Sovereignty, and existing Parallel to a system of citizenship with Fictional Obligations is NOT the fiction called ‘Sovereign Citizens.’ Oxymorons are pushed by Morons to shame Intelligence.
first, i would like to say merci for all research Nefahotep; is it more dominion over people; or is it that THEY are claiming DOMINION and OWNERSHIP over THEIR property/THEIR PERSON that THEY created for people/men/women to use by and through OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, CONTRACT/AGREEMENT;
when a man or woman continues to choose by their free will and accept this CONTRACT OF PERSON/CITIZENSHIP OF CORPORATION d.b.a. governmental agency; they accept this term and condition and accept all the duties and responsibilities FOR liberty, privileges, and benefits; all in exchange men and women give up their authority and their rights/rite/ritual; all for citizenship status;
where one is agreeing to be the authorized representative of the CORPORATION’S PERSON;
a man/woman can only give away their authority; it can not be taken; it must be given by ones Free Will and be evident by Choice present in a DOCUMENT;
this is why THEY are still using THE CONSENT route: THEY have to;
and because they have to THEY USE other means to 'hold up' THEIR fictitious Golem City; entities dressed up in costumes with loaded weapons; jesters; registers; clerks of THEIR court of blue balls;
notice how THEY are all Bonded, Licensed, and Insured and Oath-ed; it is because THEY are a LIABILITY and HAZARD to society; but nevertheless;
in that THEY do have ownership right over the property they create even though it be created from a thing they stole by deception which was the deed to thy body: certificate of live birth in order to create THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE;
these alleged boundary(s) are also fictional; district zip-codes are for the CORPORATION; and one may use the Post Office versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE;
we by the “line(s)” we choose to affix a seal on determine that boundary; and we may and can rebut any claim; or it stands as truth [versus true; which is another topic];
one that does not know they are author with write/ authority;
is no better than one with no rites/writes/rights;
I have a re-posting of the Isha Upanishad in the works; along with it, a draft rebuttal to the whole concept of "Physicalism," as a scientific basis. The biggest missing piece to human civilization's comprehension is the nature of ontological reality. The Isha Upanishad, the Bhagavad Gita and other ancient works allude to this refined awareness. If the realizations can become firmly manifested; with most people aware this light, true transformation of civilization becomes inevitable.
This is a really great article. You and TheTaoOfAnarchy are the best writers on this platform with regard to individual freedom. I always save these . Thank you 🙏.
A most important topic, and the way you have addressed it is fascinating
Quote: Anarchy does not mean Lawlessness
Agree 100%.
Quote: Chat is technically correct here; except if I were to live abroad, I would NEVER pay into the IRS, nor would I ever file any of the yearly forms. How would they know what I make? Why would I ever use a Bank? I could use a different name than what my home country has a registry of as well….
You can try it, but easier said than done. All banks in the BIS nexus have FATCA requirement when you want to open an account.
Quote: Chat just keeps it up with the tax argument; the entire economic system is based on Debt, maintaining a Debt based system requires people to be identified as collateral in this sense they are pledged to the Federal Reserve and the Corporation of the United States. If the Birth Certificate Bond creates this fiction of a pledge, the Corporation surely wants to claim what has been pledged to it, just like a form of inventory control.
Exactly. Historically a priori to establishing a private central bank, two basic requirements:
1. Democracy: To ensure political power is under control of Money Powers
2. Income tax.
It is no coincidence that the income tax was reinstated in the US in 1913 a few months before the Fed was established.
The "citizens" ARE the collateral.
Quote: “Democracy,” IS a “Religion” in and of itself
A good way of describing it. I refer to is as: Made by the Money Powers for the Money Powers.
Check the chart in this article:
The Archaeology of Wealth Inequality, Researchers trace the income gap back more than 11,000 years, Matthew Shaer
I like the article you point to, especially since it shows the developmental aspect of value disparities along a considerable timeline. It seems there should be no surprise with this. There appears to be a built in tendency in human nature to accept these types of gaps in equality, this likely stems from our cooperative willingness.
The real rub may not be in the actual wealth one controls, but in the control of people themselves through that wealth.
Democracy is really just mob rule, most people are not actually in the mob and get no benefit from it, but that doesn't stop Democracy from trying to subjugate the majority by "Jurisdiction."
Quote: Democracy is really just mob rule, most people are not actually in the mob and get no benefit from it, but that doesn't stop Democracy from trying to subjugate the majority by "Jurisdiction."
Exactly... but as you had stated in the article, "Democracy" with mass psychology manipulation, has been elevated to level of an unquestionable religious dogma.
Whereas it is an unnatural form of social organization, that is solely meant to subjugate the masses.
Years ago I was visiting old friends in Paris... I told them:
Your political aim should be to call for reinstatement of slavery. The slave master used to provide, food, lodging, medical care, and training to the slaves and their offspring. Today... you have to struggle in a rat race to get what the slave master provided for free.
Direct slavery is to own the Labor itself, the pledge system allows the same control without the headache of up keep; and still allows the "Creditors" or Owners to get fat off the proceeds.
When the Confederacy seceded from the Union, the Central Banksters of London saw an excellent opportunity to reestablish a Central Bank in the US: They offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest.
Lincoln’s response was to issue the “Greenback.” Lincoln stated: “I will not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers.”
Lynn Wheeler wrote:
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY."
From -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920
Instead of going somewhere and building a parallel society there we create a society within a society that works in every society by creating a spiritual parallel.
A society that is a voluntary not for profit society based on lifelong learning ZEN Kung Fu Agriculture shared knowledge and shared research decentralized.
Here is my suggestion.
I wanted to create an NGO called Project for a Global Revolution.
The Idea was to put all the profits from my Invention into it creating a volunteer society that provides everything for its members for free such as housing food and so on in abundance educating people to the highest ability so that everyone becomes the best possible version of themselves.
You know my Invention.
I designed it that way that it replaces Aviation normal Trains and Inner City Trains with one smooth system... that alone is worth more than a trillion dollar.
However that only scratches the surface.
This is not just a train or transportation... this is a complete infrastructure system.
Where the train goes the track must go and where the track goes we can through the track all the infrastructure such as communication Internet even electricity.
Basically we can build a new Internet and become ISP... we become a telephone company... we become a TV provider... even a TV production company.
We sell this to the outside world.
The profits go into the company.
We than buy farmland and grow the best possible food which we also partially sell to the outside world.
We then build agricultural decentralized communities where we can live communicate research and share what we learn with others.
We also pay no taxes.
Everything the Government wants to destroy we build and provide.
Which means we will have a lot of customers.
We create abundance that we share and selling what we overproduce.
"Instead of going somewhere and building a parallel society there we create a society within a society that works in every society by creating a spiritual parallel." ---- This is exactly the way I'm thinking of it. With the added caveat of eliminating the false claim the system tries to place on us.
Your invention is genius, the issue you have run into is the system believes and acts on the false concept that if you invented it, they essentially own it.
If I were to find a way to develop a revolutionary technology, like say; anti gravity or zero point energy, I would just get it out there into as many hands as possible. Open source would make it nearly impossible for the powers that shouldn't be to remove it. Free energy would absolutely destroy the energy industrial complex, thus permanently removing them from power, no pun intended.
"Actually, I already know why, it just doesn’t seem logical, as I have discovered, a lot of things legal are not logical, they are not lawful either."
You've actually got this one bass ackwards, Nefahotep. Had you written "Actually, I already know why, it just doesn’t seem logical, as I have discovered, a lot of things lawful are not logical, they are not legal either.
The word lawful has been created by the powers that shouldn't be to present something illegal they want to do as legal. Take the PREP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, the Partriot Act and the Federal Reserve Act just to name a few. Please stop using the word LAWFUL. It is awful.
I contend that "Lawful" means anything not proscribed by the three Laws of Ethics (offered in the article here). That "legal" means anything in the (psychopathic) legal/governmental system. An agglomeration of legalates the number of which no One knows.
Makes "Ignorance of the law (legalate) is no excuse" just silly. If We do not know the number of legalates on the "books," how can We possibly know the content of them all???
"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse," though, is indeed no excuse. There are three of them, and We all know those things listed are wrong to do.
You are stating that the Parasites use the term "Lawful" to present something that is "illegal." These creeps do tend to reverse word definitions, naming things opposite to what they are. Psychological manipulation is their primary tool. There has to be another new word that can be used that everyone will connect the intended meaning to.
Trying to fix anything related to the so called legal system is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end, it's difficult.
Throughout most articles my premise is:
*** "Legal" is written "code" and it also functions as an instrument to commit plunder, to benefit the few who lobbied or "paid for" it to be "passed" into what we call "law." People have been conditioned to "have respect for" the "Law," to a point that there's a level of superstition to support it. (I don't support something just because it is written or codified.)
*** "Lawfulness" or "Lawful Process" is what I attribute to natural behavior based on a Social function of Morality; not always written, yet socially meaningful in the sense that ---
1. People respect each other's rights, without crossing each other.
2. Actions of exchange are reciprocal, fair and justified.
*** I also attribute the concept of Lawfulness to imply "Common Law" which may also be convoluted, yet there are few words to use to separate what it is I'm trying to separate in a practical sense.
My approach has been to equate the following:
Lawful = Agreeable
Unlawful = Not Agreeable ------- I will resort to using agreeable or not agreeable.
My experience with Intentional Communities in the early 80's came from my housemates creating one and their experience living in one in Canada and their determination to find an ideal one and return. In the end it boiled down to the absurd. First the psychology of many of those attracted to community was not serious but more of aesthetic taste. Labor shirking frowned on still arose. Second, politically correct thrives in IC's. Third, it seems easier to dislike someone in the IC. Personality conflicts. I rather like the idea though of forming something more like a village. And having thought it through.
Experimental communities often become created by idealists. The work necessary to fulfill their idealistic visions, makes many of them wither.
There were experimental communes in the US in the 60's, started based on different types of ideals, usually not moored to reality.
The one I'm most familiar with, still exists today and is located in Southeast India, called Auroville. It has gone through quite a few iterations, in the beginning it was quite communitistic, lacking property rights. It has evolved into a voluntary cooperative system that seems to respect autonomy.
As I recall most Intentional Communities are smallish. 30 people to fifty maybe. Land acquisition is always tough. Especially today financing is tough. I think back of course to the 19th century attempts to have communities based on idealism that failed. It may well be the problem is spiritual. Berdyaev --“The tragedy of the situation lies in the fact that great masses of humanity have awakened and come into power at the moment of a falling away from Christianity and the loss of all religious beliefs. We are witnessing a judgment not on history alone, but upon Christianity in history, upon Christian humanity,” necessarily because “Christianity in history has been not only the revelation of God, but also the work of man,” and “the purity of revelation has often been sullied by the human element, the human consciousness through which it has been filtered.”
In a secular order, the heresies become the ideologies. It would be possible to supply specific references that Berdyaev, who probably assumes that his readers are familiar with them, omits. Consider, for example, those expressions of the late Renaissance, the utopias. There is the original Utopia of Thomas More; there are the technical utopias of Sir Francis Bacon and Tomasso Campanella. Then there are the radical Protestant sects, such as the Anabaptist movement, which anticipate the Revolution in France. There is the Cartesian reduction of consciousness and the absurd theory of the “Blank Slate.” (Everyone can compile his own long list.)
Berdyaev writes:
The judgment upon Christianity is going on in all phases of human life and culture. It is a judgment upon false monism and false dualism, upon extreme immanentism, upon the deification of human frailties and the degradation of human dignity. The world crisis is a judgment both from above and from beneath. The tragic conflict between Christianity and history is nothing new – it is eternal and in the process each judges the other. History’s judgment upon Christianity is its revelation of Christianity’s failures in history… But on the other hand this defeat of Christianity turns into a judgment upon history. The failure of Christianity is the failure of history as well. This is more clearly evident now, than ever before.
In one of his epigrammatic utterances, Berdyaev summarizes his argument: “The world tried to affirm man as against Christianity and arrived at the negation of man himself.” A paragraph or two later Berdyaev follows up one epigram with another: “The world is again in the grip of the polydemonism from which Christianity once rescued it.” The choice, Berdyaev argues, lies between continuing the descent into “technicized chaos in which only the most terrible forms of idolatry can live” and “a new Christian piety.”
I consider what Berdyaev is describing as a social push against "Christianity," may be intended to infer the push as revulsion against systems of Power Concentration; such as what can be seen in the development of both Big Religion and Big Government.
The whole Western Religio-Governmental construct is an institution, not Spirituality of the Individual. It's true that Religion can and does inspire a sense of Spirituality, but that's on the inside and is personal, not social nor political.
I have been doing a bit of research on the possible cultural affects major Religion has had over the centuries. In my view, the condition of Christian decline is about rejecting the established Hierarchies at mostly the individual level. Religion will still exist, even if less influential.
To paraphrase Jason Reza Jorjani:
"The Abrahamic Revelation, the Biblical Religion was likely engineered as a Catalyst for the transformation of society. This Catalyst was not intended to get people to become good Jews or later good Christians, or even later good Muslims. The Catalyst was intended to get people to go to the deeper sense of who they are on the inside; the purpose of the catalyst was to confront people, with an image of divinity, that ought to be rejected and resisted by the conscience of the human individual."
Of course, it is not so simple to say people are really noticing the social and political manipulations by the Parasitic Over Class, since there are so many vectors for that control.
Essentially:
The purpose of Government is to limit your Mind; so it must be Opposed, Resist allowing others to control your Mind: Control belongs to Individuals, not Groups.
The purpose of Religion is to limit your Spirit; so it must be Questioned; and yet, the etymology of the word “Religion,” is: To Follow without Question.
Your questions are yours to keep, they can guide you away from false Allegiances and Tyranny alike. Resist allowing Others to define what questions you have.
The bigger question I have been working out is:
Can we create Systems that actually respect our Individual Autonomy?
In order for any system to function properly, it absolutely MUST show respect and dignity towards Individuals, PERIOD. If not, that alone is a seed for it’s future entropy and collapse.
While a quest for decentralized life would lead ultimately down a path of greater unknowns, it would also hold the greatest potential for the expression of harmonious Freedom.
This site was created by Ken Bartle, who recently had an interesting interview with Mike Adams, of Brighteon.com to talk about Spiritual Values and Their Role in Consciousness. He discusses the concept that the legal system and government in general must adapt to the new awareness in consciousness, to recognize the primacy of individual autonomy. He makes many strong points in the interview.
He asks the question: “Do you want Freedom or Authoritarian Rule?”
first, i would like to say merci for all research Nefahotep; is it more dominion over people; or is it that THEY are claiming DOMINION and OWNERSHIP over THEIR property/THEIR PERSON that THEY created for people/men/women to use by and through OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, CONTRACT/AGREEMENT;
when a man or woman continues to choose by their free will and accept this CONTRACT OF PERSON/CITIZENSHIP OF CORPORATION d.b.a. governmental agency; they accept this term and condition and accept all the duties and responsibilities FOR liberty, privileges, and benefits; all in exchange men and women give up their authority and their rights/rite/ritual; all for citizenship status;
where one is agreeing to be the authorized representative of the CORPORATION’S PERSON;
a man/woman can only give away their authority; it can not be taken; it must be given by ones Free Will and be evident by Choice present in a DOCUMENT;
this is why THEY are still using THE CONSENT route: THEY have to;
and because they have to THEY USE other means to 'hold up' THEIR fictitious Golem City; entities dressed up in costumes with loaded weapons; jesters; registers; clerks of THEIR court of blue balls;
notice how THEY are all Bonded, Licensed, and Insured and Oath-ed; it is because THEY are a LIABILITY and HAZARD to society; but nevertheless;
in that THEY do have ownership right over the property they create even though it be created from a thing they stole by deception which was the deed to thy body: certificate of live birth in order to create THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE;
these alleged boundary(s) are also fictional; district zip-codes are for the CORPORATION; and one may use the Post Office versus UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE;
we by the “line(s)” we choose to affix a seal on determine that boundary; and we may and can rebut any claim; or it stands as truth [versus true; which is another topic];
one that does not know they are author with write/ authority;
is no better than one with no rites/writes/rights;
excellent work;
Off topic – but just wanted to share the following for your archives …
I have just finished binge-watching both these playlists and you immediately came to mind. The Upanishads are mentioned favourably several times
• The Song of God and the Way of the Warrior (Bhagavad Gita reading and analysis) - PhilosophiCat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv7A6iYwev8&list=PLQhWiiSrOiNrXQ7EmHPPIsMogOFzMw0R0&index=1
Here is PhilosophiCat’s original flagship series
• Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World - PhilosophiCat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR2RXo8VN5A&list=PLQhWiiSrOiNp_k79baRYgFzbNEvl41tH8&index=1
I was introduced to PhilosophiCat via her conversation just a week ago here …
• Sigmar's Symposium Ep. 8- PhilosophiCat - Sigmar Academy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP8ViaEUD_A
Thanks, I'll check those out.
I have a re-posting of the Isha Upanishad in the works; along with it, a draft rebuttal to the whole concept of "Physicalism," as a scientific basis. The biggest missing piece to human civilization's comprehension is the nature of ontological reality. The Isha Upanishad, the Bhagavad Gita and other ancient works allude to this refined awareness. If the realizations can become firmly manifested; with most people aware this light, true transformation of civilization becomes inevitable.
This is a really great article. You and TheTaoOfAnarchy are the best writers on this platform with regard to individual freedom. I always save these . Thank you 🙏.
A most important topic, and the way you have addressed it is fascinating
Quote: Anarchy does not mean Lawlessness
Agree 100%.
Quote: Chat is technically correct here; except if I were to live abroad, I would NEVER pay into the IRS, nor would I ever file any of the yearly forms. How would they know what I make? Why would I ever use a Bank? I could use a different name than what my home country has a registry of as well….
You can try it, but easier said than done. All banks in the BIS nexus have FATCA requirement when you want to open an account.
Quote: Chat just keeps it up with the tax argument; the entire economic system is based on Debt, maintaining a Debt based system requires people to be identified as collateral in this sense they are pledged to the Federal Reserve and the Corporation of the United States. If the Birth Certificate Bond creates this fiction of a pledge, the Corporation surely wants to claim what has been pledged to it, just like a form of inventory control.
Exactly. Historically a priori to establishing a private central bank, two basic requirements:
1. Democracy: To ensure political power is under control of Money Powers
2. Income tax.
It is no coincidence that the income tax was reinstated in the US in 1913 a few months before the Fed was established.
The "citizens" ARE the collateral.
Quote: “Democracy,” IS a “Religion” in and of itself
A good way of describing it. I refer to is as: Made by the Money Powers for the Money Powers.
Check the chart in this article:
The Archaeology of Wealth Inequality, Researchers trace the income gap back more than 11,000 years, Matthew Shaer
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/aracheology-wealth-inequality-180968072/
Over 11 millennia in 3 continents, the greatest inequality is in democracy :-)
I like the article you point to, especially since it shows the developmental aspect of value disparities along a considerable timeline. It seems there should be no surprise with this. There appears to be a built in tendency in human nature to accept these types of gaps in equality, this likely stems from our cooperative willingness.
The real rub may not be in the actual wealth one controls, but in the control of people themselves through that wealth.
Democracy is really just mob rule, most people are not actually in the mob and get no benefit from it, but that doesn't stop Democracy from trying to subjugate the majority by "Jurisdiction."
Quote: Democracy is really just mob rule, most people are not actually in the mob and get no benefit from it, but that doesn't stop Democracy from trying to subjugate the majority by "Jurisdiction."
100%
Exactly... but as you had stated in the article, "Democracy" with mass psychology manipulation, has been elevated to level of an unquestionable religious dogma.
Whereas it is an unnatural form of social organization, that is solely meant to subjugate the masses.
Years ago I was visiting old friends in Paris... I told them:
Your political aim should be to call for reinstatement of slavery. The slave master used to provide, food, lodging, medical care, and training to the slaves and their offspring. Today... you have to struggle in a rat race to get what the slave master provided for free.
Direct slavery is to own the Labor itself, the pledge system allows the same control without the headache of up keep; and still allows the "Creditors" or Owners to get fat off the proceeds.
When the Confederacy seceded from the Union, the Central Banksters of London saw an excellent opportunity to reestablish a Central Bank in the US: They offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest.
Lincoln’s response was to issue the “Greenback.” Lincoln stated: “I will not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers.”
Lynn Wheeler wrote:
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY."
From -- Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920
Quote: "the pledge system allows the same control without the headache of up keep"
Exactly! with privately owned banks, the money powers effectively enslave the masses without the need to be concerned about their upkeep.
Pretty smart system lol
Where do you want to go?
Just saying because there is no place to hide.
Fundamentally I agree but profoundly I don't.
Instead of going somewhere and building a parallel society there we create a society within a society that works in every society by creating a spiritual parallel.
A society that is a voluntary not for profit society based on lifelong learning ZEN Kung Fu Agriculture shared knowledge and shared research decentralized.
Here is my suggestion.
I wanted to create an NGO called Project for a Global Revolution.
The Idea was to put all the profits from my Invention into it creating a volunteer society that provides everything for its members for free such as housing food and so on in abundance educating people to the highest ability so that everyone becomes the best possible version of themselves.
You know my Invention.
I designed it that way that it replaces Aviation normal Trains and Inner City Trains with one smooth system... that alone is worth more than a trillion dollar.
However that only scratches the surface.
This is not just a train or transportation... this is a complete infrastructure system.
Where the train goes the track must go and where the track goes we can through the track all the infrastructure such as communication Internet even electricity.
Basically we can build a new Internet and become ISP... we become a telephone company... we become a TV provider... even a TV production company.
We sell this to the outside world.
The profits go into the company.
We than buy farmland and grow the best possible food which we also partially sell to the outside world.
We then build agricultural decentralized communities where we can live communicate research and share what we learn with others.
We also pay no taxes.
Everything the Government wants to destroy we build and provide.
Which means we will have a lot of customers.
We create abundance that we share and selling what we overproduce.
Learning by doing is my motto.
Everyone should learn everything.
Flexible with plenty room to grow.
Intellectually and spiritual superior.
"Instead of going somewhere and building a parallel society there we create a society within a society that works in every society by creating a spiritual parallel." ---- This is exactly the way I'm thinking of it. With the added caveat of eliminating the false claim the system tries to place on us.
Your invention is genius, the issue you have run into is the system believes and acts on the false concept that if you invented it, they essentially own it.
If I were to find a way to develop a revolutionary technology, like say; anti gravity or zero point energy, I would just get it out there into as many hands as possible. Open source would make it nearly impossible for the powers that shouldn't be to remove it. Free energy would absolutely destroy the energy industrial complex, thus permanently removing them from power, no pun intended.
Revolutionary technology... that is my train.
And there is plenty of more where that came from.
Also... by creating a society based on non profit we are out of reach to their system.
By the way... in my latest article I provide you with a series pf Question that AI won't be able to answer.
I don't use AI... never will.
But if you do you can try and break the system... have fun.
I am humbled. Thank You for Your payment of shares of My work. I truly am enriched!
Indeed, I work with both the system and money under duress only. Only when I cannot survive without dealing with these things do I do so.
Here is another thing that might be considered:
Calling a Legalate a Law (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/calling-a-legalate-a-law
Nothing in the legal system is a Law - it's all legalates, but They call them "laws" to get Us to think We must obey.
"Actually, I already know why, it just doesn’t seem logical, as I have discovered, a lot of things legal are not logical, they are not lawful either."
You've actually got this one bass ackwards, Nefahotep. Had you written "Actually, I already know why, it just doesn’t seem logical, as I have discovered, a lot of things lawful are not logical, they are not legal either.
The word lawful has been created by the powers that shouldn't be to present something illegal they want to do as legal. Take the PREP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, the Partriot Act and the Federal Reserve Act just to name a few. Please stop using the word LAWFUL. It is awful.
I contend that "Lawful" means anything not proscribed by the three Laws of Ethics (offered in the article here). That "legal" means anything in the (psychopathic) legal/governmental system. An agglomeration of legalates the number of which no One knows.
Makes "Ignorance of the law (legalate) is no excuse" just silly. If We do not know the number of legalates on the "books," how can We possibly know the content of them all???
"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse," though, is indeed no excuse. There are three of them, and We all know those things listed are wrong to do.
Very little of what is in that system is Lawful.
You are stating that the Parasites use the term "Lawful" to present something that is "illegal." These creeps do tend to reverse word definitions, naming things opposite to what they are. Psychological manipulation is their primary tool. There has to be another new word that can be used that everyone will connect the intended meaning to.
Trying to fix anything related to the so called legal system is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end, it's difficult.
Throughout most articles my premise is:
*** "Legal" is written "code" and it also functions as an instrument to commit plunder, to benefit the few who lobbied or "paid for" it to be "passed" into what we call "law." People have been conditioned to "have respect for" the "Law," to a point that there's a level of superstition to support it. (I don't support something just because it is written or codified.)
*** "Lawfulness" or "Lawful Process" is what I attribute to natural behavior based on a Social function of Morality; not always written, yet socially meaningful in the sense that ---
1. People respect each other's rights, without crossing each other.
2. Actions of exchange are reciprocal, fair and justified.
*** I also attribute the concept of Lawfulness to imply "Common Law" which may also be convoluted, yet there are few words to use to separate what it is I'm trying to separate in a practical sense.
My approach has been to equate the following:
Lawful = Agreeable
Unlawful = Not Agreeable ------- I will resort to using agreeable or not agreeable.
Indeed, Common Law is founded on the three Laws of Ethics.
"Lawful = Agreeable
Unlawful = Not Agreeable ------- I will resort to using agreeable or not agreeable."
I find that agreeable. ;-)
"These creeps do tend to reverse word definitions, naming things opposite to what they are."
Exactly! War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is stregth, and what you say reminded me of a meme I saw a few years back:
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
My experience with Intentional Communities in the early 80's came from my housemates creating one and their experience living in one in Canada and their determination to find an ideal one and return. In the end it boiled down to the absurd. First the psychology of many of those attracted to community was not serious but more of aesthetic taste. Labor shirking frowned on still arose. Second, politically correct thrives in IC's. Third, it seems easier to dislike someone in the IC. Personality conflicts. I rather like the idea though of forming something more like a village. And having thought it through.
I think the gregarious herd animal is brought up by mal-education. The genius of Christian thought became distorted by subservience to the State.
Experimental communities often become created by idealists. The work necessary to fulfill their idealistic visions, makes many of them wither.
There were experimental communes in the US in the 60's, started based on different types of ideals, usually not moored to reality.
The one I'm most familiar with, still exists today and is located in Southeast India, called Auroville. It has gone through quite a few iterations, in the beginning it was quite communitistic, lacking property rights. It has evolved into a voluntary cooperative system that seems to respect autonomy.
I know of Auroville.
As I recall most Intentional Communities are smallish. 30 people to fifty maybe. Land acquisition is always tough. Especially today financing is tough. I think back of course to the 19th century attempts to have communities based on idealism that failed. It may well be the problem is spiritual. Berdyaev --“The tragedy of the situation lies in the fact that great masses of humanity have awakened and come into power at the moment of a falling away from Christianity and the loss of all religious beliefs. We are witnessing a judgment not on history alone, but upon Christianity in history, upon Christian humanity,” necessarily because “Christianity in history has been not only the revelation of God, but also the work of man,” and “the purity of revelation has often been sullied by the human element, the human consciousness through which it has been filtered.”
In a secular order, the heresies become the ideologies. It would be possible to supply specific references that Berdyaev, who probably assumes that his readers are familiar with them, omits. Consider, for example, those expressions of the late Renaissance, the utopias. There is the original Utopia of Thomas More; there are the technical utopias of Sir Francis Bacon and Tomasso Campanella. Then there are the radical Protestant sects, such as the Anabaptist movement, which anticipate the Revolution in France. There is the Cartesian reduction of consciousness and the absurd theory of the “Blank Slate.” (Everyone can compile his own long list.)
Berdyaev writes:
The judgment upon Christianity is going on in all phases of human life and culture. It is a judgment upon false monism and false dualism, upon extreme immanentism, upon the deification of human frailties and the degradation of human dignity. The world crisis is a judgment both from above and from beneath. The tragic conflict between Christianity and history is nothing new – it is eternal and in the process each judges the other. History’s judgment upon Christianity is its revelation of Christianity’s failures in history… But on the other hand this defeat of Christianity turns into a judgment upon history. The failure of Christianity is the failure of history as well. This is more clearly evident now, than ever before.
In one of his epigrammatic utterances, Berdyaev summarizes his argument: “The world tried to affirm man as against Christianity and arrived at the negation of man himself.” A paragraph or two later Berdyaev follows up one epigram with another: “The world is again in the grip of the polydemonism from which Christianity once rescued it.” The choice, Berdyaev argues, lies between continuing the descent into “technicized chaos in which only the most terrible forms of idolatry can live” and “a new Christian piety.”
I consider what Berdyaev is describing as a social push against "Christianity," may be intended to infer the push as revulsion against systems of Power Concentration; such as what can be seen in the development of both Big Religion and Big Government.
The whole Western Religio-Governmental construct is an institution, not Spirituality of the Individual. It's true that Religion can and does inspire a sense of Spirituality, but that's on the inside and is personal, not social nor political.
I have been doing a bit of research on the possible cultural affects major Religion has had over the centuries. In my view, the condition of Christian decline is about rejecting the established Hierarchies at mostly the individual level. Religion will still exist, even if less influential.
To paraphrase Jason Reza Jorjani:
"The Abrahamic Revelation, the Biblical Religion was likely engineered as a Catalyst for the transformation of society. This Catalyst was not intended to get people to become good Jews or later good Christians, or even later good Muslims. The Catalyst was intended to get people to go to the deeper sense of who they are on the inside; the purpose of the catalyst was to confront people, with an image of divinity, that ought to be rejected and resisted by the conscience of the human individual."
Of course, it is not so simple to say people are really noticing the social and political manipulations by the Parasitic Over Class, since there are so many vectors for that control.
Essentially:
The purpose of Government is to limit your Mind; so it must be Opposed, Resist allowing others to control your Mind: Control belongs to Individuals, not Groups.
The purpose of Religion is to limit your Spirit; so it must be Questioned; and yet, the etymology of the word “Religion,” is: To Follow without Question.
Your questions are yours to keep, they can guide you away from false Allegiances and Tyranny alike. Resist allowing Others to define what questions you have.
The bigger question I have been working out is:
Can we create Systems that actually respect our Individual Autonomy?
In order for any system to function properly, it absolutely MUST show respect and dignity towards Individuals, PERIOD. If not, that alone is a seed for it’s future entropy and collapse.
While a quest for decentralized life would lead ultimately down a path of greater unknowns, it would also hold the greatest potential for the expression of harmonious Freedom.
Here is an interesting site I came across:
Natural Law Matters
website: https://naturallawmatters.com/
This site was created by Ken Bartle, who recently had an interesting interview with Mike Adams, of Brighteon.com to talk about Spiritual Values and Their Role in Consciousness. He discusses the concept that the legal system and government in general must adapt to the new awareness in consciousness, to recognize the primacy of individual autonomy. He makes many strong points in the interview.
He asks the question: “Do you want Freedom or Authoritarian Rule?”