The Four Pillars Of Fiction: Part 2: The Art Of Dissimulation


In Part One of this essay, we discussed the ancient legal custom of the keeping of and recording of time. We know that time is money and money is time. We know that without time limits, bills and speeding tickets would never be paid. And we can now understand that, while the poor and middle-class commoner pays for his crimes with time, the wealthy elite pay for their organized crimes in money, which fictionally represents time. Our entire labor pool, in fact, works on the same valuation structure, where the poor are paid in money in exchange for their time and labor, which then allows them to purchase essential foodstuffs and supplies to survive and suffer further use as employees (subjects). The disparagement between what labor can accomplish and what is paid for it in money, of course, is ridiculously disproportional. For without the labor of the poor, the wealthy simply could not exist. Most importantly though, we can now comprehend a dualistic calendric time system constructed to separate the wheat and the chaff, the common majority from the elitist minority.

Before reading Part Two, it is recommended though not absolutely necessary to start from the beginning, here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/the-four-pillars-of-fiction-part-1-a-matter-of-time/

Though one of the pillars of fiction certainly rests upon money (a simulation of the artificial/man-made valuation of time), we will save this topic of money, or more specifically that of “mammon” for Part Three of this series. For to speak of the simulation of money as the valuation of all things Real into a nihilistically circular pattern of nothingness, we must first understand the nature of just what dissimulation accomplishes in society so that such a system is accepted as a false and seemingly indispensable paradigm. We must discuss how it destroys ethics, morals, and values by separating (dis-associating) man from Nature and Its Law(s), and why this quality of attaining through education, entertainment, false valuation, and other simulations of Reality a state of dissimulation in the public mind is an essential pillar to uphold the entirety of the fictional, legally represented model of simulation.

What is fiction can never be said to be Reality accept in appearance only — as some artful form without substance behind it. Legal fiction is, therefore, always but a simulation of Reality, which causes in men a dissimulation from what is Real (of Nature).

What’s the difference between simulation and dissimulation?

Ah… the answer to this question ultimately reveals the source of all of our problems.

Firstly, we must distinguish that the word simulation is a noun, as the name of something artificial, including lies. Dissimulation is an adjective, describing the results any simulation has upon the mind and actions of men. Dissimulation is caused and based upon some simulated version of Reality. Without simulation there is no dissimulation, just as without darkness there is no light, ect.

In Dante’s Inferno, one of the names prescribed to the devil was simply the prefix of “DIS.” The use of this word-forming agent stands always as an upsetting, unsettling alteration of its root, one that is generally adversarial or damaging to that which it is attached. Dis-ease, dis-satisfaction, dis-appear, dis-respect, dis-appoint, dis-regard, dis-turb, and dis-associate are examples of this factor.

Before we may understand what dis-simulation is, we must first examine the nature of what its root word symbolizes. So just what is a simulation in the legal fiction?

SIMULATETo assume the mere appearance of, without the reality; to assume the signs or indications of, falsely; to counterfeit; feign; imitate; pretend. To engage, usually with the co-operation or connivance of another person, in an act or series of acts, which are apparently transacted in good faith, and intended to be followed by their ordinary legal consequences, but which in reality conceal a fraudulent purpose of the party to gain thereby some advantage to which he is not entitled, or to injure, delay, or defraud others.(Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

SIMULATIONAssumption of appearance which was feigned, false, deceptive, or counterfeit. In the civil law. Misrepresentation or concealment of the truth; as where parties pretend to perform a transaction different from that in which they really are engaged. A feigned, pretended act, one which assumes the appearance without the reality and, being entirely without effect, it is held not to have existed, and, for that reason, it may be disregarded or attacked collaterally by any interested person. In French law. Collusion; a fraudulent arrangement between two or more persons to give a false or deceptive appearance to a transaction in which they engage. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

SIMULATED FACT – In the law of evidence. A fabricated fact; an APPEARANCE given to things BY HUMAN DEVICE, with a view TO DECEIVE AND MISLEAD. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

ILLUSIONnoun – s as z. [Latin illusio, from illudo, to illude.] Deceptive appearance; false show, by which a person is or may be deceived, or his expectations disappointed; mockery. Ye soft illusions, dear deceits, arise! (Webster’s Dictionary of the American Language, 1828)

–=–

In other words, a simulation is a purposefully deceitful lie that is made to appear similar to what it represents. For our purposes, simulation is never a good thing. This is to say that to openly lie, to live in and by lies, is certainly and self-evidently a bad thing. For when one lies for a living, one begins to disassociate oneself from Reality, Its Nature (Source), and Its Law(s). This mental falling away is known as dissimulation.

—=—

What is like is not the same; for nothing similar is the same.

—A Latin maxim of law: Talis non est eadem; nam nullum simile est idem. 4 Coke, 18. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

—=—

In law, simulation is never sameness. It is always false and thus always untrue compared to its origin, its model. There is no exception to this rule, just as nothing of the cartoon realm may be manifested in Reality, in the Realm of Nature. Art should never be confused to be the Real thing. This should be a self-evident Truth to the reader. But Truth is very often hidden behind that which is simulated as if it were Truth (e.g. the entirety of legal law). And so we may continue with the understanding that though a simulation is never True, a simulation can cause one to dissimulate from the Truth that is simulated in its place. What is made to appear to be the same, in other words, is most often a purposeful deceit. Simulation is always a lie, despite the matter the reason behind it.

A simulation is generally created as a purposeful venture — an intentional false-hood. The dissimulation it causes, however, is often quite mysterious, as the victim of simulation often doesn’t realize his or her state of dissimulation. This notion is quite apparent in just the fact that most people have no idea that their persona (legal status) as a completely fictional, commercial vessel in society and law (jurisdiction) is completely separate from their actual (True) Self. In other words, it is when the agent (employee) begins to believe that he or she is in every way the very flattering title ascribed by some authority figure (principal/employer) that dissimulation has grabbed hold of the mind.

If I simulate a police officer, and I therefore blur the lines between the job and the lifestyle and benefits it portends, I may be inclined to abuse said authority. If I believe I am that fictional character in agency under the authority and licensure of some higher principal (authority), and that title allows me certain pretended and violent powers over others, then I will begin to develop and use those powers as if they are Real. I will begin to treat others in the common arena (without a badge or license) that I perceive to have less authority as myself without regard to any moral law. I will do this because I believe that my actions are not my own, but that of a fictional character assigned to me, so that my actions are the actions of my employer, not myself. I take no self-responsibility for my actions, as my employer/principal has granted me its supposedly higher authority to act in its name and under its insurances (liability). I no longer feel liable for my actions. At this point, I am now fully dissimulated into the fiction, believing that the simulation of this fictional character assigned to me from some higher authority is actually Reality, which through that agency relationship causes me to express the personality and artificial essence of that simulated character instead of self-governing myself under the Law of Nature.

When the artificial (legal) hood becomes indistinguishable from the Reality that there is no actual hood, the belief in that false-hood (simulation) as Truth causes dissimulation.

FALSEHOOD – A statement or assertion known to be untrue, and intended to deceive. A WILLFUL act or declaration contrary to the truth. The term is perhaps generally used in the second sense here given. It is committed either by the WILLFUL act of the party, OR BY DISSIMULATION, or by words. Crabbe thus distinguishes between falsehood and untruth: “The latter (untruth) is an untrue saying, and may be unintentional, in which case it reflects no disgrace on the agent. A falsehood and a lie are intentional false sayings, differing only in degree of the guilt of the offender; falsehood being not always for the express purpose of deceiving, but a lie always for the worst of purposes. Deceit; Fraud; Misrepresentation. A fabrication. Scotch Law. A fraudulent imitation or suppression of truth, to the prejudice of another. “Something used and published falsely.” An old Scottish nomen juris. “Falsehood is undoubtedly a nominate crime, so much so that Sir George Mackenzie and our older lawyers used no other term for the falsification of writs, and the name ‘forgery‘ has been of modern introduction.” “If there is any distinction to be made between ‘forgery’ and ‘falsehood,’ I would consider the latter (falsehood) to be more comprehensive than the former.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

–=–

So what then is dis-simulation?

What happens when the simulation, the false-hood, the deceitful appearance as false show takes over the rationality of the host? What happens when we begin to identify personally (in a person-hood) with such a false appearance with fictionally prescribed authority?

We enter into The (legal) Matrix.

Generally speaking, we become either the victim or the perpetrator of every crime against Nature (God) and each other imaginable. We become the adversary (DIS) of ourselves. For both the victim and the villain suffer from dissimulation, simply because the delusion of power in the agent can only exist as a direct reflection of the illusion of authority by some third party. Respect of the illusion of power by the victim of it feeds the delusion of power carried by the victims antagonist. In either disposition, we have plugged into the delusional, legal fiction of flattering titles. We become the agents of our own enslavement.

From my legally anonymous work (book):

But how can one best define what “agency” is when most of us have no inkling we are even a participant in this agentic relationship with the United States or other district, never being fully informed that we stand as publicly registered agents for service of process for the person (status) in the citizen-ship we are assigned at the nativity event of our fictional delivery and birth as a legal entity?

In the 1960s, Dr. Stanley Milgram conducted experiments where he controversially uncovered this “agentic” personality and how most people are susceptible to it. His experiment posed one stranger as the dominant “teacher” against another stranger given the title of a subordinate “learner,” whereas the learner would be shocked with increasingly more painful shocks through switches controlled by the teacher delivered with each wrong answer. The experiment was designed to show how far the random cross-section of common people would induce electric shocks upon a strapped in subject when they suspected the non-consent, injury, or even death of the flatteringly titled “learner” in the next room. A majority of the “teachers” would indeed knowingly deliver these shocks when told to do so by a “doctor” in a lab coat uniform, signifying a false but persuasive symbolical figure of authority. Some would only continue if the doctor took full responsibility for damage or death to the person called the “learner.” This was historically the most ambitious and frightening scientific test on personhood and agency, as to the uncovering of what men will do when given flattering titles of authority even as simple as “teacher,” and are then mentally made subjects of yet another seemingly higher authority. But the actions of these test subjects in a middle state of authoritative power through agency were completely voluntary, being fully informed and able to voluntarily quit the experiment whenever they felt the need or moral compunction, and they were even paid before the test began with this foreknowledge of the ability to quit and keep that pre-paid payment.

In the end, it was only ever the “teacher” that was the subject of the experiment, and the results were shocking to the science community. Milgram summarized his experiments within a 1974 article in Harper’s Magazine entitled “The Perils of Obedience,” where he stated:

—=—

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become AGENTS in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

—Stanley Milgram (1974), from: ‘The Perils of Obedience’ in Harper’s Magazine. Abridged and adapted from Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority.’

—=—

(Now you can understand why anyone in The Matrix was a potential agent.)

In other words, common people lack self-governance under a voluntary, unenforceable, moral Law. Most men acting in the agency of another, as a legal person in flattering title, has no True Religion, for a person (puppet) is not a Living man and has no spirit or control of its own. The puppet controls the man standing in surety to the puppet. The man follows the law of persons, under the law of agency. And whole militaries (of otherwise innocent men) can be made to murder each other under this incredible phenomenon of agency.

Milgram elaborated two theories that were summarized in the publication American Psychologist:

—=—

“The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch conformity experiments, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person’s behavioral model.”

“The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, ‘the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.’”

“A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram’s observations on obedience to authority,” American Psychologist 45: 1384–1385. 1990.

—=—

Once this “agentic” personality is established (i.e. dissimulation), it is obviously very hard to break the ingrained pattern of personality and practice it creates. Thus the branding of citizenship and public-minded-ness upon all children in each nation is part of the economy and society, from the school system to enter-tain-ment. We literally grow up believing we are the fictional persona assigned to us at birth; the name, the number, and the titles (or lack thereof). But in Reality, we are (acting as) commercial agents for a principal “dummy” corporation, our residential address actually a place of domestic (family) business. Responsibility is replaced by insurance. Moral virtue is replaced by strict law. And Reality is hidden behind several forms of artificial matrixes and systems designed to create a sense of false security. The strawman as a dis-ease is the avatar, the projected self image we play as actors in the fictional persona of that legal matrix, a silent weapon for a quiet war over our minds.

If in your mind it is difficult to comprehend this separate, fictional persona (legal mask) and the fact that you are acting in agency within it, just think of it this way… if you can believe in the foolish personification of God by the church into a personage and likeness of man, why can’t you imagine the same personification of man into a fictional character or citizen-ship of the state? If you are emotionally effected by watching cartoon characters on the magic screen, then what makes you think you are not equally effected by the psychological imaginations and devices of the fictional legal personas of other men and by your own actions in that false persona and agentic title?

—=—

“I feel I owe you an apology. We have a rule: we never free a mind once it’s reached a certain age. It’s dangerous; the mind has trouble letting go As long as The Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.”

—Line as read by Morpheus (the god of sleep), from the movie: ‘The Matrix’

—=—

The creators of this legal fiction matrix code control our lives via (our) suretyship to its registered property. We are made to believe the character in persona we play is Real, just as the reflection in the mirror may fool our sense of True Being; True Life. Through this property (personhood) we are caused to be plugged in to its legal, commercial framework, that matrix of word-magic and illusion, and so as if the chains were actually Real, we believe ourselves to be bound by the laws of another’s property (fiction). We cannot seem to escape our own delusion.

The dangerous pride of this glad acceptance of such artificial titles, personality, property, and character is of course spoken of in the Bible, where it admonishes the proudness of men in their receivership of false and unnatural things and pretended authorities over other men through such artificial means, which in Reality amounts merely to an abandonment of the only True Equity and duty under the Law of God’s Creation (Nature). We abandon our True Selves and pretend with false pride to be what we are not, what does not actually Exist (in Nature)…

–End Excerpt, from STRAWMAN: The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person

STRAWMANSTORY_Square_Actual_Book_v2_72dpi_RGB
Download it free, here: http://www.strawmanstory.info

—=—

To show the extreme parallel put forward as a purposeful metaphor of The Matrix story to the legal system and code, we only need replace the science fiction element with legal fiction and its imaginary, proprietary language. For the legal matrix code as well makes all common men equal, while the machine-like elites control us through the artificial wombs they invent and provide under legal contract.

You see, the birth certificate is your very own artificial womb. It represents the simulated birth of a legal entity, designed to cause you to dissimulate from Reality, from Nature and Its Law.

Eventually, the reader will understand that the movie is not fiction at all, but a metaphoric story of the legally controlled masses of public citizen-ships (commercial vessels in persona) of all the soon-to-be-united-as-one nations.

MATRIXnoun – [Latin matrix from mater, mother.] 1. The womb; the cavity in which the fetus of an animal is formed and nourished till its birth. 2. A mold; the cavity in which any thing is formed, and which gives it shape; as the matrix of a type. 3. The place where any thing is formed or produced; as the matrix of metals; gang. 4. In dyeing, the five simple colors, black, white, blue, red and yellow, of which all the rest are composed. (Webster’s Dictionary of the American Language, 1828)

MATRIX Womb. A place where anything is generated or formed. (Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, 1755)

MATRIXIn civil law, the protocol or first draft of a legal instrument, from which all copies must be taken. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

ARTIFICERnoun – [Latin artifex, from ars, and facio.] 1. An artist; a mechanic or manufacturer; one whose occupation requires skill or knowledge of a particular kind; as a silversmith, or sadler. 2. One who makes or contrives; an inventor; as an artificer of fraud or lies. 3. A cunning, or artful fellow. [not used.] (Webster’s Dictionary of the American Language, 1828)

—=—

The birth certificate is a matrix in the legal sense of the word, which is the protocol or first draft of a legal instrument, from which all copies must be taken. Now you know why you need it to obtain a driver’s license and other legal documents, as proof of birth (existence) of the legal entity (strawman) you are claiming to be an agent for. Whatever you do in civil (legal/fictional/commercial) life will be, of course, obtained through that matrix. This legal simulation of your vital statistics at birth is what becomes your agentic, artificial identity. And what’s planned for the future of the A.I. is much, much worse…

–=–

“Genecoin: DNA for the Blockchain… So, why would anyone want to encode their DNA on the Blockchain? Like much in the crypto space, some projects are a solution in search of a problem. However, one easy reason to use the blockchain to store DNA would be as a replacement for a traditional ‘Birth Certificate.’ Notarization has long been a function provided by the Bitcoin Blockchain, so to ‘notarize’ the existence of a person’s DNA could attest to the existence of an identity, and its age. This attestation would thereafter function in much the same way as does our current oracle-based (hospital-centric) system. Additionally, for those thinking of the far off future, another fanciful notion might be to encode one’s DNA for the purposes of cloning by a future generation

—Bitcoin Magazine Online, from an article entitled, “Genecoin: DNA for the Blockchain”

–=–

Whereas today we may discard by discharge this legal identity, in the future it will be part of your genetic make-up. In other words, the dissimulation of legal identity will be a permanent part of your body, an unremovable, non-payable contractual performance debt that is property of government — the ultimate mark.

We are all programmed from childhood to dissimulate ourselves into this false, legal identity, as if we are taking responsibility for a cartoon version of us, while pretending that damage done in the cartoon world (legal fiction/commerce) is the same thing as damage done to what is Real (of Nature). Sticks and stones may certainly break your bones, but legal words are now capable of damages far beyond the temporary pain and bruising of those Real things.

This brainwashing and redirection from our Natural course is expounded upon perfectly here by Alexis de Tocqueville:

—=—

“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

“But one also finds in the human heart A DEPRAVED TASTE FOR EQUALITY, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which REDUCES MEN TO PREFERRING EQUALITY IN SERVITUDE TO INEQUALITY IN FREEDOM.

“Furthermore, when citizens are all almost equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power. As none of them is strong enough to fight alone with advantage, the only guarantee of liberty is for everyone to combine forces. But such a combination is not always in evidence.”

The majority’s moral power makes individuals internally ashamed to contradict it,  which in effect silences them, and this silencing culminates in a cessation of thinking.

—Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859), separate quotes

—=—

Not ironically, trying to tell people they are trapped inside a legal matrix code is not at all different than trying to tell people they are trapped inside an artificial womb and connected to a computerized simulation of Reality. Both suffer equally from dissimulation. For dissimulation is of course the purpose of creating such matrixes.

Again, I can only compare the process of attempting to wake other men up from their legalistically caused dissimulation to that epic fight scene in the epic movie (documentary?) They Live. Just put on the damn sunglasses man!

–=–


In the end, after so much cognitive dissonance, after a lifetime of existing
falsely in the simulation, he finally sees them for what they are…
This is inception. This is the moment we (painfully)
release
ourselves from dissimulative reasoning.
Perhaps then we may stop fighting each other
and destroy the source of the simulation?

–=–

Equality is not promoted in the Bible, in the Law of Nature. There is no such thing. Equality can only be achieved through legal, artificial means. Equality is purely a fictional construct of man, fruit from that tree of knowledge. Equality is not designed to free men but to enslave them. Only slaves and subjects are equal. And yet the king (sovereign) has no equal.

In short, tyranny requires equality. For simulated (legal) equality creates dissimulation.

See my previous essay on this subject here:

Link–> https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/tyranny-requires-equality/

And for the history of how the notion of equity has been confused and interposed with modern political equality, I recommend this lecture:

–=–


“The language of equality is dead (spiritual death = civil life)…”
“The language of (personal) equity is alive (spiritual life)…”
“The first equality is equity.”

–=–

Equality without consideration of equity is but a dissimulation away from the foundations and intent of any moral law.

Maxim of Law: “He who seeks equity must do equity.

What is True equity in law?

EQUITABLE – That which is in conformity to the natural law.” (–Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856)

–=–

One should never confuse or intermix the notion of the Law of Nature and legal law, which are always opposed to each other. Therefore, as stated in this lecture, the idea of legal equity is merely the empty form of Natural equitableness. That is to say that a court of equity can only consider legal things within legal places and legal status (persona), not Reality, for the law of man (form) has no connection to anything in Nature (substance), only the concept of a property (descriptive words) thereof. A man must act equitably towards all others regardless of status or lack thereof in substance (in Nature) if he expects the law to enforce equitable behavior from others. Political equality defeats every man that acts without equitableness — without (outside of) the Highest Law of God (Nature).

Equality is but a legal concept, represented in law as a legal simulation, which in and of itself is merely a fictional rationalization (of man’s law) that can only be described as a dissimulation from Nature and Its Law(s). And as Alexis de Tocqueville declared above, the nature of this legal (fictional) state reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom. Only the self-governing man observing at all times substantial equitableness to all of man and Nature can be free of these destructive simulations of man’s law. For to be conditioned through the eyes of legalistic (political) equality causes men necessarily to act without consideration of equitableness, for “a government can only enforce strict laws.” This is to say that while the law of equality is a creation and therefore a property of man, equity stems from the unwritten (inherent) Law of Nature, and therefore is inherent only in men regenerate of mind and thus liberated from man’s law. Equitableness, in other words, can only be expressed despite strict (legal) law.

Unfortunately, the direct result of equality is the devolution into democracy. Again, in this modern system of political equality we suffer from, we can see a mass dissimulation away from each of our own individuality, from the True Self where equity resides, in order to instill the presidents of this mob rule sense of democracy.

—=—

Democracy is the road to socialism.

—Karl Marx

—=—

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people…”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, (seperate quotes), the second excerpted from the pamphlet ‘The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it, September 1917’ as Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 25, from Lenin Internet Archive. 

—=—

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.”

—Plato

—=—

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

—John Adams

—=—

A pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.

—Noah Webster

—=—

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

—=—

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

—Winston Churchill

—=—

The President will lead in the treasonYour militia will leave you and fight against you… When evil men take office the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade (by surprise, by lying in wait). When Government removes your armaments, you will have no power, but government will have all power.” 

—Patrick Henry (emphasis added)

—=—

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.

—John F. Kennedy

—=—

From the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, under Strong’s Concordance #H571, we may understand that the only Truth, the only Reality is Nature Itself. Nature needs no simulation or false appearance to Exist. It needs no words, no names, no titles, and certainly no approval by men. It neutrally defends Itself without somehow anthropomorphically believing It has some pretended set of positive law “rights” to do so. But so that we may know the more accurate definition of “just what is Truth” from the Bible, we must attempt to define it according to its authors Original (Natural) intent while also showing its adversarial, false appearance. Herein a deeper understanding of dissimulation becomes apparent.

The lexicon for Strong’s H571 (truth) states in part:

Sincerity, opposed to dissimulation. Truth, opposed to falsehood

–=–

Here we find the key to understanding the difference between simulation and dissimulation, for we may only Truly know anything by comparing its opposite:

Truth is opposed to simulation (falsehood), though it resembles (appears as) Truth. Therefore everything that is legally (artificially) considered is by the Law of Nature a falsehood.

Sincerity is opposed to dissimulation, which dissembles (changes or lacks the appearance of) anything from Its Truth.

A simulation is a game, while dissimulation is a lifestyle.

A simulation is an outright lie, while dissimulation is a mental delusion.

A dissimulation is an adversarial simulation. While simulation in and of itself is a lie, as a purposeful departure from even the appearance and false show of what is Truth, dissimulation is the simulation of a complete lie. When simulation is based on what is already a lie, then what results is a simulacra, a copy without an original (a simulation of a simulation/lie, as a copy of a copy). Thus the lie becomes the only truth imaginable to the dissimulated man, for the lie appears to be the Truth of what is being simulated.

Simulation is indeed a deception, but dissimulation is much worse. For dissimulation is a self-deception.

–=–

“Make no mistake about it – enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It’s seeing through the facade of pretense. It’s the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true.

Adyashanti

–=–

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”

Every particular in nature, a leaf, a drop, a crystal, a moment of time is related to the whole, and partakes of the perfection of the whole.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson (separate quotes)

–=–

A simulation is a false appearance, but to dissimulate from oneself is to hide ones Real Self behind that false show (simulation) — a lie within a lie. The difference is a staggeringly important one. It enters into the realm of the simulacrum.

The Stanford University Press explains in part this term simulacrum:

–=–

Phantom Communities reconsiders the status of the simulacrumsometimes defined as a copy of a copy, but more rigorously defined as a copy that subverts the legitimacy and authority of its model—in light of recent debates in literature, art, philosophy, and cultural studies.”

—A critique for ‘Phantom Communities: The Simulacrum and the Limits of Postmodernism’ by Prof. Scott Durham

–=–

The Matrix simulation in that movie was the 6th version of a computer-generated version of a society long dead. It was a copy of a copy, also said to be a copy without an original. The model was one of control, not conformity to Reality. Likewise, the legal matrix code is designed in exactly the same way, as a device to remove one from any semblance of the Reality and Law(s) of Nature and to keep one trapped inside the copy, viewing the Real world through the dissimulation of an artificial womb built merely of symbols and signs, and based on induced, delusional belief in the veracity of the illusionary un-Real, simulated as if it were the only Reality.

Are we being sincere in our citizen-ship, in legal person-hood? Or are we acting as patient victims under that civil dis-course without responsibility to ourselves and to Nature?

Our problem is not simulation itself, but the fact that we represent a simulated version of ourselves. Representation as a concept relays the idea that the sign, symbol, or token (personification) and the Real thing are essentially equivalent (i.e. sameness) — that the form represented is for all intents and purposes equal to the actual substance of the Real. Thus the concept of “representing myself” is a redundant action at best, and downright stupid at worst. What is Truth, what is of Reality needs no re-presentation, for what is Truth needs no sign or token to be understood, for it cannot by its very Nature be misunderstood. Only its name (simulation) may be dissimulated as property (form), not the Real (self-evident) thing in and of itself (substance).

But what happens when instead we choose to re-present something that is by its nature already a simulation (a lie)? If the root of the idea of representation is that the token, symbol, name, or sign (form) and the Real substance are equivalent, then the only thing we can represent in the legal realm is that which is a lie. Man cannot stand legally without some fictional representation of his True Nature and Self any more than he can enter into the cartoon realm to commune and interact with the cartoons therein. For a simulation is always a lie, no matter how closely the form of that simulation resembles its substantive model in the Real.

In other words, when we go into court representing a legal entity, we are appearing as a lie (simulated fact). We are representing that we accept as legitimate the lie (sin) and that we are responsible and in surety for its legal actions. We are representing (personifying) a simulation (a lie). We are therefore presenting ourselves as if we actually are a creature of the simulacrum, a copy without an original. We have thus entered into the darkness of fiction as a dissimulation of ourselves. We have just plugged into the legal version of The Matrix.

It is interesting to note that the term “dissimulation” seems to apply in a dramatic way to our default status of public personhood within these nations of goyim, remembering that DIS is attributed to be one of the many names of satan (that which is adversarial to Nature/Reality).

DISSIMULATIONnoun – [Latin, to make like; like.] The act of dissembling; a hiding under a false appearance; a feigning; false pretension; hypocrisy. Dissimulation may be simply concealment of the opinions, sentiments or purpose; but it includes also the assuming of a false or counterfeit appearance which conceals the real opinions or purpose. Dissimulation among statesmen is sometimes regarded as a necessary vice, or as no vice at all. Let love be without dissimulation. Romans 12:9. (Webster’s Dictionary of the American Language, 1828)

–=–

Inverse to dissimulation, we find probity:

PROBITYnoun – [Latin probitas, from probo, to prove.] Primarily, tried virtue or integrity, or approved actions; but in general, strict honesty; sincerity; veracity; integrity in principle, or strict conformity of actions to the laws of justice. Probity of mind or principle is best evinced by probity of conduct in social dealings, particularly in adhering to strict integrity in the observance and performance of rights called imperfect, which public laws do not reach and cannot enforce. (Webster’s Dictionary of the American Language, 1828)

–=–

If it is not now plainly obvious, these two terms and their dueling meanings describe polar opposites.

Dissimulation defines a citizen-ship in persona (mask) governed by the state (legal law).

Probity defines a self-governing man under God’s Law, the Law of Nature.

Personhood is bound by strict law of men, having only a legal capacity to act in commerce and society as property of the state, while self-governing men must observe and perform the Highest Law at all times, lest they fall back into that legal matrix.

Of course, dissimulation (person-hood) is absolutely integral pillar for this fictional realm of legalism to exist in its own little world. Just as a cartoon character is a simulation disassociated from the Real World, so too must men be made to disassociate even themselves from what is Real (Truth) so as to be trapped within this legal construct. The law of legal fiction applies only to fictional persons (legally pretended characters), places (jurisdictions), and things (property). None of these are Real…

Dissimulation can also be called as agency.

The major difference between an attorney (assigned agent) and a public citzien-ship (acting agent) is dissimulation. While the attorney is consensually hired in agency, as a temporary agent employed to fulfill and perform certain legal duties in a limited legal contract, the public citizen-ship lives his whole civil life in an agency relationship. The citizen-ship never ceases to be an agent. In his mind he becomes the citizen, unable to distinguish between himself and the fictional character (person-hood) he plays in the legal, commercial realm. Nature and fiction are blurred and thus intermixed in all his dealings. The simulation and the Real are thus indistinguishable. The Truth is blended with the lie, causing the phenomenon of dissimulation. We believe we are legal persons.

We believe we are the mask (persona) instead of the man behind it.

The problem is that the mask (persona) is property (a legal status) of its creator. The mask belongs to government. Government is the lawmaker (god) over its own property. And while no government law (legal fiction) effects any man, its legal law does apply to its property — the legal person-hood (legal mask) worn/carried by the man. Like a puppet, the man is unconsciously drawn around by legal strings he cannot see and thus by laws he needs not morally agree with. For without this fictional connection to the Real man through a simulated character in the legal matrix, without a persona, the man would by necessity either need to be self-governing or be militarily enslaved. Thus, this legal matrix of nations is a sort of middle ground between the two, allowing individual men to choose the method of their enfranchisement in a severely limited way, causally choosing their own use in agency, just like in that computer simulation from The Matrix movies. But then, in that simulation of The Matrix, we find an almost 100% saturation rate of dissimulation — of people believing they are Free in Nature under God while in Reality stuck in an artificial womb they can never break free from.

Silent weapons For Quiet Wars are described in the introduction as “social engineering or the automation of society, i.e. the engineering of a social automation system (silent weapons) on a national or worldwide scale without implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e. slavery and genocide.” It also introduces the modern state of a somewhat permanent continuation of World War III as the “Quiet War,” and that it is currently and indefinitely “being conducted using subjective biological warfare, fought with silent weapons.” This document, dated from 1979, reads:

The Artificial Womb:

From the time a person leaves its mother’s womb, its every effort is directed towards building, maintaining, and withdrawing into artificial wombs, various sorts of substitute protective devices or shells. The objective of these artificial wombs is to provide a stable environment for both stable and unstable activity: to provide shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth, and maturity — i.e. survival; to provide security for freedom and to provide defensive protection for offensive activity. This is equally true of both the general public and the elite. However, there is a definite difference in the way each of these classes go about the solution of problems.

The Political Structure Of A Nation – Dependency:

The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? The public? Or the godfather? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.

–=–

Simulations (politicians) leading the dissimulated (citizenships)…

Welfare as a strategic weapon…

This lies in stark contrast to the Law of Nature, as the Law (Word) of God:

—=—

“…that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine (Law), Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith (Truth): so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith (Truth) unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

—1 Timothy 1: 3-7, KJB

—=—

It is through dissimulation, through the agentic relationship of person-hood, that we have been turned away from our Natural course.

To be clear, let us explore what it is to lie in agency, especially under the tyranny of kings, popes, and the democracies (illiterate mob rule). Remember, while a person (status in society) is a legalistic simulation, believing in the false truth of the simulation and thus becoming one with it is dissimulation.

DUMMYnoun – One who holds legal title for another; a straw man. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

DUMMYadjective – Sham; make-believe; pretended; imitation. As respects basis for predicating liability on parent corporation for acts of subsidiary, “agency,” “adjunct,” “branch,” “instrumentality,” “dummy,” “buffer,” and “toolall mean very much the SAME thing. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

STRAWMAN – 1. A weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted. 2. A person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

STRAWMANA front, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)

STRAWMAN – 1. A fictitious person, especially one that is weak or flawed. 2. A tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it. — Also termed straw-man argument. 3. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible. 4. A person hired to post a worthless bail bond for the release of an accused. Also termed steaminess homo. (Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition)

STRAMINEUS HOMO: “Latin. A man of straw, one of NO SUBSTANCE,
put forward as
BAIL OR SURETY.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

AGENCYA RELATION, created either by EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONTRACT or by law, whereby one party (called the principal or constituent) delegates the transaction of some lawful business or the authority to do certain acts for him or in relation to his rights or property, with more or less discretionary power, to another person (called the agent, attorney, proxy, or delegate) who undertakes to manage the affair and render him an account thereof. The contract of agency may be defined to be a contract by which one of the contracting parties confides the management of some affair, to be transacted on his account, to the other party, who undertakes to do the business and render an account of it. A contract by which one person, with greater or less discretionary power, undertakes to represent another in certain business relations. A relation between two or more persons, by which one party, usually called the agent or attorney, is authorized to do certain acts for, or in relation to (lie rights or property) of the other, who is denominated the principal, constituent, or employer. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition)

–=–

The agency relationship of public US citizenships is simple: The principal (government) creates and employs a citizen-ship status (fictional persona) within its own created jurisdiction (fictional place), by which men (acting agents) use this commercial vessel (property) to conduct business and commerce. Essentially, a citizen is an employee of its employer (principal), and does all actions through that principal and its protections. This is why insurance is mandatory for citizenships (commercial vessels) of the United States, just as auto-insurance is mandatory to rent a car (commercial vehicle). If the agent crashes the car, the principal is responsible for the actions of its agents. Insurance alleviates that commercial burden, and is thus a legal requirement to dis-associate the liability of the principal from its agent, the employer from its employee, the user from its program (see the movie Tron).

To end this particular discourse on the 2nd pillar of fiction, we must address how God (Jehovah) Itself has been driven from our consciousness. It is foolish to argue over the Existence of God (Jehovah), when the very intent and definition of this VERB “Jehovah” is as the Universe, as all of Existence Itself in its infinite entirety. This state of Life in Nature then is the eternity of Being, again used as a verb to mean all of Existence as it stands at this and every moment. God (jehovah), in other words, is all that is Real, all that is not man-made. This is to say that Jehovah (God) is the Source of everything Real that can be simulated and dissimulated from. Jehovah (God) is Truth, thus all lies are dependent upon Reality, without which there would be no Reality (Truth) to lie about, and therefore no reason or source for such simulations. Without Truth there simply is no lie. Without Jehovah there simply is no satan (adversary). Again, this line of reasoning is self-evident.

If simulation is the opposite of Truth, and Jehovah (God) is defined as that which is the very Nature and Source of Truth, then we must recognize that each of us are a part of Jehovah. Without this understanding of the meaning of this word, as the substance of the very Source of Life Itself, and that by our very own Existence we are therefore each an intricate part of that whole of the concept of what is Jehovah (all of Being), we may never overcome that which dissimulates us from our very own Nature and place within It. Without faith (belief) in Jehovah as the only Reality of Truth and Life, we will forever be stuck in a man-made simulation of that which Is Jehovah.

But don’t believe me. Believe the Law as written in the Bible:

–=–

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things

–Acts 17:24-25, KJB

–=–
Jehovah is the air and the water and the land and the stars we so take for granted, as that which gives us life and breath and sustenance to Exist. Religions are a simulation of the Bible, a lie told to dissimulate us from our God (Reality/Nature) and Its Law, from our very Nature of Existence and place within It.
But we must be careful and weary of such a spiritual understanding, for the men that seek to be as replacement gods (magistrates) on Earth and in their own hand-built temples give only artificial, legal life (false existence) to simulated persons (legal statuses), places (legal jurisdictions), and things (legal properties), over which the only means of control is through dissimulation from the One True God (as “Jehovah”). For none of these Exists in Nature (under God), and so none can be governed by the Law of Nature.
In the end, we may understand why it is that we may only have one God, and that we must choose between the God (verb) of Nature (Jehovah) and the god (noun/title) of mammon. And so in Part Three of this essay series, we will examine how the legal fiction of nations would fall under its own weight without the dissimulation created by the god (false existence) of mammon (artificial valuation) and its engrossing, nihilistic, empty tool of money (the currency of time).
Until then, may your gradual awakening from these four pillars of fiction be sufficiently painful and gut-wrenching that your own dis-ease of dis-simulation is cured. And as the legal superstructure falls further into dis-pair and thus dis-repair, dragging along with it all those dissimulated masses of men unable to break from that virtual, simulated copy of reality, may your spiritual awakening be strong enough to match and defend against the adversarial dark awakening happening simultaneously and adversarially to your own. For the darkness of dissimulation is coming online, as artificial intelligence, as an out of control matrix of lies. It is the legal mind unburdened by any higher, moral law, set free to recreate the world as it sees fit.
May your meekness be evident and your will to preserve that which gives us Life be stronger than that dissimulated force that seeks to dispose us of It.
May we find the spiritual path together…
.
Clint > richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Saturday, January 27th, 2018  (AD)
Advertisements

The Word-Smith Fallacy


Quick rant here…

When one hears an excuse enough times, especially one that is blatantly outrageous in its underlying con-text, it sometimes causes one to boil over with the urge to lash out and utterly destroy the character of the one using the excuse.

In this case, having just heard such a term used for the 100th time at least, I’d like instead to practice my repose and dissect the problem calmly and rationally.

It is often the case that people in their discourse and cognitive dissonance use the term “wordsmith” in a dualistic fashion to defend whatever disposition they find themselves in. This term is used as a single phrase that implies a two-fold meaning, one being the defensive notion that “I am not a wordsmith,” while at the same time offensively inferring that “only a wordsmith would say such things.” In other words, the use of this term singlehandedly stops the conversation and thus the furtherance of knowledge sharing, and at the same time belittles the speaker or writer by creating an ad hominem attack on the character of he who studies and attempts to use words correctly. Amazingly, this seems to be a very popular response when the Reality of things, specifically the artful and alternative legal and metaphorical meaning of words of art, is presented and verified by multiple sources.

And so I am creating an new logical fallacy here, by the name of “The Wordsmith fallacy,” though logic and reason are nowhere to be found in its use.

So let me be perfectly clear while at the same time venting a bit of repressed and pent up aggression when I say this:

IF YOU AREN’T A WORDSMITH THEN YOU ARE FUCKING ILLITERATE!!!

There. I said it. Feels surprisingly liberating, really.

—=—

“Am I therefore become your enemy,
because I tell you the TRUTH?”

—Galatians 4:16, KJB

—=—

The synonyms of this term wordsmith are not many, those being “writer” and “author.”

–WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

In its most simplistic definition, we find the following:

1. fluent and prolific writer, especially one who writes professionally.
2. An expert on words.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, 2011, by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

1: a person who works with wordsespecially:  a skillful writer

 –Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, online, 2015 

Controlled by words…

The legislature is the author of law. The court administers that law and writes opinions. The president writes executive orders and presidential directives. The attorneys at bar write everything else, from procedure to rules of evidence to the over 100 Uniform Codes.

Oh, but they are just wordsmiths.

Sure asshole, and their skillful writings, being experts on the terms of art of the legal language just happened to enslave you and your illiterate family and their illiterate forefathers before them for generations.

Yeah, but they’re just wordsmiths!

Right dickweed, that’s the point. Because you are not. Because every contract you sign, every law you are bound in surety to follow, every flattering title you pretend, and every aspect of your life is controlled by their words. Yep, they smithed your person (status), they smithed your license, your social security card, and hell, they are even the smiths of the banking laws, which let’s face it, that number’s game is a whole other language most of us are also quite illiterate at.

Sure, but they are still just wordsmiths.

How fucking long can we play this game? How many times can you play this fallacy? How long can you “stick with stupid?”

Not ironically, there is already a word to describe this fallacious tool of idiocracy that has long been in existence, and of course each word leads to a connect-the-dots story to be told:

WORD-CATCHER – noun – One who CAVILS at words.

CAVIL – verb intransitive – 1. To raise captious and frivolous objections; to find fault without good reason; followed by at. It is better to reason than to cavil2. To advance futile objections, or to frame sophisms, for the sake of victory in an argument verb transitive – To receive or treat with objections. Wilt thou enjoy the good. Then cavil the conditions. – noun – False or frivolous objections; also, A FALLACIOUS KIND OF REASON, bearing some resemblance to truth, ADVANCED FOR THE SAKE OF VICTORY.

CAVILER – noun – One who CAVILS; one who is apt to raise captious objections; a captious disputant.

CAPTIOUS – adjective – 1. Disposed to find fault, or raise objections; APT TO CAVIL, as in popular language, it is said, apt to catch at; as a captious man2. Fitted to catch or ensnare; insidious; as a captious question. 3. Proceeding from a CAVILING DISPOSITION; as a captious objection or criticism.

SOPHISM  noun – [Latin sophisma.] A specious but fallacious argument; asubtilty in reasoning; an argument that is not supported by sound reasoning, or in which the inference is not justly deduced from the premises. When a false argument puts on the appearance of a true one, then it is properly called a sophism or fallacy.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language

So, is it fair to say that using the term wordsmith to escape discourse and ensnare the conversation is but a captious, sophist method of fallacious rhetoric? Or am I being too damned word-smithery for you?

At this point I have figured out the whole game, how everything was stolen from us through attainder and escheat, and how the feudal system is alive and well through contract, for the words of the contract make the law.

Oh, but those are just words, right?

There I go again. Damn wordsmith.

Well, I leave you with this final thought. In overcoming my own arrogance in using the English language in the pointless rhetoric we are bombarded with everyday, I was presented with a piece of information that I could not have imagined to be true, and one I followed to its suprising end. It spawned a whole discourse on the legal language, in the form of my upcomming works, an encyclopedic journey through legalese. And nothing I have ever done has been more enlightening, revealing just how illiterate I was in using the language I learned in public schools; the one given to us to keep us dumb to the designs of those wordsmiths we complain so much about but never learn their art.

And so to be clear, here is what you think you know.

DOG-LATINThe Latin of ILLITERATE PERSONS; Latin WORDS put together on the ENGLISH GRAMMATICAL SYSTEM.

–Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition

You see, my fallaciously caviler detractors, a slave-master never teaches his slaves his mysteries, never revealing the artful law and its structure of words that entangles him in intangible chains. He keeps his slaves illiterate, spiritually and deductively, just as the priest-class has kept the multitude ignorant of its words for many centuries, so that the people may listen to the wordsmiths (priests) rather than read the Source and True meaning of their words.

The lawmakers will never teach the general population that which they seek to control them with, keeping their private language as their secretive terms of art, revealing them only under oath in private associations; conspiratorial combinations of men acting as agents (attorneys), as officers of the court (crown). And guess what, the translators of the Bible too will never re-smith it into anything but dog-Latin, so that despite the fact that there are more Bibles than people on this planet and that they are given away free and can be found available in every hotel room, these wordsmiths of the king ensured that you would never be able to read it’s words in their true intent. For they only teach us dog-Latin. They keep us all public-minded, through public-education, by the vulgar public language, while they privately control the “higher” one to ensure constant confusion. The Bible is written in the king’s language, legalese; as a mostly parabolic metaphor. And the legal fiction is opposed to dog-Latin.

—=—

“All intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to try to think them again.”

—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

—=—

And so, my illiterate compatriots, when you finally figure out that every word you say in dog-Latin carries the opposite meaning of the legal wordsmith in a black robe you are speaking to, perhaps then you will comprehend why you always loose in court. Why you can’t figure out how to exit their system based on their artful words. Why you can’t quite grasp how you are tricked into volunteering to be subject to them. And why you always turn away from perfectly good conversations simply because you can’t speak the language that sounds exactly like your own, public, dumbed down version.

So learn the language or continue to eat shit.

SHYSTERnoun -“unscrupulous lawyer,” 1843, U.S. slang, probably altered from German Scheisser “incompetent worthless person,” from Scheisse “SHIT” (n.), from Old High German skizzan “to defecate” (see shit (verb)).

–Etymonline.com

It’s up to you…

—=—

The roots of language are
irrational and of a magical nature
.” 

—Jorge Luis Borges, Prologue to “El otro, el mismo.”

—=—

“Names are an important key to what a society values. Anthropologists recognize naming as one of the chief methods FOR IMPOSING ORDER ON PERCEPTION.”

—David S. Slawson

—=—

“There exists, for everyone, a sentence – a series of WORDS – that has the power to destroy you. Another sentence exists, another series of WORDS, that could heal you. If you’re lucky you will get the second, but you can be certain of getting the first.”

―Philip K. Dick, quoted from: ‘VALIS’

—=—

“…and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by CRAFT, and put him to death.”

—Mark 14:1, KJB

—=—

“In politics, nothing happens by accident.
If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way.”

—President Franklin D. Roosevelt

—=—

“In doubtful cases, the presumption always is in behalf of the CROWN.”

—Latin Maxim, AMBIGUIS CASIBUS SEMPER PRAESUMITUR PRO REGE. Lofft, Append. 248. (Blacks 4th)

—=—

“The latter part of a wise man’s life is taken up in curing the FOLLIES, PREJUDICES, and FALSE OPINIONS he had CONTRACTED in the former.”

—Jonathan Swift, ‘Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral & Diverting’
—=—

Cure yourself, or stand in painful prejudice and ignorance. But keep your fallacy and false opinions away from me! For your dis-ease is not medical, but contractual. And the only solution is end of contract. No really, the word solution in legalese means only one thingend of contract.

Oh, but that’s just word-smithing again…

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, January 23, 2016

 

 

Advertisements