Voices For Freedom; Pot, Kettle, Black?
Voices For Freedom have caused a stir amongst their organization for sharing what appears to be anti-'common-law' content. What's going on?
Recently, Voices for Freedom shared a post to their members that bothered several people amongst my communication circles. These people had been working with me to explore the foundational nature of law, psychology, subversion, history, and word etymology. We’ve shortened this rather expansive range of topics to; Common Law Workshops. Unbeknownst to me, individuals within Voices for Freedom have been engaging in a vocal campaign to discredit our work. I knew of witness testimonies describing Claire Deeks; berating people for mentioning common law. Until now, I had kept my public opinions to myself upon proof these anti-common law allegations were true. I don’t know if they are true, but maybe the below is an indication that they are.
Keep in mind, much like our opposition media; who write click-bait titles that don’t necessarily match the content, to get people to engage with it. Freedom Fighters who sacrifice the truth in the short-term to hypothetically benefit it in the long-term do the same. You should read Charlie’s articles, if you were expecting a solid debunking of the ‘common law’ “cult”. Prepare to be disappointed, it doesn’t do that at all. It’s over one hour of your life you will never get back.
People mischaracterize, misinterpret, and spread provably false things about me all the time. What I am prepared to do is debate them out in the open. It never happens because they always shrink back into the foreskins from whence they came. Those who know the constitution of my substance, and have seen the proof, know the truth. Yet, those gossipers can twist the idea of me to those who don’t bother to do their due-diligence. This is a well-known tactic of subversive agents, but if we let it be the biggest thorn in our side, by not competently teaching our people all things, we will always be greatly affected by psychological war. After all, the best offence is an impenetrable defence, and if you can’t con people because they are very well-informed, then subversive psychological warfare is very hard to wage on them.
So, it should go without saying; I don’t agree with the Neoconservative position that some people aren’t worth our energy. Those persons are not yet ready, and they deserve our patience and perseverance. This enduring division might have something to do with the environment these three selfish psychological extremes have helped to create. The Strawman, The TIN Man, and the coward.
The above is a complicated process to explain. The legal duality that exists between form and substance, persons and people. How it came about, why, and which courts have jurisdiction over what, is not widely known. Teaching people why it is that way requires hours of content and back and forth discussion. That’s why us ‘common law’ “gurus” do long workshops. We don’t charge between three hundred and six hundred dollars an hour from each individual like lawyers do, we do it for koha or donatio inter vivos. Which means a gift between living people. Everything we do is a form of empowering education, and we don’t charge an arm and a leg for something that is not guaranteed to succeed in the short-term. Lawyers do that, and who helps to fund them? Not me, I never paid lawyers a cent of your donations to me. Why? Because currently, they’re part of the problem.
Thanks to vague misrepresentations that are spread by the ignorance of Charlie O’Neill and those who share his long dumb ass articles, the comprehension of this occulted knowledge is restricted to a few open-minded people. What we don’t need is more deterrence from those who should be supporting us. The likely truth will shock you, as people like Claire Deeks, Libby Jonson and other lawyers under the BAR should know; what we teach, stands the test of time and debate. Through private oaths to private guilds, they may be bound to keep these axioms “secret” to protect the “integrity” of their “sovereign”; The New Zealand Crown. So, if this is true, who do they work for? You? Those who provide Voices for Freedom donations? Or, do they work for the Ens Legis they call sovereign? The thing that was used to wage psychological war onto all of you through the ideologically possessed morons who direct it. Why was this war successful? Lack of wide-spread knowledge of the law. Why was it lacking? Because they try to restrict it to those who can do little to empower others because of contracts and confidentiality agreements.
In order to correct the problem that reared its ugly head during the “COVID-19 Response”. People will need to learn how they were able to implement measures that appeared to trespass on their unalienable rights. You don’t figure that out by engaging in viral theory, scientism, or politics. You learn by comprehending the hierarchy, psychology, and history of law. Unfortunately, none of your “Freedom” organisations openly teach that to you. Why? One reason could be; that if you all knew the law, how to gather proof, and how to present it well, why would you need to pay lawyers 300-600 dollars an hour to not do that in your opposition’s courts?
Wait, did you say not do that in our oppositions courts? Do lawyers not argue the law or use direct rebuttal proof in their arguments? It depends on who they’re up against. If a lawyer is trained, employed, and housed by an institution that is owned by who they are arguing against, then no, they’re not going to rebut its bullshit directly. They will just argue whether there was a failure in the procedural administration of that statute, not whether that statute is just and consonant with reason. Why? Because the thing that trained, employs, and house’s their adversarial craft owns them. The last thing they want to do is embarrass the court and who owns the court. It is their sovereign, it is the law according to all persons, including the idiots who think being a natural person makes them special.
If those who direct this New Zealand Crown have decided they want to experiment on a population that don’t know they own that Crown, then they can direct their employees/persons to encourage them to do just that. Furthermore, they can make it impossible for legal employees who have conflicting values to fight against it in its courts. One of the ways it can do that is by holding them to their private guild oaths. The sovereign doesn’t mind if the wealthy get around its new unlawful rules, they just have to pay the toll. After all, in this system; everything is legal for a fee, and you can only exercise your “unalienable rights” if you pay.
The time of real Kings and Queens may be over, now we pay homage to fictional entities that move where the currency flows. Where does the currency flow? Wherever the banks direct it. If the currency is flowing toward certain monopolies that share an ideology, then maybe the banks are afflicted by that same ideology by proxy. What if it is a religion? A religion of forced centralization to the new form of economic control. A “favourable” one that relies on “clean” energy storage, flawed uninformed AI, and unconstrained statute that only bends to the God of these faithless idiots; money. It could be the case that what now drives the upper echelons of Voices for Freedom, is not principles, but money.
Of course, I’m willing to agree that I’m wrong. There needs to be a comprehension angle for a variety of different passions in this fight. But, the question remains; why slander a very important methodology in such a pathetic way? A methodology you don’t even comprehend! Isn’t that what the government did when they decided to run roughshod over natural health in favour of a dodgy experiment? They called all of us a cult, nutters, white supremacists who like braids and knitting. Pot Kettle Black? What confuses me most, is the self-sabotaging nature of this stupid move by VFF, and how reminiscent it is of how the government went about things over the last six years.
I read two of Charlie’s articles, they were rather long and lacked a point. I get criticised for writing long articles about complicated topics, with big words people don’t often come across. Yet, I’ve never been criticised for not delivering a cogent point, but I can criticise Charlie for that, because he didn’t deliver one. Charlie wrote two thirty to thirty-five minute pieces that revealed that he knows nothing about what we teach. Worse, I “wasted energy” reading both, only to be told a few things that could have been done in under three minutes.
That he agrees with most of our points on Freedom.
That he doesn’t know much about what we teach, and seems focused on those who run roughshod over what we teach.
That he has little respect for esotericism, history, and philosophy. He seems to think that law just manifests out of the but holes of hypothetical bastions of reason who work in the statute system.
Long articles won’t do this divergence of opinion and perspective justice, but a live debate will. Unfortunately, those who criticise us would never engage in such transparent acts with us. After all, the same affliction that grips authority grips them. Cowardice. A fear of shame, the shame of being wrong. Those who think they hold reason and truth will always be defeated when they stand against those who humbly and perpetually pursue truth. They’re not defeated by us, but by their own arrogance and resentment over the fact that we have something they won’t attain. What they promise you is hypothetical comfort through the payment of large sums of money. We don’t promise that, we promise suffering, as that is the only path that brings you to a place where things truly work.
Next time someone asks you; “does Common Law work?” Reply; what do you mean by work? What are you seeking? My definition of work, is something that delivers substantial results that are consistent with the fabric of reality. In times of rank inconsistency, that doesn’t happen quickly, it takes time, diligence, consistency, and numbers. While others commit to the long march through the institutions, we commit to the longer march through the individuals. If you are after something else, then you want what we have always had; periods of false peace followed by periods of extreme privation. By all means if you want that status-quo to continue, keep listening to people like Charlie O’Neill, Voices For Freedom, The Platform, Groundswell, etc. They’ll keep you in that prison, and a rather expensive prison it will be.
After all, what do they mean, when they claim their angle works? Pay lawyers a ton of money to investigate whether the misdirected Crown’s unlawful tyranny is done in the correct procedural way? Get the fuck out of here! Seriously!? Why do we pay these flying monkeys three to six times the amount of tradies and produce providers just to do illogical mental gymnastics? Some of you who consent to this process actually spend time telling people to wake up, it’s no wonder many of them reply with; you first.
No surprises here.
Very good article. I have always voiced directly to VFF that they are using same mechanisms as the gvnmt, no difference really