RESURRECTION by De-termination ~ Pt. 2 ; in a series
#24.2 ~ Correcting the Inversion and Conversion, Corporate and otherwise
~ Preamble
It has been several months now since my last post, #24 part 1 in this series on de-terminating. I implore you Dear Reader, to take a few minutes and remind yourself, by re-reading part 1, of the details that are further developed in this second proffering. It is looking like this topic is not going to be summed up in just 2 parts. I endeavour to get part 3 out in a more timely fashion, so that you can connect the dots presented in the different parts more easily. Thank you for your time and consideration.
~ Continuing from my last post …
We, each such an One, have opportunity to learn how to navigate and sail, or perhaps learn a new dance, to interact in the capacity of sovereign with the Corporate, with - or as - an International Agent. In other words, build a way to sever the ties to the corporate fiction, but maintain the benefits One chooses. If — One quashes the following assumption, that: — “I volunteer to act as or for and perform in the duties and agreements attached to NAME, and am therefore under the authority of the Authorities” — then — One can create relationship by acting through another party from outside Their Corporate jurisdiction.
~ Sounds complicated, right?
Let’s break it down
In the game Monopoly, there is the game board, the pieces, the money, the rules, and the players. Only the rules of the game, as outlined in the agreement the players volunteer to follow, control and affect the “law” of the game. Who can do what, when, how, etc. Imagine now if you will: while all the kids are sitting down to play Monopoly in the family room, Mom is making supper in the kitchen. Mom asks to play, where five year old Billy, who knows nothing about such grown up and complicated games as Monopoly, agrees to act as Mom’s agent, so that she, working in the kitchen, can direct Billy to play, in the family room, as she sees fit. How do we do this, in relation to the Corporatocracy? Where One can stand in a different jurisdiction and capacity, and direct an agent as their representative. The kitchen and the family room are different jurisdictions; inter-national. The rules and way of the kitchen are not the same as the family room. Mom is the sovereign of the kitchen, the supreme leader who controls this space and operation as she wishes, in her kitchen, she is the sovereign Queen. The game board is yet another nation/jurisdiction with its own set of rules and rights. So Billy becomes her diplomat to interact “at the court of a foreign government”, the game board is that “court”. Mom never steps foot on the Monopoly gameboard, she never touches a piece or holds the money, but her wishes and directives are being carried out by her agent. ( A slightly coloured version of this same relationship of “agent - in relation to - principal”; “Billy - in relation to - Mom”; is when a lawyer re - presents you in court. The lawyer can answer as or for you. )
If you don’t already know, that the CIA weaponized the term “conspiracy theory” in answer to any alternate viewpoint of the JFK assassination, and you are reading this post, I would be very surprised. It is not a surprise to me, that this weaponization of terms, executed by media and government, has been used to quell quite a number of little tidbits revealing what is actually the truth. The most recent Covid 19 hysteria, with the made up notion that, “They”, the Authorities, can say whatever They want, and it must be deemed “truth”. And that, anyone who raises questions or disagrees, and God forbid, tells anyone else about it, can be designated as, and perhaps charged with the crime of, misinformation. The word “science”, shifted from describing something where rigour was required in the pursuit of facts, to becoming whatever Anthony Fauci, Teresa Tam, or Bill Gates simply said in a press conference, and anyone disagreeing with those statements was called or attached to some kind of conspiracy. The vilification of anyone who strayed from the official narrative was the weapon. So too, it is with the word sovereign. Back in the 90s and early aughts, the widespread incrimination of those that were attempting to free themselves from the Corporatocracy, were so attacked and the word “sovereign” was weaponized. Particularly with the impossibility of connecting two disparate words, sovereign and citizen, to lambaste anyone who attempted to stand, as a man, outside Their Corporate jurisdiction. Sovereign is the exact word to describe what One is, or at least can be; and the ICCPR together with Human Rights Declarations, Criminal Codes, Bills of Rights, etc. lays down how anyone can resurrect that status of true sovereign, and, should they so choose, act within Their Corporate jurisdiction via an agent.
All of those documents, codes, covenants, declarations, etc.; that have been drafted and ratified are the rules on the gameboard within this jurisdiction; that of the Corporatocracy. Everyone that I know, is playing in this game and moving pieces around the board, using the funny money, and following the rules as outlined by those codes and covenants. With some consciousness raising, education, and due diligence, One has the ability, which is what I am working on, to extract One’s self out of that jurisdiction. When I am behind the wheel of the contraption that is most often called a motor vehicle, on the highway motivating myself along with the go pedal and some diesel fuel (commonly called driving) on the way into the town known as Athabasca. I will go into a store (place of commerce) where I interact with others and exchange the funny money for groceries or supplies, what have you. I have been able to establish, that whilst traveling, I am not in Canada or Alberta. I have established with the CRA (IRS) that my goings on and exchanges are outside of Their jurisdiction. On our farm, I even go so far as to mix up animal feed, which the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, believes should put me into Their jurisdiction and under Their authority, at least if I “sell” it to someone else. Here is a question for you Dear Reader: if I travel over to South Africa, to visit a subscriber, taking my Canadian Dollars, and while going to a market in Bhisho, a vendor accepts my "CDN funny money” in exchange for a hat; has a taxable event taken place? Now, for the vendor, she may be acting fully within the jurisdiction of Eastern Cape and South Africa and file that sale as income at the current exchange rate, CDN to Rand, that is entirely up to her. Did I engage in anything to do with the CRA, because I used Their funny money? As I have the awareness that I can act outside of Their, either Canada’s or South Africa’s, jurisdiction; and that, I am standing acting as a child of The Father, and that I act with full sovereign authority over myself (not as or for NAME), and also that I can hold either of the Governments and Courts to the account of the ICCPR and other codes — then — I can choose to remain in neither jurisdiction and thereby not engage in any taxable event as it pertains to me. All this, just to get a new hat!!
They will assume that all of these actions or actors and any and all exchanges are within Their jurisdiction and must submit to Their authority ~ unless or until ~ One has rebutted this assumption by thought, word, and deed.
NAME must submit, TAXPAYER must submit, MISTER must submit, Tax ID # must submit, Registered Corporation must submit, CANADA must submit, ALBERTA must submit, and CITIZEN must submit. All of the above named parties are on the gameboard of CORPORATOCRACY; titled registered entities, acting as or performing for, CORPORATIONS.
~ More on Hats
More questions: is it possible for me to own more than one hat? Can I take one off and exchange it for another? Can I play a little trick and wear more than one hat at a time? If hats signified a “position” or “status”, could I take off my status/hat of CITIZEN? Could I travel down the road in my contraption as “sovereign without hat”, as who I am and what God made me to be requires no status or position? And then, agree to engage in commercial trade, get up onto the gameboard Corporatocracy putting on a hat of Driver (for hire), and in so doing, agree to flip out a license if stopped by the Authorities; and then after my work is done, remove the Driver’s hat and jump back into my private contraption as sovereign once again? The most significant part of the above list of queries is, who decides which hat you are putting on or wearing at any given moment? Does someone else have authority to tell you which hat you must wear? Or if you MUST wear one at all?
So in answer to the question of who determines which hat you wear, or if you wear one at all, according to the ICCPR - rules of the game Corporatocracy, “1.1. All peoples have the right of self - determination …” You my Dear Reader, are the only one who decides which hat you put on your head. You are THE GOVERNMENT in this case, governor of your mental and political status and condition.
~ Resurrection DIY
The life, death, and renascence, of not only the man, but also the spirit, is a process as I mentioned above, of thought, word, and deed. Jesus taught us, that until One comes to The Father, through him, that One is dead. The walking dead. That is the spiritual side of the coin. Renascence, “be born again”, is accomplished by One’s self, no One else can do it for you. Choosing God and accepting The Lamb of God’s sacrifice for your sin, wipes the debt (death) and brings you back to life ( a second or new birth ). God has proffered his gift of redemption to you, but you only get it by accepting and taking it. The ICCPR in Article 1.1 expresses that same concept, that all peoples freely determine their political status. No one else can do this for you either. You determine your political status. Self-determination is the means by which One resurrects their self politically. You de - terminate. One can choose to not terminate! This is the first Article and point of the ICCPR, top of the list. Scroll up and read 1.1 again. And then again. And continue until you internalize it. It lays the ground work for everything else that follows. If One does not choose, to de - terminate (double negative creates a positive) then they have agreed that they are dead, terminated; their will has been subjugated to the rule and code of the dead, the Corporate, placing One’s self as the walking dead legal fiction, person, Citizen. This justifies Their assumption of you being in the Corporate jurisdiction. Like choosing The Father, One must choose and act, politically speaking as well. A non choice, in either case, brings death.
I wish to be crystal about this spiritual re-birth thing. It is not possible for me to redeem myself. There is nothing that I can ever do, to wipe the slate, to be worthy of the love and grace that abounds, or the forgiveness that The Father proffers. It is only, by the blood sacrifice of His Son, our Redeemer, that I can be cleansed and brought back to life. However; it is completely a DIY situation. The choice to accept, to take what has been proffered, is ONLY on me! I must stand in the defendant’s box, guilty as charged, the sinner, and choose to accept and take what He has presented to me, redemption and renascence.
~ Satan offers and God proffers
The minds behind this document, the ICCPR, knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted it. I discussed in my previous post that acquiescence, no response, forms agreement to an offer. And that no response to a proffer is deemed refusal, the exact opposite situation. Think back to my reference of a “terms of service” agreement, wherein doing nothing establishes agreement. The way in which Article 1.1 is drafted has put each such an One in the position, that, “self - determination” means that One must act to express or manifest their “political status” . Which then means, One’s status, of Corporate Citizen/NAME can be assumed by Authorities, unless One actively rebuts or refuses the offer.
Cynthia keeps on me, that I need to simplify some of the concepts that I am putting forward. We don’t talk in these terms in “normal” life and it is difficult to mold our brains and consciousness to assimilate new terms and concepts. This one in Article 1.1 can be simplified to this: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then politically speaking; it is a duck. If we open a bank account, carry a driver’s license, sign up to vote and participate in the Corporatocracy, then One is a Corporate fiction/NAME.
Do you see what They have done here? By phrasing it as “ …one shall have the right to recognition …”, without rebuttal or disagreement One is performing with the political status of “… a person before the law”. Article 16 clarifies and cements the established agreement which is the setup of Article 1.1 . Without any rebuttal or refusal to the offer made within the whole of the ICCPR, One can rightfully be assumed to be in acceptance of the offer, no response required, and therefore have accepted and are acting with “… recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. Further, with the way that statute code and other similar documents are drawn, authority is not held by the person, but by the Authorities. The person is placed as a subject and bondservant to whatever Authority is up the chain in the Corporate hierarchy, completely inverting and converting the original status of the true self; that of Child of God, inheritor of His whole Kingdom!
~ What comes before an offer ?
~ A proffer!
Used in Latin and Greek, the prefix “pro” means: in front of, sooner, beforehand, in advance of. God’s proffer is first, and when One does not accept and take it, then, by default, One get’s the offer from Not God, which will stand as agreement, whether One actively and knowingly agrees, or not. Another component of The Devil’s Concordat.
This is the story that I am telling here: where ICCPR Article 1.1 is in perfect alignment with what is happening spiritually in this realm. Commerce - and commerce of the soul, are walking the exact same walk. A proffer is given. One must act to accept. In 1.1, your political status is brought to life by you, by your thought, word, and deed. If you do not choose to possess and act in your capacity of sovereign, then you are relegated to the subjugation of the Corporate. Giving you the status of the dead corporate fiction, without internal authority and consciousness. Likewise, God proffers renascence to you, if you do not actively, with intent, choose to come to him, by and through His Son, Jesus the Christ, then by default, you will be in Satan’s possession, held by your own determination.
To be continued …
~ Postamble
There are so many ideas coagulating in the above post. If you have not comprehended the complex relationships that create the assumption and agreements I have referenced, please review earlier posts. I am more than happy to answer or expand on any points of confusion or errors I have made in my best efforts to lay it down clearly. This is really hard stuff. It’s hard to think about, and hard to ingest with a lifetime’s programming and assumptions that make it seem unreal. Like in the image directly above, the delineation line is very clear to see, it is the shoreline, where it switches from real to reflection: from land to sea. Finding that delineation line in the world of: legal, lawful, truth, manipulation, goodness, living, dead, etc. takes time and consideration. Your true self exists, God made it. Take care of it and He will take care of you.
Have it good,
Arlen