💾 Archived View for soviet.circumlunar.space › dsfadsfgafgf › gemlog › 2021-11-11_ian.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 07:54:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
dsfadsfgafgf - Mole - Thu Nov 11 2021
So here we are again dealing with the inalienable gibberish.
I just started reading Pseudopandemic. I even uploaded it to this site the other day. I'll be removing the links to it shortly, I identified a problem with the text that drew me to one inexplicable conclusion.
This is a bold statement of course, but I see no way this man cannot know the difference between inalienable and unalienable given his other legal pretensions. It seems quite impossible he hasn't figured this out and therefore it has to be intentional.
This argument seems trivial right? But it is not. This man has real influence and is reposted on other widely read web sites, (clearly less discerning websites) OffGardian for instance that uses the ironic byline "because facts really should be sacred". Well Off-Gard-Iain here's a truth you cannot obfuscate - Inalienable does not and will never mean the same thing as Unalienable.
That makes this seemingly tiny intervention a matter of life and death, the prefix itself In- has inject in it's definition. Is this not enough?
Imagine a parent insisting "their" child has an inalienable right, now imagine the child claiming that right. This is the front door to inadvertently consenting (especially in a court) to the most vile in-tervention ever devised and once it's done it can't be undone. When it is every PERSON(S) right to claim their inalienable right to a "health" intervention it is also every PERSON(S) right to claim an inalienable right to forsake those that reject it. Inalienable rights are little more that a ever shifting legal miasma and indeed this is what we see going on.
Alienable \Al"ien*a*ble\, a. [Cf. F. ali['e]nable.]
Capable of being alienated, sold, or transferred to another;
as, land is alienable according to the laws of the state.
[1913 Webster]
Un- prefix: An inseparable prefix, or particle, signifying NOT*;
In- prefix: A prefix from Eng. prep. in, also from Lat. prep. in, meaning IN*, INTO*, on, among; as, inbred, inborn, inroad; incline, INJECT*, intrude.
That was not hard work was it? So why unless you are indeed a mole do you insist on using the word In-alienable rather that Un-alienable? The differences are quite clear, even in a legal dictionary.
It is my contention Iain that you deliberately produce well documented evidence and pepper it with this word intentionally.
Having read some of Pseudopandemic, (I found it mind numbingly boring) and as a container of mainly statistic salad and name dropping, pointless argument fodder - the semi rant(y) passages about In-alienable rights are a birthday present by comparison and are clearly an appeal to emotional. There are thirty three (33) mentions of the word through out the book (What a shocker). Most of these mentions are accompanied with the word HUMAN of course.
Here are all the comments (I think) that contain the erroneous word taken form Pseudopandemic (with comments)..
Among those who question what we are told about COVID 19 are a contingent who wish to exercise their inalienable rights and freedoms.
I for one don't want to do any of that at all.
Unlike inalienable rights, which every human being is born with and no human being can legitimately deny, human rights are a political construct.
Of course this statement if fallacious on it's face. Human beings are not born, therefore the rest of the statement is poppycock.
Governments are pathologically allergic to the concept of inalienable rights.
Utter poppycock. The direct opposite is true. If as you claim Human rights are a political construct why then would Government...
What they fail to grasp is that inalienable rights can never be extinguished.
Public = positive = INalienable (reserved but for sale, thus potentially alienable, meaning for voluntary sale by consent and contract). **
This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be LAWFULLY* transferred from one person to another. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
Note: [Inclusio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius] The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. This definition clearly states what cannot be LAWFULLY transferred, it excludes legal transfer.
Of course this is where license et al comes in and Iain Davis should now this stuff. Stop when the below definition start to sound unfamiliar.
LICENSE, International law. An authority given by one of two belligerent parties, to the citizens or subjects of the other, to carry on a specified trade. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
The above definition explains exactly what's going on. It should give you a warm Sustainable feeling. No JAB no JOB et al is just a "new" form of license (Inalienable right). The Mark of the Beast has to be reinvented now and then.
Unspoken theme is the disregard for our inalienable rights.
A Human being has Inalienable rights these rights can be transferred or sold therefore total regard for the aforementioned has actually taken place.
Inalienable right are not permits bestowed upon us by government. They are universal concepts of natural justice inherent to Natural or God's law. They exist in nature, not on pieces of paper. They are immutable and inalienable and can be perceived by every emotional being, including humans.
Yes they are. No they are not. No they don't, yes they do and an appeal to emotion. Shamalama ding bong moan!
Inalienable rights are emotionally resonant and, as soon as we are able to experience emotion, we can sense them.
What utter pish.
We are born with inalienable rights.
Bollox.
Inalienable rights are incomprehensible for the psychopath and the sociopath.
Not really. Full account has be taken and is being taken.
Their actions are consistently wrong and, as sovereign human beings with inalienable rights, it is our duty to disarm any undue influence they may hold over anyone.
"sovereign human beings" is just a gibberish statement. God is sovereign, Man is next, human is at best a thing that creepeth; and as for "Undue influence" #Pot #Kettle #Black.
Inalienable rights are solely defined by what is right and what is wrong.
That definition will not be found in any dictionary I fancy. I look forward to being stood corrected.
They are our inalienable rights.
When we die we no longer occupy a physical place in space and time but both continue in our absence, as do inalienable rights.
WTF? Your a necromancer now? How could you possible now that?
We all know this, we naturally react defensively when we feel someone is attempting to deny our freedom to exercise our inalienable rights.
Good lord it's like a mantra. Double plus rhetoric.
They have come to place great value upon deception as the best way to coerce us into accepting that they have the right to ignore our inalienable rights.
"O, had thy grandsire with a prophet's eye seen how his son's son should destroy his sons, from forth thy reach he would have laid thy shame, Deposing thee before thou wert possess'd," John of Gaunt - Richard II - Shakespeare (allegedly)
By neither exercising nor defending our inalienable rights we permit them to do as they wilt.
Here we have it. Shout it from the roof tops "I WANT MY INALIENABLE RIGHTS" and promptly get arrested and injected.
Inalienable rights are universal and are undeniably occupied in equal measure by every human being.
UNIVERSAL?
Those who do not respect inalienable rights must be brought to natural justice.
I honestly read that as natural juiced ice. It's getting hard to stay awake.
The minimal use of force is solely a right of self-defence but an attack on one human being's inalienable rights is an attack on all human beings inalienable rights in equal measure.
Unbelievable. Note the UNIVERSAL nature of Iain's inalienable rights is starting to take form.
We have been deceived into imagining we have human rights and in doing so we have neglected our duty to defend humanity's inalienable rights.
UNIVERSAL II The ConfusNing.
Freedom is your inalienable right.
Zzzz...
It was a fraud designed to fool you into abandoning your inalienable rights and freedoms.
No. It's a fraud designed to fool you into abandoning your Unalienable rights.
Utterly bamboozled, many victims came to view their own freedom of speech, inalienable right and liberties as dangerous.
Since all of the above is by the grace of government and not God they probably are.
Law stems from Natural Law and protects our inalienable rights from, among others, the government.
Nope!
Always falsely claiming they were "led by science," by utilising mainstream media (MSM) propagandists, informed influencers were able to convince the population to forfeit their inalienable rights and freedoms in exchange for biosecurity "safety."
Biosecurity "safety." was never promised. Was it? I honestly stopped paying attention after the first week.
As the rise of the Internet has seen their stranglehold on information dwindle, they have worked with the tech gIaints and the State regulators to increase censorship of free speech and freedom of expression and they strongly support further legislation to remove our freedoms and dismiss our inalienable rights.
Well that was fun. Not really. If you managed to get through that you clearly see a theme the main body of the theme seems to be that HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND INALIENABLE* Coincidently the exact same theme Iain rails against in the United Nations General Assembly(s) "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
At best Iain's message is inconsistent. The entire book Pseudopandemic is a mere vehicle. This is very sophisticated propaganda designed to sell you a word and the word he is selling is INALIENABLE.
With probably millions of people suddenly waking up to what's going on, Iain serves a useful conduit to inject a little poison into the discussion. How many people have we seen claiming to have inalienable Human rights in front of the Police for instance? Or claiming to be sovereign Human beings the same. This is exactly the kind of idiocy "higher minds" feel justified in eradicating. Moreover; claiming Human rights under such terms will invariably invoke the U.N's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", do you honestly believe your going to convince a judge that your Universal Inalienable Human Rights are anything other than what has already been written DOWN for you?
Those that do not take heed of the above statement will be dragged before their masters and given their inalienable human rights whether they like it or not. Don't forget. You asked for it.
Stay hungry and rejoice.
----
INALIENABLE.
This word is applied to those things, the property of which
cannot be LAWFULLY* transferred from one PERSON* to another. Public highways
and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are
inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be SOLD*.
2. Things which are not in COMMERCE*, as public roads, are in their
nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of
particular provisions in the law forbidding their SALE* or transfer, as
pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty
are unalienable.
* Emphases added.
** STRAWMAN — The Real Story Of Your Artificial Person A private work by: clint > richardson - page 340