Compliance & Authority, community and civilization. Part 4 of 4, presented to you by Studio of Endless Ideas, by yours truly 👇

Compliance & Authority, Part 1 of 4, presented to you by Studio of Endless Ideas, by yours truly 👇

Compliance & Authority, health + sovereignty Part 3 of 4, presented to you by Studio of Endless Ideas, by yours truly 👇

👀👇 Learn the difference between legal & lawful because with digital ID and the push for control it matters more than ever. Legal is statutes and codes that bind only the artificial person by consent; lawful is common law that binds living men and women to do no harm, cause no loss, and commit no fraud. Under common law in the UK no man or woman is obliged to comply with a contract they did not consent to; statutes are contracts; Parliament can only bind the legal person, the name in caps; they cannot bind the living man or woman unless you consent, and consent is usually presumed. Common law binds you only to three duties: do no harm, cause no loss, commit no fraud. Nothing about digital IDs. If they try to impose one the remedy is to review jurisdiction: I am a living man or woman, I do not consent to contract, I stand under common law. That forces them to prove you agree. When faced with a demand to register or scan, ask, is this an order or an offer of contract. If it is an order they need lawful authority beyond statute and they do not have it. If it is an offer you can decline. If they drag you into court insist on a jury of your own peers because only a jury of men and women can judge harm, loss, or fraud. Everything else is slavery in disguise. Today in the UK, the US, and across the Commonwealth governments operate almost entirely through statutory codes and administrative courts, and unless you know how to stand and assert otherwise the system proceeds as if you agree, which is why the distinction between legal and lawful feels hidden but remains very much alive. Educate yourself.

Compliance & Authority, bitcoin and freedom Part 2 of 4, presented to you by Studio of Endless Ideas, by yours truly 👇

Make this day a day you are grateful for

Very sad today

Some employers and clients were asking me to get the poison, wear the thing, test myself, and follow the “mandates,” which by the way are unlawful, and I simply responded with common law language, either in person or in letters. They recognized that I knew my rights and accepted it, even saying that they would make an “exception.” The trick is not to fall for fear. When they know that you know the language of common law, they cannot force you, and they allow you to remain “free.” Thus, education in the difference is 🔑.

Bunch of stuff dm me

Society’s Shadow What emerges through Ontology, Empiricism, and Dialogue? A path from projection to logos, from shadow to light. Drops tonite after midnight https://www.monikabravo.blog

Who was the empirical one? Was it Aristotle or Plato?  Plato was ontological and Aristotle was empirical, correct?  Plato is defining how things are constructed and Aristotle is saying hey we have to practice.  …And then comes Socrates and he starts questioning everything and creates dialogue… Plato points to the realm of Forms, εἶδος (eidos) or ἰδέα (idea): eternal structures, kinds, and patterns that shape how things are. Aristotle looks at what you can observe, classify, and practice in the world, grounding knowledge in experience.  Socrates precedes both in method. He asks questions, he unsettles certainty, he insists on dialogue as the way to approach truth. His practice of questioning gave birth to Plato’s philosophy, and from Plato’s teaching, Aristotle’s empirical investigations followed. -|- Isn’t it beautiful to go back to source, to go back to the classics and understand our way of thinking? We have lost that capacity because we are not questioning how things are made. We are not questioning how forms and structures are conformed. And we are not really using the power of observation and correlation to classify them because we are not using our own experience to know. And worst of all, we are not using questioning as a practice to learn more about how this ontology and this empiricism can create a space of curiosity and unfoldment that will lead to a proper dialogue where new things will emerge. And this is where dialogue is born. Dialogue is interested in listening to many views, in understanding many perspectives. So then, the questioner, the one who questions, will have something new that is generated.  So yeah, what are you questioning these days? What is in your empirical mind?