Something On Social Dynamics

[Wolfeye]

This is a response to request I got from Jester on another post. That one was a discussion on Ukraine & what's been going on there with the civil war & everything. I'll repost what that was & then we can discuss the subject further. What the discussion was:

I think the western side of Ukraine was somewhat duped- they seem to have thought they'd have everything the way tehy already had it, but it'd be easier to make ends meet & to get some luxuries. I get that, but I can say from having lived in this country for well over two decades: that this is usually bait for a hook. There's so much working for a living that a lot of people don't do any living.

More & more you run into problems doing things at your own discretion & part of that is because every damn thing has a price tag on it (a problem when nobody's got any money). Also, things are always somehow tied to someone's business endeavors & they feel infringed on whenever you do anything. They think there's basically some form of conductive annexation- that whatever their efforts touch is theirs. The psychology behind things like that is not good.

Something I'd like to add to that is the concept that money is pretended by some people to be the "life blood of activity," and it's not. Then, this material is loaned out with interest- so someone will never be able to pay it off. I personally feel this is an attempt to privatize activity. To annex agency, overall. This kind of substitutive behavior, not to come off like a religious zealot or anything, I can only think to compare to demonic possession. Look at it: it's basically hi-jacking someone else's life. I can't think of anything else that fits that description, not even parasites.

It might not be anything supernatural, it could just be that someone's personality is like that. Although, I suppose there COULD be situations with supernatural elements to it- perhaps demonic influence, if not possession. I've never seen anything like that myself, but that doesn't mean it's not real. I've noticed a general reluctance to believe in anything intangible & there seems to be a bit of history to that, but a major point is something (or someone) not ever being declared evil. I get that, since someone can't very well disprove an accusation of that & could wind up being a victim of the same evil they were accused of. The Salem Witch Trials come to mind on that & as an EXAMPLE of evil, not proof that it doesn't exist. A potential problem is that something foul might never be counteracted, because something isn't called for what it is & the ball never gets rolling on the level of counteraction. It's very double-edged.

So I don't leave a gap in the information: It seems that the general disbelief in the intangible that I mentioned before (which is more common in someplaces than others) seems to stem from 1700s philosophy & largely from Francis Bacon. The story as I understand it was that the Catholic church had been saying whatever they wanted was reality because of whatever mystery reason they cooked up at the time. After that, he came up with the idea that everything had to have a physical, tangible substance to exist. This isn't true, however. Before you even get to religion this is obvious, because when a person does an action- that action is NOT a substance. For example: If a person moves an object, the person is solid & the object is solid, but the ACTION is not. It's real, it's there, but it's not a material.

[Jester]

This is real, substantial stuff, worth a book.

If memory serves, one of Lyndon Larouche's publications, back around 1980. ran a long article contrasting the uplifting cosmology of Will Shakespeare with the earth-bound view of Francis Bacon. Interesting that you share this view. Have you read Larouche's publications? Also interesting that you mention the 1700's. This is when, in demented-fanatic-Protestant England, the Hellfire Clubs arose, where the wealthy could party in privacy, without restraint. Later in the century, Scottish-Rite Freemasonry furnished a fertile breeding ground for the German-crypto-Jew-Jesuit-spawned Illuminati, when their own "lodges" were shut down. And of course the Sephardic Jews of Venice (always discreetly referred to in Larouche publications as the "Venetian Oligarchy") had already infested England since the days of Cromwell. But the 1700's are an interesting period. England initiating an effort to rule the world, committing continuous piracy against Spain.... Masonry in full blossom.... Jews offstage, in the wings.

[Jester]

More & more you run into problems doing things at your own discretion & part of that is because every damn thing has a price tag on it (a problem when nobody's got any money). Also, things are always somehow tied to someone's business endeavors & they feel infringed on whenever you do anything. They think there's basically some form of conductive annexation- that whatever their efforts touch is theirs. The psychology behind things like that is not good.

This is the part I was really interested in.

Can you give any examples of "conductive annexation", either in business, or another sphere?

[Jester]

Something I'd like to add to that is the concept that money is pretended by some people to be the "life blood of activity," and it's not. Then, this material is loaned out with interest- so someone will never be able to pay it off. I personally feel this is an attempt to privatize activity. To annex agency, overall. This kind of substitutive behavior, not to come off like a religious zealot or anything, I can only think to compare to demonic possession. Look at it: it's basically hi-jacking someone else's life. I can't think of anything else that fits that description, not even parasites.

So your saying that the privately conjured/created "money", LOANED to government, is kind of like a control mechanism? Like being able to tax people for breathing?

[Wolfeye]

Conductive annexation would be like when someone says "Oh, well I pay for this, so it's mine" but a little different. It's more like is someone were to say "Well, I built the roads that you drive on to go to work, to get money, that you use to pay for all the things that you buy, so those things are mine." An example that's something like this would be that farmer that got sued by Monsanto- if I remember correctly, his fields were contaminated by these plants & he got sued as if he was growing them without a permit from them!

On a similar thread of fairly serious concern: You know how all these various products (vaccines, plants, animals, there's probably other ones) have various genetic modification? And how there's a concern about it doing something to alter people's DNA? And how the various DNA sequences that get fabricated have patents? Well, supposing they were to do something to people's DNA with their various actions, would that mean that they'd assume they held a patent to these people? I'd suggest people be a little more open-minded when it comes to infringing on people's property rights.

As for your second post: I would say yes to the first part, but the second part would be more like yanking the batteries out of something. Trying to annex that "fuel," more than getting money for everything someone does.

Another thing about this conjured money (or the regular kind) is that it's kind of like that Ace of Diamonds from the movie Instinct. Did you ever see that? It's on Youtube, if not. The general idea was that someone would "randomly" get an ace of diamonds & they could go outside, but in reality it didn't work that way. With regard to money, there's still the same amounts of food & water & everything, whatever the amount of money, but there's an element of exclusivity added to the situation.