I was spoiled by the slick format of Facebook. Well, it had the CIA's people and money doing all that, so of course it was slick!!! ;)
But yeah, the email fatigue is a thing for me, too, hugely.
Perhaps another SS-ish place will appear, or we could even RETURN TO REAL LIFE...
I still miss going to poetry readings and plays... I find myself longing for those old days of having art openings and parties that were public and we'd get talking about all sorts of things...
I want REAL LIFE again!!!!!
And yeah, knee-jerk freaking out is not particularly helpful or healthy...
Oh, good! I am working steadily, albeit slowly, toward passing my test that will enable me to move into a full-time scenario, and then I can start to make reasonable money again, and hopefully be able to re-enter the kinds of activities that are healthy and even FUN. I'm glad you have that matinee crowd! xo
Jo, we don't see eye to eye on Every Single Thing, but I don't care. I value you highly. Too bad about the boot off Dr. Sam's page, but maybe it was an assistant, who knows?
The ducks flying by my window agree with you... xo xo
Hiya Herder, yes I know we have difference of outlook, isn't that the point? and I don't care either. Getting booted off Sam's site was an indication for me that it's time for a break. Exactly like you say, I'd like to meet up for a cup of tea or go to a disco. Look at some flowers. Stare at the sky. Make some noise. Be in the moment. xxx
Best of luck on the continued journey! We people are so susceptible to confusion when we don’t take enough time to let the noise settle and see what’s really what.
Now that the ownership thing is back, and that you’ve expressed an openness to opinions (I’m opinionated and have often gotten into trouble thinking people wanted to hear others’ opinions when they’d rather not), I will say that ownership is a good thing. Can you imagine fighting the same battle every day over whether you have the right to enter your house and occupy it? Ownership is relatively easy for most necessities here if one puts the work in, etc. It makes living in large cities possible. As to ownership of pets or animals, imagine having someone take your cat on holiday with them because they said the cat had given off an agreeable vibe when asked.
Ownership does not imply violence. I think violence exists with or without ownership. Ownership requires responsibility. If no one owned anything, no one would take care of things. Think of how people treat a rental apartment vs. how they treat their own space.
Mind you, if someone prefers not to own anything, they are free to do so.
Of course I agree with ownership and responsibility for things, that's obviously how our society functions!
You can't own a being , people don't own their children though they may guide and care for them. I don't own my cats and they are free to live somewhere else, I thought at one point they were going to, though it would break my heart, they can do anything they want. as to someone taking them on holiday then that would be animal cruelty as even I don't take them out of their territory as it stresses them out like mad.
I forgot parts of the original post, sorry! Yes, it was just about animals, be it pets or farm animals. Well, that’s what’s great about things today. I can own if I want and you don’t need to if you don’t want to. It’s early… Have a great day!
I guess you could say there's a difference between outright ownership such as owning a slave and "looking after" something, being a "caretaker."
I'm assuming that children upon reaching a certain age would rail against the idea of being owned.
Pets simply love being looked after, provided for, and engaging with the family unit. They have no concept of being owned but probably see their toys and food bowl as "theirs" and no one else's.
As you have already mentioned, our reason for establishing forms of ownership stems from legal rights and dispute management with over time has become part of our way of life. I would say it's impossible to live without these ground rules now - unless you live in a cave.
If a big dog gives a neighbor a nasty bite, the dog will be held partly responsible and may even suffer dire consequences, but the "owner" will be liable for damages if the victim presses charges.
The law sees the "owner" as being responsible for the dog's actions, well being, healthcare, etc (even if there are no formal documents other than a vet's book) and will be held accountable if the dog is seen to be suffering in some way.
If a pet is taken by a stranger it is said to have been stolen which implies that the pet was your property. If something is not your legally owned property, it cannot be "stolen." You are simply interacting with it until someone else does. And everyone else has as much right to do that as you do.
You are 100% correct! Many or most ppl are unaware. I am so happy to read someone informed!
I write this to the author, Jo, not to you as you are well aware - she is not.
With the brith certificate (and birth bond), parents effectively give away the ownership of their children to the state (research Cestui Que Vie Turst and Act 1666 don't use google). As you say correctly, if the state is unhappy with your care, say you refuse treatment X (like in the case of AZT/HIV) they may and will take away your children.
Same for almost everything, your car for example; we are the registered keepers (UK), not the owners. Now, if you know how the system works, you may go out of your way and become its owner. With children it is more complicated - either you don't register them or you correct their status, which is complicated although there are precedents.
We live in an inverted World or illusion. The US, UK and all Western countries are corporations - registered on Duns and Bradstreet in the US.
You, the person, is a corporation, not a living being (you are lost at sea as per the tradition), but a legal fiction that is to be contracted with.
You also have to study and innerstand (understand = stand under) legalese (eg must means may) and the difference between law, statues, and mandates. Mandate is not the law.
Get together in study groups and start the journey, it is not short!
There's a small document of very dense 16 pages of historic information. It is called the 'Lawyers secret oath'. Try to find a copy - it is veeery hard.
The judiciary is highjacked, it is not serving the ppl but administers the "debt".
Or we could just flip the table over and start again!
I'm tired of playing by their rules and having to learn their code in order to defeat their code.
Do you see how we're still playing their game on their board?
Why can't we bypass all of this nonsense?
It was created by people that wanted to enslave us with trickery.
Therefore, IMHO, their rules are null and void from the get go.
We have every right to simply ignore all of their rules. The more of us do it, the less they can do about it.
I think I was mixing up the term legal fiction with saying law is all fictional. All I meant was that none of this is based on Natural Law which as I "understand" means survival of the fittest at any cost. He with the biggest gun wins. And we most certainly have the biggest gun. Disobedience.
Maybe stewardship is a better term when talking of sentient beings. We are managers, caretakers, providers, educators, etc. If I own a child, I can sell it, trade it in for a better one!
At the end of the day, ownership is irrelevant if you are unable to secure your property and a more powerful force simply takes it away. Established Laws have been useful but if a dictatorship chooses to ignore them then that's that.
I think the birth certificate thing (corporate admiralty law) only applies to the "entity" that has been created in YOUR NAME in all CAPS. That's why authorities have to gain consent and agreement that you are indeed that entity or acting on behalf of said created legal entity before THEY can ACT on YOU (the legally created entity).
Most people are not going to go the common law route. They readily accept that they are indeed some form of "citizen" under the laws of the state and therefore will do whatever the state recommends.
The German trial run for an alternative system between 1933 and 1945 didn't work out too well for them. And they've been under the thumb ever since. It would take a concerted effort from many nations acting together to turn the tables on the global banking elite. At the moment, they appear to have all the corners covered. The BRICS multipolar alternative is just another controlled opposition operation run by the same criminal mafia.
Someone's always gonna step into that role whether we like it or not. Inalienable human rights (and animal rights) only exist if we uphold them and demand to be treated better, but organized gangs always get their way until they're displaced by another bigger badder organized gang like the one we live under now.
That organized gang took out two African presidents (my opinion) because they dared to question PCR testing (not even the deeper story of germ theory). That's how much they care about their "business." They'll do whatever it takes to protect it.
If people didn't act as stewards towards the land, gardens, commonly shared spaces and dare I say "property" then everything would go to shit and look like shit. Even nature benefits from our intervention when our intentions are good - controlled burns, forest and coastal area management, culling certain species so they don't over-breed, die of starvation, overwhelm the surrounding ecology.
Of course, without us trying to manage things, nature would more or less do the same, but with less empathy.
I see your points. I'm not opposed to the rule of law at all and happy to pay someone to uphold it, and to make sure it applies to the elites which seems to be the problem with what's going on at the mo.
Though as regards our planet and how we live with each other isn't culling' certain' species what the elites are meant to be doing to us, so that we don't overbreed and overwhelm resources and the planet and ultimately annihilate (who know there was an h in there?)ourselves?
It's the assumption that the ones who are capable of making these decisions are the ones who know best
Yes, I agree that the self-appointed steward or whatever you want to call the caretaker is making assumptions about their role in the world but this comes naturally to us so can't be all that bad. We take in stray animals because we feel empathy and don't want them to suffer. If a global elite were truly enlightened and not just taking care of business they would inevitably have to decide whether they step in and "fix things" or stand back and watch as the masses rip each others faces off for a slice of bread. I think I would step in just in case or because I know for a fact from historical record that the alternative would be unpleasant for those under my assumed care.
If the caretakers /managers lose control of the situation (their business) or run out of resources the social construct would immediately fall apart and machete time would ensue until a warlord establishes a new set of rules.
Yes. I'm in total agreement. I was just making the point that admiralty law (which is a fiction) sees the artificial construct of our name in all caps (a corporate entity) as the thing they have power over. And it works because everyone goes along with it - governments, courts, police and the general public.
There is only one true law and that is raw power and when physical military power is not available then psychological, economic, informational, and class warfare are utilized to great effect.
Knowledge of these techniques and mastery of psychology is why we are beaten down every time. If we all rose up at once, then there's nothing they could do.
You know perfectly well what I mean! It's a man made construct devised for trading goods and property. Citizens under this system also take on similar properties.
Just because something is "rooted in history" doesn't make it valid or better than alternatives. Take religious belief for example.
"the addictive stream of images, words and opinions coming at it through the screen."
This is definitely one of the greatest problems we face right now.
Information overload and fatigue.
I certainly don't enjoy the overwhelming nature of endless email-based comment response streams!
Not enough time in the day.
Other things to do.
If we could just get other people to stop responding like headless chickens every time a new scare comes along that would save us all a lot of time.
You make me smile x🐒
One down. 8 billion to go. Guess I'm going to need more coffee!
(You make me smile too).
Dare I say... people like you give me hope.
aww thank you, yes you may xxx
WORD.
I was spoiled by the slick format of Facebook. Well, it had the CIA's people and money doing all that, so of course it was slick!!! ;)
But yeah, the email fatigue is a thing for me, too, hugely.
Perhaps another SS-ish place will appear, or we could even RETURN TO REAL LIFE...
I still miss going to poetry readings and plays... I find myself longing for those old days of having art openings and parties that were public and we'd get talking about all sorts of things...
I want REAL LIFE again!!!!!
And yeah, knee-jerk freaking out is not particularly helpful or healthy...
I've joined the grey (well strawberry blonde) matinee crowd. I saw the Mousetrap last month it was brilliant.
Oh, good! I am working steadily, albeit slowly, toward passing my test that will enable me to move into a full-time scenario, and then I can start to make reasonable money again, and hopefully be able to re-enter the kinds of activities that are healthy and even FUN. I'm glad you have that matinee crowd! xo
I crave real life too.
Wow... never thought I'd say something like that!
Never thought we'd go through a fuckin' psy-op insane global genocide, either...
There was a three-year-old kid named Colby I knew once, who said this wise thing:
"Whoever gets there, gets there, gets there." ^_^
Jo, we don't see eye to eye on Every Single Thing, but I don't care. I value you highly. Too bad about the boot off Dr. Sam's page, but maybe it was an assistant, who knows?
The ducks flying by my window agree with you... xo xo
Hiya Herder, yes I know we have difference of outlook, isn't that the point? and I don't care either. Getting booted off Sam's site was an indication for me that it's time for a break. Exactly like you say, I'd like to meet up for a cup of tea or go to a disco. Look at some flowers. Stare at the sky. Make some noise. Be in the moment. xxx
And this comment is a great explanation of why we mesh! Love you, Jo. ^_^
Love you too. Hope you get to do fun things soon xxx
Best of luck on the continued journey! We people are so susceptible to confusion when we don’t take enough time to let the noise settle and see what’s really what.
Now that the ownership thing is back, and that you’ve expressed an openness to opinions (I’m opinionated and have often gotten into trouble thinking people wanted to hear others’ opinions when they’d rather not), I will say that ownership is a good thing. Can you imagine fighting the same battle every day over whether you have the right to enter your house and occupy it? Ownership is relatively easy for most necessities here if one puts the work in, etc. It makes living in large cities possible. As to ownership of pets or animals, imagine having someone take your cat on holiday with them because they said the cat had given off an agreeable vibe when asked.
Ownership does not imply violence. I think violence exists with or without ownership. Ownership requires responsibility. If no one owned anything, no one would take care of things. Think of how people treat a rental apartment vs. how they treat their own space.
Mind you, if someone prefers not to own anything, they are free to do so.
thank you!
Of course I agree with ownership and responsibility for things, that's obviously how our society functions!
You can't own a being , people don't own their children though they may guide and care for them. I don't own my cats and they are free to live somewhere else, I thought at one point they were going to, though it would break my heart, they can do anything they want. as to someone taking them on holiday then that would be animal cruelty as even I don't take them out of their territory as it stresses them out like mad.
🙏🏽
Jo
I forgot parts of the original post, sorry! Yes, it was just about animals, be it pets or farm animals. Well, that’s what’s great about things today. I can own if I want and you don’t need to if you don’t want to. It’s early… Have a great day!
Thank you Decaf 😺 and you xxx
🙏🏽
Lots is hand waving here yet very little (read no) actual knowledge.
To me the concept of 'owning' another being is itself a violence
I've told you before, yes pets share our home
I would feel the same as if they tried to abduct my mother. they choose to be here so it would be against there will. I don't own my mother either
I guess you could say there's a difference between outright ownership such as owning a slave and "looking after" something, being a "caretaker."
I'm assuming that children upon reaching a certain age would rail against the idea of being owned.
Pets simply love being looked after, provided for, and engaging with the family unit. They have no concept of being owned but probably see their toys and food bowl as "theirs" and no one else's.
As you have already mentioned, our reason for establishing forms of ownership stems from legal rights and dispute management with over time has become part of our way of life. I would say it's impossible to live without these ground rules now - unless you live in a cave.
If a big dog gives a neighbor a nasty bite, the dog will be held partly responsible and may even suffer dire consequences, but the "owner" will be liable for damages if the victim presses charges.
The law sees the "owner" as being responsible for the dog's actions, well being, healthcare, etc (even if there are no formal documents other than a vet's book) and will be held accountable if the dog is seen to be suffering in some way.
If a pet is taken by a stranger it is said to have been stolen which implies that the pet was your property. If something is not your legally owned property, it cannot be "stolen." You are simply interacting with it until someone else does. And everyone else has as much right to do that as you do.
You are 100% correct! Many or most ppl are unaware. I am so happy to read someone informed!
I write this to the author, Jo, not to you as you are well aware - she is not.
With the brith certificate (and birth bond), parents effectively give away the ownership of their children to the state (research Cestui Que Vie Turst and Act 1666 don't use google). As you say correctly, if the state is unhappy with your care, say you refuse treatment X (like in the case of AZT/HIV) they may and will take away your children.
Same for almost everything, your car for example; we are the registered keepers (UK), not the owners. Now, if you know how the system works, you may go out of your way and become its owner. With children it is more complicated - either you don't register them or you correct their status, which is complicated although there are precedents.
We live in an inverted World or illusion. The US, UK and all Western countries are corporations - registered on Duns and Bradstreet in the US.
You, the person, is a corporation, not a living being (you are lost at sea as per the tradition), but a legal fiction that is to be contracted with.
Read living in the private https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/home.html
You also have to study and innerstand (understand = stand under) legalese (eg must means may) and the difference between law, statues, and mandates. Mandate is not the law.
Get together in study groups and start the journey, it is not short!
There's a small document of very dense 16 pages of historic information. It is called the 'Lawyers secret oath'. Try to find a copy - it is veeery hard.
The judiciary is highjacked, it is not serving the ppl but administers the "debt".
Or we could just flip the table over and start again!
I'm tired of playing by their rules and having to learn their code in order to defeat their code.
Do you see how we're still playing their game on their board?
Why can't we bypass all of this nonsense?
It was created by people that wanted to enslave us with trickery.
Therefore, IMHO, their rules are null and void from the get go.
We have every right to simply ignore all of their rules. The more of us do it, the less they can do about it.
I think I was mixing up the term legal fiction with saying law is all fictional. All I meant was that none of this is based on Natural Law which as I "understand" means survival of the fittest at any cost. He with the biggest gun wins. And we most certainly have the biggest gun. Disobedience.
Maybe stewardship is a better term when talking of sentient beings. We are managers, caretakers, providers, educators, etc. If I own a child, I can sell it, trade it in for a better one!
At the end of the day, ownership is irrelevant if you are unable to secure your property and a more powerful force simply takes it away. Established Laws have been useful but if a dictatorship chooses to ignore them then that's that.
I think the birth certificate thing (corporate admiralty law) only applies to the "entity" that has been created in YOUR NAME in all CAPS. That's why authorities have to gain consent and agreement that you are indeed that entity or acting on behalf of said created legal entity before THEY can ACT on YOU (the legally created entity).
Most people are not going to go the common law route. They readily accept that they are indeed some form of "citizen" under the laws of the state and therefore will do whatever the state recommends.
The German trial run for an alternative system between 1933 and 1945 didn't work out too well for them. And they've been under the thumb ever since. It would take a concerted effort from many nations acting together to turn the tables on the global banking elite. At the moment, they appear to have all the corners covered. The BRICS multipolar alternative is just another controlled opposition operation run by the same criminal mafia.
I hate that colonial style stewardship sentiment of other (lesser) beings, nations and the environment!
Someone's always gonna step into that role whether we like it or not. Inalienable human rights (and animal rights) only exist if we uphold them and demand to be treated better, but organized gangs always get their way until they're displaced by another bigger badder organized gang like the one we live under now.
That organized gang took out two African presidents (my opinion) because they dared to question PCR testing (not even the deeper story of germ theory). That's how much they care about their "business." They'll do whatever it takes to protect it.
If people didn't act as stewards towards the land, gardens, commonly shared spaces and dare I say "property" then everything would go to shit and look like shit. Even nature benefits from our intervention when our intentions are good - controlled burns, forest and coastal area management, culling certain species so they don't over-breed, die of starvation, overwhelm the surrounding ecology.
Of course, without us trying to manage things, nature would more or less do the same, but with less empathy.
I see your points. I'm not opposed to the rule of law at all and happy to pay someone to uphold it, and to make sure it applies to the elites which seems to be the problem with what's going on at the mo.
Though as regards our planet and how we live with each other isn't culling' certain' species what the elites are meant to be doing to us, so that we don't overbreed and overwhelm resources and the planet and ultimately annihilate (who know there was an h in there?)ourselves?
It's the assumption that the ones who are capable of making these decisions are the ones who know best
Yes, I agree that the self-appointed steward or whatever you want to call the caretaker is making assumptions about their role in the world but this comes naturally to us so can't be all that bad. We take in stray animals because we feel empathy and don't want them to suffer. If a global elite were truly enlightened and not just taking care of business they would inevitably have to decide whether they step in and "fix things" or stand back and watch as the masses rip each others faces off for a slice of bread. I think I would step in just in case or because I know for a fact from historical record that the alternative would be unpleasant for those under my assumed care.
If the caretakers /managers lose control of the situation (their business) or run out of resources the social construct would immediately fall apart and machete time would ensue until a warlord establishes a new set of rules.
It is not only all CAPS, btw.
We actually have precedent in the UK that the courts could not proceed because we asked them the right question.
But you are right again, common law is common to the ppl and that ends there, sadly.
We can use the system against itself, small by small;
for that we must know the difference between law, rights, statute, mandate etc.
Yes. I'm in total agreement. I was just making the point that admiralty law (which is a fiction) sees the artificial construct of our name in all caps (a corporate entity) as the thing they have power over. And it works because everyone goes along with it - governments, courts, police and the general public.
There is only one true law and that is raw power and when physical military power is not available then psychological, economic, informational, and class warfare are utilized to great effect.
Knowledge of these techniques and mastery of psychology is why we are beaten down every time. If we all rose up at once, then there's nothing they could do.
Maritime law is not a fiction, it's rooted in history like many things.
Study history and you'll innerstand.
Fiction = history as we learnt it. We need to unlearn and relearn.
Try getting the general public to "unlearn and relearn" anything!
I'll wait!
I hate word games. And that goes for legalese especially.
You know perfectly well what I mean! It's a man made construct devised for trading goods and property. Citizens under this system also take on similar properties.
Just because something is "rooted in history" doesn't make it valid or better than alternatives. Take religious belief for example.
I don't know you and I don't read you mind.
So, don't you dare telling me what I know or don't.
Speak for yourself only.