Question

2306170600Sa FACTS minus FEELINGS equals GOD’S REALITY?

SUPREMACY OF THE STATE:

Is it not a FACT that to control a thing is to also own that thing. I recognize this little recognized FACT goes deliberately overlooked by socialism as it explains away their deceptive veil of faux justice.

JUSTICE:

You see, real justice is individual and not social at all. In no way can true individual justice exist collectively – it’s impossible for true justice to exist collectively.

Laws are written collectively so they can make evil apparent on an individual basis. One example of note, is the idea becoming prevalent that law violated against a singular woman anywhere in the world applies in some way to all women throughout the world collectively as if committed against all women.

Individuals commit crimes not collective identities.

THOUGHT CRIME(S):

Racism = prejudice + power - is pure thought control socialist propaganda just as 2 + 2 = 5 was invented to explain away (joseph Stalin’s) fearlest leader’s error(s) in the past.

So called hate crimes, or crimes of hate are also mind control invasive – quite literally thought control is a crime against humanity every bit as evil as those crimes against humanity tried at Nuremberg, Germany.

SOCIALISM:

All forms of socialism hold that the socialist state is supreme above all else. And that everything else in existence is beholden to that state.

The idea sold to Utopian socialists is that when true communism is achieved property ownership will not exist and the socialist state will dwindle away there being no need for it any longer. In short, true communism is impossible just as its utopia is an impossibility to humankind.

PS1. Can you identify a Pharisee by their wealth gained while in office?

PS2. Could the Military Industrial Complex be our modern day Golden Calf?

Posted by: The Tulsi Gabbard Show ~ 6 months ago ~ 360K views ~ 168K subscribers
“Tucker Carlson: life, death, power, the CIA & the end of journalism | The Tulsi Gabbard Show”

#LETSGOBRANDON ~ A Commun-ist (whether he’s capable of realizing it or not?).
#MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) an existentialist (individualist) philosophy of life.
#ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE – STICKS & STONES DON’T, NOT EVEN GUNS KILL PEOPLE

WAS JUDAS ISCARIOT A SOCIALIST? And how many of Jesus’ followers were corrupted by socialism?

Matthew 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. (kjv)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Mark 14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. (kjv)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

John 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. (kjv)

cc: @2FollowHim

#military #justice #crime #video #death #world #laws #evil

1914wizard 8

Answer 1

I'm not sure what your point is. If you own something and do not control it ownership is a legal formality. Admittedly there are cases where the law protects ownership without control. If a person is declared incompetent their assets are sometimes overseen by a court appointed guardian or conservator. In other cases someone may give control over to a guardian with power of attorney.

As a practical matter ownership is always tentative. It exists as long as an individual is able to enforce it. That enforcement may be through a legal system and law enforcement or through intimidation and violence. In a civilized state private property is protected by law. In most cases the cost of protection by law is some form of taxation. Failure to pay taxes can result in forfeiture. In other cases criminal activity on the part of the individual can result in the forfeiture of private property. That is all fine as long as the taxes and laws are "reasonable" and the political system is "fair". In the absence of a legal system private ownership comes down to who has the "bigger stick" and the most "friends". In reality no individual can protect their rights. For the most part no government can protect individual rights without a good deal of voluntary compliance. Respect for private property is a necessary component of a functional civilization.

You can reverse the above, do away with private property, and give ownership to the state. The problem is what is known as the tragedy of the commons. Today the tragedy of the commons is taught to promote the idea that the government is the best able agent to prevent the depletion of shared resources. The idea that selfish capitalism is the main problem is prevalent in the way it is presented. It ignores the fact that the original concept comes from shared ownership and the lack of individual responsibility that entails. It refers to collective ownership of the "commons" or pasture that encouraged over grazing. With private property the individual harmed is only the irresponsible owner. With collective ownership everyone is harmed. In theory the abusive owner will lose their property and it will be passed on to a responsible or competent individual. Civilization it turns out is built on hierarchies of competence. In a private property system competence is in theory demonstrative and built on economic success. In a collective system competence is a matter of political decision.

It should be obvious that neither system is perfect. In the private system wealth will be concentrated according to the Mathew principle and hierarchies will become tyrannical. In simple terms the Matthew principle is just the observation that it takes money to make money. Private ownership is never completely meritocratic. Collective systems suffer from a similar flaw in that politics is generally one of the worst ways to determine competence. Any political system suffers from the Mathew principle as well because it takes power to gain power. Political systems are seldom actually meritocratic. Worse still political systems tend to focus not on productivity but networking and grooming. The measure of competence in a political system is almost always the ability to manipulate others without regard to actual competence in providing for the needs of the population.

Liberal democracy, it turns out, is a nice compromise. It is the worst system in theory but in practice it is functional as long as ethical standards are adhered to. In the West moral decay has set in and ethical standards are at best confused. There are certain principles that seem to be needed for a functional civilization. In the West they are summarized by traditional virtues as follows.

Chastity or Purity and abstinence as opposed to lust or Luxuria. Temperance or Humanity, equanimity as opposed to Gluttony or Gula. Charity or Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice as opposed to Greed or Avaritia. Diligence or Persistence, effortfulness, ethics as opposed to Sloth or Acedia. Patience or Forgiveness, mercy as opposed to Wrath or Ira. Kindness or Satisfaction, compassion as opposed to Envy or Invidia. Humility or Bravery, modesty, reverence as opposed to Pride.

Answer 2

Little did Fox know that when they canned Tucker, they were canning their ratings!


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Chat room is open

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

2 comments

Recent Visitors 5

Photos 11,798 More

Members 9,403Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore