Fundamentals of Life on Earth
(and the deceptions)
Update: 8th January, 2010
Starting at the beginning, the first Chapter in my book is called “Taking”, but I’ve thought more about that … since writing it … and I’ve decided that we have to go back to absolute basics.
If a planet supports ‘life’, then it must provide EVERYTHING necessary for that ‘life’.
Considering A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF ‘LIFE’ (any example … it doesn’t matter which one), a planet cannot support “some of it” … or “a bit of it”. The planet has to provide it all, otherwise it will be a waste of energy.
If anything is missing, then that ‘life’ will never get started in the first place, or will die out. (We know about species on this planet that have died out).
You can consider all aspects of life, for example:
Shelter from the elements
Some means of disposing waste materials
Some means of mating and procreating the species.
Those are the basics.
But you can add other things, for example: ENTERTAINMENT to stop you going bonkers, and INFORMATION to inform you. And so on. The ability to move … to travel … is another example of a ‘basic’.
And NO-ONE has the right to deny you these basics. That’s one very essential point. To deny you any of these basics, while utilising them themselves … is HYPOCRITICAL (and actually CRIMINAL, btw).
Simply because everyone is equal.
Now … does the Earth ‘charge’ for the resources it provides? Does it send out Invoices? Does the Sun (from which ALL energy is derived) send out Invoices for the Light & Heat it throws our way?
No, they don’t. In that case what right does anyone have to take the resources the Earth & Sun provide freely … and then ‘charge’ you for them? That sounds like mega-hypocrisy to me!
Yes … I know … others may have put in time & effort to provide you with these resources conveniently … and they need to be recompensed (somehow!) … and so quite possibly you do have some obligation towards them. However, I will show conclusively that money is a worthless illusion, and so how can ‘paying them’ discharge any such obligation?
Just to sum up with a few examples: Animals have fur, or a very tough hide, so they are not affected by the elements. Humans are not so endowed, so we need clothing. Thus the Earth provides us with the resources for creating suitable clothing.
That’s just one very simple example. All other examples are similar.
It is important to think about this - because what it means is that - all the other ‘overheads’ are not, actually, necessary to sustain ‘life’. For example ‘Money’, ‘Legalese’, and ‘Religion’ (being the three most prominent). These are not necessary because the Earth & the Sun provide everything necessary.
If a planet supports life, then it must support everything necessary. Thus anything else is invented unnecessarily … EXCEPT A COMMON LAW THAT BINDS DWELLERS INTO PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE. The Common Law is simply Humanity’s civilised way of peacefully co-existing … being one step higher than The Law of the Jungle (which is the way that non-domesticated animal life behaves).
Once you have a planet supporting life forms, you have life forms operating under the Law of the Jungle.
Introduce a Humanity, which wants a civilisation, and so you need a Common Law that creates civilised behaviour … via the Common Sense that Humanity possesses.
All that it is necessary to envisage are the FOUR things that prevent rancour:
1. No harm to another
2. No loss to another
3. No breaching of another’s peace
4. Act honestly at all times without being devious.
This will not prevent certain Humans breaking these maxims, and it will not prevent disputes arising between Parties.
Thus it is necessary to create Courts of Justice (courts de jure) to bring the former to justice, and Courts of Arbitration (courts de facto) to settle the latter (in a civilised manner).
In BOTH cases (courts de jure & courts de facto) no other guidelines are necessary - except the guidelines of Humanity’s in-built Common Sense. Thus Statutes are totally unnecessary, and so is a Parliament that creates them.
At the end of that day, (and in the latter case), if a situation cannot be resolved by Common Sense, then there is nothing to prevent that situation remaining unresolved. Both Parties (in dispute) can mutually agree never to interact with each other ever again. That is still perfectly civilised.
On the other hand, if either of the two Parties can be shown to be even in the slightest way ‘devious’, or to have applied any deceptions whatsoever, then no Arbitration in their favour should be possible.
And this is precisely where all the courts currently go wrong. Because every demand made upon anyone – WITHOUT THAT PERSON’S EXPRESS CONSENT – is devious, and had to be applied in a devious and deceptive fashion.
In colloquial terms, such demands are the same as: Blackmail, extortion or racketeering.
Lawful Rebellion is simply saying: “I do not accept your attempts at blackmail any longer”.
The ability to comprehend this is all part & parcel of a 'mindset'. The fact that one can "agree to disagree" in a perfectly civilised (honourable) fashion. And the fact that one is not bound to answer any questions, if they so choose. Just because someone asks you a question, you do not have to answer it. I'm not talking about the case where the answer would be detrimental to yourself (although these are included) - I'm talking about ALL cases. Particularly those cases where a response gives undeserved 'life' and 'oxygen' (we say "dignifies") a provocative and disruptive question. Always remember: You can simply walk away.
We have to re-learn the meaning of certain important words. They are:
We are familiar with those who consider they are “the Authority”, or work for “the Authorities”, etc.
‘Authority’ must be EXTENDED.
It must be GIVEN. It CANNOT be just ‘taken’ or ‘assumed’ because that is not what it is.
For the simple reason that a Human operates by free will. In order to operate in accordance with ‘directives’ from some ‘authority’ (i.e. 'someone else'), then the Human’s free will MUST be accepting the will of that someone else. This can only occur if the Human decides to accept the will of someone else.
Accepting and abiding by the will of someone else is the same as saying that the Human EXTENDS AUTHORITY to that someone else.
But, if a Human has free will, then that Human does not need to extend authority to anyone else.
And, if a Human does not have free will, then that Human is a robot. (And, therefore, is not Human after all).
What has happened is the attitude of “safety in numbers” has become ingrained into the public psyche. As in “If I do what everyone else does, then I won’t be picked upon … they’ll leave me alone”.
Which works fine … up to a point. It works fine until they start picking on you ... even though you’ve only ever “done what everyone else does”.
And they start picking on you … and everyone else … because you have extended them the authority to do so … you gave them an inch and (by their very natures) they took a mile.
And that’s the risk that is ALWAYS run when a Human EXTENDS authority to any other Human.
Taking that mile is done very slowly & very carefully. David Icke calls it “The Totalitarian Tiptoe”.
It COULD be said that a small amount of authority was extended in the past (trading “liberty for security” … while Benjamin Franklin said, by doing that, you will eventually end up with neither), and that we should go back and assert just that small amount.
It COULD be said like that.
But I wouldn’t say it like that.
What I would say is that … from the word go … we have given away far & away too much authority. Far and away too much. Fundamentally by believing in Gods. And giving these so-called Gods all the authority they demanded. (By Gods I include their right-hand men, namely Monarchs & Kings, etc).
That’s what I would say. But I would also point out that it is only now, in these more enlightened times, it has become possible to look back and see what happened. (Way back then I would probably have thought the same way as everyone else).
Let’s face it: We fought wars on behalf of Monarchs & Kings because we gave them the authority to create wars. We listened to their jingoism, and bought into it. Why did we do that? Simply because were not so enlightened as to realise that – if they wanted a war – then THEY should go and fight it between themselves … and leave everyone else alone.
No ‘ordinary person’ wants war. Only the PSYCHOPATHS that create 4% of Humanity want it (see Chapter 6 of my book). But there is not enough of them, so they use jingoism, to embroil everyone else.
But I’m not suggesting any recriminations against those who led us up the garden path. They’re all long-since dead, anyway. (Most of them. Tony B Liar & George W. Bush … & Co. … are still very much alive, of course. They could still be completely ostracised).
But there we have it: Authority MUST be EXTENDED for it to be effective … so the trick is NOT TO EXTENDED IT.
In practice what this means is that, when you receive a letter making a demand on you, you write back on the basis that they have no authority to make that demand. You don’t “plead guilty” or “not guilty” … you ask them to PROVE their entitlement to write to you in the first place.
You answer them with a QUESTION back to them. (You do NOT answer their questions … by doing so you are accepting they have the right to ask those questions, and to demand replies from you. The trick is to realise that they have no right to make that demand in the first place).
It's all about 'mindset'. Not 'looking up' to them, but looking DOWN on them, instead. Making your own demands. Demanding that THEY PROVE THEIR right to place demands on YOU. (Something they can't, of course, actually do)
When you write back you can explain that they are merely the employees of a PRIVATE COMPANY, claiming LIMITED LIABILITY, and TRADING AT A PROFIT … on a par with Tesco, Sainsbury’s, ASDA, Waitrose or Wal-Mart (etc.) … and that they have as much authority to place demands upon you as those companies you mentioned. In other words: No authority whatsoever.
And the same goes for the Police (if they write to you). If they stop you in your car, lock all the doors, wind the window down 1 inch, and converse through the window (pointing all this out). Do not get out of the car under any circumstances … instead offer to make a Contract with them, where they PAY YOU for your time at answering their questions.
A blue uniform, covered in Masonic regalia, has no magic properties.
When a Policeman accepts his or her job, when they sign up, they are doing two things:
i. They are accepting to subsume their free will to the Orders of Superior Officers, and
ii. They are accepting that the FEE they will charge for SERVICING THOSE ORDERS will be the flat rate of their salary.
When a Serviceman accepts his or her job, when they sign up, they are doing two things:
i. They are accepting to subsume their free will to the Orders of Superior Officers, and
ii. They are accepting that the FEE they will charge for SERVICING THOSE ORDERS will be the flat rate of their salary.
When a Company employee accepts his or her job, when they sign up, they are doing two things:
i. They are accepting to subsume their free will to the Orders of Senior Managers, and
ii. They are accepting that the FEE they will charge for SERVICING THOSE ORDERS will be the flat rate of their salary or wages.
(These are very important points to note, because the Servicing of all Orders is chargeable at the rate determined by whomsoever services the Order. This is crucial to Lawful Rebellion, and will be covered in detail later).
Authority can be delegated. IF (that’s IF) a Superior has had authority extended to him (or her), then it is possible for that authority to be delegated to someone else (to actually perform the task). And it can be delegated as far an as wide as necessary. BUT … note ‘responsibility’, below.
This cannot be ‘delegated’. It can only ever be SHARED. By delegating authority …responsibility is now being shared. And, in this sharing process, responsibility is not being watered down. It is being increased to encompass the person delegated to perform the task.
The reason is simple. If one delegates a task to another, then the responsibility for choosing the right person to whom the task is delegated always remains.
Consequently a Superior Officer, who issues an Order, remains an accomplice, in Law.
And this was affirmed by the Nuremberg Trials.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Being Ordered to do something immoral, unjust, or unlawful is no grounds for carrying out that Order.
If there is any chance that, by signing up, you will be given immoral, unjust or unlawful Orders to carry out then …don’t sign up. Or, if you do sign up …resign there and then. That’s the only way to stay in honour.
If you don’t, then you remain morally bankrupt. This is the position most of the Police are in … at this moment in time.
Respect CANNOT be assumed. Respect MUST be EARNED. It must be earned by what one says & does.
One problem, with respect, is that it is like a leaky bucket. Not only does it have to be earned in the first place, it has to be continually re-earned … in order to be continually topped up.
A Pop Star is only as good as their latest record. A Film Star is only as good as their latest film. And so on.
Honour comes purely from thoughts, words and deeds that are honest, upright, and moral. We all know what is honourable … and what is dishonourable (it’s in our hearts). You have no need to ‘ask anyone’s permission’ for doing anything that remains honourable. Why should you? Are you saying ‘they’ know more about ‘honour’ than you do? Of course not! If you’re not sure, then discuss it with a trusted friend, or family. And, furthermore, what RIGHT does anyone else have to ‘give you permission’, anyway? Answer: None whatsoever. GET UP OFF YOUR KNEES (for crying out loud)!
‘Honour’ does not come from any form of ‘title’. Specifically, the calling of Parliamentarians – by other Parliamentarians – as “The Right Honourable Gentleman … or Lady” does not generate “honour”. In many cases it is merely a corruption of the word.
Similarly titles such as “Your Honour”, in a Court, are mostly corruptions of the word - and its true meaning.
It is long past time to call only honourable people “honourable”, and disreputable people “dishonourable”.
Richness has nothing to do with ‘numbers in a Bank Account”. I will show, in the next Section, that these are worthless illusions. Thus we need to make good use of this word. I can only see “Richness is having a wealth of good, honest, reliable, friends” as giving the word any realistic and worthwhile meaning.
And any ‘reward’ should be the HONOUR OF CONTRIBUTING to the whole of Humanity. This reward should be sufficient for anyone.
4. The Frauds & Deceptions: Money
So those are the fundamentals we must work from.
They are the FACTS of the matter … and ALL matters.
Note: They are FACTs …not OPINIONS.
Now let’s investigate the FRAUDS we have to contend with.
So what are these ‘frauds’? What are they in actual fact?
The first one … the root of all evil … MONEY. It’s ALL about money. If you get taken to court, for example (unless you’ve murdered someone in cold blood) then the Plaintiff in court will be demanding ‘money’. That must be something like 98% of all court cases. And you know this. Parking Fines, Speeding Fines, Council Tax demands, Income Tax demands … and so on.
And, even if you don’t get taken to court, its all about paying VAT on most of what you buy, or Road Tax, or Car Insurance, or Council Tax, or Mortgage, or Rent, or TV Licence etc.
ALL ABOUT MONEY.
So … what IS money?
What actually is it?
Where does it come from?
Who makes it, and how does it get into circulation?
Have you ever asked yourself those questions? Don't you think you should?
Let’s start with “What is it?”.
First of all what is the difference between ‘money’ and ‘cash’?
“Cash” is banknotes & coins – which are something real and tangible that you can pick up, hold, and feel.
“Money” is “credit” (or “debit” … see any Balance Sheet) … neither of which can be seen, held, felt etc. … simply because they are nothing more than IDEAS.
You want to argue that there is no difference?
Try placing a coin or a banknote in more than one place at the same time. You can’t, because they are real.
Money, on the other hand, can be ‘placed’ as many times as you like. If you write cheque, the ‘money’ is written on the cheque. But it should also be in your Bank Account … AT THE SAME TIME YOUR CHEQUE REMAINS TO BE CLEARED.
A coin or a banknote is just a TOKEN. A Token is something real that represents something that cannot represent itself. Money cannot represent itself in the real world because it is nothing more than an IMAGINATION. And IDEA. A CONCEPT.
93% of all ‘money’ is not represented by Tokens. THE IDEAS only exist in Ledgers on paper or on computer databases.
An idea is nothing more than a Belief System. All the Swiss Bank Accounts in the world are only supported by that Belief System.
Remove that Belief System (by believing in something else … or not believing in it at all) and the whole House of Cards comes tumbling down.
(Why does Switzerland ALWAYS 'remain neutral'? 'Coz that's where all the so-called 'money' is! Why is the Swiss Franc still a European currency, along with the British Pound ... while all others have changed to the Euro? 'Coz that's where the so-called 'money' is!)
So, that’s what 'money' actually is. And, because it is nothing more than an idea, it can be plucked out of thin air … by imagining it into some kind of existence.
This ‘imagination’ is the job of a Treasury. Which is why a Treasury never asks for money.
Because THEY MAKE IT.
In the UK, this is HM (Her Majesty’s) Treasury. In the US this is the US Treasury.
In the UK there is an organisation (actually a PRIVATE COMPANY) that is constantly demanding ‘money’. That’s HM Revenue & Customs. (In the US there is an equivalent called the IRS and the Duty & Customs organisations … also PRIVATE COMPANIES).
HM Revenue & Customs WANTS ‘money’ and HM Treasury MAKES ‘money’ … so HM Revenue & Customs could obtain all the ‘money’ it ever needed DIRECTLY from the makers … HM Treasury … if it so wished. Could it not?
But HM Revenue & Customs doesn’t ‘so wish’. So it makes demands upon all Humans in the UK. Which is TOTALLY ABSURD.
And only because we have allowed ourselves to become embroiled in the Belief System … to the point where it has become ingrained into our psyche.
The reason why HM Revenue & Customs will not obtain its ‘money’ from HM Treasury is simple: By placing demands on you, you remain CONTROLLED. You cannot simply operate under you own free will all the time.
You HAVE TO have a job. To provide you with ‘income’. So that they can demand their ‘cut’.
A system of Bartering (from which the convenience of ‘money’ was derived) is no better, because you are still controlled to create ‘something to barter”.
What is happening is that the Treasury are creating ‘money’ in a controlled way. By various means this is filtering through into your Bank Account because you are prepared to slave away 5-6-7 days a week. You are forced to do that – whether you want to or not – because of the demands made by HM Revenue & Customs, the DVLA, TV Licencing, the Local Council … maybe the CSA in some cases … Uncle Tom Cobleigh & all.
The concept of money (and its predecessor ‘bartering’) was … is … and always will be … NOTHING MORE THAN A SYSTEM TO CONTROL YOU.
That was, is … and always will be … its SOLE PURPOSE.
And it will continue only as long as we let it. Only as long as we continue to support this cornerstone of the pyramid (to use David Icke’s analogy)
That’s the only reason, and WE DO NOT NEED IT. The Earth provides everything for free … and all we have to do is to learn how to utilise what has been FREELY provided, in order to sustain our lives.
We just need to know how to utilise these free resources to the best effect … AND HOW TO SHARE THEM FAIRLY.
Money is nothing more than the Belief System called "credit", and ADDS NOTHING to the resources provided by planet Earth.
"Cash" is real - physical Tokens employed to REPRESENT that IDEA.
Check the dictionary definition of ‘money’. Here’s Chambers Online:
money noun (plural in sense 1b and 4 monies or moneys) 1 a coins or banknotes used as a means of buying things; b any currency used as legal tender.2 wealth in general.3 colloq a rich person; rich people •marry money.4 commerce, law (always monies or moneys) sums of money. moneyed or monied adj having much money; wealthy. be in the money colloq to be wealthy. for my, our, etc money colloq in my, our, etc opinion. get one's money's worth to get full value for the money or other resources one has put into something. have money to burn to have enough money to be able to spend in ways which others may find foolish. made of money colloq said of a person: extremely rich. make money to make a profit or acquire wealth. money down money paid on the spot for something. money for old rope colloq money obtained without any effort. money talks an expression used to convey the idea that people with money have power and influence over others. on the money US slang spot-on; exactly right. put money into something to invest in it. put money on something colloq to bet on it. put one's money where one's mouth is to support what one has said by risking or investing money, or giving other material or practical help.
See definition 1a: “coins or banknotes used as a means of buying things;”
Completely wrong! We’ve already seen that coins & banknotes are real objects. If this definition were correct then ‘money’ would be real. Look at definition 4: “ sums of money.” … how can you define something using the same word in the definition?
This calamity comes about purely because the compilers of dictionaries do not understand what they are defining.
However, if you move from the ‘m’s to the ‘c’s, there is enough of a gap (in the dictionary) to engender some kind of realism into the definitions. So we can look up “credit”:credit noun 1 faith placed in something. 2 honour or a cause of honour • To her credit, she didn't say anything. 3 acknowledgement, recognition or praise. 4 (credits) a list of acknowledgements to those who have helped in the preparation of a book or film. 5 trust given to someone promising to pay later for goods already supplied • buy goods on credit. 6 one's financial reliability, especially as a basis for such trust. 7 the amount of money available to one at one's bank. 8 a an entry in a bank account acknowledging a payment; b the side of an account on which such entries are made. Compare debit. 9 a a certificate of completion of a course of instruction; b a distinction awarded for performance on such a course. verb (credited, crediting) 1 to believe; to place faith in someone or something. 2 (often credit something to someone or someone with something) to enter a sum as a credit on someone's account, or allow someone a sum as credit. 3 (often credit someone with something) to attribute a quality or achievement to someone • We credited you with more sense.
Examine definition 1: “faith placed in something.” (Those definitions are all about honour, recognition, acknowledgement, etc. All things that take place in one's brain (an nowhere else!)
Bingo! There you have it! Where is ‘faith’? IN YOUR HEAD. Faith = Belief.
‘Cash’ (Tokens) are ‘real’ … ‘money’ is nothing more than faith, and thus AN ILLUSION. (or DELUSION?). One is real, the other is not. They cannot, therefore, possibly be the same thing.
We elect our Government to represent us, to look after the borders, infrastructure and healthcare (etc) of our country. We give them the power to use a Monetary Belief System if they want to (I can't think why anyone would want to ... but there it is).
We give them the power to create as much 'money' (illusion) … via a Treasury … as they would ever need.
And what's the first thing they do, once elected?
THEY ASK -US- FOR IT!!!!!!
Can you think of anything more ABSURD?????
(The only thing more absurd is that we stand for it. We let them do it to us).
How is this ILLUSION passed around? By means of its Tokens.
As has already been said, 93% of the BELIEF only exists electronically … but that leaves 7% existing as real Token REPRESENTATIONS.
And what does it say on these Tokens? Well, in the UK … probably due to our history … we are fortunate that the ‘illusion’ is still hidden in plain sight. Because, if one consults a £10 banknote/token, it will read:
“I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF £10”
… and that piece of paper will contain a rubber-stamped signature from someone who considers they have the authority to represent the Bank of England.
This “promise” is worthless, as we shall see. And other countries are not so fortunate as to be able to read this worthless promise in plain sight. For example the Federal Reserve Notes do not bear this worthless promise, and neither do the new Euro Notes. (Presumably this is because the promise is so worthless, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in making it).
Why is this promise so worthless?
Well, first of all, what is this £10 banknote? This answer is that it is a Promissory Note.
Colloquially one would call it an IOU.
An IOU from the Bank of England.
An IOU from the Bank of England containing a promise that they will never, and CAN never, fulfill.
That’s what makes it an empty, worthless, promise.
Because it can never be fulfilled.
Because “a sum of £10” does not exist in the real world. It only exists in one’s IMAGINATION.
So, all they can ‘promise’ is: IMAGINATION.
But then, what IS ‘a promise’?
Why does anyone ‘promise’ something?
Why does anyone ever NEED to promise something?
The answer is simple: A promise is necessary when - whatever is being promised - cannot be actually done at that time.
There is no need to promise if the action being promised can be done there and then. If it can be done there & then, it would be done there & then … and no need to make a promise!
A promise is something that “you will do in the future”.
When you can. When the time is right. When everything necessary to fulfill that promise is in place. (And so on).
So … why does the Bank of England need to make a promise if it can come up with “a sum of £10” there and then?
There are two possible answers:
i. Because “a sum of £10” is so large, or unwieldy, that it would be impractical,
ii. Because “a sum of £10” does not, actually, exist … and they hope to magic it into reality … at some unspecified time in the future.
But we have already established that “a sum of £10” is imaginary, therefore (i) above cannot apply.
So we are left with (ii), above.
And that is precisely what is going on.
The Bills of Exchange Act is a Statute and – as we will see – a part of the absurdity of “the legal system” – however it does attempt to resolve the absurdity of Promissory Notes.
It does this by pointing out (fundamentally) that “everyone’s imaginations are as good as everyone else’s”.
Which translates, in practice, to the fact that anyone can write a Promissory Note. (Simply because every Human has the ability to make promises).
A cheque is nothing more than a Promissory Note.
Consequently it is perfectly possible to write one’s own Promissory Notes to cover any & all monetary demands made upon oneself. It is simply a matter of writing an IOU.
IOUs created this way will be absolutely & utterly WORTHLESS (of course!) … but we have discovered that those from the Bank of England (and Federal Reserve, etc) are equally worthless.
We have discovered that it is possible to tie a court de facto up in knots by offering a Promissory Note in discharge of a demand. This can cause the court to adjourn, trying to decide which Promissory Note is more worthless than some other Promissory Note.
They have a bit of a problem … for the reasons given above, in this essay.
We will come back to this aspect when discussing methods for peaceful Lawful Rebellion, as encouraged by the Magna Carta of 1215.
PLEASE NOTE: At this stage I have only discussed what money ‘is’, and who ‘makes’ it … I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED “how it gets into circulation”. There are other deceptions in operation so as to achieve that aspect.
I will say it one more time: ‘Money’ WAS … IS … and ALWAYS WILL BE … nothing more than a superbly-crafted, now ingrained, CON TRICK … a mind-fuck (by any other name). All we ever need to do is to SHARE the resources provided by the Earth FAIRLY amongst us … AND ‘MONEY’ HAS NEVER …. DOES NOT … AND WILL NEVER … achieve that.
I get people telling me "... they don't want to be accused of Fraudulent Conversion". Huh??? What do you think this entire Money Scam is, then? It's nothing BUT Fraudulent Conversion! The FRAUDULENT CONVERSION of 'ideas', plucked out of thin air, into 'money worries' and misery for many, many people (actually all except those who perpetrate ... or go along with ... the Fraudulent Conversion Scam!).
Fraudulent Conversion? Geez!
5. The Frauds & Deceptions: Legalese
“Legalese” is the language of the Legal (so-called) ‘profession’. The language of Statutes, Solicitors, Lawyers, Notaries and Judges, etc. (And the Police – although they generally do not realise it).
It looks like English, so no-one complains.
But it isn’t English. It is an English Look-alike.
It can only be called an English Look-alike because it EXPANDS the definitions of English words – giving them extra meanings. Meanings that these words do not have in normal parlance, and normal understanding.
Thus it is a deception. It is a deception that only those who compile Statutes (and vote for them i.e. Parliamentarians), and SOME OF those who implement those Statutes (namely Solicitors, Lawyers, Notaries and Judges) comprehend. Or maybe they don’t comprehend. Maybe, on a day-to-day basis – after studying so-called Statute Law for years – they have lost the power to comprehend?
Others who are a part of the implementation process (namely the Police) DO NOT GENERALLY comprehend this aspect, and proceed as if the language of Statutes IS English. (The question is: Whether or not these ‘ground troops’ would act in the cavalier manner they do - if they DID comprehend what they were doing? That question remains unanswered at the time of writing this essay).
Nevertheless, the plain FACT is that Legalese (i.e. anything so-called “legal”) is a DECEPTION and a FRAUD.
And it is also TOTALLY ABSURD.
A couple of major examples are the fact that a Partnership of any kind is defined (in Legalese) as “a person”. Which is totally absurd. “A person” (a Human) has a Mind (and can thus make a decision), and limbs that can grasp a pen (and thus make a signature mark). Any Partnership must make a collective decision, and task a Human (Authorised Representative) to make a signature mark.
The two are not equivalent in any way, shape, or form.
Another ‘expansion’ is the word “understand” which – in Legalese – also means “stand under” … specifically “Stand under Legalese”. In other words to give ‘authority’ to the Legal so-called ‘profession’ and/or Statute.
The answer “Yes” to the question “Do you understand” means (in Legalese) acceptance that a Legal Charge or Legal Demand is valid.
The appropriate answer to “Do you understand?” is (obviously) “No – I do not stand under”. (A Policeman – who hasn’t the faintest idea what he or she has actually asked, will usually respond “What do you mean?” The response to that is “What do YOU mean?” And so on. Take them round in the circles they deserve to be taken in. If they wish to remain in ignorance – let them).
Legalese is absurd, and does not compute with FACT. It only computes with FICTION. Thus, by using plain English, and pure Common Sense, together with undeniable reason, logic and honesty, it is possible to tie anyone “Legal” up in knots.
One of the major aspects of the Legal Fiction is the use of Names. As far as the Legal World is concerned, a Human Being is the same as his or her Name. Which, of course, is totally ridiculous. A Human Being is flesh & blood, whereas a Name is only a sound in the air, marks on a piece of paper, bits in a computer database … or pixels on a computer screen. (It is also paint on the side of a ship, or paint on a House Name sign, etc.). A Deed Poll can DETACH one Name, and ATTACH another, meanwhile the Human flesh & blood is still exactly the same.
Names are nothing more than something ATTACHED to a Human Being … a Name is NOT THAT Human Being. A Name is what a Human Being responds to, when its attention is sought. Which is why we (in the Freeman World) say “It is what we are commonly called”. But nothing more. It has no more significance than that.
There is not much point in worrying about anything “Legal”. It is absurd. The thing to do is just to reject it for cause. (The ‘cause’ being its absurdity)
Statutes are written in Legalese, and considered to be “the Law” and “must be obeyed”.
But this is only by the 99% of people who have had the situation distilled and ingrained into their psyche over centuries of time.
On the other hand, if one examines precisely what a Statute is, it can be shown that there is a choice as to whether one obeys them, or not.
It goes back to the definition: A Statute is (nothing more than) the Legislated Rule of a Society.
(A Society has a Legislating Body, and that body determines the Society’s Rules)
But, what is a Society? A Society is a group of like-minded individuals who come together to deliberate, determine and act towards common goals.
So now there are two very important questions to think about (i) HOW are they “like-minded” and how do they “come together” and (ii) What are the “common goals”?
Which actually revolves around (ii). Because, quite simply, unless those “common goals” are KNOWN, and PUBLISHED, then no individual can determine whether or not he or she is “like-minded”.
So … the very FIRST thing any Society MUST do is to PUBLISH its INITIAL “common goals”.
Then others can determine whether or not they are “like-minded”.
If they ARE “like-minded”, and agree with the “common goals”, and want to help, then what do they do? Answer: They JOIN the Society. (That’s how they “come together”).
By JOINING a Society – by BECOMING A MEMBER – that person is accepting the Legislated Rules (Statutes) of the Society!
And, one other very important aspect of any Society is that it must have a Name attached, such that it (actually its Rules & its membership) can be referred to distinctly … such as to distinguish it from anything else.
Consequently, any Society MUST have:
(i) A Name
(ii) A published set of Common Goals
(iii) A set of determined Legislation
(iv) A Defined Membership
Now, our so-called ‘society’ has (iii) … 99% of people call it “the Law”, but it cannot be a society in point of FACT, because it does not have (i), (ii) or (iv).
And there is one further VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT about Societies. Which is that if – at some future point – a Member discovers that the direction the Society is heading is not what he or she consider to be acceptable? THEN HE OR SHE CAN ALWAYS RESIGN!
So, the plain FACTS are this.
Parliament is creating (and has always created) Legislated Rules for a ‘society’ that cannot be named, has never published any common goals (except, one could say, The British Constitution), that has no defined Membership.
(When did you apply to join this ‘society’? Was your application successful? Have you subsequently resigned? And so on)
And, perhaps the most important point of all is that the Legislated Rules of any Society ONLY BIND THE MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY … THOSE RULES HAVE NO EFFECT ON ANYONE ELSE.
Companies make rules. It is called “Company Policy”. This usually forms a Handbook when one joins the Company. While in their employ you need to obey their Company Rules, or be sacked.
Once you resign from their employ, you no longer need to obey their Company Rules.
That’s it – in a nutshell.
Unless it can be shown, via a successful Membership Application form, that one is a Member of a Society for which Parliament is making Legislated Rules – and it can also be shown that you joined of you own free will, not under duress, or deception – and it can also be shown that you have not subsequently resigned – then these Statutes DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.
But you have to know that. You have to realise that. And you have to be able to explain that.
Simply because most people are still under an INGRAINED ILLUSION. (Particularly those who ASSUME – BUT DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE – some kind of ‘authority’).
And … what’s it all about, anyway? “Legalese”? ‘Money’ is the answer (well, most of it!). So “Legalese” is concerned with cranking up, and supporting, a mind-fuck!
So, what do we have? Ha! We have an absurd mind-fuck supporting a blatant mind-fuck.
That’s what we have. (And we stand for it! Well … not for much longer! It was a good run, and these things were superbly crafted, and it was ‘good’ while it lasted … but “all good things must come to an end”… so they say)
6. The Frauds & Deceptions: Religion
David Icke has written extensively about this, as have many others. All religions have been well and truly exposed as frauds & deceptions, so I do not need to elaborate extensively.
'Religion' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Spiritual'.
Spiritual involves the Soul, the basis of our Consciousness ... Religion is just 'the application of dogma, parrot-fashion'.
According to the Bible, Jesus “kicked the moneylenders out of the Temple”. If Jesus had been real, and with real understanding, he would have pointed out that MONEY IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BELIEF SYSTEM/ILLUSION. (I’ve already given the reasons).
The late (great) George Carlin probably said it best: Religion is bullshit - George Carlin.
7. The Frauds & Deceptions: Demands & Orders
Whenever you receive a DEMAND (for ‘money’) it will be from a PRIVATE COMPANY, claiming LIMITED LIABILITY, and ACTIVELY TRADING FOR A PROFIT.
All Government Agencies
All Police Forces
All Utility Companies
All Local Councils
All Local Council Sub-Agencies … such as “Parking Services”
All Debt Collectors
Most Courts (except Courts de jure, such as the Old Bailey)
As a Human Being you have the Natural, Inalienable Right to trade with them …or not. Another way of saying that is you have the Right to Contract with them …or not.
But, they will not tell you that is your Right. They will assume you do not know your Rights (as most people don’t). (And they don’t know what your Rights are, anyway. They don’t know what their own Rights are).
There are some simple techniques you can use. If you try the ‘complex’ ones, then they will generally ignore you – and continue to steamroller their ‘process’ upon you.
So, it is recommended that you use the simple techniques to stop them dead in their tracks … before they even get going.
The basic situation is this: If you can point out that – by taking you to Court – it will be a waste of their time & energy – then you will usually find that they give up almost immediately.
In most cases their DEMAND will be for A SUM OF MONEY. We have already seen that “A SUM OF MONEY” does not exist, and is an ILLUSION. Thus to rebut a DEMAND FOR A SUM OF MONEY is NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. IT IS –NOT- DISHONOURABLE.
(They will do their utmost to make you feel ‘guilty’, as some kind of ‘tax-dodger’. That will NEVER be the case, because their demand is an illusion in the first place. It IS essential to hold on tight to this thought … through thick & thin).
To try to ENFORCE their demand they will need to obtain a Court Order. You can try to rebut this, but you will generally find all your protestations are generally ignored … simply because those you are dealing with haven’t a clue about the REALITY of the situation.
So … let them use their RUBBER STAMP.
The Courts, being PRIVATE BUSINESSES, are RENTED/HIRED by those attempting to obtain the ‘liability’ … and thus the whole mechanism is beset by ‘conflict of interest’ from the word ‘go’.
So, let it run. Let them waste their time. Don’t worry about it.
Your time comes when you receive a letter saying that a Court has made an Order against you.
That’s when you click into gear.
Very simply because: THE SERVICING OF ANY ORDER IS CHARGEABLE AT THE RATE DETERMINED BY WHOMSOEVER PROVIDES THE SERVICE.
Put simply, you can offer to pay the demand (‘service the Order’) - provided that you receive the appropriate recompense for doing so.
The recompense you will charge is £50 more than the amount demanded!
So, you’ll be writing back a letter, saying something like this.
I am in receipt of your demand for £150, and your Order to pay. I am prepared to make a Contract with you, in order to service your Order, and my quotation for doing so will be at a cost of £200 to yourselves.
Do you wish me to service your Order? If I hear nothing within fourteen (14) days then I will assume that you do not wish me to service your Order, after all.
On the other hand, if you send me a cheque for £200 then – once it has cleared – I will return a cheque for £150 in service of your Order.
You may consider that, if your company places an Order for (say) stationery, it will expect to pay your suppliers at the rate they determine (at the rate they quote). This is normal business practice, and I assume your company runs by normal business practices. If, on the other hand, your company expects Orders to be serviced at no cost (as would appear from your unilateral, non-contractual, demand), then that would constitute business malpractice, attempted blackmail, and/or extortion (especially if accompanied by any form of ‘menaces’). And these are all criminal offences. Is that not the case?
So, the bottom line is: Do you wish to Contract? “Yes” or “No”?
Yours sincerely without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Inalienable Rights reserved.
Things – which were blowing red hot – tend to go ‘very cold’ after that letter is sent.
8. The Frauds & Deceptions: Double-edged Swords
The above handling of Demands & Orders is one example of a double-edged sword. The 2nd edge – the one no-one ever told you about – is they fact that you can charge for ‘servicing Orders’.
Back at the beginning I pointed out that Servicemen, Policemen, and all Company Employees consent to ‘service all Orders given’ for a flat salary fee. Very few people – only pure volunteers – work for nothing … for no recompense. 99.9999999% expect to be paid, otherwise they would not do their job.
If one has not ‘consented to service all Orders given’ for a flat rate, then one can quote whatever one considers to be the rate for the job. Just as if one was SELF-EMPLOYED.
You just make sure you quote MORE than ‘they’ are demanding.
That’s an example of a double-edged sword.
EVERYTHING has two edges.
The trick is to ‘see’ (and utilise) the OTHER EDGE.
Another doubled-edged sword is that – in 1993 – it cost £2,500 PER INMATE, PER WEEK, to keep someone incarcerated in prison. What the cost is today I have not researched, but (by 2010) it will certainly not be less!
Another double-edged sword is that – particularly in a Magistrate’s Court - they can have you taken downstairs and incarcerated in the Court’s Jail … TO TEACH YOU A LESSON!!!!!!
What’s the other edge? First of all the Court cell is just a barred-off area with a bench seat. It will probably not even have a toilet … and almost certainly will not have washing facilities. In short, IT WILL NOT BE GEARED FROM A LONG-TERM STAY … generally not even an overnight stay.
And so – come 5:30pm (or maybe even 4:30pm) … THEY ALL WANT TO GO HOME! (Including the Security Guard, downstairs)
And so … some time later … WHEN YOU’VE BEEN TAUGHT A LESSON – they will send someone down, to say “If you apologise, then you can come up”.
The correct response to this is: “If THEY … apologise to ME … then I’ll be prepared to come up!”.
(You say this knowing full well they want to go home).
So they will bring you back up into Court anyway. (Because they want to go home!)
At which point you can say “This case is adjourned, until YOU apologise to ME. You've had your little bit of fun” … and walk out … and go home.
They will be utterly dumbfounded, and will not know what to do.
They may call you back … but ignore them.
If they threaten “Contempt of Court”, then use the rebuts in my book (“Would that be CRIMINAL or CIVIL?”, etc.)
They will rubber stamp the Liability Order after you have left.
So you use the technique under Section 7, above.
9. The Frauds & Deceptions: ‘Debts’
Since ‘money’ is an ILLUSION, ‘debts’ must also be an illusion.
And this includes Overdrafts, Mortgages, and Credit Cards, etc.
However, to explain the illusion to morons is not that easy.
Simply because they have lost the brain-power to comprehend.
So, the technique here is to simply tie them up on knots by means of A SERIES OF letters.
(Actually to use their ‘moronicity’ … is that a word? Well, it is now! This constitutes yet another double-edged sword … namely the fact that one is dealing universally with morons).
The letters are designed to put them into a cleft stick, such that they have absolutely nowhere to turn.
However, because of the complications, ‘templates’ are necessary. And embedding these templates correctly – such that the letters in question actually address the precise issue – at the precise time - is prone to manual errors.
For this reason we have created a Software Application to create correctly-embedded letters.
The Application (it’s a Windows Application) is called “DebtBust” and is freely downloadable, and free to use.
It can be used on behalf of others.
It is still in its infancy, but currently offers a series of letters to rebut Banks, and another series to rebut Debt Collection Agencies (DCAs).
See Section 11, below.
10. Lawful Rebellion
By these methods of Lawful Rebellion we believe that we can render the Courts ‘toothless’.
At that point EVERYONE else is ‘toothless’ … including much of the Police’s activities.
At that point the Police would be reduced down to the job they are actually paid for …i.e. catching criminals. They would become Peace Officers.
The central issue is this: If we get back to the Fundamentals of Life on Earth – and I hope this little essay does something to kick-start that process – then everything else comes down to ‘toothlessness’ …in some way or other.
The EU … which is nothing more than yet another Belief System … and ALL ABOUT MONEY … is rendered toothless.
The Man-Made Global Warning scam … which is ALL ABOUT MONEY (Carbon Tax) … is rendered toothless.
And so on.Everywhere you look the Chips of Illusion crumble to the ground. (And we can dance upon them!)
Perhaps that’s why I take a laid-back view about all these other things … including something called a “New World Order”.
Because … at the end of the day … it is ALL ABOUT AN ILLUSION … and will be implemented by the same old morons who are implementing things today. And they are such easy meat, because they are so mind-controlled.
It’s all just a ride (as the late Bill Hicks said so succinctly). I just make sure I’m only ever riding ONE HORSE at a time. (Anything else causes a tendency to split the trousers).
11. Debt Busting and “Legal Fiction” Rebutting
In order to smash the Chips of the Illusions”, FMOTL has produced a Debt Busting Application. It is a Windows-based, standalone executable, that can be downloaded and operated for free. It will create all the letters your need to send, in order to ‘bust’ all your so-called (and, in Truth, non-existent) ‘debts’.
If you think you are ‘in debt’, then maybe you should read this.
These are the details of the Application (as it stands on 5th January, 2010)
I get asked about "Signatures". When/how should one sign a letter. This is the sort of thing I get asked:
"... i was just about to send off my letter to Xxxxx and was wondering whether it should be signed by me as well as printed? is this important? normally i would sign a letter personally, but i dunno now ... am i re-enforcing my acceptance legally as a named fiction? fuck it gets complicated! and i really know nufffin about this kinda ting."
I guess he's not the only one!
Well, this was my reply (which, I think) says it all:
Signing letters? I don't, these days ... reasons:
1. The arseholes often don't sign theirs ... so why should I?
2. Why should I give them a copy of my signature, just so that they can Photoshop it?
3. They ignore me anyway ... as much as they can.
4. I have a personal Embossed Stamp that I use ... obtained from here: http://www.rubberstamp.uk.com/EmbossingPresses.php
5. What is said in the Letters generally doesn't require a signature ... it's just telling them they have no power/authority to write to me in the first place. That's THEIR problem ... nothing really to do with me PERSONALLY (any more than anyone else). Basically they are all Organic-Robot MORONS ... so they don't understand anything anyway.
6. The only thing that's 'personal' is that I will henceforth charge them for writing to me. Well, I've told them ... so they can't claim ignorance ... whether I've signed it or not. Again EVERYONE has they right ... AND HAS THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT ... so - fundamentally - they are lucky to have got away with it for as long as they have. And that's the way I look at it ... not whether or not I've signed anything.
Basically the letter is a 'bombshell' ... and bombs don't normally contain signatures ... they just blow up whatever stuff is around at the time.
No point in demanding that a bomb bears a hand-written signature before it's allowed to go off ... is there?
The fact is ... I've told them to run for cover. It's up to them whether they do or not ... isn't it?
That's the way I look at it. It isn't really 'complicated'.
The whole thing is all about 'mindset'. 'Mindset'. Not 'how to do things officially' ... but HOW TO DO THINGS HONOURABLY.
And the honourable thing to do is to: Give them Notice. If they don't take any notice ... fucking tough on them!
13. Promises, Consent, and Authority ... and so on
This goes back to everything. If Human "A" makes a promise to Human "B" ... that's between Humans "A" and "B".
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Human "C".
If Human "A" is some dickhead who calls himself the UK Prime Minister, and Human "B" is some dickhead in Brussels (or Strasbourg) ... and they make promises to each other ... then that's nothing whatsoever to do with you or I. Because we are Human "C".
'Mindset', as I pointed out above (when discussing Signatures). It's all about 'mindset' - getting it right, and seeing things clearly.
Now CONSENT to obey 'rules' comes ONLY when you agree to obey those 'rules'. This is when you join a Society - thereby agreeing to obey its Legislated Rules (Statutes).
No-one has to right to 'join you into a Society' without your consent. YOUR CONSENT. No-one else's CONSENT will do. They can only CONSENT for themselves.
Only a complete MORON, and UTTER TWONK, someone UTTERLY STUPID, would even think of suggesting that you can be enjoined into some Society or other without YOUR EXPRESS CONSENT.
Have I just described the pathetic mindset of our Boys in Blue? Yes, I think I have.
It's very simple, Mr. Policyman ... or Ms. Clerk to the Justices: SHOW ME THE PIECE OF PAPER, WHICH BEARS MY TRUE SIGNATURE - NOT OBTAINED UNDER DURESS OR BY DECEPTION - SUCH THAT I APPLIED TO BECOME A MEMBER OF YOUR SOCIETY, AND OBEY IT'S LEGISLATED RULES, AND THAT MY MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION WAS SUCCESSFUL, AND THAT I HAVE NOT SINCE RESIGNED ... or be forever damned AS A CRIMINAL if you DARE apply those rules to me.
I do NOT CONSENT to be bound by the promises made by a group of dickheads in Westminster. I only CONSENT to be bound by MY OWN PROMISES. Those made of my own free will, and not under duress, and not by deception!
This means that your 'Authority' over me is NIL. (Nil means zero, nothing, zilch, fuck-all, bugger-all ... choose your word)
YOU can be bound by these Legislated Rules if you wish. But DON'T include me. And don't ASSUME you can include me. You have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to any such assumption. And, I repeat, only some THICK STUPID MORON, some COMPLETE TWONK, a PLONKER, a TOTAL DAWK, would think the way you do.
If you had one functioning brain cell, it would surely die of loneliness.
So, keep your filthy, guilt-ridden, CRIMINAL, hands off me & mine. (Use them for wanking, and holding a beer glass. And your various Masonic handshakes. And, while you are about it, GET A LIFE. One that isn't full of shit).
Yes ... I know you have 'numbers'. I know you have 'muscle'. I know you have 'technology'. And I know you can find me any ole time you choose.
But, what you DON'T HAVE is ANY AUTHORITY ... to do anything OTHER THAN to 'Keep the peace'. Which is what you SWORE TO DO, when you took your Oath of Office. (Do you remember that? That little ole thing? Your SOLEMN OATH? Huh? That old thing?) And, when you run around ... as you constantly do ... with your 'Blues & Twos' blaring ... MY PEACE IS SERIOUSLY DISTURBED by your antics.
Oh ... so you're one of the 'good ones' are you? Well, what are you doing mixed up with a bunch of HYPOCRITICAL, CORRUPT, COWARDLY CREEPS, then? Huh? What you doing mixed up with them? Why aren't you sorting them out? Why do you BLATANTLY LIE in order to support them? ("Gotta close ranks ... part of The Job". No ... it isn't a part of the job! Lying is not what you are PAID for. Sorting out the HYPOCRITICAL, CORRUPT, COWARDLY CREEPS is what you are paid for. DO IT. DO IT NOW!)
The Truth, "Officer Goodone", is this. You are a coward. And sick. Mentally sick. And any mention of being a 'good one' is BULLSHIT. And (deep down) you know it ... and I know it. And this is true while even ONE Common Purpose-driven 'bad apple' remains on your so-called 'force'.
"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for Good Men to do nothing"
But then, if Good Men stand around (presumably jacking themselves off), and DO NOTHING ... were they Good Men, to start with?
That's the question, surely?
Marc Stevens has it just about right (... see Chapter 6 in my book: Global Elite/Psychopaths)
(Oh ... and yes ... these days, these little essays of mine tend to go all the way around the Internet)
Veronica: of the Chapman family (December, 2009/January 2010)
("Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote" Benjamin Franklin, 1759)