Fascism Listening

Fascism Listening

They argue that they will not listen to one and they never have, one has proven that to the whole world, and of course they would not listen to one, it is not much of an issue other than one having to prove that they refuse to listen to reason. The organisation is not going to listen to one where they are intent on insanning one to controlling ones head to using the implants. They have no intentions of listening to one and expected that nobody would listen to one where one has to describe insanity or complain of implants or conspiracy, experiments.

One has proven that they have not intentions of listening to one on all issues of Human Rights or ones Rights as an Individual, that they have no intentions of listening to one, yet they want to know ones mind ones thoughts that which one thinks. They are intent on having one insane and conspiring for that, whilst intent on explaining away there refusal to recognise or listen to one on anything as being due to there want for marriage.

They refuse to listen to anything else, but that is just an coverup, it is proven that they will not listen cause they want one insane to control ones head to do experiments on one. They argue that they will listen to one after one gets married, where there is no point they have already dismissed ones rights or violated everything. Perhaps they have already decided on that which they want to hear whilst the case is held against them, not sure what insanity they are leading one into.

Protocol I do not really want them to know ones mind or thoughts or everything that one would say or thinks about but the do and is that not enough, I am not happy about it and that is what is on trial that is the issue the case that which they are brought to trail. I guess they are referring to ones lectures, and refusing to listen or recognize ones lectures, those pending, to those with potential. Refusing to recognize such things as is the case hence will be used in trial.

I do not want to repeat myself on issues where one has already proven things and it all stands and can be used in trial, whilst it is they whom have to explain themselves not me, and they should do so, in writing as an written statement where they will just lie and are conspiracy to being covered up from things to one have to check there story out to proving there guilty they are guilty of conspiracy. It is they whom have to prove there innocence.

They refuse to listen and one would forget things one would have ones head messed with to ones mind being twisted into something else, therefore one has to write things down to protect ones identity, the truth of one or about one. They are conspiracy and have refused to recognise anything apart from one as an character and that character is something they have conspired to mould one into. One is not of character as is proven by ones writing and this one is as it is written and it shall be said as it is written.

In reference to what I will say is that which one has written, none of which open to question or can be used against one, one is not on trial and one must never be brought to trial, or questioned where this is all conspiracy, they have all conspired against one and ones mind, messed up ones head to poisoning ones mind, whilst it is they whom are on trial for there actions. They have may access to ones notes on request and under the conditions of it suiting ones interest, whilst it is necessary to note ones thoughts one mind to determined that which the implants are doing, to determine the interference with the mind.

Whilst ones notes are as ones thoughts ones mind, and they are intent on knowing ones mind ones thought hence these are ones thoughts, this is ones mind , not that of war or ill intentions or violence of thoughts and ones mind orientated on there presence, to that of an scientific mind. It is of protocol that they must put things in writing, or that which they say, or claim means nothing in the court of law, where one needs to bring everything to court and one needs evidence of all things.

Nothing they say or claim or rely on in respect of what I say can be used unless it is in writing, where they are able to make up any old things or what ever suits them, to all arguments being in ones head and it all needs to move out of ones head. All issues can be an must be put forward in writing. In talking to them or having to discuss matters or to argue in person can be refereed to taking place on trial, whilst one is damage ones head is blocked ones mind is blocked one is repressed to being washed of things thus discussing arguing things in person with them or arguing in person is flawed.

Whilst if they are forced to put things into writing there grievances and issues, I may decide to hear them and respond in writing, and perhaps even pass the issue through trial, where they refuse to reason. I also do not feel that I have to answer to them or respond to anything they say or raise as an issue, therefore will not be forced to respond or reply. One is forced to do respond at present with the implants and there presence in ones head. They are in an habit of using the implants to violating ones rights.

Ones responses can be negated, where one is forced to respond, having the right to change ones responses, ones is forced to admit to wanting war, but again one refuses to say anything and to leave arguments to writing and to protocol. To proving the case and having trial.