Slave republic

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Republic, democratic republic, municipality, police - these structures and concepts are presented to us by progressive ones, they have even become familiar and understandable, as if they have an obvious "universal" value and do not require a clear definition. I will try to figure out the details, because it is important for me to understand where and by what right I live, and along the way, try to dispel some myths. I will have to take several historical and legal excursions, as well as language somersaults, because a fairly simple question is thoroughly confused.

The first myth - the republic means freedom

The republic is closely linked to slavery. Take the ancient Roman Republic as an example. The largest slave uprising in history under the leadership of Spartacus took place precisely during the years of the existence of the Roman Republic, and only after almost a hundred years it was replaced by the Roman Empire.

As a much closer historical example, I will take the Texas Republic, which seceded from Mexico due to the fact that slavery was abolished after the adoption of the Constitution of the Mexican United States in 1824 and de facto ceased to exist practically throughout the entire territory of Mexico by 1829. Dissatisfied with this fact and wayward Texans achieved independence from the Mexican states through a revolution and at the end of 1836 adopted their constitution, which, to the delight of the Republicans, confirmed the right to slavery, and Texas was proclaimed an independent republic.

First conclusion: slavery in the republic is the norm.

The second myth - republics are democratic

If "republic" is a Latin word, then "democracy" is a Greek word.

Republic is translated from all languages into Greek as "democracy" (δημοκρατία - note the Greek pronunciation - [Dimocracy]), and nothing else. Therefore, a "democratic republic" is butter. The stories that democracy is "rule of the people" are at least a delusion, at the most a lie.

Dimos (δήμος) has two meanings:

- form of government

- municipality

That is, a democracy is a republic in which a municipality is the unit of government. Why are municipalities so important in the republic - I will reveal further.

The second conclusion: democracy is the government of the republic through the institution of municipalities.

The third myth - a municipality is the management of a certain settlement

A municipality is a people attached to a managed and clearly defined area. Sounds kind of weird, right? As if about some serfs or convict settlements. But read the definition of the municipality - I did not add anything superfluous, only highlighted an aspect that is usually hushed up.

A municipality is a self-governing state administrative-territorial unit with a clearly defined territory and the population living in this territory.

The word "municipality" is of Latin origin. I cannot cite authoritative sources to confirm my guess, but I am sure that this word is of the same root as the word "mancipation".

Mancipation is the fixation of the act of transferring property (including a slave) from one person to another (physical or legal). We know better another word derived from mancipation - emancipation, as the "liberation" of a woman from the slavery of a man (in fact, according to the letter of the law, only the owner changes during mancipation, but the status remains the same).

Conclusion three: a municipality is a veiled form of ownership and management of persons residing in the territory of the municipality.

If this conclusion seemed too provocative to you - be patient a little, other confirmations will follow below.

The form of presentation in the form of "debunking the myths" has exhausted itself, and I want to ask the respected reader a question to change the form:

What do the police, the metropolis and the insurance policy have in common?

Of course, the erudite reader will say - consonance, and even complete coincidence of spelling in different languages:

policy (insurance document)

polis (urban community dominated by slaves)

police

I will try to convey what they have in common in meaning. An insurance contract ("policeman" in Italian:)) is a special case of a contract in which the signature of the other party is generally optional.

This is what allows you to receive an insurance policy by mail (well, at least in Europe and America). In addition, the second party may not receive the text of the contract at all. This is such a strange type of contract, where the client voluntarily "signed what is unknown", and besides, there is no need to sign as such. What does it take for the treaty to come into force? Here is a quote (abbreviated):

That is, instead of signing, it is enough to simply accept the document. As a rule, this document is nominal and contains a unique number (for example, the policy number).

An amazing thing - you are handed a certain document, and if you accepted it, it means that you have entered into an agreement on terms that may not be known to you.

Remember, please, did you receive any personalized documents (certificates, certificates) with a number? And if these documents were accepted, then were the terms of the agreement announced to you?

Now let's move on to the policy. No, not an insurance contract, but a city-policy. According to the same Wikipedia, slaves predominated in the policies. I believe that the acceptance of the contract for the slaves was the very physical presence in the territory of the municipality-polis, whose territory was strictly limited by the walls. I have seen many city walls and, in my opinion, they are more designed not to let out, than to really defend against the regular army of the enemy. That is, in my opinion, for the illiterate slaves, the acceptance of the policy contract was the passage into the territory of the policy municipality through the gate.

So they said: pass-port, but for us, smart and literate, they introduced another confirmation of the acceptance of the contract - a personalized document with a unique number, leaving the old meaning and name: pass-port, passport.

Well, what does the police have to do with it, you ask? The insurer is obliged to provide certain "services", in particular - the protection of the life of the slaves, according to the "policy" they have adopted. How to call such a "service" - of course, "policy". The Soviet militia are armed amateurs (about the same as amateur athletes in the USSR). While the police are professionals who work out the services of a "policy", the conditions of which we do not know, and we are not supposed to know.

In this regard, the need to rename the police in "police" becomes obvious. We must pay tribute - municipal schools and medical institutions in general are doing well with their functions. As you know, you have to pay for everything - I suggest you study it on your own - who pays for the provision of municipal services in education, healthcare, law enforcement, and so on, with what and on what legal basis.

Conclusion: the police, municipalities and other government agencies provide services in accordance with a de facto legally adopted agreement individually by each citizen, but unpublished.

Is the Republic a "common body"?

The generally accepted etymology of "republic" is "res publica", that is, a common cause. Res is not a thing, but a thing. I propose to check independently the translation into both Latin and Polish, in which the thing = rzech (pronounced "speech"), and "Speech will polish" is a tracing of "res publica" from Latin.

Slaves had the status of property, that is, things, and being transferred in the course of the legal process of mancipation from individual owners to public ones, namely, to municipalities, they became objects of common use, that is, "res publica".

In other words, a republic is not freedom at all, but the socialization of slaves through joint management through binding (mancipation) to local government - municipalities.

The cynicism of the "masters of life" can be traced even in symbolism. Prompted a thought

iskatelpravdie in one of the comments, giving a link to the Latin-Russian phrasebook.

According to this phrasebook, Publica is a public woman, who, accordingly, is treated like a thing.

Now take a look at the more than strange symbol of the revolution that created the French Republic:

Who is this shameless woman in the crowd? What does it represent?

Let's take another country, which also became a republic as a result of the revolution. Here is its symbol:

This is the proclamation of the Portuguese Republic. In the center - again a shameless (public) woman in a crowd of men.

And the banknotes of the Texas Republic, the link to which I gave at the beginning of the article, in their design in most cases contain similar "publicly shameless" motives. The hint of symbolization of the republic is more than transparent - the joint possession of people equated in status to things, the symbol of which is a "public woman".

Summarizing:

- a republic is a form of joint ownership of people (that is, slavery), through a system of municipalities (the smallest body of joint ownership)

- people often unknowingly "sign" a legally legitimate but not disclosed policy agreement, just by accepting personalized and numbered documents certified by the republic's authorities (such as a passport)

- under a policy agreement, people receive a number of conditionally free services from the republic, including law enforcement services (police policy, medical policy, etc.)

I would like to note that employees of municipalities, police and other institutions work on the same rights as you and me, in most cases without even thinking about the issues voiced in this article. I do not in any way identify the employees of the institutions with the institutions themselves.

Based on the above, it immediately becomes clear why the "West" does not want to recognize the annexation of Crimea to Russia, and also demands from Russia to stop supporting the insurgent Donbas. For slave owners, the opinion of slaves about who they would like to belong to does not matter. Everything is decided at the level of agreement between the owners. So it turns out that today's Russian elite not only stole Crimean slaves from European masters, but also supports the uprising of slaves in Donbass, constantly sending humanitarian and other aid there, without which they would have long been forced to crawl on their knees with repentance to the owners. Then the tactics directed primarily against the Russian ruling elite are quite appropriate and reasonable.