servant-king: The law is a lie. [Archive]

Bigjon

17th August 2014, 06:28 PM

http://servantking.info/index2.html

Who I am
And
Who Should Watch These Programs
http://servantking.info/mask.jpg (http://servantking.info/who.html#)

I was the Man behind the MASK !
For the purposes of these programs, who I am, is irrelevant. What difference does it make who I am? Are you going to believe the information I give you based on who I am or on the information, facts, evidence and proof?We have all been trained to believe or not believe information based on the credibility of who gives it to us. We take by faith what we are taught without proof and make it our knowledge, but belief is only a poor and foolish substitute for knowledge. You can believe all kinds of things and still know nothing !
But if you really must know who I am ....my name is Marcus.
I am a simple man who does nothing in person. I found that, out of body experiences, did not suit me. I came into the world by labour of a natural birth, but I have been raised Caesarean. In the past, I held the power of an attorney and exercised a master’s privilege in public law. I was a registered member of a law society but on October 21, 2007, I personally died and was disbarred. I no longer plead at the bar for anything.
In my former life I was also a professional actor who performed according to billing. Today, I do not have a role to play in any of the Acts as my part has been eliminated. You may be familiar with some of the Acts I previously appeared in, like..... The Vital Statistics Act.... The Marriage Act..... The Highway Traffic Act..... Bills of Exchange Act... etc.
I no longer have the means necessary to appear in person or the time for such nonsense. I recently received an inheritance that keeps me preoccupied.
If who I am sounds confusing to you, then you are normal. This is the reason the two sets of programs are named “Confusion” and “Unraveled”.
**********************************
Who should watch these presentations?
• Everyone who owns no property and that would be everyone.
• Everyone who lost their birthright and cannot find it.
• Everyone who knows what is legal and illegal as opposed to what is right and wrong.
• Everyone who wonders how 1% of the people legally obtained 99% of your debt.
• Common law freemen and that would be everyone.
• People who love their religion and that would be everyone.
• Teenagers, so they can explain it to their parents.
• Aboriginal people who think they have been cheated.
• People who are just fed up with everything.
• John Doe and Jane Roe. In Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton.
• Those who wish to be a servant-king instead of a king’s-servant.
• And finally, those who have nothing better to do and are just plain nosy.

Who should NOT watch these presentations?
• Those who want something for nothing. Commonly called “thieves”.
• Those who know it all. Commonly called, “know it alls”.

palani

17th August 2014, 06:47 PM

With your attendance at any court your purpose to be there is to WAGE YOUR LAW.

Anciently points of law could be settled by WAGER OF LAW ... in which champions were assigned by either party and at sunup they would start beating on each other. The reasons champions were utilized was ... if either litigant expired by waging his own law then the suit would continue.

Spectrism

17th August 2014, 07:30 PM

Looks interesting. Will work my way through it. The intro is good... and it rings true.

Glass

17th August 2014, 11:24 PM

worth watching. The linked video is a bit slow but the next episode is absolutely worth watching... especially for Canadians.

Glass

18th August 2014, 01:29 AM

This guy is pretty good. I'm at #5.

I've done lots of the freeman stuff with all the problems that come out of that. This guy deals with all of that with the same mind set I have about all the internet freeman Birth certificate bond etc.

He puts a very good level of research to it and has a couple of unique but very valid realisations. more worth of watching now and even people who don't like the subject will see the sense he puts to the subject matter.

Interesting that per-son's are dead. Using a person is practicing the occult and conjuring. Courts only deal with persons, persons are not living. The court summons dead people to appear. All Rise, The court is now in session. You are not actually standing up, you are being drawn up from the dead to appear. Very clever interpretation.

How that God states he does not care for persons, does not see them, will not help them.

Twisted Titan

18th August 2014, 04:56 AM

TAggggg

palani

18th August 2014, 05:15 AM

Interesting that per-son's are dead.

Asserting a right creates a person. A word spoken or written creates a person. Any action creates a person. Accepting representation creates a person.

Anything you are capable of creating on your own is dead.

Hatha Sunahara

18th August 2014, 08:59 AM

I watched 5 of the confusion videos. Very interesting. I've been educated on most of this stuff, and it's no surprise to me about the points of law he brings up. The use of language is interesting particularly, and he does have some new points there for me.

Hatha

iOWNme

18th August 2014, 10:29 AM

palani

18th August 2014, 11:50 AM

If an individual were actually 'free' they wouldnt need to follow the Kings 'Laws' in order to secure his 'freedom'.

Where laws are reason and reason is law only the irrational will be found in disagreement. Learn to be more agreeable and look for reason rather than argument. Argument is synonymous with babbling and certainly is evidence of an irrational frame of mind.

Honor is rewarded and dishonor is punished. If you don't know the difference between the two then more research is necessary.

iOWNme

18th August 2014, 03:57 PM

Where laws are reason and reason is law only the irrational will be found in disagreement. Learn to be more agreeable and look for reason rather than argument. Argument is synonymous with babbling and certainly is evidence of an irrational frame of mind.

What your saying is that if the 'Law' already matches what an individual was going to do anyway, then it is irrelevant and redundant. And if the 'Law' goes against what an individual was going to do anyway, then it is to be deemed 'unreasonable' and 'irrational'. Which means there is no such thing as 'Law' which i have told you a hundred times. LOL

Lets try out your 'reasoning': I claim i can steal from you anytime i want. You try and use 'reason' to explain to me why you dont have to pay me. I then view your 'reason' as pure babbling and claim you are in an 'irrational' state of mind, and then send my enforcers to steal your money, cage you or kill you.

Does this ring a bell to you?

Honor is rewarded and dishonor is punished. If you don't know the difference between the two then more research is necessary.

There is no 'honor' in fraud, coercion or force. (sometimes called 'Law') Nice try though.

palani

18th August 2014, 04:18 PM

What your saying is that if the 'Law' already matches what an individual was going to do anyway, then it is irrelevant and redundant. And if the 'Law' goes against what an individual was going to do anyway, then it is to be deemed 'unreasonable' and 'irrational'. There is a REASON for the law and the individual was going to go against REASON? Or was he planning upon going against REASON and the law both? Here law simply gives the individual another chance to consider his actions.

Which means there is no such thing as 'Law' which i have told you a hundred times. LOL
Should you create a person with no Law then I expect you would also be inclined to build a ship with no rudder; or commence a voyage with no destination; or build a house without using a level; or choosing an agent without putting him on a leash.

Lets try out your 'reasoning': I claim i can steal from you anytime i want. You try and use 'reason' to explain to me why you dont have to pay me. I then view your 'reason' as pure babbling and claim you are in an 'irrational' state of mind, and then send my enforcers to steal your money, cage you or kill you.
Necessitas non habet legem. Necessity has no law.

Examine that maxim closely. Law is reason. Necessity has no reason. If it is necessary to survive anything is possible. In fact

Necessity creates equity.

Necessity imports privilege.

and

Privilegium est quasi privata lex. A privilege is, as it were, a private law.

So you are choosing to engage me in a private law? In Equity no less? My .... you are braver than I envisioned you to be. Because the terms are all mine now.

There is no 'honor' in fraud, coercion or force. (sometimes called 'Law') Nice try though.
Maybe you ought to review some basic concepts of honor and dishonor

http://i60.tinypic.com/b69if5.jpg

Hatha Sunahara

18th August 2014, 10:03 PM

Where did he find all of this information? By looking through the scribbles of his 'King'. (Legitmizing his oppressor)

The entire 'freeman' movement does nothing but LEGITIMIZE the King and his 'Laws'. It is based around the assumption that if you use the Kings 'Law' against him, he will be restrained in some way. Yet, this same 'Law' didnt restrain him to begin with, and by using his 'Laws' you are only legitimizing his rule over you. Its like begging Congress to lower taxes, while simultaneously telling them they have the right to raise your taxes. Its absolutely irrational, self contradictory, insane and yet most people on this planet actually believe this mythology.

'Freedom' doesnt exist in the 'Kings Laws'. 'Freedom' exists in only 1 place: Between your ears.

If an individual were actually 'free' they wouldnt need to follow the Kings 'Laws' in order to secure his 'freedom'.

I've watched 8 of the 9 Confusion videos, and I think his message is that freedom is located between your ears. His entire message is the same as yours. That the scribbles (laws) of politicians are not only fraud, but insane, and they are a form of witchcraft. He says that many times. He says that lawyers are taught to forget about what is right and wrong, but to think in terms of what is legal and illegal. His message is also that under the laws of all countries, you own nothing. Nobody owns anything. The 'collective' owns everything, and all countries are communistic in nature. He has a great exposition of money. The only thing you can own is your labor, and money is designed to steal that from you.

Marcus is an anarchist, just like you are IownMe. He just doesn't call attention to is by using that word.

Hatha

Dogman

18th August 2014, 10:13 PM

I've watched 8 of the 9 Confusion videos, and I think his message is that freedom is located between your ears. His entire message is the same as yours. That the scribbles (laws) of politicians are not only fraud, but insane. He says that many times. He says that lawyers are taught to forget about what is right and wrong, but to think in terms of what is legal and illegal. His message is also that under the laws of all countries, you own nothing. Nobody owns anything. The 'collective' owns everything, and all countries are communistic in nature. He has a great exposition of money. The only thing you can own is your labor, and money is designed to steal that from you.

Marcus is an anarchist, just like you are IownMe. He just doesn't call attention to is by using that word.

Hatha

You speak truth, freedom is what they allow on any patch of dry ground on the planet , subject to change at a whim!

Someone will dictate what is right and wrong and what you can do! And your voice is only so much air/wind.

And there is not a dam thing you can do to change it!

Only place true freedom exists is in international waters, and only when your guns are bigger than everyone else and you can keep from being blown out of it!

Or in the mind, which is endless, but in reality the pants are put on the same, one leg at a time!

Glass

18th August 2014, 11:54 PM

so getting to the end of Confusion of things 7 of 9.

I am seeing a real blinding light come on here. Amazing. This guy is showing us the key.

Anyone watch #7 and are getting it? The whole lead up, explanations of Fee, Feud, Attorney, attornment etc. Canada or your country is your father. You are a son of your country, USA or Canada or Australia. You are a son of the Queen. The Queen or who acts in her stead authors the document to register the fictional person at birth. That makes her/it your parent, not your "birth" parents.

Attorneys make you turn your allegiance, most of us will have heard that in the freeman material.

Basically If you sign up to society by getting a birth certificate, getting a license or being registered in anyway. He is saying that during that process what you are actually doing is attorning to a new "Land Lord".

But the question becomes, who are you attorney-ing away from? Because you are being turned from one feudal lord to another. You are in feud with your old land lord and fees need paying during feuds. (that bit is not quite right) Fees need paying and is usually military service. Fee simple is military service obligation and I've mentioned that before.

From someone else who calls you Son. Who else calls you their son, their children. God does. You turn/atorney away from God and you become dead, hidden from God, you are occulted or occultated. That leaves you living in this insane world of dead/death/un living.

So the answer would seem that you should Attorn all over again but this time bring yourself back to your father.

he also talks about Bibles and how they were historically used as a method of recording births, deaths and marriages.

This guy is good. I like this guy. He has clearly spent a lot of time on it. Things like this little gem have been my stumbling blocks. It also seems that some of the freeman Claim of Right concepts are correct. BUT many of the executions of these Claims of Right are not quite correct.

palani

19th August 2014, 05:24 AM

Marcus says it himself. Anytime you open your mind to someone then you are subjecting yourself to mind control. So he is telling you up front (in an 'honest' fashion) that his message is all about mind control. As long as you are intent to go from a belief based system to a knowledge based system then here is a series of practical handbooks on how to acquire knowledge and be in control of your world. It is a series of 11 books called THE ENGLISH WORKS OF THOMAS HOBBES.

https://www.google.com/search?q=english+works+of+thomas+hobbes&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#q=editions:GTaW0wvQ8owC&tbm=bks&tbs=bkv:r

iOWNme

19th August 2014, 05:31 AM

Maybe you ought to review some basic concepts of honor and dishonor

http://i60.tinypic.com/b69if5.jpg

More scribbles from your Master?

How about YOU give me YOUR opinion on this matter?

palani

19th August 2014, 05:39 AM

How about YOU give me YOUR opinion on this matter?

On the matter of honor or dishonor? Ok.

The present system is not so much about credit and debt as it is about honor and dishonor. 'Course you will never be told this. Nor will you find this topic discussed or decided in any constitution or statute but it underlies all relationships between man and man, woman and man or woman and woman. [This includes relationships between man and court and man and government]. But if you have no concept of what honor and dishonor is to begin with and it is never discussed then nobody will suggest you to go out and study the topic.

You might be entangled with a system that you don't like but if you choose a less than honorable method to remove yourself from it then you will ultimately lose. For you entered it honorably even though you chose to do so without full disclosure so suck it up and figure out how to separate yourself from it honorably.

More scribbles from your Master?
I have no master(s) and fewer peers.

Glass

19th August 2014, 06:30 AM

I wasn't as happy with #8. Seems that s few points needed to be accepted on faith. Obviously gold silver not being value or a commodity in itselft. I think there are perishable and non perishable. A commodity is something that can be consumed but also has some time value storage capacity. Gold/silver longer than chickens/grains. That is why it attracts a premium. Less time decay of value or spoilage.

One thing a society is supposed to do is provide a security or confidence. Confidence that the thing that is used for exchange is reliable. Head honcho stamped paper should be ok barring faked or stolen. That is what it should be if you are going to use it. Problem is it got outsourced.

palani

19th August 2014, 07:57 AM

After absorbing this information and becoming knowledgeable ... then is your identity the same?

If the name be given for some accident, then the identity of the thing will depend upon the matter; for by the taking away and supplying of matter, the accidents that were, are destroyed, and other new ones are generated, which cannot be the same numerically; so that a ship, which signifies matter so figured, will be the same as long as the matter remains the same; but if not part of the matter be the same, then it is numerically another ship; and if part of the matter remain and part be changed, the the ship will be partly the same, and partly not the same.

Hatha Sunahara

19th August 2014, 08:57 AM

So, Palani, is the government obliged to behave honorably? Is there any honor in deceiving people into acting for a dead 'persona' so that they can be controlled without their knowledge? Why do you believe that the victims of this deception are obliged to act honorably? Is it to show that they are greater, or better than the government?

And what about revolutions? Is there honor in participating in a revolution? Does honor oblige you to defend the status quo?

Here's a description of honor I can relate to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gMY3TRx8s

Hatha

Carl

19th August 2014, 09:30 AM

Who should NOT watch these presentations?
• Those who know it all. Commonly called, “know it alls”.

Well, it appears I'm off the hook, I don't have to watch the videos.

palani

19th August 2014, 12:22 PM

is the government obliged to behave honorably? Honor is a concept among men. To the extent that a man occupies an office of trust in government he may act honorably or dishonorably. Governments have no iron in this fire.

Is there any honor in deceiving people into acting for a dead 'persona' so that they can be controlled without their knowledge? Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent.

Why do you believe that the victims of this deception are obliged to act honorably? No obligation to do so but as you might desire due process so should you give it.

Is it to show that they are greater, or better than the government? Government is an agent ... no more and no less. Best think in terms of the state and the government being two separate entities with the government being the party in charge of actions that the state has delegated to them. Governments change all the time. States ... less so.

And what about revolutions? Is there honor in participating in a revolution? Does honor oblige you to defend the status quo? Revolutions are sometimes needed to transfer functions of the state from one government to another. Honor is less a salient issue in a revolution than necessity where necessity is the principle cited by all sides of the controversy. The phrase 'revolution' says it all though. After having gone through several revolutions you will find you (the state) are back where you began with only the experience to make you wiser (and sadder).

iOWNme

19th August 2014, 01:29 PM

It is a series of 11 books called THE ENGLISH WORKS OF THOMAS HOBBES.

https://www.google.com/search?q=english+works+of+thomas+hobbes&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#q=editions:GTaW0wvQ8owC&tbm=bks&tbs=bkv:r

Why are you promoting Statism?

Hobbes was an advocate for 'Democracy' and the 'Social Contract'. Two things that have absolutely DESTROYED the individual and his own free will.

GACK.

palani

19th August 2014, 02:20 PM

Why are you promoting Statism?
Why do you promote self-hating concepts? Should you cast yourself in the role of the state your actions would match those recently of Robin Williams. Instead you appear to view the government as the state and have an instant antagonist.

Hobbes was an advocate for 'Democracy' and the 'Social Contract'. Two things that have absolutely DESTROYED the individual and his own free will. I must have skipped that page. Could you refer me to the volume and page number?

iOWNme

19th August 2014, 03:36 PM

On the matter of honor or dishonor? Ok.

The present system is not so much about credit and debt as it is about honor and dishonor. 'Course you will never be told this. Nor will you find this topic discussed or decided in any constitution or statute but it underlies all relationships between man and man, woman and man or woman and woman. [This includes relationships between man and court and man and government]. But if you have no concept of what honor and dishonor is to begin with and it is never discussed then nobody will suggest you to go out and study the topic.

I believe that you believe this. But this is nothing more than 'Patriot Mythology' designed to enforce the Masters 'Laws' on innocent non violent individuals. And then YOU condone it.

You might be entangled with a system that you don't like but if you choose a less than honorable method to remove yourself from it then you will ultimately lose. For you entered it honorably even though you chose to do so without full disclosure so suck it up and figure out how to separate yourself from it honorably.

Can a child 12 minutes old 'enter' a contract 'honorably'? (You have NEVER answered this question, because it unearths your contradictory viewpoint.) You STILL blame the victims of State aggression. You are a Statist through and through.

I wrote a letter asking them to remove my name from SS (even though I never signed up, mu mother did under FRAUD), and that i did not chose to participate anymore. (close to 10 years ago)I asked them to reply to my request within 15 days. I never heard back. I sent another letter, basically saying the same thing. I never heard back.

Now, did i 'honorably' try and remove myself?

Who decides what is 'honorable'? In your Statism mindset, the Master is the one who decides if you are acting 'honorably'. In my anarchistic mindset, an individual and his own free will and conscience is the one to decide what is 'honorable'. Since i know i never asked for, contracted into, etc SS, it seems fairly 'reasonable' and 'honorable' for me to remove myself ANYTIME I CHOOSE.

Rebut THAT.

iOWNme

19th August 2014, 03:50 PM

I must have skipped that page. Could you refer me to the volume and page number?

I refuse to go looking through Hobbes scribbles (i think i still have Leviathan) to prove to you what you already know. I might spend the time if i thought you would even think about it for a moment. But i know you wont, because i have pointed this out about Hobbes to you on several occasions.

Lev, Chapt XIV - Of the First and Second Natural Laws, and Of Contracts

This is just one example of Hobbes theory and how ridiculous it is. And i havent even gotten to his theories on 'transferring rights' where he IMAGINES that if you delegate a right to another man, you somehow lose that right for yourself. LOL

The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature) were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.

The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights) so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".

But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was also anarchic (without leadership) with respect to each other. Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism) theories of international relations, advanced by E.H. Carr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.H._Carr) and Hans Morgenthau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Morgenthau).

palani

19th August 2014, 04:20 PM

YOU condone it. An observation noted and commented upon in your un-wired brain becomes approval?

Can a child 12 minutes old 'enter' a contract 'honorably'? Can a calf 12 minutes old be branded? But then a contract is not a brand. A contract is the act of two or more each mutually conveying their rights. In your example have you engaged in a contract or been branded where you willingly display your brand upon request?

You are a Statist through and through. Only when I am recognized as the State.

I wrote a letter asking them to remove my name from SS (even though I never signed up, mu mother did under FRAUD), and that i did not chose to participate anymore. (close to 10 years ago)I asked them to reply to my request within 15 days. I never heard back. I sent another letter, basically saying the same thing. I never heard back. Perhaps your name was not yours to take back? However, you have a common law right to be known by whatever name you choose. Have you looked into taking another name?

Now, did i 'honorably' try and remove myself? Is this the only avenue you selected to attempt a remedy upon some trespass?

Who decides what is 'honorable'?
You might engage an agent to review your actions and determine whether they are honorable or dishonorable. Another thought is to place a legal notice to the public ... describe your actions and ask for public input as to the honor or dishonor ... as the case may be. I'm sure given time and motivation half a dozen other ideas could be discovered.

In your Statism mindset You have no idea what my mindset is so why do you make inflammatory accusations? Cannot succeed in a discussion without casting aspersions?

the Master is the one who decides if you are acting 'honorably'. In my anarchistic mindset, an individual and his own free will and conscience is the one to decide what is 'honorable'. Since i know i never asked for, contracted into, etc SS, it seems fairly 'reasonable' and 'honorable' for me to remove myself ANYTIME I CHOOSE.
You are like a battleship sending round after round against an illusion. You cannot separate fact from fiction. Your broadsides are capable of destroying nations yet the illusion still remains and you think they are not effectual.

My yeas are yeas and my nays are nays. I have no doubt as to the effect MY actions have upon fictions while you need some acknowledgment that you have been removed. Your doubt is what causes your argument.

Rebut THAT. I have no established obligation to rebut anything.

palani

19th August 2014, 04:27 PM

I refuse to go looking through Hobbes scribbles

Then remain ignorant.

It is possible to read without accepting what you read as truth in this day and age while it might have passed for truth 400 years ago. I view Hobbes as presenting foundation work for what government has become as words shifted in their meaning over time. Hobbes material is black and white while any text on law printed today is in full living technicolor.

I refer to Hobbes section on 'person' because his is the only dissertation on that topic that I have found that does not devolve into corporations and individuals. Early texts are like that. There is much information to be data mined in these works and they shed much light on how governments have morphed.

iOWNme

21st August 2014, 05:44 AM

Then remain ignorant.

It is possible to read without accepting what you read as truth in this day and age while it might have passed for truth 400 years ago. I view Hobbes as presenting foundation work for what government has become as words shifted in their meaning over time. Hobbes material is black and white while any text on law printed today is in full living technicolor.

I refer to Hobbes section on 'person' because his is the only dissertation on that topic that I have found that does not devolve into corporations and individuals. Early texts are like that. There is much information to be data mined in these works and they shed much light on how governments have morphed.

How will I remain ignorant if i have already read Hobbes (i own Leviathan), and have decided that he was wrong, contradictory and irrational?

I noticed you couldnt rebut the fact that Hobbes promoted Democracy and the Social Contract. Maybe YOU are the ignorant one if you read it and didnt notice that?

You've got a lot of reading to do! LOL

Hobbes Social Contract Theory

The one thing we can agree on: 'Law' is a LIE designed to remove the individuals ability to decide what is morally right and wrong, and to conform him to others opinions of what is 'legal' and 'illegal'.

There is no such thing as 'Law' just as there is no such thing as 'Government', 'Politicians', 'Judges', 'Courts' or any other euphemism that attempt to call something another name to hide its malicious intent.

palani

21st August 2014, 06:02 AM

How will I remain ignorant if i have already read Hobbes (i own Leviathan), and have decided that he was wrong, contradictory and irrational? Wrong for YOUR time or wrong for HIS time?

I noticed you couldnt rebut the fact that Hobbes promoted Democracy and the Social Contract. Maybe YOU are the ignorant one if you read it and didnt notice that? At the time Hobbes walked the earth the feudal system was prevalent. So it appears you are more in favor of feudal concepts than more modern systems? Not that I don't share your view ... just want to get it straight from you.

You've got a lot of reading to do! LOL Perhaps. Is that bad? I suppose you go to movies for your enlightened view?

The one thing we can agree on: 'Law' is a LIE designed to remove the individuals ability to decide what is morally right and wrong, and to conform him to others opinions of what is 'legal' and 'illegal'. I think what you fail to recognize is the power of definition. Take for example global warming. While I believe that man is not capable on his own of causing climate change yet when climate change is defined as man's effect on climate then the definition removes ALL other sources of climate change. By your definitions you design a system and you ensnare people who don't understand the mechanism.

There is no such thing as 'Law' just as there is no such thing as 'Government', 'Politicians', 'Judges', 'Courts' or any other euphemism that attempt to call something another name to hide its malicious intent.
Yet I (and others) have defined law as reason and reason as law. So your statement devolves to "There is no such thing as 'reason' ... ". Since you have abandoned reason then your actions, words and thought are irrational. Enjoy your rubber room and straight jacket. They are of your own creation.

iOWNme

21st August 2014, 03:45 PM

Wrong for YOUR time or wrong for HIS time?

Do you IMAGINE morality changes depending on the year?

Im going to say this again: Statism has warped your perception of reality to a point that you cannot even use your own judgement on right and wrong. You associate 'right' and 'wrong' with something that changes by majority whim. YOu look at the actions of a man, and compare this to the time he lived in, in order to decide if he was acting 'right' or 'wrong'.

Morals are a constant universal unchanging idea. Murder was wrong 6000 years ago, no matter how many people in the village IMAGINED a Volcano God who demanded blood.

At the time Hobbes walked the earth the feudal system was prevalent. So it appears you are more in favor of feudal concepts than more modern systems? Not that I don't share your view ... just want to get it straight from you.

This is called a 'strawman' argument, and i would think YOU would know this. I never said anything about 'feudal' anything. You set up your 'strawman' and knock him down. LOL You know what i stand for: The principles of Self Ownership, Voluntaryism and the NAP. These are things that can be defined, explained and rationalized using reason and logic. There are no contradictions in these principles.

However, Hobbes, like many othersstill couldnt get rid of that last little lie inside his head, ie: 'Authority'.Trying to solve a problem, by creating the problem on a larger scale, is not only self contradictoryand irrational, but it is a MYTH that constitutes the Most Dangerous SUPERSTITION that has ever been IMAGINED by mankind.

I think what you fail to recognize is the power of definition.

There is only one definition for morality. It doesnt change by majority whim. It doesnt get altered by scribbles on paper. It cant be changed by calling it another name. It doesnt sway around in the wind.

You STILL dont understand the actual problem. You STILL dont understand my position. You STILL dont understand what Anarchy even is. Holy smokes man. We've been at it for almost 2 years, and you STILL babble things back to me that Ive proven to you to be false time and time again. If you just disagreed, that would be one thing. But you honestly dont UNDERSTAND the principles or what they even mean. Why do you IMAGINE that your Masters get to change the definition of what is Right and Wrong? Why dont you just use your own free will and conscience to figure out what is Right and Wrong?

Yet I (and others) have defined law as reason and reason as law. So your statement devolves to "There is no such thing as 'reason' ... ". Since you have abandoned reason then your actions, words and thought are irrational. Enjoy your rubber room and straight jacket. They are of your own creation.

You have done no such thing, and you cant. Ive tried to get you to for 2 years. Its an impossibility. Stop IMAGINING it to be real.

Im going to repeat this AGAIN to you. If you dont understand, ask a question. If you think im wrong, show me where. But what ever you do, dont agree with me!

Either one of these 2 things is true:

1. Man creates a 'Government' and it is funded through INVOLUNTARY means. (This is not 'Government', it is a gang of violent criminals. They are delegating Rights they do not have as individuals.) But yet, it goes even deeper.

2. Man creates a 'Government' that is funded through VOLUNTARY means. (This is not 'Government', it is a group of individuals peacefully interacting. They are only delegating rights they have as individuals.)

I know you IMAGINE that men can come together, only delegate rights they have as individuals, and somehow they MAGICALLY become 'Government'. But that is a provable lie. There isnt another voluntary entity on planet earth that you would call 'Government'. Not Walmart, not The Dodgers, not Circle K, the Boyscouts or any other group of individuals who came together under voluntary purposes. And on the flip side, there isnt another involuntary entity on planet earth that you would call 'Government'. Not the Bloods, the Crips, La Raza, the Mob or any other gang of violent criminals.

Glass

21st August 2014, 04:24 PM

Its clear from discussions going on that either party could benefit from actually watching the videos.

Especially this discussion about government. I think you might find it interesting. I am up to part 6 of the Unravelling series. Some interesting information on what a government actually is included.

but in short IOwnME government morals do change on a whim because man made government is not real government. It doesn't administer the law only acts of behaviour. How it administers those acts changes over time. Some acts are punishable at one time might be unpunishable at another time and vice versa. If the government morals change eventually so do the people, although there are often holdouts to the new morals.

palani

21st August 2014, 06:18 PM

If you think im wrong, show me where. But what ever you do, dont agree with me!

You appear to be promoting a system that has failed consistently in the past. But I agree with your right to be wrong so when you are facing a 1,000 screaming Vikings intent upon mayhem or the likes of William the Conqueror by yourself with nobody watching your back; in this case you might have 5 milliseconds to reflect that your authority won't impress either of these entities.

I agree that when you know not history then you are free to do everything wrong again and again until your wrongness terminates you.

iOWNme

21st August 2014, 08:15 PM

You appear to be promoting a system that has failed consistently in the past.

Anarchy isnt a 'system' its a LACK of a system. Its an anti-system. You STILL dont even grasp the concepts being discussed.

But I agree with your right to be wrong so when you are facing a 1,000 screaming Vikings intent upon mayhem or the likes of William the Conqueror by yourself with nobody watching your back;

You sound like the 'Government' threatening me with Al Qaeda. Stop trying to scare with the boogieman. I thought you used reason? LOL

Another Statist mythology: Without a 'Ruling Class', we wont be able to cooperate and organize for mutual self defense. As if i wouldnt be able to have an organized group of friends (much like i do now) that have the same concerns, values and beliefs as me in order to protect myself or my property. But this isnt 'Government'. (I know you IMAGINE it is, because thats what you've been told) But, I or anyone else in my group would NOT have the right to come and take YOUR money to fund OUR protection. And that what every single 'Government' has done.

This is patently absurd. To think that if we arent violently dominated we wont be able to get anything accomplished or be able to protect ourselves is a ridiculous idea, but you and almost everyone else IMAGINES this to be the case.

n this case you might have 5 milliseconds to reflect that your authority won't impress either of these entities.

I agree that when you know not history then you are free to do everything wrong again and again until your wrongness terminates you.

If you knew history then you wouldnt be comparing roaming Vikings to current times. There is a very significant difference between then and now: The advent of the FIREARM.

Go ahead and send 1000 screaming Vikings over. I have enough rounds for 10x that. LOL Its funny that you have to reach to ancient Viking days to try and make your argument sound rational. LOL

Glass

21st August 2014, 09:14 PM

Governments are formed to destroy your God-given life, God-given liberty, and God-given property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fongh5INOpY#t=21m08

Quoted from the OP presenter. From the video Lame Claim 5 of 14. At the 21 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fongh5INOpY

I can't get this to queue up correctly at the right time.

palani

22nd August 2014, 04:33 AM

Anarchy isnt a 'system' its a LACK of a system. Its an anti-system. You STILL dont even grasp the concepts being discussed. Anarchy is a phantasm. It is electrons moving from one place to another in your brain. This is not reality. Neither is government reality. Governments form when NECESSARY and devolve at all other times.

govcheetos

22nd August 2014, 07:00 AM

If you knew history then you wouldnt be comparing roaming Vikings to current times. There is a very significant difference between then and now: The advent of the FIREARM.

Go ahead and send 1000 screaming Vikings over. I have enough rounds for 10x that. LOL Its funny that you have to reach to ancient Viking days to try and make your argument sound rational. LOL

"WOW. I am armed 100% of the time. Im armed twice 125% of the time. Im armed when i bring my garbage can inside. Im armed cooking chicken. Im armed when im gardening. Im armed rebuilding automatic transmissions. But if i see 400 black males hanging out ANYWHERE, im pretty sure i dont have that many magazines on me....LOL"

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?78740-Beaten-to-Death-at-McDonald%92s

Both posted the same day, just saying.

BrewTech

22nd August 2014, 07:05 AM

WOW. I am armed 100% of the time. Im armed twice 125% of the time. Im armed when i bring my garbage can inside. Im armed cooking chicken. Im armed when im gardening. Im armed rebuilding automatic transmissions. But if i see 400 black males hanging out ANYWHERE, im pretty sure i dont have that many magazines on me....LOL

Both posted the same day, just saying.

One thing to be in possession of enough ammo, and another to be able to carry it all at any given time. Let's not nitpick.

EE_

22nd August 2014, 07:27 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjM9htBVUS4

iOWNme

22nd August 2014, 10:05 AM

"WOW. I am armed 100% of the time. Im armed twice 125% of the time. Im armed when i bring my garbage can inside. Im armed cooking chicken. Im armed when im gardening. Im armed rebuilding automatic transmissions. But if i see 400 black males hanging out ANYWHERE, im pretty sure i dont have that many magazines on me....LOL"

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?78740-Beaten-to-Death-at-McDonald%92s

Both posted the same day, just saying.

Just saying what? Can you articulate to me just what it is your saying?

One of these scenarios is in public, where i can choose to leave. The other scenario is at my private home, where i am 100% morally obligated to defend myself and my family.

Do you now the difference here?

iOWNme

22nd August 2014, 10:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjM9htBVUS4

LMAO! Nice strawman argument! Why are we taling about Larken Rose? You really are a dishonest and unintelligent poster. And i truly mean that.

Was this supposed to be some intellectual rebutal to something? Was this video made by a 12 year old autistic Republican? LOL Notice he didnt actually adress the PRINCIPLES of what Larken discusses, and neither do you. EVER. Because you dont have any. Ive called you out on it time and time again.

EE, its been 2 years and you still cannot rebut a single position of Anarchy. Not a single principle. Its not that you arent smart enough, its that you STILL dont even grasp the concepts being discussed. Which leaves me baffled as to why you keep posting in these threads when its obvious you dont even want to understand principles and morality.

Why wont you debate me live? You follow me around posting childish crap, yet when i call you out to have an actual real live discussion, you run home to mommy crying like a girl. Man up, or shut up.

Isnt there a 'Evil Jew around every corner' thread you could be regurgitating in?

Ever notice i leave most of your anti Jew threads alone? How come i can live and let you live without harrassing you, but you cannot go a single thread without constantly resorting to childish nitwit ad-homine attacks? Could it be that as an Anarchist i fundamentally respect your right to have YOUR own limited Government' that will run your life? But s a Statist you cannot allow me to run my own life outside of YOUR opinions and beliefs.

You IMAGINE yourself to be the virtuous one, while you advocate for and condone mass violence (sometimes called 'Government') against non violent individuals.

govcheetos

22nd August 2014, 05:11 PM

Just saying what? Can you articulate to me just what it is your saying?

One of these scenarios is in public, where i can choose to leave. The other scenario is at my private home, where i am 100% morally obligated to defend myself and my family.

Do you now the difference here?

Just thought it was messed up thinking to challenge 10,000 Vikings, but not have enough firepower for 400 negroes. Both are formidable situations no doubt.

Not all public situations are you able to choose to leave.

EE_

23rd August 2014, 04:24 AM

LMAO! Nice strawman argument! Why are we taling about Larken Rose? You really are a dishonest and unintelligent poster. And i truly mean that.

Was this supposed to be some intellectual rebutal to something? Was this video made by a 12 year old autistic Republican? LOL Notice he didnt actually adress the PRINCIPLES of what Larken discusses, and neither do you. EVER. Because you dont have any. Ive called you out on it time and time again.

EE, its been 2 years and you still cannot rebut a single position of Anarchy. Not a single principle. Its not that you arent smart enough, its that you STILL dont even grasp the concepts being discussed. Which leaves me baffled as to why you keep posting in these threads when its obvious you dont even want to understand principles and morality.

Why wont you debate me live? You follow me around posting childish crap, yet when i call you out to have an actual real live discussion, you run home to mommy crying like a girl. Man up, or shut up.

Isnt there a 'Evil Jew around every corner' thread you could be regurgitating in?

Ever notice i leave most of your anti Jew threads alone? How come i can live and let you live without harrassing you, but you cannot go a single thread without constantly resorting to childish nitwit ad-homine attacks? Could it be that as an Anarchist i fundamentally respect your right to have YOUR own limited Government' that will run your life? But s a Statist you cannot allow me to run my own life outside of YOUR opinions and beliefs.

You IMAGINE yourself to be the virtuous one, while you advocate for and condone mass violence (sometimes called 'Government') against non violent individuals.

You are a very irritable person. It doesn't take much to set you off.

You have spent 2 years here with your non-volunteer approach to coerce other members with personal attacks of aggression, in an attempt to take ownership of others opinions and thoughts by pushing a bullshit narrative you gleaned from your hero and mentor Larken (for profit) Rose.

You IMAGINE you are following the regurgitated scribbles of a scam artist, Larken Rose, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I will not debate you again on this false narrative you are pushing. We've already been through that and I have exposed you for the fraud you are. You could not answer the most simplest question I've asked. I know other members were hoping you could provide an answer too.

So you just keep babbling and droning on with your poorly thought out narrative and feel free to attack me personally, or anything I may post. Just know, nothing you can say will bother, or irritate me the way it does you.

I do feel sorry you have become so consumed by this Larken nonsense. You seem to no longer have a sense of humor, or a zest for life. Everything you post is the same nonsense, or a lead-in to the same.

I only hope you find salvation from what consumes you.

EE

mick silver

23rd August 2014, 10:06 AM

morally right and wrong

Hatha Sunahara

24th August 2014, 10:41 AM

I've watched the first 6 videos of the Unraveled series now. It has only been recently that I became aware enough about law to understand the difference between God's law and man's law. I don't think I have ever read anything that specifically addresses that difference, or explains it, so I am paying close attention to Marcus--because he's the first person I've been exposed to who puts this topic under a microscope.

Ever since I developed an adult's consciousness, I've considered 'secular laws' to originate from some corrupt source--because our statutes are 'the will of the legislature' who lack the grace of god, and should not be entrusted to make 'laws' that the rest of us have to obey.

I'm guessing now, but I think the real secret of Marcus's message is that if we all decided to obey only God's laws, we could put all government's out of business and would then be able to own things individually instead of collectively through governments. But we need to obey and enforce God's laws. I long for the day when the legal profession is obsolete.

Hatha

palani

24th August 2014, 10:45 AM

I long for the day when the legal profession is obsolete.

Hatha

The legal profession only represents legal fictions. What's in your wallet?

Horn

24th August 2014, 11:15 AM

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmdiI-jUZhI

iOWNme

24th August 2014, 12:12 PM

You are a very irritable person. It doesn't take much to set you off.

No. What happened was this: I made posts early on that you disagreed with. We went back and forth. At one point out of nowhere I sent you a very nice and respectful PM telling you that i didnt think you were a 'bad' person and that i though you were a good natured well intention man with good morals. But then as i watched you, i started to notice things. You would bring me up in threads i never even posted in (I saw this on probably 5 different occasions) and would attack me when i wasnt even involved in the discussion. You would bring my name up as some sort of joke to be made fun of, in a topic i wasn't there to defend myself in. You would drag my name into your muddy drama in some vein attempt to elevate you ego above me. These are not the actions of a principled moral man!. These are the actions of a dishonest malicious individual. Someone who lavishes in the destruction of a man's character no matter the cost. Someone who relishes at the thought of making others look bad, so that he can look good.

You have spent 2 years here with your non-volunteer approach to coerce other members with personal attacks of aggression, in an attempt to take ownership of others opinions and thoughts by pushing a bullshit narrative you gleaned from your hero and mentor Larken (for profit) Rose.

You IMAGINE you are following the regurgitated scribbles of a scam artist, Larken Rose, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Why are you so fixated on Larken Rose? And Im the one who worships him? LOL Why arent you yapping about Spooner, Bastiat, Mencken or Thoreau?

Ive made hundreds of posts on these guys. Ive had their quotes in my sig for years, and not a SINGLE peep out of you about this. Do you know why? Because you cannot debate against the principles of Voluntaryism, it is a logical impossibility. ANY attempt to rationalize a position that is against Voluntaryism is a position that ends in contradictions. Which is why what i say bothers you: It uncovers contradictions inside your head that you are STILL not willing to address because you would rather cling to a belief system you were taught, then to have to live in the unknown and have to figure out the world on your own.

I will not debate you again on this false narrative you are pushing. We've already been through that and I have exposed you for the fraud you are. You could not answer the most simplest question I've asked. I know other members were hoping you could provide an answer too.

Can you articulate to me the 'fraudulent' part of the principles of Voluntaryism?

So you just keep babbling and droning on with your poorly thought out narrative and feel free to attack me personally, or anything I may post. Just know, nothing you can say will bother, or irritate me the way it does you.

I don not go around attacking you in threads that you havent even posted in. I do not bring up your name in threads you arent even in in an attempt to smear your name. I do not even reply to threads that you start unless i have a principled argument to make. The only reason you would ever do this is if what i said 'bothered' you. And you have the nerve to say 'i dont bother you'.

Because i bash you over the head with morality, you feel that i am attacking you. But i have been pointing out contradictions in your principles, because i assumed you were a decent man who would see the reason and logic. You have totally proved me wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. I gave you the benefit of the doubt early on, but i am under no moral obligation to treat you in any other way other than hostile after analyzing your tactics. You are another STATIST who claims he wants freedom, but is willing to attack his fellow slave for even thinking about actually leaving this plantation.

I do feel sorry you have become so consumed by this Larken nonsense. You seem to no longer have a sense of humor, or a zest for life. Everything you post is the same nonsense, or a lead-in to the same.

I only hope you find salvation from what consumes you.

EE

I think what i say makes YOU feel this way, and you are trying to project that onto me. You have no idea about my life, but you try and make some full scale judgement about it based off of the posts i make here. You even admitted everything i post is the same, yet you used only this information to make an all encompassing assessment about my life. Why do you care about me so much? LOL

palani

24th August 2014, 12:56 PM

I noticed you couldnt rebut the fact that Hobbes promoted Democracy and the Social Contract. Maybe YOU are the ignorant one if you read it and didnt notice that?

I'll let Hobbes speak for himself ... does this sound like it was written by a proponent of democracy?

http://i58.tinypic.com/6eeofs.jpg

palani

24th August 2014, 01:48 PM

Now here is what Hobbes thought would happen when democratic assemblies pass laws based upon which faction is currently in power or when the greatest orator convinces the populace of his opinion (until the next greatest orator comes along).

http://i58.tinypic.com/34qse9y.jpg

Not surprisingly this appears to be the the current state of Law. At Sea!!!

EE_

24th August 2014, 02:47 PM

No. What happened was this: I made posts early on that you disagreed with. We went back and forth. At one point out of nowhere I sent you a very nice and respectful PM telling you that i didnt think you were a 'bad' person and that i though you were a good natured well intention man with good morals. But then as i watched you, i started to notice things. You would bring me up in threads i never even posted in (I saw this on probably 5 different occasions) and would attack me when i wasnt even involved in the discussion. You would bring my name up as some sort of joke to be made fun of, in a topic i wasn't there to defend myself in. You would drag my name into your muddy drama in some vein attempt to elevate you ego above me. These are not the actions of a principled moral man!. These are the actions of a dishonest malicious individual. Someone who lavishes in the destruction of a man's character no matter the cost. Someone who relishes at the thought of making others look bad, so that he can look good.

Why are you so fixated on Larken Rose? And Im the one who worships him? LOL Why arent you yapping about Spooner, Bastiat, Mencken or Thoreau?

Ive made hundreds of posts on these guys. Ive had their quotes in my sig for years, and not a SINGLE peep out of you about this. Do you know why? Because you cannot debate against the principles of Voluntaryism, it is a logical impossibility. ANY attempt to rationalize a position that is against Voluntaryism is a position that ends in contradictions. Which is why what i say bothers you: It uncovers contradictions inside your head that you are STILL not willing to address because you would rather cling to a belief system you were taught, then to have to live in the unknown and have to figure out the world on your own.

Can you articulate to me the 'fraudulent' part of the principles of Voluntaryism?

I don not go around attacking you in threads that you havent even posted in. I do not bring up your name in threads you arent even in in an attempt to smear your name. I do not even reply to threads that you start unless i have a principled argument to make. The only reason you would ever do this is if what i said 'bothered' you. And you have the nerve to say 'i dont bother you'.

Because i bash you over the head with morality, you feel that i am attacking you. But i have been pointing out contradictions in your principles, because i assumed you were a decent man who would see the reason and logic. You have totally proved me wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. I gave you the benefit of the doubt early on, but i am under no moral obligation to treat you in any other way other than hostile after analyzing your tactics. You are another STATIST who claims he wants freedom, but is willing to attack his fellow slave for even thinking about actually leaving this plantation.

I think what i say makes YOU feel this way, and you are trying to project that onto me. You have no idea about my life, but you try and make some full scale judgement about it based off of the posts i make here. You even admitted everything i post is the same, yet you used only this information to make an all encompassing assessment about my life. Why do you care about me so much? LOL

You have a selective memory.

I was always respectful when I questioned you about your philosophy. It was you that drew first blood with character assassinations and the condescending way you speak to people. I only responded to that in like.

The product you're peddling is fairly sound...the problem is, you are the wrong person to be selling this!

When I say your philosophy is nonsense, I say that because you don't know what your product is, or what it will do for me. If I were selling you a product, I'd make damn sure you knew what the product does for you, first and foremost.

Like I said, I've asked the simplest of question of you many times over and you couldn't begin to answer it.

All I hear are condescending replies to me and other members as you try to beat people over the head with a product you know nothing about.

"Voluntaryism is a philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary"
By this definition, do you think you are practicing what you preach?

Now go get your shine box...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG-tm9-5kmY

Horn

24th August 2014, 03:15 PM

The product you're peddling is fairly sound...the problem is, you are the wrong person to be selling this!

Needs a Dee Snider wig...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q16_LDI-tsU

Hatha Sunahara

24th August 2014, 11:35 PM

I finished watching the 11th video of the Unraveling series. Marcus explains how all the legal systems of all the worlds countries violate the second commandment, which forbids the worship of anything but God himself--on idols or graven images, and no worshipping created by god eve--just worship God because he is a jealous god. Well, it seems that all the world's countries have legal systems that put themselves in the place of god, and 'recreate' god's children as dead personae so they can control them. They also put themselves in place of God, and the people worship their governments by obeying the government's laws and forsaking god's laws.

Marcus does a good job of laying out the principles of law used both in the bible, and by secular governments. He says if you understand the principles, you can easily grasp the details.

One of the things that came to my attention while watching Part 11 was how Israelis worship their Zionist government as if it were an idol. What came to mind were the words of the prophets in the old testament --particularly those of Isaiah who warned the ancient jews about straying from their belief in god, and adopting graven images, and becoming idolaters. This was after they established a monarchy to replace the theocracy they had. The monarchy only lasted for three or four generations, and then Israel fell apart into a northern and a southern kingdom, and subsequently 12 tribes disappeared.

It appears that all forms of national governments set up idolatrous systems so that they can control their people, and by accepting those idolatrous systems, people lose their property in exchange for benefits the government gives them. By usurping god's laws--through the violation of the first and second commandments, all nations lead their people into worshipping their governments, and not God.

I was aware of the 'straw man' --the legal entity that the law regards as you that is represented with your name in all caps. I never read or saw anything about the origins of the straw man--like, who dreamed up this concept--for obvious reasons--such as that the people who run the system don't want widespread knowledge of what they are doing. So, all of it is pretty hush hush. But Marcus explains it all, and I don't think I've heard the term 'straw man' once in the first 11 videos. I'm hoping this series goes viral. Marcus says numerous times that the people who run othe world's secular governments are mortally fearful of people becoming aware of how far those governments have strayed from God's laws, and how much they have deceived the masses into becoming slaves. I just hope the three videos after #11 have some suggestions of how to extract one's self from this kind of slavery.

Hatha

Glass

25th August 2014, 12:04 AM

an excellent summary and the way I see it as well. The Strawman, the persona is a dead thing. That means we are dead. That means that we are born, die at birth, reported as a birth (still births only are registered) and we "live" as dead people.

The surface of the earth is heaven but we don't live there because we are dead. We live "under" government whom all seem to worship Saturn/Satan and not God/Sol. We are walking dead. We are the zombie apocalypse. The atmosphere or air that we breathe could be the "holy spirit" which could be why meditation increases our "Chi" or our "Light" or our "Soul". We are sucking in the holy spirit.

To be born again means so much more to me now. To liege again with the lord and to enter into the world of the living again. The living that live in heaven. Without the death of the Saturnian death cult.

I've still got a few to get through but IMO this work by Marcus is a true GEM.

Hypertiger

25th August 2014, 04:12 AM

Again people have zero ability to make or break LAW.

All that people have the power to make and break are rules and claim rules are LAW.

But if a rule attempts to break LAW.

LAW will break the rule.

Here it is again different but the same.

People have no ability to create or destroy Truth.

All that people have the power to create and destroy are lies and claim lies are Truth

But if a lie attempts to destroy Truth.

Truth will destroy the lie.

Most of what you claim to be LAW are only rules of a game you are playing.

In a legal system...you can do something illegal if you are not caught and you can do something wrong as long as it is legal.

When you make something that is wrong a right...You must do what is wrong for a living to do what is right for a living.

It is positive reinforcement of negative behavior.

"When plunder (Taking more power than you give or absolute capitalism) becomes a way of life for a group of men (worshipful absolute capitalist masters) living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a (Rule) legal system that authorizes it and a moral code (Religion) that glorifies it."--Frederic Bastiat

"The worshippers (rich servants) of the compounding interest equation (master or false GOD/lie believed to be Truth) will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the equation is inimical to their interests while those who follow the worshippers (Poor slaves) will complain about the effects but will be ignorant of the cause."--Me

There is no way to cheat with me...

Truth can not be physically destroyed or mind controlled...My body is not truth...but my mind is powered by truth...not lies believed to be truth.

Making me impervious to lies promoted as truth.

If you think I'm your obedient slave...or something for you to toy with...I'm sorry to have deceived you.

I'm not trying to deceive you into believing what you have chosen to believe is Truth.

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware"

In quantum entanglement it takes two to Tango.

One to promote or sell a lie as Truth and one to believe or buy a lie promoted as Truth as Truth.

It is said necessity is the mother of invention.

So then you invent marketing.

Then use marketing as the mother of necessity.

You will basically murder yourself attempting to take me to the cleaners.

But I can take you all to the cleaners in my sleep...If I need to.

I always am supplied with what I need...In fact it is impossible for you all to refuse to supply me with what I need.

But it is possible for you all to refuse to supply what I want.

That is why I avoid wanting anything from all of you as much as possible.

Every time I'm banished...Is because I want to be.

And eventually what I need and want become the same...when I supply the domain master with what they need to make what the domain master wants and needs to be the same.

When I will manipulate the domain master into believing they are GOD...Is a variable or uncertain.

That I will eventually manipulate the domain master into believing they are GOD...Is constant or certain.

You have the right to remain invisible...anything you cause to become visible can an will be used against you.

the invisible powers that be that rule you all figured this out 1000's of years before you were born.

I'm well aware of the logical conclusion of my free will choice to become visible to a domain master before It is reached.

I'm well aware of the logical conclusion or defeat of the reasonable assumption or cherished delusion of victory.

I'm already at the logical conclusion...Waiting for you all to show up.

I sent this message to you to read in past from the future which is your Christmas present from me to you.

You can manipulate the Universe however you desire as long as you do not attempt to break LAW or are caught breaking a rule.

Please supply the demand of the absolute capitalist master or lord at the top of the global absolute capitalist hierarchy for what is wanted...and you may be rewarded.

Refuse and you will certainly be punished.

What are you all going to do when the domain master of the domain masters shows up on Judgment day?

GOD is either going to shut off the Internet or lie believed to be Truth before Satan does or Satan is going to shut off the Internet or lie believed to be Truth before GOD does.

"But about that day and about that hour no one knows, not even the Angels of Heaven, but The Father alone."--Matthew 24:36

"Father Time is usually depicted as an elderly bearded man, dressed in a robe and carrying a scythe and an hourglass or other timekeeping device (which represents time's constant one-way movement, and more generally and abstractly, entropy). This image derives from several sources, including the Grim Reaper and Cronus, the Greek Titan of human time, reaping and calendars, or The Lord of Time."

The most worshipful masters of time and space rule the vulgar and profane slaves of time and space.

When I will be proven right and you all wrong...Is a variable or uncertain.

That I am right and you all are wrong...Is constant or certain.

Beginning to understand LAW?

Or do you still think, believe, and have faith that the rules of the game makers and breakers in Washington D.C. of the game you all are playing are LAW of the Universe makers and breakers?

I'm not toying with you...you are toying with me...and play time is running out faster an faster.

When you will wake up from the daydream of fantasy into the nightmare of reality...is a variable or uncertain.

That you are going to at some point sooner rather than later...is constant or certain.

Like I said...It is impossible to refuse to supply my demands for what I need.

Try as hard as you want...kill yourselves trying to refuse my demands for what I need...There is no way to not supply my demands for what I need.

That is why I avoid want as much as possible...Because it is possible for you all to refuse to supply what is wanted.

But Impossible to refuse to supply what is needed.