Are you a (wo)man, a human being, or a person?

 

There is a difference in essence between a man and a human being. This is a transcendental difference; the former recognises a divine order which establishes the law. Man is natural to existence and acknowledges an author of it that is beyond himself. The human being, on the contrary, understands men as the ultimate authority in the world and he practices a secular humanism in which God is non-existent. This latter man has been defined in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1930) as: "a monster; a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood and cannot be heir to any land". This type of man is subject to the doctrine of man-made ‘Human Rights’ as the ultimate laws governing men.  

Universal Human Rights Declaration 

Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” – 1st Problem: how do states get around this first article, if we were all equal, wouldn’t we all have equal rights to legislate or to decide where our money goes to?

Article 30: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein” 2^nd Problem- how can a State claim to have the right to put men in prison? wouldn’t that contravene Article 30 of the Declaration?

Well, apparently the key lies in Article 6: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”.  

‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are nowhere to be found in the declaration. And that is not accidental. Man constitutes the totality of oneself, it cannot be divided. Man’s conscience, body and spirit are all included in the term man or woman. There is something transcendental and divine about the natural man, something which the human being and the legal person are lacking. In the proper hierarchical order, men and women are the creators of governments. The idea of a government would not exist without men; it is men’s creation and as such, it can never be placed above men. This argument today seems to be a utopian unreachable ideal, the common response to that is: ‘yes, ok, but politicians do what they please!’ But they do, because the proper order has been turned upside down and that debate is nowhere to be found in the mainstream media. So, how has the order been turned upside down? Men have lost their status because they do not know where they stand in the hierarchical social order and as a consequence of that, they have not been able to withdraw consent when the creation has taken over the creator. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that men have altogether rejected the idea of God and, for the last centuries we have been replacing it with other concepts, such as the nation state, which etymologically means the 'born state'. In this upside-down system, the State gives man their rights and duties and takes them away whenever it deems it a right of the state to do so, because government is placed above men, but also above the law, as it is government legislators who create ‘laws’ for men to obey.

However, there is a trickery of words taking place as this is not at all what is happening. Men are still and will always be above governments, because it so logically follows. So, who is beneath governments? Well, government’s creations are beneath it, the legal persons created by it.

When a woman gives birth to a new-born child, that child is born free and equal to every other man or woman on Earth for the sole cause that he is born. But something happens when he joins ‘society’. When the birth is registered, (here there is an investigation into the etymological meaning of the term registering), the State generates a ‘person before the law’ which is a fictional entity, a trust, and which then has access to the ‘rights’ and benefits given by that State. It is presumed that such a registration is mandatory and that without this documentation, the child will be powerless before the law and would loose all his rights. And that is completely true: a stateless person (or a man or a woman without a state-generated legal person) has no ‘state-given rights and benefits’ and therefore is also not bound by such state’s ‘laws’.

Here is the case of Alecia Faith Pennington who does not exist legally. Her case indicates that it is not a lawful obligation to have a state-generated legal fiction attached to a living being. However, she explains that because of that, she cannot get on a plane, drive, nor go to college. But is that really the case or do we simply just not know another way to do commerce without the state's permission? 

To be a ‘legal person’ is to be a corporation. The easiest metaphor to understand this concept is to refer to the 'user' idea in social media platforms. For example, Facebook is owned by somebody, it is a corporation, when you register you create a user which is a kind of 'avatar', it is your person. Are you that person? Whenever something is registered, the owner of the register where the thing is registered to becomes the owner of the registered thing. The State, by creating the child’s legal entity, is effectively the owner of that incorporated entity. The father and the mother sign as ‘informants’ of the event-birth and the State grants the paternal authority over that child's legal person to the mother and father respective legal persons. That is why, the state presumes to be allowed to take those parental rights and duties if it deems right to do so, because the state has granted those in the first place.