RESURRECTION ! ~ Pt. 1 in a series : Operating as a "living-soul" in the Public with the right to "self - "de"termination"
#24.1 ~ Using "Their" codes and covenants ~ To navigate in "Their" waters ~ By special accommodation ~ With your own Captain; Operating under and by the Authority of you, the resurrected Living-Man!
~ Preamble
Cynthia and I recently attended a conference at Didsbury Alberta, four hours south of us, that was entitled “Basic Human Needs • Food, Health, Freedom”. The event was very well attended by local consumers who were looking to find direct access to farmers and producers for “direct from farm(er)” food supplies. As well, there was a gamut of the freedom minded people looking for both more information on diverse topics, as well as seeking to connect in the interests of community consciousness. What I’m really describing in that last sentence, is that One often feels alone when we wake up to what is really going on in the world, and that this get together provided a touchstone for those looking for community and to see that “I am not crazy, or alone”. As this event was endeavouring to be held in the “Private”, each attendee had to agree to the terms of the event, and were noticed that it was not open to, or in any way, “Public”!
And this is where I was reminded about what I commented on in a recent post “The Road to Perdition”, where I touch on the specifics of Article 18.1 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Relations). What I am on about here, is the meaningfulness of the ability to operate, to create standing, in both the Private and the Public. The organizers of the conference that we attended, were attempting to create “standing” in the Private alone, which all attendees and vendors had to agree to, in order to enter and participate.
There is a word that is tricky to get under your belt: “standing”. Although this word has a simple and literal iteration where it describes the difference between sitting or kneeling, vs. “standing”. Sitting or kneeling being a lower elevation of the self; compared to - standing. Now there are several things that go along with this word and concept that overlap into psychological frameworks, as well as legal determinations: as to whether or not One has “standing”, regarding a matter or question at law? Standing denotes: strength, truth, merit, respect, consideration must be given to, or claim ! So this is a very important word and meaning with regard to all things as they relate to the position of who One is, or is attempting to be seen and regarded as: Citizen, Taxpayer, Driver, Voter, Sovereign, man, Owner, Holder, Slave, Property, Chattel, etc.
~ United Nations ICCPR
Article 18: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
So what is your belief or religion about who you are? What freedom of: thought, conscience, and religion are you practicing and manifesting? One does not have to have the Bible in hand and the ability to recite off verse by verse to define the knowledge and/or possess the right to the standing and claim that: “I am created by The (or at least, a) Creator. I am not created or authorized by a Government, a Corporation, or any entity that is created by Man”. Men create governments. Men Register Corporations. It is not a chicken or egg question! It takes a man, to create a government or corporation. Full stop: So, who or what created this notion that the “Authorities” have any authority at all !?!?
So where does this thing about the “Authorities” come into affect over and above One’s self? It seems that we, each such an One, volunteers to act as or for something that is an other self or identity; as in the NAME, Corporate Fiction. Thus subjugation of One’s standing, our true self, and rights proffered to us from The Creator, transferring One’s authority to the Authorities. (Please, if you are new to my posts or this concept, go back into my previous posts where I clarify the meanings of these words and points). This word - proffered - is the exact description of what is happening; regarding the genesis of One’s standing and determining who One is and by what measure or means does One instantiate this as truth, both in One’s own life as well as out in the world.
proffer ; 1. verb
If you proffer something to someone, you hold it towards them so that they can take it or touch it. (Collins online Dictionary)
One does not have to intentionally and consciously accept , or shoulder, the rights that are proffered to them by Creator. One can subjugate that true self and act as or for the false self (NAME), and bow to the authority of the Authorities: Government, Educators, Health Officials, Religious Gurus, etc.
~ To BE, or NOT — to be ?
I used this little bit of Shakespeare at the end of my second post, “The ART of BE-ing”, to express the concept that a question has been posed, whether such an One is conscious of it or not. That question is one of agency. What does “agency”mean, as I am discussing here? Agency is what such an One possesses; freely given by the supreme power, God Creator, to determine One’s values, directives, intentions, and beliefs; and how to implement One’s self in action in life. That’s a pretty convoluted concept. It is complicated, and most people are never really - consciously aware of their own agency. A simpler way to say it might be to say, that One has the right and ability to “put themselves to”, whatever they wish. It is directly attached to the concept of free will. Now, here’s the rub! One will apply themselves to some order or other, intentionally and consciously, or not. Going a little deeper into the conscious intention thing, we find this word proffer, defined above. It is not a version of or the same at all as the very similar word “offer”. The simple and significant difference is as follows.
~ Proffer vs. Offer
In contract law, which is what all of the statute/code/legal system is based on; in Admiralty, contract and agreement forms the “law”. So when an offer is made to such an One, an answer will be returned no matter what. It is like in Trust Law, “A Trust will never lack for a Trustee, if no Trustee can be found, one will be appointed by the Court” (of whatever jurisdiction the Trust is operating in). It becomes a given, or a must. In Admiralty Law, an offer will receive an acceptance or refusal. I have discussed this at length previously, where if no response is given, it is deemed as acceptance by acquiescence. So if One is wishing to reject or refuse an offer, One must say or perform in such a way as to rebut or reject. Other than a counter offer to negotiate, there are only these two options, acceptance or refusal. And all offers to contract, if made with legal authority, follow this track.
Let’s look at a frequent example: From your Internet Service Provider to your Mortgage Agreement, from time to time, showing up in your email box or actual letter in the post, is a “Terms of Service Agreement”, or “Upcoming changes to Terms of Service”. Without doing anything, without even reading it, without specific rebuttal, the new contract will be in effect on the specified date. Now this seems a little simpler to comprehend, as there was already a previous agreement being altered. So what about a new statute/code/law that the legislative branch cooks up and passes in Government. Maybe something to which you do not agree or even find repugnant. With the status of Citizen and/or person, the agreement has already been made. For more on this refer to my post Terms and Conditions .
On the other hand is something “proffered”. We don’t use this word much, I don’t know if it ever has been used frequently, as it creates a very different relationship between the parties: One proffering, the profferer, and the One being proffered to, the profferee. Unlike Admiralty/contract law, in this case, the profferee must choose to accept or take what has been proffered. If the profferee does nothing, what has been proffered has not been accepted and it remains with the profferer. No action equals rejection or refusal of the proffer, conversely, an offer with no action or response creates, agreement and acceptance. This may just sound like a bunch of word play which all comes to nought!
However! These are the ways of God the Father, and Not God, Satan. In “The Devil’s Concordat”, God is given the right and limitation to proffer, whereas, Satan is given the right and impunity to offer. So how does this manifest?:
All of the current Government and Legal system is based on contract, Admiralty Law. Offers, contracts, and agreements bind all parties to what is within said contracts. Within this system, acceptance by acquiescence is binding. One need not “sign on the dotted line” - with wet blue ink. One can perform, in agreement, which is more binding than any little signature line.
In that Legal system, One is assumed to be acting as or for NAME/Legal Fiction unless that offer has been specifically refused; and/or, the standing of One as acting as or for NAME, has been rebutted or refused. When in any contract, legal agreement, or Court, One is deemed to be on the hook and attached to all binding statute code pertaining to “persons”. The offer of personage has been accepted, by not rebutting or refusing and then further by performance! If this is not clear, review my “You Performance Rule”.
Likewise, each such an One, does not have to choose the Devil, to become attached to him. Either by sins of commission or omission, One has drawn up a promissory note, a debt instrument, that is held by the Devil, the greatest book keeper ever, until payment has been made and the account has been zeroed. Again, all within the “Concordat”. As every man will sin, and then, by not doing anything about that sin by accepting the proffered redemption; ie: doing nothing, One has agreed to that note being held (by Satan), which equals death.
By not choosing God, by action and with conscious intention (performance), One has chosen the Devil. Simply doing nothing or being unaffiliated does not free One’s self from that offer from The Evil One. Further, One might say, “I make statement and claim, that I, “your name here” refuse and reject the offer to be attached to Satan, the Devil, the Prince of Darkness” - and post it at the town square so that all may see. Or even become the most famous blogger in the world with the byline of “How I told Satan to go to Hell”! Satan will quietly snicker at this counter offer, and in fact he would likely accept your counter offer. But: by not choosing God, as he proffers the sacrifice of his Son to us, as payment for those notes — redemption is not received. One must choose to take and accept this proffer of love, grace, redemption and life!
God cannot make One accept what is proffered. As profferer, he holds his hand out to you, but you must take it if you wish to be redeemed. Conversely, those who do anything other than actively choosing what is proffered, remain attached and lawfully adjoined to Satan, with his grubby little paws holding all that paper . . .
~ On to the Public vs. Private question
As stated in Article 18:1 above, One, as in “Everyone …”, has “… right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion …”, in “…public or private…”, with and for “…observance, practice, and teaching.” To whom does this article apply you may ask? To ALL of the PARTIES who have become signatories to it and have ratified it for their GOVERNMENT and all AGENTS and OFFICIALS acting under the authority of said GOVERNMENT. So that means, ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS are required to adhere to and respect this Covenant! All Courts, Police, Health Officials, Mayors, Senators, servers at restaurants, street cleaners, even the plumber who comes to fix your pipes (that is if he is acting as NAME, or other CORPORATE representative. On the other hand, Bob, your neighbour, can come over and unplug your toilet in his private capacity as well, thereby not being held under the authority of Article 18:1 or any other statute code). So, when this “right” is offered to “Everyone”, what does this mean to the men and women who wish to act in the “observance and practice” of One’s belief and conviction, that Creator made me, and I must not comply with any given directive by the “AUTHORITIES” if it is in conflict with those beliefs and convictions? Well now, you people can assemble and conduct yourselves in a way that seems best for you, in the Private and the Public, according to this Covenant.
18:1 is significant, because it specifies and codifies that ALL GOVERNMENTS and COURTS must recognize any “One” which is acting according to their own “thought, conscience, and religion”, and is to be given consideration and recognition — standing — even if One chooses to stand, outside of THEIR Public Corporate Jurisdiction. I imagine this will look a little bit like how a Diplomat is considered. A Diplomat is given a special status, but can still be seen or heard by a Court or Government. Up until this point, any One that I am aware of who stands successfully with the conviction and belief that they are a man, and not a NAME/Corporate Fiction, is bounced out of the jurisdiction or Court and ignored. Almost as if their voice lost all volume and their physical body disappears from the room. This has happened to me. At the time, I was satisfied with the acknowledgment and agreement by the Court that I did not have to stand as NAME for their made up statute/code.
And now, it is time to answer the bullies question: “Oh yeah - and what are you going to do about it”?
~ Let us move from Subjugation to Conjugation
Dancing out of Babylon. I have talked previously about practicing at the barre. In front of the mirror, rehearsing and achieving a “body memory” of what and how One wishes to move in this dance. I have presented a deep dive into what this thing, this anti-Christ beast that is THE CORPORATOCRACY, is, and how it get’s it’s teeth into you. I have presented how to give Notice, and perform as such, “I am NOT a Registered Corporation and I do NOT volunteer to act as or for NAME”. If One is able to accomplish this (along the way I have made many mistakes and had to go back with new experience and knowledge to earn this standing), then One may be set free from this bondage. And now, They try to ignore the man, that is appearing in their jurisdiction, right in front of them. Now, this appearing and standing and jurisdiction, as it pertains to the separation of “man” and “NAME” gets complicated. I will go deeper into this in future, but for now, let us ponder how a Diplomatic Agent, appears or is recognized in a “court of a foreign government”?
Let’s Conjugate.
All from their document and Covenant, the ICCPR. Count: one - two - three, one - two - three …. Get a little rhythm going here. Three quarter time sounds like it might be a waltz this time:
One - Article 1.1
Two - Article 18
Three - Article 16
And again,
One - Article 7
Two - Article 8
Three - Article 11
And so on … Keep counting and moving to the beat.
~ Interpreting the movements
There will be a second part to this post, wherein I will go deeper into the application and meaningfulness of all of these little snippets from the ICCPR. All of the typewritten images above are taken directly from the December 19, 1966 Covenant, presented and signed at the United Nations in New York.
It is clear that the authors of this document knew the exact plan with which they would implement many of the things that have come to pass since ‘66. Everything from pandemics and health becoming an Internationally controlled issue to the use of Emergency and “ordre public” (national security and public order) with the Patriot Act to further the interests of The CORPORATOCRACY/One World Government.
I leave you with this: in every instance where this Covenant uses the words One, Everyone, people, men, women, or man, that is what they are describing: a man, as I say, a such an One. They very smoothly use “his” to refer back to both a “person” or a “man”, depending on the syntax, grammar, and context intentionally confusing the issue. But in no instance when the word “person” is used do they mean a man or woman. As I said, I will break this down further in the next post relating to each Article I have shown above.
In closing, I complete and send this out on Easter Sunday, April 20, 2025. The day celebrating Christ’s resurrection and the concretization of his status as the Redeemer of all Debt Instruments held by Satan. So, if One wishes to accept that proffer from Our Father, that his son, Jesus volunteered to pay the price for any who wish to accept that proffer of life, arising out of his death and resurrection, say yes, reach out, and touch his hand. This thing of finding freedom and taking responsibility for One’s physical life, the man vs. person thing, is co-related to that same freedom and responsibility of bringing One’s spirit to life through choosing Him.
Have it good,
Arlen