The Occult Meanings of Represent: Why You Can Not Represent Yourself in Court
To know why you can not “represent” yourself in court, you need to study the definitions of the word represent and find its deeper meanings. You also need to ask yourself this question: “How could I represent myself when I am already myself living in a body made of flesh and blood?” One of the common definitions of the word represent is “to act or speak officially for (someone or something)”. Based on this definition, when you “represent” someone or something, you are acting or speaking for it.
Here are other common definitions of the word represent from Dictionary.com:
“to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize:”
“to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like:”
“to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does:”
“to speak and act for by delegated authority:”
“to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government:”
“to portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does:”
“to present or picture to the mind.”
Here is the definition of the word represent from Black’s Law Dictionary (5th edition):
To appear in the character of; personate; to exhibit; to expose before the eyes. To represent a thing is to produce it publicly. To represent a person is to stand in his place; to speak or act with authority on behalf of such person; to supply his place; to act as his substitute or agent.
The Occult Meanings of the Word Represent
All the definitions above are basically telling you that the word represent means to act in the capacity FOR something. When you represent yourself, you are acting for something outside of you and therefore it is NOT truly you.
In one of the previous paragraphs, the first phrase says “To appear in the character of”. The words you need to pay attention to in this phrase are appear and character. You also need to pay attention to the word person. In legalese, the word person usually means an artificial person. This “person” is not you because it is a dead fictional character.
One of the origins of the word appear is the Latin word apparere, which is derived from the Latin words ad (“to”) and parere (“to come forth, be visible”). The word appear has a strong connection to magic (magick), which is why it is used a lot by fake or real magicians. These magicians like to make things appear (be visible) and disappear (be invisible) right in front of your eyes.
Like magicians, judges also like to make things appear and disappear. This is why the letter that they used to notify you to appear in court is called a summons. To summon you to court is to call you to appear in court using the power of words and magic, similar to how witches summon spirits to appear in front of them. The word summons is defined as “A form of legal process that commands the defendant to appear before the court on a specific day and to answer the complaint made by the plaintiff.”
In my article titled The Magic Power of Words and Why Words Rule the World, I said that judges are magicians, which is why they are sometimes called magistrates. Here is an excerpt from that article:
In legal terms, the word magistrate is defined as “any individual who has the power of a public civil officer or inferior judicial officer, such as a Justice of the Peace”. Magistrate can also be defined as “a civil officer charged with the administration of the law”. To find the occult definition of the word magistrate, you need to split it into two words (magi-strate). The word you need to pay attention to is magi. One of the origins of the word magi is the Latin word magi (plural of magus), meaning “magician, learned magician”. Hence, the words magistrate, magician, magic, and magistery.
As for the word character, it is defined as “the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.” The word character originated from the Latin word character and the Greek word kharakter, meaning “engraved mark,” also “symbol or imprint on the soul”. In other words, a character is a mark or symbol used to identify something. The word character can also mean “symbol or drawing used in sorcery“.
Phonetically, the word character sounds similar to “care-actor”. The word care is derived from the Old English words caru and cearu, meaning “sorrow, anxiety, grief,” also “burdens of mind; serious mental attention”. Based on these occult definitions, a character/care-actor is an actor with serious mental problems. A character is a symbol and therefore it is not you, the man (male or female) with a body made of flesh and blood.
Because a character is a symbol, it is an artificial person and therefore it needs your life force energy to charge it with life. This is why the legal system has to charge you first before summoning you to appear in court. They charge you first because they are planning to trick you to give up your life force energy, so that it can be used to charge the character/legal person/dead person and give it life.
Why You Can Not Represent Yourself in Court
When you are in a courtroom and the judge asks you if you are representing yourself, what he is really doing is tricking you to agree to represent your legal person (character), which is an artificial person, also known as a corporation. This artificial person is sometimes referred to as the legal name, which is a symbol or character used by the legal system to identify you and mark you with the “mark of the beast”. Do you remember what I said earlier that the word character originated from the Latin word character and the Greek word kharakter, meaning “engraved mark,” also “symbol or imprint on the soul”?
You, the living man (male or female), can not represent yourself because you are already yourself. To represent yourself is to act in the capacity for something artificial, such as a legal person/artificial person/dead person/character/corporation. Because you (the living man) is not artificial/dead, you can not represent yourself. However, you can represent something other than yourself that is artificial. In other words, as a living man you can present yourself in court, but can only represent an artificial thing.
The word present is defined as “being, existing, or occurring at this time or now; current”. But be aware that one of the earliest definitions of the word present is “thing offered, what is offered or given as a gift”. Based on these two definitions, when you present yourself in court, you are presenting yourself in the present time or presenting yourself as a gift. Because of this, you need to let the judge know that you are in court to present yourself in that present moment in time and not as a gift.
Because you now know the occult meanings of the word represent, whenever a judge ask you if you are representing yourself in court, you should tell him that you can not represent yourself because you are already yourself and a living man or woman.
The legal system is full of words that have many different meanings, and therefore it is nearly impossible to know what the judge really means when he speaks. For example, when a judge says “person”, he could be talking about a natural person, artificial person, corporation, or anything that is artificial. Because of this, it is best to stay out of court whenever possible.
Your Options: To Serve... Or Be Served
There are three ways for a person to obtain something of value from another person: receive it as a donation, steal it by force or fraud, or exchange for it. It’s not much of an oversimplification to say that the advance of civilization has hinged on its movement from the first two methods to the third. The right to exchange, and the right to promise as part of a future exchange—the right to contract—are now taken for granted, but those rights are delicate and a whole complex of rights, assumptions, and obligations are subsumed by them. Their intellectual foundations are being undermined as the equality of rights implicit in contract and exchange gives way to a regressive inequality of rights: servitude.
The essence of exchange is choice; it’s voluntary. Both parties have the choice of whether or not to transact, and neither will do so unless they subjectively value what they receive more than what they give up. That is not to say that there will be equality of resources, bargaining power, or negotiating skill between the parties, or that they will be equally happy with their bargain, only that both parties have the same choice to accept or reject the proposed transaction. Exchange embodies that equality of rights between parties, but not an equality of outcomes.
The right to exchange implicitly assumes that parties are the best judges of their own interests, and that such determinations will be respected by both the parties and those outside the transaction. The rights to exchange and contract are individual rights, and the obligation to fulfill one’s side of the bargain an individual obligation. A collective entity such as a business can contract and exchange, but either the members of that entity have agreed that they will, collectively, do so, or have, by their membership in that entity, recognized implicitly or explicitly the right of those directing the entity to do so.
The concept of a social contract is a contradiction in terms. With whom does a society contract? An entity cannot contract with itself. The notion has come to mean acceptance by the governed of the government, whatever its form. However, individuals have no choice to opt out of the collective entity known as society, as they would any other voluntarily chosen entity they joined, and the social contract supposedly binds not just those who were part of the society when the contract was made, but future generations. Thus, the term social contract wrongly connotes voluntary choice of an institution whose establishment has always been the product of chance and force, and has no meaning at all for the unborn who will nevertheless be compelled to live under the government so established.
Exchange evokes hostility because it is a private decision in which the resulting agreement excludes everyone but the two parties, and it increases, by their own evaluations, their wellbeing. As it increases wellbeing, a rational government will do all it can to protect the rights of its citizens to contract and exchange for any licit purpose. However, a government relegated to protecting private contracts and exchange is a government subjugated; there is no opportunity for the exercise of coercive power. When contracts are breached, the government’s role is adjudication and remedy, not coercion. Even that role is unessential; parties can agree beforehand to nongovernmental dispute resolution.
Nobody goes into government to refrain from exercising power. Governments ban certain contracts and exchanges, or dictate their terms in the name of regulation. They are humanity’s most rapacious and regressive institution; they arrogate to themselves the right to legally engage in theft. Outlawing or regulating certain exchanges furthers larceny as well; enforcement offers opportunities for extortion and accepting bribes.
Historically, there has been a virtually straight line relationship between the share of activity within a society demarcated by voluntary contract and exchange and the progress made by that society. Voluntary exchanges and the private choices they incorporate are, by definition, made only when they enhance wellbeing. Once a government “escapes” the subjugation of enforcing private agreements and choices, they constrict the scope of such agreements and choices and extract value by force, that is, involuntarily, from the citizenry. Notwithstanding the delusions and lies of their many proponents, constricting choices and theft cannot further progress, they only retard, stop, or reverse it.
Neither the relationship between donor and recipient nor between thief and victim is that of equals. The proper characterization for both is servility: recipients begging donors for donations and victims implicitly or explicitly begging thieves to spare some of their property or their lives. If a truth serum could be administered to ensure an honest answer, perhaps no single question would be more psychologically revealing than whether a person prefers relationships of servility or equality. A preference for the former is the most accurate marker for sociopathy available, and is not a bad one for psychopathy, either.
So runs the sociopathic, psychopathic scam known as government. The productive are robbed and just enough is doled out to the beggars to keep them quiescent and voting correctly. The rest lines the pockets of the sociopaths and psychopaths, the “served.” This can be the only result when exchange is replaced with theft and begging as the basis of social and commercial interaction. Collectivist hostility to exchange stems not from its misattributed flaws, but from deep-rooted psychological hostility to a process that involves free choice and confers equally to both parties the option not to engage in it. Exchange presumes that individuals are capable of directing their own lives, and protecting the freedom to contract and exchange enshrines that autonomy. Freedom, exchange, and equality of rights under the law are inseparable.
As exchange dies, the nation founded in revolution and independence descends into docile servility. Equality of rights under the law, a difficult but not impossible goal, gives way to a deluded and malignant drive for equality of outcomes. Exchange, contract, and freedom are inconsistent with equality of outcome. In order for voluntary exchange to occur, both parties must have something to exchange, which implies both parties have produced something and either retained it or exchanged it for something else of value. Productive ability is not equally distributed. Nor is the ability to benefit from exchange; some are better at it than others.
Spurious promises of equal outcomes implicitly rely on begging, theft, and the coercive power of the sociopathic, psychopathic scam. There has never yet been a government in which the government, especially ones devoted to “equality,” did not become, in Orwell’s words, “more equal” than its begging and enslaved citizenry. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a blowhard bastard bloviating bromides about the beauty and nobility of “service.” You’re to be served... as the next course.