Forces Favoring the New World Order are Failing

17 Sep

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Whenever two homosexuals argue, they call each other a “fag” or a “queer”. Homosexuals know from personal experience that it hurts to be called a “fag” or “queer”.

Likewise, whenever two Negroes fight, the first thing they call each other is “nigger”. They know they’ve been hurt by being called a “nigger” and therefore assume that’s the insult they want to use to hurt other Negroes.

And, when two unintelligent people argue the first insult they reach for is to call each other “stoopid”.

When it comes to insults, we throw the stones that we know hurt from personal experience. Homosexuals know that it it hurts to be called a “fag” so that’s an insult they like to use against others. Negroes know it’s hurt them to be called “nigger” and so that’s the #1 insult they use against other Negroes.. Dummies know it hurts to be called “dumb” so that’s the insult they hurl against others.

My point is that there’s little in life that’s as revealing about a man’s self-image and true nature as his insults. If I can hear a man’s insults, I’ll have a very good idea of who he really is. The insults we hurl at others expose us like nothing else.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein is a Jordanian prince. He’s married to an American woman from Texas who’s a global maternal health activist. Prince Zeid is the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights. It’s apparent that Prince Zeid and his wife are globalists who advocate one-world government and the New World Order.

Prince Zeid recently spoke at a globalist gala where he condemned and insulted what he called a growing cadre of “nationalist populists“ (which included Donald Trump and Great Britain’s Nigel Farage). Zeid complained these “nationalist populists” were using “tactics similar” to ISIS (the Islamic terror organization) to frighten and attract followers who would work against globalists and the New World Order.

In fact, the term “nationalist populists” may be new. Trump, Farage et al who oppose the New World Order are clearly “populists” rather than elitists. However, Prince Zeid opted to describe them as “nationalist populists”. I’m guessing that his purpose for using the additional word “nationalist” was to hearken back to the Nazi’s who were “National Socialists” and thereby smear the current, anti-globalist “populists” with a slur that might be more appropriate for the globalists, themselves.

In the process of condemning the world’s “nationalist populists,” Prince Zeid inadvertently revealed a great deal about himself and the New World Order.


However, before he got around to insulting the “nationalist populists,” Prince Zeid described himself as “a sort of nightmare” to the populists because he defends the rights of asylum seekers, gays, women and the disabled while being a Muslim “who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab.”

I’m something of a populist, but I don’t see Zeid as a nightmare. I see him as something of a clown and perhaps a man troubled by his own internal contradictions.

Nevertheless, it’s interesting that Prince Zeid seems to see himself as a “man for all seasons” and perhaps even a “caped crusader” out to frighten the forces opposed to a One World Government.


Turning from himself to target the “nationalist populists,” Zeid warned that they rely on,


“The proposition of recovering a supposedly perfect past. It’s a fiction; its merchants are clever cheats.”


In other words, Zeid complains that “nationalist populists” in any country gain followers by rejecting one-world government and instead advocating a return to the “good old days”. Zeid claims the nationalists’ reverence for a “perfect past” exploits a public longing for a previous time that never really existed.

He might be right.

But, if the nationalist populists’ notion of a “perfect past” is a fiction, so is the globalists’ notion of a “perfect future” under the New World Order. Thus, Zeid and his fellow globalists are also “clever cheats”.

Just as homosexuals reveal themselves by calling their enemies “fags,” Prince Zeid’s description of populists as “clever cheats” may have even more application to himself and the New World Order.


Speaking at the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation gala in The Hague, Zeid described opponents one-world government as, “populists, demagogues and political fantasists“. He panned Netherlands politician Geert Wilders’ for using “lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear”.

If my notion about insults is valid, by condemning Geert Wilders for “lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear,” Prince Zeid inadvertently revealed the standard operating procedures for the New World Order.


“What Mr. Wilders shares in common with Mr. Trump, Mr. Viktor Orban [of Hungary], Mr. Miloš Zeman [of the Czech Republic], Mr. Norbert Hofer [of Austria], Mr. Robert Fico [of Slovakia], Madame Le Pen [France], and Mr. Farage [Great Britain], he also shares with Da’esh—an Arabic pejorative for the Islamist terrorist group ISIS.


Zeid has a point. What do the “nationalist populists” of various countries have in common with ISIS? They all despise being subservient to outside influence or foreign invasions. They all reject the New World Order.

Prince Zeid implies that all who oppose globalism are “terrorists”. For me, he thereby reveals much about the true nature of the New World Order. It intends to dominate the world at any cost—including the use of lies or brute, terrifying force—if that’s what’s required to subject the people to one-world government.


“All [nationalist populists] seek in varying degrees to recover a past, halcyon and so pure in form, where sunlit fields are settled by peoples united by ethnicity or religionliving peacefully in isolation, pilots of their fate, free of crime, foreign influence and war. A past that most certainly, in reality, did not exist anywhere, ever. Europe’s past, as we all know, was for centuries anything but that.”


But what are the globalists selling if not a fictional future where we will all be “free of crime, foreign influence, and war”?

Look at the name of the organization that hosted the gala where Zeid spoke: It was the “Peace, Justice and Security Foundation”.

Gee, who could be against a future marked by “Peace, Justice and Security”? Only crazy people would reject such noble objectives.

But, likewise, only crazy people would think that such objectives could be universally achieved in this life. The globalists are at least as big a bunch of con-artists as they claim the nationalist populists to be.


“…Populists use half-truths and oversimplificationthe two scalpels of the arch propagandist, and here the internet and social media are a perfect rail for them, by reducing thought into the smallest packages: sound-bites, tweets. Paint half a picture in the mind of an anxious individual, exposed as they may be to economic hardship and through the media to the horrors of terrorism. Prop this picture up by some half-truth here and there and allow the natural prejudice of people to fill in the rest. Add drama, emphasizing it’s all the fault of a clear-cut group, so the speakers lobbing this verbal artillery, and their followers, can feel somehow blameless.”


I’ll bet that Prince Zeid knows about “half-truths and over-simplification” as devices to deceive the public because he and the globalists rely on those same devices to deceive to mislead the world.

Likewise, Prince Zeid’s complaints about the “internet” and “social media” suggest that two of the N.W.O.’s targets for regulation, restriction or even elimination will be the “internet” and “social media”. Zeid et al see the internet and social media as sources of truth (or at least opinion) that threatens to the N.W.O..

Prince Zeid said the “nationalist populists’” formula for resisting one-world government is to “make people, already nervous, feel terrible; then emphasize it’s all because of a group, lying within, foreign and menacing,” then “make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others.”

As I read it, Zeid just described the “formula” that the N.W.O. plans to use to subject the world to global government.

What fantasies of peace, prosperity and universal brotherhood has the New World Order offered you?

Zeid’s complaints about the nationalist populists’ use of communications (internet, social media) imply that the globalists are losing the battle for the world’s “hearts and minds”. Zeid sounds desperate. Apparently, the “national populists” are using the internet and social media more effectively than the N.W.O. If so, the “national populists” are defeating the globalist’s plan for world domination.


History has perhaps taught Mr. Wilders and his ilk how effectively xenophobia and bigotry can be weaponized. Communities will barricade themselves into fearful, hostile camps, with populists like themselves, and with extremists as the commandants. The atmosphere will become thick with hate; at this point it can descend rapidly into colossal violence.”


Xenophobia and bigotry”? Prince Zeid is playing the race card. He sounds as silly as Al Sharpton.

As for “history,” I’ll bet that globalists have studied history far longer and in greater detail than any of the current crop of “nationalist populists”. I’ll also bet that globalists also have an unrivaled, in-depth knowledge of how to “weaponize” various intellectual concepts.

For example, the idea that all races, religions and cultures are “equal” has been “weaponized” by the New World Order. (Let’s pause for a moment and all sing a few verses of Kumbaya.) The idea of complete, universal equality is a bunch of crap, alright, but it’s politically correct crap that deceives the public and serves the N.W.O.’s agenda.

Colossal violence”?! Are we to believe that without one-world government, the world will “descend rapidly into colossal violence”?

Ohh, puh-leese. Isn’t it the globalists who believe that the world’s population should be cut by 50% to 90%? There’s not a “nationalist populist” around who wants to see his own nation’s population reduced by millions.

However, globalists want the mass murder of billions of the world’s people. If that’s not “colossal violence,” I don’t know what is.

Again, Prince Zeid’s insults and condemnations tell us more about the New World Order than they do about Trump, Farage and the other “nationalist populists”.


Zeid also questioned whether “we’re doing enough to counter this cross-border bonding of demagogues.” In other words, the “national populist” movement has become an international force to be reckoned with. Zeid wants to stop Farage and Wilkens from linking up with other national populists like Trump.

But, wait a second!

Isn’t it the globalists who want to do away with borders? If so, why do they object to “cross-border bonding”? Between Farage, Wilkens and Trump?


“Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalization of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion? Do not, my friends, be led by the deceiver. It is only by pursuing the entire truth, and acting wisely, that humanity can ever survive. So draw the line and speak. Speak out and up, speak the truth and do so compassionately, speak for your children, for those you care about, for the rights of all, and be sure to say clearly: stop!”


Sounds like a speech Lenin might’ve made, doesn’t it?

Stop!” is a command or desperate desire that the rising forces of world populism “stop!” resisting the forces of the New World Order. Unfortunately, I don’t think the globalists have enough power to make that “Stop!” stick.

Assuming there is such a word as “banalization,” it might be argued that the populists have “banalized” bigotry. But what about the globalists’ “banalization of equality”?

What’s that mean?

The “banalization of equality” refers to the banal presumption that we’re all equal in all regards and therefore all entitled to equal shares of the economic pie, regardless of whether we’re talented or incompetent, educated or ignorant, hard-working or lazy. Based on our presumed equality in all things, we should all get the same-sized homes, same-sized cars, same amount of food—regardless of whether we work and produce something or just sit on our butts and consume. The “banalization of equality” is the foundation of communism and the cornerstone for collectivism.

If the nationalist populists have “banalized” bigotry, the globalists have “banalized” equality to support collectivism.

Prince Zeid’s remarks imply that the globalists are collectivists.

Think not?

Read a little more:


We will not be bullied by you, the bully, nor fooled by you, the deceiver, not again, no more; because we, not you, will steer our collective fate. And we, not you, will write and sculpt this coming century. Draw the line!”


Did Prince Zeid’s closing remarks sound a little desperate? A little hysterical? Or, was that just megalomania that I heard and mistook for desperation?

In any case, did you see the word “collective”? Do you know what it signals?

In his grand, globalist frustration, Prince Zeid has revealed what the New World Order really is: it’s a collectivist system of government fundamentally identical to socialism and communism. It’s a global hive.

Who will run this hive?

The world’s princes, the royalty, the super-rich. The elite. The globalists. They—not the “nationalist populists” (and certainly not the ordinary people of the world)—will “steer our collective fate”. The globalists (but not the nationalist-populists and not the world’s common people) are determined to “write and sculpt this coming century”.

The globalists’ plans for the next century may not be as grand as Herr Hitler’s plans for his “Thousand Year Reich”–but today’s globalist dream of one-world, collectivist government is equally mad. The “Thousand Year Reich” lasted for about a decade. If the globalists do manage to implement one-world governance, I doubt that they’ll last much longer than the Nazis did.


Based on its revelations, Zeid’s imprudence and even anxiety, I thought Zeid’s speech was amazing. He seemed desperate. He spoke as if he was afraid that the New World Order was losing to the populists.

His speech didn’t tell me much about the “nationalist populists” that he condemned, but it told me a lot about the New World Order that he supported.

In the end, Prince Zeid virtually confessed that the globalists have no intention of serving the world’s people. They intend to rule the collective by any means necessary. They plan to be the dictatorship of the collective. They plan to achieve that goal with mass deception and, if that doesn’t work, mass violence.

May God judge them, one and all.



P.S.  I can see why the Democrat and Republican elite hate Trump. I can see why the Main Stream Media hate Trump.

It’s not because Trump is rich, arrogant, stupid, dyes his hair or whatever.

It’s because Trump is not a globalist. Trump’s election will be the American equivalent to Great Britain’s Brexit. Trump’s election would signal America’s rejection of globalism and would constitute an enormous setback for the New World Order.

I wonder if Trump understands the threat that he poses and the danger he’s confronting.

On the other had, “Crooked Coughing” Hillary’s election to the presidency is applauded and advocated by the globalists. Why? Because Hillary is a card-carrying globalist and New World Order “princess” (or at least, aging queen).



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

23 responses to “Forces Favoring the New World Order are Failing

  1. GreatScott

    September 17, 2016 at 10:14 PM

    If you believe Trump is anti New World Order, I have some real estate in Louisiana I would like to sell to you real cheap. Trump may look like he might be on our side. In reality, Trump is the guy bribing Government, rather than receiving the bribe.

  2. Adask

    September 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM

    The difference between Trump and the Globalists is like the difference between someone who gambles in a casino and someone who owns the casino. Trump has played the globalist game, alright. He’s even beat the house on some occasions. But he’s not a registered co-owner of the globalist casino.

    Trump is like a card-counter. He knows the game and can sometimes beat the house. The globalists don’t want him in their casino.

    • moon

      September 18, 2016 at 10:05 AM

      Being one who has been banned from a few (very few) casinos for winning, and one who has done some study of how casinos operate, I would say that Trump, knowing some of the casinos’ vulnerabilities, would be the perfect shill (possibly schill).

      Another term to describe Trump, used by me on this blog (back in Feb of this year or about), is Trojan Horse.

      The house, if so inclined, can make a very attractive offer to become a shill.

    • fawnmeadowsmc

      September 20, 2016 at 12:30 PM

      Good Point! And I like Trump.

      • moon

        September 20, 2016 at 1:20 PM

        I’d like to know he’s not a shill or Trojan Horse. Would like to be incorrect in my suspicion.

  3. Oliver Medaris

    September 18, 2016 at 1:57 AM

    I’m bored. Think I’ll vote for”something completely different.” Someone who has read the US Constitution.

    • wholy1

      September 18, 2016 at 10:12 AM

      The CONstitution – the first LIMITATION of “certain unalienable Rights, that AMONG THESE [but NOT limited to] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Suspect you’re a “Hamilton fan”? The DOI was AFFIRMED/ratified by suffering, blood, death, and bounty of individuals, AND the SURRENDER of a RULING FOREIGN MONACH’S ASSIGNED AGENT. In contrast, the CONstitution was conveniently – and COVERTLY – “ratified” simply by the sigs of “!@#$%” – apply whatever “label” you choose to characterize “them”. Where in the CONstitution is it specifically stated that said document superseded the Articles of Confederation? I do not know of one proceeding in which a court was forced to substantiate its ACTUAL EXISTENCE – let alone its “authority”/”jurisdiction” – to the AFFIRMATION of the FOUNDATIONAL DOI document.

      • Adask

        September 18, 2016 at 3:40 PM

        The Constitution was proposed in A.D. 1787 based on the signatures of 39 men who drafted the document. There was some secrecy involved in it’s preparation and initial drafting. However, as per Article VII of the Constitution, it was first ratified by state conventions (not legislatures) of the People when the 9th State of the Union ratified in A.D. 1788. That A.D. 1788 ratification was not covert or based merely on signatures.

        It may be important to understand the relative years (A.D. 1787 vs. A.D. 1788) because I’ve seen evidence that the government sometimes refers to the “1787 Constitution” which was merely proposed by government officials as opposed to the “1788 Constitution” which was ratified by the People. Although the two documents are word-for-word identical, the first is based on the authority of the government and the second is based on the authority of the People.

        Whether this distinction is significant or merely a “conspiracy theory” is unclear. But why take a chance? Why not always refer to the “Constitution of the United State first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788”?

        As for the differences or conflicts between the Constitution (A.D. 1788) and the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781), see my article entitled “The Organic Law of The United States of America” at:

  4. wholy1

    September 18, 2016 at 12:00 PM

    One of your best, Al – thx. With “labels” and/or casual imposition of the “possessive case”, – “my/our” country/government/children – is One not only “identified”, but also possibly conscribed, devolved and whatever other “limiting” verb you wish to apply? I find it increasingly interesting how individuals appear to increasingly resort to both DEFINING an LIMITING their “consciousness” (sic) with “labels” and “possessions”. The “Media” – by the likes of Bernays – continues to “devolve/reduce/simplify” the “collective [un]consciousness to terse “labels” the social memes the [D]elite PTB’s (Psychopaths That Bugger) continue to so subtly “promote” and/or “demote” depending on the specific, RELEVANT circumstance/issue. Targeting whether physical or political involves three steps: “acquisition/awareness, identification/labeling, reaction/disposition. Chris Kyle is [now – by media/Eastwood] perhaps an iconic example of the former and Karl Rove is a really sickening example of the latter. With regard to “possess[ive/ions”, if each and every One is “manifested” in to this world withOUT any “possessions” but also – at the time – NO knowledge of “possessions”; AND then One “exits” with NO “possessions”, INCLUDING even the “organic/mineral vessel”, which “ROLE” in elemental Trust Law SHOULD each One of us be “playing”? Does “EVERYTHING [both] GIVEN AND TAKEN” imply that the Lord is BOTH “Benefactor” AND “Beneficiary”? What ROLE then, remains to which each One us should be attempting to – thru honorable conduct and righteous intent – fulfill? What “role” did the Redeemer identify as the most important?

    • Anthony Clifton

      September 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM

      in Matthew 13:39-44 The Messiah, Redeemer proclaims the really good news
      for the workers of iniquity…{TARES}

      In Isaiah 13:14 it would appear that a resegregation order is announced for
      a future date, certain

      either way the Redeemer – Messiah – King is not subservient to the brown nosing
      psychophants of the ‘Money Changers & Pharisees’ aka the NWO crowd

  5. Roy Dobbs

    September 18, 2016 at 3:33 PM

    Mr. Adask, hello, I like the article but I did scroll down to Social Security on your site. I am quite aware of the SS-5 form being voluntary. In the past I have received a letter from the Social security stating a SS card is not required but that some companies may not hire me. So I gathered that it is a company policy to have people enrolled in Social Security in order to hire them. My question is, does a company policy supersede Federal Law? And if not wouldn’t that be fraud on the company that will not hire someone for not giving them a number? Also if there is a Notice of Levy on someone doesn’t there have to be an IRS Form 4490 Proof of Claim attached? Thank you for your time. Roy

  6. Adask

    September 18, 2016 at 4:10 PM

    In theory, the requirement by private corporations that employees have SSNs does “trump” federal law. Why? Because the corporations are presumed to be private in nature. If I run a business and declare that I won’t hire anyone who refuses to wear a pink beanie with a propeller on top while on the job, that’s my right as the business owner.

    I assume that private corporations also have the right (based on private corporation policy) to require employees to have a SSN.

    I doubt that we’d be successful at attacking the corporation’s requirement that we use SSNs based simply on the presence or absence of the SSN. But it might be possible to attack the employer’s requirement for a SSN if we could prove that by using the SSN, we were forced to accept a degraded personal status which deprived us of certain rights including the God-given, “unalienable Rights” declared at the Declaration of Independence.

    It’s conceivable that use of the SSN might signal that the user was a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” rather than one of the People of a State of the Union. If that were true, then being forced to use a SSN by a private corporation might be successfully attacked in court as a “deprivation of rights” under something like title 42 USC 1983.

    I doubt that even private corporations can force their employees to accept an inferior legal or political status as a condition for employment.

    But, does the SSN actually cause us to accept an inferior legal or political status? Or is that argument merely another conspiracy theory?

    What evidence do we have that the SSN is not simply an accounting device but is, instead, a means to support the presumption that we have “voluntarily” agreed to abandon some of our political rights?

    As for the IRS Notice of Levy, note that a Notice of Levy is not a Levy. Over the years, I’ve repeatedly heard or seen that when people receive a Notice of Levy, there’s no real Levy (singed by a judge) to support that Notice. People think that a Notice from the IRS is a statement of fact when, actually, such Notices are more like an inquiry that essentially says, “Do you agree that there’s a Levy on your wages or property?” I believe that if you respond to the IRS Notice with statements or silence, it will be presumed that you’ve agreed that there is a valid Levy and the courts will find you guilty. However, if you respond to their Notice with QUESTIONS as to the existence of a real levy, you might defeat the implications of the IRS Notice.

    To learn more about my notions on Notice and Right of Inquiry, see the several dozen articles I published under the “Category” designated as “Notice” in the right-hand column on this blog. To understand my arguments scroll down through the Notice articles to start reading the earliest article(s).

    • Joe Citizen

      September 23, 2016 at 2:51 AM

      Your “God given unalienable rights” don’t exist, and this fact is proved.

      1st, the meaning of the words used is established, to wit:

      – the word “God” means “the main character, and/or the deity, of the Holy Bible you worship”.

      – the word “given” means “you believe God was the source of the things, including unalienable rights, you believe you possess”.

      – the word “unalienable” means “things that are incapable of being submitted, surrendered, transferred, sold, leased, rented, donated, given, granted, bequeathed, endowed, loaned, sold, taken, stolen, seized or otherwise made unusable and/or unavailable”.

      – the word “rights” means “includes powers, privileges and immunities recognized as private properties of each living, bipedal sentient being with opposable thumbs herein referred to as a man, a woman and/or a human.

      – the word “human” is a Latin word meaning “dirt being” and/or “being made of dirt”, which includes you, men/males, women/females and its [some have both sexual organs (see a hermaphrodites)].

      2nd, so now, based on these meanings, for your “God given unalienable rights” (which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to exist, your “God given unalienable rights” can not be taken away from you, nor can you give them away, no matter what, or otherwise, your “God given unalienable rights” aren’t unalienable, they’re just more man made fictions used to control the un-educated.

      3rd, a murderer can prove your unalienable rights are null and void, to wit:

      – a murderer can shoot and kill you, so you don’t have an unalienable right to life, as your life can be taken away from you by a murderer.

      – a murderer can shoot and kill you, so you don’t have an unalienable right to liberty, as your liberty can be taken away from you by a murderer.

      – a murderer can shoot and kill you, so you don’t have an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, as your pursuit of happiness can be taken away from you by a murderer.

      4th, so the phrase “unalienable rights” is proved to be a self-evident fiction.

      5th, the “right to a trial by a jury of your peers” is a legal fiction, something you don’t have.

      6th, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution(s) for the united States of America are only applicable to those that signed them, as no one in the past, present and/or future has legitimate authority to bind anyone but themselves. No lawful contract, no lawful obligations, no lawful benefits.

      7th, legal is not lawful; and/or legal is UN lawful.

      8th, all branches, departments, bureaus, agencies and offices of all local, state and federal governments in the US are controlled by the members of one organization, the State Bar, a non-profit organization/church\religion wherein its members religiously practice, through the 1st Amendment made to disrespect all other religions, the Science of Jurisprudence which is based on the Theory of Law ~ “All are presumed to know the law (negates the perfect defense, ignorance of the law).”

      9th, if all knew the law as the Theory of Law presumes, there would be no need for State Bars.

      10th, I have been told by court appointed attorneys and superior court judges; that, if I, or my witness, told the truth at trial, that would cause him to declare a mistrial, we would be held in contempt of court and jailed until the new trial date. If we told the truth again, we would be held in contempt of court and jailed until the new trial date, again. If we did it again, we would be held in jail indefinitely, and the trial would be held without out us.

      Thus, unalienable rights are a fiction created and destroyed by a man.

      • Adask

        September 23, 2016 at 4:15 AM

        What you’re saying is more or less true–provided that God does not exist and did not create mankind in His image and provided that the premises espoused in the Declaration of Independence are false. For atheists, your arguments are probably valid. For people who believe in the God of the Bible, your logic is nonsensical.

        As for someone committing murder and thereby “proving” that the unalienable Right to life is a fiction, that’s a false statement. You cannot “lawfully” deprive a man of his God-given unalienable Rights without exposing yourself to retribution by government (being charged, convicted and imprisoned for murder), by relatives of the murdered man who seek retribution by vengeance (murdering you), or retribution by God, Himself, in your next life.

        Of course, if you’re an atheist, you won’t believe in God’s retribution. But, just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist.

  7. palani

    September 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM

    “does the SSN actually cause us to accept an inferior legal or political status”
    A unit of account. Like opening up a savings or checking account at a bank except full disclosure is not given at the time of opening.

    Perhaps a good response to requests for a SSN is “I gave my fair share at the latest United Way fund drive.” Social welfare is social insurance. Insurance is not a common law concept. It belongs to maritime law along with fiat money. Using social welfare imports foreign law.

    • moon

      September 19, 2016 at 11:41 AM

      There is, I’ve heard, a piece of legislation that renders refusal of service when one does not provide a SSN to be a felony carrying serious fine and/or jail time. Haven’t found it yet. Does anyone know where that can be found?


    September 19, 2016 at 9:30 PM

    Forces Favoring the New World Order are Failing

    Revelation 18:17

    King James Bible
    For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

  9. dog-move

    September 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM

    In late stage bubbles businesses are drunk with visions of grandiose delusions. This is probably due to over accomodative monetary policy to ensure the support of the weakening economic lattice structure. Most businesses like Hanjin are all doing the same thing due to the loose monetary policy. As one enterprise fails so does another, as in contaigion. The damage controllers are in way over their head. The Ponzi structure in place when it begins to unravel it could actually be an hour long event due to the infinite size of the current worldwide bubble/babble.
    Gold and silver will climb a wall of worry and stocks will go down a slope of hope.Though, let’s be overjoyed, that when this hour long event occurs no one will buy the cargos of the shipmasters, most specifically — “human cargo” and the “souls of men”.

  10. ysgeye

    September 23, 2016 at 11:38 AM

    Concerning the SSN and a company’s requiring them in order for you to work for them, Taco Bell was sued for that very reason, lost and now their application for employment has the box for a SSN say, “Optional”

  11. dog-move

    September 23, 2016 at 4:15 PM

    Speaking of the TPTB’s power failing, I imagine the explosion in growth in decriminalization of mary-jane country wide may have something to do with the MOOA argument. It may not have established case law precident, but the explosion into mainstream commerce is moving fast.
    The speculators are lining up to get into this next big green rush. Maybe “man or other animals” maybe not, I know this is big. Watch November 8th. It could be an act of desparation by TPTB to get the economy moving powrfully by creating a huge new market.

  12. Adask

    September 23, 2016 at 11:43 PM

    About A.D. 2013, the government of Texas changed the language within its definition of “drugs” from “man or other animals” to “man or animals”. I like to suppose that that change was motivated by the “man or other animals” defense I advanced in A.D. 2006–but I have no proof (other than coincidence) that my supposition is valid.

  13. dog-move

    September 24, 2016 at 9:47 AM

    Given how profitable the war on drugs has been since A.D. 1971, it appears that via the ending of prohibition of marijuana it may be more profitable and benefitial to the expansion of debt. Creation of a new industry in the wartime U.S. economy may throw off most. The war on drugs continues albiet surremptitiously. The new structure may allow the creation of new agency regulation in order to continue to create debt. I order to move the economy into a hyperinflation via debt creation the federal hydra must grow exponentially.
    The masses will be more than happy to stay within the structure of “this state” in order to get the goodies that “this state” says you can have. “COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE”….
    The creation of a new industry will employ many and may be benefital to the Affordable Care Act since most traditional forms of medical care will be priced out of reach of the lower tier insurance policy structure for the under middle class. Give them marijuana, and inexpensive cancer treatment with radioactive isotopes. This may be all this state can afford in the 4th world of the New America
    Early stage trends emerge unseen by the masses. We are in the early stages of so much throughout the entire spectrum of the global commerce mechanism. 4 BILLION PEOPLE WILL CAUSE THIS SHIFT. Greed and fear will be motivationg factors as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s