The "Common Law" Cult - Part One

Why it has become a major problem for the Dissident Movement...

Introduction

One of the characteristics of the current system is the near limitless funds it can deploy on any given project - a result of the extensive credit-creation abilities given to it by the fractional reserve banking system.

Coupled with the system’s intense focus on any dissident group that could disrupt its core projects, this creates a situation where any serious anti-system movement is almost guaranteed to be flooded with a bewildering array of infiltrators, saboteurs, informants as well as generally well-meaning, yet disastrous individuals who are steered towards it, on purpose, by covert regime propagandists.

The goals of those who have been sent to deliberately infiltrate or mis-steer a dissident movement in this way are varied, depending upon the particular nature of the movement in question and the perceived threat it poses to the ruling regime. But, in general, the objective seems to be to cause as much misdirection, kookiness, infighting and poor decision-making as possible.

The idea behind this approach seems to be that by ‘occupying’ the space of any potentially effective opposition and filling it with ideas, individuals and approaches that are both doomed to fail and inherently off-putting to the greatest number of people, the system can effectively neutralise any possible threat that might otherwise emerge towards it from that quarter - as well as wasting a huge amount of dissident time, energy and funds that could otherwise be used in mounting a more effective resistance in general.

For this reason, it is generally futile to spend more than the bare minimum amount of time trying to ‘expose’ or ‘refute’ those groups or individuals which we perceive to be, in some fashion, compromised or infiltrated - the very act of refuting or exposing them actually plays into the regime’s hands in fact, as part of the point in deploying such tactics in the first place was to waste our time and misdirect limited and precious energy that could be better employed elsewhere.

Besides, given the systems effectively infinite reserve of funds and energy - as compared to our own currently miniscule reserves - the result of ‘exposing’ one of its agents or the ideas they are pushing will simply be that the resources which currently support them are immediately poured into some other, similar project instead. Given the aforementioned, almost limitless, credit creation abilities of the system, this process could obviously continue almost indefinitely.

In addition another - in my opinion secondary - goal of this kind of sabotage and infiltration is to increase paranoia and distrust amongst those who do genuinely oppose the system. This is obviously only exacerbated by people ‘exposing’ ideas and individuals which were previously trusted within the movement in general. However given the presence of numerous bad and terminally ineffective ‘actors’ amongst dissident ranks questioning, examining and ‘uncovering’ such individuals and ideas is unfortunately necessary if we actually want to achieve anything significant rather than simply creating a feel-good echo chamber for ourselves.

For a number of reasons, I have decided that this is a case where it is in fact worth spending some time looking into a particular ideology, ‘common law, which continues to enjoy wide support amongst dissident circles in general.

Firstly, because I feel that the wider ‘dissident’ movement which crystallised out of a number of disparate, smaller movements in response to the covid coup is currently losing its coherence and focus and that this has occurred, in no small part, due to the increasing proliferation of smaller side-movements and sub-groups - such as ‘common law’, ‘free energy’, ‘anti-5G’ etc.- amongst those who were, originally, united around opposing the system at it actually and observably exists.

Secondly, because, beyond diverting vital time, energy and money from our movement, which is bad enough in of itself, the ‘common law’ cult is also actually a net negative for many individuals within it. Many of the people who adopt its procedures and philosophy cannot afford the costly repercussions of failure and I myself know of one individual who fell foul of ‘common law’ advice they were given and only narrowly avoided serious consequences as a result (whilst also incurring significant financial losses in the process).

Thirdly, I have decided to give my opinion on this matter because I feel that it is vital for us to speak up whenever we see people spreading ideas that we believe to be false and/or useless within the dissident movement - after all, if we are not as effective, realistic and focused as we can be, what hope do we stand of opposing a system that has effectively unlimited funds, vast manpower and control of the means of ideological formation at its disposal?

But, beyond exposing the ‘common law’ cult in particular, I hope that this article will help people to ‘reverse engineer’ how the system goes about sowing confusion within dissident ranks and how it manages to misdirect and frustrate its opponents in general.

If the dissident movement could finally understand the mechanisms used against it for this purpose (and why they are so effective) it will hopefully not fall into similar traps in the future.

As this particular scam has been so cleverly designed and as it is currently occupying what should be a key position within our general defensive manoeuvres against the system- i.e. the position of defending our fundamental rights by constructing a coherent philosophy of law as well as understanding the system’s true nature and function - I believe that it cannot be allowed to continue unopposed.

I aim to show how what is usually referred to, in dissident circles as ‘common law’ is not only a completely different thing to the solid tradition of actual Anglo-Saxon common law, but is also incoherent and unverifiable as far as most of its unique claims go as well. I hope that by writing this essay, I will enable those who are sincere about reclaiming what should be their inherent rights and defending those of others to do so from a far better position.

Finally I must say that I am not a lawyer and don’t have any legal training- although I actually agree with the ‘common law’ gurus that you shouldn’t have to be in order to form an opinion on the subject. I am, however, in favour of the ancient principles of the historical common law in general and am also in favour of the rediscovery and application of what is usually referred to as ‘natural law’ – i.e. an inherently morally sound way of resolving disputes and acting in general.

My primary interest, however, is in finding solutions for the dissident movement as a whole. But, as this particular issue seems to be diverting so much energy away from important tasks and ideas - as well as causing people to grow seriously complacent regarding the system they are actually opposing - I have decided to spend some time explaining why I think that the ideology which calls itself ‘common law’ is a dead-end for our movement in general as well as for the various individuals within it.

Given the wide scope of the claims being made by those defending it (and the fact that most of the ‘gurus’ I have come across make a whole range of different claims regarding it) as well as the lack of sources available to check most of its foundational theories against, I have researched the subject to the best of my ability - I welcome any criticism in the comments and will do my best to follow up on it.

What is Common Law

Although this is actually a far more difficult question to answer than it perhaps should be, this is the question which I feel must be addressed first. It is the initial misunderstanding which, I think, confuses and misleads most people who try to look into the subject and also enables individuals who are pushing an otherwise quite bizarre and (as far as I can tell largely baseless) philosophy to hide behind the cover of a genuine, historical tradition of freedom and liberty in order to do so.

Effectively there are two, almost, entirely different, definitions being used when the phrase is used.

In fact this is the key to most of the effective deceptions/diversions in which, I believe, both the State and the powerful Corporate interests that lie behind it are involved - the old technique of bait and switch. So, before we continue, let’s see how this approach is generally implemented...

Side-note: How Movements are Co-opted

For instance, let’s look at another example of state co-option of an otherwise reasonable and even vital cause - the environmental movement.

Starting from a quite self-evident position - that we need to, at the very least, protect and safeguard the underlying physical ‘resource’ which provide us all with everything that is necessary for life and happiness on Earth - the movement has gradually morphed into a combination between a radical anti-human cult, an arm of the anti-family, anti-Western ‘social justice’ movement and a sophisticated begging operation on behalf of the very international elite whose corporations and financial concerns caused the environmental crisis in the first place!

We can ‘reverse engineer’ the process by which such a movement - which originally threatened many of the core interests of those who currently govern the world - is first captured and then neutered and/or turned against itself. (Of course, in the case of ‘common law’, this is largely speculation. But we do know that many similar movements - animal rights, anti corporate anarchism, nationalism, the anti nuclear movement, the anti Vietnam war movement etc. - were infiltrated and misdirected in precisely this fashion.)

Firstly, the system seeks to understand the core issues that motivate the target movement’s followers. It then infiltrates its own agents into the target movement or recruits informants from amongst compromised individuals within it. These subversive elements at first echo and amplify the concerns of the movement’s followers - in many cases even going further and using more radical language than the original ‘leaders’ and ideologues of the movement were able to, as the subversives are protected from any potential consequences of doing so by their secret association with the State.

After establishing themselves in various positions of authority, they then direct the group’s attention away from its original core purpose towards various less and less relevant and productive side-issues: causing the movement to lose its direction and wasting its members’ energy and focus on essentially irrelevant or even damaging activities.

Once all the genuine followers and original leaders within the movement have been effectively side-lined and its activities have been completely redirected into channels that pose no risk to the State or any of its fundamental interests, it can then either be gradually ‘wound down’ and ultimately retired or, alternatively, assimilated into the amorphous blob of safe and sanitised ‘protest movements’ which have already been hijacked in this fashion.

These ‘zombie movements’ and ideologies - most of which were once genuine, radical threats to the System – have subsequently been thoroughly infiltrated and turned against themselves, to the point where they now actually promote the globalists’ core policies under the guise of opposing them on some meaningless and irrelevant side-issue (pushing for open-borders under the guise of ‘anti-capitalism’ for instance).

This leads to the sort of bizarre situation in which a person who originally wanted to sign a petition against a damaging new housing development, oppose the sale of arms for illegal foreign wars, or go on a local march to raise awareness of the damage plastic waste is doing to the environment eventually finds themselves marching side-by-side with black supremacist groups or advocating for access to gender ‘reassignment’ without realising that the movement they signed up for has been effectively infiltrated, sabotaged and repurposed into a covert instrument of the very power structure that they originally wished to stand up against, on however modest a level.

At the same time, primitive and powerful mechanisms of psychological self-preservation soon start to kick in amongst those who have invested significant time, energy and personal credibility in the cause and who still remain within it as loyal ‘followers’, even as it seems to have become increasingly embroiled in mysterious internal conflicts and engages in less and less meaningful and effective real-world action or productive activity by the day.

At first, some of the behaviour of the ‘new’ leaders might have caused a degree of cognitive dissonance amongst the movement’s followers in general (and many will eventually decide to leave altogether as a result of their inexplicable activities and behaviour - achieving another major objective of the State). The majority, however, would usually rather suppress this feeling instead of finding themselves ostracised from the cause to which they have devoted so much time and energy and bereft of the social circle it has created for them.

These remaining followers begin to actively resent those who continue to question the new direction the movement seems, unaccountably, to be moving in - who are increasingly accused of wanting to simply stir up trouble for the sake of it. Often, such troublesome people are even accused of being infiltrators themselves, at this stage, as they are increasingly deprived of any influence or ability to question the movement’s direction by the co-ordinated action of the various State agents who have been infiltrated into it.

To those who are unaware of the possibility of such coordinated subversion or refuse to believe in it, however, the few individuals who continue to question the new leadership's motivations increasingly appear to simply ‘want to complain’ and ‘cause division’ all the time (an accusation which the agents and their many dupes are keen to level at anyone who tries to challenge their approach or question their motivation in any way).

At last, what originally represented a credible ‘threat’ to one of the corporatist state’s vital interests - a coherent movement which could have linked up with other similar movements that genuinely opposed the system in order to form a potentially deadly challenge to its overall authority and power - has been turned into nothing more than a pointless social club, if not an actual recruiting ground used to provide fresh activists to promote the global ideology of the elite itself. Meanwhile, those who still spend their time and energy upon this hollowed-out shell of a once vital and genuine movement somehow manage to convince themselves that their original, doubtlessly pure, motivations have never changed at all.

The use of this ‘bait and switch’ tactic in the case of ‘common law’ is quite obvious. But, before we get further into this, let me explain what I mean by common law as opposed to what the current crop of ‘common law’ gurus are generally referring to when they use the term.

What is Common Law (cont’d)

The common law refers and has referred, for hundreds of years, to the body of customary, presumably unwritten, law originating amongst the Saxon tribes who invaded and occupied the British Isles during the period from the fifth to the seventh centuries A.D following the collapse of Roman rule in the land.

This body of traditional customs and ‘rules’ governing crime and punishment, the rights of the accused and the accuser, land ownership and many other things besides, soon became widespread amongst the Anglo-Saxon people as a whole and was subsequently held by them to have been practised, for all intents and purposes, as their most primitive law (from ‘time immemorial’ in the traditional phraseology.) For this reason, it subsequently came to be viewed as the ‘highest’ law which should take precedence over any new innovations as it was so widely used and accepted, had been practised for so long a time and generally acted as as a guarantor (supposedly) of the people’s most basic and fundamental of rights.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a favourite source amongst many ‘common law’ gurus, common law can thus be defined as:

“ the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security [rights] of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgements and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.”

Although this might seem a bit confusing at first, it essentially just means that what is often referred to as common law is usually a mere formal restatement (in a charter for example) of supposedly ancient and inalienable rights and customs - as opposed to statute law which can be ‘created’ and imposed according to the whims of the current ruling powers.

This ultimately stems from the fact that, following the Battle of Hastings in 1066, the Anglo-Saxon monarchy of England, which had governed the nation for hundreds of years through what were, essentially, Germanic tribal customs, with a thin overlay of Christianity on top, was replaced by a foreign (Norman French) ruling class which relied upon an entirely different conception and body of law in its dealings with the now subjugated Anglo-Saxon (and Celtic) peoples.

Due to the friction and unease this caused, the new ruling class was repeatedly forced to affirm that it would respect how ‘things had always been done’ as far as the rights and liberties of the subject population and, in particular, the wealthier local landowners were concerned: doing so in a variety of formal documents that essentially ‘reaffirmed’ the ancient rights which people in England had, supposedly, been accustomed to live under for further back than living memory or written records stretched.

Things such as Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus can thus be considered a part of common law, as they belong to a body of documents, writs and judicial principles that affirmed and asserted the traditional rights of the English people and limited the ability of the central government, or anybody else, to infringe upon them.

Although the corrupt, freemasonic/financial interests who seem to have governed England (and most of the world) for many centuries now have gradually managed to severely curtail many of these ancient rights, some of them nonetheless remain, theoretically, active and thus represent a potential threat to the system if enough people rediscover them and rally around their defence.¹

However, when ‘common law’ advocates talk about their version of common law, it is by no means clear that they are sticking to this relatively concise definition of the term. In fact, in most cases that I have encountered, they are definitely not referring primarily or exclusively to Anglo-Saxon customary law; but instead are building an entire superstructure of conjecture and esoteric teaching on top of this relatively clear and simple historical foundation.

This divergence of definition is behind a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding which surround the concept in general - and this can easily lead to unnecessary conflicts: as some people who are arguing we should use our actual historical common law rights to mount a resistance to State overreach (a stance with which I broadly agree) can end up defending ‘common law’ ideology in general without realising that the two are, in fact, entirely different and fundamentally unrelated things.

Throughout this essay, I will refer to my understanding of common law by using the phrase itself without inverted commas whilst I will refer to the constellation of beliefs which encompasses the world-view of the average ‘common law’ guru - such as admiralty law supremacy, strawman theory, esoteric wordplay etc. (including some aspects of historical common law as well) -as ‘common law’ in inverted commas.

History of ‘Common Law’ ideology

Right from the beginning, we find confusion and uncertainty if we try to trace the roots of the ideology that now goes by the name ‘common law’ in Britain and other Anglosphere countries.

Some see the origins of modern ‘common law’ ideology in the efforts of Canadian Social Credit² activists who gained political power in the province of Alberta in the late 1930s and subsequently sought to argue that they should have the sovereign right to issue credit, in part by making reference to concepts derived from historical Anglo-Saxon common law.

Others see its basis in various independently-minded American groups who gained increasing prominence in the latter part of the 20th century and who sought to argue that the Constitution gave them the right to opt out of a wide range of payments and obligations and that income tax was inherently illegitimate (two positions with which I do not necessarily disagree).

What seems clear, however, is that the ideology which, in Britain and other Commonwealth countries, is usually associated with common law originally had a range of different sources onto which different overarching ‘labels’ have been artificially grafted, according to the traditions and history of the country into which the ideology has been imported (for example in the Republic of Ireland the adherents of this ideology refer to supposed ancient Druidic Law instead of Anglo-Saxon common law traditions in order to legitimise their arguments).

As most of the ‘common law’ gurus themselves do not seem to agree upon a clear timeline or history of their ideology - at least as far as I have been able to to tell - it is quite difficult to establish an authoritative lineage for the movement as a whole. Nonetheless, the core of the ideas which currently underpin the ideology do, originally, seem to have largely come from Commonwealth countries in the post-war period.

I would tentatively agree with the overall consensus that the two main epicentres of the original ideology which turned into the current ‘common law’ movement - prior to the 2008 financial crisis - do indeed seem to have been Canada and America.

Between these two locales (and later on Great Britain and Australia as well) a range of core beliefs seem to have gradually developed and crystallised into what has now become ‘common law’ ideology, amongst which we could mention: strawman theory, sovereign citizen ideas, the surreptitious replacement of common law by admiralty law etc.

What can also be said is that ‘common law’ ideas have tended to flourish in radical, anti-system milieus at times when an unusually large number of people were beginning to come to the realisation that they were being governed by a corrupt, criminal financial cartel and were starting to understand the specific mechanisms by which a small, pathological minority is able to rule over millions of other human beings almost unopposed.

Aside from the constitutionalist groups in the US, ‘common law’ ideas seem to have, historically, become particularly prevalent within two otherwise quite different groupings - the ‘right wing’ Social Credit movement and the ‘left wing’ anti-globalist/anarchist movement that came to particular prominence following the 2008 financial crises – this fact is probably not coincidental, as I will explain later.

In whatever circumstances ‘common law’ beliefs have risen, however, they have always tended to cluster around a set of core ideas which have been gradually added to, and expanded as time has passed and as ‘common law’ ideology has been introduced into more countries and legal jurisdictions.

Nonetheless, a lot of the current arguments used by those advocating what they refer to as ‘common law’ are little more than a simple re-hash of earlier teachings which originally arose in the United States and Canada. Perhaps the most important of these teachings is the strawman theory which states that, at birth, we are separated into two distinct entities, a natural person (i.e. our flesh and blood/spiritual being) and a ‘legal fiction’, always represented in capital letters, which gives the system the ability to extract value from us and violate our inherent rights as long as we ‘consent’ to this treatment by recognising the artificial fiction as our true selves.

Alongside strawman theory, a wide range of other ideas and ‘tactics’ have gradually entered into the ‘common law’ lexicon over time from a range of different sources as well - the use of ‘promissory notes’ drawn up by individuals on the spot to settle payments, the significance of signing documents in various colours of ink, the use of unusual titles in official correspondence - and so forth.

Besides this, there is also an esoteric linguistic aspect that underlies many ‘common law’ approaches which, as far as I can tell, stems primarily from work of the American researcher Jordan Maxwell.

This linguistic theory states that many of the seemingly unusual terms used in the legal world are in fact indications of their origin in a system of word-magic revolving around water (for example the ‘dock’ or ‘docket’ in a courtroom, the fact that a magistrate is referred to as ‘your worSHIP’ etc.). This often crosses over into the financial realm as well (‘banks’, ‘currency’, ‘liquidity’ etc.) and is supposedly related to the fact that admiralty law has, surreptitiously, replaced ‘common’/natural law across the world.

So, essentially, we have a belief system that is formed out of range of different ideas, stemming - again as far as I can tell - in part from actual traditional common law (Habeus Corpus, the right to jury trial etc.) and in part from American/Canadian ideas about a ‘Strawman’ entity, alongside a range of esoteric linguistic teachings and a whole host of other miscellaneous legal and historical ideas as well.

I will now attempt to give a brief description of a ‘standard’ set of such ‘common law’ beliefs. I realise that this would usually be a highly dishonest approach to critiquing any argument. However, as almost al of the ‘common law’ gurus I have come across seem to have picked from out of a wide range of possible beliefs and theories and often added their own as well, with no apparent underlying principle or methodology behind their choice, it is unfortunately impossible to pick any one individual teacher or ‘guru’ as truly representative of the rest. Bear in mind, then, that this is merely a composite version of various different ‘common law’ beliefs and that most followers of ‘common law’ do not necessarily ascribe to all of these beliefs or even most of them. I hope that, in spite of this, the following list at least gives a general idea of what seems to be the standard world-view within such circles nowadays:

‘Common Law’ Beliefs

We are all born with inherent, inalienable rights.

The Universe operates according to laws on every level.

The ‘powers that be’ know these laws but have sought to hide them from the rest of us.

The primary way they do this is through the manipulation of language and the creation of various ‘contracts’.

Most law systems, dating back to ancient times, have been created by the ‘secret rulers’ to aid their deception, management and enslavement of the rest of us.

Common law is the system of traditional ‘rights based’ law that arose in Anglo-Saxon England and was later adopted by the Normans. Once Britain became a worldwide empire, she then spread this traditional system of law out into many of her colonies.

AND/OR

Common law is to a large degree based on/synonymous with natural law and the correct use and understanding of language/contracts.

Nothing is valid if it is not consensual/contractual.

From around the 18th century, the controllers began to replace common law and similar traditional systems of law across the world with ‘admiralty law’ - in many colonies and ex-colonies this was done surreptitiously so as to make the subject peoples think they were still free (as well as independent, in the case of America).

This is why many nautical terms have entered into the legal and financial worlds.

We must consent to be governed otherwise we cannot be subjected to the illegitimate powers who currently run the world.

In order to get around this, the ruling elites have tricked us to enter into various contracts with them without realising we are doing so.

The most fundamental of such contracts are entered into by the use of seemingly innocuous documents (birth certificates, passports, drivers licenses etc.) - whose actual purpose is to convince us to identify ourselves with our ‘strawman’ legal-fiction.

The state separates us, at the point where our birth is registered, into two distinct entities - the ‘natural person’ which continues to enjoy all of a human being’s inherent rights and the ‘strawman’ legal fiction which doesn’t.

Whenever we write our name in all capitals or acknowledge and engage with official correspondence using the same – or make use of a variety of ‘official’ documents belonging to our ‘strawman’ – we are effectively putting ourselves under the power of the admiralty law system by identifying ourselves with the strawman pseudo-identity it has granted us at birth.

There are various ways to nullify this false ‘strawman’ identity and reclaim our natural one (doing this may also allow us to gain access to considerable funds which have been deposited in a national bank account under our ‘strawman’ name as a result of the government’s trading upon the basis of this artificial identity).

The system is powerless against the ‘correct’ use of ‘common law’(it is like a magic spell effectively) and, if you know exactly what you are doing, you can effectively nullify all of your ‘contracts’ with it and return to your status as a freeman/woman, permanently liberated from their power and control.

All of the current ruling power structures are almost exclusively maintained using trickery and falsely gained ‘consent’ - via their admiralty law system and word-magic - rather than by relying primarily upon force, money and propaganda to achieve their aims.

~

I do not wish to appear contemptuous or condescending in any way in my description of this general world-view. In fact, I strongly agree with many of the points made - and, in many respects, this world-view is far closer to what I think the truth is than the world-view which is held by the majority of the population. Nonetheless, I believe that certain of its key presumptions are either false or extremely dubious and that is the genius of it: by attaching fundamental truths to meaningless gibberish it ensures its adherents can never make use of these truths as they have become inextricably linked to attitudes and approaches that are doomed to failure.

Also note how the historical common law plays a relatively limited role in the typical ‘common law’ constellation of beliefs described above, which is actually far more centred around beliefs concerning ‘admiralty law’, the ‘strawman’ legal fiction and various forms of esoteric wordplay.

Finally, it is worth reiterating that most ‘common law’ practitioners and gurus do not necessarily explicitly state that they adhere to most of the above beliefs but, instead, tend to pick and choose from amongst them as they see fit. Of course, a major advantage of this lack of a clearly defined and stated position is that any individual adherent of ‘common law’ can simply dismiss your critique of the ideology as a whole if you happen to leave out just one of their PERSONAL beliefs or mention something which their particular flavour of ‘common law’ ideology happens to regard as incorrect.

How this applies to our current situation

Having examined both the actual, historical Anglo-Saxon common law and the ideology which in Britain and elsewhere has tended to present itself under its name, a brief explanation of why this is even relevant to the contemporary dissident movement is now necessary: given the dire situation we currently find ourselves in and the many other things that we should be devoting our time and energy to.

I have already alluded to the fact that these kind of ‘common law’ approaches and theories have tended to spring up in situations where a large number of people have suddenly become radically disaffected with the system and open-minded to looking into its true nature and ways in which it can be effectively opposed and dismantled.

The last two years have, therefore, proved fertile ground for ‘common law’ gurus and their teachings.

Whilst, initially, the opposition to the ‘covid’ power-grab centred more around solid anti-State, pro-freedom ideologies, I have noticed the influence of ’common law’ ideology starting to increasingly gain ground, not only within the wider dissident movement as a whole, but equally, if not more so, as an integral part of local and even individual approaches to dealing with the system and its agencies.

As the cost of living crisis continues to worsen, I expect this trend to continue, both because the State will become increasingly desperate to divert people away from potentially effective strategies of opposition into various esoteric dead-ends and also because the many ‘common law’ gurus already operating will find that there is a growing market for their, apparently ‘quick fix’ solutions: as people struggle to provide for themselves and their families and grow increasingly desperate and fearful in the face of naked State power and tyranny.

Since the beginning of the current crisis, certain ‘common law’ gurus - many of whom first who became influential in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis - seem to have re-emerged and resumed their teaching activities again. Typically their approach seems to have, at first, been to simply run workshops and seminars that deal more generally with the deteriorating financial and legal situation and the growing government tyranny ushered in under the guise of ‘covid’ restrictions, without alluding too much to ‘common law’ ideas at all.

However, before long, some version of the standard ‘common law’ ideology is introduced into their teaching (e.g. strawman/admiralty/esoteric wordplay) and this element increasingly takes center stage - gradually displacing more practical concerns until it becomes virtually the sole focus again.

This also applies, more generally, to the transformation that has occurred amongst local and regional groups which have formed to oppose the State’s covid coup and to challenge its power more generally: here ‘common law’ ideas also initially appear as just one ‘alternative’ approach offered amongst many. However, gradually and almost imperceptibly, they are then made into a key part of the group’s unofficial ‘ideology’ and ‘common law’ becomes the main theory driving all of their activities.

This is accepted by many well-meaning, intelligent people because it is being deliberately mixed up, in my view, with two other, quite different, phenomena.

Firstly, there is the quite legitimate - and in fact crucial - demand to safeguard some of our most important rights: rights which the system is currently in the process of abolishing and which, in many cases, clearly fall under the category of ancient common law rights (the right to jury trial for instance).

This sounds reasonable to many people (and of course it is) and so they decide they ought to adhere to one of the so-called ‘common law’ ideologies which are being presented to them as a solution, not realising that these theories are go far beyond a simple defence of traditional British rights and liberties and come with a vast amount of esoteric ‘baggage’ and unverifiable claims attached to them as well.

The other phenomenon which tends to make dissidents more sympathetic to ‘common law’ philosophies is the increasingly widespread movement urging people to refuse payment of various taxes or fines, either because they are illegitimate in and of themselves, or because the system as a whole is perceived to lack the moral authority to impose any taxes in general (both of which positions I tend to agree with).

‘Common law’ adherents often agree with this principle but, in addition, also claim that they can provide a foolproof method to successfully refuse these payments by making use of various elements of their theory (strawman, promissory notes etc.) which, of course, is a more attractive proposition to many than making what would be a purely moral stand against corrupt, illegitimate and fundamentally lawless authorities which, by contrast, might actually result in genuine financial and/or legal repercussions if it fails.

In general, where the ‘common law’ people seem to come in and muddy the waters is by first suggesting that their theory is common law and secondly by claiming (or at least heavily implying) that a proper understanding of its operation will enable individuals to fight the system on every level (from their local council right up to the national government) without incurring the risks you might expect at the hands of a State which has shown itself to be utterly lawless and without scruple when it comes to defending its own interests and agendas.

This is obviously an attractive proposition to people who want to defend their rights and the rights of their families and, as ‘common law gurus’ almost always mix their theories with genuine, undeniable facts (the government is a corrupt criminal cartel, the banking system is set up to impoverish the majority, the judicial system is an instrument of power etc.) it is easy to see why many people fall into their trap.

Admittedly, I personally cannot decisively state which of their many claims are actually true or false as they make so many and with so little solid evidence or reasoning that it would be a full time job to properly and comprehensively investigate even just a few of them.

However in some cases (such as non-payment of utility bills), I suspect that what is actually happening is that ‘common law’ gurus are exploiting inherent weaknesses within the system itself and then claiming that it is their esoteric legal knowledge which has enabled them to succeed rather than their followers’ simple willingness to hold their ground against authority. At the same time, the ‘common law’ movement, in general, studiously ignores any failures to succeed with these tactics and demonises or ostracises those who have the temerity to ask questions concerning them.

In the above case, however, it may simply be that it is not worth it for the utility companies to spend ever increasing amounts of money to recover a debt that someone is absolutely determined not to pay - so long as only a few people adopt this course of action. However, it is notable that it is only in such relatively unimportant cases that we have any real ‘evidence’ of ‘common law’ approaches succeeding at all- whilst claims that they can also be used to arrest police officers, put the government on notice, or even drive one’s car without a licence seem somehow to never come to fruition…

Regardless, I myself have seen how people who chose to pursue these courses of action with the understanding that their ‘common law’ knowledge alone would protect them from any possible financial or legal repercussions are not only abandoned but also demonised by the ‘truth’ community if/when this fails - the excuse generally being that they did not go far enough!

This ultimately leaves only two groups - those who have tried ‘common law’ for themselves, found that it doesn’t work and promptly been ostracised if they dared to ask any questions about this; and those who have been temporarily ‘successful’ using it - or, more probably, ‘successful’ for an entirely different reason - and are still firmly committed to the ideology.

Why is it so attractive?

Given the fact that a much simpler explanation for our current predicament is available - .i.e. that a corrupt financial oligarchy has seized control of our nations and is attempting to gradually enslave us all- as well as the obscure nature of much of the ‘common law’ material, it might be worth asking why it nonetheless periodically pops up during times of crisis and why it continues to enjoy such a wide appeal within dissident circles, in spite of its obvious lack of success (beyond the possibility that certain interests are making it popular, of course).

First off, it should be noted that many ‘common law’ gurus spend a significant amount of their time in seminars teaching people how to avoid various forms of taxes and refuse different payments and registrations (whether or not such things are legitimate in the first place is another matter). Whilst I agree that dissidents must work to secure their economic position and disentangle themselves from the system as much as possible before they can be truly effective, it is nonetheless easy to see how this is a good way to attract people in countries such as Britain where the tax burden is so heavy and rising inflation is making it increasingly impossible for people to make ends meet and provide for their families.

Alongside this, the underlying esoteric philosophy behind ‘common law’ (which is never or rarely actually stated by the gurus who represent it) is undeniably based on many things which do seem to be general truths. For instance, the idea that the elite follow a secret, esoteric religion which they hide from the rest of us (freemasonry/kabbalah etc.), the idea that our consent is largely due to trickery (‘democracy’) and even, in a more general sense the understanding that this is facilitated by various barely-noticed ‘contracts’ which we sign with the system by engaging with it throughout our lives (voting, paying taxes, ideologically supporting its agents etc.).

Coupled with the fact that most ‘common law’ gurus make sure to mix a heavy dose of undeniable truth in amongst their wilder claims (for instance by highlighting the insidious nature of fractional reserve banking or the importance of true, historical common law) it is completely understandable that their teachings instinctively ‘resonate’ with many people who are already seeking truth. A further benefit is that the ‘common law’ gurus often present what seems like a ‘complete’ version of truth/reality to their followers, whilst simultaneously offering a supposed solution to all the problems that confront us, a solution that is - relatively - simple and risk free.

In addition to this, ‘common law’ theories often also incorporate a heavy dose of natural law thinking into their teachings, although without explaining that natural law, as traditionally understood, is something that can be violated by the powers that be and is merely a statement of what is inherently ‘just’ (i.e. murder, theft and fraud are intrinsically ‘wrong’ whether or not the authorities recognise/prosecute them as such and we have an inherent right to defend ourselves against them whether or not we are still ‘legally’ punished for doing so). Thus not only is ‘common law’ based on many things that ARE true but it also appeals to many things that SHOULD be true.

‘Common law’ has also been fortunate in primarily attracting critics who are obviously self-interested, unsympathetic and biased to begin with.

When you search for any sources that are critical of ‘common law’, you soon find that the vast majority, if not virtually all of them, are written from an unabashedly pro-system standpoint. This understandably tends to drive those who are starting to doubt many of the ‘common law’ ideology’s claims straight back into the ranks of its adherents - after all, if the only people who can be found questioning the approach are literal judges and academics paid by the same system that the ‘common law’ gurus claim to be opposing, then there is probably something to what they are saying after all.

Finally, I believe that the ideology is attractive because, on some level, it is psychologically comforting - or at least a lot more comforting than realising we are effectively run by a criminal cartel that obeys no laws when it is threatened - not even its own - and will resist us with everything it has before it allows us to regain even a fraction of what has been stolen from us and from humanity as a whole.

The motives of most who decide to take the ‘common law’ approach are undoubtedly good, at least in the beginning. Their original impulse is right - just like the impulse of the environmentalist who wants to take care of our most precious natural resources or the new-ager who feels there is more to existence than the shallow materialism offered by mainstream society.

But just as in both of those cases they have, in fact, been misdirected into a pre-packaged ‘sub culture’ which is just as conformist as the wider society which they originally rejected, if not even more so. What’s more, the new sub-culture into which they have so eagerly rushed also deliberately encourages them to engage in behaviour that is designed to pose no risk whatsoever to the forces who have created the very problems which caused their alienation in the first place.

The problem lies in people not being honest with their motivations. At first their motives were pure, of course: the desire for truth and justice and the feeling that the world as it was needed to be changed on a fundamental level. But with that desire came struggles and difficulties, relationships were lost, life became far more difficult on many levels and, above all, a major psychological stress was introduced in the form of feeling yourself alone in a despised and ridiculed minority.

Yet, as with all such dead-end sub-cultures, ‘common law’ knows how to offer a solution to all of these problems to those who uncritically adopt it.

From being alone and ostracised its followers find a new community; their cognitive dissonance and stress is replaced with an unshakeable conviction that they have found ‘the truth’; and instead of being faced with the frightening prospect of struggling against a technocratic dictatorship with a virtual monopoly on violence and complete control of the courts, they are granted the secret words and procedures that will allow them to slip away from their hands without any real or meaningful struggle. Before they know it, however, they are back inside another cosy echo chamber, safely diverted down paths that lead nowhere of any significance and the system itself continues on, effectively unopposed as before…

Stay tuned for part two in which I will look further into the underlying mindset/philosophy which the ‘common law’ ideology appeals to and why this is certain to render us politically impotent if it is not urgently challenged and exposed by the wider dissident movement. If you have any comments about what I have written I would love to hear from you, ESPECIALLY if you disagree or can provide me with information/arguments which rebut what I have said or support the validity of ‘common law’ philosophy!

1. 1.Another, arguably somewhat related concept, is natural law - a concept most comprehensively explored in Medieval Catholic Theology where it was posited that, alongside the ‘divine law’ revealed to the faithful, there must be a ‘law’ which is innate to humanity in general and which is inherently legitimate as it represents innate, natural morality - although they held it to be less complete and perfect than the higher ‘law’ imparted by divine inspiration. This idea was later taken up by various Deists and Freemasons who argued that this law, which they tended to call ‘the law of Reason’, was sufficient to replace the more traditional, religiously-based systems which they opposed. However, in reality, whenever they managed to gain power the latter simply imposed a new tyranny of their own devising instead. ‘Common law’ adherents often speak of natural law as if it is synonymous with their version of common law, confusing everything even further...

2. 2. Not to be confused with the Chinese Social Credit system which is a system for surveillance and control of the population and awarding them ‘credits’ in reward for their perceived good behaviour and docking ‘credits’ the same for bad behaviour – leading, eventually, to citizens being unable to travel, shop or engage in a wide-range of other daily activities if their score falls too low. The original Social Credit movement, on the other hand, was the work of an Englishman, Major Clifford Douglas, which essentially sought to extricate mankind from what he rightly saw as the deadly trap of usury which would allow humanity to at last enjoy the fruits of their collective labours in peace, culture and collective prosperity.