Slavery in America

The USA and it's several states are amongst some of the largest slavers in the world today. Almost no one is aware of this fact. We are all taught that slavery ended, that the Civil War that cost millions of Americans their lives put an end to the evil practice.

We were lied to.

Thirteenth Amendment

"Section 1

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"Section 2

"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

As you can see, the Thirteenth Amendment did not ban all slavery, because criminals remain subject to it. While we can at least be happy that random gangs of thugs aren't lawfully empowered to simply raid your local elementary school and take all the students as slaves, the Constitution still upholds the legal principle that human beings aren't innately and inherently sovereign, which directly contradicts the language of the Declaration of Independence, that proclaims '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...'

If a court of law can reduce a human being to property, then that court is denying human beings have unalienable rights. That remains the legal position of the USA and 49 of 50 US states today, Oregon having removed the exception in it's constitution for criminal convictions from the ban on slavery last year.

If a thing can be property, it cannot be sovereign. It cannot have rights.

US Right To Know is an NGO (Non Governmental Organization) that recently came to my attention by publishing proof SARS2 was manufactured at WIV, and today alerted me that AP (Associated Press) published a story regarding slave labor in the USA today, 'Prisoners in the US are part of a hidden workforce linked to hundreds of popular food brands'.

Unsurprisingly, the first line in the article is a lie.

"ANGOLA, La. (AP) — A hidden path to America’s dinner tables begins here, at an unlikely source – a former Southern slave plantation that is now the country’s largest maximum-security prison."

It's a lie to say the prison is a former slave plantation, because it is presently a slave plantation. This elucidates the subtle propaganda that most Americans have succumbed to regarding slavery, that considering convicted prisoners as slaves is pedantry, a trifle without meaning, since the prisoners have to be locked up anyway. Looking at the US slave labor market reveals that it's not a trivial financial matter, because it involves millions of American jobs. That's pretty significant financial impact, a lot of money.

IMG source - Glostat.netlify.app

It's also of critical importance to the very nature of humanity, freedom, and government. If people are inherently sovereign because they have inalienable rights, which most Americans believe and will firmly assert, then slavery cannot be lawful, because it is the ownership of people, their reduction to property over which the owner has exclusive rights. The property doesn't have any rights. Toasters don't have rights. Slaves don't have rights.

Since people think prisoners don't have rights, it seems to be mere wordplay to blather about rights and slavery for prisoners, but people have been conditioned to not give the matter substantial thought, because prisoners certainly do have rights. When we were ordered to remain in our homes, when the lockdowns began over Covid19, we were imprisoned, making us prisoners, by definition. You, although imprisoned, certainly still had rights, at least as far as you're concerned, right? Imprisoning someone, even in a cage, does not remove their rights. All sorts of legal gymnastics get involved in legal justifications for imprisoning and holding people captive that aren't necessary to deal with for our purposes here, because we're just making a distinction between sovereign humans with inalienable rights and toasters that are property and have no rights.

There are all sorts of laws that can subject you to imprisonment without having been convicted of a crime, and the lockdowns are just one of them. There is the 72 hour psychiatric hold, and of course the US Dept. of Homeland Security can snatch and grab you at any time without even charging you with a crime. So, I am sure you will insist you have inalienable rights even as a prisoner, and all prisoners have inalienable rights, because you do.

The propaganda we are subjected to simply glosses over these issues and we are given the impression most of us have, that the distinction between prisoner and slave is trifling. As I've shown, it is not trifling to you. If you were locked down and that means you have no rights because you were a prisoner, then you never had rights to begin with, and overlords can do whatever they want to you without any legal recourse or anything other than your power to defend yourself from them. Klaus Schwab can just feed you bugs, or even not feed you at all, as he sees fit, because you don't have any rights and he can do whatever he wants to with you because he has the money to hire goons with guns and make you do it, or die.

That's pretty obviously not a sound basis for civil society. Nor does it reflect the actual reality we experience. We exercise sovereign authority over ourselves every day. No strings are attached to our arms that pull them around and make them brush our teeth. We will ourselves to act, and have the exclusive ability to do that. Because only you can will yourself to act, you have exclusive authority over yourself. In actual fact and practice, you are sovereign, and inherently have - and are the only one to have over you - the rights to act as you will.

You are not property. No one else is either. Really smart people and really stupid people equally have inalienable rights. People driving cars and people held in cages equally have inalienable rights. Therefore we plainly observe that slavery is not lawful, it cannot be justifiable in just legal theory because people are not property.

IMG source - APNews.com

But the United States of America, and the State of Louisiana, claim that the people in that picture are property, and not sovereign at all. They're the legal equivalent of toasters, and Louisiana can do what it wants to with them.

Why does this matter to you? After all, you're not being held prisoner because you got caught tearing the tag off a mattress. You're still free. You still have rights, right? Well, no, you don't have any rights at all if these men don't have any. If these men are property, you are property. The only difference is that Louisiana has captured these men and put them to work making products without paying them fair wages they agree to exchange for their labor. You just haven't been caught yet. You're like a stick on the ground in the woods, that anyone can pick up at any time and whittle into a toothpick that is their property.

Also, the exception in the Thirteenth Amendment is for people that have been 'duly convicted' of a crime. What that really means is that a court has ordered them enslaved. Because states can claim anything is a crime, it isn't the crime that differentiates someone as a slave. It's the order of the court. This is a precedent that matters quite a bit, because you don't have to commit crime to be subject to the orders of a court.

I have long noted that Monsanto fertilized crops of farmers that did not pay Monsanto royalties to grow their patented crops, and then sued them in court for failure to pay those royalties and won. The court decided that the crops did have Monsanto's patented DNA, and therefore, regardless of whether the farmer's wanted their crops to have that DNA or not, it did, and they owed Monsanto the royalty payments it demanded. Monsanto legally seized many farm properties from farmers that could not pay the royalties demanded, and this has been established law since the 1990s, for ~30 years now.

So, if Pfizer, or Moderna, manage to insert DNA into you that they own the patent on, they can sue you for royalties you owe them, and under the precedents set by Monsanto decades ago, if they can demonstrate you have their patented DNA in you, you owe them money. If you can't pay they can seize their property - your DNA, in your cells, that make up your body - as compensation under the precedents that have been established law for decades. You can be ordered to become property of pharmaceutical corporations (or whoever owns the patent to your DNA, as altered) by a court, just like people are convicted of crimes by court order.

Then the exception from the ban on slavery will be applied to you, even though you never committed a crime.

Because of the nature of the modRNA jabs, that are also shown now to be adulterated with ~800x the limit set by the FDA of foreign DNA, these medical interventions are potential to change your DNA. Such medical treatments have been long defined as genetic therapy under law for this reason. The DNA adulteration of the jabs has only been recently revealed, and the nature of the DNA adulteration is yet to be nominally characterized. There could be any DNA fragments in the jabs, we certainly don't have an exhaustive list, and the manufacturers are still, with their pet regulatory agency, trying to claim it doesn't matter. They're not going to give us a list even if they can.

However, as we have discussed, if any of those DNA particles happen to be patented, there is a real potential the patent holder(s) could employ a legal strategy to claim people as slaves because they are unable to pay demanded royalties and therefore forfeit their property, themselves, to the patent holder(s) as compensation. Bill Gates, Moderna, Pfizer, Anthony Fauci, and many others have DNA patents related to the SARS2 virus and the jabs, any or all of which might be asserted in court for the above purposes.

Among all the many alarming aspects of the modRNA jabs, this one is to me the most alarming, and most overlooked. I believe that current law is inadequate to properly secure our sovereignty, and that this is done for bad reason, to enable our enemies to profit by our lack of sovereignty. In the end, I don't accord anyone any right to claim I am not fully and personally sovereign, regardless of their cleverness in presenting arguments in court, their might of arms, or how sybaritic their wealth.

However, rather than courageously - and stupidly - telling them to come and take it, I am going to try to create a nominal force of allies mutually defending one another from them, because they are going to come and take it if I don't. Alone, I cannot exert nominal force to secure me from our enemies. None of us can. Only by acting together can we defend one another, and everyone, from this literally existential threat to our very humanity.

Also, don't let anyone stick stuff in you without informed consent.