I am going to read that book about the war of 1812. Thanks for sharing. I just perused he first few pages and found this, quote:
Man, in all stages, is a lover of liberty, rea-
son dictates that he has rights ; but this reason ob-
scured by artificial ignorance, and enervated by
habitual bondage, becomes incapable of action,
and insensible to the true extent of his misery.
The slave feels pain, without knowing whence it
originates, or how it should be remedied. This
observation is strictly applicable only to corpo-
real slavery. The slavery exercised over the
conscience, is that in support of which no so-
phistry can prevail; and to which no term, no
length of endurance, can reconcile the sufferer.
No prescription can justify the practice of en-
slavement in any case; and no slave, however ab-
ject) will admit it in cases affecting his conscience.
God has instilled into the heart of man certain re-
ligious duties, and whenever the fulfilment of
these is forbidden by human edicts, the injured
person fears not to revolt or seek an asylum a-
gainst persecution.
That is an interesting insight and seems to explain the exact reasoning and basis on how and why you could get away with creating a status of “citizen” with the description of “person” to deprive “We the People” into voluntarily giving up our Inalienable God given rights as Men and Women in exchange for a membership into the corporation of 1871 as a “person” who receives “privileges” and “immunities” (not inalienable rights) that bind us to corporate policy and burden us with taxes through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Good points! Your sentence is worth of reading slowly and carefully, as it packs so much information!
through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Imagine a country where the people are not bound by contract but by unilateral bonds: i.e. gifts.
How that is possible?
Quite simply: you coerce the parent under duress to do so, change the name of the child into a pronoun and the family name to the child's name and create this juridical person called Natural Person. On top, obfuscate the difference between right and law/statute. This creates a porter, a vessel, a transmitting utility carrying duties and privileges.
Most people in that country belief they are that Natural Person. And most of those who do not, cannot even comprehend that person actually means: by means of sound.
Any idea what country that is?
Hint: Deep State Central and it is not Switzerland.
within 3 days of the birth-event of a child, such child is subject to" geboorte aangifte" =aan - gifte. Literally: given to. Gifte equals the English word: Gift; geboorte is used in an adjective sense but because no article is used it is unclear weather birth as an event is used or born = the child. Of course parents do not have the right to give away their child into bondage.
A contract is jurisdiction in which two or more parties agreed to enter into. A gift is a unilateral (1-zijdig or one-sided) bond = ver-binte-nis). Since it is a gift, this creates a unilateral bond under public statue, and a public statute natural person, a transmitting utility, is created. This is akin to at the notaries where a juridical person is created. Just like every juridical person, the natural person is required to have a seat, i.e. an address. In the Dutch system is this the combination of postal code and housenumber. This process is done at the city level, called: ge-meen-te meaning: common-uni-ty.
Since a new entity under statute is created, a new name applies, as I explained in my previous post.
The word PERSON is derived from two Latin words: PER meaning by means of, and SONA meaning to sound.
It is often applied to actors wearing a mask to declaim certain ordinances of the gods.
In the same vein, we wear a mask for all intends and purposes. We are father, mother, child, tweeny, carpenter, athlete, etc.
SO, to agree such a view applies without objection.
This was the usual method of doing business. You want this amphora of wine: YES or NO. We as living beings a persons.
There are two words denoting the same thing in different states in Germanic Language: Lijf meaning the living body and equals to the English word Life. The pronunciation is the same. The other word: corps, the dead body is derived from corpora, corporate, equals to lichaam or Leichnahm in Germanic. In a way it is rather astonishing to consider that words: Marine Corps. Dead mariners, as opposed to a fine body of men has not yet been given a name change.
And as such, as a person, we are entitled to be regarded under law. However, not in the Netherlands as you can only be recognized IF and WHEN you** identify** (note the meaning this word) as a natural person, a dead body, with a client number issued by the State. (consider the word client carefully. It is also derived from Latin and it has nothing to do with business between free peoples!) and a false name. This way, a natural person can be forced to do things which are against his rights: it is called a porter or bearer of rights and duties. And the duties multiply, and the rights diminish. Of course.
Duties can only exist by means of a bond, either uni-lateral or multi-lateral. So the person is then called: the ingezetene (ingeseytene. This is a word from the middle ages. Certain city people were burgers, or citizens, called uitgeseytene, those who are no longer sat upon, may be a bit like a yoke was sat upon an animal of burden. De ingeseytene were eh ... lorded over, shall we say, and usually had no property)
There is a mix up of meaning in terms of: right, statute and law. A law cannot convey a right, a statute cannot convey a law, nor amend it. But it can infringe, abridge, contain its enjoyment. Hence they call the law/statute: right (recht) The whole system in that country is totally screwed up, because of it.
More than 8 weeks ago we were embroiled in a suit where the demand for a change of name on a rental contract with a public housing union was conducted. We explained the above and how in the Netherlands "fraus legis" is committed by the State of the Netherlands. "Fraus legis", which in The Netherlands is often used in tax cases, is also applied differently than was originally intended. Here, the law or statute is setup such that its intended use is the prohibition of enjoying a right. Fraus legis is put into law under 18-USC-241, 242 as a comparison.
Since we were not the party demanding, but only served as the expert witness, we were not in the position to do what we normally would do: get the Clerk to send us the concept for our consideration and revision of the ruling within 3 days of the court-day.
In the Netherlands then, usually, either of two things happen: 1. No ruling at all, postponed indefinitely, or 2. a false ruling. The latter is done by only granting the demand as sustained or rejected without consideration and weighing, as is obligatory by statute. For if they were to rule correctly, the system would come crashing down like a diseased temple.
The point is: The Netherlands operates under the provision of "legaliteits-beginsel" as is expressed in the UVRM, EVRM, EU-constitution, ICCPR. One might consider that the rule of law: so all things proceed according to law. No law? no process. In and of itself not a bad idea, except for one small thing: Every Dutch born of Dutch parents with a family tree back to before 1780 has a right to sovereignty under natural and INTERNATIONAL law.
I think it is very important to consider this idea that a slave is enslaved at the mental level moreso than the physical level.
You cannot REALLY enslave a person physically if you do not FIRST have him enslaved mentally. He will fight back. Only when you have enslaved his mind will he cooperate in his physical enslavement.
The black African tribal kings hunted down, captured, and put their fellow black brothers and sisters into chains so that they could be sold into slavery in exchange for a little gold and silver (enslavement for a little bling bling).
At that moment in time, the enslaved were physically restrained, but not mentally accepting their enslavement.
It was only over time that they became mentally enslaved, to the point where they accepted their physical enslavement. Then, they passed that way of thinking to their offspring, who never knew anything else.
Two quotes from former REAL slaves back then are instructive of this mental slavery:
When a slave sees a free man, he can think one of two thoughts: Either, 'There is a free man, why is he not a slave like me?' or 'There is a free man, why am I not free like he is?' -- Frederick Douglas
I could have freed more slaves, if only I could have convinced them that they were slaves. -- Harriet Tubman
This is the mindset of many people living in North Korea now. It is also the mindset of many peole in the "Land of the Free" today.
I am going to read that book about the war of 1812. Thanks for sharing. I just perused he first few pages and found this, quote:
Wow. Amazing extract.
That is an interesting insight and seems to explain the exact reasoning and basis on how and why you could get away with creating a status of “citizen” with the description of “person” to deprive “We the People” into voluntarily giving up our Inalienable God given rights as Men and Women in exchange for a membership into the corporation of 1871 as a “person” who receives “privileges” and “immunities” (not inalienable rights) that bind us to corporate policy and burden us with taxes through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Good points! Your sentence is worth of reading slowly and carefully, as it packs so much information!
Imagine a country where the people are not bound by contract but by unilateral bonds: i.e. gifts.
How that is possible?
Quite simply: you coerce the parent under duress to do so, change the name of the child into a pronoun and the family name to the child's name and create this juridical person called Natural Person. On top, obfuscate the difference between right and law/statute. This creates a porter, a vessel, a transmitting utility carrying duties and privileges.
Most people in that country belief they are that Natural Person. And most of those who do not, cannot even comprehend that person actually means: by means of sound.
Any idea what country that is?
Hint: Deep State Central and it is not Switzerland.
From the hint my guess would be Sweden.
From the description I have no clue.
Unilateral bonds. I.e gifts Someone leveraging credit on your behalf at birth and you are now bound to its debt?
By means of sound? That is an interesting statement, can you you explain that further?
Country is The Netherlands.
within 3 days of the birth-event of a child, such child is subject to" geboorte aangifte" =aan - gifte. Literally: given to. Gifte equals the English word: Gift; geboorte is used in an adjective sense but because no article is used it is unclear weather birth as an event is used or born = the child. Of course parents do not have the right to give away their child into bondage.
A contract is jurisdiction in which two or more parties agreed to enter into. A gift is a unilateral (1-zijdig or one-sided) bond = ver-binte-nis). Since it is a gift, this creates a unilateral bond under public statue, and a public statute natural person, a transmitting utility, is created. This is akin to at the notaries where a juridical person is created. Just like every juridical person, the natural person is required to have a seat, i.e. an address. In the Dutch system is this the combination of postal code and housenumber. This process is done at the city level, called: ge-meen-te meaning: common-uni-ty.
Since a new entity under statute is created, a new name applies, as I explained in my previous post.
The word PERSON is derived from two Latin words: PER meaning by means of, and SONA meaning to sound.
It is often applied to actors wearing a mask to declaim certain ordinances of the gods. In the same vein, we wear a mask for all intends and purposes. We are father, mother, child, tweeny, carpenter, athlete, etc. SO, to agree such a view applies without objection.
This was the usual method of doing business. You want this amphora of wine: YES or NO. We as living beings a persons. There are two words denoting the same thing in different states in Germanic Language: Lijf meaning the living body and equals to the English word Life. The pronunciation is the same. The other word: corps, the dead body is derived from corpora, corporate, equals to lichaam or Leichnahm in Germanic. In a way it is rather astonishing to consider that words: Marine Corps. Dead mariners, as opposed to a fine body of men has not yet been given a name change.
And as such, as a person, we are entitled to be regarded under law. However, not in the Netherlands as you can only be recognized IF and WHEN you** identify** (note the meaning this word) as a natural person, a dead body, with a client number issued by the State. (consider the word client carefully. It is also derived from Latin and it has nothing to do with business between free peoples!) and a false name. This way, a natural person can be forced to do things which are against his rights: it is called a porter or bearer of rights and duties. And the duties multiply, and the rights diminish. Of course.
Duties can only exist by means of a bond, either uni-lateral or multi-lateral. So the person is then called: the ingezetene (ingeseytene. This is a word from the middle ages. Certain city people were burgers, or citizens, called uitgeseytene, those who are no longer sat upon, may be a bit like a yoke was sat upon an animal of burden. De ingeseytene were eh ... lorded over, shall we say, and usually had no property)
There is a mix up of meaning in terms of: right, statute and law. A law cannot convey a right, a statute cannot convey a law, nor amend it. But it can infringe, abridge, contain its enjoyment. Hence they call the law/statute: right (recht) The whole system in that country is totally screwed up, because of it.
More than 8 weeks ago we were embroiled in a suit where the demand for a change of name on a rental contract with a public housing union was conducted. We explained the above and how in the Netherlands "fraus legis" is committed by the State of the Netherlands. "Fraus legis", which in The Netherlands is often used in tax cases, is also applied differently than was originally intended. Here, the law or statute is setup such that its intended use is the prohibition of enjoying a right. Fraus legis is put into law under 18-USC-241, 242 as a comparison.
Since we were not the party demanding, but only served as the expert witness, we were not in the position to do what we normally would do: get the Clerk to send us the concept for our consideration and revision of the ruling within 3 days of the court-day.
In the Netherlands then, usually, either of two things happen: 1. No ruling at all, postponed indefinitely, or 2. a false ruling. The latter is done by only granting the demand as sustained or rejected without consideration and weighing, as is obligatory by statute. For if they were to rule correctly, the system would come crashing down like a diseased temple.
The point is: The Netherlands operates under the provision of "legaliteits-beginsel" as is expressed in the UVRM, EVRM, EU-constitution, ICCPR. One might consider that the rule of law: so all things proceed according to law. No law? no process. In and of itself not a bad idea, except for one small thing: Every Dutch born of Dutch parents with a family tree back to before 1780 has a right to sovereignty under natural and INTERNATIONAL law.
I think it is very important to consider this idea that a slave is enslaved at the mental level moreso than the physical level.
You cannot REALLY enslave a person physically if you do not FIRST have him enslaved mentally. He will fight back. Only when you have enslaved his mind will he cooperate in his physical enslavement.
The black African tribal kings hunted down, captured, and put their fellow black brothers and sisters into chains so that they could be sold into slavery in exchange for a little gold and silver (enslavement for a little bling bling).
At that moment in time, the enslaved were physically restrained, but not mentally accepting their enslavement.
It was only over time that they became mentally enslaved, to the point where they accepted their physical enslavement. Then, they passed that way of thinking to their offspring, who never knew anything else.
Two quotes from former REAL slaves back then are instructive of this mental slavery:
This is the mindset of many people living in North Korea now. It is also the mindset of many peole in the "Land of the Free" today.
THAT is the heart of the matter.