Real and imagined conspiracies both suffer from the critical problem of not being solvable. All the undue focus on potential future calamities is inculcated by unscrupulous Internet pundits who desire to manipulate those who suffer from too much media consumption through the news cycle. Thankfully, there are conspiracists who have a much more down to Earth perspective on the nature of the situation we are all suffering under.
As a self-acknowledged conspiracist, the author confesses that he thinks there are “Powers That Be” (PTB) who are hell bent on world domination; yet, he tends to discard credence to any purported conspiracy that he can’t do anything about. Most of his book tackles such topics as the existence of secret societies, the dumbing down effect of public schools, the fraudulent debasement of the currency, the dangers of drinking fluoridated water, the pseudo-science of climate change (as an excuse to impose carbon taxes), the hypnotizing capabilities of television, the best rebuttal I’ve ever read against forced inoculations, and some philosophical thoughts about how to understand freedom. What intrigued me most about his book, and what I want to concentrate on here, is his explanation of the law itself.
The Anti-Terrorist (AT) begins discussing the law by stating:
“Unknowingly, we the people of America, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have been cunningly coerced out of our Common Law rights and forced into ‘Admiralty.’ We were enticed to volunteer into this civil jurisdiction through the benefits offered by the Social Security contract, drivers and business licenses, marriage licenses, and other contractual obligations with the Government. It’s done with our consent. We gave up our unalienable rights under the Common Law and our constitutions for privileges under the civil law of the state.”
As far as I understand it, common law is judicial case precedent. Does AT mean that court decisions recognize our preexisting inalienable rights? Also, I’m unsure about his claim that “we” were “enticed to volunteer,” given that in some jurisdictions a newborn’s parents are coerced into registering their child with the State, yet in others they are tricked into it; this blanket assertion he makes already raises my eyebrow. He goes onto state:
“As English society developed over the years, situations arose for which the courts of Common Law couldn’t provide relief by any process; the dispute didn’t involve property – they didn’t involve any substance. The only remedy was to petition the King, who appointed his first minister to solve these problems. The minister was called a Chancellor and the relief granted was called Equity. Equity basically meant ‘what would be fair if the Common Law principle was extended and applied to the case at hand?’ As a result, England and America developed two distinct systems of law and court, each having a unique and specific relevance and jurisdiction. Equity jurisdiction is designated ‘in personum,‘ a jurisdiction in which you don’t have any rights but one to which you volunteer to be subject. In other words, we can submit to binding arbitration, but it has to be with our consent.”
If that’s true, then how does AT explain the “consensual” nature of when an individual ignores a court subpoena and then the police are sent to forcibly bring him in? He continues:
“Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction – firmly entrenched in the civil law system – is the law of the ruler, the rule of the sea, the rule of money, the law of the nobility; it deals with profits, taxes, and contracts. It’s predicated upon the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto, and the Ten Planks are simply a reincarnation of the ancient Babylonian mystery religions that have been around for about 5,000 years. You can call it communism, you can call it socialism, but it is the exact opposite, the diametric opposite of the Ten Commandments, 180 degrees opposite to The Bill of Rights and Constitution. You don’t have to be on a ship at sea to come under Admiralty jurisdiction. The jurisdiction can apply simply because the issue falls within the scope of maritime law, such as the use of bills, notes, checks (cheques), and credit.”
While it is true that admiralty is the law of the sea, I’m not quite understanding what that has anything to do with having a Social Security Number (SSN) or a driver’s license, unless he is implying that having things like those somehow brings a citizen to be susceptible to those statutes because of their wording, but again, that is an assumption on my part as to what I think he meant. Nevertheless, he continues:
“There are 2.5 million statutes in the West, and they’re all done by contract, specifically by adhesion contracts. An adhesion contract – that’s probably a contract you don’t know anything about and you don’t have to know anything about the terms and conditions of these contracts to be bound by them. A warranty, for instance, that’s an adhesion contract. Driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, business licenses, Social Security, the dole – they’re all adhesion contracts.”
Is he insinuating that these adhesion contracts are evidence of a citizen being subject to admiralty? Continuing on:
“If you don’t have a Social Security number, or a national insurance number, you won’t have any contact with the Inland Revenue or the IRS – unless, of course, you’re out there operating in trade, commerce, business and industry, depositing your Bank of England notes or Federal Reserve notes into a bank. But if you’re working in private business and trading your labour, which is property, for gold and silver, which is property, in a property-for-property transaction, you’re never going to hear from the IRS or the Inland Revenue. If you buy a house and pay for it in gold coin and work on that house and fix it up then sell the house for gold coin, you’ll never hear from the Government.”
Wow, that’s a pretty impressive claim, if it could be proven true and accurate. Obviously, a whole slew of problems crop up if you try to seek employment without a SSN, so unless you’re already established in your field, or already independently wealthy, I don’t see how it would be possible to make the transition, even if you had wanted to. I also loved this comment regarding firearms:
“There’s no right to have a gun in Admiralty jurisdiction, and that’s why all you guys out there in the States with licensed weapons are going to lose your weapons first because you registered them; you handed over title to the Government. The Government now owns your weapon, they have a controlling share in the contract with you and they can remove it from you anytime they like because it’s more theirs than yours. You gave up your claim to property and property rights and adopted the first plank to the Communist manifesto, the abolition of all rights to property. You got what you wanted – you asked for it – what are you complaining about? However, you guys out there who have unregistered, unlicensed weapons, you’re going to be fine as long as you don’t register them. Except, of course, then it’s just a case of the Government taking them from you using unlawful force…”
This unique argument differs from the privacy one against gun registration because AT is claiming here that registered firearms are the property of the State. Of course, the bigger implication is that anything else you register with the government also becomes their property and is thus not yours. AT then makes this statement:
“If the Government and the insurance companies can get together and compel you to buy car insurance, they can compel you to buy television sets and carpet, or anything they want, can’t they? Think about it – if the Government can compel you to buy car insurance why can’t they compel you to buy health insurance, life insurance, toothbrushes, furniture, or bowling balls? Friends, you agreed to it in advance. Remember, joining Social Security and getting a national insurance number was voluntary, what goes after that voluntary action is mandatory.”
Now this makes a whole lot of sense. Texas coerces drivers to buy auto insurance coverage. So, with the looming specter of Obamacare being forced onto the population early next year, I can’t say I’m at all surprised. What I am skeptical about here though, is AT’s claim that these adhesion contracts are proof of my consent to be governed, and thus makes me subject to all of this horrid shit, with the proviso being, if I repudiate these adhesion contracts, I would be able to legally revoke my consent to be governed:
“If you need a guardian, if you need the Government to look after you, change your nappy for you, fine, no one’s going to force you to change your lifestyle. Some people like rules and controls, it makes them feel safe. But if you’re complaining about the tyranny we’re facing at the moment, you’re complaining about the contracts that you have volunteered into, even if unknowingly so…[t]he solution to your problem is not more government, it’s less government; you need to investigate and take control of the adhesion contracts. Look into your Social Security contract, your driver’s contracts and your marriage licenses. Any contract created without full disclosure is fraud. Were you made aware you were giving up your rights when you signed these contracts?”
I guess that proviso of mine was right, wasn’t it? But so what? Even if he was absolutely correct, the key question then becomes, how do I revoke such adhesion contracts?
AT’s philosophical musings should be mentioned by me as well here. He states:
“I have been accused of advocating anarchy in the past. Well, somewhere between ‘anarchy’ and ‘police state’ there is freedom and normalcy. Anarchy is total lawlessness, which is what you’ve got over there in Baghdad, and then – here in Great Britain and the United States – we have a ‘police state.’ I’m advocating something in between.”
So, AT is using the legal definition of anarchy here. Elaborating on this, he says:
“There has been a sure and steady erosion of rights, privileges and immunities in the way we exercise our lifestyles, but the question arises, is this done because the government came in and put a gun to your head and used constraint and coercion, threat or force or violence? Or, is it the case that the government made offers to you, and you accepted those offers and you have enslaved yourself by way of your own hand or your own mouth? Has this been imposed upon you against your will and over your objection, or are you the cause of your own injury? I contend that the latter is the modality that we Brits and Americans have used to become feudal serfs. I don’t think the word slave is quite correct. Bond servitude is probably the better legal term to use. We’re not actually slaves, we’re bondservants, since bond servitude is an ancient modality that goes back to the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai. Bonded servitude is always accomplished by the free will and consent of the bondservant.”
I agree with him that the various Internet pundit slogans such as, “We are not your slaves!,” while true, is implicitly misleading, because there are no physical chains, so bondservant would be the more accurate word to use to infer what some have referred so as “debt slavery.” AT goes on to blast the welfare State:
“The Government needs to control the people and generate revenue, so the first thing they do is they put a license out there and tell you that if you get the license there are many benefits. Of course, you want the benefits, so you get the license. There is no downside; it’s all plus, until they get everyone licensed. Once everyone is licensed, they introduce all of the taxes that go with it.”
This would seem to indicate that the idea here is to stubbornly avoid becoming licensed at all if your goal is to avoid paying taxes or being controlled:
“The police state imposed on the Chinese people by force is no different than the one we Americans and Brits have imposed upon ourselves today, except for the fact that we paid to have our rights taken in favour of contracts without benefits. The Chinese, at least, saved some money. However, we still have our rights, they’re still there to claim, and we can reject limited liability, perpetual slavery and debt whenever we want to accept responsibility for our actions and debts. The Chinese can’t.”
This is rather interesting, for AT is proposing that there is still a peaceful way out of the whole police state nonsense (at least for those in the West), but that those who aren’t in the West are automatically screwed, unless they stage a revolution. Finally, AT says that:
“There aren’t many people who want to trade their slavery and apparent safety for the conscientiousness of the life of a free man. But for those free men and women who want to be free, the choice is theirs. Every person who wants to be free can free himself or herself, but no one else can free them. The masses prefer security; social security, limited liability, and the satisfaction of having others control their lives. If you want to be truly free and claim your rights, you’re obligated to defend them – and your last breath, if necessary.”
I think this is the real challenge for libertarians and others to contemplate, but again, how do I revoke these adhesion contracts? Part of me thinks he is simply raising “awareness” of this issue, and I think it is left up to the reader to perform their due diligence and seek their answer to that key question on their own.
The Anti-Terrorist’s TheAntiTerrorist Handbook is perhaps not only the most reasonable introduction to real conspiracies, but also to the whole “Freeman-on-the-Land” zeitgeist. While I am left with more questions than answers, AT certainly does an adequate job of bringing up this entire field of study, which can then either be verified or debunked on its own merits. As a closing thought, I found this statement by AT to be particularly enlightening:
“Hopelessness, loss of meaning, and existential distress are proposed as the core features of the diagnostic category of Demoralization Syndrome. DS can be differentiated from depression and is recognizable in palliative care settings. It is associated with chronic medical illness, disability, bodily disfigurement, fear of loss of dignity, social isolation and – where there is a subjective sense of incompetence and/or powerlessness – feelings of greater dependency on others or the perception of being a burden. Because of this sense of impotence, those with the syndrome predictably progress to a desire to die or to commit suicide.”
Having recovered from DS, I can absolutely empathize with anyone else who is still in the throughs of it. Maybe once dissidents starting separating the wheat from the chaff and then burn the latter, DS will become a thing of the past.