Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Loans

without comments

Has Your debt been sold to a SPV who is trying to unlawfuly enforce the debt? This case was successfully won using the following ……..

In the County Court at Merthyr Tydfil

Between:

Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited Claimant

And

Miss Tina S………… Defendant

Defendant replies to the “Reply to Defence” as follows;

Para 2. The defendant submits that the burden of proof is not satisfied with hearsay by a legal representative per swift (attached) – the fraud act 2006 and the “Ghosh Test” (below)

Para 7. The defendant is severely sight-impaired and cannot read documents. John Hurst is her common law husband and assisted her in preparing her defence. The documents were not written by her , but accurately reflect her views.

The defendant’s seperate and independent defences are as follows;

1. The defendant accepts that from 2003 she held a Barclays Credit Card. She submits that the document she signed to obtain it was a security issued by her, a promissory note (PN), and that the transaction that took place was purchase of the security by Barclays Bank which they deposited in their bank. There was no “Consideration” (real money) put forward by Barclays and a bank “Deposit” is a record of its unsecured debt from the bank to the depositor in the amount specified as the “Credit Limit”. This was confirmed in the Bank of England’s Quarterly review, here which was submitted previously.

2. The defendant submits that the function of a properly directed court is to adjudicate on evidence that is placed before it. In the event of a contested claim, which this is, natural justice requires production of the PN to prove its existence and the nature of the transaction in question. (Times Newspaper 1974…..) Neither a “Khanna Subpoena” nor the applications of section 7 and 8 of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1879 should be necessary for the court to exercise its powers to secure the production of evidence and manage the case. This is the effect of the “Fundemental Principle” of the Civil Procedure Rules. This is a new measure (I.e post 2003) but is applicable to all parties.

3. The Defendant submits that without production of the PN, claims based upon it are unenforcable because the burden of proof is not satisfied.

4. The Defendant submits that if the agreement signed by her does not accurately reflect the nature of the transaction that took place, the contract is void from its start because of lack of disclosure by the bank.

5. The Defendant submits as is argued below, that a new statute (Fraud Act 2006) and a recent judgement (“The Ghosh Test”) have made attempts to make claims which are calculated to suspend their effects unlawful.

6. This is the “Commentary on fraud by false representation” in the explanatory notes to the Fraud Act 2006: 10 Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1) (a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh (1982) Q.B.1053. That judgement sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendants behavior would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people….”.

7. The Defendant submits that applying the ratio of Swift, the Fraud Act 2006, and the “Ghosh Test” to the facts of this claim as it is at the present time (i.e. without full disclosure) produces the following conclusions:

a: No reasonable person would expect to be forced to part with money to an unsworn claim made by a junior official of a firm of solicitors on behalf of an offshore company without production of original signed documents to substantiate the claim. They would regard an attempt to do so as dishonest and expect a Court to protect them from it.

b: Ignorance of the law is no excuse and the claimants solicitor should have taken the professional precautions that the Swift judgement requires. It is accepted that Swift originated in a different jurisdiction but the points of law that constitute the ratio decedendi are of universal application in the common law world. If either the claimant or their legal advisors persist in the claim in its present form their criminal culpability is not going to be in doubt.

c: Breach of those principles would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people. Note that in Swift, both the solicitor and the company official are “warned of the consequences” of non-compliance.

d: These concepts are reinforced by the criminal liability of company officers for offences committed by the company per section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006.

8. For the reasons given, the defendant submits that:

a: If the PN has not been transferred from Barclays to another party, the wrong entity is making this claim and it should be struck out per CPR 3.4.2 because it is contrary to section 1 (2) of the Fraud Act 2006, fraud by false representation as to fact.

b: If the PN is not produced at all the claim should be struck out per CPR 3.4.2 because it is contrary to section 1 (2) of the Fraud Act 2006, fraud by false representation as to fact.

c: If the PN is in the claimants possession it is prima facie evidence that the debt has been expunged by payment, and the claim should be struck out per CPR 3.4.2 because it is contrary to section 1. (2) of the Fraud Act 2006,fraud by false representation as to fact and law. If thisis denied by the claimant, the conract concerning the transfer should be disclosed as evidence. The defendant will give evidence that she had no prior knowledge of such transfers and this is corroborated by the letters that were sent to her afterwards informing her of them. If she took no part in the contract she is not bound by it. If some form of “power of attorney” was used it would fail the “Wednesbury reasonableness test because she did not know about it and again it cannot be binding upon her.

9. The defendant seperately submits that the original contract that she had with Barclaycard has become frustrated if the following alternative circumstances are proved to the civil standard.

a: If the PN has been “lost” “destroyed” or otherwise cannot be produced without blame attributable to either party, the contact between the defendant and Barclaycard was frustrated from the date of the event.

b: If the law, custom and practices concerning PN’s have been repealed as described above, the contract between the defendant and the claimant was frustrated from the date of the Fraud Act 2006, 8th November 2006.

10. In either situation, the defendant submits that section 1 of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 is applicable.

Adjustments of rights and liabilities of parties to frustrated contracts.

(1) Where a contract governed by English law has become impossible of performance or been otherwise frustrated, and the parties thereto have for that reason been discharged from the further performance of the contract, the following provisions of this section shall, subject to the provisions of section 2 of this Act, have effect in relation thereto.

(2) All sums paid or payable to any party in pursuance of the contract before the time when the parties were so discharged (in this Act referred to as “the time of discharge”) shall, in the case of sums so paid, be recoverable from him as money received by him for the use of the party by whom the sums were paid, and, in the case of sums so payable, cease to be so payable:

Provided that, if the party to whom the sums were paid or payable incurred expenses before the time of discharging, or for the purpose of, the performance of the contract, the court may, if it considers it just to do so having regrad to all circumstances of the case, allow him to retain or, as the case may be, recover the whole or any part of the sums so paid or payable, not being an amount in excess of the expenses so incurred…”

11. This is the counterclaim that the Defendant makes which was not addressed in the Claimant’s response. The £1,000 referred to is for the expenses incurred prepaing her defence.

12. The Defendant also seperately submits that the sum claimed as owed by Barclaycard is in doubt because of the LIBOR Judgemenbt aginst Barclays Bank and the application of the “Ghosh Test”. The consequences of this are either;

a. The sum claimed as owing has not been proved to a sufficient standard. A remedy would be, per the Swift Judgement, a reasoned calculation by a qualified member of Barclays Bank staff corroborated by records and presented in the form of a sworn statement by that official and subject to review by expert witnesses.

b. The sum claimed was the result of Criminal Fraud by individuals and because Fraud vitiates all, any claim based upon it cannot be enforced. An attempt to make a claim in these circumstances would be caught by section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, Fraud by failing to disclose information.

c. The sum claimed was the result of Criminal fraud by officials of Barclays Bank either wilfully or negligently. An attempt to make a claim in these circumstances would be caught by section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 – Fraud by abuse of position because bank officials have fiduciary responsibilities.

13. The Defendant submits, for the reasons given above, the Claimant should be making a claim against Barclays Bank, not her, because they were sold a pig in a poke (mochyn yn ‘y’ bag) Diolch yn fawr.

Written by anubis

December 10th, 2017 at 11:33 am

Trump

without comments

James Delingpole wrote a brilliant piece that I couldn’t quite post on my fb (I’d lose too many (more) friends) here

“President Trump has offended pretty much the entirety of Britain’s political and media establishment up to and including the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, the Special Relationship is once more in jeopardy, and Trump has decided to cancel a planned working visit to the United Kingdom.

In a moment I shall explain why the president is right and his critics are wrong. But first a brief recap of what the fuss is all about.

Trump’s critics objected violently – or so they have publicly claimed – to three of his Twitter retweets.

These retweets showed videos, purportedly of members of the Religion of Peace (TM) behaving less than peacefully.

One depicted a bearded Muslim destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary.

One showed an Islamist mob pushing a teenage boy off a roof and then beating him to death.

One showed a white Dutch boy on crutches being gratuitously beaten up by a man described in the video caption as a “Muslim migrant”.

Prime Minister Theresa May; Mayor of London Sadiq Khan; and many other politicians professed themselves to be appalled by this. As was BBC news, which made this horror its lead story.

But it wasn’t the sadistic brutality on any of the videos that bothered them. It was the fact that the person whose tweets the President had retweeted, Jayda Fransen, is the deputy of a nationalistic, anti-immigration political party highly critical of Islam called Britain First.

According to Prime Minister Theresa May this was a grave mistake.

She said:

I am very clear that retweeting from Britain First was the wrong thing to do.

“Britain First is a hateful organisation. It seeks to spread division and mistrust in our communities. It stands in fundamental opposition to the values that we share as a nation – values of respect, tolerance and, dare I say it, common decency.”

Some politicians went further.

London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, sought to use Trump’s tweet as an excuse to promote his ongoing campaign to prevent the President being granted a State Visit to London.

Chris Bryant – a Labour MP better known as “Captain Underpants” because he posted “sexy” photographs of himself on a gay dating site wearing nothing but his white briefs – accused the president of “supporting and condoning fascism”.

The BBC devoted large chunks of its news bulletins to excoriating the President’s behavior. Much was made of the fact that the mentally ill man who murdered Jo Cox MP during the Brexit campaign in June 2016 shouted “Britain First” as he committed his vile deed. Jo Cox’s widowed husband – a left-wing campaigner called Brendan Cox – was given space to fulminate against the president.

President Trump, however, has remained unrepentant.

Here is how he responded to Theresa May’s dressing down:

Now let me explain why, far from being a stupid, irresponsible, unpresidential move – as Britain’s chattering classes would have us believe – Trump’s tweets were in fact tactically astute.

Donald Trump, as many of us here know, is a much underrated figure in certain quarters.

If you think this is true in the U.S., you should try living in Britain – or in Ireland where, last weekend, I found myself in the extremely lonely position of defending his record at Dublin’s Festival of Politics. [You can hear more about some of my Irish adventures on my latest podcast]

Virtually none of my colleagues, even in the conservative media, has a good word to say about him. They think of him in all the usual leftist cliches: that he’s crass, vulgar, dumb, brash and so on. They think that those few of us who defend him – like me, Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Pryce-Jones, Daniel Johnson and a handful of others – only do so because we are attention-seeking loons.

What they misunderstand about Trump is the scale of his ambitions and the true nature of his mission.

As I argue in this week’s Spectator, he represents the same revolt of the masses against the liberal elite we saw with Brexit. His mission is vital:

That mission, domestically, is to Make America Great Again. But his ambitions, I believe, are even greater than that. As he outlined in his brilliant Warsaw speech, he sees himself as the defender of not just the free world, but of western civilisation itself.

‘We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers. We reward brilliance. We strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honour God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression. We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the centre of our lives. And we debate everything. We challenge everything.’

President Trump’s Warsaw Speech – the most important speech any president has made since Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall” – established him as Western Civilization’s White Knight. No other leader anywhere in the Western world – certainly not Angela Merkel or the insipid Theresa May – speaks up for our values (the wisdom of the Ancients, infused with Judaeo-Christian morality, filtered through the skepticism and scientific experiment of the Enlightenment, made prosperous by global trade and the Industrial Revolution) in such a forthright and unapologetic way.

It might seem a stretch to argue that Trump’s recent trio of trolling retweets of Muslims-behaving-badly videos have much to do with this noble mission.

But cometh the man, cometh the hour. President Trump is no ordinary leader and he most certainly does not play by the conventional rules.

A key facet of his modus operandi is the way he manages to bypass a generally hostile media and speak directly to his constituency – essentially ordinary people who’ve had just about enough of politically correct nonsense – using social media.

Straight laced conservatives deplore this. They think it’s undignified. Even that it trivializes the presidential office and undermines Trump’s mission.

On the contrary, as Vox Day persuasively demonstrates in his new book SJWs Always Double Down , Trump wields Twitter like a cross between a surgeon’s scalpel and a theater commander’s Daisycutter bomb.

So, cut to the chase, what was Trump doing with these tweets?

First, let’s just establish what he was NOT doing:

Winning the hearts and minds of radical Muslims; making liberals love and respect him more; getting nice coverage in the Guardian and the New York Times; persuading Never Trumpers that they might have misjudged him; winning over Theresa May and the rest of the faux-Conservative political class.

No. Trump doesn’t give a damn for any of these people. (And who can blame him?)

Instead he was sending a message to the people he cares about: all those ordinary people out there, not just in the U.S. but in Europe and beyond, who are shocked, appalled, scared by the way their countries are slowly (or quite quickly in the case of some countries, Sweden, for example) surrendering to Islam; who feel betrayed by the pusillanimity of their political leaders and let down by the failure of most of their media to report on the rapes and the sexual grooming and the violence being committed disproportionately by Muslims, both immigrants and home-grown radicals; who feel unable to speak – except in embarrassed whispers – about their fears about being stabbed or machine-gunned or blown up or mown down by yet another jihadist simply for the crime of going about their daily, Western life; who bitterly resent being tarred as Islamophobic or xenophobic or uncaring when all they want is to be allowed to live their life in peace in a country whose traditions, laws and cultural values remain the ones they grew up with and which make their homeland worth living in.

These are the people Trump was reaching out to with those tweets.

As for the rest – all those politicians and media types and cry bully activist groups – they just fell into Trump’s trap.

Trump wanted them to react in the way they did. It was part of his strategy. If you don’t understand why – if you’re one of those “sophisticated” analysts who persists in persuading yourself that Trump is just an idiot, in the way the same people used to say about Ronald Reagan – then, again, I recommend you spend time reading Vox Day’s book.

But if you want the short version, ask yourself this: how do you think most ordinary people – the ones outside the politically correct politics/media bubble – responded when they saw the president’s tweets?

Did they go

a) “I heard some people on the BBC tell me that Britain First are far right and far right is, like, the worst thing ever. So by retweeting them Donald Trump was literally endorsing fascism!”

or

b) “Trump gets it. Why don’t the other politicians get it?”

I suspect it’s mainly the latter.

Let me be clear: I’d feel very different about this video footage if it had been cynically staged by evil fascists to make nice Muslims look bad. If that were the case it would be wrong and needlessly inflammatory.

But I don’t think even President Trump’s most virulent detractors are saying that, are they?

Sure there have been quibbles about some details. The Dutch police have even gone so far as to claim that the guy attacking the boy on crutches wasn’t an immigrant and wasn’t even a Muslim. Well even this is the case – and remember, the EU authorities are notorious for their politically correct cover ups – no one is doubting the veracity of the other two videos, other than to point out that they’re over five years old (as if that changed anything).

Put it this way: if you ask yourself the question “Are these videos representative of behavior currently being enacted across Europe, the Middle East and beyond by members of the Religion of Peace?” you’d have to be pretty naive to answer anything but “yes!”

Yes, that boy on the roof – Hamada Badr, his name was, and he was 19 years old – really was pushed off and beaten to death by an Islamist mob, one carrying the black Al Qaeda flag, in Alexandria in 2013. Yes, countless other men have been pushed off roofs and killed by ISIS and similar groups for such anti-Islamic crimes as being gay.

Yes, the man smashing the Virgin Mary statue does exist. His name is – or was – Sheikh Omar Raghba. He was recorded in Syria and he tells the camera:

Allah willing, Allah alone will be worshipped in the Levant, which will be ruled only by the law of Allah.

‘The idols will be worshipped no more in the Levant, Allah willing.

‘We shall accept nothing but Allah, his religion, and the Sunnah of his prophet.’

Sheikh Omar’s attitudes are hardly unusual. Islam is quite explicitly a religion of conquest whose very name means “Submission”. And its treatment of its religious rivals (as it sees them) quite often extends to doing far worse than merely smashing Marian statues. Think of all the Yazidis and Christians and Shia raped and murdered by Islamic State in Syria and Iraq; think of the 305 Sufi worshippers murdered earlier this month in their mosque in the Sinai.

So what, exactly, was Trump doing wrong by tweeting videos drawing attention to these issues?

None of his detractors has successfully answered this question.

That is because they do not have an answer.

Some of us here in Britain – many if not most of us, I suspect – are continually pinching ourselves in disbelief at what our country has become in so short a space. It seems only yesterday that we used to be able to walk over Westminster Bridge or go shopping round Borough Market or go to a pop concert without for one second having to worry about the possibility of being murdered by Islamic terrorists; that boys and girls in headscarves were never segregated in inner city schools and taught to despise Jews and other kuffar; that the correct response to mass rape was mass arrest not mass cover ups; that Britain believed in equality before the law not in separate Sharia courts for certain communities; that a supermarket worker who told his boss “I can’t serve alcohol to customers” would be told in no uncertain terms either to do his job or move on elsewhere…

The story is the same across continental Europe, from Austria to Sweden to Germany to France and the beaches of Greece, Italy and southern Spain.

But has our political class responded to our concerns about this menace to our values, our cultural cohesion and our safety?

On the contrary. It has either ignored the problem altogether. Or doubled down on it, as Angela Merkel did in 2015 when she decided to enrich her country, whether it liked it or not, with another million or so Muslim “refugees”. Or – as in the case of all this confected outrage about Britain First (a tiny organisation about which few people either know or care) – they go: “Look, a squirrel!”, in the hope that people will politely join them in pretending that there isn’t a problem, thus relieving themselves of the burden of having to deal with it.

The U.S. was nearly as bad, of course, till Trump came along and said: “Enough is enough.” Which, of course, is one of the main reasons he is now president. He understood, as so many of our chatterati still do not, that there is a yawning gulf between where our political class are on the subject of immigration and Islam, and where the man and woman in the street are.

Trump sticks out like a sore thumb at the moment not because he is dangerous maverick but, on the contrary, because he is the only truth teller in a world of lies.”

Written by anubis

December 4th, 2017 at 9:10 pm

BTC

without comments

This is a comment posted in response to this article.

“It’s disappointing that a seasoned economic commentator such as Jeremy can only find purchase on this phenomenon with recourse to the clichés of “ponzi schemes”, “greater fool theory” and “rackets”.

Bitcoin is not a new concept. Until 2009, researchers in cryptography, have worked on – and largely been eluded by – the idea of a counterparty-free, electronically liquid bearer token for at least 35 years (if we take for example the early work of people like David Chaum as an arbitrary reference point). Later this was built on by early Bitcoin prototypes such as “Hashcash” by Adam Back.

As such, the absence of “intrinsic value” is by design because bitcoin is a pure monetary token with no upper limit on its exchange value which is largely determined by the extent to which it is adopted as an electronically liquid store of wealth. In that sense Jeremy’s “greater fool” theory does hold some water since any monetary token requires to garner confidence that it can be traded away with equal ease and value by which it was acquired. Where it departs from that theory is in that it doesn’t require ‘greater fools’ to be economically viable, only a background of inflationary currencies and debt bubbles.

This is no different from historical monetary tokens such as the gold coin. Although gold is considered to have “intrinsic value”, a more appropriate and accurate term would be “monetary value” since its adoption as a store of wealth is really what gave it a monetary premium over its utility value. Just the same as if you purchase one of those plastic ride-tokens at a funfair you may pay 100 times the price you would for it in a hardware shop since the funfair micro-economy has adopted it as money and the otherwise worthless plastic token therefore carries a monetary premium which justifies its cost. Likeways, you can now deposit bitcoin in your account with a debit card provider and gain spending power access to the entire Visa network of merchants.

Sociologically, a monetary system is no different from a transport infrastructure, an education system, a manufacturing industry or a media sector. It performs an industrial function and if it performs well in its role then that system will have value. Until the advent of bitcoin there did not exist any technology which could perform the role of a counterparty-free bearer token where settlement and trade are co-incident. (i.e. the same role that the gold coin fulfilled in the days of physical markets). You needed a bank in the middle.

After 2009 with the advent of bitcoin, that was no longer the case. Further, the market has shown itself capable of arbitrating successfully between “bitcoin the technology” and “bitcoin the asset” since, while the technology can be replicated and new blockchains created, they are distinctly valued compared with the authentic chain. (Just like Christie’s will give you a different price for an otherwise ‘perfect’ Mona Lisa painted by a modern street artist to the one they’d give you for the authentic original by one Leonardo Da Vinci).

Contrary to Jeremy’s experience at his lunch party, bitcoin followers are more than familiar with the concepts of “the greater fool theory”, the Dutch tulip phenomenon and the Madoff ponzi scam since those have formed a more or less continuous drone in their ears since the days of $35 bitcoin.

Would that commentators such as Jeremy had the same depth of understanding about the digital asset phenomenon as bitcoin followers do about ponzi schemes.”

Written by anubis

December 4th, 2017 at 1:03 pm

Posted in Economics

Governance

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.

Feasibility

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.
Invitation

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: https://goo.gl/mapsxxxxx…”

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

“…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,
Lxxxx…”

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

Fraud

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

Summary

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 http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2015/110915.pdf

http://voxeu.org/article/rebalancing-eurozone-internal-adjustments-won-t-be-enough )

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1407.pdf

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14130.pdf

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/11/europe-the-failure-of-internal-devaluation/

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.
BOOM!!!
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!!!”
“Madam.”
He smiled.
“You have not yet established that you HAVE a court.”
BOOM!!!
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