Comments on: Globalist peril vs. The Individual

By: Ivan K.

Ivan K. — Sun, 15 May 2016 06:26:21 +0000

The New York Times has a tool called Chronicle for telling you what percentage of Times article have included a particular word over decades and centuries: http://chronicle.nytlabs.com
Yes: here you can see the frequencies of the use of words such as … family, individual …. reality, imagination, …. 🙂

By: Oliver Manuel

Oliver Manuel — Wed, 11 May 2016 04:48:47 +0000

Reptilian fear of nuclear annihilation in 1945 ended the scientific revolution that Copernicus started 400 years earlier, in 1543:
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_cr/d_05_cr_her/d_05_cr_her.html

By: binra

binra — Sat, 07 May 2016 20:00:17 +0000

if fictional pretence aligns a common intent to assert power while seeming to embody a justified defence – then that intent is manifesting physical embodiments.
I don’t see reality as being valid in terms of whether it is physical or not but in my, your and our alignments within ourselves. And ‘form’ of effect from choices I make or ideas I accept, is an experienced ‘reality’ – but of course I can review or re-vision my reality perspective by feeling the fruit as to whether it resonates and aligns with who I NOW feel and know myself to be. This is a reality check – in place of running on default beliefs and definitions that may not only be fictional but fractional or undermining to me sense of living purpose. In a sense it is ALL fictional – with Official reality at Individual, collective or personal level – but OFFICIAL in this usage is always a sense of should or must or compulsion. Fear based and guilt or blame driven narratives are tyrannical by nature.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Sat, 07 May 2016 13:49:56 +0000

There are different sorts of “globalism”. I certainly don’t want to see a small group of people or companies dominating the global economy. But at the local level, it is national borders that are artificial. For example, the course of the much-discussed U.S.-Mexico border was drawn where it is (via the Gadsden Purchase) because of the desire certain people had to run a railroad (the Southern Pacific) through land that was a bit south of the then-existing U.S.-Mexico border. It did not reflect an existing division between English-speakers and Spanish-speakers (people spoke Spanish on both sides of the new line), and certainly did not reflect any existing sense of “peoplehood” of those on the ground.

The natural order of things is for people to be able to trade freely with each other, and even to move about freely, despite the existence of borders which were initially just lines on a map. If you want to put the individual first, you should support these rights. The alternative, that “economies” should be separate, that governments should tax the movement of goods across their borders (impose tariffs), rests on a kind of collectivism, the notion that people (individuals) are first part of “peoples” (national, effectively tribal, groups), and that individuals in different groups may not deal with each other except by permission of their respective groups. Whatever else such a view may be, it is not putting the individual first.

By: Linda Goodman

Linda Goodman — Sat, 07 May 2016 00:49:41 +0000

Bernie Sanders supports the big lie of climate change, the open borders and Common Core – ALL a key part of the globalist agenda, And his anti-TPP stance is likely as phony as his anti-FED stance. He KILLED Audit the Fed in 2010 and substituted it with a worthless amendment that he BRAGGED about. Sanders is a poser and anyone who claims otherwise is ill-informed or a poser too. Donald Trump is the only true populist – his words and actions leave no doubt.

By: placestonehere

placestonehere — Fri, 06 May 2016 21:23:25 +0000

The fixation on the “individual” is a modern siren song mostly sung by unimaginative libertarians. They want to pit the virtuous individual against the evil collective. Before that it was probably predatory capitalists that championed the idea in order to destroy the family and the people and turn the result into consuming and producing units, i.e; “individuals.” Communists slightly modified this by calling them “workers,” but the object was the same. Before that maybe it was Christianity that sought to turn children against their parents and men against women to better isolate each “individual” from his tribe and his traditions, to make him a “sinner” in front of the “almighty.”

The idea of the “individual” is the product of predators who see individuals as easier prey or deranged minds who see “tyranny” in duty and in the ties that bind us to our people.

By: Aljoša from the Đurić family

Aljoša from the Đurić family — Fri, 06 May 2016 12:09:23 +0000

Hello, really useful article.
Here’s my approach to globalism:

The Sovereign Man’s Notice Of Commencement Of Land Use
http://cromalternativemoney.org/index.php/en/media/news/the-sovereign-mans-notice-of-commencement-of-land-use.html

Sovereign Man: Notice Of Conclusion Of The ‘Agritourism Farm Vivian’ Realization Contract
http://cromalternativemoney.org/index.php/en/media/news/sovereign-man-notice-of-conclusion-of-the-agritourism-farm-vivian-realization-contract.html

By: vaccineshurtbabies

vaccineshurtbabies — Thu, 05 May 2016 20:20:06 +0000

Unfortunately…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytv15ono5J0

By: Oliver K. Manuel

Oliver K. Manuel — Thu, 05 May 2016 16:27:25 +0000

Not allowed to post phone number or Dropbox links. Please email question to “omatumr (at) yahoo (dot) com” with subject QUESTION

By: Barb

Barb — Thu, 05 May 2016 15:27:04 +0000

Thanks, Oliver. I am not a scientist but am very interested in this. I’d love a detailed explanation of all this and the implications of it geared to a lay person.