food for thought

[LionsShare]

food for thought, I don't if this is of interest to anyone, a youtube channel-er 'hairycookiemunster' has had his channel taken for 'violating YT medical health....' total BS to me. 'hairycookiemunster' is someone who is very knowledgeable & well read on a range of subjects particularly the so called 'pandemic', his new channel can be found on

https://odysee.com/@hairycookiemunster:4

LS

[iamani]

Hi LionsShare

Re: your earlier post, that's a good vid from Bill Turner. Seen it before but well worth watching again, so i did. Hard to believe it's eight years old and still relevant.

As Bill says, the line on the bottom of the b.c. could be a warning rather than a forbidding, and if we had paid heed we wouldn't be subjected to the ills you describe...

The reason fiat is preferred is that a debt currency almost by definition enslaves the participants, who could never pay the debt even if they knew it existed.

Did you ever wonder what makes one a 'creditor' to the system? To be a creditor one must be owed something. It is said that when we take a bank loan it is only our signature on a note that creates the value colloquially known as 'money', but all it actually creates is a debt - yet we are considered creditor so... who owes us what? Once that is fully understood i would imagine we're done.

Cheers!

[LionsShare]

iamani,

Morning, to answer your last posed question, the following comes from Prof' Richard Werner in that vid that is part of the 'Renegade INC' program on RT.com, - legally or at law there is NO such thing as a deposit, when a 'loan' is made incorrectly stated is the account's liability, instead of recording it 1 way its recorded another - instead of an asset its recorded as a debt - a debt to be repaid (this answers 'but all it actually creates is a debt'). Signing the Prom Note generates 'new money' & the bank records the fact it is purchased from you by increasing the liability the bank owes you - the fact your account cash (paper) value increases but yet NO monies have been transferred to your account from either in or outside the bank branch.

IMO - As the banks never 'loan' anything to anyone its all fraud & deception, so 'who owes us what?' in a debt driven economy there really is no debt as ALL debt MUST be forgiven (some will find that hard to comprehend so please read on), ie all we do is pass around debt notes to discharge our debt to others. TBH I don't think we are really owed anything because the entire GBP is a promise to pay & no payment on anything is ever made (you will never get anything you think you are owed). As the GBP is fake please could someone explain how is a debt actually owed/paid (not discharged) when as a medium of exchange we literally pass around - NOTHING (paper & ink) - nothing of actual value. Everyone works for nothing, & we all get everything for free. Yes exchanging the GBP around is a way of getting FREE stuff!

If you the reader think you will actually be paid 1 day, what will you demand to be paid in? Magic beans or what exactly?

Utilities are an example where by our resources are paid for us by ficticious corporations that's 1 way that shows WE the people are CREDITORS to the economy.

LS

[LionsShare]

iamani,

Forgot to reply about Bill Turner : 'could be a warning rather than a forbidding' : Totally correct! I am of the opinion it is a warning, as not doubt you will have seen in many a copper vid how those aragant b'stards treat the general public all over the world, 'give us your ID or you will be arrested', using the ID on that b' cert' is illegal, its Crown Copy Right & not legally anyones to use hence its illegal to use a legal name.

LS

[LionsShare]

For those that are slightly confused reading 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY' & then read about the use of identity on the b'cert think of it like this - 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR IDENTITY'

[iamani]

Hi LionsShare

Whilst the creditor is owed, the debtor remains owned...

Yes, we are creditors to the economy  -  but we are also debtors to the economy. We've never been paid for our efforts but neither have we paid for our possessions/food/power/services. We have received value for our efforts but we are denied ownership of that value  -  and owner'SHIP' is a suspect word anyway...

Under such circumstances to say that i 'own' something is the same as saying i 'owe on' something...

Owe on = owe-on = ow'n = own

This also means that i may owe-on/own nothing purely because there is no debt if there is no specie with which to pay, but on the overall accounting i am neither creditor NOR debtor... the one cancels out the other. It seems the Vatican/Holy-Si has assumed authority to balance the world's credit against its debt so that nothing is actually owed by anyone or anybody. A worthy cause, some might say. The problem is hypothecation. When debt is arbitrarily increased ten-fold as in fractional-reserve banking it becomes impossible to balance the books of the world as there is no real value to balance the increase in debt, hence every country operates in debt and suffers inflation (imo). This is profiteering with the goal of ultimate control/domination, which is why we are in the mess we perceive today.

This puts me in mind of the Shakespeare quote:

Polonius in Act I, Scene 3 of William Shakespeare's Hamlet.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Some very interesting words in there...

There is much knowledge pertinent to the understanding of the world laid out in Shakespeare, but only the rich are taught this.

Imo signing the prom note increases the debt because that note goes on to be hypothecated.

Re: utility vouchers; i suspect they don't work properly if one has an open (ie public) 'person'-al bank account. i'm wondering if they would be better honoured if they were sent for set-off through a closed (ie private) 'person'-al bank account. As long as that account remains public/open all debts of the ALLCAPS must be paid by the one who keeps that account public/open... when it's closed (or rather when its use is denied to you) it reverts to being a 'private' account, and the bank bears all responsibility as it has previously been granted one's power of attorney  -  which makes it a trustee of the account, and the trustee always pays.

If anyone has had a personal checking account closed (for whatever reason) be advised that the account still exists in private and the bank still profits from it. Try sending the bank a utility voucher with instructions to set-off and see what happens... if the bank refuses then give notice of rescission of any all p.o.a. whether expressed or implied and see what they say... could be very revealing methinks.

You're pretty much correct in what you're saying though.

Btw, on another topic - anyone wishing to see a modern 'free' man in action, check this vid from ULCT/Minister Emoven and ask yourself the obvious questions  -  where's the handcuffs? Where's the beating? Where's the arrest...? Make sure to read the description, too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3xHgxqDlaBA

Answers on a postcard please to: whoever you like!

Cheers!

[LionsShare]

Hi Iamani,

Evening, 'Imo signing the prom note increases the debt because that note goes on to be hypothecated.' not quite sure here...? increase the public debt? would have thought not IMO, as in paying taxes & as we are traded as a commodity on the stock exchange we will have some sort of stock or cash value so when endorsing the prom note or BOE then cash value should be taken from the stock or bond that we are & taken to balance the books on the private side & reduce the public debt, at least that's my comprehension - could be wrong?

'Re: utility vouchers; .... i'm wondering if they would be better honoured if they were sent for set-off through a closed (ie private) 'person'-al bank account' Agree as IMO the 'credit account' listed on the slip is the private account therefore an escrow account? Yes your analysis of the rest of that paragraph I will agree.

After watching that vid I thought that bloke was either going to be arrested or thumped.

LS

[iamani]

Hi LionsShare

Regarding your first paragraph, that is pretty much how i've seen it too so i can't say that you are wrong, only that there is a nagging thought bugging me that i am missing something and i have yet to put my finger on it...

My understanding of debit and credit has recently increased slightly, which is what lead me to ask: if we're the creditor, who owes us what?

The thing is, we are credited with one thing and one thing only from start to finish and that thing can only be traded but never bought... so it is traded and what is more it is traded upon the presumption of certainty where in truth there is no certainty of the thing at all...

...because the one thing we are credited with is  -  Time. Try and buy one extra second to add to the length of your physical existence on this plane of reality and remember that the rarer something is, the higher the price.

Time  =  credit  =  life

So if all one is credited with is time, then all one has to give and or trade is time  -  and thus the only thing we may ever be truly 'owed' is time...

...which brings me back to the question: if we are the creditors then who owes us what?

We now see that the 'what' that is owed to us can only be time... so WHO owes us time? ...and given that it can't be bought for love nor money, how in heaven's name did they manage to obtain that from us in the first place...? And perhaps most intriguing  -  HOW THE F##K CAN T.H.E.Y. EVER PAY IT BACK...?!?!

Answer: T.H.E.Y. can't  -  which is why there is no debt, just like there is no spoon... and they did actually obtain it from us in heaven's name, funnily enough.

...and which is why one's utility vouchers should always be honoured. Imo.

Given that wherever there is credit there is debt, then whereas we are credited with time we must 'owe-on' it to a creditor  -  or choose to see it as a 'gift'...

....and guess which one most of us do choose? In choosing to see it as a 'gift' we manage to live in the 'present' and yet not in the moment, never realising the debt nor that it is best managed if we wish to really live and not just survive...

So  -  who owes us actual-life-time (that can never be repaid), and how did  the debt happen...? Because whoever it is BELONGS to us... until we say otherwise!

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

It could be tin-foil-hat time  -  i'll let you decide...

Much has been made of the potential use of the Nuremberg Code against any and all involved in the instigation and execution of 'poison-prick' medical experimentation upon the likes of us, so i thought i'd best read it... and what i found was loopholes for tptb to cover their behinds - though i may of course be imagining it.

Nuremberg Code

"1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."

Right at the start we see how all who seek/accept to participate in the experiment will have no recourse whatsoever, but just as interesting to me is the choice of words  -  three buzz-words with an 'absolute' in the first sentence, coupled to an ambiguity...

voluntary (noun)  =  the 'willing' ie one capable of feeling and/or expressing and/or executing 'will'.

...to 'will' is an actual capacity, not just a legal capacity  -  and this ('voluntary') is the only word in the whole text that really refers to the sentient-conscious-quickened-and-reasonable-biogeological-organism (known colloquially as: man) that each of us is. For the rest of the text we (ie the 'voluntary') are referred to several times in fictional roles and also as animal (lab-rat)...

consent  =  an expression of will to agree

...this may be expressed verbally, in writing or via CONDUCT! None of which may be provided by the 'human subject' without the voluntary because:

Human subject  =  person/legal-fiction; the 'Mr' and the 'strawman'/ALLCAPS etc

The first sentence is the only definite in the whole text  -  after that it's all 'should be' this, 'should have' that... all presumptions predicated on that first premise that one is capable of 'will' -  and that one, as a 'voluntary' (in this instance one who cedes his will to another, and does so by choice and without objection), is using the Crown legal-fiction person (name). Once such 'consent' is established (/DEEMED!  -  and don't forget the p.o.a. they get from our signature) we become legal-actors subject to scripts created by scriveners of Westminster rather than playwrights of the West-end, and are shifted to the realm of the legal-fiction where  -  as we have found and are finding  -  anything goes. The rest of the document is pretty much just window dressing, and the next line begins the presumptions in line with the maxim:

Equity PRESUMES to be done that which SHOULD BE done...

It continues:

"...This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."

...which is basically just saying that: 'it would be nice if nothing bad happens, but as long as he consented  -  crack on!' This portion of text begins by stating that it is now a 'person' that is involved and ends in suggesting that the 'person' could be affected by its participation - would that be a change in status? How else could a legal-fiction be affected by a physical event  -  financial? ...birth certificate 'fund'...? Also, all the information that: "...should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment..." ...has been made known publically for all to see  -  you just had to be looking and thinking... and of course there's no recourse for buyer's remorse...

"...The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity."

...and now, having got some fluff out of the way we come to some meat and although this paragraph might be more convincing if it were one sentence, it looks great in suggesting that all who initiate and/or administer and/or execute the experiment are liable  -  unfortunately it also implies a 'person'-al nature to the liabilities ie corporate jurisdiction (fines, jail) rather than natural-common-law  (hanging?), which likely means only scapegoats might suffer penalty at the top end. It may or may not negate any immunity the manufacturers presume to hold but still what it really does is remind us that such is completely unlawful without the initial 'voluntary consent'...

"2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,..."

...presumption aside, that's a bloody broad stroke, innit...? That COULD be interpreted as:

" "If voluntary consent is gained you can do whatever you like, but it would be nice if the experiment was expected to offer up bountiful returns for the merchants of superior-lineage and/or means." "

...am i wrong? The sentence ends with more fluff:

"...unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature."

...what they're going for probably IS '...unprocurable by other methods or means of study...' and is definitely NOT random, and it certainly seems necessary to their nature...

"3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation..."

...notice it doesn't say 'successful' animal experimentation, and remember the ferrets...

"...and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease..."

...i think they might have that covered, what with it being a disease-of-the-fiction, a feckin' placebo-disease, rebranded flu and pneumonia...

"...or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment."

...wtf does that mean: 'other problem under study'? And then implying that the ends 'should' justify the means? The final solution...?...

"4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury."

...but if it is your opinion that physical and mental suffering and injury is necessary, have at it  -  so long as you have the 'voluntary consent' implied by his/her use of the Crown-legal-fiction name...

"5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur;..."

...isn't that nice? If there is evidence to suggest the experiment might kill or maim him, don't do it  -  unless of course the sucker agrees to it by claiming to be the Crown-legal-fiction name...

"...except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects."

...this line made me wonder if it was a later addition to the code. There are two ambiguities, the obvious one being that it is only a potential exception being stated. It should also be noted that 'experimental physicians' is a veiled reference to actual physical people under the common-law and is not limited to those claiming professional qualification but includes any all who touch the 'voluntary' (ie ewe and 'me') in the cause of the experiment. The second ambiguity lies in the lack of certainty of said physicians serving 'as subjects' - subjects of what? Subjects of the experiment, or subjects of the Queen? This is an official document supposedly intended for use in lawful/legal proceedings, and that ambiguity (imo) is a semantic technicality aka loophole...

We go on:

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

...doesn't tell us what problem they're trying to solve with this experiment - could easily be the perceived over-population problem, which may be perceived as an important 'humanitarian' crisis...

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

...how do you do that when you don't even follow the usual procedures of testing? But hey  -  just make sure the
experimental subject' has claimed a Crown-legal-fiction and everything will be fine...

Remember:
'experimental subject' =  flesh-of-low-status  =  animal  =  lab-rat

"8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons."

...and how is 'scientifically qualified persons' to be defined? Give a store-worker a piece of paper and he could then be described as such...

"...The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment."

...yeah, right...

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

...at last! Something useable RIGHT NOW! The whole plandemic is a medical experiment - not just the tests and stab-stab. Give Notice of Liability stating that continuation seems impossible. You never know...

"10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage,..."

...that's a point  -  who is the 'scientist in charge' here?...

"...if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith,..."

...'good faith'  -  that's another term of equity. Hmmm...

"...superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject."

...and there you have it. The only parts of this code with any real meaning are the first sentence and the last sentence. First off, cease being a 'voluntary' and secondly find the cretin calling himself the 'scientist in charge' and serve Notice of Liability on the traitor that 'a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject'. If he receives no such Notice he is apparently free to carry on...

As has been stated, those who accept the narrative and seek the stab-stab will have no claim against anyone involved and if such people die or develop a life-changing disability then technically it could be termed 'misadventure'. However... any who are penetrated against their will and subsequently die  -  that is murder! Perhaps it may be dressed-up as manslaughter, but whoever takes part in such coercion remains liable for his/her actions. If an unwilling victim survives he/she WILL HAVE FULL RECOURSE AGAINST ANYONE INVOLVED! (...but only if he/she has served prior Notice). That means everyone from the assailants right up to the manufacturers and everyone in between  -  but he/she will probably have to conduct their own trial in the private realm  -  if that route is still available after the take-over...

i hope everyone is up to that...

Something else to consider - there should be at least three distinct groups constituting any 'human' medical experiment for a 'new' product:

1) the treated group;
2)the placebo group;
3) the control group;

...and isn't it just crystal-clear who is who? Even in non-compliance we are considered under control... wow!

...and i think we all know which group gets placebo, don't we...?

i wonder if some useful idiots who were promised placebo get/got the real thing... bound to happen, innit?

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings

i just happened to look at the definition for 'corona' in a Collins Gem Latin dictionary and found it (with just a little imagination) to be an apt description of our current plight:

Coron/a -ae  f. garland, crown; (astr.) Corona Borealis; (people) gathering, bystanders; (mil.) cordon of besiegers or defenders; sub corona vendere, be sold as slaves.

Or:

The Crown-of-the-north gathering the cordon of defenders sold as slaves...

...spooky!

Cheers!