HomeCounter-Racism Radio NetworkCounter-Racism Television NetworkArticlesProjectsCounter-Racism Work/Study ProjectShopping MallContact
Secure DonationsSecure Donations  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  ProfileProfile  Log inLog in

Non-white person's word against the R/WS in the work place
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post new topic†††Reply to topic †††Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> How to Counter Racism (White Supremacy) in the Work Place
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:02 pm† †Post subject: Reply with quote

You could continue to put up with it or you could do something about it. Everyone's situation is a little different. I have been in similar situations as the one you speak of many times. My utmost priority is to establish justice on the job and everywhere else...as is pointed out in the United States Constitution as the top priority, which is where I take my direction.

Does anyone in the company you work for support and defend the Consitution of the United States?
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:33 am† †Post subject: Reply with quote

Right...no single document in what is called the UK that is called the Constitution. Doesn't matter. It's all words. As I understand it, the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, meaning Parliament is the supreme law making body, and its Acts are the highest source of British law. The 'rule of law' has some 'fundamental and unchanging principles'. This is what you need to work with. It's very simple. It's the same thing really...words that are supported and defended by the smartest and most powerful white people.

The 'fundamental and unchanging principles' help you because they cannot be changed without the involvement of Parliament. When using company rules, regulation, circulars, memorandums, etc., these can be changed at any time by anyone who works at the company you work for who has the ability to make the changes. The fact that only Parliament can change the ''ule of law' gives you a certain amount of cover.

What are the 'fundamental and unchanging principles' of the law?

One is called 'equal application of the law', which simply means everyone is equal before the law, including those in power. This applies as well to the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment, 'equal protection of the laws', which means essentially the same thing...that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and how it is applied.

When discussing this on the job I define 'equal protection of the laws' (14th Amendment of the United States Constitution) as 'everything that is done that is constructive, with a constructive outcome, for one person has to be done for every person. See how that works? In other words if anyone has experienced a similar circumstance as you are experiencing now at the company you work for and they were helped, then you should receive the same help...otherwise the people who are not helping you are working against Parliamentary Sovereignty. It's all just words that you arrange a certain way to get people to support your effort to 'establish justice'.

So to begin our focus we need to know what the 'fundamental and unchanging principles' are for the rule of law that is supported by Parliamentary Sovereignty. All we are looking for is the one-two punch. We have one of those punches right now, which is 'equal application of the law'. I think the other that can be used is the 'rule of law' that states 'the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities'. This is what the United States Constitution refers to as 'due process' that is spoken of the in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. When on the job I define 'due process' as 'doing things in the correct way'.

There is a reson for the definitions I use for these two besic and 'fundamental and unchanging principles'. You may have questions at this point so please ask them one post at a time and we can tackle it that way to ensire you have an understanding of THE LOGIC. Then we can work on putting words together that will support THE LOGIC. This is a simple process so do not get discouraged. It looks complicated right now only because the smartest and most powerful white people have made it to look complicated. But we will simplify it. Kinda like a math equation.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:34 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
This is great, thank you, but I'm struggling to understand the difference between Rule of Law and Equal application of the law. Am I supposed to be using the Rule of Law & Equal application of the law or the equal application of the law and something else? You have explained it clearly, but I'm not sure I'm processing the information correctly, it makes sense then it becomes jumbled in my head. I guess this is all part of the nigger programming. I do have other questions but will ask one at a time, as you suggested.

The 'Rule of Law' is just one aspect of the British Constitution. As I understand it, there are two basic pillars, if you will, for the British Constitution; Parliamentary Sovereignty; and, second, the rule of law. The former means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body: its Acts are the highest source of British law. The latter is the idea that all laws and government actions conform to certain fundamental and unchanging principles.

The Rule of Law is comprised of certain 'fundamental and unchanging principles'. The two 'fundamental and unchanging principles' we will focus on are:

(1) 'Equal application of the law'; Meaning everyone is equal before the law, including those in power.
(2) 'Rights of individuals'; Meaning the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behavior of authorities.

You should have questions as to 'why' these will help you on the job, 'how' these will help you on the job, 'when' to use these on the job, 'how' to use these on the job, etc. You also have a backup Rule of Law for producing justice and that is;

(3) There can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law. Everyone, regardless of your position in society, is subject to the law.

This puts everyone on notice that the documentation you are compiling can eventually go to the highest court to be heard if you so choose, which is where punishment is handed out. You will rarely, if ever, have to use this because it is implied automatically when you begin to use the language and document your presentation and follow-up memos.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:11 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
When discussing this on the job I define 'equal protection of the laws' (14th Amendment of the United States Constitution) as 'everything that is done that is constructive, with a constructive outcome, for one person has to be done for every person. See how that works? In other words if anyone has experienced a similar circumstance as you are experiencing now at the company you work for and they were helped, then you should receive the same help...otherwise the people who are not helping you are working against Parliamentary Sovereignty. It's all just words that you arrange a certain way to get people to support your effort to 'establish justice'.


What if, for example, my manager just tells me that there haven't been any other cases like this before, which is exactly what I expect her to say. She has already told me, I'm overreacting i.e. it's all in my head, and therefore I'm the problem.

That is because of how you arranged the words that you used when you surfaced the problem. What if you called a meeting with your manager, their manager, their manager, the director of Human Resources and you...and have printed out copies of the Acts produced by Parliament and enacted as Rule of Law...and you used language such as:

I came aboard this company to do my duties and I always do what I'm told according to the support of Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. In the performance of my duties I have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting me. That someone is subverting the Rule of Law. I am asking for help from the people who have sworn to protect and defend the Rule of Law to assist me in finding out who this someone is.

Now what just happened? You are using the words of the smartest and most powerful white people...meaning the Acts of the Parliament as Rule of Law...and you are essentially saying that your 'duty' or 'duties' is to support and defend those Acts enacted as Rule of Law along with the 'fundamental and unchanging principles' that are also part of the Rule of Law and in support of those laws someone is subverting you, which essentially means they are subverting those laws that you are in support and defense of.

You are also asking for help from other people who also support and defend the Acts of Parliament as Rule of Law. This means anyone who is not willing to help you is also part of said subversion. At the point of using only the language above you are on the offense. I have been told in meetings the same thing that you were told when using this kind of language...in which case I ask is there any issues or concerns with seeking higher managerial assistance in my efforts to find someone who is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. See how that works? Keeping the focus on my efforts to support and defend the laws...the laws themselves...and people who are subverting those laws.

You have to get the words straight first.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
So to begin our focus we need to know what the 'fundamental and unchanging principles' are for the rule of law that is supported by Parliamentary Sovereignty. All we are looking for is the one-two punch. We have one of those punches right now, which is 'equal application of the law'. I think the other that can be used is the 'rule of law' that states 'the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities'. This is what the United States Constitution refers to as 'due process' that is spoken of the in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. When on the job I define 'due process' as 'doing things in the correct way'.


How do you determine what is correct or not correct.

If it is your focus to produce a thing called justice you look at the evidence and give justice a definition that makes sense. Justice cannot exist where people are being mistreated. Justice also cannot exist where the person who needs help the most is not getting the most help. That's the premise.

With that as the premise and focus it is therefore incorrect for you to be mistreated and it is also incorrect for you not to get the constructive help you need when you need it. YOU have to determine what is correct or incorrect without lying to yourself.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:59 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:

(1) 'Equal application of the law'; Meaning everyone is equal before the law, including those in power.
(2) 'Rights of individuals'; Meaning the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behavior of authorities.

You should have questions as to 'why' these will help you on the job, 'how' these will help you on the job, 'when' to use these on the job, 'how' to use these on the job, etc. You also have a backup Rule of Law for producing justice and that is;

(3) There can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law. Everyone, regardless of your position in society, is subject to the law.


I don't understand how the rule of law could be for producing justice, the white supremacists are against justice, so why would they create a mechanism for producing justice?

Excellent logic question. The direct answer is because the smartest and most powerful white people practice deceit.

Presumably, the smartest and most powerful white people in the area of the world you are in wrote the Rule of Law. They wrote it in such a way that the only logical thing it could produce is a thing called justice, meaning guartanteeing no person is mistreated and also guaranteeing the person who needs help the most gets the most help. See how that definision lines up with numbers (1) and (2)? Even though Rule of Law is written in this way the smartest and most powerful white people mistreat people THEY SAY asre not white on the basis of color.

They are betting you do not have the will plus the ability to call them on their deceit by asking them to help you support the Rule of Law by finding the people who are subverting you in your duties to support and defend the Rule of Law. And you are betting that they will not reveal truth about the deception they are practicing. The entire SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception.

In essence you are playing the deception against itself. This is what I call counter-racism jiu-jitsu where the non-white person uses the weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) against itself. The weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is in the use of deceit against the victims of racism (white supremacy). The smartest and most powerful white people have decided that the deception is more important than an individual non-white person being harmed. In other words they will pass up harming one non-white person if they can harm 50. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is a business and it works on business principles. Profits and Losses. As long as the majority of non-white people are harmed their business is still profitable for them.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
This puts everyone on notice that the documentation you are compiling can eventually go to the highest court to be heard if you so choose, which is where punishment is handed out. You will rarely, if ever, have to use this because it is implied automatically when you begin to use the language and document your presentation and follow-up memos.


Is it also possible that this could result in me being fired, if so, could I still continue along these lines. I'm thinking only in terms of compiling evidence etc., if I'm no longer working for this company it could become more difficult.

White people understand this immediately. Non-white people, accfording to my experience, and maybe even some white people, don't understand where all of this is going. But the white people get help in their understanding from the white people who do understand where all of this is going.

It has long been a practice of non-white people to take note of everything that is said against them and everything that is done against them on the job. Write it down...take notes, etc. This is an extension of that poractice with a purpose that the smartest and most white people understand...which is to produce justice.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
That is because of how you arranged the words that you used when you surfaced the problem. What if you called a meeting with your manager, their manager, their manager, the director of Human Resources and you...and have printed out copies of the Acts produced by Parliament and enacted as Rule of Law...and you used language such as:

I came aboard this company to do my duties and I always do what I'm told according to the support of Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. In the performance of my duties I have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting me. That someone is subverting the Rule of Law. I am asking for help from the people who have sworn to protect and defend the Rule of Law to assist me in finding out who this someone is.

Now what just happened? You are using the words of the smartest and most powerful white people...meaning the Acts of the Parliament as Rule of Law...and you are essentially saying that your 'duty' or 'duties' is to support and defend those Acts enacted as Rule of Law along with the 'fundamental and unchanging principles' that are also part of the Rule of Law and in support of those laws someone is subverting you, which essentially means they are subverting those laws that you are in support and defense of.


A few things I am concerned about. Is it best to do this face to face in a meeting or could I go down the e-mail route.

I have scheduled meetings via e-mail but I have always conducted the business of supporting and defending the United States Constitution face-to-face.

Darkmatter wrote:
It's just that, I'm not sure if I'm confident enough to say all those things that I don't fully understand myself and knowing that they will be firing questions back at me to try and confuse me. I am also concerned about things I say being twisted and deliberately misinterpreted by these people who've been very malicious towards me. For example, I had another meeting with my manager today and every time I said my piece she would then attempt to paraphrase what I had said by saying, "I think what you mean to say is this...." and I would reply by saying "no I said what I meant to say, do not put words in my mouth", then she would become angry and say, well I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, by the end of the meeting I wasn't sure what I had said and what I hadn't said, it was really confusing. I also tried to take notes, but found this difficult because she would take a long time to say what she had to say, and used a lot of words to say very little, then she would keep cutting in when it was my turn to speak.

This is why it is critical for you and anyone else trying this method to practice what you are going to say and understand THE LOGIC prior to saying and doing this. You become confident while you practice with yourself...just you and the Creator. Once you are confident with THE LOGIC and understand what words have been used that work, you can come up with or fashion or arrange your own use of words depending on the same set or a similar set of circumstances that will have the same outcome...which is for you not to be harmed and for you to get the help you need when you need it. I started this conversation talking about THE LOGIC and asking you if you had any questions regarding THE LOGIC before we got into the words to use. Why? The use of words will change depending on the circumstances but THE LOGIC will always be the same.

The smartest and most powerful white people always use words to confuse non-white people. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) could not exist unless non-white people are constantly confused.

Imagine you saying that you support and defend the Rule of Law and that you have probable cause to believe someone is subverting you from doing that. Do you think your manager would try to convince you that you do not support and defend the Rule of Law? While at the same time not reporting you to the authorities? Why would your manager do that unless she does not support and defend the Rule of Law? The smartest and most powerful white people are smart enough not to even go down that road. To do so would be ill-logic.

Darkmatter wrote:
Just as an aside, everything I have read (code book & CR website etc.) and listened to on CR-Radio about how the racist white supremacists operate has been 100% correct. They seem to know exactly what to say and what to do when they're dealing with a black person. As soon as I started speaking up for myself at my job, the racists quickly organised themselves into a mini battalion, all saying and doing the same, all sharing a common goal, namely to get rid of the uppity nigger. People that I had previously had a relatively good working relationship with, suddenly began avoiding me and only speak when their either telling me what to do, or announcing to the entire office that the stupid black person in the corner has made ANOTHER mistake.

That's how it works. And they all probably don't even really know each other. Probably all have varying backgrounds and maybe even all came from different parts of the globe. All of the electricians on the planet don't have to meet to decide what to do when they encounter 220 volts. They know exactly how to handle 220 volts because they have a code...an electricians code or more commonly called an electrical code.

The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) also have a code that they follow...a racist code. This is the reason you ain't gonna get nowhere working against the smartest and most powerful white people, in a unified manner with other non-white people, unless you have a code...a counter-racism code.

Dark matter wrote:
If I had the money, I would buy as many copies of the code book as I could and just start handing it out to every non-white person I ever come into contact with. Every non-white person needs to read this book and get as much information as possible about the system of racism white supremacy. I don't think there is any other way a person can lead a semi normal life if they don't know what these people are up to. I've spent most of my life thinking there was something wrong with me, because I kept running into all these problems at school, college and jobs etc., but what I didn't understand was that's exactly what is supposed to happen to a black person, under the system of racism, we're supposed to be in constant turmoil and despair, the racists actually want our lives to be miserable. This system is evil, absolutely no question about that at all. Sorry for going off topic, but I feel like I've had the day from hell today.

If I lose my job, I lose my job, if the bigger picture is trying to produce justice, it'll be worth it, right?

That is my position. You have to decide if that is your position. No one can tell you what your position should be. Only you can do that and you owe it to yourself to do that for yourself.

Right now is the time for you to take the position of your manager while in this conversation talking to me and anyone else who may want to join the conversation as we go along and I will take the position of the employee and you can say anything you want and I'll respond accordingly and at the end of the conversation you will be backing me and my efforts to support and defend the Rule of Law. Don't wait until you are in a room with your manager like many non-white people do. We wait until we make contact and then try to think of what to say and what to do and it comes out all messed up. Ends in us being confused and frustrated. You should also ask questions as we go along.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:57 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Thank you very much for your replies to my questions, they have been really helpful. In the past when I've run into similar problems on the job I've just walked out, because I didn't know what else to do. Staying and trying to fight against it never worked before because I didn't realize what was really going on. This time it has been different, because I'm starting to learn the truth, it has given me the will power to stick it out even though it has been truly awful esp. the last few days. So thanks again, I really do appreciate your help.

Edward Williams wrote:

Presumably, the smartest and most powerful white people in the area of the world you are in wrote the Rule of Law. They wrote it in such a way that the only logical thing it could produce is a thing called justice, meaning guaranteeing no person is mistreated and also guaranteeing the person who needs help the most gets the most help. See how that definition lines up with numbers (1) and (2)? Even though Rule of Law is written in this way the smartest and most powerful white people mistreat people THEY SAY are not white on the basis of color.


I see the white supremacists really have thought of pretty much everything. I've had a think about this and I'm not sure if I understand correctly. If justice doesn't exist anywhere in the known universe, how do white people use the Rule of Law to produce justice among each other without giving the game away to non-white people. Or are you saying that the Rule of Law could produce justice but it isn't ever used for that purpose by white or non-white people?

Justice either exists or it doesn't exist. There is no way to have justice and non-justice in the same universe at the same time. Right now...currently...justice does not exist anywhere in the known universe. The existence of a SYSTEM of non-justice, called racism (white supremacy), is the reason justice does not exist.

A law is supposed to produce one thing...justice. No person at your job will go on record admitting that the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law exists only to produce non-justice. So then you use them to produce justice and do so in a manner that you get everyone on your job to support you doing it.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
They are betting you do not have the will plus the ability to call them on their deceit by asking them to help you support the Rule of Law by finding the people who are subverting you in your duties to support and defend the Rule of Law. And you are betting that they will not reveal truth about the deception they are practicing. The entire SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception.


The system of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception, so what would stop them from practicing more deception once a non-white person is before them in the highest court. In theory, couldn't they just continue the deception by denying that anyone has been mistreated?

The goal objective is to get the problem solved by never going to a "high court". The person or persons who are able to make the problem go away are standing right next to you when you are on the job. The goal objective is to use words in such a way that you get them to make the problem go away.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
In essence you are playing the deception against itself. This is what I call counter-racism jiu-jitsu where the non-white person uses the weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) against itself. The weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is in the use of deceit against the victims of racism (white supremacy). The smartest and most powerful white people have decided that the deception is more important than an individual non-white person being harmed. In other words they will pass up harming one non-white person if they can harm 50. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is a business and it works on business principles. Profits and Losses. As long as the majority of non-white people are harmed their business is still profitable for them.


I think I've heard the system of racism white supremacy being described as a business profit and losses before, it's horrible actually. The white supremacists try to make some of us feel ,more comfortable under the system to keep us from kicking up a stink but then millions upon millions will die in other parts of the world. A white person I was speaking to the other day started going on about equal opportunities, until I pointed out to him that the organisation I work for is supposed to be an equal opportunities employer and they're mistreating me on the basis of colour! So I may have got the job based on the fact that I filled their annual nigger hiring quota, but once there, I'm not being treated like the vast majority of their workforce who are white.

Edward Williams wrote:
White people understand this immediately. Non-white people, according to my experience, and maybe even some white people, don't understand where all of this is going. But the white people get help in their understanding from the white people who do understand where all of this is going.

It has long been a practice of non-white people to take note of everything that is said against them and everything that is done against them on the job. Write it down...take notes, etc. This is an extension of that practice with a purpose that the smartest and most white people understand...which is to produce justice.


Yes that is true, I have always made a note of things, but it has never been enough to stop me from being mistreated, so it makes sense to take it one step further.

Edward Williams wrote:
This is why it is critical for you and anyone else trying this method to practice what you are going to say and understand THE LOGIC prior to saying and doing this.

You become confident while you practice with yourself...just you and the Creator. Once you are confident with THE LOGIC and understand what words have been used that work, you can come up with or fashion or arrange your own use of words depending on the same set or a similar set of circumstances that will have the same outcome...which is for you not to be harmed and for you to get the help you need when you need it. I started this conversation talking about THE LOGIC and asking you if you had any questions regarding THE LOGIC before we got into the words to use. Why? The use of words will change depending on the circumstances but THE LOGIC will always be the same.


Now when you say the logic, do you mean the logic being, why I am will be attempting to use the Rule of Law in order to not be mistreated. I'm not sure I do understand when you say the THE LOGIC.

When I say THE LOGIC I mean counter-racism logic...or...logic that is used to produce a SYSTEM of justice.

Many people will use the words 'counter-racism' to mean working against the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy). But you can eliminate the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) without having put in its place a SYSTEM of justice. When I say 'counter-racism' I mean 'producing justice'. The production of a SYSTEM of justice automatically eliminates the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy).

Justice means guaranteeing no person is mistreated and also guaranteeing the person who needs help the most gets the most help. This does not exist anywhere in the known universe. As a victim of racism (white supremacy) I am not guaranteed these things. So what do I do? I use the smartest and most powerful white people to help me to produce a SYSTEM of justice starting with me...by them helping me to not be harmed and also them helping me to get the help that I need when I need it. In essence they begin to work against themselves and at the same time help me to produce a SYSTEM of justice.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
The smartest and most powerful white people always use words to confuse non-white people. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) could not exist unless non-white people are constantly confused.

Imagine you saying that you support and defend the Rule of Law and that you have probable cause to believe someone is subverting you from doing that. Do you think your manager would try to convince you that you do not support and defend the Rule of Law? While at the same time not reporting you to the authorities? Why would your manager do that unless she does not support and defend the Rule of Law? The smartest and most powerful white people are smart enough not to even go down that road. To do so would be ill-logic.


I can imagine my manager saying, what does the Rule of Law have to do with what's happening here, you've just being a bit oversensitive etc. etc.

I would respond by asking a question...

Does this company [call it by name] have any policies or procedures that are in direct conflict with the Rule of Law?

Now either it does or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you and your manager are talking about the same thing...supporting and defending the Rule of Law. I suspect no one will go on record at the company you work for by saying that company...and all of its policies, procedures, circulars, memorandums, directives, etc. are in direct conflict with the Rule of Law.

Darkmatter wrote:
If I lose my job, I lose my job, if the bigger picture is trying to produce justice, it'll be worth it, right?

Edward Williams wrote:
That is my position. You have to decide if that is your position. No one can tell you what your position should be. Only you can do that and you owe it to yourself to do that for yourself.


It definitely is my position now I understand that it is possible and is the only thing that's missing. I don't want to be made comfortable under this system, I want people to stop being mistreated. I want to learn how to focus on producing justice and make that part of my everyday life.


Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
They are betting you do not have the will plus the ability to call them on their deceit by asking them to help you support the Rule of Law by finding the people who are subverting you in your duties to support and defend the Rule of Law. And you are betting that they will not reveal truth about the deception they are practicing. The entire SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception.


The system of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception, so what is stopping them from practicing more deception once a non-white person is before them in the highest court. In theory, couldn't they just continue the deception by denying that anyone has been mistreated?

Yes, and that is where you come in. You have to present your case in such a manner, if it ever gets to a 'high court' which I doubt will ever happen, that in your efforts to support and defend the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law you have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting you. by subverting you in your efforts to support and defend the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law the person attempting to subvert you is also subverting the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law. At that point you are on the offense. It is no longer a case of you against people on your job it now becomes the people on your job against the UK. You have to understand what you are looking at.

Essentially you are putting the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law out in front...the company you work for behind that...and you are standing behind both. People can join you or stand out in front facing the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law all by themselves because no one will want to oppose the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law all by themselves. It is their choice. It has been my experience that people choose to stand with me in support and defense of the company I work for and the United States Constitution. For you the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
In essence you are playing the deception against itself. This is what I call counter-racism jiu-jitsu where the non-white person uses the weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) against itself. The weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is in the use of deceit against the victims of racism (white supremacy). The smartest and most powerful white people have decided that the deception is more important than an individual non-white person being harmed. In other words they will pass up harming one non-white person if they can harm 50. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is a business and it works on business principles. Profits and Losses. As long as the majority of non-white people are harmed their business is still profitable for them.

The smartest and most powerful white people always use words to confuse non-white people. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) could not exist unless non-white people are constantly confused.

Right now is the time for you to take the position of your manager while in this conversation talking to me and anyone else who may want to join the conversation as we go along and I will take the position of the employee and you can say anything you want and I'll respond accordingly and at the end of the conversation you will be backing me and my efforts to support and defend the Rule of Law.


For example, well Mr Williams, I don't agree you're being mistreated I think you're being oversensitive and your making a very strong accusation that people are seeking to subvert you. You must stop all this before it goes any further.

Thank you.


Well the first thing I would do is call a face-to-face meeting with my manager, their manager, their manager, human resources...etc....anyone who has the ability to solve the problem. I would send an e-mail to call for the meeting and lay it out just as I have laid it out before in this thread. I would address the people the e-mail is going to as 'Sirs/Madams' and say the following;

I came aboard this company to do my duties and I always do what I'm told according to the support of Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. In the performance of my duties I have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting me. That someone is subverting the Rule of Law.

I am calling a meeting at (time and date) to discuss this immediately.

Name
Position/Title
Location
Phone Number


If you don't face the smartest and most powerful white people face-to-face you can pretty much hang it up. They ain't gonna take notice of you anyway. It is only when you are willing to put yourself on the line that they know you mean business.

While in the meeting I hand out copies of the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law and restate what I stated in the e-mail. Now, are you saying that while in that meeting one of the manager's say;

Quote:
Well Mr Williams, I don't agree you're being mistreated I think you're being oversensitive and your making a very strong accusation that people are seeking to subvert you. You must stop all this before it goes any further.

_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:05 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
Imagine you saying that you support and defend the Rule of Law and that you have probable cause to believe someone is subverting you from doing that. Do you think your manager would try to convince you that you do not support and defend the Rule of Law? While at the same time not reporting you to the authorities? Why would your manager do that unless she does not support and defend the Rule of Law? The smartest and most powerful white people are smart enough not to even go down that road. To do so would be ill-logic.


I'm concerned about the 'probable cause' part of the argument, I suspect they will go back to the fact that I have no proof that I am being subverted, it's my word against theirs. What do I say if they ask me what evidence I have to prove I'm being subverted. My manager will definitely use the line that everyone, including her, in the department defends the rule of law also and therefore no one is being subverted blah blah blah.

You already have all of the evidence. You stated that you have been keeping track, in documentation form, of all of the times you have made a report, not a complaint...a report of subversive activity. In all of the times I've used this method by using these words I have never been asked to produce any evidence. I have asked others to find out who is subverting me in my duties to support and defend the United States Constitution.

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
I can imagine my manager saying, what does the Rule of Law have to do with what's happening here, you've just being a bit oversensitive etc. etc.

Edward Williams wrote:
I would respond by asking a question...

Does this company [call it by name] have any policies or procedures that are in direct conflict with the Rule of Law?

Now either it does or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you and your manager are talking about the same thing...supporting and defending the Rule of Law. I suspect no one will go on record at the company you work for by saying that company...and all of its policies, procedures, circulars, memorandums, directives, etc. are in direct conflict with the Rule of Law.


Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
They are betting you do not have the will plus the ability to call them on their deceit by asking them to help you support the Rule of Law by finding the people who are subverting you in your duties to support and defend the Rule of Law. And you are betting that they will not reveal truth about the deception they are practicing. The entire SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception.

The system of racism (white supremacy) is based on deception, so what is stopping them from practicing more deception once a non-white person is before them in the highest court. In theory, couldn't they just continue the deception by denying that anyone has been mistreated?

Yes, and that is where you come in. You have to present your case in such a manner, if it ever gets to a 'high court' which I doubt will ever happen, that in your efforts to support and defend the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law you have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting you. by subverting you in your efforts to support and defend the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law the person attempting to subvert you is also subverting the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law. At that point you are on the offense. It is no longer a case of you against people on your job it now becomes the people on your job against the UK. You have to understand what you are looking at.

Essentially you are putting the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law out in front...the company you work for behind that...and you are standing behind both. People can join you or stand out in front facing the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law all by themselves because no one will want to oppose the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law all by themselves. It is their choice. It has been my experience that people choose to stand with me in support and defense of the company I work for and the United States Constitution. For you the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law.


I think I'm getting the picture now. I suspect I've been compartmentalizing everything rather than looking at the bigger picture, I'm concentrating on the million & 1 things they could say, rather than what I'll be saying and the logic I'll be using to say it. I must admit I am finding it difficult to grasp some of these concepts, but I'm trying.

Edward Williams wrote:
Well the first thing I would do is call a face-to-face meeting with my manager, their manager, their manager, human resources...etc....anyone who has the ability to solve the problem. I would send an e-mail to call for the meeting and lay it out just as I have laid it out before in this thread. I would address the people the e-mail is going to as 'Sirs/Madams' and say the following;

I came aboard this company to do my duties and I always do what I'm told according to the support of Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. In the performance of my duties I have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting me. That someone is subverting the Rule of Law.

I am calling a meeting at (time and date) to discuss this immediately.

Name
Position/Title
Location
Phone Number


If you don't face the smartest and most powerful white people face-to-face you can pretty much hang it up. They ain't gonna take notice of you anyway. It is only when you are willing to put yourself on the line that they know you mean business.


You're right, I couldn't agree more. I'll admit I'm petrified at the thought of it, but I understand what you're saying, if I'm not prepared to do say what I have to say to them directly, I might as well walk now.

There have been some e-mails I have sent where I have told myself that I know I'm going to be fired after I send it. But I stop...take my time to come up with the words...arrange them in a certain way where it makes it look like I am doing the company a favor, in which case that is always true when I am pointing out that someone is subverting 'us' in 'our' duties.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
While in the meeting I hand out copies of the Acts of Parliament and the Rule of Law and restate what I stated in the e-mail. Now, are you saying that while in that meeting one of the manager's say;

Quote:
Well Mr Williams, I don't agree you're being mistreated I think you're being oversensitive and your making a very strong accusation that people are seeking to subvert you. You must stop all this before it goes any further.


Aaaaah when you lay it out in a logical way as you have done here, my hypothetical question doesn't seem very likely.

Now you are getting the picture. Practice what you'll say over and over in your mind and out loud if you can. There is something about hearing the sound of your own voice that makes you comfortable saying it.

Darkmatter wrote:
OK so in your past experiences when you have used the US Constitution, has anyone questioned the 'probable cause', have they asked you to explain/prove why/who you 'suspect'?

No. But I have been asked who the person is that is subverting the Constitution of the United States. If I am asked to present evidence I am ready to do so. when asked who the person is that is subverting the Constitution of the United States I have responded by saying;

I don't know. I thought that your office with the intelligent staff that you have here, including yourself, you all can find out.

I make sure I invite all of the people who have the ability to solve the problem to the meeting. I have been in meetings where there are 5 managers each reporting to each other. And they all show up. Once you ask for help 'from the people who have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' the people who do not show up to the meeting are really saying they don't support and defend the Constitution of the United States. No one wants to go on record as being against the 'law of the land'.

Darkmatter wrote:
What do you suggest I do if any of the people I send the e-mail to attempt to get me to talk about any of this before the meeting.

Talk to them. Keep in mind that once you start to use this language in this manner other people will try to get you to not use it...but they will not come right and tell you not to use the Rule of Law because that implies that they are against the Rule of Law. See how that works? So they will say things about you personally. I don't respond to those things at all unless they are asking me a question...then I will answer the question. I make sure that I make very few statements when talking to people outside of the meeting or before the meeting or even after the meeting. I ask more questions than I make statements.

One of the managers at one time called me up on the phone after having the initial meeting and asked me if he could buy me a coke. I told him I don't drink soda so he asked to buy me a drink and I agreed and we met each other outside the building at a store. He attempted to get me not to use the Constitution of the United states by telling me that I was really confusing everyone in the meeting by talking about the United States Constitution. He said I might as well be talking about the 'United States Wildlife and Fisheries policies on water conservation'. His exact words. I didn't say anything in response to that. He said some other very questionable things. When I got in the meeting I made mention that I had been contacted by someone else outside of the meetings who had a concern that there maybe someone in the meeting that may be confused about the United States Constitution. Without giving anyone a chance to ask me who that someone was I immediately asked everyone in the meeting if there was anyone present who was confused about their duties to support and defend the United States Constitution. Everyone said that they were not confused. See, if you ask enough questions and those questions have words that are arranged a certain way you will get a certain outcome. I elaborate more on this meeting in the book that I'm writing on the subject.

Darkmatter wrote:
Is it possible to stop/pause/download anything broadcasting on the C-R Radio. There were two broadcasts on the C-R recently, I think one was Universalman & Universalwoman, Welsing Institute & the other was a broadcast with you and Mr Fuller which first aired in June.

A million thank yous

No. While listening to the Counter-Racism Radio Network there is no way to stop/pause/download what is in rotation. From that perspective it pretty much works like any other radio station. If there is audio that you would like to purchase and you do not see it in the Counter-Racism Mall please let me know and I will make sure it gets placed in the Counter-Racism mall so that you can purchase it there.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:10 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
This is probably going to sound like a stupid question, but is there an optimum length of time for this type of meeting. The longer the meeting goes on for, the more likely I am of messing things up. If I could go into the meeting with a time frame in mind, I believe I would be less likely to ramble on and be more concise with what I'm saying.

No...no specified time frame. When the words are used precisely most likely the meeting will not last very long. You will find that when the words are used as precision tools there will be long periods of silence. No problem there. That works to your advantage. I use the least amount of words to have the greatest impact.

Darkmatter wrote:
In your experience has anyone present in the meeting asked you specific questions about the Constitution of the United States.

Yes. I have been asked many questions. Even personal questions. One white male asked me where I was from. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything we were talking about. I was talking about 'establishing justice' once and I was asked...Don't you know justice already exists? So there are many questions that are asked of me and that I ask of others.

Darkmatter wrote:
I also wanted to ask you about the definitions you use for certain terms, I remember you saying that your definition of 'due process' was doing things in the correct manner. Now if you have come up with that definition, what's to stop someone else in the meeting from saying, that isn't the correct definition/or my definition is.... How would you discourage people from challenging/not accepting your definition?

Well it is not just an act of coming up with definitions of words. The goal objective is to move everyone down the path of making sure no person is mistreated and also making sure that the person who needs help the most gets the most help. The definitions support that.

When I give the definition of 'due process' I am challenged on it frequently. I have been told that is not what 'due process' means...people have said this whole thing is a hoax...Mr. Williams is trying to cover the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing...so on and so forth. I simply wait until the person finishes saying what they are saying. Then I ask a question...Does 'due process' mean doing things in an incorrect way?

Now...what has been done? Who in the room wants to go on record that the United States Constitution is all about doing things in an incorrect way? See how that works? From that point on no one challenges my use of the term 'due process'. In fact there have been times that we no longer have to use 'due process' at all because everyone is already focused on 'doing things in the correct way'. Now when it sounds like something is going awry I just ask the question...about what sounds like it may be going down a path of someone saying and/or doing things in an incorrect way...Is that 'due process'? That one question re-calibrates everyone.


Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
What do you suggest I do if any of the people I send the e-mail to attempt to get me to talk about any of this before the meeting.

Edward Williams wrote:
Talk to them. Keep in mind that once you start to use this language in this manner other people will try to get you to not use it...but they will not come right and tell you not to use the Rule of Law because that implies that they are against the Rule of Law. See how that works? So they will say things about you personally. I don't respond to those things at all unless they are asking me a question...then I will answer the question. I make sure that I make very few statements when talking to people outside of the meeting or before the meeting or even after the meeting. I ask more questions than I make statements.

One of the managers at one time called me up on the phone after having the initial meeting and asked me if he could buy me a coke. I told him I don't drink soda so he asked to buy me a drink and I agreed and we met each other outside the building at a store. He attempted to get me not to use the Constitution of the United states by telling me that I was really confusing everyone in the meeting by talking about the United States Constitution. He said I might as well be talking about the 'United States Wildlife and Fisheries policies on water conservation'. His exact words. I didn't say anything in response to that. He said some other very questionable things. When I got in the meeting I made mention that I had been contacted by someone else outside of the meetings who had a concern that there maybe someone in the meeting that may be confused about the United States Constitution. Without giving anyone a chance to ask me who that someone was I immediately asked everyone in the meeting if there was anyone present who was confused about their duties to support and defend the United States Constitution. Everyone said that they were not confused. See, if you ask enough questions and those questions have words that are arranged a certain way you will get a certain outcome. I elaborate more on this meeting in the book that I'm writing on the subject.


Well I sent the e-mail out to the relevant people - took me about an hour before I clicked send. My manager's response after she stopped staring at the screen (it must have been at least 20 mins), was quite amusing, she was visibly rattled. On and off the phone for like an hour, (exactly as you predicted, to find out from someone else where all this was going) her mobile was constantly going off, door slamming every 5 mins. I did get a little satisfaction from seeing that smug grin being wiped off her face, and replaced with a look of panic stricken horror.

Stay focused on producing justice...that is what this is all about. Not feeding our personal desires...only producing justice.

Darkmatter wrote:
She then came running into our office and asked me if I would be interested in getting involved in a new project she had been working on! She then spent the remainder of the afternoon asking me if I was ok and if I needed to speak to her before the meeting I had arranged then she would me happy to talk to me. This is the same person who has actively encouraged everyone in the office to make my life hell for the past few months. She made no attempt to conceal what she was doing, she let me know she was involved in my mistreatment, (that's how confident she was that I wouldn't be able to do anything about it) and now she is asking me if I want to help her with a new project.

Yes, that is how it works. As I suggested previously, everyone should read and study this method in its entirety before acting on it. You must plan to be a quick learner if you are going to get everything under your belt before the meeting.

Darkmatter wrote:
The more I learn and understand about the system of racism/white supremacy, the more I can see exactly what these people are doing. It's like I couldn't see what was right in front of me, but now I'm starting to, it actually does work that way. When I first started reading the code and I listening CR-R I was quite skeptical, I just didn't want to accept a lot of what was being said, because it meant that I have never been in control of my own mind/life etc. I am just as much of a slave as my ancestors were. I didn't want to believe that, so for a few days I told myself it couldn't be true, that somehow Mr Fuller got it completely wrong or was exaggerating, but he didn't do either, he is in fact correct. The ironic thing is, I believe a person becomes stronger knowing the truth, no matter how awful the truth is, it's better to be aware of it and embrace it rather than live a lie and pretend.

I'm glad you mentioned your book, I remember hearing something about you writing a book and the subject matter, but wasn't sure when it would become available. When will it be available and could you tell me a a bit about it please.

It would be too much to write here on this forum. But the book is basically...tell you what...I will post the FOREWORD of the book here and people can get the gist of what the book is all about.

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
Is it possible to stop/pause/download anything broadcasting on the C-R Radio. There were two broadcasts on the C-R recently, I think one was Universalman & Universalwoman, Welsing Institute & the other was a broadcast with you and Mr Fuller which first aired in June.

A million thank yous

Edward Williams wrote:
No. While listening to the Counter-Racism Radio Network there is no way to stop/pause/download what is in rotation. From that perspective it pretty much works like any other radio station. If there is audio that you would like to purchase and you do not see it in the Counter-Racism Mall please let me know and I will make sure it gets placed in the Counter-Racism mall so that you can purchase it there.


Great, I really would like to purchase the Universalman & Universalwoman & the broadcast with you and Mr Fuller. I tend to make notes when I'm listening to the CR-R, it's the only way I ever remember things, I have a really bad memory. I lose my train of thought very easily when I'm listening and writing at the same time, so if you could make these two available in the CR Mall for me to purchase, it would be really helpful.


This is the FOREWORD of the book entitled and copy-written as:

    How to support and defend
    The United States Constitution
    for victims of racism (white supremacy)

Quote:
This work demonstrates in theory, and in practical applications, the use of thought, speech, and action toward the production of what is called justice. The biggest obstacle toward the production of justice is the universal SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy), which is a SYSTEM of non-justice.

The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is essentially focused on the mistreatment of people classified as non-white (not white) by the smartest and most powerful white people. By SYSTEM it is meant that this mistreatment is carried out in all areas of people activity including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War. Non-white people are mistreated, primarily, through the use of words that result in the non-white person being harmed and/or the non-white person not getting the constructive help they need when they need it. When the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) cannot use words to keep the people THEY classify as non-white off balance and confused they come at them with direct violence. I say direct violence because deceit itself is a form of violence. When you are fooling someone, to their detriment, unjustly, that is a form of indirect violence.

This work focuses on strategies and techniques non-white people can use to aid them in not being harmed and also aid them in getting the help they need when they need it. This is done primarily with the use of words that are carefully arranged in such a manner as to get the smartest and most powerful white people to work in favor of the victims of racism (white supremacy). It is a method of using the weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) against itself, something that I call counter-racism jujitsu. It can also be said that this work supports and defends the concept of America and how doing so works against the white people who practice racism (white supremacy). Even though the focus of this work is on the area of people activity known as Labor, these strategies and techniques can be used in all areas of people activity.

This book is essential for any non-white person interested in using words as a tool to get a job done. Non-white people usually just move words around to make themselves feel better and/or to make others feel better and in some instances, because of how the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) works, to make other non-white people feel worse. This work provides focus on what words to use, arranged a certain way, to get a certain response whether in speech or in action toward a perceived goal or outcome.

This work demonstrates, in detail, how to rearrange words, redefine words, use words as tools and, in effect, master words. Far too often the non-white people of the known universe, because of their training under the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy), allow words to master them. Once the non-white person is able to master words, the non-white person will be able to master their thoughts because a personís thoughts are in the form of words. Once the non-white person can master their thoughts they can master their speech because a personís speech is a product of a personís thoughts. And also, once the non-white person can master their thoughts they can also master their actions because a personís actions are a product of a personís thoughts and speech.

The intent of this work is to provide the victims of racism (white supremacy) the ideas, tools, strategies and techniques, which will provide them with methods, clarity, focus, and the purpose to do what The United States Constitution outlines as its purpose, to establish that one elusive thing that we call justice.

_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
One of the managers at one time called me up on the phone after having the initial meeting and asked me if he could buy me a coke. I told him I don't drink soda so he asked to buy me a drink and I agreed and we met each other outside the building at a store. He attempted to get me not to use the Constitution of the United states by telling me that I was really confusing everyone in the meeting by talking about the United States Constitution. He said I might as well be talking about the 'United States Wildlife and Fisheries policies on water conservation'. His exact words. I didn't say anything in response to that. He said some other very questionable things.


The director of HR forwarded my e-mail to a generic e-mail address so that one of the HR advisors could deal with it. This person then called me and said that she didn't think anyone from HR would be attending the meeting because they didn't understand from reading my e-mail why I would need someone from HR to attend. She said that no one in the HR team could understand what I meant by someone \"subverting Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of law\". She also added that she didn't think Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law had anything to do with HR. Is she actually saying that HR aren't interested even if someone is subverting Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law, do you think?

She could be. What did your e-mail say exactly? If it were me I would respond by asking a question:

Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?

I would only ask that one question and allow HR to respond. In fact, I would only ask that question to the person who is in charge of HR and copy everyone else that works in HR on the e-mail. The person in charge of HR will get everyone else in line. The logic is that if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law then they should show up. If they do not support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law they should not attend. Asking them if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the first step. Letting them know that you are only asking for help from the people who support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the second step.

Darkmatter wrote:
She ended the conversation by saying if I wanted someone from HR to attend the meeting, first I would need to put in writing exactly what the problem is and then from there they would meet me and my manager individually, before considering attending the meeting I arranged. Can you understand or believe any of this nonsense?

Sure. That way they can always claim plausible deniability...meaning, they did not attend because no problem was stated. There have been times when this has happened to me. People do not want to attend but the way the words are used they almost have to attend unless they want to go on record as having stated they do not support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Darkmatter wrote:
I don't like the idea of having the meeting just with my manager and her line manager. I think I need someone outside of the department present as well. What do you think?

It depends on the situation. Each situation is a little different. This is the reason I suggested we go through THE LOGIC first and then the use of words. Once you have THE LOGIC understood knowing which words to use is just a matter of mechanics.

Darkmatter wrote:
Then unbelievably my manager phones me this afternoon and asked me if I wanted to have a meeting just with her first then have another meeting with her and her line manager a few days later. She seemed to already be aware that someone from HR was not going to attend the meeting. HR TOLD ME THEY HADN'T SPOKEN TO EITHER OF MY MANAGERS. They're pulling out all the stops to prevent this meeting from going ahead. I'm a little concerned. I even had someone with absolutely no authority over me, tell me I would be better off speaking to my manager first before involving my manager's line manager. How did this person find out about the meeting, I didn't send him a copy of my \"confidential\" e-mail. What is the point in hitting the confidential button if it every Tom, Dick or Harry is going to be copied in on it.

The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is held in place because the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) help each other in their practice of mistreating people on the basis of color. They make sure that idea is promoted. They give non-white people just enough information to function so that the non-white person doesn't do anything against what they are doing and in some cases even help them in their overall goal objective while the non-white person feels good about accomplishing a task that they have been given...totally oblivious at to the outcome.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
When I got in the meeting I made mention that I had been contacted by someone else outside of the meetings who had a concern that there maybe someone in the meeting that may be confused about the United States Constitution. Without giving anyone a chance to ask me who that someone was I immediately asked everyone in the meeting if there was anyone present who was confused about their duties to support and defend the United States Constitution. Everyone said that they were not confused. See, if you ask enough questions and those questions have words that are arranged a certain way you will get a certain outcome. I elaborate more on this meeting in the book that I'm writing on the subject.

Darkmatter wrote:
Well I sent the e-mail out to the relevant people - took me about an hour before I clicked send. My manager's response after she stopped staring at the screen (it must have been at least 20 mins), was quite amusing, she was visibly rattled. On and off the phone for like an hour, (exactly as you predicted, to find out from someone else where all this was going) her mobile was constantly going off, door slamming every 5 mins. I did get a little satisfaction from seeing that smug grin being wiped off her face, and replaced with a look of panic stricken horror.

Edward Williams wrote:
Stay focused on producing justice...that is what this is all about. Not feeding our personal desires...only producing justice.


Yes I know, I know you're right. I just need to remind myself, every so often, why I'm doing this and not get sidetracked. It's hard, but I am trying - work in progress!


Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
This is the same person who has actively encouraged everyone in the office to make my life hell for the past few months. She made no attempt to conceal what she was doing, she let me know she was involved in my mistreatment, (that's how confident she was that I wouldn't be able to do anything about it) and now she is asking me if I want to help her with a new project.

Edward Williams wrote:
Yes, that is how it works. As I suggested previously, everyone should read and study this method in its entirety before acting on it. You must plan to be a quick learner if you are going to get everything under your belt before the meeting.


I know I probably should've waited a bit longer before I sent that e-mail but to be honest, it's getting so bad now I hardly think it matters. I don't have anything to lose at this point, as they've stepped up their white supremacist campaign of hate, I felt I needed to act swiftly. In an ideal world I would've started this process about 6 months ago, rather than waiting for it to get to this point before doing something about it. I think I can pull it off though, I just need to learn as much as I can before the meeting. That is of course if the meeting actually goes ahead, with all the skulduggery going on I'm not entirely sure if it will.

I'm having trouble getting copies of Acts produced by Parliament and enacted as the Rule of Law. Could I download this off the internet?

You should be able to. There are listings of the Rule of Law on the Internet. You can try some of the following websites:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/acts.cfm

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
I'm glad you mentioned your book, I remember hearing something about you writing a book and the subject matter, but wasn't sure when it would become available. When will it be available and could you tell me a a bit about it please.

Edward Williams wrote:
It would be too much to write here on this forum. But the book is basically...tell you what...I will post the FOREWORD of the book here and people can get the gist of what the book is all about.

This is the FOREWORD of the book entitled and copy-written as:

    How to support and defend
    The United States Constitution
    for victims of racism (white supremacy)

Quote:
This work demonstrates in theory, and in practical applications, the use of thought, speech, and action toward the production of what is called justice. The biggest obstacle toward the production of justice is the universal SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy), which is a SYSTEM of non-justice.

The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is essentially focused on the mistreatment of people classified as non-white (not white) by the smartest and most powerful white people. By SYSTEM it is meant that this mistreatment is carried out in all areas of people activity including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War. Non-white people are mistreated, primarily, through the use of words that result in the non-white person being harmed and/or the non-white person not getting the constructive help they need when they need it. When the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) cannot use words to keep the people THEY classify as non-white off balance and confused they come at them with direct violence. I say direct violence because deceit itself is a form of violence. When you are fooling someone, to their detriment, unjustly, that is a form of indirect violence.

This work focuses on strategies and techniques non-white people can use to aid them in not being harmed and also aid them in getting the help they need when they need it. This is done primarily with the use of words that are carefully arranged in such a manner as to get the smartest and most powerful white people to work in favor of the victims of racism (white supremacy). It is a method of using the weight of the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) against itself, something that I call counter-racism jujitsu. It can also be said that this work supports and defends the concept of America and how doing so works against the white people who practice racism (white supremacy). Even though the focus of this work is on the area of people activity known as Labor, these strategies and techniques can be used in all areas of people activity.

This book is essential for any non-white person interested in using words as a tool to get a job done. Non-white people usually just move words around to make themselves feel better and/or to make others feel better and in some instances, because of how the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) works, to make other non-white people feel worse. This work provides focus on what words to use, arranged a certain way, to get a certain response whether in speech or in action toward a perceived goal or outcome.

This work demonstrates, in detail, how to rearrange words, redefine words, use words as tools and, in effect, master words. Far too often the non-white people of the known universe, because of their training under the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy), allow words to master them. Once the non-white person is able to master words, the non-white person will be able to master their thoughts because a personís thoughts are in the form of words. Once the non-white person can master their thoughts they can master their speech because a personís speech is a product of a personís thoughts. And also, once the non-white person can master their thoughts they can also master their actions because a personís actions are a product of a personís thoughts and speech.

The intent of this work is to provide the victims of racism (white supremacy) the ideas, tools, strategies and techniques, which will provide them with methods, clarity, focus, and the purpose to do what The United States Constitution outlines as its purpose, to establish that one elusive thing that we call justice.


Thanks for posting the foreword. It sounds brilliant, really constructive/ informative and practical, something non-white people desperately need some practical information on how to counter this EVIL system. I look forward to reading it.

_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:02 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
One of the managers at one time called me up on the phone after having the initial meeting and asked me if he could buy me a coke. I told him I don't drink soda so he asked to buy me a drink and I agreed and we met each other outside the building at a store. He attempted to get me not to use the Constitution of the United states by telling me that I was really confusing everyone in the meeting by talking about the United States Constitution. He said I might as well be talking about the 'United States Wildlife and Fisheries policies on water conservation'. His exact words. I didn't say anything in response to that. He said some other very questionable things.


Darkmatter wrote:
The director of HR forwarded my e-mail to a generic e-mail address so that one of the HR advisors could deal with it. This person then called me and said that she didn't think anyone from HR would be attending the meeting because they didn't understand from reading my e-mail why I would need someone from HR to attend. She said that no one in the HR team could understand what I meant by someone 'subverting Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of law'. She also added that she didn't think Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law had anything to do with HR. Is she actually saying that HR aren't interested even if someone is subverting Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law, do you think?

Edward Williams wrote:
She could be. What did your e-mail say exactly? If it were me I would respond by asking a question:

Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?


Edward Williams wrote:
I would only ask that one question and allow HR to respond. In fact, I would only ask that question to the person who is in charge of HR and copy everyone else that works in HR on the e-mail. The person in charge of HR will get everyone else in line. The logic is that if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law then they should show up. If they do not support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law they should not attend. Asking them if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the first step. Letting them know that you are only asking for help from the people who support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the second step.


I sent the e-mail to HR Director (and copied in everyone working in HR) this morning, got a read receipt, but no response yet.

I'll need to see EXACTLY what you wrote in your initial e-mail. Words are very important.

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
I don't like the idea of having the meeting just with my manager and her line manager. I think I need someone outside of the department present as well. What do you think?

Edward Williams wrote:
It depends on the situation. Each situation is a little different. This is the reason I suggested we go through THE LOGIC first and then the use of words. Once you have THE LOGIC understood knowing which words to use is just a matter of mechanics.


Can you give me some suggestions on what I should be doing in the next few days to prepare for the meeting?

I'll need to see EXACTLY what you wrote in your initial e-mail. Words are very important.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
I'm having trouble getting copies of Acts produced by Parliament and enacted as the Rule of Law. Could I download this off the internet?
You should be able to. There are listings of the Rule of Law on the Internet. You can try some of the following websites:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/acts.cfm


That's great, thank you.

_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:11 am† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Edward Williams wrote:
One of the managers at one time called me up on the phone after having the initial meeting and asked me if he could buy me a coke. I told him I don't drink soda so he asked to buy me a drink and I agreed and we met each other outside the building at a store. He attempted to get me not to use the Constitution of the United states by telling me that I was really confusing everyone in the meeting by talking about the United States Constitution. He said I might as well be talking about the 'United States Wildlife and Fisheries policies on water conservation'. His exact words. I didn't say anything in response to that. He said some other very questionable things.


Darkmatter wrote:
The director of HR forwarded my e-mail to a generic e-mail address so that one of the HR advisors could deal with it. This person then called me and said that she didn't think anyone from HR would be attending the meeting because they didn't understand from reading my e-mail why I would need someone from HR to attend. She said that no one in the HR team could understand what I meant by someone 'subverting Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of law'. She also added that she didn't think Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law had anything to do with HR. Is she actually saying that HR aren't interested even if someone is subverting Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law, do you think?

Edward Williams wrote:
She could be. What did your e-mail say exactly? If it were me I would respond by asking a question:

Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?


Edward Williams wrote:
I would only ask that one question and allow HR to respond. In fact, I would only ask that question to the person who is in charge of HR and copy everyone else that works in HR on the e-mail. The person in charge of HR will get everyone else in line. The logic is that if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law then they should show up. If they do not support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law they should not attend. Asking them if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the first step. Letting them know that you are only asking for help from the people who support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the second step.

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
I sent the e-mail to HR Director (and copied in everyone working in HR) this morning, got a read receipt, but no response yet.

Edward Williams wrote:
I'll need to see EXACTLY what you wrote in your initial e-mail. Words are very important.


Dear ......

Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?

Darkmatter wrote:
I don't like the idea of having the meeting just with my manager and her line manager. I think I need someone outside of the department present as well. What do you think?

Edward Williams wrote:
It depends on the situation. Each situation is a little different. This is the reason I suggested we go through THE LOGIC first and then the use of words. Once you have THE LOGIC understood knowing which words to use is just a matter of mechanics.


Can you give me some suggestions on what I should be doing in the next few days to prepare for the meeting?

Edward Williams wrote:
I'll need to see EXACTLY what you wrote in your initial e-mail. Words are very important.


Darkmatter wrote:
I came aboard this organisation to do my duties and I always do what I'm told according to the support of Parliament Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. In the performance of my duties I have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting me . That someone is subverting the Rule of Law.

I am calling a meeting on .... to discuss this as soon as possible. If this date and time isn't convenient for you, could you let me know.

Name
Position etc.


Edward Williams wrote:
I would only ask that one question and allow HR to respond. In fact, I would only ask that question to the person who is in charge of HR and copy everyone else that works in HR on the e-mail. The person in charge of HR will get everyone else in line. The logic is that if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law then they should show up. If they do not support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law they should not attend. Asking them if it is their duty to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the first step. Letting them know that you are only asking for help from the people who support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is the second step.


How do I let them know I am only asking for help from the people who support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty?

You can let them know by asking a question when everyone joins you for the meeting.

Is there anyone here who does not support and defend the Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?

That question alone will get the meeting started. Are you starting to follow THE LOGIC on this? We should've as I suggested, worked through THE LOGIC first then worked through some of the best words to use and why.

Darkmatter wrote:
Do I need to bring the evidence I have to the meeting, or do I just bring copies of Parliamentary Sovereignty etc?

I would bring everything but I would only use it if I needed it. Initially, when I first began using this method I would bring stacks of paper with me. When I go now I only bring a pad and a pen with all of the questions I want to ask already written on the pad. By asking the question in the order I've written them I literally control the flow of the meeting.

Darkmatter wrote:
HR department are also putting pressure on me to go through the grievance procedure, even after I told them that I didn't intend going through their in-house procedures.

I told you that would happen. It is standard procedure to keep you from using 'the law of the land'. I just stay focused and ask questions.

In the meeting I never raise my voice. I talk in as monotone a voice as I possibly can. I wait my turn to talk. If I begin to talk and someone else begins to talk I wait and let them go first. I never smile. I never frown. I sit upright and when talking to people look them straight into their eyes. I am extremely polite and courteous asking people to repeat things, sometimes many times, so that I can make sure I write it down correctly. I even ask people to verify and validate that what I have written is exactly what they said. I make very few statements.

To prepare I usually print copies of the United States Constitution for everyone expected to be in attendance. I also, as I mentioned previously, write down all of the questions I plan to ask at the meeting. This helps me to visualize how the meeting will flow. I have been known to write these questions in the format of what is called a 'legal' document. Many word processors such as Microsoft Word has templates for 'legal' documents. I make sure that only I have the question document of which I ask questions and write the answers of the people who answer.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:40 am† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
How do I let them know I am only asking for help from the people who support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Edward Williams wrote:
You can let them know by asking a question when everyone joins you for the meeting.

Is there anyone here who does not support and defend the Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?


OK, what if someone asks me what I mean by that question, which has already happened. What if they start asking me an give them an in-depth explanation of Parliamentary Sovereignty etc.

My position is, and always has been, that a law is supposed to produce one thing...justice. THE LOGIC is that this is also the position of the writers of the Constitution of the United States, unless I've been misinformed. It is also the position of Parliament. And also the position of the Rule of Law, even though the Rule of Law is not a person. Everyone and everything has this position, unless I've been misinformed. So if there is anyone or anything that is going against this position that person or that thing is an 'outlaw'.

That being said, the people who have sworn to protect and defend the Rule of Law should not be asking you for an in-depth analysis of what it is they have sworn to protect and defend with their lives. They should already know that. See, once you understand THE LOGIC you can use whatever words that you need to use in order to walk right through THE LOGIC. Therefore if someone asked me for an in-depth analysis of the Constitution of the United States my response is codified:

When I say 'due process' I'm talking about 'doing things in the correct way'.

In other words, doing things in a correct way is the process for producing justice. And that is that I say. And I have been challenged on that where people have said 'due process' does not mean 'doing things in the correct way'. Then I simply ask:

Does 'due process' mean doing things in an incorrect way?

Now who is going to go on record as saying that 'due process' as printed in the United States Constitution is all about doing things in an incorrect way? Same goes for the Rule of Law. All you're really talking about is producing justice. All you're really talking about is the 'fundamental and unchanging principles' of the Rule of Law. This takes us right back to some of our initial posts. The 'fundamental and unchanging principles' of the Rule of Law are as follows:

(1) 'Equal application of the law'; Meaning everyone is equal before the law, including those in power.

The position is, everything that is done for someone that is constructive should also be done for you. Anyone who does not follow this law is against this law. Anyone who does something that is constructive for someone else that has a constructive outcome, and do not do the same for you is against the 'equal application of the law' as defined by the Rule of Law. Anyone who challenges this is challenging the Rule of Law.

(2) 'Rights of individuals'; Meaning the rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behavior of authorities.

The position is, the rights of individuals are set and they are the same rights for all people. One of those 'fundamental rights' is the right to be able to work without being mistreated and without the fear of retribution if you say you are being mistreated, etc. in order to do what is called 'make a living'. Why is this a 'fundamental right'? THE LOGIC. The people in Parliament are doing it. Other people are doing it. If you are not being allowed this 'fundamental right' the people who are not allowing you this 'fundamental right' are going against the Rule of Law.

Also do not forget:

(3) There can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law. Everyone, regardless of your position in society, is subject to the law.

The position is, if you are being punished for saying that you have probable cause to believe that someone is subverting the Rule of Law, that person or those people who are punishing you is going against the Rule of Law. The position is also that all of these proceedings and documentation can possibly go to the 'highest court' of the land for legislation. For this reason it is imperative that everything that can be documented should be documented. What people say and what they do...and you can write it in the meeting and get the person in the meeting who says something or does something to validate that is what they said and/or did.

The approach is simple and straight forward. But it is difficult for non-white people to grasp no matter where they are on the planet because the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) trains us to look over the simplest things. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) trains us not to pay attention to words and not to master words. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) trains us to limit our ability to reason to what the racists (white supremacists) tell us is valuable for us to reason. The SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) trains us not to follow THE LOGIC. This is the process of niggerization.

Now when you begin to re-train yourself so that you are able to understand what you are looking...so that you do not lie to yourself...so that you take a detailed view and what is called a 'birds-eye-view of every situation at the same time...so that you are able to master words...so that you can understand exactly what the racists (white supremacists) are doing against you, exactly what the effect of it is on you and exactly what is it that you must do to work against them in order to produce a SYSTEM of justice...this is the process of de-niggerization.

And you will understand this in how they treat you. Don't let how they treat you go to your head once you begin to use this method...don't let it be an EGO stroker for you. I know that is easy to do because when you have been mistreated for so long by the people who are mistreating you and you begin to change the way you use words which causes them to change their behavior toward you it does make you feel good. I think you've experienced some of that already. Stay focused on the goal objective which is to produce a SYSTEM of justice.

Darkmatter wrote:
HR director still hasn't replied to my e-mail, I know he's read it because I checked with his PA! Have you ever had someone not respond to this question?

Of course. People will begin to abandon ship when you arrange words in this manner. Make note of what happens...the call to arms against someone who is subverting the Rule of Law and that there are people who are not interested in supporting and defending the Rule of Law, what their names are, what correspondence you were involved in with them...meaning what questions you asked and their response...and you can even state this for the record in the meeting.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
That question alone will get the meeting started. Are you starting to follow THE LOGIC on this?
The fact that you've asked me that question would suggest I'm not, and your probably right. I am aware of the fact that I don't think or process information in a logical way, and have a very haphazard way of doing things, hence I'm having trouble understanding this. However, I can also be very studious, so if I have to spend like 20hrs every day for the next few days to get this under my belt I'm prepared to do it. I just need to know what I'm doing wrong, because I'm not sure, where do you think I'm going wrong?

I do not know. You have to follow THE LOGIC. DO NOT follow me. DO NOT follow anyone else. Follow THE LOGIC.

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
We should've as I suggested, worked through THE LOGIC first then worked through some of the best words to use and why.
Can we work through the logic now, like a crash course, or is it too late for that.

There is no speed up process for this. We are going through THE LOGIC all the time but because you have been under duress we have been focusing on THE LOGIC and the words at the same time. I've given to THE LOGIC, the premise, the position, suggestions on what to say, suggestions on what to do, etc.

Darkmatter wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
Do I need to bring the evidence I have to the meeting, or do I just bring copies of Parliamentary Sovereignty etc?

Edward Williams wrote:
I would bring everything but I would only use it if I needed it. Initially, when I first began using this method I would bring stacks of paper with me. When I go now I only bring a pad and a pen with all of the questions I want to ask already written on the pad. By asking the question in the order I've written them I literally control the flow of the meeting.

Good idea, what questions do you typically ask?


I ask questions that lead to saying and/or doing things in the correct manner. There are no standard list of questions that can be asked because each situation is a little different as I pointed out initially. This is the reason it is critical to follow THE LOGIC. This is the reason I suggested initially to go through THE LOGIC first and then go through what words to use.

I understand that many non-white people are under duress and cannot even think about development (retraining ones self) when they are constantly focused on the immediate (food, clothing, shelter). I understand that many of us will have to build this bridge while we are walking across it. And I also understand that many non-white people do not ask enough questions. These are a dangerous combination of things to have.

Some meetings I have I hardly say anything at all. Some meetings I've had to say more. Some meetings I do most of the talking. Some meetings hardly anyone says anything and we just sit there staring at each other.

Darkmatter wrote:
I'm only asking this question because I don't want to wind up asking a question that could potentially lead to them asking me questions I'm not sure how to answer. Are there any questions I should avoid asking?

Try not to look at it in terms of avoiding questions. THE LOGIC will determine which questions you should ask. Follow THE LOGIC.

For example, I was in a meeting once that I called because I did not get the performance rating I thought I should've gotten. I'm giving away some of the book I'm writing but that's OK too. I thought I should've gotten the highest rating, which is a 5, but I received a 3, which is the mid-level rating. My manager in the meeting stated that only people who walk on water receive a 5. I then asked:

Has anyone in the history of [this company] ever received a level 5 rating on their performance evaluation?

She didn't say anything the rest of the meeting. Where was I going with that? OK...I've been given some information and now we are going to see if that information is true...because you can't produce a SYSTEM of justice without revealing truth in a manner that promotes justice. Can't do it. This simply means you can't produce a SYSTEM of justice without revealing truth in a manner that ensures no person is mistreated and also ensures the person who needs help the most get the most help. Who in the meeting needed help the most? Me. So using her comment I wanted to make sure I was not mistreated or about to be mistreated. So what did I do? The least most aggressive act I can and still obtain information...I asked a question.

Has anyone in the history of [this company] ever received a level 5 rating on their performance evaluation?

The position is that if [this company] has people who can 'walk on water' who are they? How did they learn how to 'walk on water'? Why haven't I been trained to 'walk on water'? Can anyone in this building 'walk on water'? Can anyone in this room 'walk on water'?

In following THE LOGIC these are questions that I needed to have answers to in order to learn how to 'walk on water' so that I could get a level 5 rating, receive more money, use that money in my continued support and defense of the Constitution of the United States, so on and so forth...why? Because it is being done for someone else...and...because it is being done for someone else it is 'due process' (equal protection of the laws). The Rule of Law has the same provision in the 'fundamental and unchanging principles'.

I knew she was in a hole when she said that because I had a list of questions written and one of them was to get definitions for each level category. I suspected the definition of the level 5 category did not say 'you have to walk on water'. When you follow THE LOGIC everything becomes clear. Once I ask for the definition for a level 5 category and it doesn't say 'you have to walk on water' then we have found the person who is subverting the Constitution of the United States. Who is it? The person who stated you have 'walk on water' in order to receive a level 5 category on your performance evaluation. Why her? Because of the way that she thinks...no matter what I did...I could've painted the entire 8 story building...doesn't matter...because of the way she thinks I would never get a level 5 category rating on my performance evaluation. Why? Because I can't walk on water...whatever that means. Her speech is a product of her thoughts. Her actions are a product of her thoughts.

She had already done the math and saw where that was going and did not say anything the rest of the entire meeting. That was one of the most interesting meetings I had because of what people said, their reactions to what I said and how the meeting flowed.

Darkmatter wrote:
HR department are also putting pressure on me to go through the grievance procedure, even after I told them that I didn't intend going through their in-house procedures.

I never tell people what I'm not going to do on the job. I only ask questions...such as:

Does [this company] have any policies and procedures that are in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States?

The answer is always a resounding 'No'. This means essentially That I can use the United States Constitution if all of our policies and procedures come under it. You saying you are not going to follow the policies and procedures of the company means you are against the company. Bad position to be in. By saying that you could be fired.

I put the United States Constitution out front. The company I work for behind it. I stand behind the company I work for. Anyone who opposes me is opposing the Constitution of the United States and the company we work for. They are not opposing me. Now they can, and they should, take their rightful stand along side of me behind the company we work for and behind the Constitution of the United States. That THE LOGIC. That's the position. That's the premise. And I use words to follow that logic, to support that position and that result in the goal objective of that premise.

Edward Williams wrote:
I told you that would happen. It is standard procedure to keep you from using 'the law of the land'. I just stay focused and ask questions.


Edward Williams wrote:
In the meeting I never raise my voi
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:16 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Thank you. I think I may have figured out where I was having problems. I printed off your replies and put them into sequential order, then I could see everything you said all tied together. Having a hard copy made it easier for me to digest the information. Your last post was brilliant also, because it reinforced things that you had said at the beginning. I'm getting there, slowly but surely.

Everyone seems to be bailing out, just as you predicted they would. My manager's manager is now saying that she has found out that she isn't technically my line manager, so she won't be attending the meeting, but I can speak to her on a separate occasion if I feel I need to.

HR finally responded to my e-mail, not the director but the second in command. The first few paragraphs stated what he called his understanding of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Several paragraphs later, he finally attempts to answer my original question, which was \"Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?\" His response:

\"Essentially, I take from what I have laid out above, everyone in this country should be bound by these principles including colleagues in HR, but under freedom of speech, their views may not always accord with it. So, it could be argued, colleagues don't personally have to support and defend it, but do abide by it.\"

I thought about responding to this by asking him if this was the official position of the company? The \"it could be argued\" & \"freedom of speech\" part of his answer is very suspect. Sounds as if he's just made that up to me. What do you think?

Think about the logic of what they are saying. How do you 'abide' by it? How do you 'support and defend' it? They are just swapping words but they are not telling you anything that is functional. And what is even more glaring is the fact that they did not answer your question.

The question was designed to receive a 'yes' or 'no' answer. If you asked the question as it was recorded here:

Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?

That is what I call a 'binary question'. The answer is either 'yes' or the answer is 'no'. Either they support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law or they don't. Ain't no splittin' the difference.

At this point it is up to the individual person to decide to go further or stop the process. This is true for any point in the process. At any time any person can proceed or stop in this process for any reason the individual person deems.

If it were me, I would let their answer stand on record. I would attend the meeting and talk with anyone else that attended the meeting. If no one attended the meeting, something that has never happened to me, I would probably send another e-mail asking the people that were invited to the initial meeting if they have a problem with me escalating this very serious issue to 'upper level management'. I would remind them that subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is a very serious offense of which I have probable cause to believe that the following people (and list hem all by name) have no interesting in investigating. I would then say that I am certain that there are people in [this company] who are sworn to protect, support, defend and abide by Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law and that only these people's presence is being requested.

To escalate this is to put all of the managers on the e-mail chain at risk. So it is necessary to weigh your options. As all of these are e-mail correspondences (documented) all of it can be taken before Parliament for legislation. Make sure you get copies of everything.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:06 pm† †Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
Edward Williams wrote:
Darkmatter wrote:
Thank you. I think I may have figured out where I was having problems. I printed off your replies and put them into sequential order, then I could see everything you said all tied together. Having a hard copy made it easier for me to digest the information. Your last post was brilliant also, because it reinforced things that you had said at the beginning. I'm getting there, slowly but surely.

Everyone seems to be bailing out, just as you predicted they would. My manager's manager is now saying that she has found out that she isn't technically my line manager, so she won't be attending the meeting, but I can speak to her on a separate occasion if I feel I need to.

HR finally responded to my e-mail, not the director but the second in command. The first few paragraphs stated what he called his understanding of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Several paragraphs later, he finally attempts to answer my original question, which was '"Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?' His response:

'Essentially, I take from what I have laid out above, everyone in this country should be bound by these principles including colleagues in HR, but under freedom of speech, their views may not always accord with it. So, it could be argued, colleagues don't personally have to support and defend it, but do abide by it.'

I thought about responding to this by asking him if this was the official position of the company? The 'it could be argued' & 'freedom of speech' part of his answer is very suspect. Sounds as if he's just made that up to me. What do you think?

Think about the logic of what they are saying. How do you 'abide' by it? How do you 'support and defend' it? They are just swapping words but they are not telling you anything that is functional. And what is even more glaring is the fact that they did not answer your question.

The question was designed to receive a 'yes' or 'no' answer. If you asked the question as it was recorded here:

Is it the duty of everyone currently working in HR to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law?

That is what I call a 'binary question'. The answer is either 'yes' or the answer is 'no'. Either they support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law or they don't. Ain't no splittin' the difference.

At this point it is up to the individual person to decide to go further or stop the process. This is true for any point in the process. At any time any person can proceed or stop in this process for any reason the individual person deems.

If it were me, I would let their answer stand on record. I would attend the meeting and talk with anyone else that attended the meeting. If no one attended the meeting, something that has never happened to me, I would probably send another e-mail asking the people that were invited to the initial meeting if they have a problem with me escalating this very serious issue to 'upper level management'. I would remind them that subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is a very serious offense of which I have probable cause to believe that the following people (and list hem all by name) have no interesting in investigating. I would then say that I am certain that there are people in [this company] who are sworn to protect, support, defend and abide by Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law and that only these people's presence is being requested.

To escalate this is to put all of the managers on the e-mail chain at risk. So it is necessary to weigh your options. As all of these are e-mail correspondences (documented) all of it can be taken before Parliament for legislation. Make sure you get copies of everything.


Another person who claims to be my line manager summoned me to his office. He informed me that I do not have the right to convene a meeting unless I go through him first and then the grievance procedure. I asked him if there were any policies or procedures that were in direct conflict with Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law he said no. I told him then there was no problem with me using Parliamentary Sovereignty etc. he said that I couldn't and that the meeting I arranged is definitely not going ahead because it goes against organisational policy.

For future reference...when they say there is no direct conflict you don't need to say anything unless they ask you a question. The goal objective is to produce a SYSTEM of justice...not try to 'one-up' anyone.

He said that you couldn't what? Support and defend Parliamentary Sovereingty and the Rule of Law? If he said that did you write it down and get him to verify that is what he said and time and date stamp it?

This is a contradiction...for him to say there is no direct conflict between the policies and procedures of the company where you work and Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law...and at the same time say the meeting you setup to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereingty and the Rule of Law is against organizational policy. I would've asked a question at this point:

If this company has no policies and procedures that are in direct conflict with Parliamentary Sovereingty and the Rule of Law how can the meeting that is setup to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereingty and the Rule of Law be against organizational policy?

Darkmatter wrote:
He's cancelled the meeting I had rearranged for Friday and rearranged tomorrow which he has asked me to attend. He got really angry with me because I couldn't name the person who I claim is subverting me. I explained to him that in order to find out who that person is, that he along with others who support & defend Parliamentary Sovereignty would have to investigate it, but he said that until he knew who it was he could not investigate it. It went back and forth like this for 20mins.

What kind of logic is that? When there is a fire in a building the first order of business is to get the people who should not be harmed out of harms way...then put the fire out...then investigate how the fire was started and who started it.

Stating someone in your organization is subverting Parliamtentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law is like yelling that there is a fire in a building. The primary focus is to get the people who should not be harmed out of harms way...this includes you. This is the only logical thing to do. When there is a fire in a building that is full of people no one is running around asking people who started the fire. You have to know what you are looking at.

Darkmatter wrote:
He asked me if I had evidence I said yes, he said well then you should be able to name the person.

Evidence of what? Do you have evidence of who started the fire? This is the reason that in these instances everything should be questioned...everything. When he asks you if you have evidence you should ask:

Evidence of what?

Get them to explain everything so that there is super clarity.

Darkmatter wrote:
Then he said that he didn't know what I was talking about and that it would take 2 years for him to find out if there were policies and procedures in direct conflict with Parliamentary Sovereignty. He told me he googled the question that I asked and couldn't find anything out about it - I could barely believe he was being serious at this point. Then he told me I might have to speak to the company lawyers. According to him no one in the organisation would be able to answer that question.

Who is his manager?

Darkmatter wrote:
He accused me of playing games and refusing to trust him or cooperate. He then suggested that if it was that bad, then I didn't have to put up with it.

If what was that bad? I think there may be more being said in these meetings by you than what you are typing in here. There is no reason for him to talk about anything being 'that bad" and 'not putting up with it' unless something was said by you.

The focus should be to keep everyone's focus on someone subverting you in your efforts to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law and nothing else. Always keep the focus on that and ask questions instead of meaking statements.

Darkmatter wrote:
I asked him if he gave that advice to every person with the same issue, he said, you're the first person who has ever complained about someone subverting them and Parliamentary Sovereignty. He told me that he wants to take a copy of all the information I have including anything about subversive activity. I have made quite detailed reports each time I suspected someone was subverting me, I have named names. I'm not sure if I should be handing this over to someone who appears to be part of said subversion.

I'm not sure what to do now. I know that some of this is happening because I am making mistakes, but I'm not going to give up.

I would ask him if handing these documents over to him is the beginning of his two year investigation. If he says it is I would make copies and give it to him. I would also let him know that I am going to start an investigation as well and it will include everything we have discussed and all of the documentation. This way, and I would tell him this, I could continue to find out, with or without his participation, who is subverting Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. I would then ask him if is ready to go on record as stopping me from finding out who is subverting Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. i would then proceed to contact people above him and run the same procedure.

Be careful to only speak when you are asking a question or answering a question. Non-white people are notorious for making statements that wind us in 'hot water'.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:17 pm† †Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkmatter wrote:
OK had 'the' meeting to discuss the subversion of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Kinda didn't go too well. My line manager and the other manager I mentioned above attended. They both refused to validate anything that was being said and/or done at the meeting. They made several attempts to deter me from taking notes, one of them complained about the flow of the meeting being disrupted by me taking notes, he said I was putting too much value in notes and that these notes don't prove anything and could not be used in court. Biggest liars in the universe. I just ignored that and continued to make notes. They repeatedly accused me of being aggressive towards them, when I was relaxed, poker faced, monotone voiced. They were literally telling bold faced lies in front of my face. I asked them to explain exactly how I was being aggressive, one of them said because of the way you're saying things... I must admit at this point I was starting to get a little annoyed at being accused of things I blatantly wasn't doing. I didn't react I tried to carry on, but they continued to accuse me of this right the way through the meeting. They did not like the fact that I was using this language, that I had printed off copies of the Acts of Parliament, that I dared to bring any of this into the open. They were as angry as hell, and they didn't hide the fact. They continually raised their voices, berated me, they were one step away from beating their chests. I found the whole experience completely bizarre, I was the one keeping my composure and talking sense they were the ones ranting and raving and making idle threats. It was surreal.

That's how it works. See...the people who are usually the ones to act like they were acting...is us. Why? Because they let the words do the work for them. When we begin to let the words do the work for us but instead of practicing deceit using words we use words to reveal truth in a manner that promotes justice and correctness you can immediately see how the tables turn.

Anytime a non-white person decides to produce a SYSTEM of justice in a universe that is run using deceit and direct violence by the smartest and most powerful people in that universe you are asking for trouble. Non-white people are supposed to be going along with everything the smartest and most powerful white people do and say and you really start to notice how upset, angry and malicious they get when we not only just stop doing what they say but also stop doing what they say and working against what they say and do.

Darkmatter wrote:
The upshot of the meeting was that, they are not going to investigate any of it until I fill out the grievance form. They told me that I had to take 2 weeks annual leave immediately (i.e. I have been suspended), but they're obviously not calling it a suspension but that's what it is.

Make sure you take copies of all of your evidence with you. Put it on a company purchased flash drive or thumb drive if you can.

Darkmatter wrote:
After the meeting I got a call from my line manager and he said that I had been behaving aggressively towards members of the team and for that reason they did not want me back in the department for the next two weeks. My conduct towards other people has never been questioned not once in all my working life, they will have to come up with something pretty good to pull this off. In the meeting I had with the manager the day before the main meeting, he actually said to me that he has never had any complaints about me from anyone, and as he understood it I was a hard working conscientious employee. Obviously since then he has been told to change tact. Over the next two weeks they will probably be hacking into my computer trying to find anything on me. They'll be trawling through all the work I've done to see if they can do anything with that, or they will just make stuff up, I don't know but they want me out of the way whilst they're doing it. I explained to them in the meeting and in this telephone conversation that their actions could result in a breach of the Rule of Law (i.e. they are punishing me for saying I am being mistreated), and I asked him if what he was doing was due process - he said I don't want to hear any of this again and said he had to go and hung up.

Yes, they will probably do all of the things you stated. When you wrote 'i.e. they are punishing me for saying I am being mistreated'...see...now you are starting to follow THE LOGIC. That's how you think it. That's how you speak it. Keep the whole focus on someone subverting you in your duties to support and defend Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law.

I'm under Internal Investigation right now on my job. One of my managers asked me if I thought the investigation would make it to the legal department. There was this whole effort to try to get me to agree with having something put in my file so they were attempting to frighten me to 'settle' with something being placed in my file. I responded to the question by stating I hope it does go to legal and the sooner the better...this way we can get all of the people out of the way, who may not be doing anything with any malicious intent, but who do not understand exactly what they are looking at and are perjuring themselves in accordance with the law.

All of this will be in the book.

Darkmatter wrote:
Ummm not sure what to do at this stage. I did send an e-mail to the director of human resources stating exactly what was said to me in the meeting. The threats made about suspension and the fact that they manufactured a story about me being aggressive towards members of the team when I had never been called into the office to answer any charge of aggression towards members of staff etc. at the end I said that I had probably cause to believe that I am being subverted etc. and that I wanted to call an urgent meeting. He has not replied.

As much as you can, and I cannot stress this enough...keep the focus on someone in violation of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of aw.

Darkmatter wrote:
I'm not too alarmed by the situation as I think I have enough evidence to prove that they are pulling strings to get rid of me and that higher level management could be involved. It would not be possible to force me to take annual leave without higher level management in human resources signing off on it, that's how it works in this organisation. What do you think I should do now? I'd like you to read the e-mail I sent to the manager as it would give you a better idea of what has happened.

Excellent idea. If you do not want to post it here you can e-mail it to me at edward.williams@counter-racism.com.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic†††Reply to topic †††Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> How to Counter Racism (White Supremacy) in the Work Place All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Web CalendarShopping MallDonations