Lose The Name: Kate of Gaia & Cult Followers

[pigpot]

"pigpot's quote:

Why should anyone be forced to pay for a collective protection

To avoid freeloaders that benefit from collective protection without paying for it.

Why should they be protected if they haven't paid? In a society of anarchists / voluntaryists there are NO freeloaders. They don't even get a look in. I hope you see what I'm typing here not what you might interpret here. But remember that I'd help out anyone that really needed it. When I go on holiday I give to the most poor of people freely and I don't take anything in terms of pay back from them. That's what I, (not Marc as I don't speak for him, just to clarify) do

From me

Why again would you want to use force and if so is it based upon a sound moral ground

Because without force it's futile and yes, majority consent is sound moral ground.

So you'll actively use force upon someone and you might think that this has not been the major problem across the years. The use of force is precisely the main problem with humanity. People don't want to forced. You still seem to revert to the left brain thinking of force. A happy workforce is better than a forced work force. You may maintain your position freely "Jeffrey" but I'd contend in the long run it'll run it's course and fail. These "systems" always fail. "Governments" and "Nations" have fell over centuries.

Also how do explain that the

and yes, majority consent is sound moral ground.

How is that so? Seriously you just simply open yourself up to people like me that apply logic and "straighten your post up". So your post would echo the same sentiment that as most of the world espouses a "Christian" religion the minorities MUST follow a "Christian" doctrine. Adolf Hitler did what he did and as most Germans "followed" his ideas / ideals, would you believe that it was right and correct?

I'll let you answer these questions first please. We can move on to other stuff later. Have a great day.

NOTE FROM BURNABY49 - See my later posting. This is exactly what Pigpot has done innumerable times before he got moderated. Throw some comments out, just fishing, and then see what he catches. Responses give him the opportunity to reply with some pointless anarchist philosophy and then he throws out more bait. In virtually all of the prior discussions where this happened posters complained about it but wouldn't stop responding to him. If you don't reply and he keeps it up I'll dump on him. But as long as he's moderated rather than banned he has at least some right to comment as long as he's reasonably on point, civil, and isn't obviously trolling. If things get out of hand because of his postings it's not just because of him, I'm on top of that, but because it's a joint effort with the rest of you.

[arayder]

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Who had the authority to tell anybody what to do?
And when did they delegate this authority to those who call themselves government?

Can you address these points?

Why don't you ask the nearest adult how silly and hypocritical you are to presume the authority to compel me to answer while inferring you are some sort of freedom seeker?

Can you show me where I mentioned compelling anyone to do anything? This is exactly the response I expected here and you just confirmed my thoughts on your aggression. This is my point. I have no problems with defensive force but I always apply the non-aggression principle and I don't compel anyone to do anything. Re-read your post and look at how you look. I'll tell you your problem "arayder" and it's simple. I've challenged you and "jargonbuster" all over the internet to argue (adult fashion and without insults) with me one to one but you are reluctant to do so. I think I know why that is but we can leave it at that if you don't want to. No insults from me and no cursive language either as noted by "Burnaby49". It'll continue to stay that way as well.

I don't play pick up basketball against the grade school kids down the street either.

Pig, you are the reason societies and forums have rules. You have tried to highjack this thread and you have insisted that only your agenda be addressed.

You have confirmed my suspicion that when one scapes a little dirt off one of your sort one finds a little fascist.

[Chaos]

can we stop quoting the troll that others have on ignore. Thanks.

[arayder]

STOP THE PRESSESS !!! Robert Menard Debunks Kate of Gaia in new video !!!

Illegal to use Legal Name??? NO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3v7s7pO-Is

Menard's holding a grudge against Kate because he/she has not been shy about calling him out for his unethical behavior.

[Burnaby49]

can we stop quoting the troll that others have on ignore. Thanks.

Exactly. Arayder, he has only hijacked the thread because you seem unable to stop responding to him. If he tries to hijack the discussion with repeated posts not connected to anything I'll disallow his posts but if he's responding to something one of you has said about him or to him it's fair enough that he get a chance to respond. He's not doing this in a void he needs, and is getting, facilitators. So show some self-discipline and stop responding to him.

And for all of you, just don't bother responding to his questions. He was put on moderated status because of situations like this but I can't blame him for it if the rest of you won't stop. After disallowing dozens of his posts I let a few innocuous posts through and it becomes a feeding frenzy. Just ignore him.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Allen Nelson Boisjoli weighs in on Kate of Gaia:

why would anyone take legal advice form someone so insecure and skitzophrenic they have to pretend they are a different gender...LMAO can you say "ironic"?

she is actually a he...just so you all know...which is disturbing in the first place

I can clear this up for you all. the legal name could not be created without your birth...therefore YOU are the source and have the highest claim. your PARENTS created it....not the government. Therefore once you attest that you are age of majority it devolves on you, its called patrimony. You are the rightful owner and have the highest claim because if you were not born there would be no pretense to create that legal name/trust for you to use to interact with the legal fictions in commerce. You are the source therefore you have the highest claim no matter who wants to pretend they have copyrighted it...their claim would not stand unless you consent to it. PERIOD dot...end of discussion. If you need proof take a look at quebecs civil code it tells you right in there its your name.

[Wake Up! Productions]

If you need proof take a look at quebecs civil code it tells you right in there its your name.

He is speaking of this: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.q ... 991_A.html

TITLE ONE
ENJOYMENT AND EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

1. Every human being possesses juridical personality and has the full enjoyment of civil rights.

What he fails to mention is that Quebec law differs from the rest of Canada. It is based on French civil code, as opposed to British common law.

[SteveUK]

Allen Nelson Boisjoli weighs in on Kate of Gaia:

why would anyone take legal advice form someone so insecure and skitzophrenic they have to pretend they are a different gender...LMAO can you say "ironic"?

she is actually a he...just so you all know...which is disturbing in the first place

I can clear this up for you all. the legal name could not be created without your birth...therefore YOU are the source and have the highest claim. your PARENTS created it....not the government. Therefore once you attest that you are age of majority it devolves on you, its called patrimony. You are the rightful owner and have the highest claim because if you were not born there would be no pretense to create that legal name/trust for you to use to interact with the legal fictions in commerce. You are the source therefore you have the highest claim no matter who wants to pretend they have copyrighted it...their claim would not stand unless you consent to it. PERIOD dot...end of discussion. If you need proof take a look at quebecs civil code it tells you right in there its your name.

Be careful - that's another $100,000 you now owe him for using his name !

[pigpot]

If you need proof take a look at quebecs civil code it tells you right in there its your name.

He is speaking of this: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.q ... 991_A.html

TITLE ONE
ENJOYMENT AND EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

1. Every human being possesses juridical personality and has the full enjoyment of civil rights.

What he fails to mention is that Quebec law differs from the rest of Canada. It is based on French civil code, as opposed to British common law.

I might take it that you acknowledge that "Common Law" does exist then. If so what would be greater in authority. Common Law or Statutory Law. That which is first is best as a maxim underpins some "legal" theory right? Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure others who are better suited to legal practice will let me know their thoughts on the matter.

Thanks.

[Burnaby49]

Everybody, try and refrain from replying to him although the answer is obvious. He's not interested in the answer, he wants an excuse to flood the discussion. I've decided that this is his last shot at trying to provoke things unless somebody unfortunately decides to start replying to him again.

Pigpot - Constantly asking open-ended questions like this everytime anyone posts is just more of your endless attempt to troll this forum. If you continue you can say goodbye to the slight window of posting opportunities I allowed you today. I'm regretting it already.

[pigpot]

Everybody, try and refrain from replying to him although the answer is obvious. He's not interested in the answer, he wants an excuse to flood the discussion. I've decided that this is his last shot at trying to provoke things unless somebody unfortunately decides to start replying to him again.

Pigpot - Constantly asking open-ended questions like this everytime anyone posts is just more of your endless attempt to troll this forum. If you continue you can say goodbye to the slight window of posting opportunities I allowed you today. I'm regretting it already.

Alright, I get it. I think I know what you are saying "Burnaby49". I would prefer it if I could p.m. you instead of being forced to post openly here but that's the only option that is currently afforded to me. If you are saying I can't ask questions then I won't. I'm playing exactly as you allow me to on this site. Thanks.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I might take it that you acknowledge that "Common Law" does exist then. If so what would be greater in authority. Common Law or Statutory Law. That which is first is best as a maxim underpins some "legal" theory right? Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure others who are better suited to legal practice will let me know their thoughts on the matter.

Thanks.

Do I, or don't I ???

Ok - yes, I ADMIT it ... "British common law" actually EXISTS. There, I said it. Wow, that is a huge weight off my shoulders !!!

What perpetuates freeman IGNORANCE is that it is BRITISH common law. In nations OTHER THAN England, it means that the law is BASED ON it, but not DEPENDENT on it. Nations are free and independent to create their own laws - as recognised in Canada, where we have a MIXTURE of BOTH British common law and French civil code.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Everybody, try and refrain from replying to him although the answer is obvious. He's not interested in the answer, he wants an excuse to flood the discussion. I've decided that this is his last shot at trying to provoke things unless somebody unfortunately decides to start replying to him again.

Pigpot - Constantly asking open-ended questions like this everytime anyone posts is just more of your endless attempt to troll this forum. If you continue you can say goodbye to the slight window of posting opportunities I allowed you today. I'm regretting it already.

Sorry - I was writing my comment as you wrote yours.

[Wake Up! Productions]

This is all playing out very nicely. I just woke up, made a tea, and logged on to Youtube to find yet another video by Robert Menard (uploaded 25 minutes ago) where he is calling out one of "Kate's" biggest CULT members, Seacht (pronounced "Shocked").

Legal Name Rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYTJD0PFdWM

[Bill Lumbergh]

Has there been a response from the other side?

Edit: nevermind. I thought Menard was responding to an old video.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Kate of Gaia: "The Smartest Human Being on the PLANET" ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXMg5JjXLaw

Phoney online GURU and conspiracy CULT LEADER, Keith Thompson (aka "Kate of Gaia") has LOST his children, LOST his house, and has completely LOST his SANITY !!! But his EGO claims that he is, "the smartest FUCKING human being on the planet." Anyone see an ERROR ???

On a side note, I have noticed that "Kate" took offence to a few Youtube COMMENTS of mine, and devoted 45 minutes to calling me out. Robert Menard makes 2 videos calling out "Kate's" theories, and there has been NO DIRECT RESPONSE !!!

This is because Menard made the FOOLISH fatal error of responding to, and arguing with one of "Kate's" worker bees, rather than going head to head with the QUEEN BEE !!!

Just another example of how ineffective Menard is at "debunking" other GURU'S theories !!!

[Bill Lumbergh]

That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as KoG's deranged messiah complex goes. If you go back through previous radio shows you'll find plenty more examples like that. I flipped through the two most recent shows to see if there was any response to Menard's debunking video, but there's nothing. KoG seems to have taken on a really antisemitic attitude though.

What Menard ought to do is just phone in to KoG's next radio show and debunk in person. That could get interesting as KoG really doesn't like being challenged.

[NYGman]

Just a thought, could someone not ask KoG why no one in the history of this planet has ever been arrested for using their name? Show me one court case, one person in Jail, one person sued by the government for using their name? What, there isn't any, then how can using a name be illegal, if no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted for doing so? This whole thing is absurd, which is par for the course as far as these nut jobs go.

[arayder]

The communication between gurus is getting more weird with each passing day.

It used to be they met at gatherings, shared ideas, were guests on the same web radio shows and generally passed off any theoretical disagreements as honest differences of opinion. Now the gurus who aren't in jail or on probation are off in their own little worlds having cyber wars with one another over how many freemen can dance on the head of a pin.

Bobby's holed up in some hide out looking like he hasn't seen the sun or a tooth brush since Eldon Warman was sane. His web hair pulling contests with fellow guru Scott Duncan are insane.

Kate/Keith has changed his gender and thinks he/she is the smartest person on the planet.

Reverend Belenger is nowhere to be found and has long ago cut ties to anyone who does buy his theology.

Mika Rasila called out Clifford and Menard as conmen, allowing us all to enjoy the Mika/Bobby flame war.

Fremanary has turned into a self-immolating cult.

[notorial dissent]

I think there are two possibilities. Either there isn't a stage/venue big enough to support the various egos, since it is now all about being right and important, and if you're right and important you don't share a stage with someone who isn't, or else they are just bone idle lazy and it is easier to shriek at someone over the internet than to actually get out there and do it in person.