A truth can only work,
if the recipient
is ripe for her.
Man or Person?
None of that at all, but we are living, spiritually moral beings of reason.
Is it not all the same? Why did we choose this long and awkward term to describe what we perceive ourselves to be?
To explain the concept of person is impossible without understanding Roman Law. When I read the article Collateral account is a debt I believed that the topic of slavery was now closed. And yet this contribution, in which I wanted to show the difference between the terms human being and person, led me back to Rome and the slavery connected with it.
Because this term person, is inseparably connected with it and one cannot understand this term, if one does not illuminate its roots and origin. I fear, this contribution becomes again long and I hear already again the statements, the to quickness and superficiality drawn People:
"Who's going to read all that?!"
"There are so many grammatical errors and spelling mistakes here."
I answer this question with this: reading is for those who are interested and everyone is free to click further and turn to the activities of the celebrities or cooking shows. Reading is for those who want to understand the whys and wherefores. Because only if you get to the bottom of things, understand them with their root (well, at least reaching into the depths accessible to us), you can understand the blossoms that grow from them.
The term person, came into scholarly language only in the 13th/14th century and was gradually established and planted in the minds of [people]. It came insidiously along with the introduction of of Roman law to the land of the Teutons. It is a foreign concept, of a foreign culture, which is based on conquest, robbery, fraud and slavery.
How outstandingly the Romans understood themselves already at that time on the enslavement, one sees still today in our system very well. And no, the slavery did not have its climax in the American history, when the exclusively Mosaic ship owners sold the blacks, who were sold before by their own race comrades themselves, to these ship owners and from which whole 90% of the load, died on the way there. The whites, were already enslaved and sold long before and Rome lived industrially from this attitude.
After the conquest of the Roman Empire by the Germanic people, by this “wild” barbarian people (the term was coined by the Romans themselves, who only considered themselves and, accommodatingly, the Greeks as well, not barbaric. However, if you look at their way of life and the... If you look at the (non-existent) moral values, you inevitably come to the conclusion that the Romans were rather barbarians and how much value this term actually has), the Roman Empire gradually sank into obscurity, only to then become even more so scary way to infect the different peoples again with their understanding of law and to gain entry into their jurisdiction and take it over completely. The domestic law of the countries was always suppressed and erased.
So, in order to keep it from being too long, I'm going to go into a separate blog post on the topic of "Roman lawThe author of this book will go into and explain the "world" which, like a proliferating mold, secretly multiplied and took over the world again in the 11th century.
What am I,
Person or person?
Between the two terms human being and person there is a very big difference, even if these two terms are used by the Ottonormalverbraucher, as if both were one and the same.
Personal injury, for example, refers to the damage suffered to dead things (the so-called property damage), thus appropriately falls under the property law and only the living being, can actually be injured.
The ordinary [man] understands by the term “human” what he himself is. A breathing, living, spiritually moral rational being and not what the Lawyers and understands the system surrounding us. This is also the intention of the initiators of our system.
This wonderful being, which then feels itself as a human being, goes with the acceptance of this concept, thus voluntarily under the Jurisdiction of the Church/Vaticanto which all states are subject. All these high-sounding terms of human rights and human rights convention are only there to pretend something that is not.
This circumstance could be seen very well in the Contribution about the courtsThe European Court of Human Rights, where "humanity" can only be found in the form of an empty phrase in its name, and where the beings who feel themselves to be [human] are led to believe that there is a place for their interests.
Why has all this been and is being so obscured? So much energy and effort put into it to keep us confused?
So that we do not recognize who we are. For as a living, spiritually moral being of reason, we are endowed with inalienable rights that can neither be confined nor taken away.
One can limit it only if this free, divine being agrees to this restriction impliedly. Well... the whole thing is based on deception, by which one tricks us into it, but this is how the world (so far) works here. By getting this perfect being, which has sprung as a part from the Highest Source of All Being, incarnated here, to submit "voluntarily" to this right, to accept it as a "right", then in this way the principle of the holy cosmic law, of free will, is preserved and the Parasites of the system are on the “safe side”.
Legal Dictionary Today
Man is natural person
In the legal dictionary, under person, we also find human being:
"Man: is the living being endowed with intellect and the faculty of speech from his birth to his death. The M. stands in the center of the right formed by him. He has certain fundamental rights with respect to the State. "
Add Your Heading Text Here
On the Austrian government website we find the following precise definition:
“Every person is considered a “natural person” and is the bearer of rights and obligations (“legal subject”)”
The operating system knows nothing other than people. So as soon as you identify yourself as a “human” invoking “human rights,” you have signaled to the system that you are dealing with a “natural person” and have given them the legitimacy to act as they see fit.
Hellfeld, Johann August - Repertorivm Reale Practicvm Ivris Privati Imperii Romano-Germanici
“In the rights you find different classifications of people. Thus people are first divided into personas sui iuris, that is, into those who are not subject to any other man's authority, and into personas ALIENI IURIS, that is, into those who are under another man's authority. In this way, the self-governing ones (homines proprii) are under the power of their rulers: the children are under the power of their fathers, the minors are under the power of their guardians, the subjects are under the power of the authorities.”
The term person is quasi the catch basin, for the somewhat less sleeping. Who sees through the veil "person" and pulls this symbolically from the eyes, has thus another veil "man" lying over it. Thus one ensures that the individual remains thereby further in the control mode. It is quasi a firewall of the system.
The legal system surrounding us has taken the concept of man, reinterpreted it and appropriated it for itself. Occupied by the church, the Vatican and occupied in their sense. You can say as much as you like that it is not what you yourself understand it to be. Discuss pointless. For the us surrounding, operating system, it plays no role what WE understand under it. They have defined it and if we use THEIR words, then we have placed ourselves under their jurisdiction. Very simple thing. It is about certain key terms and human being, person, Mr., Mrs., child, parents etc. etc., are just some of them.
Law Dictionary with Pronunciations - James A. Ballantine, Professor of Law in University of California
human being: - see MONSTER.
Monster: A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but, although it hath deformity in any part of its body, yet if it hath human shape, it may be heir.
This excerpt from the famous Black's Law Dictionary, known to every commercialist, describes the system and its thinking in a nutshell.
Lawyers thus understand the human being as a monster, a lowly animal.
“A human being from birth, but resembling in some parts a lower animal. A monster has no inheritable blood and cannot inherit land, even if conceived in marriage; but if it has any deformity in any part of its body, yet, if it has a human form, it may be heir.”
So this is how a person is seen by the lawyers, the attorneys, judges and their whole system. This view is taught in their universities and according to this view and belief, we are also treated and judged.
All law that we know is an order of human relations. To the extent that people are regarded as beings who stand or can stand in legal relationships to one another, they are called persons. In the last analysis, therefore, all law is personal. Without person no right. Where there is a person, there is a right.
The Romans, who first recognized the juridical importance of the concept of person and chose this expression to designate the legal and entitled beings, have opposed the persona in private law the res, i.e. the things subject to the legal rule of men, which are not persons, thus first the tangible things, then also other incorporeal goods, which serve the human legal relations, as in particular the rights themselves, which are the subject of the traffic. In this sense the Romans said: " All right, which serves us, refers either to persons or to (goods) things.
Here in the German State Lexicon by Johann Caspar Bluntschli from 1861, the interested reader can see what an intellectual child Roman law is. In his understanding and legal circle there are no living, spiritually moral, rational beings [human beings]. But only people or things (res). Your right can only exist if the person exists.
Reminder. Slaves are considered a matter - which is why we are also held in so-called court hearings in the customary courts “in the matter anyway” (res judicata).
A little further on in the text:
“If German legal philosophy has subordinated the real opposition of person and thing to the speculative one of subject and object, I see this as more of a source of confusion than of progress in knowledge. However, in the field of law the subject is necessarily a person and impersonal goods are never subjects of law, but always only objects of legal rule; but this can also refer to persons, not just to things, as in the relationship between government and the governed the former always appears as a subject and the latter as an object, and consequently the subject and object are persons. But precisely because they are persons, the relationship between subject and object can, in exceptional cases, be reversed among them.”
“Many jurists explain the person as the legally capable subject, merely as a vessel, albeit an animate one, which can acquire rights and be filled with rights, i.e. as a possible, not as a real, legal subject. But that is not enough at all, and least of all for public law. The recognized one Legal capacity is in itself a real right, not merely a possible right, a right of personality to express its will with legal effect, to extend its dominion, to acquire individual rights. But it is not the only, and not even the first, original one. All other rights are preceded by the right of existence, and also by the right of acquiring rights. The person as such, apart from all legal will and from all further acquisition of rights, is by nature entitled to be as he is, and the community of persons has in advance the duty to recognize and protect above all this existence of the persons who form it as the original right of all.
If I am to acquire any rights of property or civic rights, I must first exist as a person. The other rights are largely products of culture, of labor, of contract; but the right of existence is the right of nature which underlies and conditions all the others.
Although the Roman law recognized the concept of the person first, it understood the right of the personality only very imperfectly. The whole of antiquity still misunderstood and mislaid the personality of individuals in many ways. The one, larger half of the people it made slaves of the other, i.e. denied their personality and, as far as possible, destroyed it; and the other, smaller half of the free ones became again dependent on the state in the measure that also the liberty of these found recognition and validity only so far as it was in agreement with the opinions of the people and the will of the state. Man was entitled ahead as citizen, not as man, and the noblest human rights remained darkened and were depressed.
Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut - System of the Pandekten Law
“The commoner Legal capacity depends on arbitrary provisions of the law. She can be lifted partly absolutely, partly for certain cases. These last ones will be listed individually below. Under the first heading would belong the doctrine of the Roman slaves and the peregrinis, the first of whom were kept almost entirely, and the latter incapable of Roman civil rights; hence also this Loss of freedom capitis deminutio maxima, which of civil rights, on the other hand, is called capitis deminutia media. But since we no longer have slaves and our German constitution on serfdom and civil rights is of a completely different nature, then in the case of the Pandect Treaty, which concerns the constitution of the Romans, legal history, the rest must be left to German law.”
What exactly does "person" mean?
Let's look again at what the term person really means. What is written here should really be internalized by everyone, so that this term, which has already settled like a virus in the heads, disappears from the same.
Therefore, once again.
We are living, spiritually moral rational beings - called [human] in the vernacular and HAVE a person with whom we move, in the system surrounding us.
We do not use the term “human” here because it was also occupied by the Vatican and legally, it is understood as a natural person. There's so much you can discuss with the representatives of the system. It is understood as an admission and unfortunately no longer means what it should actually mean.
“Persona, cover your face, see mask”
According to the Universal Encyclopedia, 1739
by Johann Heinrich Zedler, royal, prussian councilor of commerce
Hellfeld, Johann August - Repertorivm Reale Practicvm Ivris Privati Imperii Romano-Germanici
“A person is called that characteristic of a human being on which his condition in the Republic depends and from which each individual's own rights can be recognized in particular. In Rome, a big distinction was made between a human being and a person, since the servants (here we mean slaves - since the Germanic servant had a different legal status than the servus under Roman law) by no means led a person."
“Person (Latin Persona), originally the larva or mask covering the entire head, through which actors in ancient times expressed the character of their role; then also the role to be portrayed: the way in which a person presents themselves externally; In general, a term for what is actually characteristic of a human being, in legal science any being that can be the subject of rights and legal relationships. In the latter respect, the concepts person and human being are not the same insofar as there are persons who are not human beings, and at least previously there were people who were not persons. By constructing a so-called legal person, legislation has made it possible to link personality to something other than a physical individual..."
“…. on the other hand, the slave of antiquity had no rights; he was considered for one thing, precisely because that was him Right of personality, legal capacity was missing, which is due to every person in civilized countries today.”
Karl Kluge - Etymological Dictionary
Person F. in 13/14 century first emerging in scholarly language: after lat. persona
Dr. Daniel Sanders - Dictionary of the German Language
“Person -1) mask of the actor and then: the role played by him, the individual he portrayed”
“Persona relies on the sound that the larva modifies and that penetrates it”
“dramatic person, the individual who introduces another individual..”
“thus consciousness became an element of the abstract concept of personality”
“In sophisticated speech, inanimate beings are often personified or depicted as people.”
Johann Hübner's lexicon
"Personal information: circumstances that affect a deceased person personally."
What is a person?
“A person is called that characteristic of a human being on which his condition in the Republic depends and from which each individual's own rights can be recognized in particular. Man made at Rome a great distinction between a man and a person, as the servants (This refers to slaves - since the Germanic servant had a different legal status than the Servus under Roman law) by no means led one person.”
According to Wiesand, G. S. - Juristisches Handbuch die teutschen Rechte 1762
personam amittere means something like,
...than lose his liberty.
Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut - System of the Pandekten Law
“The commoner Legal capacity depends on arbitrary provisions of the laws. It can be abolished partly absolutely, partly for certain cases. These last will be mentioned one by one in the following. Under the first heading would belong the doctrine of the Roman slaves and the peregrinis, the first of which were considered almost absolutely incapable of all, and the latter of Roman civil rights; therefore also the loss of freedom capitis deminutio maxima, the of civil rights, on the other hand, is called capitis deminutia media. But since we no longer have slaves and our German constitution on serfdom and civil rights is of a completely different nature, the Pandect Treaty, which concerns the constitution of the Romans, legal history, and the rest must be left to German law.
The Roman status caput is also used in the current spelling of Names of the persons and their identification papers:
The following options are available:
1. MÜLLER MAX (capitis deminutio maxima – loss of freedom)
2. MÜLLER, Max (capitis deminutio media – loss of civil rights)
3. miller, max (capitis deminutio minima)
4. müller, max (capitis nullus deminutio)
Each option indicates a corresponding status (capitis):
1. maximum status reduction
2. media status reduction
3. minimal status reduction
4. no status reduction
Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut - System of the Pandekten Law
“Who can be the subject of a kingdom, both according to the nature of the thing (natural legal capacity) and the regulations of positive law (civil legal capacity)? The person who is viewed in some respect as the subject of a right is called a person, especially insofar as he is viewed as the subject of civil rights. On the other hand, everything that constitutes the opposite of a person is called a thing. Civil legal capacity is what the Romans call caput or status. The modernists, on the other hand, call it status civilis, combined with all the properties created by the laws on which individual rights depend, while the natural legal capacity, combined with physical properties that result in special legal relationships, status naturalis.”
Redefining for kininigen
Precisely for the above-mentioned and hopefully understandable reasons, because the words we used were all occupied, twisted, inverted and reversed to the confusion of us, we have at Kininigen, to avoid any misunderstandings, own Definitions for the many terms created.
Spiritually moral, living, of reason. The eternal, analogous consciousness incarnated into matter in a human form, which as a part of the Supreme Source of All Being, has sprung from it. Known in biological categorization as Homo sapiens sapiens.
The Ballentine's Law Dictionary definition.
((1930) human being - see: MONSTER. Monster: A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster has no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.)
as monsters and human-like animal beings, is excluded and explicitly rejected.
A natural person is, first and foremost, an oxymoron. It was created to undermine the sovereignty of every man and woman and bring it into a lower legal circle with the aim of turning the value givers and the true creditors into trustees and the servants of the people into beneficiaries. The proof of the natural person is the personal ID; not to be confused with the PERSONAL ID card. “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; and created them male and female.” (Genesis verse 27)
A person animates a person. However, this cannot take place the other way around, respectively a person cannot be "alive" and act without the person behind it. To the nature-given legal capacity of the sovereign, as [man] belongs the right to have a person. In slavery, man was deprived of the person. In the Vatican system of the world, nowadays the person receives a person from the Vatican, is put by the state as obligation (bond), which holds him his life day in slavery and binds, since him before from this, everything was taken away.
Like our name
and used by the operating system surrounding us to keep us in slave status can be read here.
and what can free us from it
It is hereby noted that all rights are reserved to everything that can be found on this site and is subject to the order of the Decided Terms of Ama-gi koru-E Kininigen. If someone distributes our knowledge, it would be honorable if he also names the source of this knowledge, some of which has not been found anywhere else, and does not bring it into the world as his own knowledge in order to enrich his status with it.
Otherwise, we are grateful for the distribution of this knowledge, in the sense of every being.