World Economic Forum puppet and Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, becomes visibly nervous after being confronted about his close association with WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, by Gideon van Meijeren.
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 15, 2023
Source: https://t.co/v3J2EXLEoa#WEFPuppet #WEFPuppets… pic.twitter.com/CGIDVAV9QK
(6) The crime of treason can be committed only by subjects or citizens, people who have—either tacitly or through an explicit contract—transferred all their right to the State. A subject is said to have committed treason if he has in any way tried to seize the right of the supreme power for himself or to transfer it to someone else Why do I say ‘has tried’? Because if the traitor succeeds, it’s then too late for the State to charge him with treason because by then it has lost its power to do anything about it. ·That’s why nearly all active prosecutions for treason concern attempts, not successes·. Why do I say so strongly ‘has tried in any way’ to seize the right of the supreme power? I want the definition of treason to cover both attempted power-grabs that •harm the State and ones that perfectly clearly •work to the advantage of the State. Even in a case of the latter kind, the person has committed treason and is rightly condemned.
(...)
[203] This lets us conceive the right and authority of the State to be pretty broad, but it will never be broad enough to give the government power to do absolutely anything that it wants to do. I have already shown this clearly enough, I think. And I’ve said that it’s not part of my plan to show how, ·despite this limit on State power·, a State could be formed that would be securely preserved for ever. Still, my plan does require me to discuss ·a part of that large topic, namely· what the main things are that supreme powers ought to grant to subjects, in the interests of the greater security and advantage of the State
(...) That’s how it comes about that the people can often change tyrants but can’t ever destroy tyranny, changing a monarchic State into one of a different form. The English people have given us a deadly example of this truth, when they tried to find reasons to justify deposing their king [Charles I]. When they had removed him, they were utterly unable to change the form of the State. After much blood had been spilled, they reached the point where they hailed a new monarch under another name [Oliver Cromwell, whose title as a ruler was ‘Lord Protector’], as if the whole issue had only been about the name! The new monarch could survive only if he •wiped out the royal family, •killed the king’s friends and anyone suspected of friendship, and •launched a war ·against the Dutch·. He needed the war so as to •disturb the tranquillity of peace that is so conducive to murmurings of discontent, and to •confront the common people with urgent new crises that would steer their thoughts away from royal slaughter. The people didn’t realize until it was too late that in trying to further the well-being of their country they had achieved nothing except to violate the right of a legitimate king and make things worse than ever. So as soon as they could, they decided to retrace their steps, and didn’t rest until they saw things restored to their original condition.
(...)
As for the Estates of Holland, so far as we know they never had kings, but only counts, who were never given the rights of government. . . . [..228] They always reserved for themselves the authority to advise the counts of their duty, and held onto the power to •defend this authority of theirs and the freedom of the citizens, to •punish the counts if they degenerated into tyrants, and to •keep them under control in such a way that they couldn’t get anything done without the permission and approval of the Estates [= governing committees, not elected democratically but representative of the people as a whole.] Thus, the Estates always held the right of sovereignty—a right that the last count tried to usurp. So there was nothing wrong with their ·getting rid of him and· restoring their original State, which had almost been lost. These examples completely confirm my thesis that the form of each State must necessarily be retained, and that it can’t be changed without risking ruin for the whole State.
Treatise on Theology and Politics Showing that piety and civil peace are not harmed by allowing freedom of thought, but are destroyed by the abolition of freedom of thought. Benedict (or Baruch) Spinoza
No comments:
Post a Comment