July 13, 2009

Cranks R Us?

As you can see from my list of favourite blogs, I quite like Old Holborns place. He, and his guest bloggers write more sense than all of the mainstream media combined.

His blog, jammed to the gunwale's with truthiness, naturally attracts many comments. The vast majority are from sensible people, and the vast majority support him and his guest bloggers. Like attracts like, they say.

Occasionally, he attracts oddballs. The oddballs always blog anonymously. Fair dinkum. So do I, for now. I have a couple of things in the pipeline that may just strip my anonymity away from me whether I like it or not. For now, I need to retain the cloaking device.

Anyhoo, one oddball wrote this:

"These freemen are cranks of the highest order, they want to opt out of anything detrimental, like paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. but you can bet your last penny that if any of them was injured and the paramedics asked them their name they wouldn't say "I'm a freeman and do not recognise your private company or illegal statutory duty of care to me so please leave me alone, I have opted out of your society and am a freeman".

Now, I would be the first man to defend his right to say what he said, but I am willing to bet everything I own that this oddball has no idea what the Freeman Movement is about at all.

Let's fisk his paragraph and see if we can add a bit of sunlight to his version of the "truth".

1. Not paying taxes. I have three reasons for not wanting to pay tax. All three have solid grounding in law.

a) Since invading Iraq in March 2003 several hundred thousand people have been killed. Not all of them were combatants. According to the law, anyone who supports an illegal war, (and by paying taxes we are paying for soldiers, bombs and bullets), is jointly and severally liable. This was one of the many rulings from the Nuremberg Trials. In short, if you help pay for bombs and bullets, you are equally liable for each and every death or injury.

b) Nowhere, and I repeat this, nowhere in the statutes demanding money in the form of taxes does it say any human beings have to pay. You read that right. Within that particular statute we are referred to as "persons". On reading Blacks Law Dictionary, you will note that "persons" defines corporations, not human beings.

c) Income Tax was rammed through as a temporary measure to pay for WWII. We finished repaying that debt a few years ago. Income Tax should have been abolished as we are no longer in debt (to the Americans) nor are we at war with any other sovereign nation.

Any issues with those reasons, Oddball?

2. Not obeying "laws".

It depends on what you think are "laws". No doubt every time parliament shits out another statute you think that is a new "law"? Wrong. A statute is given the force of law by the consent of the governed. A "Statute" is a rule for a society with a common aim. I decided quite some time ago that we do not share the same fucking aims. We are not even on the same planet, let alone the same page. Tell me Oddy, just how many of the 4000 statutes the Labour party shat out over the last 11 years did YOU consent to? Over 88% of them came from Brussels. Do you think we need them all? Some of them? I believe we have no need of anything Brussels spews out. If you were to do any research at all you would learn that statutes are "laws of the water". The last time I looked, I was on dry land. We are bogged down with millions of statutes, or, more accurately, Statutory Instruments. I can be jailed or fined for not understanding and complying with every single one of those statutes, remember; ignorance is no defence. I prefer to live simply. I prefer to write my own laws. I obey only common sense, or common law, (some prefer to call it Natural Law), which means that I voluntarily took an Oath not to kill, not to harm or injure, not to cause loss (steal) or make mischief with my contracts (defraud) in my dealings with my fellow human beings. Can you say the same? For a crime to have been committed, another human has to suffer harm, loss or injury. Perhaps you can tell me how a human has suffered loss if I drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone? Or who has suffered if I park on a double-yellow line?

3. Emergency care.

What you don't know is that everything you needed for your entire lifetime was provided for you before you reached the age of five. When you were born your parents registered your birth. Within a matter of weeks several trust funds were created. The government, relying (gambling) on your future labour, traded you on stock markets around the globe. You are no more than a commodity to them. Tonight your Birth Bond may be traded in Tokyo, Sidney, Paris or New York. In the morning it may spend some time on the LSE and then be whisked off to Frankfurt. Like me, you will no doubt be Common Stock. Not all Birth Bonds are worth the same. The Landed Gentry, Premium Stock, will be worth more because they started out with more, and are more likely to run corporations and generate more for the economy. So, not only have we already paid for our needs, and by that I mean not only healthcare, but housing, training, benefits from the social fund, unemployment benefits and the like, by the time we are five years old, we also continue to pay into the coffers. This scam goes back several hundred years. It just got more sophisticated with better technology. You enter the market as a tradeable commodity via your birth certificate and you exit the market when your death certificate is created. It was ever thus. And it has always been hidden right before your very eyes.

I have awoken from a deep slumber. That slumber was actively encouraged by successive governments throughout my life. And now, because I have woken up and started to question everything, you call me a crank?

Fuck you.

Try spending six months researching this charade. Try cross-referencing, double-checking, over and over again. Then you can call me a crank, but I seriously doubt that you would want to.

Alternatively, wrap that quilt around yourself and go back to sleep, you gormless cunt.


Dick Puddlecote said...

Built to a crescendo and a cracking denouement. Marvellous.

Thanks, Captain. :-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Captain.
May I first echo the comment of DP.

What gives me the greatest hope these days is to see this movement spread (this mushroom grow), which is why I am communicating this small bit of news:
Today in the daily Mail, no less, in the comments following the story about 74 MPs reneging their support for Gary McKinnon, one poster suggests that we should take up Lawful rebellion.
The optimistic soul further suggests that we need a newspaper to explain it to us (some hope I think).

I have read all your previous postings (found the link in your post t'other day on the OH blog) and notice you mention that FOTL and Lawful Rebellion are not the same.
Is it possible for you to explain the essence of this difference in your splendid user friendly, plain english style? I've read quite extensively & watched scores of videos, but I couldn't nail this answer myself.

I'd like if I may to point out, cos I don't think you do in your previous, that it is quite arguable that it is our duty to take up lawful rebellion in days such as these, and treasonous not to.

Thanks from another pesky anonymous.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Anon.

I will knock up a post later today and explain the difference.

RantinRab said...

Quality stuff Captain!

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Rab!

I just want to fuck them up. All of them. In any way I can. This seems to be working.