If you’ve followed this blog for long, you probably know that I am fixated on the state and federal drugs laws that define the people to be “animals”. (See, “Man or Other Animals” and especially the Civil Suit I was involved in.)
I understand pretty clearly that gov-co’s attempts to define us as “animals” constitutes an act of treason, genocide, and especially spiritual warfare.
I also suspect that an all-upper-case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” identifies a person or perhaps a capacity other than that signified by the proper, capitalized name “Alfred Adask”.
So I was much surprised when someone sent me an email with a definition of “HUMAN BEING” that recognizes all lower or inferior people to be “animals” and “property” and signifies all such inferior people with an ALL-UPPER-CASE name like “ALFRED N ADASK”.
That particular definition is found on a website named “One-Evil.org” which appears to regard some or all of the Catholic Church as evil. I’m not here to recommend or disparage that website. I’m simply surprised by the definition of “HUMAN BEING” found on that website. The definition is well-written and appears to be the result of some man or institution of authority. It’s conceivable that the definition was originally drafted by some element of the Catholic Church, but I have no evidence to support that possibility.
I would very much like to know who/what drafted the following definition. Whoever drafted that definition strikes me as having an enormous amount of knowledge. However, I don’t know who/what drafted the definition, so I have no idea as to the definition’s legitimacy or authority.
Nevertheless, here it is (the bold highly are my addition):
“From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man “. A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction –that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior “animal” man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century–to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as “humans” –therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.”
The original definition can be seen at: http://one-evil.org/glossary_legal_terms/glossary_h.htm
If any of you have the time, energy and inclination to analyze this definition, please let me know what you discover.
This is the second time that I’ve seen the word “human” or “human being” defined as an “animal”. The first time was in an early edition of Ballentine’s Law Dictionary. I don’t know what the “legal” definitions of “human” and “human being” may be, but I suggest you object to any attempt to describe yourself or your family as “human” and insist that you are a “man” or “woman” “made in God’s image”.