Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
01-21-2013, 08:33 PM,
Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
Quote:Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

Robert Booth

The Guardian, Tuesday 15 January 2013

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.

The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.

The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented to by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.

The Queen uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10 castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral, while the prince earns £18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.

"The suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief," he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of a private threat to withhold that consent."

The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

• This article was amended on Tuesday 15 January 2013 because it stated that Prince Charles has used the veto on more than a dozen occasions when it should have said that he has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation.
01-22-2013, 03:09 AM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
Scary business R.R.
wtf they are doing having to have anything but a ceremonial role beggars belief.
[Image: siolflag.gif]
01-25-2013, 10:04 PM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

Prince of Wales: a private individual's effective veto over public legislation
01-25-2013, 11:30 PM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
In Canada (and any Commonwealth nation) the final veto for any bill is the process Royal Assent, a legacy of British Common Law - which is often but not necessarily exclusive to the Queen's (or King's) representative. In Canada this representative is the

I didn't realize their were off record or secret vetos for bills anywhere stacked up.


Crown Corporation Ownership :: Case Study - Royal Ownership of The Bank of Canada

Here in Canada we use something similar to the British System

* House of Commons 1st Reading
* House of Commons 2nd Reading
* House of Commons 3rd Reading
* Senate Reading(s)
* Royal Assent (Queen or Governor General)

We learn that in grade 4 or 5 this side of the border. I think I went over Private Member Bills in another thread awhile ago.

Here's a crib sheet on how Canadian law is passed --
website courtesy of the tax dollars my fellow Canadians and I have 'donated' in order to remain outside of the penitentiary

This is an interesting premise..
Man's Law vs God's Law: The Entire Legal System could be Brought to its Knees via this Royal Exploit of the Queen

Found this to be relevant to this discussion as well:

(03-03-2012, 04:26 PM)icosaface Wrote: We have a constitution in Canada as well. I don't worship the Queen but our governments do swear allegiance to her. The united States of America has a constitution and if you quote that constitution to police officers and others you are to be considered as a probable terrorist.

The Ring Of Power has another take on what actually happened when the "New World" was colonized.
"The city of London, the city of Vatican and the city of columbia are the 3 independant states within states wich composes the empire of the city. The first is financial control over earth economy, the second is religion control over the earth and the third one is military control over the earth. Together they make the very unholy trinity which forms the egyptian pyramid that we can see on the back of the privately owned federal reserve note that is used as american dollar to maintain the colony in debt and under the Queen. Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged democratic and self-governing nation is actually controlled against the will of the people, is a clear indication that there must be a very powerful and well-financed occult organization which plans and directs world affairs, and for lack of a more specific identification this suspected secret organization is popularly referred to as the International Financiers, Banksters cartel or “The Crown corporation”.

The Producer is an experienced, award winning documentary filmmaker who, as a child, learned that her father was a member of the secretive cult of Freemasonry. She recalls many arguments between her parents over her father’s secret meetings and the exclusion of women from the brotherhood. The Masonic ring that her father wore had been passed down from father to son over the generations. When she asked her father about the meaning of the letter “G” and the compass and square on his ring, she got no response. As an adult, she decided to investigate. That investigation grew into four years of intensive research into the identity and history of the diabolical globalists who she calls the “Ring Of Power”. Their goal is one World Empire and one world ruler."

Connect the dots and follow up with some real action folks. Can't follow up with action? - pick a new cause.
There are no others, there is only us.
01-26-2013, 03:27 AM, (This post was last modified: 01-26-2013, 03:27 AM by Watchdog.)
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
[quote='R.R' pid='254974' dateline='1358796801']
[quote][b]"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Ohhhh... Well... If Andrew George says that the royals have true power then it must certainly be so... What an eye opener Suspicious

As if the Queen is really willing her own will.... Me not think so..

Remove the Queen and everything will be OK and true democracy will be saved... Me not think so..

Good try A.George, but not under my watch!
Paix, Amour et Lumiere
01-26-2013, 04:00 AM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
Yep, Andrew George has a lot to learn
02-05-2013, 12:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013, 01:19 PM by Valthrax.)
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

There is only an illusion of Democracy in this world.

For there is not now, and there never has been, a country in which the majority has a say in anything; that would never be allowed.

With respect to the royals, it has never been a secret that they have the final say in all laws and political changes made in the running of their nation. I was taught that the British monarch had veto power back in Grade Ten... we were told that they never used it, but only the gullible believed it, and I pointed that out to the instructor... who thought about it for a moment, looked kind of weird, sloughed it off with a trite remark, and carried on.

America of course, has a President who has veto power... and who is always related to the Queen of England... albeit distantly.

Canada has a royal representative, (as does every province and all Commonwealth Nations); the Lieutenant Governor... who always resides on one of the biggest estates, which is always grand, always paid for by the nation that he reigns over, and who is seldom, if ever, talked about.

Mind Control if one of the greatest goddamn forces in this world; If the media never mention it then it simply does not exist!


So what is Democracy?

Democracy is not a form of government
and it never has been.
There never has been a country that was under Democratic rule.
America is a Republic, Canada is a Dominion and the UK is a Monarchy.

"Democracy" is a transitional word that politicians use when a government is presently switching it's nation from it's existing political state, into a Tyrannical Dictatorship.

All who rule us know this well, (of course). So to hear politicians stating it, should be recognized by us, as an open declaration to all other politicians around the world regardless of nationality... that the process has begun.

So, if you do not want this to happen, stop putting your money and efforts into supporting those who are bringing this about and put your thoughts, words, money, and actions, into a new, benevolent society, where you will have some say... and some respect... and if you cannot find what you want already neatly, defined and packaged, then think about it a little bit and do what you can do... it is not that hard, it just requires some effort on your part; do not wait for it to be announced... for it never will be; stop supporting a system in which you are always an irrelevant looser.

Support those that will support you. Start with your family, move onto your neighbour and friends. Do not support those that are brain-dead and under control. Slowly take off the yoke.

Violence and protests activates and empowers, your enemy.

Energy is energy whether constructive or destructive, you are still giving them your power.

Are you truly a free, thinking, independent individual who only wants good for Humankind and a basic respect for himself?

When do you plan to come out of your larval stage?
The old world is being deconstructed now, (you do not need to do it), it is time for you to start building the world that you want to live in.

Diapers are for babies.

Speeches are for liars, (politicians).

Actions come from men.

Positive actions come from thinking men.

Do not destroy; Create.
02-06-2013, 04:22 AM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
I'd just like to make some additional remarks to Valthrax's post:

Preaching to the choir here but lets not forget the etymology of government is mind control.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic but democracy DOES exist - it just works in conjunction with mind control akin to the reaction phase of the problem - reaction - solution theory. In other words you condition the public to demand the changes you want. Democracy is simply the will of the majority and the majority of the masses have proven time and time again that they cannot overcome the effects of the propaganda machine partially because the same groups that fund politicians also fund/own virtually every other means of information dissemination. Alongside that, those same groups also utilise indirect means of propaganda such as celebrity endorsement, culture creation and false flag events to further guide the perception of the majority.

As for the royals; I remember studying law in college and finding out that the Queen must stamp/approve of all laws before they can become legitimate as part of the final stage of law creation after all the various debates and papers, although it was passed off as being more of a ceremonial/respect of tradition thing and that she basically never in reality rejected any laws. Thats almost as funny as former colonies being given independance.

The British Empire installed their own puppet governments when they left their colonies and gave them 'independance' essentially making them satellite states. At the time it was known as 'civilising the savages' or 'civilising missions' and today it is called 'exporting democracy'.

The visible forms of rulership have always changed their outward appearance but make no doubt about it that the same folk have pretty much ran the world for thousands of years.
02-06-2013, 04:44 AM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
(02-06-2013, 04:22 AM)R.R Wrote: Democracy is simply the will of the majority and the majority of the masses have proven time and time again that they cannot overcome the effects of the propaganda machine partially because the same groups that fund politicians also fund/own virtually every other means of information dissemination.

Expanding on this with some old school philisophical thought.. What is the will though? Is it necessarily free will in the context of democracy? Will with a absence of free is not free will, thus democracy is only designed to assert the socially engineered, self serving, confused conclusion, reflex action will of the majority .

An excerpt from John Locke's Theory of Knowledge.


First, we must note that, centuries earlier, John Locke had made a strong case for separating the idea of freedom from the determinate will. For Locke and his contemporaries, notions of freedom and liberty were often associated with randomness and libertine chance.
In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke calls the question of Freedom of the Will unintelligible. But for Locke, it is only because the adjective "free" applies more properly to the agent, not to the will, which is determined by the mind, and determines the action.
In Book II, Chapter XXI, On Power, section 14, Locke argues

I leave it to be considered, whether it may not help to put an end to that long agitated, and, I think, unreasonable, because unintelligible question, viz. Whether man's will be free or no? For if I mistake not, it follows from what I have said, that the question itself is altogether improper; and it is as insignificant to ask whether man's will be free, as to ask whether his sleep be swift, or his virtue square: liberty being as little applicable to the will, as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness to virtue. Every one would laugh at the absurdity of such a question…and when any one well considers it, I think he will as plainly perceive that liberty, which is but a power, belongs only to agents, and cannot be an attribute or modification of the will, which is also but a power.

In sections 16 and 18, he elaborates

It is plain then that the will is nothing but one power or ability, and freedom another power or ability - so that, to ask, whether the will has freedom, is to ask whether one power has another power, one ability another ability; a question at first sight too grossly absurd to make a dispute, or need an answer.

This way of talking, nevertheless, has prevailed, and, as I guess, produced great confusion.
Locke’s warning of confusion in this “way of talking,” a popular phrase with analytic language philosophers from Ludwig Wittgenstein to Richard Rorty, might have alerted language philosophers to the proper “dis-solution” of the “pseudo-problem” of free will. Simply separate the “free” from the “will!” It’s the agent that is free - as a consequence of genuine alternative possibilities to choose from.
In section 21, Locke concludes,

I think the question is not proper, whether the will be free, but whether a man be free. Thus, I think,

First, That so far as any one can, by the direction or choice of his mind, preferring the existence of any action to the non-existence of that action, and vice versa, make it to exist or not exist, so far he is free. For if I can, by a thought directing the motion of my finger, make it move when it was at rest, or vice versa, it is evident, that in respect of that I am free…and as far as this power reaches, of acting or not acting, by the determination of his own thought preferring either, so far is a man free. For how can we think any one freer, than to have the power to do what he will?... So that in respect of actions within the reach of such a power in him, a man seems as free as it is possible for freedom to make him.

The two-stage model of James, which also separates “free” from “will,” might have pleased Locke, excepting that Locke might not accept chance as the source of possibilities.


Perhaps the most important insight in the Jamesian model is that chance is not the direct cause of action, that chance does not make the will itself indeterminate. There is in the will adequate determinism, though that does not mean predeterminism. The causal chain of events stops at James generation of ambiguous futures.
The classical argument against free will is to describe the problem logically as the horns of a dilemma, on one side determinism (really predeterminism), on the other side chance, both of which imperil moral responsibility.
Given the stark choice between these exclusive options, it is plain why most philosophers are compatibilists and opt for determinism. Some determinism is necessary for the determination of our actions by our reasons. The idea that our actions are random is patently absurd.
James’s contemporary John Fiske wrote, “Volitions are either caused or they are not. If they are not caused, an inexorable logic brings us to the absurdities just mentioned. If they are caused, the free-will doctrine is annihilated.”
By limiting chance to the generation of alternative possibilities, James was the first to overcome the standard argument against libertarian free will found in the writings of many of the recent participants in the free will debates. Instead of a stark choice between chance and determinism, Jamesian two-stage models involve both some chance and some limited determinism. Some chance is needed to break the causal chain of strict logical and physical predeterminism. But some determination is also needed to protect the will from the charge that our decisions are random. Decisions must be adequately determined by a process that considers reasons, motives, and feelings when evaluating the alternative possibilities that have been generated in part by chance.
James accomplishes this by using chance simply to create genuinely new and unpredictable alternative possibilities for action, following which a choice can be made by a will that is consistent with character, values, and especially with one’s desires and feelings, which James considered an essential part of the will.
Full Doc:
.doc   Jamesian_Free_Will.doc (Size: 169 KB / Downloads: 41)

All you need to control people in a democracy, even a true democracy is to fool/manipulate/bribe/force most of the people more times than not to assert power over a populace.

The bigger question as to what drives society and individuals to the choices, thoughts and actions is what is the primary influence of their will, addressing the root issue is productive approach in this.
There are no others, there is only us.
02-06-2013, 05:25 AM,
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
FastTadpole Wrote:The bigger question as to what drives society and individuals to the choices, thoughts and actions is what is the primary influence of their will, addressing the root issue is productive approach in this.

The beginning point would be finding out who has the biggest 'influence' on society and then finding out who has the biggest influence on the most influential. Looking at it off the top of my head, I'd say perhaps media and celebrity are the biggest influences on the people within western societies; both industries seem to be influenced heavily by the same few corporations who seem to be influenced by bankers who seem to be influenced by secret society doctrines which essentially point to 'perfecting' the world.

Beyond that it is anyone's educated guess as to where that will for perfection comes from.

I'd always keep in mind that in this hierarchical social structure, the people at the top will have the most influence and thus a sort of trickle down effect occurs.

In some ways it shows the pliability of the human. Is this because the human is 'free' or because the human has to be moulded depending on the requirements of its masters?

As for the masters, it hardly seems that they are human and we all know how many avenues that line of enquiry can lead us.
02-06-2013, 12:46 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-06-2013, 02:00 PM by Valthrax.)
RE: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

There is no democracy.

There never has been and there never will be.

It is not a type of governmental rule, it is a word that denotes a transition.

However, there are a lot of people, (nearly everyone), who swallows the spin... devoid of constructive thought, they regurgitate what they are told by establishment authorities, pawning it off as knowledge; it is prechewed pablum for the immature minds of the masses, to ensure that they forever remain immature and thus, mental geld-lings.

When is the last time you had a say in any law or government action that affected your life?

The answer for everyone is "never"...

... though certainly, the appearance of such has always been there; for a weak mind, spin is enough to satisify.

When did you have a say in what goes into school books? Never. And you never will.

Now, having said that, name one country that is a democracy?

There is none... not one.

It makes no difference whatsoever if the concept of a democratic society can exist in theory... being just a mental exercise; it does not exist in reality. You cannot name one single, democratic nation... you can only theorize about the possibility that one could exist. That would be a self-serving, ego-driven, waste of time, serving no other function than a sacrifice of truth upon the altar of Ego.


We are taught, (meaning myself as well), that the power of the royals approval over laws, is a rubber stamp, but only someone very naive would believe that to be true... though I was quite young at the time I was told this, I certainly did not buy into it... as I stated in a previous post; obviously that school-supplied statement was/is just spin.

There is no person ever born that had such power, that would not use it. And there is no person ever born that would take part in the creation of a law that would not shape and reshape that law, with that veto power of the royals in mind; there is no point in writing a law that would not get past the so-called "rubber stamp". I assure you, it is the biggest single influence in the writing of all laws in the UK, a procedure for which has long since been defined and refined, and the underlying structure of how this is done, kept from public awareness.

To believe that the royals have somehow been neutered and brought under control after millennia of rule, by a dumb and ineffective society, is laughable. The royals are now in the same position that they were in seven hundred years ago; there has been no change other than a new spin for a modern society.

(Obviously SPIN works... or not one person would ever pay $400.00 for a $20.00 pair of sneakers because it had a symbol on it that looks like a check mark. I do not care what anyone says in opposition to this, clearly this logo has powerful magic behind it and entrances the mind of the buyer(s). Now someone can name, classify, filter, twist, pet, stroke and shape the words into something that pleases their Ego all that they want, the correct term to describe such power is Magick, for it encompasses the lot of it... for no cartoon magical symbol or medallion ever made up has that kind of power of control over a person's mind.

Now, like I said, (and now reword), you can call it science, psychology, subliminal suggestion, or a summoning of angelic power, it matters not one whit what you call it, what matters is what it does.)

Understand that the threat of the royals using their veto power, (openly stated or sublimated), has the exact same effect as using it. In other words, what governing body would ever submit a law that they new the royals would not approve? There is none. It would be a total waste of time to submit it. So, obviously, there would be royal representatives who works hand in glove with the law making bodies to shape each and every law, so that when it reaches the hands of the royals, it is truly, (by that time), just a rubber-stamping... but to say that the whole procedure is just a rubber stamp, is to enter into the ridiculous... and while no one has stated here that they feel that way about the topic, it is something that needs, (needed), to be clarified.


No school dispenses truth.

All schooling is mind control with enough sprinkles of truth in it for the victim to be able to do the work that the extremely rich want him to do, but so full of bullsh*t that the victim will never really understand, (to any significant degree), enough of reality to be able to make good choices and hence, good actions, based on his own mental merits. That would be self-defeating with respect to the governing rich; they would never allow it.

With respect to free will, the whole concept of it is a mind f*ck.

Firstly, "free" has to be defined and I have never seen a clear definition written down.

People believe that "free" means "devoid of all restrictions or costs". There can be no such thing.

For if there were no restrictions, then all molecules would go their separate way and fade back into the great energy that we all come from... and every action has consequences, (a price to pay), so obviously the definition of "free" that the public believe is bogus and immature.

So first one has to come up with a proper definition, (beyond the scope of a forum post), yet there is enough here now, for the maturing mind to figure the rest out for himself.

Secondly, what is "will"?

People think that "will" and "desire" are synonymous; they are not.

Here's how it works...

One must first be mentally and spiritually mature; do you know anyone that is?

Do you know anyone that can acknowledge that they are not? Can you?

With great power comes great responsibility and an immature mind should never have "free will"... many people will suffer if he is given it. So instead, he is given the "appearance" of free will... he is told that he has it, and he believes it. And for most that illusion is enough. If you have read any of my previous posts on this forum then you have a good understanding how "appearances" work.

A person shows that he is mature by the words that he speaks and by the actions that he performs.

If all that a person does is bitch at what other people do, then he telling the world that he is immature... still selfish, and feeding his own Ego.

If you support a system that is corrupt then you do not deserve "free will"... and you will, (obviously), not get it.

If you support a benevolent system that inspires and nurtures mental and spiritual growth, then you are demonstrating in real time, your maturity, and are now exercising your "free will".

If no such system exists and you are still supporting a corrupt one based upon that, (because no benevolent one is in your pre-approved choices that the rich hand to you), then you are still dramatically demonstrating your immaturity.

If you are involved in creating a system that encourages benevolence and spiritual growth, (because none exists), then you are now, dramatically and openly, demonstrating your maturity and your own free will.

Ergo: who in their right mind would support a corrupt system that oppresses them? Only an immature mind/spirit would. And such a mind is incapable of expressing their own free will... hence they will never even understand what it is, would never recognize it if it bit them on the ass, and thus, can never have it, and will accept an illusion of it... not recognizing it from the real.

What does all this mean?

It means that free will is only available to a mature mind who has taken the time to define it and thus, knows what it is... for an immature mind cannot even define it, but only bawl like a baby when he does not get his own way, all the while supporting a corrupt system that treats him like a baby... or in the legal wording, like a "child of the state"... which he is.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Exclusive Audio - Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar MP3 datars 1 294 03-08-2014, 02:57 AM
Last Post: mexika
Bug State Says Adam Lanza's Toxicology Report Must Remain Secret CharliePrime 2 778 09-26-2013, 08:01 AM
Last Post: thokling
  Glenn Beck Show Hilariously Mocks Alex Jones Fawning Over Charlie Sheen - IMG INT Negentropic 17 6,518 11-17-2012, 12:19 PM
Last Post: Negentropic
  secret ‘negotiations’ are underway to secure the Trans-Pacific Partnership h3rm35 2 529 09-16-2012, 06:33 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  NATO's Secret War on Syria Solve et Coagula 0 339 02-11-2012, 11:38 AM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
Video What The Papers Say 1991 drummer 0 361 02-11-2012, 01:31 AM
Last Post: drummer
  DOUBLE VETO BANS IMPERIAL WAR AGAINST SYRIA: The GCC and NATO lose their leadership Solve et Coagula 0 360 02-06-2012, 12:20 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The Secret of Eurasia: The Key to Hidden History and World Events Solve et Coagula 0 440 01-30-2012, 12:41 AM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno Solve et Coagula 0 427 12-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Prince of Wales: a private individual's effective veto over public legislation R.R 13 1,944 11-04-2011, 04:53 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)