When Jesus said all the commandments are summed up in the command to love your neighbor as yourself, what does that mean to men who believe they should have a right to kill, steal and destroy and whose law and whose land is it when the neighbor is living on a subdivision that still is ancestral native land? There is a population that challenges, resists and resents the rules and attacks those involved in predicating the rules of peace as in the quiet laws of ownership of property and respect for human life. The territory is theirs. But, the law is from a received culture as emblemised in the US Constitution, the Magna Carta or the ten commandments. What if some of the people in this population are former Presidents, current U.S Presidents and future 3 time candidates? What if the evident social maladjustment of this population is manifested in the unpreparedness of a nation's democratically elected leader along with a racialised confirmation of their own sense of resentment and displacement vis a vis the written bodies of laws with a subtle but vicious complexion-ism or feature-ism ( as in straighter hair but black or straighter nose but black) more so than the racialisation and this obfuscated by inclusive messages in the media that suggest the opposite yet there isn't one black school teacher in the entire country but there used to be millions of them before 9/11? What if for 3 and half years, the world witnesses nothing but a schooling of the elected leader and the abuse of the system by people who have always moved in the elected leader's slip stream. It is the Layer cake son. But, what if in 2001, someone says he will confirm again that he owns the territory and will ask what is the point of your laws if he can kill a soldier on the steps of a post office? Maybe you attack everybody in your Creole native community with any sense of officialdom or formality in education, destabilising them and sabotaging them to communicate your community's continued covert demand for compensation or maybe a treaty that other natives have while your Arawak community still has not received any such treaty. Maybe the end of this formal received Euro culture's officialdom on your land and your island is what you want so you can pick from any tree you see on what is now hotel property and take any villa, stand on any beach you see regardless of who owns it now since what is ownership? Isn't all the land to be owned in common? Who is the King if I can live in a home I do not own and put the owners under the floor? What is education if I can pretend to be the owner but I know I am not the owner? What is education when I can just pretend to be someone else with their ID or pretend to be a professional? What is a mortgage when your soul is not ready for that yet? Is your name Ray from the Ozark or Ray or Bubby Bare from Spanish Town? You look sort of Asian and you know how to challenge authority with a scallywag game, taking an American man's cigarette holder in his hotel room so he does not feel so authoritative when he comes to check his bank balance at the Bahamas branch. But the saboteur is a former employee of...a trainee of...but does not seem to believe he should have to respect ownership of property belonging to others. He might be the deputy chief of....and has a covert Arawak following with people who share his emotion regardless of complexion. Where did all of the West Indian graduates go; year after year, generation after generation? The graduate is a targeted symbol of that received culture but who put the demand on him to attend school except but that Arawak Native Black, Maroon, Asian looking, Hispanic or White looking native people and sometimes they have a Streatham accent? That relative sometimes follows the Creole Arawak mob in targeting his own graduate relative once the graduate status is achieved. But, isn't the graduate status family glory? You raised him or her. But, instead you resist, target and frustrate the graduate but he is your relative. People from Other communities that you envy watch and laugh as you hope to avoid culpability by emoting that you are just a child and how could you be guilty you say when the world took your Island in the Sun but your are guilty? You are a former chief of parking enforcement; a civil servant. Your intention is evident along with your compatriots. The greater community should react but when you have not reacted to defend your laws in his territory that is now really Crown governed, he says there is no Law so just go. He will stay and the received culture will go; n'est pas? When he kills a human being or his own son from his tribe or peoples on front of you and you don't react, he says what is the point of your laws? He has authority now? You should stop him to maintain your authority under your laws. But, human value and mutual safety also for the Creole is the point of the law. Many people who were victims of the original collision of cultures along with their descendants have digested law as theft since his territory was stolen under your laws. The questions have been asked before. We have the final answer as to all human value as the essence and purpose of the economy but this tension or the question has arisen before when much of human labor comes into immediate question technologically and full employment of the population is always the desired result vs. uncertainty and desperation but how is it that a population cannot just implement the basic income while instead it seems to challenge that solution in favour of full employment in a war on the brink of continued world civilization it self as seen in 1914 and 1939? Maybe you have been so abused by that received culture and civilization that it is hard to see you are worth it and not just refuse to be thrown away in the presence of your mechanised robotic machine labor as your replacement but your real purpose is the buying and the use of goods and products. E Pluribus Unum is the final answer. Basic income is the final answer but can imagery, if not alter policy and the evident final answer in Russia, Germany, America, Italy or Japan, can it impact negatively the minds and souls it seems only in America that are called upon to implement and give effect to policy thereby disabling the system and the people to benefit from the said non racialised policy in the false notion that you are approximating something Sophisticated, non former slave holding and non American? But, all societies had slaves for labor at some stage of their industrial development. The question is what hesitation is there? Presumedly, the logic of basic income is in the realm of European dna, African dna or Asian dna and it's genetic, historical memory. Basic income had its place in Egypt also after organised farming for the masses and the development of markets. The concept is predicated on the value of human life. Evidently, Natives do not resent the concept as an imposition from foreign powers. They have their own ten commandments that respect and value human life. But, there is a dna with an emotion that sometimes might be too well dressed these days and too skilled in a kitchen to be recognised in a discussion by anyone for it's continued emotional resistance of any rule of any kind; any rule or commandment since rules and commandments in themselves are foreign to this dna and also vehemently resented. This dna and it's resentment is not an issue when it is outside of the decision making process since the legislature was designed to maintain legislation based on the magna carta that values life. There is no argument there. As to the value of human life, the rules that uphold them, the decision making process and the final answer noted above, there is no argument or vehement resentment for what benefits us all. Policies that save life, build people and maintain life are the essence of our current and modern world economy that is nonetheless less dependent on people as industrial human labor whole remaining dependent on people as a commodity to fulfill consumption.

When Jesus said all the commandments are summed up in the command to love your neighbor as yourself, what does that mean to men who believe they should have a right to kill, steal and destroy and whose law and whose land is it when the neighbor is living on a subdivision that still is ancestral native land? 

There is a population that challenges, resists and resents the rules and attacks those involved in predicating the rules of peace as in the quiet laws of ownership of property and respect for human life.   The territory is theirs. But, the law is from a received culture as emblemised in the US Constitution, the Magna Carta or the ten commandments. What if some of the people in this population are former Presidents, current U.S Presidents and future 3 time candidates?  What if the evident social maladjustment of this population is manifested in the unpreparedness of a nation's democratically elected leader along with a racialised confirmation of their own sense of resentment and displacement vis a vis the written bodies of laws with a subtle but vicious complexion-ism  or feature-ism ( as in straighter hair but black or straighter nose but black) more so than the  racialisation and this obfuscated by inclusive messages in the media that suggest the opposite yet there isn't one black school teacher in the entire country but there used to be millions of them before 9/11?   What if for 3 and  half years, the world witnesses nothing but a schooling of the elected leader and the abuse of the system by people who have always moved in the elected leader's slip stream. It is the Layer cake son.     But, what if in 2001, someone says he will confirm again that he owns the territory and will ask what is the point of your laws if he can kill a soldier on the steps of a post office? Maybe you attack everybody in your Creole native  community with any sense of officialdom or formality in education, destabilising them  and sabotaging them to communicate your community's continued covert demand for compensation or maybe a treaty that other natives have while your Arawak community still has not received any such treaty.  Maybe the end of this formal  received Euro culture's officialdom on your land and your island is what you want so you can pick from any tree you see on what is now hotel property and take any villa, stand on any beach  you see regardless of who owns it now  since what is ownership? Isn't all the land to be owned in common? Who is the King if I can live in a home I do not own and put the owners under the floor?   What is education if I can pretend to be the owner but I know I am not the owner? What is education when I can just pretend to be someone else with their ID or pretend to be a professional? What is a mortgage when your soul is not ready for that yet? Is your name Ray from the Ozark or Ray or Bubby Bare from Spanish Town?  You look sort of Asian and you know how to challenge authority with a scallywag game, taking an American  man's cigarette holder in his hotel room  so he does not feel so authoritative when he comes to check his bank balance at the Bahamas branch.     But the saboteur is a former employee of...a trainee of...but does not seem to believe he should have to respect ownership of property belonging to others. He might be the deputy chief of....and has a covert Arawak  following with people who share his emotion regardless  of complexion.     Where did all of the West Indian graduates go; year after year, generation after generation?   The graduate is a targeted symbol of that received culture but who put the demand on him to attend school except but that Arawak Native Black, Maroon, Asian looking, Hispanic  or White looking native people and sometimes they have a Streatham accent?   That relative sometimes follows the Creole Arawak mob in targeting his own graduate relative once the graduate status is achieved.  But, isn't the graduate status family glory? You raised him or her.  But, instead you resist, target and frustrate the graduate but he is your relative. People from Other communities that you envy watch and laugh as you hope to avoid culpability by emoting that you are just a child and how could you be guilty you say when the world took your Island in the Sun but your are guilty?  You are a former chief of parking enforcement; a civil servant.  Your intention is evident along with your compatriots.  The greater community  should react but when you have not reacted to defend your laws in his territory that is now really Crown governed, he says there is no Law so just go.  He will stay and the received culture will go; n'est pas?  When he kills a human being or his own son from his tribe or peoples on front of you and you don't react, he says what is the point of your laws?   He has authority now?  You should stop him to maintain your authority under your laws.    But, human value and mutual safety also for the Creole is the point of the law.  Many people who were victims of the original collision of cultures along with their descendants have digested law as theft since his territory was stolen under your laws.    The questions have been asked before.  We have the final answer as to all  human value as the essence and purpose of the economy  but this tension or the question has arisen before when much of human labor comes into immediate question technologically  and full employment of the population is always the desired result vs. uncertainty and desperation but how is it that a population cannot just implement the basic income while instead it seems to challenge that solution in favour of full employment in a war on the brink of continued world  civilization it self as seen in 1914 and 1939? Maybe you have been so abused by that received culture and civilization that it is hard to see you are worth it and not just refuse to be thrown away in the presence of your mechanised robotic machine labor as your replacement but your real purpose is the buying and the use of goods and products.    E Pluribus Unum is the final answer.  Basic income is the final answer but can imagery,  if not alter policy and the evident final answer in Russia, Germany, America, Italy or Japan,  can it   impact negatively the minds and souls it seems only in America that are called upon to implement and give effect to policy thereby disabling the system and the people to benefit from the said non racialised policy in the false notion that you are approximating something Sophisticated, non former slave  holding and non American?  But, all societies had slaves for labor at some stage of their industrial development. The question is what hesitation is there? Presumedly, the logic of basic income is in the realm of European dna, African dna  or Asian dna and it's genetic, historical  memory. Basic income had its place in Egypt also after organised farming for the masses and the development of markets.   The concept is predicated on the value of human life.  Evidently, Natives do not resent the concept as an imposition from foreign powers. They have their own ten commandments that respect and value human life. But, there is a dna with an emotion that sometimes might be too well dressed these days and too skilled in a kitchen to be recognised in a discussion by anyone for it's continued emotional resistance of any rule of any kind; any rule or commandment since rules and commandments in themselves are foreign to this dna and also vehemently resented. This dna and it's resentment is not an issue when it is outside of the decision  making process since the legislature was designed to maintain legislation based on the magna carta that values life. There is no argument there. As to the value of human life, the rules that uphold them, the decision making process and the final answer noted above, there is no argument or vehement resentment for what benefits us all.  Policies that save life, build people and maintain life are the essence of our current and  modern  world economy that is nonetheless less dependent on people as industrial human  labor whole remaining dependent on people as a commodity to fulfil consumption.