Larken is in top form again. I agree with him. The problem is that we have an entrenched paradigm of inherited "English" law. If you care to study the history of "Law" in Europe you will find that there was a better form of law the preceded English common law. It was Celtic Law. Celts are the ancient peoples of Europe. Their ancient law form was egalitarian, fair, not respecting of rank other than if you were of a higher rank than you had more obligation to follow the law. If you didn't then your punishment was greater. These laws were eventually codified as what is known as Irish laws.
The beginning of the 17th Century saw English law and rule prevail in Ireland and the Irish laws outlawed and declared barbarous. These "barbarous" laws had been what had kept the English from implanting its feudal system in Ireland and from completing its conquest of Ireland for four centuries. These ancient "barbarous" laws of Ireland have since been recognized as the most advanced system of jurisprudence in the ancient world, a system under which the doctrine of the equality of man was understood and under which a deeply humane and cultured society flourished.
These ancient Irish laws have come to be called The Brehon Laws from the Irish term "Brehon" which was applied to the official lawgiver. They were transmitted orally and with extreme accuracy from generation to generation by a special class of professional jurists called Brithem (judge in early Gaelic). These laws are of great antiquity and antedate the coming of the Celts to Ireland. St. Patrick is credited with codifying these laws in the 5th Century. His efforts fill five volumes and are known as the Senchus Mor. its ordinances are named C'ain Padraic after St. Patrick. These five volumes which have come down to us, however, are only a small portion of the old Irish laws which covered almost every relationship and every fine shade of relationship, social and moral, between man and man.
While the Brehon, or lawgiver, administered the law, the aggregate wisdom of nine leading representatives was necessary to originate a law or to abolish it. The nine needed for the making of a law were the chief, poet, historian, landowner, bishop, professor of literature, professor of law, a noble, and a lay vicar. Impartiality is the salient characteristic of all the laws for all the ranks. The king himself was bound by law to do justice to his meanest subject. The democracy of these laws is shown in dozens of ways. For example, a king carrying building material to his castle had the same and only the same claim for right of way as the miller carrying material to build his mill (no blocking the way for common folk as the "motorcade" comes through); the poorest man in the land could compel payment of a debt from a noble or could levy a distress upon the king himself (no "sovereign immunity"); the man who stole the needle of a poor embroidery woman was compelled to pay a far higher fine than the man who stole the queen's needle.
The Brehon Law was based on an individual's identity, defined in terms of clan and personal wealth. Honor was evaluated in terms of personal wealth and each person's wealth or honor price reflected his legal status in the community. In the sight of the law, the bishop, king, chief poet, and public hospitaller (person who owned and operated guest houses for no fee) were in the same rank and a like fine or honor price was payable for the killing of any of the four. The Irish law expected most from those who had received the most from God. For example, a member of the clergy might be fined double that of a lay person for the same offense. For certain offenses, lay people of rank were deprived of half their honor price for the first offense and all their honor price for the third offense. Clerics, on the other hand, would not only lose all their honor price for the first offense, but would be degraded as well. An ordinary cleric could, by doing penance and suffering punishment, win back his grade; a cleric of higher rank, such as a bishop, however, not only lost his honor price and was degraded for the first offense, but he could never again regain his position.
The Brehon Law applied to all areas of life and reflects the values of the people. While women in the Western World have been emancipated for less than a century, women in ancient Ireland were nearly on an equal footing with men. They were queens in their own right and led troops into battle. Women always held a place of respect in Celtic society and were accorded their rights as well. It took English law and civilization "to put women in their place." Ironically, the stamping out of the Brehon Laws, and with them the rights of women, was finally accomplished under Queen Elizabeth of England.
In ancient Ireland, under Brehon Law, the lowest clansman stood on an equal footing with his chieftain. For example, it is recorded that when several Irish Kings visited Richard II in Dublin, the Irish kings sat down to dinner with their minstrels and entire retinue as was their custom. The English were appalled by such a display of egalitarianism and soon rearranged things so that the Irish royalty ate separately from the rest of their attendants. The Irish gave in to this demand of the English in order to be courteous guests even though it went very much against their inclination and custom.
Unfortunately for us we have inherited the English system with all its warts, bad teeth and BO. Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham? How is he that different from today's fascist policy enforcement porcines? Not much. Both are unquestioning toadies to an elite class trying to stay out of the reach of the common person.
It is time for a paradigm shift!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cops: Public Servants or F
ascist Pigs? (Part 6)By Larken Rose
Once again, it's time to determine whether American "police" are noble public servants or fascist pigs. The good news is, rendering a verdict this time can easily be done after the first four seconds (literally) of the example video (which is about eight minutes long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4Now, I don't think this needs much explanation. Beating up little old ladies, in their own houses, in order to disarm them? Randomly disarming everyone, right and left, pointing GUNS at them in the process, when there wasn't even the suspicion that the people had committed any crimes? Barging into homes and destroying property without a shred of due process, without even the allegation that the person had done anything wrong? Do I really need to point out that any "officer" who would engage in such things is a fascist pig? I hope not. Here's some more Nazi thuggery, in case you needed any:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8But what's worth pointing out here is that this is NOT a case of a "bad apple" here and there. This was widespread, premeditated, officially-sanctioned fascism. When you have the damn chief of police openly declaring that he and his fellow Nazi swine intended to disarm EVERYONE (except themselves, of course), then don't tell me that I shouldn't say that ALL American police are fascist pigs.
In that second clip, one fascist swine, Chris Montgomery, this time from the "National Guard" (I wonder who's going to guard us from the "guard"?) laments how tough it is to have the job of being a fascist pig, disarming, maybe even SHOOTING Americans. Sorry, but I don't sympathize. In fact, if the local fascists in YOUR town ever declare that they are going to disarm everyone, and you see Chris Montgomery and his fellow Nazis walking down your street, you would be absolutely justified in shooting that fascist bastard in the head at the first opportunity, and shooting every other jackboot who is with him. When they've openly declared their unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, tyrannical intentions, what more justification could you possibly need?
Once again, let me state the obvious truth: if you have a RIGHT to self-defense, and the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then by definition you DON'T NEED "government" permission to do so. And, in fact, when authoritarian thugs tell you that you don't have the right, you STILL DO, and you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect your rights, including shooting jackboots.
I wonder how many fascist thugs in New Orleans did things that would have justified their intended victims blowing their damn heads off. Probably almost all of them (at least all of the ones shown in those videos). On the other hand, I wonder how many cops DIDN'T violate everyone's rights? Any? Were there ANY "law enforcement" people in New Orleans who REFUSED to partake in the officially-sanctioned Gestapo garbage? I haven't heard of any.
So don't complain when I say that ALL American police today are fascist pigs. When I see some evidence to the contrary--like someone with a badge, a spine, and a brain (if anyone in the country still has all three) doing something to STOP the police state absurdities going on all over then country, then I might regain a speck of respect for "law enforcement." But not before.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
ou know about the American International Corporation today only because of the greed of the executives in one of its subsidiaries, American International Group [AIG}. If we use a search engine, we know AIG as a global insurance company founded in Shanghai, China in 1919. But when we walk past the American International Building at 70 Pine Street in New York where AIG is headquartered, we think of it as the AIG Building. It's not. It's the AIC Building. There is a difference. 
They will answer either MetLife (Metropolitan Insurance Co.), which has $3.3 trillion if insurance in force, or Prudential which has $2 trillion. Yet, AIG is larger than the top five "household name" life insurance companies put together. It has 375 million policyholders and over $19 trillion of insurance in force. Why in the world did AIG need a bailout?
Posts
