'Property': The story of THAT THING

[Praxis]

You are sitting at your house and your cruising a website and you come across THAT THING. You know THAT THING. It strikes the right chord somewhere in you and want it. So you work, and you save money. Then you have enough money to purchase that thing. So you take the cash out and head to the store and you give the cash and get THAT THING back in return.

Is it your property?

First, what is property? I define property as the state of ownership of some thing where the proprietor has sole ability to use, sell, give, or destroy without any outside interference. Dictionaries confirm this "that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: " or "ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible".

So when I buy brand new calligraphy pens as my THAT THING, I become the sole proprietor of them. I can give them away. I can sell them. I can destroy them. I can leave them to collect dust. It is mine. As I paid cash, I do not have to cover a loan. I paid the proper sales tax and there is no use tax on it. It is clearly my property.

Now lets examine other things. In your house, you own many of things in it. Your clothes, food, gadgets, and gizmos are probably all your property.

But which things do you not actually own?

Lets start with your car. You pay for the car cash. No loan. It is now yours, but there is a restriction. Unless you rent the ability to use it from the state(called license and registration) you are not allowed to use it on public roads, or even just park it on public roads. So while you own the car, you do not own the ability to use it as you like. You have to rent that privilege from the state. So it is property with limited use restrictions.

Now your house. You are extremely lucky and you pay for your house in cash. No loan. You pay for all the cost in cash. Is it your house? The answer is no. If you do not pay the property taxes on your house(which is a hilariously ironic name), then the government will take your house from you. Therefore, it does not meet our definition of property that we laid out at the beginning. Even though you paid for it in cash, failure to keep paying the rent(property Tax) causes you to lose the house even though you do not wish to relinquish it. Therefore, your house is not your property, you merely rent it from the government. You live in government housing with the facade of ownership.

Now your labor. You need to survive so you need to either grow your own food or buy food. As the previous example shows, you can not have land without paying property tax. So lets say you dont want to be a modern serf to the government, so you decide to rent a place and work to pay for food. You go to work and work.Then you get your paycheck and you notice income tax has been taken out. You, in fact, can not find a place to legally work where this does not happen. If you are legally employed your income will be tax. You do not own your own labor. Your labor is not your property. Your labor is rented to you at the cost of income tax.

Now your body. You do not have the right to use your body as you see fit. You can not commit suicide if that is your choice, it is illegal (at least in most places). You can not consume substances which the state deems too dangerous for you (like cannabis and magic mushrooms). YOu can not travel to other places unless you show your papers(which cost money). You can not speak your mind unless you a re in a free speech zone. Many focus on the things they can do and choose to believe they own their body, but any limitation on something that only affects you means you dont truly own your body. It is not really your property.


You own very little in this world. You own some gadgets and trinkets to keep you satisfied enough to not revolt. But you dont own your own work. you dont own any land to produce food. You own nothing of real value. You are the property of the system. You are THAT THING for governments and deep states.

The greatest trick that oppression ever pulled was not convincing the world that it doesnt exist, but convincing everyone that it was freedom

[joeecho]

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)

The greatest trick that oppression ever pulled was not convincing the world that it doesnt exist, but convincing everyone that it was freedom

Good reminder post, 9ofClubs.

One will never find freedom in 'things' no matter how materially rich they are though I have no doubt the rich would disagree.

Rich is also a relative term so none are exempt from this illusion overtaking them.

[Bill Ryan]

.
Yes, good questions here. (From way back in 2010!)

My mother, who was an author, had once drafted a book called Life as a Tenant. She had spent most of her life living in houses she or her family did not own, but the metaphor was much wider... she was pointing out that we're also temporary tenants of our bodies, and merely temporary caretakers of everything we tell ourselves we 'own'.

The entire concept of 'ownership' is basically a temporary legal convention, and in ultimate terms means nothing. Even if I was certain that 'I owned' something in a past life, which still existed, 'I' could have no legal claim to it now.

The discussion is really (also) what "I" means.

[Hervé]

Very interesting!

I wrote this not long ago:

Posted by Hervé (here)
Why Monsters Sit On Your Chest and Try to Strangle You
[...]

=============================================

... chicken and egg stuff...

Now, here are a few things to take into consideration beside the widespread, pervasive occurrences of this [sleep paralysis] phenomenon:

• When YOU wake up and regain control over your body... where was YOU before that? In the company of the "Pisadeira"? Somewhere else?
• Are you retrieving the memory from your own memories or from your body's?
• ... so, maybe, it was YOU sitting on your body's chest and getting it to stand still for a minute so that you could get back into it and in control of it?

Which, accordingly, leads to this troubling question: Is one, one's own "Pisadeira" to one's own body?

Of course, the above question has vast implications... one of them being: Are these recollections evidences for a planetary programming of bodies (meat suits/"containers") to reject their asserted owners as body drivers/occupants/squatters?

... or is it evidence of a rebellion of enslaved meat bodies against their masters... the body-snatcher invaders? A movement claiming bodies' rights not to be overtaken?

Whose sovereignty is it, anyway?

Right... I am having one of these cognitive dissonant days... holding two contrary perspectives together...

So, the OP excellent questions reach even into the domain of pure artistic creation: who owns the materials it is created with in the physical, 3D universe?

[joeecho]

This extends to domains on the 'Net as well.

[Bluegreen]

A thought provoking OP
And how can you own the Earth?
Who sold it to you?

[wnlight]

The state can also take your 'real property' from you and give it to a developer. Chances are that you 'bought' THAT THING with dollar bills which are not real money anyway. Maybe you incurred a debt with your charge card and then paid that debt off with dollar bills which are also debts.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Only the labor of the individual has value, nothing else.

An apple on a tree has to be plucked to be eaten.

The game is to funnel off the labor of one's wards and use that value to leverage larger and larger portions of its ward's labor.

Your work is the prize. And we enter into agreements with our employers without the benefit of a strong bargaining position. Instead half of our bargaining position is already agreed to: the hours of work. Since the length of our agreement is long term and our bargaining position so weak, we work for a pittance while the rest of our value is stolen from us.

No government has any worth but that of the fruits of its citizen's labor.

What this ultimately means is that a full 1/3 of the population is supported by the other two thirds, since the value of the labor of a governmental worker is dependant on the taxes collected from the rest of the citizenry.

It is worse.

If a shoe cost $120 when produced in the States, why does a shoe cost $120 when it is made in China? The permutations of that statement run long but the bottom line is we are being fleeced and we are for the most part just fine with that.

We vote with our dollars, it is said.

You get what you pay for...

[sigma6]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
.
Yes, good questions here. (From way back in 2010!)

My mother, who was an author, had once drafted a book called Life as a Tenant. She had spent most of her life living in houses she or her family did not own, but the metaphor was much wider... she was pointing out that we're also temporary tenants of our bodies, and merely temporary caretakers of everything we tell ourselves we 'own'.

The entire concept of 'ownership' is basically a temporary legal convention, and in ultimate terms means nothing. Even if I was certain that 'I owned' something in a past life, which still existed, 'I' could have no legal claim to it now.

The discussion is really (also) what "I" means.

Note: "You" is often times being used in the general plural sense (so I don't have to go through it and change the grammar... as all this applies to EVERYONE...

Excellent point Bill, I don't think the connection is coincidental either, I have been trying to stress, the whole concept hidden in the interpretation of "ownership" or "owner" is really a short form of "beneficial owner" which is really a term which connotes a "beneficiary" in a trust relationship, aka known as a cestui que trust, which is really a reference to the corporate fiction that you were issued at birth... in order that you would have the "option" to do "commerce" in the public (while you remain in the "private"... where your inalienable rights exists, and must be exercised from...) ... the caveat being, 1) If you are sufficiently aware of and 2) able to exercise/execute this fundamental right... this is a birthright "option" that pretty much all the "general public" "waives" due to (sheer ignorance and ) lack of proper education unfortunately... trust interpretation in equity is not taught in any public schools I know of, including most law schools, although some lawyers do know of it, and the books written on the subject and the records of it, dating back centuries are all there... (waiting in posterity for heirs to rise up and take advantage of it...)

The huge implication of the above, btw, (if you followed the logic) is that, in fact, YOU are not even the "tenant" listed as the "property holder" at the Land Registry (for example)... Instead, the registered NAME (corporate legal person) that was issued to you at birth is...

So where do YOU fit in? (This is where many in the "B.C. is not you" crowd fall down...) You DO have a RELATIONSHIP with that certificate! (in trust in specifically...) To hear some people claim it has "nothing to do with them, etc..." defies logic and is denial of reality...

YOU are the "holder" (by virtue of the certificate that was issued to you, as proof of the NAME your mother registered on your behalf...) of that corporate legal entity... So yes, it IS your "property" the general public just doesn't truly understand what is meant by "owner"... or the word "property" for that matter... (because it is all, as Jordan Maxwell so elegantly... and now I can see, so profoundly, revealed... it is ALL "occult"! I can now see so clearly what he meant when he called his famous lecture "the Occult World of Commerce" He couldn't have been more profoundly accurate, "Occult" is a latin term meaning "hidden" and used in science and medical terminology today exactly based on this definition (independent confirmation, if you will...)

PROPERTY:
Before I go too far off... For me "property", boiled down to it's most fundamental interpretation, means "right to use" It can be that simple! It's a word about a RELATIONSHIP (as ALL trust terms are)... NOT necessarily "the thing" defined in the relationship... But how the term is casually used, in "common parlance" makes it perfectly understandable why all the confusion exists (I think it is purposeful and intentional that most are completely ignorant of all these subtle "super impositions" of these apparently, general terms, with their more fundamental (and hidden) trust interpretation meanings...) and it (the true underlying trust interpretation of how things are really set up...) was set up this way specifically to reflect this very real and higher reality that you speak of... i.e. for example, that man was given "dominion" over the earth (which was always meant to imply custodianship) This in turn implies benefits and responsibilities (in trust as opposed to commercial contract, for example...) and it reflects the true nature of reality at the most profound level of existence and consciousness... i.e. that we came into this world with nothing materially, contribute nothing materially (that wasn't already here) but our "will" or "intention" imposed on material things, and we will all be leaving very shortly... and we won't be taking anything material from this world with us either... this is in fact, the simple logical truth of the matter... so simple, so true...


For better or for worse...(depending how you look at it...) the Pope in the Vatican, (as the power behind the building and continuation and maintenance of "Western Society" (Greco/Roman Empires...and Egyptian "Empire" too (the hidden component, that I think is a definite contributing source to much "Christianity" )) is the "Vicar of Christ" (a trust term...) meaning "standing in his place"... the Kings and Queens are also trustees (such as "Defender of the Faith", a "title" assigned to the Queen of England, this is loaded with trust terminology, concepts, etc... and everything in the (Western) world subsumes under these trusts... including the corporations (like "United States of America", "Canada", "Australia", etc, etc...) And all corporations within them subsume under them as sub corporations... right down to each individual "corporation" (Corporate Sole... Sole/Soul... get it? ;D) Thus why you (or more properly, the Registered NAME you use) are listed as a tenant... if you follow the complete logical chains of trusts and titles, back to their origins... Corporations btw are a form of martial organization (military dictatorship) this should make sense according to what we see "growing up" around us... (encroaching one world government...)

The corporate world of "fictional" commerce ("fiction" meaning something more like "symbolic" in the computer programming sense, since the entirety of this "system" (the worlds of commercial contract and the underlying foundation of trust that underlies it...) what we often call the "Matrix" is like a huge virtual "Operating System" trying to be a virtual reflection of reality, much like "Half Life" is a virtual reflection, albeit simpler in principle, regardless how sophisticated technologically, of the general public, "super fiction" if you like ;o ...) Anyhow this system of governance, was created to deal with the "material" world (distribution of material wealth as one example) using "principles" commerce established eons ago) ...for people who choose not to be part of the world of trust in equity

Equity, for better or worse has been encoded into a "Biblical" interpretation/philosophy which has a fundamentally different interpretation and model (non commercial) The world of commerce didn't appear from nothing, it was derived from and has "borrowed" extensively from and was ultimately "refashioned" into what we know as the world of commerce. The public cannot exist without a private, and so the world of commerce can't exist without a deeper foundation... It wasn't supposed to be all evil... (although it sure seems that way more often than not... and I would even that is to the degree it deviates from equitable maxims...) In any event, it is both superimposed upon (as a "cover" i.e. aka "fiction") and extends beyond, this foundation of trust interpretation... we don't "own" anything in this world... in the sense most people understand it (and now you know why... ; ) - because we don't properly understand the true fundamental meanings of "own", "owner", "ownership" etc... or "property" for that matter... at best we do have "property" (right)

In the simplest terms (now that you have the historical context above... when we "register" property in the "public"... the "Registrar" (usually an agency of the State) holds documents with original ink signatures on them... These are treated as both "property" and records... (signatures represent an expression of your intention in trust, and your energy in commerce) Records can be used as titles in trust (Trust 101) Thus the State is holding what can be considered the original and only "legal title... In turn the State issues a certificate, as evidence (and in fact proof, according the State) which acts as a proof of the "transactional" process which has occurred (Registration of the property, record, title) thus, the Certificate (Receipt) can also be considered a form of title... but what kind? This would be representative or equivalent to an "equitable" title... This means the holder is entitled to "use". This is what denotes evidence of "property right". Note: "use" is a clear and unmistakable "trust" term. (and a very large and deep definition, in legal texts... o.O!) Thus I have been trying to explain, to even my cohorts and fellow trust law students) this subtle relationship between public, private, trust, commerce and Registration. That Registration is what creates the elements of trust, and is the cornerstone of the entire system of governance... Thus why I don't speak in terms of "ownership". It is irrelevant and inapplicable... Instead I can only different levels of interest, based on different levels of title... and in its most simplest interpretation, equitable title is always superior interest to legal title ... in Equity... (and equity is always superior to and supersedes statutory "at law", when properly "invoked" ...and this is the KEY... and most concise and accurate way I can describe, what is going on at the very "bedrock" level of public commerce vs private trust... regarding "what is property, and what is really going on...


Use the term "property" in your conversations with government servants and notice the difference in their eyebrows, and the more cautious "tone" (in case you actually know what you are saying...) Karl Lentz discovered this (his claim to fame, in defining children as "property" instead of "children", a statutory term that means something else entirely...) I sometimes wonder if he fully understands what he seems to have stumbled on...) anyhow, it's all there, if you can "see it" This is what is meant by CW when he said "being able to see with Equity Eyes"...


Definition of Equity (the jurisdiction where all private trust is applied and operated from) according to John Bouvier:
Institutes of American Law 1882 - Vol 2 - Section 3724 - 4th paragraph – Pg 457:
“The Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust, only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may be looked upon in some manner as an assistance for those who have weak perception of right and wrong, in the same way that optical glasses are useful to those who are shortsighted, or those whose visual organs are deficient. Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed [presumed] and rational law is made by it.”

The "at law" jurisdiction (statutory, commercial, admiralty, martial, at law...) is mutually exclusive and separate from the principles of "equity" by which these "laws" were derived and formulated from, much like corporate policies, and not the same as the fundamental principles that they are "derived" from... This is the hardest thing I find, that others have trying to grasp... the exclusive and independent nature of private trust interpretation, or trust in equity... even the Bible hints at this... One of the best terms, and a scripture I actually introduced into CW's NTT, Moving Titles in Trust Group, and now being referenced by Roark and Eric Jon Phelps, if I am not mistaken, is the following...


1 Timothy 1:8-10 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Use "ownership" at your own "risk" (and/or peril... since you are attaching yourself to the corporate legal person and being presumed to be the surety, worst a "volunteer surety" (but that's another story, beyond the scope of this post ; ) ... in either event, something completely unnecessary, if one realized that the certificate issued to you at birth, represents an estate, structured to be held in a trust arrangement (should you choose to "recognize" it...) and was/is already indemnified, by virtue of the registration, all this because the State IS responsible (entrusted) to provide the means by which to recognize your birth right, we DO HAVE inalienable rights... (if you properly "accept" them...) All this exists in the private, another delineation used to separate these two jurisdictions... private/public... Our domain/Ceaser's domain, or God's domain/Man's domain...

The truth is, there is no separation between Church and State... except on the most superficial level... (to satisfy the general public, yet again with another "fiction"... just had to throw that one in... )

I no longer "love" or "hate" the "system" (the Matrix) it just is (a vast Operating System that goes back into antiquity, based on profound wisdom and philosophy greater than one can fathom... and it is a system that has a place for everyone, good or evil (your choice...) wealthy or poor, educated or uneducated, private or public... and so on...

I still love to 'jokingly' give some hint of the antiquity of this philosophical tradition (Equity Jurisprudence) that I have been told, according to Roark, has a recorded history that goes back at least 600 years!

Question: What are two 'hidden themes' inserted (that form the backdrop) in the "Nativity Story"?

Answer: Registration and Taxation, these are two necessary components required to create the elements needed for both the establishment of trust (splitting titles), the Cestui Que and the Public Trustee (and Probate) system... hmmm.... o.O!

my understanding to date...