Page 1 of 2

Newspaper

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:18 pm
by Freeman Stephen
In my search for practicing sovereignty in more than just words on paper I've made it known that I'm looking for work which will not require me to get authorisation from licensing "authorities", banks, etc. I believe the solution is to produce a newspaper and vend it myself. So basically Im looking for articles which are open for copy pasting onto the newspaper - whose authors are okay with this.

Basically I want copy for fiat free so I can vend off hard copies for fiat profit - a bit like gnu license as in the style of wikipedia. I know this sounds mercenary, but Im not trying to fill my coffers so I can get stoned on the largest bong in the universe, but just trying to find a means to exercise my right to life without requiring permission from the state in some form or another - a newspaper fits this bill. The double purpose is that this path will enable me to reach more people with our message of freedom.

So if you've written any articles (even forum OPs which dont relate to other threads) and you are happy with me mercilessly exploiting your work for personal profit then please leave me a link to the article. Also if you know of anyone who has published stuff online, together with some type of "disclaimer" saying that I can do this with their work, then please leave me links to their articles and their "disclaimer".

The articles cant name any "persons" who might sue me (for the mean time), even if its completely accurate whats being said about them. You know the kind of stuff Im looking for because you visit places like this.

If I can get this off the ground, I intend to open it up as a revenue stream for people trapped in the PAYE/BANK/LICENSE catch, but right now its restricted to Scotland until someone from elsewhere can research the statutes relevant for their neck of the woods.

Any help you can provide me would be appreciated.

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:03 am
by Freeman Stephen
11/24 pages completed, could do with some more stuff hopefully for thursday or friday to vend on saturday

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:50 pm
by Freeman Stephen
bump

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:39 pm
by Freeman Stephen
1
Saturday 12th February 2011
Issue 1
One Pound Sterling Silver
Published by Stephen Duffy, Gartbeth, Box 318,
111 West George Street, Glasgow G2 1QX
0741 322 9352 / steph.c.duffy@googlemail.com
WAS 9/11
AN INSIDE
JOB?
Over a decade has passed since
the World Trade Centre in New
York was destroyed in 2001 but
still there are questions which
remain unanswered.
Countless “citizen journalists” (in
mainstream media parlance) have been
investigating infamous terrorist attack on
the world trade centre and discovering
questions which the mainstream media
won't even ask, let alone investigate. For
example, how did the passports of the
alleged bombers turn up unscathed in the
wreckage of the twin towers which were
supposedly turned to dust by the impact
of the planes?
What happened to WTC 7 which was not
struck by either of the planes yet
collapsed in what onlookers describe as a
“controlled demolition”?
These are two of the many questions that
9/11 researchers have asked only to
discover that the more information they
find out, the more questions they want
answered.
It's not exactly hidden knowledge that
politicians lie, but when the conspiracy
theory of Osama Bin Laden – a man who
was trained by the CIA - colluded with
19 religious fanatics to kill 3000 people
in 2001 is raised, it is not the politicians
who are accused of being conspiracy
theorists, but those who question the
likelihood of such a scenario.
The whole subject of 9/11 research is an
area relegated to the back alleys of the
mainstream media where one might find
speculative stories about alien abductions
and tin foil hats, but far from being
2
speculative the whole 9/11 truth
movement is backed by some impressive
experts in engineering, eye witnesses and
an array of contradictions from the
mainstream media which would suggest
there is more to the terrorist attacks than
the mainstream media are letting on.
The whole question of what happened on
9/11 and who was responsible is
something that has been highly discussed
online but almost completely ignored by
a so called free press who have been
happy to simply repeat what is described
as the “Official Story” as if it did not
have gaping holes in its construction.
Likely the truth will never be revealed
about what really happened on 9/11 or
for that matter the 7/7 bombings in
London which have created mandate for
the UK to cramp down and infringe upon
the rights and freedoms of the people of
the British Isles, and most 9/11
researchers know this.
All they ask is that people look into the
events, the evidence provided from all
sides of the debate and knowing more
than just the half truths provided on the
mainstream media, to come to their own
conclusions based upon a full deck of
cards.
While there are a vast array of
mainstream media channels from the
daily newspapers to state run television
channels, there are a whole host of
issues, questions and contradictions
which are never ever raised on such
channels. Issues, questions and
contradictions that you might find raised
at websites such as these:
911scholars.org
stj911.org
www.911truth.org
Freedom Journal expresses no particular
opinion about what happened on 9/11
except the opinion that the people have a
right to know more than what they are
being told in the mainstream media.
Its time to get informed!
Moneys
Worth
In the current “global economic
downturn” thoughts turn to that
real economy of getting as much
out the pound in your pocket as
possible, but how much is that
pound in your pocket really worth?
Grab a banknote out your pocket, if your
fortunate enough to have such a
commodity which is getting rarer and
rarer by the day for most of us. Now read
it: “The Bank of England promise to pay
the bearer on demand the sum of ten
pounds sterling.”
What you have there in your hand is not
“money” as such, but a promissory note
where the bank promises to pay you, the
bearer, a sum certain in money. If it
wasn't for the 1925 [sic] financial
emergency which continues to this day as
per the Gold Standard Act 1925, you
would be able to take that piece of paper
3
to the bank and draw out about a quarter
of an ounce of gold – (a gold sovereign
to be precise). Because we are already in
a financial emergency which has been
ongoing for over a century, the banks, by
statute need not honour their promises to
pay the money they declare to owe you
on that bank note.
This is a financial emergency which the
current one is merely something imposed
on top of. Like many of the controversial
statutes that the powers that be would
rather we forgot, the Gold Standard Act
1925 is not published online, but it can
be found in the back recesses of your
central library such as the Mitchell in
IGt liass goonwe .of many statutes that a group of
people known as the Freemen-on-the-
Land have been researching in order to
discover what they describe as “the
diamonds of their freedom”.
The Freemen-on-the-Land declare
themselves to be “men” as in “mankind”
and relate their heritage back to the
Freemen described in the Magna Carta –
a constitutional document for many
countries worldwide first created in
Norman England in 1215, but now
largely discredited by the current
authorities in the UK and elsewhere who
have deemed themselves fit to repeal and
amend ancient laws which guarantee the
freedom of the ordinary Joe.
Originally, the “pounds sterling” declared
on the promissory notes were receipts for
that pound weight in sterling silver –
silver of 95% purity – but the
introduction of the Gold Standard
allowed for easier trading with other
countries who had mostly adopted gold,
rather than silver as their currency.
The idea behind the receipts meant that it
made trade easier because those who had
real money in the banks could, instead of
going to collect their money in order to
trade could simply pass the receipts to a
new bearer, who in turn could go and
collect the money from the bank
themselves.
This bank note system became so
successful that there was very little need
for anyone to visit a bank to collect their
money since the receipts themselves
were as good for trade as the real thing.
So the banks, left with all this extra gold
and silver that no one had any need for
decided to put it to other uses.
Occasionally there would be a “run” on
the bank as everyone came in at the same
time to draw on their bank notes, but the
banks could not meet with the demands
since much of the actual money was
being used for other purposes. The
practice of “fractional reserve banking”
was then legislated, which ensured that
banks had to have a certain fraction of
the gold in stock for the bank notes they
had issued.
During the first world war, the powers
that be, requiring gold to fund their wars,
4
declared that for the duration of the
1914-1918 war, that no one could draw
real money, but that the bank notes were
to be used as currency instead. After the
war was over, things returned to normal,
until 1925 when the practice of having
access to their own money was abolished
for a so called temporary period which
has lasted to the present day.
As for the question of how much a
promissory note is worth, the answer is
either exactly the value of the paper its
written on, or what goods or services
people will offer for the note. As for the
question of how much a bankers promise
is worth, history relates that its worth
little if anything at all!
WW2
Revisited
Given the aggression levelled at
relatively disarmed countries, the
practice of torture, and the illegal status
of the occupation of Iraq, you could be
forgiven for wondering who actually won
the second world war.
There is much said about revisionism
with regards to the holocausts committed
by the third Reich as they executed,
sterilized and exiled the more
problematic members of their population
such as the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals
and anyone conscientiously objecting to
the aggression of their own leaders, but
there is little said with regard to the
revisionism going on in the public mind
with the casual promotion and indeed
acceptance of these once vanquished
eugenicist concepts.
Even the BBC have broadcast shows
where the idea of sterilizing parts of the
British population have been banded
about, not in terms of some Orwellian
nightmare but in terms of a possible
solution to the social problems of drug
addiction or poverty.
To the discerning mind, there is no need
to go into the ins and outs of how opium
production increased as the coalition
invaded the Afghan poppy fields,
because the very idea that state media
should promote these ideas at all would
suggest there has been some substantial
revision to the policies of a state which
was, with our forebears completely
opposed to the idea that the state could
interfere in such inalienable rights.
Eugenicists are not the only resurgent
force in the UK, and the whole Hitlerian
ideology is not only sweeping the
corridors of power in this country but in
other equally embattled corners of our
European allies.
France for example, recently exiled many
5
of Gypsies in autumn 2010, where over
300 camps were jackbooted out of
existence. While the European Union
engages in a long drawn out process to
determine whether or not the expulsions
were lawful or not, those discerning
historians already know the answer,
unless the EU and its now subsidiary
states have completely revised all that
had been learned from Hitler's rise to
power.
The whole rise of fascism is not even
limited to Europe as we now see the US,
once dubbed “Land of the Free”
increasingly clamp down on the freedom
of its people, who are now forced into
unlawful searches at body scanners if
they wish to travel on an aeroplane, with
the presumption that all the people are
guilty unless they can prove their
innocence. The same circumstances
occur in the UK too, and while its being
pulled into acceptance with the threat of
cave dwellers hiding bombs in their
underpants, there are an awful lot of
rights that are being infringed left right
and centre which can only be very tightly
construed to pass as being pertinent to
our security.
For example, the automated scanning of
all internet and mobile phone
correspondence by state computers
looking for keywords that might profile
you as ... whatever the state wishes to
profile.
Right now, you might think the state
should be interested in catching
terrorists, but the reality is that the new
terrorism laws are being used more often
against Joe public than anyone with
exploding y-fronts.
The right to privacy in our
correspondence was declared to be an
inalienable right back in 1948 by the very
states that now infringe them.
The very institutions that are there to
protect our rights are the very institutions
which we need protection from!
It's a somewhat open secret that “At the
strategic level, the UK population is
usually considered to be the principal
target audience for UK Media Ops and
comprises a number of overlapping subsets
across the spectrum of UK
society. However, the most influential
target audience for Media Ops to
address is a fairly limited group of
people who hold disproportionate
influence
on the direction of government and
public thinking and policy development.
This group comprises: politicians and
statesmen, members of ‘think-tanks’ and
professional bodies, special political
advisers, newspaper columnists,
academics, analysts and journalists (who
are increasingly voicing opinions on
current affairs issues). Nevertheless, the
impact of general public opinion on
political decision making should never
be underestimated.”
So goes the now publicly available Joint
6
Doctrine Publication 3-45.1, as it
declares that the UK military are pulling
the strings of both the mainstream media
AND our so called representatives! It is
nothing but sick humour for the very
same to suggest there is anything
democratic about war, austerity, high
taxes and the complete lack of service
from the masters who describe
themselves as public servants.
But be careful to not say it too loudly
because the soviet style CCTV
programme that John Major (the prime
minister in 1995) rolled out without any
public mandate, now have microphones
to match the loudspeakers which might
hail you if you dare to breach some
government policy you had no idea
about.
John Major was dubbed “the most
unpopular prime minister ever” and
perhaps this was not in some part due to
his signing off the sovereignty of the
United Kingdom, which once had
complete power to make its own laws
and collect its own taxes, but having
given up its sovereignty and consigning
its own existence to the EU, is now
subjugated to obeying the dictat of an
international institution which was happy
to tell Ireland to go back and vote again
because the vote they cast did not meet
with the approval of this non-democratic
superstate.
The loss of sovereignty has not only
caused the statelessness of many UK
citizens, unwilling to consent to be ruled
by this foreign power, but has also been
responsible for many major
constitutional changes which go
unreported until required by an over
regulated and over infiltrated “free”
press.
While the right to peaceful assembly has
been an acknowledged right enjoyed
since time immemorial, post Maastricht
laws have allowed this right to be
“restricted” (read infringed) in certain
circumstances. We no longer enjoy a
right to protest outside our own
parliament ... or at all, considering we
need the permission of the state wearing
its policeman's hat in order to engage in
this practice without the fear of
truncheons and bankrupting lawsuits
from the state coming down upon our
heads.
The very right to life can hardly be said
to exist when to acquire the necessities of
life almost completely requires the living
to get permission in some form or other
from the state by way of license, birth
certification to acquire a bank account in
order to work, or to engage the use of
lawyers for the very simple life of even
subsistence farming.
The events of 9/11 have only given the
powers that be more ammunition with
which to attack the rights of the ordinary
people who, tuned into television rather
than their own welfare are more than
willing to give up whatever rights they
have, provided the need for them to give
up the rights is repeated enough times on
7
their television sets.
The idea that dog poo, should return to
the soil and not a waste collection bin
does not occur as a natural process to a
people bombarded with the sensational
fear of children going blind. It's a
surprise there isn't some form of tax or
revenue collection for the practice of
feeding peanut butter to children. Recent
reports suggest that the cause of nut
allergies is the lack of exposure to nuts,
which is another surprise considering
how many nuts are rolled onto the TV as
experts on such things!
The experts tell us that the CCTV is there
to protect our safety and our property but
there are more “criminals” caught for
administrative offences such as crossing
railway lines when its safe, than there are
burglars, who quite aware of the CCTV
and the genuine injustice they are
committing are careful to avoid being
identifiable on them. Such an argument
to the paranoid experts who have
installed them would no doubt being up
ideas of implanting the entire population
with microchips in order that each of us
could be geo-located even when we are
not carrying a mobile phone.
Human
Rights
Act?
There can be few people who
haven't heard of the Human Rights
Act which the UK parliament were
forced to adopt as statutory law
thanks to the terms of the
Maastricht Treaty, but does this
act, and the Charter it references
promote human rights or detract
from them?
The Human Rights Act 1998 is a UK
statute which brought the European
Union's Human Rights Convention into
UK law. It is promoted as the ubiquitous
piece of human rights legislation in
mainstream media of all the EU's
subjugated states, but unreported are the
contents of the convention itself and how
the convention actually conflicts with
earlier human rights legislation such as
the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was proclaimed by the United
Nations just a few short years after the
fall of the third Reich. It did not grant
any new rights, it merely declared rights
that already existed, and declared them to
be inalienable, meaning that these were
rights which could not be alienated from
those who had them – we the people.
It was a response from a world horrified
8
by the atrocities of war, not to mention
the capricious indulgences of dictators
who considered they had such might that
they could wave off the rights of anyone
they pleased and beat them down with
black clad storm troopers should anyone
complain.
Making a comparison between the
European Convention of Human Rights
(ECHR) and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) you might be
forgiven for recalling the rules of Animal
Farm in the famous book by George
Orwell as the rules originally made for
benevolent purposes are slowly bent out
of shape to suit the wants and desires of
the head pig of the famous novel.
For instance, while the UDHR says in
article 4 only “No one shall be held in
slavery or servitude; slavery and the
slave trade shall be prohibited in all their
forms.”, the ECHR, in its Article 4,
almost repeats the same but adds new
definition which suggests compulsory
labour is somehow not servitude, and that
compulsory labour is mandatory in
certain cases where the EU or its
subsidiary states will benefit from such
(ahem) non-servitude.
Why anyone would want to redefine
slavery and servitude to suit their own
ends should be a question which rings
alarm bells, but the rights with regard to
servitude are not the only rights which
the ECHR deems to be infringable.
Article after article seems like a
reworking of the UDHR, with each
article having exceptions which allow the
EU and its subjugated states to infringe
the very rights that are thereby being
declared.
The ECHR does not declare or grant new
rights but redefines old rights to the
extent that with the exception of only a
very few articles, such as torture, it is a
document which creates restrictions on
human rights, rather than some
benevolent declaration of the values we,
as a people truly hold... or at least used
to.
In today's world we are exposed to
countless channels of propagandous
rubbish about how our human rights are
affected when the ordinary Joe punches
us on the face. No doubt that such things
are infringements of our human rights,
but the whole onus behind human rights
legislation is not so that we can hold each
other to account for our actions – surely
that is the purpose of domestic law – but
so that we can hold states accountable for
their actions.
To propose that the ECHR is somehow
beneficial to protecting the people from
the state is to propose that jumping into
shark infested waters will protect us from
sharks!
Most of the articles which initially
9
redeclare the UDHR are disclaimed
article for article with sub-sections along
the lines of
“No restrictions shall be placed on the
exercise of these rights other than such
as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or
morals or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others. This Article shall
not prevent the imposition of lawful
restrictions on the exercise of these
rights by members of the armed forces,
of the police or of the administration of
the State.”
Though there is no definition for the
various “other than”s ... other than
whatever the so called democratic society
dictates to be lawful.
I use the words “so called” in a very
choice fashion, not because of Ireland
being told to go back to the polls and
vote again with regard to the Lisbon
Treaty, but because clearly in a system
where the “so called” representatives are
controlled by party whips and newspaper
headlines, the chances of any of them
truly representing their constituents are
as slim as their constituents actually
knowing what the hell they are up to and
being insane enough to agree with them.
The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was proclaimed in 1948 by the
allies who beat the third Reich who had
off their own backs decided to suspend
the rights of their people. The rights were
declared by everyone who is in the
United Nations (almost the entire world)
to be inalienable. How can it be that a
small section of states now propose to
alienate their own citizens from their
inalienable rights?
The ECHR is available in Schedule 1 of
the Human Rights Act 1998 which can be
found at www.legislation.gov.uk. The
UDHR can be found at
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr. It is
worth having a look at, before you give
up your rights to life, peace, freedom and
abundance!
There is more information with regard to
the whole EU agenda from eutruth.org
and thebcgroup.org.uk as well as various
information published by the likes of
Patrick Moore (the astrologer) and
Frederick Forsyth (the author).
The referendum wont occur until the
electorate are convinced to vote in the
way that is desired.
Democracy, Huh?
Some say democracy is like two wolves
and a sheep fighting for dinner, but
surely that's far better than one wolf and
a dozen sheep having no say at all about
whether they get “taken out to lunch”!
The sheep are out to lunch to accept it
and their only excuse must be their
ignorance, which is no surprise given the
lack of any real journalism in the modern
world despite all the new communication
technology.
10
A Person
Made of
Straw
One of the latest “tinpot” theories
to come from the freedom
movement is the idea of the
“Strawman” being represented by
the “Person”. The Freedom
Journal questions how accurate
this assertion is.
Many will be familiar with the famous
movie “The Wizard of Oz” but few will
be aware that it was based on a book
from 1923, with all the more sordid bits
taken out. I don't mean that Dorothy went
on the game as Toto pimped her out to all
the munchkins, but that there are certain
important parts of the book that are not
recounted in the famous movie.
For example, the Emerald City which
displays itself in glorious technicolor
green in the movie is infact a white city
in the book, that only appears green
because all who enter her are by law
forced to wear green tinted glasses all the
time.
The book is filled with many such
interesting twists which do not appear in
the movie and it is suggested by some
that the yellow brick road is a metaphor
for gold – the road to follow as the
currency was being changed to paper.
The tinman is originally discovered in
such a bad state of repair that it takes
Dorothy to oil him back to his
industrious ability. This is considered a
metaphor for the working man and the
industry he is capable of ... so long as the
it doesn't pour. In the end he gets the
heart he once had before.
There is also the lion, with his loud roars
but confesses eventually to having no
courage, rather like the wizard hiding
behind the curtains with all his claps of
thunder and wondrous illusions to scare
everyone into believing he is anything
more than an ordinary man.
The scarecrow, having no brain is
considered to be the metaphor for what is
described as the strawman. The reasons
why this character has no brain will
become apparent as it is related what the
strawman is, for it is not simple some
creation from the Wizard of Oz but an
abstract concept of abstraction going
back before 1923 and existing until the
very present.
The strawman is a man made of straw, an
11
apparent human, which is not human and
not even a living creature. A man made
fiction, made with the purpose of
convincing real human beings that they
are infact the strawman rather than their
own selves.
How silly would it be for men to think
they are made of straw? Would it be so
silly to suggest that the vast bulk of
people make no legal distinction between
themselves and men made out of ink and
paper?
There is a bit of paper with each man's
name, sex, date of birth and even their
serial number. These bits of paper are not
the men themselves but are the
ubiquitous piece of identification since
the concept of birth certification was
imposed. These doppelgangers –
identities created by governments for
each and every human they can lay claim
to are the property of the government,
since they issue the certificates, and
based upon these certificates, all other
identity is created from social welfare
entitlements to passports and driving
licences and every legal right which one
has permission to acquire... not because
of their true self, but because of the
identity created for them, an identity they
can lawfully decline at any time, though
the powers that be do not see it that way.
By virtue of being born onto a particular
patch of land, a human is born in
bondage which is enforced by fines,
incarceration and the threat and use of
violence against them for not obeying
what the powers that be roughly define to
be “the law”.
This “law”, created according to the will
of what we are told is a democratic
society despite the mass media
campaigns and lack of real
representation, is not necessarily the
“law” which provides the justice we
would all like to see in our world, but a
stramash of common sense in regards to
not punching people in the face, mixed
thoroughly with intolerable rights for the
state to punch our face as they feel fit,
churned together and rebranded as “law”.
Real human beings know what justice is
and even though they don't know the
countless acts of parliament or bills of
state which must fill entire rooms of
bookshelves, you can rest assured that
real criminals know when they are
committing wrong, because they know
they would not like those real crimes to
be committed against them. Such is not
bondage, merely respect for others.
What is to be said when from birth we
are obliged to perform acts of obedience,
that we ourselves could not oblige on our
obligers? What is to be said when such
one sided unbalanced dictat is enforced
with the same force of law that might be
applicable should a real crime have been
committed.
It might be the correct thing to do, to
travel at 30 mph on a 30 mph road, but if
our actions in breaking this “law” are
carried out with full regard to the safety
of others, having neither risked nor
committed any injustice, who has the
right to commit injustice against us? Who
has the right to declare that such rules of
administration and demanded obedience
should be applied against us with no
regard for the circumstances of any real
breach in justice?
The powers that be deem, that they have
such right, and the right to bond us to
such obedience from birth. The 30 mph
12
rule is just one of a vast load of rules,
many of which are aimed at preventing
people from exercising their own right to
life without gaining the permission of the
powers that be to gain the necessities
required to exercise such a right.
Grease the right palms at the state
regulated universities and there are a
tonne of graduates willing to see to it that
whatever rules the powers that be wish to
impose will come forth, and thanks to
television, to the welcome of a grateful
people glad to see the back of drug
victims with children, smokers in public
and people wearing non-state approved
shoes on a Tuesday afternoon!
Since the only true lawful power a state
has over its citizens is the fact that they
have issued an identity to that person,
how can it be lawful to inflict harm on a
person who makes no distinction
between their true self and their identity,
when such a person has committed not
risked any harm to anyone else?
Of course, the powers that be have big
sticks, guns and nuclear bombs and there
is no doubt they can get whatever they
want from anyone much weaker. Just
because they have the ability to write up
whatever they please and call it “law”,
does not give them the lawful right to
inflict harm on innocent people for
breaching rules, the breach of which
causes no harm. So it has been contended
(for decades at least) that in theory all the
non-crime legislation which does not
codify the true law could simple be opted
out of, simply by placing liability on the
strawman, which is afterall issued by the
state which would then become liable.
Of course it is theoretical because the
commands of anyone with enough
weapons is enough to compel obedience
regardless of whether they call
themselves the “young team”, “the
mafia” or “the state”.
The concept of the strawman is not
disputed here, only that in certain circles,
the strawman is being described as “the
person”.
Legal dictionaries such as Black's define
the “person” to be the thing by which a
human or corporation acquires rights and
obligations at law. If the “person” were
the strawman rather than the identity, it
would be like saying that a human has no
standing at law, despite the fact that all
but the most psychopathic will attribute
rights and obligations in regards to
justice, to that human. If the person is a
strawman, then the entire world would be
acting naturally as psychopaths which
they are not, therefore, the person must
be something that exists quite separate
from anything the state can create.
SCANDAL!
Bank bailouts, MP expenses
scams, and the agenda hidden
from our eyes.
Did you hear the one about the MP who
was fiddling his expenses at the same
time he was donating money to cash
strapped banks? Maybe you didn't hear it
in its completeness like that but if you
put two and two together, you would
need to be civil servant to see that two
plus two is five.
At least you heard the joke even if they
daren't put the punchline too close to
13
catch line. Its unlikely you heard about
the even bigger joke of expenses claims
in the European Union, unless you were
listening very very closely in places that
the ordinary people shouldn't dare.
Its such a scandal, the people cant decide
whether they should all be hung,
guillotined or sent infront of a firing
squad, but by the time parliaments done
with deciding what the people want,
they'll be forced to make two or three
members resign with full pension rights
and cushy jobs in the diplomatic service.
Who elected these guys? Well I suppose
you did. I didn't vote. What's the point. It
doesn't matter which of the two or three
electable parties get into power its
always the same crazy policies.
Maybe the newspapers and mass media
channels could help us bring them all to
justice if it wasn't for the fact that there is
as much oligarchy in the mass media as
there is in the houses of parliament, and
if it wasn't for the fact they had already
reached some mutually beneficial
agreement all their jackets would be on a
shaky peg.
Far from this, out go one lot of
scoundrels, in come a whole new bunch
of people who will soon learn to buckle
down and toe the party lines lest they be
outed as loose cannons in the free press
who are keen to tell us that a hung
parliament is a bad thing for democracy.
If there were no parties to force their will
on the peoples representatives, would not
their freedom to vote, as their own
conscience dictates, be more conducive
to democracy? Or would they simply
become the pawns of media moguls who
could make or break their reputations
with the mere hint that they might have
maybe possibly had an illicit affair with
someone they have never met in their
entire cream puff.
To be sure, a genuinely free press does
serve a purpose in bringing to light the
things we might like to know about true
representatives that they would rather we
didn't know, but that's on the provision
that there is a genuine free press and true
representatives.
I'll be sure to report any lock downs on
the publication of the Freedom Journal,
or at least have it reported if the so called
Meta Censorship thing is really
happening. (Meta Censorship being the
censorship of the fact that there is
censorship.)
As for genuine representation, you can
find out that one for yourself. Go to the
constituency office for the MP for your
area. Try not to wear a burka if the MP
has been panicked into not representing
ethnic minorities. Be pleasant, be polite
14
and ask them, if you were to grant them
the right to represent you to the
parliament, how would they represent
you and how could they be made
accountable if they did not perform this
duty for you?
They presume the right is granted merely
because you live where you live, yet
given that there is exactly no hope of a
private members bill getting through
parliament if its not backed up by a party
elite, and that the MP likely has a private
members bill in mind if they ever get the
chance to suggest it, how exactly are you
being represented when it comes to
making these statutes?
If they don't represent you, then how can
their consent to whatever statutes they
pass be binding on you? That is an easy
one – they have men with big sticks to hit
you over the head if you do not comply.
This is not freedom! This is not
democracy! This isn't even peace! The
only thing peaceful here are the people
being beat into submission to obedience
to whatever statutes can be sold to us
through the mainstream media which do
nothing but repeat the exact same unified
messages despite the depravity of
sterilization, civilian surveillance and
armed police being billeted against the
people like some unlawful army. Of
course there's nothing to worry about if
you've got nothing to hide, and that's
exactly why many freedom of
information requests are delayed,
obfuscated and outright rejected daily,
because by their very own logic, there is
an awful lot they are hiding and thus lots
we should be worried about.
On the other hand perhaps we do need
constant 24 hour surveillance cameras in
case someone throws a cat in a bin!
Law from a
Freeman's
Perspective
By Freeman Stephen
I consider myself a freeman. This has a
very specific meaning to those who
understand its meaning and should not be
confused with the idea of municipal
honours whereby some celebrity figure is
given the freedom of a city and gains the
title Freeman of Glasgow as Nelson
Mandela did on his release from the
apartheid house arrest in South Africa.
For freemen, the status of freeman is not
some honour granted by someone else,
but a state of mind caused by a spiritual
realisation of personal sovereignty. It is
the belief that we are essentially free and
restricted only by nature. That nature
which restricts us may come in the form
of a tiger that fancies “taking us out for
dinner”, but more often than not such
tigers are in the form of our own
humankind who seek to gain from our
exploitation.
The law, from a freeman's point of view
is about justice. We seek the law in order
to avoid the messy problems which
would occur if we were to rely to upon
nature to settle our scores with one
another: he who has the might would be
right. For the sake of justice alone do we
15
contract with law. However, we often
find things called “law” which far from
existing for the sake of justice, in fact
exist to bring injustice. In general these
“laws” tend to come in the form of
statutes and are made up on the whim of
whoever has the greatest power, but only
to the extent that these statutes are just
can freeman call these statutes law.
Thus, if a statute were to be introduced
tomorrow declaring that it is the law that
everyman must kill their neighbour,
while there would be many who would
obey this unjust decree calling it law, the
freemen would renounce it as being
unlawful. We therefore distinguish
between the lawful and the legal,
whereby the lawful is what is just, and
the legal merely those rules enforced by
the state, regardless of their lawfulness.
From our point of view the law is a much
higher ideal than the legislation. This is
not to say that all legislation is unlawful,
far from this, much of the legislation is
indeed just codifications of the law, but
increasingly we note an increasing
disparity between the cause of justice and
the desires of those who would deem
themselves capable of “creating law”.
The law arises naturally as the virtuous
man's alternative to aggression.
Legislation on the other hand may be
enforced regardless of justice so long as
there is enough apathy or negligence
with regard to the law by those who will
enforce it.
As the gap between rich and poor
increases, we also see a gap between the
power of the state and the power of the
people. Whereas before, our citizenship
was sold to us, in the guise that it was
“we the people” who ultimately decided
on the law; we have more recently seen
great injustices passed as legislation with
complete disregard for the will of the
people. It is enough that most of the
people are kept in the dark to say that
they have given their consent.
The freemen then see it as their duty to
ensure that certain rights of the people
continue to exist, and to see that the
obligations of the governments to their
people continue to be acknowledged by
the people, especially if these
governments ignore their obligations to
the people and become hostile to the
rights of the people which they were
originally charged to protect.
Essentially, the law from a freeman's
perspective is about justice. Nothing
more nothing less.
16
The Right
to Live!
Its a common misconception that
the right to live, i.e. to not die, is
respected as an inalienable right
within most societies, yet why
then is it demanded of the
common people that they receive
permission from higher authorities
before engaging in almost every
activity they engage in with a view
to acquiring the things they need
in order to live?
The right to life is enshrined into every
legal system in the world. Even the most
primitive societies recognise this right
including those in which animals are the
only participants.
It is well recognised that the necessities
of life definitely include food, water,
shelter and clothing, and although some
would add such things as electricity and
broadband internet to this very simple
equation, we find that those who do add
these extras fail to recognise that the
basic necessities of water, food, shelter
and clothes are not being generally
treated as inalienable human rights, but
as benefits that can only be acquired
through the permission of an increasingly
burdensome state.
Everyone recognises that the costs of a
water distribution network must be
covered – initially one of the attractions
of living in the city – but now that much
of the soil is contaminated with extreme
fertilisers and pesticides, water is quickly
becoming a resource that no one has any
inalienable right to, except by seeking
some contract with the state authorities
that provide the water distribution
network through your taxes.
Water is not the only life essential that
has been usurped since access to the land
for both crops and water is extremely
restricted to complex legal processes that
can more than double the cost of
acquiring land in order to produce ones
own food.
Its all very well to say, “well, I have a job
and I can afford to buy food from the
local supermarket”, but you will be very
lucky if you are in an occupation that
does not again require some contract
between yourself and the state. All
employers will require your national
insurance number before they will even
think about putting you on their books,
and the chances are that you cannot
receive compensation for your labour
unless you have a bank account. The
banks again are required to verify your
state provided identity otherwise you will
be treated like some money laundering
gangster and shown the door.
There's no need to make the point more
clear by expressing the lack of
inalienable right to shelter. Even a
homeless shelter will expect their
residents to be claiming some kind of
benefit from the state, again requiring
permission from the state in order to
engage in what must be a lawful activity
with or without the permission of the
state, since the acquisition of shelter is
primary to the exercise of life.
17
Whether or not clothes are an essential or
not in every part of the world is perhaps
an argument for naturalists to concern
themselves with but in late December
where I live, having no clothes on is
suicidal.
So what are our options as freemen rather
than slaves owned and controlled by the
state in regard to the exercise of our right
to life? How are we to acquire these
basic essentials in a way that the state
cannot deny permission?
We must either create these basic
essentials ourselves of have some ability
to work in trade for these items. The
former option is only open if we have the
land to draw the resources we require to
create these basic essentials, and the
latter option has become so constrained
that in only a very few circumstances we
will be breaching draconian rules such as
trading without a traders license or
without a pedlars license.
The vending of newspapers is about the
only activity one can participate in
without requiring some form of
permission from the state. Even then, the
circumstances are such that the things we
want, such as food, water, clothes and
shelter will not be directly tradable for
newspapers but will require the third
party mechanism of fiat currency,
another indignity that the states impose
upon the people, who are after all, as
labourers, worthy of their compensation,
as opposed to pieces of paper with empty
promises on them.
If the state we live in is to be as
benevolent as is taught to us as children,
should it not facilitate the ability of its
citizens to acquire the basic essentials of
life, which nature provides freely, rather
than the restrict this ability, which after
all, if it were not for the state, the people
would have freely and in abundance.
Advertise
in the
Freedom
Journal!
You can advertise your business in
the Freedom Journal for as little as
£5 for a banner advert, £7.50 for a
half column, £12 for a half page or
£20 for a full page.
Payment can be made through Paypal to:
steph.c.duffy@googlemail.com where
the JPG. or PNG. image of your advert
should also be sent.
18
Alternatively, you can send an uncrossed
cheque or postal order made out to
“Stephen Duffy” and send it together
with your advert's image to
Stephen Duffy,
Box 318,
111 West George Street,
Glasgow G2 1QX.
The Freedom Journal is published on the
second Saturday of the month and
adverts should arrive with us one week
prior to publication.
The Freedom Journal reserves the right
to refuse certain adverts on grounds of
morality, taste or relevance. In such
circumstances payments will not be
cashed/accepted so keep your receipt if
you send a postal order.
You may wish to contact the publisher by
email at steph.c.duffy@googlemail.com
or by telephone on 0741 322 9352.
The Freedom Journal is a newspaper
published for the purposes of informing
the public of social issues not generally
covered in the mainstream media.
Need Doe?
The right to reproduce and/or distribute
is restricted to those who have been
issued with reproduction/vending
verifications codes which can be
acquired freely at the discretion of the
publisher.
Call the publisher if you want to sell FJ!
Have Info?
If you wish to have an article published
in the Freedom Journal we will be very
happy to hear from you.
Articles should be relevant to the social
issues tackled by the Freedom Journal,
accurate and not libellous or derogatory
toward any individual or group. We will
publish your name or any preferred
“label” you specify.
We oppose slavery, servitude and
totalitarianism in all its forms. If you can
communicate well about any ongoing
practices which we are opposed to then
maybe the general public deserve to hear
about it.
You should send your work to the
publishers email address which is
steph.c.duffy@googlemail.com where it
will be considered for publication.
INDECT
PLANS
LEAKED
A confidential report has been
leaked by a German magazine,
describing the activities of
INDECT.
"The project is aimed at spying on data
from the television and Internet,
communication by mobile phone, peer19
to-peer networks, data exchange and
sharing of data (file sharing) and a
number of other sources of crime
prevention and prediction of possible
threat scenarios."
INDECT is an EU project describing its
goals on its webpage (http://www.indectproject.
eu/) to be
1) to develop a platform for: the
registration and exchange of
operational data, acquisition of
multimedia content, intelligent
processing of all information and
automatic detection of threats and
recognition of abnormal behaviour
or violence,
2) to develop the prototype of an
integrated, network-centric system
supporting the operational
activities of police officers,
providing techniques and tools for
observation of various mobile
objects,
3) to develop a new type of search
engine combining direct search of
images and video based on
watermarked contents, and the
storage of metadata in the form of
digital watermarks,
Increasing surveillance of everyone's
private correspondence is an
infringement of a basic right that people
are entitled to under Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
but the very people we look to for the
protection of these rights are the very
people who are infringing them.
This basic right goes back a lot further
than the 1948 Declaration by the UN,
which merely stated the case that the
right existed and that people also had a
right to protection of that right amongst
others.
Since those who were charged with the
duty of protecting the right no longer do
the job, infact having become hostile to
the very rights they were there to protect,
it's no great criminal enterprise for the
people to take this entitlement to
protection into their own hands.
TOR networks offer a mechanism which
allows internet users to communicate
with each other without some totalitarian
dictatorship snooping on them. Since the
state openly declares it keeps secrets
from the people, not knowing what they
will do with the information, especially
when they are no longer doing their jobs
in respect of this amongst many other
rights, its a good thing for democracy
that the people can discuss what they
want from their public servants, without
those servants interfering in the private
correspondence of their masters.
Of course those who would choose to spy
on us would like us to believe that TOR
networks do not work, but that in itself is
evidence that at least it makes their “job”
more difficult. Of course I use the word
“job” in the loosest sense since they have
no real mandate to spy on their own
people, unless they consider us their
enemy, which I'm sure Alan Watt of
cuttingthroughthematrix.com could tell
us more about.
A TOR network takes into account the
fact the secure communication such as
one might use for a bank transaction can
be accessed and fully read by snooping
machines attached to the exchanges of
the Internet Service Providers (ISP.'s).
20
While its fairly easy for our public
servants to unlawfully watch for the
“handshake” prior to a secure connection
opening, the various wars and debacles
these power hungry fiends are involved
in makes it very difficult for them to spy
on the communications which are being
routed through states they have no spying
treaty with.
A TOR network then is essentially
several secure connections all wired up
and spread out all over the place and it is
reckoned to be one of the most secure
ways to communicate privately using the
internet.
TOR was the mechanism of choice
recommended by Wikileaks prior to its
sudden and unexpected closure in
December 2009 in the wake of reports on
wikileaks itself that the NSA was
planning to take the site down
imminently.
Since then Wikileaks has arrived back on
the scene, with more mainstream media
publicity than you could shake a stick at,
a new rising star of a formerly
anonymous document leaking site in the
form of Julian Assange and of course a
connection policy which does not accept
TOR connections!
You can find out more about TOR - “The
Onion Router” at www.torproject.org.
The mainstream media debate is
currently centred on whether or not it is
in the public interest for newspapers such
as the News of the World to hack into
peoples telephone conversations but one
of the many things missing from the
mainstream media reports is the ability of
the state to do the exact same using not
only POTS (plain old telephone system)
but also to snoop on peoples internet and
even their mobile phones.
As the saying goes, if you've got nothing
to hide, you've got nothing to worry
about, but when the state has become as
paranoid as a Stasi surveillance officer as
the Berlin wall collapses, you have got to
wonder what's within all the shredded
documents that the state is hiding from
its people ... if they have nothing to hide.
If you grew up during the cold war like I
did, the concept of the state spying on its
citizens might make you think of the
practices of East German or Russian
dictatorships, but once you start reading
manuals written for state authorities
regarding the “lawful interception” of 3G
mobile phone communications, data
harvesting on sites like facebook, twitter
and the rest that are advertised on the
mass media (including the stations that
claim to have no adverts), you begin to
see a picture that makes the activities of
the repressive communist regimes of post
war Europe look like cub scouts.
"Any society that would give up a little
liberty to gain a little security will
deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:46 pm
by Freeman Stephen
The last post was just a copy paste of the newspaper content which is almost 2MB (over the threshhold) as the formatted PDF.

Ive put gratis adverts for this site, WFS and BCG (just the banners).

PS why doesnt the FMOTL banner have "fmotl.com" stamped somewhere on it as its the only "art" the site has and though most people seeing it will all ready know its a dot com, if its used anywhere else, it coulb be confused with Fannie Maes Outrageous Tax Loophole dot org or something.

PPS Hope V doesnt mind me taking the liberty of promoting the site using the banner.

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:08 am
by lone wolf
Excellent work and idea Steven ;-)
Please feel free to copy any relevant stuff I have posted here and on:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1415432755
12 months of links to the truth, positive solution focused.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/search.php?search_id=egosearch

Peace freedom abundance and blessings

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:24 am
by Freeman Stephen
Cheers LW ... but the WFS link is an "egosearch" which auto attaches to my own posts on that forum - whats your WFS ID?
As for facebook, I need to find my password and logins to even read that.

Is it okay if I publish anything youve posted on this forum, and if so, do you want to be known as "lone wolf", some other name, or simply made to look like just another article in the newspaper?

The plan is that approved vendors will be able to photocopy and effectively print the newspaper for free, generating them a stream of almost free revenue. The writers will benefit from a profit sharing plan gained from advertising revenue. Right now theres no advertisers and no guarantee of any, thats why Im looking for free articles to be "mercilessly exploited" for profit. Issue 1 is complete and "ready for press". Its basically a set of A4 sheets folded into an A5 booklet. I investigated the newspaper tabloid format and it would cost around £8.50 to produce each of a hundred copies, which is outragous and explains the reasons why theres no real press freedom if thats what the public mentality of a newspaper is and the ability to print this format is in the hands of people charging those kinds of rates to the common joe bloggs.

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:24 pm
by Freeman Stephen
starting at twelve i photocopied eight copies, costing a tenner - a pound a copy as photocopies are ten p each. This meant i had to tippex out the one pound price tag and double it to make it run at profit from the vendor side.

Out of the eight issues i have three left. Three were given away - one to palistinian rights activisits, one to a beggar who i reckon can benefit most being at the lowest levels of the big pyramid, and a further issue was given to an old lady who seemed intensely interested in what i had just given the homeless beggar (?)

if your good at doing sums theres still two copies i got rid of- technically these were bartered in trade for a book two guys were downtown trying to promote - the book of mormon!

So all in all i might have tweaked interest in the freedom movement but at a fiat cost.

I shall persevere.

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:46 pm
by enegiss
good stuff stephen, it sounds great, ive got my fingers crossed for ya, might have a few down here if ya can post em! pm me see what we can do :yes:

Re: Newspaper

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:17 pm
by Freeman Stephen
i should have copied the pdf to my phone. Its on my rig at a freinds house and i will email it to you next opportunity. You might want to change the price mark depending how expensive it is to print/photocopy - twenty a5 pages per booklet which is five double sided a4s folded into a booklet. The civic government scotland act exempts newspaper vendors from requing a trading licence. Not sure if those who have big sticks elsewhere than scotland can be held back from random acts of violence and intimidation by some equivelent statute.