Report #TL07G: NSPIC DEBATE #3

By Frederick Mann
© Copyright 1997 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DRH AND THE "PERENNIAL JDR DISTORTION"

Edited by Frederick Mann

[The "perennial JDR distortion" is JDR's false accusation that FM thinks or says "government is a(n) hallucination."]

John de Rock: Frederick Mann...says that government is a hallucination.

SB: Hehe! He has never said that John. He would tell you that you're hallucinating that there is "a government" though! (Refer back to that message I sent to you on this issue [earlier]. You need to differentiate the thoughts in your own mind here.)

Here's something that FM DID write: "John, I ask you again, please respond to exactly what I wrote, not your "version.""

Unless you quote other people word for word... there ends up little or no point in bothering to reply at all...

One last question which has been asked before: John, have you read the Build Freedom books, reports, etc.?

If "yes", then which books, reports have you read? (Please be specific if your reply isn't "all," i.e., "all" of the basic, intermediate, and advanced items in the BF-Catalogue, plus the other miscellaneous items listed in other catalogues from BF.)

The reason why I ask is because it would be very helpful to know how (in)effective they were for you (if you've read them). Perhaps you can provide pointers to what might need to be improved.

FM: As I've indicated before, I suspect that John has only half-read a few Build Freedom reports. He knows little about freedom and free enterprise, and practically nothing about advanced Build Freedom materials. That's why he doesn't want to specifically tell us what he's read.

Jon Galt (JG): John de Rock wrote: Frederick Mann...says that government is a hallucination, and does not accept the concept that it can be regarded as a sentient creature using humans as its cells and organs. He has posed a number of questions which I have answered to be best of my ability.

I used to make fun of what I called "the society animal" because I felt (I believe) exactly the same way as Frederick does. However I have for a couple of years now started believing differently.

FM: Jon Galt quotes the nonsense John de Rock falsely ascribes to me. Then Jon Galt says, "I felt (I believe) exactly the same way as Frederick does." What arrogance! He doesn't have a clue what I think or feel. This is pure hallucination!

JG: I definitely like Frederick's assertion that government is a hallucination.

FM: You're hallucinating again. I've never made such an absurd assertion.

JG: I think it can be extremely useful to model government as an organism. If we can gain some insight of it at the societal level, that may help us to stop supporting its continued existence. I see a great battle between two "organisms" that operate on somewhat the same level. Government, and the free market. Government is a parasite that acts to preserve itself by attempting to ensure that it can go on sucking the blood of the free market.

FM: You're hallucinating an organism where there isn't any. Modeling the terrocrats as an organism is counterproductive because it creates the false impression that I as "little individual" have to deal with this "giant organism" in order to be free. It's a formula for helplessness.

Modeling the free market as an organism is also a form of hallucination, particularly if you regard it as a volitional entity, and you say things like, "the free market is better at doing certain things than the government is." You're hallucinating organisms and volitional entities where there aren't any -- except for individual human beings.

We're talking here about collectivism vs. individualism. People who believe in "society," "government," "the free market," etc. as organisms and/or volitional entities suffer from epistemological collectivism.

On the surface, the battle is between pro-freedom individuals and anti-freedom individuals.

At the deepest level, the battle is between the few who have transcended DRH and all the rest.

At the deepest level, the epistemological collectivists are enemies of freedom, because they reinforce and perpetuate the basic thought patterns on which the power of terrocrats, lawyers, etc. depends.

JDR: We seek to find an alliterative way of living that separates us from collectives such as government or the professions. Only if we have a true understanding of what government etc really is can we seek to achieve this. Saying that we are hallucinating or whatever I feel does not add to this understating. Undoubtedly Frederick Mann has started us discussing it, and equally undoubtedly many people have a false understanding of it. Probably we all do, even, may I say, FM himself!

JW: Your false understanding lies in comparing "government" to a model of the human body. The human body is composed of unique and distinctive units of individual consciousness that have power within their own scope (freedom) and are not constrained by other factors (liberty) they aren't capable of. From the smallest of these building blocks, other units take up other unfulfilled actions they are capable of performing, building up to whatever you consider the uproots example of consciousness as a whole. What makes it work is voluntary co-operation arising from that same source of "Nature's Laws" as does the common law. A full-fledged free market in actual practice!

There is no any evidence that "government" follows this same system. On the contrary, "government" is really a parasitical tyrant that uses coercion to achieve their means. An exact opposite of how the human body is organized. Coercion includes, but not limited to, the means of using hallucinations to defraud suckers. Just because "government" promotes the Big Lie that it is a model of voluntary co-operation, or the only "legitimate" avenue for redress of grievances, DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. If you stop trying to rationalize what "government" is not, you'll accept what it really is much easier. I am humored to inform you the religious "cult" of Jehovah Witness's considers "government" to be "Satan's Kingdom" and evil to the utmost. If you consider that "Satan" appears as an "angel of light" to the unwary, its an apt match.

It is quite simple to see the dichotomy and once you understand what "government" really is. It is a small bunch of elites that profit off of suckers that believe their lies, en masse. Lawyers, international banksters, cabals... It doesn't matter who they are specifically as long as you believe "government" is something other than what it really is (a hallucination) and continue to support it. It's a zero-sum game and you are the loser. Therefore whoever milks the "government" teat... wins.

FM: The phrase, ""government" is really a parasitical tyrant that uses coercion to achieve their means," is indicative of the first element of DRH: the false notion that there is a volitional entity capable of being "a parasitical tyrant." On the contrary, there are individual terrocrats who are the tyrants.

As soon as you try to think "what "government" is" or "what "government" is not," you fall into the DRH trap. To escape the DRH trap, you need to think in terms of individual terrocrats.

JW's, "you believe "government" is something other than what it really is (a hallucination)," is a version of the "perennial JDR distortion." It is the act of "seeing" a supposed "government" where there is nothing, which is the hallucination. The hallucination is a process that occurs in the head of the hallucinator.

MORE DE ROCK/SB DEBATE

Edited by Frederick Mann

Between De Rock, SB, and FM
JDR quoting Shakespeare: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -- Henry VI

FM: No, John/Shakespeare. You got it horribly wrong. The first thing we do, let's kill all the hallucinations in our heads -- particularly the hallucination that the lawyers' noises and scribbles constitute "the law."

JDR: The bottom line seems to be that we have to write legal documents and produce legal systems that established lawyers cannot argue around. Maybe a full understanding of the concept of the sovereign individual would help -- it is clear I don't have this from comments made by several correspondents.

SB: To provide a full understanding, we would probably fill a book (which has already been written and referenced many times, by the way!). I recommend you read up on this yourself. The Build Freedom reports, articles, books, etc. are an excellent source.

Of main significance in relation to our circumstances, is in the names which have been chosen for the so-called "countries."

Firstly to the terrocrats here. Their "country" is called "THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA." The name is defined in their so-called "constitution." (The all-capitals is not me yelling at you... it's their way of indicating their jurisdiction.)

Note the first word: "common-wealth." The implications of declaring all "wealth" (money, land, etc.) in their "country" as "common," as in no private ownership, is despicable! Although in reality, it isn't quite that bad... it's not far off!! (They tax EVERYTHING they can!)

Everyone who lives in THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is essentially of slave status, because they are subjects of a "higher authority" -- basically a bunch of fools who think they're "government."

If we were to really give this huge land mass a name, if at least to avoid confusion when telling you where I live, then it would be called "Australia". "Australia" could then be divided up into smaller sections of land, called "states." But I don't live in "THE STATE OF VICTORIA" (their fictitious "State"). As a Sovereign Individual, I live on "Victoria state."

The reason why this may seem confusing at first, is because most people usually only hear of it being referred to as "Australia." Why is that? Why don't terrocrats use their correct name!?

The obvious answer is because it's too awkward to be saying "THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA" all the time! However, some of them will occasionally abbreviate the other way, to "The Commonwealth."

Of course most of the terrocrats are somewhat confused by the whole thing in the first place... So you see/hear things like "Australia's constitution" or similar absurdities! This is generally written/said out of their own ignorance. The only correct way to describe it is "The constitution for THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA."

FM: Many terrocrats are ignorant concerning such fundamentals of their own (hallucinated) "system." This fact can be exploited to ask them embarrassing questions, to trip them up, and often to stop them cold. This is one reason why their "system" is relevant to the Sovereign Individual.

SB: If anything was to actually constitute "Australia," then it would be dirt, rocks, trees, etc. But certainly not a mere piece of paper they call their "constitution!"

Now we come to the "UNITED KINGDOM" (UK). "Kingdom"... Where the sovereign people are the "King" and "Queen." Everyone else living in this "kingdom" are subjects of the King/Queen, i.e., effectively slaves.

All the terrocrats and their slaves in "THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA" (TCOA) are also subjects of the "Queen of the UK" (since TCOA was formed "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland!"). However, the "Queen" may transfer her "powers and authority" (this power/authority is of course hallucinated by her and all the slaves) to a person in TCOA called the "Governor-General."

If you want to live in the UK... then the closest you're going to come to being truly sovereign, is if, and only if, the King/Queen appoints you with the noble title of "Lord" -- there can be only one "King/Queen!"

So if you want to be a Sovereign Individual, you need to shift your way of thinking right down to where you live! If you live in the UK, you're a slave. But if you live on "England" (or "Ireland," etc.), then you're not.

To further illustrate the absurd lengths these terrocrats go to, consider this: Suppose Frederick Mann (and friends) who created "Build Freedom" were a bunch of loony control-freaks like our current-day terrocrats. Frederick could appoint himself as "King" of Build Freedom, form an army (of slaves of course!), tell everyone that his jurisdiction covers the whole Earth, then attempt to impose his taxes, "laws," etc., etc. on everyone!

However, we all know that FM and the whole Build Freedom concept is against all this nonsense. You might even think me merely suggesting this, and the whole notion itself is hilariously absurd... but I hope it will illustrate the point of what has actually happened so far in ALL other "countries"!!!

JDR: The problem as far as I can see is that there is no freedom of contract -- lawyers give each other the power to "set aside" contracts they don't like.

For example if you know you are going to be divorced and a court is going to confiscate your home then to avoid this you sell it to a friend for ten dollars on condition that you are a life tenant for an annual rental of one dollar. You produce a perfectly legal conveyance and tenancy agreement. Lawyers may be hallucinating about "the law" or "the government" as violently as they may be hallucinating about green snake-men if they were under drugs, but they still have the power to set aside that contract and give the home you bought and paid for to your partner and his/her new lover, if that is what turns them on.

SB: Assuming you owned 100% of the property... What you really want is to have a proper Trust established well before the situation got to this -- preferably before you were even married! The PILL/Belize-trust is one example. Let the trust own your property, then it can't be confiscated. There's a big difference between setting up a potentially dodgy "contract"... compared to transferring the property's ownership to someone outside of your jurisdiction (assuming you weren't sovereign).

There's no knowing in this case whether your partner had a valid claim on any part of the property in the first place. If she had been paying off a mortgage with you for 5 years, then obviously you couldn't expect to transfer it to your friend behind her back and hope to keep the lot!

FM: Terrocrats tend to operate on the basis, "Anything goes that we can get away with." The fact that a house is owned by a Trust may not make any difference to them. Privacy is the key. For first-level security, there needs to be no paper trail between me and the house I live in, nor between me and the trust that owns the house. For second-level security, the house needs to be mortgaged or liened to the hilt, so it's not worth seizing.

JDR: For cryonics purposes I had produced all sorts of Build Freedomn type ideas about overseas companies set up by myself borrowing money from me and then paying me on performance based commission to buy stocks and shares with it to make a profit and ultimately transferring the capital to a person of my choice upon death. However the UK terrocrats have been well aware of these ideas and have produced some all-encompassing laws that can prevent it with very little argument.

SB: There's never any reason, "law," or problem you need to worry about overcoming that could prevent you from doing what you want, if you do it in complete privacy.

The terrocrats won't know you're doing it so they can't apply their "laws!" Heck, you don't even need to have a clue about sovereignty to do this.

FM: Notice the emphasis on complete privacy. You need to use entities like trusts or companies that have no legal connection to you -- and no paper trail to you -- but that you control.

JDR: There is an Internet newsgroup called <uk.legal> and another called <uk.finance>. It would be highly constructive if all of you with strong views and strong arguments about these issues post articles there and argue with the lawyers concerned.

SB: This would be like fighting their system while still being in their system and it's pointless in the end. If all those "lawyers" are practicing statutory-law, then you will already know their reply. If they are contradicting common-law in anything they say, then they will be irrelevant.

It's like walking up to a "policeman" and telling him that he's not really a policeman! Why bother!! You don't need permission from them to run your own business as you see fit and to your maximum benefit when it doesn't interfere with anyone else at a common-law level (or violate the "Build Freedom Code" or however you want to put it). If you do it in complete privacy then you won't have a problem.

JDR: Incidentally people would be more likely to join in debates if debaters were less personally aggressive. "Put downs" may make you feel good, but they also prevent people who feel that words may hurt them making their own points and possibly getting educated by replies. I have had quite a few emails from people who are too timid to join in.

SB: I don't see any "personal aggression." Anyone who considers a fact being put in front of them as a "put down" has a character deficiency. Yes, I'm being very blunt here... but none of it is intended to make anyone feel good or bad. There's no personal or emotional aspect to any of this. It's only your perception of it.

Perhaps saying someone is a "slave" due to their subject status and paying taxes, etc. is too harsh a word for you? Whatever the case, it's not intended as a "personal insult." It's just the quickest way of indicating an opinion of how we despise slavery in any form! (Surely it must get you thinking about the whole thing in a different light than you're used to anyway!? That's ultimately of benefit, even if a little "cruel" at first.)

Between SB and Mann
SB: I intentionally break statutory-law every day, e.g. , not voting at "compulsory" elections (they threaten to fine me and take me to court -- Haha!), not paying any taxes where by terrocrat-laws I "must" (though this is easily avoided through private "investing" out of the terrocrat system), educating other people about how they too can avoid paying taxes and live free (where to the extent that if enough people did this, the entire non-thing called "government" would cease to exist. Note that terrocrats would consider this "conspiring against the COMMONWEALTH" and lock us up if they thought they could -- but of course they can't because we're too smart for them -- not to mention how outnumbered the terrocrats would be anyway. I could go on with more examples but you'll get the idea.)

FM: It's not very smart to state that you "break the law" and you should never do it. By doing so you incriminate yourself. What you do should always be legal and lawful. Of course, some of the supposed "laws" are invalid because they violate the pretended "constitution." Some of the supposed "laws" may not apply to you. Personally, I always obey all laws that apply to me to the letter. (Of course, I live in Build Freedom -- where only the Build Freedom Code applies!)

SB: Well I don't go walking down the street singing merrily to the terrocrats "I break your laws!" I keep it to myself with the exception of what I state here. (Well heh! I'm a rebel! What's new? They'll gain nothing of use to them from reading anything I've disclosed here anyway.) However, I chose to give those examples in particular, because they highlight what we're dealing with here.

What I do is ALWAYS "legal and lawful" (under common law)! But what you are saying above is effectively an oxymoron and totally impractical here. I'll provide more details on the above examples to demonstrate this:

Example #1: Not voting at "compulsory" elections when I am "eligible to do so" (18 or over)... If I don't vote for one of the terrocrats, then they attempt to fine me. If I don't enroll to be an "elector," then they attempt to fine me. Note that it doesn't matter who I am are here... they think I live in their "country," so they also consider me one of their slaves and treat me as such.

I never "enrolled." What actually happened was when I was about 18, an obnoxious man came to the door asking "who is 18 or over and not enrolled to vote," then he went over a list he had of people living here. Of course I was on his list and recorded as "Not enrolled" -- but with a stroke of his pen he "enrolled" me (the fictitious all capitals entity they created of "me"). This is an involuntary act through terrocrat coercion, but none of this is necessarily "unconstitutional" here!

It's not practical to be "enrolled" and obey their "laws" since it implies slave-status (and an acceptance of that). They never will get anything out of me from their fines, they can write to me and tell me "it is an offense to fail to vote at an election, etc., etc." all they want -- I don't care. I'm glad that I "offend" them. The end result will be that they are wasting tax-payer's funds pursuing trivial matters.

(Note that the terrocrats don't provide an "unenrollment" option! So my only option is to ignore them until they eventually delete me from their list anyway.)

Example #2: Not paying any taxes where by terrocrat-laws I "must"... The terrocrats think I live in their "country," so according to them, I "must" pay taxes on ALL sources of income. It doesn't matter how you define "income," whether that income is received directly or indirectly, regardless of the source, regardless of whether or not I bring the funds back into their "country," etc.

The only exception to this is for residents of their "country," who are entitled to a tax-free threshold of AU$5400 (they consider me one of these people). Everyone else is supposed to pay tax on everything under terrocrat-law.

Obviously it's very simple for anyone to avoid these "laws" by handling their finances privately offshore (and this is safe too since the terrocrats can't confiscate any assets). But it is still not obeying all of their "laws" because they consider me to be resident in their "country!" The "tax-man" even expects people who receive "tips" to declare them! Who would obey such a "law" that says they "must pay tax on tips", when the tips go straight into their pocket and the "tax-man" never knows about it!? I would come to the conclusion that the "tax-man" has an obsessive compulsion disorder!

Example #3: Educating other people about how they too can avoid paying taxes and live free (where to the extent that if enough people did this, the entire non-thing called "government" would cease to exist. Note that terrocrats would consider this "conspiring against the COMMONWEALTH")... Freedom of speech is "legal" under terrocrat-law here (amazing isn't it!), but actually practicing that "speech" such as free enterprise and not paying taxes is "not."

For me to operate any type of free-enterprise business on "Australia," I need to break almost all of their "laws." I don't intend to inhibit myself. Operating a free-enterprise business isn't a problem either when it's all done privately (since that's how I've been operating for many years so far); but when it involves any type of marketing to the general public, and people learn that they may participate in something that is effectively tax-free to them because the terrocrats will never know about their "income" -- well that would be in violation of terrocrat-law. Educating more people about how I can run my business like this is not "legal" under terrocrat-law either.

Now suppose I didn't actually run any business of my own, but I educated others with theoretical demonstrations of free enterprise -- the terrocrats would consider such "information," "advice" or "demonstrations" to be "illegal!" I'm eventually going to have a terrocrat attempting to interfere at some stage. They will honestly believe that their interference is "constitutional" and "legal" because they consider everyone who lives here to be a "resident" whom all their "laws" and "constitution" apply to.

So I could also say what you said before: "Personally, I always obey all laws that apply to me to the letter. (Of course, I live in Build Freedom -- where only the Build Freedom Code applies!)" and it would be just as valid for me, even in my circumstances, because nothing I am doing is wrong, bad, immoral or illegal under common law (which is what I choose to abide by as a Sovereign Individual).

I am not within their jurisdiction. I do not live in TCOA. I am not of subject status. But they think I am within their jurisdiction, they think I do live in their "country." They have extra good reasons to believe they are right because their system works on residency (not citizenship which can be changed without physically moving).

But telling a terrocrat "I live in Build Freedom.....", is not practical. [FM: Nobody has suggested that you do this.]

To summarize: It is essential that I break terrocrat-laws if true freedom is ever to be exercised here. Little or no progress can be made otherwise.

FM: The fictitious terrocrat "laws" are definitely relevant to the Sovereign Individual. Firstly, the terrocrats hallucinate these "laws" as valid. And they have clubs, guns, and jails to enforce "them."

Secondly, 99.999...percent of the general population also hallucinate "them" as valid. So they may snitch on you to the terrocrats. For reporting certain activities -- like "tax evasion" -- terrocrats reward snitches. So you have to be careful.

SB: True. But if I was scared of terrocrats then I may as well stay a slave forever so I don't risk a whipping. I have no intention of being a slave. I still have all my unalienable rights. I do no wrong under common law, so no other individual (terrocrat) has any right to penalize me in any way. All I really need are practical methods of defense that are specific to my circumstances. These methods are probably going to differ somewhat to the "USA" methods, and I won't have as many options as if I was living there. But someone is going to have to work them out. If there's been no-one before me that I can learn from then I have little other choice but to test them myself. I'm satisfied with this...

FM: I think that the "natural tendency to obey authority" is unnatural for conscious humans.

SB: Indeed. Even going way back to all those years I was forced to waste in "school," I never recognised there to be any "authority," nor was I inclined to obey "it." This is another story though.

"GOVERNMENT" VS. OTHER COLLECTIVES

Edited by Frederick Mann

GH: Just what does DRH stand for?

TK1: The DRH = The De Rock Hallucination.

"Two main elements of DRH are: (1) The hallucination of a volitional entity called 'government'; and (2) The hallucination of some of the noises and scribbles that emanate from the mouths and pens of the hucksters who masquerade as 'government' as the so-called 'law.' About 99.999...percent of humans ... suffer from DRH." - Frederick Mann, Build Freedom News #24, pg. 1, Aug. 96.

GH: Where do you or De Rock draw the line between "hallucination" and the ordinary use of collective terms. The so-called DRH seems to be confusing naming with legitimacy. What is particularly different about using the word "government" from other terms designating organizational units, such as "company," "association," "family," "corporation," "club," "trust", "foundation," "mafia," "Build Freedom," etc.? When I write a letter offering a bid for my company, I say "XYZ company is pleased to offer ..." Should all such convenient abstractions be abandoned or only the "government" one?

How does the fact that the officials of an organization behave criminally or make false claims of legitimacy, invalidate the commonly used name for the organization? When you coin another term such as "the terrorcrats" doesn't it still refer to the same organization?

PF: There is at one important distinction I can think of between government or mafia (terrocratic organizations which will often purposely kill you) and other organizational units such companies, associations, family, corporations, clubs, trusts, foundations, and Build Freedom (which will almost never kill you on purpose.)

Government and mafia are composed of two groups, the controllers and the controlled, the latter having never agreed to their situation except by default. Both exist because the controlled "believe" in the power of the controllers and in the case of government many people think they control the controllers with their "vote." This is DRH. Take the taxes (theft) away and see what happens. The true essence of government will be obvious, nothing more than a fleeting memory. Remember USSR.

The other organizational units are composed of two or more people who have agreed or contracted with each other. There are usually means for dissolution of the relationship that do not require moving to another jurisdiction or country. These organizations can exist without taxes or theft...

JW: My take on the issue is that it's one of semantics and idea memes behind the words. "Government" has the kind of idea meme behind it that is debilitating to 99.999...% of all individuals. The way out of that kind of thinking is to use a new word with a different idea meme attached -- since it's difficult to challenge or change existing beliefs. "Terrorcrats" also serves a dual-purpose in identifying that "government" is really individuals that believe in coercion as the most effective method to accomplish their goals. And also, since "government" is based upon coercion, those individuals that consider themselves as such deliberately and fraudulently change the idea memes behind words used to describe them. That alone is sufficient grounds for abandoning the use of any words they provide and use.

I'm not 100% comfortable with using the typical terms to describe non-coercive organizations either. But in light of the lack of any practical alternatives, it's sufficient enough for now to just distinguish among coercive collectives and voluntary collectives.

FM: For a philosophic analysis of this issue, refer to 'Report #TL07D: Deep Anarchy.'

PF writes above like someone suffering from DRH. He writes about "government," "mafia," "companies," "associations," "family," "corporations," "clubs," trusts, "foundations," and "Build Freedom" as if they are volitional entities capable of killing. It's individuals who do the killing.

Nevertheless, the difference PF indicates between two kinds of collectives, viz. those organized coercively versus those organized through voluntary cooperation, is important.

FM (Responding to GH -- see above): The key criterion for using a word or not using it is the effects it may have on both you and your audience. This is covered in considerable detail in 'Report #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.'

Terrocrat = terrorist bureaucrat or coercive political agent. Terrocrats = more than one terrocrat. "The terrocrats" as I use it does not refer to organization, no more than "the birds" refers to a flock.

Where you draw the line depends on who you're talking to and what effect you're trying to create. When talking to people who know little or nothing about freedom it's probably best to use the term "government" the same way they do -- of course, you do it tongue-in-cheek! When talking to more advanced people, I never use the noun "government" as if valid. I sometimes use the adjective "government" as if valid -- with my fingers figuratively crossed.

I don't think "mafia" and "Build Freedom" belong in your list of organizational units. For a number of individuals to constitute an organization, there are certain requirements such as "articles of association" agreed to by the principals, work contracts, and membership rules. This may apply to a "family" within the mafia, but it doesn't apply to the mafia in general. Similarly, there is no organizational unit that can legitimately be called "Build Freedom."

Build Freedom is the free-enterprise sector of the world. To the extent that individuals practice free enterprise, they are Build Freedomns, even if they've never heard of Build Freedom!

Just to complicate things, whatever you say something is, it isn't that. You see, when you say the object with a flat top and four legs is a table, you're utilizing a useful fiction. The object is what it is. "Table" is a noise that comes out of your mouth. Furthermore, the previous sentence is really nonsense. Soundwaves come out of your mouth and are converted into "sounds" by ears. (General Semanticists have developed a form of English called "E-Prime" from which the verb "to be" in all its forms has been eliminated.)

One of the skills necessary to transcend DRH is the ability to distinguish between the word and the thing the words represent. Another skill is to recognize words that are convenient (sometimes purely grammatical for proper syntax) fictions that represent nothing. For example, "It rains." What is the "it?" There's no "it," but we talk that way because it's proper syntax.

In the case of the people who masquerade as "government" (falsely-called), there is no "articles of association" agreed to by the principals. People are just assumed to be "members" because of where they were born. Pretended "principals" claim "jurisdiction" over a more or less arbitrary geographic area, and the people who happen to be in that area. Pretended "principals" and their pretended "agents" also claim certain exclusive monopolies. If you study Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority," you should come to the inescapable conclusion that current political systems are fraudulent hoaxes.

This is where legitimacy comes in. When you use the word "government" the same way you use "company," you're hiding the illegitimacy of the former, you're communicating "legitimacy" where there is none, you're in fact helping to spread the lie of "legitimacy." If you read Robert Ringer's Restoring the American Dream, you'll find Chapter 8 called, "Keeping It All in Place," the theme of which is that the political system is kept in place by certain words, of which "government" is one. By using the word "government" as if valid, you're helping keep the political system in place.

If you read George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four, you'll find that certain words have psychological and intellectual consequences. In reality there are impostor-hucksters who masquerade as "government" and suckers who believe them. Many people feel powerless in the face of "the government." They believe they can't be free because of "the government" and its "laws." This is a debilitating psychological consequence. It's also a stupefying intellectual consequence in that people who accept the word/concept "government" as valid, can't think straight on the subject of political systems, so they can't do much that is effective to eliminate coercive political systems.

THE TERRA LIBRA SHIFT

Edited by Frederick Mann

[Consider three economic sectors: (1) public; (2) private; (3) free enterprise. The "public" sector can also be called the terrocrat sector. Generally, people in the "private" sector are more or less in cahoots with the terrocrats of the public sector; they pay taxes to the terrocrats, get licenses from terrocrats, and ask for special favors like tariff protection from terrocrats. The free-enterprise sector is another name for Build Freedom. The "Build Freedom Shift" is shifting yourself, your assets, and your economic activities into the free-enterprise sector.]

Brenda Goodwin -- Publisher, Always Options Special Report Series:
Regarding the comments about the T.L. shift being impossible in Europe, and the likelihood of the U.S. Government taking steps to copy the European legal models, I think you have maybe forgotten how all this shift business was first explained to us.

In the early days of T.L., when the subject of the shift first came up, it was stated that a loophole had been left in the law "accidentally on purpose" so that the establishment and their pals could get the advantage of it. Naturally, it was never meant for the rank and file even to know about it, and of course it was never publicised.

The T.L. literature also stated that the U.S. Government was most unlikely to change the situation as it would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I have not taken the time to look up chapter and verse on this, so this is just my general understanding of the situation. My feeling is that the loophole will continue, provided the people who have availed themselves of it maintain a low profile and keep their business affairs to themselves. "Confidentiality of Contract" is very important, and silly distributors who engage in reckless promotion, and even publish photocopies of their checks from free market businesses, should be made to realize the damage they are doing. The terrocrats might be forced to take some action if they get enough evidence of who is doing what, and how, and how much money is involved.

In the U.K. the subject of the loophole definitely needs more research, but a number of my contacts, who are more legally clued-up than I am, are convinced that, along with other provisions of common law, this one was overtaken by statutory law(s) many years ago. If the loophole existed in the U.K., would it not be used?

Instead the affluent are using offshore trusts, at horrendous cost to set up and maintain, and not always completely effective.

Frederick Mann:
At any given time, in practically every situation, each individual has a large number of options available to him or her.

To the extent that you regard the hallucinated "political/legal system" as real or solid, you reduce the range of options available to you.

To think that there is this one loophole is being blind and stuck. "If you find this one loophole and you have enough money to exploit it, then everything is perfectly OK; if you can't find this one loophole, or if you don't have the money to exploit it, you're doomed to eternal slavery." This kind of thinking is absurd.

Freedom essentially comes from personal development; personal power; the practical knowledge, methods, and skills to beat the system. But if you're stuck in the system, because you've been brainwashed into buying into the system, and you're hypnotized by the system, and you regard the system as your jail you can only escape from if you find the one loophole, and you regard yourself as a poor, helpless victim, then I say you suffer from the De Rock Hallucination (DRH).

When you discover that you are free and sovereign by nature, and that "the system" is a function of hallucination, and you acquire some practical freedom skills, then "the system" becomes laughably easy to beat -- practically everywhere in the world.

In fact, you don't even have to know anything about freedom, and understand very little about the system, in order to implement the Build Freedom Shift. Right now there are millions of people in Europe who know little or nothing about freedom and only crudely how the terrocrats in the system operate -- people who beat the system big-time every day. They operate in the so-called "underground economy" -- which is the real free-enterprise system -- which is Build Freedom. Without knowing it, they have made the Build Freedom Shift.

Many of these people have general IQs well below those of John de Rock and Brenda Goodwin. But in the area of beating the system, they are geniuses by comparison. So why do John and Brenda seem so stuck in the system? Because they are particularly subject to the stupefying and debilitating elements of DRH. It's almost as if they use their high general intelligence against themselves to stupefy and debilitate themselves in the area of practical action in the political/legal/economic sphere.

They are HYPNOTIZED by "the system" they hallucinate. They cannot step outside "the system" and look at the real world. They wear "the system" like distorting lenses over their eyes. So they cannot see their own real natures, nor can they see "the system" because to them "the system" permeates their entire universe.

They also cannot see that they cannot see. Blindness hides itself. The hypnotized subject does not know that he or she is stuck in a hypnotic trance.

They look for solutions outside themselves, instead of inside. They look for the one magical "loophole" out there that will set them free.

One of the most important knowledge abilities is the ability to see yourself as an objective phenomenon. This is also the area where many of us are most blind. Consider the following:

John De Rock:
Incidentally people would be more likely to join in debates if debaters were less personally aggressive. "Put downs" may make you feel good, but they also prevent people who feel that words may hurt them making their own points and possibly getting educated by replies. I have had quite a few emails from people who are too timid to join in.

Fools fight in burning houses - this is never more true than with Libertarians, I am afraid.

Frederick Mann:
He gives us a lecture about "put downs," then he "puts down" the generality "Libertarians," essentially calling them fools. I don't like this; some of my best friends are Libertarians!

You see, John de Rock's ability to see himself as an objective phenomenon is limited. I don't know if it was a conscious, deliberate put down. I do think that it's a pretty stupid put down. If you need to communicate something that is a put down -- or can be interpreted as such -- it's much more effective to aim it at a specific person -- or you give the reader an opening to believe that the possible put down doesn't apply to him or her personally. John could have said: "It's never more true than with 99.999...percent of Libertarians." (!)

By the way, in consciously and deliberately choosing the put downs to use, you try to carefully weigh the consequences. Sometimes it works to start with a small put down. Then you observe the consequences. If appropriate, you next use a stronger put down. You test the water... and turn up the heat gradually! You also assess whether the victim of the put down is a sucker for punishment -- or even a masochist.

By the way, Gandhi was the most extreme masochist I know of. Maybe that's why more biographies have been written about him than anyone else. Maybe most people (except you, dear reader!) have a masochistic streak which makes them love masochists. Is that why (certainly in America) the most popular TV programs are those in which all or most of the characters are losers?

By the way, many Libertarian- and Patriot-types are masochists -- suckers for punishment!

MASOCHISM is of course the next element of DRH -- which John demonstrates so admirably! If you look over this entire debate from the beginning, you'll find that most of what John writes, sets him up for the next sucker punch!

Because 99.999...percent of humans suffer from DRH, and masochism is an element of DRH, about 99.999... percent of humans also suffer from masochism. That's why they believe terrocrats, vote for them, and pay them -- in order to receive in return: numeration, compulsory vaccination, fluoridation, compulsory education, indoctrination, taxation, inflation, depression, regulation, prohibition, curfews, rationing, crime, deportation, arrest, lawyer's fees, indictments, trials, community service, fines, asset forfeiture, jail-time, hard-labor, solitary confinement, probation, poverty, conscription, war, execution, probate, and being hacked to pieces after "death."

John de Rock suggests that we jump into a den of lawyers (engage them in debates) because he's a masochist, and he knows the lawyers will make mince-meat of our arguments, and he thinks we are also masochists who will enjoy being hacked to pieces by ruthless lawyers!

I bet John promotes cryonics to lots of lawyers. He wants to be sure that when he is resuscitated there will be lots of lawyers around him to punish him and cause him the pain he enjoys so much!

Secretly, masochists don't want to make the Build Freedom Shift. They would rather suffer in their hallucinated lawyer-terrocrat world. That's also why they say it's difficult or impossible to make the Build Freedom Shift. That's why they come up with endless excuses why they can't make the Build Freedom Shift.

John De Rock:
Actually I thought you might hack them [the lawyers] to pieces, but maybe you feel that you would lose. Perhaps you are only interested arguing with people who at least believe a little in what you do. You are obviously a better judge of your own abilities than anyone else.

Frederick Mann:
From my perspective, the purpose of this debate is to develop material that will assist people to transcend the De Rock Hallucination (DRH). If in the process you were to cure yourself -- or at least make some progress -- that would be a tremendous bonus. If other people make progress in curing themselves of DRH from participating in the debate, that's even better.

Let's recap the elements of DRH we've covered so far:

(1) Hallucinating a volitional entity called "government" that has magical powers to do what ordinary people can't do.

(2) Hallucinating some of the noises and scribbles that emanate from the mouths and pens of the terrocrats who masquerade as "government" as "the law" (so-called).

(3) DRH tends to have a stupefying effect on its victims in the political/legal/economic arena.

(4) DRH tends to have a debilitating effect on its victims in the political/legal/economic arena.

(5) The notion that there are so-called "countries" in the world is pure hallucination.

(6) DRH sufferers tend to act as if hypnotized in the political/legal/economic arena.

(7) DRH sufferers tend to be masochistic, sometimes to an extreme degree, particularly in the political/legal/economic arena.

Around 1984 I started asking the question: "If freedom is so good, and so many people want it, and so many great minds have promoted it, then why are there so many people who enjoy so little freedom compared to what they want?"

Since 1972 I have studied the writings of literally hundreds of leading freedom-promoters. I found that, with two notable exceptions, all of them suffered from one or more of the DRH elements. The two exceptions are:

(1) Ettienne de la Boetie when he wrote Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in 1552 or 1553 -- Build Freedom Report #TL06.

(2) Lysander Spooner when he wrote No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority at the end the American Civil War in 1869 or 1870 -- Build Freedom Report #TL07.

Many freedom-promoters have identified some of the elements of DRH and written about them. But as far as I know I'm the first one to attempt to integrate all of them and communicate them in a way that at least some people will be able to grasp them and transcend them.

Build Freedom is essentially a means to communicate Freedom Technology -- which includes the cure for DRH. Because DRH is at the root of statism, it's by far the most important aspect of Freedom Technology.

When I entered into this debate I was confident that at least one person would respond favorably. I've been tremendously thrilled by the positive responses, particularly that of SB.

Let me address the issue of "arguing with lawyers." This debate was triggered by your "communicating with a government." Then you seem to have shifted to "communicating with bureaucrats." Now you seem to have moved on to "communicating with lawyers."

As I indicated earlier, the best prospects for Build Freedomn ideas are people from freedom movements who have become disillusioned with their movements. If you're trying to sell chastity you don't go arguing with prostitutes in a whorehouse.

Now, if I were to have a debate with a lawyer (even a Libertarian lawyer who idolizes the "legal system") -- conducted on the Build Freedom electronic forum -- the probability is overwhelming that I would hack him to pieces and win. One reason for this is that at crucial points during the debate people like SB would jump in with their support.

An important combat principle is involved here. If you fight someone on his home turf, where he has friends and allies and where he makes or controls the rules, you most likely will be at a huge disadvantage and you'll almost certainly lose. You're far better off having the opponent come to your turf where you have the advantage.

You could easily put this to the test by having one of your lawyer friends participate in this debate.

John de Rock:
Maybe I have misunderstood more than I realised. I thought Build Freedom was about freedom within the law, which means surely that you obey laws, which means that what you do has to stand up in court, i.e. withstand argument by lawyers.

Frederick Mann:
If you want to have something that stands up in court, you should become a judge so you can rule what stands up and what doesn't!

You have probably at best half-read the Build Freedom Introductory Package, and no more. So you know very little about Build Freedom. On top of which you are still totally stuck regarding element (2) of DRH. You hallucinate some of the noises and scribbles of terrocrats as "the law" (so-called).

Nevertheless, Freedom Technology does contain certain stratagems -- like the Reliance Defense (where you rely on a lawyer's written legal opinion) -- that do tend to stand up in court, at least in the US.

Frederick Mann:
Some months ago I hired one of the most experienced and successful paralegals to do some legal work. She had been involved with one of the largest "untax" organizations as one of their top "legal experts." Most of the top people from this organization are now in jail -- except for the paralegal I hired. She took certain precautions -- her Reliance Defense -- so the terrocrats didn't even try to indict, charge, or prosecute her.

For a long time she kept insisting that we had to develop the means to beat the terrocrats in court. She has actually beaten them on several cases, and once even got paid damages by the terrocrats, sufficient to pay her and her husband's living expenses for a year. But overall she lost much time -- and the terrocrats seized her home.

I kept on insisting to her that she had a fixation about having to win in court. I told her that it was far more effective to operate in ways designed to avoid confrontations with terrocrats:

(1) Operate so that your activities are effectively invisible to terrocrats.

(2) Make certain preparations so that if a terrocrat attacks you, you have the ammunition to persuade the terrocrat to go after easier pickings.

(3) Avoid courts like the plague. However, have some kind of reliance defense in place, so that if you absolutely have to go to court you at least stand a fighting chance.

Two months ago the paralegal wrote to me:

---Begin testimonial---

It doesn't matter how "good" the argument [referring to a particular anti-tax argument] is -- or how "technically correct" it is -- the courts CAN'T recognize it because to do so would mean they would have to admit fraud -- and treason, too.

But we can still dream. The point is -- do we want to show the courts we are smarter than them and lose our property -- OR -- do we want to stay/get rich?

...So I'm pointing out that while Mr. X can offer a new argument, it gets the same treatment from the courts as all the other arguments. IT DOESN'T WIN. It DOESN'T matter if we stick TRUTH or LAW in their faces -- they still rule against us. What's the remedy when the courts are corrupt and it becomes evident that they just AREN'T going to say:

"Oh yes, Mr. Constitutionalist -- you are right -- we've been defrauding America and raping Citizens for over 70 years now since the tax code was enacted. You twisted the code in ways we didn't even think of ourselves for our own cronies, and YOU are the one who pointed out the TRUTH -- you used the right typewriter font (upper and lower cases) -- you used the right jurisdictional statement about the military flag -- you used the right reference to the GOD of the Declaration of Independence -- so YOU get to be the HERO of the 20th Century and WE, the GOVERNMENT -- are exposed as the VILE SNAKES that we are!!!?"

Yeah, right, It'll never happen. So what's left?

I believe YOUR original assessment is correct. Let's quit wasting time on traffic tickets, citizen status, and issues of car ownership. They love it when they keep us busy spinning our wheels on technicalities. My husband and I have been stalked and harassed because we refused to cooperate with this meaningless and cheap forms of compliance. After realizing that we would starve if we spent our time in jail and court over such small issues, we "gave up" on them. Yes. I am not ashamed to say -- we tried and there is NO WAY they will let you win on those issues. So let's get back to the POINT. Do we want to be martyrs -- destitute and starving -- or do we want to be RICH and HEALTHY and enjoying life WITH Spiritual Integrity? If wealth and health are associated with evil according to some of your readers -- then be prepared to lose a few readers. But for each you lose, you'll gain 100 spiritually mature.

ANSWER: RICH AND HEALTHY can be enjoyed without compromising your spiritual superiority.

For that reason we are researching and implementing alternative means of living and acquiring wealth. We are taking the target off our chests and moving underground. Your philosophy has been correct all along.

My husband and I are preparing educational seminars on this subject: HOW TO CREATE WEALTH AND HOW TO AVOID POINTLESS CONFRONTATION. I believe that you are light years ahead of other "Patriot" groups with this conclusion -- and we hope we can work together to offer the public real solutions to the problem -- rather than "hopes and dreams" that the "system" will repent and admit their wrongs, which will NEVER HAPPEN, no matter how much Patriots spend on new theories or legal arguments...

I'm formatting the Sovereignty Manual into a singular Handbook -- which could be offered at seminars for those who are fed up with "Patriot Arguments" and want to know the Truth and the REAL-LIFE ANSWER to government fraud and extortion... I think you'll find that Patriot groups have done so much damage that a book that offers practical solutions based on the FACT that we must deal with corruption (with no expectation of court victory) will be well received.

---End testimonial---

Actually, I think her pendulum has swung from one extreme -- you must win in court -- to the other extreme -- you can't win in court. The fact is that from time to time freedom-fighters do win in court, including some landmark cases. There are also many cases where the courts surreptitiously "drop" cases they find too embarrassing to pursue -- without admitting anything, so they leave no record -- they don't want to create case-law precedents that favor freedom-fighters.

Also notice that it was after becoming disillusioned with the Patriot movement that she embraced Build Freedom strategy.

Build Freedom strategy is not to fight the system or to try to change it, but to step outside the system and create alternatives not subject to the system.

Finally, a note concerning Harry Plott's experience is relevant here. Soon after Harry started reorganizing his businesses in accordance with Build Freedom principles, he was attacked by some Pennsylvania terrocrats. He told me that some attorneys he'd known a long time were working on handling the situation. I asked him a few questions and determined that these were statutory attorneys -- "officers of the court" who had sworn oaths of allegiance to "the system."

I advised him to drop these attorneys like hot potatoes, because if they handled his case he almost certainly would be doomed. I put Harry onto a former attorney -- who had become disillusioned with the legal system, and had switched sides to use his legal expertise to beat the system. As a result Harry has so far been able to beat back all the terrocrats who have attacked him -- without having to go to court.

John de Rock:
How would one of FM's friends, who has been completely free of DRH as he calls it, react to various situations. Hopefully other people on this list can add to situations for the DRH free individual to face, illustrating how his freedom from the hallucination helps him. Showing how freedom from the hallucination would help in life events may help us understand the concept. Here is just one:

The DRH free individual is not resident in the USA but lives in a central European country not unlike Transylvania. He has a Terra Libra Trust with property exchanged into it. He tells "taxpolizei" pounding on his door demanding tax on his wealth that all he has is a piece of paper and it is virtually valueless and therefore not subject to their 30% wealth tax. They say that he can't be living off nothing and his wealth abroad is causing money to be sent to him to live off. Unless he repatriates 30% of his wealth and gives it to them, he will be tried, imprisoned and eventually shot to death, slowly.

Frederick Mann:
One of the elements of DRH is masochism. Because DRH victims tend to be at the effect of terrocrat words, they are more likely to be masochists than a DRH-free person who responds to physical reality -- rather than being severely curtailed or even debilitated by the political verbal reality the DRH victim has bought into. (By the way, of the several hundred libertarians and patriot types I've met, I guesstimate that over 90% have been masochistic victims of hallucinated "Big Brother Government.")

We need to make a distinction between the DRH victim who has only half-read a few Build Freedom reports -- he might also be highly intelligent in some respects and believe he's so clever he doesn't have to study the Build Freedom reports and read some of them 5 or 10 times -- and the DRH-free person who has done his homework.

What JDR describes above isn't a DRH-free person. It's a DRH victim who hasn't done his homework. A wealthy DRH-free person who's done his homework would never live in a "European country not unlike Transylvania" -- he might pass through as a visitor or tourist from time to time. He also knows that you don't have a Terra Libra Trust. (You might control one, though, possibly having organized your affairs so there are no paper trails between you and the trust.)

If you're talking about physical property such as real estate, the DRH-free person who's done his homework would never exchange such property into a Terra Libra Trust. The TL Trust is not suitable for that purpose.

The DRH-free person who's done his homework tends to be very aware of his environment. He doesn't stand out. People seeing him would have no reason to believe that he has wealth. In general, he wouldn't do things to attract the attention of the "taxpolizei." And if he were to make mistakes that do attract their attention, he would most likely be long gone from the "European country not unlike Transylvania" by the time the "taxpolizei" came knocking.

Consider the possibility that the scenario you describe above reflects your own state of mind -- a state of mind predicated by DRH.

John de Rock:
Interesting that the subject of masochism (a sexual deviation) has been brought into this. A study (regretfully I have no reference) was reported in the UK press to have said that those who have sought and attained authority positions have a higher than average sexual drive. They also like to court danger. For example, a UK director of public prosecutions ended his career after being caught soliciting for prostitutes in London. Someone of his wealth and position could easily have used a discreet introduction service and done his thing safely in private, but he needed the buzz of the risk of doing what he did. I would hazard a guess that these people are also sadists, so the sado-masochistic relationship that FM describes probably has some sound basis.

Another point that I get from this recent posting is that the hypothetical individual is not as free as made out: if he has to flee from living "on" one geographic location (he may like the climate and scenery there) because of actions of "taxpolizei" then he has been influenced and coerced by them.

I am well aware of hiding paper trails.

However I also happen to believe that if what you are doing is perfectly honest then you should not need to be deceitful in order to achieve it.

Frederick Mann:
People are by nature mobile. Plants have roots that keep them stuck in one place. You can live somewhere without "living" there (in the terrocrats' "legal" sense). Wherever you are at any given time, you could be "just passing through," or "visiting for a few days, weeks, or months," as the case may be.

The belief that you need not be deceitful to live free in an unfree world is unrealistic, to say the least. In fact, you may need to become a "master deceiver" of terrocrats. Not only do you have to deceive terrocrats, you may also need to deceive your family, friends, associates, and neighbors so they don't snitch on you.

HYPNOSIS AS A SOLUTION?

SB: These posts on hypnosis give me an idea; this is something that the people involved with the "Build Freedom - Personal Power Institutes" might consider:

Suppose, in addition to existing communication methods (such as giving people the Build Freedom material to read with the intentions that they assimilate it, and the various seminar options, etc.) - that there is a service offered where people could be hypnotised and then effectively have the information directly programmed into their sub-consciousness! Perhaps this could be done through them listening to pre-recorded tapes of the Build Freedom material (maybe modified specifically for this). This may only be necessary for assisting people to transcend their hallucinations about "the government" etc., but may have many uses in other areas also.

The main question is: Is this feasible?

Any experts here that can answer this? I know almost nothing about this subject and have no experience with it so it's nothing more than an idea at the moment. I don't really know how this could be implemented. I'm assuming that having a sound comprehension of the fundamentals permanently programmed into their sub-conscious mind, will automatically cause them to apply the information in their conscious/semi-conscious state.

Perhaps a block could be inserted into their conscious thoughts so that whenever particular words are mentioned/thought such as "government" - they think of specific individuals, terrorist-bureaucrats, frauds, impostors, liars, thieves, murderers; where "tax" is mentioned - they think of the extortion system used to support theft and called "legitimate" by these terrocrats; where "legal"/"illegal" is mentioned - they laugh at how some people place importance on bits of paper with words on them which bureaucrats and slaves claim to be "the law," "the constitution," etc., etc.

If this is too wacky an idea and maybe no one would even want to subject themselves to this "shock-therapy," then forget I mentioned it.

JW: It's a widespread hallucination that the conscious mind is at the mercy of the so-called "sub-conscious." It isn't quite like that at all. There isn't really anything such as the "sub-conscious" as it is commonly thought of, just consciousness with "unaware" beliefs. To the extent you believe you are controlled by a "dark, mysterious, sub-conscious," you will deny your own inherent personal power.

Freud has done much along with Marx to fuck up the thinking of Western Civilization.

The true test of any "theory" is to ask yourself: Does this affirm or deny my own innate, personal power?

Any new ideas suggested through [self-]hypnosis will encounter existing unaware or conscious beliefs and whether the ideas are retained in competition with existing beliefs (see The Path of Least Resistance by Robert Fritz for an idea of what happens), or integrated as a replacement depends on key "framework" beliefs. For [self]-hypnosis to work as you envision, the proper framework of how the mind works has to be consciously taught to the individual so that there is as little competition with the "new" Build Freedom ideas as possible, and any belief conflicts can be successfully resolved.

SB: Perhaps a block could be inserted into their conscious thoughts so that whenever particular words are mentioned/thought such as...

JW: That is like "government" applying more "government" to problems. The world problems we face today are due to mental blocks, conflicting beliefs, unaware beliefs, etc.. Unraveling them is the solution, not applying more.

A HUGE BREAKTHROUGH

Edited by Frederick Mann

Tk1: Is it possible for Illiterates to overcome the DRH? "My gut reaction" is no, it is not possible for them to overcome the DRH. Only Literates "have the potential" to overcome the DRH. Illiterates "have zero potential to overcome the DRH" (by definition).

Craig Green (CG): First of all, whether illiterates can get over DRH is EXTREMELY unimportant, IMO.

FM: There are some illiterates, like the Kalahari Bushmen, who don't suffer from at least some of the elements of DRH. The concept "government" is probably absurd to them. To settle communal issues they reach consensus through "community discussion."

You see, DRH constitutes LEARNED BEHAVIOR -- LEARNED THINKING AND LEARNED COMMUNICATION. Every element of DRH is something you learned.

CG: However, responding to the good spirit of your post, I offer the following:

Tk1: Working hypothesis:

(1) 100% of all Illiterates-now-living, and, 100% of all deceased-illiterates-at-any-time-in-the-past-when-they-were-alive suffer(ed) from the DRH.

(2) 99.999...percent of all Literates-now-living, and, 99.999...percent of all deceased-Literates-at-any-time-in-the-past-when-they-were-alive suffer(ed) from the DRH.

Definition: The word "'illiterate,'" as used here, denotes (1) the inability of an 18-yr-plus individual to decode the 'word'-symbols found on grocery-item packaging and (2) the inability of the same individual to comprehend the 'concept(s)' the 'word'-symbols are meant to denote.

CG: Your logic is that since all of them are infected, they can't be cured. That is incorrect, and a non sequitur (Neo-Tech fans, anyone?)

FM: Because most illiterates have learned far less DRH than the average schooled human, it should be easier for at least some illiterates to cure themselves from DRH.

CG: As a lifelong dog trainer, I know all you need do is teach the old dog new tricks. Happens all the time. Especially with people. All it takes is advertising, mass hysteria and being told by those they look up to to change their ideas. Simple. The hard part is to get those more intelligent, critical thinkers who have DRH to give it up. That's where the rubber meets the road.

FM: To cure DRH, you have to UNLEARN what you've learned. It's not so much a matter of teaching a dog new tricks, as teaching a dog to unlearn some stupid tricks it has learned.

CG: This is excellent, Frederick. Actually, teaching new tricks often INCLUDES unlearning old ones. I often work with dogs trained by others, who have developed bad habits, which I have to correct before proceeding. You're right; it's the unlearning that is the important thing when dealing with a false paradigm or hallucination. But the old tape can be recorded over; it doesn't necessarily have to be erased first.

FM: There are certain things some of us have learned:

(1) Learned helplessness;

(2) Emotional reactions;

(3) Happiness and Depression;

(4) Religious thought and behavior;

(5) DRH.

Some things we can learn over years and even decades -- and then unlearn them in a flash. For example, when I was about 25 years old I sat in church. Suddenly I experienced the preacher as an automaton, a machine, with words spewing out of his mouth, and he didn't have the slightest clue what he was talking about. In a flash about 99% of my religious brainwashing disappeared. It was as if I were a computer with a religion program. I pressed an "erase religion" button, and poof! 99% of it was gone in an instant. (I cured myself of the remaining 1% by the time I was 40.)

Some things are much more difficult to unlearn. It took me seven years to cure myself from DRH.

As covered in some of the early Build Freedom reports, dogs can be taught helplessness. See Martin Seligmann's book Learned Helplessness. I don't know if any experiments have been done to demonstrate this, but I venture to speculate that it would take much more effort to cure dogs from learned helplessness than it took to teach them learned helplessness. And I suspect that some dogs, once taught helplessness, will never unlearn it completely, no matter the effort to do so.

CG: I remember you describing this in those early reports, which I haven't referred to in a while. We often inadvertently teach a dog to be helpless by doing part of his job for him. This is the same as the dependency that some people develop as a result of welfare. Then, when withdrawing this support from the dog (or other victim), (s)he has a difficult time giving up this crutch. In my case with tracking dog training, it has to do with the handler knowing/not knowing where the track is. When the handler knows the track, (s)he inadvertently gives off signals to the dog which help the dog find it, thereby creating a dependency. We cure this by having the handler run "blind" tracks, which means neither the handler nor the dog know where it goes. Now I know your readers aren't the least bit interested in tracking, but maybe this will suggest a tactic for dealing with the DRH. It revolves around removing support; or in the case of humans, the free lunch.

Many people think it's cruel to remove support that someone has long depended on. However, this is how parents teach children to grow up, and how parent animals teach their young to fend for themselves. By having to deal with a struggle previously not required, people/animals learn to overcome obstacles and progress toward more skill or practical knowledge. That is the power of freedom technology. But people have to want it (and see the obvious benefits) before they will consider it.

FM: In general, I suspect that learned helplessness is far more difficult to unlearn than it was to learn in the first place. I suspect the same applies to habitual negative emotional reactions, including depression in most cases.

CG: Often, I find it easier to REPLACE a bad behavior with another behavior, which automatically results in the old behavior being unlearned. An example from my youth was when I stopped smoking (several times over several years). Only when I REPLACED smoking with athletics did I have something that would stick. In other words, I found something that let me feel good about myself, to replace the addictive behavior and good feelings of smoking.

FM: In my own case, I cured myself from 99% of my religion in a flash.

CG: I suspect that was because you had already built the foundation of knowledge, mistrust and observation of contradictions that allowed you, at that moment, to integrate all this previous knowledge. This may have taken place perhaps by some intuitive, right-brain process such as a visual image or other stimulus. But it just didn't all happen at once. You had the proper foundation laid ahead of time. This is how my most important freedom realizations came to me. An immediate A-Ha! could often be traced to component, less important things that occurred before, and some small stimulus or image just triggered the subconscious process that was ready and willing to make the leap. It's sort of an integration of creative, right-brain like thinking with the previously compiled analytical, left-brain thinking. I know the right/left brain model is overly simplistic, but it explains the general idea well enough, I think.

DRH may be the toughest of all to cure, the most difficult to UNLEARN.

Tk1: Are there examples now and "in the historical record" of "non-reading-and-writing" individuals who do not suffer from the DRH (i.e., who do not hallucinate a (so-called) "God" or "Authority")?

FM: Probably most illiterates, including the Kalahari Bushmen, are in bicameral stage 1 or 2 (see early Build Freedom reports). So they tend to hallucinate "external authorities." By the way, DRH is a bicameral stage 2 phenomenon.

Tk1: I sometimes like to regard the "DRH-free mind-state" as a "powerful tool, equivalent to fire or the wheel, that when used for non-coercive purposes, greatly enhances the efficiency/rate of 'value-creation' for the individual himself and for those he comes in contact with."

FM: This is correct.

CG: It ["government"] is a very successful "meme" (a term originated by Richard Dawkins in THE SELFISH GENE and now being popularized by Richard Brodie in VIRUS OF THE MIND). A meme is essentially a cultural idea that is successful at reproducing itself, regardless of its truth, legitimacy or destructive or beneficial nature. Examples are communism, the macarena and sports hysteria. Also, of course, the essence of DRH and politics are in their memetic success at creating things that get repeated, and seem to be endless.

You're right. DRH is a powerful (though destructive) tool. What we need to do is to come up with a more powerful meme. How do you compete against a free lunch: the promise of lifelong security, free justice, education and defense, free room and board without work if you go to prison and so on. It's not about fighting tyranny; it's about building freedom. And our products are not good enough yet.

FM: The "government meme" is like a pernicious virus infecting, debilitating, and stupefying the minds of individuals. The virus needs to be killed. DRH needs to be UNLEARNED...

Tk1: 'Being' DRH-free makes one more happy and productive. It just makes better business sense 'to be' DRH-free. 'Talk about (real-time) 'evolution'!'"

CG: Yeah, but this intellectual realization for a small part of the population is practically meaningless until we actually produce freedom products that even those opposed to freedom will buy. Think about that. More MLM programs aren't going to do it. Many smart people are in DRH ruts, and lack the skills, immediate incentive or other reason to exit their "comfort zones" (Harry Plott's term).

The products of freedom need to be improved, refined, developed, marketed, tested, expanded, integrated, and so on through the difficult, painful, intensive hard work of business. And BTW, the products must be excellent, long lasting, with impeccable customer support, name recognition around the world, and absolutely superior to the free and cheap and easy stuff several times over. Build Freedom is only the beginning...

FM: My heartfelt thanks to Tk1 and Craig. I must confess that when Tk1 first sent me his post, I set it aside as a "non sequitur" to be dealt with later. However, Craig's response has led to the major breakthrough of realizing that DRH is LEARNED BEHAVIOR that needs to be UNLEARNED. So please make your contributions, even if some might regard them as "non sequiturs!"

The next step is to identify, define, and develop a set of UNLEARNING SKILLS. We need to develop an UNLEARNING COURSE that teaches people how to UNLEARN anything they've learned in the past.

CG: First, we need a REASON for people to unlearn something. People are ready for Build Freedom, typically, because something negative happened to them, and they see freedom technology as a solution to an existing problem they have.

People or dogs can learn/unlearn anything. NLP [Neuro-Linguistic Programming] has shown this with people, around phobias, etc. But until someone is motivated to act, the learning/unlearning process won't begin. In dog training, we emphasize motivation, rather than force. Just like free markets rather than government. Build a better product to improve someone's lives, and they will buy it.

The Key Question Revisited
Tk1: Is it possible for Illiterates to overcome the DRH? "My gut reaction" is no, it is not possible for them to overcome the DRH. Only Literates "have the potential" to overcome the DRH. Illiterates "have zero potential to overcome the DRH" (by definition).

FM: This is actually a very important issue, because it addresses the question: What level of literacy is necessary to overcome DRH? I distinguish between four levels of literacy:

(0) No command of language -- can't speak, read, nor write.

(1) Illiterate -- can speak, but not read nor write.

(2) Literate -- can speak, read, and write with a reasonable degree of proficiency.

(3) Meta-literate -- can transcend language and use language to examine, analyse, and evaluate language; can change language depending on appropriateness for any given situation.

We don't know whether people at level one suffer from DRH or not.

Unless they advance to level 3 -- which they can do without being able to read or write -- people at level 1 have zero potential to overcome DRH.

Unless they advance to level 3, people at level 2 have zero potential to overcome DRH. Literate people who lack meta-literacy have zero potential to overcome DRH, while they stay stuck at level 2. My guess is that about 99.999...% of humans are currently at level 2 or lower -- hence stuck in DRH.

People have to be at level 3 to be able to overcome DRH.

Ayn Rand's analysis of the concept/word "selfishness" is a level 3 activity.

This is a level 2 statement: Government exists.

Level 3: The notion that "government" (so-called) exists is silly.

The person stuck at level 2 [the Identifier] can't read a level 3 statement as it's written. So he compulsively distorts it into a level 2 statement: Government doesn't exist.

Does this explain why apparently it's very difficult for John de Rock -- if at all possible -- to quote one of my DRH level 3 statements and then respond to it? Is this why, time and time again, even after it's been pointed out to him many times, he comes up with a silly level 2 statement -- like "government is an hallucination"; falsely accuses me of having written it -- and then critiques his own silly nonsense?

Level 2 statements are essentially about physical reality or have the form and syntax of statements about physical reality.

Level 3 statements are essentially about verbal reality, the relationships between verbal reality and physical reality, the weaknesses, strengths, and consequences of verbal forms, and the improvement of verbal forms. Level 3 statements are about the effects words have on the way we perceive the world, the way we think about the world, the way we communicate, and the way we act. All these can be greatly influenced by the words we use.

Level 3 is also the level addressed by General Semantics and Slavespeak -- see 'Report #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.'

Bentham's, "Look to the letter, you find nonsense; look beyond the letter, you find nothing" is an example of a level 3 statement.

People stuck at level 2 can't make a distinction between a thing and the word for that thing in any workable way. If you discuss it with them they might say, "Sure, I know the difference between the word "table" and the table. But immediately afterward they will continue thinking and talking in a manner that indicates they can't really make the distinction. Korzybski of General Semantics called this "identification."

It reminds me about a conversation I had a few months ago with someone about DRH. I told him about some people who claim they understand DRH, then within a minute or so they say, "Government does this, that, and the other" -- demonstrating that they don't understand DRH at all. This person responded, "Well I'm not like that; I really understand DRH." Within about two minutes this person starts telling me about how... can you guess?!... how, "Government does this, that, and the other!"

All this indicates that people can learn the learned behavior that constitutes DRH, but they can't unlearn it until they develop the necessary level 3 literacy skills. So our challenge includes identifying the specific required skills and develop the means whereby others can acquire them.

TK1: My assumption is that overcoming the DRH is primarily the ability to control one's own thoughts in one's own head so as to identify fraud-words (words which do not refer to volitional entities). And (I'm assuming), thoughts are primarily a function of ones vocabulary and one's ability to create new words when need be to more accurately describe reality (when existing words "in the market place of words" (so-called) do not suffice).

FM: An example of a fraud-word is one which implies a volitional entity where there isn't any, like the word "government." Identifying such words is a level 3 ability. People stuck at level 2 or lower can't tell the difference between a statement about the word "government" and one about the supposed thing "government." If they try to read the former they will compulsively attempt to distort it so it looks like the latter.

TK1: For illiterates to have the potential to overcome the DRH, they first have to learn to read and write. My working hypothesis is all literates can be cured of the DRH. And, most illiterates can be taught to read and write successfully (95%?, 99%?).

FM: Reading and writing is not the decisive issue. However, reading and writing makes it much easier for people to acquire level 3 skills. However, illiterates do have the potential to overcome DRH, provided they acquire level 3 skills -- which they can do without being able to read or write.

TK1: How does one overcome the DRH? Well for me it was primarily due to reading (over time period x (in years)) about the atrocities committed by individuals who call themselves "government" (primarily from so-called "Patriot" literature) and then reading (over time period y (in months)) the Build Freedom reports and the Neo-Tech Discovery manuscript. Before becoming disillusioned I had to first know how to read.

How long does it take one to overcome the DRH? There so many variables per each individual. But, FM indicates that one must be disillusioned first. In my words, the potential of overcoming the DRH is higher in an individual who is disillusioned with say, the Libertarian Party/change-the-system-method-to-get-
my-freedom than the individual who is not so disillusioned. It just may be necessary for a literate to first become disillusioned before overcoming the DRH. How does one create controlled disillusionment in another?

FM: I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be disillusioned to overcome DRH. Empirically, though, it may turn out that for a high percentage of DRH overcomers, disillusionment will have been a motivator.

CG: As a lifelong dog trainer, I know all you need do is teach the old dog new tricks. Happens all the time. Especially with people. All it takes is advertising, mass hysteria and being told by those they look up to to change their ideas. Simple.

TK1: Interesting point. I have no comment at this time. I'll call this the "stamp of approval" syndrome for the time being.

FM: Not so simple, I'm afraid. As for overcoming DRH, we'll have to do something so they feel the need to do what's required to acquire level 3 literacy skills, and then to implement those skills.

CG: The hard part is to get those more intelligent, critical thinkers who have DRH to give it up. That's where the rubber meets the road.

TK1: I don't mean to sound nit-picky, but I think you mean to say either one of two things or both:

(1) The hard part is to come up with a method that can cause more intelligent, critical individuals to give up the DRH in a given time period z faster than methods currently in use (e. g., the simple "free-market" dissemination and then reading of Build Freedom reports). The point here is that X number of intelligent, critical individuals are already giving up the DRH every month (using the current distribution methods) and how can that rate be increased.

But, could it be that the simple "free-market" dissemination of informational reports such as the Build Freedom reports is the best and only method that there is while staying within the Build Freedom Code.

(2) Or, do you mean to say that the writings of, say FM, can only help a very select type of critical, intelligent individual? In other words, does the message need to be re-worded to increase the rate X/month?

In closing, I hope that FM's simple "free-market" dissemination of the Build Freedom reports on the internet for free will increase the X/month rate mentioned above..

FM: I think the answer lies in (1) increasing the number of people exposed to DRH ideas, and (2) improving the means to get people proficient at level 3 literacy.

THE "DE ROCK HALLUCINATION" -- THE LAST WORD?

by L. Reichard White

Gregory Bateson reports that after complete frustration trying to explain a semantic nicety to his class, he once overheard one of his students saying "Bateson knows something but he's not telling." I suspect that Frederick Mann may feel a frustration similar to Bateson's.

Does government, or for that matter, anything, exist as we perceive it?

I believe the following should almost completely clear up the so-called "De Rock Hallucination."

Let's try a few "thought experiments," three to be exact.

1ST THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

Suppose that unknown to you, your certifiably insane neighbor hallucinates a six foot high concrete block wall dividing YOUR yard down the middle. He notices there is no such wall and realizes he must remedy the situation. You come home that night after work to find such a wall has been built. Mystified but a bit annoyed by the wall, -- your hallucination is that your yard DOESN'T have such a wall -- you tear it down. Your neighbor, noticing the wall is gone, builds it again the next day. You find the new wall and tear IT down too. ---- Etc. Your neighbor, rich and getting frustrated, hires a local contractor to build the wall and to rebuild it every time it gets torn down. You're keeping up with the contractor, tearing the wall down every time he builds it, but finally your neighbor, really annoyed now, hires armed guards to protect the wall from your destructive, hooligan attacks.

QUESTION #1: What's your BIGGEST problem? Is it the actual physical walls your neighbor builds or has built? Is it the contractor or armed guards he hires? --- Or is it the hallucination, the IDEA, the mental construction, in your neighbor's mind that the wall exists or SHOULD exist, and which he passes on (by the use of money) to the contractor and guards? (Or is the problem -- possibly -- the hallucination or idea in YOUR mind that it SHOULDN'T exist?)

QUESTION #2: Can you handle the problem by ignoring the wall, pretending it doesn't exist, and just walking THROUGH it -- or ignoring the copper-jacketed lead bullets the armed guards shoot at you while you're tearing the wall down? Probably not. While the wall may be an affront to your sensibilities, can you still AVOID the wall by just peacefully walking around it or avoiding your back yard, or at least the wall, completely, etc.? If you now understand the "De Rock Hallucination," you probably can. If your neighbor decides to build OTHER walls, however, at some point you might have to take more direct action.

2ND THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

Suppose your neighbor only imagines there is a wall through the middle of your back yard and when he sees you apparently walking through it, hires the armed guards to shoot you if you try that trick again.

QUESTION #1: Is the situation you face substantially different from the previous one where the wall actually exists?

QUESTION #2: Since there isn't any actual wall in the physical world, where DOES the problem exist?

QUESTION #3: If you reach the point where you believe you must "do something" about the walls, are you more likely to meet with success by attacking the physical wall, or by trying to change your neighbor's mind ----- or, perhaps, by some other means?

Consider the following:

"We know that the earth is round. We know there are people on it. We know that they are all like us. But when you fly around it time and time again -- 90 minutes to get around the whole earth -- again and again and again, it comes in a different way. It doesn't come in through the head. It comes in through the heart, in through the gut. When you come down from that experience, you've crossed thousands and thousands of borders and boundaries that are artificially created. They work nice on maps. You paint them orange and blue and green. But that's not what it is when viewed from space. You don't even see those boundaries and borders. We created them, guys, and it's up to us to do something about it. I'd suggest that this perspective is one that might help a little bit in taking responsibility for this planet as a whole and for all the life on it. That's what comes through to you when you're up there in space, when you're flying around this beautiful planet." -- from "On Space," by Rusty Schweickart, Transcript of the First Annual Windstar Choices for the Future Symposium, Snowmass, Colorado, June 1986, excerpted from The Magic of Conflict by Thomas F. Crum, pg. 85.

3RD THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:

Imagine "The Government." What does it look like? How much does it weigh? What color is it? Where is it right now? Can you pick it up? What would happen if you shot it repeatedly with an automatic weapon?

QUESTION #1: Is "The Government" different from the imaginary wall running through your back yard? If so, how?

Finally, to see just how far this can all be carried, consider the following:

"Our raw material consisted merely of events; but when we find that we can build out of it something which, as measured, will seem to be never created or destroyed, it is not surprising that we should come to believe in "bodies." These are really mere mathematical constructions out of events, but owing to their permanence they are practically important and our senses (which were presumably developed by biological needs) are adapted for noticing them, rather than the crude continuum of events which is theoretically more fundamental." -- Bertrand Russell, ABC of Relativity, pg. 117.

TOWARD A DRH/NSPIC SOLUTION

by Frederick Mann

I don't think we have the last word yet, but the above may be a good beginning toward developing the UNLEARNING SKILLS we need and discovering what it takes for people to learn "level 3 literacy skills" or "meta-literacy."

Above I also identified "the ability to see yourself as an objective phenomenon." I think this needs to be extended to "the ability to see yourself and the results you produce as objective phenomena." This ability may be extremely important and acquiring it may be a key to overcoming DRH/NSPIC.

About a year ago I wrote the paragraph below in response to a suggestion by John de Rock that I debate "UK lawyers" on one of their e-mail discussion groups:

"An important combat principle is involved here. If you fight someone on his home turf, where he has friends and allies and where he makes or controls the rules, you most likely will be at a huge disadvantage and you'll almost certainly lose. You're far better off having the opponent come to your turf where you have the advantage."

A week before completing this report, I tried to launch an NSPIC debate on the Extropians e-mail mailing list. It was a complete disaster. Had I observed myself as an objective phenomenon, I most likely would never have made such a foolish attempt to debate in "hostile territory." I was blinded to myself and my likely results by my unrealistic expectations and misguided enthusiasm.

The DRH debate took place on my home turf where I had some advantages, including a few friends who have overcome much or all of DRH.

Future NSPIC debates should also take place on my home turf, for example, on the Advanced Freedom Solutions list.

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com