Human And Person

Person and human being

Other views

Kininigen Blog

Unnamed 3

A truth can only work,
if the recipient
is ripe for her.

Christian Morgenstern

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?

Explaining the term person is impossible without understanding it Roman law not possible. When I made the post 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 concept of person, which is omnipresent in our lives, is inextricably linked to it and one cannot understand this concept if one does not examine its roots and origin. I'm afraid this post is going to be long again and I'm already hearing the statements about speed and superficiality People:

"Who's going to read all that?!"

"There are so many grammatical errors and spelling mistakes here."

I answer this question with this: anyone who is interested should read it and everyone is free to click on and turn their attention to the activities of the “celebrities” or cooking shows. Anyone who wants to understand the why and where from should read. 

Because only if you get to the bottom of things, understand them at their roots (well, at least to the depths that are accessible to us), can you understand the flowers that grow from them and find solutions for yourself.

 

"

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Noble be man,
helpful and good;
for that alone
distinguishes him
of all beings,
we know.

Mg 8266 1 Min

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 Germanic peoples. 

It is a foreign concept, a foreign culture, which is based on conquest, robbery, fraud and slavery.

How well the Romans understood enslavement back then can still be clearly seen in our system today. And no, slavery did not reach its peak in American history when the exclusively Mosaic ship owners sold the blacks, who had previously been sold by their own racial comrades, to these ship owners, and a whole 90% of the cargo died along the way. The whites had already been enslaved and sold on an industrial scale long before that, and Rome lived well 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, and then just too scary a way to infect the different peoples again with their understanding of law and to gain entry into their jurisdiction and take it over completely. It was always that domestic law of the countries is displaced and wiped out.

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 around us. This is also what the initiators of the operating system want.

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 courts, at the point of the European Court of Human Rights, where “humanity” is only found in the form of an empty word in its name and the beings who perceive themselves as [human] are deceived into believing 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 don't recognize who we are. Because as living, spiritually moral, rational beings, we are endowed with inalienable rights that can neither be limited nor taken away.

It can only be limited if this free, divine being implicitly agrees to this limitation. Putting this chain on yourself and binding yourself. 

Well... the whole thing is based on deception to trick us into it, but that's how the world works here (so far). By getting this perfect being, which has sprung as a part of the highest source of all existence and is incarnated here, to “voluntarily” submit to this right, to accept it as a “right”, then in this way the principle of the holy cosmic law, free will, becomes , preserved and the Parasites of the system are on the “safe side”.

Human is the natural person

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. "

"Person: anyone who can be the bearer of rights and obligations (Legal entity); first and foremost, the human being (natural person.)"

Just because the two are written next to each other doesn't mean that they are the same. This is a great example of the perfidious manipulation of the naive reader. With well-chosen brackets and spacing and “abbreviations” it is implied that both are equivalent.

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.

Human Natural Person Government Austria Min
Helpfield Human Min

1762

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. 

There's so much you can say that it's not what you mean by it. Discussing is pointless. For the operating system that surrounds us, it doesn't matter what WE understand by it. 

They defined it and if we use THEIR words then we have placed ourselves under their jurisdiction. Very simple thing. It's about certain key terms and human, person, gentleman, woman, child, parent, etc. etc. are just some of them.

1948

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.

 

Ballantine's Blacks Law Dictionary Human Monster Min

This excerpt from the famous “Black's Law Dictionary” known to every business person briefly describes the system and its way of thinking.

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.

Person Vs Human

All law that we know of is an order of human relationships. To the extent that people are viewed as beings who stand or can stand in legal relationships with one another, they are called persons. Ultimately, therefore, all law is personal. Without a person, there is no law. Where there is a person, there is law.

The Romans, who first recognized the legal importance of the term person and chose this expression to describe beings with legal capacity and rights, have opposed the persona to the res in private law, that is, the things that are subject to the legal rule of people and that are not persons, i.e. first the tangible things, then also other incorporeal goods that serve human legal relationships, such as, in particular, the rights themselves, which are the subject of intercourse. 

In this sense the Romans said: “All law that serves us relates either to persons or to things.”

Here in the German State Lexicon by Johann Caspar Bluntschli from 1861, the interested reader can see what an intellectual child this is 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 a source of confusion rather than an advance 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 Lawyers 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 Roman law was the first to recognize the concept of the person, it only very imperfectly understood the law of personality. 

The whole of antiquity still misunderstood and misplaced the personality of individuals in many ways. One, larger half of the people made slaves of the others, that is, denied their personality and, as far as possible, destroyed it; and the other, smaller half of the free people became dependent on the state to the extent that their freedom was only recognized and valid to the extent that it was in harmony with the opinions of the people and the will of the state. 

Man was entitled to advance as a citizen, not as a human being, and the noblest human rights remained obscured and oppressed.


Person Bluntschli X2 Min
Capitis Deminutio Maxima

1823

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.”

Terminology

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.

Person Zedler 002 Min

“Persona, cover your face, see mask”

According to the Universal Encyclopedia, 1739

by Johann Heinrich Zedler, royal, prussian councilor of commerce

1877

Mayer's encyclopedia

“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.”

 

Mayers Conv Person Min
Mayers Konv Person2 Min
Person Kluge Karl Etymological Dictionary 1910 Min

1910

Karl Kluge - Etymological Dictionary

Person F. in 13/14 century first emerging in scholarly language: after lat. persona

Person Sanders Min

1876

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."

Personal Huebner Johann Conversations Lex Min
Personal details Min

What is a person?

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.”

Hellfeld, Johann August - Repertorivm Reale Practicvm Ivris Privati Imperii Romano-Germanici 1762
Brightfield Person Definition Min

According to Wiesand, G. S. - Juristisches Handbuch die teutschen Rechte 1762

personam amittere means something like,
...than lose his liberty.

Meadow02 Min
Wiesand, G. S. - Legal Handbook of German Rights 1762
Capitis Deminutio Maxima

1823

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

1823

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.”

Thibaut2 Min1

Therefore

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. 

Human

Definition Kininigen:

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.

 

natural person

Definition Kininigen:

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.

en_USEnglish
Warning