MELANIA RICKROLLED US!!!
Yes. For completeness, here is the searchable Magic Words, which attributes the sesame link to Walker's encyclopedia, 1983, so I think that pretty well confirms that her odd interpretation is the source. A Japanese site that mentions this source seems to attribute the seshemu data to (Wallis) Budge page 58, but naming that respectable author could mean many different books. The closest hit I find is Gods of the Egyptians in which Shesemu (not seshemu) is a divine butcher on page 50; that's much different and doesn't justify any of Walker's wild assumptions.
Funny, the next Magic Words after "sesame" are "shabukalakazam", "shallakazam", "sharing", and "shazam". Coincidence of course.
Last bizarre point: "Allahu akbar" in Hebrew cognates is just "El-Gibbor", a Biblical term for the great God. Arabic Christians have no trouble referring "Allahu akbar" to the Christian God and meaning the same thing as the Hebrew, but that's not yet the majority definition of "Allah".
Good questions. Abracadabra is hotly disputed but may come from Semitic roots related to avad and davar, meaning "it is done as I say"; other etymologies exist. This would also work in Arabic.
For alakazam, an archived link from Wiktionary goes back to Alagazam in 1881, from California and then Hawaii. Thus the Arabic origin is likely a later rationalization; "Kazaam" is not an independent word (great is "akbar"). Sesame Street popularized the variation that I'd spell "a la peanut butter sandwiches", which is pronounced as if taking the first part from the French "a la"; but it's not a completely innocent incantation either.
Yes, a genie repeating "Mecca" is likely to be intentional and the remaining syllables might be nonsense but might have a hidden meaning; and there's enough data about Paul Reubens to smoke more out there.
There are at least three issues, one being what is the historical meaning of a word, one being what can be evidenced as an attempt to insert new meaning into it, and one being what can be speculated upon. The difficulty is that as elite researchers we should keep them separate. We don't get to treat our speculations as necessarily intentional, and we don't get to treat what looks intentional as necessarily mainstreamed.
However, we can definitely say that "shazam" was coined in 1940 with explicit reference to paganism ("Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, Mercury"); so that gives us a potential trail for interpreting the earlier "alagazam" and variations. And who knows, shazam might someday get us all the way back to seshem (allegedly sesame)! I believe that everything hidden will be revealed.
And here's a more direct link: Arabic Sesame Street is called "Iftah Ya Simsim", Open Sesame, 1979, so that indicates intentional reference to genies, which can be inferred to apply to the English version as well. I might also accept that sesame has some old thread of arcane meaning; but it's not likely to be an Egyptian one. Again, my take is to put a restraint on headstrong, panicky allegations and to counsel people toward evidentiary, viable criticism.
Add: "hocus pocus" and "presto" are correct as you say.
Add: The "seshemu" claim seems to go back to Barbara Walker, Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, 1986, from which I reconstructed this erratic snippet:
The divine Houris also dwelt in the moon, which probably was the light of Aladdin's secret cave. See Moon. The Arabian Nights gave the password to Aladdin's cave: Open, Sesame. This was related to Egyptian seshemu, "sexual intercourse." The hieroglyphic sign of seshemu was a penis inserted into an arched yoni-symbol. Every ancient culture used some form of sexual for the idea of man-entering-paradise. Symbolism 1. Zimmer ( 54. 2. Polo 53-54. 3. Campbell, Oc. M, 430.
So unless Walker's sources can be traced I don't think the connection of intercourse to seshemu or seshemu to sesame should be sustained, as they're not independently verifiable but are likely to be imaginative.
And we haven't touched on Disney's Aladdin and the thousand-year disputed etymology of Disney.
Correct. Here, with my rebuttal, is the bizarre speculation that is pretending to be real criticism. When someone makes a decoy criticism that's easy to debunk it's often because they want real criticism, such as the wokeness that PBS specializes in, to go unnoticed. Maybe PBS is in bigger trouble than has been announced, stay tuned ....
Add: Due to my later research in this thread, I should say the OP as given, without the added craziness, passes muster because Sesame Street has identified itself, in its Arabic version, with "open sesame" since 1979. So the above version is sufficiently supportible by facts in spite of the longer version not being so.
I regularly larp as knowledgeable!
rookie numbers
Great link! Mainstream theaters refused it and you had to find the art-house cinemas who were willing to screen it when it came out.
Thoughts for u/MAG768720 mostly all in one place. First point, since I represent the Swamp Rangers at large I'm cautious about saying too much or speaking too directly to this issue, but because you've got the fundamentals I can go into more specifics. Specifically, I encourage everyone to stick to the main issue (income) because it's the side issues that have gotten so many into trouble. When the main issue is seen clearly the pitfalls of the side issues can be avoided.
Income: Yes, the tax is on "taxable income", which is a subset of "gross income", but then you stopped short of quoting 26 USC 61, and that's the statute not the regulation: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: Compensation ...." So gross income is defined as "income", which is itself never defined. Compensation and thus "wages" are categories of income. Because of the Constitution and the Supremes' constant insistence that labor for pay is a 14th-amendment property right (cf. Declaration), we realize that "income" and "wages" must only mean some evitable earning category, i.e. some transfer of money with federal (not state) nexus. If money changes hands in China without any US federal nexus, obviously it's not "income" or "wages" under US law, even though it may be by the dictionary definition. The law only applies to its jurisdiction. The reason for not defining "income" is that it would explicitly explain the federal nexus and make it much easier for the tax to be avoided by the masses via the structuring of affairs that you advocate. (It's also appropriate to use the former regulatory language, which you quote as "unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution", as indicating that we must apply the Constitution's protections and statements of jurisdiction to determine whether something is income.)
Wages: Now you correctly named the categories on the W-2 that might be considered income, but I'm focusing on "wages" because it's mentioned three times (1, 3, 5); and for many people that might seem redundant especially if all three boxes are identical totals. (The operation on other categories than "wages" can be handled separately.) Note that each classification of "wages" has a different withholding amount (2, 4, 6) due to a different tax. The same transaction is being taxed by three different forms of income taxes. In some cases, the amount of "wages" differ from box to box (for instance, if you are earning seven figures, your "Social Security wages" are not that whole number but a smaller maximum as a subset of all your earnings). So it's essential to understand all three taxes: you're taxed on (federal) "wages", "SS wages", and "Medicare wages", each defined differently. It's not redundant, and this is where you make a statement that plays into the hands of the misdirectors, because calling it Social Security or Medicare is not irrelevant at all.
Chapter 24: I like to point out there are actually four taxes of the same kind covered by Chapters 21-24 of Subtitle C: Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Medicare, and Federal Withholding. The first two were passed at the same time, but I don't think anyone's on Railroad Retirement anymore; so W-2 recipients see three. You refer to 3401(a), (c) (Chapter 24), which are definitions for Federal Withholding tax, particularly of "employee". Of course, remember that, in this definition, "includes" is construed according to 7701(c), so it does not necessarily include or exclude things not named; it must be determined what things are of the same category such that they are included along with the things named. So the nexus for box 1, withholding tax or FIT, is established due to the inclusion requirements of 3401(c); the other two nexuses are not.
22: For instruction, the definition of "employee" for Railroad Retirement is completely different and appears at 3231(b) (Chapter 22): it "means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation". Here the word is "means", not "includes", because the language is broad. However, "employer" is specifically defined for this chapter only in a very long text in 3231(a) that basically only means railroad employees, which obviously have the federal nexus. Nobody would deny that for RR purposes ordinary businesses are not "employers" but only railroad businesses. This is a clearcut example of how terms of art do not necessarily have the same definitions as the ordinary words they use; 3231(a) "employers" do not include all common-meaning employers. This indicates why we should be on our guard when determining the meaning of the terms of art that rely on inclusion to establish their nexuses. Another essential, when speaking of different taxes, words like "employer" and "employee" change meanings: you must know the scope of which tax you're talking about to know whether the payer is an "employer" or not, as most buyers of labor are not 3231(a) "employers" even though they call themselves employers.
21, 23: Since I've told you that Social Security and Medicare depend on Chapters 21 and 23, I'm sure you can take it under advisement that their taxes depend on different meanings of words like "employee" than the two I've explained. That's a big part of the confusion, because those who are aware of the various scopes can take advantage easily of those who are unaware of them. In particular, since "wages" has multiple meanings we can't just refer to one meaning as if it has universal scope; we must refer as the form does to (federal) wages, SS wages, and Medicare wages. That's why it's not just in DC and/or territories, and/or working for the government, and/or "working on the railroad" for a corporation; it's all cases of federal privilege or nexus that the government enumerates, or includes, anywhere in the law. To say less is to enter a minefield unprepared.
Side trail: The declaration under penalties of perjury (and the dilatory attempt by some to contrast "penalties" and "penalty") does not signify the nexus, it merely establishes that a return constitutes sworn evidence. For instance, the W-3 form is used by a payer to swear that the accompanying W-2's are submitted under penalties of perjury. If you do not submit a 1040 or similar sworn form, it's the payer's word against nobody else's. The 4852 does not have a declaration because it's designed to accompany the 1040 and be covered by the 1040's declaration; the 4868 doesn't have a declaration because it's a courtesy and no significant facts are being attested to. The purpose of the declaration is simply to make the submission actionable. If a person declares they owe the tax but doesn't pay it, that's actionable; if a person doesn't swear they owe the tax (e.g. unsigned 1040) then it's not actionable without some competent person making the assessment. (The IRS is empowered to be the competent person after a year or two; it's better to assess yourself than to let the IRS assess you by your inaction.) If someone says that signing is the activity that causes money to be income, rather than the nature of the money transaction itself, that person is distracting you. The signing of a W-3, a correct or an incorrect one, can't cause money to change its category either from what it was by the nature of its transaction. Those are just forms that report, on the reporter's limited knowledge, what the categories and amounts of the money are. Incorrect limited knowledge can be corrected later under applicable laws and regulations.
Conclusions: (1) If you believe it unnecessary to file anything when someone has filed an info return (W-2, 1099, etc.) stating that you earned income, we might argue that it's "unnecessary" meaning voluntary, but nonfiling abrogates your right to self-assessment, and the info return signed by another begins a clock that allows the IRS to assess you in lieu of your self-assessment, and that process is slow but not fun. (2) So I tell everyone, report on every transaction that others reported on your behalf, and pay all the taxes you owe; nonfiling may be conscientious disobedience but it exposes you more directly to the risks that most people are trying to avoid by adopting it. (3) The simplest case is accurate evaluation of the three categories of "wages" from the W-2, and you need to see the laws as to all three (Chapters 24, 21, and 23 in that order) before evaluating, as well as to understand that 7701(c) inclusion operates to add items similar to those enumerated. (4) I didn't spell out all the details in any of those three chapters because some work must be done by each student of truth; ultimately I can't decide for anyone but me the meaning of those chapters, as each person is responsible to be a sovereign citizen and determine the nature of the tax personally and assess accordingly. (5) In particular, that goes back to inspecting every info return you have received, knowing the definitions of the categories of income there described, and indicating, for your protection, your acceptance or correction of the amounts determined; no tax preparer would tell you any differently in the event that you sincerely contested the amount of "wages" received from a payer.
Thank you for noting. The issue is that the Internal Revenue Code is now designed to make accurate summation so difficult that people fall into traps that then get declared frivolous. It's my opinion that I've got it right and that I can explain it to others, but I could be wrong too! Have been watching for the critical mass to form that is agreed on the same path, but it hasn't and I've been working on other things. It would be interesting if the anons figure it out en masse and force Trump to get ahead of the issue instead of to work around it.
You can go to scored.co/feeds and program it yourself, just create a new feed and add all your favorite fren IDs to it. That's an underused resource here. If you title it well enough then other people might trust your selection of contributors. Just be cautious when adding because it's not easy to fix a feed that has too much in it.
isn’t always the clearest or most responsive to inquiries.
That's a standing criticism! For me, I try to make myself available to everyone to answer inquiries and help people draw conclusions, but I do it with Q&A and guided nudges rather than a seminar that people might think is advice. But the more that the whole scheme can be described by general consensus (and it's been done at Scored before), the more people can see it for what it is. Looks like the current system is scheduled to default into something else prior to the mass consciousness necessary on the IRC, though.
You're on the right track. It's true that income tax is indirect and thus uniform, but it's not AND but OR when you say 'living in, working in, and deriving their "income" from the federal territories and federal privileges'. Keep in mind there are many kinds of federal privileges, because if you don't you run the risk of (frivolously) oversimplifying the case. If you don't mind my assigning you homework, which are the privileges referred to on the W-2? They're generally not related to location of the work performed. The several categories and their confusability is one of the reasons people can't get the whole story even though it's in the IRC, and why people with parts of the story get slapped down easily as frivolous.
The US has Constitutional jurisdiction over "income" earned anywhere in the world by anyone. Therefore "income" must be limited in definition to categories of money transfers that have federal nexus. It's possible to have federal nexus in the 50 states and elsewhere outside the territories, therefore this is not the nexus. It's there in the IRC and it's there in the W-2 and other information returns.
Denying citizenship, denying ZIP code, or denying DC residence do not win cases, return money, or gain points. They do get people in trouble because they are generally not the nexus. Money transfers can constitute income wherever in the world you live and whatever citizenship or nationality you have; read the IRC for details. However, as implied above, if you've received a W-2 that's a credible allegation that you've been paid income and that allegation is not rebutted by referring to ZIP codes or other ineffective demurrals.
You're on the right track, but unless you read and understand the IRC you won't see where the nexus is found. You can start by finding the (three) boxes on the W-2 that allege income and investigating why there are three of them instead of just one.
W-2 and 1099 are not accusations of nonfiling or corrections, they are allegations of income categories. Some forms are corrected by edited versions of themselves, others are formally corrected by different forms. I haven't searched this lately, but see if there's an easily found IRS form that is used to correct erroneous forms W-2.
Excellent eye-opener. It doesn't settle on any one theory, just interviews several who have competing views on the correct application of the tax. The correct application is the one in the IRC, but not what its biased explications lead one to believe. Indeed David Rockefeller appears to have hated Aaron Russo after Russo refused an offer he couldn't refuse; but Russo also didn't get the whole story together. The Whitey Harrell trial in the film is gold for teaching jury nullification.
This part is right: labor without federal nexus is a property right always upheld by the Supremes, and is not taxable in itself. That's why it's so important to determine for sure, according to the IRC, whether your labor generates income or not, as there are several categories of income it can generate. It's not about confessing unless you don't know the law and inadvertently confess to something you don't understand. Read, cross-reference, and understand the law and you'll be fine.
Not too bad a link, tstr, but somewhat disorganized. Problem is, laws do permit the IRS to collect income tax if it has credible information (via info returns) that sufficient income was earned and if there is no contrary information. In those cases people in the 50 states do have to pay, similarly to if they earn money from a federal corporation. The law hides the nexus and that's why I tell people to find it.
We don't advance the situation by oversimplifying the nexus into things like "not in the 50 states", we handicap ourselves.
If you sign a document that states you do not have tax liability, that's not evidence you believe you do have liability. Volunteering correct info if you understand the law and have no liability is perfectly law-abiding.
Yeah but. Nonfiling is not a solution for most people even though filing is not formally required (it's voluntary). If you don't volunteer, you empower the IRS to draw its own conclusions about your income (confiscation is often legal), which conclusions will generally depend upon the information returns it received that were copied to you. It's all about the info returns, if they are accurate then pay the tax, if they are inaccurate then correct them so that they won't audit you.
OP imagines that the only nexus is DC connection. This is incorrect, because working in territories or for a federal corporation are easy examples of other nexuses. Unless you locate the nexus that associates you with income tax, you won't know for sure how much you owe, and it doesn't help to listen to quick takes.
This video is on track but it's one that oversimplifies the case by saying "Federal Income Tax Only Applies Inside the 10-Mile-Square District of Columbia". When we make the nexus too narrow, the government attacks us by showing the nexus is broader than that but without ever defining how broad. Except by reference back to the IRC.
"Income" is never defined, and the Supremes said it would be precarious to define, but categories of income are well-defined in the IRC and you need to review the definitions to determine the nexus and applicability of each. The government is incentivized to call it "correct" filing when they get enough money from it not to quibble over it. But correctness is according to the law. If you have an information return (look it up), someone has alleged to the IRS that you have income. If that allegation is correct, you should assess and pay the tax; if incorrect you should correct it on the record.
Interesting, this is a 2007 essay, but it gets the point across, namely that the income tax must be evitable to be Constitutional, but the government is not required to explain how or to disabuse people of the notion that it's inevitable. Details of course must be gleaned from the IRC rather than from editorial opinions like this.
"Happy Independence Day, United States!"
4 Jul 2019
That's consistent with Q, but then how does the first unseal of Trump's 34 charges on 2023-03-30 become the key trigger, and what is marker [9]?
I grew up on this man's questioning of all authority, even authority that looked perfectly reasonable to me at the time.
This is a voice to listen to for the necessary balance as to the risks that Trump can make mistakes that will come back to bite us later. It can happen either through Trump's overzeal or through a later team exploiting his technique. The time to make ready is now because the economy will permit. There are often good years to prepare the believers for the bad years.
So far Trump's work has appeared Constitutional to me but it's always necessary to watch for threats to the 4th through 7th amendments. We're all rightfully up in arms for many arrests and deportations, by the book, and this blinds people to any infiltrations that get in while this is happening and become means of going off-book.