food for thought

Jobaboba's Jokes Factory. (Only for those who are feeling silly)

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:41 pm

Greetings

A little bit of anagogetymology for you...

Re + medy

Re = apparently-substantial gain

Medy = media = conveyance

Remedy = apparently-substantial gain via conveyance.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:02 pm

Greetings

59) Fiction only exists because fact needs a father-figure...

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:39 pm

Greetings

60) Legally speaking, the biblical 'son of man' is a monster.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:10 pm

Greetings

A little teaser for you...

Trustor - bestows and creates trust;

Grantor - bestows and creates grant;

Settlor - bestows and creates settle;

Benefactor - bestows and creates benefit;

Executor - bestows and creates evidence of will;

Leasor - bestows and creates lease;

Creditor - bestows and creates credit;

Debtor - bestows and creates debt;

Accusator - bestows and creates blame;

Dominator - bestows and creates order;

Prosecutor - bestows and creates the Pro Se to carve up;

Matador - bestows and creates mats;

Jestor - bestows and creates silly matador jokes;

...so we get what '-or' means in general? Here's the best bit...

Minor - bestows and creates the smallest amount;

Major - bestows and creates the greatest amount;

Manor - ????????????????????????????????????????

Answers on a postcard please, send to Rob Ess and tell him if he gets it his troubles will be almost over...

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:59 pm

Greetings

61) The Law is your rights. Your rights are the Law.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:43 pm

Greetings


Is this how legislation works...?

1) The puppet rulers 'lost' the country to the banks.

2) The UK (not GB) is in bankruptcy.

3) The receivers are running the country as to pay the Creditors.

4) Every piece of legislation is created to service the debt/debt interest.

5) The populace is legally regarded as a kindergarten full of children incapable of full rational thought, and treated as minors far beyond the age of 18yrs.

6) It is verboten to contract with a minor. A contract must bear two signatures, a contract document therefore is evidence of contracting with a minor. This is why there are no contracts.

7) It is not verboten to 'agree' with a minor. Enter: 'quasi-contract'. No evidence of taking advantage of a minor when the minor has merely agreed to accept what is offered. This is why there are lots and lots of 'agreements' (adhesion quasi-contracts).

8) Every birth-registered man and woman remains in the status of minor until they claim control/ownership of their minor account which is apparently also known as the infant estate (check out that word 'infant'. Due to the infinite flexibility of the English language this word joins a Latin word to a Greek word ie 'in' is Latin for 'not' and 'fant' Greek for 'shown' or 'revealed' and 'e-state' means self-funding or personal-funding hence infant estate = hidden fund).

9) No-one does, so everyone retains status of minor.

10) A quasi-contract may or may not bear a signature, it functions perfectly well on implied consent.

11) Government governs by consent of the governed, ie by 'agreement'.

12) ...back to 4) Every piece of legislation is offered to the minors as a'Bill' to be paid. The 'guardians' of the minor accounts pretend to discuss its merits and eventually 'Act' on the minors' behalf in agreement that the Bill is accepted by the minors and will be paid by the minors who breach the terms of the (CONTR)Act.

13) Not only is your performance taken as implied consent/agreement to pay the bill, you have also signed up to do so when you opened your 'personal' bank account... the banks are custodian to the minor accounts.

14) Attain the majority by taking control of your minor account and you're home and dry...


Incidentally, has anyone noticed how all Acts begin...? They all begin with: BE IT ENACTED by Her Majesty... Whereas use of ALLCAPS always denotes fiction (and ROMAN CIVIL LAW), and whereas ALLCAPS is not English language, and whereas each contract must be presented in one language all Acts of Parliament are void as contracts - if you assert the true law ie your rights.

Anyone tried that yet...?

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:22 pm

Greetings

Everyone remembers who started the 'royal family are lizards' thing...

Lots of people remember Princess Diana saying "...they're not human, you know..."

But does anyone see the real connection between the two events...?

Well it's true - they are not human. That doesn't mean they're feckin' lizards though!

It just so happens that our servants prefer that we run around chasing our tails for nonsense reptile stories rather than we realise there is a massive difference between the terms 'man' and 'human' and look into that...

David Icke you should be ashamed of yourself.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Wed May 29, 2019 1:26 am

Greetings

If you carry evidence of debt, you are a debtor and subject to penalty.

Btw pound notes are evidence of debt... as are licences of any kind... and logbooks... and bank statements (even if you're in 'credit')... and passports... and lots more.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:19 pm

Greetings

'Mister' / 'Mr'... where did this word come from? How and when exactly does it come to be attached to us?

These are genuine and serious questions, if anyone can tell me i'd be much obliged.

Whilst i'm fairly sure that it denotes legal title to Office, i can't work out if it is title to public office or private office, does 'Mr' mark us as a public official or a private official?

Does anyone know...?

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Re: food for thought

Postby iamani » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:22 am

Greetings

i was thinking...

What if we are not seeing the full picture regarding the use of fictions/persons...? What if it is not the all-pervasive evil we have labelled it but a necessary and fundamental part of natural life?

Without life there is no fiction, but perhaps more importantly without fiction there is no life...

As mentioned previously this world is made up of only two basic ingredients - substance and fiction, and it is impossible to have one without the other. Substance is the 'bride' of fiction... Basically if you can physically touch something it is of the Mother. Solid stuff. If you can only hold something as thought it is fiction, which means you, the spiritual and motivating force that is actually you, is fiction... just as fictional as a 'legal-person'. When one describes oneself as '...a living man, i am not a fiction...' you are contradicting yourself - lying, even. It also evidences incompetence in that you don't know who and or where you are. You're telling the judge only half a man has turned up...

Of Mother: Of Father:

Substance Fiction
Immovable object Irresistible force
Darkness Light
Chaos Order
Life-of-the-physical Thought-life
Intuition Intellect
Flesh/blood Spirit/soul
Ego i-am
Heart Mind
Emotion Will
Love Duty
Belief Faith
Truth Lies


Ma-_____ Pa-_____
Mater Pater
Matriarch Patriarch
Matron Patron
Matter Patter (Patois)
Man (both sexes) Pan

Earth Air
Water Fire

Contract Legislation

Some of the above Ma and Pa list might appear incorrect...
It does get a bit more complicated... for instance there are some words that contradict - the word 'masculine' for example. Etymologically speaking (and imo) it belongs under 'Mother', but the obvious connotations, and the fact that it is a descriptive term suggest it belongs under 'Father'. (Also note the absence of such a word as 'pasculine'.) Other words that at first glance one would say belong under 'Mother' actually belong in both categories ie 'fact' and 'nature', although technically and etymologically 'fact' belongs under 'Father'. Strangely 'faith' belongs under the same side as 'lies'...

Which brings us to what first appears to be oxymoronic - the existence of 'material (substance) fiction' and 'conceptual (fiction) substance'. In other words - something of one in the other, yin and yang, life and death.

If such is true then there should be some 'lies' (fiction) visible in the unthinking physical realm of 'Mother', and there is. Think 'stick-insect'. There should also be some substance visible in the 'Father's' realm of fiction. Again, 'stick-insect' fits - but think more along the line of 'fire'... or even 'person'... Again the word 'faith' springs to mind - as faith is the 'substance' of things hoped for.. There is also a lot of truth to be found in fiction....

i suspect this to be due to the law of polarity/duality this existence is subject to.

If we look at the list we notice that everything on it is in us, we are all made up of both sides. We are the masculine fiction dominating the feminine substance in hermetic principle, fiction over-ruling substance, mind over matter... It also helps us break down who we are and what we are not, and shows us we are missing something major about the word/concept that is 'person'...

We say we cannot be a 'person' as it is a fiction - yet one look at the list tells you that you ARE 'fiction' wrapped up in 'substance', an indivisible-duo or 'individual'... and what we know to be the 'real' us is spirit/mind/will, and spirit/mind/will although a conceptual fact is still... a fiction. It also opens up a debate as to whether our spiritual/mental 'self' is actually a free-loading parasite on our physical 'self', and the spirit rides and controls the flesh-and-blood animal just as the flesh-and-blood animal rides and controls a horse. Or perhaps the use of a car would make the better analogy. Perhaps that explains why other new-born animals have good control of their bodily actions straight away whereas for us it can take months and years - we have to learn how to 'drive' the flesh-chariot we have just invaded and stolen... ?

Kinda puts a new spin on it, don'tcha think...?

Having mentioned the hermetic let's look at a biblical teaching ie: 'a man cannot serve two masters.' Well we clearly have two 'masters' to choose from. Those of us living an irresponsible hedonistic and ignorant lifestyle (most of us, possibly 99%...) have clearly chosen to work for the divine mother essence and those of the more intelligent/aesthetic/academic self-aware types who take full responsibility for their beings and doings (stoics) work for the heavenly father. One either masters the flesh or is mastered by it.

So the big difference between 'man' (a being possessed of flesh, mind and spirit) and animal (a being possessed only of flesh and spirit) is presence of 'mind'.

Perhaps in the eyes of the court they 'summons' the spirit/fiction to see if it arrives in company of mind, as demonstrated by competence. If we do not display competence from the off in our engagement with the court they know they deal only with the flesh and spirit - the animal. No mind equates to no rights and no standing, and do what thou wilt shall be the whole of their law...

The world is made up of two things only - there is physical substance that you can touch, everything else is fiction with no exceptions. Our primary/motivating essence is fiction, and this fiction dominates the substance of the flesh. The fiction speaks through the flesh, which means our flesh is actually... a person.

Person = per + son

Per = by, through, via, etc.

Son = sound, speech, etc.

So... a person = a speak-through

Our fiction speaks through our flesh just as the flesh/man speaks through a corporation/corporate-fiction. Which makes our flesh a person. So how do we distinguish our true selves from corporate-persons?

i don't know if 'person' is defined in legislative terms in England but i came across a definition, perhaps American, that defined 'persons' as "...includes (yes, includes, so exclusive to all other defs) bodies corporate and unincorporate."

Corporate seems pretty easy, so let's look at 'unincorporate': it seems to convey a double-negative - 'un' is obvious, yes...? A definite negating of the word it prefixes, which is 'incorporate'. Whereas 'in' as a prefix can negate or affirm a word's definition, which is confusing but as a general English grammatical rule is that if the word comes from a Latin root then 'in-' negates the word's meaning. However...

Corporare (Latin verb) = form into a body;

Incorporare (Latin verb) = embody;

Corporate (English adjective) = relating to corporations

Incorporate (English verb) = form into a corporation

See how the two Latin root terms are both verbs of different meaning yet in English they are an adjective and a verb. When one considers that 'corporate' could be a verb in English but instead is restricted to the role of adjective, one has to wonder why. Is it hiding something...? Perhaps so. Let's look at the definition of 'embody', but be aware that the meaning of this word has been changed in modern dictionaries, i got this definition from a ninety-year-old Oxford:

Embody = clothe (spirit) with body;

...now we're getting somewhere. To incorporate is to clothe the fiction with substance.

If they had decided to use 'corporate' as a verb as well as an adjective, 'incorporate' would stand out as a redundant term... but as it is, we think it perfectly good English. But is it really an attempt to hide the true meaning? Again - perhaps so.

So 'un-incorporate' means to 'un-embody', yes? Prefix 'un' does reverse the meaning of the verb after all. 'Dis-embody' is the more correct English term, and dis-incorporate would make sense too, but prefixes 'dis' and 'un' are not quite the same... but let's look now at the term 'bodies corporate and unincorporate' again.

noun noun verb noun adjective verb
| | | | | |
The term 'person' includes bodies corporate and unincorporate.

At first glance (and longer to the ignorant eye) it looks OK but look again... the adjective describes the noun as required, but what is that second verb doing? According to English grammar that verb is presented as an adjective. It implies the meaning '...bodies corporate and non-corporate' - but why not just write it like that? Why imply when one can certify? Let's look at what it actually says:

The term 'person' includes bodies corporate and... not clothe (spirit) with body.
not be an expression.
not form a corporation
not include/comprise. Naa, not quite right... in fact the only way that sentence makes sense grammatically is:

'The term 'person' includes bodies corporate and divests the spirit of the body.'

So they take our body from us...? Yes... and no. Obviously not physically or we'd be dead. They operate in fiction as if flesh-and-blood man does not exist, but in use of the term 'unincorporate' they acknowledge the existence of both flesh-and-blood and spirit, which i think is useful to know... but obviously we are all still attached to the flesh, so how have they taken our bodies? Well, and this only occurs to me now as i write this, but... i suspect it's a bit like the car situation. We think the V5C is a record of our ownership of the car even though the certificate tells us different. The V5C is in fact a licence to use of a particular car. We have possession under licence, rather than ownership Yup, you didn't pay for the car, you paid for licenced use of it, and you will never sell the car - just the licenced use of it. If you are not licenced to use a particular car and use it anyway ie steal it, you are not prosecuted for theft, because all personal property in this country is communally owned; so you cannot steal anything because you have a share in all communally-owned property. That's why and how your liability is limited under the ens legis. No, you would be prosecuted for un-licensed use of the car, an offense rather than the crime it would be seen as under common-law, as a result of which the thief is fined or jailed rather than being hung under common-law, and is an example of the limited liability (and the Christian ethos, funnily enough...) the legal-fiction offers. Is that the definition of 'criminal offence' then? Some thing that is a crime under common-law commuted to an offence under limited liability? Seems obvious now... anyway, what's to say the birth certificate isn't a V5C-type licence for your fiction (spirit) to use the flesh that it occupies?

A certificate is basically a record of a claim, but we know the BC is not a claim to identity... is it proof of claim to limited liability in public activity under that identity-entity-ALLCAPS NAME then? Proof of financial backing, ie a body of funding to back your future contractual dealings? Again, yes... and no. Upon your birth the state (from Latin, 'funding' as in the communal-fund) raises money by putting a price on your future earnings, let's say one million pounds, which it assumes you are happy to donate to the communal-effort, in exchange for which it guarantee's limited liability protection against the severity of common-law penalties and commercial difficulties, and help with some bills via off-set of the bills against what they 'borrowed' from you when they issued a gilt-edged security in your name to the bond market

The flesh is communal public property as it is drawn from communal resources (the food your mother eats while pregnant); so your fiction needs a licence to use the flesh just as the flesh needs licence to use the strawman, and both licences are created at birth. The licence for the fiction/spirit to use of the substance/flesh i suspect goes to the Vatican, and the licence for the 'inspired'-man ('hu' can be translated to 'inspired', which puts a new slant on Genesis 2 imo) to use of the strawman/ens legis is issued to the care of the parents, which leads into the rest of the BC stuff nicely... So when you get a job you are trading on your licence to use of the flesh in giving the employer temporary licence to use the flesh in exchange for cash. And you can never sell your flesh any more than you can sell your car - as they are both communally owned solely for use under licence. But i suspect i do digress... now where was i... ?

Oh, yes, how do we distinguish our selves from the corporations... ? That's a tough one - but surely not impossible...

If you watched Rob Ess' latest video - is it just me or does the man seem campaign-weary? i really feel for him, perhaps because i too have been feeling a little discouraged today - which is why i decided to finish this post i drafted back in March and put it up. If anyone knows him, get him to have a look at this:

The distinction is not between the flesh-and-blood living-man and the dead-fiction. It is between the living-fiction (man) and the dead-fiction (corporations). Corporations are 'the son of man' and as such inferior to man. Corporations are dead, and the dead can't harm the living. Man is the fruit of the union between Father-fiction and Mother-substance. Mother-substance without Father-fiction is everything tangible, up to and including plant and animal life (and perhaps human, depending on your definition, but not Mankind). Father-fiction without Mother-substance is just a fart in the wind. It is the flesh that lives, but the Father-fiction controls and is bound to the flesh so as to live vicariously. That is the living-fiction and that is Mankind. Human is flesh-and-blood, living-Mother-substance devoid of the fiction that is mind, which renders him merely animal, which is why he is restricted to benefits and privileges whilst man has rights and responsibilities; but you can't claim to be man without understanding what makes up the man - fiction and substance - and which side must be dominant.

So remember - the reason the flesh is ignored in court is because the court already owns it, unless and until one proves the flesh is under competent control by demonstrating presence of mind. It is the mind that is respected in court - not the 'person'. It is they, the mags and judges, who adhere to the biblical '... thou shalt not respect persons', whilst we shout out our attachment to the flesh-and-blood person, thus proving our own incompetence and that we are out of our... mind. If one proves competent he is acknowledged as minded and thus man. That's the remedy and the relief, and it's all in the bible. Basically we are all 'fiction'...

Don't give up, Rob - just expand your thinking.

Cheers!
law is all is love is all is law
iamani
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Lighter Side

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron