“Christians” love to point to Romans 13 as a reason to participate and gain from Satan’s world [man’s legal world, worldly nations] through membership. Christ denied it [Mat 4:1-11], and as followers of Him we should to. In those Matthew verses Satan offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them” and in this sense “glory” means “their resources, wealth, the magnificence and greatness of their cities, their fertile lands, their thronging population.” He did not offer God’s nature, but creations of man that operate in opposition to God’s law because that is Satan’s dominion. The Old English language recognized this with the term “baly” which meant “evil; sorrow” and also “dominion; government.”
“BALY. (1) Evil; sorrow. (4) Dominion; government.” — A Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words: Obsolete Phrases, Proverbs, and Ancient Customs, from the XIV Century, 1904
The most simple way to discount this notion of being part of Satan’s world is to contemplate on the words that are being used in Romans 13 and similar verses [Tit 3:1, 1 Pe 2:13]. “To be subject to/unto” is not the same as “to be a subject of.” We are to respect the ordinances of these gentile nations [not over and above God’s law], for their artificial existence is the will of God, but they do not force membership. We are to be subject to, not voluntary subjects of. Romans 13:9 recalls one of the ten commandments to not commit adultery. This adultery is to “have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife.” This commandment is not only the physical sexual intercourse with another man’s wife but legal intercourse with a gentile nation. “Intercourse” in legalese means, “Dealings or communications, especially between businesses, governmental entities, or the like.” It is okay for a true follower of Christ to communicate with governmental entities, but it is unlawful [to God] to communicate or deal for the outcome of becoming a member, participating in, and gaining from it. Also consider that gentile nations in The Bible are referred to as feminine terms like “her” [Jer 51:45, Rev 18:4], and you can see these nations as being wives of Satan. We are to have a spiritual intercourse with God/Christ [Isa 54:5, 2Co 11:2], not a spiritually dead legal intercourse with Satan/nations.
“intercourse. 1. Dealings or communications,esp. between businesses, governmental entities, or the like.” — Black’s Law 9th
We are to be followers of Christ who was not ‘a subject of’ any nation. He was not of this world [Jhn 18:36], but He and His disciples were subject to them. Jesus communicated with Pontuis Pilate when the pharisees demanded him to use his political power to commit capitol punishment against Jesus, but when Jesus spoke the Truth unto Pilate he responded to the jews, “I find in him no fault at all.” This is because Jesus never voluntarily registered and did not break any of Rome’s laws. Jesus respected man’s dominion, never trespassed, and never rebelled against the legal authorities.
Tit 3:1, 1 Pe 2:13-20 say the same as Romans 13 but are written a little differently. Take notice that in 1 Pe 2:15-16 it says that we “may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” The term “free” here means to have no obligations like the civil obligations that citizens carry to their gentile nation. We are not to have membership of that world, for doing so is not only serving mammon [Mat 6:24], but having obligations of putting man’s law above God’s. We are not to use this liberty to break their laws.
“obligation. 2. A formal, binding agreement or acknowledgment of a liability to pay a certain amount [taxes] or to do a certain thing for a particular person or set of persons[municipalities, governmental agencies]; esp., a duty arising by contract. Also termed (in sense 2) civil obligation.” — Black’s Law 9th
“gentile, adjective: 3. In gram., expressing nationality, local extraction, or place of abode; describing or designating a person as belonging to a certain race, country, district, town, or locality by birth or otherwise: as, a gentile noun (as Greek, Arab, Englishman, etc.); a gentile adjective (as Florentine, Spanish, etc.). noun: 4. In gram. a noun or adjective derived from the name of a country or locality, and designating its natives or people: as the words Italian, American, Athenian, are gentiles.” — 1889 Century Dictionary
Verses like Romans 13 is more of a warning telling you to not rebel against the powers that be, for there will be suffering. These powers are ordained by God to govern sinners [1 Tim 1:8-10] because of the free will of people wanting to break God’s laws and be ruled by man, and The Bible clearly warns of this [1 Sam 8:10-22]. “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” God will not hear you in your gentile membership, for you have broken the first commandment [Exo 20:3, Deu 5:7] of putting gods before Him. The term used for “gods” in the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” is ‘ĕlōhîm which in this sense refers to both pagan supernatural gods and rulers/judges. We are to respect the ordinances of these gentile nations, for their artificial existence is the will of God, but they do not force membership. We are to be subject to, not voluntary subjects of, the gentile nations, but not be yoked (joined) with them [2 Co 6:14].
“10. Law is for Lawbreakers: “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:8-10).” — University Of Wisconsin-Madison, Legal Studies Program, Sources Of Law 1: The Bible [Quoting from NIV]
“What the Seal of the United States of America represents, to anyone who takes it seriously, is a Ministry of Sin. A speech by Jesuit political scientist Michael Novak, published in the January 28, 1989 issue of America, the weekly magazine of American Jesuits, sums it up eloquently enough: ‘The framers wanted to build a “novus ordo” that would secure “liberty and justice for all”…. The underlying principle of this new order is the fact of human sin. To build a republic designed for sinners, then, is the indispensable task…. There is no use building a social system for saints. There are too few of them. And those there are are impossible to live with!… Any effective social system must therefore be designed for the only moral majority there is: sinners.‘” — Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies
Because man’s law recognizes Natural Law as the foundational Law they cannot force membership in it. One must volunteer to be part of it. Legal maxim: “Equity will not support a volunteer.” There is no real fairness in Satan’s world; you can find all kinds of ridiculous laws and court cases where the judge’s ruling is completely unfair. Man’s law expects from you complete adherence to it, over and above God’s law. It is even in your name. Your surname [last name, aka nickname] is legally considered over and above your first name [given name, Christian name], and it is a mark [a trade-mark of commerce] signifying that you are a member in Satan’s world.
No one wants to hear this, but we are not to be part of this world despite all the luxuries it offers. Christ, His apostles, and the early followers were persecuted for it, so expect the same to you if you were to truly follow Him.
Many people proudly claim to be patriots of their country, believing in it’s founding principles and supporting it’s welfare. They will be disheartened if they find out the real meaning behind being a patriot. Part of being a patriot is supporting the country’s current interest, but many patriots do not and want to bring it back to a time when they think it was better. They have love for their nation despite the fact that their relationship to it is serfdom and debtorship. Humorously, in America many patriotic republicans have been swayed by the political rhetoric of Donald Trump believing he’s some kind of patriotic savior, and they still have hope in him becoming president again. I suppose they are unaware that Trump is not a zealous supporter of the US Constitution. The fact is that looking up to men to govern your affairs will always lead to inevitable destruction. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”, Psalm 146:3
Patriots are under the delusion that the country is theirs and that it’s purpose is the citizen’s welfare. That is far from the truth as history has certainly proven. In the Constitution it starts out “We the People” with “People” being capitalized as a capitonym with a different meaning which does not refer to public citizens, but the ‘inhabitants’ of the States in their sovereign capacity. A US citizen is not an inhabitant of the State in which he ‘resides’. His inhabitance, or ‘domicile’, is the United States Corporation in the District of Columbia. He has residency in the state, but not domicile. The legal scribes intentionally make their legalese difficult to comprehend to the layman; as Thomas Jefferson said that in drafting statutes his fellow lawyers were accustomed to “making every other word a ‘said’ or ‘aforesaid,’ and saying everything over two or three times, so that nobody but we of the craft can untwist the diction, and find out what it means…” For a better explanation on how we are not the “People” I’ll direct you to an article that explains it well enough.
“PEOPLE. Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power… The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others [i.e. “We the People”] to the state in its sovereign capacity…”
INHABITANT. Implies a more fixed and permanent abode than “resident;” frequently imports many privileges and duties to which a mere resident could not lay claim or be subject.’ One domiciled: one who has his domicile or fixed residence in a place, in opposition toa mere “sojourner.” – A Dictionary Of Law by W.C. Anderson 1889
The definition of patriot is one “who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.” The word derives from Greek patrios which means “of one’s father”, patris “fatherland”, and pater which is “father” To be a patriot is to claim your father is the worldly government that is your nation, not God. Even if you are not a patriot you are still a citizen which means you have voluntarily alienated adherence to a former foreign sovereign and are standing under your current secular sovereign that is your nation. If you were born in said country, at first your ‘father’ is God/Christ [a foreign sovereign to the nation, the Prince Of Peace] until the legal insinuation of your government issued (G.I.) person which in most cases is shortly after birth. The naturalization oath of citizenship clearly states that you “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince [Christ, the Prince Of Peace], potentate, state, or sovereignty“
When breaking the word down [pat-riot], the government has always viewed patriots as terrorists even before the notion of the law labeling it’s citizens as possible ‘enemies of the state’. A ‘pat’ is one who adheres “to an existing/former status or policy and refusing to consider proposals of change or reform.” And ‘riot’ is an ‘assembly that is seen by the law as a breach of peace, a terror to the public, and to execute and unlawful purpose.’ That is how the law defines those words. The word patriot is also “used for a factious disturber of the government.” In this sense, the government sees patriots who refuse to consider proposals of change or reform as a threat to its future endeavors.
“patriot (n.) 1590s, “compatriot,” from French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition. Liddell & Scott write that patriotes was “applied to barbarians who had only a common [patris], [politai] being used of Greeks who had a common [polis] (or free-state).”
Meaning “loyal and disinterested lover and defender of one’s country and its interests” is attested from c. 1600, but it became an ironic term of ridicule or abuse from mid-18c. in England, so that Johnson, who at first defined it as “one whose ruling passion is the love of his country,” in his fourth edition added, “It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.”
The name of patriot had become [c. 1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that … the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot. [Macaulay, “Horace Walpole,” 1833]
It was somewhat revived in reference to resistance movements in overrun countries in World War II, and it has usually had a positive sense in American English, where the phony and rascally variety has been consigned to the word patrioteer (1928).” – https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=patriot
“pat – In politics, to adhere obstinately to an existing status or policy, refusing to consider proposals of change or reform; stand still, in a blind or stubborn refusal to disturb existing conditions when they are profitable to one’s party or one’s self.” – 1889 Century Dictionary
“riot – Specifically In law, an unlawful assembly which has actually begun to execute the purpose for which it assembled by a breach of the peace, and to the terror of the public, or a lawful assembly proceeding to execute an unlawful purpose…” – 1889 Century Dictionary
“PAT’RIOT, noun [Latin patria, one’s native country, form pater, father.] A person who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.” – Webster’s Dictionary 1828
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” – Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” – KJV, Isa 9:6
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is notofthisworld” – KJV, Jhn 18:36
“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not thatthefriendshipof theworld is enmity withGod?whosoever therefore will be a friend oftheworldisthe enemy of God.” – KJV, Jas 4:4
If you are not a “Christian” you already denounce Christ, but those who claim to be a ‘follower’ and also a ‘patriot’ have turned away His sovereignty. Being a Christian is following the example of Christ Jesus, but Jesus was not of this world [earthly kingdoms/governments, Satan’s world], and being part of it and actively participating in it is in fact renouncing Christ. Even His parents were not of this world, but they were subject to it [being subject to =/= being a subjectof].
Christ Jesus, his Kingdom is not of this world [earthly kingdoms/governments], therefore his dominion is not of the United States nor any nation or state. He never registered to become a member under any nation. We are not to have membership of the world, for friendship of it is enmity with God, and this friendship is done by voluntarily enrolling/registering into it. Joseph sought to not make a public example of Mary; they wanted to stay private in the heavenly register. Some people will point to Luke 2:1-5 that mentions the decree by Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed [registered into the census] and that Joseph was taxed with Mary. In Luke 2:2 “this taxing” was so “that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one” In order to tax someone they would need to be registered into the public [census]. In the original Greek translation the word for “tax” in the KJV means to register [voluntary enrollment], and it is understood as that this enrollment was in the heavenly register for Joseph and Mary. The public register of a nation is clearly not the heavenly register. It is more likely that Joseph with Mary claimed privacy on record that he was of the lineage of King David and had no intentions to participate in the public business world. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon makes the claim that in Luke 2:3 “all” went to enroll in the heavenly register, when it is biblically clear that did not happen. Joseph and Mary enrolled in the heavenly register, pronounced their complete adherence to God through the lineage of David. Then when Mary brought forth Jesus she “laid him in a manger; for there was no room for them in the inn”, and back then the inns were for those who were publicly registered and could be accounted for. A ‘manger’ is in a barn; “a trough or box in which fodder is laid for cattle”, and “one conceived in a barn” is considered a ‘bastard’. In order for a child to not be a bastard he “must at least be born after the lawful marriage.” A lawful marriage is of two publicly registered persons in which the courts ordain a marriage license.
“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publickexample, was minded to put her away privily.” – KJV, Mat 1:19
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David: ) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” – KJV, Luke 2:1-7
“STRONGS NT 583: ἀπογράφω [tax] a.to write off, copy (from some pattern). b.to enter in a register or records; specifically, to enter in the public records the names of men, their property and income, to enroll (cf. ἀπογραφή, b.); middle to have oneself registered, to enroll oneself [Winer’s Grammar, § 38, 3]: Luke 2:1, 3, 5; passive οἱ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένοι those whose names are inscribed in the heavenly register,”
“STRONGS NT 582: ἀπογραφή [taxing] a.a writing off, transcript (from some pattern). b.an enrolment (or registration) in the public records of persons together with their property and income, as the basis of an ἀποτίμησις (census or valuation), i. e. that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one: Luke 2:2; Acts 5:37; on the occurrence spoken of in both passages, cf. Schürer, Ntl. Zeitgesch. § 17, pp. 251, 262-286, and books there mentioned; [McClellan 1:392-399; B. D. under the word Taxing].” – Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
“MANGER, noun 1. A trough or box in which fodder is laid for cattle, or the place in which horses and cattle are fed.”
“B’ASTARD, nounA natural child; a child begotten and born out of wedlock; an illegitimate or spurious child. By the civil and canon laws, a bastard becomes a legitimate child, by the intermarriage of the parents, at any future time. But by the laws of this country, as by those of England, a child, to be legitimate, must at least be born after the lawful marriage.” – Webster’s 1828
“bastard, noun Word origin ME < OFr < bast- (also in fils de bast) (< ? Goth bansts, barn) + -ard,-ard: hence, one conceived in a barn” – collinsdictionary.com
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”, Psalm 146:3. Protestant pastor David Guzik explains eloquently how leaders of this day are nothing to revere. I believe it’s not just the leaders of these days, but of all time. Either way he makes a good point here.
“Politicians of this day look for what they can get from you. Jesus looks for what He can do for you.
Leaders of this day surround themselves with servants. Jesus surrounds us with His servanthood.
Leaders of this day use their power to build their empire. Jesus uses his power to wash our feet and make us clean and comfortable.
Leaders of this day trade their influence for money. God so loved that he gave …
Generals of this day need regular wars to keep their weapons and skills up to date and insure their own advancement. Jesus brings peace and rest to hearts.
The higher the plane of importance one reaches in this world, the more inaccessible he becomes. Jesus was Emanuel, “God with us.”
Leaders of this day are desperate to be seen and heard. Jesus sought anonymity so He could be useful.
Obviously, Jesus is not in charge of the halls of Washington, London, Moscow, Baghdad, Paris or Bonn.” – David Guzik
The spiritual way of Christ involves not volunteering to be enrolled in the world of man [legal world, world of nations, Satan’s world], and Christ was obviously not of this world. If you are publicly registered it is your spiritual duty to abjure from it.
“Leave Babylon; flee from the Babylonians! Shout for joy as you tell it and announce it. Shout it out to the ends of the earth…” – GOD’S WORD Translation, Isa 48:20
The term “human” was originally just an adjective referring to the form, characteristics, or aspects which belongs to man [of , or belonging to man]. Most modern dictionaries will show the adjective definition above the noun, hinting importance and indicating it’s precedence. The use of the term “human” as a noun was condemned by some authorities, describing it as an affectation, vulgar, jocular, manifesting suddenly and whimsically. They think it’s downright hilarious that the vulgar masses have suddenly taken claim to be of, or belonging to man instead of just being man. Later, ‘scholars’ proclaim the notion that human as an adjective and not a substantive is a double negative. In reality they are twisting the diction to aid in the enslavement of people through language. Interestingly the word “human”, since English belongs to the Germanic group, can be traced to the Gothic word “ghman” which means both slave and servant. And supposedly, according to a definition found in Ballentine’s 1930 Law Dictionary and quoted by Ex-Jesuit, Fr. Frank O’Collins, S.J., the term human was created to distinguish “a lesser/inferior man or woman… as an animal or monster” who was under the laws of property as opposed to “being subject to the laws a free man.”
“You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” — 1 Cor 7:23
“human – 1. Having the qualities of a man. 2. Belonging to a man.“— The New Encyclopædia: or, Universal dictionary of Arts and Sciences 1807
“The use of human or humans for human being or human beings is severely condemned by some authorities and censured in varying degrees by most. The condemnations run from “affectation” and “jocularity” to “simply a vulgarism.”…” — A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage 1957
“HUMAN BEING: From Latin ‘Humanus’: ‘a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo: man.’ A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction—that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property.The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior ‘animal’ man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century—to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as ‘humans’—therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.” — Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 1930, Ex-Jesuit Fr. Frank O’Collins 2005
Perhaps the writers of the New World Translation Bible of 1984 were trying to inform us of this notion.
“… Hear this, all ye people; give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world: Both low and high, rich and poor, together.” — KJV, Psa 49:1-2
“Hear this, all you peoples. Give ear, all YOU inhabitants of the system of things, YOU sons of humankind as well as YOU sons of man, YOU rich one and you poor one together.” — NWT (1984), Psa 49:1-2
“… we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” — Unam Sanctum, Pope Boniface VIII (1302)
The term hu-man, in it’s latin origin and in man’s law, means belonging to man. It is said that the New World Translation of 1984, in some aspects, is more adherent to legalese [the king’s language; the terms of art that controls us]. In Psalm 49:2 most Bibles say “Both low and high…”, but in the NWT it says “YOU sons of humankind as well as YOU sons of man…” To be hu-man means to be of/belonging to man’s “system of things” and not God. This is because you must take on and act in agency through a government issued [G.I., disposable government property] legal title/entity. It is a lower status to be a creation of man [human creature]. Satan’s world has manipulated us into adhering to these terms. It is not good to be “human”. We should be just “man”; a pure product of God without any additions [citizenship, legal identity, legal surname, etc].
The Roman Pontiff proclaims sovereignty over “every human creature”. This has not been recanted and has been repeated several times since 1302. Pope Boniface VIII intentionally chose the term “human creatures” instead of “man”. I believe it is because the Roman Pontiff knows he does not have control over the pure man, but the man that volunteers to be part of ‘the world’ [a per-son, citizen, subject of secular nations/”the system of things”].
“human – Of the form and characteristics of man.” — Ballentine’s Legal Dictionary 3rd Edition
“human – 3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)” — Oxford New English Dictionary 1901
“belong, vb. 1. To be the property of a person or thing“— Black’s Law 9th
“Human being – Natural man: Unenlightened or unregenerate.
Unregenerate – Not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute.” — Random House Dictionary of the English Language 2nd Edition
“G.I. (adj.) also GI, 1936 as an adjective meaning “U.S. Army equipment,” American English, apparently an abbreviation of Government Issue, and applied to anything associated with servicemen. Transferred noun sense of “U.S. Army soldier” arose during World War II (first recorded 1943), apparently from the jocular notion that the men themselves were manufactured by the government. An earlier G.I. (1908) was an abbreviation of galvanized iron, especially in G.I. can, a type of metal trash can; the term was picked up by U.S. soldiers in World War I as slang for a similar-looking type of German artillery shells.” — https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=g.i.
Scholars have speculated if “human” can be further traced before it’s Latin usage. The Latin term for human/humanist is “humanus” whereas man is “homo”. Some make the ‘educated guess’ that humanus derives from homo because the “u” and the “o” are interchangeable, but oddly only with those two words and none other. Others disagree and claim it comes from a combination of Hebrew words [huw’ and min] and pagan gods from Ancient Egypt; Hu and Min who were “among the false-Christ figures (god-men) of Egypt’s several false-trinities.” Hu was the power of the spoken word, and personified divine utterance; the voice of authority. Hu was also seen as a creator, for when he expelled his breath the sound was that of his name, and creation took place. “Of or belonging to” is synonymous to being a “creation of”. The notion of the prefix ‘hu’ in “human” being derived from the Egyptian god Hu is a possibility. In Hebrew the word “he” is “huw'” and pronounced “hoo” like the god Hu. Min, on the other hand, was a sky god and god of fertility and harvest. In Hebrew ‘min’ means heretic. According to Gail Riplinger in his book The Language Of The King James Bible, combining the Egyptian gods with the Hebrew words “Hu/huw'” and “Min/min” leads to “human” with the common English pronunciation “hu • min”. In this sense, human can be defined as a pagan created heretic. Realistically, human is usually pronounced [hew – min], not [hoo – min].
“… ‘Humanism’ comes from humanus which comes from homo. Although modern linguists can question whether Latin “o” can change into “u”, both terms have been regarded as relating with one another since antiquity which is what matters here… There is no other evidence of an “o” changing into a “u” in Latin phonology.” — HOMO, HUMANUS, AND THE MEANING OF ‘HUMANISM’ by Vito R. Giustiniani
“הוּא hûwʼ, hoo;… — he, as for her, him(-self), it, the same, she (herself), such, that (…it), these, they, this, those, which (is), who.” — Strong’s Definitions, H1931
“… The word ‘human’ can be traced back to Hu and Min, the man-faced deity of the Egyptians. When Humanity Comes of Age, one of the most popular New Age books promoting the divinity of man, depicts Hu, the Egyptian god-man on the cover. Along with Horus, Hu and Min were among the false-Christ figures (god-men) of Egypt’s several false-trinities.
Just as Abel was the first to be called hu (Hebrew for ‘he’) so the Egyptian counterfeit, Hu, and all of his followers throughout history are called ‘hu’ and noted in Isaiah 9:15 (“the prophet that teacheth lies, he [Hebrew ‘hu’] is the tail.”)
‘Human’ is usually pronounced hu • min, not hu • man. It does not come from the word ‘man.’
The Hebrew term for heretic is min. Hu and Min were no doubt derived from the vowel-less Hebrew ‘hm’ for Ham. It can be seen in the earlier Old French as hu • main and in Latin as ho • min.
“The Egyptian god Hu was one of the minor gods in some respects, but he was one of the most important gods for those serious about Egyptian deities. Hu is the power of the spoken word. He personifies the authority of utterance. … Hu and Sia were partners. Sia was the personification of Divine Knowledge/Omniscience, the mind of the gods. Hu was the personification of Divine Utterance, the voice of authority. During Ancient times, Heka, the personification of Divine Power accompanied these two gods. Together, the three gods were very important to the rulers of Ancient Egypt. … … some legends maintain that he was not just a part of creation, but that he was the creator. It is said that as Hu drew his first breath, there was in that sound the essence of his name. Hence, we have the name Hu, which sounds remarkably like the sound of an expelling breath.” — The Egyptian God, Hu by Catherine C. Harris
The man best qualified to become our country’s greatest historian, certainly the man with the most complete access to primary sources in the Revolutionary cause, was Charles Thomson. An authentic classical scholar, a discreet Protestant steeped in Medici learning, Thomson was known as “Perpetual Secretary of the Continental Congress.” He inscribed minutes of every Congressional session from 1774 until ratification of the Constitution in 1789. With William Barton, a Freemason, he designed the Great Seal of the United States of America: the choice of its Virgilian mottoes is credited exclusively to Thomson.
Among his contemporaries, Charles Thomson’s name was synonymous with Truth. So accurate were his minutes of Pennsylvania’s negotiations with the Delaware Indians that the Delawares called him Wegh-wu-law-mo-end, “the man who talks the truth.” When he would take his daily reports of congressional proceedings to the streets, eager mobs would cry “Here comes Charles Thomson! Here comes the Truth!”
Once the Constitution was ratified, Charles Thomson retired to Harriton, his country home in Bryn Mawr. He destroyed his personal papers relative to the creation of the new republic. An article by Kenneth Boling in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1976) says that Thomson actually wrote a lengthy history of the Revolution, which he also destroyed. Thomson biographer J. Edwin Hendricks of Wake Forest suggests a fate other than destruction, alluding to “persistent rumors that the Thomson papers are in the Pennsylvania Masonic records.” (Professor Hendricks assured me personally that numerous inquiries have failed to reflect Thomson’s membership in Pennsylvania Masonry.) Whether Thomson destroyed his history or surrendered it to the crypt of secrecy, it is clear that he knew there were certain elements in the formation of American government that must, must be ignored. “If the truth were known,” he told friends darkly, “many careers would be tarnished and the leadership of the nation would be weakened.”
And so Charles Thomson occupied the remaining forty years of his life translating the Septuagint, the Greek-language Bible, into English. Still, he was frequently requested to write the definitive insider’s history of the Revolution. Dr. Benjamin Rush overheard Thomson’s reply to one such request and recorded it in his diary:
“No,” said he, “I ought not, for I should contradict all the histories of the great events of the Revolution, and shew by my account of men, motives and measures, that we are wholly indebted to the agency of Providence [Jesuit Vatican Empire] for its successful issue. Let the world admire the supposed wisdom and valor of our great men. Perhaps they may adopt the qualities that have been ascribed to them, and thus good may be done. I shall not undeceive future generations.”— Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies by F. Tupper Saussy, 1999
Here is just one example of absolute evil and the inversion of Reality within the legal realm; man’s law, Satan’s world, hell.
“Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum, ex nigro album, ex curvo rectum, ex recto curvum. A thing adjudged makes what was white, black; what was black, white; what was crooked straight; what was straight, crooked.” — Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution of the United States, 1856
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” — Isa 5:20
Legal maxims are essentially rules the magi-strates [in this sense, judges] follow when administrating their stage plays [judicial proceedings]. This Beast System needs wickedness to live, for if they are made to adhere to actual Truths of Reality the legitimacy of its sorcery would dwindle and fail.
Welcome to the ‘baly’. I hope you like enduring ‘dangere’.
“DANGERE. (1) Lordship, or dominion; the power which the feudal lord has over his vassals.”— A Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words: Obsolete Phrases, Proverbs, and Ancient Customs, from the XIV Century, 1904
“VASSAL 2. A subject; a dependent.” — Webster’s 1828 Dictionary [Citizens are considered subjects. The term “nationals” is now used in place of “subjects” according to American Law and Procedure: Constitutional Law Vol. 12]
“… it is to be noticed that the term subject is capable of a different and wider application, in which it includes all members of the body politic, whether they are citizens (i.e., subjects stricto sensu) or resident aliens. All such persons are subjects, all being subject to the power of the state and to its jurisdiction, and as owing to it, at least temporarily, fidelity and obedience.”— Black’s Law 9th
“MAGISTRATE A public civil officer, invested with the executive government or some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate as is the President of the United States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the peace, and the like.”— Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
1727 Alexander Pope, Th. on Var. Subj., When a man is made a spiritual peer he loses his sir-name; when a temporal, his christian-name.
We have become so acquainted with our surname that “we commonly think no more of them than we do of our noses, or the length of our feet.” Most people see it as a natural concept and even have pride for their surname. In the vernacular, a person’s last name, or surname, is an additional name placed after his first name [Christian name, God-given name] to help identify the individual. The beginning use of it in history was correlated with their family/tribe, as in Son of Nun, or local/place-name, as in Simon the Canaanite; to distinguish from those with the same first name. Soon after the first century A.D. the use of permanent patronyms [William’s John” or “John-William’s-son”/Williamson] begins to become a necessity for certain legal enactments. Later, nations required surnames for the rights, privileges, and subjection of the law. The legal realm recognizes this last name as being over and above, superior to your first name/God-given name, for it cannot govern what is Natural [the first name considered Natural; of nature, an Act of God]— it can only govern what it creates, and man’s law can only create artifice. The surname was, and still is, required for civil purposes and in this sense was always sanctioned by the sovereign. In some instances those who did not want to subject themselves to the system, without surname insinuation, had no protection of the law, could not fully participate in commerce, and were at risk of being persecuted or becoming enslaved. But those who lived in concordance with God/Yehovah with the knowledge exceeding that of the scribes [satanic writers of man’s law] were able to shield themselves from it’s false assumptions, as Jesus has shown us by walking on water, which can be metaphoric for the sea of commerce, revealing how one can prevent himself from drowning in secular debt obligations, not just in respect of money but also the obligation of knowing and following all public laws and codes of his secular nation.
“The fixing of personal names, and, in particular, permanent patronyms, as legal identities seems, everywhere, to have been, broadly-speaking, a state project. As an early and imperfect legal identification, the permanent patronym was linked to such vital administrative functions as tithe and tax collection, property registers, conscription lists, and census rolls. … The rise of the permanent patronym is inextricably associated with those aspects of state-making in which it was desirable to be able to distinguish individual (male) subjects: tax collection (including tithes), conscription, land revenue, court judgements, witness records, and police work.”— The Production of Legal Identities Proper to States: The Case of the Permanent Family Surname, Yale University
“We name a thing and—bang!—it leaps into existence. Each name a perfect equation with its roots. A perfect congruence with its reality. (Yolland and Owen) But remember that words are signals, counters. They are not immortal. And it can happen to use— an image you’ll understand — it can happen that a civilization an be imprisoned in a linguistic contour which no longer matches the landscape of… fact. (Hugh) I’ll decode you yet. (Yolland)”— Brian Friel, Translations (London: Faber and Faber, 1981)
Today the only real reason people have a surname is for the insinuation of themselves into man’s law for civil purposes, i.e. commerce, judicial proceedings [a stage play], legal protections and privilege. It insinuates you into man’s legal existence. To have an additional name for rights and privileges of a nation, granted by the temporal gods [administrative agents of government] is a flattering title, for those without it do not have that luxury. It is a mark [a ‘trade-mark of commerce’] signifying you belong to a nation, and thus the Roman Pontiff, and are under it’s dominion. The last name causes spiritual distress on the man who volunteers into it, for that which is “last” is also considered a burden in law. It takes you out of God’s protection, out of Nature, and places you under the subjection of the artificial legal beast system, Satan’s world [man’s law, secular nations, the Jesuit Vatican Empire]. Many elites of this world don’t identify with surnames, they are private, but they also will act in a public status [with the required surname], sometimes through living trusts, for civil purposes. World leaders are chosen directly and indirectly [by the Jesuit Vatican Empire] to administrate the common people through acting in agency to specific corporation soles which are the highest status of persons in their nation.
“personal name. An individual’s name or names given at birth, as distinguished from a family name. – Also termed given name; (in the Western tradition) firstname; (in the Christian tradition) Christian name. Cf. surname.” — Black’s Law 8th
Christian-name: “The name given at the font [fountain/baptism], distinct from the Gentilitious name, or surname.” — 1755 Samuel Johnson English Dictionary 1st Edition
“The name given at christening; the personal name, as distinguished from the family name or surname… …1727 Pope Th. on Var. Subj., When a man is made a spiritual peer he loses his sir-name; when a temporal, his christian-name.“— The Oxford English Dictionary 1933
“last, n. Hist. 1. A burden.”— Black’s Law 9th
surname: “<L. super, over, + nomen, name..] An additional name, frequently descriptive..; specifically, a name or appellationadded to the baptismal or Christian name, and becoming a family name.” — 1889 Century Dictionary
“The name of one’s family, or an epithet added to one’s christian name, to denominate the person of such a family.” — 1757 Buchanan, New English Dictionary
“A name over and above the baptismal or Christian name; the family name of and individual; an appellation added to the original name.” — 1896 Charels Annadale, English Dictionary
“The name of the family; the name which one has over and above the Christian name.” — 1755 Samuel Johnson English Dictionary 1st Edition
“Additional name of descriptive or allusive kind attached to a person & sometimes becoming hereditary: the name common to all members of a family.” — 1919 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English
“1. A name which is added to the christian name, and which, in modern times, have become family names. 2. They are called surnames, because originally they were written over the name in judicial writings and contracts. They were and are still used for the purpose of distinguishing persons of the same name. They were taken from something attached to the persons assuming them, as John Carpenter, Joseph Black, Samuel Little, &c. See Name.” — 1856 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
“insinuation— 1. The act of insinuating; a creeping or winding in; a tortuous or stealthy passage, as into crevices, or (figuratively) into favor or affection.” — 1889 Century Dictionary
“INSINUARE— insinuare (in-sin-yoo-air-ee), vb.[Latin] Roman & civil law. To register; to deposit (an instrument [i.e. a birth certificate]) with a public registry.” — Blacks Law 8th
“1. That which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods, or services, and whether payable at present or at a future time; that which one person is bound to pay to or perform for another; what one is obliged to do or to suffer; a due; a duty; an obligation.
2. The state of being under obligation to make payment, as of money or services, to another; figuratively, the state of being under obligation in general.
3. An offense requiring reparation or expiation; default of duty: a trespass; a sin.” — 1889 Century Dictionary
“… It is reasonably clear that what we are witnessing, in the cataso exercise, are the first stages of an administrative crystallization of personal surnames. And the geography of this crystallization traced, almost perfectly, the administrative presence of the Florentine state… The small, tightly-knit vernacular world had no need for a ‘proper name’: such names were, for all practical purposes, official names confined to administrative life… As the case of Florence illustrates, the naming project, like the standardization of measurements and cadastral surveys, was very much a purposeful state mission. … … However, the surname system that emerged involved the use of hereditary and fixed last names. This fact is crucial to understanding the importance of patronyms with respect to the state. Indeed, the development of patronyms helped enforce private property rights, advance primogeniture regimes, and secure the ability of the state to make its subjects legible to its gaze. The use of last names did not become common until well after the Norman Conquest. Social norms developed by the twelfth century dictated that it was a disgrace for a proper gentleman not to have a last name. The use of patronyms then spread, albeit unevenly, with the implementation of the poll tax under Richard II and the legal requirement of baptismal registration by Henry VIII. … A closer analysis of the process of surname diffusion also reveals the link between the English naming system and the securing of private property rights. In a bargain that replicates itself in many other nations, the aristocracy gained security for their property rights by adopting heritable patronyms. Their new legal identity was a political resource in their claim to property in land and office. By the middle of the thirteenth century, a large proportion of large and medium landowners in England possessed hereditary last names. … Notice, also, that the normal, modem, institutional setting for birth and, hence, for the birth certificate forms, is the maternity ward of a hospital, where state-like bureaucratic routines for the collection of vital statistics prevail. When, by contrast, most children are born at home, with or without professional care, the official registration of births is that much more complex. Modern, formal institutions are handmaidens to the creation and hegemony of official patronyms. The hegemony of state-structured institutions such as schools, social security, military service, taxpaying, property registration and transfer provide the “traffic patterns” that ensure the dominance of state-identification practices. It is in most citizens’ interest to be duly recorded whenever state institutions have the power to provide a benefit or to diminish or cancel a penalty. Official identities, then, constitute an iron cage enclosing a great deal of social life in the contemporary modern state.“— The Production of Legal Identities Proper to States: The Case of the Permanent Family Surname, Yale University
“… The upper classes in nearly every case took their names from their territorial descriptions. Those outside the landholding classes had no need for surnames till a later date. They were never mentioned in a legal deed, and their Christian names, and perhaps nicknames, answered all distinctive purposes amoungst the few friends and neighbors who comprised the small circle of their acquaintance. They lived and died and were forgotten. A moment’s thought will show that this was so. Even at the present day there are hundreds of the lower classes who are only known by a Christian name and a nickname, and who find that the only occasion on which they [common persons] have the slightest use or opportunity of using a surname are their registration of birth, occasional for the purpose of marriage, at their appearances in the police-courts, and for the inquest at their death…” — 1889, The Genealogical Magazine, Vol. 2, A Treatise On The law Concerning Names And Changing Of Names
“This proprietorship is not so well known or understood as it ought to be; and the honourable member for Sheffield fell into a prevalent, but erroneous opinion on the subject, when he stated from his place in Parliament, that “any man has a right to take any name he pleases, upon any occasion he pleases, and for any reason he pleases.” This is not the case; and from time immemorial the Crown has been called upon either to sanction or veto the assumption of surnames. This right the Crown still possesses.
In America even, with all its lawless license, the America, countenance of the law was necessary to make the assumption of a name legal for social and commercial purposes [this legal name, or full name, must contain a surname, and it is officially written in all caps]. On this American question the Spectator says :—” In America the change requires an Act of the State Legislature ; and, to save trouble, all applications are lumped together in one schedule [and] passed as the Houses rise. The result is a little comic, as the practice is extended to Christian names[first name, given name], and Sukeys become Sophonisbas, and Sallys Armintas, with a sudden and frequency a little amusing to the Englishmen.”— The Spector, June 21, 1862, Surnames & Sirenames. The Origin And History Of Certain Family & Historical names
“Name changes, both of a voluntary and involuntary nature, create problems for the genealogist. Most East and Central European Jews used patronymics (e.g., Moshe ben Amram). Surnames were rare, unless the family was in commerce, and traveling between cities.Around 1800, the governments in Central Europe began to demand surnames for the Jews. By 1844, Russia and Poland mandated that surnames be registered. However, even these names underwent a metamorphosis when they passed through the immigration gates of America. Hardly able to understand the heavily accented pronunciation of names, immigration officials wrote down phonetic sounds as they heard them. They would anglicize, change, or shorten names, as the mood struck them.” —Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd edition
“By a decree of July 20, 1808, the public authorities aimed to force Jews born before 1792 to declare their civil identity in order that they should not escape the obligations (notably military obligations) that citizenship now entailed. For this reason, the decree not only prescribed the adoption of a fixed forename and surname by those who had not previously had these, but also required all Jews to declare their civil status to the mayor of their commune, so that he could inscribe them in a special register.” — Documenting Individual Identity: The Development Of State Practices In The Modern World
“People were influenced to choose surnames by the introduction of a poll tax [head tax] in 1379 where everyone aged 16 and over had their name recorded. And in 1413 the Statute of Additions required all legal documents not just to give a person’s name but also occupation and place of abode.” — A Short History of UK Personal Names
“The law of surnames may be concisely stated: there is none at all. But nevertheless, though there is no positive law on the subject, it may not be uninteresting to inquire into the usages [of surnames] which have arisen during the course of time, and which stand in the place of legal enactment. The use of surnames is an institution which has grown up so gradually, and has fulfilled its purpose so unobtrusively and well, that it has entirely escaped the attention of the legislature. There is one positive enactment only concerning the assumption of surnames, and it refers to a very limited district… … Lax as the practice with regard to armorial bearings is, and deplorable as it must appear to any true herald, it is undoubtedly a fact that the right to an ancestral coat of arms is strictly limited to the descendants of the first grantee… But the halcyon days of true heraldry have departed, it is to be feared, for ever; though, while protection is afforded by law to mere trade-marks of commerce [surnames], it seems an anomaly that the trade-marks, so to speak, of ancestry should go unprotected.” — The Law of Surnames. The Gentleman’s Magazine 243, October 1878
“One of the predisposing factors to the formation of English surnames was the official survey made by William in 1086, which was afterwards compiled in a book called “The Domesday Book.” Men found themselves in this survey obliged to give some distinguishing name other than their personal name, and thus began the custom of men having a “to-name,” as it was sometimes quaintly called, meaning “added-to.” Surnames have been made the subject of legal enactment for centuries. As population increased and intercourse [legal intercourse] became general, it became necessary to employ some further name by which one man might be known from another, and in process of time the use of surnames became universal, the only exceptions in England being the members of the royal family, who sign by their baptismal names only. … … But after the negro or any one else in this country [America] has once assumed his surname or it has been thrust upon him by custom, he must retain it for all civil purposes unless he secures legislative enactment or judicial decree to change it. … All of the landed estates of a nation, all of the civic procedure, as well as all of the social observances, are bound up in the name-customs of the country.” — Surname Book and Racial History 1918
“The world in which we live in comprises several orders, among them the social, the political, the ecclesiastical, the military and the economic. The last name is referred to in everyday usage as the business world. Business administration is considered exclusively with the economic order, therefor at the outset it is necessary to have some general idea of what the business world is and how it operates.
Just as the social order is composed of all the individual human beings in the world the economic order is made up of all the individual business units in the business world. Each unit is regarded as a separate economic entity and the sum of all the economic entitles at one moment constitutes the business universe or economic order. Each economic unit is regarded as separate and distinct from all others. The true significance and meaning of economic entities may best be grasped by an analogy with social entities or human beings, who make up the social order. … Hence, every economic entity or business unit must receive at it’s inception a birth certificate, so to speak, pronouncing its birth as a legal entity, in order to be recognized by the law as in esse (in existence). From the date of its inception, the business unit will be able to avail itself of the law to protect its rights, and will be amenable to the law to perform its duties and uphold its responsibilities to other economic legal entities.” — Management And The Law by Samuel Fox, 1966 pg. 13-14
To spiritually legitimize having a surname some Christians will point to parts of The Bible, like how Jesus “surnamed” Simon Peter, but that notion is incorrect. Misconceptions of the Bible can be attributed to misinterpreting it’s allegorical rhetoric and misleading transliterations. In the ancient languages people spoke and authors wrote in metaphor and allegories to aid in understanding. The original writers of The Bible commonly used allegories as a rhetorical device, but as time passed languages became used more literally and the later versions of these books have been intentionally vernacularize by the Vatican, Jesuits, Jesuit coadjutors, Freemasons, and King James— an effeminatehomosexual freemason who did not favor how the Geneva bible negatively portrayed rulers of nations. So it is up to The Bible reader to do his due diligence, through studying the allegorical usage of the writers and looking into the lexicons and concordances to distinguish intentional false transliterations in order to decipher it’s true intent.
In The Bible the hebrew word “כָּנָה kânâh” is used 4 times in the KJV as 2 translated usages, “surname” and “flattering titles.” This fact alone indicates a relation to surnames being flattering titles. Strong’s Definitions describes the word, “to address by an additional name; hence, to eulogize:—give flattering titles, surname (himself).” Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon defines the term as, “(1) to address kindly, to call (any one) kindly. (2) to flatter.”, whereas Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines it as, “betitle, title, given an epithet or cognomen.”
In the Isaiah verses “כָּנָה kânâh” represents an honorable call and is used in a good way, but translated into the bad term “surname.” This was done to make the commoners think that it is acceptable to have a surname under a nation and still adhere to God.
Verses 32:21-22 of the Book of Job uses the term in a bad sense, a flattering title, as exalting one in his own estimation; artificially legitimizing what one claims to be in which he is not in Reality. Claiming to be a citizen of a nation is not who you are in the Reality of Nature, for a citizen [legal status] is an artificial creation of law, and what is Real cannot be of artifice.
In Mark 3:16 Jesus gave Simon a Christian name [proper name, first name], as opposed to a surname, Peter. The Greek words applied are “ἐπιτίθημι”, which means ‘to put or lay upon’, and “ὄνομα” [omitted from the KJV] which means ‘proper name’ or ‘name’. In Roman law the first name is the proper name. Some might claim that ‘Peter’ is Simon’s surname in the sense that it is last and over and above his original name, but it is meant to be a first name/proper name and not a surname which is sanctioned by a temporal sovereign under a secular nation for legal enactment. This is another attempt by the writers of the later versions, i.e. KJV, to make the use of secular surnames acceptable under God. In the Geneva Bible, Mark 3:16 is transliterated as “And the first was Simon, and hee named, Peter,..” as opposed to the KJV, “And Simon he surnamed Peter;…” Again, this KJV transliteration was to aid in manipulating people into accepting a surname under a gentile nation.
“The impact of the annotations and commentary in the Geneva Bible cannot be underestimated. The Calvinist notes of the Geneva Bible infuriated King James I at Hampton Court in 1604, prompting him to authorize a group of Puritan scholars to produce a version of the Bible without annotation for him; ironically, the excellent Authorized Version might never have been written were it not for King James’s antipathy toward the Geneva Bible.
The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible present a systematic Biblical worldview centered on the Sovereignty of God over all of His creation including churches and kings. This unique Biblical emphasis, though fraught with dangers beyond spiritual debates (i.e., political and social pressure), was one of John Calvin’s great contributions to the English Reformers. For example, the marginal note in the Geneva Bible for Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations “seditious.” The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by “Divine Right” were numbered, but Calvin and the Reformers defended the clear meaning of Scripture against whims of king or popes…” — 2006 print, 1599 Geneva Bible, The History And Impact Of The Geneva Bible
“On the west wall of the lodge hall used by Lodge Scoon and Perth No. 3 in Perth, Scotland can be found a mural depicting James VI kneeling at their altar at his initiation. The oldest existing record of the Lodge, called “The Mutual Agreement” of 24 December, 1658, records that James was “entered freemason and Fellowcraft of the Lodge of Scoon” on 15 April, 1601.” — http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/james_vi.html
“The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon [aka Sir Tobie Matthew, S.J] and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Mason’s marks than the Cathedral of Strasburg.” — Manly P. Hall, from a lecture Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins 1929
“כָּנָה kânâh, kaw-naw’; a primitive root; to address by an additional name; hence, to eulogize:—give flattering titles, surname (himself).” — Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
“(1) to address kindly, to call (any one) kindly Isa 44:5, Isa 45:4… (2) to flatter. Job 32:21, 22.” — Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon
“[כָּנָה] verb, Pi`el, betitle, title, give an epithet or cognomen. Pi`el Imperfect1singular suffix בִשְׁמֶ֑ךָ אֲכַנְּךָוָאֶקְרָא לְךָ Isaiah 45:4 I have called thee by thy name, giving thee a title (of honour; compare for construction Dr§ 163); 3 masculine singular וּבְשֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל יְכַנֶּה Isaiah 44:5, and with the name Israel he titles (himself), is hardly possibly; absolute hebetitles, or makes use of a title, is unlikely; read probably כָּנָה, verb, Pu’al, see below, in bad sense = give a flattering title: וְאֶלאָֿדָם לֹא אֲכַנֶּה Job 32:21 ‘and unto man I do not give flattering titles’ (“” אַללֿנָא אֶשָּׂא פְנֵי אִישׁ); absolute, Job 32:22. ” — Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged
“ἐπιτίθημι, a. to put or lay upon:… Mark 3:16
ὄνομα, ὀνόματος… cf. Latin nomen (English name), with the prefixed omicron ὀ (but see Curtius, § 446)), the Sept. for שֵׁם (from Homer down), the name by which a person or a thing is called, and distinguished from others; 1. universally: of proper names, Mark 3:16″ — Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
“The first name (prcenomen) was the proper name of the individual; the second (nomen) indicated the gees or tribe to which he belonged; while the third (cognomen) denoted his family or house. The agnomen was added on account of some particular event, as a further distinction.” — Black’s 4th
Simply looking at the terms attributed to the word ‘surname’ is telling, especially when considering that it is in fact a flattering title. The latin term for surname is ‘cognomen’. In the vernacular the first prefix is said to be of ‘com’ which means ‘with, together’, but the actual spelling of it is ‘cog’ which refers to trickery, flattery, falsehood, cheat, deception, artifice [it is logical to conclude that both prefixes ‘com’ and ‘cog’ are simultaneously in use here]. ‘Nomen’, rooted from ‘no-men’, means ‘name’ or sometimes a name of a tribe/family group. Evidently the term ‘nickname’ is referred as to surname. And ‘nick’ signifies ‘a notch [a mark]’, ‘the devil’ and to ‘cheat’.
“cog (kog), v.; pret. and pp. cogged, ppr. cogging. [Not found in ME.; perhaps from W. coegio, make void, trick, pretend, <coeg, empty, vain, sausy, silly, foolish: To empty into a wooden vessel..] I. trans. 1. To flatter; wheedle; seduce or win by adulation or artifice. 2. To obtrude or thrust by falsehood or deception; foist; palm: usually with in or on. 3. To adapt ( a die) by cheating, by loading it, as to direct its fall: as, to play with cogged dice. II. intrans. 1. To wheedle; flatter; dissimulate. To cheat, especially by means of loaded dice.” — Century Dictionary 1889
“COG, verb transitive 1. To flatter; to wheedle; to seduce or draw from, by adulation or artifice. 2. To obtrude or thrust in, by falsehood or deception; as, to cog in a word to serve a purpose. To cog a die, to secure it so as to direct its fall; to falsify; to cheat in playing dice. COG, verb intransitive 1. To deceive; to cheat; to lie. 2. To wheedle.” — Webster’s Dictionary 1828
“nomen (noh-men or -m,m), n. [Latin] l. Roman law. A personal name. A Roman citizen generally had three names: a praenomen (“first name”), a nomen (“the name of the family group”), and cognomen (“a surname”). 2. Hist. A person’s first name. 3. More broadly, any name.” — Black’s Law 9th
“cognomen (n.), 1754, “a distinguishing name;” 1809, “a surname;” from Latin, from assimilated form of com “with, together” (see com-) + (g)nomen “name” (from PIE root *no-men- “name”). The last of the three names by which a Roman citizen was known (Caius Julius Csar, Marcus Tullius Cicero).” — etymonline.com
“agnomen (ag-noh-m<ln). [Latin]l. An additional name or title; a nickname. 2. Roman law. An additional name, given in recognition of some achievement or to reflect adoption by a different gens.” – Black’s Law 7th
“surname. 1. The name of the family, the name which one has over and above the Christian name; an appellation added to the original name.” — 1797 Sheridian, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language
“NICKNAME, noun [G. To banter. Signifies to surname, to call by a name of reproach.] A name given in contempt, derision or reproach; an opprobrious appellation.” – Webster’s 1828
“nick: 1. A hollow cut or slight depression made in the surface of anything; a notch [a mark]. 9. The devil: usually with the addition of Old. 12. To delude or deceive; cozen; cheat, as at dice. 14. To fit; unite or combine; be adapted for combining: said, in stock-breeding, of the crossing of one strain of blood with another.” – 1889 Century Dictionary
The surname (cognomen) is an additional name (agnomen) signifying adoption by a nation (gens); the taking from one parent, God, to another, Satan. Regardless of your religion, if you are of a nation you are a gentile which the surname also signifies. And yes, even the majority of jews are gentiles.
“GENS. – Race; nation; great family. In Roman law, a subdivision of the people next to the euria, and constituting a number of familiae.”
“GENTILES. – In the Roman law, the members of a gens or common tribe, and to whom the property of a deceased member anciently belonged, failing any sui haeredes or agnati.” — Rapalje, A Dictionary_ of American and English Law Vol 1. 1888
“GEN’TILE, noun: [Latin gentilis; from Latin gens, nation, race; applied to pagans.] In the scriptures, a pagan; a worshiper of false gods; any person not a Jew or a christian; a heathen. The Hebrews included in the term goyim or nations, all the tribes of men who had not received the true faith, and were not circumcised. The christians translated goyim by the Latin gentes, and imitated the Jews in giving the name gentiles to all nations who were not Jews nor christians. In civil affairs, the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans. adjective: Pertaining to pagans or heathens.” — Webster’s Dictionary 1828
“gentile, adjective: 3. In gram., expressing nationality, local extraction, or place of abode; describing or designating a person as belonging to a certain race, country, district, town, or locality by birth or otherwise: as, a gentile noun (as Greek, Arab, Englishman, etc.); a gentile adjective (as Florentine, Spanish, etc.). noun: 4. In gram. a noun or adjective derived from the name of a country or locality, and designating its natives or people: as the words Italian, American, Athenian, are gentiles.” — 1889 Century Dictionary
“gentile, …Pagan and heathen are primarily the same in meaning; but pagan is sometimes distinctively applied to those nations that, although worshiping false gods, are more cultivated, as the Greeks and Romans, and heathen to uncivilized idolaters, as the tribes of Africa. A Mohammedan is not counted a pagan, much less a heathen.” — 1889 Century Dictionary
“PA’GAN, noun [Latin paganus, a peasant or countryman, from pagus, a village.] A heathen; a Gentile; an idolater; one who worships false gods. This word was originally applied to the inhabitants of the country, who on the first propagation of the christian religion adhered to the worship of false gods, or refused to receive christianity, after it had been received by the inhabitants of the cities. In like manner, heathen signifies an inhabitant of the heath or woods, and caffer, in Arabic, signifies the inhabitant of a hut or cottage, and one that does not receive the religion of Mohammed. pagan is used to distinguish one from a Christian and a Mohammedan.” — Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
“People, 1. The body of persons who compose acommunity, town, city or nation. 2. The vulgar;the mass of illiterate persons. 3. A collection or community of animals. 4. The Gentiles.” — Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
“גּוֹיgôwy, go’-ee; rarely (shortened) גֹּיgôy; apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence, a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:—Gentile, heathen, nation, people.” — Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
“Goy – nation, people NASB Translation every nation (2), Gentiles (1), Goiim (1), Harosheth-hagoyim* (3), herds (1), nation (120), nations (425), people (4).” — NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
The legal necessity of the surname is a product of the Beast System that is of Rome. Nations are shaped significantly, directly and indirectly, by the concepts of the pagan Roman law. These nations are gentile nations. Your person, in it’s required surname, is under the dominion of the Pope, and his Holy Roman Vatican Empire, who claims the temporal and spiritual sovereignty of all nations and “every human creature“. The antichrists are the Pope, the Jesuits, and all of the false teachers of Truth. Within the flattering titles of Rome, the Vatican, and the Pope contain the numerical value of 666. Even without applying gematria, one of the Pope’s titles is the Vicar of Christ [Vicarius Filii Dei – Vicar of The Son of God]. The term ‘vicar/vicarious [Vicarius]’ means “in place of” which is also a definition of the term ‘anti’. The Pope and the Jesuits are antichrists, for their corporate existence, teachings, and rhetoric are opposed to Christ, and evidently the Pope [the office of the Pope which includes all men providing agency to it] is The Antichrist as foretold in Revelations. In Revelation 13-20 the ‘beast’ is the figurative concept depicting the Antichrist’s person [corporation sole, sovereign of the world and all human creatures which the Pope assumes], it’s kingdom [the secular world/Jesuit Vatican Roman Pagan Empire], and power [of ultimately the highest authoritative legal capacities and advantages] innately opposed to Christ/Laws of Nature. All nations are matrixes of Rome, and these concepts are the foundation of the legal world which denotes the Beast System. The purpose of nations, including America, is to administrate and gain from human sin [Order Out Of Chaos], for breaking several of God’s commandments is required for participation. A spiritual man would never leave Nature and voluntarily alienate his adherence to God for the luxuries of civil society.
“All roads lead to Rome”
We are not isolated and we are not Christians on an individual basis, each one on his or her own, no, our Christian identity is to belong! We are Christians because we belong to the Church. It is like a last name: if the first name is “I am Christian”, the last name is “I belong to the Church”. —POPE FRANCIS, GENERAL AUDIENCE, St. Peter’s Square Wednesday, 25 June 2014
ANTICHRIST – Against Christ, or an opposition Christ, a rival Christ. The word is used only by the apostle John. Referring to False teachers, he says (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7), “Even now are there many antichrists.” (1.) This name has been applied to the “little horn” of the “king of fierce countenance” (Dan. 7:24, 25; 8:23-25). (2.) It has been applied also to the “false Christs” spoken of by our Lord (Matt. 24:5, 23, 24). (3.) To the “man of sin” described by Paul (2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 8-10). (4.) And to the “Beast of The Sea” (Rev. 13:1; 17:1-18). — Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
“Revelation 13-20, under the figurative of a ‘beast‘ is depicted Antichrist, both his person and his kingdom and power” — THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, G2342
“ἀντίχριστος(antichrist), “… The name ὁ ἀντίχριστος was formed perhaps by John, the only writer in the N. T. who uses it, [five times]; he employs it of the corrupt power and influence hostile to Christian interests, especially that which is at work in false teachers who have come from the bosom of the church and are engaged in disseminating error: 1 John 2:18 (where the meaning is, ‘what ye have heard concerning Antichrist, as about to make his appearance just before the return of Christ, is now fulfilled in the many false teachers, most worthy to be called antichrists,’ [on the omission of the article cf. Buttmann, 89 (78)]); 1 John 4:3; and of the false teachers themselves, 1 John 2:22″ — THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, G500
Vicar of (Jesus) Christ [Latin, Vicarius Filii Dei], a title assumed by the Pope with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ and possesses his authority in the church. — 1889 Century Dictionary
VICA’RIOUS, adjective [Latin vicarius.] 2. Acting for another; filling the place of another; as a vicarious agent or officer. 3. Substituted in the place of another; as a vicarious sacrifice. The doctrine of vicarious punishment has occasioned much controversy. — 1828 Webster’s Dictionary
AN’TI, noun [Gr. See Ante.] A preposition signifying against, opposite, contrary, or in place of; used in many English words. — 1828 Webster’s Dictionary
“What the Seal of the United States of America represents, to anyone who takes it seriously, is a Ministry of Sin. A speech by Jesuit political scientist Michael Novak, published in the January 28, 1989 issue of America, the weekly magazine of American Jesuits, sums it up eloquently enough: ‘The framers wanted to build a “novus ordo” that would secure “liberty and justice for all”…. The underlying principle of this new order is the fact of human sin. To build a republic designed for sinners, then, is the indispensable task…. There is no use building a social system for saints. There are too few of them. And those there are are impossible to live with!… Any effective social system must therefore be designed for the only moral majority there is: sinners.’ … The Latin historians Ovid , Pliny, and Aurelius Victor all tell us that the prehistoric name for Rome was Saturnia, “city of Saturn.” Saturnia’s original settlers came from the east, from Babylon. In the Babylonian (or Chaldean) language, according to Alexander Hislop, Saturnia was pronounced “Satr ” but spelled with only four characters, Stur. Now, Chaldean, like Hebrew, Greek, and to a limited extent Latin, had no separate numbering system. Their numbers were represented by certain characters of their alphabet. The cabalah derives its power from mathematical energies conveyed from these languages. Hislop reported a phenomenon that he said “every Chaldee scholar knows, ” which is that the letters of Stur, Rome’s earliest name, total 666: S = 60; T = 400; U = 6; R = 200 := 666
Hislop further reported that Roman numerals consist of only six letters, D (500), C (100), L (50), X (10), V (5), and I (1 ) – we ignore the letter M, signifying 1,000, because it’s a latecomer, having evolved as shorthand for two D’s. When we total these six letters, we discover a startling link with the Beast of Revelation embedded in the very alphanumeric communication system of the Romans: D= 500; C = 100; L = 50; X = 10; V = 5; I = 1 := 666” — Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies
Earlier this year President Trump made some demeaning remarks about the Constitution when publicly announcing his declaration of another national emergency to ‘combat’ the coronavirus:
As the World Health Organization confirmed today, many of the things that — what we said were 100 percent correct, including our designation, before them, of Europe. Like our earlier, very aggressive actions with China, this measure will save countless lives. I appreciate a number of the folks behind me. A number of the people behind me said that that saved a lot of lives, that early designation.
But it is only the beginning of what we’re really doing, and now we’re in a different phase. We had some very old and obsolete rules[the Constitution] that we had to live with. It worked under certain circumstances but not under mass circumstances. They were there for a long time; they were in place for a long time. And we’re breaking them down now. And they’re very usable for certain instances, but not for this.
This national emergency gives the president the ‘ability’ [as a legal remedy against the coronavirus] to ‘provide proper funding and aid’ to states, and to waive laws to enable ‘tele-health‘; things that could not be done without declaring a national emergency which allows the government to disregard the Constitution when resolving said ’emergency’.
Since 1933 the United States has been under constant states of national emergencies. Since then the private land holders, in concordance with the Jesuit Vatican Empire, have chosen presidents who will continue this tradition until what was America is completely destroyed, enabling over 100 unconstitutional uniform laws and acts under this national emergency status.
When Trump said, “We had some very old and obsolete rules [the Constitution] that we had to live with.” he wasn’t wrong. To the US citizen the Constitution is ultimately obsolete. So if you, as a US citizen, have been noticing the tyrannical actions of the government, and the loss of real liberty over the several decades, the national emergency is partially the reason. As a public US citizen— even before national emergencies, we have restricted constitutional rights because we surrendered them through agencies of citizenship— you are subjected to these congressional approved unconstitutional doings of government. Don’t get your hopes up in the sense that we can somehow undo this. Every presidential candidate they push knows that the Constitution is not meant for the public despite their political rhetoric. The common people are constantly under attacks of mind control and propaganda, through education [training of animals] and media, which renders their perception in adherence to this artificial legal matrix beast system of control and deems it as a necessity. They will never see past this deception and continue to buy into the false flags and propaganda that will lead into the jesuitical NWO. They will continue to respect flattering titles and pursue mammon. They will continue to be surety to that which is not theirs [their person/citizenship is government property] and they will smart [suffer pains] for it.
Pro 11:15 He that is surety for a stranger shallsmartforit: and he that hateth suretiship is sure. – The Bible KJV
Governments of artifice, flattering titles, and mammon—which is a non-self-existing artificial control construct created and ruled by man, not Nature— are a stranger to man, for man is of nature.
Since 2011 the Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives has been LGBT advocate Jesuit priest Patrick Conroy. Republicans, who held the majority in 2011, and Democrats, who now hold the majority, voted him in. Pro-LGBT Jesuit priest James Martin has received awards from groups propagating the gay agenda. Jesuit priests promote the normalization of the LGBT by referring to parts of the bible that deals with accepting all people. But to claim that God made a mistake in creating you, and ‘you’ know better is adversarial and contrary to the Scriptures. A Catholic priest in Denver expressed this notion after Regis University, a Jesuit-Catholic university, encouraged it’s faculty to attend a student-ran drag show commemorating “Transgender Day of Remembrance”. The Jesuits have a hand in promoting LGBT which will help lead into part of their NWO agenda; transhumanism.
From Reddit user SR-71A_Blackbird: Jesuits believe humans are spirits trapped in evil material bodies. These spirits may be male or female without corresponding to the gender of the body they inhabit. This is the reasoning they provide for homosexuality and transgenderism. This reasoning is straight out of Gnosticism, of course.
sham: noun 1. To deceive; trick; cheat; delude with false pretenses. 7. Some device meant to give a thing a different outward appearance, as of neatness and finish, or to imitate something which it is not. – Century Dictionary
Yes, it is a sham. The media—mainstream news, alternative, and entertainment—are contrived into telling the common people to, “Make your voice heard” and that “Your vote matters”. We are encouraged by governments and corporations to vote for the US elections. Universities— who hire jesuitical, politically correct, and mostly left-leaning professors— encourage their students to participate in this american quadrennial ritual. Voting is referred to as “suffrage” which also means a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another; part of pleading in court involves “prayer” to the magistrate [a god].
suffrage: noun 2. The political right or act of voting; the exercise of the voting power in political affairs; especially, the right, under a representative government, of participating, directly or indirectly, in the choice of public officers and in the adoption or rejection of fundamental laws: usually with the definite article. 4. Eccles., an intercessory prayer or petition. 6. The prayers of the people in response to and as distinguished from the versicles or prayers said in litanies by the clergyman. – Century Dictionary
Participation in the suffrage is not a right, but is granted by a state on a consideration of that is most for the interest of the state… The grant of suffrage makes it a legal right until it is recalled and it is protected by the law as property is. – Black’s Law 4th
PRAY IN AID. In old English practice. To call upon for assistance. In real actions, the tenant might pray in aid or call for assistance of another, to help him to plead, because of the feebleness or imbecility of his own estate. – Black’s Law 4th
Prayer for relief [pray in aid] is a request or prayer made to the court. The term is usually shortened to prayer. A prayer is a part of a pleading, and it usually appears at the end of the pleading. It includes a request for specific relief or damages which the pleader deems himself entitled. – https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prayer-for-relief/
Lets take a look on how the US presidential elections actually work.
The US does not have a direct election, but an indirect election where voters “pick the slate of electors instead of voting directly”, and consent to the States/electors who votes then elects the president.
“When the voters of North Carolina voted this passed November they were actually voting to pick the slate of electors instead of voting directly for the president and the vice president.” – North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall at the 56th meeting of the North Carolina Electoral College “… When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President. You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors…”- https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#restrictions
The electors are chosen by political parties of the State which are private corporations. Private corporations do not have to follow their own rules. The common people have no say in this but must be subjected to it when they vote for US president. Even with primaries and caucuses, a political party [private corporations] can choose whoever they want to be their presidential candidate. In 2016 supporters of socialist Bernie Sanders brought legal action against the DNC for rigging the primary elections in favor of Hilary Clinton for the democratic presidential candidate [**]. They argued that “they were denied a fair and impartial election and had given money to a campaign on the belief that it was fair and impartial”, but the gods [court] countered the notion in favor of DNC lawyers citing the obvious, “the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts.”. And in 2020, the DNC conspired with the RNC to rig the primaries in favor of child molester Joe Biden. Some people think that the 2008/2012 primaries were also rigged against Ron Paul. He even says the US elections are rigged. They are, but both he and Bernie Sanders knew they weren’t going to be chosen, and they are willing participants playing roles. The result of this charade is carefully orchestrated political theater to bring in the right person for the jesuitical NWO.
“Choosing each State’s electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties [private corporations] in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State’s electors by casting their ballots…. Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party.” – https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#restrictions
Depending on the State the electors do not have to cast their electoral vote in accordance with the popular vote. In some States electors are bound by state law to cast their vote according to the popular vote. The other 21 States have no regulations preventing an elector to disregard the popular vote. When you vote you are actually selecting electors to possibly respect your choice for a national ruler. These 21 states can legally swing an election without any voting fraud.
“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.” – https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#restrictions
“There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions.” – http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967
Voter fraud and election rigging are part of the voting process as well. The first happens quite frequently when you consider the fact that not all of those operations are caught. As for the latter, political parties have conspired to control the outcome of primary elections [as stated earlier in this article], and the same can be done with presidential elections. Also, programs can be made to change election results. A computer programmer admitted to it under oath.
Even without voter fraud and election rigging, can the vote of the common citizens—subjects, denizens, serfs—really make a difference in the US indirect presidential elections when 21 states don’t regulate the elector’s adherence to the popular vote, especially when political parties can choose whoever they want to be their presidential candidate despite the support of the public majority—like they did with Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders? Ultimately, no. These political parties work for the private land holders—who never adapted to 14th amendment citizenship and kept their private status—to help choose rulers to administrate the public trespassers (public citizens). But don’t think these private land holders, who are also recognized in the constitution as a capitonym term “We the People…”, are the top of the pyramid of control because they’re still, and happily, adherent to the Holy See and are too subjects to the Roman Pontiff.
‘When in Rome, do as the romans do’. The US presidential electoral process is a copy of the Holy Roman Empire’s concept of electors. This is not surprising when considering that Washington DC used to be called Rome.
“The founders [of America] appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term “college” (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of people that acts as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the pope and vote in papal elections.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(Holy_Roman_Empire)
When voting some countries have the option of “none of the above/NOTA” which the US does not have. The only way to apply this option in the US is if 100% of the citizens do not vote. I would say to just not participate in the US presidential election, but “He who is silent appears to consent.”, so we’re screwed either way. But hey, you get a neat “I Voted” sticker after your time in the voting booth so you can virtue signal that you prayed in a national petition to the temporal gods to select a ruler to govern your commercial life!
In 1817 Thomas Jefferson lamented that in drafting statutes his fellow lawyers were accustomed to “making every other word a ‘said’ or ‘aforesaid,’ and saying everything over two or three times, so that nobody but we of the craft can untwist the diction, and find out what it means…” – Plain English for Lawyers
The vernacular vulgar language that we all are raised into enslaves us, for by default we attribute it’s common meanings to the “wordy, unclear, pompous, and dull” legal writings that composes the law we are obligated to know and follow. Through the spells of the legal language the masses are dazed and content by it’s twisted diction. It’s sole purpose being to control the mind (govern-ment), binding us to the adversary of free grace (3rd entry). Legalese is made up with the same common words with different meanings carefully designed to be a burden for the layman to decipher. Due to the growing distress of this conundrum, statutes were passed that require “consumer contracts” to be written in a clear and cogent manner using words with common and everyday meanings. This is a deception that binds people closer to the system by simplifying the words just enough for him to know what is expected and leaving it to the individual to do his own due diligence to discover all the laws, codes, regulations and loopholes that also applies. E.g.: When you agree to a bank loan contract they do not tell you that the bank does not have the money, and that the legal tender are actually credits that they create on your behalf. Then you pay interest resulting in free cash flow for them*… The average parent wants their child to be part of society (consent to the taking of the baby’s Natural borne Rights by using the government’s created person citizenship status and attaching the baby to it as surety through the filing of the birth certificate into the legal system), but those who are religious might be disheartened when considering that ‘in-sin-u-are‘ is a legal term for filing anything into the legal system (the birth certificate alienates one’s God given Rights for artificial political rights and places man’s law above God’s Law. That is idolatry.)… Aside, in modern law dictionaries a person is defined as “a living human being”, and under the term they’ll sometimes leave out that a person is also a corporation; a lame attempt for the layman to grasp and to keep the true meaning occulted. It is difficult to understand, but a person is not a man, but it is of man and belongs to man (hu-man).
human – Of the form and characteristics of man. – Ballentine’s Legal Dictionary 3rd Edition
human – 3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.) – Oxford New English Dictionary 1901
person – A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being ‘considered as’ having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. – Black’s Law 4th
Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis: Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. – Black’s Law 2nd
Everybody uses the word “person” to refer to a man, woman, or child. They’ll even say it in a way that suggests a person is a real, living, breathing and reasonable man that deserves natural equity. A deeper look into the the formation, etymology, and how the word has been applied reveals the true meaning. Person contains two syllables, per and son. In this case per is a prefix meaning through. The second syllable “son” is partitioned from Latin ‘sona‘ meaning sound, and when referring to a natural or artificial person the etymological source is ‘sunu/sone‘ which is a descendant, but more specifically an individual or thing born or produced in relation to the country*. The term person/a, as in through sound, relates more with the original meaning of the word. Originally, a persona was a mask that represented a character which was worn and acted on by an individual. The actor becomes the character from the sounds of his imitating voice through the mask. Then the law “metaphorically” adapted the term to determine legal entities that are used by individual/s under the government’s dominion. Person with the second syllable being of ‘sunu/sone’ means through the product/creation of government. In this sense, person only refers to the conditioned status of a human, corporation, organization, partnership, association, or other entity deemed or construed by law to be subject to the law. This creation of government (the law metaphorically speaks man into the existence of their world (entry 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20) is rooted from the dictation of the ancient law which clothes man with artificial attributes and allows man’s law to affect him. A person is always under the dominion of man’s rule. He is always a subject to the sovereign who reigns over it’s artificial jurisdiction.
national – n. 1. A member of a nation. 2. A person owing permanent allegiance to and under the protection of a state. national of the United States – A citizen of the United States or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. Also termed u.s. national; U.S. citizen.
subject – n. 1. One who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign’s laws. “… it is to be noticed that the term subject is capable of a different and wider application, in which it includes all members of the body politic, whether they are citizens (i.e., subjects stricto sensu) or resident aliens. All such persons are subjects, all being subject to the power of the state and to its jurisdiction, and as owing to it, at least temporarily, fidelity and obedience.” – Black’s Law 9th
We are the king’s subjects (noun, 1st entry). Today the king is the government, his force is the executive branch, and the subjects are it’s citizens. Through their twisted diction the law sees us as subjects just like in the old days of kings, princes, commoners and slaves. Black’s Law claims that the difference between a “citizen” and a “subject” is whether rights and privileges, or it’s “correlative” obligations, are “prominent” within the status. As stated in Part 1, it is your right to be subject to pains, punishments and exactions of every kind. International law considers every person a subject to it’s nation. “Nationals” are no different. American Law and Procedure Vol. 12 states that America changed the legal noun “subjects” to “nationals” because Americans thought the former was distasteful. Citizen, national, subject; different terms with ultimately the same meaning. Sadly, the Babylonian-name-change tactic is one that rarely ever fails against the vulgar masses.
“When the lack of political submission began to be perceived as making all the difference in one’s legal status, a crucial move was made to set up the stage where people of all sorts, kinds, sexes and status could start a long fight to obtain an equal package of legal treatments with no other ammunition than their political submission.” – Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origins of Modern Citizenship
It is required for citizens/subjects to be under complete obedience, fidelity, and submission to the law, otherwise the legitimacy of it’s simulated authority would be diminished. To protect this legitimacy the law punishes those who lack political submission and praises the civil (3rd entry); making life hell for men who wish not to alienate their Natural borne Rights. Jean Bodin, 16th century French jurist and political philosopher, reflects on this notion while elaborating the genesis of the State, “he who did not want to give up some of this liberty, which is necessary to live under the laws and commands of someone else, lost all of his liberty.” The dilemma of statuses inherently being inequitable, affected by one’s obedience, caused people to love their servitude to receive legal equity. But even with the utmost obedience to the sovereign, without being under certain conditions, one still did not have the same rights as others. In Old England, some people claimed high social class or royal heritage to gain the artificial benefits of certain conditioned statuses. Not much has changed when today we have people, using the same concept, falsely claiming their person being under certain conditions in order to obtain benefits*. The status of US Congress has the right and privilege to not be ‘arrested’ for any crime while in Session *.
The citizen’s parent is the government. The term ‘parent’ came from the term ‘parere’, to give birth, and in latin ‘parens’, which means parent. A common synonym of ‘giving birth’ is ‘to create’ which brings us to the legal maxim “the creator controls”. Everything controlled by government is under a status created by law. Your government created the legal entity status (person) it assigned to you, and they can govern that creation in any way they please (anything goes under ‘necessity‘). The government also plays the role of guardian/parent to what it created (parens patriae). In America law the state has guardianship over persons under disability (who cannot properly use government property) such as minors, insane and incompetent persons. If you’ve read Part 1, you’ll already know that the US government considers all persons insane except for a brief period when they sign a contract. Every person’s father is the state; not the biological or step father, nor God, but government.
The conspiracy in this is that we are raised into profane vulgarism, unaware of the full extent of the king’s language (legalese) that governs us while being taught the dog-latin slave language; wanting to be “smart”, being proud of our “freedoms”, appearing “civil”, wanting to be a good “person” and being treated like a “human being”. All of these terms are words of the enslaved. Smart is suffering pains, freedom is the right to follow the law, civil is being a good gentile goyim, a person is an artificial corporation, and a human is that which belongs to man. This matrix system of control, which humanity’s livelihood depends on, makes mankind love his servitude to the secular gods who are only here to administrate the spiritually dead who cannot govern themselves without causing chaos.
Dog-Latin – The Latin of illiterate persons; Latin words put together on the English grammatical system. – Blacks Law 4th