food for thought

[enegiss]

There is only truth and only the good heart can express it and receive it, all else is interpretation of the constructs created, using the sharp intellect (e-go) and the acute ambiguity of the man made systems of intellectual property it climbs within, to relish the emotional satisfaction of the squirming "lesser practiced" in the dark arts of seduction and temptation. :)

[iamani]

Hi enegiss

Thanks for the contribution, made me think.

'lesser practiced' = novice/initiate?

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

So... masks are mandatory for travel and shopping now. Oh, really? i think we know that they aren't, if only because of the police response that they would only get involved in the 'most serious incidents'...

i suspect this ties in massively with the disappearance of our 'beloved' monarch, but perhaps more on that in another post.

Most who have resisted the donning of the 'paper persona' (have a think about what that term means - please!) are now facing a dilemma of principle over practicality. Make no mistake, lines are being drawn in the sand here...

What can we do? That depends on our level of fortitude, and courage. Without masks we are about to become VERY visible in our stand against the sheep-mentality, but rather than curl up in fear and shrink from the challenge we could view this as an opportunity. Have we not been striving for such visibility...?

It's really quite simple... our defence is already in place in their own laws, it just takes a bit of creative thinking on our part.

Anyway, what can we do in practical terms right now? Like i said, that depends on which side of the line you choose. If slavery really is abhorrent to your conscience then your decision is made... it also depends on whether the old rules still stand or not.

Do you know what 'public trust' means?

It refers, in part, to public trust in the monetary system... and it is unlawful to breach the public trust... refusal of legal tender and/or insistence on a different form of legal tender is unlawful and a breach of the public trust - which, if i remember rightly, is a common-law crime. It's certainly a crime under international law.

Do you know what 'breach of the peace' means?

Being noisy? No. Making a scene? No. Fist-fight? Not really. It's not what most people think it is. The trick is in the word 'peace'. It's real meaning has been obscured by the simple removal of one word... it should read:

'Breach of the KING'S peace'

What is 'the king’s peace'?

It is made up of the reigning monarch's obligations to international treaties and laws and declarations etc. A police officer's duty is to uphold and enforce the king's international obligations (which might explain their tendency to assist bailiffs etc with impunity), and to not do so is dereliction of duty, abuse of office etc and probably treason.

With that in mind:

If i were to go shopping and i was informed by shop staff that i must don a paper muzzle, i would start recording (if not already doing so) and calmly and politely advise them that i am vulnerable to hypoxia and that to don such would both cause me distress and be detrimental to my health and my rights, both of which are protected under International law/treaty, and ask if they accept liability for such harm caused to my health, wellbeing and rights by their insistence that i adhere to arbitrary 'guidelines'. If they threaten to call the police i would basket an item and head for the till. If any staff lay a hand on me, that is trespass  -  they have no authority to touch me unless i attempt to steal something, which can only be determined upon my leaving the store with goods for which i had not offered payment. i would then offer cash to the teller for the item/items. If the teller refuses the offer of legal tender as payment for the goods (a clear breach of public trust) then the goods are mine. In taking the goods from the shelf with intent to take them home, i create a debt. If i offer to settle that debt with legal tender, and the offer is refused  -  the debt is expunged and the goods legally belong to me. i would then leave with my goods  -  ok, let me rephrase that: i would then attempt to leave with my goods, at which point security will most definitely lay hands on me... but that's ok. When the police arrive i would thank them for their attendance, record their details and tell them they are required, as per their sworn oath, to do their duty and arrest the shopkeeper/teller for breach of public trust in refusing legal tender, as i have video (and, if i am accompanied by friends, witness) evidence of the breach; and for them to arrest the security guard who detained me - for assault and battery and unlawful detainment. If they refuse, then i make the same offer of payment to the teller in full view of the officers. Now they are witness to a breach of public trust and must act.. Although doubtless they will ignore my instructions, when it becomes clear that payment was offered and refused, the police should (if they have a smidgeon of intelligence) either do their duty or advise the complainant that it is a civil matter and then leave. i say, 'should' but... you know... i would be sure not to do this on a Friday or Saturday. If they DO leave i have a cracking vid for YT that will show people that police have no authority in enforcing the mask guidelines... if the teller accepts the repeated offer of cash, from a mask-less man, in presence of police - another good YT vid...

If the police insist on being involved i would ask if they know what 'the king’s peace' is, and ask if it is their duty to uphold and enforce same eg U.D.H.R., I.C.E.S.C.R., I.C.C.P.R., etc as these forbid medical experimentation on people without informed consent, and as there is no evidence that wearing paper masks prevents spread of contagion, to compel people to wear them is an unlawful medical experiment, and that discrimination (denial of service) on the grounds of my refusal to self-harm via hypoxia breaches all of my rights and much legislation both domestic and international. When they ask me to identify myself i will agree on condition that my details are recorded henceforth in English language and style. It is impossible for them to do that, but i have not refused to identify. Alternatively i might offer my name in a biblical-format eg first-middle and patrilineal status eg John-henry James'son  (if my dad's first name is James). No-one is obliged to claim a surname under any circumstances, and police are not supposed to ask specifically for a surname  -  only your full (fool) name. A surname must be volunteered, never compelled.

Doesn't really matter what the outcome is - at least i would have made a stand.

These people (T.H.E.Y.) are skating on thin ice. Why? They have set out to deliberately impede the flow of commerce on the only basis available to them  -  the public (health) interest. When it is proven that the 'crisis' was manufactured T.H.E.Y. will have to answer for their unwarranted interference in commercial affairs, but that is for the future and would only be a problem for them under current administration - which i believe is being, or has been, removed. Imo it is a case of meet the new boss...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

70) As an acronym, L.A.W. (Land Air Water) is flawless... yet imperfect.

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

Paper scissor rock. Something we might use to decide a contentious issue when we don't have a coin to toss... and really simple. Paper wraps rock, rock blunts scissor, scissor cuts paper, paper wraps rock etc. Three parties, none with supreme power. A much abridged version of Top Trumps, if you like.

Does this approach work with law? Is there a simple game to be learned to improve one's results? i don't know, i tried and failed to come up with something so simple  -  but i made some interesting connections in trying...

A line in a song from an under-rated band of the eighties goes: "...and if Jesus Christ were alive today he'd be gunned down cold by the CIA..."
and the album title is anagogically helpful in being topical  -  "Infected".

Do that ring true to you too?

In the N.T. Jesus is asked when he would return and in his usual cryptic style he told the disciple to watch out for a man bearing a pitcher of water... this has commonly been accepted as a reference to the astrological age of Aquarius, a constellation (very) loosely interpreted as the image of a man emptying a pitcher of water. It is said we are now in or on the cusp of entering that age  -  and i suspect we have seen that man, or at least heard of him. It was in the last decade or two and i think maybe an Indonesian noble-man, named something like Siri, and he approached several high-ranking officials around the world (including James, Lord Blackheath) to offer them the means to wipe out the world's debt with real money (gold) and generously satisfy the present and future needs of all seven billion of us, indefinitely. So, of course... they put him in prison. Now i'm not suggesting he is Jesus 2.0 but that it may be the sign that was 'promised'... and don't get me wrong, this is nothing to do with religious belief but commerce.

What does that have to do with a pitcher of water?

Well, i was considering the acronym 'L.A.W.' ie Land - Air - Water and thinking it was a flawless way to remember the jurisdictions, is there a paper-rock-scissor scenario there  -  and then i realised that in being 'flawless' the acronym is made deliberately imperfect, and exposes a natural fourth jurisdiction that didn't quite make the acronym in that we are missing an element...  but again - i hear you say, that's not the only thing that's missing...

...don't worry, you'll soon get the big pitcher!

Money. Interest. Debt. Credit.

These are the four basic obligations of the world financial system. Without any one of these elements the system fails. 

Money creates interest creates debt creates credit creates debt creates interest creates debt creates credit creates debt creates interest...

Without constant addition of new money a fifth  -  and terminal  -  element is introduced: inflation... and i think we all know how that ends  -  we're feckin' livin' it, aren't we? There's a certain pin waiting to be pulled and... kerr-plunk!

...so i think we can see why the system is as it is, and the villain of the piece  -  usury interest! We can also see why the poor bloke is in jail  -  in paying off the world's debt with real money he would by extension be removing credit and interest and certain vested interests are heavily invested in the status quo, thank you very much, because it's no accident that the world debt is as high as it is, it's just the way T.H.E.Y. like it...

So what happens when we match the natural elements to the financial obligations to jurisdictions...?

Land = money = equity;

Air = interest = ecclesiastic;

Water = debt = law merchant;

...but aren't we owed something else here (other than an explanation of the pitcher...)? An element, an obligation and a jurisdiction by my reckoning. This is how it should really look:

Fire = credit =  law martial;

Land = money = equity;

Air = interest = ecclesiastic;

Water = debt = law merchant;

(ahem!) F. L. A. W.

...and the acronym 'L.A.W.', once perfect and flawless is now imperfect-ly 'F.L.A.W.-ed'  - but anagogically perfect.

Now we know how one may be both drowning in and burnt by debt!

Stick a fork in it, it's...

What's that you say? STILL something missing from this... pitcher? Oh, yes, that's right  -  i nearly forgot...

Common-law  -  why is it not listed with the other jurisdictions?

It's because we have been re-moved by 'The First Agreement' from our natural jurisdiction, our first estate... the earth. The term 'land' is perhaps almost fully synonymous with 'earth' but not quite  -  i think of 'land' as earth with an add-on element of fiction ie interest...  eg earth AND fiction  =  land  (=  us! ). Basically earth under title... Just as the land buries the earth, equity buries common-law.

(...or if French is part of one's (legal) language  -  le/la 'and'  =  l'and  =  land... but that's an adventure in anagogetymology for another dei...)

Whereas we can see why T.H.E.Y. might prefer the acronym L.A.W. over F.L.A.W., they must really, REALLY prefer we don't know about this one :

Fire = credit =  law martial;

Earth = money = common-law;

Air = interest = ecclesiastic;

Water = debt = law merchant;

F.E.A.R.... no, sorry, i mean - F.E.A.W.

(...bloody close though, innit?)

...and the pitcher of water is the world's debt.

Aquarius wants to empty the world's pitcher of debt, and it's going to happen. Mr Siri wants to pour it away from us, but T.H.E.Y. want to pour it all over us...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

71) Evil isn't always wrong.

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

72) Every man is woman, but not every woman is man...

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

'Cursive' (-English) writing is also known as 'writing-in-double' or 'double-writing'. Have you ever wondered why? i know i have. For that matter, why is 'cursive' writing so called  -  and how important are the answers to these questions?

Turns out  -  it's quite important...

(...at least if i have it right. Remember this is merely my current opinion.)

In researching the birth certificate and registration process i noticed that all hand-written entries are always styled the same eg for John Henry Doe the first and middle names are styled in cursive  -  never print  -  and the surname is always styled in ALLCAPS. Neither of these styles are classed as English. We know that the surname has nothing to do with the physicality of the new-born, so can be set aside in this context, at least for now, so i'm focusing on the given name.

The 'cursive' part is as it sounds at its root  -  'curse'. As in: The Curse. We are talking biblical here folks...

KJV Gen 3:
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

...so when the bairn's given name is styled in cursive, who or what is being cursed  -  the baby, or the biomass (afterbirth)? i believe the answer is in the quoted scripture.

So... who is actually cursed in the quoted passage? The man? No. At least not fully and directly, but perhaps partially. If one pays close attention one will notice that man is not cursed  -  punished, yes  -  but not cursed:

"...cursed is the ground for thy sake..."

He seems to be cursing the 'dust of the ground' man is partly made of. Which possibly appears to explain man's removal from land (ground) jurisdiction...

Is the woman cursed? Again, not directly. Punished but not cursed:

"...Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee..."

In other words  -  woman, you gonna be sorry!

By my reckoning that leaves only one player:

"...Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field..."

Of the three candidates only one is directly accursed  -  the surpent!

So let's look at what is 'manifested' at a birthing event  -  we have one mass of three aspects: the baby, the biomass/afterbirth, the mind/will/fiction. Who is who?

Mind/will/fiction  =  blood (/ink? Bible suggests the 'soul' is in the blood ie formed of dust and water)  =  man;

Biomass/afterbirth  =  flesh-and-blood  =  surpent+man

Baby  =  flesh-and-blood-and-bone  =  surpent+man+woman  =  any one of us.

Baby is violently dis-siezed of the serpent in the pegging of the umbilical, baby is now legally only man+woman, or more accurately just 'woman' but is given the benefit of the doubt for seven years to see if the baby shows presence of man/mind. In days gone by all children were termed as 'girl', males being distinguished by the term 'knave-girl' later shortened to just 'knave'.

So (at least tentatively): Man = blood, Woman = bone, Surpent = flesh.

Ergo: that which bears the accursed name (cursive first-and-middle) is the biomass aka the accursed surpent (a pulsating umbilical can easily be visualised as a snake), and whereas the boneless flesh that is the biomass (placental/umbilical afterbirth) also contains some blood then Man possibly shares the liability with the surpent  -  but take note that the biomass is boneless... no curse on Woman because, as a ward, she has no capacity for responsibility?

(Tbh i vacillate on the assignment of the various roles as i am yet to fully decode this text, and future posts may contradict this one but i am fairly confident i am on, or at least near, the right track here.)

Another point of note is that because both the biomass and the bairn share blood, and bearing in mind the forced separation (dividing one physical entity into two) it could be said there are now two 'vessels' for one soul, and no-one knows in which (blood)vessel the soul does reside until it makes itself known as manifestation of mind through demonstration of competence (a will). If no such demonstration occurs on the part of the bairn within 21 years it may suggest that the mind/man died with the biomass...

So those of us who have yet to taint our holdings are not considered man, but woman - regardless of physical gender.

The terms 'man' and 'woman' are NOT (imo) gender specific  -  they refer to status of mind. With mind = Man,  without mind = WithOut man = w.o.man. Feel free to substitute 'mind' for 'will' and see where that leads...

Looking at what happened when they 'ate of the forbidden tree' one can deduce the fruits of said tree:

Fear (brought on by shame)  -  a consequence suffered by man:

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Sorrow  -   suffered by woman:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Guilt  -  assigned to the surpent:

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;...

(...who didn't seem at all bothered, and is never heard from again...? Odd...)

...we know guilt assigns liability, and 'cursed' = pledged. So he is 'pledged above' the cattle and every beast of the field, he is made a surety for them.

All three (fear, sorrow, guilt) are pre-cursors (ha!) to 'wisdom'.

From this we can also deduce further labels applied to man and woman. For instance LORD God is very specific as to whom the surpent is 'cursed above' ie all cattle and every beast of the field:

Cattle = physical chattel = movable property = flesh-and-blood-and-bone = our physical selves = Woman

Beast of the field = a fiction = intellectual property = Mind/will/fiction = our fictional selves = Man

Which possibly means the surpent just became surety for the deeds of man (beast of the field) and woman (cattle) ie he holds legal title as trustee/guarantor.

...now where have i seen those terms 'cattle' and 'beast of the field' before...?

KJV Gen 2:
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

...was not man formed of the (dust of the) ground (plus water/mist)? Would this verse not then suggest that man is a 'beast of the field'? Also note this is first appearance of the name 'Adam' and bear in mind the possibility that 'man' and 'Adam' are not originally one and the same thing. Look at what Adam is doing - he's 'naming' things. Such is usually the preserve of the creator of a thing and furthermore 'that which names' is Logos ie 'meaning' and 'word'. Also bear in mind that these 'beast of the field' are 'formed' rather than 'created' or 'made' (a very interesting word btw) suggesting these creatures are written into existence like deeds, titles, wills etc.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Names = titles;

Cattle = chattel goods = movable property = people-as-slaves;

Fowl of the air = ? (still working on that, but note that the surpent was not cursed above the fowl of the air...)

...now look at this marvel of grammatical dexterity:

'...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.'

This is possibly a false allusion to Adam and man being one and the same and it is done very simply - this (again imo) is the correct arrangement of that line:

' ...there was not found an help meet for him, but for Adam.'

...which of course suggests Adam to in fact be the only prospective 'help meet' for man.

KJV Gen 3:
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Subtil = a concept hard to grasp.

It can also be broken down to:

Sub-till = under the (tilled) ground

So that which is subtil/underground is beneath the notice of man... (i believe this is what sub-repo sur-repo refers to)

...i think this verse is key to one's understanding, but for now we're just concerned with the reference to the 'beast of the field' which in this case illuminates the reason why 'man' did not protect Eve from the surpent - he is not aware of nor can he even comprehend the existence of the surpent. Why? Because knowledge of the ways of the serpent was removed in chapter two (the rib - another word for close scrutiny if you want good understanding). So he did not see or hear the surpent at the time of 'eating' (which is evidenced by the fact he blamed the woman and even LORD God rather than mention the surpent), nor even when the LORD God was chewing-out the three of them prior to kicking them all out. Man had no idea he was even eating of the forbidden tree until it was too late and the fruit (ie the experience) could not be returned. The fact that the surpent was not too subtil for Eve ie she noticed and recognised it; marks man as the 'beast of the field' referred to, which by process of elimination marks woman as 'cattle'.

So the entity being referred to when the given/pledged name is hand-written in cursive would appear to be, by deduction from the above interpretation, the surpent in physical form ie the biomass (coincidentally also known as 'the lamb of God') which is/was also your living flesh-and-blood which means it is/was you...

(...and the pledged/given (accursed) name is always hand-written (which means someone is feckin' liable!) in cursive-english and which is why on the original form for birth registration it asks for: 'child's given name, if any' which is basically asking the parent to confirm and sign that they are pledging the child to the owner of the (birth) register!)

If something is pledged it is cursed, and:

Given = pledged

...so:

Given name = pledged name (/title) = title to the accursed

So the biomass is you and yet isn't you, simultaneously. It's two things at once... which leads me to wonder whether Heisenberg's quantum super-positioning uncertainty principle and the 'Schroedinger's cat' theory were brought to public notice just to lend pseudo-scientific quasi-legitimacy to the possibility of one thing being two things simultaneously for the Catholic Church...? Same as they did for the heliocentric theory...? Hmmm...

...and double-writing? Well, you are writing for your 'double' with every (cursive-english) signature, which is why we print our autograph and don't join it to the surname.

Would you believe i thought this would be a short post...?

Cheers!

[LionsShare]

iamani,

Hi, as usual very thorough, & it certainly throws open more ideas/different thinking to what - the world or system - is around us.

cheers

LS

[iamani]

Hi LionsShare

Thanks, i hope it turns out to be useful.

Cheers!