Lessons from the Coronacaust - how did It change you ?

[rachel]

The thing I can't get over, when politicians talk about "this thing is a threat to democracy". It's just truly crass.

[aSHIFT.]

The thing I can't get over, when politicians talk about "this thing is a threat to democracy". It's just truly crass.

Oh yes, the foolish belief in democrazy.

That is one of the things I noticed in my surroundings, luckily, mostly very apolitical people.
Yes, most of them "working class" (estrato 3), so less inclined to be bothered by that theater, but still...

Democrazy was alive from 1848-2020

people ask "when will the New World Order be established"

WHILE WITHIN IT

never before the whole world was in lockdown, restrained to our own personal prisons.

and "democracy" and "voting" were the nucleus of the break I had with a 20 year (!) friend.

Someone I thought would have awoken MORE because of the sufferings he endured at the very start of the Covidiocrazy. (typo, but I like it)

we had a long, even recorded, conversation about the status of the world and with him only talks get very intellectual, we both have a lot of general knowledge and that helps.

"I don't believe in a one world government"

Yeah, but how would you call "Corona" then, exactly? I mean, you suffered from it, much more than me...

And he just could not fathom my stance that

"the whole world went to shit when women got voting """rights""""

nothing mysogynistic, and I explained that in our talk
it just strengthened the full belief in Government
the present day enthusiasm from women to "be able to vote" says a lot

he of all people could not be surprised by my non-political authority "anarchist" stance, knowing me better than anyone else in this world...
and both of us """blessed""" with a feminazi (mine) and feminist pastor (!) (his) mothers...

but no, he could not drop his beliefs in the democrazy,
utterly convinced that by demonarchizing the Netherlands

the world suddenly changes for the better,

The World is Your World
And Your World
YOU Should Change
For The Better

aSHIFT.

[rachel]

Democracy is the system where the rich always win. They take away power from everyone else, then make it too expensive for anyone to challenge their monopoly. Get someone with the right message, the controllers just create a clone of most of what they are saying, then stand that clone against them. The point, to half the right person's vote so they don't win.

Example in the UK. The Reclaim Party and the Reform Party. I'm still not sure which is led by actor Laurence Fox. I think Reclaim. The other leader is apparently pro-freedom, except when it comes to the vaccines. I don't really know the Laurence Fox argument, he's painted as an antivaxxer. Yet he protects the COVID-19 narrative by going along with it, and makes himself look like an idiot at the most important times.

But if that doesn't work, plan b. Use democracy itself to remove the candidate. The controllers can just pay their people to join the party, create a fracas and demand a different policy on something unrelated to the thing they actually have a problem with. Then they lobby for a leadership election in which they now have the numbers to remove the candidate.

I brought up actor Laurence Fox because I suspect this is exactly why people cannot actually join his party. The people backing him know this would likely happen if they did allow members.

So that's democracy for you...just a bunch of idiots playing tactical games against each other while Rome burns.

[rachel]

Universal suffrage leads to Communism. That's just the way things are, because Democracy was created to remove good capable people who work for the greater good of their community and replace them with bought and paid for tools who are incompetent and have no moral standing, therefore just parrot what the vested interests tell them.

And then Non-Governmental Bodies are setup under the umbrella of "Non Profit and Charitable Trusts", as this is a way to launder money from taxpayers with no accountability, then use the money to set up your world fiefdom unopposed. The whole public-private partnership (PPP) con is designed to circumvent the rule of law, so corruption can replace it unopposed, then governments themselves.

WE ARE HERE.

Therefore Communism, Liberalism and Fascism are the same thing, they are just different levels/stages of the same model. Because Liberalism brought us Laissez-faire Capitalism, and one of the requirements of the Free Market model is Slavery...in the 1700s, they were at least honest about this fact. Think about if you were a Cotton picker, you might not have had an income for the backbreaking work you did that killed you early, but you were housed and fed by your owner.

https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/refere ... liberalism

Laissez-faire Capitalism (Liberalism)

Classical liberals argue that a free-market (‘free’ that is from government intervention) facilitates the optimum allocation of scarce resources within an economy.

The liberal perspective is strongly in favour of a capitalist economic system, which may be defined as an economic system based upon private ownership and market forces. This observation applies to both main strands of liberal thought, although they differ over the extent to which the state should intervene in order to uphold the smooth functioning of the marketplace.

Classical liberals argue that a free-market (‘free’ that is from government intervention) facilitates the optimum allocation of scarce resources within an economy. Over time, prices reach a state of equilibrium based on the interplay of supply and demand. Those on the right-wing of the Liberal Democrats (such as the Orange Bookers) believe that a laissez-faire system is compatible with freedom because economic agents are allowed to make decisions on a voluntary basis. This argument applies to firms, customers and workers themselves.

Equally, classic liberals offer a firm rebuke to the left-wing argument that the owners of the means of production exploit their workforce. As workers are free to offer their labour in return for wages, employers have every incentive to treat their workforce in a fair and reasonable manner. If they do not, workers will either leave or become demotivated. Either way, the level of service provided by that firm will be adversely affected and that would be bad for business.

Classical liberals also offer an insightful argument in regard to reducing trading barriers within the global economy. It has long been a fundamental tenant of classical liberalism that free trade raises living standards for all. According to contemporary theorists such as Thomas Friedman (2000), globalisation represents a positive force within international relations. Free trade generates prosperity and opportunity whereas state control denies people the chance to better themselves. There are few better illustrations of this argument than China, a country that once experienced dreadful famines during the cultural revolution under Chairman Mao is now responsible for the largest number of people being lifted out of poverty in world history. China demonstrates that free-market reforms (as instigated by Deng Xiaoping) represent the best route available towards the eradication of poverty. Deng’s theory is known as ‘one centre and two bases’ – the centre being economic constriction and the two bases being adherence to one-party rule and furthering economic reform.

It should also be noted that social liberals are as favourable towards capitalism as classical liberals. However, there is a major line of disagreement between these two strands over the proper role of the state and the level of welfare provided. The social liberal stance facilitates an enabling role for the state to correct market failure. Social liberals argue that the allocation of resources derived from the free exchange of economic agents can lead to undesirable consequences. In order to resolve this, social liberals argue in favour of state intervention to make the market work more effectively...

No, the fundamental tenet of Capitalism is the lowest bid wins, therefore shittest always floats to the top. And every decision is made on that short-term basis, even as it destroys the society around it. If God is a measure of abundance - Jesus feeding the 5000 with 12 baskets of food left over - then it's clear Capitalism is from satan himself.