 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Before I begin to follow the links offered in the previous post, I think it might be a good idea for me to offer up a possible piece of the puzzle that I found when I was contacting, and studying the work offered by, Frank O'Collins.
Puzzle Piece:
The SOURCE link is now broken, as Frank O'Collins and his work is now restricted access information.
QUOTE:
The deliberate modification of English to being not only a commercial language but the primary language of occult knowledge and usage was confirmed by the massive undertaking in the creation of the “Authorized Version” of the Bible also known as the King James Version and the KJB or KJV. A further one thousand (1,000) words were introduced into the English language out of approximately eight thousand (8,000) word forms used in the text. Most significantly, the use of the Persian word God / Gad as the public name for Sabaoth, also known as Satan was introduced to replace Yehovah (YHVH) of the Catholic Church since the 8th Century as the primary deity worshipped, making the Church of England the reformed Aryan (Persian) religion of Menes, later known as Judaism.
End Quote
The willful employment of deception is not news, but the scope or scale of deception from least destructive to most destructive deception is a matter of concern, and the above is entered into the public record as a puzzle piece to help when the goal is to accurately identify those examples of deception that move closer to the most destructive productions of deception produced by living, breathing - evil - people.
If targeted victim's minds, targeted by evil people, can be controlled, so as to make otherwise independent, free, liberated, moral people think otherwise, to think in terms of blind obedience to falsehood without question, then said control, by whatever means, is an obvious motivator: thought set into action.
Control (Rule) by Criminal Means fall into 3 categories:
1. Deception (targeting victims to gain power from victims, whereby power flows to criminals in tangible, accurately measureable ways)
2. Threat of aggressive violence
3. Aggressive violence (all measurable as transfers of power flowing in measurable ways from victim to criminal)
There is also an intimate link between 1, 2, and 3 above, as understood, and vocalized, by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn SOURCE:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenitsyn-lecture.html
QUOTE:
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.
End of Quote
The example worthy of note in the context of American Law (common law must also be defined accurately and I want to offer a competitive version of the original, organic, definition) of obvious, measurable, employment of deception, so as to accomplish criminal goals, is the change of meaning from Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense for Federation, turning that word up-side-down, to now mean the opposite meaning, whereby the new meaning of the word is blind obedience to falsehood without question for the victims, and absolute dictatorial power for the criminals.
Moving to common law (and I do want to dive into the information offered, to then comment on that information), the source I find useful is Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner.
SOURCE:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial02.html
QUOTE:
All writers agree that this means the common law.Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says:
"The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128.
Meaning:
Everyone, without exception, where the exception to the rule are those who voluntarily except themselves (become outlaws by willful - with malice aforethought - independent choice) must agree unanimously to harm anyone else for any claimed wrongdoing by due process of law, in trials in courts of conscience, where representatives of the whole country must agree unanimously, so as to render the power of special interest groups, render the power of the majority, render the power of the minority, and render the power of the individual criminal, dictator, powerless at law, where said unanimity of the whole moral conscience (whatever that may be in any age of time) of the whole body of people are afforded that lawful power to set in motion redemption, remedy, or punishment = legem terrae = law of the land = trial by jury according to the common law = the common law = not a government separate from, divided from, the whole group of people in any jurisdiction anywhere.
When did the common law knowable in those terms offered above (and offered extensively in the Essay by Lysander Spooner) turn up-side-down?
The battle (I can re-find source material) to counterfeit the term Common Law, to turn the meaning up-side-down, has been a battle documented well enough. The first skirmishes in England were battles between the people's own common law on one side, and on the other side was a competitor known as Exchequer, Equity, Admiralty, Nisi Prius, Maritime, and other variations on the same Summary Justice theme.
If the only working definition for Common Law is the up-side-down Summary Justice definition, perpetrated by criminal usurpers wearing Black Robes that potentially are traditional attire traceable to devil worshiping pedophile cannibals, then a new word for due process, trial by the country, in courts of conscience is demanded: for that process is not new, it is an ancient process handed down for many generations, and it is an adaptable process, meaning that it is competitive in the true sense of the word, not the false, aggressively violent, sense of the word: competition.
Competition: better is found and employed until something better is found, and worse is acknowledged as such, and not employed until conditions may change and what was worse is now better.
While on that subject of words having genuine, useful, organic, moral, accurate, agreed upon, meanings, on one hand, and on the other hand are the same original words employed so as to fool people into false belief in opposite meanings: good turned into evil - while on that subject - the word democracy ought to be added sooner, rather than allowing these words to confuse the transfer of information any further.
So the list so far:
Common Law
a. Voluntary agreement of the whole number of people in cases of dispute concerning questions of law.
b. Blind obedience to falsehood without question: dictatorship hidden under a fancy black robe.
Federation
a. Voluntary association of units of government, or states, for the mutual defense of independent people UNDER Rule of Law (common law or any other word meaning the same thing)
b. Blind obedience to falsehood without question: Dictatorship
Democracy
For the record:
SOURCE:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html
QUOTE:
The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority.
End of Quote
The original meaning of the word democracy appears to have undergone similar treatment at the hands of people who willfully (and with malice aforethought) intend to subjugate victims under criminal rule by criminal means. Where once democracy meant rule by the whole number of people (a goal if not an actual accomplishment) has turned into so called Majority Rule.
Knowing how that is done (turning rule by the whole number of people into rule by special interest criminals) is a step toward knowing how that is defended against expediently.
I have work to do, so I'll need time (power is time and energy) to get that work done: before returning here again.