Are You Ready?

Chapter Version 1.2 [17APR2013]

Are you ready for a completely New Paradigm?

Do you believe:

In "Governments" … as the way to hold your Nation together in peace?

That, without "Governments", everything would fall apart at the seams?

In "democracy" … as the way to create "Governments"?

That you must choose between Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Independent, Democrat, Republican etc.?

That "There's a lot wrong, but keep going the way we've all been going and - with sufficient adjustment (in the form of 'Laws'), we can work it out - if we can just achieve the right balance of 'Laws'"?

That people who, for example, try to avoid paying taxes, are Tax Cheats?

That whistleblowers who, for example, expose bad things going on within the Social Services, or the Department of Work & Pensions, or the National Health Service, etc., or the Police, or the Military, could be jeopardising 'National Security" - or 'rocking the boat' - by spilling the beans?

That we should all trust whoever we vote into power (national or local) to do their best for us, and that - by and large - they are actually doing that - although they may get it wrong on occasion. But we have "democracy", and that makes us free, and although it isn't prefect (nothing ever could be) it's the best we can do?

That anyone who opposes, or gainsays, any of the above … are wrong, or weirdoes, or extremists, (terrorists)  etc?

Or do you think that - as long as you have lived your life under the above Paradigm, "Things never seem to get any better, whoever is 'in Power'"? (Either expressed to others, possibly on a number of occasions, or even - maybe - only in the back of your mind?)

If the latter rings any bells, would you be ready for a complete change of Paradigm? Or, to put it another way: Are you sick and tired of all the endless bullshit promulgated by the prancing, narcissistic, clowns … who consider they have the ability to be 'in authority'?

If you answered "No" to that last question, then read no further. You are hopelessly enslaved, and (almost certainly) NOTHING will unchain you.

If you answered "Yes" to that last question, then carry on reading - but please be prepared to have your world turned upside down, and re-explained to you in a very different manner.

A Potential New Paradigm.

Do you believe in "aggression"? Or would you consider "aggression" to be something you would NEVER advocate? Do you consider that, provided you make no aggressive acts against another, you should be safe from aggressive acts against yourself?

There is a "Non-aggression Principle". It's actually the one that the vast majority of us operate on a day-to-day basis. It says, fundamentally, that it is wrong to attack or rob other people, or (as far as is reasonably possible) wrong to breach their peace. And that, furthermore, it is also wrong to be devious in one's promises, agreements and arrangements - in other words to 'Say what you mean, and mean what you say' - and to avoid upsetting others, as far as is reasonable. Very simply because upsetting others leads to rancour. And that could, conceivably, provoke aggression against you.

Do you believe in that Principle?

Really believe in it?

Really, really, believe in it?

I ask because - if you really, really, believe in "Non-aggression" - then why are you almost always prepared to put up with it - if it has been "legalised" by your Government? Thereby "sanctioned" by your Government?

What am I talking about? Well, there is ALWAYS some kind of penalty for disobeying Acts of Parliament or Acts of Congress. Which can ultimately lead to aggressive acts taken against anyone who disobeys. Isn't there? This could be confiscation of property, or even lead to imprisonment - and utilising as much force as they decide (on the spot), if you try to resist.

Well, that's the case, is it not?

And that's "aggression", is it not?

So, the question is: Are you prepared to say that, while individual acts of aggression are BAD,  "Government-sponsored" acts of aggression, being "legitimate", or "sanctioned", are OK?

Well? Isn't "aggression" - IN ANY FORM - bad? From whatever source?

What, for example, about "Morality"? Yes … you know "Morality". It's the thing that makes you a non-aggressive individual, in the first place.

And isn't one of the things YOU MOST POSTIVELY HATE - THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO DO THINGS AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT - because "Your Government" says so, and tells you that it can use force (i.e. aggression) against you, if you don't comply?

For example (say) "Taxation". You know - when you are FORCED to pay taxes, AGAINST YOUR WILL, so as to pay for wars in foreign countries, that "Your Government" has decided upon, which maims and murders men, women, children and even babies, who have never lifted a finger against you, or your country?

Or, for example, "Taxation" to pay for "welfare projects" that you disagree with? When you see much better things on which the money could be spent? But you don't have any choice in the matter, because "Your Government" says that it is entitled to use some kind of coercion or extortion against you, should you try to resist?

Is this all OK with you? All that sort of thing?

Do you say: "Ahhh yes … it's true I don't like that … but if we can get 'the other lot in' … then we can stop all that. That's the solution!"

And then, when 'your lot get in', you still find you are paying taxes for (some) things you would rather not fund, and still fighting the same wars overseas (maybe on a reduced scale - but a lot of damage has already been done!), and there's still that (for example) "European Union" situation, which just seems to march inexorably on, and you see no real change or improvement - by and large? Even with 'your lot' in power?

Well? What do you think?

Isn't this all about 'a clash of Moralities' - between your own, and that of "Your Government"?

Could it be that - at the end of the day - this ALL comes down to "Government"? And that maybe - just maybe - the idea of "Government" is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG?

That it's FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG when you, yourself, are perfectly peaceful - why should it be that unprovoked ACTS OF AGGRESSION against you are possible, when you feel - by virtue of your conscience - that you ought to be able to politely disagree, not pay for things you consider to be wrong, and that you should be left alone in your disagreement? That no "Government" ever seems to be capable of 'agreeing to disagree', as regular private individuals are perfectly capable of doing, for example, when compromising?

What, exactly, has "Government" got that you haven't, in the arena of "Morality"?

If you understand, that it is MORALLY WRONG to involve yourself in WARS OF AGGRESSION, in foreign countries, how come "Government" gets a 'Free Pass'- on "Morality" - to enable it to "be OK" to do that?

I mean a 'Free Pass' such that you can bitch about it (endlessly) - but have no real means of stopping it from happening?


In fact, "Government" can be shown to be 'self-contradictory', insane, and utterly absurd. "Government" has absolutely no validity, if one really thinks hard about it.

Thus the New Paradigm means: "Do without the absurdity of State/National Government", and rely entirely on "Self-government", by taking personal responsibility for your life, under the Non-aggression Principle which is, in point of fact, just another way of saying "The Common Law".

And such a paradigm would reduce corruption to manageable means.

Of course, another word for this is: Anarchy. But the New Paradigm is "anarchy actually explained in full", as opposed to the usual idea of "Terrorists running around in black cloaks, with bombs in their hands".

Origin: 1530–40;  (< Middle French anarchie  or Medieval Latin anarchia) < Greek, anarchνa lawlessness, literally, lack of a leader, equivalent to αnarch ( os ) leaderless ( an- an-1  + arch ( σs ) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y
Forget all the other definitions, for example "lawlessness", etc. They are rubbish, and simply interpretations designed to create 'bad Public Relations'. It has never meant "lawlessness", or anything of the kind. "Anarchy" means, simply, "lack of leader". As the definition above has the decency (when pushed) to point out, by means of the preface "literally". Can we afford to take a literal meaning of a word? Or are we completely brainwashed, beyond redemption? It means 'leaderless', and doesn't mean anything else, and never has. (And there's no reason why it ever should).

Fundamentally, what has happened is that "Governments" are so frightened of the word, that they have always done their best to blacken it, and have consistently attached all kinds of nefarious connotations - which have never existed in reality.

It just means "No King", "No Government", "No Leader". But it doesn't mean "No Law". Because, to say that, would be the same thing as saying "No Common Sense". Because The Common Law is nothing other than Common Sense. The Common Sense on how to live in peace, under the Non-aggression Principle.

Thus The Common Law is perfectly capable of providing all of the necessary "Law", within a Paradigm of "Anarchy".

Larken Rose

Larken sums it all up, in 2 minutes, in this video.

Let's examine it, detail. He asks 3 fundamental questions.

[1] Can a Right be delegated to anyone, or any group, that is not possessed - by the Grantor - in the first place? Do you think you can give ANYTHING to anyone else (ever!), that you do not possess yourself? Something that isn't yours to give away? Something that doesn't belong to you? If the answer is "No" (which it is, of course), then any Right you delegate to a Parliament or a Congress (via your Electoral Vote), can only ever be a Right you possess yourself. Consequently no Parliament or Congress ever has any Rights that exceed your own. Or, putting that another way, YOU ARE PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO DO ANYTHING THAT YOUR PARLIAMENT OR CONGRESS HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO DO. (Think hard about that, if you need to).

[2] Can one have a MORAL OBLIGATION to do what they think (by their conscience) to be WRONG? Again, the answer is (obviously) "No". No-one has the Right to tell you to assault someone else, and to put you under any obligation to do that. In point of fact "in Law" (The Common Law) if you do something that is morally wrong, at the behest of someone else, then THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE, and (in Law) would be awarded an equal sentence or punishment, if you are found guilty. Consequently if "Your Government" tells you to apply aggression against someone else - which your conscience tells you is wrong - then you have every Right to disobey any such commands. And, if you can disobey "Your Government", because of the 'higher authority' of "Your Conscience", then "Your Government" is toothless - is it not? And a "toothless Government" is no "Government" at all. Is it?

[3] Can any "Legislation" change "morality"? Once again, the answer is obviously "No". "Morality" is derived entirely from "Common Sense". YOUR Common Sense. Which determines YOUR MORALITY. No "Legislation" can change your Common Sense. Consequently "Legislation" that matches your Common Sense and Morality, and is (therefore) in harmony with The Common Law, is redundant - because the "Legislation" already exists within The Common Law. On the other hand, any "Legislation" that CONTRAVENES your Common Sense and Morality, can be freely disobeyed (by virtue of [2], above), and thus is also redundant. Consequently ALL "Legislation" is redundant. Consequently the "Makers of Legislation" are redundant. Thus "Parliament" or "Congress" is redundant, and the only thing of importance is the Common Sense and the Morality of individuals.

Larken employs the exact same methods as "Governments" do, in order to explain how he has the Right to rob you.

And here, in this video, Larken lays it on the line, fully explaining what happens when people ignore [1], [2] and [3], above.

Explaining 'Money', including an Alternative

Suppose you could write a cheque, for any amount, and it made not the slightest difference to what you had in the Bank? It made not the slightest difference, because the amount on the cheque WOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED from your Account, but WOULD STILL BE CREDITED to the Account of the Recipient?

Daft, you say? Unworkable you say?

Well, actually, in point of FACT, that's VERY CLOSE to certain situations that we accept, as normal, today.

In point of fact, if you understand today's Monetary System, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, when you start (what is called) a 'Mortgage', or take out (what is called) a 'Loan'. It's also very close to the reception of so-called 'benefits', in the form of Grants, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Job Seeker's Allowance, and Old Age Pensions. Furthermore, it also accounts for the fact that you can get treatment from your GP (without paying your GP), hospital treatment (and dental treatment) without paying the hospital (or the dentist). (Yes, I know that there are 'paying-for-it-privately' methods, but there's also the 'under-the-NHS' method which is free).

Because the plain fact is that, even today, ALL MONEY IS CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR, BY MEANS OF YOUR SIGNATURE. And the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of International Settlements, etc. have all said so in their 'literature-that-you-never-read'.

So, the idea is not so 'daft' or 'unworkable', as you may imagine.

In point of fact, all that's really different is - today - YOU ARE UNDER THE MASSIVE DECEPTION THAT - IN THE CASE OF MORTGAGES AND LOANS - there is something you must pay back. BUT THAT IS A FRAUD AND A DECEPTION, SIMPLY DESIGNED TO ENRICH THE 'FEW' WHO UNDERSTAND THE SCAM - at the expense of the vast majority, who do not.

In point of fact, there is never anything to 'pay back'. (And never has been).

Which means that the original proposal, in the first paragraph under this heading, is perfectly viable. And would be seen to be so, if the wool was not continually pulled over the eyes of the majority by everything you see, hear, or read in the media.

Quite obviously, if that proposal were implemented, it would very soon be realised that the idea of 'money' was utterly superfluous. Since everyone could get anything they wanted - effectively for free.

But, it must be repeated that - although it doesn't look like it on the surface - 'behind the curtain' that's exactly what's happening already. 'Pulling away the curtain' would reveal that obstacles, such as "a Credit Rating", are merely designed to apply 'covertly-operated controls', and to force you into 'work' (including at a job you HATE, but are forced into, in order 'generate income'), and thereby reduce your freedom as much as possible, and limit your ability to raise your vision above the ground. Simply because, if you had time to raise your vision to the horizon, you would be able to see through the SCAMS, and realise the ultimate truth.

Thus the alternative, is perfectly viable and feasible: If you want to use a Monetary System for your Anarchy, use today's mechanisms, but remove all the DECEPTIONS. Use just what's left, after all the deception has been removed.

Explaining Anarchy, under the Alternative Monetary Mechanism

Obviously under a Monetary System whereby anything wanted could be obtained simply by writing a cheque, then 'stealing' and 'hoarding' would no longer exist as possibilities for obtaining 'money'. That would wipe away probably 99% of all corruption and dishonesty. No need for 'insurance', either, of course.

And, quite obviously not the slightest need for any form of Taxation, be it Income, Capital Gains, Council Tax, Road Tax, Value-added Tax, TV Licence, etc. etc. etc.

Just about the only thing left (in the form of 'crime') would be "I don't like the look of his face" or "He said something really nasty to me" … "So I'll hit him, or kill him". And this would define 'the nasty people'. So, sure, we would still need a very small Peace Force, in order to bring such perpetrators into a Common Law Court, to face a Jury, and to apply Justice rationally (using Common Sense).

But - apart from that - what else is there in the way of 'crime'?

We would still need a Treasury, in order to issue 'money' on demand, but absolutely no need whatsoever for any kind of 'Fiscal' or 'Economic' Policy.

For everything else, we simply educate everyone to utilise the Non-aggression Principle i.e. don't provoke trouble, learn to 'agree to disagree' like grown-up adults, and take full responsibility (like adults should). Mavericks would be rounded up (by the Peace Force) and given due process in a Common Law Court. Indictments would be raised by Grand Juries, and Trials deciding "guilt or innocence" would be based on the Verdicts of Petty Juries of 12.

And that is a perfectly feasible and viable New Paradigm.

In fact, all it is … is 'today' minus the absurdity and insanity of "Government constantly butting into everyone's life". It also means the end of the corruptions called "Politics" and "Politicians", of course.

Let's look at things another way

Imagine I am person "A". And I know someone, who we can call person "B" … who doesn't have a car, but needs one. And I also know someone, who we can call person "C", who has a car. Now, can I give C's car to B? Am I entitled to do that? Of course, the answer is "No!" But … hold on! I also know lots of other people … let's call them D, E, F … all the way through to Z. Now, they all agree with me … that B should have C's car. Can WE, that's me, B together with D … Z … all 25 of us … override the fact that C's car doesn't belong to any of us, but … nevertheless … because of our 'numerical advantage' in the matter … give C's car to B? Well, the answer is still "No!", isn't it? It doesn't matter how many I have on my side … it's NOT my car … it's not OUR car ... it belongs to C … and I (or We) have no Right to give it to B! (Sorry, B, no can do! You'll just have to walk!) D … Z is an "Electorate". And I'm a "Politician". And D .. Z (and possibly B, as well) voted for me. And C is someone who may - or may NOT have - voted for me (it doesn't matter!) Does that change anything? Does that somehow give me any superior Right - to override the wishes of C - just because I have an Electoral Vote behind me? Even if I had C's vote behind me? Errr … nope! Thus ANY CLAIM I MAY HAVE …TO ANY 'SUPERIOR' RIGHTS … just because I was "democratically elected" … IS BOGUS … ILLEGITIMATE. As an Elected Politician, I have no more Rights to ANYTHING … than anyone else. My Rights are:

1. Exactly the same, and
2. Exactly the same size.

… as any other individual. So … if that's the case … what is the point of me being a Politician? What is the point of ANY Politician? What is the point of "Politics"? Oh … you tell me … because all I can see is ILLEGITIMACY (however "democratically" I was elected!) NOTHING ANY POLITICIAN DOES, HAS -ANY- LEGITIMACY. And when a Politician - or group - write something down on a piece of paper - as a result of any ritual they may go through via the Houses of Parliament … THE RESULT IS STILL ENTIRELY ***ILLEGITIMATE***.

They have NO RIGHT WHATSOVER to take anything from you ("Taxes"), and give it to someone else. They HAVE NO RIGHT to place you under ANY OBLIGATION they YOU DID NOT CONSENT TO, YOURSELF (as an Individual).

"For the Common Good", cuts no ice. It never has, and it never can. Simply because The Common Law already does that job.

We already have "The Common Good", via our Common Sense and ancient Customs & Traditions (which were all derived from Common Sense, in the first place).

"Politics" and "Parliament" have been around (as an 'experiment in Human Relations') since 1295. AND THAT EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN AN UTTER FAILURE. It's had over 700 years to "get it right", and is no further forward than it ever was. And the reason is simply: THE IDEA, THE CONCEPT, WAS ***ILLEGITIMATE*** in the first place. And no amount of time can possibly make it 'Legitimate'. Isn't it about time we all realised this?

What's going to happen?

In a 100 years time, our descendants will be shaking their heads, in wonderment, at their history. They will be looking back through their history, and wondering how their ancestors could ever have been so absurd.

In exactly the same way that we now look back, and wonder how anyone could ever think that "The Earth is flat, and that the Sun orbits around it".

That is as certain as the fact that the Earth is a roughly spherical planet, and orbits around the Sun, taking (what we call) 'a year' to perform that orbit.

Previous Chapter : What's New? & Index

(This page produced in its entirety on Veronica's Local Web Organiser © Veronica: of the Chapman family, 2006-2013)