Graduating Life With Honours  
Conscious Self-Governance in God's Kingdom
__________________  

My Spirit name is White Walking Feather
My vessels name is rob in the pagé family 

Copyleft 2015, 2017 

This book is free and to be shared with my brothers and sisters, no    matter how rich or poor they may be. I do grant to every spiritual   being  the right and permission to distribute this work freely with the    condition that any copies or adaptations are also bound by a copyleft    agreement and will not be sold or commercialized in any way and  remain unaltered. If you are not familiar with copyleft, you can read  more   about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft  

Donations
If the Spirit moves you to support my work, I will accept gifts of    energy so that I may continue to write, explore, create and share  along   my journey. Donations can be made through White dot Walking dot Feather at gmail.com   

Revisions
February 6, 2015 – Prerelease   
April 12, 2015 – Final Release Version 1.0
October 12, 2017 - Updated Release on Steemit.com Version 1.1  

Chapter Five 

Modern Feudalism

Although a system may cease to exist in the legal sense or as a structure of power, its values (or anti-values), its philosophy, its teachings remain in us. They rule our thinking, our conduct, our attitude to others. The situation is a demonic paradox: we have toppled the system but we still carry its genes.    - Ryszard Kapuscinski

 
In February 2012, I read a book called “A Treatises on Copyholds” written in 1816 by Charles Watkins. The book was written to show people how feudalism worked in England and was a source of a lot of insight for me in regards to how our current political system functions. After reading that book, I wrote a paper called 'Quasi-Feudal System of Alberta & Canada' in an attempt to show people how the current political constructs are in fact an extension of the feudal system that existed in many parts all over the world many years ago. Some references would suggest that feudalism was abolished back in the 1600's. However, I suggest that the feudalistic empires are alive and well today and in fact is the primary construct upon which the whole world is currently being governed. I believe it is critical that we fully comprehend the implications of our relationship with feudalism as it will be extremely difficult to comprehend how this construct enslaves us and in fact is not serving us at all.    

The problem that I faced in the past was in regards to the terminology of the feudal system. There are so many old archaic terms and concepts to learn, which makes it difficult to wrap ones' mind around a concept when the reader struggles with comprehension of the terms being used. From a very basic level, feudalism was a way for people to rally around a king for protection. The reason it became so popular was that there were roving bands of thugs that would come along and steal wood, food, women, gold, etc. The poor people on the land did not have the resources to defend themselves against such aggression.    

Their solution was to approach the wealthy individuals in their communities and ask them for protection. After all, they had the wealth and could pay for the army to protect them. The thugs did not bother the wealthy much because they had the resources to defend themselves. The wealthy agreed to this arrangements and in turn asked for the services and land from the poor in exchange for protection.    

This is, by far, the whole idea behind the 'intent' of countries or nations of today. Most people just want to be safe so that they can live their lives. Because of that, they are willing to surrender certain rights, property and even 'pay' money and other resources in order to obtain that safety through benefits and privileges. Back in the day, just as today, the wealthy had different ideas about what this meant to them. There is a huge gap between the intent of those who are looking for protection and those who provide the protection.    

The kings of the day wanted more than just land and resources. They viewed any individuals approaching them for protection as weak and inferior, so they demanded that they commit themselves fully to their empire. They demanded loyalty and obedience in exchange for protection. They were treated like children or even slaves. After all, if one cannot protect themselves then one is completely dependent, just like a child is with a parent. Children and slaves are typically those individuals who are dependent upon others for the basic necessities of life. Some are by choice, others by force. Either way, the results are the same. We were warned about the consequences of feudalism but the people chose to be governed by a king anyway. In scripture 1 Samuel 8 outlines this choice very clearly:  

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint [them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and [some] shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and [will set them] to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters [to be] confectionaries, and [to be] cooks, and [to be] bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, [even] the best [of them], and give [them] to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put [them] to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.   

Whether it is by free will choice or by force, the consequences of having other people govern, protect or rule over us is always the same. Those people will always require some level of resources, wealth, etc, in exchange for protection and governance. That is what taxes, armies, bureaucracy and public projects are all about. The burden that we place upon those who govern is immense and as such they require our resources and obedience in order for them to have the resources to govern, make decisions, build public works, pay the bureaucracy, etc. Do these individuals have the character to deal with all this wealth, resources and power without corruption? Very rarely do we find somebody with this level of character.    

The very disturbing thing is that the kings did not want just the wealth and resources, they also wanted loyalty and obedience. So if an individual wanted the kings protection it was not enough to give land and other resources, they also demanded that the people get down on one knee and swear an oath of allegiance to the king. This oath meant that the individual would not do anything to disrupt what the king is doing and in fact would do everything they could to support the king and be completely obedient. If called upon, these individuals would even go to war to serve the king and protect the kingdom. This oath was called 'homage' years ago, now we call it 'oath of citizenship'. Once an individual swore homage to their king and Lord, all their land and wealth was turned over to the king and the individual essentially became a slave, also known as a vassal. Today we turn over all our land and wealth to the king when we register property, our signature is our oath.  With so many people rushing to the king for protection, the kingdom was getting much too large for one man to govern. So the king established a second tier of people to help him. These people are his nobles. These men swore an oath to the king as well, however the king did set them up with responsibilities and special privileges, such as land, wealth, power and influence. The Kingdom (demesne/domain) was divided up into smaller, manageable pieces and the King assigned a noble to govern each piece of land. These nobles then became the lord of the land (also known as a land lord). The piece of land was called a Manor as the Lord was permitted to build his house on the land. The vassals built near the Manor in a small village. At that point the noble was the Lord of the Manor. The people who swore homage to the king would also swear homage to the Lord of the Manor. The Lord was granted the land by the king which meant that the lord possessed the land but did not own the land. The king maintained the highest level of ownership to all the land (Allodial Title) in his domain (demesne) and granted a copyhold to the land Lord. The copyhold is essentially a document to outline the right of the lord to possess and hold the land for the land owner, the king. The lord of the manor would then turn around and grant a copyhold to the vassal so that the vassal could possess the land to farm it, etc. With each copyhold there was a duty, services or fees attached to the agreement in exchange for the benefits and privileges granted to the vassal from the lord or the king. The vassal would pay the lord of the manor and the lord of the manor would then pay the king.    Now if this sounds familiar it should. Despite assurances from many legal scholars that feudalism was abolished hundreds of years ago, I suggest that feudalism is alive and well today. In 1882 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case Holman v. Green, 6 SCR 707;  

Therefore at the date of the admission of Prince Edward Island "into the Union" pursuant to the provisions of the 146th section of the British North America Act, the land in question formed part of the demesne lands of the Crown belonging to that province. - (author's emphasis)  

What the Supreme Court is saying is that when each province joined the Union, they were added to the demesne (King's domain). So if the land became part of the demesne lands of the Crown belonging to the province, then who is the King that holds all the land? What is the Crown and what is the province? I would surmise that the actual structure of CANADA and the relationships between the Pope, Queen, Governor General and Lieutenant Governors is more complex than anybody is willing to share. Suffice to say though that you or I do not own our land outright. Anybody that pays rent or property taxes are, in fact, a feudal vassal and a slave to the land lords.    

The land has been attached to a manor and retained for the Crown’s own use when the Europeans came to conquer this land. I'm not going to mince words here. There may be some treaties in place, but the people and the land were taken by force or deception long before the treaties were signed. I will discuss this in more detail later. Because the land was added to the demesne (kings domain) and further divided up into manors (provinces and municipalities), by definition and custom, the lord of the manor (Governor General and Lieutenant Governor) are responsible for maintaining the records of the manor. These records consist of which copyholds were issued to which vassals. In a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44), the court re-enforces this idea by created a new tenure called 'Aboriginal Title'. The land still belongs to the demesne (domain) of the King, but a feudal tenure has been created to address the 'aboriginal' concerns and ensures they remain vassals to the King. These copyhold documents for all these records were once held on the rolls and have since been replaced with what we today call Land Titles. Take a look at your deed and you will see that the vassal is listed there as an owner of the title (piece of paper granting permission to possess the land) and tenant of the land itself.    The lord also had to maintain records for tax collection, fees, services, etc. Years ago these records were on rolls of paper hence the modern term 'Tax Roll'. The rolls were first established by King William I or as history has called him, William the Conqueror. Back in 1066 he established the Domesday Book which inventoried all the wealth and assets in the kingdom. If there were any disputes, the Domesday Book was deemed correct, even if it had errors. The king always had a court to ensure that the records were updated and as accurate as possible for his demesne. The courts were granted additional duties to ensure that any disputes over the 'record' be resolved. 

It may interest you to know that our present day courts still believe that their jurisdiction comes from kings long ago. I found a ruling by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in N.P. v. LDS Adoption Services, 2006 ABQB 78 which highlights and supports what I am expressing in this chapter. As you go through it, take note that their authority and jurisdiction does not come from the constitution or anything like that, but instead comes from the Norman kings that took over from Edward the Confessor who ruled from 1042 – 1066. The year 1066 is key here to show that the courts were set up and still support feudalism as it all started in 1066 with the Domesday Book. The court also highlights their perverted interpretation of scripture to suggest their authority was granted by God himself. I suggest that the quoted scripture was a consequence of the choice people made in 1 Samuel 8 rather than God granting that authority and power over the people. Here is what the Alberta court said:

The parens patriae jurisdiction is but an aspect of the ancient jurisdiction of the Sovereign the origins of which are described in W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, vol. I, 7th ed. (London: Methuen & Co., 1956) pp. 33-34:  The Norman kings always regarded themselves as the successors of Edward the Confessor. They were lawful kings of the English; and, as such, they were entitled to exercise those powers of government which men believed were put into their hands for the preservation of peace, the protection of the weak, and the maintenance of justice. Because they were kings they had powers which transcended the powers of a mere feudal suzerain. No doubt these powers were vague. But, because they were vague, they were of the greatest value to kings who were in a position to exploit them to the uttermost, firstly because they were in effect conquerors, and secondly because they were men of exceptional ability and force of character. It was by the help of these prerogative powers, which were regarded as inherent in the office of king, and as belonging to them as the successors to Edward the Confessor, that the Norman and Angevin kings so developed the powers of the feudal Curia Regis that they made it the most efficient organ of centralized government that existed in Western Europe.  The notion of the king as the fount of justice was not invented by the Norman kings. See I Kings, c. 3, v. 16-28 the last verse of which is, “And all Israel heard of the judgement which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgement.”  When we speak of the Supreme Court of British Columbia as a court of inherent jurisdiction we are really saying that for all purposes of administering justice the judges are exercising all the ancient rights, powers, duties and privileges of the Sovereign. Hence the locution “Her Majesty’s Judges”. 

Despite the court’s assertions that they are exercising the ancient rights, powers, duties and privileges of the Sovereign, it is still based on the premise that the individual made a free will choice to swear homage to the sovereign to begin with. After all, the Sovereigns' jurisdiction ends where another Sovereigns' jurisdiction begins. The court uses the passage from scripture out of context as justification for their God given right to rule. If we put the passage into context after 1 Samuel 8 it is clear that they have jurisdiction only because the people made the choice to reject God in favour of consenting to be governed by the king. This is the whole premise behind the legal term 'consent of the governed'. The Bible is not written as an absolute but rather outlines the consequences of our choices. 1 Samuel 8, which I wrote above, is one such example. If somebody was to make the choice to reject the Creator and instead choose to be governed by a king, then what the court said in regards to I Kings quoted in the court ruling would apply! However, if one chooses to embrace God and reject being governed by the king, then does the same passage in I Kings apply? No! I see many instances of choice in Scripture and consequences of those choices. To suggest that every single passage in Scripture applies is ridiculous. I would also suggest that passages also apply to different Realms as well, depending on the context of the passages. These passages apply to those in the Physical Realm as they contemplate being governed by kings through an entity in the Fictional Realm – country/kingdom/nation. Those people who choose to reject being governed by the Spirit/Creator and instead embrace governance by a king must then be obedient to their new king and that consent to being governed must be through a free will choice. Today that consent is seen through our participation of the system. All interactions, whether we vote, apply or register with the state is all based on our free will to contract.  Even the Supreme Court of Canada agrees that consent is required in order to govern. Paragraph 67 in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 states:  

The consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society.  

I believe the courts recognize the power and significance of homage. It is absolutely critical that they receive homage in order to exert jurisdiction over the individual. It happens every day in court. The challenge that people face is that we have never been taught about these issues and as such we have absolutely no idea which actions or behaviours constitute homage. Most people, with the exception of our Indigenous brothers and sisters, have been living this way for so long that it is custom and that in itself is extremely dangerous too. Since custom trumps law, the longer we continue living this way, the stronger the courts' arguments become when it comes to those who refuse to pay homage to the king.  

Custom 

It turns out that ‘Custom’ is a key foundational principle behind the force of Law being exercised in the demesne (domain) of the king. Custom by definition as:   

A usage which by continuance has acquired the force of a law or right, esp. the special usage of a locality, trade, society, or the like. - Oxford Unabridged Dictionary 1958   

Because the feudal system in one way or another has been functional for nearly a thousand years, it has become a ‘custom’ and is the primary basis for the claim that the Crown and the courts have over the people. Custom has the full force and effect of law and they use it! The custom of the Manor is the law form at work within the Manor. Wikipedia has a good write up about the law of custom; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_%28law%29 Despite 1000 years of custom, the Creator is the highest authority and has been around infinitely longer. The Creators' custom will always trump any custom made by man.  

In the 1985 BC Supreme Court ruling; Mia v. Medical Services Commission of British Columbia, 1985 CanLII 148 (BC SC) we find more evidence of the feudal system and in particular the freeman: 

The freemen held their land from the lord of the manor, but they generally gave him rent instead of servile labour. They might have three or four times as much land as the ordinary serf, and sometimes they hired labourers to assist them. Unlike the serfs, they could move to another manor if they saw fit, and without the lord's permission could marry their daughters outside the manor or send their sons to study for the clergy. They could take part in the activity of the hundred and shire courts; later they could carry their grievances to the royal courts and serve as jurors, vote for members of Parliament, and sometimes even sit in the House of Commons.  Although the Normans purported to abolish the status of thralls or slaves by making them into serfs, this was largely cosmetic because the serfs remained tied to the land of their lord's manor. Although all of the four kinds of freehold tenure mentioned above could be held by freemen, the majority of the population were villeins or serfs living on the manors and they held land, if at all, by copyhold rather than freehold tenure. Ridley,'at p. 36, points out:  The copyholders were normally required to work in the fields of the lord of the manor, or sometimes to perform other services for him, in the same way as freehold tenants; but unlike the freeholders, who were free to leave if they wished and to try to make a better bargain for other land with other lords, the villein copy-holders were compelled by law to continue working on the same plot of land for the lord or for any of the lord's successors who acquired the land.  Gradually freemen lost their special status and they became almost indistinguishable from the larger class of serfs. The title "freeman" eventually became honorific only.  Thus economic servitude, or at least restricted freedom, continued in England through the system of landholding, and the majority of the population for many centuries after the Conquest were tenants in freehold or copyhold in socage. Real economic freedom arose only when the tenant could pay rent instead of service and thereby have the opportunity to move away from the manor to which he was tied so as to improve himself and his family.  

Please notice that a freeman can vote, serve jury duty, use the royal courts to resolve grievances and even sit in the House of Commons. These are all actions that are performed within the feudal system. Does any of this sound familiar? It should, as this explains perfectly the system we see today in our modern government and court systems. I also am of the opinion that it does not matter if you are free to move or not. Having to pay somebody else rent is tantamount to slavery, especially if you have no choice in the matter. In modern times, whether you own land or not, everyone is paying rent in one form or another. To escape this level of slavery requires one to reject the king and accept being governed by God. Being a 'freeman' is not the path to freedom in my opinion. According to the book ‘A Treatice of Copyhold’; 

If a person be Lord de facto, it is enough: for whether he be Lord by right or wrong.   

It is custom that protects the judges too. The same book goes on to speak of judges by saying:  

So the law is not very curious in examining the imperfections of the steward’s person, nor the unlawfulness of his authority; for be he an infant, or non compos mentis, an idiot, or lunatic, an outlaw, or an excommunicate, yet what things soever he performs as incident to his place, can never be avoided for any such disability, because he performs them as a judge, or at least as custom’s instrument; and for his authority, though it prove but counterfeit if it come to exact trial, yet it in appearance or outward show it seems current, that is sufficient. 

What I realized by reading this book is that the Manor is responsible for the establishment of the courts and as such the authority comes from the Lord of the Manor and based on custom, it does not matter if the judge is competent or not, in the end it is sufficient. Again, custom has been applied in the courts and custom is what protects the courts and justifies their behaviours, even if the majority of people do not like their rulings or they cause harm and injury.    Without our knowledge or comprehension, we have consented to and participate in the modern feudal system. Chapter 3 of the book ‘A Treaties of Copyhold’ states:   

A copyholder being in consideration of law but a tenant at will, he had no interest which he could transfer to another; he would only relinquish his own right to the premises.  

You see, it is through our own free will that we participate in this whole system. When we do, we are considered a tenant. It is often said that a Fee Simple title is the highest form of ownership but that is only true in a feudal system. The land was granted by the king. All of which can be verified by looking up the land grants or letters patents for the land on which you currently possess. The title, which is stored with the Roll of the Manor (Land Titles) stipulates that you are a tenant and that you do not have any rights to mines and minerals. In fact you only have access to the surface of the soil. It all seems complex but in reality it is simple: the king owns the land (allodial title), you own the piece of paper (title) which grants you permission to possess the land for the original owner (king). That arrangement is then recorded on the rolls to preserve the agreements so as to avoid any fraud or disputes.    

Within those agreements, additional services may be required in the order of serving in the king’s army down to paying rent, depending on the level of the agreement. As you read above, there are different levels of feudal tenants. As such, fees for a Fee Simple title of the vassal or copyholder is due to the lord of the manor when demanded or upon a specific schedule. Property taxes fall under this as a fee duty to the lord of the manor. The fines payable to the lord by the copyholder may also include licenses to empower the tenant to do certain acts.    

Yes that is correct! Licensing is a feudal system to grant a privilege or right to the tenant to do certain things, like driving, practice medicine, build homes, fish, hunt, have guns, etc. When the tenant swears his fealty to the lord, the same phrase is used that we hear often during a marriage ceremony; ‘to have and to hold’. Legal marriage ceremonies are a feudal oath and the Lord of the Manor is the third party in the arrangement. So if you were legally married, you entered into a three party agreement which was licensed by the Lord of the Manor.  

I know that some of this may be difficult to accept by some. We have lived in this form of governance for so long that there is nobody alive who knows how to live any differently. The vast majority of people who work for the Crown or are citizens of 'CANADA' truly believe in the power and authority of the king, without even realizing that the office of the King is nothing but a fiction and they are voluntary slaves to it all. Just as John Borrows wrote in his paper “Crown and Aboriginal Occupations of Land: A History and Comparison” which I quoted earlier, the Crown being perceived as being the ‘source of all things’ is a fallacy and is only rooted in custom and ignorance. In fact the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the Parliament of Canada are in fact only tenants themselves to the Lord of the Manor. They swear allegiance to the Queen and it is possible the Queen swore allegiance to the Pope or some other entity as well. They still exercise the feudal custom in their every day activities. In the feudal system, the new tenant receives the rod, or other symbol of possession; and pays his fine; and is sworn to fealty. If you look at the ceremonies of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta or Parliament of Canada and you will see the Usher of the Black Rod holding the rod during ceremonies which represent the authority granted to the Lieutenant Governor / Governor General by the Queen and all members swear an oath to the Queen. The Legislative Assembly of Alberta / Parliament then uses their authority granted to them by the Crown to subdivide their copyhold into smaller manors in order to manage all the sub-tenants that purchased freehold tenures to land and to collect rent (property taxes) on all that land.     

It is my firm belief that the Crown is in fact a fictional entity. It does not technically exist except in the hearts and minds of Man. My beliefs don't keep these fictions going, but rather the power and authority of those who participate with the system is where it derives its energy from. People for hundreds or even thousands of years have been blinded by a fictional mask to hide the truth: The Creator is the source of all things, not the Crown. But the Crown continues to influence everyone because we rejected the Creator in exchange for all of this.  

The truth is that the concept of 'government' or even a 'corporation' is nothing but an expression of our relationships with other people. The problem is that people don't see it as a relationship and over time these constructs have literally taken on a life of their own and few challenge these constructs. The judges and politicians have deemed these constructs to be legal entities that can own property, sue and be sued. The most dangerous concept that has manifested is that people now can blame these entities and hold them liable for any damages or harm that is incurred.    

This is, by far, the most insane idea that I have ever researched. This is no different than a child blaming their imaginary friend for breaking the window. Those types of excuses did not work when we were seven years old, so why do they work when we are 30, 50 or 80 years old? Why do we let people get away with limiting their liability? This has gone to such an extreme that recent events in the United States have shown that Monsanto is now immune from law suits or any such liability that may arise from their 'products'. So not only are the individuals immune but now the corporations are as well. The result is that nobody can be held responsible for any damages. In the end, each individual must be held responsible for their own actions or inaction that cause harm to others.    

I talked about people running to the king to protect themselves from the marauders and now the marauders decided to infiltrate governments and corporations to continue their stealing, raping and pillaging. What is happening with the likes of Monsanto and other corporations is exactly the point I am making. We can see the marauders are still hard at work and doing everything they can to protect themselves from liability. They have now 'legalized' their behaviours and provided multiple levels of protection from the masses of people. The end result is still the same, they are capable of stealing wealth, labour and resources in order to satisfy their greed, lust for power, and control.    

These people are the bullies in the playground and this form of relationship is extremely unhealthy for all parties involved. With such an abusive relationship, it pains me to watch so many people being preyed upon while another group of people take advantage of the situation and garner tremendous wealth and power as a result. Both parties need help and have a great deal of work to do in order to come to terms with the relationship they participate in. It proves that the feudal model serves only the rich and should no longer be used. Only awareness will allow us to recognize what is going on so that we can change these relationships and not perpetuate the demonic paradox we find ourselves in.  

Whether you are consciously aware of your relationships or not, the truth is still there. I can confront people for years and they still don't see the true scope of the relationships they have in their lives. I will admit that I still have work to do myself. Our relationships with the fictions are the most harmful, widespread, deeply integrated and ingrained relationships I have ever seen. The mass delusions of billions of people throughout the world result in 'normal' being very unhealthy and dangerous. Yet anybody who challenges or confronts people in regard to their unhealthy relationships is mocked, chastised or jailed.    

So what is required to break the death grip that the Fictional Realm has on the minds and hearts of Man? Great disturbance! I believe the world is faced with a choice: change or die. The coming disturbances are going to be so huge and encompassing that it will shake the world to the core. The realization that the Fictional Realm does not feed our body or our spirit is going to be a very challenging lesson for people to accept. That would require that people admit that they were wrong and that their involvement in these unhealthy relationships caused great harm, death and destruction on their neighbours, the environment and on the self.    

The most painful revelation will be that we did this to ourselves. Those who participate in the system are directly and wholly responsible for the existence of that system. So how does it really work? Every single time we vote, apply for benefits, register property, receive benefits, etc, we are swearing an oath to the fiction and swearing fealty to a fictional idol. It is our modern day golden calf. There are numerous crowns all over the world. All of these activities seem innocuous, but are in fact very symbolic. When we vote, what we are doing is giving our power away via a unique power of attorney to somebody else to represent us in the House of Commons or the Legislature, rather than presenting ourselves. The courts in Alberta have ruled that the representative holds no duty to those in his constituency. As such, they can do what ever they want and cannot be held to account to the electorate … until the next election. Even then, they operate under limited liability as they are not held personally responsible for any damages or harm that comes with their service to the fictional state. Instead, these individuals swear an oath to the office of the Queen (another fiction) and as such serve the office, not the people. The ministers in cabinet are 'ministering' to the office, not to the people. They need to in order to have the infrastructure in place to govern all those who swore fealty to the office of the Queen when they voted for their representatives in her parliament.    

This is where it becomes so critically important to make the conscious effort to differentiate between all that is Fiction, Physical or Spiritual. The third temptation of Christ was all about the temptation to fully embrace the Fiction in order to rule the Physical Realm rather than embracing the Spirit and have the Spirit rule the Physical Realm. Christ rejected the offer and chose to walk in the Spirit. I believe we are faced with the same choice. Until we see the Fiction for what it is, it will always prevent us from seeing the true relationship between the Physical and the Spiritual. The paradox of this whole Fictional Realm is that it only exists in our own mind. I believe that is where the devil resides and that is why I believe it was so easy for Christ to command the devil to get behind him. The devil is not a Physical manifestation but rather a Fictional manifestation and exists and only can exist in the minds of Man. We have the same ability that Christ had, should we choose to take command of the mind through disciplined training and the will to command it through the values and standards set forth by the Spirit.    

When I was confronted with the truth of what the State or what Corporations are, I did not like what I found. In fact, I got very angry for many months. It was a betrayal beyond anything I have ever experienced because it violated the standards of the Spirit. It took me months before I came to the realization that the truth also included that I was completely complicit in the whole thing and that I was 100% responsible and accountable. I used my free will to enter into those relationships. I gave away my power to others, even if it was through ignorance. Because of that choice, I am responsible for the corruption of our political, economic, financial and business leaders as well. The truth slapped me in the face and it hurt. I had to admit that I had made some huge mistakes and that I was hurting people all over the world because of those mistakes. Let's face the truth here, the people in our governments have killed more people than I care to count, with no liability for their actions. The people behind the corporations have raped and pillaged this earth for many decades with no liability for their actions. I no longer can support this abusive relationship, so the only alternative was to end those relationships and pick up the duty to provide for myself. All benefits and privileges that I received from those in government or corporations required that I take steps to provide for myself and my family. As such the choice to govern myself was a significant one to make. I choose to no longer be a feudal vassal and instead I rejected the king and accepted God as my master.