Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:08:31 — 78.4MB)
There is a growing number of people in the UK who falsely believe that the common law will somehow save them against tyranny. While there some merit in learning about civics and precisely where we stand in our relationship to government, it’s necessary to point out the serious error in the belief that any kind of law can help against Tyranny. Remember that every step of the rise to power of both Hitler and Mussolini was entirely legal.
In this weeks podcast I am joined by Ben Lowrey. Ben is a friend who shared a similar journey some 12 years ago when we both rode a wave of optimism around common law solutions to freedom from implied contracts with the state. Back then, it was implicitly considered possible to reason with government. It was believed that if you constructed well crafted documents you could effectively dodge the jurisdictional claim of governments over men. In spite of the correctness of the thinking, and the justness of the technology, it turned out to be unfounded optimism – as Ben and I can both testify. And in the current climate we both feel that people should be warned against any false hope of technologies and techniques that could potentially get them in a lot of trouble and ultimately achieve nothing.
The enemy is deeply embedded in our society by means of it’s secret society. Many are completely unaware that we are so far down the road towards the completion of their great work that what little freedom we ordinary people have will soon be lost. It takes time for the reality of the situation to manifest, but all the key pillars are in place. The government here in the UK have demonstrated that they can do whatever they like in the context of their narrative, and the tragedy is that the vast majority have fallen obediently in line. There is no indication that this pattern will not repeat itself whatever insane narrative they come up with. Who knows? Next it will probably be an alien invasion!
I hope you enjoy this conversation that sometimes appears to be Ben interviewing Me! But the take away point is very serious. Tyranny cannot be turned back by the common law, or any legal process for that matter. It is like trying to reason with an invading army. You may be right, but you wont be listened to. It is very important to get this so that you don’t waste any money on pointless courses. And perhaps most importantly so that you don’t waste your precious time on something that hasn’t a snowball in hell’s chance of success!
Rational persuasion is all that can change minds, and then those minds need to act accordingly with widespread civil disobedience. Nothing else will hold back the tide of tyranny but a knowledgeable population that is prepared to act. The trouble is that most minds out there can’t even recognize or hear a rational argument. The years of relentless propaganda have worked their spell on the minds of the masses.
An inescapable tsunami of communism is coming. If you can, hide in the cracks of society and hopefully your grand children will be able to emerge into freedom. Because an ‘age of reason‘ is a fundamental prerequisite for freedom, and we are a long, long way from that.
Ben can be contacted about any of his common law experiences at his Facebook Page called “thebenlowreypage“
May 12th 2021
Richard Moore says
Never argue with a judge. Maxim: Arguments are for fools. Sorry, you walked right into that one from what you described. You simply ignored their paperwork? Really? That alone put you in dishonour from the start. Irresponsible. You cannot fight the system with its own system against the same system. There are people in this world who are throwing the courts into disarray and walking out without being arrested or paying fines. We do though live in crazy times.
Nigel Howitt says
You are right. It is crucial to stay in honour. I think we have to be careful with the word ‘argue’ though. An argument is not just a heated disagreement or disrespectful contradictory assertions. The most fundamental meaning of ‘argument’ is 2 or more premises in support of a conclusion. The upshot of this is that strictly speaking it is possible to argue respectfully with a logical presentation of premises. The most important use of this is in the wider context of reasoning and gaining knowledge. A small point. I agree with what you are saying. Nigel