Common Lore England Chat

I'm actually researching the Little Season theory at the moment, which is why 1776 interests me, although perhaps for a slightly different reason. I agree there may be something much deeper going on with 1776 than simply "America became free from Britain." What strikes me about the Declaration is the direction of authority. When you look at something like the Ten Commandments, the direction is clear. God gives the law and man receives it. Authority comes down from God. The Declaration is unusual because although it still acknowledges God as the Creator and source of man's rights, the political authority itself comes from man. Governments are "instituted among Men" and derive their powers from "the consent of the governed." So essentially: Rights come from God. Government comes from Man. That is the part I find significant. I wouldn't say the Declaration openly rejects God because it clearly doesn't. But I think it quietly changes the order. God is retained as the source of man's rights, while mankind assumes responsibility for governing itself. Instead of authority being understood as something descending through an established God-centred hierarchy, sovereignty increasingly resides in man himself. Man chooses his rulers, creates his government, alters it and ultimately decides what authority he will live under. That ties directly into what I'm researching with the Little Season. If the Little Season is a period in which mankind is allowed to exercise its own choice and move increasingly away from God's direct order, then perhaps 1776 isn't important simply because America separated from Britain. Perhaps it represents an important stage in mankind effectively saying: God has given us our rights and our free will. We will govern ourselves. And once that principle exists, the acknowledgement of God can gradually disappear while the system remains. So I don't necessarily see 1776 as the beginning of the Little Season or proof of anything. I see it as a po

That actually seems to reinforce the point I was making rather than contradict it. Rights are endowed by the Creator, but governmental authority comes from the people. That's exactly the distinction I'm interested in: God gives man the rights, then man delegates authority to the government he creates. My question is theological rather than strictly legal. whether that represents a change in the direction of earthly authority from God to ruler to man, towards God to man to government, with mankind increasingly governing itself. That's the connection I'm exploring with the Little Season theory.

it's a fair observation we all have God given unalienable rights and man's creation, called government, gets in the way and legislates (makes rules) so that the tiny few can profit from and control the many it's quite retarded to say the least i am often reminded of the maxim "if you don't know your rights then you have none" regards the so-called "declaration of independence" is it God or GOD that's mentioned?

Yes I think we are probably looking at this from a very similar angle. Your question about whether the Declaration is referring to God or gods is interesting because "Nature's God" is a very broad phrase. You could speculate about whether that language was deliberately chosen to allow a different understanding of deity, including the old pagan gods, fallen angels, Lucifer etc, but I don't think the Declaration itself gives us enough to prove that. At that point it becomes speculation and I think it is important to acknowledge that. What we can actually see in the wording is interesting enough on its own. The Declaration acknowledges a Creator and says that man's rights come from that Creator, but then says governments are instituted among men and derive their powers from the consent of the governed. So in simple terms: Rights come from God. Government comes from Man. That is the distinction I am interested in. It doesn't openly reject God. In fact it still acknowledges Him. But it appears to change the direction of earthly authority. With something like the Ten Commandments the direction is God to Man. God gives the law and man receives it. With the Declaration, God gives man his rights, but man then decides how he will govern himself, what government he will create, who will rule and what authority that government will possess. So perhaps the more subtle shift is not "God no longer exists", but "God has given us our rights and free will, and from here we will govern ourselves." That is why this interests me in relation to the Little Season theory I have been researching. If mankind is entering a period where it is increasingly allowed to exercise its own will and construct its own order, then 1776 may be significant as a marker rather than necessarily the beginning of anything. And what happens afterwards is interesting too. Exactly 13 years later you get the French Revolution in 1789. Then monarchy is abolished, Louis XVI is executed in 1793, establ

"We The People" ....proper nouns referring to those that signed the constitution not the hoi polloi.

i felt i did the best i could without firearms and army or a husband as a single woman vulnerable in the ghetto of london already, just kept getting "sectioned and targeted", this was in 2024 when police robbed my jewelries collection and turned their body worn camera off when i got kidnapped away and they walked away with my precious treasures. I dont know where is safe and can be trusted with basic bodily and property safety and security anymore, they only gave me snippets of these videos not my whole data and intelligence, I specifically asked for intelligence on me and see why I am so targeted. https://youtu.be/d4YCPwQJC6U

Hi Agnes, thank you for explaining, and I am sorry you have been through all of this. From what I have seen, I think the simplest thing to do now is raise a formal complaint specifically about the officers’ use of Section 17 of PACE. Ask the force to review whether the threatened or actual forced entry was lawful, because the officers said they needed to enter to speak to you and ask questions, while Section 17 is an entry power used for specific purposes such as carrying out an arrest. The complaint should establish whether they had actually decided to arrest you before forcing entry, what grounds they had and why they considered the arrest necessary. It is not too late to complain, although you should explain that your health and the trauma caused by the incident prevented you from doing so sooner. You do not need to resolve every other issue or obtain all the footage before submitting this complaint. Raise the Section 17 concern now and request that all relevant body-worn footage, incident logs and decision records are preserved and reviewed. The other matters can be addressed separately once the complaint has been formally recorded. Keeping this first complaint narrow and focused will make it much harder for the central question about the lawfulness of the entry to become lost among everything else.

Thanks Mike, intellectually I understand you about misuse of the section 17. My body pretty much just shut down whenever i tried to deal with it and so far no solicitor had agreed to take on my case. My life could not even be straightened out for a decade and that was why I was in the ghetto. A part of me just want to abanadon all these as my health cannot take on more distress, just flee to somewhere safe but I dont know where safety is. I also have a pile of unfinished lawsuits business like this in the last ten years since i started to get targeted, how about you do you have personal experience/ interest with these or known others who are also targeted? Im unwell and exhausted feeling too vulnerable to travel or stay in london. Im just furious that they pick the most vulnerable to target probably knowing I have no energy to fight back. When I am well hopefully one day soon ill try to request the incident logs and decision records again, but I also started money claims on them, uncertain if my health would allow me to finish them.

hi

what do you want?

I understand, Agnes, and it sounds as though trying to deal with everything together has become overwhelming. I do not have personal experience of being targeted and I am not legally qualified, I simply looked at the specific Section 17 issue because it stood out in the footage. My honest suggestion would be to separate this from all the other disputes and take one small step at a time. The first step could simply be submitting a short complaint asking the force to review whether the use of Section 17 and the forced entry were lawful. You can explain that ill health caused the delay. You do not need to obtain every record or present the entire case before raising that one concern. Once it has been formally recorded, you can decide what to address next when you feel able.

Thanks , I will have a look when I get home and get back to you

this is just the part they broke in, in hindsight i should have stayed behind until i see them all physically leave and patch up my door or something , i feel im always targeted like this as a pattern, same way i should have not go out at night in place where a stranger could rob me in paris, i feel too vulnerable to travel alone, live alone