This really caught my eye, and my mind as well: "Crucially, oracles don’t solve hard problems. They relocate them somewhere you’re not allowed to look."
And you are not being allowed to look at the fundamentals of your various court cases. Nobody wants to spend the time to prove what must be proved once someone like you starts asking for the proof.
Another: "Decisions scale. Proofs don’t."
Right again. If proof of authority were required at all, it would slow every case. Yet without that proof that slows the case, trust leaks away over the entire decision space-time.
OK, I've been wondering about malice aforethought for a long time. This is the first time I've seen the intellectual framework to indicate it is efficiency gone wrong, not malice.
The System needs your correctness and performance science expertise, Martin. :-)
I think that you and Martin are both way off the mark. The grunts who turn up on the doorstep claiming authority from a Court Order don't care a shit about due process or sovereignty and the parasites who sent them certainly don't. They all enjoy what they do and if that's not malice I don't know what is.
I can understand Martin's need to frame this all in a context that he relates to, but a simple dictionary would set him straight on the fanciful notion that this is not a conspiracy. The grunts that we all have to deal with at the coalface of the court system, the police, etc., may simply be soulless automatons that the system relies on but nefarious people conspired to put the system in place. They conspired to subvert natural law, common law, and these frameworks that Martin observes are the end result. The end result of conspiracy and malice.
Gus, I am in complete agreement with you that there are likely *many* people within this system who love the power it gives them. It is definitely a feature for them and not a bug.
However, Martin and I have been going back and forth about the *framework*. Who set this up? Why did they set it up this way? Other court systems were not set up this way and as far as I know, not (yet) subject to this set of pressures leading to this bureaucratic/administrative de facto tyranny.
I see massive evil in the world. We all do. But the question here is whether those who set up this system did so because they figured it just had to be this way to work, or were the framers - over many years - operating with evil intent to create this "banality of evil" outcome?
The fact is that it actually doesn't require overt evil/malice to create this kind of outcome. I see this outcome as *inevitable* whether started maliciously or just willy-nilly, based on the framework Martin has clarified for us all. The framing for this section of the court system was either poorly done (allowing both good and bad people to spin the system out of control) or was with malice deliberately designed to fail this way.
As Q said, though, there are actually more good people than bad in pretty much any system, people who, when faced with clear proof of failure and of evil actions, *may* decide to step up and become allies in fixing the problem.
I think it is smart at this point for Martin to assume a faulty system that allows a bad or even evil *outcome* to arise from normal human behavior, thus giving any good people a merciful "out" to become allies. If later research *proves* actual malice in the original framing, then those who are proved to be malicious can be identified, the good people in the system can be awoken to their perfidy, and justice can be meted out with large-scale support. At that point real reform becomes possible (but not certain).
My belief at this point (and I'm fine with you disagreeing) is that Martin does not have that proof. As such, he must assume the "banality" of an evil outcome rather than the existence of malice aforethought ab initio.
Steve, thanks for taking the time to articulate your reasoning. I agree with so much, particularly the point that there are far more decent people in the system than nefarious types.
Not so very long ago I would've been almost exactly where you both are in terms of perspective, however, there came a time for me that it was healthier to trust my own judgement above giving benefit of the doubt to others. That has very naturally led me to the path of God's law, natural law, common law.
Every man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. At some point, people conspired to subvert natural law (the laws of the universe) to place others in servitude. This wholly unnatural state can only be sustained by the wilful actions of others. As pragmatic as your position may be, it gives a free pass to the masses whose actions (or inaction) keeps us all in servitude.
As much as I want to continue supporting the work of decent people like Martin, this fatal blind spot is difficult to reconcile. As is his complete lack of engagement with the souls in his comments section and simultaneous submersion in a soulless AI.
That's certainly up to you, Gus, indeed totally understandable from your POV. However, I would caution you on your assumption that "Every man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong."
Several percent of the world's population are psychopaths of various kinds. These people have brain anomalies that make them predatory and rewarded by causing people pain and suffering. Martin has dealt with some people who I think are classifiable into this category. These people have no concept of right and wrong. They desire only advantage and control. Karen Mitchell has the best document on this issue, and you can read her PhD thesis here:
My own belief is that there *were* psychopaths involved in the formation of the LJA system, but Martin has no proof. That there are such people inside the system now is pretty much guaranteed. The Law attracts such people because of the opportunity for control, intimidation, and so on.
However, unless folks like that are exposed so that the good people can see them, and see them brought to justice for fraud or treason, there are no ways to move forward using that assumption. Since Martin has quoted a previous comment of mine on this subject, I know he reads the comments we make.
Given his situation and the burden answering comments can put on a host, I can't say I blame him at all for choosing not to respond to comments, though like you, I wish he would do so. For Martin to respond to commenters bears risks from those who have axes to grind with him, risks you and I don't face here. We will see if Martin can get proof of Evil at some point, but his approach and goal don't necessarily call for him to be the one who exposes the perfidious.
Thanks for the link to Karen's thesis, having read the abstract I'm sure that it'll provide insight into an area of particular interest to me and and my son who I will share this with as he is also interested in this field.
I find myself, once more, agreeing with everything you say but for one thing; your assertion that my statement about our innate sense of right and wrong is an assumption. It's innate, I'm assuming nothing and that's the key to all of this.
I think that the empirical proof and evidence that eludes Martin is merely a symptom of his overexposure to the modern education system which has successfully (at least partially) obfuscated from him the importance of "what we all know to be true" - I quote that because it's a working title of my son's thesis on the laws of the universe. Once we forget our innate knowledge we lose our discernment and can be easily tricked into relegating it's importance beneath the propaganda of a deliberately weaponised establishment which includes academia.
The danger is losing sight of the importance above all else of the fundamental differences between right and wrong. They can hide all evidence of entire civilisations from the masses but it doesn't alter the fact they existed and that those of us with eyes to see know it. Even if Martin's quest to find and reveal his smoking gun is successful, it won't contain a silver bullet. His silver bullet is already within him, innately.
I recently read a book called "Tesla and the Cabbage Patch Kids" (https://thetartarianempire.co.uk) in which the author, Guy Anderson, presents evidence suggesting babies have been cloned on a mass scale, at least since the late 19th century. Perhaps it's these children who are not born with the innate knowledge that the rest of us know to be true? We also know from the work of the Tavistock Clinic and the MK Ultra programme that children and even adults can be 'broken' by repeated abuse and become psychopathic. It's not a stretch, for instance, to speculate that Boris Johnson is an example of this having attended the now closed Ashdown House public school which was famous for the child sex abuse that took place there.
Steve, I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. All the best.
Excellent article Martin. You have opened the "can of worms", for many.
This really caught my eye, and my mind as well: "Crucially, oracles don’t solve hard problems. They relocate them somewhere you’re not allowed to look."
And you are not being allowed to look at the fundamentals of your various court cases. Nobody wants to spend the time to prove what must be proved once someone like you starts asking for the proof.
Another: "Decisions scale. Proofs don’t."
Right again. If proof of authority were required at all, it would slow every case. Yet without that proof that slows the case, trust leaks away over the entire decision space-time.
OK, I've been wondering about malice aforethought for a long time. This is the first time I've seen the intellectual framework to indicate it is efficiency gone wrong, not malice.
The System needs your correctness and performance science expertise, Martin. :-)
I think that you and Martin are both way off the mark. The grunts who turn up on the doorstep claiming authority from a Court Order don't care a shit about due process or sovereignty and the parasites who sent them certainly don't. They all enjoy what they do and if that's not malice I don't know what is.
I can understand Martin's need to frame this all in a context that he relates to, but a simple dictionary would set him straight on the fanciful notion that this is not a conspiracy. The grunts that we all have to deal with at the coalface of the court system, the police, etc., may simply be soulless automatons that the system relies on but nefarious people conspired to put the system in place. They conspired to subvert natural law, common law, and these frameworks that Martin observes are the end result. The end result of conspiracy and malice.
Gus, I am in complete agreement with you that there are likely *many* people within this system who love the power it gives them. It is definitely a feature for them and not a bug.
However, Martin and I have been going back and forth about the *framework*. Who set this up? Why did they set it up this way? Other court systems were not set up this way and as far as I know, not (yet) subject to this set of pressures leading to this bureaucratic/administrative de facto tyranny.
I see massive evil in the world. We all do. But the question here is whether those who set up this system did so because they figured it just had to be this way to work, or were the framers - over many years - operating with evil intent to create this "banality of evil" outcome?
The fact is that it actually doesn't require overt evil/malice to create this kind of outcome. I see this outcome as *inevitable* whether started maliciously or just willy-nilly, based on the framework Martin has clarified for us all. The framing for this section of the court system was either poorly done (allowing both good and bad people to spin the system out of control) or was with malice deliberately designed to fail this way.
As Q said, though, there are actually more good people than bad in pretty much any system, people who, when faced with clear proof of failure and of evil actions, *may* decide to step up and become allies in fixing the problem.
I think it is smart at this point for Martin to assume a faulty system that allows a bad or even evil *outcome* to arise from normal human behavior, thus giving any good people a merciful "out" to become allies. If later research *proves* actual malice in the original framing, then those who are proved to be malicious can be identified, the good people in the system can be awoken to their perfidy, and justice can be meted out with large-scale support. At that point real reform becomes possible (but not certain).
My belief at this point (and I'm fine with you disagreeing) is that Martin does not have that proof. As such, he must assume the "banality" of an evil outcome rather than the existence of malice aforethought ab initio.
Steve, thanks for taking the time to articulate your reasoning. I agree with so much, particularly the point that there are far more decent people in the system than nefarious types.
Not so very long ago I would've been almost exactly where you both are in terms of perspective, however, there came a time for me that it was healthier to trust my own judgement above giving benefit of the doubt to others. That has very naturally led me to the path of God's law, natural law, common law.
Every man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. At some point, people conspired to subvert natural law (the laws of the universe) to place others in servitude. This wholly unnatural state can only be sustained by the wilful actions of others. As pragmatic as your position may be, it gives a free pass to the masses whose actions (or inaction) keeps us all in servitude.
As much as I want to continue supporting the work of decent people like Martin, this fatal blind spot is difficult to reconcile. As is his complete lack of engagement with the souls in his comments section and simultaneous submersion in a soulless AI.
That's certainly up to you, Gus, indeed totally understandable from your POV. However, I would caution you on your assumption that "Every man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong."
Several percent of the world's population are psychopaths of various kinds. These people have brain anomalies that make them predatory and rewarded by causing people pain and suffering. Martin has dealt with some people who I think are classifiable into this category. These people have no concept of right and wrong. They desire only advantage and control. Karen Mitchell has the best document on this issue, and you can read her PhD thesis here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64910384d2da1763d7156043/t/65bc5a78ab4aef10b9901a25/1706842827397/Psychopaths+Narcissists+Machiavellians+Toxic+Leaders+Coercive+Controllers++Subsets+of+One+Overarching+Dark+Personality+Type++MITCHELL+PHD+THESIS.pdf
My own belief is that there *were* psychopaths involved in the formation of the LJA system, but Martin has no proof. That there are such people inside the system now is pretty much guaranteed. The Law attracts such people because of the opportunity for control, intimidation, and so on.
However, unless folks like that are exposed so that the good people can see them, and see them brought to justice for fraud or treason, there are no ways to move forward using that assumption. Since Martin has quoted a previous comment of mine on this subject, I know he reads the comments we make.
Given his situation and the burden answering comments can put on a host, I can't say I blame him at all for choosing not to respond to comments, though like you, I wish he would do so. For Martin to respond to commenters bears risks from those who have axes to grind with him, risks you and I don't face here. We will see if Martin can get proof of Evil at some point, but his approach and goal don't necessarily call for him to be the one who exposes the perfidious.
Have a great holiday season, Gus! :-)
Thanks for the link to Karen's thesis, having read the abstract I'm sure that it'll provide insight into an area of particular interest to me and and my son who I will share this with as he is also interested in this field.
I find myself, once more, agreeing with everything you say but for one thing; your assertion that my statement about our innate sense of right and wrong is an assumption. It's innate, I'm assuming nothing and that's the key to all of this.
I think that the empirical proof and evidence that eludes Martin is merely a symptom of his overexposure to the modern education system which has successfully (at least partially) obfuscated from him the importance of "what we all know to be true" - I quote that because it's a working title of my son's thesis on the laws of the universe. Once we forget our innate knowledge we lose our discernment and can be easily tricked into relegating it's importance beneath the propaganda of a deliberately weaponised establishment which includes academia.
The danger is losing sight of the importance above all else of the fundamental differences between right and wrong. They can hide all evidence of entire civilisations from the masses but it doesn't alter the fact they existed and that those of us with eyes to see know it. Even if Martin's quest to find and reveal his smoking gun is successful, it won't contain a silver bullet. His silver bullet is already within him, innately.
I recently read a book called "Tesla and the Cabbage Patch Kids" (https://thetartarianempire.co.uk) in which the author, Guy Anderson, presents evidence suggesting babies have been cloned on a mass scale, at least since the late 19th century. Perhaps it's these children who are not born with the innate knowledge that the rest of us know to be true? We also know from the work of the Tavistock Clinic and the MK Ultra programme that children and even adults can be 'broken' by repeated abuse and become psychopathic. It's not a stretch, for instance, to speculate that Boris Johnson is an example of this having attended the now closed Ashdown House public school which was famous for the child sex abuse that took place there.
Steve, I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. All the best.