Gatekeeping the Truth of the Magna Carta

[christophera]

By misinformation made possible through a dumbing down taken on internationally.

http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

The issue I address with this thread is very important. If we cannot understand history ourselves, without having to be told by authority created by the forces we see opposing us in our interests freedom, we logically cannot be free.

People can be made to work earnestly against their own interests, or gatekeep on truths vital to them without knowing it. A gatekeeper can refuse to let you in, or ignore your banging at the gate.


I posted a thread Magna Carta - Motives of Parties

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66822

And there were a few posts by people who are innocuosly gatekeeping on the truth of the Magna Carta. They don't know that, but they also have not read the Magna Carta to learn for themselves, .................... rather than believe what they were told by those who would mislead and misinform in order to dis empower.

So, yozhik, dreamweaver, curtaincat, alisa2, who posted in that thread, thanks for posting, but I take this matter seriously and this thread is to show or consolidate your interest, or that you believe you know the motives of the parties and to ask again that you as well as others, read the Magna Carta and justify your beliefs in how history chooses to interpret the Charter for you.

What alisa2 wrote may be a method of using something that predicates or is used as reference and guided by the legislation the king began over 50 years after the Magna Carta was signed.


Legislation began with King Edward I (1272-1307)
........

So, legislative, or statute law, is the law for a certain class of the king's people: those who enjoy political rights. Today, all we have is this type of law. The common man's natural rights simple aren't recognized anymore- or won't be recognized if you don't use their statutes.

By introducing this perspective on the Magna Carta to those who are familiar with common law I hope to reveal a method for gaining recognition of the rights that are supposed to be upheld by the statutes and how they were originally secured.

After a few examine my point of the disparity of motives of the signers as history records it compared to who the document actually serves, the incongruity can be seen. It is not small, ............... and such a thing cannot basically exist IF history properly represents the past and why the signers are agreeing to do what the Charter compels them to do.

[yozhik]

By introducing this perspective on the Magna Carta to those who are familiar with common law I hope to reveal a method for gaining recognition of the rights that are supposed to be upheld by the statutes and how they were originally secured.



I am troubled by the premise upon which the thread is founded.

Your inference is that Rights are upheld by statutes and that Rights are "originally secured".
I can't agree with this.

Unalienable Rights neither require statutes to support them, nor do they need to be secured.
They are inherent, in each and every one of us.

Statutes prescribe rights to citizens, because citizens, as a product, a legal fiction of a political society, do not have any. A citizen, a person; is a thing. Similarly, if a statute can prescribe rights, it can also extinguish them; just as we witness almost on a daily basis.

Now, as for the Magna Carta; which one are you referring to?
The Treaty of 1215? Or the codification into statute 50+ years later?
Many will claim that most of the Magna Carta has been repealed (erroneously); a Treaty can not be repealed - only a statute is repealed.
So the question then to ask is; is the Magna Carta 1215 still relevant and is it superior to the later codified version, which has been repealed through time and rendered impotent by parliament?

Next, if you are going to hold the Magna Carta up as a pivotal document, then you must also consider the relevance of the 1213 submission to Pope Innocent III. This pre-dates the MC 1215 and removes the allodial title from King John, to The Vatican, meaning that as a papal tenant, the King did not "Own" the land that the Barons and social elite enjoyed from their King - they were merely sub-tenants. Was the Magna Carta drafted with this fact recognised and recorded? If not, does it nullify the entire document? Or does King John's status as holder of fee simple title and agent for The Vatican still render the land ownership and governance as valid?

Essentially only three questions or three core issues, but all with importance;
1) the impact and consequences of the 1213 submission to Pope Innocent III, including the signing and handing over of the Kingdom, in return for title as agent and fiefdom.
2) is the 1215 Magna Carta relevant, given the absence of a Kingdom?
3) which is the "superior" Magna Carta; the 1215 treaty or the later statute?

[christophera]

I am troubled by the premise upon which the thread is founded.

Your inference is that Rights are upheld by statutes and that Rights are "originally secured".
I can't agree with this.

Unalienable Rights neither require statutes to support them, nor do they need to be secured.
They are inherent, in each and every one of us.

Statutes prescribe rights to citizens, because citizens, as a product, a legal fiction of a political society, do not have any. A citizen, a person; is a thing. Similarly, if a statute can prescribe rights, it can also extinguish them; just as we witness almost on a daily basis.

Now, as for the Magna Carta; which one are you referring to?
The Treaty of 1215? Or the codification into statute 50+ years later?
Many will claim that most of the Magna Carta has been repealed (erroneously); a Treaty can not be repealed - only a statute is repealed.
So the question then to ask is; is the Magna Carta 1215 still relevant and is it superior to the later codified version, which has been repealed through time and rendered impotent by parliament?

Next, if you are going to hold the Magna Carta up as a pivotal document, then you must also consider the relevance of the 1213 submission to Pope Innocent III. This pre-dates the MC 1215 and removes the allodial title from King John, to The Vatican, meaning that as a papal tenant, the King did not "Own" the land that the Barons and social elite enjoyed from their King - they were merely sub-tenants. Was the Magna Carta drafted with this fact recognized and recorded? If not, does it nullify the entire document? Or does King John's status as holder of fee simple title and agent for The Vatican still render the land ownership and governance as valid?

Essentially only three questions or three core issues, but all with importance;
1) the impact and consequences of the 1213 submission to Pope Innocent III, including the signing and handing over of the Kingdom, in return for title as agent and fiefdom.
2) is the 1215 Magna Carta relevant, given the absence of a Kingdom?
3) which is the "superior" Magna Carta; the 1215 treaty or the later statute?

Thank you yozhik.

By "originally secured" I mean there was a force moving the signers.

I agree with your position on inalienable rights, what I refer to is how they became recognized and integrated into common law, statute law etc.

I agree and thank you again for your summary of rights and definition of statutes and treaties not repealable etc. Excellent! Thank you thank you!!!! That must be WHY history misrepresents the motives of the signers. They want the people to not respect the MC because it is not repealable and it give the people great power IF they understand WHY it was signed. After I explain what I've learned, you'll see why.

To answer your questions.

1)From my understanding the political situation was very heated and very confused with a great deal of social fear that actually ran the society on a level. From my understanding of the decades proceeding, those forcing the parties to sign the MC could summon more respect from a social position expressed towards the vatican than the barons or their master. Accordingly you must be correct in that King Johns vatican agent status was the most acceptable to the forces compelling the treaty so could only expect that the King would be responsible to the peoples interests and make the Barons accountable for abuses.

2)From the secretary of the state of California I ordered a free paperback booklet with the United States Constitution and the California state Constitution published by the state. I was surprised to find the 1215 Magna Carta as the first in a chain of social contracts. The MC is made valid by those it serves, not the Kingdom it is made in. A good kingdom would properly recognize it and pass it on, a bad one would try to diminish the people awareness of the service of the social contract.

3)The 1215 is recognized in the book mentioned in 2) probably because of the non repealable status of a treaty.

Now, let me tell you a story my father told me, and his regard for the Magna Carta was immense. Our family goes back to England as Norman/Saxon warriors with a surprising sentiment for the meanings of the conflicts of the past, today.

His father told him that the fathers before him told each generation to never forget a time when all the peasants stood in the fields at night, in the dark, surrounding the baronage. They all had a tool as a weapon. In clusters they would lightly pound the tool on the ground and chant,

Hack, Sack, Burn and Sow, Hack, Sack, Burn and Sow, Hack, Sack, Burn and Sow, Hack, Sack, Burn and Sow.

Investigating this persistent memory I found it accompanied with a few vague words of a poem or song that I feel he also shared in general relation or to reference to some brutal battles he indicated that were shamefully so, might be identified in the English folklore if I share those words and what they meant to him.

Tilling the barons keep, but not as one of the sheep, to keep us one for we have won, ........

Does anyone have any connection to oral histories of the unwritten histories of the Isles when I mention these things?

[yozhik]

2)From the secretary of the state of California I ordered a free paperback booklet with the United States Constitution and the California state Constitution published by the state. I was surprised to find the 1215 Magna Carta as the first in a chain of social contracts. The MC is made valid by those it serves, not the Kingdom it is made in. A good kingdom would properly recognize it and pass it on, a bad one would try to diminish the people awareness of the service of the social contract.


I don't hold out much hope for the Constitution as a worthwhile document.

It seems that the Constitution was never intended to protect the Rights of every man, woman and child, as they were not a party to it.

The most misunderstood three words in this document are; "We, the people".

This never meant every man, woman and child as "the people".
"The people" refers to the political social elite, as they were known as.

Like many other false benefits and privileges thrown to "the dumb masses" over the centuries, I fear the Constitution s just another false trinket. This is why when a poor, misinformed man or woman is hauled into a courtroom and desperately tries to claim their constitutional rights, more often than not, it is thrown out.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in
court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is
true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs.
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520

You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one)
the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you.

You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract
(Constitution) that you are not a party too. [snip]
When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a
CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to
infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to.

Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights.
You are a mere user of your Masters property! Here are just a couple of examples:

"The primary control and custody of infant is with the government."
Tillman V. Roberts, 108 So. 62

"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband,
the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual
so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting
to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to
the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress
1st Session. (Brown v. Welch, supra)

You own no Property because you are a slave.
Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute
inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were
instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People,
13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

Source Article (http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/Britian-Pontiff.html)

[christophera]

I don't hold out much hope for the Constitution as a worthwhile document.

It seems that the Constitution was never intended to protect the Rights of every man, woman and child, as they were not a party to it.

The most misunderstood three words in this document are; "We, the people".

This never meant every man, woman and child as "the people".
"The people" refers to the political social elite, as they were known as.

Like many other false benefits and privileges thrown to "the dumb masses" over the centuries, I fear the Constitution s just another false trinket. This is why when a poor, misinformed man or woman is hauled into a courtroom and desperately tries to claim their constitutional rights, more often than not, it is thrown out.

Then again, if "the dumb masses" threatened the barons with extinction if they didn't act in accord with common law and that is where the MC came from. Generations later we could assimilate the ideal, and just see that such is made to dominate every contract we might be held to or those who would be in government abide by.

You've well described the decay, in soluton can you describe or prescribe a collective mental state where "the dumb masses" unify meaningfully to do what is right using what we all know about what is wrong and going the other direction?

[yozhik]

The "solution" I believe exists is the belief in "I am" and the truth within.
Instead of deifying documents and contracts, knowing who you are is supremely powerful.

We have been hoodwinked into believing single documents such as Magna Carta and The Constitution captures our Rights and our powers, whereas the truth of the matter is the power, sovereignty and our Rights are much closer and do not require writing to be enacted.

They are inherent and unalienable in all of us; all we have to do is claim them.

[dreamweaver]

So, yozhik, dreamweaver, curtaincat, alisa2, who posted in that thread, thanks for posting, but I take this matter seriously and this thread is to show or consolidate your interest, or that you believe you know the motives of the parties and to ask again that you as well as others, read the Magna Carta and justify your beliefs in how history chooses to interpret the Charter for you.

Well, let me make it clear that I'm no expert on this, nor do I claim to be. Maybe I'm not reading your post correctly but it comes across to me that you are saying you have found the One True Way of interpreting the true motives behind those documents, which is rather silly.

There are no "rights" apart from what we as people make our rights. There are morals that are so self-evident (e..g. don't murder people, don't rape people, don't steal their stuff) that we could regard them as natural - but it's what we as human beings decide to do that counts, not what various bits of paper say.

[1694]

The "solution" I believe exists is the belief in "I am" and the truth within.
Instead of deifying documents and contracts, knowing who you are is supremely powerful.

We have been hoodwinked into believing single documents such as Magna Carta and The Constitution captures our Rights and our powers, whereas the truth of the matter is the power, sovereignty and our Rights are much closer and do not require writing to be enacted.

They are inherent and unalienable in all of us; all we have to do is claim them.

You seem to be getting the picture, however we have to go further than claim them, you must estblish and defend them....which is where the problem lies.

[bsmurph83]

You seem to be getting the picture, however we have to go further than claim them, you must estblish and defend them....which is where the problem lies.

this is practicality rearing its ugly head. but, rather than 'defending' our rights, as would someone who wishes to dispute and thus, be dishonourable, might we not benefit more from a different approach that keeps us in honour? for instance, challenging those who would assume authority over us to invalidate those rights or prove they do not in fact exist. watch them squirm.

"i take it by your silence that those rights do exist and I further take your unwillingness to sign an affidavit under your full commercial liability under penalty of perjury attesting to those rights not existing as your agreement that they do exist...."

then again, there's always the guy with the gun. that's when we do the squirming... but the 'authorities' aren't much use unless we educate them as to our rights and their duties, and how they can best avoid violating these things. this process will benefit all parties in the long run, because once the cops run out of people to police, it will be THEM losing their homes and families or getting thrown in the detention centres and prison camps next.

[bsmurph83]

(hopefully it doesn't get to that point, of course...)

[christophera]

The "solution" I believe exists is the belief in "I am" and the truth within.
Instead of deifying documents and contracts, knowing who you are is supremely powerful.

We have been hoodwinked into believing single documents such as Magna Carta and The Constitution captures our Rights and our powers, whereas the truth of the matter is the power, sovereignty and our Rights are much closer and do not require writing to be enacted.

They are inherent and unalienable in all of us; all we have to do is claim them.

I can accept what you say. Seems inherently accurate.

I think my point is that our ancestors claimed them and did a fair job of it. I would like to think that they tried to spare us having to do it again, knowing how hard it is to get many people working together and make a we, and tried to create a state of being that was accepted by all which held our rights and powers for us.

And, ...... I suppose they did, but subsequent generations forgot to conduct a proper re-claiming at regular intervals and so the rights and powers lost definition and we lost our grasp upon them.

So essentially, it is about us learning how to make a we. Our functional and perceptional and existential unity. Once we have that, we can create what we need again, ...... if we have to.

[christophera]

this is practicality rearing its ugly head. but, rather than 'defending' our rights, as would someone who wishes to dispute and thus, be dishonourable, might we not benefit more from a different approach that keeps us in honour? for instance, challenging those who would assume authority over us to invalidate those rights or prove they do not in fact exist. watch them squirm.

"i take it by your silence that those rights do exist and I further take your unwillingness to sign an affidavit under your full commercial liability under penalty of perjury attesting to those rights not existing as your agreement that they do exist...."

then again, there's always the guy with the gun. that's when we do the squirming... but the 'authorities' aren't much use unless we educate them as to our rights and their duties, and how they can best avoid violating these things. this process will benefit all parties in the long run, because once the cops run out of people to police, it will be THEM losing their homes and families or getting thrown in the detention centres and prison camps next.

Great approach because it demonstrates the truth. I think it is a part of us becoming a we.

Actually I feel it could be a compelling ceremony for each generation that we might join, in time, with our ancestors that sacrificed so much before the bonds forming their "we" the one that defined our rights and freedoms then submitted them with hope into permanency via agreement with opposition into various social contracts throughout time.

[yozhik]

I can accept what you say. Seems inherently accurate.

I think my point is that our ancestors claimed them and did a fair job of it.

How?
When?

Don't misinterpret my questions; they're not intended to be disruptive ... they are genuine.

At what point in history has the deception been revealed and reversed?
At what point in history were Rights successfully claimed, respected and upheld?
At what point in history has the moral majority ever overcome the insidious minority?

You seem to be US and UK specific; fair enough.
At what time in history did the Magna Carta ever bring "justice" and a "pure" (not corrupt) system to either country?
At what time in history did the Constitution ever genuinely protect the rights of the common man?
When were the interests of the social elite, the bankers and the politicians ever NOT served?

[christophera]

How?
When?

Don't misinterpret my questions; they're not intended to be disruptive ... they are genuine.

At what point in history has the deception been revealed and reversed?
At what point in history were Rights successfully claimed, respected and upheld?
At what point in history has the moral majority ever overcome the insidious minority?

You seem to be US and UK specific; fair enough.
At what time in history did the Magna Carta ever bring "justice" and a "pure" (not corrupt) system to either country?
At what time in history did the Constitution ever genuinely protect the rights of the common man?
When were the interests of the social elite, the bankers and the politicians ever NOT served?

The deception relating to WHY the Magna Carta exists, signed as a treaty, is exposed here and now, if you will have it.

Those people that forced the ptb of 1200AD England, with their claim of rights to recognize them and respect them. That status was claimed an upheld for some time. Long enough for the force of common law to establish itself as an expectation of the people of England and to be transferred by reference to the founding of the American government.

In history, at 1215, the moral majority over came the insidious minority to a significant degree.

Following the civil war there was a sincere, and somewhat successfull attempt to integrate some of the accountability of the Amagna Carta into United States Federal codes. The are referred to as 'Civil rights reconstruction era" laws. Those laws were fairly well upheld, not with great consistency to be sure, until perhaps 20 years ago where Title 42, §1988 was written, and the dumbed down population did not watched how it was abused by twisting it completely.

The issue of the elites and bankers resides with their unity and our division.

I know for a fact that they use the unconscious mind extensively, secretly to create the unity that they use to oppress us. At the same time the church, for 2 millenia have persecuted humanity for having used or using the human unconscious mind.

Now humanity is so afraid of it unconsciously they would rather die or be slaves than talk about it. Our tool for unity is relinquished in fear. The fact that my thread about our unconscious is probably 15 pages buried establishes that we are too afraid of our unconscious to discuss it.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63148&page=2

Only 2 ways remain to claim our rights and freedom. Extreme violence, or competent, fearless understanding of our unconscious mind then uses of it to prevail in enforcement of the competent treaties of our ancestors who used the extreme violence method. Society, in its abeyance, has removed the fact that those ancestors used the unconscious to keep their clans, tribes and familes strong and unified.

[christophera]

The fact is that we can recover the ability to work with our unconscious existence, but we will have to use the unconscious to do that.

In order to offset the fear, the logical defense agains that very same knowledge of the unconscious, lest it control us unconsciously in some way, or allow such, must be known.

Ironically, most people already know it, or have a sense of it already as a part of life.

Love is the ultimate protection from the darkside of the unconscious mind because it is the ultimate purpose because it protects life and the unconscious wants to live. It knows that its children want to live and love.

This is something we can do. Work with ourselves. Many need healing from indulgent lifestyes that have near destroyed them. That is the place to start and it has already begun. Here is the documentation.

http://algoxy.com/psych/thetreatment.html

[bsmurph83]

[QUOTE=christophera;1026038]The fact is that we can recover the ability to work with our unconscious existence, but we will have to use the unconscious to do that.

In order to offset the fear, the logical defense agains that very same knowledge of the unconscious, lest it control us unconsciously in some way, or allow such, must be known.

Ironically, most people already know it, or have a sense of it already as a part of life.

Love is the ultimate protection from the darkside of the unconscious mind because it is the ultimate purpose because it protects life and the unconscious wants to live. It knows that its children want to live and love.

QUOTE]

christophera, i'm just wondering what you consider to be the contents of the 'unconcious' preventing people from dealing with various strands of info. and what are you defining as 'the unconscious' exactly? is the issue as simple as peoples' fear of what they might find out; the fear that what they suspect to be true deep down will ultimately turn out to be true?

i think that your thread being buried that far in is quite a nice piece of symbolism! *grin*

[christophera]

christophera, i'm just wondering what you consider to be the contents of the 'unconcious' preventing people from dealing with various strands of info.

Fear, more specifically, social fears. Social fears made disproportionatly large by extreme behaviors persecuting those that utilized knowledge of the unconscious mind consciously in their societies. Primarily oral histories which were kept with hypnosis in the unconscious mind. The extreme persecutorial behaviors we know as the crusades were about stopping people from forming the natural societies which developed over millinea.
Genetic memory preserved the fear without any conscious awareness of what the fear was or why the fear was there.
Accordingly, the consciously learned information about the mind, or that there is an unconscious, something learned in a standard education or common knolwedge. Becomes a latent fear that is invoked as soon as the word "unconscious" is heard.
Everyone reacts differently to this because of familial memory, religious upbringing, social position and other things.

and what are you defining as 'the unconscious' exactly?

The right brain, the Id. Here is a good read I copied up written by Colin Wilson as compiled from medicine that deals with "Our Two Minds".

http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/twominds1.html

Many other scanned pages of key authorities on the unconscious mind at that site.

Subconscious I consider to be possibly reachable by the conscious mind under certain conditions for certain people. The unconscious, no. As close as you get to knowing it is a feeling when you are confronted with perceptional information matching something in the unconscious.

is the issue as simple as peoples' fear of what they might find out; the fear that what they suspect to be true deep down will ultimately turn out to be true?

Very insightful comment! Probably more true than you realize in more areas than you would suspect or unconsciously controlled behaviors cover up more about our lives than we want to know.

For example. Notice it is the conservative right that cannot listen to 9-11 truth. It is not because they believe the official story, it is because that they know unconsciously that it was manipulation of the unconscious that compelled the secrecy that the event was created with. They know unconsciously because they are a part of a religion that is working to supress the knowledge of the unconscious. The unconscious message from the church and everyone in it is "We won't like you if you start to be conscious of any of that. You will be rejected and ridiculed."


i think that your thread being buried that far in is quite a nice piece of symbolism! *grin*

So that didn't escape you huh? I've bumped it enough. Now I'm just referring to it as it's depth in the forum gets deeper and deeper proving the point better and better. I say that because posters here say they know and accept that occult stuff controls secret societies etc. or imply that they can handle discussion on such, but when a thread that deals with it directly in tangible terms of science or psychology comes along, only a few can dig in momentarily.
Then, they become afraid to post more than a few times lest they alienate their society to them.
It is something learned at a very early age in very subtle ways.

[bsmurph83]

Fear, more specifically, social fears. Social fears made disproportionatly large by extreme behaviors persecuting those that utilized knowledge of the unconscious mind consciously in their societies. Primarily oral histories which were kept with hypnosis in the unconscious mind. The extreme persecutorial behaviors we know as the crusades were about stopping people from forming the natural societies which developed over millinea.
Genetic memory preserved the fear without any conscious awareness of what the fear was or why the fear was there.
Accordingly, the consciously learned information about the mind, or that there is an unconscious, something learned in a standard education or common knolwedge. Becomes a latent fear that is invoked as soon as the word "unconscious" is heard.
Everyone reacts differently to this because of familial memory, religious upbringing, social position and other things.



The right brain, the Id. Here is a good read I copied up written by Colin Wilson as compiled from medicine that deals with "Our Two Minds".

http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/twominds1.html

Many other scanned pages of key authorities on the unconscious mind at that site.

Subconscious I consider to be possibly reachable by the conscious mind under certain conditions for certain people. The unconscious, no. As close as you get to knowing it is a feeling when you are confronted with perceptional information matching something in the unconscious.



Very insightful comment! Probably more true than you realize in more areas than you would suspect or unconsciously controlled behaviors cover up more about our lives than we want to know.

For example. Notice it is the conservative right that cannot listen to 9-11 truth. It is not because they believe the official story, it is because that they know unconsciously that it was manipulation of the unconscious that compelled the secrecy that the event was created with. They know unconsciously because they are a part of a religion that is working to supress the knowledge of the unconscious. The unconscious message from the church and everyone in it is "We won't like you if you start to be conscious of any of that. You will be rejected and ridiculed."



So that didn't escape you huh? I've bumped it enough. Now I'm just referring to it as it's depth in the forum gets deeper and deeper proving the point better and better. I say that because posters here say they know and accept that occult stuff controls secret societies etc. or imply that they can handle discussion on such, but when a thread that deals with it directly in tangible terms of science or psychology comes along, only a few can dig in momentarily.
Then, they become afraid to post more than a few times lest they alienate their society to them.
It is something learned at a very early age in very subtle ways.

yeh, the ol' herd mentality and fear of what others will think of them if they think different thoughts. especially the thoughts that have been stigmatised. if it's not 'PC', then you immediately alienate yourself from a large chunk of the population who have been conditioned to "not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories", as Dubya once said. psychological fascism (strict conformity) is actually politically correct, no matter how much hollow rhetoric is spewed about being 'impartial', 'liberal', or whatever the fuck way people try to delude themselves into believing they are preceptive, open-minded and aware. and hey, regarding your comments on people being reluctant to comment on these topics or deal with them, I guess people just hate to consider the ways in which they may have been manipulated and deceived. there's a sense of betrayal and anguish that flows from it that people MUST be dimly aware of on a subconscious level which makes them want to avoid these subjects because it's such a grotesque and incomprehensible thing that the decent, ethical aspects of each human simply can't make sense of it. it's a study in insanity and since most people aren't insane like the occultists of the elite they can't understand WHY these sickos have victimized the common people in these ways. it's a terrifying prospect that just doesn't make sense. easier to not try, ay? the RAGE people must sense on the subconscious level I think would contribute to the consciously experienced fear. that kind of subterranean rage is so powerful that we feel at some leve that it MUST be suppressed - we are afraid of it (partly because we've traditionally been emotionally repressed?). to do that we must avoid realising the truth which would bring about that rage. ignorance is bliss.

thanks for the link to Wilson's thing. i noticed your referred to it in another thread, so I went and read it. Colin Wilson is a very perceptive guy and I like the article a lot as it is so illustrative and comprehensible. so the id is the unconscious in your eyes. what is the subconscious then and how do you distinguish the two? for instance, would you consider the sort of 'collective consciousness' that momentarily orders the output of REGs stationed around the globe to be at the level of unconscious or subconscious - where do you draw the line, I'm interested. I guess that would be unconscious? But then, I think if you go into the occult like the astral plane, mental plane, and psi-related data in general, it gets harder to draw lines because you see that pretty much anything and everything is accessible one way or another, no matter how taboo or off-limits we've been taught to think it is.

this is a rather large can of worms hehe... d'oh :D

*PS world; my g/f just made the best lamb shanks. ever.*

[christophera]

yeh, the ol' herd mentality and fear of what others will think of them if they think different thoughts. especially the thoughts that have been stigmatized. if it's not 'PC', then you immediately alienate yourself from a large chunk of the population who have been conditioned to "not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories", as Dubya once said. psychological fascism (strict conformity) is actually politically correct, no matter how much hollow rhetoric is spewed about being 'impartial', 'liberal', or whatever the fuck way people try to delude themselves into believing they are preceptive, open-minded and aware. and hey, regarding your comments on people being reluctant to comment on these topics or deal with them, I guess people just hate to consider the ways in which they may have been manipulated and deceived. there's a sense of betrayal and anguish that flows from it that people MUST be dimly aware of on a subconscious level which makes them want to avoid these subjects because it's such a grotesque and incomprehensible thing that the decent, ethical aspects of each human simply can't make sense of it.

That is about it. The subconscious level is the perception of a feeling of fear, provided by relationships that are unconscious. The fear feeling prevents them from looking any deeper and they psychologically run to escape by dissociation or repression.

BTW, did you see the post in the unconscious thread about the book "Human Memory"?

it's a study in insanity and since most people aren't insane like the occultists of the elite they can't understand WHY these sickos have victimized the common people in these ways. it's a terrifying prospect that just doesn't make sense. easier to not try, ay? the RAGE people must sense on the subconscious level I think would contribute to the consciously experienced fear. that kind of subterranean rage is so powerful that we feel at some level that it MUST be suppressed - we are afraid of it (partly because we've traditionally been emotionally repressed?). to do that we must avoid realizing the truth which would bring about that rage. ignorance is bliss.

Either rage or fear, but anger is a convoluted counter fear emotion. Phylogenetic DNA structures our responses based on long term memory which the conscious does not have much access to.

thanks for the link to Wilson's thing. i noticed your referred to it in another thread, so I went and read it. Colin Wilson is a very perceptive guy and I like the article a lot as it is so illustrative and comprehensible.

Yes, Wilson does a real service to us thereby compiling and concluding what he does about our two brains.

so the id is the unconscious in your eyes. what is the subconscious then and how do you distinguish the two? for instance, would you consider the sort of 'collective consciousness' that momentarily orders the output of REGs stationed around the globe to be at the level of unconscious or subconscious - where do you draw the line, I'm interested.

What do mean referring to REGs?

Collective consciousness is what main stream media caters to. Collective unconscious is very careful to compel behaviors that limit how much information relating to unconscious control reaches the conscious, collective level.

I guess that would be unconscious? But then, I think if you go into the occult like the astral plane, mental plane, and psi-related data in general, it gets harder to draw lines because you see that pretty much anything and everything is accessible one way or another, no matter how taboo or off-limits we've been taught to think it is.

this is a rather large can of worms hehe... d'oh :D

There is a term used by indigenous and ancient spiritual people. The Oneness. I feel that the oneness can manifest consciously to different people in different ways. The different labels can demonstrate how those manifestations differ within human perceptions. Mostly I think it depends on intentions. They tend to group and support each other and the relative control of the conscious collective over the unconscious, which is not much at any given time in our world, is respective to either the intention to know, or the intention to not know.

The intention to not know is controlled by fear, the intention to know by love.

*PS world; my g/f just made the best lamb shanks. ever.*

Do you know that the sheep actually made the shanks and that she just cooked them? Ohhhhh, you'll probably love her anyway.

[mephibosheth]

There are no "rights" apart from what we as people make our rights.


Indeed. Rights are a political construct, nothing more, nothing less. They are granted to people through contracts, hopefully agreed upon through a democratic decision process where each rights-holder is involved. If not, then they are granted by a sovereign or governing body who thereby assumes the responsibility of upholding and protecting them--that is, of enforcing them and preventing their abuse and negation.

In nature, outside of a political context, 'asserting your rights' is like shouting at the wind. There is no power there because rights do not exist outside of those agreements that we make and ratify in our legal documents.



There are morals that are so self-evident (e..g. don't murder people, don't rape people, don't steal their stuff) that we could regard them as natural...

No moral is 'self-evident'. They always refer to a practical concern, to the relationship between means and ends. 'Don't murder people' falls apart as soon as someone asks 'why not?' or until someone explains the complex social context that demonstrates the real, practical impacts of murdering (within the given society that the question is asked).

Rights and morals both are build on common, argeed foundations. As soon as those foundations diverge, they lose all potency and meaning.

---


We have been hoodwinked into believing single documents such as Magna Carta and The Constitution captures our Rights and our powers, whereas the truth of the matter is the power, sovereignty and our Rights are much closer and do not require writing to be enacted.

They are inherent and unalienable in all of us; all we have to do is claim them.


Without an agreed political foundation granting powers to a sovereign (or body) to enforce rights, 'claiming them' means asserting your brute strength over another. It comes down to might vs. might, and necessarily so. All it takes is one person to laugh at you standing up and 'claiming your right to [x]'.

The concept of 'inalienable rights' is an impotent fiction, if not meaningless. A right imposes a responsibility and requires a governing body that has the power to enforce the conditions of the right--which is why rights are defined by contracts, by agreements, and are typically found codified in constitutions. Rights require a common, stable socio-political environment. There are no rights in the jungle.

No other being in the universe is compelled to respect your assertion of a 'right' in any way, shape, or form. Only a practical consideration of the relationship of means/ends that is relevant to some being can possibly persuade them to agree to recognize your right. In other words, you have to convince them to share your fiction.

Respecting the sanctity of the lives of other sentient beings is a great foundation for morals, yes. But it is in no way a necessary condition of being moral.

8)

[christophera]

Indeed. Rights are a political construct, nothing more, nothing less.

The concept of 'inalienable rights' is an impotent fiction, if not meaningless.
8)

Everything you say is true and completely controls an anarchical, evolutionarily static, chaotic animalistic world which we have as a structure of instincts interacting with our unconscious mind.

Every now and then the human mind gets involved with reasoning and cognits that the next generation would suffer less and enjoy more if things were done differently. They share this with other reasoning humans around them, if any are present, the facts are recognized, and they agree on the premise that there will be mutual benefit. A contract is born. Yippee! Now they must abide by it or the will group enforce it if parties breach the contract.

If recognition of the contract is not present, one party may have acted fraudulently in time to deceive another of the nature of the contract and their duties within it. One party may have gone further and used their breach of contract to empower themselves which they in turn use to mislead and corrupt members of the other party.

If recognition of these possibilities is not present, continued breach of contract can be expected and re education of parties as to duties and expectations is in order prior to enforcement so appropriate action is appreciated by all.

Now, for you, the question is, "Do you prefer a world of animalistic reactions or one of human reasoning and agreement?"

[1694]

Indeed. Rights are a political construct, nothing more, nothing less. They are granted to people through contracts, hopefully agreed upon through a democratic decision process where each rights-holder is involved. If not, then they are granted by a sovereign or governing body who thereby assumes the responsibility of upholding and protecting them--that is, of enforcing them and preventing their abuse and negation.

In nature, outside of a political context, 'asserting your rights' is like shouting at the wind. There is no power there because rights do not exist outside of those agreements that we make and ratify in our legal documents.




No moral is 'self-evident'. They always refer to a practical concern, to the relationship between means and ends. 'Don't murder people' falls apart as soon as someone asks 'why not?' or until someone explains the complex social context that demonstrates the real, practical impacts of murdering (within the given society that the question is asked).

Rights and morals both are build on common, argeed foundations. As soon as those foundations diverge, they lose all potency and meaning.

---



Without an agreed political foundation granting powers to a sovereign (or body) to enforce rights, 'claiming them' means asserting your brute strength over another. It comes down to might vs. might, and necessarily so. All it takes is one person to laugh at you standing up and 'claiming your right to [x]'.

The concept of 'inalienable rights' is an impotent fiction, if not meaningless. A right imposes a responsibility and requires a governing body that has the power to enforce the conditions of the right--which is why rights are defined by contracts, by agreements, and are typically found codified in constitutions. Rights require a common, stable socio-political environment. There are no rights in the jungle.

No other being in the universe is compelled to respect your assertion of a 'right' in any way, shape, or form. Only a practical consideration of the relationship of means/ends that is relevant to some being can possibly persuade them to agree to recognize your right. In other words, you have to convince them to share your fiction.

Respecting the sanctity of the lives of other sentient beings is a great foundation for morals, yes. But it is in no way a necessary condition of being moral.

8)

This man has reasoned the correct.

[mephibosheth]

Now, for you, the question is, "Do you prefer a world of animalistic reactions or one of human reasoning and agreement?"

Reasoning, for sure. But then again, there's no reason that we can't have both. Reacting as animals is part of our nature, and is both good and necessary sometimes. Too much reasoning can lead us into stagnation.

About contracts. It seems that a contract is only binding on the persons/agents that create it in the first place. Something like a constitution should only apply to those who frame it and enforce it. For it to continue to exist, it ought to be renewed and restored with each successive generation who comes of age, reviews the contract, and then decides, freely, whether to accept it's terms and support the status quo.

I think, however, that the tendacy is for folks to view the creation of a constitution as a final act isolated in history, and thus, something they are subject to. I think governments tend to see things that way too. It seems that way...

8)

[yozhik]

I take it you will accept the notion of free will and choice?

So whilst you place rights into a political structure, do we not have the choice or the free will to choose which political structure we place ourselves? Which, in turn, may also give us the choice of which rights we will claim as a member of that specific political structure, as you express it?

From what I can see, we're either discussing rights on the accepted premise that as advanced men and women, we assume some form of social structure ... or ... as 1694 would try to have it, we forget any form of structure and civilization and revert back to natural law in loin cloths and survival mode.

So which is it?

Are we going to wank on in some imaginary animal kingdom?
Or are we going to debate with a hint of realism and discuss a civilised, human, sentient being created, "politically structured society"?

Last I looked, this thread was pertaining to the Magna Carta and how it related to the Freeman concept of society.

From where I sit, both of those are based on there being a political structure in place ... correct?

So, within those constraints, I think it incredibly reasonable to assume that Rights exist.

If you want to discuss the evolution of rights or even the existence of them, then may I respectfully suggest you start an appropriate topic for such debate.

This philosophical masturbation is just a high brow form of trolling and thread derailment.
Not really my cup of tea.

[christophera]

I take it you will accept the notion of free will and choice?

So whilst you place rights into a political structure, do we not have the choice or the free will to choose which political structure we place ourselves? Which, in turn, may also give us the choice of which rights we will claim as a member of that specific political structure, as you express it?

From what I can see, we're either discussing rights on the accepted premise that as advanced men and women, we assume some form of social structure ... or ... as 1694 would try to have it, we forget any form of structure and civilization and revert back to natural law in loin cloths and survival mode.

So which is it?

Are we going to wank on in some imaginary animal kingdom?
Or are we going to debate with a hint of realism and discuss a civilised, human, sentient being created, "politically structured society"?

Last I looked, this thread was pertaining to the Magna Carta and how it related to the Freeman concept of society.

From where I sit, both of those are based on there being a political structure in place ... correct?

So, within those constraints, I think it incredibly reasonable to assume that Rights exist.

If you want to discuss the evolution of rights or even the existence of them, then may I respectfully suggest you start an appropriate topic for such debate.

This philosophical masturbation is just a high brow form of trolling and thread derailment.
Not really my cup of tea.

To advance the discussion let me assume that my point about history not accurately showing the motive of the parties is made, meaning that the barons, not the king, were being forced to sign and a force served by the Charter accepted the crown signing the treaty, (because of the vatican link) in promise to make the barons accountable.

The people forced the barons to seek credible authority to hold them to their word after betraying every trust known between the people and barons.

Codification perhaps saw a reversion to common law type structure that a crown might mete justice accordingly.

It seems there may be an association with the origin of the name "Freemen" itself as to the specific faction that carried traditional common law through that period to re appear, perhaps only in part, as aspects of the codified intent of the Charter.

My conclusion is that properly referred to, with justification that is very pointed to the unfairness of fiction, corporate, admiralty court, the Magna Carta could be invoked directly. And in many cases, a current statuate may show very similar intent.

But mephibosheth has a point about the recreation of the contract. It serves naturally, doubly to re educate the people as to these facts. That includes keeping the actual history straight rather than allowing it to be steered away from the empowerment the people may actually really need. Awareness of a point in time in the past where their ancestors enforced with extreme violence, inalienable rights and made a contract they had hoped to see upheld.

Inalienable simply because if you try to take them from people, they will want to kill you.

[bsmurph83]

About contracts. It seems that a contract is only binding on the persons/agents that create it in the first place. Something like a constitution should only apply to those who frame it and enforce it. For it to continue to exist, it ought to be renewed and restored with each successive generation who comes of age, reviews the contract, and then decides, freely, whether to accept it's terms and support the status quo.

I think, however, that the tendacy is for folks to view the creation of a constitution as a final act isolated in history, and thus, something they are subject to. I think governments tend to see things that way too. It seems that way...

8)

At the end of the day it seems to be a matter of forcing the other party's hand and trying to keep them in check. if the system of governance is a predatory one, your rights MUST be claimed by you as a sentient individual, otherwise they will be eroded until you live in a 'society' that... looks a lot like ours.... This is the point of the freeman's NOUI + COR. If ya don't claim yer rights ain't noone gonna give 'em to ya. ya gotta stake your claim and say "here's the deal; here's how we will interact and contract henceforth OR ELSE..."

From there the PTB have to make a choice; either admit outright that, "no, you are our slave and you will act accordingly", or, they let the claim stand and allow it to stand at law. but the law is meaningless without walking the walk, which is why this forum exists - to facilitate people learning how to go about doing it, and doing it within our own defined constructs at law, i.e. lawfully. if we don't do it we end up stuck in statute land where we are just peons being milked from cradle to grave by the bankster-owned governments... so as interesting as it may be to turn things into a philosophical discussion about the arbitrary nature of our 'laws', within the context of the Freeman forum, it's a bit offtrack and pointless. i and others have observed repeatedly that there's always gonna be the dude with the big stick ready to beat you down if ya don't bend over, but the more people who DO come to grips with the freeman concepts, the harder it will be for the dudes with the sticks to get away with it.

No Bill of Rights or Constitution or whatever is worth jack shit without people prepared to grow some bollocks and stand up and claim the freedom these things supposedly guarantee. the guarantee has to be enforced by thinking people otherwise you end up with the world around us... hence our presence (theoretically) in this forum's threads... in that sense, I don't see the point of arguing the arbitrary or transient nature of our law / legal constructs... the premise of the whole forum is that these things ARE meaningful and that we wanna learn to navigate them to best advantage...

[bsmurph83]

But mephibosheth has a point about the recreation of the contract. It serves naturally, doubly to re educate the people as to these facts. That includes keeping the actual history straight rather than allowing it to be steered away from the empowerment the people may actually really need. Awareness of a point in time in the past where their ancestors enforced with extreme violence, inalienable rights and made a contract they had hoped to see upheld.

Inalienable simply because if you try to take them from people, they will want to kill you.

exactly. that's why we make claims of rights (NOUI + COR for instance) rather than wait for them to be handed out, which clearly ain't gonna happen. we need to ditch the fear and make sure 'they' know we are dead fucking serious about preserving those rights... well... i am anyway... *grin*

[christophera]

exactly. that's why we make claims of rights (NOUI + COR for instance) rather than wait for them to be handed out, which clearly ain't gonna happen. we need to ditch the fear and make sure 'they' know we are dead fucking serious about preserving those rights... well... i am anyway... *grin*

That is the spirit that can preserve them, ....... but, unity and strategy is required. Then recognition of some of the controlling facts and development of proposals of action comprehensive to them.

For example. If England is a nation of Freemen, then the subject of this thread is something that should be shared on TV in the British Isles. If it is not, then verification of this perspective and development of program proposals should be sent to independent filmakers and concerned non profit organizations for funding.

When a completely historical documentary is produced correcting the erroneous historical perspective, it must be submitted for broadcast. If the networks will not broadcast it they must be sued for fraud, neglect and endangerment. Demands for specific performance are appropriate altho perhaps not customary. A writ of mandate to the government to broadcast may be functional too.

[bsmurph83]

That is the spirit that can preserve them, ....... but, unity and strategy is required. Then recognition of some of the controlling facts and development of proposals of action comprehensive to them.

For example. If England is a nation of Freemen, then the subject of this thread is something that should be shared on TV in the British Isles. If it is not, then verification of this perspective and development of program proposals should be sent to independent filmakers and concerned non profit organizations for funding.

When a completely historical documentary is produced correcting the erroneous historical perspective, it must be submitted for broadcast. If the networks will not broadcast it they must be sued for fraud, neglect and endangerment. Demands for specific performance are appropriate altho perhaps not customary. A writ of mandate to the government to broadcast may be functional too.

As much as I like the ideas here, these are quite a ways off - stuff like suing the TV stations for not broadcasting an accurate accounting of history sounds like an idea from fiction land itself hehe not to be insulting, but you know what I mean christopher; the media is all about perpetuating the fiction. it broadcasts fiction TO the fiction (people who think they are persons). in Australia a news report one reported something to the effect that Mark Pytellek had created his own country here and hada standing army at his command, tanks and all... haha! anything goes in Wonderland and I'm not holding my breath for it to change (or maybe I'm too pessimistic?).

But; the independent media is rocketing off the charts and more and more people are turning to it. the tide is rising and the PTB's little sand wall can only hold out so long. so, soon enough, there will be so many people turning to the content of the indy media that I guess the mainstream will have to follow suit (supply and demand), so maybe your ideas will happen faster than I expect... perhaps some more accurate appraisals of history are on the way... a majority of 51% could possibly enforce these ideas, no? numbers are crucial, huh. not on our 'side' yet, but gradually becoming that way. so yes, organised networks of peaceful free-thinkers must coagulate and indeed they are... but at the moment we can't even get the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to talk about 911 (non-BS version I mean) so... hmmm... grass roots is key here. bottom up. let the corporate world catch up in its own time when it senses that it might actualy profit from telling the truth...?

and as the bleary-eyed masses wipe the sleep from their eyes and see the Freemen setting a worthy example without fear, they will gradually catch on to the idea and follow suit when they can see the practical value of exiting the Matrix. No 'conspiracy theories' necessary!

[christophera]

As much as I like the ideas here, these are quite a ways off - stuff like suing the TV stations for not broadcasting an accurate accounting of history sounds like an idea from fiction land itself hehe not to be insulting, but you know what I mean christopher; the media is all about perpetuating the fiction. it broadcasts fiction

Correct, and such is like gangsters seizing the space between you and your countrymen and then misrepresenting relaity back and forth until you loose all function and can be routed from your home into the pen where sheep belong.

If you think suing government is functional, try it in a government court, the only kind any one has.

Or trying to effect mainstream politics which is controlled by media. If we cannot purify the space between us and have communications with fidelity amongst Freemen in society, we have no chance of controlling it.

But; the independent media is rocketing off the charts and more and more people are turning to it. the tide is rising and the PTB's little sand wall can only hold out so long.

I hate to tell you this, but the independent thing is controlled too and filled with misinformation.

Explain your strategy if you have it.

[christophera]

In many ways there has been a psyops conducted surrepticiously, in that certain corruption was allowed to be seen only as some other corruption, not the one it actually was. Hence, the true corruption was never even known.

A psyops is simply a contemporary name for a conspiracy to decieve.

That very same capacity of the ptb to organize against Freemen has been used to mislead Freemen (gatekeeping) and cripple their society from undertaking the activity it must conduct to keep the knowledge of the origins of the power of Freemen which invokes its original ability to compel compliance by authority for the empowerment and service of the Freemen, and never violate them.

[bsmurph83]

[QUOTE]Correct, and such is like gangsters seizing the space between you and your countrymen and then misrepresenting relaity back and forth until you loose all function and can be routed from your home into the pen where sheep belong.

If you think suing government is functional, try it in a government court, the only kind any one has.

Or trying to effect mainstream politics which is controlled by media. If we cannot purify the space between us and have communications with fidelity amongst Freemen in society, we have no chance of controlling it.

this is all accurate. even having a more freely flowing pool of information will create further confusion for a time because people will probably get overwhelmed and want to shut down (as opposed to already being shut down to start with but not being conscious of it). some people will (and do) try to consciously choose denial.


I hate to tell you this, but the independent thing is controlled too and filled with misinformation.
Explain your strategy if you have it.

yeh there's plenty of disinfo in the alternative media. my personal strategy is simply to not shut up. at the end of the day people have to have access to topics suppressed by both media forums and they can only reach their own conclusions in their own time. so, provide access to the most credible informaton and get people to see stuff that will make them want to talk about it. the freeman concept is one that will only work with a strong observable example being set by people no longer too afraid to walk the walk. discussing the concepts with most people without showing them the process succeeding in reality will leave most people numb because they've gotten so used to unconsciously seeing themselves as being powerless and ineffectual; swamped by a system that leeches off them from every angle. i think the idea that you can simply step out of the system will be so alien to many people that they won't be able to consider it (i've tested this idea out with open-minded and 'spiritual' people with spectacular failures - they literally do not understand that there could possibly be such a level of freedom lawfully achieved). the system is so all-encompassing that people think there's no way out. i guess the short answer to your question about strategy is twofold:

make information accessible and walk the walk.

[christophera]

this is all accurate. even having a more freely flowing pool of information will create further confusion for a time because people will probably get overwhelmed and want to shut down (as opposed to already being shut down to start with but not being conscious of it). some people will (and do) try to consciously choose denial.

As a 9-11 activist my experience confirms your words. Cognitive dissonance leads to dissociation. I speculate that a culture which is COMPRISED of such sharing AND uses art forms to assist in sharing, entertaining, educating, ... will be HOW we get this done.

yeh there's plenty of disinfo in the alternative media. my personal strategy is simply to not shut up. at the end of the day people have to have access to topics suppressed by both media forums and they can only reach their own conclusions in their own time. so, provide access to the most credible informaton and get people to see stuff that will make them want to talk about it. the freeman concept is one that will only work with a strong observable example being set by people no longer too afraid to walk the walk. discussing the concepts with most people without showing them the process succeeding in reality will leave most people numb because they've gotten so used to unconsciously seeing themselves as being powerless and ineffectual; swamped by a system that leeches off them from every angle. i think the idea that you can simply step out of the system will be so alien to many people that they won't be able to consider it (i've tested this idea out with open-minded and 'spiritual' people with spectacular failures - they literally do not understand that there could possibly be such a level of freedom lawfully achieved). the system is so all-encompassing that people think there's no way out. i guess the short answer to your question about strategy is twofold:

make information accessible and walk the walk.

I like that. Got process?

[bsmurph83]

As a 9-11 activist my experience confirms your words. Cognitive dissonance leads to dissociation. I speculate that a culture which is COMPRISED of such sharing AND uses art forms to assist in sharing, entertaining, educating, ... will be HOW we get this done.



I like that. Got process?

not really lol! :D

actually you're right about using art and entertainment to do it. people's attention spans aren't that great. if they're gonna get sound bytes they may as well get some that are factual for a change. I had an idea about 911 stuff recently but I don't wanna give it away haha it was going to be visual and humourous, demonstrating the absurdity of the official version in a way that makes it literally laughable for the inexperienced even (maybe I'm being too ambitious here though). either way I think it would be a laugh for people who have already deconstructed 911 for themselves. oh, I'm big on tee-shirts also. when I have the money I'm going to start up a line of 'activist' sort of t-shirts. then there's always bumper stickers, pamphlets and other such media. organised group meetups are happening around the place for heaps of different stuff.

Aussie Speeding Fines in Australia is mailing out business cards and stickers for cars to members to distribute themselves to generate awareness. In Perth, Australia there's Truth Movement Australia and they're doing good stuff with 911, freeman concept and everything else under the sun. gives people a forum to join heads together and network. I may end up living in Perth, in which case I'll get involved. Plus, I'm writing books about all this stuff too so that's my uh... 'strategy' tee-hee nothing overly calculated as yet... we have to conceive of ways to garner attention that will compel people to look further for themselves. this ain't easy 'cause everyone's different and has different interests...

taking the threatening, menacing overtones away from the conspiracy research would also help the cause huh, because people's latent fear is all-too-readily activated and it just makes them switch off. so I guess, in general, the approach for me is to, a) attract attention, and, b) once you've got it don't scare people away, show them how to empower themselves and provide access to suppressed info without being too fatalistic about it. it's disturbing enough as it is without adding to it unnecessarily methinks. there are some alarmists out there dramatising things. don't get me wrong, it's seroius shit, but screaming and frothing at the mouth doesn't help anyone's credibility or the 'cause' in general...

what's your strategy, christophera. more organised than mine no doubt! :D

[christophera]

not really lol! :D

actually you're right about using art and entertainment to do it. people's attention spans aren't that great. if they're gonna get sound bytes they may as well get some that are factual for a change.

These facts are primary to understanding how humanity was compelled to relinquish the truth about itself, its unconscious existence. A historical, spiritual, psychological documentary, one hour in length.

CIRCA (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2186665538066585011&ei=YCQXSbqMMYTyqAPGmc36AQ&q=forbidden+knowledge)

There are other entertaining and educational ideas I have but don't have the resources to produce them.

I had an idea about 911 stuff recently but I don't wanna give it away haha it was going to be visual and humourous, demonstrating the absurdity of the official version in a way that makes it literally laughable for the inexperienced even (maybe I'm being too ambitious here though). either way I think it would be a laugh for people who have already deconstructed 911 for themselves. oh, I'm big on tee-shirts also. when I have the money I'm going to start up a line of 'activist' sort of t-shirts. then there's always bumper stickers, pamphlets and other such media. organised group meetups are happening around the place for heaps of different stuff.

Aussie Speeding Fines in Australia is mailing out business cards and stickers for cars to members to distribute themselves to generate awareness. In Perth, Australia there's Truth Movement Australia and they're doing good stuff with 911, freeman concept and everything else under the sun. gives people a forum to join heads together and network. I may end up living in Perth, in which case I'll get involved. Plus, I'm writing books about all this stuff too so that's my uh... 'strategy' tee-hee nothing overly calculated as yet... we have to conceive of ways to garner attention that will compel people to look further for themselves. this ain't easy 'cause everyone's different and has different interests...

taking the threatening, menacing overtones away from the conspiracy research would also help the cause huh, because people's latent fear is all-too-readily activated and it just makes them switch off. so I guess, in general, the approach for me is to, a) attract attention, and, b) once you've got it don't scare people away, show them how to empower themselves and provide access to suppressed info without being too fatalistic about it. it's disturbing enough as it is without adding to it unnecessarily methinks. there are some alarmists out there dramatising things. don't get me wrong, it's seroius shit, but screaming and frothing at the mouth doesn't help anyone's credibility or the 'cause' in general...

what's your strategy, christophera. more organised than mine no doubt! :D

The psyops could have placed alarmists in influential positions just to add to the fear frenzy.

Otherwise my strategy in social setting is similar to yours but I focus on creating ways to generate respect for our unconscious existence which is 86% of our mental capacity. The changes that we need to institute, because populations are so distracted with corporate entertainment, are hard to highlight effectively. Independence and sustainability are critical, but there are certain hardships that must be endured. Creating the psychology that can do it justifies a great deal of focus. Therefore I've developed a method to work directly with the unconscious mind.

http://algoxy.com/psych/thetreatment.html

Which can be used to form groups that are capable of commitment, trust, consistency and hard work within a realm of properly justified sacrifices that occur with separation from the corporate system.

It also has a capability to prevent extreme violence and cure mental problems, so the public should be interested in it, but I seem to have a very hard time getting the word out. No good environment for that. It turns out that humanity is has been made afraid of its unconscious mind.

You would think that after a few mass murders people would be supportive, but no, ostrich activity prevails.

[bsmurph83]

These facts are primary to understanding how humanity was compelled to relinquish the truth about itself, its unconscious existence. A historical, spiritual, psychological documentary, one hour in length.

CIRCA (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2186665538066585011&ei=YCQXSbqMMYTyqAPGmc36AQ&q=forbidden+knowledge)

There are other entertaining and educational ideas I have but don't have the resources to produce them.



The psyops could have placed alarmists in influential positions just to add to the fear frenzy.

Otherwise my strategy in social setting is similar to yours but I focus on creating ways to generate respect for our unconscious existence which is 86% of our mental capacity. The changes that we need to institute, because populations are so distracted with corporate entertainment, are hard to highlight effectively. Independence and sustainability are critical, but there are certain hardships that must be endured. Creating the psychology that can do it justifies a great deal of focus. Therefore I've developed a method to work directly with the unconscious mind.

http://algoxy.com/psych/thetreatment.html

Which can be used to form groups that are capable of commitment, trust, consistency and hard work within a realm of properly justified sacrifices that occur with separation from the corporate system.

It also has a capability to prevent extreme violence and cure mental problems, so the public should be interested in it, but I seem to have a very hard time getting the word out. No good environment for that. It turns out that humanity is has been made afraid of its unconscious mind.

You would think that after a few mass murders people would be supportive, but no, ostrich activity prevails.

I'm gonna watch your vid, I'm sure it'll be interesting. I find the whole conscious-subconsious thing interesting. Your treatment using NO2 certainly looks worthy of wider consideration. Hell, I'd have it done but I'm in Australia. You got any contacts here who could try and do something with it? The web page doesn't go into much detail about the actual process involved during a session though. Is it run like typical sorts of regression therapies, Stanislav Grof LSD type sessions, or...? I guess the results might be comparable to something like that?

[christophera]

I'm gonna watch your vid, I'm sure it'll be interesting. I find the whole conscious-subconsious thing interesting. Your treatment using NO2 certainly looks worthy of wider consideration. Hell, I'd have it done but I'm in Australia. You got any contacts here who could try and do something with it? The web page doesn't go into much detail about the actual process involved during a session though. Is it run like typical sorts of regression therapies, Stanislav Grof LSD type sessions, or...? I guess the results might be comparable to something like that?

The No2 of the narcoinduction is simply a vehicle. The hypnotic script is what gains cooperation from the unconscious. Once the barrier between the conscious and unconscious is gone, instinctual structures can be directly accessed with language.
It turns out that people are very much alike on that level. A little this way or that way is normal, even a certain percentage swinging to minor extremes is normal, meaning that a fairly predictable set of unconscious priorities that are a part of the historical and current consciously lived patterns that cultivate connection to instinctual motives exit in probably well over 90% of the population. The question is, "which ones control the people". Or, interface of our instincts with our basic social, operating, parameters if you'll have that description.

To refer to it as common conditioning would not be incorrect.

The strategy for the excellent people is to use the treatment to cease any non functional behaviors, create diligence in the task of identifying the best collective activity to satisfy the greatest and most pressing need. Much of that would include just the simple wherewithal to be a constantly cooperating unit. Then augment that evolved pattern towards taking the next level of action.

It could be referred to as "spiritual incorporation".

[christophera]

The truth of the motives of the parties, the true conditions at the time of the signing of the Magna Carta, is of great empowerment for Freemen, in many ways it is the only empowerment that has broad substance and joint detail.

Somewhere due to social conditioning, fundamentals such as the motives of the signers are made less important than the direction of the flock as a default mass fear mentality. Then, add to that we have media conditioning at the direction of people with degrees in semiotics, advertising, public relations AND entertainment, perhaps working togther in subtle ways to enhance corporate profits.

Reaction is promoted over understanding because understanding dissolves fear. Accordingly key information has been removed from your past. You don't know what it is.

However, that can be overcome in the longest term by simply knowing the truth of the Magna Carta and the Freemen that forced its creation, then using the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the joint agreement of the elite centuries ago.

The existence of civil rights era civil rigth in the US shows the Magna Carta being revisitd in principle by lawmakers. Precedentual usage, extension of the Magna Carta that makes it unchangeable forever where it originated.

[christophera]

The only way to observe the truth of the Magna Carta is to read it and then study the history preceding it.

When it is seen that the Norman invasion was stretching the already overtaxed populations to the point where the elite were criminalizing them for trying to survive, stealing food they could not afford because of the taxes extracted at the point of a sword.

Taxes for a generation of 2 to pay for crusades, then defenses against those fully apprised of the behaviors of the crusaders and their motives.

The truth of the Charter illuminates something quite disturbing and ancient.

Social/religious fears mandate accepting the misrepresentations that history has proffered to us.

[christophera]

Gatekeeping can be done a number of ways. One by opposing information, the other by ignoring it and instead focusing on other information that is easier to deal with.

In this case the very force of common law and the meaningful existence of Free men is at stake which is being ignored.

We wonder HOW or WHY the bailiffs, judges and barristers all go along with each other to an extreme. We wonder how they can ignore rights and freedoms to support their own sick associations that have no future. And such is reasonable to assert as our futures are consumed in financing their wars, conquest and persecution. '

I can tell you it is unconscious and we can only oppose it by using the same knowledge they use because then we become as unified as they are but with CORRECT knowledge. Knowledge that recieves the support of all humnityrather than is designed to oppres and exploit it.

As time has passed, the corporate structure enabled by the fiction system has created a degraded human psychology that is weak and disabled from even exerting a stable sustainable existence on the surface of this earth. That psychology is easy to prey upon for the parasite that created it.

Shall we ignore the tools they use to place themselves over us and take our futures? Or, .......... do we realize that it is only the fear they created in us, of us, our unconscious existence, with their un holy hypocritical unity that prevents us from retaining our heritage of freedom, or do we accept ourselves in the entirity and our potentials, and evolve?

[christophera]

I cannot see that Free men can expect the common law they know as historical to be recognized if they cannot show when and where common law gained the force of law.

There seems to be no other origin than the Magna Carta (MC). Certainly Welsh law was around before it, and the MC mentions that, which carries and supports the common law of the Welsh.

The issue of history misrepresenting the the motives of the signers and the Free men not beig capable of recognizing the origin of the force of common law for the English nation is a serious shortcoming. The fact that Free men are not comfortable with the heresy of the elite show why the elite are elite. They don't just use their conscious mind, they use all of their mind and are unafraid of it.

The ptb love it when we cannot engage the precedent we need to invoke the duties they have.

[christophera]

Actually it is the heretical secrecy that the barons and Knights employ that must go, otherwise the axe will be dissapated in grinding.

Secrecy? How so?

This is where it leaves law and society as you know it and goes into psychology and spirituality as it really is and has been since the beginning (recently secret). Are you ready for that?

Right ... so essentially your bemoaning the Illuminati, the NWO, the PTB, secret societies and the occult, as well as the nefarious influence of the Vatican/Holy See?
That probably about 95% of the posts on this site covered then ... :D

We seem to be a long way off the original subject ... and down a cyclic rabbit hole of philosophical uncertainties.

What I quote above is not conscious gatekeeping. alisa2 and yozhik are staunch contributors here but the inability to discuss an area that the elite have made taboo in western societies empower the elite too much and disempowers the people immensly so I can't enable the evasion of this matter.

Such s behavior unbecoming Free men.

It is gatekeeping by default. Or the gate is being shut on the possibility that the secrecy I indicate is what is really responsible for the problems Free men try to counter with their methods of invoking common law.

Without dealing with the fundamental issue, the problem is like a the "hydra", you cut off one head and it grows 2 more.