18 November 2013
CM: Ready to take up the cudgels?
CM: Oh good! Let's go then...
Firstly: to all my devoted Ones. You are the reason for our flurry of preparation we are now in. If you could see the activity now underway in honour of you all, you would be as excited as we are.
But that is just an aside.
What I would like to inform you all of is the series of events to unfold dramatically now in your Reality. For some, as you've already heard - this will be awesome, breathtaking and beyond belief in the most positive sense of these words.
For others: the experience won't be nearly as good or pleasing. But these are the choices that have been made and are just now to begin manifesting.
My beloved children: You ARE to know the glories of multidimensionality on your plane and within your minds and hearts. This phase of the unfolding revelations has long been awaited and prepared for you all who are joining forces with my Legions of the Light.
There are some points you would do well to remember that I'd like to impress upon you this day.
Do make sure you include as part of your daily practices, some form of protection that acts as a personal shield when you go out (into the ‘battlefield' of the world). It is and will continue to be important to keep yourself ‘clean' that the Light of your very being may continue to flow unhindered through you.
There is to be no more nonsensical leverage given to the Dark ones - their time is up! Their core group still hasn't yet accepted this, but this is their personal struggle and has no place in your future journey. When all is said and done, they have been given ample opportunity to rethink their own strategies. And have refused to do so over and over again.
But more importantly, the chaotic Grand Finale will push final choices upon people-and especially those who have refused to choose, up until this point.
Indeed it is to be a most grand turning point. One which has been devised as the most accessible means to both recognizing the Games played on earth for all this time and to begin re-connecting with the God within in more authentic fashion. And we see much being achieved in a very concentrated period of your time.
Glory be to the One Father that has and is making all this possible. It is and has been a truly stupendous bit of planning. Particularly given the constant changes within the larger plan. Now we are to know no more delays.
Let the Light and mine Shining Warriors stand forth as mine channels of my Light. And know that nothing further is to be tolerated.
We ARE now to override all time-delaying tactics and everything else that has produced delays. The Mother (Earth) is to wait no more. IT IS TIME!
Selah. So Be It.
I AM your beloved and most loving Creator Son
Christ Michael Aton of Nebadon
Over and out...
Friday, November 22, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Hello To One and All!
While we're on the subject of prevalent memes such as racism and the forces pulling the strings behind them, we can't ignore the concept of slavery. Racism and slavery fit together like a hand to a glove. Yet, it's not the perceived victim alone that is a slave, but as much the perceived perpetrator. In fact, those who believe they are the free-est (due to having been born/living in a particular country) are often the most enslaved. And in the contect of having a Birth Certificate...we are ALL documented slaves already!
August 3, 2013
by Wade Venden
It’s one of those things that most of us never think about.
“What is a Birth Certificate for, anyway?”
We just accept it unconditionally, without ever questioning. It sounds “official,” so we leave it to the officials. That’s their business, not ours, and American Idol is starting, anyway. We’d rather not bother our pretty little minds with it (emphasis on “little”).
If a child asks a parent this question, the parent would probably answer “It’s so the government is notified of your birth.” Or, so that the birth is official. Funny how important it is to the government that everything be “official.”
But why does a birth need to be documented? God knows you were born – after all, it was he who put you here! Why does the State need to know this? Maybe, just maybe, it’s because they think they are God.
A parent might respond, if pressed, “Oh, it’s so they can enter you into the System.”
Yes – it is for that reason. To be “in the System” is to be a subject of it as well. It comes with certain privileges, but also carries with it its own liabilities. It’s those liabilities they never tell you about, meanwhile they broadcast all of the so-called “privileges” 24/7.
In fact, it goes much farther than that: you are never informed that there is any alternative at all to being in the System. You’ve never been informed that you have the choice to opt out.
No matter – remaining silent in a business contract is synonymous with granting consent, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, and since the System operates under Uniform Commercial Code (commercial law), remaining silent = tacit consent. It doesn’t matter that little baby can’t understand abstract thought or even speak yet, we’ll take his silence on the matter as authorized consent to the terms of the contract being offered by the State through means of the Birth Certificate. The signature of the parents only serves to further sanction the deal.
So, now that the Birth Certificate is signed and the deal complete, little baby can now be officially entered into the System.
Where does little baby reside during his first hours on the planet? Why, in the Maternity Ward, of course. To understand the import of this, you have to understand the legal definition of Ward:
They did WHAT??
They did WHAT??
When that Birth Certificate is signed and the contract made, that baby becomes a Ward of the State. Indefinitely. Even if you’re 60 years old and the president of your own company, in the eyes of the State, you are an infant, and they are legally entitled to make all judgements concerning your person and property, because as a Ward, your person and property belongs to them. Like it or not, this is the truth of how the System operates. Your development is arrested at the point of infancy, and you never get to grow up and inherit the freedoms and responsibilities of a Sovereign adult human being. Not unless you wake up and reclaim those God-given rights. It’s about Free Will, and that was granted to you by God.
The Birth Certificate signifies you as a non-living, fictional entity, and shows this by spelling your name in ALL-CAPS. Corporation names are spelled this way. So are the names of dead people on gravestones. So too the names that appear on driver’s licenses, auto registration and title, land titles, marriage licenses, tax forms, and also on all court documents.
Detecting a pattern yet?
A living, breathing human being signs their name with capital and lowercase letters. The State sees you as a fictional non-entity – the Ward of the State. They see you as an infant, and you better believe they treat you as such.
As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to “volunteer” himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created. – abodia.com
It is said to have started when the U.S. Government defaulted in 1933. Out of options and with no collateral to secure a loan with, the Federal Reserve saw its chance and pounced.
They suggested a plan so sinister that only a banker’s mind could have devised it. They suggested that the future citizens of the country (and the earnings derived from their labors) could be pledged by the government as collateral for the loan. And the means of securing that pledge was to be the Birth Certificate.
A Birth Certificate is a financial instrument known as a security. Because it is an instrument of value, it gets passed onto the Treasury and eventually winds up being traded on the stock market. It’s really no different than a Stock Certificate, Gold Certificate, or Silver Certificate. They all represent items of value – property, in other words. It’s an “account” opened with a Birth Certificate, and closed with a Death Certificate – a property that has been liquidated.
So, you and I, we are property, owned by the Federal Reserve. How does that sit with you? For me, I can honestly say it sits about as well as a truck driver with a raging case of hemorrhoids. But there is some light at the end of this dark, depressing tunnel.
The Good News
Yes, right now you may be a slave, but a slave you needn’t remain if you don’t choose to. Like I said before, it’s true that there are certain privileges that go along with being a Ward of the State. If that works for you, then change nothing. For those it doesn’t work for, read on.
I’ve understood for quite awhile that the forces that shape our physical reality are spiritual forces. God is real, and what he ordains will come to pass. Given that, if God grants you Free Will, then what power in the Universe could ever prevent or usurp that? The honest answer is – NONE!
And that is how you exercise your Sovereign Free Will – exactly with that kind of authority. Sovereignty is not granted by anyone on this earth because it can only be given by God, and what is given by God cannot be taken away. It must be claimed on earth, claimed with conviction! They will try to trick, confuse, and deceive you into giving your Sovereignty away, but they cannot ever legally take it away. They must have your permission.
You might be a Sovereign if:
You chafe at being told that you must wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle, even though you are the only one at risk for riding without one.
You bristle at the thought that the State, if they claimed any reason deemed acceptable by them, could come and take away one or more of your children into custody.
It vexes you that every time you go to court to contest a ticket, you end up paying it anyway.
It bothers you that you not only have to register your guns, but now they are bending over backwards trying to take them all away.
You resent having to apply for a license to drive, when the constitution guarantees you the right to travel.
You dislike having to apply for a license to be married, when God is more than happy to witness and authorize that marriage and give it all his blessings.
You cringe when you realize that upwards of 25% of your yearly earnings now go to income tax, a tax that didn’t even exist until 1913, then reinforced in 1942, sold to help with the War effort and promised to include a sunset clause, which of course was summarily ignored later.
You become angry that cops try every trick in the book to “upgrade” any minor violation into a major offense, and act as money collecting agents, not “keepers of the peace.”
You’re sick and tired of being treated like a child that can’t choose anything for himself, but instead must be told what to do in every circumstance.
If any of those things resonate with you than you just might be a candidate for becoming Sovereign.
Now, of course the PTB are going to demonize this concept – slavery is a huge, huge, HUGE revenue source for them. Have you noticed that there are always more codes, rules, and regulations on the books, never less? The more potential offenses there are, the more the money comes streaming in. The PTB don’t want that gravy train to ever dry up, and they will fight tooth and nail to retain it. Don’t let them – they have no right to the fruits of your labor, nor do they have any claim upon your freedom. You just need to stand up and claim it for yourself:
Where you STAND is where you make your lawful truthful claims, in a courtroom ON the public record, with witnesses to your claim. There is NO HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN CREATOR. Our Freedom is our Inheritance, Birthright of Freeborn Natural People [not corporate fictions]. It is up to US to stop compromising our birthright and posterity. It is called STANDING. – Trent Goodbaudy, Freedom from Governement
Amen, Trent. It’s called STANDING, as opposed to KNEELING, which is what most of us do before Judges. Well, at least for me, no more of that bullcrap!
I truly believe that it was designed this way for a purpose. As grim as the current situation might look for the wakeful among us, I have faith in the fact that it all is designed perfectly according to God’s Will. Yes, he granted us all Free Will, but in our world it has become hidden from us, hidden so that we first need to wake up, realize what’s going on, then decide what we will do next. If we want Free Will, we have to exercise Free Will. In truth, it’s beautifully constructed.
I believe that God designed our world precisely like this because he wants us to wake up, to reclaim the promise of his gift to us, to reclaim our birthright from the enemies that have concealed it from us. There’s a wondrous victory in that, and I cannot imagine anything more honorable than STANDING before our accusers and reclaiming our God-given Sovereignty. Remain kneeling, or stand. It’s your choice.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
This is Gillian Schutte's response to her huge response on the above Dear White People piece...
Note that it is an intellectually-analysed piece written to reflect what Gillian perceives as going on behind the defensive walls of those who've created these structures.
Ex SA Defence Force members she refers to who tried to intimidate her usually equate to our SA shadow government's shills and trolls coming in for the kill! I got myself one of these temporarily after I made just one or two supportive comment about Julius Malema. He's SA Whites' most hated Black man. Because, like Gillian, the ex ANC politician is a truth-talker who reflects the deeper reality in so doing.
Gillian shows here just how rare and how unpopular it is for a White person in this country to dare to hold such views...
Dear White People: Theoretical wars and podium envy
16 Jan 2013 16:31 Gillian Schutte
The debate that flourished around the "Dear White People" letter became a war of armchair theories and personal vendettas, writes Gillian Schutte.
While it was to be expected that the right-wingers would rail loudly against the content of my letter Dear White People - what surprised me most was the similarity of interpretation and vitriol from many social commentators. Besides the voices of Jackie Shandu, Malaika Wa Azania, Sipho Singiswa, Koketso Moeti and Sekoetlane Jacob Phamodi – who all tackled the topic from a space of poignancy, rigorous race theory or political analysis – the debate that flourished around this letter largely became a war of armchair theories and personal vendettas reminiscent of turf wars amongst hotdog vendors in London.
Read Schutte's original post, Dear White People, here.
Someone suggested that there is only space for about 10 social commentators in our parochial society – mostly white men – but mostly men. A woman, white or not, was going to be treated to a vicious and territorial attack of patriarchal gatekeeping in the hopes of intimidating, admonishing, shaming and even threatening her into submission. And the barrage of dissent that I received in response to my letter came from both the usual haters and social commentators alike.
The white supremacists did their customary victimised blaming and toxic name-calling. They put up blogs and websites with pictures of a white woman's cadaver hanging and beaten with my name beneath it. I received an onslaught of Facebook friend requests with photos of middle-aged white ex South African National Defence Force men with the words "armed and dangerous" written beneath. Website commentary in the US and South Africa referred to me as a "white bitch, evil dyke, whore, black-loving-witch who should be shot or burnt or drowned". I spent a week reporting them all to various agencies and the police – annoying to say the least.
It sent a deep chill down my spine though. But even deeper was the sadness that this is what we are up against – an obdurate wall of hate, fear, patriarchy and supremacy. How does one take that apart?
In between this were the less threatening responses from white liberals, who wrote endless commentary about the "tone" of the letter. They mostly said that while they agreed with much of what I said they could not come to terms with the "preachy", "shrill" and "belligerent" tone of the message. I had to laugh mirthlessly at this because it was a letter written spontaneously in response to the endless noxious and "belligerent" hatred spewed forth by white right-wingers. It was also penned in response to the gatekeepers of the white liberal social commentary bastion – which is saturated with common sense and feel-good "belligerent" superiority. It makes my skin crawl to read this stuff, mostly from white male commentators – steeped in their own unacknowledged and invisible privilege and legitimising their own narrow thoughts while speaking down to every one else's and rendering them illegitimate as if they are the only rational beings to grace this planet.
Columnist Max du Preez exemplified this when he complained bitterly about me in a Facebook status: "A few days ago, one Gillian Schutte wrote a piece headed Dear White People that elicited quite a number of comments. I read it and didn't fundamentally differ from the basic premise, but I found it sanctimonious, condescending, even evangelical and, frankly, so 1990s. I tweeted: "Dear whites, dear blacks, dear coloureds, dear Indians – who appointed you to decide what other people should think?"
Then came constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos's comment: "Goodness knows, we need to talk about race more often, more honestly and with more self criticism. But when somebody like Gillian Schutte essentialness [essentialises] race – as if these concepts are natural and uncomplicated – while railing against racism and displaying a complete absence of wit, irony, self-criticism and humility, it turns me off, even as I agree with much of what she has to say."
Emma Huismans's response to this filled me with glee as it encapsulated my stance perfectly.
"It is STYLE Pierre de Vos, yes, very uncomfortable, very much what we are not used to..aggravating even – but still true. It makes me itch even cough but it makes me think twice . thrice for that matter .. Then I also recall the more comfortable, easier digestible pieces on the same or similar topics by leading opinion makers like yourself and Max du Preez [for whom both I have respect and regularly read] and the fact that they comfort me [or my conscience rather] make me feel better, make me feel right. But it doesn't shake me. It doesn't really make me sit up straight, doesn't make think outside my rather [often] self-righteous group of white thinkers, be-righters, do-righters even as ex-struggler. I had no idea who Gillian Schutte was when I read the letter [spending so much time outside] so I read it uncontaminated – in a changing world [Europe] where mincing with nice style words is beginning to b, seen as untrustworthy and political misleading. Her letter, despite the swaggering at times [which is like it or not part of the South-African "volksstyl"] hit the spot, my head and stomach at the same time ... I am an ordinary person, just "gewoon" love the country and its people sort, not a fluent writer, debater or intellectual – the stuff the majority of the people of South Africa are made up of. But I know for myself that discomfort and unease about what I read and hear is always more effective in changing my way of thinking and acting – than well chosen stylish words that comfort that which I already think and believe. Schutte is a kick in the pants with which we all can do at times. Stylish, swaggering, irritating or not. That letter worked it stirred the holier than though, self-proclaimed non-racist part in the progressive mind."
Following suit came the afro pessimist critique led by Andile Mngxitama – who was alarmed by the huge and largely positive response the letter received from many people of colour which manifested as a collective and celebratory "Hoorah – at last someone from within whiteness has seen and challenged and shouted at whiteness from the inside."
By the time the letter had received over 40 000 hits this self-styled "revolutionary" was beside himself with podium envy. He quickly drew forth his favourite academic paper and stitched together a response with a colleague, which applies a theoretical framework that is relevant to the US onto the South African situation. He then reduces this to an insistence that I was speaking on behalf of blackness so that I could feel like a "good white" and "live happily with my black husband and mixed child" without ever having to deal with my inherent privilege, of which I was "unaware".
Unlike Jackie Shandu's premise of the problem of why a white voice was saying these things about itself when black voices could and should be saying this to whiteness too, Mngxitama launches into a personal attack and tries to disguise this with some theory. In Shandu's well-written article the critique lay in the fact that my white voice was being heard whilst many black voices may have been overlooked on the same topic. The message was that this white voice must not be held up as "heroic" for voicing problems that blackness resonated with, rather the black collective must rise and take the podiums and demand that their voices are heard. The warning was not be passive because a white person had voiced some issues that resonated.
I mostly agreed with the points raised by Shandu, though I think that he took it upon himself to think on behalf of the people he was addressing… and when I penned the letter it was not with the hopes of becoming "a national hero", if that is what he was inferring. I was speaking to white people as a white person and not on behalf of black people or as their mouthpiece. So Mngxitama's insistence that I was speaking on behalf of blackness so that I could feel "better than other whites" was a vindictive personal attack that was totally off point, especially given our long history of meeting each other and working in the field of social justice and human rights.
Unlike Shandu, who drew from Steve Biko's teachings that white people must speak to their own to challenge them to unlearn whiteness – Mngxitama insists that white folk (barring David Bullard and JM Coetzee, seemingly) must not speak at all – to either black folk or white folk. Rather they must leave the country and begin from scratch like dogs. That level of anger is understandable in relation to the construct of whiteness – especially when rubbing up against those who show no willingness or capacity to grapple with their white superiority and walk a hate-filled racist ideology in their day-to-day lives. I have seen it play out in our biracial family's interaction with the world and though I am not often the recipient of it – the level of anger it brings out in me is already a force to be reckoned with. This is how occurrences such as letter writing happen, to the wrath of white folk who are, for the most part, very comfortable under their invisible cloak of privilege.
Could it be that unlike Mngxitama's assertion that this act of "white waywardness" further entrenches white privilege, it in fact does the opposite? Whiteness has not recently become so outraged on such a massive scale by one of their own. As one commentator suggested: "Schutte's letter to white people has been the most successful act of civil disobedience from a white person since God knows when. It had the same ripple effect as a well-executed political stunt. It did nothing to re inscribe the comfort of whiteness, both liberal and supremacist. Rather it destabilised the notion of certainty on all levels of whiteness ideology. It has done the exact opposite of what many other white South African writers on racism have always done – which is to make white people feel at ease in their status quo. Rather it shook the very roots of this assumption. This is what her dissenters have failed to grasp."
But it was when Mngxitama got personal and in fact began to fabricate lies in order to make sure that my voice was discredited – obliterated even – that he discredited himself too.
In the letter I tell those white people to get over their irrational fear that every black person is out to massacre them in a wholesale bloodbath. I then point out, with much sarcasm, that the system is designed for this not to happen. It is a system that relies on the middleclass as a buffer zone between the poor and the corporate and political elite. This is a clear critique of neoliberalism. It is a statement that reminds white folk, many of whom see themselves as the victims of this country – that they are still the privileged and it is the poor who remain the victims – not only of our post 1994 macro economic policy but also of a 400-year history of colonial subjugation and theft of livelihood.
This was in no way telling whites to relax and get complacent about their privilege. It sought to remind them that they need to get their hands dirty precisely because they are still the wealthy class and the poor are still the poor. It is a stark reminder that poverty is directly linked to their privilege and that this status quo is not acceptable.
I do understand though, that in the war of race theories and ideology, afro pessimism has no choice but to be critical of white voice. But to invent untruths to push your own personal agenda and love of the podium is immature, non-critical and defeatist.
In this framework, I have been set-up mockingly as a "good white"' apparently because my existence relies solely on a "bit of black approval". But in the liberal and supremacist framework I am clearly a "bad white". I have rebelled against my own to the ire of whiteness across the board, save for the white radical thinkers, mostly deconstructionists, feminists, social justice and anti-racism activists themselves.
In between all of these accusations I choose to remain steadfast in my own socialist-orientated ideology and poststructuralist feminism framework and I will continue to rail against a neocolonial system that privileges one race or gender over another.
In this framework it is clear that to be a social justice and human rights activist one cannot ignore white supremacy – just as one cannot miraculously transcend the issue of whiteness whilst fighting the root causes of poverty.
As a feminist one has to consistently deconstruct all forms of patriarchy – and the Western phallocratic status quo is central to this struggle. It is this phallocentricism that places the white male logic as supreme to all linguistic and economic power systems, and as such violates anything that does not serve this alter. It is this that I seek to deconstruct. I fail to see how one can rail against one "othering" and yet not all "otherings". It is my responsibility to understand this and speak against the system from within.
One can only deconstruct a paradigm that is your "birthright" by deep reflection as well as understanding that this deliberation is on going, hard and painful at times. In this reflection there also needs to be a constant acknowledgment that no matter how deconstructive and anti- the construct of whiteness and privilege you are, you still live in a system that benefits your skin tone more than a person of colour. That does not go away. You can only hope to work against it so that bit by bit it is deconstructed, eventually into nothingness, so that we can all get on with being equal.
Mine is the war against the language of patriarchy, white supremacy and privilege. I will continue to speak against this, not for anyone but the collective cause and the intent to wrestle concentrated economic and linguistic power out of the hands of the few and into the hands of the masses.
It is sad that between white supremacy and afro pessimism the important questions have gotten lost in a barrage of name-calling and theoretical word games in which black commentators with cushy jobs at non-governmental organisations are calling black activists "house negroes" and right-wingers are sending intense hate mail while white liberals are dishing out empty admonishing about tone.
In the meantime, few are asking how we deconstruct the systemic violence of neoliberalism, which is steeped in and upheld by white privilege and political elitism. The matter of the poor has been totally overlooked in all this linguistic wanking.
Is it not time that South Africa had a real debate about whiteness, privilege and racism instead of a dysfunctional slinging match that does nothing to change this status quo?