Shahid Bolsen delivers an unflinching indictment of American society — from the epidemic of mass shootings and institutional child abuse to celebrity compliance culture and the music industry's financialized mediocrity — arguing that these aren't isolated scandals but symptoms of deep, generational psychological and moral damage.
He traces this back to the country's failed attempts, across centuries, to destroy Islam, and explains why those efforts were always doomed. The talk closes with a direct message: recognizing the dysfunction of a society doesn't make anyone immune to carrying its damage, and the real task is repairing what that culture has done to you, not trying to fix the culture itself.
He traces this back to the country's failed attempts, across centuries, to destroy Islam, and explains why those efforts were always doomed. The talk closes with a direct message: recognizing the dysfunction of a society doesn't make anyone immune to carrying its damage, and the real task is repairing what that culture has done to you, not trying to fix the culture itself.
N.B: Voltman agrees completely and absolutely with this learned and truthful man.
1. MAN
ReplyDelete(A)
MAN — spiritual man. Only men speak of men; the state only recognizes “PERSONS” = dead entities with commercial value to the STATE.
(B)
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), Book I, Chapter I, “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals.” Blackstone describes natural persons as those “the God of nature formed us” and speaks of “particular men, merely as individuals or single persons.” Historical legal bridge: MAN → INDIVIDUAL / SINGLE PERSON → NATURAL PERSON.
2. VESSEL
(A)
MAN → occupies / possesses → VESSEL Christian reference, long understood: a vessel for the spirit/spark from GOD. State defines “vessel” as “Ship means a seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever...” So “ship” is salvaged as an abandoned vessel by the state and the artificial statutory person using assumption and presumption, salvage took place at or around birth with the creation and application of the legal identity via the birth certificate.
(B)
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, s.15(1), definition “vessel”: “vessel has the meaning assigned by the definition ship in Article 1 of the Wreck Removal Convention, but includes non-seagoing vessels.”
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, Schedule 1, Article 1(2), definition “Ship”: “Ship means a seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever...”
3. PERSON
(A)
PERSON → CORPORATION → assumption/presumption of already-abandoned VESSEL/status when birth certificate issued Then into operative maritime framework. There are no natural persons or men and women in Canada. Only assumed ships - vessels claimed by the Crown under - Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, s.32(2).
(B)
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s.35(1), definition “person”: “person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation”.
4. ABANDONMENT / ENTRY / STATUS CHANGE
ReplyDelete(A)
MAN → tacitly applies a legal identity to his offspring → status change occurs → assumed abandonment by the state → VESSEL/status through joinder of the birth certificate and the CAPITAL NAME, which, in the Canadian Style Manual, historically points to a corporation through its capitalization → Interpretation Act, s.35(1): “person” used throughout the statutory system; MAN does not exist in the statutory system.
(B)
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, s.32(2): where the statutory conditions are met, the owner is “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to have abandoned it.”
By tacit agreement through Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s.35(1), definition “person”:
“person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation”.
6. INCLUDES
(A)
Includes → containing / enclosing operation ≠ “in addition to.” Most people believe this word is expansive.
It is not. Look up the Latin root meaning. The state uses this word more than any other to steal your rights.
(B)
Legal-dictionary entry supplied in this research: INCLUDE, Lat. in claudere, “to shut in, keep within”; “To confine within, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.” The entry separately states that including may, according to context, operate as enlargement or specify a particular thing already included within general words. Asserted model applies the containing/enclosing operation.
7. CANADA
(A)
CANADA → Includes → INTERNAL WATERS + TERRITORIAL SEA CANADA = WATER TERRITORY → ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
(B)
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s.35(1), definition “Canada”:
“Canada, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada”.
8. INTERNAL WATERS — PHYSICAL / HISTORIC AND STATUTORY MEANING
(A)
Real physical and historic internal waters = lakes, rivers, brooks, ponds, etc. — accessed by land by people (men, women, and children) and other living creatures, large and small. However, statutory language using “Canada includes” (“includes” limiting) is telling us they interpret no land in Canada, in their “lets pretend world”.
(B)
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s.35(1), definition “internal waters”, para. (a):
INTERNAL WATERS → means → internal waters of Canada determined under the Oceans Act.
Another crazy example:
BC Assessment Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 20
“land” includes
(a) land covered by water,
(b) quarries, and
(c) sand and gravel,
but does not include coal or other minerals;
9. INTERNAL WATERS cont.
ReplyDelete(A)
AIRSPACE ABOVE THOSE WATERS ⊂ INTERNAL WATERS — the statutory term “internal waters” encompasses the airspace above those waters. So, with the use of “includes,” air over Canada (Canada is all water remember, out to the territorial seas), and so the airspace is in admiralty jurisdiction, just like the “waters” below.
(B)
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s.35(1), definition “internal waters”, para. (a): includes the airspace above and the bed and subsoil below those waters.
10. TERRITORIAL SEAS
(A)
TERRITORIAL SEAS → is both land and water and Air too! As the definition of Canada tells us, internal waters are Canada too; so there is no land in Canada.
(B)
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s.35(1), definition “Canada”:
“Canada, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada”.
11. OCEANS ACT REFERENCE
(A)
INTERNAL WATERS OF CANADA → waters landward of territorial-sea baselines.
Interestingly, Land is not defined in Canada so landward has no legal significance.
(B)
Oceans Act, S.C. 1996, c. 31, s.6:
“The internal waters of Canada consist of the waters on the landward side of the baselines of the territorial sea of Canada.”
12. SHIP / SEAGOING VESSEL — ASSUMPTION / PRESUMPTION
(A)
CANADIAN PERSONS → floating on the Canadian WATERS OF ADMIRALTY/COMMERCE → NO LAND → they are SHIPS. Remember — SHIP = “any SEAGOING VESSEL WHATSOEVER”.
There is only water in CANADA! If you are a citizen you are navigating the waters in your SHIP!
(B)
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, s.32(2):
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to have abandoned it.”
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, Schedule 1, Article 1(2), definition “Ship”:
“Ship means a seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever...”
13. OWNER CONSENT
(A)
OWNER CONSENT → on the statutory side, it’s telling us that the conversion of the human vessel — salvage — does not require consent.
(B)
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, s.38(3): authorized person is “not required to obtain the consent of its owner” for the specified registration/licensing.
14. POSSESSION
(A)
ANY PERSON → may be authorized → TAKE POSSESSION. This allows third-party “commercial entities” — banks + insurance + utilities + etc, etc. — to interface with and use the CAPITALIZED PERSON that was salvaged under admiralty by the state.
(B)
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, S.C. 2019, c. 1, s.38(1):
Minister may “authorize any person to take possession” of all or part of the vessel or thing.
A= my interpretation B= statutory language
ReplyDeleteI'm just scratching the surface, but this illustrates how they bend us over and lube us up.
ReplyDelete2. VESSEL(A)
ReplyDeleteMAN → occupies / possesses → VESSEL Christian reference, long understood: a vessel for the spirit/spark from GOD. State defines “vessel” as “Ship means a seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever...” So “ship” is salvaged as an abandoned vessel by the state and the artificial statutory person using assumption and presumption, salvage took place at or around birth with the creation and application of the legal identity via the birth certificate.
I just realized - Article 1 of the Wreck Removal Convention, but includes non-seagoing vessels.” I think this refers to death death, No?
The answers to the Canadian fuckery is in the Canadian Maritime statutes. IMHO
ReplyDelete1 Thessalonians 4:4: "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;"
ReplyDeleteThe Meaning: Paul instructs believers to control their physical bodies and fleshly desires in a holy manner.
2 Corinthians 4:7: "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us."
The Meaning: The "flesh" is a fragile jar of clay holding a divine, spiritual treasure (the Gospel and the Holy Spirit)
In Romans 9, Paul uses the fleshly container metaphor to describe how God sovereignly molds human beings:
Romans 9:21: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
"Romans 9:22: "...endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
"Romans 9:23: "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
2 Timothy 2:21: "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."
The Meaning: A call to cleanse oneself from fleshly or ungodly behavior to become a clean tool for God
1 Peter 3:7: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel..."
The Meaning: In context, "weaker" refers to physical frame and biological vulnerability, treating the wife's physical body/flesh with care.
Simon Smith on September 18, 2026 at 9:14 am
ReplyDeleteOne again wonders where the 9/11 truth movement failed. It’s not from the failure of the leading truthers or even the many of us talking on forums and raising it all with friends, relatives, and within political parties. The failure of nerve is not even among the plebs. How can Orwell’s prolls ever be anything than prolls?
The failure of nerve has been among the nominally educated in middle positions of government, industry, and academia. The failure of nerve has been because career progression has simply been more important than truth. There has been a failure across the world to among millions of greasy pole climbers to state simple truths among colleagues that might collectively have changed things to make the world a better place.
In this way the evil perpetrators “bargain” their continued compact with a world of cowards. On one side of the accounting sheet there are vast profits and misery. On another part of the balance sheet there are millions of mortgages, holidays, and season tickets for this vast world wide army of greasy pole climbing cowards.
This Week in the New Normal – 9/11 Anniversary Edition
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=331189
The USA Inc does a similar thing, Here is an excerpt from web, do your own research!
ReplyDeleteThe entire fraud against the American States and American State Citizens relies upon men wearing many different "hats" at the same time, and exercising those offices—often in direct conflict of interest with each other—at the same time.
It also depends on immense amounts of semantic deceit via the use of similar names.
The United States that Lincoln entered into bankruptcy was not the American nation, or even a union of states. It was a commercial company formed by Ben Franklin in 1754, a privately owned and operated commercial company that received all the juicy governmental services contracts explicitly described as the “nineteen enumerated Powers” delegated to this new company—plus, the responsibility to oversee and manage and protect The United States Trust (1789).
If you look up the original equity contract establishing the “federal” government, you will see that it is called “The Constitution for the united States of America” and that it is a two part document. The first part, the Preamble, is a trust indenture that was later supplemented by the Bill of Rights. The second part is a governmental services contract. The United States (Company) that Franklin started and that Lincoln bankrupted was an odd blend of Trust Management Organization (TMO) and governmental services company.
All successors to that original contract have similarly been charged with the responsibility of protecting the national trust and providing governmental services.
After the Civil War we went through “reconstruction”—also known as bankruptcy reorganization—and a new Trust Management Organization was formed doing business as the United States of America, Incorporated. This entity was chartered by the Roman Catholic Church in Delaware as a religious non-profit organization. It was purchased by the Federal Reserve Banks in 1912, run into the ground, and bankrupt in 1933. This time, the goons operating the “federal” government moved to implement a giant Reverse Trust Scam aimed at the assets of The United States Trust (1789).
ReplyDeleteFDR did this by claiming that the American States and American State Citizens were voluntary “sureties” backing the debts of “the United States of America, Inc.” This gave the European bankers the excuse needed to “hypothecate” maritime liens against the property and assets of the American States and the American State Citizens. Hypothecation is a means of stealthy theft, similar to what happens when you agree to co-sign a car loan. A lien is established against your property, but the lien isn’t exercised as long as the “person” you co-signed for pays his bills on time.
FDR volunteered us to stand good for credit extended to “the United States of America, Inc.” and its “secondaries” in bankruptcy. The process of hypothecation allows the bank to establish a title claim against real property without the necessity of physically obtaining the title, so nobody knew the difference. We were all assumed to agree to this because we didn’t speak up and object, but then, we could hardly object to a contract if we didn’t know that it existed, could we?
In 1944, FDR quit claimed all the assets and liabilities of “the United States of America, Inc.” to the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the UN. The IMF set up yet another Trust Management Company calling itself the UNITED STATES (INC.) to administer the juicy federal service contracts while “the United States of America, Inc.” was in Chapter 11 Reorganization.
ReplyDeleteAs of July 1, 2013, the United States of America, Inc., which was owned and operated by the FEDERAL RESERVE, which in turn was newly chartered under the “United Nations”—a separate independent city state operating on our shores—was released from bankruptcy.
All debts were settled and discharged. This means that the IMF d.b.a. the UNITED STATES can no longer charge us and the several states for government services—quite aside from the fact that it was all fraud to begin with and they never should have "presumed" us to be sureties at all. Now the IMF must get "us" to re-contract with it, while the FEDERAL RESERVE is attempting to assert its prior right to the service contracts.
Central to all this fraud is the process of 're-venuing'—where the lawyers redefine you and your natural estate as "THINGS"—as "legal fiction entities"—to better plunder your assets.
Most recently, you were presumed "dead, missing at sea" and your ESTATE trust (a Roman Inferior Trust) was "removed" to Puerto Rico. These ESTATE trusts, named after living Americans, do business in NAMES styled like, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, and they are all forced to function under the maritime jurisdiction of Puerto Rico—a Commonwealth member of a consortium of "American states" including Guam, American Samoa, the State of New Wew Columbia (DC), and entities more commonly thought of as "federal territories and possessions"—but functioning as a separate nation calling itself "the United States of America" (minor).
You've been presumed to be legally dead all of your life. You've been presumed to be voluntarily employed as a caretaker of your own estate (for free) and a chattel thereof. Thus the rats have contrived to cheat the beneficiaries of The United States Trust (1789) subject to the whims of the "US CONGRESS" and have contrived to beat them out of their natural inheritance and to subject them to peonage and "debt slavery" caused by the enforced use of "notes"—that is, I.O.U's—instead of money.
ReplyDelete"Notes" are not money. Notes are a means of conveying never ceasing debt. This is the scam that has been used to force everyone in America to “accept” worthless paper “in equitable exchange” for real assets.
Now, once again, the same old scam is being set up. The IMF’s franchise d.b.a. UNITED STATES, INC. is being prepared for bankruptcy. Mr. Obama has run its credit beyond the hilt, and just as the Federal Reserve bankrupted “the United States of America, Inc.” in 1933 and pretended that we and our property were all sureties “standing good” for its debts, the IMF will pretend that all the Puerto Rican ESTATE trusts are “legal” assets belonging to it, ready for the picking of its creditor — the “UNITED NATIONS”.
So as the UNITED STATES, INC. prepares to go bankrupt, all your ESTATES are being “redefined” and “revenued” again — this time, you are supposed to be transmitting utilities operating under names styled like this: “JOHN Q. PUBLIC” — owned and operated by the UNITED NATIONS and subject to its “laws” and the whims of its directors.
If you don’t vehemently object, and directly to Secretary General Ki-Ban Moon, and to Pope Francis, and to the US POSTMASTER GENERAL, and put your feet down by the millions, they will get away with this gratuitous fraud against you and your States and your private assets once again.
ReplyDeleteSpread the word and make it count. Stomp on the toes of those pretending to be “your” representatives in the US Congress and tell them that they have done you a gross disservice and breached both trust and contract. Hold them accountable for this mess. HOLD THEM ALL ACCOUNTABLE. Tell them that they have criminally mismanaged the United States Trust (1789) and you will not pay for the fraud practiced against you and will not honor any of the agreements made “in your behalf” by these false representatives since December 31, 1865 — the day that the original Republic ceased to function as a nation.
This situation is nothing less than attempted Identity Theft of an entire nation and its people. It cannot be allowed to stand. Let the world see that we have been overtaken by criminals. Let it be firmly understood that they do NOT represent the American State nor the American State Citizens.
"The failure of nerve has been because career progression has simply been more important than truth."
ReplyDeleteThis is, and has always been, the problem Volt! The quest for a full belly, in scarcity model will almost always compel the scared meat suit with limited spiritual consciousness, to do terrible things to it's fellow man.
INCLUDE and INCLUDING — the lunch-counter test
ReplyDeleteThe lunch counter has a fruit list:
FRUIT INCLUDES: apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, lemons and limes.
That is the defined list called FRUIT.
Today the lunch lady says:
“Fruit, INCLUDING apples and bananas, is available today.”
INCLUDING is working inside the FRUIT list. Apples and bananas were already included; including simply identifies some of the things within it.
A child asks:
“When are you getting star fruit?”
The lunch lady answers:
“Star fruit isn't on our FRUIT list. We never stock it.”
Star fruit may be a fruit in the ordinary world, but it isn't part of the defined FRUIT list at this lunch counter.
So the distinction is:
INCLUDES → establishes what is contained within the defined list.
INCLUDING → identifies things already contained within that list.
If the lunch counter wanted the list to be expressly open-ended, it could say:
“FRUIT includes apples, oranges, bananas, grapes, lemons, limes, AND ANY OTHER FRUIT WHATSOEVER.”
Now the additional words “any other fruit whatsoever” perform the open-ended operation.
The above little example must be understood when you read a statute. I have tested friends and they fail this basic logic and think including is globally expansive . We are almost all products of a shitty public school system. LOL
ReplyDelete