A Clearer Perspective of Corporate-Governance and the united states of America
Charter for the Virginia Company of London, 1606., Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.
http://www.historyisfun.org/pdf/Life-at-Jamestown-Lesson-Plans/LifeatJamestown.pdf
In May of 1607, three small ships – the Discovery, Godspeed and Susan Constant –
landed at what we know today as Jamestown…
Sponsors of the voyage hoped the venture would become an economic prize for England. An earlier undertaking in the 1580s on Roanoke Island, in what is now North Carolina, had failed, but times had changed. England had signed a peace treaty with Spain, and was now looking westward to establish colonies along the northeastern seaboard of North America.
Word was that the Spanish had found “mountains of gold” in this new land, so these voyagers were intent on finding riches as well as a sea route to Asia.
What was the Social Structure of that day?
Who were the sponsors?
What is a charter?
Can you say CORPORATION?
King James I his charters, treaties and legal contracts?
Are these treaties, contracts or charters still in existence and effect?
What are some of the hidden or less known benefits and beneficiaries of the Virginia Corporation or Virginia Charter?
Here is the current claim:
GOVERNMENT OWNS IT “ALL” BY INVESTMENT
Now the Key Question is: Do you own Government?
Or, does Government own you?
How many governments exist in the United States?
* Here are some historical claims about the Virginia colony:
Virginia Records Timeline: 1553-1743
1600-1609
1603
Queen Elizabeth I dies. James I succeeds her.
1604
James I makes peace with Spain.
1605
Christopher Newport makes an exploratory voyage along the North American coast. The English are especially anxious to find a northern route or passage to the South Sea (Pacific Ocean) and the Spice Islands beyond as an alternative to the Spanish-dominated southern route. The size of the North American continent is not yet known and explorers hope to find a water route through it.
1606
King James of England charters the Virginia Company of London and appoints a royal council to oversee its ventures and the colony. Among the charter applicants is Richard Hakluyt, author of the three-volume Principal Navigations Voyages Traffiques . . . . (1598-1600). Other applicants are Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers. Company adventurers (investors) include merchants from the west and former soldiers who had fought as mercenaries on the side of the Dutch against the Spanish. The Virginia Company hopes to find a water passage to the South Sea (Pacific Ocean) by exploring tributary rivers and plans to establish a colony in Virginia. Its “brother” company, the Plymouth Company, headed by Sir John Popham, sends an expedition northward to present-day Maine. Instructions Given….
December 20. The first expedition of the Virginia Company, consisting of the Susan Constant, Godspeed, and a small ship, Discovery, all commanded by Christopher Newport, sails from England. Newport, an experienced privateer, has been active in the West Indies since the 1590s. He carries sealed directions from the Company, not to be opened until after the expedition’s arrival in Virginia. One-half of the 120 passengers are “gentlemen”: a gentleman is not a member of the nobility, but he is generally distinguished from those who practice a trade or profession.
Among the passengers is John Smith (1580-1631), who spends part of the voyage imprisoned for challenging Newport’s command.
1607
May 14. Newport and his passengers arrive at Powhatan River, which they rename the James River. One hundred and five men form the first settlement on an island (today, a peninsula) in the James River, initially called “James Fort,” then “James Towne” and “James Citie.” The site offers a harbor that is deep enough for the colonists’ ships and secluded from the view of any Spanish ships that might be offshore. However, it is also swampy, infested with mosquitoes, and lacks sufficient fresh water sources. After eight months there will be only thirty-eight people left alive.
Upon arrival, Newport opens the sealed instructions from the Virginia Company of London. They specify a thirteen-man council, among whose members are John Smith; Newport (who returns to England); John Ratcliffe; George Kendall, a cousin of Sir Edwin Sandys; Edward Maria Wingfield; Anthony Gosnold; Richard Hunt, a minister; John Marten and Sir Richard Marten, both related to Julius Caesar, England’s Master of the Rolls. This Council elects a president, Edward Maria Wingfield. Among the passengers are carpenters, a blacksmith, a mason, a tailor, a barber, and two surgeons. The instructions and two incomplete lists of the expeditions’ passengers survive in John Smith’s Works. Virginia Records Selected Bibliography | Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance Administered to the Colonists
May. A week after landing, Captain Christopher Newport leads a small contingent of men on an exploratory journey up the James River for the first time, in the course of which they meet Powhatan Indians and a tribal leader, Opechancanough. The Powhatans are a confederation of tribes occupying a region from present-day coastal North Carolina to present-day Richmond. Jamestown is in the midst of the territory of the Paspahegh, whose leader or “weroance” is Wowinchopunck. Other nearby tribes are the Kecoughtans at the mouth of the James River, and the Quiyoughcohanocks, Weanocs, Appomattocs, and Chiskiacks, further inland. All these tribes of Virginia’s tidewater region are Algonquians.
May 26. Hostilities between the colonists and Indian tribes result in the death of approximately two hundred Indians and several colonists.
June 8. James Fort is attacked by the Paspaheghs, supported by recruits from other tribes. Despite hostilities such as these, Powhatan tribes supply the colonists with food at times of dire need during the next several decades of Jamestown’s existence.
July 29. The Susan Constant and Godspeed, which departed Jamestown on June 22, arrive in London. The ships bring mineral samples, which turn out to be base metals rather than gold.
August 17. The Virginia Company meets in London to consider Christopher Newport’s report and this first expedition to Virginia. At this time, the Spanish ambassador to England, Don Pedro de Zúñiga, writes Philip III of Spain about the new colony, Jamestown, and the danger of further English incursions in the New World.
August 28. At Jamestown, George Kendall is accused of sowing discord among the colonists, is imprisoned and eventually executed.
September. Wingfield is deposed as president of the governing Council of Jamestown and replaced by John Ratcliff. Food supplies dwindle.
October 8. Christopher Newport sails from England to Jamestown with two supply ships and approximately one hundred additional colonists.
Early December. John Smith leads a party in search of Indians willing to trade or supply the colony with food, especially corn. Indian warriors capture Smith and his men on the Chickahominy River and take him to Werowocomoco on the York River, where the confederation’s leader, Powhatan, receives him. According to Smith, he and his party are eventually released because Powhatan’s daughter Pocohontas (Matoaka) intercedes with her father to save Smith’s life. She would have been ten or twelve at the time.
1608
January 2. John Smith arrives back at Jamestown to find most of the colony boarding the ship Discovery and abandoning the colony to return to England. Fortunately, before they can leave one of Newport’s supply ships, the John and Francis, arrives. Newport brings one hundred new settlers.
January 7. A fire destroys many buildings within the Jamestown fort, among them the colony’s first church. Most of the colony’s provisions are destroyed, including those recently brought in the John and Francis. The other supply ship, Phoenix, is lost. Powhatan provides food for the colony. The Phoenix eventually arrives on April 20. Both supply ships also bring more colonists.
February. John Smith, Christopher Newport, Thomas Savage, and others sail up the York River to meet with Powhatan. They exchange hostages. Thomas Savage remains behind to live with the Powhatans, while an Indian, Namontack, returns with the English to live at Jamestown.
April 10. Newport sails for England on the John and Francis.
April 20. The lost supply ship, the Phoenix, commanded by Francis Nelson, arrives at Jamestown with forty more settlers and supplies.
June 2. The Phoenix sails back to England with a load of cedarwood.
August. The third expedition to Jamestown sails from England. Commanded again by Christopher Newport, the expedition brings an additional seventy colonists to Virginia.
September. The Council elects John Smith as president. He writes a letter to the Company treasurer in London providing an account of the colony’s progress. Smith defends the colony against the Company’s criticism that the Jamestown Council has not kept London informed–“we feed You but with ifs & ands, hopes, & some few proofes; as if we would keepe the mystery of the Businesse to our selues”–and that he, Smith, has encouraged rather than eliminated disputes and divisions among the colonists. Regarding the latter, Smith argues, “vnless you would haue me run away and leaue the Country, I cannot prevent them,” and says that his greater concern is to “make many stay what would els fly any whether.” The letter reaches London early in 1609.
October. Newport arrives in Jamestown with the Company’s second expedition of supplies and more colonists. Among the colonists are two women, one the wife of Thomas Forest, and the other, her maid, Anne Buras. Dutch and Polish artisans who will establish a glassworks, and artisans experienced in the production of pitch, tar, and other naval stores have also arrived.
1609
Winter to mid-May. The Colony experiences its first extreme food crisis, called “the starving time.” Reports circulating in London include incidents of cannibalism. The Virginia Company publicly denies the story.
July. The Mary and John, a ship unconnected to the Virginia Company, arrives at Jamestown. It is the first ship to use Jamestown as a port.
July. The Sea Venture, and accompanying ships, another supply expedition, are destroyed in a hurricane in the West Indies. Survivors find refuge on Bermuda island. The Sea Venture carries new leaders for Jamestown, among whom are Sir Thomas Gates, who had served with the Dutch against Spain, Sir George Somers, and William Strachey. Strachey’s account of the storm and the survivors’ experiences on Bermuda has long been thought to have inspired Shakespeare’s play The Tempest, although some scholars disagree.
May 23. The King recharters the Virginia Company of London, transferring governance and control of the colony from the Crown to the Company itself. The Company replaces the original colonial executive body, the Council, with the office of governor. Later the Council will re-emerge as an upper house of the legislature. The Company has approximately 650 members; twenty are from the nobility and one hundred are knights.
September. John Ratcliffe is killed by the Powhatan Indians after attempting to bargain with them for food supplies at the Pamunkey River.
November. Anne Buras, one of the first two women to arrive in Jamestown, marries John Layden in the first wedding at Jamestown.
>>>
* This is a very convoluted subject and some may find controversy or oppose this perspective. No ill will or bad intent is presented here but merely a alternate view of the past based of the facts that we have found.
I expect to include text from other sources that details the specifics that illustrates a different frame of reference than contemporary life today, as the men and women on the street would not think like these “Gentlemen” or “Gentry Class” People.
Wikipedia reports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
“Washington was born into the provincial gentry of Colonial Virginia; his wealthy planter family owned tobacco plantations and slaves. After both his father and older brother died when he was young, Washington became personally and professionally attached to the powerful William Fairfax, who promoted his career as a surveyor and soldier.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fairfax
William Fairfax (1691–1757) was a political appointee of the English Crown and a politician: he was Collector of Customs in Barbados, and Chief Justice and governor of the Bahamas; he served as Customs agent in Marblehead, Massachusetts before being reassigned to the Virginia colony. There he was elected to the House of Burgesses and then as President of the Governor’s Council. As a tobacco planter, he commissioned the construction of his plantation called Belvoir in northern Virginia. He was the son of Henry Fairfax (d. 1708), a grandson of Henry Fairfax, 4th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, and first cousin of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron.[1] He acted as land agent for his cousin’s vast holdings on the Northern Neck of Virginia.
>>>
* One of the biggest hindrances to gaining more knowledge and details is the obfuscation by officials and politicians when asked direct questions about these findings.
We shall begin with the social order of that Age.
http://thelostcolony.org/education/elizabethan-era/
Elizabethan Era
The Elizabethan period in England had a daily life based on social order: the monarch as the highest, the nobility as second rank, the gentry as third, merchants as fourth, yeomanry as fifth and laborers as sixth. The queen was believed to be God’s representation here on Earth. It was also believed that God had formed these social ranks and showered blessings on each rank. The Parliament regulated the clothes that can only be worn by each rank and it was considered a defiance of the order if a laborer wore clothes of the rich. Sumptuary laws were imposed by rulers to curb the expenditure of the people. These laws applied to food, beverages, furniture, jewelry and clothing. They were used to control behavior and ensure that a specific class structure was maintained. Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws dictated what color and type of clothing individuals were allowed to own and wear. This allowed an easy and immediate way to identify rank and privilege.
The Monarch
The era called the Elizabethan England was a time of many changes and developments and was also considered as the Golden Age in English history. This era was led by Queen Elizabeth I, the sixth and last ruler of Tudor. Queen Elizabeth I was considered by many to be England’s best monarch. She was wise and a just Queen and chose the right advisors and was not dominated by them. She ruled the Elizabethan era for 45 years and during this time was the height of the English Renaissance and the time of the development of English poetry and literature.
Nobility
Western Europe Map Society began to form along new lines during the Tudor years and it was an age of individuality. Nobility and knights were still at the top of the social ladder. These men were rich and powerful, and they have large households. The real growth in society was in the merchant class. Within the nobility class there was a distinction between old families and new. Most of the old families were Catholic, and the new families were Protestant. During Shakespeare’s time there were only about 55 noble families in England. At the head of each noble family is a duke, a baron or an earl. This class is the lords and ladies of the land. A person becomes a member of nobility by birth, or by a grant from the queen or king. Noble titles were hereditary, passing from father to oldest son. It took a crime such as treason for a nobleman to lose his title. Many nobles died during the War of the Roses, a series of civil wars fought during the 15th century. The Tudor monarchy, Elizabeth, her father Henry VIII, and her grandfather Henry VII rarely appointed new nobles to replace those who died. They viewed the nobility class as a threat to their power and preferred to keep the number of them small. Being a member of the nobility class often brought debt rather than profit. The expectations of the class and the non paying honorific offices could bring terrible financial burdens. They maintained huge households, and conspicuous consumption and lavish entertainment was expected. Visiting nobles to England were the responsibility of the English nobility to house and entertain at their own expense. Appointment to a post as a foreign ambassador required the ambassador to maintain a household of as many 100 attendants. Most of Queen Elizabeth’s council, chief officers in the counties came from the noble families. They were expected to serve in an office, such as being an ambassador to a foreign country, at their own expense of course.
Gentry
The Gentry class included knights, squires, gentlemen, and gentlewomen who did not work with their hands for a living. Their numbers grew during Queen Elizabeth’s reign and became the most important social class in England. Wealth was the key to becoming a part of the gentry class. This class was made of people not born of noble birth who by acquiring large amounts of property became wealthy landowners. The rise of the gentry was the dominant feature of Elizabethan society. They essentially changed things, which launched out new paths whether at home or overseas, provided leadership and spirit of the age, who gave it character and did its work during this era. The gentry were the solid citizens of Elizabethan England. Francis Drake, the famous explorer and Sir Walter Raleigh, who led the way to the English colonization of America were of the gentry class. Two of the queen’s chief ministers, Burgley and Walsingham were products of the gentry. Francis Bacon, the great essayer and philosopher also came from this class. The gentry were the backbone of Elizabethan England. They went to Parliament and served as justices of the Peace. They combined the wealth of the nobility with the energy of the sturdy peasants from whom they had sprung.
Merchant
The Tudor era saw the rise of modern commerce with cloth and weaving leading the way. The prosperous merchant class emerged from the ashes of the Wars of the Roses. The prosperity of the wool trade led to a surge in building and the importance cannot be overstated. Shipping products from England to various ports in Europe and to the New World also became a profitable business for the merchants. Prices for everyday food and household items that came from other countries increased as the merchants gained a monopoly on the sales of all goods under the pretence it would benefit the country where it really benefited the pocket of the merchants.
Yeomanry
This was the “middling” class who saved enough to live comfortably but who at any moment, through illness or bad luck be plunged into poverty. This class included the farmers, tradesmen and craft workers. They took their religion very seriously and could read and write. This class of people was prosperous and sometimes their wealth could exceed those of the gentry, but the difference was how they spent their wealth. The yeoman’s were content to live more simply, using their wealth to improve their land and expand it.
Laborers
The last class of Elizabethan England was the day laborers, poor husbandmen, and some retailers who did not own their own land. Artisans, shoemakers, carpenters, brick masons and all those who worked with their hands belonged to this class of society. In this class we can also put our great swarms of idle serving-men and beggars. Under Queen Elizabeth I, the government undertook the job of assisting the laborers class and the result was the famous Elizabethan Poor Laws which resulted in one of the world’s first government sponsored welfare programs. This era was generally peaceful as the battles between the Protestants and the Catholics and those between the Parliament and the Monarchy had subsided.
GOVERNMENT
The Monarchy
The monarch of England during the Elizabethan era was Queen Elizabeth I. The government of Elizabethan England was centralized, well organized and very efficient. It was very much a personal monarch with ministers. Queen Elizabeth’s personality determined the style, intensity and efficiency. She ruled and led her people for 45 years, and produced great developments and advancements for England. During her time, monarchs were rulers and not just figureheads. She was the ultimate decider and was able to determine issues of her nation’s religion, when Parliament would sit and what it would discuss, when and if her country would go to war, matters of education, welfare of her citizens, what food they would eat and what clothes they could wear. She is considered to be England’s best monarch. She was a wise and just Queen and chose the right advisers and never let herself get dominated by these advisers. She dealt with the stubbornly resistant members of Parliament without being tyrannous, and was cleaver at compromising in both religious and political matters. Queen Elizabeth I was the sixth and last of the Tudor dynasty.
The Divine Rights of Kings gave the monarch the image of being a Demigod. The theory of the Divine Right of Kings aimed at instilling obedience by explaining why all social ranks were religiously and morally obliged to obey their government. The strong authority made going against the monarch a sin. By not obeying the queen, you could be accused of treason and sentenced to death. The queen had the power to send one to prison and order execution. Even with all of this power, the monarch was not above the law, and she could also be brought before the court.
All laws required the queens consent in order to be passed. The queen could not write and pass laws herself. She had to draw up a Bill and put it forward to Parliament for consideration and approval. However, the queen could make Royal Proclamations without Parliament’s consent.
The Privy Council
The Privy Council was Queen Elizabeth’s group of advisers and its main purpose was to give numerous different opinions to the queen and she decided on the issue at hand. Too often the advice was often ignored and the Council had to still carry out the queen’s wishes. The Council took care of routine administration which involved matters of religion, military, the queen’s security, economics, and the welfare of the citizens. The Council dealt with matters of national and individual interest, issued proclamations in the queen’s name and supervised law and enforcement. The Council could not may any decisions, they could only advise. The members of the Council were depended on who the queen wanted there. Certain powerful noblemen were also necessary in the Council so that their and their realms’ interest were represented so that a rebellion would be avoided. Queen Elizabeth believed the more members of the Council, the more opinions and problems. She dropped the number of Council members from 50 to 19 and eventually to 13. At the beginning of her reign, the Council met three times a week, by the end her reign, they met almost every day.
The Secretary of State, Sir William Cecil led the Council. He was wise, cautious, and cooperative with Queen Elizabeth and trusted by all others. He was also the queen’s personal secretary and chief adviser until his death. He had the reputation of one of the greatest English statesmen. His successor, Sir Francis Walsingham, was the mastermind of the English spy network which defended Queen Elizabeth against foreign powers and plots. He was succeeded by Sir Robert Cecil.
Parliament
A group of representatives called Parliament was divided into two sections. The House of Lords or the Upper House consisted of bishops and aristocrats. The House of Commons or the Lower House consisted of common people. There were no political parties or a Prime Minister associated with Parliament during the Elizabethan era.
The main function of Parliament at this time in history was to deal with financial matters such as taxation and granting the queen money. The monarch paid for daily administration with ordinary revenues from customs, feudal dues and sales of land. Parliament covered extraordinary expenditures such as war with taxation. If taxation did not supply enough funds for military expenditures, more land was sold along with illegal scheming. Parliament was also used for passing laws. During Queen Elizabeth’s reign, 438 public and private laws were passed. Public laws applied to everyone, whereas, private laws only applied to certain people. Parliament could undo a law if both houses agreed three times and the queen was also in agreement. The queen could make laws by Royal Proclamation without Parliament’s consent. Parliament could also advise the queen, but she was never interested in their advice.
Elections only occurred for the members of the House of Commons. These members were supported by the important local people from their locale. The members of the House of Commons only had voting power if they were male and received a certain annual income. The queen decided when Parliament would be called to session. Queen Elizabeth I only called Parliament to session 10 times during her reign.
Local Governments
Local governments were important to the citizens of Elizabethan England. Every county had royal representatives such as Justices of the Peace, Sheriffs, and Lords Lieutenant. They insured that the queen’s command and laws were enforced and obeyed.
Regional governments were responsible for overseeing parts of England that the Privy Council could not supervise. The Council of the North, which resided in York, was responsible for Northern England, and the Council of the Marches, which resided in Ludlow, was responsible for Wales and some border counties.
Manors were run by nobility and gentry. Owning land was what made one powerful, and those with land were wealthy and masters of the tenants on his land, thus they had had a major influence. It was a position of responsibility as they were meant to aid the monarchy by governing their own land. Grievances were taken to the Lord of the manor and the tenants were loyal to him. His political views were greatly impacted on his tenants as well.
Each city and town had its own government, head by a mayor.
Courts
The judicial system of Elizabethan England was made up of several courts. The most important courts were the Great Sessions Courts or the Assizes, and the Quarter Sessions Courts which dealt with most crimes. The Great Sessions Courts were held twice a year in each county, and the Quarter Sessions Courts were held four times a year. The Assizes was famous for its power to inflict harsh punishment.
Petty Sessions Courts, Manor Courts, and town courts handled unimportant crimes. Civil cases were dealt by various courts depending on the person’s monetary status. The Star Chamber, one of the highest profile courts consisting of mostly Privy Counselors tried the wealthy. The Court of Chancery judged criminal cases, and the Exchequer of Pleas handled the financial suits. The Court of Requests dealt with the poor or “poor man’s causes, and the Church Courts handled religious and moral cases. Those who committed high treason and other serious crimes received the death sentence which was often handed down by the queen. Those guilty of lesser crimes were sent to prison or to the stocks.
It was an era of great economic development. Sir Thomas Gresham established the first stock exchange called the Royal Exchange in 1565. This was the first one in England and one of the first institutions in Europe. This relative peaceful and prosperous Elizabethan era was known as the “Golden Age.”
>>>
* Here is another source to give us a flavor for the social order:
http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/367-03.htm
J.P.SOMMERVILLE
Social structure |
The coat of arms that Shakespeare himself applied (and paid) for to assure his own gentle status. |
367-3 |
“When first this order was ordain’d, my lords, Knights of the garter were of noble birth, Valiant and virtuous, full of haughty courage, Such as were grown to credit by the wars; Not fearing death, nor shrinking for distress, But always resolute in most extremes. He then that is not furnish’d in this sort Doth but usurp the sacred name of knight, Profaning this most honourable order, And should, if I were worthy to be judge, Be quite degraded, like a hedge-born swain That doth presume to boast of gentle blood.”(Henry VI, Pt.I, 4.1). |
English gentlemen
|
Social status played a key role in early-modern English society. Wealth was important, but so were birth, education, and employment in determining social rank. |
||
|
Almost a century later, Gregory King attempted one of the first censuses of a country’s population. |
||
|
All these commentators saw the crucial line of distinction as that between the gentry and nobility (“the political nation”) on the one hand, and the great mass of the population on the other. |
||
|
Gentlemen varied greatly in wealth. In general the South and East of the country were wealthier than the North and West. However, it was also true that social change occurred more slowly in the North and West, and so greater deference was shown to gentry families – even when comparatively poor.
|
Education was one way to attain gentle status – Masters of Arts, physicians, and lawyers were all assumed to be gentlemen. Clergymen too, aspired to gentle status and for the most part were accepted as such, though after the Reformation, the status of many local clergy fell, and the higher clergy were gradually excluded from political power.
|
| A family capable of living like gentlemen for two or three generations attained gentle status almost by default, especially if (as was often the case) they married into gentle families. One way to establish gentle status firmly was to apply for and receive a coat of arms from the College of Arms in London. The heralds there (particularly if well paid) were skilled at discovering – or inventing – venerable ancestors. One of the proverbs recorded by George Herbert (1593-1633) in his Jacula Prudentum, was “Gentility is nothing but ancient riches.” |
| Shakespeare’s father, John, was a reasonably prosperous glover, though he fell on hard times. In 1568 he applied to the College of Arms for permission to use a coat of arms. His son William followed up the application in 1596. The College agreed on the grounds that one of Shakespeare’s forbears had been rewarded for valiant service under Henry VII, that John had married the daughter of a gentleman (Robert Arden) and that he was a JP, a royal bailiff and the owner of land and buildings worth £500. |
| Well-established families naturally stressed birth and lineage, while newcomers stressed that merit was the most important element of nobility. The humanist educational revolution stressed that virtue was more important than birth, and English commentators in the sixteenth and seventeenth century repeated this sentiment. One widely read moralist (Thomas Fuller) insisted that “The good Yeoman is a gentleman in ore, whom the next age may see refined;” and that “In England the temple of honour is bolted against none who have passed through the temple of virtue.” The motto of Trinity College Cambridge (founded by Henry VIII) read “Virtus vera nobilitas” (virtue is true nobility). |
|
| In practice, education was only usually available to comparatively wealthy families. The poorest families needed their children to work. |
| Books of advice appeared to direct the English gentleman and gentlewoman on how to behave. (Follow hyperlink and note the categories the title page thinks important: – youth, disposition, education. vocation, apparel, behavior, decency, complement, recreation, acquaintance, moderation, perfection, estimation, fancy, gentility & honor). |
Social hierarchy:
Nobles
| In England the division between the nobility and the gentry was less rigid than was true in most of Western Europe. Only the eldest son of a nobleman was noble – his younger brothers were mere gentlemen. | ||
| English noblemen were subject to taxation (unlike the nobility of France and Spain, who were largely exempt from taxation). The House of Lords, therefore, was sometimes willing to ally with the House of Commons in opposing taxes. | ||
| The number of nobles in Tudor England was generally fewer than 60, but it grew steeply under James I, who was generous with honors at his accession to curry favor, and later to earn money; in 1628 the number had reached well over 120. | ||
| A noble title died out if there were no male heirs. However, the family’s property was shared amongst any daughters – making such heiresses extremely desirable marriage partners; sometimes the monarch would grant the title to an heiress’ husband. | ||
| Primogeniture was the default rule of inheritance of land in most of England. However, many families also made provision for younger sons, and gave daughters a dowry on marriage as their part of the family’s assets. |
Baronets
| Sir Thomas Holte (1571-1654) (builder of Aston Hall) was one of the earliest purchasers of the title of baronet. |
| Below noblemen but above knights and lesser gentlemen was the rank of baronet. | |
| James I created this order in May 1611 and sold the heritable title of baronet to 200 gentlemen. All had to have estates of at least £1,000 p.a. (Later, James also created an order of Irish Baronets to encourage the settlement of Ulster. In 1625, an new order of Baronets of Nova Scotia was created to help colonization there). | |
| Over the next 75 years many more titles of baronet were sold, until by 1688 there were about 800 baronets in England. | |
| A baronet was addressed as “Sir” and his wife as “Lady”. Their eldest son was automatically entitled to knighthood on reaching the age of 21, and inherited the baronetcy on his father’s death. |
Knights and esquires
| The rank of knight was not hereditary. The monarch had the right to dispense knighthoods and sometimes delegated it to military commanders. | |
| Early in his reign, James I handed out many knighthoods to try and foster loyalty. His son Charles I, angered many gentlemen by his “distraint of knighthood” – i.e. reviving an old law that required men to present themselves for knighthood at the King’s coronation, and then fining them for failing to do so. | |
| Below knights were esquires. This name was strictly given to the heir of a knight, the heir of the younger son of a nobleman, and office holders including Justices of the Peace, but it was extended to all the higher gentry. | |
| Appointment to the Commission of the Peace established a gentleman’s local status. Justices of the Peace were local magistrates and administrators with broad powers and duties. |
| Sir Philip Sidney (1554-86) Courtier and poet. He died of a musket wound when fighting the Spanish, and was seen as the model of knightly chivalry. His Arcadia was a pastoral epic, while the Defense of Poesie brought humanist learning to the defense of literature. |
| Nobility and gentry made up about 2% of England’s population at the end of the sixteenth century. The nobility owned about 15% of the land, and the gentry about 50%. (Most of the remaining land was owned by the Church or the Crown). | |
| The wealthier gentlemen owned about 1,000 acres or more of land. In prosperous arable-farming areas, a farm of only 50 acres might constitute a good estate, but in remoter and pastoral areas larger holdings were required. | |
| Each county had about ten gentry families in 1500, but this had increased to about fifty by 1600. The massive redistribution of land that resulted from the Dissolution of the Monasteries formed the basis of many gentry families’ wealth. |
Yeomen
| “And you, good yeoman, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture; let us swear That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base, That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.”(Henry V, 3.1) |
| Yeomen were prosperous independent farmers, typically holding about 50 acres of land. They did not have gentry status – often because they worked the land themselves. A gentleman’s dignity was deemed incompatible with manual labor. However, it was quite possible for a yeoman’s son to enter a profession (especially the clergy) and so become a gentleman. [This could produce social tension. Hence the Fool’s jest in King Lear (3.6) “Prithee, …, tell me whether a madman be a gentleman or a yeoman? … No, he’s a yeoman that has a gentleman to his son; for he’s a mad yeoman that sees his son a gentleman before him.”] |
|
| Similarly, the younger sons of gentlemen were often “apprenticed” to some respectable trade, and so moved downwards into the middling sort. English society was hierarchical but it was comparatively easy to move up or down the hierarchy – particularly from one generation to the next. | |
| It was commonly yeomen who served on juries and grand juries. Yeomen also bore arms and served in the local militia. | |
| Yeoman status was sometimes equated by contemporaries with owning freehold property valued at £2 p.a.. These “forty shilling freeholders” could vote in county elections for Parliament. By Shakespeare’s day, inflation meant that forty shillings was no longer enough for yeoman status.(£40 was closer to the truth by 1600). In addition, the requirement that the land be freehold was becoming obsolete, despite the fact that freehold still remained the most secure and profitable form of tenure.. Many prosperous farmers held land on leasehold – especially from the church or crown and of former monastic lands. |
|
| Another form of secure landholding was copyhold. A copyholder paid an entry fine and then was allowed to hold the land for a term of years or his lifetime at a customary rent. | |
| A tenancy-at-will gave the farmer no security. The tenant could be dispossessed at any time, – although the landlord did have to allow any growing crops to be harvested. |
Merchants and citizens
Georg Gisze, a German merchant.
Painted by Holbein in London in 1532
| The wealthier merchants and citizens of England’s larger towns ranked with yeomen or gentlemen. Each town had its own rules for qualifying as a citizen, but almost all were prosperous, independent traders. | |||
| Many merchants and citizens bought land and married into the gentry. | |||
The wealthiest and most important merchants were London’s international businessmen, who imported high-value commodities from Europe and beyond.
|
|||
| Most of the English social elite derived its status from birth and the ownership of land. Merchants and others who rose by their wits did not easily fit into this hierarchy. However, trade and business offered a route tot the top. One example of upward social mobility was Sir William Courteen (1572-1636). His father arrived as a Protestant refugee from the Netherlands in 1568 and traded in silk and linen. William expanded the business, and invested in trade with Guinea and the New World. He tried to establish a colony in Barbados but was ousted by James Hay, Earl of Carlisle, and lost heavily on un-repaid loans to James I and Charles I. |
The rural workforce
| Below the yeoman came the husbandman. This was a farmer working his own land and producing enough to feed his family and sell a small surplus on the market. The average husbandman’s farm would have been about thirty acres and he would have had an income of c. £15 p.a. | |
| Much of the seventeenth-century literature on agricultural improvement was directed at the husbandman as well as larger farmers. | |
| In years of bad harvest, husbandmen might be forced to work as hired labor for others. But in good years they would have a disposable income of (perhaps) £3 after all expenses. |
| “Sir, I am a true labourer: I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy no man’s happiness, glad of other men’s good, content with my harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my ewes graze and my lambs suck.”(As you like it, 3.2) |
| Labourers and cottagers were a step below husbandmen in that they had to work for others for wages. | |
| A cottage was normally a house with a small amount of land. (The original form was “cote” which survives in the phrase “sheep-cote”). The Elizabethan government tried to make it illegal to erect houses for labourers unless four acres of land were attached 31 Eliz. c. 7), but the statue was almost impossible to enforce. | |
| Many cottagers had the right to graze animals on the local common – the milk and meat supplied helped the family economy. | |
| Rights of common grazing came under increasing attack during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as landlords tried to enclose land. Governments and moralists fulminated against enclosure as a cause of depopulation and poverty, but to little effect. | |
| Landless labourers often lived at little above subsistence level, and in a poor economy could easily be reduced to vagrancy. |
The Urban workforce |
|
| Towns were unhealthy places – rife with disease. Nonetheless, economic opportunity attracted many migrants from Elizabethan and Jacobean countryside. | ||
| About one third to one half of a city’s adult male inhabitants were freemen – i.e. entitled to trade on their own account and to participate in the town’s government. | ||
| So many new inhabitants were attracted to London that the city began to expand enormously. The East End districts of Stepney and Whitechapel were first developed in Shakespeare’s time. It was in 1576 in Shoreditch, just to the north, that James Burbage built “The Theatre”, the first private playhouse in England. | ||
|
Nevertheless, with the notable exception of London, most English towns were still very small. Note the “scale of pases [=paces]” on this Tudor map of the ancient town of Warwick. Anyone could walk every street of the town in a few minutes. |
||
>>>
* We now have a view of social order from that era.
However, here is a historical narrative about the early British-American settlers that is found acceptable to the institutions today:
http://wps.ablongman.com/long_divine_appap_7/23/5926/1517283.cw/content/
Chapter Summary
The character of the early English settlements varied because of regional factors. A common language and heritage helped pull English American settlers together, however. By the 1690s, Parliament began to establish a uniform set of rules for an expanding American empire, bringing the colonies into closer contact with the “motherland.”
Sources of Stability: New England Colonies of the Seventeenth Century
Colonists in New England successfully replicated a social order they had known in England based on the primary social unit of the family.
Immigrant Families and New Social Order
In contrast to the early settlers of the Chesapeake colonies who were primarily single males, the early settlers of New England migrated as families, providing a more stable basis for society. These families were better able to maintain local English customs and ameliorate the strangeness of the New World, contributing to increased reproduction and unprecedented longevity. Additionally, a dispersed population, pure drinking water, and a cool climate helped retard the spread of contagious disease and promoted good health. People who would have died in England or Virginia survived in New England.
Commonwealth of Families
In New England, town life was built upon the foundation of the family, and New England towns were essentially elaborate kinship networks with children rarely moving away. The household was the primary place of work, and the family was the basis for having and educating children. As towns matured, however, they took over the role of education by establishing schools supported by local taxes. New England achieved a literacy rate that the southern colonies would not match for another century. Harvard was the first institution of higher learning founded in the colonies. The family was also the basis of church life in New England with congregations eventually becoming focused primarily on members rather than reaching out to the larger community. Outsiders who were not absorbed into an established family unit, and therefore the church and town, often moved away.
Women’s Lives in Puritan New England
Because the household was the primary unit of production, women’s contributions and labor were essential for a successful household. They worked on family farms alongside their husbands and often managed and ran the home as “deputy husbands.” Despite this, wives’ political and legal rights were severely limited. They could own no property in their own right, and divorce, even from an abusive or irresponsible spouse was rare and difficult to obtain. New England women tended to join churches in greater numbers than men.
Social Hierarchy in New England, British America
With neither paupers nor noblemen, New England colonists found their society incomplete by European standards, particularly when it came to the absence of wealth. Like most Europeans, they believed such well-placed persons were “natural rulers.” Gradually the colonists sorted themselves into new social and economic groups, such as provincial gentry, yeomen, and indentured servants. Most northern colonists were yeomen farmers who worked their own land, but it was not unusual for northern colonists to work as servants at some point in their lives. Such servitude was more like an apprenticeship than the kind of servitude that developed in the Chesapeake, as there was ample room for upward social and economic mobility in New England.
The Challenge of the Chesapeake Environment
Despite being founded at roughly the same time by people primarily from England, society developed quite differently in England’s Chesapeake colonies than it had in New England.
Family Life at Risk
Physical conditions were not as favorable for survival or longevity in the Chesapeake colonies because of contagious diseases and contaminated drinking water. Most colonists came as individuals rather than as members of a family, and there was an imbalance between the number of men and women. For those individuals that were able to create families, family life was much more unstable, and childbearing was extremely dangerous. Additionally, the prevalence of the practice of indentured servitude contributed to the instability of Chesapeake society. Women were particularly vulnerable as servants.
The Structure of Planter Society
The cultivation of tobacco shaped Chesapeake society and perpetuated social inequality. Great planters dominated Chesapeake society by controlling large estates, the labor of indentured servants or slaves, and the political system of the colony. Freemen (usually former indentured servants) formed the largest class. The experience of indentured servitude was not degrading in and of itself, but the conditions of life as an indentured servant were difficult at best. Because the tobacco-based economy was based on the plantations, cities and towns were slow to develop, and especially after the 1680s, newcomers discovered that upward social mobility was more difficult to attain than in the northern colonies.
Race and Freedom in British America
Many of the first settlers in the Americas were not voluntary settlers, but were forced to migrate to the colonies as slaves. This practice only increased as the supply of white indentured servants dried up.
Roots of Slavery
Between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, almost eleven million Blacks were brought to the Americas as slaves. Most were sold in South or Central America. Because slaves were required to endure hard labor, men were preferred, and in most slave communities, outnumbered women by almost two to one. There were almost no objections to enslaving Africans for life because economic considerations required cheap labor. Planters, however, generally justified slavery by identifying Black Africans as heathen and barbarous in need of civilizing. At first, slavery and race were not intertwined, as some Blacks were able to become free, and a few to become successful planters themselves but as the Black population expanded, lawmakers drew up ever stricter slave codes. By 1700, slavery was undeniably based on the color of a person’s skin.
Constructing African-American Identities
Despite the cruelty and alienation of slavery, Blacks developed their own unique African- American culture in terms of music, art, religion, and language that was neither African nor European. Even so, the slave experience varied from colony to colony with slaves in the South, where they made up a greater percentage of the population, better able to establish kinship relationships and maintain more African cultural traditions. By the eighteenth century, creole slaves (those born in America) reproduced in greater number than the number of slaves imported from Africa. As slaves, many Blacks protested with individual acts of violence, in organized revolts, such as the Stono Uprising of 1739, or with acts of non-violent resistance. Others found opportunities for a degree of personal freedom by working, for example, as mariners on colonial sailing vessels.
Rise of a Commercial Empire
After the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, a British policy of indifference toward the colonies was replaced by one of intervention.
Response to Economic Competition
England developed a framework of regulatory policies, termed mercantilism, to increase exports, decrease imports, and grow richer at the expense of other European states. Though these policies were not developed as a well-integrated set of ideas about international commerce, they did provide a blueprint for England’s first empire and remained in place with only minor adjustments until 1765.
Regulating Colonial Trade
Beginning in 1660, Parliament passed a series of Navigation Acts, which detailed commercial restrictions, and set up the Board of Trade to oversee colonial affairs and to limit competition, especially with the Dutch. Inadequate or lax enforcement and corruption often impeded the execution of imperial policies, but ultimately the colonists largely obeyed the Navigation Acts because they found it profitable to do so.
Colonial Factions Spark Political Revolt, 1676-1691
In the second half of the seventeenth century, several of the colonies experienced instability as the local gentry split into competing political factions, and internal rebellions erupted in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts Bay.
Civil War in Virginia: Bacon’s Rebellion
In 1676, Virginians suffered from economic depression and political repression. Nathaniel Bacon capitalized on this unrest in leading an unsuccessful rebellion against the government of Lord Berkeley, ostensibly to protect western settlers against Indian raids, but probably because of the governor’s monopoly of the fur trade. There were clear divisions between many of the colonists and “greedy” Crown appointees. Though the rebellion did not last long, many Native Americans and Virginia colonists died, Jamestown was burned to the ground, and some political reforms were made.
The Glorious Revolution in the Bay Colony
During the 1660s and 1670s, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay colony found themselves drawn into closer and closer contact with England, something many leaders perceived as a violation of their covenant with God. In 1675, an Indian uprising known as King Philip’s War cost the lives of more than one thousand Indians and New Englanders before it was put down. The large debt incurred in this war by the colony led England to annul the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Company and merge the colony into the larger Dominion of New England with the tyrannical Sir Edmund Andros as governor. When James II was deposed during the Glorious Revolution in England, Americans in New England overthrew Governor Andros, and the colony of Massachusetts received a new royal charter.
Contagion of Witchcraft
Fear and hysteria resulted in the hanging of nineteen alleged “witches” in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692, but hundreds more were accused, awaiting trial when the hysteria abated. Religious discord and economic tension seem to have been the underlying causes.
The Glorious Revolution in New York and Maryland
News of the Glorious Revolution sparked feuds among the colonial gentry in both New York and Maryland. In New York, Jacob Leisler led an abortive attempt to seize control of the colony from powerful Anglo-Dutch families. In Maryland, John Coode led an anti-proprietary and anti-Catholic group which successfully petitioned the Crown to transform Maryland into a royal colony, though the Baltimore family remained important, even regaining their proprietorship in 1715 under the Anglican fourth Lord Baltimore.
Conclusion: Local Aspirations within an Atlantic Empire
The creation of a new imperial system did draw the colonies into closer contact with England, but did not eliminate the sectional differences in the colonies. It would be a long time before a sense of nationalism would unite the colonies and kindle an American Revolution.
.
* Would it be fair to conclude that the settlers brought a lot of baggage with them, including political and social order baggage?
>>>
* We shall now investigate the corporate and legal commercial structure of the Social Order of today that is maintained by threat of force by legal institutions. MUNICIPALITIES
1. A political unit, such as a city, town, or village, incorporated for local self-government.
2. A body of officials appointed to manage the affairs of a local political unit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28municipal_government%29#United_States
Municipal corporation
A municipal corporation is the legal term for a local governing body, including (but not necessarily limited to) cities, counties, towns, townships, charter townships, villages, and boroughs.
Municipal incorporation occurs when such municipalities become self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which they are located. Often, this event is marked by the award or declaration of a municipal charter.
With the notable exception of the City of London Corporation, the term has fallen out of favour in the United Kingdom, but the concept remains central to local government in the United Kingdom, as well as former British colonies such as India and Canada.
.
Wikipedia reports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dun_%26_Bradstreet
“Dun & Bradstreet traces its history back to July 20, 1841, with the formation of The Mercantile Agency in New York City by Lewis Tappan, later called R.G. Dun & Company. The company was formed to create a network of correspondents who would provide reliable, objective credit information. In 1933, Dun merged with competitor John M. Bradstreet to form today’s Dun & Bradstreet. The Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) was invented in 1962.”
(Dun & Bradstreet maintains a database of over 213 million companies globally)
>>>
* Here we shall investigate “CORPORATE GOVERNANCE” aka Corporate-Governments
UNITED STATES CODE (USC)
From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Sub-chapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
* Yes, indeed we have read and heard the arguments that this is meant as a limited contextual definition. “Therefore, the reference to the “United States” as “a federal corporation” is only applicable to Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176 of the United States Code.”
Also we note the list of federal corporations on the federal government’s webpage:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Independent.shtml
The list includes
A
- Administrative Conference of the United States
- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
- African Development Foundation
- AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
C
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
- Commission on Civil Rights
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
- Corporation for National and Community Service
- Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
D
E
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Export-Import Bank of the United States
* And many other corporations, including the Federal Reserve System.
The obfuscation is evident and some may never grasp the legal commercial corporate structure of government. Perhaps because of “cognitive dissonance”?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124252695/Government-Corporation-List
* The text below comes via
http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.ca/2013/02/hard-evidence-of-corporate-takeover-at.html
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Hard Evidence of Corporate Takeover at All Levels of Government in America
This is an email that was sent to Heather.
Many people asked me yesterday “where is the information about the Corporation of USA?”…. well, here it is!
This confirms that many hundred trillions of dollars of the people’s money listed in the semi-secret government comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) as government institutional investments are being siphoned off by the global banking cartel and those sinister forces behind it.
Posted by Breaking The Silence at 08:05 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
>>>
* Here are global efforts to assist people to adjust to seeing this foreign structure (a global matrix of voluntary debt-bondage) of legal commerce where the people of Earth are the primary harvested resource.
Yes the mind rebels from this and thinks this is a lie and refuse to accept the notion that governments are commercial corporate slave management of people of Earth.
A Global Phenomena.
The concept defies all teachings and beliefs learned as a child.
Ok. Now breath deeply, slowly and calmly.
The most difficult part is over.
You are now aware of the matrix of global control.
Time to grow up and mature.
“You are not responsible for the programming you picked up in childhood. However, as an adult, you are one hundred percent responsible for fixing it.” – Ken Keyes, Jr.
The concept of freedom is to “Self-Govern“.
It is a great responsibility.
It is A Bouquet of Diversity
It is BEAUTIFUL!
http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.ca/2013/02/taking-it-back-to-beginning-talking.html
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Taking it back to the beginning: talking points
As more and more people are waking up and realizing that something is definitely wrong with this society that we live in, many are discovering the OPPT as their first step into awareness. I have heard from so many people who’ve read about OPPT on Facebook or other sites, yet they do not have the knowledge/background history to understand some of the fundamental reasons that the Foreclosures have taken place. Such as the fact that their governments are actually corporations and the existence of their Strawman accounts.
Some amazing people, like Deryl and Paula, have been working tirelessly to bring information to the public- templates and instructions for the UCC filings, instructional videos etc… They sent me this yesterday and I realized that it is an excellent tool for people to use when they are trying to explain The People’s Trust to those that are unaware of the reality that they live in.
We will be creating short videos to further explain these various points as well…. very shortly.
War against each citizen of the world would be conducted, through the use of Social Engineering Tools.
19. These assets of the former corporations’ are now in the hands of the TRUSTEES. We encourage people to familiarize themselves with the trust, and if they so choose, can fill out forms that would tie them to the trust.
>>>
* Please review a few key observations.
– Even among the agreeable storylines of past events one of the earliest corporations was chartered to govern as Virginia in 1606 America. This legal precedence is evidence that corporate-governance has a long and well established structure to manage and govern colonies and people with profit and commercial concerns…
– A hierarchical structured social order existed in pre-USA (colonial America) history and thus was at least partly parental and formative of today’s contemporary social structure…
– Imprisoned debtors, slaves, and indentured servants existed in colonial America and was profitable for some, and examining the changes in these lowest class sectors in support of the over-all structured social order would be helpful in understanding today’s contemporary social order of elites, governance, workers, laborers, and prisoners.
In other words, has hierarchical structured social order, indentured servitude, debt-bondage and slavery been abolished or merely changed?
In conclusion, this is not a debate.
This is merely a discussion.
I would like to reach agreement but it is not needed.
Because the major question is a personal decision: Will each adult self-govern?
Accept the responsibility of freedom and self-govern, or seek to grant authority to a legal entity, and serve and obey that legal entity as ruler and master?
– The choice was made for us by parents, authorities, and institutions when we were children, but as adults we can consciously OPPT-out and self-govern as free People of Earth.
.
GOVERNMENT OWNS IT “ALL” BY INVESTMENT
Now the Key Question is: Do you own Government?
Or, does Government own you?
How many governments exist in the United States?
(City; County; School District; Enterprise Authority; State University; Gov Pension; Self Insurannce; Investment Pool; Self-Debt Funding )
As of 2007 TOTAL “Local” Government entities plus Federal are standing at 184,000
.
>>>
* The Global Dialogue continues,
Be Free and please share.
Santos Bonacci & Lisa Harrison: One People’s Public Trust | in5d.com
Published on Jan 22, 2013
Article: http://www.in5d.com/bonacci-harrison-…
The One People’s Public Trust was filed on December 25, 2012 and was not rebutted by the church or the banksters so what does this mean for we, the people? EVERYTHING!!!
One People’s Public Trust Blog: http://peoplestrustaustralia.blogspot…
American Kabuki Blog: http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/
in5d http://www.in5d.com/
UPDATED DAILY!
In5d Esoteric, Spiritual and Metaphysical Database
Connect with your Soul Group or find your Soulmate at in5d Connection
http://www.in5d.NET
EVERYONE is welcome!
Want Worldwide PEACE and Prosperity. We are the solution we have been searching for... Free People on Earth will solve our crisis and create an era of Creativity. Be Aware; Be Creative; Be Active; Be Free; and then Share it. LOVE & Wholeness AMOR y Paz
Ronmamita's Blog 
Speaking of the One People’s Public Trust and your freedom
the youtube user “EcologyOfEverything”
says:
Published on Jan 11, 2013
NOTE: This video was held up in a copyright dispute for a couple of days. In that time A.K. has come out with a fuller version. Even though they are the same thing I am leaving mine here because it is already posted on me blog.
Original PDF presentation by Angel Lucci.
I’m going with this as it is aligned with what I have been experiencing for the last couple of years and what my aspiration has been for the last 35 years.
A proclamation of freedom from Corporate rule and reaffirmation of personal sovereignty as an I AM presence of each individual Creator Source in the Universe, including you.
It takes some homework to come to understand this. I urge everyone to do so. Only then will the relationship to your life become apparent. Then decide how to proceed.
Right now the whole system is transparently illusory. Tilting on it’s balance point.
Choose,
Continued debt slavery to people who hate you and steal from you even though you sustain them?
Or a chance at a future with far less suffering for all people.
There is debt relief, political relief, and most importantly, Constitutional relief here.
Sorry, but fear relief is an inside job.
Hopefully we can get a little more of a seminar on the documents and procedures.
There will be no announcement by the oppressors that you are free. You will not get their permission. It is just so, look it up. As it always has been, only with a legal construct that assures your unalienable rights that had been usurped by a fictional entity.
Big changes are here. This action relates to the financial, political and social corruption. Free energy is here! There are people learning how to develop it for ourselves, independently, right now. That is what I will go back to when I finish this post.
It is our duty to unseat this corruption from our lands. This is a peaceful and dignified way to do so. No guns and violence, just standing in the Truth of I AM unrebutted and unrebuttable, legally.
I have heard it said that “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” And in this case when you help yourself, you help everybody. How’s that for a change in paradigm.
Am I skeptical sometimes? Sure. It is real. What I support and am taking action on is the intent and the grounds upon which this is based. There are a great many people prepared to take up arms. In this case, you can just walk away and leave them with the bill.
Enough cheer leading.
Here are the links for the resources and references listed:
THE PRESENTATION FROM THE VIDEO IN PDF:
http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2013/…
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE ONE PEOPLE’S PUBLIC TRUST:
http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/201…
TREASURY FINANCE AG: FINAL BULLET REPORT — PARADIGM
A Report On Bank, Judicial and Government Corruption:
http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/201…
THE ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST: Announcement No.2:
http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/201…
THE ONE PEOPLE’S PUBLIC TRUST: A Conversation With Trustee Heather Tucci-Jarraf:
http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/201…
The People’s Trust- This is Only Just the Beginning:
http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.c…
The People’s Trust is Truly the PEOPLE’s Trust:
http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.c…
The One People’s Public Trust NOW PARADIGM PROTOCOL Documents:
http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2013/…
Taking the One People’s Public Trust and Running with It:
http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.co…
Bugger The Bankers – THE OFFICIAL VIDEO:
http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/201…
The One People’s Public Trust Documents… All in One Zip Folder:
http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2013/…
one-zip-folder/
Free At Last Discussion Groups:
http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/201…
You Have the Right to Know:
http://removingtheshackles.blogspot.c…
LikeLike
[…] https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ […]
LikeLike
[…] the President. The U.S. Constitution put limits on government and protections for the People; as an ideal, paper, defense against tyranny. Thus, when an executive order contradicting the […]
LikeLike
[…] https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/the-esf-and-its-history-parts-1-5/ https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/pension-funds-someone-or-everyone-is-lying/ […]
LikeLike
[…] turned from the royal-bloodline Monarchy (institutional governance) of England to the American corporate charter forms of institutional […]
LikeLike
[…] https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ […]
LikeLike
The Real First World War
By Bhaskar Menon http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-first-world-war/5395497
Europe’s “Great War” of 1914-1918 does not deserve to be called the “First World War.” That title should go to the first real global conflict, Europe’s genocidal invasion of other regions that began in the final decade of the 15th Century. European historians have sought to downplay the ferocity, extent and significance of that earlier conflict by treating it as a diffuse historical process, but if we who were victims accept that view it disables our understanding of everything that has happened since then.
As few Indians are likely to know much about what actually happened, let me recount some salient points.
A decade after Columbus landed on Hispaniola in 1492, its indigenous people were extinct. They had done nothing to deserve that fate; Columbus in a letter to his royal sponsors in Spain said they were “loving, uncovetous people,” with “good features and beautiful eyes,” who “neither carried weapons nor understood the use of such things.” Yet many were tortured to death in a vain attempt to get them to reveal non-existent hoards of gold and others worked to death or driven to suicide. Such gratuitous violence continued as Europeans extended their domains in the “New World.”
Many of the smaller tribes followed the Arawak of Hispaniola into extinction while the populations of larger groups fell by as much as 85 percent, victims not only of indiscriminate violence but of induced famines and new diseases to which they had no immunity. The spread of smallpox through blankets distributed free to Native Americans and the wanton slaughter of the great herds of bison on which the “Plains Indians” depended for food, clothing and shelter were the most outrageous cases of genocide. Estimates of the numbers killed range up to 100 million.
In South America, the Conquistadores engaged in a zestful mass murder that has no equivalent to this day. Bartolomeo de las Casas (1484-1566), a Spaniard who went to the New World for fortune but was driven by the atrocities he witnessed to enter the Church, left a vivid description in Brevissima Relacion de la Destruycion de la Indias (Short Report on the Destruction of the Indies):
“One time the Indians came to meet us, and to receive us with victuals and delicate cheer, and with all entertainment, ten leagues from a great city, and being come at the place they presented us with a great quantity of fish and of bread, and other meat, together with all they could do for us to the uttermost.” The Conquistadores put them all to the sword “without any cause whatsoever,” more than “three thousand souls, which were set before us, men, women and children,” committing “great cruelties that never any man living either have or shall see the like.”
“The Christians, with their horses and swords and lances, began to slaughter and practice strange cruelty among them. They penetrated into the country and spared neither children nor the aged, nor pregnant women, nor those in child labor, all of whom they ran through the body and lacerated, as though they were assaulting so many lambs herded in their sheepfold. They made bets as to who would slit a man in two, or cut off his head at one blow: or they opened up his bowels. They tore babes from their mothers’ breast by the feet, and dashed their heads against the rocks. Others they seized by the shoulders and threw into the rivers, laughing and joking … They spitted the bodies of other babes, together with their mothers and all who were before them, on their swords. They made a gallows just high enough for the feet to nearly touch the ground, and by thirteens, in honor and reverence of our Redeemer and the twelve Apostles, they put wood underneath and burned the Indians alive. They wrapped the bodies of others entirely in dry straw, binding them in it and setting fire to it; and so they burned them. They cut off the hands of all they wished to take alive. They generally killed the lords and nobles in the following way. They made wooden gridirons of stakes, bound them upon them, and made a slow fire beneath: thus the victims gave up the spirit by degrees, emitting cries of despair in their torture.”
Casas, writing as the Bishop of Chiapas, estimated that just in the Caribbean his compatriots had killed some 15 million Indians, leaving “destroyed and depopulated” the large islands of Cuba, San Juan [Puerto Rico], and Jamaica, and some 30 smaller islands.
In Australia and New Zealand, the killing was less zestful but it was more comprehensive, and there was no Casas to call attention to what happened. The Anglican Church and British authorities looked the other way as settlers in Australia hunted the Aborigines like animals, poisoned their food and water, raped their women and savaged their children, all in a deliberate campaign to reduce the indigenous population. The Aborigine numbered about 750,000 at the end of the 18th Century and about 30,000 a century later; both figures are estimates for they were not included in Australian censuses until 1971.
Australian policies to “protect” and “assimilate” the Aborigines continued the oppression into the second half of the 20th Century. It inflicted prison terms on adults for “crimes” ranging from “cheeky behavior” to “not working” to “calling the Hygiene Officer a big-eyed bastard.” Government officials took infants from their parents and placed them in White families or orphanages. That “adoption” policy openly aimed at eliminating the Aborigines as a cultural group, the legal definition of genocide. In the face of mounting international criticism, the government discontinued the program grudgingly in 1970; it was not until 1997 that it noted the negative impact on the victims and their families.
In New Zealand, a country larger than Britain (103,738 sq mi to 94.526 sq miles), the first British settlers in the mid-1800s found a tribal population said to be around 100,000 – almost certainly an underestimate, for the newcomers were soon engaged in a series of “Maori wars” to expropriate tribal land. By 1896 the number of Maoris was down to 42,000.
In Africa and Asia the death tolls were far larger.
The slave trade out of Africa began with the first Portuguese explorations down the African coast in the 14th century and continued into the 19th. By the time it ended, slavers had taken an estimated 25 to 35 million Africans across the Atlantic and killed an equal number during capture and conveyance.
Within Africa too, wherever Europeans settled, they displaced and often enslaved the local population. The “Orange Free State” established by Belgium’s King Leopold II in the Congo reduced the native population from an estimated 20 million to 8 million. Under the pretext of “civilizing the natives,” his regime established a reign of terror, mandating wild rubber collection quotas for each village and punishing unmet targets by lopping off the arms of workers. Supervisors were required to bring in baskets of limbs to show they were implementing policy rigorously.
In Namibia, the Germans massacred the Herero. In Kenya, the British ran the Kikuyu off the best agricultural land in the country, pushing over a million people into lasting poverty. A movement to reclaim the land in the 1950s resulted in a second displacement as the colonial regime hunted down, tortured and killed over 100,000 “Mau Mau terrorists.”
In South Africa, the British slaughtered the Zulu to get at the diamonds and gold in their land and the Boers (descendents of Dutch settlers) imposed racial segregation on the whole country in 1948, as India’s independence heralded the end of the era of European world domination. The system stayed in place until 1994.
Asia saw the highest death tolls of the colonial era, and as K.M. Panikkar noted in Asia and Western Dominance (1959), the violence began with Vasco da Gama. On his second voyage to India, he came upon an unarmed Arab vessel and, “after making the ship empty of goods” he “prohibited anyone from taking out of it any Moor” and then ordered it to be set afire.
A commentator in Portugal justified that as follows: “It is true that there does exist a common right to all to navigate the seas and in Europe we recognize the rights which others hold against us; but the right does not extend beyond Europe, and therefore the Portuguese, as Lords of the Sea, are justified in confiscating the goods of all those who navigate the seas without their permission.”
That “strange and comprehensive claim,” commented Panikkar, was “one which every European nation in its turn held firmly, almost to the end of Western supremacy in Asia. The principle that the doctrines of international law did not apply outside Europe, that what would be barbarism in London or Paris is civilized conduct in Peking, and that European nations had no moral obligations in dealing with Asian peoples, was part of the accepted creed of Europe’s relations with Asia.”
In India, the first of the “man-made famines” under British rule occurred in the decade after the 1757 fall of Nawab Siraj ud Dowlah in Bengal; it killed seven million people, a third of the population. The last famine the British created, also in Bengal, occurred in 1942-1943; it killed between 3 and 4 million. In all, the total of such deaths has been estimated at several hundred million; the Gandhian Dharampal calculated the total number of Indian deaths from all causes under British rule at 500 million.
China was never under colonial rule, but Britain fought two “Opium Wars” in the 19th century to force it to import the drug. By the first decade of the 20th Century a quarter of its population was estimated to be using the drug.
This litany of European depredations in the global South is not a mere scratching at old scars. It is, in fact, essential to understanding the “Great War” of 1914-1918. German disaffection at not having enough colonial “lebensraum” (elbow-room) was perhaps the most important factor that drove its competition with Britain that turned into war. In that sense, it was a direct karmic consequence of the Real First World War.
LikeLike
[…] A Clearer Perspective of the united states of America « Ronmamita’s Blog says: February 8, 2013 at 2:29 am 2 0 Rate This […]
LikeLike
[…] https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/experience-this/ […]
LikeLike
[…] https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/is-america-in-a-official-state-of-emergency-right-now/ https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/a-dhs-agent-whistle-blower-or-disinformant/ […]
LikeLike
[…] Tax RELATED: https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/human-toil-required-to-service-the-money-masters/ […]
LikeLike
[…] https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/a-clearer-perspective-of-the-united-states-of-america/ […]
LikeLike