowing your pride and heading to the payday loan place.

A standard 14-day “payday” loan charges $15.50 per $100 borrowed. So a $500 loan ends up being $577.50 (or 1.5 tanks of gas in interest). But if you don’t have it after 14 days, that’s fine — they offer to extend your loan to 180 days. It makes the payments miniscule. Oh, and you’ll be paying back $1,275 at 403.10 percent APR.

Yes, you got fucked, in the name of your financial asshole avoiding the credit card company’s bigger, barbed dick. And it’s a hell of a lot better than going over on your checking account again and starting up their infinite circular fuckatron.

All right, let’s say you wised up. You save and cut back. You resist an offer to, say, buy a computer on Best Buy’s finance plan, because you’re too smart to take on more debt. And no monthly cell phone payments for you, oh no. You’re not going to put yourself in a hole again!

Congratulations. You just did. It turns out …

#3. No Credit Can be Just as Damaging as Bad Credit

On the spectrum of financial responsibility, from “that billionaire who drives an old Dodge Dakota” down to “MC Hammer,” you’d think that the next step up from being overdue on a bunch of bills would be to have no bills at all. Don’t buy it if you can’t afford it, right?

You’ll find out the problem the next time somebody does a credit check — having no credit will stop you from getting a loan or an apartment just as fast as having bad credit. And more importantly, if you have old bad credit due to a bunch of previous fuckups, simply vanishing off the credit map doesn’t do anything to fix it.

It took me six months to find a place to rent after applying for every property that appeared in the paper across five towns. I was denied each time. It was my lack of credit due to years of me and lenders deciding to just stay out of each other’s hair, like those old sitcoms where roommates would draw a line down the middle of the house. I even used a prepaid cell phone where I’d just be buying minutes off the shelf rather than get locked into a contract with all those termination fees and shit. When I needed something big, like a computer upgrade or furniture, I’d wait for a windfall, like a tax return, and pay cash. It’s called financial responsibility, motherfucker!

Nope. It turns out that to a business, a customer with no credit is like a girl giving you the silent treatment — they assume something is wrong.

And everybody checks your credit — if I want to get Direct TV, I have to pay $310 worth of startup fees (the size of your up-front payments/deposits depends on your credit history). Utilities are even more — which means trying to move to a new place costs hundreds of dollars in deposits (remember the $150 to get my gas turned on). If I need a new car, well, let’s just say I need to show up at the dealership with a shoebox full of cash.

So repairing credit means opening accounts (having a cell phone plan is a good one, having your utilities in your own name — as opposed to the landlord’s — is another) and, you know, making sure to pay your fucking bills on time. And don’t bother trying to shortcut the system by saving the shoebox full of cash, getting a loan, then paying it all off the next month. Length of credit is part of your credit score. They want to know your ability to make steady, long term payments without missing a month or being late

#2. Your Next Expensive Disaster is Always Around the Corner

Shit happens, always at the exact worst time. A tire blows on my car and, without a spare, it instantly becomes a paperweight. There’s $80 for a new tire, $50 for a tow. Now, it’s a good idea to have a separate bank account set up specifically for these situations because they are unavoidable. It’s also a good idea to have a sex slave or two just sitting around in case your balls need shaved. It’s not that fucking simple.

You get the same domino effect with sudden financial disasters as you do with the bank fees. For instance, I worked a shitty service industry job, which meant I got paid by the hour, and didn’t get paid unless I showed up — no paid time off. But I couldn’t physically get to work because of the goddamned flat tire. It’s a rural area, no subway or buses. So it’s double penetration — not just lost work time, but lost time that is spent paying for a tow and a tire. And if I didn’t happen to have that money sitting around, it meant waiting until payday, and missing work until then.

Which meant my next paycheck would be short. By the time I get it fixed and add in the missed work time, that $80 tire just turned into a $250 enema. That’s life in a world with no financial margin for error. It’s like trying to climb out of a dick pit but the ladder is also made of dicks.

Years ago, we bought a house with the help of our in-laws. You know, because owning property is the responsible adult thing to do. The very first fucking night of moving in, we got a massive water leak. I couldn’t just call the landlord — I was the landlord. I couldn’t call a plumber because we didn’t have the $150 to pay the guy, not until payday. So the leak was allowed to run until we could put the money together to pay one. So two weeks later, we hand the guy $150. And then, a week later, the water bill arrives.

$500.

You find yourself thinking, “Man, we could get caught up if this bad shit wouldn’t keep happening!” Then it finally hits you that bad shit happens like clockwork. Not because God hates you, but because you’re poor and you’re using cheap shit that breaks. Maybe you don’t pay the $150 for a plumber, but have a handy friend fix it for you for $50. Awesome, you saved $100! Then six months later you have a leak again, because it turns out he fixed it with rubber bands and Fruit Roll-ups.

Everything in a poor person’s life is a cash vampire. My truck has 170,000 miles on it and the MPG is so bad that every time I start it, the ghost of an Indian appears in the passenger seat and cries. About twice a year, something under the hood grinds to a halt or melts — always another $500 on a tow and repairs. And that was the money I was saving to get a more reliable car.

Hell, even my own body does it to me. I lost my last job because of chronic back pain, losing my health insurance in the process. Which means I can’t treat my chronic back pain. Can’t afford to get dentist check-ups, so more expensive problems are allowed to grow and fester. And so on.

#1. You’re Always in Survival Mode

There’s a phrase in the working world that drives me crazy. One guy says, “The money’s not great, but I love my job.” And somebody responds, “Hey, happiness is all that really matters.”

To be clear, that’s probably true for people at a certain level of income. If you aren’t struggling to pay the bills, then happiness is indeed a pretty damn awesome extra. But you know those movies like American Beauty, about the guy with the unfulfilling career who abandons it to live life to its fullest? Yeah, don’t forget that after quitting their jobs they still come home to houses that look like this:

But down here, at this level, you take what you can fucking get. Fantasies about holding out for that dream job will ruin you.

For instance, long before reading to this part, some helpful commenter has surely skipped down and chimed in with, “Why don’t you just get a job, you lazy fuck!” Wait, did you think I was unemployed? Hell no, it’s been years since I was out of work for any long period of time. I’ve always had jobs. Shitty, shitty jobs.

A huge chunk of this economy runs on shitty jobs now. Recently, McDonald’s held a job fair with 50,000 openings. They got more than 1,000,000 applications. Tens of millions of you will wind up in one of these jobs, it’s sheer math.

These service jobs pay hourly, they give you little or nothing in terms of benefits and there is nothing in the way of security even from week to week — your hours could get cut at any time, for any reason. Sure, you can take a second part-time job. Though, that’s assuming you can find one that works around your primary job’s schedule — just mentioning that you have another job in an interview is often enough to stop that interview mid-sentence. Why hire you when there are 30 guys in line behind you with completely free schedules?

So in answer to the inevitable, “You need to dream bigger, and strive forth to get a new career for yourself!” Hey, I totally agree. But now we’re back in the Catch-22 poverty fuck gauntlet. Once you’re in this tier of jobs, getting out isn’t just hard, it’s expensive.

Sure, you can take classes at night at a community college or something. Maybe you’ll even get financial aid or loans to pay for your books or tuition. What they will not pay for is the time you missed at work while you were in classes or for a babysitter or for transportation. And you sure as fuck better be certain that you have some kind of aptitude for whatever you’re studying (which, by the way, you won’t know until you’ve spent a year or two studying it) because that’s the only chance you’re going to get.

You can do it the old-fashioned way, by working your way up the corporate ladder from within whatever shitty job you have. But that is also expensive because promotions often require you to move. I got offered a promotion at my shitty service job (washing semi trucks with high-pressure hoses, the job that eventually destroyed my back) that would have required me to move several hours away. And moving costs money — remember what I said about the cost of getting utilities turned on? And how landlords check your credit?

And then there are the intangible costs. I would be abandoning my children, for instance — I share custody with my ex-wife, who obviously was not going to be moving with me. How many visits would I get in before my car broke down? And moving away from friends and family also comes with a cost — think of the favors you do for each other (i.e. the friend/brother/uncle willing to fix the truck for free, because you helped paint his porch, etc).

It’s not impossible, but it’s taking a huge risk. And if the new job doesn’t work out after you bet all of your chips, you’re triple fucked. And at that point the world will wag its finger at you and tell you how irresponsible it was to move when you were so poor. “Ha, you poor people are always doing stupid shit like that!”

And on and on. People do get out of this situation — I got paid to write this, for instance. All I’m saying is that the journey is something like trying to go from the Earth to the Moon. By letting them launch a Saturn V rocket directly into your butthole.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor_p2/#ixzz2W6YR4TEK

Jewboo

14th June 2013, 10:52 AM

By: John Cheese

I’m not blaming anybody but myself for getting into this situation (I was drunk for two straight decades) and I’m not asking for anybody’s sympathy...

..Shit happens, always at the exact worst time. A tire blows on my car and, without a spare, it instantly becomes a paperweight. There’s $80 for a new tire, $50 for a tow. Now, it’s a good idea to have a separate bank account set up specifically for these situations because they are unavoidable. It’s also a good idea to have a sex slave or two just sitting around in case your balls need shaved. It’s not that fucking simple.

You get the same domino effect with sudden financial disasters as you do with the bank fees. For instance, I worked a shitty service industry job, which meant I got paid by the hour, and didn’t get paid unless I showed up — no paid time off. But I couldn’t physically get to work because of the goddamned flat tire. It’s a rural area, no subway or buses. So it’s double penetration — not just lost work time, but lost time that is spent paying for a tow and a tire. And if I didn’t happen to have that money sitting around, it meant waiting until payday, and missing work until then.

Which meant my next paycheck would be short. By the time I get it fixed and add in the missed work time, that $80 tire just turned into a $250 enema...

Every vehicle comes with a spare tire. This dumb fuck "lost" his spare tire and now here we are at GSUS reading his stupid rant blaming everything and everyone else except himself?

:D fuck 'em

EE_

14th June 2013, 10:56 AM

Every vehicle comes with a spare tire. This dumb fuck "lost" his spare tire and now here we are at GSUS reading his stupid rant blaming everything and everyone else except himself?

:D fuck 'em

I thought he did blame himself.
Now here we are at GSUS reading your stupid rant blaming him :p

Jewboo

14th June 2013, 11:16 AM

By: John Cheese

Let’s say you’re running late for work and hurriedly stop to get gas, paying with a bank card. In your haste you forget to write the $55 down (gas being $4 a gallon, you know). So while you spent the last week until payday thinking you had $50 in your account to absorb minor purchases, you actually were $5 in the red.

Another dumb fuck move and then he whines again about the logical consequences. The evil bank was mean to him only because he is poor.

http://files.myopera.com/Thachthaotim84/albums/894348/cry2-male-cry-tears-smiley-emoticon-000276-large.gif fuck 'em

Hatha Sunahara

14th June 2013, 11:29 AM

I think 'ownership' is one of these things that doesn't really exist unless people believe it exists. Conversely, if you don't believe it, the only way it can exist is if a large enough number of other people believe it does exist, and you are forced to go along. If 10% or more in a society believe it, it becomes a dominant idea in the society. It doesn't exist in societies that have fewer than 10% who believe in it.

We have to take it for granted that ownership exists in western societies. What is an issue is how to define it, and what are it's limits. One example of this need to define it was the debate about slavery in early 1800's America. It was a given that one could own property. But can one own people? The answer, prior to the 13th amendment to the constitution was yes. Today, the answer is a 'conditional 'no''. Conditional in the sense that if you agree to being owned, then someone else can own you. One way of agreeing to be owned is by going into debt. If you lend people money, they are your slaves, because you own them. There is a real irony to the fact that in a country where everybody is in debt up to their eyeballs, the people consider that country to be the home of the brave and the land of the free.

What I struggle with is why do people think they can own anything? Do you pass on ownership to others when you die? And how do you establish ownership? If you work for something, do you 'own it'? If you steal something, do you own it? If you just claim ownership, does that establish it? If you fight off others who contest your ownership, does that establish it--until someone takes it from you? Is possession sufficient to establish ownership? Is a legal claim sufficient for an 'absentee' owner? Can a judge tell you that you do or don't own something? What gives a judge that power?

Ownership is a concept created by a small class of people who want to control everything and everybody. People who think they can own the world. Emperors, bankers, you know who they are when you meet them. Ownership is one way to control everything. Influence is another way to control everything. The mainstream media influences the masses, so do they own the masses? Surely they control the masses. If you believe this deception, then you force the idea on all those who don't believe in it.

When you talk about freedom, you are talking about the absence of control over you. Sovereignty means you own and control yourself.

My conclusion is that ownership is a very large deception--a core deception.

Hatha

Jewboo

14th June 2013, 12:01 PM

I think 'ownership' is one of these things that doesn't really exist unless people believe it exists. Conversely, if you don't believe it, the only way it can exist is if a large enough number of other people believe it does exist, and you are forced to go along.

http://youtu.be/NelBNtNm8l0

So simple even Hatha and Goldy might understand...lol.

http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/emote_hippie.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/hippie4.gif

Hitch

14th June 2013, 12:15 PM

I thought he did blame himself.
Now here we are at GSUS reading your stupid rant blaming him :p

He did blame himself, that part was conveniently left out. In fact, the whole article I thought was a good read. I've been through all that myself and had to smile in agreement. He left out eating ramen noodles for several meals in a row however.

I would wager anyone who criticizes this argument has been handed a silver spoon their whole life.

palani

14th June 2013, 12:23 PM

If you sit on a donkey and it moves then you are the owner.

If you have possession of the lead rope of a camel and it moves then you are the owner.

What else is needed to be known of ownership? It is an action. Any action creates a 'person'. It is not you that owns the item but rather the 'person'.

messianicdruid

14th June 2013, 01:58 PM

Sovereignty means you own and control yourself. My conclusion is that ownership is a very large deception--a core deception. Hatha

Amerikans were told they are sovereigns - and they just accept that premise without acknowledging the control that others exercise over them daily through "doctrines and commandments of men" along with self-inflicted slavery provided through usury. Would "owe no man anything" mean keep yourself free by not getting yourself in debt, and refusing to make yourself a surety for someone else's debt? We are made responsible by a sufficient amount of authority in order to accomplish our calling.

True free will requires not only sovereignty, which is omnipotence, but also omniscience {knowing all}. Jesus tells us in Luke 12 that liability is measured in part by knowledge:

"And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes. but the one who did not know it and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. . .". The rest of verse 48 establishes the fact that liability is also measured in part by one’s level of authority:

" . . . And from everyone who has been given {ownership or stewardship?} much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted {stewardship or ownership?} much, of him they will ask all the more."

Because God has both omnipotence and omniscience, He requires the most of Himself. Is He capable of rising to the occasion? He is well able. Man’s will cannot stop God’s plan.

One cannot separate man’s will from his authority. Man has authority; therefore, he has a will by which that authority is executed. Man is also judged according to the decisions of his will. This accountability to the will of God means that God is coercing man’s will, putting pressure on him, as it were, to conform to the divine will. The question is, whose will is stronger? Whose will shall prevail in the end? Will God get His way, or will man get his own way?

Saul {who became Paul} found out he did not own or control himself. He confessed to being a bond-servant; freed from the slavery of sin {law - less - ness 1John3:4} to the freedom of righteousness in Christ Jesus.

God’s plan will be fulfilled to the letter. What John saw will become the actual fact in the end of time and history. At present it may look as though man’s will is more powerful than God’s will. The world can be very evil at different times and places. But God will judge all things, because, as Creator, the responsibility ultimately falls upon His shoulders to right all wrongs and to bring good out of evil. If this were man’s responsibility, most of creation would be lost. But we can be thankful that man does not have total free will to destroy God’s creation or at least make the outcome uncertain.

Man will be judged according to his level of authority, but because authority is always subordinate to God’s sovereignty, Jesus will work to save all mankind until the job is completed in the ages to come. One of the primary purposes of resurrection is to bring men into judgment and accountability to His “fiery law” (Deut. 33:2), that they might “learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:9). In other words, the purpose of divine judgment in the “lake of fire” is to correct {restore} them, not to destroy {or endlessly punish} them. It is to teach them the character of God, who is like “a consuming fire” (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29). It consumes “the flesh.”

JohnQPublic

14th June 2013, 02:08 PM

ximmy

14th June 2013, 02:36 PM

PWNED means Owned

palani

14th June 2013, 04:30 PM

Possesion is 9/10th of the law?
The two rules I quoted were Talmud.

Rather 'the owner is the one who ACTS like the owner'.

This is true of the one who owns YOU as well.

If you choose to be responsible for yourself you might be classed as a freeman.

Hatha Sunahara

14th June 2013, 05:07 PM

The two rules I quoted were Talmud.

Rather 'the owner is the one who ACTS like the owner'.

This is true of the one who owns YOU as well.

If you choose to be responsible for yourself you might be classed as a freeman.

Likewise, if you choose to act like you own everybody else, you do. Unless those people present sufficient evidence that you don't. Maybe ownership is established by an ability to enforce your claim. In that case, it's not a deception. That's the case on a practical level. On a conceptual level, it's a big deception. What brings it down to a practical level is the concept of 'Might makes right.' But in either case, other people have to believe you have ownership, otherwise you don't. That's the problem with Palestine, isn't it?

Hatha

Santa

14th June 2013, 05:10 PM

The entire monetary system in which the world is entangled is essentially Talmudic Cabbalism.

palani

14th June 2013, 05:16 PM

other people have to believe you have ownership, otherwise you don't. That's the problem with Palestine, isn't it?

Hatha

The Roman law maxim is: "Possession is, as it were, the position of the foot"

If you believe by sitting on a donkey and causing it to move makes you the owner then all the next owner has to do is sit on the donkey and cause it to move.

Ownership is only valid as long as you are present to protect your property. Leave for a long weekend and come back to find your property now owned by someone else.

This is the problem some of the central American countries have. Their ownership is tenuous. Palestine? The Arabs would just as soon fight each other. Their houses have no windows, have a central courtyard and their doors are small for self defense. Much of their property is 'commons' or shared. Their law is one of the reasons why they don't fare so well.

Jewboo

14th June 2013, 06:05 PM

Maybe ownership is established by an ability to enforce your claim. In that case, it's not a deception.

http://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/internationallaw/smartpower2

Exactly.

:) Landless Goldy can't just talk away this reality using New Age mumbo jumbo...lol.

ximmy

14th June 2013, 06:25 PM

Maybe ownership is established by an ability to enforce your claim. In that case, it's not a deception.

Hatha

http://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/internationallaw/smartpower2

Exactly.

:) Landless Goldy can't just talk away this reality using New Age mumbo jumbo...lol.

I read somewhere that the ability to defend your property from anyone, be it invader or government, etc., is the ground of ownership.

The unemployed philosopher (TO GIVE HERSELF VALUE) has to invent the idea of a non-real possessor. It is an excuse to make laziness or failure equal to hard work or success.

Jewboo

14th June 2013, 07:53 PM

I read somewhere that the ability to defend your property from anyone, be it invader or government, etc., is the ground of ownership.

The unemployed philosopher (TO GIVE HERSELF VALUE) has to invent the idea of a non-real possessor. It is an excuse to make laziness or failure equal to hard work or success.

http://youtu.be/4h9re1bHt40

Goldy thinks she can go swimming here any time she wants because she does not acknowledge the "ownership" of this water.

http://www.mydisplayimage.com/blog/premium/anim_rubberring.gif WHEE...THE CROC IS AN ILLUSION AND DOES NOT "OWN" THIS WATER

Hitch

15th June 2013, 11:33 AM

Goldy thinks she can go swimming here any time she wants because she does not acknowledge the "ownership" of this water.

I think you are clouding the argument.

The biggest point you are missing is the concept of time, past/present/future. If Goldy goes swimming there, for example, and the crocs are not there. She "owns" that water, at that present time. She can think about swimming there any time she likes.

I think some posters just haven't let go of their woobies as kids.

5013

singular_me

15th June 2013, 01:42 PM

the outcome is always exposing the downside or upside of everything... BUT ownership seems like to be being a farce since ever.

everyone should have a right or access to the land.........its all owned by rich people and tied up in stifling knots.

singular_me

15th June 2013, 01:55 PM

ignorAnt... um-um... in fact spectrum there is nothing entirely wrong with wealth, the right attitude towards it is not to cling/hold on it... do NOT accumulate it. but banksters and cultures have always taught the opposite... so here we are today with a corporations/banks take over.

all great spiritualists do NOT preach in favor of wealth accumulation.... have lived ascetic lives.. God created as much materialism as the spiritiual realm because both sides of the spectrum MUST validate each other and thus existence.death. In the best of the worlds spiritualism and materialism must mirror one another... it is not what we have, do we ???

You are willfully lost and ignorant.

When you start throwing "Jesus" around as justification for your silly concepts, I take notice. I called you on your reference and THAT is what brought the bible in.... YOUR reference.

God created all material. How can you say God is not materialistic? He has a perfect order. This world was corrupted and now is tainted with evil. It will be destroyed and remade. THIS is why Messiah warned us not to be entrapped by the things of this world. They are tainted with evil. The principles He taught are pure.

singular_me

15th June 2013, 02:13 PM

I dont see myself as poor, EE... we hope to run across an opportunity of land managers, working for someone who got the whole picture (is not greedy) and into self-sustainability up to his ears. We have completely surrendered to serendipity and we know that something will manifest if we remain dedicated to our world vision. Like I said earlier, the matrix is so complex but if we can reduce our impact on globalization by say 80-85%, that sound great.

There will always be some islands/areas where people are free-er. IMHO

It must be getting increasingly more difficult to live outside the system like you do singular. The system is set up to trap you. Soon we will live in a cashless society...a cashless society that newer generations and many older generations have welcomed in. Once we reach that point, the system will own everyone. You will choose to live within it, or die.

5 THINGS NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT BEING POOR
Posted on 13th June 2013 by Calamity in Economy
By: John Cheese

Being poor is like a game of poker where if you lose, the other players get to fuck you. And if you win, the dealer fucks you. A bunch of you reading this are among the 45 million “working poor” in America, and if you’re not, you know somebody who is. Like me.

I’m not blaming anybody but myself for getting into this situation (I was drunk for two straight decades) and I’m not asking for anybody’s sympathy. What I am saying is that people are quick to tell you to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and just stop being poor. What they don’t understand is the series of intricate financial traps that makes that incredibly difficult.

If you’re not poor, that’s awesome. I’m not mad at you, or jealous. Hopefully you’ll never find out that …

#5. You Get Charged for Using Your Own Money

This is the future, where many businesses no longer accept cash as payment. That means you are required to have a checking account to function in the economy. And if you’re poor, that means at some point you’re going to get bank-fucked.

Because having a checking account while poor doesn’t just mean you have to be responsible and good at math — you have to be perfect. Meticulous, flawless record keeping is the difference between surviving and having the bank seize your next paycheck.

Let’s say you’re running late for work and hurriedly stop to get gas, paying with a bank card. In your haste you forget to write the $55 down (gas being $4 a gallon, you know). So while you spent the last week until payday thinking you had $50 in your account to absorb minor purchases, you actually were $5 in the red.

So payday comes. You go to the bank to deposit your check, at which point the bank takes it, sticks it in their pocket and says, “Thank you very much! I’m buying myself a new pair of shoes with that shit!” They then inform you that your account was at -$200 at the moment you deposited your check.

The bank can hit you with a $35 fine for every charge that comes in while you are in minus territory. The bank will not tell you they charged you this money. You will have no idea anything is wrong.

It’s a silent chain reaction in which every charge that comes through during those few days before payday draws the $35 fee. The $8 you spent at the gas station for cigarettes, the $24.99 that automatically comes out for your Internet access … for each, the bank silently zaps out the charge and $35 on top of it, until your next paycheck is gone. Five seconds of oversight gave the bank the right to take away a week’s worth of your labor.

Some of you are saying, “Fine, just tell the bank to go fuck itself. Walk out the door and just do everything by cash or money order.” Ah, but now when you get paid, you have to go somewhere to cash your paycheck — and businesses charge up to $8 to do it. If you’re working in the service industry, congratulations — an hour of your labor just vanished … just so you could use your own money. Some describe this as a “poverty tax.” Others refer to it as a “Because fuck you, that’s why” fee.

The one piece of advice I can offer here is that you’ll be surprised how many businesses will give you some leeway if you just call them and beg. Banks are run by human beings (as of the writing of this article) and if you get a person on the phone you can get them to waive overdraft fees, particularly if it’s a first offense. Even businesses waiting on a payment will give you an extra week or two if you call and explain it. In this economy, they’re so used to people just taking the money and disappearing that they’re happy to hear you’re operating in some kind of good faith.

Otherwise, you’re going to be in a bind. And this is when you’ll find out …

#4. There is an Industry That Profits by Keeping You Poor

Think you’re too smart to ever use one of those shady “payday loan” places? Well, you should know that nobody thinks they’re a good deal. People go there because they’re choosing between which fucking provides the most lube.

Say the gas bill is a month past due, and they’re threatening to turn it off (if so, it’s $150 to get it reconnected). Or you’re about to be late on a credit card payment (which would be a fee and a doubling of your interest rate). Or your favorite S&M whip broke, and Whipfest is coming up (entry fee is nonrefundable). That is when you find yourself swallowing your pride and heading to the payday loan place.

A standard 14-day “payday” loan charges $15.50 per $100 borrowed. So a $500 loan ends up being $577.50 (or 1.5 tanks of gas in interest). But if you don’t have it after 14 days, that’s fine — they offer to extend your loan to 180 days. It makes the payments miniscule. Oh, and you’ll be paying back $1,275 at 403.10 percent APR.

Yes, you got fucked, in the name of your financial asshole avoiding the credit card company’s bigger, barbed dick. And it’s a hell of a lot better than going over on your checking account again and starting up their infinite circular fuckatron.

All right, let’s say you wised up. You save and cut back. You resist an offer to, say, buy a computer on Best Buy’s finance plan, because you’re too smart to take on more debt. And no monthly cell phone payments for you, oh no. You’re not going to put yourself in a hole again!

Congratulations. You just did. It turns out …

#3. No Credit Can be Just as Damaging as Bad Credit

On the spectrum of financial responsibility, from “that billionaire who drives an old Dodge Dakota” down to “MC Hammer,” you’d think that the next step up from being overdue on a bunch of bills would be to have no bills at all. Don’t buy it if you can’t afford it, right?

You’ll find out the problem the next time somebody does a credit check — having no credit will stop you from getting a loan or an apartment just as fast as having bad credit. And more importantly, if you have old bad credit due to a bunch of previous fuckups, simply vanishing off the credit map doesn’t do anything to fix it.

It took me six months to find a place to rent after applying for every property that appeared in the paper across five towns. I was denied each time. It was my lack of credit due to years of me and lenders deciding to just stay out of each other’s hair, like those old sitcoms where roommates would draw a line down the middle of the house. I even used a prepaid cell phone where I’d just be buying minutes off the shelf rather than get locked into a contract with all those termination fees and shit. When I needed something big, like a computer upgrade or furniture, I’d wait for a windfall, like a tax return, and pay cash. It’s called financial responsibility, motherfucker!

Nope. It turns out that to a business, a customer with no credit is like a girl giving you the silent treatment — they assume something is wrong.

And everybody checks your credit — if I want to get Direct TV, I have to pay $310 worth of startup fees (the size of your up-front payments/deposits depends on your credit history). Utilities are even more — which means trying to move to a new place costs hundreds of dollars in deposits (remember the $150 to get my gas turned on). If I need a new car, well, let’s just say I need to show up at the dealership with a shoebox full of cash.

So repairing credit means opening accounts (having a cell phone plan is a good one, having your utilities in your own name — as opposed to the landlord’s — is another) and, you know, making sure to pay your fucking bills on time. And don’t bother trying to shortcut the system by saving the shoebox full of cash, getting a loan, then paying it all off the next month. Length of credit is part of your credit score. They want to know your ability to make steady, long term payments without missing a month or being late

#2. Your Next Expensive Disaster is Always Around the Corner

Shit happens, always at the exact worst time. A tire blows on my car and, without a spare, it instantly becomes a paperweight. There’s $80 for a new tire, $50 for a tow. Now, it’s a good idea to have a separate bank account set up specifically for these situations because they are unavoidable. It’s also a good idea to have a sex slave or two just sitting around in case your balls need shaved. It’s not that fucking simple.

You get the same domino effect with sudden financial disasters as you do with the bank fees. For instance, I worked a shitty service industry job, which meant I got paid by the hour, and didn’t get paid unless I showed up — no paid time off. But I couldn’t physically get to work because of the goddamned flat tire. It’s a rural area, no subway or buses. So it’s double penetration — not just lost work time, but lost time that is spent paying for a tow and a tire. And if I didn’t happen to have that money sitting around, it meant waiting until payday, and missing work until then.

Which meant my next paycheck would be short. By the time I get it fixed and add in the missed work time, that $80 tire just turned into a $250 enema. That’s life in a world with no financial margin for error. It’s like trying to climb out of a dick pit but the ladder is also made of dicks.

Years ago, we bought a house with the help of our in-laws. You know, because owning property is the responsible adult thing to do. The very first fucking night of moving in, we got a massive water leak. I couldn’t just call the landlord — I was the landlord. I couldn’t call a plumber because we didn’t have the $150 to pay the guy, not until payday. So the leak was allowed to run until we could put the money together to pay one. So two weeks later, we hand the guy $150. And then, a week later, the water bill arrives.

$500.

You find yourself thinking, “Man, we could get caught up if this bad shit wouldn’t keep happening!” Then it finally hits you that bad shit happens like clockwork. Not because God hates you, but because you’re poor and you’re using cheap shit that breaks. Maybe you don’t pay the $150 for a plumber, but have a handy friend fix it for you for $50. Awesome, you saved $100! Then six months later you have a leak again, because it turns out he fixed it with rubber bands and Fruit Roll-ups.

Everything in a poor person’s life is a cash vampire. My truck has 170,000 miles on it and the MPG is so bad that every time I start it, the ghost of an Indian appears in the passenger seat and cries. About twice a year, something under the hood grinds to a halt or melts — always another $500 on a tow and repairs. And that was the money I was saving to get a more reliable car.

Hell, even my own body does it to me. I lost my last job because of chronic back pain, losing my health insurance in the process. Which means I can’t treat my chronic back pain. Can’t afford to get dentist check-ups, so more expensive problems are allowed to grow and fester. And so on.

#1. You’re Always in Survival Mode

There’s a phrase in the working world that drives me crazy. One guy says, “The money’s not great, but I love my job.” And somebody responds, “Hey, happiness is all that really matters.”

To be clear, that’s probably true for people at a certain level of income. If you aren’t struggling to pay the bills, then happiness is indeed a pretty damn awesome extra. But you know those movies like American Beauty, about the guy with the unfulfilling career who abandons it to live life to its fullest? Yeah, don’t forget that after quitting their jobs they still come home to houses that look like this:

But down here, at this level, you take what you can fucking get. Fantasies about holding out for that dream job will ruin you.

For instance, long before reading to this part, some helpful commenter has surely skipped down and chimed in with, “Why don’t you just get a job, you lazy fuck!” Wait, did you think I was unemployed? Hell no, it’s been years since I was out of work for any long period of time. I’ve always had jobs. Shitty, shitty jobs.

A huge chunk of this economy runs on shitty jobs now. Recently, McDonald’s held a job fair with 50,000 openings. They got more than 1,000,000 applications. Tens of millions of you will wind up in one of these jobs, it’s sheer math.

These service jobs pay hourly, they give you little or nothing in terms of benefits and there is nothing in the way of security even from week to week — your hours could get cut at any time, for any reason. Sure, you can take a second part-time job. Though, that’s assuming you can find one that works around your primary job’s schedule — just mentioning that you have another job in an interview is often enough to stop that interview mid-sentence. Why hire you when there are 30 guys in line behind you with completely free schedules?

So in answer to the inevitable, “You need to dream bigger, and strive forth to get a new career for yourself!” Hey, I totally agree. But now we’re back in the Catch-22 poverty fuck gauntlet. Once you’re in this tier of jobs, getting out isn’t just hard, it’s expensive.

Sure, you can take classes at night at a community college or something. Maybe you’ll even get financial aid or loans to pay for your books or tuition. What they will not pay for is the time you missed at work while you were in classes or for a babysitter or for transportation. And you sure as fuck better be certain that you have some kind of aptitude for whatever you’re studying (which, by the way, you won’t know until you’ve spent a year or two studying it) because that’s the only chance you’re going to get.

You can do it the old-fashioned way, by working your way up the corporate ladder from within whatever shitty job you have. But that is also expensive because promotions often require you to move. I got offered a promotion at my shitty service job (washing semi trucks with high-pressure hoses, the job that eventually destroyed my back) that would have required me to move several hours away. And moving costs money — remember what I said about the cost of getting utilities turned on? And how landlords check your credit?

And then there are the intangible costs. I would be abandoning my children, for instance — I share custody with my ex-wife, who obviously was not going to be moving with me. How many visits would I get in before my car broke down? And moving away from friends and family also comes with a cost — think of the favors you do for each other (i.e. the friend/brother/uncle willing to fix the truck for free, because you helped paint his porch, etc).

It’s not impossible, but it’s taking a huge risk. And if the new job doesn’t work out after you bet all of your chips, you’re triple fucked. And at that point the world will wag its finger at you and tell you how irresponsible it was to move when you were so poor. “Ha, you poor people are always doing stupid shit like that!”

And on and on. People do get out of this situation — I got paid to write this, for instance. All I’m saying is that the journey is something like trying to go from the Earth to the Moon. By letting them launch a Saturn V rocket directly into your butthole.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor_p2/#ixzz2W6YR4TEK

singular_me

15th June 2013, 02:49 PM

Ximmy and Book, those concepts have been around for millennia... and I am ready to try something RADICALLY different... because obviously, this global take over is the result of a faulty/skewed logic to start with.

I am glad to be an unemployed philosopher, those who get paid, generally succumb the corruption of thoughts. not all of them BUT most of them

as a matter of fact we are dealing with multi-layers deceptions and I am sure that if masses could wake up (pipe dream perhaps) , they would turn their back to wealth accumulation overnight - and stewardship/custodianship would then be regarded as a reality. As long as people fret over their possessions which prompt them to speculate and do other crazy things and keep them in a state of psychosis, the NWO is here to stay.

Nothing can remain true forever, it just depends on the evolution of individual's awareness and circumstances. Countless wars have since eons awfully distorted what we think it is out there.

http://youtu.be/4h9re1bHt40

Goldy thinks she can go swimming here any time she wants because she does not acknowledge the "ownership" of this water.

http://www.mydisplayimage.com/blog/premium/anim_rubberring.gif WHEE...THE CROC IS AN ILLUSION AND DOES NOT "OWN" THIS WATER

messianicdruid

15th June 2013, 03:41 PM

Ximy and Book, those concepts have been around for millennia... and I am ready to try something RADICALLY different... because obviously, this global take over is the result of a faulty/skewed logic to start with.

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the [ man's ] law. Thus it is easy to understand how [ man's ]law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the [ man's ] law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the [ man's ] law, and in proportion to the power that he holds."

Frédéric Bastiat

EE_

15th June 2013, 08:51 PM

zap

15th June 2013, 08:59 PM

When you don't own anything you are truly free.

Hatha Sunahara

15th June 2013, 11:33 PM

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Kris Kristoferson

Only in Elysium are you truly free.

Hatha

messianicdruid

16th June 2013, 07:14 AM

A.E. Houseman

The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Now I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong,
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn or Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

I half agree with Housman.

BarnkleBob

16th June 2013, 10:11 AM

The fall of man into the physical reality of particles creates estangement between soul & spirit, further our language can only represent two things and two things ONLY: "fear and or desire." Property is NOT the cause of suffering, it is fear and desire that is invoked whenever the CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP is introduced into éthe human equation.... "Let us go and confound the language." Indeed our temporal reality is at least 5 dimensions while our language at best is two dimensional... Houston we have a problem....therein lays a source of alienation....failure to correctly communicate and express real meaning and true intent..... desire and fear control the animal brain in the weak, while the strong control desire and fear with the mind.... one is being controlled while the other is controlling...

singular_me

16th June 2013, 07:07 PM

very interesting, MD.... but I'd rather look at the causes instead of the consequences...

"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the [ man's ] law. Thus it is easy to understand how [ man's ]law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the [ man's ] law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the [ man's ] law, and in proportion to the power that he holds."

Frédéric Bastiat

singular_me

16th June 2013, 07:17 PM

life in itself, even without the NWO, is a big dispossession game... Those elites are the nefarious embodiment of the latter.

I think you are clouding the argument.

The biggest point you are missing is the concept of time, past/present/future. If Goldy goes swimming there, for example, and the crocs are not there. She "owns" that water, at that present time. She can think about swimming there any time she likes.

I think some posters just haven't let go of their woobies as kids.

5013

Hitch

16th June 2013, 10:34 PM

life in itself, even without the NWO, is a big dispossession game... Those elites are the nefarious embodiment of the latter.

I disagree. Regardless of the NWO and the elites..

I live my life and enjoy it. They have yet encroached up on it. They like digital FRN's fake money, I like honest money gold/silver.

It will take some time, for them, to gain in their nefarious ways. Their greed is their beacon. As long as you hear that beacon, you can prepare and do what you need to do.

BarnkleBob

17th June 2013, 09:40 AM

I disagree. Regardless of the NWO and the elites..

I live my life and enjoy it. They have yet encroached up on it. They like digital FRN's fake money, I like honest money gold/silver.

It will take some time, for them, to gain in their nefarious ways. Their greed is their beacon. As long as you hear that beacon, you can prepare and do what you need to do.
Jacques Lacarriere suggests that Gnostics detected the humanized face of the Archons in all authoritarian structures and systems that deny authenticity and self-determination to the individual.
"the fundamentally corrupt character of all human enterprises and institutions: time, history, powers, states, religions, races, nations..." (The Gnostics, p. 24)

Corruption occurs, not because we make errors, but because the errors we make go uncorrected and extrapolate beyond the scale of correction. Lacarriere says that Gnostics reachepd this conclusion “out of rational observation of the natural world and human behavior.” U Ultimately, they asserted the, “contention that all power – whatever kind it may be – is a source of alienation... All institutions, laws, religions, churches and powers are nothing but a sham and a trap, the perpetuation of an age-old deception.” (p.28-29)

BarnkleBob

17th June 2013, 10:12 AM

singular_me

17th June 2013, 10:51 AM

amen... I definitely concur. It goes wayyyy beyond the "zionists". Actually blaming it all on them is kinda reductive as the average man begs for some form of power almost 24/7.

Power of gold/silver that is going to inflict a double/triple whammy upon world populations when the system will go down?

-----------------------

Ultimately, they asserted the, “contention that all power – whatever kind it may be – is a source of alienation... All institutions, laws, religions, churches and powers are nothing but a sham and a trap, the perpetuation of an age-old deception.” (p.28-29)

messianicdruid

17th June 2013, 11:17 AM

Jacques Lacarriere suggests that Gnostics detected the humanized face of the Archons in all authoritarian structures and systems that deny authenticity and self-determination to the individual.

"...the average man begs for some form of power almost 24/7."

"I think we're being run by maniacs..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vND53ZrQD9M

singular_me

17th June 2013, 01:14 PM

Neuro

18th June 2013, 03:11 AM

Jewboo

18th June 2013, 03:57 AM

It goes wayyyy beyond the "zionists". Actually blaming it all on them is kinda reductive as the average man begs for some form of power almost 24/7.

http://www.chan4chan.org/img/jews.jpg

Yeah...the jews are innocent victims of antisemitic goys.

:rolleyes:

singular_me

18th June 2013, 06:04 AM

Hey Neuro:

I thought I made it more obvious than that. The elites want to own countries, while masses their own houses. The threat to have one's house burned down (economically or physically) will always rally masses' support for wars or/and political divide

me think that land ownership is as futile than our current copyrights laws. It is not because we are still quite barbarians in this regard that land ownership has to be "justified". I an sure that more evolved outer space societies have overcome it.

RIDICULOUS:
Legal loophole could let billionaires BUY other planets
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2125714/Legal-loophole-let-billionaires-BUY-planets-human-settlers-arrive-snap-Moon.html

Sure I am certain their have been elites strengthening their position by playing a enemy at the gates card. But it is also a fact that numerous city's has been ransacked, burned and plundered throughout history, so I am not sure what you try to show here, are you saying that people are better off when their houses are burned down and all their possessions are taken?

singular_me

18th June 2013, 06:17 AM

I knew you'd show up on that one Book, you are so predictable....

yes although the zionists are real it goes wayyy beyond them.. ever wondered why there are 33 degrees in freemasonery and why Jesus died at age 33? Are you ready to go down the rabid hole, Book?

when are you going to grasp that "demonization" has always helped whatever enemy become more powerful. It is a cosmic law and that is why preaching for peace and live and let live are our only real self-defense weapons - unless the very goal is to annihilate mankind of course.

taking responsibility for what it is comes down to the understanding as why hatred and fears glue the whole matrix together. So eradicating the NWO = personal inner work. The bigger the bloodshed the bigger the illusion/delusion.

Yeah...the jews are innocent victims of antisemitic goys.

:rolleyes:

iOWNme

18th June 2013, 06:50 AM

and the elites addressed their nation:
the invaders are almost the gate and will take everything from you/us if we dont fight back. We'll rather die than see them burn down our city.... blah, blah, blah...

that is the ruling class that gives ownership a meaning... remove the ruling class and ownership appears to become a moot point. Indoctrination, I am afraid.

This is nonsense. If a gang of roving criminals shows up to kill your family and steal your home, you dont need the 'elites' to rile you up to 'defend' your property. Its called survival instinct, and man has used it to rise to the top of the planetary species.

If anything 'elites' may conjure up enemies and use things like 'patriotism' and 'nationalism' to get good people to kill others who havent harmed them in any way. This has NOTHING to do with individuals owning themselves?

-------------------------

The answer is NO to the question of "Is the PRINCIPLE of ownership a core deception?"

Ask ANYONE in ANY position of 'Authority' throughout history if 'ownership' exists..... To argue against this is to argue for for your own SLAVERY.

You seemed to have quoted me here, but i cannot figure out the context?

I did ask you a very simple question that you did not answer: Do you own yourself? (Be careful, i just asked you the equivalent of 'Do you need oxygen to breathe?')

Do you own that garden you spoke of? Meaning, if a stranger came up and started pulling your garden so he could eat food and survive would you agree he has just as much right to your garden as you do? This is a yes or no question, any other answer is obfuscating from the truth.

You can see that the entire PRINCIPLE of your argument is..........I'll let you decide.

singular_me

18th June 2013, 08:21 AM

Non-sense? Lets see: Sui Juris, are you referring to governments/elites related deceptions... such as drug wars, etc?

for the custodianship/stewardship to work out, one MUST address all layers of lies at once, otherwise there no way out. And in which case I agree, this is non-sense. :)

I have often noticed that people 'd rather embrace "gloom and doom" instead of looking at what is called today "utopian" solutions because there is a rampant social psychosis. As long as we seek to empower whatever ruling class/gang one way or another, nothing will ever change.

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 08:36 AM

@singular..... indeed our reality is much more complex than merely pointing fingers at one, two, three or more groups to explain suffering and alienation, the same may be said for laying responsibily on property ownership or the language.,.... I prefer the gnostic world view with a scientific twist.... the double-slit experiment seems to prove that everything is a wave that transmutes into an observable particle of matter ONLY when it is observed by a conscious observer.... our temporal universe of matter is either created by particles or the "reflection" of particles instantaneously. We must presume that these particles, since we are them and they are us, possess a will to survive once they are created.. via conscious observation based on thoughts of either desire or fear.... geez what could go wrong? LOL.... We are creating our own alienation and suffering thru no fault of our own, it is thusly the design of our reality that is the root cause, and since if we consider it a design flaw, it is beyond our control... which opens a new can of worms concerning the meaning of choice....

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 09:43 AM

We are creating our own alienation and suffering thru no fault of our own, it is thusly the design of our reality that is the root cause, and since if we consider it a design flaw, it is beyond our control... which opens a new can of worms concerning the meaning of choice....

"When you begin to look at the laws of liability, then ownership becomes very, very important. Keep in mind that the reason men debate the question of free will [ choice ] is really to establish liability for evil and sin in the earth. The underlying purpose for believing in free will is to make man responsible for evil and to absolve God of any liability. Man’s free will seems to do that.

The main problem with the idea of free will is that the cumulative effect of billions of free wills on earth, combined with the free will of the devil and his angels [ servants ] tends to limit God’s ability to resolve the evil that we see running rampant in the earth. God tends to become a helpless giant with hands tied by the free will of man. He stands at the sidelines pleading helplessly, while the devil overrides the free will of man by making them do bad things.

Thus, when men attempt to relieve God of liability by attributing free will to all men, they do so only at the expense of His sovereignty. There is a better and more accurate solution to this dilemma that is revealed in the biblical laws of liability."

If man chooses not to consider God's Laws on liability and "ownership", even while suffering and feeling alienated, how can it be blamed on a "design flaw"? Perhaps reality is designed for us to seek answers from its Creator. We sure aren't finding adequate answers anywhere else.

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/free-will-versus-ownership/chapter-2-ownership-and-liability/

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 10:25 AM

"When you begin to look at the laws of liability, then ownership becomes very, very important. Keep in mind that the reason men debate the question of free will [ choice ] is really to establish liability for evil and sin in the earth. The underlying purpose for believing in free will is to make man responsible for evil and to absolve God of any liability. Man’s free will seems to do that.

The main problem with the idea of free will is that the cumulative effect of billions of free wills on earth, combined with the free will of the devil and his angels [ servants ] tends to limit God’s ability to resolve the evil that we see running rampant in the earth. God tends to become a helpless giant with hands tied by the free will of man. He stands at the sidelines pleading helplessly, while the devil overrides the free will of man by making them do bad things.

Thus, when men attempt to relieve God of liability by attributing free will to all men, they do so only at the expense of His sovereignty. There is a better and more accurate solution to this dilemma that is revealed in the biblical laws of liability."

If man chooses not to consider God's Laws on liability and "ownership", even while suffering and feeling alienated, how can it be blamed on a "design flaw"? Perhaps reality is designed for us to seek answers from its Creator. We sure aren't finding adequate answers anywhere else.

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/free-will-versus-ownership/chapter-2-ownership-and-liability/
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

madfranks

18th June 2013, 10:37 AM

God tends to become a helpless giant with hands tied by the free will of man. He stands at the sidelines pleading helplessly, while the devil overrides the free will of man by making them do bad things.

If man's free will is what keeps God from making them do good things, it's that same free will that keeps the devil from "making them do bad things". The devil doesn't override anyone's free will. It is you who will choose who you will serve, neither party can force you to do it.

iOWNme

18th June 2013, 10:46 AM

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 10:52 AM

Lets consider the design of our reality.... an apparent particle may not be an actual particlel at all.... all observed matter begins in wave form, it is hypothesized... that particle matter takes the FORM of substance due to the interference pattern which occurs during the act of conscious observation, the interference patterns are created via the wave function by waves that are smaller than 10~17 cm.... (ref: double-slit experiment). The entire reality is but an illusion, fear & desire, alienation & suffering, the duality is the glue-ons that perpetuate ad infinitum the illusion and holographic nature of this grand comedy.....

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 11:06 AM

Are you an Attorney? LOL You cant seem to answer the most basic of questions. I feel like im taking to Palani with you. Im going to try 1 last time:

DO YOU OWN YOURSELF?

#

I will respectfully provide my opinion.... if you are cognizantly & consciously attached to the temporal reality of matter, then the world owns you, however should you reject the conscious desires, fears and attachments of this world, only then may a person begin to gain personal sovereignty. The Gnostics were genocided when they rejected materialism as an authority... their gnosis revealed that the Archonic authorities used desire and fear to retain power over humans, reject their TRAP SYSTEM and only then may you own urself.

singular_me

18th June 2013, 11:15 AM

I am not blaming ownership but saying that we need to observe the Universe then having Laws/Rights evolving in harmony with the latter. I just dont why we need to defend something which we eventually be forced to get rid of - or dispossessed from. However in the West it starts with the old testament and the jews in search of land ownership.

I'd rather see the "flaw by design" as beneficial since we need it to evolve.

there are so many scams out there, so yes let's protect ourselves!... we been doing this for millennia... did it help ??? was it all a massive distraction ???

@singular..... indeed our reality is much more complex than merely pointing fingers at one, two, three or more groups to explain suffering and alienation, the same may be said for laying responsibily on property ownership or the language.,.... I prefer the gnostic world view with a scientific twist.... the double-slit experiment seems to prove that everything is a wave that transmutes into an observable particle of matter ONLY when it is observed by a conscious observer.... our temporal universe of matter is either created by particles or the "reflection" of particles instantaneously. We must presume that these particles, since we are them and they are us, possess a will to survive once they are created.. via conscious observation based on thoughts of either desire or fear.... geez what could go wrong? LOL.... We are creating our own alienation and suffering thru no fault of our own, it is thusly the design of our reality that is the root cause, and since if we consider it a design flaw, it is beyond our control... which opens a new can of worms concerning the meaning of choice....

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 11:27 AM

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.Are you attempting to illustrate a design flaw or as I have demonstrated, that God alone is Sovereign?

singular_me

18th June 2013, 11:35 AM

I have tried to initiate the debate many times on here but you are correct: comprehending the nature of reality is "key" for mankind's evolution. This "IS" what is killing us. the real cause. The zionists and co are just groups which understand (cynically too well) reality manipulation.

===========================================

The entire reality is but an illusion, fear & desire, alienation & suffering, the duality is the glue-ons that perpetuate ad infinitum the illusion and holographic nature of this grand comedy.....
e

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 11:56 AM

Are you attempting to illustrate a design flaw or as I have demonstrated, that God alone is Sovereign?

Please define the term God....yet w/o definition or authority to Isaiah 45:7, Isaiah is telling us that the Lord is responsible for both good as well as evil,.... he/it/they are responsible for all things in this reality..... does that make the LORD sovereign? Is this Lord even the original creator deity? I dont know! From a gnostic perspective such a Lord is the Demiurgos, a.k.a. the half creator who created a flawed reality because most of the original creators essence is missing....only a small bit of the original essence a.k.a. light remains in this realm. Of course like ALL philosopby and religion these are just theories.....just because you truly believe something doesnt make it real!

singular_me

18th June 2013, 11:58 AM

[COLOR=#ff0000][B]DO YOU OWN YOURSELF?
---------------------
I am a responsible and conscious being belonging to a Greater Reality which comprises the entire Universe. So in reply to your question: NO, not entirely. Though I am.

Hitch

18th June 2013, 12:11 PM

---------------------
I am a responsible and conscious being belonging to a Greater Reality which comprises the entire Universe. So in reply to your question: NO, not entirely. Though I am.

You should own your actions however...and your actions, define you. I enjoy this thread and philosophical discussions, however, if anyone uses something 'outside' themselves to justify their actions, my hairs raise up. That's how tyranny is justified.

There is good and bad, much of which is obvious. The greedy bankers for example who make these fraudulent decisions/actions, they know they are bad decisions, yet they make them anyway. I'm sure they find some 'greater truth' to justify it too.

palani

18th June 2013, 12:16 PM

You should own your actions however

Creating an action is creating a 'person'.

singular_me

18th June 2013, 12:21 PM

There is no outside/inside... all is contained within... thats is why I had to say not entirely. In the greater reality we all are avatars, I am you and you are me... owning myself makes no sense.

Holographic Universe : Are we all Avatars ?? - YouTube
► 72:16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI60_eNVpOI‎

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.
==================

You should own your actions however...and your actions, define you. I enjoy this thread and philosophical discussions, however, if anyone uses something 'outside' themselves to justify their actions, my hairs raise up. That's how tyranny is justified.

There is good and bad, much of which is obvious. The greedy bankers for example who make these fraudulent decisions/actions, they know they are bad decisions, yet they make them anyway. I'm sure they find some 'greater truth' to justify it too.

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 12:36 PM

There is no outside/inside... all is contained within... thats is why I had to say not entirely. In the greater reality we all avatars, I am you and you are me... owning myself makes no sense.

Holographic Universe : Are we all Avatars ?? - YouTube
► 72:16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI60_eNVpOI‎

==================
Indeed, almost all things point to this reality being filled with avatars experiencing different levels of awareness and consciousness.... some levels provide self-awareness while others do not.... I wish I were more aware of the how it really works, but it appears the rules of the game prohibit us from learning this FORBIDDEN knowledge.... we get bits and pieces, but never the proverbial fruit..... I suspect this rule was written to perpetuate the game, as knowing the game would prolly result in its destruction....

Hitch

18th June 2013, 12:38 PM

There is no outside/inside... all is contained within... thats is why I had to say not entirely. In the greater reality we all avatars, I am you and you are me... owning myself makes no sense.

There is an outside and inside. The outside is what people see, the physical. The inside is who YOU are. Your divine spirit, so to speak.

We don't own our bodies. If I lost an arm at work, I'd still be me. It's what is seen that is different, my mind and soul have been unaffected.

This is what I mean by actions defining us. If I use an arm to help feed the need, or if I use that arm to rob folks. It's the actions, that separate men from each other. What we choose to do.

That is what you own. That is what I own, we all own that.

I don't care what color, race, or religion a man is. I pay attention to actions. Not what they say or how they look, how they want me to see them....see men for who they truly are.

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 12:58 PM

There is no outside/inside... all is contained within... thats is why I had to say not entirely. In the greater reality we all avatars, I am you and you are me... owning myself makes no sense.

Holographic Universe : Are we all Avatars ?? - YouTube
► 72:16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI60_eNVpOI‎

==================
Another very interesting aspect of this reality is the ABSCENCE of pure truth and/or the ability to describe pure truth....mathematics at best is an. incomplete and very limited in its descriptive capabilities..... same can be said for metaphysics and
and religion with all the symbology and allegory.,... truth seems to be an illusion that escapes us, or maybe its just a concept by the self-awaren conciousness with no basis in fact..... maybe truth is not discoverable when choice is an option.... so many questions, so few answers....

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 01:16 PM

Is this Lord even the original creator deity? I dont know!

"Lord" is a substitute for the tetragramaton - YHWH - the life-giver-law-giver, aka Creator, by definition the Owner of all that He created, and thus the One responsible for it.

"The foremost problem that philosophers and theologians in the past have had to resolve is how a perfect and just God could either cause or permit evil in the creation. Nearly all of them have made the assumption that God could neither create nor cause evil without tainting His character. Consequently, they have all attempted to shift the responsibility to others, either to Satan or to men.

The Persians were probably the most successful in removing from God all responsibility for evil. They taught that Satan was co-equal and co-eternal with God. Thus, all evil in the world originated and was propagated totally outside the jurisdiction of God, and outside his power to prevent it. This removed all liability from God's account. However, this was only done at the expense of His sovereignty, for now there were TWO GODS of equal strength and duration in the universe. The Bible clearly begs to differ with this view.

The pagan Greeks, who believed that spirit was good and matter was evil, did not believe that a good God could create matter without tainting His good character. They believed that the creator of all things was an evil Demiurge, a lesser, evil god. However, they were never able to figure out how the good God could create an evil Demiurge in the first place.

This "solution" reduced the problem, but it did not eradicate it. It removed God from all direct liability for the sin in the world; yet God was still indirectly responsible by creating the Demiurge or allowing him to be created and allowing him to do his evil work.

The Church, like the Greeks, has often put the blame for the origin of evil entirely upon Satan. The purpose of this argument is to remove from God any liability for sin. The thought is admirable, but unfortunately it does this at the expense of His sovereignty. It forces us to think of Satan as an independent g-o-d - an angel originally created good but who fell out of his own free will. That view gives men the impression that God has no control over Satan, or if He does, then God is helpless to do anything about it, except to attempt to influence men to do good and reject evil.

In putting all the blame on Satan, this view succeeds in separating God from directly causing evil, but it has never succeeded in separating God from indirectly causing evil by creating Satan in the first place. The only way to make God totally free of liability would be to insist that Satan took God totally by surprise when he fell. This, however, makes God less than omniscient (knowing all things).

The justice and goodness of God is correctly assumed in most Christian circles. How we resolve the philosophical problem is the subject of much debate and depends upon other assumptions. The Calvinist viewpoint attempts to resolve the issue by preserving the sovereignty of God, but it does so at the expense of His justice. In other words, they say that God has sovereignly elected a small remnant for salvation, and the rest have been elected to burn in hell. The Arminian viewpoint attempts to resolve the issue by preserving God's justice at the expense of His sovereignty. In other words, they say that man has total free will and that God can do little or nothing to overrule either Satan or man.

The problem is like a short blanket. The longer one end is, the shorter the other end. In vain we pull the blanket up to cover our chins, for as we do, we leave our toes exposed. It is one of the most unresolvable problems of the universe. Philosophers of all religious persuasions have struggled with it for a long time as well."

additional definitions:
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/creations-jubilee/chapter-13-the-tension-in-creation/

singular_me

18th June 2013, 01:23 PM

agree... while all levels of awareness contain their own sets of truths, one can only resolve issues when growing in awareness.

As long as the reality manipulators keep us fragmented, we cannot perceive the holographic aspect of human interactions and because of this failure we spend our time addressing consequences. Judgement Day is highly predictable

It is so simple, yet so complex.

-------------

Indeed, almost all things point to this reality being filled with avatars experiencing different levels of awareness and consciousness.... some levels provide self-awareness while others do not.... I wish I were more aware of the how it really works, but it appears the rules of the game prohibit us from learning this FORBIDDEN knowledge.... we get bits and pieces, but never the proverbial fruit..... I suspect this rule was written to perpetuate the game, as knowing the game would prolly result in its destruction....

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 01:27 PM

It is so simple, yet so complex.

"One theory of the origin of property associates it with the notion of autonomy, or self-sovereignty, that emerged slowly out of our communal tribal past. Charles Avila describes the logic this way: “If I am my own, and my labor power belongs to me, then what I make is mine.” (2) Here then is an ideological prerequisite for any concept of property, that “I am my own,” which is by no means a universal precept in human societies. In other societies, the clan, the tribe, the village, or even the community of all life may have taken priority over the individual conception of the self, in which case your labor power does not belong to you, but to something greater. (3) The institution of property, therefore, is not the root of our present malady, but a symptom of our disconnection and isolation. This book, therefore, does not seek to abolish property (for to do so would address the symptom rather than the cause) but to transform it as part of a larger transformation of human beingness."

http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-4-the-trouble-with-property/

We are our ...[brother's keeper].

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 01:43 PM

Thanks for the response, however I find theology and religion to be absurdities on their very face.... a mish-mash of wildly gyrating extremes ad infinitum.... the dualling gods one evil, one good.... come on, I'm not in elementary school and olde agrarian supersticions and myths have no basis in my existence.... god, freedom, truth, property, happiness, etc. are all human constructs and concepts....they are also nothing more than theories passed and modified to fit the time from one duped generation to another...

singular_me

18th June 2013, 02:05 PM

what an interesting read... what is also interesting is that the Isaiah' s verse is mostly known by a crowd leaning toward pantheism.

Tnx MD

--------------------

"Lord" is a substitute for the tetragramaton - YHWH - the life-giver-law-giver, aka Creator, by definition the Owner of all that He created, and thus the One responsible for it.

"The foremost problem that philosophers and theologians in the past have had to resolve is how a perfect and just God could either cause or permit evil in the creation. Nearly all of them have made the assumption that God could neither create nor cause evil without tainting His character. Consequently, they have all attempted to shift the responsibility to others, either to Satan or to men.

The Persians were probably the most successful in removing from God all responsibility for evil. They taught that Satan was co-equal and co-eternal with God. Thus, all evil in the world originated and was propagated totally outside the jurisdiction of God, and outside his power to prevent it. This removed all liability from God's account. However, this was only done at the expense of His sovereignty, for now there were TWO GODS of equal strength and duration in the universe. The Bible clearly begs to differ with this view.

The pagan Greeks, who believed that spirit was good and matter was evil, did not believe that a good God could create matter without tainting His good character. They believed that the creator of all things was an evil Demiurge, a lesser, evil god. However, they were never able to figure out how the good God could create an evil Demiurge in the first place.

This "solution" reduced the problem, but it did not eradicate it. It removed God from all direct liability for the sin in the world; yet God was still indirectly responsible by creating the Demiurge or allowing him to be created and allowing him to do his evil work.

The Church, like the Greeks, has often put the blame for the origin of evil entirely upon Satan. The purpose of this argument is to remove from God any liability for sin. The thought is admirable, but unfortunately it does this at the expense of His sovereignty. It forces us to think of Satan as an independent g-o-d - an angel originally created good but who fell out of his own free will. That view gives men the impression that God has no control over Satan, or if He does, then God is helpless to do anything about it, except to attempt to influence men to do good and reject evil.

In putting all the blame on Satan, this view succeeds in separating God from directly causing evil, but it has never succeeded in separating God from indirectly causing evil by creating Satan in the first place. The only way to make God totally free of liability would be to insist that Satan took God totally by surprise when he fell. This, however, makes God less than omniscient (knowing all things).

The justice and goodness of God is correctly assumed in most Christian circles. How we resolve the philosophical problem is the subject of much debate and depends upon other assumptions. The Calvinist viewpoint attempts to resolve the issue by preserving the sovereignty of God, but it does so at the expense of His justice. In other words, they say that God has sovereignly elected a small remnant for salvation, and the rest have been elected to burn in hell. The Arminian viewpoint attempts to resolve the issue by preserving God's justice at the expense of His sovereignty. In other words, they say that man has total free will and that God can do little or nothing to overrule either Satan or man.

The problem is like a short blanket. The longer one end is, the shorter the other end. In vain we pull the blanket up to cover our chins, for as we do, we leave our toes exposed. It is one of the most unresolvable problems of the universe. Philosophers of all religious persuasions have struggled with it for a long time as well."

additional definitions:
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/creations-jubilee/chapter-13-the-tension-in-creation/

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 03:16 PM

... a mish-mash of wildly gyrating extremes ad infinitum.... the dualling gods one evil, one good...

You are the one that brought up that crap.

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 03:25 PM

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 03:26 PM

what an interesting read... what is also interesting is that the Isaiah' s verse is mostly known by a crowd leaning toward pantheism.

One verse does not an ism make.

singular_me

18th June 2013, 04:22 PM

while do believe that there must be a theory of everything, I don't think that we, us humans, can access it - unless one has attained a state of absolute non-duality. that's why we all are avatars. If we couldn't mirror one another, we wouldn't know what is either positive or negative

Another very interesting aspect of this reality is the ABSCENCE of pure truth and/or the ability to describe pure truth....mathematics at best is an. incomplete and very limited in its descriptive capabilities..... same can be said for metaphysics and
and religion with all the symbology and allegory.,... truth seems to be an illusion that escapes us, or maybe its just a concept by the self-awaren conciousness with no basis in fact..... maybe truth is not discoverable when choice is an option.... so many questions, so few answers....

iOWNme

18th June 2013, 04:25 PM

Horn

18th June 2013, 04:34 PM

Life, Liberty, and Property vs.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DOv4KPkUDY

singular_me

18th June 2013, 04:48 PM

So the 'greater reality' and the 'universe' own you? So ownership DOES exist, doesnt it?

not entirely true either as I am a Universe onto myself but part of the Whole ... :) different paradigm. no ownership but "co-existence, co-creation. etc " I do no fall into the trap of neither sides of the spectrum - ie; ownership vs slavery

I don't think any laws can resolve human dilemmas at this stage... too late... we all are left alone to sort it all out.

Neuro

18th June 2013, 05:17 PM

Life, Liberty, and Property vs.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

How about Life and the Liberty to Pursue Property and/or Happiness? I think there should be a balance in life.

Horn

18th June 2013, 05:30 PM

How about Life and the Liberty to Pursue Property and/or Happiness? I think there should be a balance in life.

Hence the custodial relationship towards the land exclusion,

I will personally see to it that you're buried with your silver.

Though in no way guarantee against grave robbing theft.

You state servitor!

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 05:33 PM

Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/blackberry/p.html?id=2282745

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 05:51 PM

not entirely true either as I am a Universe onto myself but part of the Whole ... :) different paradigm. no ownership but "co-existence, co-creation. etc " I do no fall into the trap of neither sides of the spectrum - ie; ownership vs slavery

I don't think any laws can resolve human dilemmas at this stage... too late... we all are left alone to sort it all out.

As avatars our brains may be of this world, but our MINDS, when used are from a different spectrum.... TPTB rely on the majority to live and. experience thru their brains..... Solomon reportedly stated "there is nothing new under the sun." I agree,..the brain cannot produce new or originalthoughts, thus they are not under the sun....they are created somewhere else.....

Neuro

18th June 2013, 05:55 PM

Hence the custodial relationship towards the land exclusion,

I will personally see to it that you're buried with your silver.

Though in no way guarantee against grave robbing theft.

You state servitor!
I will personally see to it that I am not buried with my silver, whatever I haven't spent in my pursuit of happiness I will donate to my children for their pursuit of happiness or property, barred a small silver coin under my tongue for the ferryman, if someone feels the desire to dig up my old bones for that so be it. I am sure the coin will be available to Charon, even if it was taken, for the passage. Hmmm... maybe it is safer to use a cupro-nickel coin that is out of circulation but without any numismatic value?

Neuro

18th June 2013, 05:59 PM

As avatars our brains may be of this world, but our MINDS, when used are from a different spectrum.... TPTB rely on the majority to live and. experience thru their brains..... Solomon reportedly stated "there is nothing new under the sun." I agree,..the brain cannot produce new or originalthoughts, thus they are not under the sun....they are created somewhere else.....
Utter bullshit! Certainly the brain of a few can create original thoughts...

vacuum

18th June 2013, 06:06 PM

Utter bullshit! Certainly the brain of a few can create original thoughts...

I think he was saying the "brain" can't but the "mind" can

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 06:07 PM

Utter bullshit! Certainly the brain of a few can create original thoughts...

Prove it....you cannot! Same as proving what consciousness is, you cannot prove that either.... neither are of this world...anima mundi is the soul of this reality....

Neuro

18th June 2013, 06:15 PM

I think he was saying the "brain" can't but the "mind" can
I read that! The idea being the mind being separate from the brain, which isn't true.

Horn

18th June 2013, 06:15 PM

I will personally see to it that I am not buried with my silver, whatever I haven't spent in my pursuit of happiness I will donate to my children

This would require one to be able to speak from his underground plot.

In addition, many modern cemeteries may have an average of 1,000 graves crammed onto each acre, whereas our “wilderness cemetery” will have a maximum of only 36 human graves scattered across each acre.

http://www.ethicianfamilycemetery.org/cost.html

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 06:17 PM

I think he was saying the "brain" can't but the "mind" can

Indeed, that is the concept.... how many multiverses must exist to create choice? Each multiverse would contain each possibility, the real physics question lays in whether these multiverses are constant or whether they are created simultaneously when choice is presented.... this function is a mind function,not a of this world function as it is beyond the capabilities of the mammelian/reptillean brain wave functions that are designed for sensing this world....

Horn

18th June 2013, 06:21 PM

Saw these guys up in jersey whenst pursuing happiness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7nKzEiJUxI

That and couple of

http://www.yuengling.com/over21/over21.php?referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yuengling.com %2F

was all the deed i needed.

Cheers Mates!

Neuro

18th June 2013, 06:22 PM

Prove it....you cannot! Same as proving what consciousness is, you cannot prove that either.... neither are of this world...anima mundi is the soul of this reality....
I think there is sufficient proof that certain thoughts creates an increase in metabolic activity in certain areas of the cerebral cortex, and barbaric medical experiments on humans have proved that that the thoughts of the victims subjected to the experiments have changed!

Neuro

18th June 2013, 06:25 PM

This would require one to be able to speak from his underground plot
Are you plotting?

Neuro

18th June 2013, 06:27 PM

Indeed, that is the concept.... how many multiverses must exist to create choice? Each multiverse would contain each possibility, the real physics question lays in whether these multiverses are constant or whether they are created simultaneously when choice is presented.... this function is a mind function,not a of this world function as it is beyond the capabilities of the mammelian/reptillean brain wave functions that are designed for sensing this world....
Mumbo jumbo?

Neuro

18th June 2013, 06:32 PM

Barnacle Bob, have a frontal lobotomy, and then we continue this discussion, and we'll see what power your mind has over your brain...

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 06:43 PM

Baby born without brain turns 2 .... http://www.godvine.com/Miracle-Baby-Born-Without-a-Brain-Turns-2-Years-Old-704.htmlo

Horn

18th June 2013, 06:43 PM

Are you plotting?
http://gold-silver.us/forum/image.php?u=3346&dateline=1317811819
5028

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 06:45 PM

There are many cases of people born w/o brains and they survive.... research it for yourself! T

Neuro

18th June 2013, 06:56 PM

There are many cases of people born w/o brains and they survive.... research it for yourself! T
Surviving is one thing, original thoughts is a different one. People had frontal lobotomies and survived, but they were never able to think an original thought after that, but they were able to speak etc. certainly one can hypothesize that the mind is dependent on other-worldly divine inspiration and a functioning frontal cortex to be able to create original thoughts, but you can't really take away other-worldly divine inspiration in an experiment, but you can take away the frontal cortex and oops no original thought is no longer possible!

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 06:57 PM

And yet another documented story: Boy born missing most of brain dies after miraculous 3 years of life..... "He was never hooked up to any machines, no tubes, no nothing," said Kohut. "He taught us everything, he taught the love, how to be family. He taught us everything," she added. http://www.koaa.com/mobile/news/miracle-child-born-without-brain-dies-in-pueblo/#!prettyPhoto/0/

singular_me

18th June 2013, 07:00 PM

to pass it on in the form of donation or inheritance often reveals disillusions and/or misuse as the beneficiaries rarely live up to the ideals of the person that died.

Neuro, I am also convinced that geniuses' d abound if genuine critical thinking was possible at an earlier age. Genius would be the norm instead of being an exception.

==================================

I will personally see to it that I am not buried with my silver, whatever I haven't spent in my pursuit of happiness I will donate to my children for their pursuit of happiness or property, barred a small silver coin under my tongue for the ferryman, if someone feels the desire to dig up my old bones for that so be it. I am sure the coin will be available to Charon, even if it was taken, for the passage. Hmmm... maybe it is safer to use a cupro-nickel coin that is out of circulation but without any numismatic value?

BarnkleBob

18th June 2013, 07:26 PM

Surviving is one thing, original thoughts is a different one. People had frontal lobotomies and survived, but they were never able to think an original thought after that, but they were able to speak etc. certainly one can hypothesize that the mind is dependent on other-worldly divine inspiration and a functioning frontal cortex to be able to create original thoughts, but you can't really take away other-worldly divine inspiration in an experiment, but you can take away the frontal cortex and oops no original thought is no longer possible!

Strange Case Of A Man With No Brain..... IQ 126, born with virtually no brain at all! http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1202.html

Neuro

18th June 2013, 07:27 PM

to pass it on in the form of donation or inheritance often reveals disillusions and/or misuse as the beneficiaries rarely live up to the ideals of the person that died.

Neuro, I am also convinced that geniuses' d abound if genuine critical thinking was possible at an earlier age. Genius would be the norm instead of being an exception.

==================================
Genius is always a relative thing, so it can never become the norm. I would think that genuine critical thought in a large proportion of the adult population would be a major step forward. As for my inheritance, my daughter who is now thirteen starts to present fairly good arguments against mine, and I think my son, who is ten, has already started forming quite original thoughts, so by the time that I die I may not have to leave them anything, which would make them perfect to receive everything that I have left.

Neuro

18th June 2013, 07:37 PM

Strange Case Of A Man With No Brain..... IQ 126, born with virtually no brain at all! http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1202.html
And if you continue to read the article you stumble on this...

A wonderful example of Donahue’s ability was revealed during a recent Internet radio broadcast in which he was working with a moderator located several thousands miles away. When static was heard, the moderator warned on the air that a severe electrical storm was approaching and that he worried it might bring interruptions in the show. Donahue said he was out of his body, in the heart of this storm as he spoke. He told the moderator not to be concerned, that there was a hole in the clouds and that it would not be a problem. He said he had the ability to control the weather around him with his mind.
Magical thinking, it is very common in young children, it is very different from critical thinking...

messianicdruid

18th June 2013, 07:40 PM

Mumbo jumbo?

Edwin Howard Armstrong once said, “They substitute words for reality and then talk about the words.”

Horn

18th June 2013, 07:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unmxBGbaPZA

Horn

18th June 2013, 08:44 PM

#

I will respectfully provide my opinion.... if you are cognizantly & consciously attached to the temporal reality of matter, then the world owns you, however should you reject the conscious desires, fears and attachments of this world, only then may a person begin to gain personal sovereignty. The Gnostics were genocided when they rejected materialism as an authority... their gnosis revealed that the Archonic authorities used desire and fear to retain power over humans, reject their TRAP SYSTEM and only then may you own urself.

It should be clear and logical to anyone posting inside this thread that owning yourself is logically possible,

and clearer still that owning a piece of a millennium old living planet is the stuff of imaginary mysticism.

Or a "new age" mysticism.

Spectrism

18th June 2013, 08:47 PM

A principle is a concept that is true at all extremes. The title of this thread is flawed, and so is the discussion.

singular_me

18th June 2013, 09:04 PM

Spectrism, it isn't flawed but that doesn't surprise me that you say this as you abide by the Bible only. Being one sided is a flaw too.

again where is the point in accumulating wealth when our passage on earth is "temporary" and the elites are preying on us 24/7.... and the most absurd: to pass on this senseless mindset to our kids? Flawed question ??? really ??? 6000 years this has been going on... talk of a track record!

have you listened to the video in the OP?

Hitch

18th June 2013, 09:51 PM

A principle is a concept that is true at all extremes. The title of this thread is flawed, and so is the discussion.

I agree. Also, nobody listens to what we have to say either. This thread is flawed, and we are conveniently ignored.

singular_me

18th June 2013, 09:53 PM

Genius is always a relative thing, so it can never become the norm.

you'd be correct if brainwashing wasn't the norm. It always strikes me as odd when people regard our state of affairs as irreversible. Come on, Neuro!

a quote that I find relevant and that will perhaps clarify genius as a "relative thing".

~ Walter Russell
I believe that mediocrity is self-inflicted and that genius is self-bestowed. Every genius thinks INWARDLY toward his Mind instead of outwardly toward his senses. The genius can hear sounds coming out of the silence with his inner ears. He can vision non-existent forms with his inner eyes and he can feel the rhythms of God's thinking and His knowing -- which are a blank slate to the man who believes that HE is his body. When a human rises to the exalted state of genius, he becomes a co-Creator with God. The beginning of creative expression in man is the first evidence of the unfolding Light of his genius, for no man who is purely sense-controlled can create. He can remember and repeat the records which he has imprinted upon his physical brain, but his brain has no knowledge. Therefore, he cannot create. Man can create only with his Mind -- and the brain is not the Mind. The brain is merely the seat of sensation and the electric recorder of sensation.

Horn

18th June 2013, 10:31 PM

I agree. Also, nobody listens to what we have to say either. This thread is flawed, and we are conveniently ignored.

The title as it is applied to the video may be flawed, but the principle of ownership IS also still a huge deception to some.

I really don't think many here would be deceived by it in such a way that it would motivate them.

Though we all know others that are.

And its also in the form of a question...

Jewboo

18th June 2013, 10:48 PM

...However in the West it starts with the old testament and the jews in search of land ownership...

You antisemite! Don't you know that supreme real estate agent GOD himself gave that land to the joos?

http://th660.photobucket.com/albums/uu330/cthulhu19887/smileys/th_000203B0.gif

Jewboo

18th June 2013, 10:59 PM

Edwin Howard Armstrong once said, “They substitute words for reality and then talk about the words.”

http://perspectives.charlesluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/feet.jpg

Great quote. Kinda like landless vagabond Goldy rationalizing her landless vagabonding by torturing the common meaning of the word "ownership" in this thread she started here...lol.

:)

aeondaze

19th June 2013, 02:54 AM

After having watched this thread go on and on and eventually lead to an argument over definitions where book emphatically believes he is the ultimate arbiter of the truth, I have decided to make a contribution.

No doubt in the beginning guile and trickery was used to incorporate those which existed on the periphery of the city state and failing that force. Today it is a much different situation as there is no periphery to exist in. Everything has been consumed by those early city states. All that is left is force. So while in the beginning the principal method likely used to enforce the heirarchy was deception, today it is more likely duress. However there is a subtle difference today about how property ownership is viewed.

In the past property ownership was predominantly undertaken to consolidate and ensure the future by using the properties productive capacity. Today however, the property of most 'citizens' merely existes to reinforce group think and their indentification with being part of the herd, to signal STATUS and avoid the hardship of having to live like a 'bag lady'. The prodcutive capabilities of property are rarely realised and this suits the masters of the universe to a T.

The only programming and hence deception that occurs these days is that property is only required to confirm STATUS of and by itself and that it has no capacity to be productive and ensure ones future. If every property owner excercised their ability to be productive with their assets there would be little need for most of the services the modern 'city state' impliments by threat of force. Every thing has its use, even human waste when treated appropriately can be an asset, but in many instances we're forced to be connected to mains sewrage to build a dwelling, there is no deception about it. It is purely a utility that is thrust upon us by threat of force.

Decpetion is hardly a word I would used in conection to property ownership, but definitly what I would use in relation to how most people view those assets. Namely purely as STATUS objects rather than a productive and important asset vital to ensure ones independant survial within a highly adversarial social order.

Spectrism

19th June 2013, 04:21 AM

Spectrism, it isn't flawed but that doesn't surprise me that you say this as you abide by the Bible only. Being one sided is a flaw too.

Being "one-sided" is just fine if you are on the right side. Being two-sided is like being double-minded or two-faced or hypocritical. Being of one sound mind is preferable than being schizoidic.

again where is the point in accumulating wealth when our passage on earth is "temporary" and the elites are preying on us 24/7.... and the most absurd: to pass on this senseless mindset to our kids? Flawed question ??? really ??? 6000 years this has been going on... talk of a track record!

You have kids?

Where is the point in putting food in your refrigerator? Where is the point in working and saving any wealth? Where is the point in doing anything productive on this planet since you are only temporary? Your line of reasoning has one logical outcome: suicide.

have you listened to the video in the OP?

By now I don't remember any of it. I started walking into a dump and smelled the rotting refuse and realized fairly quickly it was a dump. I didn't need to go further. I typically do my treasure hunting in more productive locales.

After having watched this thread go on and on and eventually lead to an argument over definitions where book emphatically believes he is the ultimate arbiter of the truth, I have decided to make a contribution.

No doubt in the beginning guile and trickery was used to incorporate those which existed on the periphery of the city state and failing that force. Today it is a much different situation as there is no periphery to exist in. Everything has been consumed by those early city states. All that is left is force. So while in the beginning the principal method likely used to enforce the heirarchy was deception, today it is more likely duress. However there is a subtle difference today about how property ownership is viewed.

In the past property ownership was predominantly undertaken to consolidate and ensure the future by using the properties productive capacity. Today however, the property of most 'citizens' merely existes to reinforce group think and their indentification with being part of the herd, to signal STATUS and avoid the hardship of having to live like a 'bag lady'. The prodcutive capabilities of property are rarely realised and this suits the masters of the universe to a T.

The only programming and hence deception that occurs these days is that property is only required to confirm STATUS of and by itself and that it has no capacity to be productive and ensure ones future. If every property owner excercised their ability to be productive with their assets there would be little need for most of the services the modern 'city state' impliments by threat of force. Every thing has its use, even human waste when treated appropriately can be an asset, but in many instances we're forced to be connected to mains sewrage to build a dwelling, there is no deception about it. It is purely a utility that is thrust upon us by threat of force.

Decpetion is hardly a word I would used in conection to property ownership, but definitly what I would use in relation to how most people view those assets. Namely purely as STATUS objects rather than a productive and important asset vital to ensure ones independant survial within a highly adversarial social order.

Oh yeah... that sure helped.

Neuro

19th June 2013, 04:30 AM

you'd be correct if brainwashing wasn't the norm. It always strikes me as odd when people regard our state of affairs as irreversible. Come on, Neuro!
Yes and then you go and quote a piece void of critical thought, separating the brain from the mind. Sure you can program a brain to be mindless, which is done today with TV programming, brain altering chemicals, disinformation and edumbification, which certainly keeps a large percent of those who would be able to critical thought in check. Certainly if that wasn't the case we would have far more geniuses with today's standard. But what would be considered genius would be re-defined, perhaps even beyond football players, billionaire fraudsters and American idols... ;) The title would still only be bestowed on a select few... Don't be a statist Goldissima, and don't succumb to magical thinking that the mind is somehow separate from the brain. It is entirely dependent on a well functioning brain!

aeondaze

19th June 2013, 04:48 AM

Oh yeah... that sure helped.

"Help" was hardly my intention. \uu\

singular_me

19th June 2013, 06:13 AM

Being "one-sided" is just fine if you are on the right side. Being two-sided is like being double-minded or two-faced or hypocritical. Being of one sound mind is preferable than being schizoidic.

ok, don't agree but point well taken

You have kids?

Where is the point in putting food in your refrigerator? Where is the point in working and saving any wealth? Where is the point in doing anything productive on this planet since you are only temporary? Your line of reasoning has one logical outcome: suicide.

I see your logic here but allow me to state that most mental illnesses and addictions can find their explanation here. The very basic questions "who I am and where do I go" have been preoccupied humans since ever. And even though religions can be a band-aid/opiate for many, they seem inadequate. Man is still fearful and thus easily convinced that war/killing is a good option.

When one is willing to take a serious look at history, human conflicts, senseless competition and speculation that have led us to the brink, all this becomes soooo blatant. If our state of affairs has gone from bad to worse, it is not only because of the zionists/bildeberg/etc... at some point we will all have to take responsibility for what it is.

The mindset of "if I don't own anything, I am worthless, I can just kill myself" has to go. Thank you for highlighting the century old dilemma of mankind, that identifying oneself to one's possessions doesn't tame our inner fears. The elites have been extremely successful at disconnecting us from our spiritual minds so far. Their job is to maintain our crisis in consciousness. No wonder that so many feel like total failures and want to kill themselves... or worse would support WW3.

Again, (land) ownership and wealth accumulation aren't wrong but clinging on them. If we'd stop doing this, custodianship could be regarded as a serious option.

By now I don't remember any of it. I started walking into a dump and smelled the rotting refuse and realized fairly quickly it was a dump. I didn't need to go further. I typically do my treasure hunting in more productive locales.

too bad

ps: it has been 6 years already that I am exploring the "rabit hole", and always come to the same conclusion. No matter how I look at the picture.

Spectrism

19th June 2013, 06:37 AM

The mindset of "if I don't own anything, I am worthless, I can just kill myself" has to go. Thank you for highlighting the century old dilemma of mankind, that identifying oneself to one's possessions doesn't tame our inner fears. The elites have been extremely successful at disconnecting us from our spiritual minds so far. No wonder that so many feel like total failures and want to kill themselves.

How did you get this out of what I wrote? Are you able to understand plain English? My point was that you are foisting a non-principle of "all is temporary therefore worthless", and this concept leads to destruction. It is NOT my concept. It is yours.

We don't have "spiritual minds" in nature. Wherever did you get that concept? You are born into the flesh and have a mind of the flesh. Man lost the spiritual essence when our first parents killed it. All that remained was the flesh. The soul- mind/will/emotion- is an eternal essence that is doomed to separation from God, unless it chooses the way of God. Only then do we have a spiritual birth.

Again, (land) ownership and wealth accumulation aren't wrong but clinging on them. If we'd stop doing this, custodianship could be regarded as a serious option.

A custodian is put in place by an owner. Who is the owner? Who has authority over the custodian? How do you differentiate owning from "clinging"?

Horn

19th June 2013, 08:15 AM

My point was that you are foisting a non-principle of "all is temporary therefore worthless", and this concept leads to destruction.

Its either that, or should be considered priceless and an impossibility to own.

The current and past 2000yrs. of Zion and Babylon is hardly an example to hold high on a pedestal.

singular_me

19th June 2013, 08:38 AM

How did you get this out of what I wrote? Are you able to understand plain English? My point was that you are foisting a non-principle of "all is temporary therefore worthless", and this concept leads to destruction. It is NOT my concept. It is yours.

senseless does not equate worthless... by temporary, I don't imply worthlessness of being but existential objectives. This is in your mind.

We don't have "spiritual minds" in nature. Wherever did you get that concept? You are born into the flesh and have a mind of the flesh. Man lost the spiritual essence when our first parents killed it. All that remained was the flesh. The soul- mind/will/emotion- is an eternal essence that is doomed to separation from God, unless it chooses the way of God. Only then do we have a spiritual birth.

then have a world that is doomed to separation (divide and rule century old game) . What else can I say ??? .... yet you are talking of suicide. I want life to be alleviated from all ***senseless*** burdens to enjoy it even more.

Of course, the Bible is the only real textbook out there...

Horn

19th June 2013, 08:50 AM

Landless Peasant Party -Election defeat speech (Deek Jackson)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA-xmWtskLY

singular_me

19th June 2013, 01:02 PM

Its either that, or should be considered priceless and an impossibility to own.

The current and past 2000yrs. of Zion and Babylon is hardly an example to hold high on a pedestal.

most humans fear 2 things: chaos and feeling worthless... I see dark clouds on the horizon, self-fulfilling prophecy in sight.

the problem is that when they are told that the best is to abandon the ship, they still think they can get away with it (play the elite game) somehow.

there is that one couple with 3 kids that we befriended last winter and who have downsized for the best. when you look at them, they incarnate the perfect Hollywood family. All smart/pretty/handsome. She inherited some big and quite recent RV, they are currently touring CO and NM for land managing opportunities. They have been homeschooling for the past 3 years and will continue to do so... being a computer specialist, he just kept a 2000 dollar monthly contract to have some income and as he can work remotely... they are savvy and the kids very aware with simple tastes ... we need more people like them on the road.... IMHO

Serpo

19th June 2013, 01:31 PM

How did you get this out of what I wrote? Are you able to understand plain English? My point was that you are foisting a non-principle of "all is temporary therefore worthless", and this concept leads to destruction. It is NOT my concept. It is yours.

We don't have "spiritual minds" in nature. Wherever did you get that concept? You are born into the flesh and have a mind of the flesh. Man lost the spiritual essence when our first parents killed it. All that remained was the flesh. The soul- mind/will/emotion- is an eternal essence that is doomed to separation from God, unless it chooses the way of God. Only then do we have a spiritual birth.

A custodian is put in place by an owner. Who is the owner? Who has authority over the custodian? How do you differentiate owning from "clinging"?

Just for the record I have a spiritual mind ,heart and soul.

My mind thinks for me and my body is.

BarnkleBob

19th June 2013, 01:46 PM

Quit blaming the elites, after all they just provide what the exoteric multitudes DEMAND, and they give them their DEMANDS good & hard, the way they seem to like it, over and over....and over!

singular_me

19th June 2013, 02:26 PM

blame game is deterring from something else.. though the elites happen to be honest as they often tell us right in our faces about their intentions

"Exoteric demands", I like these words!

singular_me

19th June 2013, 02:32 PM

Just for the record I have a spiritual mind ,heart and soul.

My mind thinks for me and my body is.

every human has...... awareness, perhaps did he mean ???

Horn

19th June 2013, 04:07 PM

they are savvy and the kids very aware with simple tastes ... we need more people like them on the road.... IMHO

Did you inform them of the GSUS, or were you too afraid they'd be Booked....lol

Neuro

19th June 2013, 04:24 PM

Quit blaming the elites, after all they just provide what the exoteric multitudes DEMAND, and they give them their DEMANDS good & hard, the way they seem to like it, over and over....and over!
Yes, it is the childrens fault that they were injected with mercury, aluminum, TV-programmed, edumbificated, drugged with methamphetamine, monosodium glutamate, fluoride and aspartame. No actually it is the parents fault for allowing their loved ones to be subjected to this, but they had their higher faculties taken away from the same, so it really must be the grandparents fault, or their parents, who where brought up to trust their doctor, and thought school was a good place for children's mental development, and there was no harm for them to watch TV a few hours aday, and worked so hard they didn't have time to prepare a good old fashioned dinner, but bought the almost equally nutritious TV dinner. But the elites are clearly faultless, they only provide what people want! ;)

singular_me

19th June 2013, 04:26 PM

Horn:they know what they have to know about just everything (maybe not in depth) but "food" is their main interest... they also are the kind of loving ppl always willing to help. They live up to their standards... I don't see them on here though - that's maybe why I don't come as often either.

ohh I get it , Booked!! LOL...

Horn

19th June 2013, 05:45 PM

But the elites are clearly faultless, they only provide what people want! ;)

5033

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8660257/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breiviks-cultural-references.html

Neuro

19th June 2013, 06:30 PM

Horn, can you explain what my quote, pulled out of its context, has to do with the list of likes of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer?

Jewboo

19th June 2013, 06:41 PM

...No doubt in the beginning guile and trickery was used to incorporate those which existed on the periphery of the city state and failing that force. Today it is a much different situation as there is no periphery to exist in. Everything has been consumed by those early city states. All that is left is force. So while in the beginning the principal method likely used to enforce the hierarchy was deception, today it is more likely duress...

This gem is well worth expounding upon aeondaze. The rest trailed off into incoherence.

http://www.300cforums.com.au/forums/images/smilies/300c/yippee.gif I AGREE WITH THIS PART...PLEASE EXPOUND

Jewboo

19th June 2013, 06:53 PM

You have kids?

http://www.joymcginnis.com/img/paintings/mother-son.jpg

I kinda remember Goldy once mentioning she has a son who lives in Europe. Be interesting to understand exactly how Goldy contributed to the material needs of this male child and what he can expect to inherit in her Last Will and Testament. Her thread here IS about the principle of ownership.

http://twinpossible.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/motherhood-smiley.gif

Horn

19th June 2013, 07:31 PM

Horn, can you explain what my quote, pulled out of its context, has to do with the list of likes of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer?

Its dependent on what your context was.

Horn

19th June 2013, 07:35 PM

I'm guessing its not pieces of paper with pyramids on them, or coins with the Virgo-Queen's busts, Book.

singular_me

19th June 2013, 07:41 PM

Book, you are not interested in my life, just out to deconstruct anything I say for the sake of it.

my son is 32... he moved with me to the USA but 18 months later became homesick. He was barely 22 when he headed back to EU. He never asked me anything but I offered him 2 trips to the big apple yearly plus nice petty cash when here. Since I left Manhattan, I cant afford much and I havent seen him since my 2010 trip in EU, though we skype. I made sure that he received my mother's car when she died 3 years ago. Hopefully I will be able to send him an airfare ticket later this fall. He admires my willingness to continue this road trip but also calls me "crazy", although nicely he said that he'd care of me if I ever decided to return to EU.

Fortunately, he already has inherited from me as he became a writer overnight (higher calling) and like his mom, he writes screenplays and plans on directing his first short soon. Regardless of the economic environment, as long as he does what he is passionate for, thats all what matters. He understands what I say about the state of the planet but like many thinks that he can play the system as he can't imagine a world crash. I don't want to fight over this with him... I am sure that my words will come back to haunt him in due time. The seed has been planted.

'

I kinda remember Goldy once mentioning she has a son who lives in Europe. Be interesting to understand exactly how Goldy contributed to the material needs of this male child and what he can expect to inherit in her Last Will and Testament. Her thread here IS about the principle of ownership.

messianicdruid

19th June 2013, 08:01 PM

"The early Church fathers made frequent reference to the distinction between what people produce through their own effort and what was given to humanity by God for all to use in common. Many social and economic critics of the last several centuries echoed this early indignation at the appropriation of the commons and developed creative proposals to remedy it. One such early critic, Thomas Paine, wrote,

And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds. (16)"

Henry George, in his eloquent 1879 classic Progress and Poverty started with essentially the same premise as Paine and the early Christians:

But who made the earth that any man can claim such ownership of it, or any part of it, or the right to give, sell or bequeath it? Since the earth was not made by us, but is only a temporary dwelling place on which one generation of men follow another; since we find ourselves here, are manifestly here with equal permission of the Creator, it is manifest that no one can have any exclusive right of ownership in land, and that the rights of all men to land must be equal and inalienable. There must be exclusive right of possession of land, for the man who uses it must have secure possession of land in order to reap the products of his labor. But his right of possession must be limited by the equal right of all, and should therefore be conditioned upon the payment to the community by the possessor of an equivalent for any special valuable privilege thus accorded him. (17)

Why should someone profit from the use-value of land by the mere fact of owning it, especially when the origin of that ownership is based on ancient injustice? Accordingly, Henry George proposed his famous Single Tax-essentially a 100-percent tax on the “economic rent” deriving from land. This was to be implemented through a tax on the value of land as distinct from improvements upon it; for example, land would be taxed but not buildings or crops. It was called “single” because he advocated the abolition of all other taxes, reasoning that it is just as much theft to tax legitimate private property as it is to profit from something that belongs to all. George’s writings sparked a massive political movement that almost got him elected to the New York mayor’s office, but of course the established money power fought him at every turn. (18) His ideas have been sporadically adopted around the world (the two places I’ve spent most of my life, Taiwan and Pennsylvania, both levy taxes on the underlying value of land) and have greatly influenced economic thought.

http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-4-the-trouble-with-property/

singular_me

20th June 2013, 06:01 AM

But who made the earth that any man can claim such ownership of it, or any part of it, or the right to give, sell or bequeath it? Since the earth was not made by us, but is only a temporary dwelling place on which one generation of men follow another; since we find ourselves here, are manifestly here with equal permission of the Creator, it is manifest that no one can have any exclusive right of ownership in land, and that the rights of all men to land must be equal and inalienable.

unfortunately land ownership cannot be equal as long as you have countries. In time of war it becomes obvious that a government, foreign or not, has right to destroy/confiscate land. For the masses, land ownership is a fantasy! Is patriotism another core deception?

I have recently been watching the Game of Thrones , The Borgias and The Medicis and all the intrigues in these shows are mainly about alliances plotting more land-power. Nothing has changed since the middle ages, folks... citizens have always had little say. One can claim the virtues of a libertarian form of gov to address this but historical data speaks the truth: the Elites will NEVER change. Period. The change has to come from the bottom up. Waiting for some Ron Paul to win the elections is a Hollywood daydream. Von Mises theories are great but inapplicable, hence deceptive. Yes some will always be free-er but if the majority is into slavery, claiming self-ownership is deluding.

Jewboo

20th June 2013, 04:10 PM

Book, you are not interested in my life, just out to deconstruct anything I say for the sake of it.

http://www.55places.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/When-grandchildren-visit.jpg

http://media.mlive.com/kzgazette/features_impact/photo/tammy-and-ed-parker-in-the-spring-of-2009-with-their-nine-grandchildren-316ed9988780417e.jpg

You actually believe these smiling grandmothers sit around pondering the meaning of Life or the "deception" of ownership?

http://www.valleyparent.com/organizedchaos/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/sad-smiley_81501283_1439690641.gif

Hitch

20th June 2013, 05:04 PM

You actually believe these smiling grandmothers sit around pondering the meaning of Life or the "deception" of ownership?

Do you think those same grandmothers insult folks on internet forums, to make themselves feel good?

singular_me

20th June 2013, 05:22 PM

Book, how desperate are you now? -- but don't worry I put myself in your shoes, the realization that the elites will ever, never change is highly discouraging, I know.

Neuro

20th June 2013, 06:02 PM

Its dependent on what your context was.
I still don't understand... Are you saying that Breivik's actions is a somewhat logical reaction to resist the brainwashing of the elites, considering his likes not being in the elites mainstream programming? Or are you saying that Breivik was a case to get thinking people away from intellectual pursuits?

Horn

21st June 2013, 08:49 AM

He seems a perfect example of the elite's twisted programming, a roll model.

Horn

21st June 2013, 09:03 AM

Henry George, in his eloquent 1879 classic Progress and Poverty started with essentially the same premise as Paine and the early Christians:

But who made the earth that any man can claim such ownership of it, or any part of it, or the right to give, sell or bequeath it? Since the earth was not made by us, but is only a temporary dwelling place on which one generation of men follow another; since we find ourselves here, are manifestly here with equal permission of the Creator, it is manifest that no one can have any exclusive right of ownership in land, and that the rights of all men to land must be equal and inalienable. There must be exclusive right of possession of land, for the man who uses it must have secure possession of land in order to reap the products of his labor. But his right of possession must be limited by the equal right of all, and should therefore be conditioned upon the payment to the community by the possessor of an equivalent for any special valuable privilege thus accorded him. (17)

Why should someone profit from the use-value of land by the mere fact of owning it, especially when the origin of that ownership is based on ancient injustice? Accordingly, Henry George proposed his famous Single Tax-essentially a 100-percent tax on the “economic rent” deriving from land. This was to be implemented through a tax on the value of land as distinct from improvements upon it; for example, land would be taxed but not buildings or crops. It was called “single” because he advocated the abolition of all other taxes, reasoning that it is just as much theft to tax legitimate private property as it is to profit from something that belongs to all. George’s writings sparked a massive political movement that almost got him elected to the New York mayor’s office, but of course the established money power fought him at every turn. (18) His ideas have been sporadically adopted around the world (the two places I’ve spent most of my life, Taiwan and Pennsylvania, both levy taxes on the underlying value of land) and have greatly influenced economic thought.

http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-4-the-trouble-with-property/

Many places have laws where you get taxed at a higher rate if the land lies without construction or use. Still tax laws empower the same powers that be. (at this point, maybe not back then)

There's got to be a better way, a single custodian for each plot and parcel maybe,,, based on a variable size set by county could work?

Powers that be would at least need to spread their assets more thinly.

singular_me

16th October 2013, 03:46 PM

http://i.imgur.com/toxzF.jpg

[SIZE=2]Meanwhile...back on real planet Earth...the birds passionately debate the meaning of this esoteric illusion of ownership with the squirrel...lol.

try to connect the dots.... Marx, Freud, Darwin... NWO's most loved theories.

animals arent be able to destroy the environment by themselves (without our intervention)... The point here is that man is not an animal therefore.

what I just said in another thread.... on agenda 21
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?35061-Agenda-21-For-Dummies-(incl-abolition-of-private-property)&p=666261&viewfull=1#post666261

Horn

16th October 2013, 05:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4HZ8LwCgRA#t=99

Neuro

16th October 2013, 08:17 PM

He seems a perfect example of the elite's twisted programming, a roll model.
Sorry missed your reply some months ago. Yes I agree!

Horn

16th October 2013, 09:08 PM

Sorry missed your reply some months ago.

Late, just like a typical Aleman steward! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsKnGAYBBKQ