Mini-Seminar by Adask

Adask at the “gates” of Hell’s Canyon, Idaho

I was recently interviewed by Stephen Roberts on “Cancel the Cabal”.  During that video interview, I explored the concepts of sovereignty and the “sovereignty movement,” as well as potential applications of the 1st, 2nd and 9th Amendments, and “MOOA” (“man or other animals”) in relation to drug laws, the war on drugs, police state, big pharma, and American medicine.

The interview lasts almost two hours.  It’s too long to be an “interview,” but it might reasonably be described as a “mini-seminar”.  Most won’t have the time to listen to the entire presentation.  But it’s actually a pretty good general introduction to a number of concepts, so, if you’re inclined to listen, here’s the link:

 

Speculation

I delight in speculation.

Speculation tests my powers of perception, and (hopefully) heightens those powers.

For me, speculation is a process akin to peering into the distance and trying to discern whether a cloud of dust on the horizon is being caused by a bunch of kids playing football, an oxcart or a tank.  It’s a process of “connecting dots” when most people don’t even see the dots.  Speculation is the process of trying to reach correct conclusions based on the least amount of evidence.

Speculation is risky since it’s a kind of intellectual or perceptual gambling.  That gambling excites me—especially when I publicly expose my speculations.  By publicly declaring my speculations, I stick my neck out and risk being ridiculed whenever my speculations turn out to be false. I enjoy the risk because that risk forces me to be much more astute in my speculations.

I don’t like being ridiculed any more than the next guy, so, I generally warn people “not to believe something because you hear it from me”.  I routinely sprinkle my texts and statements with words like “appears,” “what if,” or “hypothesis” to warn readers and listeners that the ideas I’m expressing are unproven, speculative and, while plausible, possibly mistaken.

I’ve been speculating in print or on radio for over 20 years.  If I say so myself, while some of my speculation has been mistaken, most of my speculation has turned out to be roughly correct.

This blog (adask.wordpress.com) is primarily dedicated to speculation.

 

Big Pharma Executive Blows the Whistle

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. John Rengen Virapen claims to be a former executive for Eli Lilly & Co. He claims to have worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 35 years.  He admits that his hands are as dirty as the remainder in the industry.  He describes the pharmaceutical industry as “evil” and claims that pharmaceutical companies kill more people than all the wars of the world.

Five years ago, I discovered the “man or other animals” definitions of “drugs” and medical “devices” in the United States Code and Texas Code.  (See, “Man or Other Animals #1” and/or “Man or Other Animals #3–Genocide“.)  These definitions indicate that the government regards us all as “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) and “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” (“Declaration of Independence”)

So far, the earliest instance of the “man or other animals” declaration that I’ve found is in Section 6 of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. That means that the Government of the United States has regarded, you, me, your parents and mine, our children, etc. as nothing but animals, livestock, for over a century.

 

DOD’s Anti-God Vaccine

Image via Wikipedia

This is easily one of the most disturbing and fascinating videos I’ve ever seen.  It’s so fantastic and seems so improbable that I’m tempted to dismiss it as a hoax.

On the other hand, I’ve listened to it three times, and it’s so well done, so credible in terms of the way people speak and act, that I can’t imagine that it’s a hoax unless produced by a very sophisticated video team for a reason that’s not easy to imagine.

Essentially, the video claims to be the record of an A.D. 2005 meeting at the Department of Defense between a half dozen people being introduced to a new technology that could allegedly be used to eliminate “religious fundamentalists“.

This technology is allegedly based on the discovery of a gene in our DNA that’s associated with people’s tendency to become “religious fundamentalists”.   Those people for whom this gene is maximally “expressed” tend to be “religious fundamentalists”.  Those people for whom this gene is dormant tend to be secularists.

This meeting explains that there is a virus that could be intentionally dispersed in a population that would turn that gene “off”and cause religious fundamentalists to become “normal”.  By “normal” they apparently mean “secularists,” “atheists,” “consumers” and “good little Germans”.

Sounds crazy, right?

 

What’s in a Birth Certificate?

Image via Wikipedia

I remember being told in high school that you don’t really understand your own language until you learn a foreign language.

I think that principle applies to most areas of study.

For example, lots of us have suspected for most of 20 years that the government-issued birth certificates may be used as devices to somehow deprive us of our rights.

The details of this deprivation have remained unclear (at least for me).  Perhaps the birth certificate is presumed to change me from a free man into a “U.S. citizen,” “subject” or eve “slave”.  Perhaps, the birth certificate is presumed to change my status from that of an independent man (with a name like “Alfred Adask”) to that of a fiduciary for the “entity” created and given an all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”) by the “birth certificate”.

What follows is an email exchange between myself and John Rod—a Native American—who has been deprived of his real “birth certificate” and as a result, has been deprived of his rights as a Native American.

This email exchange is not profound, but it still offers some insight.  Just as studying Spanish may help each of us to better understand English, studying the “birth certificates” of Native Americans may help each “American” to better understand his own “birth certificate”.

 

The States of the Union vs. the Territory

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.

 

God-given “unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty

Image via Wikipedia

I recently received the following email:

Hi Alfred,

I was just reading your post on the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. I found it quite interesting.

I was also reading an article about President Obama omitting “Creator” when quoting the Declaration (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=237349) when I noticed that he repeatedly uses “inalienable”. The omission of the one word and the incorrect usage of the other in numerous instances can only be intentional. He’s very consistent about it. I was curious about your thoughts on this.

Matt

At the time, I responded briefly. However, here’s an expanded version of my reply:

 

Capitis Diminutio–more on the All-Upper-Case Name

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

Here’s a well done video from someone else who’s also persuaded that the all-upper-case name identifies some entity or capacity other than that of a living man made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by his Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”.

I don’t absolutely agree with everything in this video.  I’m sure that the video’s author doesn’t absolutely agree with everything I believe, either.  At least one of us–and probably both of us–have more to learn.  But for the moment, we both agree that the all-upper-case name “may be hazardous to your (political) health.”

The point is that the all-upper-case name theory is being increasingly explored and advocated by other people.  The “lunatic fringe” (of which I’m a card-carrying member) is growing thicker every day.  And sometimes, the “lunatic fringe” becomes the “cutting edge”.

7 minutes:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I21wE-h_g

 

“Sovereignty Movement” Inciting Violence?

All great ideas are said to go through three phases.  They are: 1) ridiculed; 2) violently opposed; and, finally, 3) accepted as obviously true.

For most of the past 20 years, the “sovereignty movement” has (consistent with phase #1) been ignored or ridiculed.  With the attached video from a mainstream media outlet (MSNBC), we can see that the great idea of individual sovereignty may now be moving into phase #2 (where it will be violently opposed).  That’s a little scary.

 

The State, “this state” and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Most of what I write is conjecture and speculation.  I enjoy it.  I enjoy “sticking my neck out” to advance ideas that many might suppose were a little “daft”.   Public speculation can be as dangerous as public nudity since your own words can later be used against you to show that you’re a damn fool.  I like that danger.  I like the risk.  For me, speculation is exciting and irresistible.

What follows is some speculation on the fundamental differences between The State and “this state” and also on “extraterritorial jurisdiction”.  It’s all in a PDF file at this link:  100519 Findlaw USSC search EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISD