Report #TL07F: NSPIC DEBATE #2

By Frederick Mann
Copyright 1997 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Notice: This report contains copyrighted material. This information is free for personal use only. No part of these materials may be reproduced in any form - except for personal use - without permission from the copyright holder.

THE DE ROCK DEBATE CONTINUES

John de Rock:
The correspondence on government being an hallucination has produced less debate than I should have expected for such an important point.

Maybe Frederick Mann's articles are too long for readers of this list take in, they get put on one side and never read. Or maybe people feel the points are too theoretical.

How about a practical aspect, then. I ask, how does this apply to actually dealing with statists?

This whole thing actually started with my... [article] about cryonic suspension. I suggested that we should communicate with governments positive ideas about cryonics. FM's arguments as I see them are that the very concept is meaningless.

Nevertheless there are people who try and stop cryonic suspension, either by interfering with estate building or more directly by hacking up people who are on the point of being suspended. These people are doing this, according to FM's reasoning, because they suffer an hallucination that there is something called government and they are serving it by this behavior.

Can we use the "hallucination" concept to modify their behavior? Obviously we can't to this by telling them they are hallucinating, as they will say we are mad. Is there another way?

Frederick Mann:
Let me emphasize that my purpose isn't to make John de Rock wrong, nor merely to defeat someone in debate, nor to make myself look clever and someone else stupid. My contention is that practically anyone who transcends what I call the De Rock Hallucination (DRH) most likely will become vastly more effective at dealing with statists -- or organizing your life and affairs so you don't have to deal with them. This lengthy communication is (hopefully) part of the DRH cure.

The first thing is to realize that you may suffer from DRH to a far greater extent than you realize. Also, there are many more elements of DRH that haven't been covered in this debate. The second thing to realize is that a person, highly intelligent in areas other than politics, may suffer from the DRH stupefaction element in the area of politics.

"The correspondence on government being an hallucination..." -- "Government being an hallucination" is a gross misunderstanding of DRH. It is the action of allegedly "seeing" or "perceiving" a supposed "government" that is the hallucination. Let me repeat an earlier part of the debate...

"Let me repeat Mr. de Rock's first sentence in part:

1."…Frederick Mann suggests that governments are a collective hallucination, and presents arguments for this assertion."

To what extent is this a reasonable reflection of what... I wrote:

2. "The phenomenon of "government" (falsely-called) is primarily a phenomenon of collective hallucination."

Suppose I were having a discussion with a person who claims to have seen a UFO. Suppose I suggest that the person might have been hallucinating.

1. Am I suggesting that the UFO was an hallucination?; or

2. Am I suggesting that the alleged act of "seeing" the supposed "UFO" was an hallucination?

Semanticists make a distinction between "map" and "territory" (or "menu" and "meal"). Let's call a statement about "territory" (or "meal") a type 1 statement; and a statement about "map" (or "menu) a type 2 statement.

Can you see that Mr. de Rock's, "…Frederick Mann suggests that governments are a collective hallucination, and presents arguments for this assertion," is a type 1 statement?

And can you see that my, "The phenomenon of "government" (falsely-called) is primarily a phenomenon of collective hallucination," is a type 2 statement?

Debating DRH
Several people have indicated to me that they enjoy the DRH debate. One said, "I enjoyed your recent "government" hallucination posts that were in plain-jane English."

Some people are outraged by some of my assertions, e.g., "99,999...percent of humans suffer from DRH" and "99,999...percent of humans are babies or infants in the area of politics." I wish some of these people would write why they are outraged, or why I might be mistaken. The ensuing correspondence most likely will illustrate more elements of DRH.

Another problem is that because 99.999...percent of humans also suffer from the stupefaction element of DRH, they fear that they will end up looking stupid if they challenge my assertions and I demolish their arguments.

A further problem is that some people haven't developed the thinking skills to process self-referencing syntax like "falsely-called "government"." They also haven't sufficiently developed the ability to question concepts. They may have the ability to question beliefs, but not the more basic concepts. [Below I make a distinction between the belief and concept levels of statism.] When some people try to read about DRH, their minds automatically twist the words into forms that accord with their habitual ways of thinking. That's why John de Rock still uses distortions like "correspondence on government being an hallucination." [Eventually, we'll identify all the thinking skills necessary to cure DRH.]

Furthermore, if you try to discuss DRH with any of your family, friends, or associates, they'll probably conclude that the whole idea is stupid and that you must be crazy for wanting to discuss such idiocy!

A possible solution is for one or more people to systematically go through all the DRH and related materials they have, and to make a list of questions. I would be happy to answer these questions.

"This whole thing actually started with my... [article] about cryonic suspension. I suggested that we should communicate with governments positive ideas about cryonics. FM's arguments as I see them are that the very concept is meaningless." -- You also used phrases like "the thought processes of government," the totality of which indicated to me that you suffered from DRH to a more extreme degree than anyone else I had encountered.

You certainly may be able to communicate positive ideas about cryonics to individual terrocrats. This may even have beneficial consequences -- in the short term. The problem is that for the terrocrats to maintain their master positions and to keep their victims in their slave positions, they have to operate on the basis that they own their victims -- including their bodies after "death." That's also why the terrocrats operate on the basis that they force children into "schools" for political brainwashing; take children away from their parents by force; take by force or threat whatever portion of your earnings they want; regulate by force or threat your commercial and social activities as they see fit; fine you, lock you up, or force you into slave-labor ("community service") if you disobey them; draft or conscript you into the military to kill and be killed; and -- after "death -- hack "your" (from their point of view, they own it) body into pieces.

They are the wolves and you are the sheep.

To the extent that you say it's OK for terrocrats to own or regulate any part of your life, e.g., the hours you may work or the wages you may pay, you are a sheep. This is how coercion works in practice. If you grant any terrocrat the right to coerce you in any way, you have in principle granted ALL terrocrats the right to coerce you in ALL the ways they may ever want to. This is also why I say that any acceptance on your part of others having the right to coerce you is unconscious deathism. Because if you grant them the right, e.g., to tell you what kind of gun you may or may not own, you in principle also grant them the right to kill you and to hack "your" body into pieces.

The pretended "US Constitution" is a case in point. It grants certain coercive powers to terrocrats. Through the pretended "Bill of Rights," these coercive powers are supposed to be severely limited. But in practice the terrocrats, once having been granted coercive powers, will always attempt to expand those powers without limit. If you give a terrocrat your finger, he will eventually claim your entire life, your body, all your time, and all your property.

"Nevertheless there are people who try and stop cryonic suspension, either by interfering with estate building or more directly by hacking up people who are on the point of being suspended. These people are doing this, according to FM's reasoning, because they suffer an hallucination that there is something called government and they are serving it by this behavior." -- No, this isn't my reasoning at all. They do it because you, and those who like you accept coercion in principle, support them. You support them by accepting the coercion principle on which they operate. You support them by obeying them. You support them by financing them. You support them by hallucinating them as "the government" -- and all the other DRH elements.

They do it because they enjoy coercive power over others. They do it because it's easier to live off the production of sucker-victims, than to produce for themselves. Let me quote from [an earlier] response to a DeRock article in which he advocated several forms of terrocrat coercion:

[Begin quote] The idea of the "30hr week for 40hr wages" is based on both the false beliefs in scarcity and external control or coercion. People shouldn't decide among themselves how long they should work or how much to pay each other -- some external-control authority should decide. This is deathism in disguise.

"People working 30hr weeks should be discouraged from taking a second paid job. …[T]he tax system could be used to penalize overtime or a second employment." Accepting any "tax system" is an acceptance of coercion and external control. If you grant others the right to take your property by force, can you prevent them from treating you as property? More deathism in disguise.

"I am not opposed to regulations making the workplace safer." (I'm assuming this refers to external regulation, rather than self-regulation.) If you grant others the right to regulate your workplace, you've accepted a master-slave relationship. You've relinquished self-control. More deathism in disguise.

Now read or skim Mr. De Rock's article again. Does it represent a sense of vitality, enthusiasm, optimism, and life? Does it offer any solutions? Does it create the impression that he knows about free enterprise? Is it indicative of psychological reversal? Deathism?

Victim-Mentality
Mr. DeRock's final sentence is the clincher: "…[I]f the regulators and lawyers leave us the resources to do the research in time." In other words, we are the poor slaves and victims, owned and controlled by the regulators and lawyers. The only resources we can have are those they're kind enough to leave us. We can only extend our lifespans if they will let us -- poor victims!

When you combine the scarcity belief with the external-control belief, you get the "victim-mentality" -- severe psychological reversal… and deathism. [End quote]

Psychological reversal, victim-mentality, slave-mentality, and deathism are all aspects of the DEBILITY element of DRH.

Of course, an additional reason why terrocrats do what they do is because they hallucinate themselves as "the government" -- and 99.999...percent of humans share this hallucination. If only the terrocrats hallucinated themselves as "the government," and everybody else had cured themselves of DRH, the terrocrats would be accurately perceived as insane bureaucrazies in a madhouse. However, as long as 99.999...percent of humans share the same hallucination, it all seems quite sane -- and the only people who seem crazy are those who try to point out the insanity!

"Can we use the "hallucination" concept to modify their behavior? Obviously we can't to this by telling them they are hallucinating, as they will say we are mad. Is there another way?

How about a practical aspect, then. I ask, how does this apply to actually dealing with statists?"

Three Levels of Statism
1. Behavior -- e.g., Cops harassing innocent people for "victimless crimes."

2. Beliefs -- e.g., "People working 30hr weeks should be discouraged from taking a second paid job. …[T]he tax system could be used to penalize overtime or a second employment."

3. Concepts -- e.g., "Government," "state," "law," etc.

If you believe that the terrocrats should use the tax system to achieve what you think is good, then you've accepted coercion in principle. Whether you like it or, not you've also accepted that they can do with "your" body and "your" property whatever they like. As long as you hold any statist beliefs, you're a statist at the belief level. I suggest that you need to cure yourself of any remaining statist beliefs you may still suffer from. You may want to read books like For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

Then you need to study the Build Freedom materials to learn about Freedom Technology and acquire the necessary skills to more effectively deal with terrocrats. REPLACE DEBILITY WITH ABILITY.

You may want to form an "Association of Sovereign Cryonicists" who teach one another about both theoretical and practical freedom -- and practical sovereignty. (Our three forthcoming 'Sovereignty Manuals' will help.)

People who regard concepts like "government," "state," "law," etc. as valid are statists at the conceptual level. This includes practically all Build Freedomns, Libertarians, Objectivists, Anarchists, Cryonicists, Extropians, etc. These people have all "bought into the system." They suffer from DRH. As your own DRH cure progresses, you can start assisting others to also cure themselves.

Study Harry Plott of World Network Holdings [A businessman who built a substantial business, that has evolved through various stages and a reverse takeover to become Energy Optics Inc., now (1997) quoted on Nasdaq] as a role model. When he first bought the Build Freedom materials he was very much at the effect of terrocrats. As a result of the Build Freedom materials, he transformed his own behavior and his business. He became a Sovereign -- more accurately, discovered that he was free and sovereign by nature. As a result, in three years the assets of his business increased from $285,000 to over $30,000,000 (my guesstimate). Along the way several terrocrats have tried to stop him and his business. By applying Freedom Technology he outmaneuvered them all -- and his biggest victories are still to come! HE REPLACED DEBILITY WITH ABILITY.

But realize this: As long as the vast majority of people suffer from DRH, the "government" curse will continue to haunt us. As Robert Pirsig wrote in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: "But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repairs of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself. And if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government..."

There are statist behavior, statist belief (or thought), and statist concepts. The most fundamental -- the root -- is the statist conceptual system. It's actually an extensive constellation of concepts, we've only partially examined in this debate. Robert Pirsig would have been more effective, had he indicated that "our present construction of systematic thought itself" consists of concepts. The thoughts are at the belief level; the concepts are even more basic. In terms of identifying the most basic concepts that keep people trapped, I recommend Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own.

Finally, you can't control the concepts, thought, and behavior of terrocrats. But you can control your own. As Harry Browne indicates in How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, one of the greatest freedoms is freedom from the urge to control others. Central to Build Freedom strategy is that you start with yourself. The first step in dealing with statists is to handle your own statism.

[By the way, [earlier] ... the "former DRH Hallucinator" indicated that you don't know what this debate is about. Your "correspondence on government being an hallucination" indicates that you still don't know. Again and again, I get the impression that either you haven't read, or you've only half read, what you're responding to.]

The Next de Rock Installment
You say, "Then you need to study the Build Freedom materials to learn about Freedom Technology and acquire the necessary skills to more effectively deal with terrocrats. REPLACE DEBILITY WITH ABILITY."

That sounds like good advice, but all your materials are written for US customers. Myself and [many of my associates] live in the UK, Australia and such places.

I seem to recall someone saying that you said you could never have a Build Freedom office in Europe without breaking local laws because your technology wouldn't work there. Maybe you can refute this -- I don't know. I believe that I am correct in saying that Build Freedom is not about attaining freedom by breaking laws.

I read the Internet newsgroup <uk.legal> and occasionally trust programs from the US are advertised there. Often there are replies from UK lawyers who say that such programs would not be effective under UK law.

You may well feel that the UK market is too small to bother about -- you can make a fortune selling your technology in the USA. But consider this -- if the European terrocrats as you call them have really made your (and similar) programs unworkable, and the US terrocrats get worried about all these lawsuits against the IRS etc. and decide to stop them, all they need to do is to look at European legal systems and vote them into force in the USA. As most legislators are also lawyers of some sort or another they will pass the legislation because it will earn their professions more money.

Maybe they will find that you have examined European laws and found a way around them, in which case you can always keep ahead of the terrocrats. Or maybe they will find that no one has found a way around, and all you carefully researched US based technology will become useless.

I would suggest that your time may be more usefully employed on this than arguments about the nature of government which even you concede that 99% of the population can't understand. But that decision, is, of course, yours alone to take.

There are other points I could discuss in your article, but I have left this for other mailing list readers to debate. If they are not interested in such a debate we will merely lose more subscribers to this list if it continues too long.

Frederick Mann's Response:
I concluded my last portion of the debate with: [By the way, earlier the "Former DRH Hallucinator" indicated that you don't know what this debate is about. Your "correspondence on government being an hallucination" indicates that you still don't know. Again and again, I get the impression that either you haven't read, or you've only half read, what you're responding to.]

You say, "That sounds like good advice, but all your materials are written for US customers. Myself and [many of my associates] live in the UK, Australia and such places."

About 15-20 percent of Build Freedom materials are "US-specific." All the main principles apply worldwide. Have you actually read any Build Freedom materials? Have you perhaps just superficially passed your eyes over small parts of a few reports without really having read anything?

By applying the Build Freedom principles it's very easy to live free in the UK -- I speak from personal experience, having done so for about four years. The same almost certainly applies to Australia. In Belgium it's more difficult to live free because the terrocrats require their victims to be finger-printed and carry identity cards, and they also randomly stop people (including roadblocks) to check their documentation. For all kinds of things, like getting electricity, people need to show their identity cards. I lived free in Belgium for seven years -- by applying Freedom Technology as described in the Build Freedom materials.

"I seem to recall someone saying that you said you could never have a Build Freedom office in Europe without breaking local laws because your technology wouldn't work there. Maybe you can refute this -- I don't know. I believe that I am correct in saying that Build Freedom is not about attaining freedom by breaking laws.

Let me repeat a recent portion of our debate: "14. "Frederick Mann himself is reported to have said it is too dangerous to have a Build Freedom office in the UK and Build Freedom freedom technologies which are within the laws of many countries would not work in the UK. You can only protect yourself by using false identities and similar methods which are outside the law (and incidentally outside the TL Code -- members are exhorted to obey all known laws). Why does this situation exist in the UK? Because of an hallucination?" Who reported this? Exactly what was reported? How might the report differ from what I actually said? How does John de Rock's statement differ from what was reported to him?

I have never suggested that anyone use "false identities." [There is a common law principle that anyone can use whatever name(s) they like, provided they don't do so to defraud anyone.] There is nothing in the Build Freedom Code on the issue of what name(s) anyone might want to use.

The situation is different between the US and the UK. The US has a pretended "constitution" that severely limits what government bureaucrats may do. The "legal system" contains extensive means individuals can use to effectively stop bureaucrats who attack them. Individuals can openly confront bureaucrats and win. In the UK there is no such pretended "constitution." The best strategy for freedom-lovers in the UK is to practice being effectively invisible, or having compartments of their lives and activities be invisible to bureaucrats. I don't know of anyone in the UK who is skilled enough in Freedom Technology and business to safely operate a profitable Build Freedom office."

The second element of the De Rock Hallucination (DRH) is the hallucination of some of the noises and scribbles of terrocrats as "the law" (falsely-called). "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," said Aleister Crowley. What if in reality there are no (so-called) "laws" to break?

"I read the Internet newsgroup <uk.legal> and occasionally trust programs from the US are advertised there. Often there are replies from UK lawyers who say that such programs would not be effective under UK law."

Do you believe lawyers? (Like you believe terrocrats?) Why do they say what they say? Most US lawyers say the same about US trust programs being "illegal and ineffective" in the US. So what? What about Isle of Man trusts, for example? What about buying a UK company off the shelf, never recording yourself as a director, and never reporting anything? Why do you think there are people from Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, etc. who do good business helping UK people beat the system?

"You may well feel that the UK market is too small to bother about -- you can make a fortune selling your technology in the USA. But consider this -- if the European terrocrats as you call them have really made your (and similar) programs unworkable, and the US terrocrats get worried about all these lawsuits against the IRS etc. and decide to stop them, all they need to do is to look at European legal systems and vote them into force in the USA. As most legislators are also lawyers of some sort or another they will pass the legislation because it will earn their professions more money."

You seem to suffer from the false belief that the terrocrats (you hallucinate as "government") can prevent you from being free. You need to study Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.

"Maybe they will find that you have examined European laws and found a way around them, in which case you can always keep ahead of the terrocrats. Or maybe they will find that no one has found a way around, and all you carefully researched US based technology will become useless."

Only about 15-20 percent of Build Freedom materials are US-specific. Paradoxically, from a Build Freedom perspective, the more oppressive so-called "legal systems" become, the better. Why? Because it increases the demand for Freedom Technology. There are always people on the margin. The next falsely-called "law" is the one that pushes them over the edge into deciding that they will operate (at least partially) outside "the system."

"I would suggest that your time may be more usefully employed on this than arguments about the nature of government which even you concede that 99% of the population can't understand... If they are not interested in such a debate we will merely lose more subscribers to this list if it continues too long."

You still don't know what this debate is about. It's not really about the "nature of government" -- it's about your hallucination: the De Rock Hallucination -- DRH.

DRH is at the root of the "government" problem. If even 0.1 percent (one in a thousand) of freedom-lovers were to cure themselves of DRH and learn to communicate about it effectively, the cure would start spreading more rapidly. This would greatly accelerate the solution of the "government" problem.

Even if only one percent of readers could fairly quickly understand this debate, it will probably induce a further 5-10 percent to start thinking and questioning. Within a few months the Build Freedom materials, including this debate, will be on the Internet and available to millions. A small percentage of readers will recognize the stupefying and debilitating effects of DRH you demonstrate so well. Some will also realize the profound increase in personal power that comes with transcending DRH. Losing a few readers is an insignificant loss compared to the huge potential benefits.

Mr. De Rock, in order to progress you need to identify where you are. Following is a summary of my freedom steps over time. Maybe this will help you pinpoint where you are and what your next step should be.

My Freedom Steps
1. I think I'm free because I live in a free country like UK, USA, etc.

2. I discover than I'm not free because of a plethora of oppressive laws, taxes, etc.

3. I study books on the philosophical principles of freedom.

4. I join some freedom movement to educate people and change the system.

5. I become disillusioned with the movement and I decide to make lots of money to buy myself the freedom I want.

6. I learn some practical freedom skills; with a combination of money and freedom skills I enjoy a high degree of freedom practically anywhere.

7. I discover that I'm free and sovereign by nature.

8. With some friends, I create Build Freedom (a real free-enterprise business) to provide others with the information to live free and make a fortune. Several people apply the information successfully, greatly expand their freedom, and become millionaires. They learn to "beat the system" with relative ease.

9. Several people create real free-enterprise businesses, applying Build Freedom principles. Some become spectacularly successful and profitable.

10. Along the way, I discover DRH. With a few exceptions, my initial attempts to communicate DRH don't work very well. They nevertheless influence a few people profoundly.

11. My ability to communicate about DRH improves and I develop the ability to handle questions and criticisms effectively.

12. Along the way, I also realize that death is the biggest obstacle to freedom. There isn't much point to Build Freedom if it doesn't lead to physical or biological immortality.

13. I realize that I don't need to run an organization. Various parts of the Build Freedom organization are sold and/or contracted out.

14. The Personal Power Institute is launched, with an emphasis on providing the means to increase personal power, and -- eventually -- physical or biological immortality.

15. The Build Freedom materials are made available on the Internet.

Mr. De Rock, I suspect that in respect of freedom you are at step 2. You haven't yet started step 3. You know practically nothing about the philosophy of freedom. The Build Freedom materials are primarily aimed at people who have progressed to steps 5 or 6. Maybe you're not ready for them yet.

Chris Tame, whom you've mentioned several times elsewhere, is one of the leading Libertarians in the UK. We used to be buddies and I knew him quite well. When I last had contact with Chris [1988], he was at step 4. I suspect he's still there. In general, people at step 4 are not prospects for Build Freedom; they need to become disillusioned with their movement first.

There is a principle of learning and development here. Certain things have to be learned or developed as steps in a sequence on a gradient. If you skip a step, learning and development stops. In order to progress as a Build Freedomn, I think you need to tackle step 3.

By the way, getting someone like Chris Tame who's stuck at step 4 [1988] to recognize the validity of DRH is virtually impossible. You see, much of his life is about changing "the system," which is very real and solid to him. The idea that he might be hallucinating "the system" has the frightening implication that he's been wrong all his life, trying to chase wild geese with his feet chained to the ground. DRH, if valid, would virtually destroy his life as presently constructed.

DRH is very threatening to some. About 10 years ago, I had dinner with my friend Tony, also a close Libertarian associate of Chris Tame, in the Atomium restaurant in Brussels. We discussed economics and politics. I tried an experiment. Every time Tony said anything representing an element of DRH, I questioned it vigorously. After about 30 minutes he became physically sick, ran to the restroom, and puked his guts out! He couldn't continue his meal and wasn't very happy. So I understand why some people find DRH unpalatable!

PEOPLE WHO LARGELY OR COMPLETELY TRANSCENDED THE DE ROCK HALLUCINATION

Edited by Frederick Mann

The following indicates the extent to which "SB" [see beginning of #TL07E: NSPIC Debate #1] has transcended the De Rock Hallucination:

Debate Between John De Rock, Simon Baker, and Frederick Mann
FM: Then you need to study the Build Freedom materials to learn about Freedom Technology and acquire the necessary skills to more effectively deal with terrocrats. REPLACE DEBILITY WITH ABILITY.

JDR: That sounds like good advice, but all your materials are written for US customers. Myself and [many of my associates] live in the UK, Australia and such places.

SB: I live on "Australia," John. It doesn't take any effort for me to convert the name "U.S.A." to "C.O.A." ("COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA") when reading over FM's/TL's information. I can do this most of the time, without causing a problem or misunderstanding because most of the underlying concepts, "government"-scams, slave-status, essentially worthless & unbacked currency, etc., etc. are identical!!!

FM: Observe that SB says "I live on "Australia"." To me he's saying that he lives on the land mass or island called "Australia." He doesn't live in the pretended "country" called "Australia." The notion that there are so-called "countries" is pure hallucination. But because 99.999...percent of humans share the same hallucination, the notion of "countries" seems real. In reality there is no so-called "USA" or "UK."

As Lysander Spooner indicated in No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, some liars, impostors, and murderers got together and signed a document in which they fraudulently claimed to be "We, the People of the U.S.A." People only believed these liars, impostors, and murderers because they were gullible suckers. People who today believe such nonsense -- 99.999...percent of humans -- are gullible suckers. Spooner also indicated that the same principle applies to all other supposed "countries."

The notion that there are "countries" like "USA," "UK," "Australia," "Belgium," "France," etc. is pure hallucination. (You may also want to apply Max O'Conner's arguments from '#TL07D: Deep Anarchy' to the notion of "country.")

SB: All the "constitution" crap (the main difference between "countries") is always going to be irrelevant to a Sovereign Individual. Therefore, whatever system those "government" fools have put in place, won't and can't matter in the end. If you can comprehend the underlying facts of who you are and who those other fools who think they're "government" are (mere individuals)... then you will learn what you need to do to get around the problems you face much faster!

FM: No! The "constitution" crap is relevant to the Sovereign Individual. I bet that if you study the pretended Australian "constitution," you'll find that many Australian "statutes" violate the "constitution." You may be able to use this fact to defend yourself. You may even be able to get an attorney to give you a legal opinion that a certain activity is legal in terms of the constitution, therefore you're not breaking the law when you engage in that activity. In the US this is an extremely powerful defense, because you can demonstrate that you acted in good faith without any intention to break any law -- it's called the "reliance defense."

JDR: I seem to recall someone saying that you said you could never have a Build Freedom office in Europe without breaking local laws because your technology wouldn't work there. Maybe you can refute this -- I don't know. I believe that I am correct in saying that Build Freedom is not about attaining freedom by breaking laws.

SB: There are two main laws:

1: common-law (the people's law, natural-law, common-sense-law);

2: statutory-law (terrocrat-law).

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, etc.), educating other people about how they too can avoid paying taxes and live freely (where to the extent that if everyone 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: I never break common-law though; because I have not damaged or violated any other person or their property.

"Statutory-law" is a fictitious "law" made up by those fools who think they're "government!" This law only applies to those who fall under their jurisdiction, and their jurisdiction is really only a fictitious paper-"country". This fictitious paper-"country" is what the "constitution" of any "country" defines (and absolutely nothing more!).

The "Affidavit of Truth" (Supplied by Build Freedom) has a detailed description of this. (It is specific to the "UNITED STATES"... but again, the underlying concept is indeed the same!)

The only REAL law is common-law! The "Build Freedom Code" is basically a written common-law.

So when you talk about "breaking laws" above... you are really talking about "statutory-law" -- whether you realize it or not.

You are still thinking from the terrocrat side of law. This is what FM and many others are trying to assist others such as yourself to get out of!

Anyone may set up a "Build Freedom Office" or run a free-enterprise business without paying taxes, etc., etc. in any "country" and they are not actually breaking any law.

It's only those control-freak fools who think they're "government" or "police acting upon government laws," etc. who will think you're "breaking the law!"

"Freedom Technology" is what you must learn about, to know how to defend yourself from those control-freaks.

It is easy to be free in the "USA" compared to the "UK" or the "COA". That doesn't mean you can't be free in the "UK" or "COA" though. All it will take is a bit of translating of one "country" to the other, and some research into your own circumstances. You can't have everything done for you though (each person is going to have to teach themselves in the end)... so why not start by researching what it is you'll need to do to translate FM's/TL's information to your circumstances!?

I've done it (in my mind -- which is the only place it matters!). But I'd be very curious and interested to know if any other Australians have done this... and if anyone else has prepared an Affidavit of Truth suitable for use in Australia…

Also, keep in mind that we're all in the very early stages of creating a totally free world! As TL and similar concepts expand, it's likely that every "country" will eventually have a consulting team and "office" preparing all the information required that is specific to each person's "country." It's just going to take some time to achieve this. Now if more people got to work and helped out instead of day-dreaming (or hallucinating)... then we could accelerate the process many many times!

Special note to FM: I'd appreciate your comments (good and/or bad) on this also. I intend to operate my business(es) here (Australia) as truly free-enterprise. I'll also be telling people (perhaps through public marketing similar to World Network Holdings -- though not promoted by network-marketing) how they can be associated with the Pure Contract Trust I will be setting up... and that the income the trust earns (distributed to their Capital Units) is tax free, etc.

This is in direct violation of terrocrat law here... since terrocrats expect everyone here to declare all earnings (regardless of the name it is given)... no matter how they are earned, whether directly or indirectly. The opposition I'll eventually encounter will be amusing -- though likely difficult to overcome (e.g., I can't expect to use all the defensive-measures that the "U.S. constitution" has like Harry W. Plot and similar people can do).

JDR: I read the Internet newsgroup <uk.legal> and occasionally trust programs from the US are advertised there. Often there are replies from UK lawyers who say that such programs would not be effective under UK law.

SB: Lawyers who operate under "UK law" (statutory law).

JDR: You may well feel that the UK market is too small to bother about -- you can make a fortune selling your technology in the USA. But consider this -- if the European terrocrats as you call them have really made your (and similar) programs unworkable, and the US terrocrats get worried about all these lawsuits against the IRS, etc. and decide to stop them, all they need to do is to look at European legal systems and vote them into force in the USA. As most legislators are also lawyers of some sort or another they will pass the legislation because it will earn their professions more money.

SB: Yes, terrocrats may change their laws whenever and to whatever they want to maximize their benefit -- so long as it's perceived to be "constitutional" (which what you propose above isn't!) -- though conforming with that standard was abolished by terrocrats long ago. Heh!

The whole point you keep missing is that all fictitious "laws" the terrocrats pass are totally irrelevant to a Sovereign Individual (which is what you really are -- even though you don't seem to know it yet)! A Sovereign Individual chooses to abide by common-law. A Sovereign Individual is not within the jurisdiction (i.e. not under the control of) the terrocrats fictitious "territory" or "laws." A Sovereign Individual does NOT live "in" a fictitious paper-"country" that was created by a terrorcrat (or anyone else). Read the Affidavit of Truth for more detail.

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.

Thirdly, terrocrats often violate their own "laws" and you can use this to defend yourself. When I was a military slave in South Africa, I went AWOL one weekend. About a third of the conscripts in the camp were scheduled to complete their "training" on the Wednesday after the weekend. Many of them went AWOL that weekend because the military terrocrats didn't have enough time to court martial them before they were discharged.

Except for this one case, when I went AWOL I always set it up so that I could talk my way out of it if I were missed. This time however, I wanted to humiliate the sergeant-major who always "had it in" for me, but could never "nail" me. So when he asked me where I'd been, I told him "Johannesburg." When I asked me if I had a pass, I said "No!" He then asked if I admitted that I'd gone AWOL. I said "Yes!"

"Now I've got you," he said. I'm court marshaling you. "Sergeant-major," I replied, "If you court martial me and you don't court martial all these other people who went AWOL, that would be unfair discrimination which is conduct contrary to the good order of military discipline. Now all this happened on the parade ground in the presence of all the conscripts. The sergeant-major's jaw dropped, his face went bright red, and many conscripts giggled and laughed. The sergeant-major didn't take any action against me, never spoke to me again, and just pretended that I didn't exist. (I could do this because I had looked over the "military code" and studied the parts I thought might be relevant and useful to me.)

In the US there are some powerful questions you can ask a terrocrat who claims that you have to file and pay income taxes:

To ask such questions, you set up a meeting with the terrocrat. You go with a tape recorder and a witness, best of all, a lawyer. If you know what you're doing you'll intimidate the hell out of the poor terrocrat. The chances are overwhelming that he and his bosses will leave you alone thereafter. They prefer to go after the submissive, supine suckers for easy pickings.

I bet that if you were to study the "legal systems" in the "UK" and "Australia," you could come up with series of questions to stop terrocrats cold with respect to at least some issues.

JDR: Maybe they will find that you have examined European laws and found a way around them, in which case you can always keep ahead of the terrocrats. Or maybe they will find that no one has found a way around and all you carefully researched US based technology will become useless.

I would suggest that your time may be more usefully employed on this than arguments about the nature of government which even you concede that 99% of the population can't understand. But that decision, is, of course, yours alone to take.

SB: The point you are missing is that the key to comprehending all of this, is that you MUST first understand who you really are, who and what "government" really is and why the world we live in is like it is now.

Then you will know what steps to take to reduce or eliminate the bullshit ("government") we are all having to deal with at the moment.

If anyone finds all this too hard, then the only practical recommendation that can be put to them is that they stay a slave, pay their taxes, and die a slave.

I would like to summarize a lot of the arguments and lengthy examples that have been given so far with one sentence:

There is only ONE reality! -- it's just perceived differently by most people!

P.S. Disclaimer: I do not challenge or threaten the authority of any legitimate government.

Roger Barker:
1) Government as hallucination has an effect on my ATTITUDE. The terrorcrat I'm dealing with is a human being and I can deal with him as a human.

2) Not being blinded by the hallucination helps to identify what's going on. "What happens if I don't sign this promise to appear?" "I take you to jail." "You are going to kidnap me for not signing this form? I thought we hired you guys to prevent kidnappings." [I've not tried this, I can think of an incident where it might have been appropriate.]

3) I'm reminded of Stanley Milgram's authority experiments. [See Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini]. Cialdini suggests that we have a natural tendency to do or follow an authority. Milgram's experiments back up this idea.

So, my experience is that it is a useful mental state to adopt. I agree with John de Rock, tell a policeman that his uniform doesn't give him powers above and beyond that of a common citizen. My guess is that police notice a deference paid to them every day. Who is hallucinating what?

Mann:
Attitude is very important. Notice the difference between the attitude of SB and that of John de Rock.

People suffering from DRH generally think and talk in terms of having to deal with "the government." Generally, it's much easier if you think in terms of dealing with a specific terrocrat -- who can often be intimidated. Operating this way gives you a much more powerful attitude.

I think that the "natural tendency to obey authority" is unnatural for conscious humans. It only seems natural because 99.999...percent of humans have been brainwashed into hallucinating certain people as so-called "authorities" and obeying them. People who develop their brains and consciousness, think for themselves -- unlike the 99.999...percent who suffer from DRH.

Generally, I find it prudent to pretend great respect for and subservience to terrocrats with clubs or guns -- the "police." Their hallucination can be dangerous to your freedom and life. However, every situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

JW:
De Rock: I read the Internet newsgroup <uk.legal> and occasionally trust programs from the US are advertised there. Often there are replies from UK lawyers who say that such programs would not be effective under UK law.

JW: Did you do any research the actual law yourself or took these so-called lawyers at face value? I can, offhand, immediately not think of any trust programs that would not be fully legal in the UNITED KINGDOM (which has less tax restrictions than the UNITED STATES). As you say, lawyers are protecting their own interests, not yours.

The same common law principles operative in the U.S. are so worldwide, with the countries with the closest conformity being based on statutory law. This includes (but not limited to) the U.K., AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND. Your excuse that Freedom Technology is U.S. specific is a flimsy reason to avoid it.

FM has merely given you the ball of Freedom Technology; it is your job to run with it. That means consistent and active education in understanding your own predicament where you are located and learning how to remove yourself, in good faith, from all laws that do not apply to you.

JDR: European legal systems and vote them into force in the USA. As most legislators are also lawyers of some sort or another they will pass the legislation because it will earn their professions more money.

JW: Unlike the U.K. (that I know of), there are scribbles called "the law" here that limit the authority of such legislators to pass legislation. So you don't have that hallucinatory benefit? It isn't stopping a certain individual I know in Australia, which has a pathetic "Constitution" that doesn't even have an analogy to our "Bill of Rights."

Also, in actual practice, statutory "law" is as much a hallucination as "government" is.

JDR: Maybe they will find that you have examined European laws and found a way around them, in which case you can always keep ahead of the terrocrats. Or maybe they will find that no one has found a way around, and all you carefully researched US based technology will become useless.

JW: Why don't you actively work on doing this? You are in the best position to do so by being in the U.K. Do yourself a favor and spend the $349 for the Super Power Offer to get everything Build Freedom has to offer -- and go from there. [All the information is now available free of charge for personal use at <http://www.buildfreedom.com>.]

DE ROCK HALLUCINATION CONTINUED

Frederick Mann's Introduction
This is another part of an ongoing debate on what I call the "De Rock Hallucination" (DRH). It's named after Mr. John de Rock for two reasons: (1) He suffers from DRH to a greater extent than anybody else I know of; and (2) He has been willing to debate the issue. Even if he himself makes little or no progress toward curing himself from DRH, the material generated as a result of the debate will assist others in overcoming DRH.

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in the debate, particularly John de Rock who has made by far the greatest contribution, despite having to suffer extreme castigation of some of his words. Please don't hesitate to enter the debate. Even if you suspect that your contribution might be ridiculed, you never know what breakthrough insights it might lead to, and how many thousands or even millions of individuals will eventually benefit as a result of your contribution.

We now demonstrably have sufficient information from this debate to enable at least a few other people to transcend DRH. Those willing to make the intellectual effort necessary to transcend DRH, may be able to do so by reading the related Build Freedom materials as well as the DRH debate. Nevertheless, further debate may make it easier for others to transcend DRH; it may even inspire more to make the necessary intellectual effort to cure themselves from DRH. So it seems worthwhile to continue the debate.

Also, as you'll see later, new people entering the debate can provide valuable new perspectives, leading to breakthrough realizations. But before we advance, we need some repetition. There are some things we have to address over and over dozens of times before they get through to the more obtuse and obdurate -- anybody at home?

Recently, Mr. De Rock wrote to me about, "Your concept that governments are an hallucination..." To which I responded: "This isn't my concept. It's your distortion. We've covered this point at least three times. It's your act of allegedly "perceiving" what you call "government" that is the hallucination. As David Solomon indicated, you still don't know what the DRH debate was about."

Mr. De Rock also wrote to SB, referring to: "...[D]ebates as to whether government is hallucinatory or not..." To which SB responded [in part and edited]:

"You still don't seem to get it. The issue is NOT "whether government is hallucinatory or not." This is describing a supposed entity as an hallucination, which makes little sense... This way of thinking does not get at the real issue we intend to communicate.

The issue is about how 99.99999% of people are effectively hallucinating when they think they "perceive" a "government!" This refers to the thought-processes going on within the mind of each individual (perception).

Now, because such a huge majority share the same false perception -- it's far too easy to receive false confirmation of your hallucination as being reality!

Not long ago most people believed "the world is flat." Frederick Mann, myself, and everyone else who has transcended, or who never suffered from, an hallucination that there is a "government," are the equivalent of those few people at the time who were convincing everyone else that the world is spherical!

...There is an immense difference here! The most unfortunate aspect of this seems to be that no one has found an effective method (that anyone will easily comprehend) of communicating how important this fundamental realization is."

John, for the umpteenth time, hallucination is what occurs inside your dense skull!

Letter from Mr. Greg Kantor
Dear Mr. Mann:

I recently read about your debate with Mr. De Rock concerning the reality of a thing called "the government," and believe that I can be of assistance to Mr. De Rock in understanding your viewpoint. In your rebuttal, you clearly concede no ground to Mr. De Rock, and offer not one hint to him on how you arrived at your current viewpoint. This places Mr. De Rock at a decided disadvantage in transcending his hallucination (if helping him do this is your goal) as not only must he make the conceptual leap to your viewpoint, he must also know in which direction to leap.

To begin with, I would like to state that I believe that the concept of government exists, whereas an actual thing in reality called government, separate from human beings, does not. One may feel the effects of a person holding the concept of a government in their head, but one does not feel the effects of government. This is similar to saying that I love my partner, i.e., that my love for him exists. This love exists only in my head as a concept; however, the effects of this concept are felt through my actions toward him.

We also have concepts of things that do exist in reality. An example of these concepts are: a dog, a flag, or a table. When I tie the effects of a thing existing in reality to the concept I hold in my head, I say that thing exists. More exactly, when I can perceive an object with any one of my five senses, I say it exists in reality. I can see, touch, smell, and get bitten by a dog. Therefore, the dog exists in reality.

The concept of government is quite different. It definitely does not exist in reality. It exists only as a concept in many people's heads. A man can come to my door with a gun and demand my property. I can react to him in two (of many) different ways: 1) I can allow him to take my property, or 2) I can leave my door shut and get my gun in self-defense. If I perceive the man to be a robber, I would choose the second action. If I perceive the man to be a representative of "the government" (a concept that I hold in my head), I may choose the first action. Which action I choose depends on my perception of the man at my door, i.e., on the concepts I hold in my head.

If the man tells me he is from the IRS, and I let him take my property, did the IRS take my property? No. A man who, by tugging at certain concepts that I voluntarily held in my own head, caused me to believe that physical harm awaited me if I resisted, took my property. And this is the crux of the matter. Concepts are those things that guide us in our everyday life. They cause certain scripts to be run in our head, with the effects of those scripts resulting in our own action. Concepts are things we believe in, things that once "fired," causes us to act in a certain way. Someone may tell me that building is on fire. If I believe him, I will seek to escape the building. If I don't, I will not.

What I believe you are asking Mr. De Rock to do is erase certain scripts from his head and, along with those scripts, the actual concepts tied to those scripts. Then, should someone try to "fire" one of those scripts in Mr. De Rock's head, he will fail since the firing mechanism, i.e., the concept, is gone. Destroying concepts that have existed from a very early age is a terrifying prospect; even more so if you have no concept with which to replace it. People fear the unknown to such a degree that they refuse to explore it. One only "trades in" concepts when one feels there exists a more valuable concept that can replace it. This trading-in process is called Reason, and only works when one is able to evaluate concepts (i.e., assign value to concepts) and is willing to give up one concept in exchange for another. I only do this when I am fairly confident that the newer concept will be better for me than the old, that is, when it will help me attain my goals faster and/or with less exertion of energy. It seems funny to many of us that people once believed the earth was flat. People only now believe the earth is round because the concept of a round earth suits us better, if for no other reason than others would perceive us to be stupid if we believed otherwise. In fact, it is this "appearance of stupidity" that causes many people to persist in believing concepts that are proven false. One does not appear stupid if one believes what the majority of others believe, and therefore does not risk segregation from "the group." We inherently believe we cannot survive with out human interaction, and the fear of severing this link to other humans causes us to think as others do. This has been referred to as the "herd" mentality. There is a certain amount of mental comfort to be had in thinking like others, and I change what I think only when I feel I will get some advantage from doing so. Indeed, this change occurred in me when I believed that I could derive more benefits by challenging government edicts than by merely following them. I did my research, tried out new concepts, and when I felt comfortable with how they arranged themselves in my head, I kept them and discarded the old. Thus, I learned that nothing compelled me to give my hard-earned money to anyone else (except for my agreeing to do so), and so now I am able to enjoy 100% of the fruits of my labor. Of course, the threat of men approaching me with guns and demanding my money still exists, but l've come to accept the fact that that threat has always existed and always will, as long as others believe it is easier to steal than it is to produce. In fact, it is up to me to prove to them otherwise.

In summary, I believe you are challenging Mr. De Rock to take a stand with regard to "the government," to act in accordance with what he says he believes. In return, I believe Mr. De Rock is saying he understands your point, but that he only believes that others believe in the concept of "government," and uses the term "the government" because that is the concept that others can relate to. He himself does not believe "government" exists in reality. So, is the belief in a belief the same thing as the original belief itself? Is Mr. De Rock taking the easy way out by dealing in concepts in which he himself does not believe? Is he in fact a fraud? No. Since concepts that have no ties to reality are entirely subjective to the person doing the conceiving, you are both correct. Mr. Mann, "government" doesn't exist because you do not permit it to exist as a concept in your head. Since that is the only way it can exist. For you it does not. It may not for Mr. De Rock, either. However, by discussing "government" as others perceive it, he is unwittingly validating the very concept he wishes to eradicate. The easiest solution is to adopt the path you have chosen, Mr. Mann, and refuse to discuss "government" as a thing that exists. This will cause others to either dismiss you as a lunatic, or re-examine their own beliefs a little more closely.

I hope l've shed a little light on this matter.

Sincerely,

Greg Kantor (name changed)

P.S. The exact same discussion can also be held with regard to the concept of "God."

THE HALLUCINATION BREAKER

by David Solomon

In September of 1994 when I read the September issue of Build Freedom News, there was an article about 17 freedom steps. I compared those 17 freedom steps to a road map. Those 17 freedom steps are also contained in Build Freedom Report #TL5B.

I can remember thinking of how one could use an accurate up to date road map and go from New York to California without getting lost. And if you did get lost, you could easily find your way back to the main interstate.

I can also remember thinking of those 17 freedom steps as a kind of life map to determine where you are when it comes to freedom and personal growth. And how you could possibly improve your thinking skills to get even more freedom.

Since I had been reading Neo-Tech for about five years, at that time, I thought I was quite advanced in my thinking skills. After reading most of the Build Freedom Reports several times, I could already see that I had what I called a lot of holes in my knowledge. I always read important books and material many times because I gain a deeper knowledge and understanding from each reading. Reading those 17 freedom steps made me also see that I had just barely started my journey toward increasing my thinking skills.

Even before reading the Neo-Tech material, as far back as I can remember, it seems that I have been told by my parents and others that I needed to be twice as good as everyone else because of my multiracial heritage. So, I have always made a special effort to be first in everything I've done.

Of course, I have not been first in everything I've done. But, I can't remember ever being last. Then again, I may not have the greatest memory in the world either!

Reading the Neo-Tech material was my first wake up call. I suddenly realized that heritage had very little if anything to do with what I could accomplish. That sudden realization set me off on a very intensive search for anything that might add to my personal growth and self-improvement.

So when I first started reading the Build Freedom Reports, it seems as if I gained new energy. I had the very strong feeling that the Build Freedom material might take me to a level higher than I had ever imagined.

As I gathered the reading material listed in the September issue of Build Freedom News I started to try and determine which steps I would do first. I continued to read the Build Freedom Reports since I had them on hand. And each report I read seemed to improve my thinking skills.

As I read the different reports, I can honestly say that most of the time I understood what was written. And I gained a deeper understanding as I reread each report. It seems that reading any material over and over again brings you closer to what the author is saying. I don't think we ever "get it" the first time through. But, there were three reports that, at times, left me totally perplexed. They were TL7B, TL50A, and TL50C.

It soon became obvious to me that I needed the most work in the areas covered by:

TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT

TL50A: SEMANTIC RIGIDITY, FLEXIBILITY, AND FREEDOM

TL50C: BOUGHT-INTO-THE-SYSTEM.

I remember when I first read TL50A: SEMANTIC RIGIDITY, FLEXIBILITY, AND FREEDOM. On the first page, there was a sentence that read, "Whatever you say something is, it's not that!" I stopped and thought, "Must be a typo." After reading that sentence several times, I thought, he must have omitted a word or two. It just did not make sense. "Whatever you say something is, it's not that!" RIGHT!

Then there was TL50C: BOUGHT-INTO-THE-SYSTEM. Again on the first page, Frederick Mann wrote: "Ten days ago a friend sent me this fax":

"A Summary of Political Thought at the Dawn of the Third Millennium:

LIBERALS: The Emperor should help the poor!

CONSERVATIVES: The Emperor should help the rich!

LIBERTARIANS: The Emperor has no clothes!"

I was OK up to this point, but here it comes...

"TERRA LIBRANS: Why do you call the naked man Emperor?"

After reading that last sentence several times, I thought, Frederick Mann might even have some friends who also think like he thinks. His friends also probably understand that, "Whatever you say something is, it's not that."

"TERRA LIBRANS: Why do you call that naked man Emperor?" RIGHT!

Then there was the most difficult one for me, TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT. I knew there were many people in so-called "government" who were liars, thieves, and probably worse. But, Frederick Mann's primary description of "government" on page 2 and the rest of TL7B slowly brought me to only one conclusion. And that is, "there is no so-called "government," there is no so-called "constitution," there is no so-called "law," there is no so-called "country," there is no so-called "etc.", "etc.", "etc."...there never has been and there never can be.

But to reach that conclusion was not easy for me because much of my life was based on some of the things Frederick Mann seemed to be saying did not exist.

I had spent 22 years in the "United States Navy." For 14 years, I had been a "chief Radioman" on board a nuclear-powered Polaris missile firing submarine. I had a "top-secret" security clearance with so many special endorsements that I can't even remember all of them. Which meant that no matter what Frederick Mann seemed to be saying, for 22 years, I had been a part of the greatest "government" in the world. "We" were the greatest "country" and leader of the "free" world." I thought, is he crazy? Maybe he's smoking something!

That was the mountain I had to climb. But I had a map of the mountain range: All of The Build Freedom reports. And I carefully picked my mountain climbing gear:

TL50A: SEMANTIC RIGIDITY, FLEXIBILITY, AND FREEDOM

TL50C: BOUGHT-INTO-THE-SYSTEM

TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT.

TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT was the report I knew I had to thoroughly understand if there was going to be any real progress. But, I could not understand TL7B without first understanding TL50A: SEMANTIC RIGIDITY, FLEXIBILITY, AND FREEDOM; and TL50C: BOUGHT-INTO-THE-SYSTEM.

I started an intensive reading program in November of 1994. I had read most of the Build Freedom reports several times by then. So I concentrated on TL50A, TL50C, and TL7B.

I read TL50A and TL50C three times a day and TL7B once a day for ten days. As I read those reports over and over and over, I gained a deeper and deeper understanding of what was written. I also marked the other Build Freedom Reports that were referenced. They are listed below.

After the first 10 days, I brought the four reports listed below into the rotation. I would read all of them in the order listed at least once a week. Always keeping my big three together, I read the reports in this order:

TL50A: SEMANTIC RIGIDITY, FLEXIBILITY, AND FREEDOM

TL50C: BOUGHT-INTO-THE-SYSTEM

TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT.

Then I would read the next four reports in the order listed to further support my understanding and integration with TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT.

TL04: How to Find Out Who You Are

TL05: How to Discover Your Freedom

TL06: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude

TL07: The Constitution of No Authority.

Other Build Freedom Reports that I used to further understand TL7B are:

TL10: HOW TO ACHIEVE AND INCREASE PERSONAL POWER

TL15: HOW TO ACHIEVE ULTIMATE SUCCESS.

I brought the last two reports listed into the rotation after about ninety days and continued the rotation as listed. Always reading all of the reports listed above, at least once a week.

From the first time I read TL7B, I felt very strongly that it was the key to making a giant step forward in my personal growth. But I had no idea of just how big this giant step would be.

And like all progress, there was a price to pay for the giant step. Being in the Polaris Submarine Force for more than twenty years, there was more than one occasion when I almost gave my life away -- for NOTHING! That realization made me very very angry. And I was also very very angry for having been a sucker for all those years.

I had been reading those reports for more than a year when I felt the anger starting to grow. The anger came as I started to break the hallucination and sanity started to take hold. That anger could only be controlled by the new thinking skills that were growing. The anger seemed to grow for about two months. Then the anger seemed to fade and in about two weeks it was gone.

I had started my intensive reading program in November of 1994 and it was about mid March of 1996 when I knew the hallucination was broken. And now I am fully awake and continuing to grow. I cannot put into words what this feeling is like!

IT IS INDEED A GRAND FEELING! AND EACH DAY THIS FEELING GROWS AND GROWS AND GROWS AND GROWS...

Frederick Mann's Response
Mr. Kantor raises some important issues:

(1) It is necessary to make a distinction between a concept and the thing (object or referent) the concept represents. In fact, we need to make a distinction between:

(a) Concept;

(b) Word; and

(c) Thing.

By "concept" I mean a basic building block or unit of knowledge. Concepts could be considered to occur at two levels (or in two dimensions):

(i) Mind; and

(ii) Brain.

Consider "dog." At the brain level I have a "dog-neural-pattern" that gets "triggered" or "fired" when I hear or read the word "dog" or when I see a "dog-thing" or hear it bark. At the mind level I have a "mental-picture-dog" with all kinds of associations. Of course, the "mental-image-dog" and all the associations are represented as part of the "dog-neural-pattern."

Someone could claim that the notion that there is "mind" as distinct from brain is pure hallucination. For anyone interested in exploring this issue I recommend the excellent book by Economics Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology.

The word "dog" is a noise that comes out of my mouth. More accurately, it is a soundwave pattern that comes out of my mouth. When this soundwave pattern enters your ear, you convert it into the sound "dog." When written, "dog" is squiggly ink lines on paper -- or pixels on a computer screen.

"Whatever you say something is, it isn't that!" The word "dog" can never be the thing "dog!"

Hayek addresses the fundamental psychological questions:

(i) How is it possible for words to represent things?

(ii) How is it possible for neural patterns to represent words and things?

(iii) How is it possible for mental concepts, pictures, and images to represent neural patterns, words, and things?

Hayek distinguishes three "orders":

(i) The physical order of things or objects;

(ii) The sensory order -- our senses and neural systems;

(iii) The mental order -- what happens in our minds.

Hayek argues that "correspondence" occurs between the physical and sensory orders, but that no such "correspondence" between the mental order and the physical order can be demonstrated:

"Our conclusion, therefore, must be that to us mind must remain forever a realm of its own which we can know only through directly experiencing it, but which we shall never be able fully to explain or to 'reduce' to something else. Even though we may know that mental events of the kind which we experience can be produced by the same forces which operate in the rest of nature, we shall never be able to say which are the particular physical events which 'correspond' to a particular mental event."

I also want to make a distinction between "concept" as a unit of knowledge and "belief" as a combination of concepts. Concept is like a brick and belief like a wall (of bricks)! You can change your belief without changing your concept, as illustrated by:

"LIBERALS: The Emperor should help the poor!

CONSERVATIVES: The Emperor should help the rich!

LIBERTARIANS: The Emperor has no clothes!

TERRA LIBRANS: Why do you call the naked man Emperor?"

More aggressively, "Why do you hallucinate a naked man as "Emperor" (so-called)?" You see, the Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all share the unquestioned "Emperor" concept. Build Freedomns -- at least those who have transcended the De Rock Hallucination (DRH) -- think the commonly-held "Emperor" concept is absurd.

(2) The second important point that Mr. Kantor makes is that concepts have value and can be evaluated. He also indicates that destroying concepts can be a terrifying prospect. To me concepts are tools. Some concepts are more powerful and more useful than others. Some concepts are dysfunctional. For many people, their concepts -- whether functional or dysfunctional -- are idols. "Emperor" is an example of an idolatrous concept. "Government" is an idolatrous concept held by Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Objectivists, Neo-Techers, Anarchists, Patriots, and Build Freedomns alike, who suffer from DRH. Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the greatest idol-smashers of all time, wrote a book, The Twilight of the Idols. The Anarchist who shouts, "Smash the State!" is as much an idolator as the Liberal who thinks "the Government" can solve problems. In the words of George Bernhard Shaw: "He who worships a King and he who slays a King are alike idolators."

One of the greatest obstacles to overcoming DRH is the anger Mr. Solomon writes about. He had to recognize and admit to himself that he had been a sucker all his life. He had been taken for a 22-year ride by the hucksters and suckers masquerading as "the US Navy." He had been conned all his life by everyone around him on the subject of "government." And he had fallen for it completely and totally. Not only did he waste 22 years of his life that he could have spent productively, he also risked losing his life, not for his "glorious country," but for NOTHING!

On top of which, most people have been obediently paying "their taxes" to the conmen and conwomen who masquerade as "government" for years or even decades -- thousands upon thousands of dollars, pounds, etc. Now they have to face up to the fact that the entire political system has been a hoax from day one, from beginning to end, from top to bottom. They've been pathetically gullible all their lives in swallowing all the political claptrap. And, worst of all, most Libertarians, Objectivists, Neo-Techers, Anarchists, Patriots, and Build Freedomns continue to swallow the basic political concepts -- even after they've read the Build Freedom materials!

That's another major obstacle to overcoming DRH. If you try to discuss DRH with them -- even if they're highly freedom oriented -- chances are they'll think you're crazy and reject you. For many this is a shattering experience. To cure yourself from DRH, you have to become politically sane in a world of the politically insane. You have to be able to live in a world where all your family, friends, and associates are politically insane! For most people it's vastly easier to simply continue to be politically insane so they'll continue to be accepted by their politically insane family, friends, and associates!

(3) The third important point that Mr. Kantor makes is that by changing his concepts he freed himself from the IRS, enabling him to enjoy 100% of the fruits of his labor. Now I must emphasize that you may be able to escape the terrocrat yoke to a considerable extent without changing your basic concepts. You can do so by changing some of your beliefs and by acquiring certain practical knowledge and skills.

(4) The fourth important point that Mr. Kantor makes is that concepts have consequences. To some extent, in our behavior or action we respond to the physical world. In some areas, many of us tend to react to our own concepts, rather than responding to the real world. In the area of politics, to the degree that we suffer from DRH, we react to our own dysfunctional concepts. That's why so much "political action" produces negative or no results -- including much "political action" by freedom-lovers.

I suggest that to the extent that you transcend DRH, you become vastly more effective at "living free in an unfree world." Mr. Kantor writes, "There is a certain amount of mental comfort to be had in thinking like others, and I change what I think only when I feel I will get some advantage from doing so. Indeed, this change occurred in me when I believed that I could derive more benefits by challenging government edicts than by merely following them." This seems to indicate that he derived certain benefits from changing his beliefs rather than his basic concepts.

He still seems to believe in "government edicts," whereas someone who has transcended DRH, does not hallucinate the noises and scribbles that emanate from the hucksters who masquerade as "government" as "government edicts." By changing your beliefs about whether or not you obey so-called "government edicts" you can become much more effective at dealing with terrocrats and their threats. This requires some mental and intellectual effort.

I suggest that to the extent that you change your basic political concepts, you can become vastly more effective at dealing with the terrocrat world. Not only can you enjoy a level of freedom regarded as impossible by most Libertarians, Objectivists, Neo-Techers, Anarchists, Patriots, and Build Freedomns, you can also make a fortune practicing real free enterprise, sharing practical freedom information, and inspiring others to apply it. However, as you can see from Mr. Solomon's contribution, transcending DRH can require a considerable mental and intellectual effort. With the aid of the Build Freedom materials it took him two years. Without the benefit of the Build Freedom materials it took me personally about seven years to cure myself from DRH.

The ability to examine concepts is helpful in transcending DRH. Here is a basic exercise. Consider the concept of "shadow." What is the referent of the word "shadow?" Does a "shadow" exist? How do you define a "shadow?" If a "shadow" is the absence of light in a defined area, then how can a "shadow" exist? How can the absence of something exist? What kind of an entity is a "shadow?" Does a "shadow" exist if there is no one to see it? With what senses can you perceive a "shadow?"

Now consider a "rainbow." What kind of entity is a "rainbow?" What happens to a "rainbow" if you walk up to it? If two people see a "rainbow," do they see the same "rainbow?" What kind of entity is a "rainbow?" Does a "rainbow" exist if there is no one to see it? As kinds of entities, are there fundamental similarities between "shadows" and "rainbows?" What about fundamental differences? With what senses can you perceive a "rainbow?" Can a color-blind person see a "rainbow?"

What about a "flock" (of birds)? What kind of entity is a "flock?" How do you define it? Can you perceive a "flock" with your senses? If a "flock" exists, can you tell me in concrete terms what actually exists? As kinds of entities, what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "shadows," "rainbows," and "flocks?"

And what about a "sound?" What kind of entity is a "sound?" Does a "sound" exist -- or does it occur, or appear? OK, so acoustic waves occur. If they enter an ear they are converted into "sound." So does a "sound" occur if there is no ear to make it? Does a falling tree make a "sound" if there is no one to hear "it?" Then, the frequency of an acoustic wave can be such that a dog's ear converts it into a "sound," but a human ear doesn't react to it. So what kind of entity is a "sound" that can be heard by a dog but not by a human? As kinds of entities, what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "shadows," "rainbows," "flocks," and "sounds?"

Let us now introduce the concept of "cause." What kind of entity is a "cause?" How does a "cause" "cause" something? Can a "shadow" "cause" something? What "causes" a "shadow?" Does a "flock" "cause" birds to fly in formation? What "causes" a "flock?" Can a "sound" "cause" anything? Does an ear "cause" a "sound?" As kinds of entities, what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "shadows," "rainbows," "flocks," "sounds," and "causes?"

Now consider the concept of a "principle" -- e.g., "What goes around comes around." What kind of entity is a "principle?" How do you define it? Does the fact that you can define it make it more real; does it demonstrate that you understand it? Can you perceive a "principle" with your senses? Does a "principle" "cause" things to happen? If so, how? Does a "principle" have invisible hands "it" uses to push people and things around? Or does "it" have invisible syringes "it" uses to inject chemicals into people's brains so they behave differently? Or does a "principle" have some kind of "telepathic voice" "it" uses to tell people what to do? As kinds of entities, what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "shadows," "rainbows," "flocks," "sounds," "causes," and "principles?"

And what about "law" -- like the "law of gravity?" Is the universe controlled by "laws?" If so, what kind of entities are "laws?" How do "they" control the universe? Do they have invisible hands? ... etc. -- same questions as for "principles." Are "laws" basically the same as "principles" or are they fundamentally different? As kinds of entities, what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "shadows," "rainbows," "flocks," "sounds," "causes," "principles," and "laws?"

What about "government?" What kind of entity is a "government?" Can a "government" "cause" things? Could you define a "government" as a "group of people who work together for certain reasons?"

Earlier I asked the question, "Does a "flock" "cause" birds to fly in formation?" Some readers may conclude that this is just about the stupidest question they ever heard. OK. Could you define a "flock" as a group of birds who fly together for certain reasons? And can a "government" "cause" people to pay taxes? If you are one of those people who thinks that it makes perfect sense that a "government" can "cause" people to pay taxes, but it's absurd to think that a "flock" can "cause" birds to fly in formation, then presumably you think there's some fundamental difference between a "government" and a "flock." If so, what's that difference?

As kinds of entities, what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "shadows," "rainbows," "flocks," "sounds," "causes," "principles," "laws," and "governments?"

DRH DEBATE CONTINUES

John de Rock (JDR): Frederick Mann...says that government is a hallucination... I have copied this to <richard.dawkins@zoo.ox.ac.uk> and hope that Dr Dawkins will enter into the debate.

FM: Having denounced John's false accusation, "Frederick Mann... says that government is a hallucination," at least half-a-dozen times, we must ask why he persists with his misrepresentation.

In my previous post I wrote: "A problem to me during the debate was that John sometimes wrote distortions of what I (and others) had written, and then criticized his own distortions, instead of responding to what was originally written. On occasion I asked him to quote what was written and to then respond to exactly that, otherwise I have to expend considerable effort to demonstrate that his distortion was different from the original.

Some of his contribution, above, I consider to be such distortion. John, I ask you again, please respond to exactly what I wrote, not your "version."

So why does John continue his gross misrepresentation? Is he simply too unconscious to know what he's doing? Has he been too unconscious (or too obtuse?) to read all the posts where SB and I have pointed out his misrepresentation? Or is he simply a deliberate liar?

Or is he trying to deliberately mislead Richard Dawkins? Or is he trying to embarrass Dawkins and make him look foolish? Had Dawkins foolishly responded to John's distortions, then I would have had to respond back to Dawkins, indicating that John had essentially lied to him about what I had said. All of this would only have wasted more time and made us look to Dawkins like silly throwbacks.

There is of course a further possibility. From his perspective, John is telling the truth about what I said. He's not misrepresenting anything. Because, you see, he can't tell the difference between reality and his own hallucinations. He obsessively hallucinates something different from what was said, and then criticizes his own hallucinations.

JDR: ...To consider that the only form of intelligent life is human beings is a narrow definition...

FM: I haven't said anything about "humans being the only form of intelligent life." Is this a deliberate lie or misrepresentation on John's part? Or an unconscious hallucination, to him identical to reality?

JDR: I agree that Frederick Mann is making points about government, but to simply say it does not exist or it is invalid...

FM: These are more lies, misrepresentations or hallucinations. In this debate I haven't "made any points about government," I haven't said "it does not exist," and I haven't said "it is invalid."

JDR: In article: <v01540b02aebe84a075ec@[204.62.193.129]> fm1@amug.org writes:

FM: 1. Does this "government" have eyes or ears to receive communications; or does it have a sense of touch so it can receive communications in the form of braille? (It's no use saying that, "Well, I can communicate to people in government," because then you're communicating to people, not to a "government.")

JDR: No. Neither do most animals. I am assuming that you mean intelligent communications (i.e., discussing something), not telling a dog to "sit," when it is merely reacting to a stimulus. Nevertheless, a wild dog is capable of killing you just like a government. Governments do react to stimuli such as rioting in the streets, labour strikes and buyers strikes.

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Most animals do have eyes and ears with which they receive communications. Where there are individual human beings with guns killing others, you're hallucinating falsely-called "governments."

JDR: In the UK the government attempted to regulate the letting of real estate by freezing rents, increasing charges, denying landlords and tenants the freedom to enter into contracts other than rigidly defined contracts that denied the landlord re-possession after notice...

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. In reality what happened is that certain terrocrats masquerading as "government" (falsely-called) made some scribbles you and 99.999...% of your fellow suckers hallucinated as "the rental laws."

JDR: The withdrawal of rentable property and the risk of tax riots were a form of communication with government, albeit of a coarse and unintelligent variety.

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. The withdrawal of rentable property is the withdrawal of rentable property; period. The risk of tax riots is the risk of tax riots; period. (Of course, individual terrocrats, having eyes, can observe property being withdrawn and tax riots occurring. They could regard these events as messages.)

FM: 2. Does this "government" have a brain with thought processes to understand communications?

JDR: It has a brain which can react to situations (like a dog being told to "sit"), and one can observe this brain in action (e.g., debates in legislatures).

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Some terrocrats get together in a room to talk nonsense, and you not only hallucinate them as a "legislature," but also as a "brain!" Have you ever seen a picture of a brain? Have you ever opened the skull of an animal and seen its brain? Have you ever eaten a brain? Do you know what a brain typically looks like?

FM: 3. Can this "government" read or write?

JDR: It can write (laws) but not read text.

FM: Oh, woe! John, your hallucinations are getting curioser and curioser! So your "government" "can write (laws)" but can "not read text." You're not serious are you?! How does a creature learn to write without learning to read?

And, of course, we've indicated many times that the second most important element of DRH is to hallucinate the scribbles of terrocrats as falsely-called "laws."

FM: 4. Does this "government" have a mouth with which to speak?

JDR: It can speak but not through a mouth. "Reading the riot act" is as near actual speech as you can get. It is still just a reaction to the situation of a riotous crowd like a dog growling if you try to take its bone rather than speech in the form of two way debate.

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Of course, an individual human, a volitional entity, with a mouth, can utter the noises you hallucinate as "the riot act." Furthermore, some terrocrats with guns are likely to hallucinate the noises the same way you do. So, nevertheless, take heed; you don't want to get shot!

FM: 5. Does this "government" have an address where you can write to "it"; does "it" have a phone number where you can call "it?"

JDR: It is too diffuse, but in the UK you can write to your MP at the House of Commons. Similar mechanisms exist in most democracies and even some dictatorships. The USSR had a well developed system of input from its citizens. If you are lucky, your MP may "raise the matter in the house," it could be said that your letter has "aroused thought processes in government's brain." These processes can be observed by reading or listening to the ensuing debate among the people who are the "neurons" of the government's "brain."

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. You hallucinate a fraudulent impostor-huckster as "your MP." You hallucinate the madhouse where such impostors meet as "the House of Commons." As a result of your hallucinations, you are the moron-slave of the hallucinated ""neurons" of the government's "brain"."

FM: 6. Has anyone ever observed communication with a "government?"

JDR: How about blowing up government offices in Oklahoma? Rioting in Los Angeles (although this was more against lawyers who told the populace that what they saw on their TV screens and many people saw in person didn't happen.)

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Blowing up a building is blowing up a building; period. Rioting in Los Angeles is rioting in Los Angeles; period. What you add to that is "addition" or hallucination.

This is a good point at which to examine the phenomenon of "addition" as described by William James in his lecture "Pragmatism and Humanism":

"In many familiar objects every one will recognize the human element. We conceive a given reality in this way or in that, to suit our purpose, and the reality passively submits to our conception...

We carve out groups of start in the heavens, and call them constellations, and the stars patiently suffer us to do so,--though if they knew what we were doing, some of them might feel much surprised at the partners we had given them. We name the same constellations diversely, as Charles's Wain, the Great Bear, or the Dipper...

In all these cases we humanly make an addition to some sensible reality, and that reality tolerates the addition."

The above comes from the book Pragmatism and four essays from The Meaning of Truth. The entry in the index is worded, "Additions, human, to the given.'

OK. So there are stars out there. They are the given. Looking at them from earth, some of them seem to constitute "groups" and we call such a "group" a "constellation." However, some of the stars in a supposed "constellation" are much further from earth than others. There's no basis in reality to regard them as a "group" or "constellation" -- as opposed to a flock of birds that actually fly together, or a galaxy of stars that actually move together.

We hallucinate a "constellation" where there are only individual stars -- or even individual stars in different galaxies. James's "addition" is a polite term for hallucination.

FM: 7. How will you know if you've successfully communicated with a "government?"

JDR: If legislation changes as a result.

FM: Oh, woe! John, you're hallucinating. You hallucinate some of the noises and scribbles of certain terrocrats as "legislation" (falsely-called). Suppose you send some noises and scribbles to certain terrocrats, and as a result they change some of their scribbles you hallucinate as "legislation." This could properly be regarded as having successfully communicated with those terrocrats.

JDR: Or it doesn't like what you have said and has you killed.

FM: Oh, woe! John, when you are dead, do you know anything? Is having been killed your criterion for successful communication? Seriously, if you are to be killed in this context, you will be killed by one or more individual terrocrats.

What answer 7 demonstrates is how the DRH victim is the slave of the terrocrat noises and scribbles he hallucinates as "legislation" or "the law." On the surface he campaigns for the terrocrats to "change the law" so he can be free in some respect.

We need DRH victims to so campaign, because it can bring short-term benefits, in that in some respects it may reduce the extent to which terrocrats interfere with our lives.

In the long term, however, this hallucination that terrocrat noises and scribbles constitute "the law" -- and campaigns in accordance -- reinforce and perpetuate the master-slave relationship between terrocrats and DRH victims like John de Rock.

[The DRH/NSPIC debate continues in 'Report #TL07G: NSPIC Debate #3.']

[Home] [Report Directory]

http://www.buildfreedom.com