So I tell people the Talmud should be understood as a giant wiki with frontpages and backpages. It has everyone's opinion, and all it goes to show is what opinions existed. In many cases the majority opinion can be found by following the flow, and in some of these cases the majority is regarded as binding on Orthodox Jewish practice, but these are a very small percentage (1%-5%) of the opinions in the Talmud.
Your assertion that the Orthodox pick the worst reading does not seem to be instantiable. I don't believe the Talmud forbids occupation of Palestine prior to Messiah; rather, Ezekiel 36-37 indicates that return to Palestine will happen before Israel understands the Messiah's purpose, and no Talmudic passage will contradict that. The idea you quote is that, since everything is foreknown deterministically by God, it's impossible to "hasten" or "slow" the coming of Messiah by action, but since free will exists it's appropriate to do what is right that will in time bring the coming of Messiah. So if the Talmud speaks of occupying the land of Biblical Israel, it only builds on the Old (and New) Testament prophecies about this.
As I explained, "Yeshu" was a name before it was an acronym, so any reader would understand first it meant anyone with a Joshua-derived name, and applying the acronym to it centuries later was an added redefinition. There was no scenario in which "Yeshu" was replaced with the phrase, the phrase was replaced with the acronym (still "Yeshu"), and the original name was lost; that's all a misinterpretation.
We do have an acronym "Akum" meaning "star and constellation worshipper", which is a euphemism for idolators including Christians. That doesn't affect much because any castigation of idolators is likely valid and the missing piece of whether Christians are idolators is never directly addressed. In Talmudic times all sectarians (minim) were treated alike and there was never a time when Christians (who started out as just a Jewish sect) were singled out. In medieval times there is some objection to "lords of three", but this likely means tritheists in context (apostates among Christians), as the Jewish stream of thought did not have any language by which it could directly reject trinitarians.
So most statements against groups, even if we assume they are codenames, have the features that (1) they are not officially, or normatively, against Christians, and (2) if they mean Christians among a group of Jews then that coding has no effect outside its reach and can only be rejected when it is made clear. For instance, it seems to me that a few people here use the word "jogger" to indicate a particular race. These users can always say they didn't mean anything other than one who jogs, and if they are actually using the word to communicate evil intent then nobody outside can catch them without formal proof. We can argue that this looks duplicitous and double-dealing, but we can't use statements about joggers, out of context, to prove to an outsider that the evil intent is present. Should we then regard all users of the word "jogger" as racist? Of course not.
As I said in part 1: The entire Talmud is relatively stable online in its three sections (Bavli or Babylonian is the biggest and often mistaken for the whole). Tracking individual medieval rabbinic opinions is indeed difficult but these are rarely authoritative.
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Bavli
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Yerushalmi
Part 2 here is not too far off the mark. The biggest problem with finding cites is that the citers themselves are excessively erratic. If you quote the Talmud accurately and by folio, it's easy to find, but if you say the Bible says somewhere God helps those who help themselves then who can know what you're talking about? Then there is a second problem with finding cites, namely that there are a few words changed, and a few passages expurgated, but this is no more difficult than handling the Bible either; and in fact some expurgations were mandated by the Inquisition.
The medieval Zohar and the many commentaries are indeed hard to track, but they don't represent Judaism. If I go and say a Christian book says there is no hell, that's not Christianity. But in the 19th century many critics of Judaism (including Pranaitis of "Talmud Unmasked") lumped everything they heard or could find into long books of critiques that were divorced from context; and my quotes page traces how many of these were further made unfindable due to transcriptions from German, French, etc., and recompilation over time. The original authors often had manuscripts at hand that we have no idea how to find nowadays, meaning the originals have no reach whatsoever nowadays except via their being misquoted! So, overall, the disputation between everything ever said in Judaism and every criticism ever made in Christianity is indeed poorly organized in every century and still ongoing. But we can always assist the processing of that disputation here in small part.
Since the Talmud has faced variant readings, we do indeed need to use a little textual criticism to compare readings, just as with the Bible or any ancient text. But, even when we take the worst readings, they never amount to dogmatic Judaism, they only indicate trends in Jewish thought that come and go. We can learn from the worst of the trends, but we have no right to treat all modern Jews as following the extremes. It's appropriate to know how the variants may indicate an earlier text, but without direct evidence we can't invent a text that isn't extant simply because other things had other variants. For instance, Yeshu is never replaced with "the one whose memory shall be erased", that's a misunderstanding. It's always Yeshu, but in one instance it is said that Yeshu is an acronym for "may his name and his memory be erased", so that readers, if they wish, can think the one thought whenever they read the name Yeshu. But Yeshu is not Jesus's name, it's a nickname that wouldn't have been applied to him except possibly in one hill-country region of Judea. So having the facts is essential to process the criticism correctly.
I'm not prepared to discuss every page of "Talmud Unmasked" yet, but I've begun a collection, linked above, of the most egregious charges when placed in their right context. I agree entirely with OP on the point that the right understanding of these passages in context is essential to being able to object to facets of Talmudic Judaism. The problem is that the original objectors (among which Pranaitis was more balanced than average) overcompensated so much in the direction of castigation that their misattributions remain memetic today. It's true that there's an insularity in the Talmudic culture that appears debasing to outsiders, but that aspect is true of most races and religions and that is why we need the truth of Jesus as Messiah to remove such barriers. By misrepresenting the Talmud we only increase the barrier, challenging readers either to grow more racist than the Talmud is accused of being, or else to grow more sympathetic toward the Talmud in its having been misrepresented.
Sanhedrin 37a indeed states: "Therefore, Adam was created alone, to teach you that anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him as if he destroyed an entire world. And anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him as if he sustained an entire world." So it's true that Bennett's summary is misleading, but it's also true that the context compares the soul to Adam, who is not from the Jewish people, so the text also implies Bennett's conclusion without stating it directly.
The idea that non-Jews are not human is no more to count as a Talmudic opinion than it is to count as a Biblical opinion given the Old and New Testaments' very many allusions to people as animals ("lost sheep of Israel", e.g.).
The idea that non-Jews are literally animals shaped as humans is a kabbalistic notion of an arcane branch of Zohar study that is not mainstream at all. Some examples of both ideas appear in my quotes page.
Daniel and Revelation appear to teach that there will not be one world leader until the end, and before then there must be a multiplicity (ten) of powerful princes until they all agree to hand power to the one en masse. You get better info on the cabal from Daniel and Revelation than you do from the Talmud.
The "nascent Sanhedrin" that was active in 2004-2006 is mostly literally dead and retired. Nobody is using it anymore, although there may exist officials empowered to reconstitute it without a service break. It's my suspicion that the actual intent would be to reconstitute it fully newly using the same smichah methods as last time; otherwise there is no meeting body whatsoever of Sanhedrin nature.
As to the video in point 1, an interview with Yossi Gurvitz:
It's one writer trying to summarize, beginning with the "unchanged polity" view and continuing: "Now first of all, the problem with this version of history is that it is completely baseless. And second of all, that it has a few historical problems, and these historical problems continue to this day." The first argument, that the source of Judaism is Talmud rather than Torah, is accurate in the sense that Talmud as a claimed expansion of Torah is indeed the foundation for (orthodox) Judaism; but the fact that the Mishnaists decided the canon has nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity both being traced from hundreds of years of Jews who held the Torah as the first books of the Bible, and so it does not annul the foundationality of Torah to the Talmud. Second, the fact that there was a historical hiatus before Yavneh (Rabbinical) Judaism does not make the earlier historical testimony invalid as liberal critics believe; the identity of ethics in these two eras can thus be recognized.
The attempt to sweep away all this known history is then revealed to have the purpose of establishing a new thesis: "Rabbinical Judaism is a Judaism that hates humans." In this the Jewish speaker does agree with certain summary judgments about Talmud, but I do reserve the right to disagree with the sweeping generalization. First, the citation of Judaism regarding outsiders as "less than human" is honestly very similar to both Christianity and any other movement that considers outsiders not to have the full revelation of life: we count the "unsaved" who will never be "saved" as wicked and earning endless torment, and we implore those presently unsaved to turn from their wickedness, and in context this is what I see in the Talmud as well. Second, some distinctions raised, such as there being no rabbinical punishment for killing a non-Jew, are simple jurisdictional issues because the rabbis considered that Gentile courts would be responsible for punishing the killing of a non-Jew. (The aside "Orthodox Judaism has never abolished slavery" reveals that the writer considers himself some kind of greater Jew, even though human trafficking in our abolitionist era is worse than any slavery era.) The fact that the Shulchan Aruch, 16th century, then codifies certain permission for killing non-Jews and considering them idolators, does not have modern application but is an attempt to explain away past incidents by justifying them as posse-style capital punishment (i.e. Lynch law).
The statement that Maimonides "decrees that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a 3-year-old girl" again belies the facts shown in my quotes page. The original legislation came in an era when Rome was sexually abusing children of all ages, and Judaism was beginning to institute age-based protections; and the various passages on different aspects of these protections are often not read together to establish the whole picture. Sanhedrin 55b, for instance, describes execution for forbidden intercourse generally, building on Gen. 2 and Deut. 22; Yevamot 57b says that, in the case of the girl not over three, she is not rendered impure by the abuse, and this was intended to protect that child from disrepute later in life. Second, Maimonides allegedly "decrees that if a Jew rapes a three-year-old non-Jewish girl, then she must be executed"; actually, the writer means a girl over three. I suspect that the speaker is misquoting Maimonides, who did say that a girl over three is "fit" for intercourse, meaning that intercourse with her should be treated as full adult intercourse, not that it is permissible; and that this subjects her logically to the punishment of adult execution, unless the court shows mercy as it typically would in such a case. Maimonides also agrees with the generic ruling of executing the abuser as above, but if his or the Talmud's statements on allied concepts are taken out of context, a false argument from presumed silence is engendered.
The speaker then alludes to a Talmudic principle that peace permits the laws not to be applied to the full extent of their punishment. Well, duh. This appears throughout the Bible, as early as Judah learning to show mercy upon Tamar's capital crime (because it was his own as well). Nothing in the Talmud requires a capital punishment to be carried out to the end, and the Talmud praises a court for showing mercy consistently in capital matters. The mercy principle would only be objectionable if someone inferred that "real" Judaism wants merciless justice, but this inference cannot be taken from context and is only something templated upon the out-of-context passages, as mercy is praised in Torah and Talmud right alongside justice. Did the Hasmonean Jews genocide Hellenists and Edomites or force conversion, illustrating such mercilessness? I don't know! But even if wartime actions are questionable to people long after the fact, they do not indicate that the Talmud teaches mercilessness at all times "Israel is strong", as opposed to teaching in only in the time of just war. The speaker appears more concerned with Orthodox proclamation of Messiah signs, stating that Maimonides indicates Israeli independence is one such sign and implying the Orthodox ignore the rest; but the Orthodox know there are many hundreds of Messiah signs and they seek to bring them all about, which is an ordinary eschatology seen in other faiths too.
Returning to individual laws, he notes the Talmud encourages not contacting or eating with Gentiles in the race-based state: which is, of course, everything white nationalists want of racial purity too. The solution of all having their own state should be immediate. "Other laws forbid you from treating them fairly. You are forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew - except in order to 'keep the peace'." These are again out of context; the core law is that you cannot abase a Gentile, and the subtexts are that, e.g., it's not necessary to go out of your way to get involved in preventing abasement of a Gentile when it happens for some other reason, nor to go out of your way to find an unknown owner of a found item. The rash telephone-game restatement of these passages is responsible for their misunderstanding. He summarizes, "There are all kinds of prohibitions that are entirely psychotic, that are based on a religion of vengeance", but this undercuts the religion that he claims in some sense to be "reforming" and thus the whole foundation of the morality that he claims to be improving on, which is a facile and impotent methodology.
I did not know about a book "Torat Hamelekh". It was written in 2009 by rabbis and rejected by many others as untrue representation of halakhah. The fact that there is an extreme wing of Talmud interpreters not accepted by other Orthodox should not be taken as indications of what the Talmud teaches in context. More to the point is that some Orthodox seminarians are accused of hating Christians as automatic idolators and to urinate on churches; this is indeed a problem of a hardcore segment, but it is to be resolved by dialogue and defense. In short, the fact that a Jew is denouncing extremism in Judaism shows that the problem is not Judaism but extremism; the fact that a Jew (following the example of Nicholas Donin) forswears the Talmud and Orthodoxy doesn't mean that the religion is the problem. The problem, of course, is failure to agree on the nature of God and his rule of the world, which is to be resolved first through understanding dialogue (Rom. 11).
Your point 2 seems to be that the Talmud's having to account for early Christianity would make it opposed to Christianity. Oddly, when I investigated I found very little such opposition. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Talmud has one passage that definitely refers to Jesus, stating that he was hanged up during Passover by demand of the Sanhedrin, and that he had many disciples who went on to preach his message in his name. There are a few other passages about a generic "Yeshu", who is identified with three or more different people of different eras, and there are a couple that may refer to Yeshu's mother, but each of these has the ordinary disadvantages of being political caricature separable from history and of having no effect whatsoever on moral teaching. It can be understood that the Rabbinical Jews would have slight concern with a movement that came from Judaism that taught plurality in the deity and that focused on a two-phase Messianic strategy, since the remaining rabbis did not understand this, nor the destruction of their temple. But, even accounting for later censorship, the extent of this is extremely mild. Among two thousand, one rabbi, Ulla, clearly comes out against Jesus of Nazareth as an idolator. And among many Jewish commentators, there are a few, like Tovia Singer, who regard being anti-Jesus an essential of Judaism. However, the vast majority of Jews do not regard this as part of Judaism, and indeed they structure Jewish life as far as possible to permit avoidance of Christianity rather than opposition to it. (If we argued that many Jews find power and then make life harder for non-Jews, it would still appear that this is directed by most across the board rather than at Christians in particular, and that the minority truly opposed to Christianity cannot be taken as representative of "Jews" or "Judaism" at large.)
So I trust these haphazard conclusions are helpful to this thread. Knowing enough about the Talmud to criticize it accurately is indeed important. Recognizing that it has ordinary animus to outsiders, and comparing this with similar corpora and modern theories, is instructive. Reading the Talmud should not be done with bias on either side, either to think that the culture of hundreds of years (descended from the same covenant people Jesus grew up among) was automatically all evil, or to think that the same culture was automatically all good.
The entire Talmud is relatively stable online in its three sections (Bavli or Babylonian is the biggest and often mistaken for the whole). Tracking individual medieval rabbinic opinions is indeed difficult but these are rarely authoritative.
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah
Yeah, but not very deep in some of those directions. Satanism infiltrates everything so it's not a special feature here. Baalism ties to Saturnism per Amos's citation of Chiun, but it has gone through many reversions since. Black cube really goes nowhere. Star of Remphan in its original meaning as a demonic entity ties to Saturnism, but not to hexagrams as the link shows; hexagram have never been stars of Remphan except by outsider appropriation.
So, speaking of Talmudic Judaism, the underlying temptation to satanic ritual abuse really is not much bigger than I've seen in any other religion. The temptation to pit fights against outsiders in modern Judaism does appear to be higher than average races or religions, but that is a pretty recent development as the Talmud itself only appears equally xenophobic with other texts of its era.
I'm a Christian who has learned the Hebrew-cultural roots of the covenants of the Bible and who insists on facts and logic. I've always said I'm publicly accountable to Scott Lively and First Century Bible Church, and that has only gotten people to imagine that Scott has some secret Jewish tie. However, thank you for stepping up and joining the conversation.
"The JEW" is not a term that refers to any cognizable entity. If you said "Jews" you'd be closer because you'd refer to a cognizable group of people, some of whom despise me, but not all. Overall, the methodology of group characterization is fatally flawed.
Who died trying to spread the truth about the Talmud? Donin didn't. There are lots of failed attempts to spread mixtures of truth and error about the Talmud, which is why I (face persecution from your likes to) post accurate quotes and analysis. But the failed attempts to describe the Talmud didn't get martyrdoms either. (It amazes me how both Jews and Christians fail to get the Talmud placed in a proper, stable cultural perspective, like the patristics have achieved. Nobody objects that the Christians have crazy church fathers, nobody gets obsessed with proving the Christians false by their confessors, all religions pretty well accept that the patristics are just there and are part of history and need not be read as anything more than that.)
I appreciate your links, I didn't get around to them while compiling my own research collection earlier so I'll be happy to comment there. However, it appears you're looking for guidance to one writer's summary opinion without remembering that, for Jewish protection, there are always many opinions in Judaism. What counts is actual practice as documented in primary sources and/or rabbinical organizations.
So for now, for OP's sake let's defer conversation to your three excellent older threads on the subject, a little bit later, thanks.
You may not have seen my detailed explanation of these things and you may not be satisfied with it. First, the red heifers historically entrusted to Biblical "Jews" or Biblical "Israel" are indeed part of Christian heritage. If another red heifer is slain, it will not contradict anything in the Old Testament even though it will have much Talmudic context added, which is why I said it will also include all the details (modern) "Jews" are interested in. So they do have something to do with each other, namely that moderns believe they are honoring the same Old Testament that we believe we are.
I'm not listening to four hours of a face who doesn't have a transcript or an outline; you may wish to summarize. You may be consistent in your definition of "synagogue of satan", but it's not Jesus's definition, which was limited to non-Jews in two cities. Your theory probably relies on the fact that Ashkenazis are thoroughly genetically mixed with Khazars, but that does not make "Jews" the synagogue, nor does it make all Ashkenazis the synagogue, because this mixing does not erase the genetics from Israel and Judah that the Bible teaches were original. The same applies if you argue the Edomite infiltration. It's the height of racism to define another race differently from the way it defines itself, and is no longer a legitimate demographic discrimination but becomes an indictment against innocent Homo sapiens alongside the guilty.
Next, all Talmud interpretation is required to be consistent with the Old Testament; the ancient statement that Jews should follow the words of the sages "more" than the Old Testament does not allow the words to contradict the Old Testament but instead emphasizes that individual local rulings are more applicable than general principles. If you find a Jewish statement that the Talmud contradicts or overrules the Old Testament on any point of law, I'd be very interested to hear it.
My article on boiling excrement gives way too much detail on the context of that one sarcastic passage. I always say it's been misquoted here more often than rightly quoted, about a dozen times more; for instance, there is no pit, and the "Yeshu" character does not say he is present in the boiling. This is important because people who say they want to criticize the Talmud must quote it correctly or else they will appear to be shills using reverse psychology to create favor for the Talmud via easily debunked arguments. Note also that the Talmud criticized three or more people who could be nicknamed "Yeshu" from three different centuries, so "Yeshu" is actually a composite stock character anyway. There are other caricatures of "Yeshu" present, but the only passage in which Jesus of Nazareth is identified clearly is the one that says he was hanged up on the day of Passover by order of the Sanhedrin but he had many disciples who continued to propagate his teachings.
In general virtually all attempted quotes from the Talmud fail to go to the source in its context and find out the reason. To criticize the Talmud rightly on its superstition, insularity, or eschatology requires accuracy. Yes, the Jews believe that those not brought into their covenant are missing out on what it means to be human: just as we Christians believe. Yes, they have pretty antagonistic statements about their political enemies: just as we have in the Christian patristics of the same period. And, they also have the theoretical hope that any outsider can come into the covenant by Scripture study and God's work, just as we do. Differences are of course admitted. But if you posit that certain Jews are so racist as to consider other Homo sapiens as less than themselves, you need to ensure you are not taking that racist view of others yourself.
I've found that when I present these facts they are routinely answered with an ad hominem argument, so I need to advertise in advance that I will not be answering those. If you don't agree with the facts and logic I present, then give your own organized facts and logic so that it can be discussed. However, all your statements are off-topic for OP, so it'd be better if you made a separate Conspiracies post so they can be reviewed by the community on their merits.
Hey, it's in the Christian Bible, Numbers 19. I haven't seen evidence of any changes since then.
Add: If it wasn't clear, there has been no Jewish holy water since the first century, and there is no historical connection whatsoever between holy water and blood libel.
What kind of stupid headline is this? This bloggish site's headline has nothing to do with the article, which is about transport of liquid hydrogen and says nothing about teleportation or loss. Boring, useless article with false clickbait lead.
Very good question in the end, I think I've seen someone compare water blessing with water memory, and the parallels are strong.
The scientific side of water memory, which of course has been overshadowed by grandiose attached claims that hide the basic science, is that water's unique shape lends itself to potential persistent organizational properties. Scientists agree this happens in the case of freezing, where H2O ice expands unlike most other frozen solids, due to a crystallization in the organization. Water memory is the idea that the same thing happens above freezing temperatures, and that this is achieved by music or other vibrations. I'm not competent to judge it in either direction, so I leave it open in my theory file; happy to hear that this source conducted repeatable inquiries.
If we posit that holy water blessings do increase internal structure in the water, this may result in macro effects that explain some of the alleged acidic properties when applied to e.g. vampires.
Note that this is not the same, though closely related, to holy water in the tabernacle and temples. That water included ashes of the red heifer (of which nine have been slaughtered in history), and any process of blessing with music has been lost to history. However, if the red heifer slaughter makes the news cycle (it could happen any time Israel is sufficiently at peace to allow the ritual without any risk of interruption), we might see a universal holy water blessing explained in all the details Jews are interested in. The Christian details for the allied ritual are well-covered in your material.
What is the testimony conveyed by the most important box(es) on the information return you have, according to its instructions on the IRS website?
Often on c/Conspiracies I answer questions about US taxation. However, as a Swamp Ranger I only give generic answers so as not to constitute tax advice, as that has not been made a Swamp Ranger plank. There are lots of folks here who question the meaning of income tax law, and the law is suspiciously worded enough that there may be a valid reason for it. So I counsel people to read the Internal Revenue Code for themselves, as being American citizens we are held accountable for knowing the whole millions of words, and I can give hints or guidance to assist the discovery process. But, especially because Scored disapproves of giving info to earn money, I don't point to individuals who are making money off of information, whether of good or bad quality. I just give the info I know and can share for free.
If you want a homework assignment, find a form you received in a January that asserts that you earned income, and we can look at it. It might not be something you want to prioritize until next January.
You volunteer to assess yourself. You have the responsibility of understanding the law, as the IRS tells you. Start with what I said about information returns and answer the question I asked about what they say. You've gotten an information return in January before, correct? They have different common form numbers.
Thanks fren. Note that "solid dome" is not the Biblical text but something read into it much later. Note also that the word "water" is defined in the passage as very generic, as something from which land appears (i.e. it means "nonsolid"). Therefore the account is actually consistent with quark-gluon plasma theory of origin, and in fact there are no inconsistencies between Gen. 1:1-5 and Big Bang Theory.
Since Gen. 3-4 indicates that Yahweh got animal skins for Adam and Eve from somewhere, it's clear that the idea of sacrifice is his own and the demonic version is just the counterfeit. The reasons for this are well-explored in theology. If animal sacrifice offends you as a modern, you might want to become a vegan because bacon burgers are the same thing.
Sorry, here it is.
I've been "doing it" (analyzing the law) for over 20 years, but that's obviously not part of the Swamp Rangers.
IRS instructions are on their website. Anyone analytical will note that the IRS instructions and website and the associated regs and laws are themselves very fishy. The fact that there's a constant unrestrained movement deriding the IRS as fishy, for a thousand invalid reasons and maybe a couple legit ones, indicates that the law is sufficiently vague to merit judicial notice. I realized this fishiness, without any help from any false argument, when I was still a minor; so you could say I've been doing it for a lifetime; but my primary questions were answered only after sufficient research.
If confused, step one is always to know and ask the Lord. Based on how he guides, ask away. Consider whether Americans legally ceded their sovereignty or whether they didn't and must act on the sovereignty bequeathed to them by taking responsibility. If Americans never made themselves slaves of the state, they must do due diligence to reclaim their heritage. It's not easy, and it takes a lifetime of small victories to get where you desire to go in your sovereignty, but it's much easier than at most any other time or place in history, as long as you don't fall for the state's lies that it "entitles" you rather than you controlling it.
I came here to spread truth, and so this truth is one that I direct people to among many. Due to prior agreements, I'm not at liberty to set up a teaching seminar here. Yet. But if you want a homework assignment, find a form from a third party that you may have received in a January (that's an "information return") and find the box(es) that indicate that an amount of money was paid in a certain category (that's testimony). Then begin your research into whether that third party had its testimony accurate, and means of correcting inaccuracies. I believe that one can relentlessly pursue truth until any question is answered, so the submission of honest confusion will always reward the patient.
Keep up the meaty work. Even if it's wrong it's worth filing for another shoe to drop. This one rings pretty well.
The tax scheme is not based on uniform commercial code as your link suggests; it has operated independently and defeated all UCC arguments, as Becraft noted long ago IIRC.
Filing a bunch of UCC papers merely mucks up a record but doesn't accomplish the testimony necessary to overcome mistaken presumptions of income. The site's going two years is no indicator of eventual success in actual goals. Find people who have been doing it for a lifetime. Herein I answered all the essential tax-related questions in one sentence, and this can be backed up with specifics from IRS instructions as I said. There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil without any effect.
Thank you so much for the Transnistria data!
The issue about widespread knowledge leading to changed laws is better appreciated in the money issue. When people realize federal reserve notes are fiat there is a very hard landing to return to some kind of gold standard. The means of resolving such a landing are negotiated by power brokers who then propose a transition they can all accept, each for self-interest reasons for different spheres of power. We see this negotiation happening, with many dirty tricks included, in the news daily. It's my belief the tax issue will be resolved similarly as part of the money issue. Either the voluntary tax will remain and knowledge will become wider spread about evitability, or something else will be proposed and possibly mandated, in which case sovereigns will individually need to determine whether to accept it or whether to practice peaceful civil disobedience. But evidence currently favors the first option.
Sadly, most who claim to have the silver bullet, and then publish it step-by-step and make more money selling a system than otherwise, get prosecuted and debunked because they didn't have it. I said there were exceptions. If you have what appears to be the whole truth because all mysteries about the law are explained without equivocation, it is definitely in your interest to share because your conscience is clear. The Swamp Rangers have not currently found it to be in our interests to share details of these laws as an org because the org's goals are different; but as an individual my conscience directs me to answer most specifics when I can give credible, competent info that doesn't interfere with the org. IRL I am much more free about it.
Yep, individuals make their own decisions about things like licenses too, unrelated question; each decision is to be made on one's own conscience. My conscience chooses the hills I fight on.
Your argument that tax avoidance may create greater net taxes is the broken window fallacy debunked by Frederic Bastiat.
Hard libertarians reject government mandates for roads, water, and rescue on the grounds they should be opt-out and there are private ways to do everything better than publicly; that too is a conscience issue.
So, overall, the person who realizes the duties of sovereignty does indeed face all these questions, and decides them each sovereignly.
Not being a US citizen by birth or naturalization makes a big difference, as you don't have automatic access to the sovereignty rights under the law for those who continue the population that created the governments by their sovereign citizenships.
Citizens have the right to pursue happiness (to work for pay) without interference. Noncitizens have their entry and stay regulated by the government already, so there is an immediate nexus to all money transferred that doesn't apply to the citizen. I haven't been asked recently to look into the laws for noncitizens to review arguments that noncitizens do not earn income, so I apologize for not having any quick takes for you there.
You are right that there should be step-by-step instructions, but since the ones who write (mammoth) step-by-step instructions are the IRS itself, which benefits from obfuscation, and the sovereign citizens are not similarly incentivized to publish but are in fact incentivized to be cautious in speech, the documentation you seek is hard to come by. There exist books that come close, but I'm not prepared to recommend one that applies to your case, and of course there are many more books that mislead or that are controlled oppo. But if you're interested in learning more about the tax fraud in this country, ask away. There would not be any fast or guaranteed path now because it would become commonplace if confirmed by courts; but recent years have allowed other surprising fast or near-guaranteed paths to materialize on other important fronts of sovereign expression, so there's always hope. Rather, we sovereign citizens have the responsibility to blaze our own pioneer paths, and those who succeed will be followed, even by noncitizens who take the additional steps of naturalization so as to share equally and responsibly in our sovereign status. Patient sovereigns decide justice ultimately.
Extended sovereignty responsibilities are not for the impoverished, they must find ways of freedom from poverty, which is a benevolence question for other sovereigns. They are not for the ill or addicted, who are in the same category.
The sovereign earning money has a responsibility in this country to research the nature of income and to declare, when there is testimony of income, whether the testimony is accurate or not. If you're earning money but not federal-nexus income, they can't come for you; they can only pretend you're earning federal-nexus income and hope you deign to consent, or if you're especially annoying to them they can use illegal force, which is another separable question.
Frenchmen in Paris earn money, but it's not federal-nexus income for the US; they must follow their own laws. Since some money earned is not federal-nexus income, we have a responsibility in following our own laws to determine what money is and isn't. It's never been in the government's financial interest to help us sovereigns make this determination.
First, I apologize for sounding like I'm referring you to paying anyone, as my intent was to redirect discussion to (a) your own labor and study resources and (b) network resources you trust. The issue is complex enough that the government admits several hours are needed to understand the law and answer conscientiously; so the sovereign should be prepared to spend a few more hours than that if there are red flags indicating uncertainties in aspects of the law.
If the sovereign citizen decides that paying the (expletive) tax is better than risk of emerods, well, the citizen is free that way too. I'm talking to those who want to take on the responsibility of sovereignty.
People on your porch are handled no differently based on different stinking badges. Sovereigns know how to handle professional appointments, and unprofessional ones. One should generally prepare one's own "arguments" rather than rely on canned packages; rely on the law and the facts instead.
What you're asking more directly is how to deal with correspondence and calls asking for more information. They are handled by continuing to give the same information you've given, without variance or hasty contradiction, proving your beliefs are sincere because they haven't changed. (Note, every fiery standoff attributed to tax disagreement arose because of collateral issues, not because of someone unambiguously and consistently testifying the same beliefs and facts.) The IRS can threaten fees but they do not have the power to assess them without complex process and a history of resistance such as nonfiling; if your study of the law indicates a sincere belief that the fees are mistaken, they are handled similarly to other corrections of error, by stating the facts and law that apply to the alleged fees. I am not aware of anyone being charged with evasion for filing conscientiously. The risk of being charged falsely with something else is not much different from the risk of getting charged falsely for upsetting some public servant nowadays, so establishing sincere understanding of the tax laws and belief as to their application to the facts is essential and sufficient defense before God and man.
Not all money received is income, and not all income is federal-nexus income. If you believe money received is not income, you say so and explain your reasons; income need not be zero, it is to be calculated according to the law. Good reasons for your belief about the definition of income have been proposed here before, and I've agreed with good reasons and (as here) debunked bad reasons. Sovereigns are prepared to do the mildest legwork to convince themselves from multiple witnesses, to avoid reliance on other individuals or compounded danger to any one person.
Great link, fren, but USA Today implies a mistake itself: actually, Lowell and Larry is the same Becraft, and this copy of the memo has no misspelling "Bercraft".
The data on the 16th amendment was collected by Bill Benson, who found material irregularities in every state's ratification of the 16th amendment, but the courts' position is that these irregularities are like many others that do not detract from the intent of the law and legislators. So, what Becraft calls a dead issue.
I'm not commenting on the war much while it's in progress because I think its conclusion will indicate the judgments to be made. It's obvious that anyone in war celebrates the defeat of the enemy, and sometimes soldiers go overboard compared to mature moral judgment, so I don't take war drama as proving much.
The legal status of Christians in Israel is a valid criticism; the historical involvement of Jews in dehumanizing trades is a criticism; these can be traced to the Talmudic period without any need to misrepresent the text. The Christian Bible saying that it is a man's prerogative to write a divorce decree (Deut. 24:1-4) is a different method of handling divorce than our own, and has its criticisms, but Jesus affirmed it and our own doesn't seem to have removed suffering.
To answer your other question, some Jews make a schedule to read one page of Talmud a day, which takes about seven years.
I've pointed out that the correct number of slaves is indeed 2,800, found in Shabbat 32b: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Whatever Zechariah means for the future destiny of the Christian in commanding the allegiance of others, I claim for myself. So the Jewish tradition making this out to be 2,800 slaves is just one interpretation that might apply to all true believers in God.
Your video is useful in showing how these thoughts are applied in Orthodoxy, but it's clear that they are being contextualized as well along the lines I describe. The unbeliever is not as humane as the believer; the believer benefits from the many labors of many people around the world; the believer hopes for a kingly lifestyle in a future heaven on earth. If we were to compare these hopes to other eschatological views in other religions we would find nothing surprising. Context is the necessity.