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
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.