Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Clean Brexit

without comments

Clean Brexit is the practical and democratic way forward

Liam Halligan

10 December 2016 • 7:55pm

There’s a strong case for the Government to make a very clear statement – and then to stick to its political guns.

Theresa May has long refused to give a running commentary on her negotiations with the European Union.

Last week, though, in a moment of high parliamentary drama, the Prime Minister conceded her government will now publish a “Brexit plan” before triggering Article 50 by March next year.

Having backed Brexit, I’ve always recognised it may be unwise for the Government to disclose its desired negotiating outcome.

These two statements aren’t linked. However you voted in June, everyone should acknowledge the potential downsides of the UK showing its hand ahead of what could be some extremely hard bargaining. That hasn’t stopped numerous Remainers from insisting ministers “have no plan” and “are clueless”, as they demand full disclosure.

Many are doing so, of course, to spread Brexit-related alarm – trying to whip up a panic and somehow stymie or even reverse the clear referendum result.

The complexity of any negotiation involving 27 countries, each with their own commercial lobbies and electorates, means any detailed Brexit roadmap would be obsolete before it was written. So the Government, having just secured a Commons majority to invoke Article 50 in return for “a plan”, could justifiably produce something vague.

I’d argue, though, there’s now a strong case for the Government, quite soon, to make a very clear statement with regard to the outcome it wants – and then to stick to its political guns. So long as that desired outcome is “Clean Brexit”.

I’d identify three basic Brexit models. The first is joining the European Economic Area – the “Norwegian option” – involving continued multi-billion pound annual payments to Brussels, while accepting numerous EU rules and regulations – including “freedom of movement”.

This isn’t Brexit and, in my view, would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

The second, and most widely envisaged option, is a bespoke UK deal. We’d invoke Article 50 as the Government has indicated, using the subsequent two-year negotiating period to bend EU rules to our will – trying, in particular, to maximise control over our borders while minimising the constraints placed on our EU trade. This might be possible.

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, with a £60bn trade deficit with the EU, the UK can surely get a better deal than Norway.

A “bespoke UK” option, though, would involve a drawn-out and acrimonious negotiation. The outcome of any deal, almost by definition, wouldn’t be known until the moment before the two-year deal-making window expired – prolonging business uncertainty and hindering both domestic and foreign investment.

It must also be recognised, given the UK would be going head-to-head with the EU, attempting to weaken links between the various “pillars” which hold the entire European project together, that a very real possibility is an extremely bad-tempered “no deal”.

With the UK seeking to dismantle EU rules, and Franco-German EU lifers fighting back, a multi-year UK-EU negotiation could easily end in stalemate. Uncertainty would then become semi-permanent, seriously harming all of Western Europe as a place to do business.

Voters on both sides of the Channel would despair at the rank incompetence of their leaders. The UK, in particular, would be in a terrible state. We’d have torn incurable fissures across the British electorate and wrecked our relationship with the EU, making future cooperation all but impossible – and for what?

So I strongly favour the third option – “Clean Brexit”. Parliament passes the “Great Repeal” Bill that May has already outlined, carrying over relevant EU statute into domestic law. We then send our Article 50 letter and leave – quitting both the single market and the customs union.

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which are in no way a disaster for Britain. Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. That won’t be denied – as we’d take the EU to WTO arbitration and win. WTO rules are in no way a disaster for Britain. They currently govern our trade with countries including the US and China that make up the 85pc of the world economy that’s outside the EU.

The non-EU accounts for almost 60pc of our trade and rising. While we have a huge EU deficit, with the non-EU we run a £30bn surplus – under WTO rules, outside the single market. The non-EU, then, generates the bulk of our trade, the part that is growing and where we register a surplus.

The single market – despite its appealing name – is a deeply imperfect set of rules that discriminate against the services in which Britain excels. The maximum EU tariffs we’d face are well within single digits. On manufactured goods, the average is 2.4pc – far less than the recent fall in sterling. And that’s a worse-case scenario.

The importance of the UK to German carmakers, French food producers and the rest of them means we can expect to negotiate tariffs down much further. There’s lots of alarm about preserving the “passporting” of financial services. Such concerns, trumpeted by big City companies that don’t like change, are massively overdone.

Yes, the UK’s financial services industry is important. But the EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year, while the country which took most was America – where we have no free trade deal. Passporting would be good, but we can live without it. Many non-EU members anyway trade financial services using EU “equivalence” rules – which would apply to a Brexited UK.

“Leaving the customs union” is also often presented as a mortal sin. Once out, though, many imports – including food – would be cheaper, as shoppers would avoid the related tariff on non-EU goods. And, free of the customs union, we could finally strike trade deals with the populous, fast-growing emerging markets, beyond the EU, which will soon be the most important economies in the world.

The EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year – passporting would be good, but we can live without it.

Clean Brexit is democratic. The Great Repeal means that, in the short term, nothing changes. Then, in our own time, over several electoral cycles, UK ministers and our Parliament decide which EU laws and regulations we retain and which we alter. That’s how it should be. Our annual contribution ends and, leaving the single market and customs union, we strike UK trade deals and take control of our borders.

The Government should state all this in March, on invoking Article 50. That’s ahead of upcoming French and German elections, next spring and late-summer respectively – which is vital. We tell the EU we want to trade under WTO rules, we don’t want any kind of drawn-out negotiation over borders or the single market, but we’re happy to consider UK-EU sector-specific trade deals of mutual benefit.

During the upcoming continental elections, then, the French and German carmaking, pharmaceutical and food-processing giants will know the EU needs to cut a deal with Britain to retain tariff-free access to the UK market.

These powerful industrial lobbies will try to extract pro-UK concessions from the various candidates, doing our lobbying for us. Remote politicians, perhaps looking to bash Britain on the election stump, will be reminded by their own people that the EU’s free trade with Britain underpins millions of jobs and billions of euros of profit.

I reject the term “hard Brexit”. It’s often used by those who lost the referendum and want to make leaving the EU seem extreme.

Quitting the single market and customs union voluntarily, avoiding a tortured “single market-free movement” negotiation and using WTO rules isn’t ideological. It’s a practical, transparent position that limits uncertainty while minimising damage to the UK, the EU and our ongoing relationship.

Clean Brexit is the way to go. Forced to disclose her plans, Theresa May should go the whole hog.

Written by anubis

December 12th, 2016 at 6:19 am

Climate Hoax

without comments

The Science is Settled
Anthony Bright-Paul

The Warmists are very fond of saying ‘The Science is settled’ and in point of fact they are largely right. Between the Warmists and the Skeptics there is a great deal of agreement on the science. The disagreements mostly come over the use or abuse of the English language. Just as one small example, many of the Warmists are unable apparently to distinguish between ‘causation’ and ‘correlation’. That is a matter of linguistics and not of science per se.

In the comments on an article of mine in ‘American Thinker’ a certain gnome has taken me to task for not being a scientist. Believe me, I have never pretended to be one. But I am interested in the use of words, and try to use words that connect clearly with meaning. So as a layman I wrote about climate not as a scientist, but as a layman for laymen.

Anyone who has read my book ‘Climate for the Layman’ will see that I have relied for the science heavily on my mentors – Professor Tim Ball, Professor Bob Carter (now deceased), and now for some long time Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist. These are supported by articles and excerpts from Professor John Christy; Stephen Wilde, Meteorology; Dr David Evans; John Droz Jr, Physicist; Astrophysicist James Peden; Piers Corbyn, Physicist; Johnny Ball, Mathematician; Rev. Philip Foster, both scientist and Biblical scholar; Norman Kalmanovich and Professor Les Woodcock. Anybody can look these personages up on Google to see their full qualifications. These are just a few of the scientists who have contributed to my book, which more correctly should be called their book, but which I put together, or collated together with some of my own articles.

However, some of these scientists have been kind enough to say that I have expressed some scientific ideas in a layman language sufficiently well to grace such sites as Principia Scientific and others.

Let us return to the theme ‘The Science is settled’ and see if we can trace out just where both the Warmists and the Skeptics agree, and having first done that we can perhaps then see clearly where they disagree, and we can then see if it is over science or over language, that is to say a matter of semantics.

  • We all agree now that the globe is rotating on its own axis as it travels round the Sun at some 66,000 miles an hour. Since I am not a scientist I have to take it as read, that these suppositions are true, though it is well to remember that it was only a short time ago that you could be put upon the rack and tortured for even believing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
  • All scientists now agree that the Sun is between 91 and 95 million miles away, according to Earth’s elliptical swing. They also agree that the corona of the Sun is circa 6,500ºC and that the Sun is some 3,600 times larger than the Planet Earth.
  • Warmists and Skeptics also agree that Outer Space is a vacuum, through which radiation (not heat) from the Sun travels.
  • All scientists also agree that there are 4 levels of atmosphere, – in descending order, the Thermosphere, the Mesosphere, the Stratosphere and finally the Troposphere, where our weather occurs. All are agreed that the distance from the surface of the Earth to Outer Space is approximately 100kms or 66 miles.
  • The composition of the atmosphere is also a matter of agreement. Both sides agree that the composition is roughly divided between Oxygen O2 and Nitrogen N2 together at 99% and the Greenhouse Gases at only 1%. It is important to note that Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Both sides in general agree these figures.
  • Both sides agree that Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent to radiation, both incoming and outgoing. That means that radiation passes through them until it (radiation) collides with mass. Now this last bit is where I, as a layman, first got lost. The concept of Physics that radiation has to collide with mass to produce heat is a difficult one not just for a layman, but also for many well-educated humans. It took Hans Schreuder to explain to me that the Sun does not send heat through space but radiation. Believe me I could not grasp this concept at first, believing that infrared was the ‘hot’ part of radiation. Physicists will smile at my naiveté. Infrared is not hot, just as electricity is not hot, but both will produce heat when encountering a resistance.
  • Unlike O2 and N2, the Greenhouse Gases are di-polar in structure, which allows them to absorb and radiate. This means that unlike Oxygen and Nitrogen, they absorb infrared and so warm up. That includes Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide and Methane. All molecules above absolute zero absorb infrared and likewise radiate away, thus cooling. As far as I knows nobody on either side disputes any of this science.
  • So now we can see that there are huge areas where scientists on both sides are in full agreement. However when we come to questions like the Greenhouse Effect we encounter great differences.

    Let us look at what the BBC website says: –
    The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun’s energy, warming the Earth enough to support life. Most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in “greenhouse gases” is increasing the effect artificially

    Let us look at this a bit critically – traps some of the earth’s energy. Really? How does it do this ‘trapping’? Immediately we can see that this is not scientific – it is political. Warming the Earth enough to support life? No, this is not science. It is a sort of wishy-washy opinion. Then it goes on ‘Most mainstream scientists believe …
    Of course, belief is not science – this statement is just political poppycock. Sure, all scientists accept that the ill-named Greenhouse Gases absorb and emit infrared – that is one thing, it is quite another to suggest that this results in further warming of the Earth below. Even a layman can see the frailty of this proposition, since we also know that hot air rises, just as hot water rises. Therefore, if these molecules say at 500ft are warmed – no, no that is wrong – if as a result of a photon of infrared from the Earth’s surface some warmth is produced, then what is warmed will rise up by Convection and cool.

    The idea that a molecule of Carbon Dioxide could trap heat is also completely unacceptable, since heat is defined as the transfer of kinetic energy. A substance may be trapped, but a transfer cannot.

    The wizards at the BBC may be able to trap a ‘transfer’, but such an idea is ludicrous and infantile. In any case, such a proposition would defy the 2nd law of Thermodynamics – all heat by itself flows from hot to cold. Whoever thought of ‘trapping’ heat? The concept is too silly for words – remembering also that every molecule above absolute zero will radiate and in so doing cool.

    There is even a ludicrous illustration purporting to show how the Greenhouse Effect works, with a barrier hovering halfway up in the sky. Dear oh dear! This is just such manifest nonsense that it is difficult to believe that this was put out seriously and illustrated.
    So we can see that where the laws of science are followed there is complete agreement between scientists. But where politics intervene, where corrupt scientists have as their brief to prove that certain gases cause the Earth below to warm, their arguments just do not add up. In fact they are pitiful. Yet because these lies have been repeated again and again, thousands, nay millions, of people are deceived and believe them.

    The science is settled and the laws of science cannot be gainsaid. But the political shenanigans are just sick making. Man-made Global Warming is not just a hoax, it is a political scam that has affected all mankind and made many of them mad. Praise be, that there are one or two who have not been deceived.
    So the science is settled all right, but the idea that there is some sort of barrier in the Troposphere forming the Greenhouse Effect is utter, unmitigated rubbish. See picture below, on the BBC website.
    Anthony Bright-Paul
    Wednesday, 07 December 2016

    Written by anubis

    December 9th, 2016 at 3:03 am

    Posted in Climate

    Jury Nullification

    without comments

    Very elegantly put, although very amusing since CO2 emissions are not responsible for damaging the planet.

    Members of the jury.

    I’m going to try to summarise why we feel that we are not guilty, why we feel that what we did was right, despite the very proper laws against obstructing trains, why we feel that it was the wrong decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute us in this case, and why we don’t feel that we are guilty of a crime.

    I want to start by responding to your request for clarification yesterday about “lawful excuse”. His honour may say [in his summing up] that it’s true that there are ways in law to make space for circumstances, to allow a bigger picture to be considered.

    These ways can have different names for different offences — so for example “lawful excuse”, which you asked about yesterday, applies only to the charge of criminal damage. For example, last September, a jury in Kent found six protesters not guilty of committing £30,000 worth of criminal damage to Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, since the group were acting to prevent a greater crime. Those on trial did not disagree that criminal damage is a crime, just that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary and proportionate to cause some damage to prevent a great crime. That jury agreed.

    His honour may explain that there is a legal defence of “necessity”, that applies to most laws, and that it was on the basis of “necessity” — the fact that we believed our actions were going to save lives and that we had to act — that we prepared a legal defence before this trial. Along with many legal professionals we were very disappointed by his honour’s decision prior to the trial that this defence was not available to us in law. Nonetheless we decided not to appeal against it. We felt that you the jury would be free to decide on the facts of a case as you find them – and not just the ones his honour tells you are relevant.

    It’s up to you to decide whether what we did was necessary. I would like to emphasise to you that we believed and we still believe that it was urgently necessary to do what we did, and proportionate to the scale of the problem, that the consequences of that train taking coal into Drax are so serious that any reasonable person would understand our reasons for stopping it. To help explain why we were so sure of the links between Drax’s activities and deaths around the world we had expert witnesses lined up to talk to you about the immediate and ongoing harm that Drax’s emissions cause. However from what evidence we have been able to get across to you, with his honour’s indulgence, we hope that you can see that these facts speak for themselves, and our actions, though harmful, were indeed necessary to try to stop a greater harm. And if you agree with that then you still have a legal right – as the jury – to find us not guilty.

    You’ve heard it said already I think, that the judge decides about the law, but the jury decide about the facts. What does that mean? It means you the jury can decide as you see fit. You the jury have a constitutional right to follow your own judgement and not necessarily follow the judge’s directions to find us guilty. In other words, you get to make the final decision. In law this principle is called the jury’s power of nullification, and it’s been a right that has been regularly used over the years when juries have felt the law has been applied harshly, or inappropriately, or unjustly, or incorrectly.

    Perhaps I can explain this with a quote from a very senior judge, Lord Denning. He said:

    “This principle was established as long ago as 1670 in a celebrated case of the Quakers, William Penn and William Mead. All that they had done was to preach in London on a Sunday afternoon. They were charged with causing an unlawful and tumultuous assembly there. The judge directed the jury to find the Quakers guilty, but they refused. The Jury said Penn was guilty of preaching, but not of unlawful assembly. The Judge refused to accept this verdict. He threatened them with all sorts of pains and punishments. He kept them ‘all night without meat, drink, fire, or other accommodation: they had not so much as a chamber pot, though desired’. They still refused to find the Quakers guilty of an unlawful assembly. He kept them another night and still they refused. He then commanded each to answer to his name and give his verdict separately. Each gave his verdict ‘Not Guilty’. For this the judge fined them 40 marks apiece and cast them into prison until it was paid. One of them Edward Bushell, thereupon brought his (case) before the Court of the King’s Bench. It was there held that no judge had any right to imprison a juryman for finding against his direction on a point of law; for the judge could never direct what the law was without knowing the facts, and of the facts the jury were the sole judge. The jury were thereupon set free.”

    This was affirmed as recently as 2005, in relation to the case of Wang, where a committee of Law Lords in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, concluded that: “there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty”. So you do have that right to decide for yourselves. And unlike in 1670, his honour won’t be able to fine you, or put you in prison for making what he sees as the wrong decision.

    There have been many cases over the years where juries have decided, on reflecting more broadly, to find people not guilty despite directions from the judge. For example, the case of Zelter and others who were accused of damage to an aircraft about to be used for bombing civilians. In all of these and others the judge said that the defendants admitted the offence and so must be found guilty. But the jury chose to look outside the limited view of the court room, and to find them not guilty.

    The freedom that you have is what enables the law, where necessary, to move forward. It is what allows you to look beyond the confines of this court to the wider world, and to make a judgement based not just on law, but to make a judgement based on justice. Justice is the force that underpins and breathes life into the law, and it is your role as the jury to see that justice as you see it is done.

    We all know that times change, and what was acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. You have heard of how it was once legal to own other people, how it was illegal for women to vote. Well one way or another we are going to have to stop burning coal and move on from the fossil fuel era. And that means that the law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect.

    We are not trying to tell you how to decide. We are only trying to say that it is up to you, and we are grateful for that.

    I want you to think back to that situation of there being a person on the tracks ahead of that train going on its way to Drax. Members of the Jury, it may sound like a strange thing to say but in truth there is a person on the branch line to Drax. The prosecution have not challenged the facts we presented to you on oath about the consequences of burning coal at Drax. 180 human lives lost every year, species lost forever. There is a direct, unequivocal, proven link between the emissions of carbon dioxide at this power station and the appalling consequences of climate change. That many of those consequences impact on the poor of other nations or people in Hull we don’t know and should not in any way negate the reality of this suffering. We got on that train to stop those emissions, because all other methods in our democracy were failing. Just because we don’t know the name of the person on the tracks or where they live or the exact time and day of their dying, does not in our view mean they are less worthy of protection.

    We don’t dispute that there’s a law against obstructing trains. We don’t dispute that obstructing trains is a crime and should continue to be a crime. We just argue that in this case, we should not be found guilty of a crime for trying to block this train on its way to Drax.

    On Tuesday the prosecution argued that what we did was quite simply a crime, and as a result we should be found guilty. They were trying to suggest that if you find us not guilty, the whole world would fall apart. We argue that the more likely route to the whole world falling apart is if we continue burning coal in the enormous quantities that it is being burnt at Drax.

    His honour may say that we have been telling you stories, that we are trying to introduce emotions into the trial to distort the evidence. But we have been telling you the facts. If those facts move you, that’s because they are moving, and they are what moved us to do what we did.

    We are happy to be judged by you, the jury.

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.

    Written by anubis

    October 1st, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    Islam

    without comments

    Here is a brilliant video by a muslim that should give us all pause for thought.

    Written by anubis

    September 26th, 2016 at 3:54 am

    Posted in Islam

    Brexit

    without comments

    By Edward Chancellor June 16, 2016
    Tags: BREXIT | EUROPEAN UNION | GOVERNMENT | M&A | UNITED KINGDOM
    The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. (but obviously shared by me !)

    originally posted here

    On June 23, Britain votes on whether to remain in the European Union. Being out of the country on that date, I applied for a postal vote. I have marked my ballot paper, with a certain trepidation, in favour of leaving the EU, or Brexit. At first I worried this vote conflicted with my cosmopolitan leanings. On reflection I decided that by rejecting the EU I showed greater fellow feeling for the citizens of Europe, and was more faithful to the continent’s highest ideals than those who wish to remain.

    Legions of economists, policymakers and political grandees from around the world have warned of the economic threat of Brexit. These voices lack credibility. None of the Remain economists, to my knowledge, anticipated the global financial crisis. The UK Treasury claims that British incomes will be lower for years after leaving the EU. The same Treasury, however, has consistently had problems forecasting next year’s UK GDP. Not long ago, many politicians and businesspeople argued that Britain would miss out if we didn’t join the European single currency. We now know that the real calamity would have been joining the euro.

    In truth, the greatest economic risk posed by Brexit comes from the threat of retaliation by our erstwhile European “partners”. Given that Britain runs a large trade deficit with Europe, a trade war would be irrational. It is a poor reflection on the EU that such a threat should be credible.

    Of course, leaving the single market creates uncertainty – a state of affairs which repels the modern breed of policymaker. In the past, developed economies have withstood far greater shocks. The growth of the U.S. economy, for instance, was only temporarily set back by the Great Depression. Nor did it take many years after 1945 for Germany’s output per capita to return to its pre-war trend. It’s inconceivable, in my view, that Brexit could by itself permanently damage Britain’s economic prospects.

    Even if the economic arguments are overblown, doesn’t a vote for Brexit reveal an unattractive petty nationalism at odds with modern progressive values? Doesn’t my vote put me in bad company?

    I don’t believe so. At university, I read 18th-century European history. The ideals of the Enlightenment – a preference for reason over tradition, for economic individualism over state control, for tolerance over bigotry, and a belief that relationships between nations should be governed by the rule of law – remain close to my heart. The same notions guided the founding fathers of the post-war European project.

    The EU has since betrayed those ideals. In 1795, Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who coined the term “Enlightenment”, wrote “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”. In this essay, Kant showed profound respect for a state’s separate identity: a state “like the stem of a tree has its own root… to incorporate it as a graft on another state, is to destroy its existence as a moral person.” The consequence of bundling states together, even when done peacefully through dynastic alliances, would be that the “subjects of the state are used and abused as things that may be managed at will”.

    Kant defined a republican government as one that gained the “consent of citizens as members of the state”. He preferred this to despotism, characterised by “the irresponsible executive administration of the state by laws laid down and enacted by the same power that administers them”. While Kant proposed an international federation of states to avoid war, this “would not have to take the form of a State made up of these nations”. Such a superstate would not allow the existence of a free state, which by definition both made and applied its own laws: “Each state,” wrote Kant, “places its majesty (for it is absurd to speak of the majesty of the people) in being subject to no external juridical restraint”.

    Since its inception in the 1950s, the European project has morphed from Kant’s ideal of an international federation into something akin to the late Habsburg Empire – a sprawling and fractious conglomeration of nations struggling against centripetal forces. The EU’s form of government, in Kantian terms, can be described as “despotic”, since the public’s consent has not been gained.

    During the interminable years of the euro crisis, unemployment in parts of Europe has exceeded Great Depression levels. The citizens of Greece, Spain and elsewhere have been force-fed austerity by the EU with little prospect of eventual economic recovery. If the EU cared for its citizens, or was properly accountable, substantive reforms would have been enacted. This hasn’t happened. As a result, discontent across Europe is fostering political extremism of the 1930s variety. Sooner or later something must give.

    A vote for Brexit, I believe, puts me in the best company. It shows solidarity with the long-suffering European public and complies with the principles of Kant, the greatest of Enlightenment philosophers.

    Written by anubis

    September 13th, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    Taxation is Theft

    without comments

    The income tax is theft because it redistributes money from some people to others. It assumes that the government owns your labor and the product of your labor. That’s an immoral assumption. Free people own their bodies and their labor – not the government. Therefore, when the government lays claim to your income, the product of your labor and your body, they are saying they own you. That’s morally wrong.

    — Ron Paul

    Written by anubis

    September 10th, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Islam

    without comments

    ZEITGEIST

    Surrendering to Death
    by Gavin McInnes

    May 14, 2016

    Surrendering to Death

    Eagles of Death Metal recently finished a Canadian tour and I got to sit down with vocalist Jesse Hughes and discuss the Bataclan attack in Paris that killed 89 of his fans. You’d think he’d want to avoid the topic, but he was actually eager to get into it. He sees it as a catharsis.

    Hughes is not happy with the way the media has treated the story. Details are randomly pulled from his interviews and entire angles are edited in later that are diametrically opposed to his beliefs. Jesse Hughes has been ordained as a minister by the Universal Life Church. He’s pro-gun, pro-Trump, and pro-life. He recognizes that Islam is the problem and political correctness is literally killing us.

    Takimag: It’s hard to talk about the attack without sounding like you’re blaming the victims, but it’s impossible to deny fear of Islamophobia and fear of guns led to a lot of deaths that night.

    Jesse Hughes: I saw fear fall like a blanket on the whole crowd and they fell like wheat in the wind—the way you would before a god. I was totally alert from the very beginning. The first thing I needed to do was find my girl. Fear took a backseat and “where’s my girl?” took over. I could smell gunpowder in the backstage area and I knew someone fired a round back there. I saw a guy with an FAL and when he turned to face me his eyes looked like marbles. He was stoned out of his mind, and we now know they were on Xanax and cocaine. I recognized him. I’d seen him earlier in the day and noticed him staring at us.

    They were in the venue early. That implies some staff were in on it.

    I got in a lot of trouble for saying that. I know for sure that they were in there early. I remember them staring at my buddy. I just chalked it up to Arab envy. You know what I mean? When a Muslim sees a cocky American dude with tattoos, he stares at him. I realized later it was Abdeslam and he was staring at my buddy because they thought he was a threat. There’s no denying the terrorists were already inside, and they had to get in somehow. During the shooting I went outside and the backstage door was propped open. How did that happen?

    Do you think political correctness is killing our natural instincts and making us vulnerable?

    Definitely. There were two girls who were involved. They were at the venue and vanished before the shooting, and these women were in traditional Muslim garb. They knew people wouldn’t check them because of the way they were dressed. They got caught a few days later.

    The fear of offending Muslims is a terrorist’s greatest weapon.

    “When the cops went in after the attack, they shut down, what, 450 mosques? They found recruitment material in every single one of them.”
    Look at the guys who bombed Brussels. They were wearing black gloves on one hand. Their luggage was too heavy to lift, but they didn’t want anyone helping them with it. Nobody brought any of this up until after the bombs went off.

    We’d rather die than be called a bigot.

    How is a faith being associated with racism? Just take out the word “Islam” and replace it with “communism.” It’s an ideology. The same way the Rosenbergs could sell nuclear secrets from within America is the same way Muslim terrorists can attack us from within. It’s okay to be discerning when it comes to Muslims in this day and age.

    Where is this push coming from? Is it all our fault?

    Of course not. When you’re at a soccer game in Europe and you see the words “United Arab Emirates,” you know there is a lot of Arab money floating around and influencing the dialogue. The conversation is constantly being steered away from scrutiny. They think we’re fools.

    Arab money is a pollutant. So many movies are made with Arab money. George Clooney doesn’t kiss the ass of the Arabs for no reason. American movies are the best way to influence the hearts and minds of the world.

    You never see bad guys in movies who are Arab terrorists. It’s always Germans or French…

    Or conservative Christian rednecks. They’re apparently what’s wrong with everything in the world now, including global warming. What about the other ice age we went through? There were no Christian Republicans back then. What caused that meltdown?

    The other problem with that is, when you get rid of these Christian rednecks, you create a vacuum and it gets filled with people way worse. It gets filled with Islam. You end up replacing evangelism with sharia law.

    Politicians behave better when they know people are watching. We behave better when we believe Jesus is watching us.

    These atheists tell us we don’t need religion, yet everyone seems to be creating flimsy substitutes to replace it. Rehab is just Lent. Meditation is just Latin Mass. Seeing a therapist is just talking to your priest.

    And the thing about the Bible is it’s written down. A therapist can change his diagnosis just like that and there’s no way of calling him out on it.

    Let’s get back to the attack. Why didn’t the cops come in earlier? It seemed like the killing went on forever.

    The press heard some kids were locked away in rooms so they reported it as a hostage situation. Those kids were hiding. This misinformation meant the cops set up outside for a negotiation while inside dozens of people were dying.

    The terrorists would go up to bodies and stick them with the gun. If they budged, they’d shoot them again. One girl got up and said she was scared. The guy said, “Don’t be scared, you’ll be dead in two minutes,” and then he shot her, BOOM.

    The French are so concerned with racism, they’re letting Muslims get away with murder.

    A day after, at the stadium, Muslims booed the moment of silence and we barely heard about it in the press. I saw Muslims celebrating in the street during the attack. I saw it with my own eyes. In real time! How did they know what was going on? There must have been coordination.

    I’ve heard you say you credit your childhood with your survival. You had a real dad who stuck around and taught you about guns.

    I knew what gunfire was. I was able to think through it. I was also able to remember practical lessons of my life because I had to be in fights as a kid. My mom didn’t go sue anyone. I didn’t have playdates. I had some practical upbringing growing up in the desert where you got to get yourself out of your problems.

    Also, the reason I’ve done well with this healing process is everything I was raised to believe was affirmed that night. In a way, that’s a blessing of God. When the first bullets started being fired, people looked at me. I remember that. It pissed me off because I knew right then and there it was going to be bad. I knew these kids had no idea what was coming. None. They’d never heard a gunshot in real life and it hit them so hard.

    Political correctness kills.

    Davey [bassist Dave Catching] was in the middle of the stage and when the lights went on, he saw shit he’d never seen before in his life, awful stuff. It has no parallel. It’s not just death. It’s the most unsuspecting, innocent victims you can imagine—people who are gripped in terror and can’t move as a result of it.

    It’s like a metaphor for all of Western civilization.

    I watched about seven people die. A couple of them were three feet from the barrier. They could have fallen backwards and been alive but they were too scared to even turn around. I remember a woman just standing with her hands up in a surrender pose. The terrorist finally saw her and all she did was go, “No no no.” She surrendered to death in front of my very eyes. I was yelling at her, “HEY!” and I don’t think she could hear me. She was so terrified, I think she’d already given up.

    Is it fair to say the liberal mentality created this need to surrender?

    I will lay the blame right in its lap. When you tell people they can’t help themselves and that they’re children, you weaken them to a point where three feet away is life and they can’t see it because they’re too scared.

    In a way we’re unarmed twofold. We’re literally unarmed and we’re also mentally unarmed.

    It’s like the bleating sheep from Animal Farm. You suggest anything that strays from the narrative and this chorus of bleats comes to drown you out. This attack didn’t happen by accident.

    I went to Paris after the attacks and was disgusted by the lack of rage. They didn’t blame Islam. In fact, many blamed the Jews. They seemed more concerned with us promoting xenophobia than laying blame on the terrorists.

    I hung out with plenty of Parisians who were fucking pissed off, but it was mostly cops and military. During the attack, one cop finally realized it wasn’t a hostage situation and yelled out, “It’s a turkey shoot” as he charged in, holding his gun. He got shot right through the hand and into the neck and kept going. He took a terrorist out, chased another one into the hallway, who then blew himself up, and did it to another guy, who blew himself up on stage. Our amplifiers were a gory mess.

    Did that cop live?

    Yes, I met him in triage. I hung out with him. Great guy.

    You went to the hospital?

    I had pieces of teeth and human bone pulled out of my face. A girl got shot right next to me by the shooter at the top of the stairs who I had met earlier. She stepped one step in front of me and her head just exploded. It blew pieces of her teeth and skull into my face.

    Why don’t we hear about this?

    The media wants to summarize it, and important details get lost. The most important detail being when they started shooting, they were already inside. If they were hanging out enough to let three people go, then they knew security dudes. They knew bouncers. They knew doormen.

    Do you think a percentage of the security staff was Muslim?

    I know they were. Look, security guards backstage are notorious for being dicks. They check your ID every few minutes and nobody goes back and forth without being checked, even if you’re in the band. This guy didn’t care what we did. He didn’t even look at me.

    The only time he seemed remotely interested in us was when he said to my girlfriend, “Do you speak French?” and “Where are you from?” She said she was from Texas and he was getting frustrated because that’s not what he meant. Then she said, “I’m American” and he lost interest. I honestly think he was trying to determine if she was Arab or not. She’s Mexican and she could easily pass for Lebanese and I think he was going to warn her if she was Muslim.

    I kept opening up the back door to smoke and that’s usually a big no-no because of the sound ordinances. I’ve played there before and opening up that door to smoke got you in big trouble. This time, the security guy walks right past me and anxiously looks down the alleyway in either direction.

    Maybe one of the reasons the cops are so much more pragmatic about this threat is that they are the ones who have to go into Les Banlieues and confront these people. Naïveté is a luxury they can’t afford.

    When the cops went in after the attack, they shut down, what, 450 mosques? They found recruitment material in every single one of them. What the fuck is wrong with us that we don’t know about that?

    Parisians think everyone is innocent, but the cops don’t. They even investigated you.

    I was a person of interest, yes. They interrogated me for four days. I ended up helping them a lot by getting cell-phone footage. It was the cops and the FBI who asked me about the promoter and the security. This isn’t something I brought up to them.

    We had eight police officers in our audience that night. They all had the same conversation with their wives, which was “Should I bring my gun or not?” All of them said no. When we went back and played Paris again they stood in the same places they stood at the original show and they opened their jackets and showed me their guns as if to say, “Not tonight, motherfucker.” It was beautiful.

    Islam is crying wolf about Islamophobia in order to anesthetize us and make us easier prey.

    They know there’s a whole group of white kids out there who are stupid and blind. You have these affluent white kids who have grown up in a liberal curriculum from the time they were in kindergarten, inundated with these lofty notions that are just hot air. Look at where it’s getting them.

    Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/surrendering_to_death_gavin_mcinnes/print#ixzz4EaUJ4Qpv

    Written by anubis

    September 10th, 2016 at 3:13 am

    Posted in Islam

    Collapse

    without comments

    originally posted as a comment under the ZH article here

    .

    …the coming collapse will be most like a tsunami. At first, people will think the beach is expanding, offering them a new and larger play area than they’ve ever seen before. Finding the space irresistable they will venture out to stay close to the “water.” They’ll look on toward the deep blue and notice waves..also something they are normally attracted to. How pretty, what a great surfing opportunity. until……until one guy yell’s “tsunami” and starts sprinting away from the water’s edge tightly carrying his 18 month old son and leaving his wife to play catch-up. At first, we look at the runner and ask “what did he say?” We wonder if perhaps his son was stung by a jellyfish. Then, we see a few others start running also. We wonder if perhaps they are all family, but their skin colors tell us differently. Then, we hear the deep distant roar of the wave. A sound like we’ve never heard coming from the ocean. That’s when it hits us…we too should have never ventured out on this sand. And it’s all too late. Those who weren’t even on the sand thought they were safe, because water has NEVER risen to a certain level…so they don’t run, and it’s soon too late for them also. At the end of the day we’ll scratch our heads wondering how we could have possibly been this overwhelmed with volume. And like our low volume financials markets today one day completely overwhelmed when some whale pushes the ‘sell everything’ button…and there’s no place to hide. Everyone within 1000 meters of the shore is taken out. For a while, we’ll cling to the hope that .gov will make everything better again and build us an even better home than before. It will take time to sink in, that .gov is broke now, and I’m no ‘doomsday prepper’. We’ll just be broke. So you thought you had $247,483 in your 401k…now its $32,432. get used to it, and move on.

    Written by anubis

    August 24th, 2016 at 11:08 am

    The Law

    without comments

    Can’t remember where I got this but reading through it again, it deserves to be posted.

    WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS !
    CHAPTER I
    MODERN MEDICINE-MEN

    “The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science.” Charles Macklin

    In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.

    It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers ; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain trusters are lawyers ; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers ; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.”

    It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who “advise” and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.

    And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.

    Objection may be raised immediately that there is nothing strange or wrong about this. If we did not carry on our government and business and private activities in accordance with reasoned rules of some sort we would have chaos, or else a reversion to brute force as the arbiter of men’s affairs. True – but beside the point. The point is that it is the lawyers who make our rules and a whole civilization that follows them, or disregards them at its peril. Yet the tremendous majority of the men who make up that civilization, are not lawyers, pay little heed to how and why the rules are made. They do not ask, they scarcely seem to care, which rules are good and which are bad, which are a help and which a nuisance, which are useful to society and which are useful only to the lawyers. They shut their eyes and leave to the lawyers the running of a large part of their lives.

    Of all the specialized skills abroad in the world today, the average man knows least about the one that affects him most – about the thing that lawyers call The Law. A man who will discourse at length about the latest cure for streptococci infection or describe in detail his allergic symptoms cannot begin to tell you what happened to him legally – and plenty did – when he got married. A man who would not dream of buying a car without an intricate and illustrated description of its mechanical workings will sign a lease without knowing what more than four of its forty-four clauses mean or why they are there. A man who will not hesitate to criticize or disagree with a trained economist or an expert in any one of a dozen fields of learning will follow, unquestioning and meek, whatever advice his lawyer gives him. Normal human skepticism and curiosity seem to vanish entirely whenever the layman encounters The Law.

    There are several reasons for this mass submission, One is the average man’s fear of the unknown – and of policemen. The law combines the threat of both. A non-lawyer confronted by The Law is like a child faced by a pitch-dark room. Merciless judges lurk there, ready to jump out at him. (“Ignorance of the law is no defense.”) Cowed and, perforce, trusting, he takes his lawyer’s hand, not knowing what false step he might make unguided, nor what punishment might then lie in wait for him. He does not dare display either skepticism or disrespect when he feels that the solemn voice of the lawyer, telling him what he must or may not do, is backed by all the mighty and mysterious forces of law-and-order from the Supreme Court on down on the cop on the corner.

    Then, too, every lawyer is just about the same as every other lawyer. At least he has the same thing to sell, even though it comes in slightly different models and at varying prices. The thing he has to sell is The Law. And it is as useless to run from one lawyer to another in the hope of finding something better or something different or something that makes more common sense as it would be useless to run from one Ford dealer to another if there were no Chevrolets or Plymouths or even bicycles on the market. There is no brand competition or product competition in the lawyers’ trade. The customer has to take The Law or nothing. And if the customer should want to know a little more about what he’s buying – buying in direct fees or indirect fees or taxes – the lawyers need have no fear of losing business or someone else if they just plain refuse to tell.

    Yet lawyers can and often do talk about their product without telling anything about it at all. And that fact involves one of the chief reasons for the non-lawyer’s persistent ignorance about The Law. Briefly, The Law is carried on in a foreign language. Not that it deals, as do medicine and mechanical engineering, with physical phenomena and instruments which need special words to describe them simply because there are no other words. On the contrary, law deals almost exclusively with the ordinary facts and occurrences of everyday business and government and living. But it deals with them in a jargon which completely baffles and befoozles the ordinary literate man, who has no legal training to serve him as a trot.

    Some of the language of the law is built out of Latin or French words, or out of old English words which, but for the law, would long ago have fallen into disuse. A common street brawl means nothing to a lawyer until it has been translated into a “felony,” a “misdemeanor,” or a “tort” ; and any of those words, when used by a lawyer, may mean nothing more than a common street brawl. Much of the language of the law is built out of perfectly respectable English words which have been given a queer and different and exclusively legal meaning. When a lawyer speaks, for instance, of “consideration” he is definitely not referring to kindness. All of the language of the law is such, as Mr. Dooley once put it, that a statute which reads like a stone wall to the lawman becomes, for the corporation lawyer, a triumphal arch. It is, in short, a language that nobody but a lawyer understands. Or could understand -–if we are to take the lawyers’ word for it.

    For one of the most revealing things about the lawyers’ trade is the unanimous inability or unwillingness, or both, on the part of the lawyers to explain their brand of professional pig Latin to men who are not lawyers. A doctor can and will tell you what a metatarsus is and where it is and why it is there and, if necessary, what is wrong with it. A patient electrician can explain, to the satisfaction of a medium-grade mentality, how a dynamo works. But try to pin down a lawyer, any lawyer, on “jurisdiction” or “proximate cause” or “equitable title” – words which he tosses off with authority and apparent familiarity and which are part of his regular stock in trade. If he does not dismiss your question summarily with “You’re not a lawyer’ you wouldn’t understand,” he will disappear into a cloud of legal jargon, perhaps descending occasionally to the level of a non-legal abstraction or to the scarcely more satisfactory explanation that something is so because The Law says that it is so. That is where you are supposed to say, “I see.”

    It is this fact more than any other – the fact that lawyers can’t or won’t tell what they are about in ordinary English – that is responsible for the hopelessness of the non-lawyer in trying to cope with or understand the so-called science of law. For the lawyers’ trade is a trade built entirely on words. And so long as the lawyers carefully keep to themselves the key to what those words mean, the only way the average man can find out what is going on is to become a lawyer, or at least to study law, himself. All of which makes it very nice – and very secure – for the lawyers.
    Of course any lawyer will bristle, or snort with derision, at the idea that what he deals in is words. He deals, he will tell you, in propositions, concepts, fundamental principles – in short, in ideas. The reason a non-lawyer gets lost in The Law is that his mind has not been trained to think logically about abstractions, whereas the lawyer’s mind has been so trained. Hence the lawyer can leap lightly and logically from one abstraction to another, or narrow down a general proposition to apply to a particular case, with an agility that leaves the non-lawyer bewildered and behind. It is a pretty little picture.

    Yet it is not necessary to go into semantics to show that it is a very silly little picture. No matter what lawyers deal in, the thing they deal with is exclusively the stuff of living. When a government wants to collect money and a rich man does not want to pay it, when a company wants to fire a worker and the worker wants to keep his job, when an automobile driver runs down a pedestrian and the pedestrian says it was the driver’s fault and the driver says it wasn’t – these things are living facts, not airy abstractions. And the only thing that matters about the law is the way it handles these facts and a million others. The point is that legal abstractions mean nothing at all until they are brought down to earth. Once brought down to earth, once applied to physical facts, the abstractions become nothing but words – words by which lawyers describe, and justify, the things that lawyers do. Lawyers would always like to believe that the principles they say they work with are something more than a complicated way of talking about simple, tangible, non-legal matters ; but they are not. Thus the late Justice Holmes was practically a traitor to his trade when he said, as he did say, “General propositions do not decide concrete cases.”

    To dismiss the abstract principles of The Law as being no more, in reality, than high-sounding combinations of words may, in one sense, be a trifle confusing. Law in action does, after all, amount to the application of rules to human conduct ; and rules may be said to be, inevitably, abstractions themselves. But there is a difference and a big one. “Anyone who spits on this platform will be fined five dollars” is a rule and, in a sense, an abstraction ; yet it is easily understood, it needs no lawyer to interpret it, and it applies simply and directly to a specific factual thing. But “Anyone who willfully and maliciously spits on this platform will be fined five dollars” is an abstraction of an entirely different color. The Law has sneaked into the rule in the words “willfully and maliciously.” Those words have no real meaning outside of lawyers’ minds until someone who spits on the platform is or is not fined five dollars – and they have none afterward until someone else spits on the platform and does or does not get fined.

    The whole of The Law – its concepts, its principles, its propositions – is made up of “willfullys” and “maliciouslys,” of words that cannot possibly be pinned down to a precise meaning and that are, in the last analysis, no more than words. As a matter of fact, the bulk of The Law is made up of words with far less apparent relation to reality than “willfully” or “maliciously.” And you can look through every bit of The Law – criminal law, business law, government law, family law – without finding a single rule that makes as much simple sense as “Anyone who spits on this platform will be fined five dollars.”

    That, of course, is why a non-lawyer can never make rhyme or reason out of a lawyer’s attempted explanation of the way The Law works. The non-lawyer wants the whole business brought down to earth. The lawyer cannot bring it down to earth without, in so doing, leaving The Law entirely out of it. To say that Wagner Labor Act was held valid because five out of the nine judges on the Supreme Court approved of it personally, or because they thought it wiser policy to uphold it than to risk further presidential agitation for a change in the membership of the Court – to say this is certainly not to explain The Law of the case. Yet to say this makes a great deal more sense to the layman and comes a great deal closer to the truth than does the legal explanation that the Act was held valid because it constituted a proper exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. You can probe the words of that legal explanation to their depths and bolster them with other legal propositions dating back one hundred and fifty years and they will still mean, for all practical purposes, exactly nothing.

    There is no more pointed demonstration of the chasm between ordinary human thinking and the mental processes of the lawyer than in the almost universal reaction of law students when they first encounter The Law. They come to law school a normally intelligent, normally curious, normally receptive group. Day in and day out they are subjected to the legal lingo of judges, textbook writers, professors – those learned in The Law. But for months none of it clicks ; there seems to be nothing to take hold of. These students cannot find anywhere in their past knowledge or experience a hook on which to hang all this strange talk of “mens rea” and “fee simple” and “due process” and other unearthly things. Long and involved explanations in lectures and lawbooks only make it all more confusing. The students know that law eventually deals with extremely practical matters like buying land and selling stock and putting thieves in jail. But all that they read and hear seems to stem not only from a foreign language but from a strange and foreign way of thinking.

    Eventually their confusion founded though it is in stubborn and healthy skepticism is worn down. Eventually they succumb to the barrage of principles and concepts and all the metaphysical refinements that go with them. And once they have learned to talk the jargon, once they have forgotten their recent insistence on matters-of-factness, once they have begun to glory in their own agility at that mental hocus-pocus that had them befuddled a short while ago, then they have become, in the most important sense, lawyers. Now they, too, have joined the select circle of those who can weave a complicated intellectual riddle out of something so mundane as a strike or an automobile accident. Now it will be hard if not impossible ever to bring them back tot hat disarmingly direct way of thinking about the problems of people and society which they used to share with the average man before they fell in with the lawyers and swallowed The Law.

    Learning the lawyers’ talk and the lawyers’ way of thinking – learning to discuss the pros and cons of, say, pure food laws in terms of “affectation with a public contract” – is very much like learning to work cryptograms or play bridge. It requires concentration and memory and some analytic ability, and for those who become proficient it can be a stimulating intellectual game. Yet those who work cryptograms or play bridge never pretend that their mental efforts, however difficult and involved, have any significance beyond the game they are playing. Whereas those who play the legal game not only pretend but insist that their intricate ratiocination’s in the realm of pure thought have a necessary relation to the solution of practical problems. It is through the medium of their weird and wordy mental gymnastics that the lawyers lay down the rules under which we live. And it is only because the average man cannot play their game, and so cannot see for himself how intrinsically empty-of-meaning their playthings are, that the lawyers continue to get away with it.

    The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets, such as ambulance-chasing or the regular defense of known criminals, which make up only a tiny part of the law business and against which the respectable members of the bar are always making speeches and taking action. A John W. Davis, when he exhorts a court in the name of God and Justice and the Constitution – and, incidentally, for a fee – not to let the federal government regulate holding companies, is playing the racket for all it is worth. So is a Justice Sutherland when he solemnly forbids a state to impose an inheritance tax on the ground that the transfer – an abstraction – of the right to get dividends – another abstraction – did not take place geographically inside the taxing state. And so, for that matter, are all the Corcorans and Cohens and Thurman Arnolds and the rest, whose chief value to the New Deal lies not in their political views nor even in their administrative ability but rather in their adeptness at manipulating the words of The Law so as to make things sound perfectly proper which other lawyers, by manipulating different words in a different way, maintain are terribly improper. The legal racket knows no political or social limitations.

    Furthermore, the lawyers – or at least 99 44/100 per cent of them – are not even aware that they are indulging in a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.

    Yet the saddest and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public doesn’t realize it’s a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant, they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. As Harold Laski is fond of putting it, in every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or the firing squad.
    It should not, however, require a revolution to rid society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary lawyers out of their communities – a fact which is little appreciated – when a new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby nation. That crop, 150 years later, is still growing in numbers and in power.

    What is really needed to put the lawyers in their places and out of the seats of the mighty is no more than a slashing of the veil of dignified mystery that now surrounds and protects The Law. If people could be made to realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun, bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little at the edges.

    There was President Roosevelt’s plan to add to the membership of the Supreme Court, in order to get different decisions. Even those who opposed the plan – and they of course included almost all the lawyers – recognized, by the very passion of their arguments, that the plan would have been effective : in other words, that by merely changing judges you could change the Highest Law of the Land. And when the Highest Law of the Land was changed without even changing judges, when the same nine men said that something was constitutional this year which had been unconstitutional only last year, then even the most credulous of laymen began to wonder a little about the immutability of The Law. It did not add to public awe of The Law either when Thomas Dewey’s grand-stand prosecution of a Tammany hack was suddenly thrown out of court on a technicality so piddling that every newspaper in New York City raised an editorial howl – against a more or less routine application of The Law. And such minor incidents as the recent discovery that one of Staten Island’s leading law practitioners had never passed a bar examination, and so was not, officially, a lawyer, do not lend themselves to The Law’s prestige.

    Yet it will take a great deal more than a collection of happenings like these to break down, effectively, the superstition of the grandeur of The Law and the hold which that superstition has on the minds of most men. It will take some understanding of the wordy emptiness and irrelevance of the legal process itself. It will take some cold realization that the inconsistencies and absurdities of The Law that occasionally come into the open are not just accidents but commonplaces. It will take some awakening to the fact that training in The Law does not make lawyers wiser than other men, but only smarter.

    Perhaps an examination of the lawyers and their Law, set down in ordinary English, might help achieve these ends. For, despite what the lawyers say, it is possible to talk about legal principles and legal reasoning in everyday non-legal language. The point is that, so discussed, the principles and the reasoning and the whole solemn business of The Law come to look downright silly. And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the lawyers.

    Written by anubis

    July 16th, 2016 at 8:51 am

    ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE

    without comments

    ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE!
    DAVID RUSSELL·TUESDAY, 22 DECEMBER 2015
    In 1800 the world was bankrupt; the debts went onto the people; all natural resources went to the people; Always ask for a paper bill because you get a Giro credit slip at the bottom of the bill of exchange;
    Bill of Exchange Act 1882: the company has been paid by the commercial bank
    1. I cash the cheque
    2. Banks don’t recognise it as my cheque
    3. Give cheque back
    Not transferable; 3 postage stamps autographed transferred by endorsement sticker.
    To british Gas for payment at the sight for the sum of £… transferred by Samantha James; address; postcode; National Insurance Number; Non commercial.
    They have already been paid they cant cash it because they would be double dipping BOE ACT 1882
    Consumer credit act 1974 section 123 (1)A creditor or owner shall not take a negotiable instrument, other than a bank note or cheque, in discharge of any sum payable—
    (a)by the debtor or hirer under a regulated agreement, or
    (b)by any person as surety in relation to the agreement.
    (2)The creditor or owner shall not negotiate a cheque taken by him in discharge of a sum payable as mentioned in subsection (1) except to a banker (within the meaning of the M1Bills of Exchange Act 1882).
    (3)The creditor or owner shall not take a negotiable instrument as security for the discharge of any sum payable as mentioned in subsection (1).
    (4)A person takes a negotiable instrument as security for the discharge of a sum if the sum is intended to be paid in some other way, and the negotiable instrument is to be presented for payment only if the sum is not paid in that way.
    (5)This section does not apply where the regulated agreement is a non-commercial agreement.
    (6)The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall not apply where the regulated agreement has a connection with a country outside the United Kingdom.
    Billed them 6k for court appearances harm alarm and distress £100 a day stress and anxiety BOE= legal remedy court appointment as this is NOT a health and safety issue
    They are applying for a criminal warrant of entry for a civil matter; they are in the wrong jurisdiction
    The 1954 Gas Act is for health and safety issues whereas this is a money issue thus being in the wrong jurisdiction.
    My obligation to pay has been fulfilled
    Are you legally trained? Y N
    I am going to put you in the dock as i have a right to cross examine my accuser.
    Write to them to come and check the meter
    Remove all implied rights of access (Send 1st Class)
    Bill of exchange Act 1882
    Stamp Act put a stamp on the back under the consumer credit Act 1974 section 123 “This agreement does not apply when the regulated agreement is NON-COMMERCIAL
    Rights of entry under the Gas & Electricity Act 1954 (what they use for warrant) they take you to the magistrates court for a criminal warrant; when the agent tells on the stand No its for money!!
    They want to put a prepayment meter in to hold you ransom for something you are not LIABLE to pay!!!
    There committing fraud if they issue a warrant””
    They can not get a criminal warrant for a money dispute.
    Gas Act 1986 is another health & safety issue.
    Fraud Act 2006
    Contempt of court (Lord Diplock) we have unhindered access to the court.
    No One can make a claim without proving the case.
    We are being robbed blind through our own ignorance!!! Know your rights!!!
    ACCEPTED FOR VALUE,
    The UK in its current bankrupt state, I say current it was Bankrupt in 1869, evidenced by the “Bankruptcy Act of 1869” “Debtors Act 1869” we are in fact in the equivalent to a (Chapter 11) Bankruptcy which is “Debtors in Possession”.
    The Bankruptcy Act is not the only evidence of the bankruptcy but there is also the Amendment to the “Gold Standards Act 1925” “Finance Act 1938” better known as Bill 227 or 277 if “Hansards” have it correct which dissolved the connection to Gold in our currency as the bill was finally passed on the 21 of September 1931, hence why we now operate “Fiat Currency” which is backed by the tax or labour of the citizens, furthermore to back up the Bankruptcy claim is “double entry bookkeeping” which is just a claim and counter claim balancing exercise.
    Whatever you chose to research we ARE in full bankruptcy, and so in bankruptcy the agreement is that all debt is to be forgiven, after all how do you pay anything if you are bankrupt?
    Not to forgive debts is in full violation and dishonour of the bankruptcy we are currently in, and in this bankruptcy we operate a prepay account, this was done because you are “involuntary” in your bankruptcy status, we were not around in “1869” so we were born in to this position through no fault of our own
    Bearing all of this in mind, the only way to deal with this matter is to give you a means to live other than using your sweat equity (“cash albeit fiat”, that was earned using something tangible “your sweat”)
    A commercial system such as this cannot deal in tangible equity, and so your prepay account was created, this is your “National Insurance Number” cleverly disguised as a means for them to charge us for nothing!!. It is in fact your means of paying for more or less everything that you need in your life.
    The legal appellation granted you at your registration, this is a legal entity, a fiction if you like! you understand that all of this commerce is total rubbish “truly” so in order for you to traverse the high seas of commerce, you had to be equipped with a vessel that was sea worthy enough to do it, it is here that your Birth Certificate comes in, when you are called into court, it is your “Birth Certificate” that is summoned really, as you as a human cannot operate in commerce so you must use your vessel!
    So bearing in mind that we now understand that commerce is merely “Rubbish” a world of illusion, then it stands to reason that the legal entity must also be of the same making to traverse these murky waters, but what has happened is the system somewhere started to flip the “trust”, instead of you using this vessel to do your bidding and to that end it would benefit you, what has happened is that you are held as “surety” so when your legal appellation is whacked with a penalty, you are held as guarantor and it is you who suffers the punishment with your sweat equity of actual physical body?!
    Jurisdiction is established in a number of dubious ways, the insipid tiers of commercial law need certain details to establish “Joinder” these details that you give thinking they are yours are simply your agreement to play as, and be punished as, the legal fiction!
    Ok after that little bit of background, Accepted For Value is merely your choosing to use your prepay account to settle and close “Proposed Liability Statements” this is done when a bill/proposed liability statement is sent to you addressed to your legal appellation by using either all caps or the “legal Title” Mr,Mrs,Miss,Mz etc etc… as soon as you accept these you are in contract!
    So to correctly pay these Bills/Statements that are all illusion you need to pay with a type of funding solution from the said same system, you cannot pay with tangible equity, it has to be paid with the illusion that bore forth the bill in the first place. request a paper or true bill and till be in the form of a giro then wright on it
    :
    Accepted For Value
    Exempt From Levy
    Sovereign Tittle
    EXEMPTION ID:
    Deposit to
    Her Majesty’s Treasury
    This is good enough to settle the debt but this is a negotiable instrument! if you further add the words,
    And Charge the Same To
    the capitis diminutio title
    Exemption Id but just the national insurance number,
    you have just negotiated it so as you receive the same.
    whichever you choose you have to endorse it!
    The exemption id is you NI number write this in red and your signature (which allocates the funds from your prepay account to settle this bill) except the capitis diminutio of sovereign title and date.
    This must be done at 45 degrees across the bill (Banker Style) usually lower side to the left and the upper side to the right, this affects the payment.
    Ok I said that this is 100% correct, and it is, if you intend on trying this you must have a working knowledge and understand what you are doing, and worst case scenario be prepared to back yourself up in court.
    My experience has been that some honour it, some are totally confused and proceed to court out of ignorance (not a problem) and some just wish to keep “double dipping” (using your exemption to pay the proposed liability whilst hoovering up your sweat equity or cash if you like, which is fraud and stealing) OH come on you don’t think that the council that lost cash in the Iceland bank got the £50 million any other way do you? Where was the interest going? It was in fact the money issued by the treasury to cover it constituents debts! £120,000 to £180,000 a year is given to each council per man/woman and child to cover their liabilities.
    If the bill is returned then send it back again with a letter letting them know they are in dishonour and this is their last chance to settle and zero the account and if they still send it back send it with the two replies and your covering letter to the treasury direct!

    Written by anubis

    July 13th, 2016 at 7:08 am

    Posted in Economics,Government