Back to main page

Rights and Wrongs

Mario Molinari, our newest contributor, recounted to me the origins of his former business as a translator. Successful as he was this entrepreneur 30 years ago started up alone translating textual material. In our discussions he emphasized the difference between translating and interpreting, the former applies through the written tradition whereas the latter is an exponent of the oral. The gulf in understanding is mirrored in the recent innovation of writing as compared to the hundred thousand plus years that cultures were required to merge boundaries and territories. In Mario’s eyes he sees war as a result of the need to translate differences between vying states; they are “words” to him that embody inherent cultural biases. His solution is that we must talk more because much of the understanding is conveyed through somatics also. I agree to a large extent, only that I think militancy is implicit of human kind ever since humanity overstepped the natural frontiers of his ecological heritage in time and space. This goes back a lot further than the 6,000 years of written tradition. It goes back to the moment when man concentrated resources beyond his immediate needs.

30 years ago then Mario was turning over a 6-figure profit, having access to the services of 1,200 interpreters and translators and specialising in over 320 fields of knowledge. For instance, the automobile industry or various other machines had their own terminology. He realised that with a skeleton staff of 5 he could employ the temporary services of anyone else. He said to me that the manner in which the business ran successfully was premised on the need to create databases. Since then words and their etymologies have fascinated Mario to the understanding that their original meanings are taken for granted now, but in their truer sense are charged; the effects have hitherto gone unconscious to the user in the modern context. Hence, language is now flippantly used without regard to its discriminatory nature. If we are to negate the prevalence of war and general antagonism in the world then we must turn the corner and generate a new language of context.

I, the editor, have already been doing this under the auspices of Common Law. I successfully defended my reasons not to pay Council Tax when Lewisham Council trashed my property maintained at the Devonshire Road Nature Reserve in Forest Hill. I pre-empted my appearance to the county courts with a letter telling the judge to uphold my rights under Common Law, that I cannot be dealt with as a legal (corporate, i.e. ‘Mr’) citizen until the issue of the trashed greenhouse is resolved, which Lewisham Council failed to do after letters of appeasement and refusal to keep the peace. Common Law is such, that every human being outside legislation has an a priori right to live a peaceful life, to be able to obtain subsistence, and not to have themselves or their property violated in any manner. This is the law of kings and queens and preceded the written word of acts and statutes which came about in order to deal with the infringements upon Common Law. Under this more modern legislation, appropriated by the educated for the educated at a time when even the meaning of words like ‘property’ could be abducted in the name of Enclosures, every legal-abiding citizen enforces the use of legislation only when admitting to their legal status, i.e. through the production of an official document given to one at birth, like a passport, and showing one’s date of birth, effectively signing a ‘contract’ whereby one’s humanness is abducted by their corporate status (e.g. ‘Mr’. or ‘Mrs’). The judge asked me, “What would you have us do?”, and I said that as one corporate body to another (the courts to the council) you must first deal with the issue of the trashed greenhouse before I could even be considered a legal citizen again. I did not accede to the jurisdiction of the judge when she entered the courtroom, likewise I walked out before the end giving my thanks. I effectively lawfully reclaimed sovereignty on common ground. Consider, how do you think the police forces and other corporate bodies including the army, the government and many other forms of authority came into power if it was not for the bullying tactics of the ‘educated’ to employ thugs and gangs in order to get signed confessions from “natives” or to surrender property through a piece of paper with one’s signature on it? When you sign the dotted line you are acceding to your legal status. This has been the model of human civilisation since before the time of the Greeks. I want to reclaim our common rights. I want to enforce Common Law by negating legal powers. I want the right as indigenes to be left alone and treat our bodies as our own. I want to create a militia for the protection of the ‘uneducated’. I want to develop a Spiritual Court for the enforcing of Common Law. Who is with me?

I have already started creating Notices (see the editor page of our website for more information on reclaiming your sovereignty) issued to the heads of the country as witness to the powers I have invoked upon myself. They include damage to my property whilst in transportation (Parcel2Go) and the sale of faulty equipment over the internet and loss of return postage (Cordnet Computers). My idea is to continue making a list of offenders so that there is a basis for instigating a law system based upon the spiritual powers of the applicant. I was told recently that it is not the system that is wrong but the people in power. However, without the people there would be no system and so it requires that corporate entities in their failure to deal lawfully are treated as “person”, exactly how the system came about in the first place. To look for a precedent one needs to search through Church history or the history of religions in general. Spiritual powers were invested upon bishops and other clergy to make decisions towards the formation of the early Church. However, in this age of individualism my idea is not to replicate the Church but to allow individuals to reclaim their spiritual rights in the name of evolution (as I understand it) under my philosophy. This necessitates a number of principles and ordinances:
The right to free water
The right to free food
The right to free shelter
The right to die

When one considers how these natural rights have been abducted from them and that the materialist mindset anchors these individuals into corporate subservience, it implies a number of actions. Firstly, an adherence to the belief in spiritual ascendancy (evolution) and the quest of the individual to go beyond culture. This is the prerogative of every individuals and vindicates the negation of corporate law under the auspices of Common Law. In the origins of the Church itself this has been very much the case, including exemption from paying taxes.

The Second is sacrifice to materialist ideals including the free withdrawal from corporate forms of control no matter how beneficial they are in the short-term. I believe that corporations are here to serve human kind and in order to implicate a socially-cohesive society corporate business should pay for our domestic energy requirements. Likewise, the theft of land under un-Godly (the term ‘God’ needs to be redefined by the individual in question) has left our water sources at the peril of inappropriate authorities and should not be sold back to the individual as a form of controlling its usage. The appropriation of water, food and energy sources requires domestic usage to be paid for by business. On this basis areas of land put over to growing food require their preservation, and lack of such available land to the individual necessitates its freeing up.

Thirdly, the requirement to act as evolved individuals and to break cross-cultural discrimination. This allows freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of cohabitation, and freedom to genetically diversify. Likewise, every individual born on this planet has a right to choose to withdraw their own life. It is not the right of institution to judge the spiritual quest, only to adhere and support the individuals’ own sentiments. As such it is the requirement of the individual to take full responsibility for their own actions. But no geographical or political boundary should be permitted to inhibit freedom of expression. Such a case would need to be argued on spiritual grounds with the prosecutor paying full costs.

Obviously, culture as we know it has tried to put in place the measures and systems that aid the individual into forms of acculturation, much to the benefit of the whole, but at a cost. I see the de-spiritualisation of society as the result of materialist dominance. A future scenario would empower the individual to justify their existence through more natural modes of living, and it would be for corporate organisations to prove their own authority through spiritual mediation, hence one can consider them as “persons” when acting for the benefit of spiritual rehabilitation. The spiritual courts would then be the alternative for those individuals who wish to withdraw from materialist enslavement. A militia would operate to defend these individuals who have been abused for upholding their natural rights. Such a militia acting in subjectivity will have the powers to arrest those who offend the spiritual rights of individuals, seize property in resolved cases of the courts, resist unlawful corporate jurisdiction, and enforce natural rights through action (which can only be challenged on spiritual grounds). Please post your comments and intentions at to help institute the social process for the formation of an alternative spiritual foundation.

Back to main page