Ken Bartle on the transformative role of spiritual values in human consciousness

 Bartle recounted how his son's struggles with the Australian government over importing a car sparked his curiosity about the legal and governmental systems. Dissatisfied with existing frameworks like common law, natural law and admiralty law, the philosopher and published author embarked on a five-year quest to unravel the mystery of consciousness. His research led him to a groundbreaking realization: Consciousness is a process, not just a state of awareness.

He described consciousness as a "factory process" where thoughts and perceptions are the raw materials, and actions are the end product. This process involves various faculties such as intuition, conscience and emotions, all working together to shape a person's decisions and behaviors. The researcher and futurist emphasized that this understanding of consciousness is crucial for personal and societal transformation.

Bartle argued that consciousness is fundamentally spiritual, a concept often overlooked by mainstream science. He believes that by recognizing the spiritual dimension of consciousness, humans can unlock its full potential and harness it for personal growth and societal change.

A key aspect of Bartle's philosophy is the importance of spiritual values in shaping people's consciousness. He identified values such as truth, diligence, respect, courage and compassion as essential components of this process. These values, he explained, are embedded in an individual's subconscious mind and guide their actions, often without their conscious awareness.

"Spiritual values are actually locked into our conscious process, into the subconscious mind, but they're not in our conscious mind because that would override free will," Bartle said.

Bartle used the analogy of driving to illustrate how the subconscious mind operates. Just as people can drive across town without consciously thinking about every action, their subconscious mind relies on these values to navigate life's challenges. By consciously choosing and reinforcing these spiritual values, people can align their conscious and subconscious minds, creating a powerful synergy that propels them toward their goals...<<<Read More>>>...

UN SDGs implant “human rights” and attempt to override our inalienable rights

The United Nations claims that the purpose of Sustainable Development Goal 16, or SDG16, is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies and to provide access to justice for all. Hiding behind the rhetoric is the real objective: to strengthen and consolidate the power and authority of the “global governance regime” and to exploit threats – both real and imagined – in order to advance regime dominance.

The following are edited extracts from an article by Iain Davis titled ‘SDG16: Part 1 – Building the Global Police State’ as published by Unlimited Hangout. His full article is well worth taking the time to read especially if you want to understand the evil lurking behind the façade of the UN’s “sustainable development goals.” You can read Davis’ article HERE.

The United Nations (“UN”) claims the purpose of SDG16 is to: “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”...<<<Read More>>>...

Grand Jury Proceeding for Covid-19 Crimes Against Humanity – “Our liberty goes back to natural law”

[The Expose]: On Saturday 5 February 2022 lawyers gave their opening statements at the Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion, a natural law court. The first to give an opening statement was Attorney at Law Deana Pollard Sacks from the United States of America.

Hello my name is Deana Pollard Sacks and for the past 22 years I’ve been a law professor, constitutional scholar and civil rights activist and litigator.

I’m here today to discuss the derivation of our liberty clause, which goes back to natural law, and to explain why the Covid-19 vaccines are all unconstitutional based upon our history’s jurisprudence.

On the 4th of July 1776 our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. And, here’s what they said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In 1891 our Supreme Court in a case called [Boxford] explained that medical liberty is inalienable and one of the most cherished rights we can ever have they said: “No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority law. The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone.”

In 1914 Justice Cardoso, who later became a United States Supreme Court Justice, put it this way: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”

These same exact concepts and verbatim statements by our court have been reiterated over the decades. In 1990 for example, in a case called Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health the Supreme Court basically held that each individual has a right to reject medical treatment. That goes back to the English Common Law. And here’s what Justice Brennan said in the Cruzan case: “Anglo-American Law starts with the premise of thoroughgoing self-determination it follows that each man is considered to be the master of his own body and he may, if he be of sound mind, expressly prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery or other medical treatment.”

How is it then that our governments are pushing a medical treatment on us without consent? Not real consent. They are coercing our people to take a vaccine that’s experimental in nature upon threat of their livelihoods, their homes and their education....<<<Read More>>>...

Food For Thought #342

 

One Law and the rule to applying it

How to Respond to the Police (COMMON LAW)

In this video, we explain the meaning of "common law" and explore various legal topics including self defence, fines, assault and battery, vicarious liability, and the tortuous offence of trespass to the person.

Dystopian nightmare': UK Home Office ridiculed for bizarre lockdown ad with rave soundtrack

It isn't actually against the law! There is no law. There is only legislation and guidelines made by a corporation. People's folly is falling for the deception due to ignorance of what is law and what isn't law. 

If you agree, and comply then, under the rules of corporate legislation, you are forming a contract with the government and then have to follow the rules.

But if you refuse to comply and don't undertake contract then you don't have to follow their psychopathic guidelines. So few people are aware THEY are the law ...and the government their servants only. 

[SOTT]: A new Home Office advert warning Brits that "meeting up is against the law" has been savaged online. The ad, a throwback to the anti-piracy ads of the 2000s, has been called "dystopian."

Readers of a certain age probably remember the "You wouldn't steal a car" anti-piracy ads. Appearing before DVDs as unskippable clips, the ads featured criminals committing various street crimes, and text warning viewers that "downloading pirated films is stealing."

The UK Home Office has now updated the format for 2021. An ad released by the office on Wednesday warns the public to avoid raves, parties, illegal pubs and even baby showers, because "meeting up is against the law." Footage of police raids on illegal gatherings accompanies the warnings, with a thumping drum 'n' bass soundtrack and amphetamine-jittering text completing the early-2000s aesthetic.

The ad inspired laughter and terror in equal measure, and was trashed online. Conservative pundit Raheem Kassam called it the stuff of "dystopian nightmares," while Guardian writer Peter Walker said it looked like it had been "edited by someone on crystal meth."

Despite the video's claims, meeting up is not against the law in Britain, but it is difficult. Two people can meet outdoors away from their homes, but 'support groups' of up to 15 people can meet in public spaces. Groups of bereaved people, new parents, people with illnesses and LGBT people all count as 'support groups.' Gatherings like weddings, funerals and religious services are still permitted, albeit with severe restrictions on attendance numbers.

For the majority of the population, however, normal social life is on hold since the government introduced the latest nationwide lockdown last month.

The Home Office's shocker ad is not the first attempt by the government to scare its citizenry into compliance. A multi-media campaign last month urged Brits to "act like you've got it" and stay at home, regardless of how healthy they felt. The Home Office had to pull another ad released in January, which stated that "someone jogging, walking their dog or working out in the park is highly likely to have Covid-19." ...<<<Read The Full Article Here>>>...

Warning to Lytham St Annes Shops as first face mask discrimination case nets £7000.00

[David Icke]: A disabled woman assisted by Kester Disability Rights has been paid £7,000 in compensation by a service provider who refused her access to a service because she was unable to wear a face mask.

The pay-out was achieved through negotiation as there was no dispute that access had been denied, or that the Claimant had a disability exemption.  The only thing to be agreed was the amount of compensation, not whether it was due or not. 

Refusing access to people unable to wear face coverings due to disability is direct discimination – no different to denying access to a black or gay person for example.

Disabled people are now routinely harassed in public for not wearing face coverings – frequently given the impression that confidential medical information must be publicly disclosed to justify exemption.  The fact that shops and hospitality businesses routinely display “no mask no entry” signs shows how deeply disablist attitudes are embedded in society.  If premises displayed “no blacks” or “no gays” notices there would be outrage.

Fortunately the official Government position does not endorse any of this as nobody exempt from wearing a mask is expected to go around justifying themselves.  Saying “I’m exempt” is enough.  If the response to that can be proved to be discriminatory then compensation is due....<<<Read The Full Article Here>>>...

 

Thought For The Day #166

 

Policeman Bows to Common Law

Lawful Obstruction Is Given Right Through the Guaranteed Freedoms of Magna Carta Article 61

[David Icke]: Author of books “Forgotten Word” and “The New System,” Sam Jane Brown continues her sincere and stunning message that governments are enforcing acts that do not serve the people. Brown, in her website The Magna Carta Article 61, clearly describes the aspects of The Magna Carta Article 61 as the only true law. She is of the opinion that it is time to take back control of the world through that common law, especially, “The Right to refuse to abide by any Law, Legislation, or other Statutory instrument which has been put in place invalidly by said unlawful government which violates any Constitutional safeguard.”

“So far everything I have predicted in my books is coming true with a vengeance,” said Brown. “Governments are truly overstepping common law, and I don’t see the media telling the entire truth. What people need to do is take back control of the governments, which are mandated to serve the people not the other way around. Imagine a world where the people could make reasonable and mindful decisions about the changing aspects of the pandemic lockdown? The public is truly disenfranchised and stripped of their rights and civil liberties.”...<<<Read The Full Article Here>>>...

 

Met Police Chief Inspector Stands Down to Lawful Observers

Law Of The Land? No, The Corporate Law Of Contracts

John Harris 2 hour interview on EMTV The Strawman

Food For Thought #140

 

Announcing the Freedom of Common Law Glastonbury

Jonathan Trapman from The Freedom Cycle announces the reinstatement of the Common Law in these sacred lands

Food For Thought #139

 

How To Establish Your Rights As One Of Mankind

Where have your rights been hiding? In the last place you’d ever think to look.

Food For Thought #138

 

Unique Child Of The Creator

I am a ' unique child of the creator' and do not consent to anything that is maritime law legislated by a corporation ... ! I am a man, a child and not the 'PERSON' listed on my birth certificate. My fictitious PERSON was created without my permission, as I was unable to talk or understand the consequences ,and therefore nescient, at that time. I therefore REJECT all maritime laws that apply to my fictitious PERSON ... I do not consent and will never enter into a contract with any corporation ... I am not a slave nor a PERSON .... I am of the flesh, I am human, I am a unique child of the creator.