was successfully added to your cart.

The Joke of Universal Citizenship: Jacqueline Stevens, Liberal Wrecking Ball

Ray, after viewing what ideas Professor Jacqueline Stevens is expressing, I think that you hit the nail on the head on all points. She is just so off on every single topic that she not only comes across as un-researched, but blind to the many areas that matter. She is lost. 

Best, N 

[N, like Jacqueline, is gay.]

On 7/29/2017 at 5:49 AM, “S wrote:

Curious to hear your take on her political theory….  “universal citizenship”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a918bqo2iQ

**********************

Hi S, here were my impressions…

At minute 18:30  Sean Stone nails her and she misses the point.  He said “are you going for a world federal government”…

At minute 20 she talks about nativism as if it is an ideology.  I think her idea of culture and identity is that it has no basis in nature. Rather, her idea of identity or citizenship seems to be social programming. She doesn’t seem to understand that natural people have a relationship
with nature itself, the nature of their region, their land base. I imagine she is a city person that head trips about life, and doesn’t exercise stewardship, which is an actual living relationship with a limited ecology, say desert, or reef, or woodlands.

She doesn’t seem to understand that people can have a sense of homeland based on relationship with their land base.  She has no land base, obviously. I even think she is divorced from her own body as a woman.  I think she is lost  in her head when it comes to Earth, sex, and political theory.

My notes on her statements….

“We are afraid of death”….  She equates the survival instinct with wanting immortality. I don’t think she understands that fear of death helps us survive.

 
2. She thinks laws create the family. Not at all.  Parents make kids, not laws.  I agree that birth doesn’t need state recognition, but she is leaning toward discarding fathers all together. She shows this on her blog, with this 2007 post

Sunday, July 29, 2007 Review of “Methods of Adoption: Eliminating Genetic Privilege” 

3. She is married to something she calls “liberalism” which is the idea that all ancient cultures need to be transformed to one “fair” culture that is “equitable.”  She is a bit arrogant as her self description shows ….

About Me

Professor, Political Science Department, Northwestern University. I teach political theory and write about law-breaking by ICE and the immigration courts for The Nation magazine. My book States without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals was published by Columbia University Press in 2009. It explores alternatives to our current laws that base citizenship on parochial, unjust ideas about birth, and shows how these laws are connected to other archaic practices inconsistent with liberalism, including inheritance and marriage.

 

So for her, marriage is “archaic” and so is blood lineage.

To repeat, “liberalism” is the idea that thousands of ancient cultures needs to be transformed to one culture and that liberals like herself know what is best for all of humanity forever.  I call that arrogant. As Sean correctly observed and noted, her world federal government will decide what is archaic and what is not.

3.  “Different religions have different theories.”   She doesn’t seem to understand that religions are based on faith in the spirit of a teacher and his unique vision. That spirit is real, not a theory.  I would guess she has not had spiritual experiences.

4. At minute 8:30 she talks about World Wars I and II without understand these were not wars coming from nationalism, they were NWO false flag wars, and the people were mind programmed using deception.  So she is analyzing behavior without understanding that the behavior is not natural.  We see this a lot, people not understanding that trickery has created a false human response. It is like reacting to “global warming” when NOAA twisted all the data.

I don’t think this Jacqueline Stevens person matters at all. She is not connected with real mothers and fathers or nature or a land base. She is simply irrelevant to me.

I hope you are well. I’m much more street wise since we talked. I feel embarrassed about our talk now, but step by step.

If you had asked me, “Who is behind the Rothschilds?… I would now say… the satanic Vatican. I think they are arms of same beast actually. They are behind each other.  And who is behind Vatican? I would say the same beings that are very much threatened by Jesus and could be called inter-dimensional ET beings.  I now feel all this nano crap and frequency crap is meant to replace current biology with some kind of machine. I honestly feel the movie Transcendence with Depp was predictive programming.  The fact that our present electronics is based on back engineered space craft (Col. Corso) tells me that “progress” has an ET agenda and deception is built in. So I am coming to agree with Icke. There is an alien invasion going on, and I think it could be called AI.  Seriously.  It could also be called Zionism, technocracy, satanist, because it is all that.

Personally, I don’t think we will ever see heaven or utopia, but forever, I think our job is to expose deceit.  That is what keeps me going now.

I do think Sean nailed her, but liberal visionary social engineers don’t ask themselves who they serve because they think they are RIGHT, so what is there to ask questions about??? 🙂

 

Ray Songtree

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • Joseph Hart says:

    It figures that she is a college teacher.
    Her controlled Utopia assumes benevolent and fair governing with an enforced Rule of Law. She is an obvious “Indoorsian” with no connection to nature.
    Her “attractive” , at least to her, way of having Monoculture, or even Mono-Man, whereby detachment from things without being a seeker, having virtually no determination or human connection would eliminate “humanity” as a quality. She may not realize at all that her version of freedom is an actual prison, that humanity would be roped in by her proposals, not at all made more secure.
    I also think she overthinks that which we choose to be connected to is influenced by material wants and needs rather than through love and inspiration.
    Seems like Hunger Games type society would evolve readily through rule of law and rationing as well as an omnipotent set of New Rules.

  • raysongtree says:

    Elana Freeland sent this note…

    She’s a globalist attempting to break down nationhood, which to me is like a larger version of selfhood. Nation states are certainly not perfect, but I think of a person’s incarnation as occurring in a variety of cocoons (gender, ethnicity, community, religion, nation, etc.) that can be obstacles as well as aids in grasping the human experience. The big problem with “globalism” — thinking of oneself as a citizen of the world — is it is entirely abstract and therefore subject to abuse by power mongers.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com