So we listened to Riley's interview linked in another thread. Afterward, we went for a walk and the conversation naturally lent itself to what we had just heard. My husband is a God fearing patriot who served two tours in Iraq. He is military through and through.
My position: If the military didn't remove bodily autonomy by compelling members of the armed forces to put things into their bodies that they didn't want, people like Riley would still be in the military.
His position: Members of the armed services lose the right to bodily autonomy when they join. If one is ordered to take a given series of vaccines or meds, then one should have faith in the higher-ups who've deemed it necessary and follow those orders. If members of the military are allowed to pick and choose what they put in their bodies, then the chain of command breaks down and weakens the military as a whole. He went on to say that he was given all kinds of things when he served and he never questioned it. "It's the military way."
My counter position: But the c-19 vaccine was experimental and was only authorized for emergency use, which is why the FDA rushed the approval in order to give a legal leg to stand on with regard to the mandate. I contend that if members of the military have the right to refuse to put something in their bodies, then at least they are protected from anyone at the top who is involved in nefarious actions.
His contention: the military can't categorize orders (medical, combat etc) and function properly. An order is an order. Those who can't or won't follow them have the opportunity to leave the military.
We rarely talk about this kind of thing and today I was reminded of why...I can't help but wonder based on the Riley interview and papers if the CCP wasn't fully aware of this military mindset and this was part of their plan to weaken our military all along...with the help of JB of course...
My investigation suggests that for quite a while now (a few thousand years or so), humanity has been trained by the same people to believe that we must be ruled.
To rule means to create principles AKA laws which must be conformed to by those who are ruled (AKA We The People). If you are ruled, you don't have a choice. It is the removal of autonomy and free will. The concept of "rulership" makes the claim that those that rule have the fundamental right to decide the actions of the ruled.
This has been going on for a long time, and it's structure has changed somewhat over the years, centuries, and millennia, but the same people have been at the top, and the same people have been at the bottom of this "ruling hierarchy" the entire time. During the middle ages for example, The Church allowed the kings to "rule" by proclaiming that they had the Divine Right, power vested in them by The Church. Of course these "kings" (or queens) themselves were subject to Church rule, so guess who ran The Church? (Hint, it generally wasn't the Pope, it was the people who controlled the money supply.)
The will of every human being has always been controlled by the people who control the money supply. Sometimes in history that group coincides with the High Priests, sometimes it simply controls the priesthood, but they have always been intimately tied at least since ancient Babylon (where the trail grows a little more muddy). You can see this play out so clearly in the Code of Hammurabi (it is well worth the read). When you read it, you see that there are different laws for different classes of people. The only class of people who aren't subject to any laws are the Priests, aka the group of people who wrote the code itself and control the money through the temple.
I'm sorry I don't have references at the moment, I am doing this from memory. At some point I will try to write this up more formally.
Anyways, this "rulership," and the claim that our will must not be free, but rather subject to the PTB is a core belief for almost everyone on the planet. The military caters to people who hold on to that belief more tightly than average. It also brainwashes people to believe it from day one. That is what "boot camp" is. In addition to physical training, it is a brainwashing session, to instill in the minds of the soon to be soldiers the belief that they have no right to make their own choices, or use their own judgement, etc. They are trained to believe it would "harm all people" if they choose for themselves.
I suggest however, that this is in direct violation of a fundamental Truth: namely that we are all the Kings and Queens of our own life. It doesn't matter if we are made to believe we have no choice, we always have a choice. We can always choose to not follow orders, or the law, or the lemming in front of us jumping off the cliff.
Our society, in 100 directions at once, has been structured such that we have been trained to not believe in that fundamental truth or to coerce us into compliance. We have been trained to believe that we must follow orders or other people will be harmed. We must obey for the greater good. Who exactly the greater good are, and/or how they will be harmed if we make choices for ourselves is rarely elaborated well, but in the military it is. This type of training/brainwashing is well laid out there, which makes fighting that brainwashing very difficult.
I feel your pain.
Here's a good reference for you:
The Money Masters by Bill Still https://odysee.com/@KnowledgeBase:e/Bill-Still-The-Money-Masters-Full-Documentary-1996:7
On another note, everything else you described is the difference between a sovereign and a citizen, something I explain in this comment.
I appreciate the follow up. I watched the money masters quite a while ago. My follow up research suggests they missed a lot of the bigger picture, but it is still a great introduction to the topic. Some elaboration on that "missing context" will be found in upcoming sections of my report.
With respect to the other, I agree with all except this sentence:
The US gov. was not meant to be a nation of sovereigns, or at least it was not intended that all people who lived in the United States were meant to be recognized as sovereign. It was sold as that, but from the beginning it contained a great deal of fuckery to ensure that that could not ever happen.
As an example of fuckery, look at the end of the 5th amendment:
This makes perfectly clear that the government has the right to take your property. It places the governmental corporation (legal entity) strictly above all of We The People (what you are calling a citizen) of the Treaty's jurisdiction (generally called a "country"). From this precedence all future similar fuckery of claims over a persons inalienable Rights (such as mandatory vaccines) becomes trivially simple.
For an example of how they could have made it actually what you suggest, an explicit statement of "all signatories to this treaty, present and future, are recognized as sovereign." That plus explicit statements of everyone (all of We The People) being a signatory (given the option to enter into the treaty) along with a reasonable exit clause would have prevented almost every single thing that has been tacked on to our system since then.
Very good points, even more for me to think about. Thank you.