The "Common Law" Cult - Part Two

Why is it attracting so many and what is the alternative?

In part one, I examined what appear to be the ‘common law’ movement’s essential beliefs, how these differ from historical Anglo-Saxon common law traditions and why this tendency is potentially so damaging for the dissident movement in general. In this part, I will try to explain the underlying philosophy that lies behind both ‘common law’ and so many other failed approaches to dealing with our current predicament. I will also look at the general political approach and philosophy that ‘common law’ and many other ‘alternative’ approaches seem determined to divert us away from. Hopefully this might, in turn, point us in the direction we should actually be moving if we want to successfully resurrect our liberties, regain our prosperity and culture and move forwards into a better world for us all!

Why is ‘common law’ so difficult to refute?

Firstly I want to briefly re-examine how the ‘common law’ ideology is woven together out of a wide range of disparate and often misinterpreted sources that are presented as if they form one coherent whole - as this is perhaps the main reason it is so insidious and so effective.

In writing the first part of this essay, I realised just how clever whoever designed or assembled the modern ‘common law’ ideology really was, as I attempted to disentangle the confused mass of ‘evidence’ that was presented to support it - ‘evidence’ which, to make matters worse, varied considerably from teacher to teacher.

Although I had some inkling of how large the ground ‘common law’ covered was, it wasn’t until I attempted to list its various elements somewhat comprehensively that I realised how vast and wide-ranging were the claims being made by most of its adherents - as well as how vaguely these claims were generally articulated and substantiated by those making them.

Like most other people, I don’t have time to investigate any of these claims in the detail they really deserve and this of course greatly benefits the ‘common law’ theorists, as it means that most people must accept the majority of what they are saying ‘on trust’ – especially if it is not easy to verify or is presented alongside certain solid and undeniable truths.

What I – and most others - do have time to do, however, is to understand the basic scam of fractional reserve banking and how a handful of major financial institutions govern the world through a variety of ‘front’ corporations and corrupt governments. From the system’s point of view this would be extremely dangerous – as it would expose the core fraud that underlies all the rest of its operations - and this is precisely the danger that I believe ‘common law’ ideology was artificially boosted in order to neutralise.

Interestingly, many of the ‘common law’ documents written around the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis do specifically mention the fractional reserve scam, even though this, ostensibly, has nothing to do with the rest of their theory and despite the fact that they do not generally make much of a coherent attempt to otherwise tie the two things together either.

Take, for instance, this general primer which sets forth the ideology of the ‘freeman’ movement in Ireland and which seems fairly representative of the beliefs of the movement as a whole. I was surprised, at first, to find that a good portion of the very beginning of this document is spent discussing the mechanism of fractional reserve banking before launching into entirely unrelated matters such as ‘strawman’ theory and how not to ‘contract’ with the authorities.

Similarly the prominent ‘common law’ documentary – called “Freeman: the nature of the cage” (available on YouTube) - which appears to be fairly representative of the U.K. movement, spends a good chunk of its total running time discussing the fractional reserve banking scam – again giving the most important place at the very beginning to something that isn’t obviously related in any way to any of the typical ‘common law’ stuff which follows.

On further reflection, it became obvious to me that there were only two reasons why a decent expose of the fractional reserve banking system might have been so prominently and incongruously featured in many of the key documents and media sources of the movement as it existed in the years following the 2008 financial crisis.

It might have been because people were generally interested in the topic at the time – as a result of the mass awakening to the nature of the banks’ rule over society caused by the financial crisis – and so the movement’s leaders wanted to capitalise upon this in order to draw more people to ‘common law’ ideas in general - if that was the case though, then why not try to tie it into the rest of what they were saying in some way?

Or else could it be that the whole purpose of the ‘common law’ ideology in the form it took in the years following 2008 was simply to divert away from far simpler, more effective and actionable ideas about the illegitimate nature of the ruling financial oligarchy and the power of mass civil disobedience and effective political organisation to challenge it?

As ‘common law’ has, coincidentally, popped up once again in the U.K. – just as the movement that arose in opposition to the ‘covid’ lockdowns was beginning to build towards something opposed to the international financial elite more generally - and as it has undoubtedly distracted away from a growing understanding of how the ruling power structure actually operates and how best to fight it, I will leave you to decide which of these two explanations is most likely.

Besides the fact that it is incongruently mixed up with such unrelated concepts as fractional reserve banking, the ‘common law’ ideology is of course extremely slippery for a number of other reasons.

As mentioned in the first part, a major difficulty for those trying to properly investigate the ideology is the fact that their theory mixes a substantial amount of truth with error.

At the same time, many of the ‘gurus’ I have come across rarely state clearly which source or sources they are using in order to advance a particular argument or position.

Even when they do reference some specific source, it is nonetheless often still hard to verify their claims - as the ‘common law’ theorists will usually claim that the source in question doesn’t actually say what it appears to be saying as those writing it are supposedly using some form of secret, occult language or esoteric wordplay in order to conceal their true intentions.

This should be the point where most people ask for evidence of such a claim – beyond the undeniable fact that legal and political documents are generally written in a somewhat obscure fashion and that powerful groups often take advantage of this to conceal hidden aims and interests from the general population, which is true in many cases. But, in the few cases in which those pushing a ‘common law’ interpretation do actually point to specific documents in order to back up their claims it is far from clear that these support their arguments at all.

In general, however, the actual ‘evidence’ for the claims the ‘common law’ theorists are making seems essentially to be this – a miscellaneous series of acts, writs, bills and other legal and historical documents coupled with unsubstantiated claims or interpretations from other ‘common law’ gurus and teachers and the occasional, often admittedly interesting, legal definition they have culled from Black’s Dictionary.

The more that I have studied ‘common law’ ideology, the more I have come to believe that this is actually a deliberate strategy on the part of those who spearhead it - throw Black’s law dictionary, or an obscure medieval Latin document or a papal bull wrapped in copious theological niceties at most people and they will tend to accept that it probably says whatever you are claiming it does, rather than attempting to grapple with the intricacies of the historical context in which it was written or unravel its antiquated, cumbersome terminology for themselves. Therefore, for most people, the ‘proof’ goes no further than the ‘common law’ guru merely citing a genuine historical document as a source – regardless of what this document does or doesn’t actually say.

However, when you examine some of the sources which are alleged to support the ‘common law’ view of the world, it quickly becomes clear that an entirely new understanding of how basic words and concepts are used is needed simply in order to twist them into saying anything like what the ‘common law’ theorists say they do.

Perhaps the best example of this is the so-called Cestui Qui Vie Act of 1666 (link here) –this is frequently produced as evidence that we are all ‘lost at sea’ – a major component of many contemporary ‘common law’ theories as this ‘shipwrecked’ status is what, allegedly, allows the system to steal most of our rights and natural property.

Now there is no reason to think that this act refers to anything other than what it say is does if you actually read it - namely the difficulty caused by individuals who had voyaged overseas and not returned, leaving those to whom they had left property unsure as to whether they were alive or not - an occurrence which must have been quite a common occurrence at the time, given how long and dangerous sea journeys still were and how contentious legal wrangling over inheritances could become.

According to the ‘common law’ theorists, however, this Act is actually stating that we are all henceforth to be considered ‘lost at sea’ and must present evidence that we are not or else the State can claim all of our natural rights and property (I.e. through creating a strawman identity for us). However there is absolutely no indication of this in the Act itself which unambiguously states that it refers to individuals who “remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners” and further states that “in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead,”

Immediately afterwards it adds that “If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested” and provides means for such individuals to recover their property and any income they might have lost due to its being incorrectly occupied by their inheritors. This is all about as clear and reasonable as a legal document could be expected to be and, as far as any reasonable person can tell, it deals with a practical problem and provides simple, practical instructions for dealing with it.

Of course, the ‘common law’ theorists claim that the words of the Act do not bear their more or less literal meaning – instead they argue its authors are using some kind of ‘shadow language’ in which ’ships’ actually refer to natural human beings and ‘lost at sea’ means that these individuals have forfeited their natural rights to the ruling system of Maritime/Admiralty law. When you press them for further proof of any of this, they will usually just point you to some other ‘common law’ theorist - the previously mentioned Jordan Maxwell for example - who will simply state the same thing again without providing any further, solid proof to substantiate the claim aside from, maybe, mentioning the name of the Act again.

But this is a circular argument, not a valid one. Unless the ‘source’ they point you towards can provide you with actual solid evidence to back up the claims they are making, you are merely being led around and around in circles without making any actual progress towards the underlying facts of the matter. It’s a trick which could be played with almost any piece of official legal or historical documentation. For example, you could take a piece of legislation concerning the management of livestock and claim that it is really referring to human beings: after all we are all ‘cattle’ to the elite aren’t we? On this basis any further interpretation you wanted could be given to the document, irrespective of how clear and unambiguous its wording might actually be (admittedly, much legislation is not clearly worded, for a variety of reasons, thus enabling ‘common law’ gurus to claim it is all written in esoteric ‘maritime’ legalese designed to obscure the real underlying agenda which, of course, they alone can interpret for you).

As another example of this technique, I have also seen the famous papal bull Unum Sanctum - which claimed the universal supremacy of the Catholic Church – advanced as evidence that the elite had imposed their ‘strawman’ agenda on us all as early as the 14th century. Of course this is somewhat confusing as, if this was really the case and the church had already ‘captured’ everyone via their use of esoteric wordplay, then there surely would have been no need for the Protestant King James to do the same thing using disputes about shipwrecked persons as a pretext over three centuries later!

As with the Shipping Act of Cestui Qui Vie, however, I believe that a fair reading of the document, along with some basic understanding of its historical context, will lead most people to conclude that it deals with exactly what it is generally agreed to: namely the claim by the papacy to have dominion over all living creation as part of an ongoing political battle between Rome and the temporal powers of Europe. I urge you to go and read it for yourself and decide whether or not it says anything that is even vaguely reminiscent of ‘common law’ ideology (of course many ‘common law’ adherents will simply claim that this interpretation of the Bull was only one theorist’s opinion and not representative of every ‘common law’ theory as a whole – but that is, essentially true for all the claims made within this highly individualistic and amorphous movement!)

I must reiterate that I am not simply dismissing any appeal to esoteric language or double-meaning out of hand. In fact it is clear that the elite do seem to use copious amounts of such ‘shadow language’ in many of their most important pieces of propaganda and ritual (in freemasonry, for instance).¹ But this doesn’t mean that this is therefore also the case in the documents which the ‘common law’ supporters have picked in order to support their predetermined and largely baseless ideas! To show you that I do believe this is sometimes a legitimate way of analysing things, however, I will give you a concrete and highly topical example of where the wider circumstances surrounding specific use of language could be - and is - used as a legitimate argument for giving the words of powerful people another interpretation than the most obvious and literal one.

During the height of the ‘pandemic’ a number of key politicians and other figures began to simultaneously work the phrase ‘build back better’ into their speeches and slogans.

Many dissident researchers felt that this was significant and ultimately traced it back to the World Economic Forum, being the slogan under which they were advancing their ‘Great Reset’ agenda to transform society into a technocratic, centrally controlled, ‘social credit’ state as a response to the manufactured and hysterical ‘covid’ crisis.

However this kind of straightforward examination is not what ‘common law’ theorists are doing at all when they ‘analyse’ the language used in historical legal documents, although on the surface it often appears to be. What they are actually doing is, instead, to find something that can be twisted to support one or more of their pre-existing ideas and then simply state that it does so for a fact. When pushed further they will either cite their own books or those of another ‘common law theorist’, or else refer to a particular edition of Black’s Law Dictionary or some obscure ancient document, hoping you will get so bogged down in legal Latin, papal dogma or sweeping historical narratives that you won’t notice that the actual document cited - in the vast majority of cases – simply doesn’t support what they are saying at all!

The Political Importance of the ‘Common law’ cult

I have already explained why I think that ‘common law’ theory is damaging to the long-term success of the dissident movement as a whole given that is a wholly ineffective approach based on flawed and unproven theories (see part one for my detailed explanation of why I think this).

But ‘common law’ also has a specific political importance in terms of the ground it occupies, ground which is particularity suited to defence against the technocratic control system whose rise we are all opposing.

The current system is predicated upon financial usury, corporate power and state violence and subversion above all else - therefore any ideology which presents a clear understanding of these things (even if it leaves out many other aspects of reality in the process) is always going to pose a serious threat to those who currently govern the world.

It struck me, when researching this subject that there two particular places where ‘common law’ theories seemed to suddenly pop up and take radical, anti-system movements off in a direction that ultimately led its adherents nowhere - aside from towards wasted political, social and personal potential or, if they were particularly unlucky towards financial and even criminal penalties.

These two historical ‘movements’ were the Occupy movement that arose in response to the 2008 financial crisis (or perhaps in response to the fact that people were beginning to ‘wake up’ as a result and needed to be contained) and the Canadian Social Credit movement of the first half of the Twentieth Century – a movement which actually attained real political power in the province of Alberta.

The one channelled rising discontent with the financial oligarchy following 2008 banking crisis, the other had grown into a substantial populist movement as a result of similar concerns in the previous century and was seeking effective theories and precedents on the basis of which to argue for its ability to unilaterally issue credit within the province of Alberta as well as to prove the illegitimacy of many aspects of the Canadian political system.

On a superficial level these two were, of course, quite different movements.

But, on a slightly closer examination we find they both share one key thing in common...

Is it a coincidence that both of these movements were initially focused intently on the financial scam of modern central banking, achieved through a combination of fiat currency and endless debt creation– the core mechanism by which we are all politically subjugated, without our consent or knowledge, to the will of those who have given themselves the ability to create money out of thin air?

Perhaps it is.

But it is nonetheless true that, in both cases, ‘common law’ ideas took what could have been an effective movement against the ruling financial oligarchy and the corporatist states which they control and directed them down a series of ideological dead-ends - causing them to rapidly lose all of the initial energy and drive they had once possessed until they, ultimately, fizzled out entirely.

This is the political aspect of the ‘common law’ question – it effectively acts as a powerful acid that burns through any coherent world-view which might otherwise be taking shape against the dominant financial oligarchy. Whether or not this is done deliberately, it effectively acts to take the vanguard of those who are awakening to the financial (and political and social) ‘con’ played on all of humanity and directs them down an endless, winding tunnel of legal wordplay and esoteric theory, in which any clarity around general political objectives or the nature of the system that we are facing is quickly lost and endless competing theories and approaches are spawned out of thin air - each more complex and bizarre than the last.

I believe this process is largely a result of the, generally unstated, philosophy, which underpins both ‘common law’ ideology and also various other ineffective, utopian movements in general and in my opinion this is where the true danger of the ideology lies.

The Philosophy behind ‘Common Law’ Ideology

I believe that the real reason ‘common law’ ideas spread so quickly and do so much damage in dissident circles is because of the underlying philosophy behind them.

Simply put, ‘common law’ beliefs allow those who adopt them to feel like they have discovered a ‘hack’ that allows them to side-step directly challenging the system and its minions by, effectively, uttering a series of magic words that will render it impotent.

Of course a far more sophisticated analysis of power is necessary if we are to seriously taken on a global financial cartel that has ruled the world for centuries (if not millennia) through force, fraud and bribery – only transitioning it an apparently more orderly and ‘legal’ system where this is present a more advantageous means by which to siphon off real wealth, land and labour power from the subject population. But such an analysis is scary for many people, as it soon reveals an abyss of lawlessness, violence and corruption which lurks just behind the façade of stability that most people are raised to believe in.

For many people who begin to ‘wake up’ as a result of being exposed to undeniable evidence of government criminality, personal health problems or the intervention of friends or family the process is an uncomfortable one and I believe that this is why they almost immediately start looking about them, unconsciously searching for a saviour to lead them back to a world of sanity or some explanation that puts everything back into some context that they can at least cope with psychologically. At this point they are ripe to being manipulated by the very power structures they supposedly oppose, who can simply manufacture a charismatic ‘leader’ for them to follow or invent an esoteric scenario that channels their energy into essentially harmless activities (think of much of the ‘New Age’ movement, for instance).

The kind of legalistic ‘word magic’ that ‘common law’ exemplifies is a typical response of those who want a ‘revolution without a revolution’ to the words of a famous revolutionary leader² - although it appears to be offering a radical critique of the status quo, it is in fact allowing those who adopt it to shy away from the ugly and difficult reality of power and the hard task of building an effective opposition to it, whilst allowing them to look smugly down on those who do attempt this as poor fools who don’t even realise they have been shipwrecked and saddled with a strawman!

Just think about what the proponents of ‘common law’ are really saying for a second..

Effectively they are stating that the universe operates by certain ‘laws’ which cannot be broken, including by the ruling elite. They therefore have to trick us into consenting to all of their actions in order to wield power over us (if they weren’t stating this then they wouldn’t be able to claim that individuals could remove themselves from their subjection by simply listening to their theories and following a series of steps in order to ‘reclaim their natural identity/remove their strawman’, as the ruling elite could simply ignore these steps and carry on regardless, if they weren’t bound by some higher, esoteric law that forced them to ‘play fair’).³

But how then, do they explain the Yemeni children blown up as a result of a conflict which hey did not ‘contract’ with anyone to enter into, or the millions of innocent civilians killed in wars between various elite factions, or the babies deformed by thalidomide knowingly missold to their parents by medical professionals etc. etc. These are flagrant crimes, committed by ‘agents’ of the system at various levels without seeming to pay any regard to the necessity of obtaining even the minimum of ‘consent’ for their victims beforehand and with no apparent concern for not having done so.

Once again, however, there is a grain of truth to what the ‘common law’ people are saying - so long as you already possess a docile population and sufficient natural resources, it is indeed easier to appear to rule by consent at times - but, just as in the case of the war crimes it so blithely commits, slaughtering hundreds of thousands or even millions, whenever it feels its interests are in danger, the system will obviously toss this pretence of ‘fair play’ out the window completely if it ever chooses to or if it ever feels itself to be seriously threatened in any way.

This makes it not only foolhardy but actually dangerous to attempt to change the current status quo using ‘common law’ alone - as you are effectively deluding yourself about the true nature of the monster you are fighting and exposing yourself to all of its offensive capabilities whilst believing you are secure in the impenetrable armour of ‘common law’.

As part of a movement that is opposed to some of the system’s key objectives, the last thing we need is to harbour delusions regarding its methods of operation and limitations, delusions that make it seem weaker and more reasonable and moral than it actually is!

Yet ‘common law’ seems to always pop up at times when people are finally seeing through the central fraud of the financial oligarchy’s rule and are beginning to understand that it is based on nothing more than force and trickery. Yet far from encouraging them to understand how the system really operates it and fight it effectively, ‘common law’ and similar utopian theories always seem determined to take people away from the ground where we have the advantage -as a genuine mass movement that is willing to obstruct and oppose and outsmart the system - and instead encourages individuals to approach the system on its strongest possible ground.

It encourages its deluded followers to engage the system inside of its own imposing official court rooms with all of their arcane procedure and state-backed authority, persuading them to enter into a battle of meaningless word-spells against highly-trained and skilled practitioners - a battle which they can virtually never win - and then promptly abandons them if they fail.

When combined with a dissident movement that seems to believe writing increasingly stern letters to their corrupt MP’s, signing endless petitions, or being marched like sheep around random parts of London on a weekend is going to seriously threaten a system that is build on centuries of force, fraud and bloodshed, it is easy to see how this ideology can quickly sap the opposition of any drive or focus it might otherwise possess.

It is an unfortunate fact that, within the wider dissident movement, we find individuals with widely varying levels of political understanding and inclination: ranging from tepid, letter writing Lib Dem types to radically anti-state anarchists and disaffected nationalists. Amongst this disparate mass there are many who, simply put, don’t have the stomach for a genuine examination of or struggle with the system and it is understandable that if you have an extremely ‘tolerant’ attitude towards ‘alternative ideas’ within the movement as whole, then a large proportion of these individuals will ultimately gravitate towards those ideas and leaders which seem to offer them the most ideological comfort and the least prospect of real struggle or failure.

But this is no time to tolerate ideas which have no basis in reality and which lead us off into meaningless little cults or pre-packaged ‘subcultures’.

We are beginning to see campaigns of effective direct action take off once again, as the system continues to attack the very basis of our economic and social existence - triggering such things as the recent uprising of the farmers in the Netherlands in the process. Often, ‘common law’ types will post on social media in support of such actions – I believe that they should not be allowed to get away with this, after all shouldn’t the farmers be going into the system’s courts and proving that they aren’t ships instead of unnecessarily opposing a system which they can simply ‘contract of out’ at will?

As during the ‘covid’ crisis, when brave Australian tradesmen, Canadian truckers and Italian dock workers rose up to confront the system and defy its thugs through organised civil disobedience, it is only effective mass action based around the underlying infrastructure of society that can truly threaten the financial oligarchy and its minions. Yet this mass action is threatened by nothing so much as by the type of individualistic, complacent and delusion ‘alternative’ philosophies of which the ‘common law’ cult is the prime example...

Conclusion

As I said in the first part of this essay, the ‘common law’ phenomenon is important not so much because it is wasting a large amount of valuable time and energy on gibberish (although it undoubtedly is) but because by examining it we can learn to detect how the system attempts to frustrate our efforts through employing subtle misdirection and the creation of cults and subcultures. We can begin to better understand the psychological weaknesses within our movement that cause people to fall for these tactics, again and again.

We need to not be afraid to look directly at system as it actually is, even if this examination doesn’t immediately provide any easy solutions to us.

It is probably not a coincidence that this ideology was able to rapidly arise inside the disparate and overly ‘tolerant’ movement that arose in opposition to government lockdown policies, a movement in which fractures have been obvious from the start and which has now, clearly begun to splinter apart altogether.

Many in this movement are, frankly, naïve concerning the system, as far as I’m concerned. These letter writers and petition signers might have a role to play - albeit a very minor one -in a more centralised and disciplined movement. But all too often, such people view themselves as leaders within the vague and amorphous ‘anti-lockdown’ movement as a whole and -as they tend to be of retirement age and are relatively affluent – they usually find themselves with all the time in the world in which to hijack the movement for themselves and turn it into little more than a nattering women’s institute meeting

Others within the movement perhaps had all too clear an idea of what we were actually up against but simply couldn't face the implications.

Finally many were probably simply glad to find a community again - after having fallen victim to the system’s relentless ‘politically correct’ divisiveness and losing friends and family as a result- and so don’t want to risk being cast out of the last group left to them as result of criticising the ‘common law’ gurus when they mysteriously appear amongst them and win over the majority of the other ‘truthers’ with their strange theories.

But we must face reality as it is and arm ourselves with knowledge of how the system actually works if we want to defeat or change it.

Many of the most insightful political critics of the last hundred or more years have insisted that an appreciation of genuine, Anglo-Saxon common law was a major weapon that ought to be used against the financial oligarchy in all those nations with a tradition of it.

Perhaps this is the reason that the system has chosen to associate the subversive ideology that has usurped the name of ‘common law’ with this solid tradition of Anglo-Saxon rights and customs: the elite will only deploy its most sophisticated tricks where it feels itself to be most vulnerable.

Having looked into the ‘common law’ cult I cannot deny that it is indeed highly sophisticated, even if some of its proponents are not. In fact, in terms of sheer byzantine complexity and scope it is arguably the most complicated of the system’s many manufactured scams and cults- making even the ‘Q anon’ phenomenon look relatively straightforward by comparison!

This complexity – coupled with a deliberate slipperiness when it comes to the use of sources and ‘evidence’ in general – makes it hard for many to accurately critique it, even if they instinctively feel that something is ‘off’ about many of is leaders and their wild, unsubstantiated claims.

However, the very fact that the system’s response to growing mass discontent is to deploy some variety of this ideology means that it is inherently worth examining – not so much for the value of the specific claims it makes but more in order to understand the approach that lies behind these claims in general.

I believe what what we find when do so, is that the majority of ‘common law’ approaches follow the same general pattern. In times of trouble, for the financial oligarchy and its agents, ‘common law’ theorists appear and latch onto some pre-existing, radical movement by echoing real concerns that they have. They then divert people off into some form of ‘common law’ based activism using dubious logic and/or historical references to lend apparent weight to what are, on the surface, are wild and implausible claims. Ideally these claims should also involve the members of the movement in a series of hopeless battles and pointless activities and/or inculcate in them a world-view which is increasingly divorced from basic political and social reality and thus rendering them incapable of grasping or changing it in any way.

If we do not immediately reject this approach – in whatever guise it appears among us - but instead continue to uncritically swallow ideas, theories and approaches simply because they are presented to us by ‘leaders’ that we did not choose, do not trust and do not really know then we are doomed to failure and may as well give up now.

The actions of the system’s agents across the world - in sabotaging the global supply chain, destroying the economy and rushing through a radical transhumanist agenda - are creating a situation where the type of activism most likely to seriously threaten them may soon become widespread again, namely activism which is centred around a clear understanding of the system, knowledge of the financial scam through which it governs and the organisation of effective mass civil disobedience movements to challenge it.

At the same time, more people than ever before will soon be receptive to learning about the fundamental nature of the fraud by which we are all kept poor, divided and busy - i.e. fractional reserve banking - without the unnecessary overlay of ‘common law’ gibberish on top.

Therefore we should fully expect the system to continue to subtly direct us all away from a thorough examination of its core mechanisms of financial and political control, back towards the ‘common law’ cult and its many adjacent scams.

The system is expert not only at subverting the movements we try to create to oppose it, but is also adept at getting us to mistime our actions as well – it knows we have finite energy and that there is a certain ‘rhythm’ to effective mass movements. If it can anticipate coming developments - which, with its vast intelligence budgets, hordes of infiltrators and sophisticated simulation capacities it should be able to at least approximate - it can then ensure that we waste our energy on hopeless causes or pointless endeavours at just the ‘right’ moment, that is just before it predicts we will have a genuine chance at engaging in effective mass resistance to its aims.

Of course, it is difficult to prove that all of this is the result of deliberate malice rather than incompetence, cowardice and naivety within ‘our’ ranks – but, in a way, it doesn’t even matter.

Let’s say it is just a coincidence that individuals pop up spouting a highly complex, illogical and impractical ‘solutions’ whenever the financial oligarchy feels some element of the population begin to stir against it – a scenario which I think is stretching credulity to be honest. If the effects produced by these individuals are indistinguishable from what the actions of someone working for the State to subvert the dissident movement as whole would result in, then they should be treated as if they were such regardless.

It is obvious that adopting this attitude is indispensable if we want to actually succeed instead of acting as social Petri dishes for various ‘alternative’ political and metaphysical philosophies. Otherwise we will be forced to accept obvious schizophrenics, anti-social elements into our ranks or even tolerate those who are indistinguishable from paid provocateurs and government agents, simply because we lack concrete proof that they are subversives or don’t have the will to exclude them, even as they destroy what is potentially our only chance of protecting our livelihoods, families and futures.

No effective political or social movement has ever adopted this attitude of ‘radical inclusivity’ and none ever will.

If we wish to stand a chance of succeeding we must immediately begin to purge ourselves of irrelevant, esoteric ideas and theories as well as of individuals who can’t – or won’t – understand why these things have nothing to do with the wider political, cultural and social struggle which we should actually be engaged in.

For those who wish to move forward in an effective direction, I would recommend not getting bogged down in disputes with the ideologues of ‘common law’. Instead, if you decide to engage with them at all, simply force them to clearly and unambiguously state what their beliefs are, then calmly expose the inherent contradictions within them. If the group you belong to still decides to reorient itself towards ‘common law’ after this, then I would advise you to take every one who still possesses some critical thinking capacity and willpower and form a new group without them.

To a certain extent it is inevitable that most critiques of ‘common law’ will be somewhat haphazard and incoherent – as the ideology itself seems to have been improvised, piecemeal by a range of charlatans over many years and across many different countries. That's why its so important to pin down those who genuinely adhere to it to the essential claims being made and try and explain to them why these are contradictory and without foundation or else are far from providing the best, most plausible or most useful explanation of the situation we are dealing with.

This battle is by no means over and if we are going to win it then we need to abandon those ideas that lead us away from reality and those individuals that wish to wallow in endless esoteric theorising and instead muster up the courage to face things as they actually are!

1. 1 For a good general overview of this see the work of Michael Hoffman, specifically “Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare” and ‘Twilight Language”.

2. 2 Maximilien Robespierre - although please note that I am not suggesting his approach was the correct one either!

3. 3 Once again, I must reiterate that I am not saying that I don’t think that the elite might not necessarily view themselves as being bound by some esoteric law or secret religion – in fact they often act as if they do - just that the version of it which is advanced by the ‘common law’ theorists is essentially baseless and illogical.