Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:32 am Post subject:
Reclaim Consent
The Brave New World is Here
Where are you?
A Talk by John White
Hello everybody
The first thing I want to say tonight is thankyou: thankyou all
It means a very great deal to me personally to have the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I've lived in Malvern for many years and known many of you for many years, and its entirely my honour that you have come to listen to what I have to say tonight
I'd like you to know I'm not saying it lightly... there is no pleasure in delivering what may very well be uncomfortably and shocking news, just as there is no pleasure in being right when bad things are seen as potentially coming, and then happen: only a great sadness.
I would Love it if I was going to talk for the next couple hours about the healing and transformative power of Love, or the holographic nature of reality, and who knows, I might touch on those topics, but its not what I'm here tonight for
I'm here to talk to you about the Brave New World that we now live in
A year ago, or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, there would be some comfort in that I could stand before you and tell you "The Brave New World is coming". But I can't do that now, as its no longer true
I have to tell you that the Brave New World is here. I urge you face that truth, to stand to the reality of it, and not to distract yourself with comforting diversions to avoid that act: far better if we learn to comfort and help each other
Please. Take that fact away with you tonight: the brave new world IS here
But that's not the end, far from it, because I can do more than that. I can show you what the Brave New World is, I can show you at least part of how it has come about, and we can discover what the Brave New World could be IF you will accept your part in shaping it into what you want it to be... just as I must warn you what this Brave New World will be if you do not
It's probable that you will find some of what I have to say alarming and frightening. That's very human, and very understandable. Still I urge you: do not be frightened. There is no need for Fear. Fear is the mindkiller, Fear is the workhorse of control, and a fearful people give no trouble to those looking to run their lives
I'm also going to tell you about a great power that resides inside every single one of you. I'm going to tell you about the power of consent, the most powerful force in any society. I'm going to tell you about what I personally have done to make good use of that power. And I'm going to invite you to discover that power inside yourselves
Because what we fear is nothing like as powerful, in fact is puny in comparison, to what we CHOOSE
And that's why as well as stating the fact that the Brave New World is here, I ask you all a question. You don't have to have an answer, it may take time for you to find an answer, but that question is my "gift" to you to consider in the days and weeks and months ahead
Where are YOU?
As a philosopher, my job or role is to provide help with considering questions like that. I empathise HELP: not do it for you. As a basic start point, never believe anything just because someone else says it, but if it feels like it might be right, challenge yourself to explore. I provide that help firstly by making choices in my own life and lifestyle that ensure I have the opportunity and capacity to sift through the chaos and noise of society, the media, the ideas and the perspectives that fly through the ether all around us, and to condense and filter all of that into key points, that provide a structure for you all to consider the questions of life around, that are co-ordinates to the bigger picture, so you can see yourselves and see where you stand with things in ways it might be difficult to do alone. I do it simply because I can, its a good contribution to benefit my fellow humans all around me, and the vast majority of people have life commitments that make it difficult for them to do the same.
I do my best to do that as well as I can
So to start us off tonight, I'm going to spend a little time giving us some co-ordinates, that will help us to get the bigger picture by the end
Freedom and Liberty
Here's two words we all know the meaning of
Or do we? We assume a lot as we go through the world, and are busy enough in life that we dont always stop to consider the meaning of what is flowing in front of us. It's a shame, as we miss a lot of clarity that can help us a great deal
Freedom and Liberty.
They are similar words. But they have distinctly different meaning and therefore quite different implications
We all assume we know the meanings of words, but that consensual assumption is based on the surface of words. All words have greater depth of meaning: and if they are words in legalese, they can be shockingly different from the common interpretation
Freedom and Liberty
Do they really mean the same?
When we think of Freedom we think things like "born free" "free to do what I want" "Free not to be repressed and put down" "free to live my life and be respected, to be treated as a thinking feeling human being and not a robot". We think of noble ideals that so very many have given their lives for across History
The essence of Freedom is that it is YOU: it is your natural state. Freedom isn't something put upon you like a cloak across your back: Freedom IS you, its the core of your self. It is innate. It is your birthright. Freedom is the awareness which is you that looks out of your eyes and moves your body around, Freedom is the consciousness observing your life as you live it
We also know that Freedom comes with certain responsibilities. We know that using our freedom to kill and rampage and pillage is wrong. So we know that respecting the freedom of others is defending their right not to have their freedom damaged and harmed: and thus is also protecting our own
Liberty is a word much used these days "civil liberties".. we never say "civil freedom": why is that?
The word civil gives us a clue: liberty comes from civilisation. Liberty is something we receive, separate from the freedom of our human souls. Liberty is privilege, reward. Liberty is what press ganged sailors used to receive from the captain: to be at liberty to go ashore for leave: with an understanding they would have to come back or be hunted down by force
And because we receive Liberty, it can also be taken away
I'm all for civil liberties, its a good idea to have some, its protection from abuses by the state or our employer. In fact a good way to understand liberties (and human rights legislation) is to think of the state as our employer, and as citizens, ourselves as employees. Civil liberties are the rules on the staff canteen board: but they are still the rules we follow when at work. Are we only our jobs? Which is to say our position and status in society. Obviously no, we are more than that, although sadly many of us forget this
lets try some more co-ordinates
Lawful and Legal
These two words would certainly be considered by most people to be the same
But they are not, and the difference is both eye opening, reassuring and empowering
Lawful is the behaviour of the human. Lawful behaviour is as old as mankind for it comes from the tribe: from the shared common values that help us all get along agreeably with each other. Lawful behaviour is the behaviour of a free adult human being. It is very simple
Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not harm
Whenever we hear "that behaviour was unlawful" it means somebody or some group lied to someone, stole from someone or harmed someone, either physically or emotionally
Legal is quite different. Legal is the rules set by society regarding trade with each other. It developed from the creation of the first cities, who would post the city laws on the walls of the city so all who entered knew how they were contracting to behave. And this is vital: the legal system is concerned with one thing: contract: although that contract can be hidden in all sorts of ways and only understood to be there by one party, who is not obliged to tell the other. Anything illegal is to do with breach of contract. Get caught speeding in your car or driving while intoxicated? that is a breach of contract with the government via applying for a driving licence: a contract. Of course a lawfully behaving human doesn't need an act of parliament to make them behave: they know excessive speed or intoxication could cause them to crash and do others harm, so why would they do it?
This separation is the foundation of what we know as British justice, and both lawful and legal working together provide the centre of the checks and balances of a free society. Whenever government works solely on the legal, with no provision for the lawful, we get tyranny, and the independence of the judiciary has been there to serve us by preventing just that
Lawful behaviour is the centre of what we know as Common law. We know it as "unwritten law", although this is not, but Common Law is a record of past judgements as reference for the future, with occasional documents stating its implications like the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1694. It is not rigid rules applied robotically
Common law brings in the human heart to the justice system. It is why for a millennia the accused has had the right to appear before a Jury of his peers: ordinary men and women who decide whether what the person is claimed to have done was right or wrong as well as whether they did it or not. For the hearts and minds of fellow human beings can understand right and wrong in the way that a piece of paper never can
Legal liability is decided by Statute Law: this is all the law passed by parliament as Acts or other statutory devices. A Statute Law is not Law because it is written down: It is Law because it receives the consent of the governed. Implicit in this is the common law understanding that if Statute Law declares something legal, but that statute law violates lawful behaviour (forcing us to lie, steal or harm or otherwise arbitrarily preventing lawful behaviour, such as charity to the needy), then it is declared unlawful. It doesn't matter who says it's legal: if it's unlawful it CANNOT be law, and a dictator trying to impose unlawful behaviour by force must be overthrown for the sake of the freedom of us all. British Judges have confirmed this time and time again... not to say sometimes there hasn't been a need for public pressure to do so... abolishing the slave trade, for example
Lawful and Legal
common Law and Statute law
freedom and liberty
right and privilege
the human and the state
Only by clearly holding understanding of all of these terms and their relationship can any society stay free
Which is sadly where we must start to consider the Brave New World that is here
For there is no Common Law in the European Union, and European law has been placed above all British law
Your going to hear the word's European Union a lot through the rest of this talk, so I want to clarify: I am not saying the European Union is evil. I am not saying Britain is the best Nation in the whole world who deserves to rule all the rest. But I am saying there is a reason British Society has preserved freedom so well over the centuries while other countries have been enslaved in various ways. I'm not saying Britain has been perfect, we have done terrible things, especially in other peoples lands. But this core of freedom from the balance of common law against abuse from the state is what has made Britain so admired by so many, and inspired so many, especially the Founding Fathers of America, who loved that balance so much they encoded it into the very fabric of society in their Constitution: sadly much eroded now from that glorious beginning
I'm not against the idea of the European union. In fact, I love it. I've watched Star Trek, Ive dreamed of the whole world united in peace, working together without war misery poverty and want, with fairness and caring for all. Furthermore I believe, really believe, that we actually can do that, that we actually can get there. I believe humanity can grow up: but only if we can stay human.
I am concerned that the realities of what the European Union really is has been lost in the political noise and spin of the past few decades, that it's been about job's, about fish, about party loyalty, about keeping influence, and not what it will be like for all of us to actually live in for the rest of our lives. I am concerned that so very few people seem to have gained an understanding of what joining the EU, especially with the shameful unlawful politics since 2005, really means, that the treasure of real freedom which has been at the heart of our way of life for 1000 years has been thoughtlessly discarded and forgotten about. I am concerned about so many of our elderly, who suffered so long and gave so much in the world wars to secure freedom for ever more, have been pushed aside by modern society, farmed off and medicated up, so that they have not been able to pass on their golden wisdom to the new generation. And most of all, I am really really concerned that those really in favour of joining the EU seem to have almost no real knowledge of how it works, and know only that its got a better voting system, human rights legislation, and precious little else. I am concerned about a cliff we are collectively being asked to step off without a moments thought
We are talking about The Brave New World, and the EU is not the whole of it, it is a part of it, a product of the way of thinking that has seen the world being bestrided by Transnational Corporations and human beings treated as discardable commodities
But now, as we approach the extra-ordinary change coming on 1st January 2010, now we can finally see the EU for what it actually is, and to describe the EU is to describe the Brave New World all across the planet, whether its the birth of NAFTA or the Pacific Union. From the United Kingdom to New Zealand, the situation is the same, the same processes and pressures shaping the world without the consent of the worlds people
So why is the EU, and the Brave New World, so potentially terrible?
Two words to get us started: Strict Liability
EU Law: Strict Liability: The Law of Injustice
Without the common sense of common law, we are left with statute law alone. Statute Law can only decide guilt or innocence by the exact wording of the law itself. Anything else is irrelevant: motivation, extenuating circumstances, obviously not doing any harm: all irrelevant. Can the person be linked to one of the clauses indicating guilt? That's it
Think of statute law like a computer programme. A programme is only as good as it is written. A programme is linear. Statute law is a computer programme of Justice. But it does not breathe, it does not feel, it cannot think. It is dead paper, separate from the human. A human knows what justice is: statute law cannot
That is the meaning of strict liability: the programme says you are liable for fine or imprisonment: you are. It's strict. No exceptions
For the last couple of decades especially, the understanding of common law has been eroded in the legal profession. I've talked to law students and was amazed that they only understood statute law, and even more shocked that they only understood government as force. But it's only recently that strict liability verdicts have appeared being rigidly enforced in our courts. I was researching material to show strict liability when a remarkable story was published in a Surrey Local paper
Paul Clarke is a 27 year old former soldier. Back in March he looked out of his house and saw a black bin liner at the bottom of the garden, probably thrown over his wall. He investigated and discovered a sawn off shotgun with 2 cartridges. He rang the Chief Superintendant and asked if he come in and speak with him. He made the weapon safe, put it in a bag, and walked off down to the police station with it. He got there, put the safe gun on the desk with it pointing to the wall. He was then immediately arrested for ill-legal possession of a fire arm without a licence.
At trial the prosecutor told the jury it was a strict liability charge. Judge Christopher Critchlow confirmed: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."
The jury was told they could only find him guilty as the evidence was incontestable, so they did
Paul Clarke promptly received a 5 year prison sentence, currently suspended pending appeal
His defence wasn't even rebutted: there was no need to: he could not have one. I suspect Paul may have contracted by signing a statement under questioning
That seems incredible to us now, but it will be the norm. EU law cannot develop any other way until the EU has some form of common law balance
As well as been directed away from their traditional role into becoming a rubber stamp for the state, Jury's themselves will have no role in most trials in the near future. Already happening this year is trial by camera in a Police cell, over 10,000 cases have been tried this year in the UK, and from January 1st this "voluntary" scheme will become compulsory. It's hard enough for an innocent man in court now, with the twin disadvantages of being in the dock and thus having to get past the immediate suspicion of guilt, and having expert witness's arrayed against him put up by the state. He has to "reach" the jury so they see him as a man whose defence is worth considering... one reason defence lawyers make sure their clients wear suits. How much harder will that be when he can't even see the jury and they see him on a television screen? The odd's of a successful defence get even more remote when there is no jury and its strict liability so there isn't a defence anyway. If I found myself arrested on suspicion of some crime I certainly wouldn't be signing anything, even if offered a nice cup of tea with extra sugar. Just not worth it
Crucially, the EU does not have Habeus Corpus, latin for "show me the body"
The Act of Habeas Corpus 1679, enacted to overcome repression at the whims of kings, clarified and helped to enforce traditional rights with regard to detention by the state. The writ of Habeas Corpus, directed those having custody of a prisoner to produce the body (habeas corpus) of the prisoner with a statement to justify his detention. It entitles an arrested citizen to be brought before a court and charged, within 60 hours of arrest. In addition the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: absolutely vital to a free societies maxim "innocent until proven guilty"
The EU maxim is the reverse: "Guilty: unless you can prove your innocent": Corups Juris, Civil Law. To us in the UK, we are literally going to see Justice turn on its head
The EU also doesn't have common law defence against unlawful arrest: all arrests are legal, so none are unlawful: at least in the EU's eyes. And this includes being arrested because you MIGHT commit a crime, with no requirement to give a reason, to tell anyone that your under arrest or where, and with the power to immediately take you out of the UK into prison on mainland europe and possible extradition to anywhere
But what about human rights legislation we might ask? Surely that wouldn't let all this go on?
Human rights legislation can protect the human: but only at the end of a long trial process, assuming one can get a case that one can get tried. Under strict liability, its one thing to address prejudice in a workplace, strict liability works on the side of the employee being harassed by their boss, but quite another to take the state to court for perfectly legal use of its powers: unless you could get strict liability against the state for breaking it's own rules, its very unlikely to do anything for you. It offers no defence at all of your rights at the time they are being violated: only Habeas Corpus can do that, by ensuring the state has to be open and justify itself reasonably shortly after it has acted
If this talk hasn't shocked you before, then I hope you are shocked now. Not because I want to shock you, it is simple facts of life now after all, but because we all need to be shocked by the implications if we are not simply to submit to them: we also need to recognise the only thing that prevents a state using these laws is the public watching like a hawk what is going on and the state reckoning its not worth pushing it for political reasons: legally they can do as they like, as long as they can show strict liability after 60 days
Now we are getting into looking at the Brave New World we find ourselves in, we can examine the evolution of the EU from its starting dream to where we are today
Everyone has heard of George Orwells seminal 1984, his grim tale of unrelenting tyranny that so oppresses the people they cannot even think about freedom any more. Orwells dark vision was the boot stamping down on the human face forever. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, published in 1935, tells of another form of tyranny, the velvet tyranny, where the people have endless pleasures to amuse themselves with, where it is abnormal for the individual to want anything else than diversion from their labours, but where hard and unrelenting rules of status and privilege were decided for the individual before they were even born. Orwell's vision is what we know to fear, but Huxley's vision of management through pleasure has already become in some ways true, we have all lived it for many years,and has been seen in the consumer culture which has blinded us to the harm it has caused to other countries while the structures of the Brave New World have come together.
It is not a question of who was right, Orwell or Huxley, but more the observation that both taken together describe the range and polarity of controls the real Brave New World employs today. What those (rightly or wrongly) accused of being Al-Qaeda terrorists and so on have experienced is very very much Orwell,while the pleasant consumer dream world of the 80's and 90's has been very Huxley: both are attempts to gain our consent either directly against our will or by hypnosis
To really tell the story of the real Brave New World in completeness I would have to go back at least 150 years, to the time of Darwin and Marx. I would have to tell the story of the rise of Marxism, and the story of Darwin's Cousin Galton who took his theories forward with the ideas of Thomas Malthus to create the ideas of Eugenics, and how those ideas impacted on the Russian Revolution of Lenin. I would tell you about Marxist-LENINISM, and what that means (Marxist in secret!). I would have to tell you about Freud and Jung and especially the adaptation of Freuds ideas about the nature of man into a set of scientific principles, especially in the period after the 1st world war and the birth of Public Relations by Freud's Nephew Edward Bernays, which are now globally applied, as they have been throughout most of the 20th century. I'd have to talk about the rise of Nazism and the ideas that shaped Europe after WWII, and the post war influence of Leo Strauss, who advocated government by a privileged elite through the manufacture of public mythology. We know this as War by any Lie. And also Mathematician John Nash and his game theory, leading to the control of the stability of society by modelling behaviour on a mass scale, and setting peoples selfish drives against each other in corporate structures to achieve equilibrium.
I cant do all that here, so ill have to focus just on one important part: the gradual story of how power in the industrialised nations lost their faith in the human
Democracy is always a pain in the arse for those wielding power in it: true democracy, in a free society with the protection of common law. You try and get things done and the masses are contrary and don't see the brilliance of your notions, protest and resist and do all sorts of stuff which makes ruling much more difficult than it has to be if everyone just did as they were told. Of course, since the days of Rome, rulers have by and large got on with it, sometimes by using force, sometimes, if they feared the people too much to try force, by the use of persuasion
But the birth of the new science of psychology changed that: it offered those with power new options
Freud's basic work tells of man as a creature of strong subconscious desires, lurking beneath the surface of civilised society, a primal animus. Others considered this to mean that man's own nature made him disruptive and combative, and that he would always tear down civilised structure if these primal impulses were not channelled and controlled. It was seen that by bypassing man's conscious mind and appealing to his inner drives, he could be steered and moulded productively. And by playing on the ego man could be kept diverted and distracted and contained. These social scientists were the true architects of the Brave New World we have entered today. It is a world of amusements and diversions, consumption linked to the satisfaction of unconscious desires, and a power elite comprised of politics, banking, corporations, and fabulously rich individuals and families. This power elite shares the rewards of privilege only with those willing to serve their aims, and have sufficiently massive influence to control social debate by having their people across all polarities, to influence or even directly set the shape and breadth of opinion in the mass media, by giving contrary opinions the appearance of being considered and then shut down: illustrated nicely by Ken Clark's admission on newsnight a week ago that David Cameron's manifesto pledge to "change the law to ensure all future transfer of sovereignty must be subject to referendum" was simply a sop for the Tory eurosceptics. How could it be otherwise when the Lisbon Treaty is self amending (to the direction of the EU commission) and needs no further votes in national parliaments: on anything at all.
In fact a good analogy for the true role of Westminster in the brave new world is to imagine the prime minister: it doesn't matter what party he represents: driving along in his car. He comes to a T junction and is considering whether to turn left or right. Just then a huge giant of a man, built like Conan, rips open the drivers door, shoves the PM down into the passenger footwell, jumps in, and then drives off at high speed in a direction the PM see's not where. The PM gets out his mobile, rings up the people and says: it doesn't matter, we can still decide what to tune into on the radio"
By the end of the second world war these ideas had penetrated deeply enough that they were the hidden drivers behind the formation of the EU. And its architects saw that they would never win an open and honest political debate to get the whole of Europe to unite into one structure. So the intention was to develop the "European project" very slowly and steadily, step by step by step over more than one generation of time, so that the overall shape of the design could not be perceived until it finally came all together, and that by then the thinking and ideas of the people would be so modified they would not see what had happened, why it happened, how it happened, and most crucially, never successfully object, most especially with critics managed and diverted out of the public eye by association with ideas like racism and nationalism to ensure a united opposition did not arise
In synthesis, and for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, the architects of the Brave New World have progressed in successive steps, disguised as having limited economic or social purpose instead of the real implications of ever more centralised control until full federation is achieved
Disinformation, misinformation, misdirection, and inducing apathy in the majority: these are the tools the state has used since the birth of this scientific management of consent.. and while this may have been farcical and impossible to believe some years ago, with our common experience of the New Labour project over the past 12 years, who could doubt it now?
We have seen this nanny state disdain for the people to rise to every more obvious levels, with government by quangos and teflon ministers who never apologise and keep returning to treat us the same all over again
These ideas have had a corrosive effect on our society, so we are now at the point where trust in government and the system of government is eroded to almost non-existence
Because the more these ideas have taken control, that power should manage the people and not serve them, that the people are not fit to be trusted with making the "right" choice, the more people have reflected that treatment back, until now we are Apparently so dumbed down and conditioned we are no longer fit to make good choices for ourselves. But that is an illusion, and that can be changed, very dramatically, as we will see
And we cannot understand the EU if we don't understand the part these ideas have played from its very formation
So lets see the progression of the EU from its foundation to today
First came the European Coal and Steel Community, established in 1951. This integrated the coal and steel industries of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg and came from an 'idea' by Jean Monnet
The six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to create the 'EEC', the European Economic Community
The EEC was enlarged in 1973 to include Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The UK's entry was promoted by Ted Heath, and the deal signed when he was Prime Minister. Heath would later go on to admit he new all along it was never "just trade" and was quite candid that the goal was a unified federal state
The first elections to the European Parliament were held in 1973. Greece joined the EEC in 1981 followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986
The Schengen Agreement of 1985 opened the borders between most member states and a year later the 'Community' introduced its own flag
The Treaty of Rome was revised by the Single European Act of 1986 which significantly increased the power of the bureaucratic centre to impose its will on the countries of Europe
The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty became law in 1993. This gave greater power to the Bureaucracy and opened the way for the implementation of the Euro
The European Union expanded to include 27 member states with around 500 million people in all
Then came the proposal of a European Constitution to introduce full federation
The constitution was a hot issue in the 2005 general election. All parties contracted with the people promising a referendum on the constitution. No party received any votes at all with a mandate to legislate away sovereignty
A serious setback was received when France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution in 2005
The EU had got past such issues in the past by forcing a 2nd Vote, but they could not this time as the national feeling was too strong
Hence they stripped out the non essential parts of the constitution, leaving the vital and essential powers intact, especially self amendment, the ability for the EU to re-write itself without permission from anybody, and presented it as the Lisbon Treaty
This was politically useful in the UK, because now, although Lisbon was a stripped down constitution with the mechanism built into it to make itself into the constitution, we were told by Gordon Brown and others that it was a different document, and thus we did not deserve to have a referendum. Despite having no mandate and no consent, the British Parliament ratified spring 2009
The Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty caused some upset when they voted "NO" in 2008. A massive EU operation went into full swing, enormous money was spent, in flagrant breach of the EU's own rules, and with all Irish parties parroting the "yes" line. Coupled with the effects of the Credit Crunch hitting in September 2008, when the Irish were forced to vote again, doubt and insecurity and the apparent absence of any other options were enough to squeek a yes
The final bastion of resistance was Vaclav Klaus, Czech President, who had done his best to stand for the obvious desire of the people to hold onto their sovereignty, which had been won only recently from the Soviet Union after decades of repression, against a parliament stuffed with EU supporters. With the Irish yes vote secured, he held against pressure for a couple more weeks before he finally had to sign, and we reach the present day
So how the system of the EU actually work?
The EU is such a multiplexed bureaucracy that it would be a lengthy talk in itself just to define the whole operation
Obviously we can't do that, but if we could we would find a system very good at finding roles for people to do. There are groupings of national ministers (regional management meetings), groupings overseeing the bureaucracy, all sorts of quangos: it's a busy busy busy machine
But for the purpose of tonight, and to illustrate the fundamental difference between how we understand British Democracy, we can focus on just 2 EU entities: The European Parliament and the European Commission
If I think back to when I did Social Science at High School, I learned that in the British Parliamentary system the function of an MP was to represent the views of their constituents in Westminster. MP's would vote on party issues, but also could raise questions that must be answered and directly propose changes in the law themselves. The house of Lords acted as executive oversight, and could pass laws back to the commons for amendment if they had concerns. Ultimate sanction for a change in the law was in the hands of the monarch, who could refuse to authorise a law, and then would have to demonstrate why. Our reigning monarch has never done this, though others have
As the 80's changed into the 90's it was clear this system was being eroded. Both Tory and Labour administrations led to a swathe of unelected quangos writing large parts, if not the vast majority, of new law. Before this, governmental support was provided by the civil service, afterwards the civil service become implementers of corporatly driven policy, accompanied by corporate target and productivity philosophy, not public service. This allowed corporate business interests to gain large influence over government policy... just as they have and do in the EU... and we can all see just how good a friend Tony was to Goldman Sachs today. I do find myself wondering: who would pay 100's or even 1000's of pounds of dollars just to hear Tony Blair talk after his retirement? Could it instead be a wonderful way for providing a reward for services rendered in culpably deniable instalments?
Since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, and most especially since 1997, parliament has mostly acted to implement statute law from Brussels by voting to write it into our statute books, always under the party whip. A staggering 85% of new law since 1997 has come directly from the EU.. and the amount of new law has broken all previous records
Taken together, this has led to a blurring of the distinctions of the separation of powers. Corporate becomes Government, Government becomes corporate, and career politicians jump between the two worlds repeatedly. This alone is enough to be very concerning, for it was Benito Mussolini who defined fascism as "control of government by corporations": which makes Stalinist Communism control of corporations by goverment. In the Brave New World the political spectrum has become the political circle, a closed loop of powerful elites coming together and ruling the people
Another area this is very visible is in the relationship between policing and councils. The anti terrorist powers introduced since 9/11, especially RIPA, are now publicly known to have been widely mis-used, and police and councils have worked in far closer partnership to enforce statute laws on the general population. Now councils are gaining investigative powers, in fact public privacy has been ripped apart. Every branch of government now has or is soon gaining the powers to totally investigate our lives, including knocking the door down and forcing their way in. This would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago. To top that off, the EU is handing over EVERY single piece of information on every single one of its 500 million citizens to the US Secret Services (at least 18 different agencies) All of it, the lot: and has no barrier whatsoever to extradition into the hands of same on the suspicion of... well anything. Privacy is dead. Say anything on a phone, type anything on your computer, and if any of the above want to know about it they can
I remember a television programme trying to dismiss this 4 or 5 years ago. They essentially tried to show it was aberant thinking to think the government wanted to spy on you. But they missed the point: the Brave New World doesn't want to spy on YOU: it wants to spy on everything and everybody, universally. Then if they find reason to want you: they know who you are, where you are, everything you do and everyone you know
So even before this newborn brave new world, the old world was being shaped in its image, which of course has also normalised us to the progressive changes, to make a society based on freedom into a society based on privilege. The culmination of 100 years of scientific social management
Now that we have got to today, we can see the design being laid out
Still its not all bad news: when it comes to the European Parliament, the system to elect its members is a thing of democratic beauty. without a doubt, it marvellously represents the full spectrum of the peoples choice for their MEP's. Minority views get represented, even the unpleasant ones.
Regrettably however, this is practicably simply a show:
There is a vital difference between an MP as we have known one, and an MEP
An MEP cannot be lobbied to change the law!Well you can write them letters and harangue them, sure, but it isnt a practical course of action
MEP's vote only on what is put in front of them. They can influence the legislation through the quango system, but the quango system itself only provides draft recommendations. So while its true that MEP's can vote down parts of legislation, their voting power is comparable to answering a prepared multiple choice. Their role, and the role our MP's have slowly shifted into being, is most akin to a policy manager who sells policy to the public and the councils who implement it, rather than a policy maker who creates it. Perhaps its small wonder that MP's minds have increasingly turned to their own comfort rather than our service, as they have discovered the job is little like they believed it was. And perhaps that corruption has been encouraged to ensure the British Parliament has come to be seen as unfit for purpose? And what's the answer? why Europe of course: the only choice (sic)
ONLY the EU commission has the power to propose new legislation or amendments... and they wont even look at a petition with less than 1 million signatures (all database cross referenced, of course)
This puts massive power into the hands of the commission: that appoints itself and is accountable to itself. Well strictly speaking if 66% of the MEP's voted no confidence it can be disbanded, but how likely is THAT? Even then it could only be replaced with an identical organisation with a few new faces
And who are they? Well the recent selection (not election) of Baroness Ashton gives us a comprehensive insight into the shape of things to come. She has spent her entire career moving all around all areas of the british system pulling levers, now she is the 2nd most powerful person in the EU, and she has never ever ever ever been elected: by ANYONE... and also she is hardly known in the UK
So who is she? How did she get put forward? Why does she deserve the position?
Here is a quick run through of just the positions of her career:
Catherine Margaret Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, (born 20 March 1956)
Graduated economics and sociology at Bedford College, University of London 1977
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, national treasurer and vice chair 1977 to 1979
Employed by Social Work Training Council 1983, role unknown
Director of Business in the Community 1983 to 1989 where she established the Employers’ Forum on Disability, Opportunity Now, and the Windsor Fellowship
Chaired the Health Authority in Hertfordshire from 1998 to 2001
Vice President of the National Council for One Parent Families
She briefly advised the producers of several U.S. television shows, most notably Boston Legal on storylines
Made life peer as Baroness Ashton of Upholland in 1999
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Skills June 2001
Minister for Sure Start in 2002
Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs 2004
Privy Council 2006
Politician of the year 2006
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Ministry of Justice 2007
28 June 2007 Gordon Brown appointed her to the Cabinet as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council
3 October 2008, she was nominated to replace Peter Mandelson as the UK's European Commissioner
EU's first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
What an incredible range of areas her career has placed her in. She is a true representation of the grooming process where the "right" candidates are spotted at university and even before, and given roles based on their conformity to the required values: chiefly the creation and then perpetuation of the centralising status quo. She may not be known but she sure knows government
This then brings us to the President of the EU for the next 2 and one half years, Mr Herman Van Rompuy. I have to tell you I nearly fell off my chair listening to his first speach last saturday, the candour is remarkable about the real shape of the Brave New World
But before we get to that, I invite you to consider something possible: that Tony Blair was never ever going to be EU president. But what Blair is, is widely despised in the UK. Rather than the nation wondering "what's this President lark all about that I didnt get a vote for in a new system of government i didnt vote for, by the way, what's the Queen's job then" the comment sections of the newspapers were full of "no way that War criminal lying scum bag" or "anyone but Blair!": even "get rid of blair and westminster too!" That kept our attention focused into venting about what we didnt want rather than wondering about what we did want
So Rompuy's speech... here are some key statements:
"The disadvantage of rotating the presidency between 27 member states was a lack of perspective" (read diversity of perspective)
"we would benefit from going back to our roots" (when just 6 countries made the real decisions)
(focus on) "the big questions of the European project: the economic and social agenda"
"2009 is the first year of GLOBAL governance"... going on to cite the G20 and the upcoming Copenhagen climate treaty
Here he tells us what the project's goal is: to expand this system so it is global
He is also quite candid about his desire to introduce Europe wide Taxes paid DIRECTLY to Brussels and the phasing out of the use of national flags... 2 and a half year presidency, expect him to be busy
It's also worth noting his career. In the 1990's talk of a super secret "bilderberg" group (established 1954) working for global governance was widely derided. the press went to great lengths to deny any such group existed. The idea that leaders from all parties met in secret with other major players for secret policy meetings was absurd. But Rompuy, along with the other candidates "put forward", are all now openly bilderberg members: as well as similar groups like the trilateral commision. The trilateral commision takes its name from the idea, first exposed by Orwell in his book 1984, of combining the nations of the world into 3 continental governments, but they go further, citing it as a precursor to establishing a world government, as seen in Aldous Huxley's brave new world: only now fiction is becoming fact. Perhaps this also tells us why it is that which ever party we have voted for, when it comes to centralising power, the agenda has stayed unchanged
With Rompuy taking office on January 1st 2010 the idea of global government seems a radical and new one. But it has been a long time coming
So there we have the shape of this Brave New World
Now we can see what we are being asked to lose by going into this Corpus Juris bureaucracy, an empire of an elite, and there privilege, and our acceptance of submission to whatever they feel we should do. In fact, we arnt even asked. We arnt even told there is anything to know. In many ways it is an old story humans guarding their freedom have had to deal with, but it is also a story being told on a massive scale with unprecedented technology and social engineering. Facing this Brave New World is the challenge of the human today... and the human can rise to the challenge:
I appreciate this first part of our talk tonight has been a lot of information to take in, so time for a 15 minute break, however you feel right now, I hope you have appreciated the tour we have taken:
In Part 2 I will tell you of my own journey of reclaiming consent, and the power of consent that lives within us all _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:33 am Post subject:
Hello again all
The second part of tonight's talk is about the most amazing power in the world after Love: the power that has defeated injustice and brought justice to human society time and time and time again. The power inside every single one of us, most especially inside you. The power of consent
I don't stand before you tonight saying "it would be great if you did this"
That would be too easy, and its the path we have chosen too many times: "the world's a mess, you sort it out for me". "He promises change, Im fed up, I vote for him, what do I get? more of the same".
To do that is to give our power away, and whenever we do that, we can be certain that we get what we deserve as a result
Instead I'm going to tell you what I have already done, and what I will keep doing
Is it an invite to be inspired? Yes If it was not, I wouldn't be talking here tonight. I suppose I could give a talk simply to tell everyone they are now enslaved, but I myself would struggle to see the point of that. The story is much bigger than a handful looking to manage the affairs of millions: for it is at most a few thousand people globally who form the real core of the Brave New World. Hidden on billion dollar Yachts and in the penthouses of 100 story skyscrapers, in massive buildings of governments, banks and corporations, they can seem immensely powerful, but they are just people all the same
Is it an attempt to persuade you to be inspired? No, categorically not, even though language makes it difficult for it to seem any other way
Your power is your power and it is your business to inspire yourself, no-one elses. When we project the energy of our hopes and desires and beliefs onto others, we remove that energy from inside ourselves, where it rightfully belongs
And all those who desire power, even for good motivations, covert that power inside you: they can't help it. They need your power, or they themselves cannot act. Ethical leaders have always sworn allegiance to a philosophy of service to the people, and demonstrated their service through their actions and those are the people at least worthy of trust to act in our best interest. The rest, we cannot trust, and that is why free society depends on active and vigorous scrutiny of those we invest power in. We must make sure they behave, make sure they stay on track, and replace them, with courtesy for services rendered, when they do not. And that means keeping an eye on the ethical ones too. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". We all know this
I've told you the story of the Brave New World, at least in outline, but to learn the lesson of the story we must look beneath the manipulations and dangerous erosions of our assumptions of how society works, the illusion of respect we expect to receive while power treats us contemptuously , and see what all this massive effort has all been about
It's been about YOU
Government needs consent. Fact. Nothing happens without your consent. Fact
"Well what about guns and troops?" people ask. "Robert Mugabe doesn't need consent, he just shoots people who challenge him"
Yes. That is consent through force, the tyranny of Orwell: make you scared enough you darn't say no
That is government which is blatantly unlawful, an offence to humanity which must be overthrown as a matter of duty
But how empowering is it to realise that even an obvious dictator still NEEDS the people to say Yes?
Then there is consent through apathy, very much what the power elite of Britain now pushing to be part of this Brave New World hopes to get from you now. Say nothing, think nothing, don't worry about it, go along with it, look! X-Factor on the telly, you can Vote in that!
That is the management of consent, the velvet tyranny of Huxley
That is government that at the very least is unethical, as soon as it tries to make people apathetic, and which will swiftly decide to be unlawful if it comes to the choice of keeping control or letting the people have their power back
And lets make no mistake, the Government we have had since 2005, from ALL parties, is the most unlawful government we have seen in a century or more
To be a human being living in this society, which could most accurately be described as "technotronic", the use of technology to manage consent, most vitally the television, has been to experience growing up and living in a bubble
Inside the bubble is the real us, our humanity, our consciousness, which is also our conscience
We know right from wrong, we know health from sickness, we know we are free
Outside the bubble is the world laid upon us. It is the world of the legal person, not the lawful human. It is the world of compromise, of doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons because that's what the rules say. It is a world of fears: fear's for our jobs, fears for our wealth, fears of being seen to step out of line, fears of having an opinion that contradicts the television, fears of not fitting in
This Brave New World, which seems so massive and all pervasive, is nothing else but more pressure on that bubble
More pressure to make us break our resolve, to give up our freedom because the weight opposing us holding onto it is too great, especially the weight of despair
Yet that weight pressing on the bubble is also a massive clue
What does a bubble of air in water do?
It rises
What is that pressure on the bubble all about?
Stopping us rising
And that is it
Governments that abandon lawfulness must make the people fear. They either make the people directly fear them, or they make the people fear everything else
"Terrorist Threat! Must give up your liberties to protect your freedom (and that is classically Orwellian, "double think") new laws, new powers, goodbye rights, its all for your own good!
Fact.
More people die from taking an aspirin than from terrorism
Well non-government terrorism anyway. War of Terror? War IS Terror, especially for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq right now. And our armed forces are being cruelly used and should all be home
But here, as all the great teachers of freedom have taught us from Socrates to Ghandi, is the real lesson
Government Fears YOU. It is terrified you might say anything else but YES, either by action or inaction
Because you have power, and they only have illusion leading to acquiescence
A free society is a society by lawful government, and lawful government must deserve consent
Deserve it. Nothing else will do
It must be open, it must be accountable, it must have checks and balances, it must be decent
For most of us, for the whole of our lives, our inner human has sat inside that bubble, observing itself going though life, observing all around it. It expresses itself in various ways, especially in the privacy of our homes as we share love with our families, but by and large has gone along to get along and rarely says what it really thinks
But what if it did say? What would it say? What would you say?
What does your inner human actually want?
Mine wants Love, decency, justice, fairness, a world of sharing and co-operation and brotherhood, where life is a great adventure we share together, not a drudgery to be struggled through until the grave, or a viscous rat race
Mine wants a world where we are caretakers for the beauty of all we have, where we preserve and sustain, nourish and grow, express the poetry of our souls, and can look out at the end of our lives at the new generation going bravely on because we did our part to care for them even when we did not know them
As a very dear friend of mine says: Freedom is the Grandchildren, we are the Caretakers
Now that's all very well, and may seem like a dream, and so it should, because it shouldn't be real unless it becomes the balance of what we all choose
But if we do not choose anything, we get what is chosen for us, and that's all we deserve to expect, because its all we created
A real Brave New World, fit for humans to live in? It starts by saying a Brave New World fit only for robots, fit only for adults treated like children by the elitist few, simply isn't good enough, so we aren't going to go into it in the hope you magically make it nice for us, for we know you never will, and its up to all of us to get the job done
It starts by saying "no"
And that is the fear of all tyrants, velvet or otherwise
That the human within lifts up a little finger, pop's that bubble and says "NO"
I am me and I am free
But isnt it also the truth that we fear freedom? In itself its not surprising as in the outer world we find it hard to experience any, and new experiences can be frightening
Wouldn't everyone just do what they want and rob and steal and kill and everything else? Humans can't be trusted to be free! Of course that was the fear of the elite themselves, as they misunderstood Freud's work. They turned their back on a real free society because they came to believe they had to rule to prevent chaos: and then set about covering themselves with privilege for doing us the favour
Because both Freud and Jung spoke of the perfection of man by the conquest, or transcendence, of the ego... of those selfish drives, to become better than the sum of our parts, those age old sins. To become, ultimately, human beings fit to live lawfully under common law. To not lie, not steal, and not harm, naturally, because being lawful has become who we are, not because of rules and punishments. It's the same as the spiritual teachers who urge us to find inner peace
Our rulers decided that wasn't possible, or more, that they wouldn't like it if we did, because then after all: who would need them?... and for the past century they have acted accordingly and created what we see today as we continued to quietly consent... bit of a grumble now and then but basically giving them their way.. and by confirming their assumptions, we have ensured our lives have become so limited and stunted we never get the chance to really grow, despite our apparent "wealth"
After the great promise of a new start in the year 2000, looked forward to for many many years, it wasn't just planes that got hijacked on 9/11: it was our chance for a new future, as those same ideas from the past century have tried to remake this one into it's ultimate expression
Freedom is not chaos: freedom is responsibility. That's the truth to be understood
We can be free if we can be responsible for what it is ours to affect: ourselves. That's what the world calls on us to do to do our part: to be the human we want others to be
It's a simple lesson, but a powerful one, because it cannot be denied
Which brings us again to my question for you tonight:
Where are you?
It's not for me to know if you can be free, if you are fit to be free, but it's certainly a question to ask yourself
In my own life so far I've been somewhat cursed and somewhat blessed to know what I know as I have learnt what I learnt
And it's because I know what I know that I had to be honest with myself and recognised I have reached my "line"
We all have a line. It's that line in the sand that says "cross that and I will act"
But if we doubt ourselves, if we waver, and our line is crossed, we go oh no you crossed my line! and step back to draw another one. There cross that! they do, step back again, more desperate this time, another line Cross that! And then we find ourselves with our backs to the wall we are up against because we would not stand firm
I'm at my line, and I knew it when Vaclav Klaus signed and David Cameron folded. I knew I had given life a chance to come right for as long as I could, and I must speak, and I must act, and I must stand firm
A week ago on Monday the 16th November, at 10 am, I went to see the Electoral Officer of MHDC. I took with me
a witness and a piece of paper called a Notice. A Notice is an empowered document that requires to be recognised
I'm going to read it for you now: it's not written quite the same as simple English might be, because there are certain things a Notice must do: It must clearly be a notice. It must be complete in itself, so must not refer to other documents to justify itself, and must provide understanding of what the Notice is about. And it must be free of "vexation or frivolity", or to put it another way, it must not be angry or sarcastic.
Ok here we go:)
John of the White Family
C/O MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE
**************
Malvern _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11th of November 2009
NOTICE OF RECLAMATION OF CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED
I request and require all those who read this Notice to accept this Notice as a Notice. Notification of one Branch of government is de facto Notification of them all
I am John of the White Family, a free human being on the land. I count the lands known as "England" and "Wales" to be mine to inhabit by right of birthright
Through registration of my birth by my parents, and creation of social contract on behalf of myself, I understand that I am the authorised agent for the Legal Entity known as "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" National Insurance number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I understand "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" to be my vessel for the purpose of acting in commerce. I understand that Parliament uses statutory Instruments to create Acts that set rules "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" must follow as I use that vessel to engage in commerce and facilitate my life as a human being. I understand that these rules apply to MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE because I consent, through contract, to be governed. I understand that Acts of Parliament and other Statutory Instruments are given the Force of Law through the consent of the governed. This is a social contract. I understand the governed have the right to withdraw consent because they are Free Human Beings, and I am also a Free Human Being
I Understand that as a Free Human Being I can withdraw my consent at any time from any contract I might make. The ability to withdraw consent, the ability to say "No", are fundamental for one to be in a state that can be considered Free. If one cannot withdraw consent then one is thereby enslaved. As a Human being I have the right not to be enslaved
It has come to my attention that, possibly at the beginning of December 2009, the sovereignty of the British Parliament is to be transferred to the European Union as a result of the signing of the Lisbon Treaty by all required parties. It is my understanding that, if I consent to contract to said transfer of sovereignty, I agree that my vessel in commerce "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" will be bound by statutes and legislations of the European Union
I understand that in a Democracy it is a fundamental expectation that, as a Government governs with the consent of the governed, it maintains consent with the decisions it wishes to make. This is normally considered to be received by receiving electoral consent at a General Election based on presenting a programme of policies and manifesto pledges.
The Current Labour Government of the UK started it's current term of Office having made a solemn pledge the British people would decide whether or not Britain should sign the European Constitution through a National Referendum. I understand that to mean the British People were pledged they would decide whether sovereignty of these lands would be transferred out of these lands. By doing so, the current Labour government clearly surrendered any mandate to transfer sovereignty and placed the responsibility for that decision into the hands of the governed, also known as the Electorate. At that time, I was a member of the electorate through my vessel MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE. Following the defeat of the then European Constitution in other European countries referendums, the European Constitution was repackaged as "the Lisbon Treaty". The Labour government then said, in line with the position of the European Union, that although the Lisbon Treaty did transfer sovereignty from these lands it was not the same document as the European Constitution and therefore did not require the empowerment of a mandate via national referendum
I consider this action to be potentially legal but certainly unlawful. As a free human being I am not required to accept unlawful actions as lawful even if they are legal. I understand unlawful actions cannot be legal even if a Government claims unlawful actions are legal. This action by the Labour Government was an unlawful breach of contract with the legal person of "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE", and by extension, an unlawful breach of contract with myself, the human being John of the White family
As a result, when MP's of all parties voted to pass the Lisbon treaty in Spring 2009 they did so without the required consent of the governed. No Political party was elected to office with a mandate to legislate away British sovereignty, least of the the governing Labour Party, which had made clear at the election it did not have or seek that mandate through General Election. I understand this to be a betrayal of public trust, to be unlawful, and to potentially be treasonable. As the Government acted without a mandate to demonstrate the consent of the governed the contract with the governed is broken
I understand that I have the option to withdraw my consent from contract to be governed when the Government has broken that contract. I understand I have lawful cause to do so to protect my status as a free human being
I understand that consenting to register as an elector is contractually how I consent to be governed. Whether I do or do not choose to use my allocated vote, by registering I consent to be governed by the winning party of said election
Based on my understanding, I therefore no longer consent to register on the Register of Electors. I understand this is not a criminal offence to do so as I do not consent to be governed and thus statute law is inapplicable. I withdraw all consent and all assumed consent to be governed. The government of the UK does not act with my consent from this moment forward until further notice, and the government of the European Union cannot act with my consent as it has not received it. Therefore I am not a European Citizen and, whilst remaining in honour, am not bound by any European Law
I declare to all human beings around me that I will continue to act lawfully within the common law and good spiritual values at all times, acting as myself, the human being known as John of the White family. I swear that I will not knowingly tell untruth, will not Steal and will not cause Harm in accordance with living harmoniously with my fellow human beings
I hereby give 14 days for reply to Notice this Notice. If no reply is received, I will consider this notice accepted, and my withdrawal of consent to be governed uncontested
John of the White Family
--------------------------
I am delighted to say that the Notice was received exactly as it should be, with courtesy and without conflict. It was signed by both myself and my witness
Following on from serving the Notice, I also wrote to Micheal Spicer, sitting MP. Liz Lynne, sitting MEP, conservative and liberal candidates for this constituency, Phil Grove leader of MHDC, Gordon Brown, and the Queen, with personal letters, a copy of the Notice, and where appropriate an invite to tonight
And of course Iorganised tonight's talk
I have served Notice reclaiming my consent and as of tonight there are only 4 more days for rebuttal
But what does this mean?
Well it doesn't mean laws don't apply to me: it means I take on the adult responsibility of living lawfully. I make it clear I am not a child and the state is not to treat me as one. I don't want conflict for the sake of conflict, I don't want to cause harm, so I don't intend to mess about not paying council tax... at least not without cause. It does mean I refuse to be held to strict liability, and insist upon being treated as a human being with common law rights. And it means I display lawful free behaviour for everyone else to see
It also means I do not currently accept a vote in our system.. I cannot say I reclaim my consent and still expect to have a say in their rules: and that might be a problem for others who also do not wish to consent, to take the same step.
But then, I am not saying anyone else should do so: in fact I am definitely saying no-one else should unless they are also absolutely confidant they are ready to live free as a lawful human. Taking that step is not one anyone should make if they do not know themselves well enough to be certain they can live with their choice. I must also point out that I consider rigid and inflexible views blaming a particular people or ethnic group for all the worlds problems to be unlawful as they cause harm and are nothing like sufficiently true to ever be justified. Human's are Human's, everywhere, in all our beautiful diversity
However, what anyone can do, if they agree that what I have chosen to do is honourable and worthwhile, is support me and others like me. And yes, beyond the world of Malvern, out across the UK and across the planet, there are many pioneers of human freedom in our new millennium
So I don't feel its unreasonable to say that if you would like to help taking the message of tonight's talk out of this room, there already practical things you can do
There is a facebook group called Reclaim Consent: you can join it to show support... and I know facebook is a big brother nightmare. So is everywhere else. Say anything on the net have no illusions of privacy, but it doesn't make saying it any less powerful. So its there, Reclaim Consent on facebook
You can tell me directly,and say "Hi John" when you see me around the town
You will be able to see the video of this talk again on the net, and read the whole speech online. Anyone can use the speech, and give it themselves to people where they live
And you can talk to each other and learn more. That's what popping the bubble is: talking to each other, not staying silent. Silence is consent. Silence is a step back and a step back and a step back until your back hits the wall. History tells us that is when it is too late
Any of you can invite me to come and give this talk again, in homes, or churches, or clubs, or staff canteens. Anywhere in this community I'll come, that's a promise, further afield, perhaps:)
And most especially, tell your elected representatives that your not consenting to what is going on, and the newspaper, and the radio talkshow, encourage them to recognise the case for Reclaim Consent: and your partner, and your children, and your parents, and your friends: maybe even let your boss know
At the very least by recognising the political process whereby Great Britain's came to sign the Lisbon Treaty was unlawful, we say the job hasn't been done right. It is in all our interests, even if we are dead keen on the EU, to see a proper job done.
There must be a referendum.
And it must be a fair one, with a guarantee of equal time and equal money to support both views. If the EU wishes to pay 1,000,000 pounds to promote its case, then there must be 1,000,000 spent on the other view too
If we vote Yes, then we ratify what the politicians have done in our name without asking, if we vote No, then they must give up that dream or give up their seats for people who have, who will dream new and better dreams we actually want.
But we must get our Vote: or know that we are living in a society that has become a lie, and a miserable life that will be. We will have failed as a free society
It seems to me that what we must do is clean and refurbish our own house before we can consider being part of the houses around us. We must restore the balance to our politics, and put common law firmly at the heart of justice again. We must insist on election for Westminster by proportional representation. Why not make sure we have that? It's been promised for decades: always by the opposition! Past time it was delivered, so all of society has a stake in society. We must consider ending the party whip system which has led Mp's to obey the orders of the party leader even when at odds with their own conscience or the views of the people they serve. And we must ask all our Mp's and local politicians to renew their contract with the people by making a common law oath to uphold our freedom and serve us: while not lining their pockets with privilege undeserved
Of course, its not for me to say what's right and wrong for all of us: but those are my views of what would be sensible. Then we can look at the question of the EU properly, and know what the deal is we are signing. It's up to the EU to be good enough to be worth our signature
Final words, then we can do questions or whatever anyone likes:)
Silence is consent. If we are silent we are only saying we expect silence from others. No-one else will speak on our behalf if we will not use our own voice
That's what freedom is all about.
Now we have a chance to speak, and waiting longer to do so is not safer.
So if you see as I see, and if you seek as I seek, the time is NOW
If that's not you, know I totally respect you. Your freedom is just as precious to me as my own
It really is up to you. Your power is your own and you can reclaim it or leave it with those you have given it to
It has been my greatest honour to speak to you all, and you have my very best
I am John of the White family, John White for short and John to my friends.
Thankyou all so very much
Goodnight:) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 226 Location: Buckinghamshire
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:24 am Post subject:
To vote or not to vote? Does it matter? the number of people voting in elections has declined steadily from the 50's reflecting the remoteness of politicians from those who elected them. Nonetheless it is beyond reason to believe the decline will ever be sufficient to rob an elected government the veneer of legitimacy.
And of the voters, some may have both the time and inclination to weigh up pros and cons of pertinent issues, we do have to accept however that these are very much the minority. The majority fall into two groups, those who vote traditionally on ideals (that all to often are no longer valid), and those swayed by establishment media to whichever party gives the appearance of greater benefit to their own needs.
Reflecting the decline in voting is the decline of politicians with commitment to any cause other that to win a seat in parliament, ideals and service to the community give way to adherence to party loyalty. Sounds a bit like communism? policy from the top down appealing only to greatest consensus.
What will change the system? certainly not the ballot box (unless we can expect the media to change its spots#1), nor will pontifications (like this) on Internet sites without active involvement. If there is to be change it has ultimately to be through activists. Where are such creatures? plenty to 'save the planet', 'say no to war', 'anti-discrimination' but change the political system? There are however political activists, those that pop up around election time handing out leaflet and going door to door in support of candidates. It is these activists need to restore there authority, ie to insist that candidates are not imposed upon them but they are both accountable to them and come from within their own ranks, unless democracy is from the ground up it is not democracy.
#1 A blip of hope, who who have thought the Daily Mail would be a champion of truth and justice (maybe the present situation is getting a little to uncomfortable, even for the establishment).
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:46 am Post subject:
Hi Pugwash:)
In response to your points, my general thoughts are:
1) The decline in voting since the 1950's is a sign of social corrosion in the same time period, and the more government has become about managing the population and not serving them, the faster the decline in voting has become. Perhaps this is is because of a "sixth sense" on the part of voters when they know they are being b/s'd and there is no realistic choice at the ballot box, or perhaps it is a simple cynicism when promises continue not to be delivered upon
2) I would agree that a mass of people reclaiming their consent is unlikely to rob government of credibility, and I would say further in that it's unlikely that such a mass action would occur anyway. On the plus side, it doesn't need such a thing for government to lose credibility: government has been very busy achieving that all on its own with increasingly obvious unlawful and illegal behaviour. If that wasn't the case I doubt people would be motivated to reclaim consent at all, including myself. However the act of Reclaiming Consent at least means a clear message goes out, and that message can be heard by thousands
3) As an issue, human freedom (which is what Reclaim Consent is about, after all) is entirely universal, so as a plus point it has very great appeal to all sorts of campaigners. And people can support (effectively) both their own focus issue and the universal principle of freedom at the same time. I find that an encouraging thought _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 226 Location: Buckinghamshire
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject:
John: I sorry if my comments were taken as knocking your efforts, this is far from what was intended. I sought only to highlight the sham of government through 'democracy' in the UK.
As to 'Reclaiming Consent', I endorse this and similar initiatives wholeheartedly and acknowledge that anyone that gets of their backside to do something is doing better than I am. My main tenet that activism appears to be the best option to make inroads into the failed system still stands. 'Reclaiming Consent' is activism. _________________ Truth Movement Clips: www.truthtotell.co.uk
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject:
Pugwash wrote:
John: I sorry if my comments were taken as knocking your efforts, this is far from what was intended. I sought only to highlight the sham of government through 'democracy' in the UK.
As to 'Reclaiming Consent', I endorse this and similar initiatives wholeheartedly and acknowledge that anyone that gets of their backside to do something is doing better than I am. My main tenet that activism appears to be the best option to make inroads into the failed system still stands. 'Reclaiming Consent' is activism.
Totally understood and no worries, I didn't take your comment as negative, just adding some positives of my own:) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject:
Sorry to say been plagued with upload problems over the weekend, fingers crossed have the vid up for tomorrow
Quote:
BTW - the democratic system is being systematically undermined. MI5 are charged with making sure that doesn't happen. See the problem?
Absolutley, and that's been a problem for some time. I find it's first nessacary to build the groundwork of what a free society is and how it can be defined and protected before even beginning to adress the current difficulties, especially talking to students up to the age of 25 or so: knowledge I thought of as self evident when I was that age, which is not so long ago, seems to have fallen out of view
Spreading and sharing the understanding of how things should be is at least a movement in the direction of improving the status quo _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
"Lawful behaviour is the centre of what we know as Common law. We know it as "unwritten law", although this is not, but Common Law is a record of past judgements as reference for the future, with occasional documents stating its implications like the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1694. It is not rigid rules applied robotically"
I disagree with this part John because it sounds more like “precedent” law “legal” as each case cannot be a exact duplicate of another; precedent is/has replacing/ed Common Law and is Their version of legalese common law similar to (political )statutory law.
To add, why have (political )statutory law if Common Law is superior. Each new (political)statutory law puts another nail in the coffin of Common Law, because (political)statutory law by it's nature and the nature of the writers can never be perfect. The sheer logistics of challenging each (political) statutory law with Common Law are too big and people will awaken from there long sleep to find that they have been swamped by an immovable (?) wall of (political)statutory laws. (and wasted (loss) taxpayers money in the process and used it to/or cause-d (harm injury and loss)
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:27 am Post subject:
I grant you that Andrew, common law shouldn't be restricted, and it's obvious the PTB have been looking to do so for some time. The very fact that people need, for the most part, to be told the difference between lawful and legal because they havnt heard it before tells us a lot
More than anything else common law is a living perspective held between the people alive at that time...it can be "bred out" of a people, for want of a better word, by replacing that perspective with the belief that statute law is all there is, and this is what we see in dictatorial societies the world over, especially in corpus juris societies without habeus corpus
China, for example, is a very legal society just as it is quite unlawful in how citizens are treated
Which is exactly why keeping and spreading knowledge, perhaps even of just the idea of common law, is rather important right now as the elite turn their attentions to closing down the last free societies that are left _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
It's frustrating ofc, but it's also a delay we dont need
I'd like you all to know myself and mark are quite committed to what we doing, we really want to get this out there. To us, this isnt just a "conspiracy" video to go with all the other conspiracy video: this is a presentation suitable to be shown to everyone in society
In my approach to this talk I did not try to decorate my speech with "proof" in terms of documentation
This is because I know the information out there to back this speech up is massive
This is a solid case to describe to anyone what the situation is and what the remedy is too
And we are very serious about that remedy!
Quote:
Silence is consent. If we are silent we are only saying we expect silence from others. No-one else will speak on our behalf if we will not use our own voice
That's what freedom is all about.
Now we have a chance to speak, and waiting longer to do so is not safer.
So if you see as I see, and if you seek as I seek, the time is NOW
If that's not you, know I totally respect you. Your freedom is just as precious to me as my own
It really is up to you. Your power is your own and you can reclaim it or leave it with those you have given it to
I'd like to ask anyone reading this to think very seriously about this
We have stopped living in a world of "maybe"
This is a world of ACTUALLY
If you value your freedom, if you want to keep it, the time to SAY SO has come!
We have a window of opportunity
A very open window now till the end of December 2009
After that, we can expect a closing window until maybe Easter 2010
If we do not have a significant voice in play across society by then, it will be much harder to get going afterwards
The EU will tighten it's grip on Britain as quickly as possible
We must make sure everybody in the country has heard that Lisbon is Unawful: whoever they are, whatever their job, whatever their age
We must get out the truth about corpus juris and strict liability
We must remind the people not only that they CAN say NO:
But also of HOW to say NO
And we must do it in the finest traditions of the greatest teachers in mankind's history
THAT is Change I can Believe in!
To everyone who has read the talk and seen the 2nd half Video I say:
Thankyou!
This is for you, use it, get it out there, get making yours too, I will do my best to continue to deliver the best quality I can, and of course there is more to say
But this Brave New World Speech at least gives anyone the co-ordinates and is not a hateful denunciation, so it allows people the space to discover for themselves what there is to find
Of course, having been a truthseeker for so many years, I know that if we look into the pit the more darkness we find: the crimes of power seem to be an infinite catalogue of atrocity
No one human can ever know the depths of it in one lifetime
But we do not have to stare into the pit mesmerised
This is a good link for spreading the talk text by emails
It's a link on my archive site, can't be posted on, so a good clean link with no negative associations
Also do join Reclaim Consent on Facebook if you use that media, yes I am aware of the surveillance aspects, but I consider the entire web to be compromised so * it
_________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:17 pm Post subject:
Quote:
We must make Britain into a very noisy place by the time Rompuy takes his throne
Non Violent but noisy, not in big demos but in every single one of our communities, we are not messing about
Freedom is the freedom to say NO
Reclaim Consent is very dedicated and utterly lawful, check us out, Facebook and everywhere
Please share this about:) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:23 am Post subject:
Hey Tony
Which aspects of the "legal" stuff in particular? The common law side? The Notice itself? Statutes?
What I describe in the talk is very much an idealised picture of common law. Common Law itself is now very accreted with all sorts of statutes slapped on top, but the essence of what it is is still there
With the common law stance of serving the notice, it is really about my understanding: literally the perspective from where I stand. The Notice forces the state to recognise my understanding, and to argue against the notice the state would have to argue against the principles of the Notice
Very important to note I am not encouraging anyone else to serve Notices
A while ago you suggested this is really about creating a new paradigm: and I don't think you are wrong about that: but its also standing on very old principles, and to deny those principles is to confirm we no longer live in a free society: so far that is a step the state has not wanted to take. Practically the state says nothing to avoid having to say something
Ultimately the purpose of this talk is to tell people not only that they can say no, but how to say no
anyway just basic searches bring up loads of routes to follow, so regarding evidence, if you give me some more guidance I'll get looking for you, but here is a couple of searches
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:26 am Post subject:
I suppose a good way to think of it is to think of the principles of common law like the "Holy Ghost" of Justice:) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Also worth a read and thought is the statement “Does matter make Consciousness or does Consciousness make matter”
And further:
It seems to me all this Alien, Nephpilim, Giants, Lizards ect ect all over the internet is all based on corruption of Biblical verse and the “Word” very Darwinism (organic humanism) with nothing truly spiritual (a very separate life form) about it. Which obviously cannot breed in the case of the Soul, Being (Consciousness, the real us) with organic animals; even human Organic Computer animals.
When we have grown up in a free society, as we have in the United Kingdom, we tend to think of various images when we think of tyranny. We think of grey cities, miserable faces, people ground down by poverty, long hours of hard labour. Camera's watching everything people do, secret police with secret buildings which people disappear into to be tortured, informants ready to betray anyone non-conformist for a few coins. We think of Gulags in Siberia, oppressive law, injustice, a catalogue of horrors
We don't think of sunshine on a beautiful morning, dew hanging on gossamer spider's webs, glorious summer with pollen blowing on the breeze, bird song and the glitter of light on water
We don't think of tyranny as "normal"
That is the luxury those living in tyranny, or forced into tyranny, never have
To them, tyranny is normal, as normal as sunshine, as normal as rain, as normal as breathing
The living experience of tyranny throughout history has been living through tyranny AS "normal"
People do what they always do, they work and commute and do the tasks of life
It's what they don't do that counts: they don't do anything they are not permitted to do
The power to impose "normal" is the power all tyrants have always craved, whether an emperor or a politburo or a European Commission
And to people losing their freedom, "normal" is a mortal threat
Looking out over West Worcestershire today from the Malverns, things look much the same as they always have throughout my life. The same fields, woods and hills stretched out in panorama, the same motorway cutting through the landscape with its cars and lorries, the same houses, the same streets
But it is NOT the same. It is dangerously and perilously not the same. It is a new landscape, one we have never seen before
It is a landscape where common law and habeus corpus no longer offer us protection
It is a landscape of corpus juris and strict liability
It is a land where the Euro state is master and we are servants, and all know there is no consent, all know the state is rising as force
We don't want to tell ourselves we know though
That may bring forth tears, or rage, make it impossible to cope with ordinary life
We can still shop at the same supermarkets, still buy the same goods, still follow the same routine
We can still engage with the same diversions, what's on the telly? Who did what in the soaps?
And the media soothes us with its balm of normality
City of London under the control of the EU? EU law over all other law? EU Parliament a collective of MEP's who are powerless to change the law and only vote on what the commission put in front of them? The commission a tyrannical elite, contemptuous of democracy and answerable only to itself? Don't worry about it, don't notice it, the state will look after you, you don't need to be concerned, you don't need to be involved, you don't need to be informed
Sleep. Sleep. Sleep. Let the incense of normal waft over you. Be small. Be ordinary. Be obedient. Pay your taxes. Keep your head down. Say nothing, don't attract attention to yourself. Look downwards as you walk along the street
Oh yes
The behaviour of tyranny comes all to easily to us. The sun still shines. Everything is normal
Just as the sun still shone over the Soviet Union
*****************
But who is making it so?
Who is keeping it so?
We know about the state and its propaganda, its moulding and steering of our opinions, its framing of debate and the range of acceptable thoughts
But who is buying what it is selling?
What dread conspiracy is forcing our compliance?
Well here is where the truth leads us:
WE are the conspirators: we are the buyers
It is ourselves who keep our thoughts within, who play it safe, who consent through silence
We know things are not right. Of course we know. And we are in a hard place: do we risk speaking? do we risk not speaking? Who will save us? Who will make things right?
Well this is why freedom is a hard path, and why tyranny is an easy one. We have to have courage to speak, we have to have a sense of duty to something larger than ourselves. And we will not find a leader to lead us into the light
We have to lead ourselves!
How I wish it was not so: how we all wish that
But as adults, we have to recognise what is. We have to recognise that it is down to us, and us alone, to defend our freedom, to speak up
Of course, we can remain silent.
But we know where that leads
It leads to the sun shining down on a 21st century new "soviet Union", a global police state of which the EU is but a part. It leads to the Brave New World of technocratic control
We get what we deserve. We get what we choose
Your Choice is your power
You can own it: or give it away
Good luck to you all _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
