slug.com slug.com
1 0

Cult Union Member Dues III
by Joe Kelley
6-11-2022

THE Interview That "Solves The Human Condition And Saves The World!"
246,061 views
Aug 17, 2021

Time 9:20:
“So saying our competitive and aggressive behavior comes from savage competitive and aggressive instincts is us is simply not true...”

I have stumbled upon this data stream through the work of Kim Lakefort, and my sixth sense tells me that the word “competitive” is used in this context as a synonym for evil, crime, Might Makes Right, and doing onto others that which you yourself would defend against were others to dare to do the same to you.

A.K.A. the kill or be killed competitive option competitively compared to the live and let live option, or other options including rule of law. 

Competition, the word itself, is merely a competitive label for those labeling the power of judgment between A, B, C, none of the above, look for more options, etc., as a judge decides competitively among the choices on their own authority. If the choice is made by some process other than abdicating authority, then the judge chooses the more competitive option, choosing better instead of worse.

Abdicating authority is also a competitive choice.

Example:

“The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment.”
Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson, 1781

Jefferson has the concept of grand and trial juries mistaken if I can understand the intended meanings of those words. A more competitive message about the concept of grand and trial juries can be offered in Public Notices. For now, the choice to flip a coin (toss up cross and pile) is to abdicate authority to a random generator, to chance, or a choice by lot, such as picking a name out of a hat, or a juror picked by the process known as sortition.

"Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him."
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.

Which is the more competitive court system?

Door number 2
Witch Courts run by devil worshipers “in which the judges may be suspected of bias”

Witch is more competitive, going on witch hunts, or whatever is behind door number 1?

Thomas Jefferson was the guy who wrote a Declaration of Independence, which is a common law defiance that proceeds according to the unwritten law, the ancient law, the law of the land, and this same author authorizing that Declaration of Independence had his original draft redacted for reasons that included an unreported choice to ignore due process of law in kidnapping cases where kidnappers formed a Cartel to exploit defenseless Africans by forcing them to work after being kidnapped. Each new buyer buying into the Human Trafficking criminal markets, themselves guilty of receiving stolen goods, or themselves volunteering to kidnap these victims and force them to work too.

Competitive choices of labels, one big happy crime family, cartel, or cabal, you be the judge.

How about a Nation-State Legal Fiction Debt Collection Agency?

It is possible, but not likely, that some people bought kidnap victims to then set them free, just like anyone might choose the competitive option of paying the ransom.

A common law defiance, or a declaration of independence, is also part of bonding code literature, as a Military and Commercial Lien Right.

Judge for yourself, if you care to do so if Jefferson was unjustly censored, or just following orders without question:

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

REDACTED

Is it competitive to force people to work instead of paying a laborer for their time in a negotiated exchange of agreed-upon value, or is forcing someone to work a crime scene?

Here are Jefferson’s words explaining why the Declaration of Independence was redacted:

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Feeling tender about profit losses when the kidnap victims fight back effectively, peacefully, or otherwise, suggests a moral compass, or a capacity for competitive judgment, having lost something of value, making someone feel a little bit tender, notwithstanding the feelings of the kidnap victims forced into labor.

Civil Court Case:
“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

Also claimed to be Civil Law:

"The prevalent practice of fornication by the masters with the female slaves was regarded as “a pleasant method to secure slaves at a cheap rate.”
Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard
Chapter 18
Slavery in Virginia
Page 584

Nonfeasance is a known crime in common law, not a competitive option for people deciding how to get what they want from other people who have what they want to get from them. Jefferson was very powerful in early American criminal markets as well as in the forming federation of republics under the common law. Why did Jefferson turn the other cheek when "other persons" were claimed as property? Was it a competitive decision to perpetrate nonfeasance, or were there other powers at work other than merely choosing the lawful path by precedent, statute, and law?

Again, you can be the judge, or you can abdicate making any competitive decisions:

“Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”
Englishman’s Right
by John Hawles
1762

The data stream flowing through our human world at this time includes competitors seeking to turn hearts, minds, and souls onto crime, and competitors seeking to turn hearts, minds, and souls in the direction of door number 1 instead of crime.

Caveat Emptor

Josf-Kelley 8 June 11
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Frankly they lost me at "guilt for flying off to check out an island on the way". Being different and following your curiosity should never cause guilt. If it does you're screwed to begin with.

If their thesis is based on such a weak beginning then the rest also doesn't add up.

I am slogging through that video report about the solution to the human condition and it is informative on many levels for me.

I cannot speak for anyone else, so thanks for the feedback.

If you care to know more about this, perhaps I can help.

Since the beginning of Empire the psychopaths choosing that path consider people as their property, to consume as they might consume cattle.

The level at which Empire building psychopaths have accumulated political and economic power is the subject matter now expressed as The Human Condition.

To me, it takes one to know one, or someone has to employ something known as empathy, and then it is possible to guess what one is, based upon this will to know despite not being one.

The total power of psychopaths and their Empire building process has reached a point at which some people think it is a good idea to beg for mercy at the feet of these psychopaths, to apologize for the destruction they case, to rationalize the facts as they exist based upon the evidence found by those seeking to know, truly know, the minds of psychopaths who are, factually, hell-bent on turning human beings (mankind) into inhuman beings (man - unkind).

The professors professing to discover The Human Condition, to me, appear to be the latest version of apologists, as they help cover up the tracks, the evidence, that proves beyond reasonable doubt, that these psychopaths are merely criminals, or what I call inhuman beings.

The idea with the apology apologizing for these psychopaths may be an effort to offer an olive branch to those on some kind of fictional fence in between humanity and inhumanity, an effort to reduce the numbers being bribed, fooled, or forced into a life of crime, and instead of making further advances down that path, this olive branch gives these criminals a way out, without having to pay the price of judgement.

These professors claim that it was "necessary" to invent and then propagandize the idea that all men are bad.

Now, these professors claim, that it is now known to be wrong, even if it was necessary, that it is no longer necessary to be fooled by the lie that all men are bad.

I don't know you, and I probably will not ever know you, so I don't know if this helps, and it is beyond my power to help anyone unless there is an agreement by some process, based upon the facts that matter, to then establish that one has helped another one, and even then it is possible that there is still some error in judgement.

My understanding has always been that mankind is either a voluntary association in time and place, and therefore only destructive by accident, and often prosperous on purpose, or mankind has individuals choosing to prey upon other individuals, also known as crime.

Criminals, as a rule, claim to be doing their victims a favor.

So here goes my latest effort to "help" you see something that you many not want to see, or you may welcome, if you have the time to truly entertain the validity of the data before you:

The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins

"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."

"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."

"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World, both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both, a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which, at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."

"Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For in America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law."

Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Rats blame the injuries the do to their prey on their pray as a routine method of avoiding the costs of allowing their victims to judge predators as predators. If targets know that they are being targeted, they might avoid the trap, they might see the bait in the net, and like a bird they might fly away instead of being eaten by the predators.

Recent Visitors 2

Photos 19 More

Posted by Josf-KelleyWanted for Treason That is all for lack of intelligence and moral conscience.

Posted by Josf-KelleyBorrowed from another IDW post is the pictured meme.

Posted by Josf-KelleyReal Reality A few people have purchased the exclusive power to add zeros to their Bank account balance, and they accomplish this feat by borrowing their spending from anyone who can produce ...

Posted by HeresiarchWhy you should close Social Media accounts you no longer use. (I shut down my LinkedIn account immediately)

Posted by HeresiarchI taught my daughter to shoot at ten years old. Now she's passing on the lessons she learned.

Posted by HeresiarchIt's taken us years to rehabilitate the soil on our Better Than Organic farmlet.

Posted by Josf-KelleyThat is a complex process viewed simplistically in two directions that appear, in simple form, to be opposites.

Posted by Josf-KelleyThe level of brainwashing or mind control, or spirit control, or body control, or behavior control is demonstrably on a sub-conscious level and it runs very deep.

Posted by HeresiarchHow do you sacrifice children?

Posted by HeresiarchHow's that Police State workin' out for y'all?

Posted by Josf-KelleyFrom a source:

Posted by Josf-KelleyTrump says Pence can reject criminal votes.

Posted by Josf-KelleyFrom another IDW post: Roadmap to re-inauguration:

Posted by Josf-KelleyAt a Pennsylvania State Hearing, widespread voter and election fraud is reported by witness testimony.

Posted by Josf-KelleyThe following link is immediately censored from Facebook, as I press the enter button, a warning page loads.

Posted by Josf-KelleyI was banished (for speaking the truth to power) from Culture War (IDW topics) and occasionally I am presented with posts in my feed that lead to that exclusive group, so I can't enter, and a I can't ...

  • Top tags#government #rights #USA #video #world #truth #crime #money #evidence #laws #reason #freedom #evil #children #justice #god #death #society #TheTruth #vote #liberty #federal #community #Police #moral #hope #media #violence #Constitution #hell #crimes #earth #biden #military #book #fear #politics #murder #Present #created #democrats #humanity #population #slavery #Congress #China #liberal #IDW #youtube #Canada ...

    Members 37Top

    Moderator