REMEMBER:

All project resources present and future are detailed here:

•          Locals: drunkentyromancy.locals.com/post/5323758/welcome

I will update this welcome document and video in the future to make it a single article, but only after I have actually started using more of those publishing sites.

Support this Project:

•          BuyMeACoffee:       buymeacoffee.com/drunkentyromancer

Current publishing:

•          Substack:               thedrunkentyromancer.substack.com

•          Rumble:                 rumble.com/drunkentyromancy

•          YouTube:               youtube.com/@DrunkenTyromancer

•          Telegram:                        t.me/drunktyro

Video uploads here:

•          YouTube:                         youtu.be/OYxc7p76RfU

•          Rumble:                           rumble.com/v4l59df-introducing-the-encyclopaedia-tyromancia-playlist.html

•          VK:                         vk.com/video579391090_456239033

Introducing the Encyclopaedia Tyromancia:

I have decided to give myself a bit of a focus for making videos when no other ideas come to mind, and which will constitute a playlist you can follow as I add content to it over time.

The Encyclopaedia Tyromancia will be a bunch of articles and corresponding videos in which I look at the meanings of words, their etymology, and significant differences to the meanings of other words which are often taken as being at least partially synonymous (whether that be true or false).

The main purpose of this playlist will be to correct the record, and provide a common baseline of semantic understanding between you the audience and myself the author, so that I can refer to such words in other content, and if you have watched or read the corresponding Encyclopaedia Tyromancia content, you will know what I mean and what I do not mean, without me needing to repeat myself and prove the point again.

Hence, this won’t just be about the meanings of words and the structure and rules of language itself, but also about how this relates to the conceptual worlds of philosophy logic and semantics as applied principles.

General Concepts:

In this first introductory article and video, I want to talk to you about those kinds of background rules and principles which will affect every word we wish to define and understand. So let’s begin by talking about the most important central themes of the topic:

•          A Lexicon (set of words making up a language - the dictionary if you will)

•          Semantics (meaning) & etymology (origin & history of meaning)

•          Synonyms, redundancy, and semantic hierarchy

Character Sets, Words, Lexicons, & Lexicography:

So the first concept to get into your head is that a language is comprised of a character set, which may or may not have sub-sets, for example, the total character set of English uses the alphabet, plus optional inflections to aid understanding of pronunciation, and you could also add other things like the numerical characters which allow us to write numbers without fully spelling the name of each).

This character set follows some fixed and flexible ‘rules’ to form valid ‘words’ in that language, and these words are the elements in the lexicon as a set. Your vocabulary is therefore a subset lexicon of the total available words of your chosen language, and if you listed all the words used to write a book, that would be the lexicon of that book.

Lexicography is therefore the study of any lexicon, the study of lexicography itself, and the art/science of writing down a lexicon into a dictionary, which would make you acting as a lexicographer when you are engaged in that process.

What you should notice above is the use of various prefixes and suffixes to modify the root word, in order to identify the set of variations which describe all things we might want to do with this word - so:

•          Lexicon (the root word - a noun)

•          Lexicographical (something of a Lexicon in its nature - an adjective)

•          Lexicography (the field and study, or applied art/science, of things lexicographical in nature - both a verb and a noun, making it a sort of ‘gerund’)

•          Lexicographer (someone who does or is doing lexicography - a noun)

So, understanding a lexicon requires understanding things that make up the words within a lexicon, such as prefixes, suffixes, syllables and so on.

Semantics & Etymology:

Where semantics is meaning itself for any word of any lexicon, etymology is the history and origin of that meaning, but as we will see in the next section, this etymology, and particularly the historical usage of words, cannot be taken as the prime root semantic source above all others, and I will explain why with some examples.

But first, just understand that semantics is about meaning, and etymology is about where that meaning comes from - so for any prefix, suffix, whole word, and sometimes other syllabic components, there will be some source of meaning, which you can enquire about through etymology, then apply to your semantic understanding of the lexicon.

However the reason I wrote the preceding caveat, is just to alert you to the pitfalls I will describe next, and which arise from the same problem brought about by the internet, wherein past academic guardianship of the language has been lost, and replaced by the profit motive to have the most profitable online dictionary or encyclopaedia, and as you can imagine, that profit often comes from people with ideological agendas who do not care a tinker’s cuss about the sanctity and preservation of the language itself, nor indeed would they even understand where they have breached it, and what the consequences are.

So while yes you can go to various online sources, be very critical of what you read, because even those which remain connected to some kind of academic institution, suffer some of the same problems as all the cheap and nasty ones people just made for money.

Synonyms, Redundancy, & Semantic Hierarchy:

The term redundancy made its way into this, simply because it is an easy example to give you which demonstrates the point I want to make, but it is not the only place where this whole thing goes wrong, so I will allude to and explain as many others as I can think of while I write, and perhaps you will discover more for yourself.

So a synonym for another word, or a set of words that are synonymous, means they are words which - according to a common definition I am about to disagree with on one subtle point of difference - have exactly or almost exactly the same meaning, and herein my disagreement comes down to the interpretation of that second part, because it has allowed people to use words as synonyms where I think it would be more accurate to say only that they are related and loosely similar, but not actually synonymous, thus giving rise to the need for this concept of a semantic hierarchy.

To explain this will take a little effort, so be patient, because I want to be absolutely certain to state this very carefully, so you can see why it must be taken as true, especially if our goal is to act as guardians of the language.

Now, for every word which is a contextually specific application of a root word, but with a slightly different meaning than other contextually specific applications of the same root, we can obviously take these as definitely being synonyms, as they do not need to exactly match each other’s meaning necessarily.

An obvious and readily apparent example of this, is where we can look at the word contract - whereby:

•          From Latin root meaning: "to draw objects together; draw in, …, or abridge"

•          Hence one synonym of this root, is the contextually specific usage where a person believes they have “contracted a cold or flu” - meaning that: they believe they have been “brought together” with something causing the development of symptoms

•          Another synonym here is the usage in business, where we sign a contract for goods or services to be provided from one party to another in the terms of the contract, and thus the contract “brings together” the people, goods, and/or services

So it is easy to see how these two things are loosely synonymous, yet different contexts - they are not interchangeable because of the difference in contexts, but then how would you know the difference, as they are also homophones (sound the same), homographs (in the sense they are spelled the same), and perhaps (?) homonyms, in the sense that the contextual meaning is not actually identical.

So we could have a philosophical debate about which category exactly to put them in, depending on how you look at it, but the important thing here is only to understand that it is not as simple as you think. Specifically above, a business or legal contract is a noun, but to contract a disease is more so a verb, so this would allow you to argue they are fully homographs if we accept the definition that a homograph only has the same spelling but a different meaning.

Personally I do not like to use such an interpretation of homograph as being only both same spelling and different meaning, as the word itself literally translates as “one/unified form” and says nothing at all about the meaning or sound attached to that form and its expression, while homophone translates as “one/unified sound”, saying nothing about spelling (form) or meaning (semantics), and homonym would be best translated as saying “one/unified name” thus specifically referring to form, where a ‘name’ is a label placeholder for the thing that label points to (semantics/meaning).

So I would argue that homonyms are homographs, but synonyms might also be homographs, while homophones are not necessarily homographs, but they could be in some cases, especially if we consider the subtle and more distinct differences between meanings, and again it comes down to a bit of a philosophical debate as to whether or not any homophone is actually synonym or not for those borderline cases, and what is important really is asking the question WHY do you want to know? The answer to which, may mean that we change our perspective on how to classify words for different scenarios.

Redundancy:

Thus we come across this issue of redundancy, because once we decide how we are going to interpret these things, one of the next things we will find is that there are many things taken to be synonyms, but which, used in such a manner, create an absolutely useless redundancy in the language, and this is a good indicator that the meaning being ascribed to one or more words in the synonymous set, are incorrect or in some way misleading.

Once you discover a redundancy, there are usually other indications via usage, which confirm the fact that one or more ascribed meanings are incorrect. An easy example of this being the words “annihilate” and “decimate”, where they are commonly used incorrectly as synonyms, but their true meanings are very different, albeit related, and do not qualify as valid synonyms, thus it is an incorrect usage - as follows:

•          Annihilate means to destroy utterly or near utterly

•          Decimate means to destroy 1/10th (or just loosely some small but significant proportion)

The latter term comes from the practice of the Roman Empire to enter a village and kill 1/10th of the population, as a means to quell potential unrest and keep the people in fear of ever daring to rise up against the Romans, but it is commonly used in place of annihilate, which cannot even loosely be used to mean the same thing, because it doesn’t, you are changing the meaning, and creating a total redundancy.

The problem here is that we have two non-homographic words, which, if used as synonyms, lose any difference, and those debilitate the lexicon by losing meaning, and gaining a useless redundancy, none of which would ever win an academic debate on the correct usage of language, as it provides no value, but does cause a loss.

Sometimes this problem is simply caused by poor education, other times by poor thinking, or a failure to think at all, and at other times it is caused by deliberate agenda - ie: to change the meanings of words in common usage, in order to achieve some kind of political objective.

Semantic Hierarchy:

This one can be further clarified by thinking about the historical origin (etymology) of meaning (semantics) in the light of the concept of mistaken identity, and I use this example specifically to point out where the first usage of a word should not be taken as the root of any semantic hierarchy, just because it is the oldest. The example I will provide is a little weird, but it demonstrates the idea perfectly, which is why I am going to use it.

Imagine if you will, an early primitive people, whom, in their culture, had very little if anything in the way of science, but they were particularly superstitious, and it was from their culture and language we may have gained a word such as ‘horse’ to describe some particular mammal they came across at some stage.

Now, in their world of supernatural beliefs, they decided that a horse was a spirit of some kind of god they happened to believe in, and that it wasn’t really “of this material world” entirely, so this becomes their understanding of the meaning of ‘horse’. Now, does that mean it is true that this is what a horse is, just because they believed it, and thus this is the semantic we should apply? I hope you can see why the answer is an obvious no … we are not arguing whether or not by some supernatural phenomenon they may actually have been right, we are simply identifying the fact they had no reason to believe it, they just made it up, and so we have no reason to believe it either … what matters here is that there are other discoveries since their time, and which we can use to identify things that are true about horses, and thus the label ‘horse’ is a pointer to many things, but its root meaning is not the earliest meaning used, since we have no reason to believe they had correctly identified the object they were naming.

The other thing we want to see then is how history does become the root of the hierarchy, such as in the previously explained example using the word ‘contract’, or looking at the root semantic for the Latin prefix ‘deci-’ in the word ‘decimate’, and in such cases, we will use that historical etymology to define the most generic possible meaning as the semantic root for the hierarchy of all synonyms.

Another aspect of the semantic hierarchy is looking at variations of a word to identify the simplest application of it - eg: ‘lexicon’ can be treated as the root for lexicography, lexicographer, and lexicographical - now, as far as I know, there are no homonyms of the word lexicon, but for other words, we will find that they do have such homonyms, and every homonym, having a different meaning, must therefore be taken as existing in some other semantic hierarchy, though perhaps thanks to the common meanings of prefixes, suffixes and other syllables, there may be some component crossover between these hierarchies.

I will include this kind of analysis in many words of the Encyclopaedia Tyromancia articles and videos, in order to be clear as to what it teaches us about the word, but also what it teaches us about reality, the way in which it has been used, particularly how it may have been inadvertently misused, thus causing common misunderstandings amongst people discussing any topic in which the word was a significant part of the discussion, and where it has been misused quite intentionally, for the express purpose of deceiving us.

Conclusion:

So that’s the gist of things, and if you are interested, this playlist on Rumble YouTube & VK will allow for some interesting topics to be discussed and clarified.

REMEMBER:

All project resources present and future are detailed here:

•          Locals: drunkentyromancy.locals.com/post/5323758/welcome

I will update this welcome document and video in the future to make it a single article, but only after I have actually started using more of those publishing sites.

Support this Project:

•          BuyMeACoffee:       buymeacoffee.com/drunkentyromancer

Current publishing:

•          Substack:               thedrunkentyromancer.substack.com

•          Rumble:                 rumble.com/drunkentyromancy

•          YouTube:               youtube.com/@DrunkenTyromancer

•          Telegram:                        t.me/drunktyro

Video uploads here:

•          YouTube:                         youtu.be/gtOqjsXqAs0

•          Rumble:                           rumble.com/v4jzom9-legal-vs.-lawful-vs.-assange.html

•          VK:                         vk.com/video579391090_456239032

Intro:

As I was thinking about what to write next, I remembered the words of a friend who said the people of Palestine needed everyone’s help, which prompted the prior article and videos regarding Gaza/Palestine, and this in turn made me think there is someone else who needs everyone’s help, and that is Mr Julian Assange.

You all know the story, and I am no expert on his case, so it would be pointless for me to attempt to cover things that others are already covering far better than I could … but something I can say is about the law itself, and this is something that is unique, as it is my own discovery of what I know about the law, about sciences, and that the law MUST - no matter what legislation is written to the contrary - obey certain fundamental principles of philosophy logic maths and sciences. In other words “natural law” (or natural laws plural if you prefer), specifically logic maths & physics.

This article and the accompanying video are to talk about how the law SHOULD be interpreted as opposed to how it IS interpreted, and indeed misinterpreted, both intentionally and unintentionally, plus how it SHOULD work as opposed to how it does … the system is not only corrupted, but it has also been bastardised by the misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the lesser minds who run society.

What DOES NOT MATTER is what is written in a book, WHAT DOES MATTER is whether or not the argument given makes sense. The same principles applied in my article & videos about health & disease, apply here also. I do not care what education you have, what authority or expertise you claim, nor how many books or people agree with you - none of that matters to me, and the only thing that does matter is your argument, evidence, conclusions, and whether or not I can poke a logical hole in them.

Do you have a proof or not?

This is why western society has become stupid, as it is run and advised by those whom AT BEST may be good at memorising things, but they’re useless as fuck at interpreting and critiquing things, once they have memorised something contradictory, and accepted it as fact - because they never bothered understanding whether or not it was a fact in the first place, and never learned how to properly critique it. From their perspective, it was written in a book or spoken to them directly, by a source they trust, and therefore it is fact, and this is how stupid people “think”.

Law as a System:

The problem is that the people who study the law are not required to study sciences or logic, they can if they want to, but it is not mandatory, and this ridiculous situation is a mirror of the way that - more than 20 years after pioneering doctors proved the relevance in very scientific terms - it was not a prerequisite of a medical degree to study nutrition (perhaps the single most important factor to your health), and so far as I know, another 20 years later after that, it is still not a requirement even today.

In fact, many doctors apparently no longer even swear the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” - whatever the equivalent in Law, it seems they have forgotten their roots too, or just abandoned those roots before they even worked out what it all means.

The Law is a system, it is not a set of documents, though it does refer to them, and it can be written down, but in reality, what matters is not the documents, what matters is the logic and principles upon which that system is based - and it is precisely this most important and fundamental aspect of law that has been abandoned, misunderstood, and misrepresented. Over the decades and generations, people stopped questioning.

Like any other system of any kind, the law must obey the same 2 principles as every other system - there is no escaping this, it is a requirement of the universe itself.

For any system to be fully functional and without dysfunction, it must:

A.       be congruent with itself;

B.       abide by the laws governing the domain in which it resides, including any super-domain laws that also apply in this subdomain;

- and this means the law must abide by the laws of language, logic, maths, and physics; because a legal argument exists in the domain of logic and reasoning, while forensic and physical evidence must abide by laws of logic maths and physics.

Otherwise, you can have no legal arguments, you might as well just choose the person you prefer to win, nor can you have independently verifiable forensic or physical evidence. Arguably both law and justice REQUIRE adherence to these principles.

Precedence:

Self congruence is most directly linked to the principle of precedence in law - ie: which law comes first, so not just legal precedent (ie: legal decisions that came before other legal decisions) but precedence of laws (ie: laws that come before other laws) … and hence, natural law is the foundation, coming before all other laws, and all other laws utterly depend on natural law for their existence and validation. Precedence of legal decisions simply extends this beyond the law itself, into the realm of legal proceedings.

For the law to be congruent with itself, it must obey itself, and thus, precedence.

Contract Law:

The best way I think to understand both legal precedence and precedent law, is in the context of the aforementioned rules about systems, and the definition of a valid agreement under contract law. Specifically we want to look at the conditions that, for a contract to be valid there must be:

1.        An Offer

2.        Acceptance

3.        Consideration (payment)

4.       Lawfulness of terms of contract

5.        Intention to form legal relations

6.       Ability to form legal relations

- and within these criteria for what constitutes a valid contract, we have 2 examples right here of the generalised concept of ‘precedence’ (or “that which comes first”).

So the lawfulness of the terms of the contract means that you cannot by way of contract expect someone to break the law, deny them their rights at law, nor can you yourself break the law in the process of negotiating signing or implementing any part of the contract yourself - meaning that all precedent law (established / existing law) at the time of writing & signing the contract must be abided by, as it has precedence under the law.

Similarly, your ability to enter into a legal relationship over any agreement, is a matter of prior law and how it affects you, thus, you may be unable to enter a contract for example, if you had already entered a prior contract, and which contradicts the terms of this new one, where the old contract is both valid and remains in force. One exception to this last part, would be where changed circumstances would mean enforcement of the prior contract would now breach your rights under law, or in some other way contravene precedent law, and thus you are freed from that prior contract, and able to enter a new one, even if otherwise it would be contradictory.

Precedence again but by Contract Law:

Now if you think of this in terms of the law itself being a social contract - excluding for a minute the area of Natural Law, which we can bring back in again after explaining this first part - then all law must abide by all prior law, because for the contract (under law) to be valid, it must itself be lawful - thus, precedence is a logical consequence of contract law, and now if we bring back in Natural Law, we can see that it can be retrospectively applied, and thus once again explains why both civil and criminal and all other areas of man made law are (as agreements) subject to Natural Law, which came first, and thus takes precedence … though arguably and as demonstrated in this article, we didn’t actually need precedence to demonstrate why Natural Law is the foundation of all other Law.

Law vs Legislation:

So this is where we get to corruption in politics, writing invalid legislation, misrepresenting it as “law” when it is in fact and at best corporate &/or social contract, but in reality 9/10 times an invalid contract regardless of any misrepresentation to call it law.

So while on the one hand above I am arguing that we can view all law as social or corporate contract, this is not the same as saying that all contracts are law. An agreement is an agreement, it operates under the law, but that doesn’t make it law, it just makes it enforceable by law, so long as it adheres to the law.

The law, I repeat again IS A SYSTEM, and no matter what, you cannot just write any legislation and call it law, it’s not law, and just because you wrote and passed it, doesn’t make it a valid contract. Sure, you might get away with it because everyone you work with is an idiot and your populations are suitably brainwashed to believe all the BS you keep telling them, but the reality is, your bastardisation of law via legislation is a complete total and utter fraud, without a shred of validity under the law, because it ceased making any logical sense a very long time ago.

What’s more, when you properly interpret the law, what you realise is that when politicians write new legislation and call it law - usually to give themselves the power to do something that would otherwise be unlawful &/or unconstitutional, even criminal in some cases - there is no need for them to write any such legislation anyway, since it is arguably true that even new technologies can be adequately interpreted under the law already, and anything new you write is largely redundant (at best).

The purpose of government is not to govern the people, it is to govern the communal interests of the people AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND NOT AS PUBLIC MASTERS.

The people are not your resource, not wards of the state (in most cases), neither subordinates, slaves, or property, nor are they yours to command - YOU are THEIR servant … ELSE you’re a criminal and an impostor.

Legal vs. Lawful:

Arguably one corollary of all this is that a legal precedent is subservient to a precedent law - meaning that a judges decision in the application and interpretation of law, where it would set a legal precedent against a precedent law, is an invalid determination, and he has no authority to do so, as it invalidates not just the decision but the congruence of the entire system of law, and must be considered a dysfunction.

Another place where we see that legal and lawful are not synonyms, where legal means “of or pertaining to the law”, but lawful means “abiding by the law” - thus something can be legal but unlawful, or lawful but illegal. This misunderstanding of terms seems to confuse just about everyone including legal professionals and scholars - if they were synonyms, we wouldn’t need both, and they would be universally interchangeable, but they are not synonyms, making it a misuse of terms.

The people who invented the law over a great many years, largely did so as a means to resolve disputes (in one form or another), as this is indeed its only real purpose. Which is why they didn’t need to actually INTEND all the things I am saying, nor indeed would they even needed to have understood it at all, because the very fact they were engaging in logical legal arguments means that, the side that won the debate, and which debates then created the system, would have been the ones with the best arguments, and on average, the best arguments would have to adhere with the logical foundations of the universe - thus it can spring into being over the years, congruent in many ways with the things I am telling you, without anyone along the way needing to understand a word I have written - it just works better when you do understand it, and it also becomes more resilient against corruption.

To bring this back to Mr Assange’s case, this is why you hear politicians and media talking heads suggesting that the courts decisions are “legal” - which I presume is some kind of implementation of the ‘plausible deniability’ scam, being that they can later claim they never said it was ‘lawful’, which indeed they didn’t - and they can do the same when calling someone’s actions ‘illegal’, later saying they never claimed it was ‘unlawful’. In most cases, I would imagine they have no idea at all of the true meanings of these words, because they were never taught this, their teachers probably didn’t even know these things I am telling you, and they’re just reading a script they don’t understand.

Is what Julian did ‘unlawful’? No, it cannot be unlawful to reveal the crimes of others, regardless of who they are, regardless of what social power they hold, and regardless of what legislation they write to say that it is somehow unlawful.

However, could it be ‘illegal’ at the same time, regardless of it being ‘lawful’? Yes. For example, if by ‘illegal’ one was to mean, that it was against the terms of a contract, and you’re just skipping over the bit where the contract was invalid, skipping over the bit where the person on trial (J Assange for example) was not a valid party to the contract, and so on - then, what you would be saying isn’t exactly honest, it is very misleading, but you could nonetheless interpret it as meaning:

“these actions are against the terms of this contract, thus ‘illegal’ in that they are actions NOT pertaining to the lawful application of the terms of this contract”

- and which of course would be technically true, but irrelevant, since he wasn’t a party to the contract, and the contract was invalid anyway … but of course they don’t care.

So what we are dealing with in Julian’s case is a bastardisation and corruption of law, and which is in no way whatsoever logically valid or consistent with the Natural Laws governing the universe.

For those that do believe in god, and who believe that Natural Law is best interpreted as the “Laws of God” - I hope, though I do not share their beliefs, that this scares the shit out of them, and stops them persecuting Julian, as it is a breach of their God’s laws, thus would result in them going to hell, because no amount of prayer can take back what happened to their entirely innocent and indeed heroic victim, not to mention the prior crimes they are colluding with as legal professionals, which Julian exposed, and which are the motivation for that persecution … so they would be going to hell and staying there, because any apology to god at this stage would clearly be a lie and they know it.

I don’t care what reason you judges & barristers need, just reverse your past behaviour, free Julian, and never again support the evil doers in the world.

Criminal vs Civil:

One of the absurd things Julian has been accused of is ‘crime’, when in reality all he did was journalism, really bloody amazingly brilliant and courageous journalism. The man deserves a reward, not persecution.

Criminal Law is there to define the difference between that which is a civil dispute between parties, usually over some or other agreement, versus a ‘crime’ - meaning:

1.        someone has been harmed;

2.        damage was done, and either there was:

A.       intent to do harm;

B.       reckless endangerment causing harm;

C.       negligence or breach of a legally enforceable duty of care, resulting in harm;

- and without these things, there can be no crime.

ALSO NOTE: thus “breaking the law” - especially where you use the false interpretation of ‘legislation’ as synonymous with ‘law’ - IS NOT A CRIME, UNLESS BY DOING SO someone comes to harm … AND MORE IMPORTANTLY … “breach of legislation” is not synonymous with “breaking the law”, as a breach of legislation is simply a specialised form of breach of contract, thus a civil matter not a criminal one (unless someone comes to harm as per the above, and in which case it becomes both civil and criminal simultaneously).

Either way, it is not an enforceable civil matter unless:

1.        the contract is valid;

2.        you are a valid party to the contract;

3.        they can conclusively prove you breached its terms, and;

4.       there exists no defence for such a breach;

- but even where you can show a party breached valid legislation and which they were legitimately bound to uphold, that still doesn’t necessarily make it a crime.

The Law of Hypocrisy as a Basis for Criminal Law:

The reason for this distinction between civil and criminal - though again I doubt many professionals and academics in the field properly understand this, as it is something you have to realise by reasoning it out (unless of course there’s a text somewhere I am unaware of, and where this is actually explained, which is certainly that is possible I guess) - is because:

•          if you think about all civil matters as being one form of social contract or another;

•          and where you can get the parties to the contract to actually make the agreement;

•          then obviously any breach of contract, in the absence of harm, is purely civil matter;

•          but in the case of crime, where someone wants to commit the crime, they might simply say “I never agreed not to do so”, and thus there’s no social contract broken;

•          so how then would you enforce the very necessary social contract that we not to do things like killing one another, without at least some kind of just cause, like the defence of an innocent party from potentially life threatening violence;

•          and how do you enforce this without giving someone any excessive authority, that you were otherwise trying to prevent under the system of law (in order to maintain that balance of power in society, thus ensuring peace)?

What justifies - in terms of a legal argument - the notion that everyone is a party to the social contract “not to kill each other without just cause” - ie: defining crimes and thus Criminal Law - is that we would be a hypocrite not to be a party to such a contract.

In other words: if the shoe were on the other foot, and someone tried to kill you, where you had previously tried to kill them (without just cause), you would now not only argue against the position you took previously, when you tried killing them, but you would also argue against the very same logic used to justify your actions, if that other party was now using that same logic to justify doing it to you - thus, hypocrisy & disingenuousness too.

Here is both a logical and irrefutable legal argument, thus we are all a party to this agreement about crime (doing harm), whether we sign the contract or not, because we would all expect the law to defend us against anyone doing it to us.

However, this harm is tempered by the following constraints - that it is not a crime unless there exists also:

A.       Intention to do harm - ie: accidental harm therefore is no crime, unless one of the other terms below applies;

B.       Reckless endangerment resulted in harm - this is essentially the excuse they are using to persecute Julian, but it is a load of horseshit, since the actions exposed were criminal, the entire organisation exposed was exposed to be systemically criminal, and plenty of other evidence shows the kind of people they might claim were put in harms way, are all engaged in other criminal behaviour too;

C.       Negligence or Breach of a Duty of Care resulting in harm - similar to the above condition, but more so associated with other agreements that bind the actions duties and responsibilities of an individual.

Hence, the simplest way to look at crime via this law of hypocrisy, is to state that:

“without just cause, you may not intend to do harm to another, engage in behaviour constituting reckless endangerment and thus resulting in harm, nor to ignore or through negligence of a duty of care, cause harm to another, especially where that other party was relying on you to competently serve that duty of care”

- and for which reason we can argue that, a car accident caused by reckless behaviour or negligence of your duty of care to other drivers, and which results in some kind of harm, may in some cases constitute a criminal act, thus the term ‘criminal negligence’.

Hence they are trying to use this as a backdoor against Assange, suggesting that he, by argument of reckless endangerment, placed others in harm’s way, even though they cannot show anyone came to any harm at all, nor can they even prove how a person MIGHT have come to harm, and unfortunately for Julian, the courts are so corrupt, they have ignored that such an argument is not only absurd, but would require Julian to be a magician, given the enormous care he went to, in order to ensure such things were not possible, when he spent hours (as multiple witnesses testified) redacting information from documents before they were published.

The reality is, this accusation against Julian is unsupported by any evidence, and it also ignores the bit about just cause, because even if they could have shown someone came to harm, the magnitude of the crimes he revealed would easily constitute just cause.

It is absurd to suggest Assange had some kind of social obligation to protect people who get paid as “murder for hire”, or to deny this is what they do, when some of the video evidence involved in this case demonstrates that fact.

No matter how you look at it, their case against him is as baseless as it is absurd corrupt disingenuous and fraudulent.

Legal Jurisdictions & Court Hierarchy:

In essence, the idea here is to apply different law to different countries, or to extreme circumstances, and while there is always overlap, you could simplify these extreme circumstances as being a replacement or partial substitution of certain elements of civil & criminal law, within a specialised arena of law, such as military law, and in which exceptions and differences are made for the purpose of dealing with the extreme circumstances of that arena, where the “normal rules” won’t be so easily applied.

I would however argue the case that, such things as Military Law would be entirely redundant and unnecessary, had they just not failed to properly understand their own system (“the law”), and if society wasn’t run by bigoted and fascistic war-mongering profiteers and sociopaths, who do not want the law applied unless it suits them, and who want special versions of law that do suit them and indeed protect them from the law.

The court hierarchies are another kind of jurisdiction in a sense, typically you have lower courts that deal with what the people running the show deem to be ‘lesser’ complaints (of their slave class), and unworthy of the time and effort of a proper court, such as the higher courts of the state supreme courts or the federal/national high court.

Arguably, what is happening is that people in those lower courts experience a completely different & often fraudulent interpretation of law, and thus often fail to experience any justice. Such lower courts protect rich people & corporations from facing justice at the hands of peasants, who cannot afford the ticket price of the “proper courts”. But they also generally interpret the law more correctly on average in disputes between parties who have the money to go to them.

These lower courts include things like the family court, the magistrates courts and so on, but they do not have the power to set legal precedent, nor can they interpret law, and while they claim to abide by the rulings of the higher courts in terms of interpretation and precedence, this is exactly what they don’t do, they just pretend to do it, and in some cases deceive people in to thinking the case is being heard under common law, when in fact it is being heard under some other arena of law such as maritime or admiralty law.

The fraud however invalidates all decisions, as it goes against more fundamental principles, no matter their excuse for doing it, and the only reason they get away with it is because of economic and political power, combined with a public that are at best semi-literate in law, and don’t know their rights, nor can they afford to defend those rights anyway. The whole thing is essentially a farce unless you’re rich, and even then, as Julian has discovered, even if you have the money, or can get it, they are still happy to ignore all their own rules if someone more powerful is against you.

Fields of Law:

Contract Law is there to define what is and is not a valid contract.

Statute Law is there to define how to implement and interpret legislation - which are merely specialised forms of agreement - it doesn’t turn legislation into law, it just helps us work with statutes under law.

Corporations Law defines “legal entities” so that the law can be applied to non-living legal entities, including both governmental and non-governmental organisations, such that actions can be taken against an entire such organisation, not just the people who run it, and thus (at least in principle) to reign in such organisations, for the benefit of society.

Constitutional Law is similar, but it applies specifically to the government and public service, intended to limit the powers of government, and specifically to stop people doing all the kinds fucked up, evil, and stupid things they have been doing - for example: their mistreatment of Julian Assange, out of nothing other than revenge for him exposing their criminality and absolutely abhorrent lack of any character or redeeming virtues.

So no matter the area of law we speak of, everything remains self congruent, and congruent with the Natural Laws of the universe itself - so long as we stick to this interpretation instead of accepting the BS we have been told:

•          mechanical systems must be self-congruent & abide by the laws of physics;

•          electrical & electronic systems must be self-congruent & abide by the laws of physics;

•          chemical systems must be self-congruent & abide by specialised laws of physics;

•          mathematical systems must be self-congruent & abide by the laws of logic & maths;

- no matter where you look, this always remains true, and “the law” is no different.

There is only one type of system which gets a partial exception to this rule, but which exception is paradoxically solved by the rule - and that system is a nonsensical system - ie: a fantasy system which cannot actually exist, excepting in a story, or in your imagination, but which by definition IS self-congruent BY being nonsensical, and is obeying the laws governing its domain BY obeying the laws of nonsense or fantasy.

Corruption Bred by Avarice Bigotry Cowardice Fascism Hypocrisy & Stupidity:

Those in power in the western world have corrupted and bastardised every relevant field of law, because they’re too stupid and narcissistic to see past their own immediate needs, they have NFI how anything works, nor have they got any concept of consequences, since all they ever had to do was to throw money at a problem to make it go away, or in some other way, to make someone or something else pay for the consequences of all their bad decisions - thus is the power of wealth.

The same being true of the generation of parasitic fuck-knuckles before them, but perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, as it was, prior to the advent of technology, a more “honest game” in the sense that people had to rely on their own brains, and thus, as warped as many of those brains were, they still got at least a little bit of exercise. They were more successful parasites perhaps, but still a bunch of utterly brainless nutters by comparison to the real geniuses of history, and they only look impressive to those people whom even dumber and more ignorant than themselves.

What don’t they understand about the concept of “opportunity lost”? The decisions they make adversely impact just about everyone and everything you could care to mention, and which thing isn’t a wealthy human able to protect itself, nor protected by a wealthy human - and so, for each of these things that gets damaged or destroyed, by the consequences of the actions of the self-proclaimed “elite” of the world, we lose yet another opportunity, in terms of what that thing would have been capable of otherwise. All of which benefits of course these imbeciles in power always underestimate, and never seem to understand in the slightest way, nor care to understand, because their reductio absurdum world view doesn’t ever care about anything, unless it has direct and immediate benefit or consequence to those in power.

When Assange exposed them, they had the opportunity to come clean, turn themselves in, and go down in history at least as someone other than an evil psycho nut-job; they could have gone down instead as a person misled by their own desires, but whom at least, at the last minute, showed some humanity, humility, regret, and accepted their fate. But no, they doubled down, and now these fuckers will all hang, and good riddance to them. I have every confidence that Russia and China along with their other allies, will eventually bring them all to justice, or at least those that do not repent, and do nothing to in any way make amends or atone - and again, if these people are religious, they should be thinking about atonement for their god’s forgiveness if nothing else. This doesn’t of course help Julian sitting in his cell, but we can hope he somehow gets freed in the near future, and compensated in a very big way for all he and his family have had to endure.

The criminals in power have corrupted all things, because they wanted everything always biased in their favour, and they deludedly believed that if not themselves, then someone else would have done the same, because they cannot accept the notion that far from being superior, they are an anomaly of genetic flaws and defects, causing them to behave like parasites.

Quite to the contrary of the “its a jungle out there” mentality, or perhaps the “Lord of the Flies” view that everyone is ultimately the same as those in power, they just don’t have the power; there is actually mountains of evidence to the contrary, that many people, even under extreme pressure, will only fight for good, because it is simply not in them to be evil.

Whether or not any of these individuals has been to Mr Epstein's island, I still put them all on a par with paedophiles, because every last one of them has been ok with war for profit, such wars have killed countless innocent children and babies, and whether you rape the kid, murder him, or murder his parents, it is all extreme child abuse - so not one of these warmongers is better than a paedophile.

Jarvis Cocker said it perfectly with his song “Cunts are still running the world” (youtu.be/deiWnZK-duM?si=IKZUUIU67X6d6Ya-), especially where he quite rightly mocks their idiotic arrogance of being “elite”, “exceptional”, and “superior”, as if somehow being a douche-bag was an achievement, or being born wealthy was a skill:

“ … they say the cream always rises to the top, but I say shit floats … ”

Conclusion:

We do not get justice, nor a better world for all, by imprisoning torturing or killing the very best of us, and that is precisely who Julian Assange is, the best of us. He did the right thing, an immensely courageous thing, a thing requiring intellectual brilliance & a lifetime of work, he did so at great personal risk, he did it again and again, and he did it because he had the good sense to look at where the lunatics running this asylum are leading us, and he knew it was not going to work out well for anyone in the end, not even for the imbeciles themselves, and so he did something about it.

To those imbeciles, I say the following:

What have you got to say for yourselves you useless parasitic cunts? You were born rich (neither a skill nor an achievement), OR you got rich by being a prick and holding yourselves to a lower standard or no standards at all (also not an achievement), most of you have fucked up everything you ever got your hands on, or you stole other people’s work and claimed it as your own.

You’ve never actually invented anything, or at least never invented anything that did a nett good for the world, you’re illiterate in science, incompetent in your own fields of specialisation - where you even have one, aside from “being exceptional”, and while we are on this topic, no, “job creator” isn’t a thing. You’re neither brilliant nor admirable nor impressive in any way shape or form, just useless bigoted fascistic imbecilic know-nothing liars thieves and ultimately parasitic shit-stains on the history books of humanity.

You are the least and the worst of us there ever were, or ever will be, because the last time people were ever going to tolerate your crap, was the time before this one, and now finally, they’re waking up, even the dumbest of them are starting to, with anyone else feeling increasingly isolated and alienated by the entire rest of the global population of our species. Not that I have an opinion on the subject or anything.

If you the audience wants to hear me say these kinds of things on camera, that is another matter, because for that, we need a truly beyond censorship platform, and that is something I would love to do, and have been thinking about for many years (specifically how to do it from a technical point of view). For now, I will put this commentary here in text, where they are unlikely to make the effort to read it, and I will say something slightly more polite on camera - but at least those of you who came here know how I truly feel about these fuck-wits in power.

Sadly, the impression I get is mirrored by the words of Alex and Alexander from The Duran, where they repeatedly say “these people have no reverse gears” - and they are right to say it, because it is quite obvious that any admission of fault or mistake would be seen as weakness by these idiots, as if to suggest that holding on to a fucking retarded ideology was somehow a sign of strength, when even a child would tell you that makes no sense.

Fact is, they are afraid of everything, afraid of work, reality, information, any kind of inconvenience, no matter how minor, and you can forget about actual sacrifice or suffering, they wouldn’t expose themselves to that at any price. It reminds me again of Doctor Who’s words in that same episode I quoted in a prior video, The Zygon Inversion:

The Doctor: Thinking … is just a fancy word for changing your mind.

Bonnie: I will not change my mind.

The Doctor: Then you will die stupid.

You’d think a message this blunt and blatant could be understood by anyone, but apparently not, it aired on British TV, paid for by the very criminals who needed to hear this message the most (using someone else’s money of course, the UK tax payer), and they still didn’t get it, even when it was spelled out so simply that a child could understand.

REMEMBER:

All project resources present and future are detailed here:

•          Locals: drunkentyromancy.locals.com/post/5323758/welcome

I will update this welcome document and video in the future to make it a single article, but only after I have actually started using more of those publishing sites.

Support this Project:

•          BuyMeACoffee:       buymeacoffee.com/drunkentyromancer

Current publishing:

•          Substack:               thedrunkentyromancer.substack.com

•          Rumble:                 rumble.com/drunkentyromancy

•          YouTube:               youtube.com/@DrunkenTyromancer

Video uploads here:

•          YouTube - Parts 1-3:      

•          youtu.be/Iq0aaLvxuTI

•          youtu.be/ehwuiBy4XKc

•          youtu.be/60hwvsXRf8Q

•          Rumble - Parts 1-3:

•          rumble.com/v4ija6e-health-and-disease-part-1.html

•          rumble.com/v4ikf0r-health-and-disease-part-2.html

•          rumble.com/v4il29h-health-and-disease-part-3.html

•          VK - Parts 1-3:

•          m.vk.com/video579391090_456239028

•          m.vk.com/video579391090_456239029

•          m.vk.com/video579391090_456239030

•          Telegram:                        t.me/drunktyro        

Intro:

For the past 4 years now, heading on to 5 years, the people of the world have been subjected to variations of an ongoing fear campaign dating back decades in total, based on utterly fraudulent ‘science’ - much of which contradicts not only previously established scientific findings, but fundamental principles of science - which is designed to make you think you’re constantly at risk of disease, because of magical ghost-like ‘contagions’, not one of which has ever been shown to exist.

The fact these contagions have never been proven to exist, forced the purveyors of this narrative to alter the narrative slightly (long before this latest round of the fear campaign began), to say the diseases are transferred by ‘vectors’, but which, if you think about it, is still a claim that the ‘contagion molecule’ itself exists - ie: how can one thing be a vector (aka “transport and delivery vehicle”) of another thing, unless the contagion (aka “cargo”) exists. Now that’s an over-simplification, but I will build on this idea as the article continues.

In order to resolve this whole debate, we don’t actually need any science at all, or at least, no experimental science - we don’t need equipment or microscopes or anything else - we just need words, and an understanding of them, plus an understanding of a small set of previously established facts. This is what I will present to you now.

Systems:

Since this is a topic worthy unto itself, I will only cover on it briefly here, but if you want to understand what health and disease are, you must first understand what systems are, and the best explanation I can think of, is to give you all a brief lesson in science.

When we deal with ‘collections’ of things, we can group them in various ways, depending on our goals, and which area of science we are dealing with, so in chemistry we have molecules comprised of atoms, in maths we have sets comprised of numbers, and in computer science we have just about every kind of collection you can imagine, from sets to pairs, arrays, queues, stacks, and so on … and the type of collection we are dealing with, is simply a different set of rules for each type of collection, as to what can and can’t be in the collection, how it may get into or leave the collection, how it might relate to other members of the collection, and so on.

For example:

•          A set is a collection of unique items or elements (of the set);

•          A pair is a mapping of one element to another (such as key and lock pairing);

•          A stack is a storage unit where each new item goes on the top, and you always take an item from the top, thus last in is equal to first out.

Systems are to me one of the most important types of collection, as they exist not only in the conceptual world of logic maths and computer science, and not only in the very real worlds of biology, electronics, and mechanical systems, but also in the bridge between these two worlds, such as in systems of law, where the natural laws of logic and physics bridge real material evidence to argument and reasoning.

If you want to define what a system is, in a generic sense, there are various ways I guess you could go about it, but I will just give you a single such definition to think about to start with, and you can extrapolate for yourself later:

A system is a collection of elements, potentially interacting with each other at various times by the rules of their relationships, undergoing state changes as they respond to these dynamic relationships, and forming a collective system within a defined system boundary, such that anything external to that boundary is an element of the next largest super system, just as this system itself is (an element of that super-system or parent system), though it is also possible to define systems which are partially inside this current system and partially outside it.

A system can be viewed both in isolation, or in the context of its parent system or the super system in which it resides, and in such a view, we can also look at the total inputs and outputs from the cell as defining its relationship to the external world, but internally we look at what happens to those inputs (where do they go, where are they stored, how are they used and transformed, how are they involved in state change of systemic elements), and we can also look at how this internal world generates the systemic output it does.

As the internal elements of a system undergo state changes, the total ‘systemic state change’ can be determined, and if we look at that entire system as a subsystem of a super-system, we can see all this detail of what is going on inside, or, we can turn it into a ‘black-box device’ view, where we are no longer concerned with the systemic state changes of its internal elements, and only view the totals, if we want to view this subsystem as simply an element of a super-system, knowing what it does within that super-system, but no longer concerning ourselves with how it does it.

Just as an element has properties and functions, so too the entire system has properties and functions, the current values and behaviour of which form the current ‘state’ of the element, and the same is true of the system which contains the element, it has its overall properties and functions, and it too undergoes state changes.

Thus a system is an “emergent object”, meaning that it only ‘exists’ in the sense that we are looking at it from this particular perspective, and we choose the precise perspective we are going to use for whatever purpose or objectives we have in mind (some views are more useful than others, depending on the circumstances).

Now I know that’s all dry rigorous formal kind of language, and it might do your head in a little if you’re not used to thinking about things like this, but it is worded in that way for good reason … but to make things easier, I will just loosen the language a little now, and attempt to clarify things for you.

YOU are a system, specifically, you are a human biological system, and we could look at other ways of defining you as a system, but ultimately, you only ‘exist’ as this particular ‘system view’, because this is the way we are choosing to define the energy and matter which makes up the ‘event’ (you) that we are looking at. We could just have easily defined you not as a system, but as a set of atomic elements, but in which view, we do not gain any great information about you, just a listing of atomic elements, but we do not even know how many of each element is present in you from such a description, and thus a systemic view is far more useful - they’re both perfectly valid views, but one contains more information and understanding than the other, thus it has more utility as a description.

The ‘system boundary’ is more than just arbitrarily defined, as it is chosen for the purpose of some objective, and sometimes the system boundary itself constitutes a very real material element of of the system just like any other element, such as where - from a chemical molecular perspective - we may view a biological cell membrane, as the ‘boundary condition’ defining the contents and external world of the cell (viewed as a system). Such a view of the cell as a system, where the cell membrane is both element of the cell, and the boundary of the cell, is useful because there is an outer wall or ‘interface’ of the cell membrane, where it interacts with the external environment, and the cell membrane functions in part to keep some things out, other things in, and to pass objects in and out of the cell.

So parent or super systems, containing child or sub systems, each system made of elements, where systems can be viewed as parent or child depending on the total context, or viewed as elements if we only need to concern ourselves with total inputs and outputs rather than the inner workings that create and deal with them, all of it occurring within a boundary condition, operating according to rules of relationships between elements (based on laws of logic physics etc.), where each element undergoes state changes as a consequence of their functionality plus the results of those relationships with other elements, also self-relating behaviour like feedback loops, and the totality of all state changes defines the historical mapping of overall systemic state change.

Yes I know, that probably sounded just as bad as all the first stuff … it is hard to talk about this in any other way without becoming too inaccurate, ambiguous, vague, or whatever … but I have tried at least to paint a picture for you, so that you can imagine it visually as objects in your mind.

But you cannot truly understand health and disease completely without having some grasp of this, it is absolutely fundamentally necessary.

Health:

So, health, what is it? Well, things get easier now because of the effort we put in to defining a system, and hence another value of the detail I provided, so that if you can get your brain wrapped around systems, you can instantly understand health with ease.

Health is simply a ‘systemic state’ of balanced and sustainable function, without significant, non-transitory, or significantly degrading dysfunction.

Disease:

Disease is now just as easy to define:

Disease is conversely a ‘systemic state’ of significant systemic dysfunction, and possibly that dysfunction increasing over time (getting worse).

While you may have transitory dysfunction of various scales and scopes within yourself as a biological organism, some of them are not worthy of defining as a disease on a systemic level across your entire being, as they have so little impact they do not sufficiently debilitate any bulk functionality such that you would ever notice, and they are going on all the time, such as cells dying and being replaced, or things getting damaged and repaired.

So, while technically speaking you could argue that a particular cell, or group of cells, may be undergoing a non-healthy or ‘diseased state’ at any one time, you would not say the person was suffering a disease unless there were enough of these cells in such a condition to constitute a systemic disease the person would actually notice.

Specific Diseases:

Any name for any disease, is simply a label used to identify a set or system of symptoms (usually dysfunctions), not all of which are necessarily certain in every patient, nor is there necessarily any guarantee of the same causation. The name is given to this set or system of dysfunctions is for the purpose of diagnosis, to narrow down the very specific set of causes which allow you to propose a cure (where a cure is possible and known to exist), or to otherwise treat the symptoms to improve quality of life in the absence of a cure.

ONE CAVEAT:

Since a disease could potentially pass through stages, where the disease exists and has begun getting worse, while you may not notice it yet, we would not in such a case say you were not suffering the disease, only that you hadn’t yet noticed in terms of bulk functionality loss … and therein lies one of the reasons it is so easy to fool even medical professionals about the nature of disease, because this use of language here breaks the rules a bit, but this is only for the pragmatic purposes of trying to identify disease in such early stages, and deal with it before it actually does get worse.

Hence the reason for example taking blood sugar disorders and disease:

•          you may have a lifestyle where you are consuming too many simple carbohydrates (sugars) and constantly spiking your insulin levels;

•          this causes stress to the pancreas, and it consumes nutritional resources, while also disturbing the balance of your gut biome;

•          as time goes by, depending on many other factors about your health and lifestyle, it is possible for this constant repeated systemic stress to result in a dysfunction of the pancreas, which slows down, and potentially stops its ability to create insulin;

•          once a certain critical threshold is passed, we would define this as some type of diabetes or some other blood sugar related disorder.

So, while your pancreas may be stressed enough that it is suffering early stages of some blood sugar disorder, you may not yet notice symptoms of dysfunction, and so on one level, you could argue that you are not yet suffering a disease, but if doctors and others are using words like disease dysfunction and disorder to describe such things, it is very easy to blur the lines between the meanings of words, and the actual systemic state we’re discussing.

Prevention, Treatment, and Cure:

So as you can see already, the best idea is to prevent disease occurring in the first place, having suffered a disease, our immediate priority is treatment of symptoms, but our ultimate goal should always be to cure, even if we do not presently know how, but treatment and cure should never come at the cost of quality of life, such that you would have been better off without the treatment or cure.

Infection & Contagion:

This is the bit where people get led astray, as just in so many other areas of life, people forget the true meanings of words, and as the misuse becomes more common, the misunderstandings become more common too, sometimes even passing from the mainstream into the specialised and otherwise ‘expert’ fields of discussion - these two words infection and contagion are an example of this, specifically and particularly where people mistake them for being synonyms, which they are not.

Infection:

An infection is where an area of tissue - tissue being a group of cells of the same type, but in this case we are looking at the term a little more loosely, as a set of tissues, potentially of different tissue types - has been infiltrated by either bacterium or parasites or fungus or something else that shouldn’t be there.

For example: while many of the bacterium you encounter are perfectly harmless and even beneficial in your gut or mouth, or on your skin, they can wreak havoc if they were to get inside your bloodstream. This is because the bacterium is too small and dumb a form of life to really understand where it is, and all it knows is “eat shit and breed” so to speak … so it starts eating your blood and tissues, eating your nutrients in your blood, shitting into your blood, and replicating itself.

Now … the example above happens all the time and you don’t even notice it, because your skin, while a very good barrier, is an imperfect barrier, it can be easily scratched and cut, or split, or in some other way compromised, and thus a bacterium could get in where it isn’t supposed to go, but your body has dealt with this over billions of years of evolution, thus you inherited systems that deal with it with ease most of the time … the problem only really occurs when, for whatever reason, either you’re currently in a weakened state, or where the initial infiltration of bacterium is large enough, that they breed, consume your resources, debilitate your body, and pollute your blood, faster than you can clean it up (this is what develops into ‘necrosis’).

Parasitic infections are different, because now you don’t necessarily need a cut, as they can latch on, pierce into you, or burrow into you, and get inside you to consume your resources, all of which is a lot more dangerous - some parasites will kill the host, others just debilitate you without killing you, because they want to continue robbing you, so killing you doesn’t serve their purpose. Parasites like worms, can of course also reside technically speaking ‘outside’ your body but ‘inside’ your digestive tract, which is full of nice things for them to eat, and this may or may not cause you much harm, depending on the specific parasite and how quickly it breeds, but which is usually fairly easy to get rid of by simply consuming things they don’t like, in order to kill them or force them out with your stools (poo) - and typically speaking, not many worms like chilli, so if you think you have worms, you might choose to eat a really hot chilli dish. Various cultures specifically use herbs and spices in food both for flavour, preservation, and for this kind of medicinal purpose, as they can keep your gut free of such things, and in a balanced state.

Infectious Disease:

So the term “infectious disease” is problematic, which you’ll see explained in greater detail as we start talking about ‘contagion’, because what it is supposed to mean is simply this :

a disease which results from an infectious agent such as a bacterium or parasite.

This is not in any way synonymous with the term ‘contagious disease’ - they have two entirely different meanings … the former is real, the latter is fraud.

Contagion:

A contagion is now where we start getting into the dodgy stuff, because contagion is based on an assumption, and not based on anything actually proven, but worse than this, it is based on ignoring some other fundamental, well established, and irrefutable facts and principles of science.

The meaning of the word ‘contagion’ as it is used, is that there is a ‘substance’ which is a ‘contagion’, and this contagion is specifically a ‘disease substance’ - thus, according to this concept, you can:

1.        ‘carry’ a disease;

2.        ‘catch’ a disease;

3.        ‘spread’ a disease;

… but none of these are true, and I will explain why right now.

As already stated, there exists no ‘disease substance’ as disease is a systemic state (of dysfunction), and you cannot pass a systemic state to anyone, they have to DEVELOP that systemic state. You may pass something to them which subsequently contributes to causing that systemic state to develop, but you cannot just pass the systemic state to them.

Therefore: a disease cannot be carried caught or spread as if it were a ‘contagion’.

The Illusion of Contagion:

So this is probably starting to make your mind object to what I am telling you, because for all your life, you have been told you could “catch a cold” or “catch a virus” or whatever, but again, this all just comes down to a misuse of language, and a misinterpretation of data.

Let me give you an example here, as that’s probably the best way to see behind the curtain smoke and mirrors that made you believe that contagions exist. Firstly, a virus isn’t a contagion, nor is it an organism, it is simply a bio-chemical function, which uploads, replicates, transports, and shares genetic information … that is all it is. Viruses aren’t diseases, they do not contain contagion or disease substances, they are just vectors of genetic information.

Whether you form a disease as a consequence of getting a parasite from someone else or from your environment, or whether you form a disease because of a bacterium being somewhere it shouldn’t, or in an unbalanced proportion versus other bacterium in your gut biome, or whether you form a disease because there is some kind of environmental toxin that you are exposed to … regardless of the means, the illusion of contagion is formed by interpreting this common exposure to the transmission of a disease, but in reality, it is more correctly interpreted as people being exposed to the same or similar things, and those whom were vulnerable, sometimes everyone, or those whose exposure was of a certain type, are the ones who form the disease.

The disease is not the thing passed to you, it cannot be passed, it is a systemic state which forms, it is not a substance contained in the thing passed into you, nor is it a function of the thing passed to you to create the disease - the only partial exception to this is poisons and toxins, but even there, they do not pass a disease to you, they are just so highly toxic that they cause disease to form quite rapidly.

Now if you see a bunch of people who have a disease, and that disease is a consequence of a bacterial infection, you could easily make the mistake of using language too loosely, and thus incorrectly stating that the bacterium GAVE you the disease as if it were some kind of substance to be passed to you, and then you got the disease, but this never happens, it cannot happen. Similarly, you may look at a group of people who shared exposure to a virus, and within that group, some of them form a common disease, and so you conclude that the virus gave them the disease (contagion again) or that it is the virus’ function is to create the disease, but neither of these things are true.

Viruses:

A discussion of viruses may be required, but that is a whole field unto itself and worthy of a separate video and article, so I will just briefly sumarise the relevance here in terms of what a virus is, what it is not, what it does, and its relationship to disease.

A virus is an inherited and adapted gene replication sharing and transfer function, common to all multicellular life, inherited in a simpler form from our common ancient bacterial ancestors (who’s descendants today can still do this, directly sharing genetic information in RNA form), and which is so extremely beneficial and advantageous, that there are literally no evolutionary pressures to lose the functionality, and every evolutionary pressure to keep it, thus when single celled organisms (bacterium) evolved into multicellular organisms (animals plants and fungi) - not to be confused with colony organisms like corals, which are a different type of multicellular arrangement - nor indeed to be confused with ‘protozoans’ and ‘single celled algae’, which can be viewed as both single celled and multicellular, if we presume the origin of chloroplasts and mitochondrion to be correctly surmised as fully dependent symbiotes which have lost their independence as organisms.

There would be no way possible to evolve multicellular organisms from single celled organisms if they could not communicate genetic information, as this would be the only way at first to verify who you are dealing with, and to work with each other for the purpose of mutual benefit and collective specialisations, so for these and many other reasons we can be sure that the very first multicellular organisms kept this extremely useful functionality.

As genetic information then evolved from simpler single-stranded RNA into double-stranded DNA, and further evolved to encode information in more complex structures by combining, sequencing, then folding of that DNA into genes, and collecting those genes into an organism’s entire genome, this molecular function to replicate transport and share genes was kept, but it had to adapt to deal with these more complex genetic structures, and hence the origin of viruses … but this is where the mistaken identity comes into the equation and screws things up.

Mistaken Identity:

I personally suspect this is partly an honest mistake and partly the consequence of an agenda, I cannot prove that latter accusation, but it does fit the data and historical evidence.

People who for various reasons believed in the interpretation of medical data as confirming the existence of contagious disease, ignoring all evidence and arguments to the contrary, and ignoring the logical argument above which they should have no counter argument against - ie: that disease is a systemic state, not a substance, and therefore CANNOT be a contagion - see the way viruses move externally to the body as evidence that they are an independent organism (they’re not), separate to us (partially true, but misleading), and as they can in some situations be involved in the formation of disease (true), they interpret that as being the cause of the disease (partially correct but extremely inaccurate and misleading), a false identity where the virus is a pathogen always (possibly partially true in some cases only, but always still misleading if generalised), and a vector of disease (this last term ‘vector’ being slightly less misleading, but still technically incorrect for all the reasons already stated).

If every multicellular organism generates viruses, then the genetic information carried by those viruses would in many cases only be potentially useful for either the same species from which it originated, OR perhaps at times for a COMPATIBLE species (most likely a close evolutionary cousin), and otherwise, I guess it is possible the information could be useful in some other way, even to otherwise incompatible species - and to understand why, go have a look at the latest findings on what was previously referred to as ‘junk DNA’ in our cells, and the regions where they exist, which turn out to be more highly organised and functional than previously thought, including the possibility that they would interact with genetic information coming from viruses.

Now, whether the virus in question is carrying genetic information compatible with you or not, such functionality, evolved over billions of years, would have to deal with unwanted genetic information, otherwise, all genomes would be extremely vulnerable to corruption by random genetic material, but we know they are not, because species exist, thus we know that genetic communication, both sexual and asexual (this being an example of largely asexual genetic communication), is rigorously monitored by organisms and the interactions subjected to strict rules of the systems that deal with them. Thus the genome is simultaneously protected AND open to change over time in a beneficial manner.

ASIDE: You will not find this explanation in any text book - you may find components of it, but unlikely the entire thing, unless someone else has cottoned on and done a study - it is my interpretation of the data, and it fits all the data far better, without contradiction, than the story you have been told, and the scamdemic especially was an outright lie.

As you can imagine, all this gene replication is a resource intensive activity, and since the virus can travel outside your body - though it is unstable to some degree, it will likely be in a protective bubble of fatty acids or some other fluid - it can pass to another person, the process of gene replication starts in them, and their body needs to correctly assess whether or not to allow the process to continue, or to shut it down.

A person who is already stressed by way of pre-existing disease, nutritional deficiency, sleep deprivation, severe injury, bacterial or parasitic infection etc., may struggle to perform a viral interaction correctly, or even if they can, they may not have the resources required to do so and endure the stress, thus becoming even more resource depleted, and thus manifesting a disease. Meanwhile, even an otherwise healthy person could just be a little run down or nutritionally deficient in some area, and not know it, thus they may not get seriously sick, but they could nonetheless get the sniffles or a cough or headache or whatever. One way or the other, this gets misinterpreted as evidence for ‘contagion’.

So it wasn’t that the virus caused or gave you a disease, it is more correct to say that for any combination of 1 or more of countless possibilities, you just happened to be vulnerable at that time, and you developed whatever level of systemic disease that you developed, until your body finally gets rid of the virus.

‘Immunity’ - another mistaken identity:

Where it gets worse with this whole misinterpretation of data, is that we name our body’s response ‘immunity’, but there is actually another far better explanation of what is going on, which goes like this:

•          Your body actually WANTS to receive and replicate new genes for various purposes from time to time, thus it never evolved any method to exclude viruses, but instead it works with them, specifically for these purposes;

•          But the virus is too small and dumb a set of molecules to know when to stop doing its job of replicating genes, and it cannot have the only information that would tell it when to do so, precisely because of its nature, so it just keeps doing it;

•          Thus, the first time your body sees a particular set of genes delivered by a virus, it intentionally waits 3-5 days before ramping up the ‘immune system’, which gives time for the virus to do its job, after which, it then wipes them out, and the trigger for a new virus to start no longer exists, as that gene has been fully delivered everywhere it needs to go;

•          If you see the same set of genes in a virus at a later date, you are considered ‘immune’ to the disease, but this is just a misinterpretation of the data we are seeing, and what is really happening, is that your body - being very efficient for survival purposes - considers it a waste of resources and unnecessary stress to allow the process to repeat for the same set of genes, so it wipes them out much faster, and as such, you do not develop the ‘disease’ (sniffles through to anything more serious, if you were ever going to, which isn’t guaranteed anyway, since you may be health enough to avoid any symptoms at all) … thus you are considered ‘immune’, when in reality it was just the pragmatism of your body not to waste resources or endure stress for no good purpose.

For all of which reasons, yes it is true that even otherwise seemingly healthy people can form a disease as a consequence of a viral interaction, it is never actually guaranteed that anyone will do so, unless of course you happen to know that a particular individual has a vulnerability.

This whole thing is the biggest source of misinterpreted data which leads to the belief of contagion and contagious disease, but neither of which exist.

Toxins and Poisons:

Just a quick note to finish here, that you can treat toxins and poisons as very similar to bacterium but for a different reason of course - put simply: while a bacterium may eat your resources and tissue (thus weakening you and reducing your resources) if they find their way into your blood, and they might excrete toxins into your blood in the form of their waste products, and this combination of things thus forms disease, especially where they may replicate in this nutrient rich environment faster than you can wipe them out (in certain circumstances) … a toxin or poison is that excreted waste, but there are many other sources of toxins and poisons that do not come from bacterium or any other organic source, for example heavy metals.

But again, the toxin or poison is not a disease substance, it is just a substance that does damage faster than your body can fix it, at least temporarily, and thus it causes you to get sick (form disease), and in the worst cases, it can continue to do so until you die, and is as such a lethal poison in whatever dosage is considered lethal for that particular substance.

Pharmacology as Poison:

I thought I would screen capture this - the date today being 10/03/2024 - in case someone edits all these websites to further obscure the true origin of meaning for their alternative and fraudulent narratives … those of you who know how to use internet archives to see prior versions of websites, and those with access to proper academic libraries, will I hope make an effort to keep these semantic sources alive and uncorrupted.

But this isn’t a simple matter of mistaken identity in the past, where perhaps one might argue that a superstitious peasantry, afraid of magic and witches, interpreting science as witchcraft, decided to call it poison as an expression of paranoia, and we can use modern day pharmaceuticals to show this.

Homework:

To make my point, I am going to give you some homework, which is the following:

•          If you have access to a university library, public library, or the internet, search for the following (or something like it):

study of nutrients stripped from the body by common pharmaceuticals

[Pro search tip]: look for replacement search terms in the search results of your first search, and look at least a few pages deep in more than 1 search engine, even use a VPN to see what information appears given the different countries you can make your search from via the VPN connection.

•          Now, go look at the “nutritional deficiency” consequences for each nutrient you find which is stripped from the body …

If you can do this exercise and come out the other end NOT understanding how at least some pharmaceuticals are definitely fairly described as poisons or toxins and definitely not medicinal or therapeutic in any way, then I really think you also need to do some research on “brain damage”, because by this stage it should be bleeding obvious and undeniable, even if you have no medical or scientific background whatsoever.

Just to give you a couple of very important examples here, the reason I knew about this was because another academic friend of mine sent me a list of common pharmaceuticals and the minerals they strip from your cells or from your gut biome (thus preventing you from absorbing those nutrients), or where they reduce those nutrients by killing or debilitating that gut biome which makes them for you - which mind you, I was already aware of as a general principle from other sources - and in that list two names stuck out of the dozens of nutrients stripped from the body:

1.        Magnesium

2.        Zinc

… and while there were plenty of other common elements in that list alongside vitamins, proteins, enzymes and so on, the reason these two stuck out, is because I already happened to know they are each used in over a thousand chemical processes in the body.

Thus, taking a chemical compound sold to you as ‘medicine’ but which has this effect, CANNOT make you healthier, because you shouldn’t do this to a healthy person, much less someone already sick, because it will not help, and will most definitely harm.

ONE SLIGHT PARTIAL CAVEAT:

When it comes to ‘treatment’, it may be possible that some of these things are simply trying to improve quality of life, and they may as such mask symptoms so that you do not feel them as much, and perhaps there are cases where this may be appropriate, and it is not my business to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do with your health … BUT … I personally would never do such a thing, unless for example I was in such extreme pain that I needed to use a pain killer which may have such an effect, but at least it buys me the time of being pain free to find out the cause of my pain and solve that, so that I no longer need the pain killer, and perhaps there are other circumstances where they may apply, but the point I am making here is that they cannot be accurately and unambiguously called ‘medicines’ and they certainly cannot be called ‘therapeutic’, if they do not solve the problem, if they do not have a therapeutic benefit, and if to the contrary they do harm, and if they do harm, then arguably they are a poison.

Causation - Nutritional Deficiency and Environmental / Tissue Toxicity:

If you become nutritionally deficient beyond a certain variable threshold (depending on the person and various other circumstances) with respect to a nutrient or set of nutrients, and with respect to any other conditions you may be subject to (your systemic state), then you will most likely experience the formation of disease … similarly, if you are subjected to a poison or environmental toxin, perhaps even if you have a toxic excess of something that is otherwise a nutrient below a certain threshold (eg: iron in excess can be toxic), or where you have an excess of one nutrient causing a deficiency in another, all of these and plenty of other things can be the chemical causes of disease.

You may also be exposed to such things as electromagnetic or nuclear radiation, which in certain forms and concentrations, can damage your cells, change body chemistry, thus also being a possible causational element of the formation of disease.

The point is that disease forms over time, it is rarely a single thing alone that ‘causes’ it, and thus the better language to use when speaking of a single causational element of that process of disease formation (or the manifestation of systemic dysfunction - aka ‘disease’), is not to speak of a single element as having ‘caused’ or being the ‘source’ (or worse, the ‘carrier’) of the disease, but to instead think of all of them as just being a ‘contributing factor’, where it is only in some cases that a single primary and most significant single ‘cause’ happens to be true - for example: if you eat a lump of depleted uranium, you will most likely rapidly form disease and then die, and we wouldn’t be at all unfair to call that lump of toxic material the ‘cause’, but for the case of an actual medical report on the death, one might add the detail of specifically what damage was caused by the consumption of the toxin, how rapidly that damage progressed, what other issues it caused, and how all of this progressed toward death.

Conclusion:

Now, do you ever hear this level of detailed explanation in the mainstream media? No, not ever, and the closest they ever get to it is to try to bamboozle you with a lot of complicated sounding terms, fear, waffle, and some supposed ‘expert’ whom is arguably at least a little incompetent - if not an outright and wilful fraud - proven by them trying to tell you (or imply) anything that contradicts the statement:

“Disease is not a substance, disease is a systemic state of dysfunction”

Another statement I hear quite often, but which is also a lie is this:

“Disease XYZ can affect anyone at any time”

- and any statement to that effect is absolutely a lie, no it can’t, diseases aren’t magical, they MUST have a cause, and whether or not you know what that cause is, is not a valid argument to assert they are just random and can magically affect anyone at any time.

More likely than not I think, there are a lot of well meaning and otherwise just ignorant or incompetent ‘experts’ and professionals, who have been fooled by the mainstream interpretation of health and disease. They went to university, accepted what they were told, never questioned it, and now fervently believe it is all a matter of fact, when there are such gaping holes and flaws in their entire argument and the things they think are the evidence for it, some of which are not fact but fiction.

Others are I think complicit, and whom, for whatever economic, ideological, or political reasons, know they are lying to you, with many of them exposed within the academic sector as frauds, and especially in the global multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry, which is the biggest financial sponsor of academic misconduct and fraud over any other industry.

I have personally witnessed falsehoods taught in science classes at university (unsurprisingly related to these global multi-trillion dollar industries), so I know how easy it is to misuse language and fool the impressionable minds fresh out of high school where they were trained to parrot back what they are told without question, and rewarded for doing so … and it is also easy to hide such a fraud in academia, where you attach it to very real science that does work, but you just skip past the flaws in the conclusions you draw based on that science.