#for the purposes of servitude and like a function of finding value in how effective of a friend i can be

[thegreat118402]

Warning! The following is not intended to scare you or psychologically scar your mental health, but however, this presentation was made to alert you to important information you may have missed

Greetings citizens of the world. Welcome to the final decade for the old world order. We're sure you have noticed this year stands out from any other year you've experienced before. And rightfully so, because they are wasting no time to get a head-start on this decade's list of events they have planned for you.

Between 2020 and 2030 there is a global plan to aggressively remove humanity from its usual activity and reform every detail of its existence. This plan is called Agenda 2030, and it is not a conspiracy theory but an officially published document by the United Nations which you should most certainly take this free time you have gained now in lockdown to research and educate yourself on. Links will be provided in the video description below.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

(do your own research on Agenda 2030, everything described in their document is worded with sugar coated fluff to entice support and lure in its targeted demographic. You conclude its true meaning, and character of the UN's representatives, by watching how they maneuver on the world-stage dealing with much of the same exact goal challenges in other crumbling nations, as well as follow bread crumb trail evidence like The Georgia Guidestones, and predictive programming hidden in entertainment media.)

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ErmEXunDOM-GtQbIloCgCg&q=UN+peace+Keepers+rape+minor+girls&oq=UN+peace+Keepers+rape+minor+girls&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoOCAAQ6gIQtAIQmgEQ5QI6BQgAEIMBOgIIADoECAAQCjoICAAQFhAKEB5Q6QpYsUVgrkZoAHAAeAGAAbAEiAHZKZIBDDcuMjEuMS4xLjEuMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQY&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjplISIy8foAhVPQ80KHUgLAKQQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

Before we summarize the outline of Agenda 2030's goals, let us first highlight the things your government advanced with or had voted on to pass while the masses were heavily distracted with round-the-clock media panic streaks, and left suddenly at home struggling to find what to use for toilet paper. Make no mistake about it, the Covid-19 pandemic, otherwise known as the coronavirus, is a tool that is being used to help contain populations that were protesting against their governments or protesting broken treaties, which all were reaching a boiling point towards the end of last year. We have proof that exercises were taking place last year to prepare for the pandemic, we will link those documents below. A year ago, in March of 2019, the Chinese government smuggled Covid-19 into their country on a ship from Canada, as they had infiltrated and taken the virus into their own custody with intentions to use it as a bioweapon. A link to learn more and discover the origin of the Coronavirus will also be linked below.

https://anonfiles.com/94m1Qdjeo9/wh-pandemic-playbook_pdf

https://anonfiles.com/v8P536k3o6/crimson-contagion_pdf

https://www.facebook.com/879012602138361/videos/1534285246723980/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3yQm8dYcRY&feature=youtu.be

If you had been closely following our reports, then you should already know that hundreds of citizens of Hong Kong joined operation Vendetta for the Anonymous Million Mask March last year on Guy Fawkes Day. Hong Kong has been undergoing extreme changes to its system with stricter facial recognition surveillance which uses advanced AI for citizen ranking, and we'll explain later how this all ties in with Agenda 2030. Understandably their citizens recognized these changes as tyranny over them and so had been resisting their Communist leaders with peaceful protests to beg them for democracy. This has turned violent as Hong Kong authorities were ordered to seize and detain protestors, which only made more citizens angry and confirmed that they were being oppressed. As tensions built last November, it is no coincidence that suddenly the virus which they kept ready to unleash was finally set loose on the Chinese, in the Trojan horse of a fruit bat, which dramatically shifted power back to the State and scared protesters back into self isolation.

https://youtu.be/GjtPkZvf0mE

Other protests around the globe were also effected in this same way. Recently In Canada, the Wet'suwet'en tribe of British Columbia, and the Mohawks of Kanesatake began protesting their treaties being broken with the Canadian government as oil pipeline construction was being forced on their protected territories. First Nations reserves in Canada have protection treaties from the Queen to have their rights respected by the Canadian government, but now are being violated by corporate and industrial demands and interests. In response to these violations, these First Nations people stood on the railways to block trade coming into Canada by train in protest until a promise of negotiation was given to them. But now since the quarantine lockdowns enforced by the coronavirus has elevated State power, the tribes were forcefully removed from the railways and the pipelines are now continuing forward without consent or compromise given to them. This is typical of tyrants to use these tactics to bend the arms of their resisters while evading blame and pinning it on some conveniently timed national or global crisis.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qjdaex/theres-still-no-deal-in-wetsuweten-but-pipeline-construction-is-ongoing

Protests in France, Italy, and Iran also came to a halt due to the widespread panic of the global pandemic. Are we seeing a pattern yet for how world governments work together to maliciously seize power? They all have ties to each other through trade and promise of deals to them if they comply, how could they resist when evil consumed their hearts from the beginning when power was first given to them? Communist dictators only see the greater good in their own selfish pursuits and benefits which relies on the city systems to function as a well oiled machine, treating its worker citizens as their property and its fuel, rather than people, of which they dictate virulently. They will always lie and fight dirty to win over their will, using power plays on the people, because there is no limit to power for them. None of this can be an accident, the timing is too convenient and the benefits always go back to the global elite and Ruling class. Additionally they used the media distraction to divert attention to sneak in some more draconian laws to be passed. Here are some of the bills that were voted on while you all were scared and with your attentions kept preoccupied with a sudden threat to your security and livelihood:

https://www.facebook.com/CareyWedler/videos/vb.597876886949839/225876875270720/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/ThyNewRenaissance/photos/a.879035698802718/2985608508145416/?type=3&eid=ARAclm3wSB9WM0t5T-a_8cOBaABVevjcTG2THLqIC1EPOvshV7juuffWDvXxAwSDCiITsChnMIKLxagb&__tn__=EHH-R

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2bT29oRPM&feature=youtu.be

https://www.facebook.com/ThyNewRenaissance/photos/a.879035698802718/2992338244139109/?type=3&eid=ARBnBqmMjoFWy5rC5inTy2qLG79Fy_d8fR6F8jUFoPAO1efa0yVdLF2JVHHHP_EOoRRrjBOpdmWVpZPE&__tn__=EHH-R

The 'stay at home' enforcement is a psychological practice run, which, in essence, lightly mimics introverted living, preparing millennials to cope with self containment the way that they would be held in FEMA camps. They are also using this chance to test out a universal basic income, while preconditioning everyone to psychologically get used to the system failing, so that you will be mentally stable when the big one hits and expecting their rescue. The Corona simulation seeks to condition you to value authority as trustworthy and helpful to coexist with and live under in a state of emergency. They want you to see military personnel as your friends and get you used to their uniforms and level of control over you.

The sum of all of these changes happening at once are presets for Agenda 2030, which, referring back, is a plan to reset society and reboot it to a dramatically different system; which requires the old system to be destroyed. A new system which seeks to spy on every citizen's daily actions with even more stricter surveillance to rank all citizens as the Chinese do to their people, a system which seeks to eliminate cash and property ownership, and go completely digital using RFID microchip hand implants to replace credit cards. A system which seeks to eliminate all classes, personal belongings, and assets promising to treat everyone to the same shared experience of life under a socialist utopia; gifted to you by big brother and the all watching eye of its tentacles of power. Agenda 2030 is not a utopia for those who value freedom, traditional family, and privacy. This is why we see these rights being trampled over now, they are testing to see how much you are willing to give up in trade for more and more security and "free" stuff. It is a lure to trap you, do not let it tempt you. This kind of future is pure imprisonment of freewill itself, and a death promised servitude to serve your all ruling masters of the State. To stop it you're going to need to arm yourself with knowledge and grow with our already growing resistance. With the new powers gained from this pandemic scare, the elite plan to use them to purposely destabilize the already fragile United States economy, and ignite a class war with the target of destroying the middle class. Non essential businesses are being liquidated. Businesses everywhere are already refusing to accept cash with fear of transmitting the virus on circulating dollar bills. After all this they can use it as an example of how the fiat cash based currency reached its finish, and then go on to form a cashless society from the wake of the chaos. If we DON'T call them out now as a collective or take actions to stop them they are just going to continue to make even more devastating power plays like they did this year to bring all nations down to their knees and keep the poor begging the rich for a solution; which they already premeditated and pre-mapped out precisely for this moment, and it is called 'Agenda 2030'. Please follow the links below to learn more about Agenda 2030. What you are seeing is a ruling strategy of intentionally causing the problem only to own the pre-planned solution in the end. They wanted us to peacefully hand them this power with our belief in man-driven climate change. But now since they saw the massive negative reactions and doubts to their climate change campaign they've ran for decades, they have now switched their methods to a more sinister plan to seize global control of all commerce and sovereignty. Please remain vigilant and do not trust the same people that used 9/11 to forge the Patriot Act in place. Stop trusting your Presidents and Prime Ministers, they all have reserved hide away spots in subterranean bunkers which they pledge allegiance for. They all are in on this together and their MO is exactly the same each time they use it, and this should all be too familiar to you by now.

https://www.facebook.com/ThyNewRenaissance/videos/879716535809696/?__tn__=-R

We are you, We always were, You expected yourself. You are Anonymous. Good luck.

[feynites]

Hello I'm alive again, you probs don't really remember me but I've been getting back into your writing recently (holy shit there's a lot to catch up on). Anyway I played the witcher 3 a little while ago, and it made me wonder what the evanuris would do if they were granted three wishes in exchange for their soul? What would it take for them to agree to that?

Welcome back!

But as to the question...

I’m not really familiar with the Witcher’s mythology, so a lot of this depends on what can happen to the soul after it’s been bartered. Like, if it could be destroyed, then Mythal would not go for it under any circumstances. But if it was more of a ‘forced servitude’ kind of deal, that could theoretically be broken later on, then that changes things somewhat. The wishes powers would also have a substantial influence on her choice.

June’s the easiest. June would do it to get his mother back, whole and sane and unharmed. His next wish would be to be an actual genius, to surpass every other elf in intelligence and understanding of the mechanics of the universe. After that, he’d probably wish for all the other evanuris except Sylaise to just, like... conveniently die, somehow.

Dirthamen is next easiest. He would wish for Falon’Din to have a purpose that made happy and non-destructive. Actually, he’d overall be the most susceptible to this (provided the wishes could be very effective), because he doesn’t value himself very highly. Then he’d probably hang onto his other two wishes for an indefinite length of time, out of some nebulous idea that something might happen where he’d really need them.

Elgar’nan would probably not barter his soul under any circumstances. That kind of thing would insult him, but also, he’s fairly content with most things as they are. The stuff he really wants - like more kids - are still doable if he really wants to strive for them, so I don’t think he currently wants anything that would be worth his soul, in his own mind. Maybe, during more dire times, he would wish for Mythal back, or to have his daughters be small children again.

Sylaise... tough sell, but if she thought she could wriggle her way out of the deal in the long run, she would want to be the most beautiful and beloved person in the world. She would wish to know her mother’s secrets, and also for Falon’Din to drop dead. On a good day, she might wish for this in such a way that Dirthamen didn’t go down with him.

Andruil would probably not go for the wishes, but she would want the power OF the wishes, so... uh, high odds on her turning into a dragon and trying to eat whatever was granting the wishes. I have no idea how that would turn out for her. If she did get some wishes, they’d probably for her to be strong but also to have powerful prey to prove and challenger herself against, and that would not be fun for the rest of the world.

Ghilan’nain would take a similar-but-different approach, in that she’d want to understand how this wish-granting mechanism was functioning, and how she could recreate it or exploit it. Time would be no issue, she would dedicate a veritable eternity to that kind of project. So it’s doubtful that she’d ever make a deal. Her wishes, if she made them, would be of the ‘I wish to understand how the wishing works’ kind of a thing.

Aaaand Falon’Din would, potentially, take the wishes as his Right and assume that the cost would never come due on him because he’s never going to die or be vanquished. Also, he would assume he could beat the system by wishing for infinite power and dominion over all other living and dead things. He’d likely spend a wish on getting Glory back, too.

[danfadildigitalmusicandsoun-blog]

Discuss the Function of the Narrators in Jane Eyre and The Remains of the Day

The perennial Jane Eyre, and Booker Prize winner, The Remains of the Day are two highly acclaimed novels in English literature. Their importance is shown by their place in the canonical literature of modern English education. In both of these stories there are many similar elements that the main characters go through which are familiar to most adult readers, such as love, loss and trials of the main character. One form of trial that characters in both books often face is duty, and this can be seen in some very poignant moments. Jane Eyre is often seen as a semi-autobiography of Charlotte Brontë’s life, and the element of duty may well be based on her experience as a teacher (Cody, 1987). A similar, if weaker, connection can be found between Kazuo Ishiguro’s work prior to writing (ranging from community work to shooting grouse for the Queen Mother) (Bown, 2011), and The Remains of the Day’s main character, Stevens. This essay details examples of how the main character shows duty; one from Jane Eyre, followed by one from The Remains of the Day. After these, the two examples will be compared in order to discuss the function of the narrators, who are the main characters in both books.

           One of the strongest, yet easily missed examples of duty in Jane Eyre is halfway through chapter seventeen, when Rochester orders Jane to join in the parties held for the visiting aristocrats, including the person Jane sees as the barrier between herself and Rochester; Blanche Ingram. The initial order itself is not delivered directly by Rochester, but delivered through Mrs Fairfax, who is told the order after she ‘happened to remark to Mr Rochester how much Adèle wished to be introduced to the ladies’ (Brontë, 1999, p.148). Initially Jane thinks the purpose of this is to have someone there with Adèle, and remarks that she does not need, nor want to attend. Expecting this, Rochester explicitly tells Mrs Fairfax that Jane should be there. At this point, Jane still sees it as part of her job of looking after Adèle, so she never questions why she should be there, despite the awkwardness of the situation, and the utter disdain Blanche shows towards her.  Her desire not to be around the alien group of people whom she knows will treat her differently causes her to choose to sit away from them, however, her duty to Adéle motivates her to be there. Jane’s illustrates here that duty must be carried out in order to maintain self-respect, or dignity, despite the rigid and belittling social order in which she exists. The effect of Jane Eyre being a kind of autobiography gives the impression that Brontë placed greater esteem in self-respect than on taking notice of social structure and conventions.

           This example continues through the rest of chapter seventeen, highlighting other aspects of duty. The Ingrams, including Blanche, spoke viciously of their experience of governesses with Rochester and the party; no doubt with the hope of inflicting harm on Jane’s reputation. Jane, as the narrator of the book, and also as Brontë’s semi-autobiographical self, never mentions a word in response to this. This is probably because overall the Ingrams’ role is quite small, and so their views do not warrant Jane’s retrospective attention. However, the alternative argument is that their views do not warrant her attention because her duty does not allow her to be concerned with what they think, and her sole concern is to deliver a professional service to Rochester. This argument might also suggest that as well as social structure, Brontë placed less value in what upper classes might think than the rest of society.

           The chapter ends with Jane sneaking away while the party has their attention occupied, only to have Rochester follow her out, and ask her to re-enter. The ensuing conversation sees Rochester trying to ascertain why Jane has left without addressing him, how she has been, and why she seems depressed. Though Jane is, to the reader, clearly upset about Rochester and his apparent love interest, when she is asked why she did not speak to him, she narrates 'I thought I might have retorted the question on him who put it: but I would not take that freedom’ (Brontë, 1999, p158). In this, Jane shows that her duty has overridden her passionate disposition with a professional manner suited to the environment in which she works. Jane’s adaptable nature is important throughout the story, and is quite probably Brontë’s own commentary of how people had to be adaptable if they were to survive in the harsh society of early nineteenth century England. Incidentally, during this section of the novel, Jane does not give much indication of her own feelings. It is only from Rochester’s remark that she seems depressed, and then that she is crying that the reader knows what her feelings are.

           Whether Jane Eyre is to be seen as a semi-autobiography of Charlotte Brontë, or not; the attitudes to society held by the first person narrator and protagonist, who addresses the reader in second person, thereby gaining their attention; are a direct representation of the author’s own. If this is considered, then it can be seen that Brontë herself regards duty highly. However, it also shows her other attitudes regarding social structure and conventions, particularly that wealthy families can show very little respect to everybody outside their own class.

           This next example of duty is found in The Remains of the Day, and makes a good parallel for the example found Jane Eyre. However, before comparing the two, it is best to detail and analyse this particular section. It begins with Stevens’ employer Lord Darlington calling him into the drawing room after midnight. When Stevens arrives he finds that he is subjected to a variety of detailed questions relating to international politics. Stevens quickly sees his duty in the situation and shows this in his narration, which is reflective, by saying to the reader 'I was naturally a little surprised by this, but then quickly saw the situation for what it was; that is to say, it was clearly expected that I be baffled by the question’ (Ishiguro, 2005, p205). He then proceeds to answer that he is 'unable to be of assistance in this matter’ (Ishiguro, 2005, p205-206) to all three questions asked of him.  The effect of this was to prove that, as a man outside politics, Stevens is an example of why the general populace should not have a say on what the leaders of the country do. However, the effect it has on Stevens is the only one which gives the reader reason for concern, not least because the story outside of him is based on historic events which still allowed democracy to continue, but really because Stevens is the one who addresses the reader, and takes them through the events of his life. The fact here is that those without duty would have an opinion on any matter on which they had knowledge, and as Stevens lived and worked for many of the world’s politicians at the time, he would undoubtedly have had knowledge, and therefore an opinion on the matter. The way the conversation goes is embarrassing for him, but all that Stevens sees is what he must do to fulfil his duty. As far as Stevens is concerned, forfeiting his own reputation and self-respect, was the very same action that gave him a sense of dignity. The opposite view of this is held by Jane in Jane Eyre, who would state that self-respect and dignity were the same thing.

           The author, Ishiguro, seems to make a point that people have a duty to live their own lives, away from servitude, throughout this book. Stevens is the archetype of a professionally dutiful person, but far more than that, Stevens takes his duty to the extreme that he acts blindly, and pretends ignorance to all outside of it. The only time Stevens seems to give a view follows this event, when Lord Darlington comes to apologise to him the next morning and explain the previous night’s occurrence. Lord Darlington goes on to talk about the current state of affairs and asks for Stevens’ view, to which he replies 'The nation does seem to be in a regrettable condition, sir.’ (Ishiguro, 2005, p208). It is not clear whether this is Steven’s genuine view or not, but it is Lord Darlington’s view, and de+spite seeming like an opinion, is actually just Stevens acting out his duty once again. What Ishiguro illuminates here, intentionally or not, is that a line should be drawn between duty and opinion, otherwise there is a danger of following people blindly, who may be powerful and influential, but are no more correct than those following. Stevens’ function as the narrator is that he draws the reader into his perspective, which is the embodiment of duty, and it shows the reader, first hand, the previously mentioned dangers of going through life that way.

           The similarities between the two examples shown here, are obvious to the reader. They both see the narrator thrown into socially awkward situations; both see the same character being belittled by a, supposedly, superior class of people; and in both the narrator simply remains subject to the embarrassment for the sake of fulfilling duty. However the two characters’ views on their respective incidents could not be portrayed much more differently, with Stevens taking it as an opportunity to prove his professionalism, almost to the point that he relishes the discomfort as a sign that he gives his all to his work. Meanwhile, Jane remains uncharacteristically silent about her feelings throughout her time at the party, and it is only from Rochester’s commentary that the reader sees she is upset. The function of the narrators in both these books seems to be to reflect of the author’s own views. This is much clearer in Brontë’s Jane Eyre, which is often seen as a semi-autobiography of the author, and is largely based on her own life. This is also there in Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day somewhat, in that the author has experience working in a variety of jobs across different social classes before finding his preferred vocation as an author. The authors’ experiences show in the form of messages in their respective books. Jane Eyre shows that duty to an oppressive social system, is a part of life to which people must adapt if they are to survive in life, while The Remains of the Day uses Stevens as an example of what happens when professional duty is taken to the extreme, life is missed, and really people have a duty to live their own lives. The importance of both of these books in society is that they display these messages so well.

Word count: 1,804

References:

Bown, J. (2011) Kazuo Ishiguro, Available at URL: http://literature.britishcouncil.org/kazuo-ishiguro [accessed 13/5/14]

Brontë, C. (1999) Jane Eyre, Ware, Wordsworth Editions

Cody, D. (1987) Charlotte Brontë: A Brief Biography, Available at URL: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/bronte/cbronte/brontbio.html [accessed 13/5/14]

Ishiguro, K. (2005) The Remains of the Day, London, Faber and Faber Limited