If you've ever read the start of the Bible, or even if you haven't, you will probably know about the poeple mentioned in the bible who live to all kinds of seemingly outrageous ages, such as living to be 300 years old and so on. After reading this information during the time that I tried to actually read through the bible, which was in my late teens (I got to about 20 pages in, which I still consider an achievement) I thought, 'OK, well how could this have actually been possible'. This was not in a way where I was dismissing the information, but in a way where I tried to figure out situations where living to these kinds of ages could be possible. That got me thinking about all of the crap that we, as modern people eat right throughout our lives, and how if we didn't eat so much rubbish, that maybe living to those kinds of ages could be a possibility....
In my teens I was aware, as a lot of us I'm sure are, that most modern day packaged food contain a great amount of unnatural and processed ingredients, such as preservatives, colourings, flavourings, etc. Now we will eat these foods pretty much everyday, if you're living the typically modern life that is, and we also start to intake these foods from a very early age via things such as baby foods, etc. This is true of even some of the best home-cooking, which will usually, most likely involve some kinds of oils, or flours, or tinned ingredients. Then on top of this we have to add the fast foods, and takeaway style meals that we all typically will regularly have when growing up in western society - things such as McDonalds, Fish and Chips, etc.
A lot of us will start to drink alcohol from around the age of 9 or 10 - obviously (and hopefully) not binges or even say whole cans of beer, but maybe a taste of some wine from our parent's glass during a special occasion, or maybe your mum, like mine, would give you a bit of Guinness every now and then. When we hit or teens we then have the ritual (at least in Britain) of going to the park with your friends, with a cheap bottle of cider, and basically just getting drunk for the fun of it. Combine this with drinking at parties, and so on, and by the time we are in our late teens we've developed quite a taste for alcoholic drinks. Finally, add on top of this the smoking, either of cigarettes, or weed, which is now tainted to very undesirable levels with chemicals, and what we end up with is a person who by the time they have hit the age of 20 has already put a vast amount of crap into their bodies.
Now this behaviour, for many of us, continues for many years afterwards (or at least it used to, a lot of us have become a lot more health conscious). This is not to mention the unnecessary stress of modern life, and things such as car pollution etc - if our diet was as good as it could be from the very start of our lives, i.e. eating natural foods, what would the difference be to our lifespans? For a bit of evidence of this check out this Moor, Annette Larkins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWC2xIIsRs who has lived on fruit and vegetable juices from many years, and who is now in her 70s, but looks like she's in her 40s
....if we just looked at the foods that we eat, and say for each year we live, our western diets take off one year from our lifespans, then, with the so-called average life span being 75 (though I know of one lady who recently celebrated her 100th birthday, so you have to take western averages with a pinch of salt) then if we didn't have all of the crap that we eat throughout our lives we would be living to age 150 - that's just living the same lifestyle but with a vastly improved diet - improve the lifestyle, and who knows what age we could live to.
I have only talked about removing the obvious things from our diet in this post, but there are also many other things which could be improved which may not be so apparent. I advise readers to check out electric foods, alkaline foods, and the work of Dr Sebi, for tons more great information in this area.
Monday, 16 June 2014
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Scottish Independence
So with all the news about Scottish independence currently going about I thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth about the subject and at the same time provide a bit of an explanation as to the reasons why this has come about now. This subject, in my opinion, is much more far reaching than is being reported, and it has already had very large consequences in this country...
The basis of Scottish independence is the Treaty of Union 1706 in-which, the story goes, that the Kingdom of England united with the Kingdom of Scotland to form Great Britain, and what would later become the UK or United Kingdom of Great Britain (it wasn't in any way as straightforward as that, as we will see later). So fast forward on to today - the Scottish National Party want to be independent from the UK, and apparently there's going to be a referendum in Scotland about whether to go independent in September. Now, Scotland could only become independent if the treaty was up, or nullified, and in my opinion, based on my research, the treaty is already up, and I will now explain a bit more and provide evidence to back up this statement....
The treaty was formed in 1706 (it was the 'Act' of Union that was passed in 1707). Now the way that the UK government and Monarchy, etc are run is largely Hebrew in nature. For example, you may notice if you look up some treaties from around the 1700s or 1800s that in the introductory section of the treaty they give praise to the 'Most High' - this is a Hebrew term for Ellyon - a deity. There are many other aspects of the government and monarchy which are based around Hebrew culture (e.g. the Banks and the English language itself), but I won't go into them all here. In Hebrew tradition there is something called a 'Jubilee' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)). A jubilee states that there are fifty years for an agreement governing the ownership of land to last, and it is in the forty ninth year (which is 7 cycles of 7 years) that a decision is made whether to re-institute the agreement or end it. So, based on the Jubilee cycle, if you kept on going forward in cycles of 50 years from the time the treaty was signed you would eventually reach the year 2006. Obviously, then the 49th year for that particluar Jubilee would be in 2005.
So 2005 would have been the most recent year for the decision to have been made whether or not to continue with the treaty. Now if you have a close look at what was happening, government wise, in 2005 you will find some very interesting things...firstly, and foremost you had a piece of legislation being passed which abolished the feudal land system in 'Scotland' (see... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/contents). The feudal (or 'fee' dal) system, for those who don't know is basically the system of land ownership that the vast majority of people living in the western world would have grown up in, whereby the 'state' or Monarch or whoever, claims ownership of all of the land in a country, and then the people or 'citizens' have to pay to live on it - so this system includes the use of mortgages, the of renting property, council tax, etc. Now, passing this kind of legislation is obviously the 'government' saying 'we no-longer have any claim on the land', and to do it in just 'Scotland' is a very big sign.
The second piece of major legislation that I will provide as evidence that the treaty is over is the constitutional reform act of 2005. A major effect of this act was the establishment of a supreme court for the UK, but something else that it also done which I am more interested in is the demotion of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord chief justice was, prior to the the act, the person in charge of the queen's bench division of the uk court system. The Queen's bench is the 'de jure' court in the UK (or it was prior to 2005). Many other scholars, and lecturers have pointed to the queen's bench as the place to go if you want to work with real law i.e. natural law, as opposed to the commercial law that is in practice in the other 'de facto' courts such as county court, magistrates court, etc. The queen's bench is really run by the monarch, but she or he can appoint someone to act in her place which is why we had the lord chief justice. If you watch the HBO TV series 'Game of Thrones' then the queen's bench would be the equivalent of when the farmers and other townspeople were bringing their greivances and problems to Kalisi after she decided to stay and rule in Meeren. So the queen's bench is like the old time court from before the running of the country (Albion) was taken over by the city of London (the crown).
Now, back to the reform act....the act created a new position called the 'president of the queen's bench' which is currently filled by a guy called Igor Judge. This removed the Lord Chief Justice from the Queen's bench and demoted him to only being head of the court system of england and wales. So, to summarise what actually happened....under the treaty, prior to 2005, the lord chief justice was the head of the UK court system, as the UK was coming to an end there could no-longer be a head of a UK court system, so a new position was created (president of the queen's bench) which now covers the re-instigated Albion aka Alba aka Scotland, and the lord chief justice got bumped down to only being head of England and wales.
A bit more evidence pointing towards the UK coming to an end in 2005...Here are a few governmental agencies which were also formed in 2005 or around that time period....
HMRC
HM Passprt Office (formed in April 2006)
National archives merged with the office of public sector information in 2006
...as you can see, some very integral agencies were re-formed during this time period.
Now to connect the 7/7 incidents with all of this....well firstly you have to understand that the 'idiot circus' as I like to call them, or those better known as the 'establishment' try to use rituals as a means to invoke some sort of power directed towards whatever plan they want to achieve. This can come in many different forms, such as a music concert, a meeting between heads of state, or, as has often been done in the past, a staged so called 'terrorist' attack, or an event of a similar nature. For more in-depth coverage of these types of events, as well as commentary or many other subjects of note, I advise you to listen to the Super Heru Radio show by Aseer the Duke of Tiers http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-duke-of-tiers.
The jubilee tradition states that on the tenth day, of the seventh month, of the seventh year a trumpet should be sounded. Well it wasn't quite the tenth day of July that the 7/7 bombings happened, but it was the seventh month (July) of the seventh year, of the seventh cycle (since 1956) plus, due to the bombings the UK was asked to observe a 2 minute silence on the 10th of July.
So based on all of the evidence presented above, it is my opinion that the treaty of union ended in 2005. Anyone who has further evidence for or against this then please feel free to comment below. The treaty being over would have massive consequences for the people of this nation. I'll have more on that in another post. Also, there would be very significant ramifications for the city of london corporation, i.e. the crown, a lot of which I am still working out myself, and I'll be sure to post on here as soon as I reach any major conclusions.
The basis of Scottish independence is the Treaty of Union 1706 in-which, the story goes, that the Kingdom of England united with the Kingdom of Scotland to form Great Britain, and what would later become the UK or United Kingdom of Great Britain (it wasn't in any way as straightforward as that, as we will see later). So fast forward on to today - the Scottish National Party want to be independent from the UK, and apparently there's going to be a referendum in Scotland about whether to go independent in September. Now, Scotland could only become independent if the treaty was up, or nullified, and in my opinion, based on my research, the treaty is already up, and I will now explain a bit more and provide evidence to back up this statement....
The treaty was formed in 1706 (it was the 'Act' of Union that was passed in 1707). Now the way that the UK government and Monarchy, etc are run is largely Hebrew in nature. For example, you may notice if you look up some treaties from around the 1700s or 1800s that in the introductory section of the treaty they give praise to the 'Most High' - this is a Hebrew term for Ellyon - a deity. There are many other aspects of the government and monarchy which are based around Hebrew culture (e.g. the Banks and the English language itself), but I won't go into them all here. In Hebrew tradition there is something called a 'Jubilee' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)). A jubilee states that there are fifty years for an agreement governing the ownership of land to last, and it is in the forty ninth year (which is 7 cycles of 7 years) that a decision is made whether to re-institute the agreement or end it. So, based on the Jubilee cycle, if you kept on going forward in cycles of 50 years from the time the treaty was signed you would eventually reach the year 2006. Obviously, then the 49th year for that particluar Jubilee would be in 2005.
So 2005 would have been the most recent year for the decision to have been made whether or not to continue with the treaty. Now if you have a close look at what was happening, government wise, in 2005 you will find some very interesting things...firstly, and foremost you had a piece of legislation being passed which abolished the feudal land system in 'Scotland' (see... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/contents). The feudal (or 'fee' dal) system, for those who don't know is basically the system of land ownership that the vast majority of people living in the western world would have grown up in, whereby the 'state' or Monarch or whoever, claims ownership of all of the land in a country, and then the people or 'citizens' have to pay to live on it - so this system includes the use of mortgages, the of renting property, council tax, etc. Now, passing this kind of legislation is obviously the 'government' saying 'we no-longer have any claim on the land', and to do it in just 'Scotland' is a very big sign.
The second piece of major legislation that I will provide as evidence that the treaty is over is the constitutional reform act of 2005. A major effect of this act was the establishment of a supreme court for the UK, but something else that it also done which I am more interested in is the demotion of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord chief justice was, prior to the the act, the person in charge of the queen's bench division of the uk court system. The Queen's bench is the 'de jure' court in the UK (or it was prior to 2005). Many other scholars, and lecturers have pointed to the queen's bench as the place to go if you want to work with real law i.e. natural law, as opposed to the commercial law that is in practice in the other 'de facto' courts such as county court, magistrates court, etc. The queen's bench is really run by the monarch, but she or he can appoint someone to act in her place which is why we had the lord chief justice. If you watch the HBO TV series 'Game of Thrones' then the queen's bench would be the equivalent of when the farmers and other townspeople were bringing their greivances and problems to Kalisi after she decided to stay and rule in Meeren. So the queen's bench is like the old time court from before the running of the country (Albion) was taken over by the city of London (the crown).
Now, back to the reform act....the act created a new position called the 'president of the queen's bench' which is currently filled by a guy called Igor Judge. This removed the Lord Chief Justice from the Queen's bench and demoted him to only being head of the court system of england and wales. So, to summarise what actually happened....under the treaty, prior to 2005, the lord chief justice was the head of the UK court system, as the UK was coming to an end there could no-longer be a head of a UK court system, so a new position was created (president of the queen's bench) which now covers the re-instigated Albion aka Alba aka Scotland, and the lord chief justice got bumped down to only being head of England and wales.
A bit more evidence pointing towards the UK coming to an end in 2005...Here are a few governmental agencies which were also formed in 2005 or around that time period....
HMRC
HM Passprt Office (formed in April 2006)
National archives merged with the office of public sector information in 2006
...as you can see, some very integral agencies were re-formed during this time period.
Now to connect the 7/7 incidents with all of this....well firstly you have to understand that the 'idiot circus' as I like to call them, or those better known as the 'establishment' try to use rituals as a means to invoke some sort of power directed towards whatever plan they want to achieve. This can come in many different forms, such as a music concert, a meeting between heads of state, or, as has often been done in the past, a staged so called 'terrorist' attack, or an event of a similar nature. For more in-depth coverage of these types of events, as well as commentary or many other subjects of note, I advise you to listen to the Super Heru Radio show by Aseer the Duke of Tiers http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-duke-of-tiers.
The jubilee tradition states that on the tenth day, of the seventh month, of the seventh year a trumpet should be sounded. Well it wasn't quite the tenth day of July that the 7/7 bombings happened, but it was the seventh month (July) of the seventh year, of the seventh cycle (since 1956) plus, due to the bombings the UK was asked to observe a 2 minute silence on the 10th of July.
So based on all of the evidence presented above, it is my opinion that the treaty of union ended in 2005. Anyone who has further evidence for or against this then please feel free to comment below. The treaty being over would have massive consequences for the people of this nation. I'll have more on that in another post. Also, there would be very significant ramifications for the city of london corporation, i.e. the crown, a lot of which I am still working out myself, and I'll be sure to post on here as soon as I reach any major conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)