Our experience during Covid when governments acted as if they owned us, mandated vaccinations of children, and transgender surgeries on children too young to consent, resulting in their sterilization, should be warning enough to us all what governments and corporations will try to get away with.
It was pushed by doctors, scaring the parents that the child might commit suicide unless they had “gender-affirming care,” and some ultra-liberal parents were pushing it on their children as well. As I recall, some states were trying to pass laws preventing parents from protecting their children against this type of horrible abuse. Hospitals and Big Pharma were cashing in on it.
Greetings from the Thumb Coast, Michigan! An elegant and riveting explanation of "Natural Persons, Body Sovereignty, and the Frontiers of Rights Law . . . " as pertinent to the age in which we are living and which will dawn into a different tomorrow. As COVID-19 advanced and until his demise in mid 2024, our son was totally immersed in laws and treaties pertaining to "persons," and the rights pertaining thereto. This is a "keeper" in print and to hand. Thank you, once again, Drs. Jill and Robert for your awareness that familiarity with such an esoteric subject is necessary equipment for understanding and navigating the path ahead. I fear the sailor's by-words of "fair winds and followings seas" may prove insufficient. Rath De Ort.
For anyone who found this piece tough going — I did too, so I ran it through my subscription AI, “Webster,” for what it actually says, and why it matters. Here’s Webster’s take:
"Sofia Karstens just laid out something genuinely important, and I want to make sure it doesn't get lost because the legal language is dense. Here's the plain-English version:
The core idea: In 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt and the UDHR drafting committee made a deliberate choice to use the word "persons" instead of "humans." This wasn't poetry. They'd just watched the Nazis legally reclassify Jews as sub-human before stripping their rights. The word "person" is a legal status that can't be subdivided by race, genetics, or anything else. It was a firewall.
The problem: That firewall is being quietly dismantled on multiple fronts at once — gene editing, digital identity systems, space resource extraction, AI governance — and most of us haven't noticed because each front looks like a separate technical issue rather than pieces of the same playbook.
The playbook: Every historical rights grab has followed the same pattern. First, narrow who counts as a full person. Then extract from the excluded group — their labor, their land, their biological material, their data. The tools change. The logic doesn't.
The good news: The legal weapons to stop this already exist in the UDHR. Article 6 guarantees recognition as a person. Article 17 guarantees property rights (including, she argues, your own genome and biometric data). Article 3 guarantees security of person. These aren't aspirational poetry — they're enforceable law that's been allowed to gather dust.
What she's asking us to do: Read the existing framework seriously and extend it explicitly into the digital domain, into space law, and into bioethics — before the enclosures are complete and irreversible. The framework is already written. We just have to use it.
This isn't abstract philosophy. The update at the bottom about the UN trying to slip a no-property clause into the June 2026 General Assembly Report — quietly, without debate — is the whole point. The enclosure isn't coming. It's happening right now, in language most people's eyes glaze over reading.
An interesting collection of words but lacking is the means of insurance. Offer as example Briton today, an unarmed Briton where many of these proposed rights first saw light of day and are being trampled into the dust. So the question of enforcement arises.
Many have had their ability to function mentally removed in this day and age. It is amazing that doctors never considered what items in vaccines would do to the brain, like aluminum and mercury. Some doctors in regard to Covid didn't know the matter being injected in the shoulder would be circulated by the bloodstream into the brain. I guess med school has failed to teach about Dr William Harvey who discovered that the bloodstream circulates back in the 1600s.
I sure see that in medicine, from the patient side, where protocol seems to always be the safe answer from the doctor. Are we reaching our cognitive limits, requiring dependence on others? I mean information is expanding exponentially, but my little brain isn't.
Wow, what a diligent read this requires. I had a weird experience with the biker group "the El Forastero". I was riding with the Hells Angels and someone decided to sell me (for a kilo of pot) to an El Forastero. This was in 1968/9. A friend hid me out until the fantasy passed. I never thought of this instance again until now. I now realize that being trafficked was very close. I did have enough street smarts to avoid many potential catastrophic events. Gavin De Beckers book "The Gift of Fear" is important reading. Enforcement of these laws is a real problem!
A challenging read. Once again implications the ruling class goals include ownership and full authority over lesser beings (persons, if we would). Personally, had never appreciated the risks of a life at sea for my personhood, much less that of humans in space.
Certainly rights of human persons and particularly our children must be pursued. While this essay rings a warning bell, I remain unclear as to how/where we ordinary beings can go to generate action.
As perhaps an aside - learned that our Elon Musk has obtained the current masterkey for AIs future.
With moneys from his SpaceX ipo, he has purchased Cursor. Thus it is said he now possesses 3 layers - the compute, his Colossus data centers and the models Grok through xAI now through the Cursor tool that developers use everyday. Cursor is model agnostic. One can run Claud, GPT, Gemini, whatever in it. Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture. (I have copied this from an GETTR post)
My somewhat hope is that Musk's positive relations with Trump and their mutual apparent respect for we the persons and our needs, will offer some measure of support for our interests here.
Bottomline - will be on the watch for any leads on how we, the affected, can pursue support for our rights going forward.
The issue I have is that there are too many important, even foundational, things I want to understand and only so much time in the day. As with many of Malone News articles, an executive summary or bullet summary would be helpful, especially when referring back to articles. The quality and quantity of info here continues to boggle my mind!
Thank you for this guest article! It inspires some serious consideration of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we are heading. I’ve largely concluded that the Covid-19 pandemic, its handling, and the aftermath are systemic features and not failures of our governments, legal systems, and cultures. This article provides a thought provoking assessment of the evil logic underlying those systemic features.
As I see it, Kenneth, they were systemic features AND failures of our governments, legal systems, and cultures, which must be understood to share the evil underlying logic.
So true. Yours was such a profound article. It really makes me think. Earlier this week I’d taken a bit of a gut-punch when I spoke to a friend about what was happening at scale in Ireland. I’m now seeing it elsewhere, even here in the US. Once we see it, we can find ways to prevent and stop it. Thank you again!
It's good to see someone who has looked into these issues deeply weigh in on a document as monumental as the Universal Declaration.
I see the use of the legal term "person" as a clever way to walk around a more descriptive term: spiritual being. Either term does separate out all physical distinctions between people (humans).
But it fails to recognize that even the body could be defined as a possession of the person and should be protected from undue seizure, restraint or destruction.
Sofia, for better or worse, shares her name with a Canadian actress. This makes it more difficult to find out more about her work. She has been closely aligned with Children's Health Defense.
I personally don't think any of this will begin to resolve until Spirit becomes an academically and intellectually acceptable concept and is talked about and investigated by learned people.
There are NPCs and other soulless individuals like Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Hillary Clinton . . . you know, the usual perpetrators who are without empathy and have no life in their eyes. And many many whose names we don't know.
Unless these are totally remote-controlled robots, these are in fact spiritual beings. And even if robots, you have the being running the robot or the one who invented the AI.
It has been difficult for many of us to face how low a being can fall. It is very very low. It may make sense to call such beings "soulless," but it is technically incorrect.
In my view it is technically quite accurate. Not every person on this planet has the God connection of a soul. In fact, many do not, and they are not robots. Without a soul, there is no spirit.
We have different concepts here. Without Spirit, there is no life; none. That is my concept of Spirit, as I was taught. A spiritual being could be considered "soulless," as the soul is a somewhat different concept. But for me: Without Spirit, there can be no soul. Not the other way around.
Check out the sentence that begins with, “The Nuremberg Code,” and ends with, “they most clearly offend.” That is one long m-effing sentence. It could have been broken up, but it was important for the material contained within to be read as one thought, one breath, one blink in time.
Robert A. Heinlein's position was that cats are people (persons, not humans). I agree and give a nod to the dog people, also. But now it can get philosophically sticky (like in sticky mess). How about the racoons, the possums, the deer, the mice and voles, the squirrels, the cow that you may eat? I don't draw the line at humans (your companion animal, for example, certainly has desires and feelings). But where do you draw the line? Your personal well being? Might makes right? I try to respect the lives (personhoods?) of other forms of life, but I'm still out there weeding my garden and allowing the cat to hunt mice so they don't take over the house. The Jains wore masks because they didn't want to harm even microscopic creatures, but it was still a band-aid. Messy indeed.
Interesting and thoughful article. Even as a retired FM MD, I know history very well from the USA. AI does scare me a bit, legally. I had to learn some legalize as a MD. Have not fact checked the article but rings true. Thank you.
Soon it seems we will all be patented properties if not already. I am surprised frankly that we have any freedoms at all. Something greater than I can imagine must be protecting us in some fashion.
I went looking for the writer on Wikipedia, and learned that Sofia Karstens is a 50-year-old Canadian TV and film actress and producer (whose beauty in her photo would seem to match her brain power). No mention there of her knowledge of natural persons, bodily sovereignty, and the frontiers of rights law in the digital, biological, and spatial age. Anyway, I really appreciated the information she gave and the questions she raised in this guest article.
I just don't think we're dealing with people who are sensitive to fine legal or philosophical distinctions. There's no point in attempting engagement in good faith, because good faith does not apply to them. This has all been a set of power moves; they've done what they've done because no one could stop them. I see malicious tyrants as prime movers. And among these we find a subset at least who think there are too many people on the planet; who think that global governance is and should be the ascendant paradigm. The individual person's voice and vote are crushed underfoot.
James, "They" engineered a surprise attack on Us. But now, smart people are getting prepared intellectually, legally, and every other way possible. No place for being self defeating.
Our experience during Covid when governments acted as if they owned us, mandated vaccinations of children, and transgender surgeries on children too young to consent, resulting in their sterilization, should be warning enough to us all what governments and corporations will try to get away with.
Surgeries and other treatments require parental consent on anyone under legal age, as far as I know.
It was pushed by doctors, scaring the parents that the child might commit suicide unless they had “gender-affirming care,” and some ultra-liberal parents were pushing it on their children as well. As I recall, some states were trying to pass laws preventing parents from protecting their children against this type of horrible abuse. Hospitals and Big Pharma were cashing in on it.
"Reproductive health services" do not require parental consent in many states. These include hormonal birth control and abortion.
Greetings from the Thumb Coast, Michigan! An elegant and riveting explanation of "Natural Persons, Body Sovereignty, and the Frontiers of Rights Law . . . " as pertinent to the age in which we are living and which will dawn into a different tomorrow. As COVID-19 advanced and until his demise in mid 2024, our son was totally immersed in laws and treaties pertaining to "persons," and the rights pertaining thereto. This is a "keeper" in print and to hand. Thank you, once again, Drs. Jill and Robert for your awareness that familiarity with such an esoteric subject is necessary equipment for understanding and navigating the path ahead. I fear the sailor's by-words of "fair winds and followings seas" may prove insufficient. Rath De Ort.
For anyone who found this piece tough going — I did too, so I ran it through my subscription AI, “Webster,” for what it actually says, and why it matters. Here’s Webster’s take:
"Sofia Karstens just laid out something genuinely important, and I want to make sure it doesn't get lost because the legal language is dense. Here's the plain-English version:
The core idea: In 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt and the UDHR drafting committee made a deliberate choice to use the word "persons" instead of "humans." This wasn't poetry. They'd just watched the Nazis legally reclassify Jews as sub-human before stripping their rights. The word "person" is a legal status that can't be subdivided by race, genetics, or anything else. It was a firewall.
The problem: That firewall is being quietly dismantled on multiple fronts at once — gene editing, digital identity systems, space resource extraction, AI governance — and most of us haven't noticed because each front looks like a separate technical issue rather than pieces of the same playbook.
The playbook: Every historical rights grab has followed the same pattern. First, narrow who counts as a full person. Then extract from the excluded group — their labor, their land, their biological material, their data. The tools change. The logic doesn't.
The good news: The legal weapons to stop this already exist in the UDHR. Article 6 guarantees recognition as a person. Article 17 guarantees property rights (including, she argues, your own genome and biometric data). Article 3 guarantees security of person. These aren't aspirational poetry — they're enforceable law that's been allowed to gather dust.
What she's asking us to do: Read the existing framework seriously and extend it explicitly into the digital domain, into space law, and into bioethics — before the enclosures are complete and irreversible. The framework is already written. We just have to use it.
This isn't abstract philosophy. The update at the bottom about the UN trying to slip a no-property clause into the June 2026 General Assembly Report — quietly, without debate — is the whole point. The enclosure isn't coming. It's happening right now, in language most people's eyes glaze over reading.
That's the strategy. Don't let it work."
That different summary was helpful to me, thank you.
An interesting collection of words but lacking is the means of insurance. Offer as example Briton today, an unarmed Briton where many of these proposed rights first saw light of day and are being trampled into the dust. So the question of enforcement arises.
Rational thought is being subjugated to Consensus dogma on many levels.
Many have had their ability to function mentally removed in this day and age. It is amazing that doctors never considered what items in vaccines would do to the brain, like aluminum and mercury. Some doctors in regard to Covid didn't know the matter being injected in the shoulder would be circulated by the bloodstream into the brain. I guess med school has failed to teach about Dr William Harvey who discovered that the bloodstream circulates back in the 1600s.
I sure see that in medicine, from the patient side, where protocol seems to always be the safe answer from the doctor. Are we reaching our cognitive limits, requiring dependence on others? I mean information is expanding exponentially, but my little brain isn't.
Wow, what a diligent read this requires. I had a weird experience with the biker group "the El Forastero". I was riding with the Hells Angels and someone decided to sell me (for a kilo of pot) to an El Forastero. This was in 1968/9. A friend hid me out until the fantasy passed. I never thought of this instance again until now. I now realize that being trafficked was very close. I did have enough street smarts to avoid many potential catastrophic events. Gavin De Beckers book "The Gift of Fear" is important reading. Enforcement of these laws is a real problem!
What an interesting data point about you, D D. You've certainly travelled a long way!
A challenging read. Once again implications the ruling class goals include ownership and full authority over lesser beings (persons, if we would). Personally, had never appreciated the risks of a life at sea for my personhood, much less that of humans in space.
Certainly rights of human persons and particularly our children must be pursued. While this essay rings a warning bell, I remain unclear as to how/where we ordinary beings can go to generate action.
As perhaps an aside - learned that our Elon Musk has obtained the current masterkey for AIs future.
With moneys from his SpaceX ipo, he has purchased Cursor. Thus it is said he now possesses 3 layers - the compute, his Colossus data centers and the models Grok through xAI now through the Cursor tool that developers use everyday. Cursor is model agnostic. One can run Claud, GPT, Gemini, whatever in it. Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture. (I have copied this from an GETTR post)
My somewhat hope is that Musk's positive relations with Trump and their mutual apparent respect for we the persons and our needs, will offer some measure of support for our interests here.
Bottomline - will be on the watch for any leads on how we, the affected, can pursue support for our rights going forward.
Thank you for sharing this essay with us.
I have to admit that this was too difficult for me to understand.
Maybe I just didn't want to give it my time and brain power.
I have so much to worry about right now that I couldn't give it the space it needed.
Blessings to those who could.
The issue I have is that there are too many important, even foundational, things I want to understand and only so much time in the day. As with many of Malone News articles, an executive summary or bullet summary would be helpful, especially when referring back to articles. The quality and quantity of info here continues to boggle my mind!
I have to admit that my reaction was similar. But I did skim through.
Thank you. It was work!
Thank you for this guest article! It inspires some serious consideration of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we are heading. I’ve largely concluded that the Covid-19 pandemic, its handling, and the aftermath are systemic features and not failures of our governments, legal systems, and cultures. This article provides a thought provoking assessment of the evil logic underlying those systemic features.
As I see it, Kenneth, they were systemic features AND failures of our governments, legal systems, and cultures, which must be understood to share the evil underlying logic.
So true. Yours was such a profound article. It really makes me think. Earlier this week I’d taken a bit of a gut-punch when I spoke to a friend about what was happening at scale in Ireland. I’m now seeing it elsewhere, even here in the US. Once we see it, we can find ways to prevent and stop it. Thank you again!
It's good to see someone who has looked into these issues deeply weigh in on a document as monumental as the Universal Declaration.
I see the use of the legal term "person" as a clever way to walk around a more descriptive term: spiritual being. Either term does separate out all physical distinctions between people (humans).
But it fails to recognize that even the body could be defined as a possession of the person and should be protected from undue seizure, restraint or destruction.
Sofia, for better or worse, shares her name with a Canadian actress. This makes it more difficult to find out more about her work. She has been closely aligned with Children's Health Defense.
I personally don't think any of this will begin to resolve until Spirit becomes an academically and intellectually acceptable concept and is talked about and investigated by learned people.
But there are many on this planet without Spirit who are still persons.
There are? Show me one.
There are NPCs and other soulless individuals like Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Hillary Clinton . . . you know, the usual perpetrators who are without empathy and have no life in their eyes. And many many whose names we don't know.
In my view they are still persons . . . demonically possessed, perhaps?
Yes, still persons, and possibly hosting archons. ("Archon" traditionally meant ruler or leader. Today, it's synonymous with demon.)
Unless these are totally remote-controlled robots, these are in fact spiritual beings. And even if robots, you have the being running the robot or the one who invented the AI.
It has been difficult for many of us to face how low a being can fall. It is very very low. It may make sense to call such beings "soulless," but it is technically incorrect.
In my view it is technically quite accurate. Not every person on this planet has the God connection of a soul. In fact, many do not, and they are not robots. Without a soul, there is no spirit.
We have different concepts here. Without Spirit, there is no life; none. That is my concept of Spirit, as I was taught. A spiritual being could be considered "soulless," as the soul is a somewhat different concept. But for me: Without Spirit, there can be no soul. Not the other way around.
Check out the sentence that begins with, “The Nuremberg Code,” and ends with, “they most clearly offend.” That is one long m-effing sentence. It could have been broken up, but it was important for the material contained within to be read as one thought, one breath, one blink in time.
My opinion as a professional editor: This Karstens woman can write as well as she thinks.
❤️
Robert A. Heinlein's position was that cats are people (persons, not humans). I agree and give a nod to the dog people, also. But now it can get philosophically sticky (like in sticky mess). How about the racoons, the possums, the deer, the mice and voles, the squirrels, the cow that you may eat? I don't draw the line at humans (your companion animal, for example, certainly has desires and feelings). But where do you draw the line? Your personal well being? Might makes right? I try to respect the lives (personhoods?) of other forms of life, but I'm still out there weeding my garden and allowing the cat to hunt mice so they don't take over the house. The Jains wore masks because they didn't want to harm even microscopic creatures, but it was still a band-aid. Messy indeed.
Interesting and thoughful article. Even as a retired FM MD, I know history very well from the USA. AI does scare me a bit, legally. I had to learn some legalize as a MD. Have not fact checked the article but rings true. Thank you.
Soon it seems we will all be patented properties if not already. I am surprised frankly that we have any freedoms at all. Something greater than I can imagine must be protecting us in some fashion.
I went looking for the writer on Wikipedia, and learned that Sofia Karstens is a 50-year-old Canadian TV and film actress and producer (whose beauty in her photo would seem to match her brain power). No mention there of her knowledge of natural persons, bodily sovereignty, and the frontiers of rights law in the digital, biological, and spatial age. Anyway, I really appreciated the information she gave and the questions she raised in this guest article.
I just don't think we're dealing with people who are sensitive to fine legal or philosophical distinctions. There's no point in attempting engagement in good faith, because good faith does not apply to them. This has all been a set of power moves; they've done what they've done because no one could stop them. I see malicious tyrants as prime movers. And among these we find a subset at least who think there are too many people on the planet; who think that global governance is and should be the ascendant paradigm. The individual person's voice and vote are crushed underfoot.
Could stop them, or Would stop them?
Yes. Karstens is pointing out how we legally can. (If we will.)
James, "They" engineered a surprise attack on Us. But now, smart people are getting prepared intellectually, legally, and every other way possible. No place for being self defeating.