What I don't understand is why do Christians bluntly defend the money system that often kicks them out of their home and become homeless?

Are they afraid God will strike lightning if they say something bad about a rich corporation?

The bible actually had a system called Jubilee where every certain number of years the system will *reset* and people get back what was taken from them as a chance to start over if things got screwed up.

Capitalism lacks any kind of *reset* to give people a second chance.

Listen to Michael Card's song *Jubilee* in which I didn't understand when I was younger so meant nothing to me but now that I understand it I see the flaws in all *systems* that isn't inspired by the true creator.

We need a new kind of *Jubilee* where the (debt) slaves are set free who paid their debts and got their land and home back and their family back if they were sold.

Today's system results in people making poor choices that hurt themselves such as prostitution out of control/drugged out brains where they can't see properly let alone drive.

One of the things that struck me most about the new trailers is how close to the comics Psylocke and Apocalypse look, you can even spot Jubilee looking like she's just come from the 80's. . . which makes perfect sense since the film is set in the 80's.

The uniforms just need a rethink.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'EMen, Jubilee, XMen, characters, Professor X, private, meeting, room, discuss, fire, power' to 'Ex Men, Jubilee, XMen, Professor X, fired' - edited by xxovercastxx

Gambit is hardly the most useless person to grace an x-team, neither is Jubilee, that honor goes to Skin. Gambit at least has hyper agility and is never without something to charge (even if he isn't able to throw it).

Jubilee's days are fucking numbered.

Yessss...one more, and you even included songs!!

I really like the cool vibe of "Jubilee Street" (I haven't heard it before either). Oh come on!!! You are not going to believe it but this video of "The Knife" is also blocked!!! I was able to find another one on youtube that does play for me though, and it was worth looking for. We have such similar tastes in music. I really love all of these. I have 6 songs in my playlist now. That should keep me entertained during my commute to work tomorrow.

Not only is my user name poetic, but also mysterious...it gets better the more you talk about it.

This may be the case but it isn't what is going on here.

This initiative is buying distressed debt only, that is, the organisation who gave the loan has decided the cost of attempting to reclaim that loan or the chances of reclaiming a significant amount is futile. So they do sell the actual loan for cheap, to debt collectors, who employ more drastic measures than larger organisations want connected to them. (speculation, I'm not familiar with why these are more attractive to debt collectors).

Rolling Jubilee acts as the debt collector but doesn't collect, it buys the loan and cancels it. Then it hopes these people with cancelled debts, come back and donate a little, now that they have less burden.

That is the general idea, granted when people hear "loan", they think mortgage but this isn't the case here. Rolling Jubilee is unlikely (or never will) enter that area. They will be buying personal loans, medical loans etc. Smaller loans. It is already outlined how better performing loans, such as student loans, are off the table.

However from my understanding, it relies on the IRS remaining co-operative and for the regulations to stay within these bounds that keep it legal and charitable. So the cancelled loans are not counted as profit against Rolling Jubilee, at which point it all crumbles.

It has some merit but it also has a lot of downfalls and it also does jack shit to Wall St or banks, that is misdirected attention to garner support I gather.

(My understanding, could be incorrect)

P.S. Also it should be noted this is hardly for the 99%, it is for a much smaller percentage of the 99% who fail to pay their loans, good loans are not sold off. So really, this is the less troubled 99& bailing out the 99%'s further down on the scale. It basically boils down to a charity, it just abusing some loose regulations.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Granted, I know little about this and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're getting mortgages and mortgage-backed securities mixed up.
The mortgage is a loan. You owe 200,000 on the loan at 4% interest. This is debt.
The mortgage-backed security is a derivative; Theoretically it's a piece of paper whose value is derived based on that mortgage and the credit score associated with it. It's like stock in a company.
When they talk about doing away with debt, that's paying off the mortgage.
When they talk about buying 1,000,000$s worth of mortgages for 50,000$, they think they're also referring to the mortgage, but I'm pretty sure it's actually the leveraged mortgage-backed security. Buying those securities doesn't give you ownership of the loan. There is still 200,000$ that was lent by a bank out there. It doesn't just convert to 50,000$.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't know why I expected anything different from cyriak


Actually, I was kinda expecting her head to come out of her own ass a few dozen times.

Your video, Cyriak celebrates the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

For the record, here is FDR's letter discussing collective bargaining for federal employees:

President Roosevelt's letter to Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees. In the letter, FDR takes a position that public employees should not be able to collectively bargain.

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."



I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

hehehe my high school boyfriend had schizophrenia. that beautiful beautiful brilliant twisted little boy believed .. in kind of a stargate scenario. like aliens just dropped us off here and all the religious artifacts left behind were just reminents of them. he painted amazing pictures of it. and spent hours and hours and hours and hours obsessively pouring over the bible and relating almost to accounts of alien sightings. there was some show he used to watch at 3am on a religious channel with some fat scholarly man going over bizarre shit from like the book of enoch and jubilees and things that never made it into the bible. he was obsessed with the giza plateau and "fallen angels". it made for a very interesting few years. and when we finally broke up i was fairly convinced of all kinds of alternative theories of ancient egypt. .

cheers.
In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Man o man, WOW, I never have had this done before...Thank you geobro.
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

Man o man, WOW, I never have had this done before...Thank you geobro.
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

Double thank you very much, Cat.

Good to see you back here. I haven't had the opportunity to meet you since I became active here.

I look forward to seeing you around.

Thank you again.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*Doublepromote