Starve the beast - solutions

[Miller]

Digital IDs Are HERE!! Why You Should Be WORRIED!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uwRSzNTp2ko

11th December 2022

TIMESTAMPS -
0:00 Intro
0:56 What is Digital ID?
4:07 Who Is Pushing Digital ID?
9:00 When Will Digital ID Come?
14:45 Digital ID USA, EU, UK
19:41 Outcomes According To UN
23:15 Will Digital ID Succeed?
25:22 The Next Crisis
27:31 How To Escape Digital ID

A half-hour well spent, if you have the time to watch this informative, important video. It goes into great detail about Digital ID in a way that is easily understood, and pulls no punches about the intent of world leaders and what it will mean for us, the masses (as if we didn't know). It won't surprise you to know that there will be a separate Digital ID system for the Elite!

But at 26:35 the narrator makes a very interesting forecast and gives us hope for a much brighter outcome/future.

[palehorse]

Posted by Miller (here)
Digital IDs Are HERE!! Why You Should Be WORRIED!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uwRSzNTp2ko

11th December 2022

TIMESTAMPS -
0:00 Intro
0:56 What is Digital ID?
4:07 Who Is Pushing Digital ID?
9:00 When Will Digital ID Come?
14:45 Digital ID USA, EU, UK
19:41 Outcomes According To UN
23:15 Will Digital ID Succeed?
25:22 The Next Crisis
27:31 How To Escape Digital ID

A half-hour well spent, if you have the time to watch this informative, important video. It goes into great detail about Digital ID in a way that is easily understood, and pulls no punches about the intent of world leaders and what it will mean for us, the masses (as if we didn't know). It won't surprise you to know that there will be a separate Digital ID system for the Elite!

But at 26:35 the narrator makes a very interesting forecast and gives us hope for a much brighter outcome/future.

Thanks Miller for posting the video here, I watched from 23 minutes til the end, I like his analysis and I think there is some truth regarding crypto currency, I am speculating it and trying to find what would be an ideal crypto currency for daily use, I mean for spending not for investing. So far Monero fits the bill, but adoption sucks, the best available today is Bitcoin in terms of adoption, but it is mainly the choice of investors and it is not really for spending (read buy groceries or ordinary daily expenses) + high fees.

I am of the idea if I don't hold it, then it does not belong to me, I mean custody in this case, if we are talking about self-custody then it would make a lot more sense, but having someone holding the keys does not give us the right of ownership and that is exactly what CBDC will do, they will hold everyone's money, unless we get self-custody right.

After all it is about financial education which most people on earth are illiterate, if they understood the debit system they are part of.. it would be a very different world.

I agree that there is already a very clear division from those top-down hierarchy and the ones from the down-top anarchists.

In this post there is a video talking about self-custody - I am not promoting anything here, it is just 1 example of what people are trying to do in order to bring down this top-down globalist filth scheme. If enough people adopt the idea of been their own baking system, the debit slave system will shatter like glass.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1545010


¡Viva la libertad!

[shaberon]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
A U.S. national (like one born in Samoa) is not synonymous with an American national.

Explain, please?

And the supreme Court admitted that American people are subjects, whereas citizens are sovereigns, right?

The issue I found was not American, but State--also before the Constitution--that when any State was formed, whoever lived there was presumed a citizen of that State.

[ozmirage]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
A U.S. national (like one born in Samoa) is not synonymous with an American national.

Explain, please?

And the supreme Court admitted that American people are subjects, whereas citizens are sovereigns, right?

The issue I found was not American, but State--also before the Constitution--that when any State was formed, whoever lived there was presumed a citizen of that State.

Incorrect.
Let us start with this - - -

DO YOU KNOW THAT CITIZENSHIP COMES WITH MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES?
.
And that those duties are presumed to be "voluntary"?
.
And that if they were mandatory, at birth, they would be "involuntary servitude" banned by the 13th amendment as well as contrary to the republican form of government?

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, it must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

NO INFANT CAN BE "BORN A CITIZEN" WITH MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES - STATE OR FEDERAL JURISDICTION - WITHOUT VIOLATING THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE?

It was “the LAW” from day one.

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent.
You were endowed, at birth, by your Creator, with the rights to life, liberty (natural and personal), absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers, etc, etc, etc.

BUT citizens don't have endowed rights !

Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (qualified ownership of estate, via ad valorem taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States

= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY

“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.

Lastly, nationality.

NATIONAL - A person owing permanent allegiance to a state. 8
U.S.C.A. § 1101.
The term "national" as used in the phrase "national of the United States" is broader than the term "citizen". Brassert v. Biddle, D.C.Conn., 59 F.Supp. 457, 462.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1024

NATIONALITY. That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. See also Naturalization.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1025

FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP - Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States. State or status of being a citizen of the United States. A person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he resides. Fourteenth Amend., U.S. Const.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 610

CITIZEN - One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
U.S.Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.


"Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have ESTABLISHED OR SUBMITTED themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 244

Most Americans presume that being a "CITIZEN" is a great thing... thanks to the propaganda ministry. But let's consider this FACT - citizenship comes with mandatory civic duties that include MILITIA DUTY - the obligation to train, fight, and die on command.

As posted before - the Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, it must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.

If one has not volunteered to be a citizen, one retains all endowed rights to life, liberty (natural and personal), absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers, yada yada yada yada.

Most Americans are never told that 'THE PEOPLE' and 'the Citizenry' are mutually exclusive.
American people (nationals) are sovereigns, served by government.
American citizens are subjects of a sovereign (government).

In case you're wondering where the 14th amendment comes in - consider for whom that "citizenship" was created... former privately owned chattels.
Furthermore, the "jurisdiction" of the United States government is very limited.

Oh, and don't get confused over what the "United States" refers to. It is deliberately vague for a reason.

[] 13th amendment, Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

{United States, in the plural, means the States united aka "USA"}

Involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States (of America) or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.

Yet:
[] 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Why didn’t the writers use “and in any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction?”

Because the “United States” was a direct reference to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, a “foreign corporation” with respect to a state or any of them.

Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own..."
- - - United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

For whose benefit was the 14th amendment enacted? Certainly not those citizens in the States united. It was for those who were subjects of the Federal government, emancipated (not manumitted) slaves.

So if you were not born subject to FEDERAL sovereignty, you were not “born a U.S. citizen” and subject to the Federal government.

Imposition of citizenship at birth would violate the Declaration of Independence, the republican form of government, as well as the 13th amendment.

Under the republican form, American PEOPLE (non-citizens) are sovereigns and who can DIRECTLY exercise their sovereignty, as inhabitants with domiciles. They aren’t residents residing at a residence in a state.

Which comes back to "U.S. national" versus "American national."

31 CFR 800.227 - U.S. national.
§ 800.227 U.S. national.
The term U.S. national means a citizen of the United States or an individual who, although not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

A U.S. citizen IS a U.S. national.
BUT
An AMERICAN NATIONAL is not a citizen.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?

Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an AMERICAN NATIONAL and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”
- - - -
An American national is NOT a citizen. Whereas a U.S. national can be a citizen.

- - - -
The U.S. national who is not a citizen is one within FEDERAL jurisdiction.

8 U.S. Code § 1408 - Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;
(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;
(3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in such outlying possession; and
(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years—
(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and
(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
The proviso of section 1401(g) of this title shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section.
= = = = =
Note: the definition of geographic jurisdiction is “The United States and ITS outlying possessions.” It does not state “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” as found in the 13th amendment.

IN case you were unaware, the term "United States" can have many different meanings depending on context and legislative intent.
But "the United States of America" is not vague or redefined.
An "American national" refers back to the USA, not the US.

If you go back to the Articles of Confederation *1777*, it's pretty clear.

★ Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

★ Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The States united is distinct from the United States, in Congress assembled.

Guess who "We, the People of the United States" really referred to? (Preamble to the USCON)

Not the people of the United States of America, that's for sure.


Some of the legalese is hidden in redefinition of terms like STATE.

STATE - A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
- In its largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men.
- The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.
- One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1407

See it? Two explicitly different references for "United States" and "United States of America."
. . .
We know that there are 50 States united (component commonwealths) in the United States of America. And that federal territories and districts are NOT states.

Yet we see these curious definitions:

Title 8 USC Sec. 1401 (36) The term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
(38)The term `United States', except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

42 USC Sec. 410. Definitions relating to employment
For the purposes of this subchapter -
(h) State. The term `State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(i) United States. The term `United States' when used in a geographical
sense means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

. . . .
What about the 50 states united, the “several states”?

50 USC Sec. 466. Definitions
(b) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, shall be deemed to mean the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

7 U.S.C. Sec. 390b.
As used in sections 390a to 390j, inclusive, of this
title -
(1) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States;

12 U.S.C. Sec. 2277a (6) State
The term `State' means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, any Territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Virgin Islands.

20 U.S.C. Sec. 3005 (b) Special rule
(2) the term `States' includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 12522 (f) Definitions
For purposes of this section: (2) State. The term `State' includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

It is apparent that the government is quite capable of distinguishing between itself (the Federal state, and its possessions) and the 50 States united (“the several states”). Don’t be fooled.

That "foreign corporation" has no jurisdiction inside any commonwealth State of the Union except for the limited delegations of power in Article 1, Section 8, USCON.

And pursuant to the republican form of government, no government instituted to secure endowed rights can impose citizenship AT BIRTH, with mandatory civic duties that abrogate those endowed rights. . . without consent of the governed.

YUP, we were tricked.


Link to post about "sovereigns without subjects" who absolutely own private property, etc, etc.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1532153

[ozmirage]

NOTE: For those who were misled to assume that the Declaration of Independence was NOT law, please check your own constitution, to verify if it includes verbiage that directly complies with the Declaration.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Article I Declaration of Rights [Section 1 - Sec. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
Section 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...0&div=0&chpt=1
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

- - - - - -
I expect that you will find that EVERY state constitution specifically recognizes endowed rights of the PEOPLE (sovereigns), including natural rights, natural and personal liberty, inherent powers, absolute ownership of private property and so on.

HOWEVER, if one has consented to be governed, as their citizen, all bets are off.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
(It's even worse if you have signed up with socialist insecurity for an account and number. Eligibility for public charity makes one a pauper at law and a status criminal.)

[ExomatrixTV]

[Emoven Miughalaigh]

I, too, thought about using the current currency when they stop using it. Plan in advance and have plenty of it and encourage other people to as well.

I buy organic seeds and give them away and encourage people who grow to grow more and people who don't grow to start doing it.

Get an allotment or start sowing/growing on a piece of spare ground. Get a team together and do it seriously. Start a compost heap on some unused land.

Buy organic food and get all the seeds from it to sow.

It's really important to defund them so anything you don't pay is a bonus. Does anyone know how to not pay for internet?

There are many ways to not pay. Start researching and understanding them.

[Emoven Miughalaigh]

I just thought of something else.......The Health Ranger, Mike Adams says that you can store diesel, that it is really difficult to set fire to. So if you have a diesel car/truck you could stockpile fuel for when there is none to be had.

[shaberon]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Incorrect.
Let us start with this - - -

DO YOU KNOW THAT CITIZENSHIP COMES WITH MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES?

Yes, we do.

It means you take a gun and shoot the British.

You are posting a post-1940s tax evasion, nothing about real law or history. At all.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. At all.

Someone has started some god awful lie about Thomas Jefferson, which thanks to sophistry looks like it means something.



If you did not accept State Citizenship pre-1776, you were evicted. If you did, your descendants got it automatically. The federal government simply grandfathered State citizenship into "American citizenship". That is all.

Are the laws applied to citizens a huge horrible mess, yes, but that is the fault of this batch of legislation, not the state of being a citizen.

The non-citizen argument is still true in France.

The U. S. Constitution may itself be simply a vehicle to amass a tax base to pay off war debt, with some human rights tossed in as window-dressing. The Articles of Confederation were "too weak" to do this, and we got a ton of Wall Street influence starting from the changes that made the Constitution, continuing through generations of legal changes mixed with market manipulations. Nothing to do with Jefferson who believed in an agriculture-based economy.

There are a fair number of us whose ancestors came to the colonies in the early 1700s, mostly to escape the stupid violence that kept happening in Europe. Eventually they took a Revolutionary Oath to violently overthrow European power. That is why we are citizens. To argue against this is to sanitize and remove the American Revolution, which itself had at least a 30% following that we would install a new king, was not inherently a "republican" fight like in France.

The ability to stick "National" on a passport is a short-track application which doesn't have any extensive certification process, because it is practically unused, it does not merit a bureaucratic department to check everyone out. You say it, they take it.

To do so is to claim the position of the "disenfranchised" formerly occupied by women, slaves, Indians, Pacific and other territories, and then to camp off the Japanese in World War II. Those are the non-citizen American Nationals. It is not for people who fought in the Revolution and their descendants.

Has anyone been brave enough to formally renounce citizenship to the State Department? Of course not, you don't recognize them as "master" and ask for permission, or you just don't have the spine to do it. Try it and see what happens. That is why this argument is a collection of tax loopholes through thirty pieces of minor paperwork.





As to the posts about grow your own organic, yes--message of Fidel Castro.

Diesel is a more efficient engine by all descriptions. We don't commonly use it in America because it takes a few minutes to warm up. Same reason we don't use manual clutches. Too inconvenient for the average citizen. Gasoline does not store very well. Diesel can be made many ways. Jets were originally designed to run on peanut butter if need be (although this method is closer to kerosene).

[ozmirage]

Since facts don't matter, don't waste your time reading this rebuttal.

But if you ever do read the Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Statute #1 is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
AND
The supreme court has ruled many times that all states' constitutions have to be in harmony with that declaration.

In fact, most if not all constitutions repeat those self-evident truths, just in "new" phrasing.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Article I Declaration of Rights [Section 1 - Sec. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
Section 1.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...0&div=0&chpt=1
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'

Enabling Act of JUNE 16, 1906

Sec. 505 - Delegates to Meet and Form Constitution. Sec. 3
... The constitution shall be REPUBLICAN in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE...

There it is - DoC !

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
Honest Abe is saying that America's republican form of government requires YOUR CONSENT before it can govern you. If you don't consent, you retain your endowments.

Did something erase the republican form or endowed rights?

“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
Coolidge says nothing has changed . . . Is he wrong?

Bottom line - thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form, its source and origin. But ignorance of the law is not a defense. The republican form, instituted by the Declaration, is the law of the land.

Of course, 99.9999% of Americans are tricked into consenting to the socialist democratic form, and surrender their endowment. But the law is clear - citizenship is 100% voluntary. Otherwise if it was imposed, it would be involuntary servitude.

And there is no law that ejected non-citizen Americans. In fact, Art IV of Confederation explicitly recognizes the non-citizen free inhabitants, and their inherent rights & powers.

CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY

“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1

ALL men have endowed rights - - -
BUT
Those who consent to be governed, surrender them. It's spelled out in the end of the Declaration, where the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor (in obedience) to the new governments instituted to secure rights. All subsequent citizens are presumed to make the same pledge, hence they have no endowed rights to life, liberty nor property.

Would you believe GEORGE WASHINGTON?
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

IN SHORT, NO citizen has any endowed right to life, liberty or private property, since he OWES a duty to the STATE, to defend it and pay for it. Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.


In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.

Title 8, U.S.C.S. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an AMERICAN NATIONAL and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”
. . .

That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals. No mention of any civic duties, taxes, or compulsory regulations.

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

Free inhabitants - who are not subject citizens - are recognized as having endowed rights that government was instituted to secure. They are the sovereign people aka "American nationals."

Obviously "someone" has endowed rights, and "someone else" surrendered them.
Citizenship was, is and ever shall be voluntary in these united States under the promised republican form of government.

[palehorse]

Diesel engines are indeed much superior than anything else. I saw people running an old tractor on coconut oil (home made bio-diesel), it is illegal to sell it to others, but there is not much laws saying about doing it yourself, and even if there is laws about it, who are coming to check your property, just keep it simple and quiet, BTW who are going to stop your truck or tractor or whatever to check if the Diesel is genuine or not.. lol

Doing bio-diesel only worth the time and effort when there is a community that demands its use, otherwise storing it would be a better idea, large drums will do the job, with a small hand pump like those sold on Aliexpress (around $19). Diesel drums (or oil barrel) of 200L (55 gallons) will give almost 3 full tanks for a pick truck.

Here in my area I can buy those 200L barrels for about $14 a piece, prices may vary from country to country, but it can't be much more than that. The little investment worth in my opinion.

An average pick truck has a tank of 75L, if you use about 1 tank per month then you are consuming 900L per year.
If you want get ahead and save with fuel price yearly increasing, just get 5 barrels will be enough for slightly over a year, all you need are new barrels + manual barrel pump + diesel and a place in case of long term storage away light/heat/humidity. If you are constantly using it, then you can store even in your garage or barn.

I have kerosene stocked here and I have to keep it in the garage is an open ventilated area, the evaporation rate is pretty high, I am storing in a plastic barrel (very bad idea), I can smell it, those metal drums are the best option, based on my own experience.




If cold is an issue in your area to store diesel, there is something called "band drum heater", it is usually made out of silicon and you wrap around the drum, it has a digital temp. controller and will keep it warm, but it is an electrical device just like a "heater belt".. it may be useful for some people.

[shaberon]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Citizenship was, is and ever shall be voluntary in these united States under the promised republican form of government.

Voluntary in the sense that Jefferson's "consent of the governed" was the Revolutionary Oath.


In the Constitution, considering its date, it says the President must have been a "resident" for fourteen years, since there was nothing to have been a "citizen" of in 1773--and that changes for the shorter requirements of the other offices.


This matter was settled in the first election to the House of Representatives of
Smith 1789:


...I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

Cong. Register description begins Thomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4). description ends , I, 391–95. The House decided overwhelmingly in favor of Smith. Many years later JM recalled this contested election when composing his essay on sovereignty (“Sovereignty,” [1835], Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.] description begins Gaillard Hunt., ed., The Writings of James Madison (9 vols.; New York, 1900–1910). description ends , IX, 570).


He was challenged because of not having taken an oath, and was determined (overwhelmingly) to be a citizen simply by living.



Having received this form of rebuke, the accuser wrote an apologetic tract on the current views in Ramsay 1789:

...citizens possess
in their own right original sovereignty.
There is also a great difference between citizens, and
inhabitants or residents.
Any person living within a country or state, is an
inhabitant of it, or resident in it.
Negroes are inhabitants, but not citizens. Citizenship
confers a right of voting at elections, and many other privileges not enjoyed by those who are no more than inhabitants...


That is exactly how it started. There is no second "republican form of government", a phrase without meaning.

Find any examples of a period-appropriate person or group who realized Jefferson was secretly protecting some special group who were wise enough to not "give consent".

It's not possible because they were all removed from the physical space.

One argument against the Articles is that the phrase you quoted effectively means a slave--inhabitant (sovereign American national in your words) in one state could cross a border and be treated as a citizen in the next.


Other state documents at the time interchange "subject" for "citizen"--same thing.

One has to voluntarily surrender something in order to not be in the "state of nature", meaning without government.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of citizenship by birthright in 1830. In 1853, it was noted that an Austrian refugee who had been living and working in the United States for a number of years was a national, but not a citizen.


Here are some relevant Decisions:


a. The decision in Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), demonstrates the Court's early understanding that all persons born in the United States were U.S. citizens, despite the fact that the individual at issue in the case had lived most of his life outside the country.

b. In the case of Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), the Court faced the question of whether a man born in New York State in 1776 was a U.S. citizen and therefore able to inherit real property. In doing so, the Court resolved complicated questions of how citizenship had been acquired during the Revolutionary War. The court found that those present on U.S. soil at the Declaration of Independence or born thereafter were presumed to be citizens, but the presumption of citizenship was rebutted upon a showing of intent to remain a British subject.



Those are not turns of phrase construed out-of-context from some speech, it is Congress and the Supreme Court in some of their very first actions.

In general terms, Jefferson was a devotee of "agrarian economy", a platform continued by Andrew Jackson, against national banking.

Hamilton was a devotee of Wall Street, a platform continued by Whigs/Republicans such as Lincoln, who let in a national bank and for the first time began loading it with Treasury Bonds, a practice that has remained in place ever since.


I have searched for the first instance of anyone using the "revoke consent" argument, and it was 1953, and not very pretty.

Washington, Jefferson, and the revolutionaries were not risking their lives so that some unknown group could celebrate the mystery of being wise enough not to consent. That is specious.

None of them were fighting "for" the Constitution, which already has such bad issues that Rhode Island resisted it with 1,000 armed men. It is too risky about moving power to the federal level in a way that favors the Wall Street faction. All of its early debates were filled with "states' rights" issues, which continued to come up through the 1800s, until Lincoln answered that too, by having one goal, preserving the union.

If "perpetual" Articles can be repealed and replaced by a "non-perpetual" Constitution, obviously that body of law can meet the same fate. It must be "the Beast", as many of its early challengers described. Unfortunately, most of the historical review guides us to the ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights, neglecting the fact that there were about thirty other proposed amendments on the subject of limiting federal power.


The main justification for the Articles would be that, for example, the state militia of Georgia would not travel and take action in New Jersey, and so by having the first Congress, agreements were reached so that those such as Washington could muster new forces that were highly mobile. The Constitution is such that state militias were slowly depleted and we were given a large standing federal army, which would have been abhorrent to Jefferson, and was one of the main arguments against ratifying the thing.

As I see it, the serious issues are against, question the benefit of, and would "alter or abolish" the Constitution.

I suppose many others see it as a "defining source of freedom" and "that which is to be preserved at all costs". Seems to me that this operates under the "threat" mentality; I need to be under the same government as someone in Idaho, because we are both about to be invaded by Swaziland. If Idaho disagrees, it does not really matter, since the Constitution provides ways for some states to oppress others.

[palehorse]

@shaberon and @ozmirage many thanks for such wealth of information in this thread, the majority of the information here I had never read it before.
It show to us what is the essential to understand in order to even think to get into a fight with the state. But if even the politicians "driving" the countries does not follow their constitutions and are always passing new bizarre laws and nullifying old ones, why should we complain with that or be politically correct?

Going straight to point, the common folks does not have a huge brain or the time to think on these issues, the majority are more worried to bring bread and milk to their tables, pay their rents, and so on.. to grasp all these details and try to apply into their lives is just "impossible mission", thanks to stupid market, bogus religion (most evangelicals) and fake science we now got a whole generation of zombies out there completely busy with all the horse excrement manufactured by the minister of love.

how can we fight back (starve the beast) in a more real way, I mean practical way, I really mean very practical way.. ?

here is one tiny practical experience I want to share:

today I went to the ATM and my card was cancelled for no reason, then I went to the branch and they said, "we need your biometrics data".. first was the Internet Banking cancelled (many months ago) in order to force everyone to use a mobile phones (Biometrics required), now the stupid plastic debit card cancelled, I still have the old school book bank and that is my current way to cash out when needed... no more internet or debit card unless I surrender my Biometrics data to a ****ing bank. I am willing to keep on my experiment until all doors and windows are closed, when that happen I will stop using banks at all, it will be all in cash until cash gonna, and then it will be barter/trade only. I am 100% inclined to run this experiment.


Biometrics

Immigration systems are not integrated with state owned banks by now, but it will be integrated anytime soon. Smaller banks will vanish in no time and only the large institutions will predominate.

If you are not willing to be part of the new infrastructure, the only way is to go absolutely off the digital grid, but we already know that. I see a double life option rising, keep the "digital ****" for the basic requirements, but live a full life outside of it.

Also the health passport thing, if it become mandatory at some point, they could deny anything to anyone unless they complain and taking jabs periodically. That would be the nail in the coffin. Hopefully won't get to that point, but if does, that is it, I can't imagine how it will be for next generations. Terrific huh? More pandemics on the way.


WAR

that is how they can do that, creating war, violence, disrupting.. we are in the middle of it, there will have great destruction at some point and that will be the excuse why everybody lost their wealth, then a reboot into a new system.. where people will have to complain and accept or face death or imprisonment, simply as that, tyranny at best.


Any second thoughts on the issue ?

Like getting rid of cash now buying estate/land/vehicles/supplies/metals/etc literally stock up on everything possible before they convert the current money into CBDC programmable coins, because when that comes, I am sure the remaining of the wealth will be absolutely "destroyed" for the common folks but actually transferred to the wealthiest. I remember a recent case in Australia where this lady tried to cash out something like AU$4K with her local bank and they cancelled her account, and that is because some banks has no cash anymore (already digital).


More I get myself into this materialistic world and try to understand how pathetic it is, more I know this is not the way to fight them, but in order to survive we have to deal with a few ordinary things.. and go full time (godspeed) into our spiritual development.

[George]

Posted by palehorse (here)

how can we fight back (starve the beast) in a more real way, I mean practical way, I really mean very practical way.. ?

I have the same issue - was trying to pay for a flight today but my ATM card stopped working. They want a biometric ID. The thing is, 'they' already got mine. First, they have my fingerprints from my old iPhone and from my computer. Then they have my FaceID from my current phone. Also, I am sure they got my DNA from the swab test that I had to take a couple of times.

So giving my biometric fingerprint or FaceID to the bank won't change much. It's already in the system somewhere, for sure in the CBDC system. So where do we draw the line? I know I missed the biometrics line already. For me the line has always been that damned poison. I will not let them inject this into my body.

And of course, without the poison we will have no access to money, internet, buying and selling at some point in the very near future. Until then we have very little time to prepare ourselves, physically and spiritually...

[shaberon]

Posted by palehorse (here)
how can we fight back (starve the beast) in a more real way, I mean practical way, I really mean very practical way.. ?

Well, I have struggled with this for my whole life, and while politics and laws "could" be adjusted for the better, "we" cannot exactly do that.

The closest principle I can come up with is:


Boycott.


As you may know, the actual BDS contra-Israeli products is politically rejected.

There are, however, examples of phone apps that will show you the interlocking ownership of most major companies, where you can see for example that several organic brands are owned by Coca-Cola, a major polluter.

Right now I am trying to go back to work in the area I came from, which has an interest in locally-produced agriculture, and for a while had its own local currency. I, personally, cannot "make" such a currency, and if those who did went out of business, that is our tough luck.

As another example, when I was young, I used to get tanked on cheap American beer...and I just grew out of it, never buy the stuff any more, but have these businesses diminished? Not really.

At some level, you have to refuse the product, don't give them any money.

Currently, we get a lot of our groceries from a markdown store, who has collected the out-of-dates from the major retailers. Did you know on these products we have about 40% waste? That for about every two loaves of bread you buy, a third went straight to the trash? So this store provides a valuable service and we pay about 1/4 of regular prices, which goes to a sole proprietor, not a corporation.


Spreading this kind of message to someone who doesn't care is just about impossible.

As individuals, we simply don't have enough resources to really "do" very much. I am on enough land here that could easily be converted to an agricultural bonanza. Our property taxes were just raised 58% and we lost a tenant. So we are not going to have resources to keep this and turn it into anything beneficial. We will have to hunker down in something like a commune-type existence, probably as someone else's tenant.

I can tell you something that works if you live in America--this is called using the elites' own weapon against them--but I do not know if other countries have an equivalent:


Charitable Trust


Any other kind of trust fund has rules attached, like you get money when you turn 18, or in 2025 we are going to release $50,000 for vehicle purchases, stuff like that. The Charitable Trust on the other hand is discretionary--I can for example say $50,000 for educational purposes, and make the case that vehicles are necessary for that, or land, or clothing, or whatever. And so you would just be taking in donations and then spending it however you want. That is, for example, how nuns in El Salvador got machine gunned by death squads, since such guns were seen as "counter-revolutionary purposes" or something like that. This vehicle is used by the Foundations, as well as by relatively nameless organizations, and has been so for quite some time.

You don't have to "do" much, except figure out how to start it, you would need some x amount in order for an institution to handle your Trust.

Otherwise, affecting a politician, or educating the public, is a really slow matter that takes a lot of patience.

Lifechan Yuan Ecovillages are being done by someone, although it is of Chinese origin, some similar way of spreading communes is not a bad idea. Just again, not something a single person can do on their own tomorrow.

Russia's view that they are in an "existential fight" versus our politicians is pretty much true for us, as well. They happen to have a whole country that can arm itself and definitely "do something". We don't. But it probably needs to be taken that seriously.

Wish I had a better answer. If I just sent back my Social Security number, I would forfeit all that cash that has been scarfed for nearly forty years from me, which sounds more like a loss. If they took it, I might as well live long enough to get some of it back.

[palehorse]

Posted by George (here)

Posted by palehorse (here)

how can we fight back (starve the beast) in a more real way, I mean practical way, I really mean very practical way.. ?

I have the same issue - was trying to pay for a flight today but my ATM card stopped working. They want a biometric ID. The thing is, 'they' already got mine. First, they have my fingerprints from my old iPhone and from my computer. Then they have my FaceID from my current phone. Also, I am sure they got my DNA from the swab test that I had to take a couple of times.

So giving my biometric fingerprint or FaceID to the bank won't change much. It's already in the system somewhere, for sure in the CBDC system. So where do we draw the line? I know I missed the biometrics line already. For me the line has always been that damned poison. I will not let them inject this into my body.

And of course, without the poison we will have no access to money, internet, buying and selling at some point in the very near future. Until then we have very little time to prepare ourselves, physically and spiritually...

Hi George, thanks sharing your experience, it is happening.

Yah! they want the face recognition, retina scan and God knows what else. I didn't do any of it, not even in my phone (old one without fingerprint/face unlock features), at immig. they got a photo of my face (sure it is used to face recognition), I am ok with that, even if they need my fingerprints I am ok with that too. What I am not okay is the disguise **** up of the situation with banks, when they say we need a face scan to withdrawn our very own money, when in reality the data is been used for not only that but it is shared with others institutions and also end up in the underground, because these institutions can't keep OUR data tight and safe. The same goes for CC, there is lots and lots available in the free market.. I stopped using CC a very long time ago and I survived that until now, I am exploring these issues today because must be a way around it.

and would I have to buy a new phone with faceID or whatever just to exclusively access my very own money? sounds ridiculous to me, I won't join it.

well sorry I am not getting anywhere with that lol

The poison is the nail in the coffin, the real physical division, society will be split, hopefully we will be in good numbers to show these ****ers who they are messing with. Last case scenario we all will become a pirate!

[palehorse]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by palehorse (here)
how can we fight back (starve the beast) in a more real way, I mean practical way, I really mean very practical way.. ?

Well, I have struggled with this for my whole life, and while politics and laws "could" be adjusted for the better, "we" cannot exactly do that.

The closest principle I can come up with is:


Boycott.


As you may know, the actual BDS contra-Israeli products is politically rejected.

There are, however, examples of phone apps that will show you the interlocking ownership of most major companies, where you can see for example that several organic brands are owned by Coca-Cola, a major polluter.

Right now I am trying to go back to work in the area I came from, which has an interest in locally-produced agriculture, and for a while had its own local currency. I, personally, cannot "make" such a currency, and if those who did went out of business, that is our tough luck.

As another example, when I was young, I used to get tanked on cheap American beer...and I just grew out of it, never buy the stuff any more, but have these businesses diminished? Not really.

At some level, you have to refuse the product, don't give them any money.

Currently, we get a lot of our groceries from a markdown store, who has collected the out-of-dates from the major retailers. Did you know on these products we have about 40% waste? That for about every two loaves of bread you buy, a third went straight to the trash? So this store provides a valuable service and we pay about 1/4 of regular prices, which goes to a sole proprietor, not a corporation.


Spreading this kind of message to someone who doesn't care is just about impossible.

As individuals, we simply don't have enough resources to really "do" very much. I am on enough land here that could easily be converted to an agricultural bonanza. Our property taxes were just raised 58% and we lost a tenant. So we are not going to have resources to keep this and turn it into anything beneficial. We will have to hunker down in something like a commune-type existence, probably as someone else's tenant.

I can tell you something that works if you live in America--this is called using the elites' own weapon against them--but I do not know if other countries have an equivalent:


Charitable Trust


Any other kind of trust fund has rules attached, like you get money when you turn 18, or in 2025 we are going to release $50,000 for vehicle purchases, stuff like that. The Charitable Trust on the other hand is discretionary--I can for example say $50,000 for educational purposes, and make the case that vehicles are necessary for that, or land, or clothing, or whatever. And so you would just be taking in donations and then spending it however you want. That is, for example, how nuns in El Salvador got machine gunned by death squads, since such guns were seen as "counter-revolutionary purposes" or something like that. This vehicle is used by the Foundations, as well as by relatively nameless organizations, and has been so for quite some time.

You don't have to "do" much, except figure out how to start it, you would need some x amount in order for an institution to handle your Trust.

Otherwise, affecting a politician, or educating the public, is a really slow matter that takes a lot of patience.

Lifechan Yuan Ecovillages are being done by someone, although it is of Chinese origin, some similar way of spreading communes is not a bad idea. Just again, not something a single person can do on their own tomorrow.

Russia's view that they are in an "existential fight" versus our politicians is pretty much true for us, as well. They happen to have a whole country that can arm itself and definitely "do something". We don't. But it probably needs to be taken that seriously.

Wish I had a better answer. If I just sent back my Social Security number, I would forfeit all that cash that has been scarfed for nearly forty years from me, which sounds more like a loss. If they took it, I might as well live long enough to get some of it back.

Thanks Shaberon, I like what you wrote, important points to notice.

Boycott for me too I've been using it for a long time now, very effective tool, but hard to apply in a global scale.

you said 58% wow what a rip off huh? I hope you can figure this out, community style could be the solution.

Charitable Trust - I am not familiar with the term, do you mean something like a church or religious entity? Actually don't bother with that, I will do some research on it, thanks for pointing out.

Regarding affecting a politician, or educating the public I really never believe much it was the way to change anything, it is a slow path, a tired one.

Lifechan Yuan Ecovillages here is what I put some credits, I think community is the fastest way to transitioning, but I am concerned about large communities, they very often end up with so many issues and vanish or disband with time. I am studying the concept of small cells with the same perspective, but instead of a large community, why not many small ones? Freedom cells for example uses the concept connecting many small communities, where each community is around 10 person, but not limited to that, it may be a bit more or a bit less, it will depend on the size of the group that want to stay together (normally friends and families), hence creating a network of communities so to say.. but it seems the concept does not work well everywhere, in Thailand for example people living on their own or in small communities they are closer to the concept of anarchism than anything else, which is not that bad, but not ideal either, because even the "puiay baan" (village chief) is someone that can be corrupted and bought by higher ranks in the hierarchy after all s/he works for the state and all those people in the community are somehow under the umbrella..

The model of freedom cells may work pretty well when each municipality has at least one functional cell, connecting many municipalities all over a country for example, it is harder for authorities stop the concept in that case because they will never know exactly where we all are located and if it grows it will become even harder to contain. Freedom cells can be urban or rural and it is a peaceful way to demonstrate that we are not keen to live under their tyranny.

Anyway thanks for the post, very good points to think about. Each place is different adaptation is the key I think.

[shaberon]

Posted by palehorse (here)
Charitable Trust - I am not familiar with the term, do you mean something like a church or religious entity? Actually don't bother with that, I will do some research on it, thanks for pointing out.

No just a legal entity. But thanks for doing some homework on it. There should of course be challenges and independent verification to anything I say, and then you post back whether it is a horrible waste, or perhaps useful.

The 501c for religious businesses is just a tax status and has nothing to do with whether they use a Trust of any kind.

Regarding affecting a politician, or educating the public I really never believe much it was the way to change anything, it is a slow path, a tired one.

I might say we need a mix of both things.

One would like to have some quick answers, like in the 1930s, in the U. S. at least, we set up all kinds of work camps, which for example is how the Blue Ridge Parkway was made. That was governmental, or, in the words of some, Socialism.


Up until about that time, most people lived under the domain of "Dad was a shoemaker, so..."

But then what is the point of mobility? What was so bad about being the village shoemaker, just because that is what your family does??


Socio-economic deterioration did not used to happen like this. The American Revolution was probably inevitable after King George asked Benjamin Franklin how the colonies handled their poor houses. Franklin replied that they hadn't got any, because unemployment was virtually unheard of, because the colonies issued their own currency.

When you tell the King you are off his Pound, nothing good can come of it. But another issue was adding new subjects--the King could not do this. Bringing foreign subjects into the colonies required an Act of Parliament.


We are thinking a bit atavistically in terms of small, hands-on communities.

There may be some type of formula that can help gauge how many people have to put gardening work in --> harvest to surplus out.

Such things are finicky with nature, for instance, the 1930s dust bowl caused Oklahomans to try moving into California. They were turned away by armed police. This marks the beginning of "folk music" (Arlo Guthrie Sr. sings about this).

In the 30s, some Americans were put right to work, others lost their farms and were rejected by their neighbors.

The closest thing to stability that I can think of are the oldest businesses in the world, which are a few Japanese restaurants that have been passed down in families since the 600s. I don't think they were ordering from a warehouse distributor.

The amount of energy it takes to raise a single cow or pig is egregious compared to how much vegetarian food that could have provided. Fish, on the other hand, are pretty abundant until you poison the water.

You also mentioned "family and friends" which is to be expected--what about stragglers and nobodies? This is why I would suggest a common bond of culture is helpful. For instance around the Gospel era you had Ebionite Communes. You might not have to know anyone there, but, if you are agreeable to the way of life, you fit in. I kind of think we should auto-segregate ourselves based on cultural biases. A religion would be something like a private charity that helps you figure out how you want to talk and eat and so on, and you gravitate towards those like-minded individuals.

British map-making is the skill of dividing this for maximum conflict.

The State is the population within whatever map-drawn boundary it is in, like a herd in a fence. Kind of oblivious.

A culture has no boundaries, and in some cases can be sharply defined, such as when rice was shipped to Afghanistan. The reply was that Afghans eat bread, if you give them rice, they will starve. That sounds a bit severe, but it is an official literally complaining about free food, so there is probably a reason behind it.


Russian Sobornost:


"spiritual community of many jointly-living people"

a sobor is also a churchly "gathering", "assemblage", or "council", reflecting the concept of the Christian Church as an "ecclesia"


is a relatively modern way of addressing this. It is trying to express the opposite of Western individualism and collectivism, i. e. we share so little culture everyone has to be unique, collectively united in a state for the economic principle that everyone eats. Sobornost is similar to Kenosis; it retains freedom so there is of course individual diversity, but this is far less important than surrender to a set of common values, which are not collectivism, but the moral values such as love and spiritual seeking.


In America, "Anti-Federalist" was never really the name of anything, but, a blanket term imposed over those who favored "states' rights":


Perhaps the nationalists' most brilliant tactic in the battle of ideas ahead of them, however, was their decision to call themselves "Federalists" and their cause, "Federalism." The men behind the Constitution were not, of course, federalists at all. They were advocates of a strong national government whose authority diminished the independence of the states.

In Rhode Island, resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.

Some activists joined the Anti-Administration Party that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were forming about 1790–91 to oppose the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; this group soon became the Democratic-Republican Party. When Jefferson took office as the third president in 1801, he replaced Federalist appointees with Democratic-Republicans and sought to focus on issues that allowed the states to make more of their own decisions in matters. He also repealed the whiskey excise and other federal taxes, shut down some federal offices and broadly sought to change the fiscal system that Hamilton had created.



It is really this argument or view which continued effervescing for sixty years until the so-called "Civil War" came out of it, and hence, what some of us, at least, call Empire.

[palehorse]

Posted by shaberon (here)
...

Hi Shaberon,

I dug into types of trust (wow so many) and it is more or less what I had in mind anyway, which goes against one very strong principle I have which is self-custody, they are actually in the opposite of each other, one require someone else as a relationship in order to trust the assets, the other one is handled by the person or a group which assume the custody on their own without a third party to trust. But I got the point, we can have our own Charity Trust while still practicing self custody. Sound win-win game for me.

But as you said to look into "Charitable Trust" and I did and came up with 2 types of Charitable Trust: Charitable Remainder Trusts (irrevocable) and Charitable Lead Trusts.. kind of complex subject to me not impossible to understand but time consuming, for what I read it is the sort of thing to set and go for life.

Thanks for clarifying about 501c for religious businesses.



What I meant by slow process is basically regarding our actions in the whole process, participate or not, join or not, or whatever.. after all it is our rights to decide to be part or not of something, anything else is some sort of slavery. I really mean it can slow the hell down of any individual, after all you become part of something that is corrupted in their very nature, it is very debatable and I know you would have all answer for that

"The amount of energy it takes to raise a single cow or pig is egregious compared to how much vegetarian food that could have provided. Fish, on the other hand, are pretty abundant until you poison the water."

From my very own experience working with my auntie's husband in the farm (they used to have a dairy farm), I was young but all these information still very fresh in my brain, we grew oat, corn and sugar cane to be used as feed for the cows and also for the horses, it is simple and take just a few steps (plough, plant, harvest, grind & ground and pack) and you have plenty of it in the end.. both for humans and cows and perhaps a little sales on the side. Kill two birds with one stones. It seems laborious from an outside perspective, but it is not when it is part of the farmers job.. my Auntie saved thousands of bucks doing that way, she actually bought industrialized feed once or twice, doing it yourself reduced the cost of feeding animals by 10 folds and gave them the opportunity to make some on the side too.

You also mentioned "family and friends" which is to be expected--what about stragglers and nobodies?

Yes so sorry about that, they would be included of course, my mistake not mentioning, something like WWOOF style but not limited to that (from the top of head) anyone could join such a thing, it must be interest from their side of course. But it all boil down to mind-like fellas living together, for example would be acceptable to live with an Hindu for example, despite his religious beliefs, if there was a common ground of agreement between everyone living in that tiny community or even in a large one, I don't see it is a religious sect or anything that way, that would be too much of a hassle to take care about, but definitely must be common rules for everyone abide.

The cultural aspect of it is the fact that culture can harm more than heal, once Terrence McKenna said "culture is your enemy", but understanding it is crucial to gravitate above it and not identify oneself with so much idiocracy, in other words communal living is not for everyone even though we think everyone could live communally speaking, but it again boil down to cultural values, in my view communities are an attempt to gravitate above it not necessarily creating more harmful culture but living as meaningful as possible, basically around the idea of KISS concept.

Anything we do is revolved around: shelter, food, clothing and healing (remedies) at least for commons nobody is trying to reach the stars and travel into the future. Billions of people has almost no interest in evolving in that way, they are just been pushed around, as humanity as a whole we didn't solved the basic problems and we are looking forward to evolve as a specie. I have to say for me it does not make any sense at all. We don't feed the people but we feed the machines.

There may be some type of formula that can help gauge how many people have to put gardening work in --> harvest to surplus out.

There is different types of blueprints in that regard, totally possible, as I mentioned we grew feed to cows and also for humans and the surplus was even sold to others (could barter on something too)..

As you mentioned in the 30's (great depression), I know cases of group of people went secluded that time and they remained for years until after things got better, it may be a solution for difficult times (fabricated or not) anyway, a community goes secluded and remains for as long as necessary, nomads comes to mind (move if necessary).. but it seems a bit of utopia in the days we are living, but make sense and was a reality at some point. By the way nobody is stopping anyone to go down south to the Chilean Andes and set their own village in a valley somewhere (legally or illegally), the eyes in the sky today are looking to the crowd in order to control it, they don't give a damn to a group of like-mind people escaping their system, and I believe they won't bother anyone that decided to do things on their own (some globalist said: let them try to escape and die on their own HAHA). It is primitive in so many ways, like I said seems like utopia, but we know it is possible, I am just trying to draw a clear line here for what is on both sides, one is about be self-sustainable living decentralized from everything we know in the grid (literally) and the other is dependable on the grid system. Apologies for my humble view on the subject, I am not trying to contradict what you have written here and to be frank it is quite a lot to digest in my case, but as I said the majority won't understand that either, and in my point of view I don't want to contribute to a system that is cold and want me dead, it isn't fair, I am not a machine and will never be, then I am up to whatever is coming and I will gladly not comply with any of their requests. My principle is give more than take, but if it is applied in the wrong way (like giving energy to the system when the systems gives nothing back) the cycle of moving energies is broken hence become useless and humans became drained (the system is a vampire).

Regarding Sobornost sounds good to me if there is a common agreement as I said previously.
"..middle way of co-operation between several opposing ideas.."

moral values such as love and spiritual seeking

exactly the point, it does not matter the religion/credo/culture/whatever if you think that everything out there that uses capitalism tends to create division and competition. You remove money from it and you see competition going away. Then you have people giving more than take from others, and that is the principle for example a community may live for. It may sound a bit "hypokrites" or contradicted in the sense of creating division among group of people, but when everything else failed what else could we really do beside going off that whole mess?


Many thanks for this post, I enjoyed very much reading and replying to it. Let's keep up the good intent we may come up with some blueprint of communal living, in fact I see many very good points here already.

[shaberon]

I was reminded of this topic today.

No, I don't know in each case exactly what kinds of financial entity is involved. Here is one fresh off the press about a guy just arrested (and bailed) for trafficking babies:


He is presently the head of the “Heart With Love” charitable foundation...



A "most profitable business" which is more or less legalized:


Adopted at the end of December 2021, one of the points states that: “it is no longer necessary to notarize the written consent of a living donor or his relatives for transplantation. If documents are available, there is no need to confirm or authenticate signatures. It is also permitted to remove organs in this way, and from children also”.



But there is a major case study, which is what I had in mind rotating 180 degrees--Americares. First we try to read through a little of their own gush:


Working with Pope John Paul II in 1981, Americares airlifted more than $3.2 million in aid to Poland, then under martial law. Today, the organization is the leading nonprofit provider of medical programs and supplies to those suffering the effects of natural catastrophes and poverty, delivering more than $500 million in goods and services to all 50 states and more than 90 countries.

It’s had a long presence in Guatemala...



That, combined with ongoing suspicions of the SMOM:


As a charitable non-governmental
organization with diplomatic immunity
in many countries...

As a sovereign entity controlled by a
handful of wealthy aristocrats and busi-
ness people, the Knights of Malta also
can-and often does-become a potent
instrument for covertly achieving political
and quasi-military goals which its mem-
bers could not hope to attain through
democratic methods.


That is from the 90s, also picked up by Russ Baker 2010.


It caused the career suicide of Hersh 2011.


Now we can just grab from a CIA wall of text:


Much of the $3.4 million in Americares' medical aid to Guatemala has been distributed through the armed forces as part of its resettlement program of "model villages" aimed at defeating leftist insurgents...


That story is humongous, reaching back to Operation Paperclip.

It is what I call "machine guns for nuns".

Absolutely jaw-dropping.

Well they do help some people for PR, but there is something in the water.

Why not take that same framework, but just turn it around into a local land-management process. I am terribly concerned about how we wind up housing-insecure because of the business model of raising property taxes. There's no relief. That kind of law *should* be repealed, but, that is not something a person can directly do. I am thinking of perhaps a mix of a commune with a halfway house. Something for permanent residents but also somewhere that a person in trouble could go, without a commitment of permanency.

It is complicated. I can think of reasons to keep early 1900s technology, such as a washing machine and refrigeration. I can't think of a reason to keep early 2000s technology with smart buttons that break, and electronic controls without any mechanical override. A lot of that junk is just ways to make things more expensive. This house has an optical stove--messed up in ways that a basic model would never do. No two light fixtures are the same. I broke one when commanded to pull the bulb. So we just let them go out! The fancy sink faucet froze itself in position. Nothing is upgraded, things have been made weaker and worse.

Yes, of course it is physically possible to raise enough crop to feed one's own livestock. Have you heard of a hog lagoon? Sometimes they burst. If we look at a place that has ten thousand hogs, the amount of energy and material put into that is really significant. Then we pay a premium for organic produce, since the industry is no longer keyed to support that. You probably shouldn't have to go through a process and get a special "organic certificate", that should be standard, and if you don't, your product ought to be labeled "contaminated".

I doubt I really have any new ideas, more like rejections of new ones. If we ask ourselves what has really been improved during our lifetimes, do we have anything to say? The internet is nice, but, it doesn't need much beyond 486 tech to be effective.