Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences


without comments

Living systems on every scale have governance — methods of self-regulation to manage the coherence and continuity of the system. Also, for steering toward goals or away from dangers.

This governance is not the same as a government. Government as we know it is a blunt instrument designed to enforce the will of the many over the few (although at this point it enforces the will of few on the many) It is a monolithic bureaucracy. And frankly, it isn’t very good at governance, at least not as defined in the first paragraph.
The Nature of Change

Notice that governance includes both conserving continuity and making progress. All living systems have this tension between being conservative and progressive.

Progressive: Adapt or die — change is required. A system which cannot adapt to changing circumstances, will get steam-rolled by them. Furthermore, we want more than just adapting to survive, but evolving to improve and thrive. We want to move toward goals, and higher quality of life. And we want to be able perceive and avoid dangers, and respond deftly when confronted by them.

Conservative: Maintain integrity or fly apart. What makes a system work is the pattern of self-regulation it has established: feedback loops, dynamic balances, flows which nourish all the parts of whole, so the whole can function. Disruption of the integrity of these patterns brings death even more quickly than a failure to evolve.
False Enemies

Globally, politics polarizes around that tension: conservative vs. progressive. This is a false choice. Both are mandatory. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not. When the world around you is changing, and that change is accelerating, the question is never whether to change or stay the same.

The questions we must confront are:

What changes are vital? (to survival and goals)
How do we implement those changes in a way that doesn’t destroy the integrity of what works?

Selecting a conservative vs. a progressive candidate is a false choice that we are forced to make because of broken architectures of governments.
The Failure of Representative Democracy

Representative Democracy may have been a breakthrough 2000 years ago. It even made sense 200 years ago when the U.S. Constitution was written. The only way to discuss and deliberate was to go meet someplace, and everyone can’t ride hundreds of miles by horseback or carriage to participate, so you choose representatives to bring your local news and concerns to the table. There are many alternatives in an Internet age.

Fine — except for a few major problems.

One person can’t actually represent many. Maybe if we sit down and you tell me your concerns and commitments about an issue, then I could represent you (and myself) on that issue. But as you add a few more people, that gets increasingly difficult. Now make it millions of people that I don’t talk to directly and make it apply across all issues. What are the chances I’m really representing you? Is it even possible that I could come close to representing that kind of population across the complex range of issues that officials are supposed to make decisions about?
Party Affiliation: A two-party system reduces politics down to voting for a conservative or progressive. Multi-party politics isn’t much better as still reduces the range of discourse down to the ideological platform of the party. Voter choices go from 2 to 3 or 5, which is nowhere near the level of complexity of choice that we need for navigating the world we’re in.
Non-Local Issues: Particularly, at the level of the Federal government, most of the decisions made have little to do with locale. Local decisions are certainly made on neighborhood, municipal, and loosely state levels. (Many states are too big be “local” ) So we are constrained to voting by party and locale. These factors map very poorly to the real world challenges we need to collectively navigate.

A World too Big, Fast, and Complex

The Constitution was written for an Agrarian Republic. The level of complexity that officials were expected to confront absolutely did not include things like Nuclear Power and Weaponry, Electronic Surveillance, Climate Change, Net Neutrality, Air Traffic Control, etc. If you’ve gotten a glimpse of CSPAN, you probably have exposure to how poor a grasp politicians have on even basic workings of some of these issues.

They can’t be experts on everything, especially when their job security is mostly tied to schmoozing influential funders. We have politicians without the right expertise, with inherent conflicts of interest by who they have to please to keep getting campaign funds, who can’t possibly represent the complexity of their constituency, and are elected by association with ideological simplifications … and we pretend there’s a chance of good governance from this setup.

The Constitutional Government fared fairly well for nearly a hundred agrarian years. Yet as the country moved into a more industrial era, the government had no good way to integrate a major shift in economic power. I would assert that the Civil War was a symptom of that failure to integrate the northern industrial and southern agrarian economic needs and patterns except by military force.

After this point, the U.S. Government appeared to continue on smoothly but increasingly became controlled by the banks and corporations of the industrial economy. As the U.S. economy has been transitioning into information age dynamics, it gets harder to even maintain the appearance of relevance.

The bureaucracy simply doesn’t have the throughput to keep up with the increased complexity of issues and the pace that the world is changing.
The End of Old World Order

The government was already dying. The gap between what it had become and what we need it to be was becoming intolerable for too many people. That is part of what enabled Trump to get his foot into the door of the presidency, and if his first week in office is any indication, his team will dismantle much, and quickly.

This is not business as usual. They are not playing by the old rules. There is a good chance that they won’t acknowledge any established means of reclaiming the power they’ve seized. Not by impeachment. Not by the next election. Not by constitutional convention. Spending your energy on those things will likely be energy lost.

We’ll see if I’m right about this, but if I am, that means our only real alternative is to build the next generation of self-governance that reclaims the powers we’ve surrendered to the government.

It will need to be a P2P, fully-distributed, digital democracy that will be so different from how we think of government, that it may better be thought of as a kind of social network. You jump on, scan your feed, participate in conversations you’re interested in, weigh in with “likes” or other similar feedback, etc.

For many, the reality of this will sound far-fetched. Remember, the cells in our body figured out how to do extremely sophisticated self-governance on scales of trillions. Fully P2P governance. No cell is President or Dictator of the system.

If cells can do it, we can too. Unfortunately, we don’t have millions of years to figure it out, we’ve escalated the situation to create the crises we needed to force our own hands.

I’m not saying this kind of transition will be easy for people to accept. No change on this magnitude is easy. However, I don’t see any better alternatives.

People are agitated. Energy is emerging to connect for change. People need to be connecting and having new conversations about what to do. I’d like to channel some of that energy into building real alternatives instead of chasing expired political strategies.

This is an invitation to all who have the capacities to contribute to building the world we need.

Community organizers
Social process wonks
Programmers and Crypto geeks
Storytellers who can weave this vision of a future to aid in people’s transition
UX, UI, and Graphic Designers
All people willing to leave old pictures of government behind and experiment with new self-governance

For the technology side of things, please check out Ceptr and how you might be able to participate there. For the reinvention of governance, check out the Art of Governance site I’m building this week.

Art of Governance, and the collaborative tools for sharing ideas and up-voting and such, will initially be on a normal (centralized) web site, but we’ll move it to fully-distributed tools as quickly as we are able.

Come play!

Written by anubis

February 3rd, 2017 at 8:53 am

‘At Your Own Expense’

without comments

originally posted here

For your consideration when you see the annual Council Tax Demand Notice (or other demand from state agencies):

A couple of days ago We received an unsolicited email wherein an unknown someone declared the following:
“…Dear Mike,
I work on behalf of Xxxxxxxxxx and we’re looking to build up positive Google Reviews for his company.
I recognise that you have a Gmail account and I wondered if you could take just ONE MINUTE to complete a Review for us regarding the level of service that you’ve received from Xxxxxxxxxx and his team. [Mike has never heard of Xxxxxxxxxx or used his services].
It really does take less than a minute and we’d really appreciate your support!
Please find below a quick step by step guide as to how to do this:
Click on the link:…”

Our response was:
“…Thank you, Lxxxx.
Our fee for such engagements (including this response) is £50 per email. Invoice follows.
Kind regards

“…Thank you Mike for your reply but this isn’t the arrangement we are looking for. I work with lots of clients and I’ve never paid for Google Review – I think it’s unethical! I could outsource fake reviews to India and could come up with 50 x 5 star reviews for £50!
Thank you for your time anyway!
All the best,

So… Why is this here? It is very simple. Everything is contract and no-one may be compelled to complete any action at his own cost. There are at least two court cases in support of this assertion. However there is one historic piece of legislation and one extant piece of legislation of which We know that declares the opposite:

In the Copyright Act 1911, Publishers were required to deliver copies of books that they had printed to the British Library… At their own expense. That act has since been repealed by the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. However…

We have also read that:
“…No statute apart from the ‘Copyright Act 1911’
either prevents or compels one to do something “at their own expense”.

Any Act which compels must specifically imply or state EXPRESSLY that you must comply AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE!

If it doesn’t imply or expressly state the removal of that particular right, then one’s private right is not curbed [not that it ever could be] and firmly remains intact!

The burden of proof is on “the authority” to prove conclusively [documented proof] using EXPRESS WORDS that you have to provide private personal information AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. That is what the Law of the land dictates.

Supporting case law:

1. Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193

Lord Blackburn said, at p. 208: “It is clear that the burden lies on those who seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals, to show that by express words, or by necessary implication, such an intention appears.”

2 Regina -v- Dyment (1988) , 45 CCC (3d) 244

1988, CCC, La Forest J, Human Rights.

The court referred to “informational privacy” – “This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit.”

So, the next time that you are stopped by police or receive written demands (electoral rolls anyone?), and are told that you must do either this, that or other, you have a perfect right to charge them for it, unless or until they provide verifiable proof to the contrary that such Acts etc.,expressly states that it must be “AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE”

The phrase “AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE” is an extremely powerful phrase to use against any [alleged] representing authority.

Think about the many different situations whereby one may legitimately charge a fee to any [alleged] authority for you provide private personal information, such as to: Councils for the compilation of the annual Voters Register, Council Tax, Council Parking Tickets, Police allegations of speeding etc., etc., etc.

Written by anubis

January 29th, 2017 at 5:06 am


without comments

Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, [1956] 1 All ER 341 –
Lord Denning

“No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever”

Written by anubis

January 11th, 2017 at 6:46 am

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro

without comments

originally posted here

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro
Monday, 09 January 2017
Robert Oulds

To escape the damage caused by the euro, and the resulting problems of mass migration, Brexit is essential for the UK
9th January 2017


1. The euro prevents EU countries with weak economies using currency exchange rates to adjust their competitiveness within and external to the EU. The EU therefore has a policy of ‘rebalancing’, or ‘internal devaluation’. Rebalancing relies on the failure of uncompetitive industries. The result is unemployment, lower wages and lower prices together with austerity justified by high levels of sovereign debt. These pressures on the population are intended to force the creation of competitive trading industries and reduce non-trading activities.

2. Regional EU payments are bureaucratically allocated and managed. They are inadequate, inappropriate and inefficient compared with simple and automatic floating exchange rate adjustments.

3. Freedom of movement theoretically reduces the unemployed population by moving labour to stronger economies that have labour shortages. This is the reason for its importance to the Euro model.

4. Rebalancing involves severe dislocation and widespread hardship. The relief of hardship by EU welfare provision is inadequate and counter to the desired pressures to bring about rebalancing. The EU policy of rebalancing is entirely unethical, repressive and manipulative. It is a cruel policy reminiscent of Stalin’s forced 1930/40s population transfers. Moreover, in practice it does not work and therefore nor does the euro.

5. By contrast, Brexit is ethical and traditional in seeking to develop local economies without dislocation and with whatever support is needed. It incorporates normal exchange rate adjustments and acceptance of skilled persons of any origin through controlled immigration. Many who voted for Brexit voted for jobs and standard of living. The characterization of controlled immigration through Brexit as racist and discriminatory attempts to disguise the cruel nature of EU internal ‘rebalancing’.

* * *

Freedom of Movement and the Cruelty of the Euro

1. It is a false accusation that the UK’s wish to control immigration is racist and discriminatory. That accusation is intended to disguise a vicious and cruel EU policy. Freedom of movement is asserted by the European Union to be a privilege and great benefit. That is not true. Its fundamental purpose and the reason for the EU’s insistence that the UK accepts it as a condition of market access following Brexit is to enforce use of the euro.

2. It is well known that prior to adoption of the Euro the weaker economies of Southern Europe, such as Greece, were able to maintain rough competitiveness with the stronger states such as Germany by currency exchange rate movements. After adoption of the Euro this was no longer possible, either within the EU or in relation to countries outside the EU. The IMF, ECB and European Commission therefore adopted a policy of ‘rebalancing’.

3. The rebalancing or ‘internal devaluation’ model assumes that when competitive trading differences arise between countries, the less competitive industries will fail. There will be unemployment, less demand and a consequent fall in wages and prices. Austerity is a tool to reinforce this process. Where these conditions occur, the countries affected must develop more competitive production methods and move resources from non-trading activities to trading production. Those persons made unemployed by this process or who cannot find work should be able to emigrate to EU countries that are more competitive and where there are labour shortages. This is the reason why freedom of movement is essential to the EU. It reduces the economic pressures that are desirable for rebalancing.

4. Unemployment, euphemistically called ‘labour shedding’ is regarded as essential to rebalancing. The ECB at present purchases company debt to sustain the financial markets since even negative interest rates and money printing have failed to give growth. The EU regional funds that are given to Greece and Spain for social and economic purposes are inadequate, inappropriate and are inefficiently bureaucratically allocated and managed. In practice they do not materially reduce the pressures for rebalancing/internal devaluation. The only large scale assistance offered is more debt, additional to the debt that is a major part of their economic problems in the first instance.

5. The traditional simple and automatic rebalancing of competitiveness by exchange rate movements involves little or no drastic economic reorganization or social disruption. That is not the case within the Eurozone. Eurozone rebalancing is driven by closure of industries, unemployment and migration. The creation of new competitive industries is merely an aspiration. The notion that competitiveness can be equalized between Greece and Germany, for example, by these means is absurd.

6. The simple unemployment rate does not, of course, reflect the quality of employment taken up by employees from failed industries. Their first option will be to take whatever employment is avalable, which will probably be at a lower income and living standard. This is part of the ‘rebalancing’ process.

7. The closure of uncompetitive industries with theoretical development of new competitive industries is euphemistically called ‘structural reform’. In the real world, uncompetitive industries within the Eurozone definitely close; in competition with Germany and other Northern states, competitive industrial development of the southern EU states definitely does not and can not occur. This is the source of the present imbalances within the EU.

8. Apparently, the EU rebalancing policy has developed from a United States model. If so, it is wholly inappropriate. The United States is homogeneous for language and culture. Even so, unacceptable within-country imbalances have occurred as they also have in the UK. It is these that have given rise to the protest votes for Donald Trump and Brexit. The EU is not homogeneous for language, culture and many other factors. For these reasons, Europeans are much more attached to their locality of origin than Americans.

9. In any country, a major rigidity is that the unemployed usually have low skills. They cannot afford to move or are unwilling to leave an uncomfortable but manageable situation where housing, family and familiar support networks exist and move to another country having a different language where there are great uncertainties.

10. Persons who are skilled and have money will regard freedom of movement as beneficial, for holidays, or retirement for example. Many of these would wish to relocate for career reasons in any case. They would be welcomed by receiving countries, as the UK welcomes such persons from any country and would do so following Brexit. Young persons with qualifications and without family will also emigrate readily, although their loss disadvantages their countries of origin. It is evident however, that those often older persons who are displaced from failed industries will be least able or willing to emigrate. This is what can be seen in practice.

11. Adoption of the euro has therefore generated economic imbalances that will not be rectified automatically. Worse, the rebalancing policy based on the euro has created hardship for millions of people in Southern Europe and the Republic of Ireland. It is a cruel policy that ignores human welfare and rather than encouraging prosperity, is indifferent to the pain that it causes.

12. The human cost of the EU’s rebalancing policy, that is driven by industry failure and unemployment, has always been known to the institutions of the EU but they have chosen to ignore it. The UK’s Brexit is based on positive policies to create employment by assisting existing industries and developing new ones with, of course, exchange rate adjustment of external competitiveness. Not only is the EU’s rebalancing policy an ethical disgrace, the attempt to disguise its true nature and purpose by labelling those who do not accept it as racists is despicable.

13. Together with these considerations, many EU states have very large public and private debt that will never be repaid. This requires separate consideration but, briefly, debt permits control by the EU central institutions, particularly the ECB and IMF. Its most obvious outcome is the sale of state assets, further weakening states that are undergoing ‘rebalancing’ stress. It is these destructive debts knowingly given by the banks and underwritten by the ECB and IMF that provide the rationale for austerity. Austerity is intended to reinforce ‘rebalancing’.

14. There may be said to be four broad groups of people affected by Brexit:

i. People who are aware that they are suffering, or at least are not benefiting, due to EU policies. They tend to support Brexit because their local industries have vanished and they want jobs and a reasonable living standard. They are often not well educated and do not understand the technicalities of the Euro or how the EU functions. Although not articulated in these terms, their views contain implied strategic factors as well as self-interest. They identify uncontrolled immigration as evidence that the UK no longer controls its own economy and their destiny. This enables pro-EU activists to label them as ignorant, racist or espousing ‘the politics of hate’.

ii. Educated and well-informed persons who understand that the EU is undemocratic, administered by a super-rich elite with dependent politicians, a large dependent bureaucracy and a dysfunctional currency. They understand that the BIS, ECB and banks generally control the EU. They might know, for example, that Mario Draghi came from bankers Goldman Sachs, achieved Presidency of the ECB and after his term of office returned to Goldman Sachs. They might know that Goldman Sachs conspired with Greek politicians to hide Greece’s debts in order to obtain EU entry, so laying the foundation for the present economic misery of the Greek people. They may view the EU to be on the path to tyranny, which would not be unusual in some EU countries.

iii. Usually middle class persons who support the EU and believe that it is beneficial because their jobs depend on EU trading, are publicly funded or EU funded. These apparently do not understand how the EU operates or do not care. Their evaluation is based on their immediate interests rather than whether the EU system is democratically legitimate or benefits the UK.

iv. The rich and high level executives in international companies, banks, the ECB and IMF who understand the EU. They will fight to retain the euro because it is they who have designed it in their own interests to make them richer and to give them political control of the EU through its economy. This group believes in ‘realpolitic’ rather than democracy and will support tyranny as it has in the past.

13. Because it is clear that the existing banks are hostile to Brexit, a priority for Brexit planning must be to organize a banking system independent of the ECB and the existing big banks. Ideally local mutual units would be best for SMEs with a large central unit for major development and export finance. The role of the Bank of England needs close examination. The recent actions of the Royal Bank of Scotland in asset-stripping vulnerable SMEs indicates where the interests of all bankers lie. It is noteworthy that Richard Branson who cultivates his image as ‘a man of the people’ has recently publicly opposed Brexit and is financing an opposition group. The EU operates for the very rich.

14. Those who designed the EU’s euro ‘rebalancing’ policy view people as theoretical economic units without human needs, feelings and attachments to family and locality. Theoretically, it is not desirable to give welfare to because this would lessen the economic pressure that is essential to rebalancing. In any case, the levels of welfare assistance would be impossibly large for the EU to accept. This neglect of welfare is to the extent that in Greece large numbers of people are homeless and actually starving and in Spain youth unemployment is 45-50 percent. ‘Rebalancing’ is not based on a democratic, egalitarian view of society. It is a policy of repression and manipulation without any ethical content. For this reason the euro does not work and nor does the EU.

15. The creation of the EU and Euro is a far development from the Common Market that the UK joined. The Common Market has moved from national directly elected parliamentary democracies to a centralized bureaucracy managed by a political and economic elite. This elite, most visible in central banks, the ECB and IMF has little if any connection with or responsiveness to the immediate needs of the population. It is not at all clear that the first priority of the EU is the welfare of its population.

16. Brexit has a democratic and ethical foundation based on centuries of trading, economic development experience and the democratic development of society. It will be traditionally designed to give benefits with the minimum of dislocation possible, to develop local skills and industries and to welcome skilled workers from all other countries.

17. It is the writer’s view that on present trends, full EU integration based on the euro and supremacy of the banks over the public interest can only be achieved by political repression and a police state, that is, tyranny. That is a form of government that often occurs in Europe. The EU and UK parliament have permitted the spying and financial infrastructure of tyranny to be assembled under the guise of fighting terrorism. The democratic Brexit decision is now being labelled ‘tyranny of the majority’ (John Major) and ‘populism’. It is a bad sign.

By Christopher King MSc DipM DMS

Most of the following are discussion papers, not official ECB or IMF papers.

Official IMF report 2015 )

Written by anubis

January 9th, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Vi Coactus

without comments

origianlly posted here

Yesterday, in another forum a chap started a conversation with a question. During the writing of today’s response the conversation was closed. However, what follows is an account of how one man took on and beat constables from one county, a magistrates’ court in another and a fines collections office in a third. This is not directly about CT but it is a record of how one man dealt with public servants who believe that they are “The Authorities”. The lesson? Any action completed under threat or coercion is invalid.


In the year of water and the dragon, just two nights before a full moon and in the depths of Winter there was a rapid knocking on the door.

After deliberately creating several allegations of speeding ‘offences’ and many more other traffic “offences” in multiple counties, this man was visited by 2 cops at 4.45. a.m. Looking down on them from a bedroom window he engaged in a circular conversation made up entirely of questions.
[Maxim: He who asks the most questions controls the conversation.]
After a few minutes this man said:
“I’ve had enough of this. I’m going back to bed.”
The window was closed and the man stepped back into the warmth of eider. The cops could only walk away.

The Sun rose, travelled across the flat, grey sky and set once more. Darkness embraced the Earth. The following day those two cops returned at 10 a.m. However, they did not know that they had been preceded by three thugs in uniform who had visited an hour earlier and threatened the household with Mechanical Forced Entry (MFE). Also known as the big red key. The man was arrested, cautioned and taken away to a distant town. At the policy station he was questioned. To the first few questions he responded only with questions Then growing bored with the entire process, he advised the young civilian employee behind the desk:
“I grant you my permission to complete the answers to that questionnaire in any way you wish.” then folded his arms and turned his back on the youth. A few minutes and a few questions later one of the two attending thugs exclaimed:
“Why are you being so difficult? Why don’t you answer any of the questions?!!!”
The reply:
“As I recall, When your colleague (on my left) cautioned me, Is it not true [negative averment] that she said:
‘You don’t have to say anything?’ And are you now saying that I do have to say something? I’m confused. Which is it? Do I have to speak or do I not have to speak?”
There was no answer.
With arms folded and back turned to the desk the man waited. A few minutes later when the boy had finished the questionnaire, he printed it and offered it to the prisoner for signing. This was the ONLY time that the man complied with any request. Taking the pen, in the space for the signature he wrote:
“Vi Coactus”
Then for clarity (these public servants had probably never studied Latin) he added:
“Under Protest
Under Duress”
and returned the pen and paper to the boy.

The local magistrates’ court was busy so the cops and the prisoner travelled to another town in another county. The cops, not familiar with the town did not know where the court was. The man knew the town and while laughing, navigated to the court for the cops’ benefit. In the care of two court bailiffs, the man was imprisoned through the day. He was fed and given hot drinks. Reading material was provided. It was lovely. A day of undisturbed meditation and consideration. Nice one.

Seventeen minutes after sunset, in the dark of night, when the business of the day was complete and all strangers had gone home, the prisoner was taken to the dock. We say taken. He was invited and of course as in all things, he could have declined the invitation. However, he had spent the best part of a year researching these matters and NOW was the time to test his knowledge. He willingly accepted the handcuffs, walked up the iron staircase and stepped into the first part of the dock.
“For the record, would you tell the court your name, address and date of berth?”
Said the clerk of the court.
“Madam. Can you show me the power of attorney by which you have been authorised to deal with this matter?” Said he.
One shot across her bows and she was stopped dead in the water. Silent for ten full seconds, Clerky composed herself. The duel began. A conversation made up almost entirely of questions. She lost. She lost because she folded first. She lost because she answered three questions. Then, losing patience, she uttered a threat:
“MR. X*******. If you carry on like this, I’ll have one of the magistrates charge you with contempt of court!!!”
He smiled.
“You have not yet established that you HAVE a court.”
A shot below her waterline and she was sunk. And she knew it. Again, she needed time to re-consider. She had nothing.
The circular charade (and questions) continued. Growing weary and bored, he folded his arms, turned his back on the clerk and members of the silent bench then sat down. The court bailiff (Barbara) pulled on his sleeve and said:
“Stand up. Stand up. You’ve got to stand up.”
From the seat, he looked up at the assailant and said:
“Barbara. Sweetheart. What you have just done amounts to common assault which means that you could find yourself spending a night in one of the cells downstairs. Should you continue to assault me, it then becomes aggravated assault. Then your choice becomes:
Would you rather spend the night in a hospital bed or spend the night in the mortuary or would you rather go and stand in the corner over there?”
Barbara walked.

A magistrate woke up, declared that the case would be heard in the absence of the accused. Eventually there were fines of nearly £4K uttered with (at the suggestion of clerky) alternatives of imprisonment (three months) or seizure of property (the car) for sale at auction. The man laughed.
“Good luck with that. Everything that MR. X******* used to own is held in a private trust.”
The man compelled the court to provide him with transport back home where, by an administrative process he set aside the execution of the order of the court. Now nearly five years later we see:
Fines not paid, man not gaoled and car not seized.

Nota Bene:
We now believe that the winning stroke was played when he wrote Vi coactus. Any action completed under threat or coercion is invalid.

All of the above was accomplished by months of diligent study, avid learning and a little assistance from knowledgeable friends. Over the years We have learned of the necessity of the three H’s which are:
1. Head knowledge. You must know what you’re talking about.
2. Heart knowledge. You have to believe in what you do. And
3. Hand knowledge. You must learn by the practical application of what you know and believe.

Written by anubis

January 2nd, 2017 at 2:25 am

Article 61 in practice

without comments

Good morning rebels…..I am going to write a post that will make the lawful rebellion process very simple to understand and use.

It maybe a long blog as I will put Notices that we have used successfully within it, so that any layman can see how and why this remedy works.

The basic principle is that we all have lawful excuse to deny the crown any authority at this time, not only the crown but any individual not standing in open rebellion against the crown since article 61’s invocation.

It really is that simple we just need to act honourably with our processes to stay within British law.

The other most important fact that needs to be understood is that law is only law if it complies with the constitution. Since the constitution was usurped many moons ago there are only rules being used against us today and, even if laws were being used the crown has no authority to use them at this time.

The ‘crown’ also means the police, councillors or any agents of the crown. The law demands that we rebel in peace until the rule of law (constitution) has been properly reasserted.
EVERYONE of the entire realm has been commanded to rebel in order to protect our sovereign nation since 2001, and the common law that protects the people from injustices…..this command comes from the crown!! so anyone opposing your standing will be opposing the crown and constitution which is effectively treason to do so.

Lastly an Oath of allegiance does not need to be sent to a baron but by doing so it makes that Oath more credible. You can simply create one and get three witnesses to sign it, by doing so it becomes a legal instument. A declaration to someone in a position of alleged authority would also suffice. The lawful rebellion process will only work to remedy the treason when a small percentage of the people use it together…..our forfathers understood this back in the 13th century which is why article 61 is not optional.

The people are the power of any nation when they stand firm together, this has always been the case and is why we have a constitution that protects the people. If it weren’t for the people revolting in the past then we would have grown up in tyranny and would know no different. Peace.

Written by anubis

December 27th, 2016 at 2:59 pm

the fate of the world…

without comments

One of my favourite aphorisms is “A man’s character is his fate”. I think it was attributed to Heraclitus.

In the same vein, the fate of the world will be the result of the character of the beings who inhabit it….

I am sometimes quite gloomy.

I think we are on ther verge of exponential technological advance, but I think humanity will soon be split more clearly into those who understand and those who don’t and those who understand is probably less than 5% of the total.

This means that 95% of the population will continue to behave in unenlightened ways only with potentially more powerful technology at their disposal.

I think a societal collapse is inevitable, since governments are becoming more authoritarian, i.e. seeking to prevent people from thinking for themselves and thereby questioning their “authority” (monopoly of violence) and are peopled by members of the 95% on the whole… So they are in effect forcing people to adopt behaviours which are stupid and stupid people willingly follow.

I saw another quote, “Morality can’t be legislated”. People know right and wrong and yet “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws”, as everyone knows.

So anyway the link to the source of this piece is here

The description of how people behave generally was what struck the chord….

I was rigourously tested for 6 days once, and two days twice by forensic psychiatrists assigned by the court to determine if I had any mental defect. Turns out my I.Q. (at age 24) was 163.

How do I think?

I am a cook in a restaurant. Every day, I come in with a new hypothetical scenario for my workmates. One of my favourite questions yielded an answer applicable here. The question was “If you could have any superpower, what would it be?” The best answer was “The ability to stop time for everyone else, but not for me.” The worst was “To be the most brilliant genius of all time,” which I immediately countered…..

Everyone in the restaurant knows I’m a genius. Nobody cares. I don’t ever discuss the actual number involved, as it would only create problems. They just know that I can discuss Julius Caesar conquering Gaul, the Meiji restoration, the detailed intricacies of baseball, chromosomal abnormalities, Orthodox Saints, the refining process of oil, volcanic interaction with subduction zones, the chemical composition of 440 carbon steel, the manufacturing process of porcelain, etc. You get the idea. (I’m giving an honest answer here)

When I ask a question, I receive condescension from my peers, and literally watch them gloat over them “knowing something” I don’t. When I have an answer, it is weighed less than anyone else’s. When I have a suggestion, it is resisted always until or unless circumstances obviate its acquirement. When I need an item in stock, my asking creates resentment….even to people standing around when I’m working.

They discuss their personal lives, and don’t ask about mine. They make post-work plans and never include me…not once. They ask each other questions that they know I can fully answer just so they don’t have to hear me give another explanation. The owner has told me I shouldn’t work there. He asked me what else I could do for a job while on parole in which I may use my mind. Everyone else’s jokes are funny to him, mine are not.

I made the mistake when starting to work there of discussing subjects I found interesting when I pondered them. No one wants to discuss the ramifications of “Operation Zitadel” and the transmission difficulties of the Tiger tank versus the manufacturing simplicity of the Soviet tanks in 1943….during a dinner rush.

I see solutions everywhere. I also see people highly resistant to change even when they agree with the solution.

I see fraudulence everywhere. I see people who are deeply, deeply in love with a façade they project which brings them power in some aspect.

I see mind numbing ignorance everywhere. I see people who don’t even know enough to know that they don’t know enough about a subject, yet hold firm on opinions and ideas even well after it has been established that they don’t know enough to have a substantiated opinion.

I see deception everywhere. I see people using statistics and obscure scientific articles to bolster the opinion which brings them power in a conversation…regardless of contrary data.

I see hopelessness everywhere. I see people clinging so violently to a hope (either an opinion or an idea) which brings their life into relevance, that even broaching another possibility is perceived as an attempt to invalidate their entire worth as a human being.

I see totalitarianism everywhere. I see people so wildly bent upon demanding others accept and even celebrate whatever they do in the name of tolerance, that even only tolerating it is seen as bigoted hatred worthy of being intolerant towards.

I see feelings attaining primacy of consideration. I see that the individual’s emotional construct within his or her psyche regarding the significance of their own emotional response to any given stimulus being of such import as to render truth or untruth to the subject matter irrelevant.

I see the purposeful invention of conflict. I see people individually and en masse actually seeking aspects of others with which to choose to take offence, then creating a massive smear campaign to besmirch the very character of a person based upon a perceived slight.

I see lunacy taking over. Aspects of social behaviour which would have been roundly mocked and wholly rejected by all of our ancestors for all time have now not only a place at the table, but are dictating the course of requisites for social behaviour for all others.

To this woman who said she wanted supernatural intelligence, I said one thing…..”Do you remember second grade?” She affirmed she did. I finished, “Imagine that you, as you are now, return to second grade. The conversations you hear, the behaviour you see, the lessons you are taught, the ideas expressed are all that of second graders. The next year, you go through it again. Then again. Then again. Over and over and over. With the same students who will not or cannot advance any further. That would be your life.”

So, how do I think?

More quickly, more accurately, connecting more dots, with more understanding, seeing more and being seen less than anyone around me.

And with great, great patience.

By the way, an I.Q. of 163 is worthless, even detrimental to the person who doesn’t have the wisdom to use it correctly, the discipline to use it aptly, or the morals to use it gently. Personality, discipline and wisdom beat the crap out of an I.Q. of 163…..or haven’t you wondered why I was being so thoroughly tested by a State court?

Socially….exceedingly lonely and have been my entire life. Virtually always misunderstood, virtually always see through the façade I’m presented with from someone else….and virtually always borne out as correct over time.

Intellectually…..nothing I’ve ever tried has ever been too difficult to learn.

Practically…..I see solutions where other people only see things that don’t need to be changed.

Everyday interactions…..well, I could best sum it up by saying that I see the façades, I know what they are suffering from to make themselves feel important, and what they actually are as a result. Very, very depressing. No kidding.

Written by anubis

December 25th, 2016 at 3:49 am

Posted in Epochal Collapse

Exhalation of Carbon Dioxide

without comments

Exhalation at 40,000 parts per million!
Anthony Bright-Paul

I looked it up – I was curious. How many times does a normal healthy human being breathe in and breathe out in just one minute? Well, Google tells me that we exhale (that means breathe out for the scientifically illiterate friends of mine on Facebook) some fifteen to twenty times in one minute.

Let us take the lower number. What is 15 x 60? It equals 900 exhalations in every hour! Let us now multiply 900 by 24 to get the number of breaths in 24 hours. That comes to 21,600 exhalations of Carbon Dioxide at 40,000 parts per million in one single day by one average person.

The total world population is presently reckoned to be 7.4 billion. And rising! You do the maths for that!

Now, all the animal kingdom and all the bacteria also inhale Oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide. And all the green plants and plankton just love this Carbon Dioxide and provide Oxygen for us humans to breathe. I love my Carbon Dioxide since plants love my Carbon Dioxide – the question is ‘Do you?’

Am I a Climate Scientist? Answer: No, I am not. Question: Is Al Gore a Climate Scientist? Answer: No, he is a politician. Is there such an animal as a ‘climate scientist?’ That is a moot question. The three principal sciences are Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Professor Tim Ball has a degree in Geography but is also known as a Climatologist – that is to say, someone who attempts to garner and preserve data about past climates. This is unlike those who will neither reveal their metadata nor how, by all accounts, they unintentionally lose it. For full details please read by John O’Sullivan. But we can say is that there are Meteorologists, Marine Geologists and Astrophysicists, but it is only ignoramuses who talk about climate scientists. It does not exist as a discrete field of science!

The Global Warmers, or I should say the man-made Global Warmers, froth and foam about Carbon Dioxide. There is a lot that can be done with Carbon Dioxide. It can be made into dry ice that is colder than water ice. It can be liquefied for ease of transport. It can be used in any number of carbonated drinks like coca-cola or tonic water that goes so well with gin! In common with all molecules it will warm up with infrared and likewise cool by radiation.

If anyone dare suggest that what is said about ‘climate sensitivity’ is just poor science, they get called a ‘denier’. I tell you what – count me in! I deny absolutely that Carbon Dioxide has any warming properties whatsoever. A molecule may be warmed for a nano-second, but it cannot generate heat and it cannot capture or trap heat – that is an impossibility. Even highly intelligent people get caught on that one. One may capture a substance, but it is impossible to trap a transfer of kinetic energy. In fact these transfers of kinetic energy are ongoing, everywhere without cessation. Just everything is seeking an equilibrium that is never attained.

There is only one entity that can warm the Globe with its radiation and that is the Sun. So who are the real deniers? Who are the deceivers? Who are the tricksters and mountebanks who deny the absolute supreme power of the Sun? None other than the Warmists, the Anthropogenic Global Warmers, who imagine that they can control the already fraudulent global temperature, by making laws regulating the amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

We already know that the total amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, agreed by both sides of the argument. We also know that the figure for the human contribution from the IPCC is but 2.9%. If we round this up to 3%, then the total human contribution from the burning of fossil fuels amounts to 0.0012%, an amount that is so derisory that it is laughable. Well it would be laughable were it not for the fact that in conference after conference, as COP22, the Warmists attempt to impose upon the nations of the world draconian measures, designed specifically to torpedo Western civilisation and incidentally to impoverish the citizens of the Third World.

How long have we had to put up with their gormless drivel? Not any more – their day of reckoning has come. Even James Hansen admits that the attempts to reduce emissions of Carbon Dioxide are an exercise in futility. Yet he persists. The President-elect of the United States has chosen a team of well known so called Contrarians and Deniers, who regard the doctrine of man-made Global warming as a false science. Or so it appears. I am holding my breath until January 20th. 2017 should be an interesting year!

Anthony Bright-Paul
Friday, 16 December 2016

Postscript: –

Our current scientific understanding of global warming and climate change impacts are not the domain of one, quirky field called ‘climate science’. In fact, it doesn’t even exist as a discrete field of science.

Written by anubis

December 24th, 2016 at 8:19 am

Posted in Climate,Politics


without comments

(Sent before the carnage in Berlin’s Christmas market)

posted here

Dear Minister-President Seehofer,

I would like to commend you on your opposition to mass uncontrolled immigration into Europe. One would think that it would be trivial to praise politicians – who are elected to uphold law and order, meaning our culture and values – for doing so, but these are the times we are living in.

In 1973 French author Jean Raspail asked a prophetic question in his best-selling novel, The Camp of Saints. What if France had at its borders millions of people ready to move in, not carrying weapons but complete destitution instead? If you refuse entry they will face a very uncertain future; but if you let them in millions more will follow and your culture and national identity will die. What should be done?

Today we have the answer: an unprecedented population replacement across much of Western Europe, largely funded by those being replaced. Based on current demographic and immigration trends, Austria will become a majority Muslim country by the end of this century, likely followed by France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and even the UK.

Somehow I don’t believe that the millions who died defending Europe over centuries had this outcome in mind. But then again neither did the mighty Byzantines and their Persian archrivals, both of which after reaching the pinnacle of Human civilization at the time ended up being irrevocably absorbed by the Islamic demographic and military onslaughts.

As an immigrant myself (who lived in Munich at one point) I have great empathy for anyone leaving their homelands in search of a better life. I certainly have no ill feelings towards my Muslim brothers and sisters, whose aspirations are as worthy as anyone’s. If you build a nice house, then throw away the “quaint” tools like your values and religion used in its construction, it shouldn’t be a surprise that as the front door is left wide open others will come in and set up their own values and religion in that empty space. Why shouldn’t they? I would too if I had the chance.

Unfortunately, as you well know change at this scale is seldom easy… and peaceful. We only need to look at the Balkans, a beautiful region with wonderful people, to get a glimpse of how fractured our own multicultural societies might become. Actually, we are already feeling its effects, with national armies having to patrol European cities to prevent further atrocities – and no resolution in sight. And it can get much worse, not least in terms of personal freedoms, to the detriment of both natives and immigrants. Even a breakup of Germany at some point is not unthinkable.

Large economic crises have reliably sparked social revolutions over generations. We may not have to wait long for another one to hit Europe, now with the novelty of an imported multiethnic component. It is in times of strife that we can truly judge the resilience of our societies, not the relative prosperity we’ve had until now. And frankly I’m very worried about this particular point.

We can debate whether the SYKES-PICOT agreement in the 1920s is really what led to the current turmoil across much of the Middle East; but it is beyond question that the MERKEL-SARKOZY-BLAIR mass immigration policies have led to this bubbling instability in our societies – very likely for decades. Whether this was incidental or not, our children will probably hate us for it.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Prof. Vaclav Smil, considered to be one of the leading global thinkers alive today, listed the emergence of “Eurabia” as one of the potential catastrophes of the 21st century in his seminal book on the matter. I would very much encourage reading it. It seems even the Dalai Lama agrees.

Yes, low birth rates across Europe are a concern, but as we stand on the verge of a massive automation wave which risks displacing millions more jobs I’m not convinced it is that problematic; it might even help manage serious global environmental problems. What is deeply worrying –and irreversible at some point – is the progressive debasement of our culture (“so not to offend the newcomers”), one which has contributed so much to Human progress over centuries. To be clear it is really *culture* that’s at stake here, much more than race or anything else which have remained fluid across Europe throughout the ages.

There was once a time when we in the West stood proud of the civilization we created – with great cost and sacrifice, and not always with perfect results or intentions – to the point where we exported it all over the world. And despite the prevailing cultural Marxist narrative in today’s mainstream media and academia the recipients are broadly better off as a result (notwithstanding some very notable errors).

Take Germany. Just one of your inventions, the Haber process that allows the industrial production of ammonia (critical for modern agriculture), has enabled the sustenance of innumerable lives all over the world – dare I say far, far more than the unfortunate and unjustifiable deaths caused by the darker days of your recent History. I could name several other German inventions that have greatly helped Humanity. Even your emigrants have made immeasurable contributions to countries like Brazil and especially the US. As such, I am one of many who believe you should feel proud of your German heritage, instead of being beaten down through indoctrination for what happened over seventy years ago.

And now you are on the receiving end of that cultural flow:

Instead of exporting much needed water treatment, cars and farming equipment you export weapons and homegrown jihadists to the Middle East;
Instead of promoting Western education standards and unequivocally standing up for the rights of women across the Middle East you are lost in endless debates of how many burqas and child marriages should be allowed in Germany;
Instead of enforcing international refugee protection laws, especially regarding the first country of safety, you now have to ponder how to accommodate sharia law in your society;
Instead of creating safe zones in the region that will allow people affected by the tragedies of war to live with dignity (at a fraction of the cost of doing so in Europe) and eventually return to rebuild their homes, you completely open your borders creating chaos and resentment – while supporting foreign policies and regimes that, to put it mildly, greatly contribute to destabilizing the Middle East.

Unfortunately, much of the current European political establishment is committed to the dilution of our nation states and cultures so we can all merge into a single, glorious entity. And they figured out that mass immigration is the way to do it. Clearly they learned the wrong lessons from History and there’s just no amount of imported crime, rape, violence, murder and animal torture that will stop them from blindly pursuing their EU-topia. The multicultural car crash known as Sweden is a great example of this. I’m sorry for these harsh words but this is the world we live in.

The fate of EU-topia will be the same as that of all utopias. It is already unraveling, unable to create decent jobs for millions of people – especially young Europeans, with no vigor nor any international aspirations (what exactly does it stand for?), incapable of adequately safeguarding the protection of its citizens (especially women and Jews), greatly susceptible to political interference from all sorts of foreign regimes and standing on the verge of a financial collapse so great that risks destabilizing the entire world economy for years to come.

Freedom of thought and speech is what really has made us Europeans so unique and successful in Modern History. Regrettably, we are increasingly not allowed to criticize or report on any of these unfolding tragedies this time around.

I am told that in the incident of the woman who was viciously thrown down the stairs in Berlin your Police is now looking to punish the source of that video leak. Yet another sad episode on the back of the cover up of the New Year Eve’s events in Cologne, where to add insult to injury women were told to dress up properly to “avoid problems”.

If only that much effort had been put into defending our way of life. Instead, the emperor must keep on walking with no clothes – and no criticism: “since we lost control of reality let’s control the perception of that reality”… “it’s all fake news”… “the Russians did it”… etc. Fin de civilization indeed.

But persevere we must. We rely on brave politicians like yourself to stand up for the rest of us. For that we thank you Sir. And please rest assured that an increasing number of voters all over Europe will respond to it. There is much to hope for, even as the lights are dimming all over our beloved Continent.

May I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a Happy – and Safe – 2017


Europe Always & Forever

Written by anubis

December 21st, 2016 at 10:51 am

Article 61

without comments

Originally posted here

Good evening rebels…

This is a very (not so) brief explanation of why the remedy we use works.

Thanks to the committee of the barons for invoking article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a lawful, peaceful remedy to tackle the injustices of the state in a peaceful manner, we don’t take to the streets.

We Only deal with evidential facts and nothing more and, ONLY use British constitutional tenets in our arguments.

This is because anyone who opposing our standing will also be opposing the British Constitution which is tantamount to TREASON AT COMMON LAW. By the way…Blair did NOT legally repeal the 1795 treasonable and seditious practices Act when he brought in the Crime and disorder Act in 1998 like the (imposter) government says.

Of course, naturally you will need to check that constitutional law (common law) is a higher jurisdiction in the realm than the corporate rules being flung about by imposters and crooks within the to be confident with the law.

Please don’t just believe what we state, check it all out for yourselves but remember, the internet is awash with disinformation, just search for British constitution and see how many posts say that Britain doesn’t have one.

The argument they use is almost laughable, they say that we don’t have a written,codified constitution like the USA (who incidentally took their constitution from ours). When evidently we DO have a written constitution that is not codified because it was created by the people over hundreds of years through revolutions and tyrannical regimes before this one.

The law IS OF THE PEOPLE…which is why we are policed by consent in Britain. We all surely consent to the constitution as it protects the people and ensures justice is seen to be done. Unlike today in their corporate arenas, where deception and unaware peoples is a profitable practice indeed..

So…to the point. The regime works on presumption, they presume that you consent (and indeed you do if you comply with a summons of your own free will, or ignore their notices and letters). They presume that you are the corporate body and that you understand legalese and stand under their presumed (illegal) authority.

We remove all presumptions and provide evidence of article 61’s invocation (Daily Telegraph report) plus other evidence (which can be seen in some of the processes we have succeeded with, in the files). We state that we do not consent as the law FORBIDS us to do so at this time. We conditionally accept all demands on proof that they have the authority to make those demands since article 61’s invocation. The crown has NO authority whatsoever so neither do the so called courts, policy enforcers, councils etc.

Article 61 is a royal command, it is commanded that we distress the crown and the illegal regime by seizing castles, land etc, we all have LAWFUL: EXCUSE to do this and distress the regime in any way we see fit peacefully though, whilst also enjoying the freedom that ‘duress of circumstances’ provides us. Under duress you can comply with the regime if you rely on a car or whatever for example do not de-register the car or tax on it….you are also entitled to all your entitlements, it would be theft and coercion to aid and abet a treasonous regime to deny you them.

So…we go after every individual as a man/woman who makes any demands on us. We must compel them to stand under article 61 too by law…everyone has the duty to do that whilst in lawful rebellion….this is apart of its strategy…..only a united people can defeat treason from within. Unify under the common law which is common sense and just, is all we need to do.

Honour is very important in law so we must always provide an opportunity to cure (to make good, if they ignore the conditional acceptance notice)..

By putting someone on Notice of an evidentai fact (treason – article 61) whilst serving the notice by recorded post and retaining a copy and postal receipt, once delivered and signed for it is deemed to have been accepted under the law, therefore if they ignore it they will have tacitly agreed to it. If they reply and do not refer to your claims, then they agree by lack of substance (documented evidence of article 61 not being in effect today) or, they may denounce the constitution which is the crime of sedition if done publicly.

So..we are creating a case file for our defence and educating the unawares also. We conditionally accept a hearing if summonsed but ONLY in a ‘properly convened court de jure’…(court with a jury standing under common law) – (constitutional law). There are NO courts of law in Britain today as they all derive their presumed authority from the crown, which is not in any position of authority since article 61 was invoked, and are all corporate which is not a SERVICE. Britain is supposed to be a system of service to the sovereign people, we are all sovereign because we are all equal. Even the monarch is in service to the people by Oath and contract (Coronation Oath)…

This is a check mate move as we find that nobody will commit high treason against us. Once we serve the misprision of treason Notice on them they cannot deny knowing of the crime, which we all have a duty to report to a justice of the peace. If they do not report the crime of treason then they are guilty of misprision of treason (to know of an act of treason being planned ot committed and not to report the crime then you are also guilty of the crime). I attempted to report treason back in 2010 in Devizes Wiltshire.

TREASON….to hand over the authority of a nation without the expressed consent of the people, or without first being beaten in open battle.

The reason why article 61 was invoked was because QE2 ratified the treasonous treaty of Nice (France)…and NO we are not out of the EU and we cannot escape it by using article 50 of the treasonous Lisbon treaty. That would be granting the illegal imposters in Westminster authority and the EU legislation too, which has no authority over the British nor commonwealth nations.

Finally….the entire English speaking commonwealth nations ALL have a duty to stand under article 61. When we unite we will not only change Britain and the commonwealth back to a just system of service but you can be sure it would go global also. We will be able to bring the untouchable (like BLAIR) to justice as well as the banksters etc and have a constitutional convention of the people to bring the constitution up to scratch.

I hope this provides a little more comprehension to this remedy we use.


Written by anubis

December 15th, 2016 at 11:42 pm