constitutional mechanics 101

we commonly inherit national constitutional frameworks that were created within very different contexts to that which we are presently experiencing. thus what made sense many years past, now shapes our experience in ways which often are not comfortable. this zone is for the exploration of evolving new constitutional agreements that best serve the needs of an expanding and evolving populous.
zone membership permissions:
open (public) zone

who can see this zone?
public
(show / hide) this zone's other sections

share this via

liking what we do here?

this site is advert free. your donations assist with keeping us online - click below to help us meet our technology costs

donations

uk government claims they need to imprison based on 'thought crime'!

    ura soul
    by
    uk government claims they need to imprison based on 'thought crime'!

    so theresa may wants 'extra powers' to cage people due to their THOUGHTS?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oESd1t2XRO8

    what is 'extreme' to one, may not be 'extreme' to another. in some cases we truly do need to take action that once my have seemed to be 'extreme'. attacking 'extremists' is as stupid and ignorant as a 'war on terror'.

    mind controlled german soldiers are attacking britain (WW2)....
    getting up and flying across the sea to bomb some places is pretty 'extreme', yes? yet that is what the british 'government' essentially forced many of us to do in response to the german threat. these present day government agents will be quick to use the symbol of 'superior strength proved in WW2' as a political tool when it suits them - yet will 'conveniently DENY' the reality that these actions were relatively EXTREME. they will use extremism on one day and may then denounce the actions of anyone who may stand in their way as potentially 'extremist'.

    1:16 - "i think everybody recognises that it is important that we do not allow people to preach extremism'..

    - those of us who recognise that the defining of extremism is subjective, NOT objective, will not agree. those of us who recognise that 'extreme' is only one option in a range of possibilities and that sometimes radical and 'extreme' change is necessary for balance to be maintained, will not agree with theresa. anyone who is evolved enough to be able to think freely here and realise the truth of what i just wrote will not agree with 'theresa' here - to me, her thoughts are obviously inaccurate.

    2:04: "what we are looking at is a situation where we believe we need to take powers necessary to be able to deal with those people who are preaching hatred on our streets and that is an extremism that can lead others into violence"

    - so the situation has at it's foundation a BELIEF, that is held by the speaker and her 'team'. BELIEFS ARE SUPERFLUOUS TO REALITY. KNOWINGNESS IS SUPERIOR TO BELIEF AND IS AVAILABLE IN EVERY MOMENT. we must NEVER overpower the will of others and most assuredly NEVER on the basis of a BELIEF! this is simple stuff to those of us who choose REAL balance.

    hatred is an extreme dislike. extreme dislike is a correct response to that which is extremely disliked. most of us extremely dislike being overpowered, controlled and abused by others. most of us extremely dislike being put in a cage for 'having views'.
    therefore, it is theresa may who is certainly 'preaching extremist hate' in that she is inciting hatred OF HER, by her own choice to threaten the liberty of EVERYONE in the name of 'DEMOCRACY' and 'FREEDOM'. she also demonstrates a denied 'extreme dislike' (hate) of those who may speak of ideas that she disagrees with, since the wording of her ideas are so carefully imprecise as to allow for a wide variety of 'political opponents' to be caged. joseph stalin's actions to remove his opponents come to mind here.

    you CANNOT overpower others and cage them and increase FREEDOM - it is impossible. you are, at best, only ignoring the root causes of problems and denying the potential for true balance and true free will.
    even in cases where someone poses a direct and tangible threat to others by their actions, if the causes of their threats are not recognised to include a real intent to overpower free will, then there is always a real threat that those delivering 'justice' will only repeat precisely the same dysfunction as they are claiming to be 'remedying': namely, they will overpower the will of others and do so while claiming to 'protect our freedom'. these types of false beliefs and actions based on error, can only occur due to denial in the ones who act this way and their refusal to allow in the light of truth to their thought processes.

    the truth is that the majority of those involved with politics are involved mostly for their own benefit and are psychopathically heartless in their denial of the needs of other people. they care not who they crush and they generally will use the language of the land to deceive and twist the truth, to create cognitive dissonance and confusion in the people - such that the people just go along with their insane claims.

    you are welcome to debunk THAT.

    you can join the community to leave a comment