-
Ken posted an update 4 years, 8 months ago
I know we here have a sense of this, but I wanted to put this down as simple as possible. Only Man is sovereign, not governments or corporations. They are the constructs of Men, are not alive and hence have no natural rights, as the individual has. These constructs are given laws to abide by, laws were meant for them, not us. There is no law, regulation, order or otherwise that is Lawful, if an individual has not violated another Man’s sovereignty. We have to stand in our own sovereignty and refuse to give it up for anyone or anything. And if these non-living entities choose violence, it is then that we can stand in defense of our flesh.
The Giza Forum (Legacy)
Closed Archive of The Old Forum
Man is not sovereign. I don’t mean to say that Man cannot be sovereign but what I mean is that a sovereign is an office that has subjects. Subjects specifically meaning “subjects to the rule of the sovereign”.
If you claim to be sovereign yet have no subjects may indicate a misunderstanding from “patriot law” definitions. A sovereign with no subjects has no power nor inducement through force to others. The emperor has no clothes. The Queen of the United Kingdom has subjects but that government also has clearly delineated laws and her subjects ascended to that rule and to become subjects.
Similarly, freedom is short hand to describe a state of self-control but it is a fiction. Freedom doesn’t exist in nature. You will never be “free” from gravity, Nature or God’s law and everything derives from Nature, even law. The distinction is that you are not free but you are RESPONSIBLE and you can only make the choice to be responsible for yourself or the people around you and the things that are important to you. You are responsible to get up in the morning as you start your day, you don’t float around at will because you are free from gravity and the laws of Nature. You cannot demand from someone your freedom, you cannot stop by demand for someone to not act criminally against you or the things you care about, the only power you have in this life is to be responsible for your safety and the ones around you.
Respectfully.
A few questions … What is the relationship between responsibility and freedom? I’m not quite sure how one can be responsible without being in some minimal state of freedom. It appears that responsibility presupposes freedom. The question may not be: Can we exert “self-control”?, the question may be instead: Can one exert “control over one’s self?” These may be, in fact, two very different questions.
I was not familiar with linear and non-linear polysemy, I didn’t get that far in linguistics. : )
I appreciate your point. “Freedom is fiction” as I stated was very strong in terms but I think it’s apt. Commonly speaking especially in America, freedom is extremely important to the American ethos. However that term has always implied a relationship to something that is granted by someone else, a sovereign if you will. Freedom is given and I believe stems from the Christian belief that God gives us free will to act but God in this case is a critical part of the definition that I think we have forgotten as a society. Freedom isn’t free. The term freedom does exist but is it useful to what we are trying to convey. Standing in front of armed despots claiming your freedom sounds a bit feeble as a retort to the possible injury presented and I believe informs our own actions incorrectly. If I come up against an adversary claiming my own freedom yet being dependent to that same despot for my very life, are we not in error? Maybe not in intention but certainly in strategery and most definitely in action because our words and actions are incongruent.
Responsibility on the other hand can convey a similar idea but with greater effect in my view because it removes the implied authority by which the depots acts. The depots needs to be or at least seem to be the responsible party even if it is the thinnest veneer of legitimacy even as we all know it is immoral.
I think currently with COVID and the subsequent legal challenges against immoral and harmful mandates. The state claims responsibility for our health but we are not challenging them on that basis that they do not have this responsibility or maybe we gave it to them long ago but didn’t understand the full ramification of our bargain. I remember a discussion between RFK jr and that lawyer that had the massage WITH his underwear on from an underage girl, I forget his name. The point he was making is that the government has taken that responsibility long ago and it was never successfully challenged and a $5 fine for not vaccinating a hundred years ago becomes compulsory injection of a damaging substance. Rather we claim we are free without providing any proof of independence. Today, the majority of us are alive on this planet simply by the ability of a state to successfully extract and make usable petroleum products. We are not free in that sense and yet we claim freedom while still claiming the resources provided in the agreement we ascend to.
If we claim independence, we have to be independent. If we demand our freedom, what does this freedom look like and would we capitulate? If we decide to become responsible ourselves, this gives us agency to act when they are not responsible and take the reins for ourselves. It becomes a much more civil interaction with less bullets.
This is way too long.
First, I want to state that while the roman empire did cease to exist as a governing political body, its laws, customs and financial system did not and most likely predates that particular iteration of government, in my view anyway. That system is hidden from us because we are not privy to those private agreements and is critical to trust law as well. If I have a trust, unless you are a party to that trust, you cannot know the particulars.
The rest of my analysis is taken from Clint Richardson’s work to a large degree and I simply connected some dots.
We know this country from the very beginning borrowed money to come into existence from France. This debt was then sold to the British Crown, the country we fought for our independence. After this there is some that believe that debt was then passed onto the Holy See. Furthermore, some have said that the United States was bankrupt and while these are for the most part thought of as conspiracy theories, they may indicate a financial mechanism for why our Constitution is not longer applicable as the United States is under conservitorship. This would mean that as debtor the US has to follow some unknown directives from its creditors as representatives of the people, our elected officials have the duty to exercise those directives while at the same time making sure the population doesn’t rebel. It’s a very fine line and one that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Maybe they thought that CIA ops and mind-control would solve that predicament. Do I know this for sure and do I have proof? No, but this is the most concise explanation that I can come up with to explain our current situation given all of the fact available.
I’ll stop here since I could go on but we have some amazing people here that are much smarter than I am and I think we can try to understand our predicament.