All right. 0:04 So, this is going to be my next video is called The Second Video, Following the introduction I just gave. 0:12 Maybe you just watched it where I'm, where I'm introducing the concept of the national agreement. 0:18 Enforcing the state. 0:20 So this is my first detail into the,...

All right.
So, this is going to be my next video is called The Second Video, Following the introduction I just gave.
Maybe you just watched it where I'm, where I'm introducing the concept of the national agreement.
Enforcing the state.
So this is my first detail into the, but I think it's important to understand there's a background to this, and what is my, what are my qualifications you guys have figured out as you listen to me.
But let me just say that my qualification, Steven talked about this and I'm doing a very cursory demonstration here.
Does that, My my work has made me an insider. Let's just say I'm an insider.
I understand what's going on behind the scenes.
Most people just see what's going on in society, and they try to work with it.
But they don't understand that the problems, the systemic problems we're facing are deliberate, and they're deliberately planned, and they're intended to sabotage our society.
And destroying the family is one way to do that.
Very important.
So with that, let me just again, I'm going to do my very unsophisticated sophisticated way of presenting my notes again.
And of course, you can use them as a reference.
So it's the same idea. So this this whole idea behind divorcing, the State, is just that. Divorce the state, OK.
Get rid of the state's ability to interfere with your living relationship, your marriage yore, no girlfriend boyfriend, relationship.
That way, either party cannot go to the court and avail itself him or herself of what the legislature has cooked up for us.
And you might get a better understanding when she went around, let's say here.
Yeah, so why do we need to consider this?
So what I'm saying is, and I'm not opposed to women at all.
I'm not, I'm not a massage analyst, many of you may say that.
I would say then that you've probably missed Sandra.
OK, you can look that up, but women are being exploited.
And here's here's how they're being exploited.
It's very much the way in which it was done post World War II, and I alluded to this in my first video of my introductions, where they were persuaded into believing that they need to have a career in order to be like a man, more or less.
And so, here we are today.
No problem, no problem with women in the workforce, but for the most part, there are some jobs that women should do and probably don't want to do.
By all rights, men should just do those jobs.
There are some very dangerous jobs out there, and I'm not saying that equality has to extend their equality should be, where a person is, qualified for, a particular role, duty.
Then, based on his, his, her qualifications, that should be the sole means by which, it's decided that first gets the job, right?
That doesn't mean that, um, that our women need to be undersea welders.
This sort of thing it does, whatever, So what I'm getting at is specifically what Mike my motivation in putting this together was, because I saw where women are being exploited.
Bye Indoctrinating them through social media, technology, programming, through the movies, demonizing men, demonizing, marriage, subsidizing, divorce.
And then, getting women to think that they're, they take these phrases like being strong and independent, you're being strong and independent. You can be, you go girl, you can be a woman that you can read yvan, this sort of thing, OK? This is destroying our society.
Women need that. It's just how it works.
Just how it works. It doesn't mean that we, it's just how our society works. It always has worked.
That's how we build modern society with that, with that.
But there's Morels, OK, someone, someone has an agenda to destroy.
And what better way to destroy than appealing to the vanity of people.
Mostly women in this case, but, I mean, it works both ways, but mostly women.
They're more easily persuaded and they're kinda lynchpin, right?
That's gonna break down the family, and then you can look at the statistics for yourself.
You'll see in the government statistics, this concept of being strong and independent, and empowered is the opposite of what women believe they're actually being exploited, by adopting very bad habits. I'm not gonna get into too much detail.
But this is an ideology that's being is being pushed on women to persuade and to see people into adopting false beliefs are making decisions that they're against their own self interests and to their own detriment. That's really what's going on. In a way we've seen it.
You've seen, there's some pretty smart people talking about this. We kind of figured it out.
We're not really talking about how are we got to this point.
I kind of want to talk a little bit about that because it's important to understand that there's a there's a foundation behind my proposal to use this type of an agreement divorcing the state, because the state is being used to abuse the family history of the family once a once a week in it by getting a woman to think a certain way.
So, the modern woman, as if history, you know, the concept of modern woman was strong and independent, this sort of thing, there's no such thing, OK? History is not changed.
Human nature has not changed.
There is no such thing as well, and monitor times women should behave this way now, No, it doesn't work that way.
We have not changed.
Someone wants us to change.
So the concept of modern woman is a total fraud.
You're being cheated out of your life.
You're being cheated. Those of you who think you're a modern woman, and you can act like, you're being cheated out of your womanhood.
I'm not really trying to be psychologists, chair, anthropologist, but it's important to understand You might not agree with me, but you could do some research.
And this is I'm just telling you this is the understanding of why I'm proposing this type of arrangement.
Empowered women are like those that are now exploited by society because they believe that empowerment means they can be promiscuous and they can they can have infidelity, know. That is, that is destroying the family, OK?
Um, the university system itself, As women become more educated, they're not really becoming educated, they're becoming a doctor naked.
You're not educated, unless you can take your education, go out into society and become a better scientist, or better manufacturer, OK, or maybe a better teacher.
You're not furthering society by learning all these humanities and subject to that nature, psychology, it is total bullshit, OK?
So the university system is being used to, program young women into believing that.
They don't mean a man, where the man has to have impossible standards, such as they have certain height or annual and trauma that women no matter what others think are a perfect 10. This is ridiculous.
OK, we gotta, we gotta get rid of these delusions.
Now that's not going to happen.
I know I'm just saying there is an agenda to get women to behave a certain way so that the family can be destroyed.
Then the court can step in and that state can step in and they can make people do what they want.
Then the legislature can exact its agenda and in some cases many cases it can be used to track children.
That sounds wild really someone is going to embed some propaganda that's going to take a 40 year period.
So for the sole purpose of making it easier for courts to traffic in children, yes, that's actually what's happened.
There's many other things that are happening, but this is just one of them.
So the university system and other women for the false ideology that young women can live their life and not get married but instead act like amenity for misuse until they're in their thirties. It's not until that time they realized that no man wants them because they're they're there. There's a lot of reasons for that.
Men want to build a family. They want to have children.
So, if you can trick a woman into believing that she has deliberate, live and experience, are options, and you find herself just nonsense, then she waste her life and then she misses her opportunity to or badly and actually have children.
She gets into returns.
So, let's, let's get into something that you guys can actually read.
Right now, I'm sure many people share my opinion and many people, and that's all. It is what I just told you. But many people would agree that, but many people would disagree with that, you're fine.
No, different arguments.
What I'm saying to you is that there is an undercurrent of this ideology be pushed on women so that it can undermine our family system, reduce the population growth rate.
Yes, That is part of the agenda.
It's working. Go look at your stats.
Look at your public health records, OK, and also, too, abuse people relish to subsidize the break in the break-up of the family to prevent the formation of families.
Instead of going to war, why not just have the effect of war?
Instead of going to war to kill all the men. So we reduce the population.
Why not just reduce population by evidence? It's been done throughout history, through economic means.
You can see for yourself, but let's just say so, the legislature has written laws and procedures that are reduced judicial discretion like I was explaining my previous video to the judges in family court, can have little latitude, but to penalize men and reward and subsidize the women for destroying their own marriage relationships. Now, I'm not saying that happens every case.
I'm saying how does get a majority of cases to a point where women know they're rewarded, if they destroyed the marriage, intake, custody or whatever?
So I just picked you New York and was the first choice. I'm not trying to pick on New York.
I just take New York, to illustrate my point on, I did not do research in other states. I just pick New York. The legislature.
I picked, it's family law provisions regarding child support in Outlook.
Now, here you have, this is the link you can, you can find it yourself. I don't know if it's clickable the city and in any case, you see what it is. You can also Google this. I wasn't It wasn't hard for me to find this.
I think I just, I just Googled something like New York child support laws or something like that, OK.
Look at all the terms here. Now, I'm not gonna, I'm not criticizing the actual law itself.
What I wanna do is point out the fact that you got this group of lawyers and politicians.
double whammy there.
They're deciding what, what is the best way to care for your children, presumably?
I don't think that that's what they have in mind, but uh, this is what is being promoted, that we were the legislature, and we should decide a case of a divorce.
Who gets what money?
So here's what we have, Now, look at this.
I'm just gonna, I'm going to read this to you, just because I wonder, I want you to hear how the Slots Court, The Court shall multiply the combined rental income up to the amount set forth in paragraph three of subdivision two, Section 111, II. Of the Social services law, by the appropriate child support percentage and such amount shall be prorated, in the same proportion as each parents increments to the combined front door.
I'm gonna pause there for a second because I will tell you.
In the nineties, when I started doing research on deciding to get into this type of service, this profession, I can now call it that I was researching the tax code, is I just picked the tax code. It was interesting, it was controversial. So, I think the Tax code and I would sit there and I would read the sections of the tax code.
And then we refer to other sections.
I thought, OK, I got all day, and I did I work in a job where I was full-time, midnight, three days a week. So, for the all week, I would sit there for 10 to 16 hours a day, not exaggerating.
The law library and I would pull up all the books.
Although statute books, they're not little bit all these big binders on putting all the tax codes. For example, I did other velocity.
So our statute does not say, OK, subdivision Bill in this section and I would go pull that section. And sometimes, it wasn't. And I had like these little yellow ads.
And I would, I would mark the sticky notes and I would mark each page, because sometimes the paragraph I was reading on one page, refer to, like 20 pages ahead, or 30 pages back.
And so I had all these bookmark, but this yellow tabs, then I would have the other book. So, by the end of the day, or sometime in the middle of the day, I'm not joking.
I would have 7 to 8, sometimes 20 books, OK, just to understand a concept that I just read here.
Well, this is how it's written, OK?
This is how it's written. This should not be out your, your family, your children are cared for. This is insane.
This was done by by definition, people that have don't have a conscience.
The legislature when acting as a group of people by legal definition do not have a conscience.
That means they're insane.
So, why are we calling it like it is?
Child support percentage shall mean 17% of the combined parental income For one child, 25%, 29%, 31%, who came up with these ratios, or she hid that from statistics. You actually talk to families to find out how much they're paying for the pants and a shirt for the lunch or how much you're paying for. the soccer balls.
How much do you pay for Christmas?
Who did that, nobody?
They make this up. I don't know. Some of these legislators don't have children.
Kudos. Who cares? They shouldn't be doing it. This is another reason to have this type of agreement you're going to divest.
Care of your family from the state or having been it be intruded upon by the state.
These insane preachers, OK? And you gotta keep it within the family, even within the family.
So I'll just, I'll just make my point here by actually reading the statute.
Then they go on, I mean, look at income.
Show me, by the way, you know, the term income is not defined in the tax code.
And that's the one thing being taxes.
But, income as defined here, isn't it?
Income shall mean, but not be, limited to.
The sum of the amounts determined by the application of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and six of this sub paragraph.
Reduced by the amount determined by the application of clause seven of this sub paragraph.
And so forth.
OK, what I did, I though, to search, I said, why don't we just look at some statistics, let's just look at what it costs.
A family look, too, take care of their children with basic, you know, basic needs.
We get asked, How about the US. Department of Agriculture?
That department pays people's money ticket that surveys and research things and determine a dollar amount that it cost to raise a child or a child is after the correct to rear a child. So, look here.
The USDA, EPA has determined, now, there's a footnote if you check it out.
That out of a family's $12,980 annual cost to raise A child, 48% is calculated to go towards housing alone, prepare this, with what we saw here, is it anywhere like, can we map it out at all now?
It's totally different.
I don't know if this is anything can be considered from your legislature, an objective standard.
But at least the USDA, maybe we can call that objective standard, they're not talking about child support here. They're just talking about cost of living specifically.
So, that's $3664 per year and added housing cost per child, OK?
So, therefore, we got what we got from that. So.
Again, I'm talking about family court. It's, it's a franchise of the court system.
Family court is a franchise. It's a business Go, Look, Your court is listed at Dun and Bradstreet, and these are the ones that are Bradstreet.
No, I don't think of a second.
Delaware, one of these, These, these are business listings, it's got its own ... and its own budget.
It's got its own credit.
So your family court is a business franchise. Can you make no mistake about that?
That's what you're dealing with.
When you go to McDonald's, to have that McDonald's employees resolve a dispute with your family, it's about the same.
So family court is a business.
It's not what you like, you see in the movies.
It's in fact, that in Ecclesiastes, which I mentioned earlier, I'm not going to keep going into that, but.
So, if we're actually going to use statistics, why not go from what the families are? So, we have to look at the family's income statement. Right? We have to look at the balance sheet, but mostly it's going to be the anchor chain, what does it, what are its expenses?
Um, that should be the objective standard. Not what some corporation decided picked up in your legislature.
Why can't we get families, actual, usual income and expenses to report an established standards?
Every family is going to be there.
Everybody has a different lifestyle. I know. I knew my family is completely different than most people.
And so, again, I get into my, it's an agenda to destroy the family, right?
And this is done through the movies and social media, And if you wanted to just think about this for a second, if you've noticed, maybe in the last 10 years, maybe you're older, I'm 55, So, maybe, if you're in your forties, you realize that the script writing or movies or content just isn't as good as it used to be.
Maybe I'm too snooty, I don't know, but I'm just thinking, at least in the last 10 years, it's gone down. Put it that way.
I think there's been, there's been a high attrition rate amongst writers and performers. I don't think they're getting the deals they want.
I think some of them that really want, you know, money as an actor actress. They're going to take any deal. But for the most part, your big name good, talented actors and actresses, are not getting involved in things like movie slightly, unless they have some political message they want, they want to promote, right.
So, I think the reason for that is that whoever was behind pushing the media, but they went from book writing, book writing has been a huge influence on society, but why do you that?
Well, we can do it through television and movies, and now, social media.
And so, that has been the tool of manipulation, and because we have social media so effective, I mean, just anything in social media.
We don't need television. We don't need movies so much anymore to influence people.
Liquid they got us to deal with a fake public health emergency, right, but they make us think that viruses are contagious and all this concept.
And so people went for it. They thought it was real, and they participated, they really got hurt, and they still are to this day.
Anyways, um.
Because I'm from there, but.
I'm gonna get into a little bit about the fake, public health emergency, because it was fake, there was no such disease.
That, that was just, you know, all that in the movies was not real.
With Dustin Hoffman. Yeah.
Outbreak does complete nonsense total fraud.
Um, and so we have these corporations now pushing this on or after the actors like Screen and Screen Actors Guild support.
There's an agenda there too, I don't wanna get too far off track a particular model, so you guys can look it up, but here's, here's a couple of references. I would I would check out this the age of surveillance capitalism.
It's a book or advice Shana ..., very smart lady. I love her writing. She is very, very pragmatic, very research.
She's written many books, but that was very informative, it's kind of shocking.
And I'll tell you that once you if you read this book, it probably won't even wanting to supplement, at least don't use it for shopping. All right?
Address the climate change. That's also funny as well.
Bios e-discovery. The concept of fossil fuels, that's also phony. There's no such thing as fossil fuels.
Oil isn't federal, OK, Well, does it come from dead plants?
It doesn't come from decaying dinosaurs as sort of a diverse. Boil. It comes out of the Earth as a jet from a geologic activity You'll find out later If you want to do some research that.
But I'm not smart. I wasn't smart in school. Or science, I love science, I'm not, you know, a real good science person.
My mouth is limited, although I love math.
But I can tell you that in 19 87, when I started this on the Earth, is because the Earth is warming nonsense.
I knew that, And let's say, I'm thinking about NASA, almost 87,019 meeting, 18, sir.
So an 87, when I was 18 years old, I knew that the climate change, when the Earth is supposed to be getting warmer, global warming is what they call. It was a total fraud. But I didn't know why, so. I actually went to the library home, this research. And that was a bad student at school.
But I was a good student just wanting to learn something. I knew where to go to learn something.
So, I went to the library, at the local university, and I looked at what happens when you put more carbon in the atmosphere, the bias there were plans for, That's growing faster.
I kinda knew that, that I knew why.
So, it's immediately absorbed because the Earth's atmosphere is always in a State of seasons.
That's different.
I don't know which call it for global homeostasis, but basically you get the idea. There's always going to be somebody parts per million of carbon atoms there.
So my point of saying all this is that there's an agenda behind most everything that you're exposed to on a daily basis. Why wouldn't there be an agenda to destroy families? And why wouldn't involve some of these things we've seen for the first time in history?
I'm not saying you need to go to someone to confirm what I'm saying, I'm suggesting that if you think this through, and look at what's been pushed on us so far.
It might be plausible.
It's this this propaganda, OK.
This ideology that's being pushed everywhere is intended to persuade people to interact with everyone or every resource they want through technology.
So that the endgame here is to create a technocracy, we cannot have access to any resources unless you're going to use technology in that way.
Technology can be used to punish you or exclude you in your efforts, too, avail yourself of resources that we have right now.
It's like with oil, OK?
The move is to get rid of your car, and have you want to get rid of your car demonizing fuel's. That's ridiculous.
So once you submit to it, you won't be able to get out from under it, OK? This is what's going on.
They want to own you.
There's real agenda behind the thorny, You know, they can take our public health emergency.
The climate change family court, is just like relating the economy through insurance.
Debt securities is just one mechanism by which these psychopaths and destroy the family and reduce populations around the world.
That's that's another part of the agenda is to reduce the populations on the premise that we're we're using up too many resources and we're pretty tiny pollutants in the air which include carbon well, carbons not, nor its nitrogen. You know, that nitrogen makes up 75% of the air that we breathe. Without it we would die.
So by saying carbon is a pollutant, what you're saying is people are poor of you, if you're an advocate of that, step back and give us a box, or I know that's a little off subject. And I promise this next video. I'm making it work.
Technical aspects of the Post National Agreement.
I thought it was important that the previous video trashed the bar in the end there. And also, I wanted to go a little bit into what I think are what you would call, maybe, listed conspiracy theories, all right?
But I think it's laying a lot of what we're seeing right here, Which is phenomenal. It's a phenomenon, seeing what's happening to young people, that, they can't farm families, they don't want to families. It's shocking. It's phenomenal.
It's unlike anything that I know of, it's happened in recent history, and it's not because, uh, it's not because it's time for a change because, now, we have a modern society that's total bullshit, OK?
We're hard wired to work a certain way, that it's not going to change for a long time.
OK, so in any case, let's stop there.
Next, it's going to be, I'll give you the title on my next one. It'll be the third in the series.

DS2 – Vol 1 – Behind the Scenes: Unveiling the Attack on Privacy and Families


John Jay discusses the systematic problems facing society, suggesting they are deliberately planned to undermine societal values, primarily the family unit. Drawing attention to the idea of ‘divorcing the state,’ Jay emphasizes the need for individuals to reclaim their personal relationships from government interference. He expresses concern over the perceived exploitation of women in modern society and how the media, especially social media, perpetuates certain stereotypes and agendas. Touching on the family court system, he labels it as a business that doesn’t genuinely prioritize family needs. He further delves into the influence of media, suggesting there’s been a decline in content quality and originality over the past decade, indicating a potential ulterior motive to manipulate public perception.

Key Points:

1. John Jay introduces the concept of a national agreement and the importance of understanding the background to his insights.
2. Jay believes the systemic problems society faces are deliberate and aimed at undermining societal values, especially the family unit.
3. He promotes the idea of ‘divorcing the state’ to protect personal relationships from government interference.
4. Jay expresses concern over the perceived exploitation of women in society, which he feels has historical roots.
5. He links the decline in content quality in movies and television to an ulterior motive to manipulate public perception and advance certain agendas.
6. Jay critiques the family court system, suggesting it operates more like a business rather than genuinely serving the needs of families.
7. He draws attention to the influence of media and the rise of social media as tools of manipulation.
8. Jay mentions the importance of looking at actual statistics and not just going by what’s portrayed in the media.
9. He alludes to a ‘fake public health emergency,’ suggesting there’s more happening behind the scenes.
10. Jay provides references and encourages listeners to do their research to understand the deeper issues at play.