by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Behold a new series of articles at Gumshoe. It’s about how to use the law in regard to the current crimes being committed over COVID-19, vaccines, and 5G. The name ‘Judy Mikovits‘ is dropped in as a shorthand for “the exposing of crime at Ft Detrick, CDC, etc.”
Just licking my chops here over what can now be done with society’s priceless weapon, the law. A lot can be done. This first part in the series consists only of a quick glossary of legal terms and concepts. That’s so I won’t have to bog down with definitions in subsequent parts (Insha’allah) of the series.
The headings are Heritage, Courts, Trials, , and my fave, Moral Hazard. Nothing new or theoretical will appear (provided I can discipline myself, which I never can). The point is to nominate things that may come into play when we go for the jugular of Covid-19.
No need for the well-informed to bother reading this list. Still, your humble servant is keen to get corrections and additions, so if the Barristers of Gumshoe would oblige, that’d be great.
Note: these are layperson definitions, holding no authority. Knickers should not be gotten into a knot over them.
(Knickers should also stay calm if I use the masculine pronoun generically to mean male or female. E.g. “the judge made his ruling”.)
Glossary of Terms: Heritage of English Law
(These wonderful things are not of recent vintage; it’s up to us to protect them for future generations.)
Authority – someone, not just anyone, can impose the law on people.
Adjudication – the applying of the law to a particular dispute.
Common Law, the – a collection of cases over centuries that judges can use as a basis for adjudicating.
Constitution – a society’s basic law, to which other laws must conform.
Court of Equity – you can ask a court to apply principles of equity rather than strict law, to achieve justice.
Custom – a basis of law; how people have traditionally seen a practice to be right or wrong.
Damages – money paid to a litigant to satisfy justice.
Due Process – the process that is due, i.e., owed, to a citizen.
Inns of Court – medieval associations of barristers that had disciplinary control over them — today, Bar Associations.
Jurisprudence – accumulation of the wisdom of judges via cases, or interpretation by jurists, such as academics.
Justice – fairness, balance. You can seek justice against unfairness by applying to the court, thus asking society to come to your aid against a bad person.
Lady Justice – symbol of justice, a woman who is blindfolded (impartial) carries scales to weight the evidence, and a sword to enforce the law. She steps on snakes (lies).
Master of the Rolls – medieval keeper of written material for the court (on rolls of parchment). Today, the clerk of court.
Maxims of Law – well-established observations, such as “He who flees judgement confesses his guilt,” and principles, such as “A judicial writ does not fail through defect of form.”
No Respecter of Persons – the law does not look at your status in society. (Of course I mean it shouldn’t do so; see Epstein.)
Openness – normally anything that takes place on court is public. However, there may be reason to seal the records for a time; frequent reasons given are national security and protection of a child’s privacy.
Precedent – what has been decided in the past will remain good law until it gets overturned by a new precedent.
Private law – most lawsuits are “private law” even though conducted by a public court, as the matter in dispute is between two citizens, not between a citizens and society. The main types of private law are contract law and tort law.
Punishment – specific punishment for a crime must be stated in the law, e.g., imprisonment, hard labor, fines, community service, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. (Gains could prove massive in relation to an illegal vaccine, as we shall see.)
Remedy – the judge is bound to find a remedy in law that will satisfy the parties and society.
Rights – require that consideration shown be to an individual in regard to specific things, e.g., his home is his castle so you may not enter uninvited or you would violate his right.
Rights of Englishmen – thanks to the Magna Carta of 1215, some rights became guaranteed, e.g., the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, and the right to face one’s accusers
Standard of Proof – to make a conviction, jurors must find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt; for lawsuits, the standard of proof is less; the case should be decided on “the balance of probabilities.”
Glossary of Terms: The Court As Such
(Entities and concepts that appear in a courtroom)
Accused – a person charged with committing a crime, now on trial.
Admissibility of evidence – judge decides which items can or cannot be presented in support of a case, for example, hearsay will not be admitted.
Adjournment – judge can decide when to stop the court’s activity for a time, or permanently.
Appeals – person unsatisfied with a court ruling can ask for a new look at his case.
Appearances – “rollcall”: judge asks at beginning of a trial for the parties’ lawyers, to identify themselves.
Bailiff – employee of the court who can enforce order therein.
Bench warrant – if a judge sees a likely criminal in the courtroom, he can issue a warrant for arrest.
Case management — it is the responsibility of a judge to see that the parties are following correct procedure (e.g., he should step in if he sees a witness being bribed, or sees that a defense attorney is not acting properly for a client)
Contempt – all members of society must show reverence for the court. Failure to do so is called contempt of court and can be punished by the judge. There is civil contempt and criminal contempt.
Court – Usually, during a case, “the court’ means “the judge;” more broadly it means the law or authority.
Court reporter – The person who officially records what is said in court.
Courtroom – any room, or outdoor setting can be nominated as a courtroom. It needs appurtenances, such as a bench for the judge and a witness “box.”
Declaration of law – Some courts will provide, upon request, their judicial opinion of what a law means.
Defendant – in a lawsuit, the defendant is the person being sued; in a criminal case it is the accused.
Dissent – when three or more judges render a ruling, the majority is the decider. Only one judge can write the ruling; the others may choose to co-sign it or submit a concurrence (showing that they agree with the ruling but on different grounds) or may file a dissent, rejecting the decision.
En banc – all the judges of the court, not just a panel of three, weighing in on a big matter.
Gavel – the banging of a gavel, along with the judge saying “It is ordered,” adds finality to the court’s proceedings.
Good behavior – judges have tenure, so long as they “behave.”
Judicial activism – a judge should apply the law as established by a legislature, and not use the courtroom to create new law.
In camera – Latin for “in chambers.” A judge can impose some secrecy, or give some privacy, by moving part of the court’s proceedings to his chamber.
Judicial ethics – Judges must conform to a canon of judicial ethics, for example, a judge must not accept a gift from a litigant.
Jury of one’s peers – The 12 men chosen for jury should be of the type that the defendant would recognize as his peers.
Injunction – a court can enjoin a person to do a specific action or refrain from a specific action, e.g., a domestic violence order tells him to stay away from someone’s premises.
Instructions to jury – before the jurors go to deliberate, the judge should tell them what the law says, relevant to the case, and tell them what behavior is required of them.
Joinder – If a judge observes two separate cases that would be better judged together, he can order that they be joined into one.
Judicial notice – In addition to material received from the parties, the judge is expected to take notice of things occurring in contemporary culture, thus he can apply “common knowledge.”
Jurisdiction – a judge can only accept a case that is in his territorial area and over which he has subject jurisdiction. (Do not, at this particular moment, tempt me to discuss the jurisdiction related to vaccine injury in the US, Ok?)
Leave – You may need leave of the court (permission) to do something, such as to get an extension of time to prepare.
Magistrate – a judge with lesser asignments than a full judge.
Marshal – employees who go outside the court to do something for the court, such as deliver a summons.
Negligence – filing to do something that you are socially obliged to do, e.g., keep the floor clean in your shop, so a customer won’t slip and fall.
Party – the parties to a case are the plaintiff and defendant, or the prosecutor and defendant, aka the accused.
Plaintiff – a person who brings a complaint, often via a tort.
Pleadings – a plaintiff’s written statement of his case.
Prosecutor – the attorney for the government in criminal cases.
Relief — the plaintiff must say what relief he is seeking for his plaint.
Remanded – sent back by a judge, usually to a lower court.
Ratio – the ratio of a ruling gives the judges reasoning, which is important for subsequent cases. (Other remarks made by the judge, not part of the ratio, are called dicta, and may also be referred to later.)
Ruling – a decision by the judge that ends the case.
Robe – judges wear a robe, and in England a wig, to add to the stature and solemnity of the court’s proceedings.
Standing – your right to have a matter decided in court depends on your having standing, e.g., a grandmother may be determined by the judge to lack standing in a child custody case.
Stare decisis — Latin for “Let the decision stand” – is said to be an important part of law whereby cases are not easily re-opened.
Stay of proceedings – a judge can stop dealing and let the case wither away.
Tort – French for “a wrong,” is an action by another person for which you may go to court to win damages, e.g. for libel, for theft (aka “conversion”), for trespass, for medical malpractice.
Tribunals – courts established to perform a limited function may be known as tribunals.
Voir dire – French for “true-speak” is a procedure of examining a juror pre-trial, or a witness outside of the earshot of the jury, or a meeting of both parties with a judge to sort out a small matter.
Witnesses – persons who come to court to tell what they saw or heard, in support of a prosecution, a plaintiff, or a defendant.
Writ of error coram nobis – notifies a judge to reconsider an error he made in the adjudication.
Writ of habeas corpus – a writ asking the monarch to call the jailer to present the inmate for inspection, where irregularity is suspected, such as that the person landed in jail improperly.
Glossary of Terms: Trials
(This section deals with terms relevant to civil actions, i.e., lawsuits, and to criminal prosecutions.)
Accessory – is a person who is culpable for a crime merely for having helped the main criminal. He may be an accessory before or after the fact.
Accomplice – is a person who joins in the planning or carrying out of a crime.
Affidavit – Written statement signed under penalty of perjury.
Affirmation – can be used on lieu of an oath, for purpose of making a statement solemn.
Alibi – a person can try to refute an accusation by showing that he was located elsewhere at the time.
Chain of custody – it may be important to know who had custody of certain pieces of evidence before trial, as there could be an inference of tampering with such evidence.
Character witness – someone who, from experience with the accused, can comment on his character
Charges and counts – the jury must be informed of the charges being laid against the accused and the number of times he is alleged to have committed that crime.
Confession — an accused may give a written or oral confession, but the judge should be aware if the confession appears false and should demand more proof of guilt
Cross-examination – interrogation of a witness, often on the hope of destroying his credibility.
Deposition –the interrogation of a witness done outside of court; the transcript is then used in court.
Discovery – when you file a civil action (i.e., not a criminal case), both parties get to see documents possessed by the other side; these can be subpoena’d.
Distinguishing – a lawyer, trying to get the court to set aside a precedent, will show how his case is distinguishable (in some point) from the original case.
Evidence – whatever can be used to support the case for or against, including documents, videos, witness testimony, or material items such as bullet casings or Covid-19 testing kits.
Expert witness – a person who by qualification or experience can be assumed capable of delivering useful information or insight.
Guilt – the accused can plead guilty or not guilty. To win the case, a prosecutor must persuade the jury of the accused’s guilt. (The accused does not have to prove his innocence.)
Jury as fact finder – in a jury trial, it is up to jurors to reach conclusions about facts, e.g., where the accused was located when the crime was committed.
Litigant – both parties in civil actions are litigants — they are “litigating” a matter since they could not come to an agreement out-of-court.
Miranda rights – evidence in a criminal case may get excluded if the accused made a statement to police before being warned of his right to remain silent.
Pleading the Fifth – an accused can opt to not take the stand, citing his Fifth Amendment right to not have to incriminate himself.
Right to counsel – if an accused cannot afford a lawyer, the court will provide him a public defender.
Statute of limitations – both civil actions and prosecutions are time-limited by whatever a state or federal statute says, for example the period could be five years for crime and three years for lawsuits.
Subpoena – courts act for either party by issuing subpoenas that forcing the handing over of an item
Summons – when a plaintiff files a lawsuit, a summons must be sent to the defendant, accompanied by the pleadings, so he will know what he has to defend.
Testimony – statement given to court by a witness, or by someone who has relevant information.
Glossary of Terms: Moral Hazard
Human nature predicts that people will cheat, so the law tries to guard against that. Legal professionals will see that the law is a tool they can use to do harm, so structures must be emplaced to counteract such moral hazard. Sir William Blackstone’s 1769 Commentaries on the Law of England, Volume 4, deals with this sort of protection of the law itself. Here are some relevant concepts and procedures — instead of listing them alphabetically, I will sort them by their aim.
The main approach is to ask Who might benefit from fiddling with the court? It’s obvious that an accused could “pay” to get an acquittal – and his partners in crime would also want this. From a more remote position, we may have lawyers wanting to win a case just to have scored a win for their firm, and the owners of privatized prisons wanting convictions in order to increase their income.
So how does one do that kind of fiddling? First, you can pay the judge. Second, you can hire false witnesses, or pay the real witnesses to shut up. (Often, merely threatening them does the trick.) The government, as prosecutor, can bring in false evidence, in fact the FBI is known for concocting anything that may be needed, or just misreporting what they have on file, such as fingerprints.
Police have been caught planting evidence of drugs, pornography, and probably even DNA at the crime scene. Police are also specialists in coercing signed confessions from persons who were not guilty. You could also pay the media to give false publicity (or useful silence) about the accused’s guilt or innocence. Or you could have politicians and pillars of the community use the bully pulpit to endorse one side.
There are Blackstonian laws against all of these fiddling activities. I don’t mean Blackstone wrote the laws — he searched English law and found them. We can lump them together as “obstruction of justice.” What a terrible thing — to obstruct justice is to undo part or all of the law’s magnificent ability to keep society on an even keel.
To get the fiddlers, you can at least try to charge them with crimes. Among the age-old felonies are: perjury, suborning perjury, destroying evidence, planting evidence, corrupting a judge, tampering with a witness or a juror, covering up a crime (yes that’s a felony), and defrauding the court.
You can also use torts to deal with these things. A person can be sued for abuse of process (which is also a crime), for destroying evidence, for coercing a confession, for tampering with court records (as can be done by the clerk of court).
Non-judicial methods, too, have been devised for altering such lawlessness. Among them are legislative oversight, justice activism, impeachment of judges, disbarment of lawyers, the use of citizen-led grand juries, the election of coroners committed to investigating suspicious death of witnesses, and practicing the law of outlawry. Part II will show how these procedures can be used in matters relate to Covid-19.
Wouldn’t it be crazy to throw away our marvelous legal achievements! They could easily save us from catastrophe.
Crikey – while I take this all in, you seemed to have left one out:
Obspewcation – the act of vomiting over a roadmap or detailed plan to prevent the reader from reaching their destination.”
“the nauseating practice of distracting the reader from reaching an honest and just conclusion”
An American friend of mine sat the bar exam years ago. (She is now an atty). The exam students had to sit at one long table for the 3 hour test. The guy next to her got nervous, and puked on the table, and then walked out. She had to finish 2 more hours with that.
OK JS, I had to read it twice. (:-}
It is not a principle of law it is contrary; a tactic……..to avoid the evidence being disclosed and the law being applied in those circumstances that are undesirable for apologists for the guilty?
The ‘Out of Shadows’ video report is a must for everyone to watch.
Come on msm tv, put it up instead of the inane crime videos and series that are crap. Try to be honest.
The police interviewed are some of the few citizens that deserve and should be Knighted by Her Majesty.
Then we would know that “The Firm’ really cares about its loyal subjects.
Her Majesty should take the time in quarantine contemplating elevation of the decent police officers for their service as disclosed.
https://www.channel24.co.za/Gossip/Royal-News/queen-elizabeth-goes-into-self-quarantine-20200319
Now it is for some of our paid police officers to follow the lead. Yea right?
There’s law and LAW ENFORCEMENT. Perhaps you may remember the video of ‘good cop’ Greg Anderson telling his fellow LEOs that they need to do the right thing and respect the rights of the people.
Well, he got canned for refusing to take down the video.
https://www.sott.net/article/434281-This-is-the-problem-Good-cop-fired-for-asking-fellow-cops-to-respect-the-rights-of-the-people
The more the PTB try to censor free speech, the more people want to listen at what is being said.
Mary, I notice that plea is not mentioned. Does pleading have same legal meaning as plea.
I query, as in Martin Bryant’s case he is said to have pleaded guilty to many crimes. Did he do that in writing? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Perth has been chem sprayed again today at midday.
Thank you, Mal, I will “enter” a plea.
I urge everyone (particularly Mary Maxwell, LLB) who is dismayed, righteously indignant, or enraged at the very evident corruption in the unlawful corporate “government”, “judiciary”, “public service” etc. etc. to pay careful attention to the contents of this video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/b19qRPmKWZCa/
It offers a real opportunity for an effective “class action” against the corporate criminals who have taken over just about every State and institution in the World. More can be found at:
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/
I tried, in my own pedestrian, plebeian way, to initiate a movement in this direction but I got no interest, anywhere. Perhaps a ball that is already rolling can excite a bit more interest. As I claim, it is impossible that “the system” will fix itself from within… it’s too big with too many resources and lackeys. You can complain to them all you like but I think they only get an ego “fix” at the sight of people suffering under the jackboots of their esoteric ideology.
The “system” has been well and truly stitched up in this country right from the get-go. The ink was barely dry on the document called the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (which was drafted to appeal to the people) when it began to be subverted by Masonic agents of the Crown (which is a supranational cartel of imperialistic usurers centered in “The City of London” of which the Monarchy is but a figurehead) began to subvert it; quietly at first, ostensibly in the name of the Queen, people, etc. To my mind that Constitution is the best one yet produced as a basis for government as it clearly laid ultimate responsibility for the good of the Commonwealth where it belongs; on an ultimate authority but with built in redress for the people against tyranny and unjust “laws”. It’s pretty much an updated version of the Magna Carta (1215) which was relegated to practical oblivion by Henry VIII when he arbitrarily appointed the Crown as the sole arbiter of all goodness and truth in both the temporal and spiritual arenas.
But, regardless of what any Constitution says, every human has inalienable rights based on their nature and purpose (ultimate destiny) unless they forfeit those rights by serious criminal acts that destroy the rights of others. I think it can be easily argued that modern day Scribes, Pharisees and Lawyers could be charged with egregious assaults on the Commonwealth of Man.
It’s an insane dream to imagine that the entrenched criminals with their occult allegiances will somehow put themselves before a firing squad or even into the relative comfort and security of life in gaol. I recommend that a dispersed, quiet resistance (as opposed to a noisy tumult of “street demonstrations”) is the way to go. “Mob actions” are too easily infiltrated by brain-dead rabble who are only too keen to wreak havoc and thus discredit the ordinary people claiming their natural rights.
David,
Great explanation of truth summary, thank you.
oldavid – that is a good comment. I hope that many GS visitors read it and fully understand what you have written on.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land it was written for, but a bone of contention with our own Constitution is that, although it reflects largely the American Constitution, it is not a copy of that document, and that is a mistake in my opinion because we as a nation missed out on having the same written into Law inalienable rights that Americans enjoy today. that is the rule of law written down for all to see and understand and bolstered with a Bill of Rights that are bound to adhere to, and that the tyrant who is willing to subvert such laws has a difficult time in subverting.
Many have been made to forget that if not for the rule of law there would be anarchy in which there can be no cohesive society – let alone a civilization.
Which is why we must always remain alert to guard against the tyrants who are now being exposed, world wide.
Thanks for your reply, Nemesis.
However, I will contend that the U.S.A. Constitution is a very sad proposal to popularise the main tenets of the French Revolution… one of the slogans of which was that “each man shall be his own priest, his own pope and his own god”; the unstated, but implied and enacted, principle being that there is only one “authority” and that is the “State”. The deceitful cunning of the US Constitution is the inference (by “granting” various “rights”) that “rights” are given by a “democratically elected” secretocracy/oligarchy. The old Latins had a saying: “what Caesar giveth, Caesar can taketh”.
The Australian Constitution, on the other hand, makes no pretense to usurp God and define “rights”. It duly acknowledges a responsible temporal authority (however crooked it might be) that clearly implies that their Majestys will be held personally responsible by their approval (come Judgement Day) for every Act that compromises the safety and security of their subjects.
Our Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint, or programme, for how government should work such that the “people” should have a representative voice in what, why and how civil laws should be enacted.
I have always maintained that anarchy and revolution are terrible evils never to be confused or equated with a lawful and justified rebellion against perverse tyrants of the ideological, corporate or plutocratic type.
Please consider carefully this summary of many and diverse previous presentations:
I have no idea who this man is, but by his accent I’d say that if he’s not an Aborigine he was taught to speak in an environment with that idiom and accent. Power to his arm I say! A wise and prudent man!
Mary and others Oldavid’s post essential watching- yes a wise and prudent man.
Hawkies Australia Act 1986 – I had forgotten all about that – another Australian Traitor!
I think I might write a letter to Mark Latham.
Heh, heh, Nemesis! I doubt you will excite even feigned surprise from the secretive traitor’s club as “Bohbork” (Strine), or Bob Hawke (proper Inglish) was a well known and important Fabian Socialist (a Pommy gang which published intention is to impose Communism by stealth, i.e. unnoticed small increments) he was a Rhodes Scholar (London School of Economics training to facilitate supranational financial corporation’s World dominance) and an honorary dual citizen of Israel to mention just a few of his credentials as an arch traitor.
oldavid – on the contrary. I have had some success from writing to Mark Latham who is no friend of the Fabians.
Look up Bernard Gaynor and his fight against a serial vexatious complainant that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (NSWADB)were backing until I wrote to Mark Latham – as well as others did – quite a few of us actually.
Latham has a Bill before the lower house that will restrict NSWADB functions and limit its outreach into other states.
If ever there was fascism in government bodies it is the anti-discrimination boards run by over officious MC/PC zealots.
As law, by definition is a consensus, only a counterfeit model can be found within a system where the few lord it over the many, a model that has the appearance of being able to deliver but that simply doesn’t have the capacity to do so
The only way that anything beneficial can come out of a counterfeit model on is to get a grip on what purpose it actually serves
The Pretenders can thereby be held to ransom
No, berry. Law is not “by definition is a consensus”. For example; the Ten Commandments are not law by consensus.
Civil law, according to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition is “an ordinance, based on reason issued by him (or the instrument) charged with the good of the community for the good of the community”.
Such ordinances may be lawful and good in promoting public order and prosperity (as is their proper purpose) or they may be vicious, unlawful, tyrannical in which case one may be even morally obliged to resist them in the interest of the common good according to the nature and purpose of human life.
Having said that, “consensus” via “democracy” is a rooly, rooly stupid way to “determine” what is good and true. Aristotle described democracy as “the tyranny of the ignorant”. But in another way the combined understanding of the means and purpose of life in the most essential elements of society can identify and resist perversity.
Obviously, I cannot compress thousands of years of thought and observation into a few sentences in a comment box.
Where did I say anything about democracy?
“Consensus” doesn’t mean “majority rule”
The point is that putting self-appointed bullies under your feet is a matter of choosing, this day, whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15)
One of the best explanations ever:
https://realcoronanews.com/2020/05/12/prof-dolores-cahill-explosive-debunking-of-the-corona-narrative/
Thank you Dee – excellent and sharing privately
Meanwhile, the latest from TTAV featuring Dr Buttar live as I write
COVID-19, CENSORSHIP, & TRACE
and the UK Column – featured by Vanessa Beeley
UK Column News: The UK Government Covid-19 Gaslighting project – whistleblower insights
shall NOT be infringed:
You can read this (but who would want to?) at Elias Davidsson’s website juscogens.org:
EU diplomats discussed the option of creating a certificate of security in the sphere of tourism under the provisional name “COVID-19 passport”, which would refer to the health status of the owner of the document, and enable him/her to travel to the EU
Together with Noahide Laws we have the OZACT (Australian Zionist Anglo Communist Triumverate). Dystopian tyranny via artificial insanity.
Why are Australians smashing their TVs? And what does it have to do with 5G and coronavirus?
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/may/13/why-are-australians-smashing-their-tvs-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-5g-and-coronavirus?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Diane,
100% the bioweapon is in the vaccine. In the land of the not so free, 550 million injections ready for use. Wether they were made there or China doesn’t matter, the globalists own the factories. With Josh catching the disease, Geelong and Nanchang will supply the numbers needed.
Totally agree 56–I posted that as an example of M stream reporting-
On monday, I caught the tail end of Studio 10 presenters (a variety type program shown on channel 10 in Australia). They labelled Melbourne’s lockdown protestors as conspiracy theorists and laughed at those who had concerns about the health effects of 5G. The rot is stationwide on this channel.
Justin – seems we’ve gone back to the future. Fascism writ large. No state government, at least that I am aware of, has passed a Bill that gives police the powers that they are now using to restrict protest of any kind.
In short, police forces using the BS bug tactic on which to arrest, are acting illegally.
I think we need more protests.
‘ 56 ‘ , I’m impressed with your Australian Zionist Anglo Communist Triumvirate ( OZACT ) acronym.
If my recollection serves me right , it was you that said that Communism = Talmudism .
Not many wiser words have been spoken .
So Nemesis, what say you ? Do you agree with 56’s summation ?
Actually, let’s not give 56 ALL the credit – such boastings really originate with the likes of Rabbi Stephen Wise, Rabbi Harry Waton et al.
“Some may call it Communism, but I call it what it is: Judaism!” (Wise)
“The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism.” (Waton)
“Judaism is Communism, internationalism … It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race.” (Waton)
http://esau.today/communism-is-judaism/
Julius – one BIG problem with that assumption – Communism is God Less – Judaism is not.
An inability to understand that the words “Jewry” and “Judaism” are no more interchangeable than “Christendom” and “Christianity” is a dead giveaway re the general credibility
I’ve referenced this link before but I guess it doesn’t quite gel with the mantra of the Age;
http://www.hourofthetime.com/1-LF/Hour_Of_The_Time_08122012-Marx_and_Satan.pdf
everyone needs to wake up to the fact that the “zionism-is-the-root-of-all-evil” ethos is naught but the flipside of judaising
The Charlton Heston pic should serve as a reminder that, as the law has never been fulfilled by any mortal man or woman, pat answers are pointless
Charlton Heston is an actor who plays fictional/mythical/ historicised characters.
Bur here is a scene from Soylent Green that is closer to our new reality
berry – another avid reader. I’ll take what Christ has to offer us over that of Satan and Marx.
I have done a little research on Marx – seems he had a wealthy benefactor to get that book published.
As is usual when seeking truth to any subject, follow the trail of the 30 pieces of silver that seems to win many over their own common sense.
Truth,
I’m just a used up tool, at 62 relegated to scrap heap. Spent a lifetime contributing to the common wealth here, only to be sidelined – not by choice – for old skool works. Our forebears gave us all the skills for self sufficiency, what happened?
They shut it down, now our children can only assemble kits imported. I watch rubbing my eyes.
56 – you have made yourself part of this site – now that is worth your time and your thoughts, and that many get to read.
We all have a part to play in what is now occurring and what will soon be made known.
At our ages, we have life experience behind us that some will find useful in assisting to sort out their own younger lives, when the time comes.
Each of us has our own particular worth. None of us should forget that.
I’m with you ’56’ – I’ve sat rubbing my eyes trying to assemble those kits from Ikea & elsewhere in the past (wondering what the left-over components were supposed to do ) & won’t be going there again .
Anyway, your insights offered on Gumshoe are a long way from ‘used up’ & it’s always good to hear from you.
Berry , no disagreements with you here – Zionism (in general) isn’t the root of all evil .
That said , the tiny subset of it that can be described as Rabid-Genocidal-ConscienceFree-Likudnic-Extremist-Zionism ( that just happens to have a stranglehold over U.S & Israeli foreign policy) , is clearly the root of most of the evil .
Truth – I agree with your assessment on the two parts to Zionism, but you always generalize instead of differentiating the separate components, and that has a tendency then to include the whole.
Which is why I refer to the Globalist/Deep State instead of having to explain what Zionism holds for some and not for others.