March 31, 2011

I'll Have An Aitch, Please Bob

H is for Human Being.

I have just discovered that I am not a human being.

Are you? Are you sure?

Wrap your eyeballs around this:


From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man ". A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction --that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior "animal" man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century--to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as "humans" --therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.

So there you have it. Declaring yourself to be a human being is to admit to being an animal or a monster.

No wonder they just ignore us in court!

It is amazing what you can learn by just reading their (alternative) definitions for everyday words.

We are fooled by our own language.

For some other examples, please visit this site. It starts with the word 'accident', and it doesn't mean what you think it means either.

Go look. Be amazed. Learn. Fight back.



sike said...

I had seen "human" defined as a monster in (blacks?) law dictionary and just thought it peculiar . Now I know why the word has definition in English law

Captain Ranty said...


In at least two editions of Blacks Law we are described as "imbeciles" and "children".

One language, one word, two meanings.

Learn the lingo and you start to understand a great deal.


Anonymous said...

hi cap,its amazing how 'they' layer meanings isn't it,.
p.s,the link does not work or the site is down, was it you cap?

Anonymous said...

cap,can you check this out and tell me if im reading this right that common law is a form of lawful servitude!,now if this is true im getting very confused here,has our answers always laid in trusts and common law was another layer?or am i reading too much into this.
now im not the brightest spark so your opinion would be appreciated

Raphe said...

This definition explains why TPTB were so keen to push political correctness and so get us all to stop referring to a "man" and instead use "person" or "human being".

In its oldest form "man" is gender neutral, males being weremen and females being wifmen (spelling varies).

richard said...

Well I'll be damned. That would, coincidentally I hope, tie in with the Loyd Pye lecture you posted a while back - the one on the controversial origin of mankind.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Funny how this would come about at this moment.

Nanaste, phil;

Unknown said...

CR. Saw this on Raedwald's blog this morning.

"However, the Irish government may be acting unlawfully; S.1(a) of the UN 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery states;

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

a) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

For the government to pledge that future generations of Irishmen will work six months of each year purely to pay off the interest on this unsustainable debt is not just like debt bondage, it is debt bondage."

So slavery is alive and well around the world as long as men and women define themselves as "human beings".

Anonymous said...

I've always considered myself as "post-human" anyway. (Smug grin)

Anonymous said...

Having checked out the link you provided, I have to say if you follow this bloke you're on a hiding to nothing. These archaic definitions from hundreds of years ago are of no more than academic interest. The meaning of words can and does legitimately change over time and when this happens, dictionaries are revised to reflect these changes. You will get nowhere in any court of law by citing any of this out-dated nonsense. You will no doubt only antagonise the judge. Sorry, mate; I have the greatest respect for what you stand for and wish you every success, but you won't achieve it thanks to people who compile outdated word-lists.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Rossa.

I went, I read, I replied.

"Slavery never ended.

Just to make sure it didn't, the pope in 1302 issued a Papal Bull called "Unam Sanctum".

You might want to look it up.

That Bull says that "everything, from the highest mountain to the depths of the sea, all animals, all men, all women, all property, belongs to the Vatican".

When you read it bear in mind the old legal maxim "He who does not disagree, agrees".

Back in 1302, no-one disagreed.

On July 15th 2009, I disagreed.


Incredible that it took us 800 years to work it out.


Captain Ranty said...


You are absolutely right.

Remember that podcast you sent me while I was in Cameroon? I finally downloaded it and listened to it last night.

Amazing stuff. During the podcast Frank O'Collins confirmed exactly what you said above.


Captain Ranty said...


To avoid any confusion, TPTB leave out all mention of man and human and call us persons instead.

A "person", as we now know, is defined in Blacks Law, Jowetts Law, Odgers Law and Bouviers Law Dictionary(ies) as a corporation.

We have been stiffed.

For decades.


Captain Ranty said...

Anon (16:27),

You are quite right.

If I just used one source I would deserve to have my bumps felt.

But I have seen this definition in a number of law dictionaries. See list above this comment.

Most of our words themselves are archaic.

One of the newest entries to the (normal) dictionaries is the word Meh.

I wonder what they will make of that in a thousand years time?

Seriously, they control us with words all the time. Think for a moment on that. I am sure you can come up with some examples yourself.


Woodsy42 said...

"Back in 1302, no-one disagreed."

Henry VIII did! Isn't that almost exactly why he defied the pope?

Anonymous said...

thank fuk for that cap i thought i was going insane lol.