Monday, July 21, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
YOUR NAME BELONGS TO THE CROWN? POPPYCOCK!
Robert Menard
Do not let those who are not members of the government make claims which disempower you, and somehow magically empower the government. It is ignorant fear mongering, and is simply false information being spread.
It began with your parents giving you YOUR name. Before it ever existed on any piece of paper, it was given to you. It existed then, and you were the first owner, holder, and user.
The act of registration does not ''give it' (hand over) to the Crown. It is true the act of registration establishes an association, which the identifier points to. It is used as an identifier and establishes that there exists a person with certain rights and duties. This does not mean that its use will always identify that same person. An ‘arrow sign’ does not create a destination. It can point to it, if it already exists, but it does not create one if it doesn’t. A sign saying ‘Carson City 20 Miles’ planted in the middle of nowhere will not cause a city to magically pop up 20 miles distant. The city must exist first, then you can point to it.
The government has never claimed they own our names, and when asked will deny it. Why disempower yourself by claiming that what is clearly YOURS, belongs to someone else, when they have never made that claim? Nanny CAN’T FLY, and your name is not somehow their magical property.
Both the name and the human named, pre-existed the person created by registration.
When you were a child your name was one thing. Your parents used it, your schools and friends used it. The government used it. Now that you are an adult, those people who once had authority over you, can still use your name, but they can’t claim that because you are using the same name, they have the same level of authority over you. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise. Of course, if you went back to school as a student, AND MAINTAINED YOUR ASSOCIATIONS, they would have that same level of authority. The name itself does not create the association.
Saying “I am not that name!” to avoid duties and responsibilities when there is still an association, is very childish. One can keep their name, and change their associations, thus their duties and obligations.
My name is Robert Arthur Menard. That is what my name was when I was a child of the Province. It is what my name is now that I am a Freeman-on-the-Land. Using my name does not automatically make me one or the other. Although others have the same name as I do, I own mine, and no government agent or operator has ever tried to claim any ownership over it. I have heard others who claim the government owns our names, if they were used for registration, but they have never brought any proof. People in the government have clearly rejected the concept that they own everyone’s names, and do not act as owners of them. But still people ignorantly spread this concept.
The confusion arises because of a basic logical fallacy. The name is used to identify someone, and is one thing, and is used to point to their status or associations. Their person. Which is another thing. Which in most cases identifies a child of the Province. A ward. Use of the name does not establish the association, nor does denying the name break it if it already exists. Denying the name when there is still an association is very childish. It is akin to closing one’s eyes and saying “You can’t see me.”. The goal is to change our associations so that the name (the exact same name) no longer points to a bonded child of the Province, but to a Freeman. You do not accomplish that by abandoning the very thing you were given as an infant by your parents to facilitate that. Just because a name is needed to establish an association, does not mean use of that name establishes one.
If I wanted to disempower the people of the Freedom movement, I would share ideas that are untrue but are seemingly justified on the surface, and cause them to abandon those things which could actually empower them. I would try to get them to abandon their names and persons, as they would then be abandoning their wealth others are holding in trust. I would get them to believe the name itself creates the person and evidences an association, instead of just being an identifier thereof. I would present to them a wholly useless tactic, like denying being ‘the name’, which does not change their status as a child or ward, merely identifies them as a petulant, ignorant and belligerent one. I would not get them looking at the associations created, and how to change those, while keeping their name. No I would ask they abandon that first. Many would fail to distinguish between the person (the rights and duties created by association) and the name (the identifier of the person created with the association) and will try unsuccessfully to avoid the latter by abandoning the former. They will be like travellers on a road, who think they can avoid a distant city by simply taking down the sign which points to it.
If you believe that the government owns your name, and you have NO PROOF that the government has ever made that claim; if you believe you can avoid duties and obligations established by associations merely by abandoning the name but not changing your associations and status as a child of the province; if you do not distinguish between a person and its name, or a thing and its name; then you are not a force of empowerment for the people. The ideas you share are harmful, false and wrong.
When you were registered as an infant the government put you in diapers. Good thing for an infant, but not needed as an adult. You can remove them, but you need to learn to use the toilet and wipe your arse. You need to be able to prove you can do that, and Magical Nanny will stop trying to nanny you. However removing your diaper all by yourself, (abandoning your name and rejecting the person) without learning to use the toilet and wipe your arse, (establish a new person with greater rights and duties as a Free adult) means you will still be seen as a child, and Nanny can and will put you back in a diaper, lest you start smearing your faeces all over the common walls.
There are some absolutely ludicrous arguments floating around, the idea of government owning our names being near the top of the list. It would be so easy to prove. Simply make a public claim that you own your name, and see if ANYONE disputes it, and if they don’t, establish sole ownership as a function of law. You will find no one in the government will dispute that claim. They will not seek to claim ownership, for the simple reason that they do not own it, and they do not need to own it, nor have you accept it, in order to hold you accountable to the person identified by it.
Deny the name all you want. The association which identifies you as a child of the province will still be in existence, and your tactic identifies you as someone worthy of being treated as a child. You will be shooting yourself in your own foot.
Stop making claims that disempower yourself. If the people in the government want to claim they own your name, LET THEM DO IT! Do not do it for them like it is a fait accompli.
Do not let those who are not members of the government make claims which disempower you, and somehow magically empower the government. It is ignorant fear mongering, and is simply false information being spread.
It began with your parents giving you YOUR name. Before it ever existed on any piece of paper, it was given to you. It existed then, and you were the first owner, holder, and user.
The act of registration does not ''give it' (hand over) to the Crown. It is true the act of registration establishes an association, which the identifier points to. It is used as an identifier and establishes that there exists a person with certain rights and duties. This does not mean that its use will always identify that same person. An ‘arrow sign’ does not create a destination. It can point to it, if it already exists, but it does not create one if it doesn’t. A sign saying ‘Carson City 20 Miles’ planted in the middle of nowhere will not cause a city to magically pop up 20 miles distant. The city must exist first, then you can point to it.
The government has never claimed they own our names, and when asked will deny it. Why disempower yourself by claiming that what is clearly YOURS, belongs to someone else, when they have never made that claim? Nanny CAN’T FLY, and your name is not somehow their magical property.
Both the name and the human named, pre-existed the person created by registration.
When you were a child your name was one thing. Your parents used it, your schools and friends used it. The government used it. Now that you are an adult, those people who once had authority over you, can still use your name, but they can’t claim that because you are using the same name, they have the same level of authority over you. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise. Of course, if you went back to school as a student, AND MAINTAINED YOUR ASSOCIATIONS, they would have that same level of authority. The name itself does not create the association.
Saying “I am not that name!” to avoid duties and responsibilities when there is still an association, is very childish. One can keep their name, and change their associations, thus their duties and obligations.
My name is Robert Arthur Menard. That is what my name was when I was a child of the Province. It is what my name is now that I am a Freeman-on-the-Land. Using my name does not automatically make me one or the other. Although others have the same name as I do, I own mine, and no government agent or operator has ever tried to claim any ownership over it. I have heard others who claim the government owns our names, if they were used for registration, but they have never brought any proof. People in the government have clearly rejected the concept that they own everyone’s names, and do not act as owners of them. But still people ignorantly spread this concept.
The confusion arises because of a basic logical fallacy. The name is used to identify someone, and is one thing, and is used to point to their status or associations. Their person. Which is another thing. Which in most cases identifies a child of the Province. A ward. Use of the name does not establish the association, nor does denying the name break it if it already exists. Denying the name when there is still an association is very childish. It is akin to closing one’s eyes and saying “You can’t see me.”. The goal is to change our associations so that the name (the exact same name) no longer points to a bonded child of the Province, but to a Freeman. You do not accomplish that by abandoning the very thing you were given as an infant by your parents to facilitate that. Just because a name is needed to establish an association, does not mean use of that name establishes one.
If I wanted to disempower the people of the Freedom movement, I would share ideas that are untrue but are seemingly justified on the surface, and cause them to abandon those things which could actually empower them. I would try to get them to abandon their names and persons, as they would then be abandoning their wealth others are holding in trust. I would get them to believe the name itself creates the person and evidences an association, instead of just being an identifier thereof. I would present to them a wholly useless tactic, like denying being ‘the name’, which does not change their status as a child or ward, merely identifies them as a petulant, ignorant and belligerent one. I would not get them looking at the associations created, and how to change those, while keeping their name. No I would ask they abandon that first. Many would fail to distinguish between the person (the rights and duties created by association) and the name (the identifier of the person created with the association) and will try unsuccessfully to avoid the latter by abandoning the former. They will be like travellers on a road, who think they can avoid a distant city by simply taking down the sign which points to it.
If you believe that the government owns your name, and you have NO PROOF that the government has ever made that claim; if you believe you can avoid duties and obligations established by associations merely by abandoning the name but not changing your associations and status as a child of the province; if you do not distinguish between a person and its name, or a thing and its name; then you are not a force of empowerment for the people. The ideas you share are harmful, false and wrong.
When you were registered as an infant the government put you in diapers. Good thing for an infant, but not needed as an adult. You can remove them, but you need to learn to use the toilet and wipe your arse. You need to be able to prove you can do that, and Magical Nanny will stop trying to nanny you. However removing your diaper all by yourself, (abandoning your name and rejecting the person) without learning to use the toilet and wipe your arse, (establish a new person with greater rights and duties as a Free adult) means you will still be seen as a child, and Nanny can and will put you back in a diaper, lest you start smearing your faeces all over the common walls.
There are some absolutely ludicrous arguments floating around, the idea of government owning our names being near the top of the list. It would be so easy to prove. Simply make a public claim that you own your name, and see if ANYONE disputes it, and if they don’t, establish sole ownership as a function of law. You will find no one in the government will dispute that claim. They will not seek to claim ownership, for the simple reason that they do not own it, and they do not need to own it, nor have you accept it, in order to hold you accountable to the person identified by it.
Deny the name all you want. The association which identifies you as a child of the province will still be in existence, and your tactic identifies you as someone worthy of being treated as a child. You will be shooting yourself in your own foot.
Stop making claims that disempower yourself. If the people in the government want to claim they own your name, LET THEM DO IT! Do not do it for them like it is a fait accompli.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Monday, July 7, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
FREE MAN
Nice
little clip featuring mika, a man that, similar to me, lives on the land outside of the predatory control mechanism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)