Fehler des neuen Bürgerbegehrens der Juristen zu Stuttgart 21

Wie am 14. Februar durch eine Pressekonferenz (Video) bekannt wurde, initiieren die „Juristen zu Stuttgart 21“ ein neues Bürgerbegehren (Unterschriftenliste als PDF), das die Mischfinanzierung und insbesondere die finanzielle Beteiligung der Stadt Stuttgart am Projekt Stuttgart 21 als „verfassungswidrig“ (allgemeiner Sprachgebrauch, tatsächlich gemeint ist: grundgesetzwidrig) feststellen soll. Die Juristen können diese Verfassungswidrigkeit nicht selbst feststellen, sondern müssen den Umweg über das Bürgerbegehren gehen. Dies wurde in der Pressekonferenz und der anschließenden Fragerunde begründet.

Nachdem ich den Juristen zu Stuttgart 21 am nächsten Tag (15.02.2011) einen ausführlichen Fragenkatalog zugeschickt hatte (hier als PDF-Datei), erhielt ich einige Antworten, die leider nicht veröffentlicht werden dürfen, da diese nur eine Meinung darstellen. Die wichtigsten Fragen wurden leider nur sehr spartanisch oder gar nicht beantwortet, weshalb diese hier widerholt werden, in der Hoffnung dass sich irgend jemand damit auseinandersetzt und mir bei der Beantwortung helfen kann.

Auf den Unterschriftenlisten zum Bürgerbegehren heißt es: „Die unterzeichnenden wahlberechtigten Bürger/innen der Stadt Stuttgart beantragen im Wege des Bürgerbegehrens nach §21 GemO einen Bürgerentscheid zu der Frage: Soll die Stadt Stuttgart ihre Mitgliedschaft im Projekt „Stuttgart 21“ förmlich beenden, indem sie folgende Maßnahmen ergreift: Die Stadt Stuttgart beruft sich gegenüber den Projektpartnern auf die Verfassungswidrigkeit der Mischfinanzierung und kündigt die Projektverträge. Sie unterlässt weitere Beitragszahlungen zum Projekt. Projektverträge in diesem Sinne sind…“

Fragen:

  1. Wenn man feststellt, dass Verträge verfassungswidrig (soll heißen: grundgesetzwidrig) sind, und man diese Verträge dann kündigt, erkennt man sie dann damit nicht an?! Wenn in den Verträgen für den Fall der vorzeitigen Kündigung dicke Vertragsstrafen vereinbart wurden, verpflichtet man sich dann nicht durch Kündigung zur Zahlung dieser Vertragsstrafen? – Erreichen die Juristen so nicht genau das Gegenteil von dem, was sie erreichen wollen?!
  2. Würde eine schlichte Erklärung „Die Verträge sind nichtig, weil …“ verbunden mit einer effektiven Totalblockade aller Zufahrtswege der Baustellen nicht ausreichen?
  3. Wozu muss man Verträge eigentlich kündigen, wenn diese nichtig sind?
  4. Wie kann das Volk oder die Juristen, welche nicht Vertragspartner sind, die Verträge kündigen, aufheben oder sonst irgendwie in diese eingreifen? – Liegt dem etwa der Gedanke zugrunde, dass die Stadt Stuttgart im Auftrag seiner Bürger handelt?
  5. Wie kommen Juristen (!) dazu, den allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch zu übernehmen und das Grundgesetz mit einer (nicht vorhandenen) Verfassung gleichzusetzen?
  6. Wie können Verträge zwischen Konzernen wie der Stadt Stuttgart (Stuttgart als Konzern), Land, Bund und den Baufirmen eigentlich „verfassungswidrig“ sein?

Haben die Bahn, Herr Mappus, und Co. möglicherweise die rechtliche Lage schon durchschaut? Handelt Herr Mappus vielleicht vollkommen legal? Wer ist wer? Das Volk will steuerzahlender Souverän sein (was schon ein Widerspruch in sich ist); aber wie ist das als Personal möglich? Hat hier jemand noch nicht in seinen Personalausweis geschaut? – Kann denn das wahr sein?

Bitte verstehen Sie mich richtig! Wer innerhalb einer Illusion erfolgreich sein will, kann und sollte das Bürgerbegehren unterschreiben. Vielleicht führt es tatsächlich zum Erfolg.

2 Gedanken zu “Fehler des neuen Bürgerbegehrens der Juristen zu Stuttgart 21

  1. Bürgerbegehrens…wow wie peinlich. Sklaven haben keine Rechte. Ein Gesetzlichen Vergleich, ersetze Negro mit DEUTSCH:

    Slavery
    a·bol·ish/əˈbäliSH/
    Verb: Formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).
    Mr Wilberforce, House of Commons, 13 June 1815 Hansard Vol 31
    cc772
    Many of his friends who then heard him would remember that, during the various discussions
    upon the abolition of the Slavetrade,
    it was constantly urged, both in that House and out of
    it, that no substantial benefit could be obtained, unless measures were devised to introduce
    those moral regulations with respect to the treatment of the slaves, which might secure a
    supply of slaves without looking to the slavemarket
    for that supply.
    […]
    cc773
    Great and dreadful abuses also in the treatment of those unhappy beings still prevailed; and it
    was impossible, he feared, to expect any beneficial reform till some positive enactment took
    place, which should clearly render it the interest of those who had a property in them to
    promote their comforts, and secure the means of their increase without any possible supply
    from Africa. He was now contending for the happiness and benefit of the West Indian slaves;
    and undoubtedly if there were any means that could be proposed which would render
    completely effectual the Abolition Act, he could not doubt that the House would be earnestly
    disposed to promote them. He would therefore stale to the House the measure which he had
    in contemplation for accomplishing that object. It was in fact by the means of registering the
    slaves. The House was aware that a register of them was already kept in every island; but it
    was not so particular and exact, as to render it a specification by which the identity of the
    slave could be ascertained. The mode of registry which he intended to propose would
    precisely accomplish that object; a duplicate or counterpart of it would also be transmitted to
    this country, where it would be preserved, and constitute the title of the owner to the negro;
    so that in order to prove that title or claim to a negro, it would be absolutely necessary to
    produce the register. The illicit introduction of slaves would thus be effectually prevented, as
    all frauds or falsification in that register would be subjected to heavy punishment.
    […]
    cc 775
    Another stimulus to a due attention to the interests of the negro population arose from the
    contemplation of the numbers of our brave soldiers who had fallen victims to their efforts.
    How desirable would it be to convert the slaves into a free and happy peasantry, capable of
    defending the islands which they inhabited, instead of endangering them by their presence!
    Slavery was never abolished.
    It not only exists today; the parasitic,
    global, financial markets feed on it.
    A Review of the Colonial Registration Acts (pdf download)
    “It will be enough for your satisfaction, that your suggestions have certainly
    given birth to the colonial Registries of Slaves; in other words, to the only
    system that can effectually and permanently exclude the Slave Trade from
    the British Colonies, and thereby lay a sure foundation for humane
    improvements in the exercise of the master’s power, and in the general
    condition of the Slave Population.”
    >
    but wasn’t slavery supposed to have been abolished??
    „The difficulties would not even end here. But without any further
    enumeration of them, it will be manifest that either the main pillar of the
    system must be plucked away, and its whole executory principle renounced,
    by absolving planters from the necessity of shewing to future purchasers and
    mortgagees a registered title to their Slaves; or else this single defect must be
    to them an intolerable evil, as producing a virtual incapacity to alienate their
    property, or raise money on their estates.“
    >
    registered title, purchasers, mortgages, property, raise money … commerce and banking seem
    to be the primary focus on a practice – slavery – which is supposedly abolished??
    “ … if it be considered that so long as the importation of Slaves from one
    British colony into another shall be permitted by law, it will be necessary to
    allow a certified registration in one island as a sufficient title to registration
    in any other, to which the Slave may be sent with a regular customhouse
    clearance. Such were the provisions of the Parliamentary Register Bill; and
    the Colonial Acts of course are not less indulgent to proprietors of Slaves. It
    follows, therefore, that if the Registry of a single island is so corruptly or
    negligently managed, as to admit with facility the introduction of smuggled
    Negroes from Africa, or from the foreign colonies, they may be transferred
    thence with security, by regular certificates and clearances, to all other places
    to which Slaves can be lawfully carried in the British West Indies: nor can the
    Registrar at the place of importation, however upright and vigilant, refuse to
    give them a place in his books. There must of necessity be a mutuality of
    credence among these officers to each other’s records and certificates, as the
    only means of reconciling the general system of registration with the right of
    mutual commercial intercourse between the colonies, and the removal of
    Slaves from one island to another, independent as they are of each other in
    point of legislative and judicial authority.”
    >
    think of; passports, visas, arrival/entry cards and registration upon arrival with Internal Affairs
    of the receiving country.
    >
    also consider that passports used to be a document only used during wartime. Since WWII this
    was ‚forgotten‘ and they have now become a permanent fixture. Why? The emergence of the United
    Nations, which was the emergence of the ‚global plantation‘; the evolution of ‚lawful slavery‘ from
    independent nations to member nations of a global empire.
    “… it seems that the Registrar must provide himself, in whatever way he
    pleases, with a place for his business ; and as there is nothing to prevent his
    transacting it at his own private residence, he will probably take that, as the
    cheapest and most convenient course. Indeed, in most colonies, he cannot
    afford any other. One or two of the Acts require him to keep his office in the
    chief town; but there appears to be no other restriction on his choice, and
    nothing that can possibly be construed to oblige him to provide an office, at
    his own charge, where the Registry may permanently be kept by himself and
    his successors.
    It is an obvious consequence of this strange defect, that records on which the
    evidence of a lawful title to property in Slaves and their posterity, if not also
    the title itself, is hereafter to depend, are not only to have no public
    depository, but no fixed place. They are to be ambulatory, following the
    person of the Registrar on every removal during his life, or while he holds the
    office; and, upon his death, or his quitting the colony, will have no better
    protection from mutilation, fraudulent alteration, or destruction, than any of
    his private papers.”
    >
    lawful title to property in Slaves and their posterity … be mindful the subject being referred to
    is slavery, something we have been ‚educated‘ to believe is abolished and an evil of the past … and
    yet here it is being referred to as normal, commercial practice, with the ‚lawful title‘ extending to
    ‚their posterity‘; in other words, it is perpetual and far from being abolished or ceased.
    Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, 18071834
    “The orders in council for Trinidad and St. Lucia, and the various colonial
    acts, contained provisions for the administration of the registration system,
    set fines for the omission of slaves, and specified the data to be included in
    the returns. In most of the colonies, the system was administered by a
    salaried Registrar of Slaves, appointed by the government, who received the
    returns and employed clerks to copy them into volumes, or “registers.”
    Duplicate copies of the latter were also made and sent to the central Slave
    Registry Office in London. Although many of the original registers no longer
    survive in West Indian archives, the duplicates exist as in intact series.”
    >
    today, the Registration system is administered by a local Registrar, appointed by government,
    who receives returns and enters them into the Register, which is then delivered in quarterly returns
    to the central GeneralRegistrar
    Office [GRO], now part of Identity and Passport Service [IPS].
    >
    has anything really changed??
    Family
    In Trinidad and British Honduras slaves were grouped into “families,” the
    names of which were the same as the surnames of the slaves in the group.
    No kinship relationships were noted between family groups or between the
    family groups and those slaves placed in the general lists of males and
    females. In St. Lucia, the registration returns did not separate kin (identified
    in the “relations” column) into distinct groups, though slaves with the same
    surname were generally listed together. In Berbice, only some returns noted
    kinship, and a wide variety of listing patterns occurred, not always placing
    identified kin in groups.
    The “families,” then, approximated family household units.
    >
    ‚family‘ is NOT blood relative or kin; it refers to those with the same ’surname‘, which was
    often a name given to the slaves by the master, as he deemed appropriate.
    Relations
    “Kin relationships were recorded more often than families, but generally the
    data were confined to the names of the mothers. Only those colonies listing
    families identified fathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles,
    aunts, nephews, nieces, grandmothers, grandfathers, grandsons and
    granddaughters. “
    >>> go look at some old legal Maxims; the heir is of the father, the slave assumes the condition of
    the mother. Who is the ‚default‘ guardian in a custody battle? Which of the two is more important
    pertaining to current day birth registration? Mother is the information for birth registration that is
    required; father can be added at anytime – even omitted entirely.
    “Even in Trinidad the masters had a certain amount of latitude, being
    instructed to record “the relation that the slave bears to the superior relative,
    or slave, by whose name the Family Section of the List to which he belongs is
    entitled as aforesaid, with such further particulars of genealogy or family
    connection as the owner or party making the return shall think fit to add.”
    >>> ‚Family Name‘ can be wholly assigned and have no link to kin.
    The Register
    To Negroes wrongfully held in slavery, the same defect must be fatal.
    Such is their helpless situation, and such their extreme difficulties in
    asserting their rights against a master de facto, that to give them any
    tolerable chance of relief from the provisions of the Register Act, their title to
    it ought to be deducible in the easiest and clearest way. This facility, the
    regulations of the Trinidad Registry have given to them, or their protectors,
    as completely as the case allowed. On the complaint of a Negro named
    Thomas Anderson, or John Thompson, held in wrongful slavery on the
    Fountain Plantation there, nothing more would be necessary than to search
    in the registry for the Fountain Plantation returns. If the name Thomas
    Anderson, or John Thompson, with personal and other descriptions
    corresponding with those of the. complainant, was not found in the books,
    his title to freedom by nonregistration
    would be established. If the name was
    found, a further search in the same registry (which its prescribed indexes,
    and the references directed to be entered in the books, must make extremely
    easy) would furnish, in dates and numbers, and other particulars, the means
    of detecting any fraud by which the name and description might have been
    surreptitiously inserted.
    >>> So the Register becomes the evidence of slavery; non registration evidences no Slave status.
    But what hope could there be of ascertaining such oppressions by searches in
    books, in which the Slaves of the same plantation are not distinguished from
    the other Slaves of the same owner or possessor, much less referred to in the
    index by the proper and permanent name of the plantation itself; but in
    which they must be identified, if at all, only by such a complex and laborious
    investigation as has been already described? Before it could appear to any
    court or magistrate, or to the satisfaction of any patron of the injured party,
    that there was a defect of registration, so as to make a prosecution advisable
    or safe, it would be necessary to discover the names of all the proprietors or
    lawful possessors of Slaves by whom the plantation had ever been held, at or
    since the time of the original returns; and afterwards to examine every list of
    Negroes registered under any of those names, so as to ascertain that no Slave
    answering the description of the complainant, had ever been returned. Such
    difficulties would hardly be supportable in any case, even if the registered
    personal descriptions of the Slaves were as particular as they are required to
    be in Trinidad : and they would become progressively more and more
    formidable by lapse of time; whereas, the regulations of the Order in Council
    for that island are calculated to make the test of due registration the more
    certain, and the more easily applicable, the longer the system is in use.
    But the Colonial Acts have also departed very widely from the precedent, as
    to the personal descriptions of the Slaves required to be returned and
    registered, and this in a way still more effectually to frustrate the main
    objects of the plan.
    >>> Registration would not just be by name, but with a description as well, to positively identify
    the Slave.
    The Register Particulars
    The Order in Council directed that the Slaves should be individually
    described in eight different particulars; viz., Name, Surname, Colour,
    Employment, Age, Stature, Country, and Country Marks, and, in the case of
    families of Slaves belonging to the same proprietor, a ninth particular was to
    be added, under the title of “ Relations,“ specifying the relation in which the
    Slave stood to the principal member of the family, called “ the superior
    Relation,“ under whose name, all such family Slaves were to be ranged in the
    returns.
    The last particular is plainly of great importance to the identification of
    Creole Slaves, (which all future lawful additions to the existing stock in the
    British islands collectively must be); and by shewing the genealogies of
    Slaves born on the plantations, it would tend powerfully at once to fortify a
    real, and overthrow a fraudulent title. Yet every Colonial Register Act has
    omitted this descriptive particular altogether! Even the Act of Tobago here
    forms no exception.
    Another omission, nearly allied to it, and equally universal, is that of
    Surnames.
    Negroes in the colonies are usually known only by a single name; and this is
    often common to a number of individuals of the same colony, and to several
    even on the same estate, or owned by the same proprietor; but in the latter
    cases, a surname, or other distinctive appellation, is commonly added for the
    sake of the master’s convenience.
    To give every Slave a surname, would manifestly be a considerable and
    necessary advance towards accurate discrimination in the Registry, and
    would afford the means of convenient research.
    The Order in Council, therefore, directed, that when the Slave had been
    called or known by any surname, it should be inserted in the returns and
    Registry; and when not, that a surname should be given for that purpose;
    which in the case of families of Slaves, should be taken from the name of the
    superior relation; and, in other cases, the choice was left in the first instance
    to the master’s discretion; but the registered surname was ever after to be
    that by which the Slave and his issue and descendants should be called.
    >>> When a baby is born, the ‚given name‘ does not include the surname; a mother and father
    does not consider and express the baby as ‚Joe Bloggs‘; the naming is concerned with ‚Joe‘ only. The
    addition or affixing of a ‚Family Name‘ or ‚Surname‘ is wholly directed by the Registrar and officials,
    and is indoctrinated in every action throughout a lifetime. This insistence of ‚Joe Bloggs‘ as the
    name is the confirmation and agreement to the status of Slave.
    „When they desert, they are advertised, as almost every Jamaica newspaper
    may shew, by these marks; when apprehended by the police, the keepers of
    workhouses, or gaolkeepers,
    are required to publish in the newspapers of
    the island not only their names, and sex, and country, but also their “ Height“
    and “ Marks*,“ as notice to themaster;
    and what is stronger still, the laws of
    the island anxiously preserve these necessary evidences of ownership, by
    punishing capitally those who alter or deface them.
    >
    “the offender is described as a male Caucasian, 5’10“, brown hair, blue eyes …”
    “Yet when the object is effectually to exclude the Slave Trade, and to prevent
    unlawful slavery,
    ->
    to abolish slave TRADE … to prevent UNLAWFUL slavery … which by omission, does nothing
    to stem slavery as long as it doesn’t involve trade; i.e. lawful slavery
    by the identification of those who are the legitimate subjects of that state …”
    >
    lawful slaves
    “The general result of these observations is that of nine descriptive
    particulars, required to be specified for the purpose of identification, and the
    prevention of frauds, by the Order in Council, and the Bill brought in by Mr.
    Wilberforce, the Acts of Assembly have all rejected four at least, and for the
    most part five ; and have retained only those which are the most general,
    and therefore of the smallest utility. Surnames, stature, parentage or other
    family relations; and marks also, with the exceptions already noticed, are,
    with a striking uniformity, rejected;—while the single appellation, common
    to thousands; the country, which is still more comprehensive; the colour, one
    shade of which comprizes above ninetenths
    of all the Slaves in the colonies;
    and the usual employment, which, in regard to Field Negroes, the great
    subjects of imported slavery, is scarcely any distinction at all; are, with a
    uniformity equally remarkable, retained.”
    >
    Surnames, stature, parentage or other family relations; look familiar?
    The Registrar
    The expedient chiefly relied upon, in the Order in Council, for at once
    securing obedience to its positive requisitions, and releasing freemen from a
    slavery wrongfully imposed, was to lay the onus probandi, as to due
    registration, upon the party who best could, and ought to sustain it; namely,
    the master. It was enacted, that, in all judicial proceedings, whether for the
    recovery of Slaves as property between free persons, or on the question of
    slave or free, the master or claimant should, in the first place, be bound to
    shew, that the Slaves in question had been duly registered as such.
    >
    Master = Registrar ?
    >
    Plantation = Local Registry location/district/county ?
    i.e. the local registrar is obligated by statute to ensure the registration of all slaves on his plantation
    Modernising Slavery
    “The transition from chattel to wage slavery was effected in the British
    Caribbean by restructuring colonial labour laws.1 The process began in
    1823; under pressure from abolitionists inside and outside parliament and
    with support from the West India lobby, the imperial government made an
    unprecedented attempt to alter existing owner and slave laws and prepare
    the slaves for freedom. It marked the seriousness of its intention by
    promising slave owners £20 million compensation for their property losses
    when abolition finally took place. Dismantling the slave laws, in the event,
    took fifteen years: between 1823 and 1833 laws were framed to prepare the
    slaves for the „civil rights and privileges“ of other classes of His Majesty’s
    subjects2 and from 1833 to 1838 when the slave status was abolished and a
    masterapprentice
    system was substituted as a preliminary to wage work.”
    1. An early version of this paper was presented at the „Master and Servant in History“ Conference at York
    University, Toronto in 1996. I want to thank Douglas Hay, Bridget Brereton, and David Eltis for their
    comments.
    2. Public Record Office (PRO), London, Colonial Office (CO) 854/1, Circular Despatch, Bathurst to
    the Governor of Jamaica, May 28, 1823.
    Mary
    Turner, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Studies, University of London
    Modernizing Slavery: Investigating the Legal Dimension
    >>> Slave owners were ‚compensated‘ for their property. Registering was effectively a conveyance
    of ownership; the register created a title of ownership, which was now vested in the state. The state
    now held title to the ‚right of use‘ of the Slave, facilitating taxation and first claim over the product
    of the ‚right of use‘, which was the sweat equity or labour.
    Wage Slavery
    Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person’s livelihood depends on
    wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. […] e.g.
    working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of
    social stigma or status diminution.
    Wikipedia
    Karl Marx described Capitalist society as infringing on individual autonomy,
    by basing it on a materialistic and commodified concept of the body and its
    liberty (i.e. as something that is sold, rented or alienated in a class society).
    “The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and
    hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence,
    however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual
    proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his
    labour only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.”
    “Wage slavery is the same as chattel slavery. There is no difference between
    selling yourself and renting yourself …”
    Noam
    Chomsky
    The connection between chattel slavery and wage slavery as alternative
    modes of exploitation is visible in the debates within the British and
    American ruling class that led up to the abolition of chattel slavery. While
    religious abolitionists condemned slaveholding
    as a moral sin, the clinching
    argument against chattel slavery was that it was no longer the most effective
    way of exploiting the labouring population. It was abandoned because it was
    impeding economic and especially industrial development – that is, the
    accumulation of capital.
    SPGB
    Current Registration
    Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (c.20)
    1. Particulars of births to be registered
    — (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the birth of every child born
    in England and Wales shall be registered by the registrar of births and deaths for the
    sub–district in which the child was born by entering in a register kept for that sub–
    district such particulars concerning the birth as may be prescribed; and different
    registers shall be kept and different particulars may be prescribed for live–births and
    still–births respectively:
    8. Penalty for improper registration after three months from date of birth
    Save as provided in the two last foregoing sections, a registrar shall not register the
    birth of any child after the expiration of three months from the date of birth . . . F1,
    from the date of the finding, and any person who registers any birth, or causes any
    birth to be registered, in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary
    conviction to a fine not exceeding
    12. Certification of registration of birth
    At the time of registering the birth of any child, the registrar shall, if so required by
    the informant of the birth . . . F34 give to the informant a certificate under his hand
    in the prescribed form that he has registered the birth.
    35. Offences relating to registers
    If any person commits any of the following offences, that is to say—
    (a) if, being a registrar, he refuses or without reasonable cause omits to
    register any birth or death or particulars concerning which information has
    been tendered to him by a qualified informant and which he is required by
    or under this Act to register; or
    (b) if, being a person having the custody of any register of births or register
    of deaths, he carelessly loses or injures the register or allows the register to
    be injured,
    he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the
    standard scale].
    >
    There is NOTHING in current statute which obligates the father or mother to ‚register‘ the birth
    of their issue; in fact, by definition, it is impossible. Only a Registrar can register a birth, due to the
    fact that the act of registration is limited to one who controls or is custodian of a register.
    In other words, all penalties regarding nonregistration
    pertain to the Registrar. The only penalty for
    the father or mother pertains to ’noncompliance
    by a qualified informer.‘
    >
    So, just as the Master was responsible and obligated by statute to complete the Slave
    Registration on his plantation, the Registrar is similarly charged with the duty and obligation to
    ensure the complete registration of all births in his assigned area.
    Global Slavery
    Consider;
    Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) declare
    that national governments must register children immediately after birth.
    >
    each member nation of the UN is simply a plantation of the UN.
    Summary
    Q: How was the Slave Trade abolished?
    A: By making it global.
    If it’s global, in a ‚free market‘ environment, without ’nation constraints‘, then it is simply
    moving titles between franchise operations. It isn’t trade; it is internal asset redistribution.
    Q: How was Unlawful Slavery abolished?
    A: By making it lawful and a function of State, via various for political and social changes.
    Q: Why did the Plantation Owners agree to it?
    A: Basic economics; it was good business and they were compensated.
    Modernisation – from chattel slaves to wage slaves – allowed for capital accumulation.
    No front end costs, lower overheads and the ability to incur costs on an ad hoc basis
    Final Thoughts
    „Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live.“
    – Norman Cousins
    „The debt and work cycle is an ingenious tool of subjugation. Make people think they need all
    these things, then they must have a job, and they give up control of their lives. It’s as simple as
    that. We live in one of the most free countries in the world, but we fix it so we are not free at all.“
    – Larry Roth
    „Supposing we suddenly imagine a world in which nearly everybody is doing what they want.
    Then we don’t need to be paid in order to work and the whole issue of how money circulates,
    how we get things done, suddenly alters.“
    – Robert Theobald

    Habe Sie ihre kinder bei geburt registriert? Man sollte sein Platz erkennen und glucklich sein. Globalizierung = Globale Plantage

    Martin Freeman

  2. Pingback: Fehler des neuen Bürgerbegehrens der Juristen … – Local Change 2011 » Beliebteste Suchbegriffe

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s