The Revelations of…

 

John has decided that it is about time he cleared up a few issues regarding subjects tpuc and he have covered over the last few years (please scroll down for a list of filmed talks to view) – some being the ‘freeman’ issue, lawful rebellion, pros and cons of bucking the system and what they ultimately result in.

This talk will deal with history, law, the legal world, legal loopholes, politics, worldly problems and much more… and a general update on John’s views, perspectives and notions coming from his experiences with the above over the last 6 years and before.

This talk will also encompass information for new comers as well and John’s ‘idea’ regarding a solution to worldly woes suffered by us all, no matter where you live in the world – but as always it is only ‘one’ mans views.

This is a no holds barred talk and if you are easily offended, then this is not a talk for you. John will deliberately mess with your mind, beliefs and your worldly perspective and although he will apologise for doing so, this will not stop him delivering his opinions with ‘brutal honesty’!

In his opinion everyone is entitled to their own views, whether they are the accepted one’s or not and that is regarding any subject matter, nothing is taboo, including himself!

‘You have been warned’!

The talk will accommodate many questions from the audience and in some ways will revolve around what the audience requires to know. If a subject is beyond him, he will honestly say.

Previous talks by John recorded in 2009 you might like to view and his talk in Liecester (TruthJuice) and his last talk in Cornwall Febuary 2013.

It's an illusion
A Carpenters view
It's an illusion 2
Undermining Democracy
 

 

79 thoughts on “The Revelations of…

  1. i returned from beluim with 250. packets of tobacco.they seized it from me.then they took approx £2,000 from me as tax.i then got another fine of £410.0 all together it cost me about 3 thousand pound to bring back baccy which was for my own use,this is from a counrty that is in th EU which proclaims to have no borders and no limits of export/import;
    i have paid the money. do i have any cause to claim my money back. thank you

    1. Hi, Think you've been conned. I would look into this via their rules of import and export. If 'tax' or 'duty' is paid on the tobacco in the orignal country (which is Belguim) then no duty or tax is liable when coming into this country as it's already been paid within the EU. Think you may have an angle via the Import laws. Worth a fight!

  2. What is the point of this “talk”? he is incapable of telling the truth and has never answered a single simple question put to him concerning his own subjects. Just look at the pages and pages in the basement he created for himself.
    what can he possibly have to talk about? he doesn’t research and he doesn’t read. So that would only leaves his incoherent ramblings.
    This is just another self-serving excercise to feed his massive EGO! EGO! EGO!

    1. John does not research, & he does not read……………well, if that is what you think, you crack on! Have a look on YT for ‘It’s an illusion by john harris’ because that speech took research, research & more research! Did anyone in the audience challenge him over what he was saying? NO, & that was because you cannot challenge the truth!

      1. Hi everyone. I just went to one of John's talks, his last ever one apparently. I have been very keen on a lot of things he has been saying for a very long time. He seems to be full of truth that is indisputable and I have believed this for almost all of the time that I have been aware of his existence. Upon meeting him, however, he is full of shit.

        He has made a few good points, I'll grant him that, but the majority of what he said was completely self centred and very hypocritical. He condescends to people and contradicts himself also. He attempts to simplify and devolve every other differing, sentient, perception that is offered so he can dumb it down to his somewhat primitive methods of comprehension.

        For example, before his talk on the 28th of Feb, in Penzance, he was saying how it was pathetic how angry some people get when their beliefs are challenged and how pathetic it was for them to call this anger 'passion'. Well he did exactly the same thing. And yet he still continues spewing out his silly rubbish. "everything has a simple answer to it" he claims. Ok so what about…the biochemistry of the human brain? The mental emotional complex of the human being? Every way, subtle and distinct, in which his energy affects the energy of his audience? How is there a simple answer to any of these things that actually makes any sense?
         

        I left before hearing him out. I felt completely weirded out by how angry he was and the violent thoughts that he described about a police man. It was extremely manipulative. But I don't imagine that anyone is going to listen to me, because most people that visit this website are completely under his spell. Just like every other semi-famous celebrity. 

        I know John does speak of some brilliant truths and I do not blame him completely – despite him showing an irresponsible lack of morality and common decency – for example I do agree with him that there is no God.

        However, he also thouroughly mixes these vital truths in with the utter garbage which makes it almost impossible to distinguish between what is good and what is bad. It's like trying to obtain carbon and iron out of steel, it's near enough impossible.

        I will pretty much finish this here. I think enough said. If you cannot even take into account that there is a possiblility that John is just a fucked up man that isn't really happy enough or stable enough emotionally/mentally to give advice to as many people as he is, then you are blind.

        I thought he was a legend until I went to see him talk.

        My utmost respect and love to each and every one of you

        1. Knowledge is power. In general, everything has a simple answer. The only thing that makes it less simple is a lack of knowledge. When the scientific world finally unlock the secrets of the human brain, it will become simple to the people that study it because the knowledge can be given to them. John gives people the knowledge to make a more informed decision on certain matters. I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree with his core message. We live in a system that does not work and only serves to enslave us, whether deliberate or not and like John, I believe that something must change.

          Now, I am Scottish and I;m sure you are aware what is going to happen there, next year. In the coarse of learning about the freeman society I have learned a lot that will change the way I look at the information that is being put out by both the YES and NO camps.. It also helps me in what I want to see in the constitution of an independent Scotland. Again I point to knowledge is power.

          After watching the video of the Leicster meeting, had I been at his meeting, I'm not sure I would have agreed with all he said but I think I would have tried to speak to him about it, rather than just walk out.

        2. A few good points? Sounds to me like you don't respect John with your ad hominem argumentum. Cheers for the gesture of respecting everyone, and there was me thinking respect has to be shown first if you are to expect it. Oh and what was that about hypocrisy again? Your post sounds angrier than anything I have heard John communicate. My one glimmer of hope is that you are deeply intuitive in that you saw a pang of indignation in John towards his transgressors and mistook this for a fucked up manipulative and violent man. Or maybe you are the manipulative Shill, would you respectfully allow a truth seeker to explore that notion in peace?

    2. There is nothing wrong with having a massive ego buddy. Of course, this is just an opinion but it is one which has kept humanity from losing hope in itself. Religion and other core belief systems dictate to you that you should humble yourself and lose your ego, but your ego gives you a true sense of pride and love for oneself.

      It seems to me that some of the truths that John has written or said have questioned an area in your life/reality in which you are in denial or in which you are avoiding this truth and so you attack one of the guys who is probably simply trying to spread (in his own unique way) a message to decode the programming or conditioning (brainwashing) that humanity has most likely (99.99999% likely) to have been subject to – this observation is based on a lot of evidence, some of which I will be more than happy to share if you ask.

      I guess my point is that John is just a man, who has admitted that he is just a normal guy/ common man like us; but he is one whom is lucky enough to be able to spread his unique message to many thousands-millions of people and it really encourages them to think, not for the good of themselves or for their personal gain, but for the good of the people as a collective and to raise awareness of some of the dodgy stuff that has almost definitely (again, based on a lot of evidence) been going on behind our bent backs.

      I sense that, or believe very strongly, that John has a hard enough time as it is and must be under a lot of pressure already, without hope-crushing comments like these, dictated as fact and truth, when many, I am sure disagree strongly. This, again is only my opinion.

      I am not saying not to voice your opinion – quite the opposite – as it is very important for everyone to be able to mean what they say and say what they mean and to express their beliefs freely and without being judged for them. What I am saying though is that your beliefs on John and his message and the content of his talks and articles are your beliefs/opinions and you cannot fairly or justly dictate them as fact, without people strongly and logically disagreeing with you.

      I think like a scientist and science (or the most reliable science organisations in the world) do suggest that you can never be so certain about anything: The Uncertainty Principle; this includes beliefs and opinions, that is all they are and they are certainly not fact.

      My main point is that it seems you have it set in your mind that John is a really bad guy and that you are certain that he is all about his personal gain and that, in fact, he is just a very clever con artist whom just wants self gratification and your money? This seems quite delusional to me – especially alongside your distaste of the ego which many do see as a beautiful survival mechanism – so I ask of you to perhaps ponder on the suggestion that your beliefs are not absolute and to blindly dictate them as fact, without compromise, does lead me to believe that you are in denial of some of the truths that John’s talks/articles/messages do reveal (or do make it easier for one to help themselves by facing).

      I don’t know you and, like I have mentioned beforehand, this is only my opinion but evidence suggests that I am likely to be right. I am sharing it with you out of genuine care for you as my equal. I also was stubborn in my past in similar ways and I thought the ego was bad. I did not compromise with my beliefs. I ended up with no pride or true respect for myself because I believed this so strongly that I humbled myself and this, the way I see it, can be it’s own form of self-rejection – the feeling of unworthiness that so many core belief systems (such as Statism, Christianity etc) do drill into people.

      John has expressed his awareness of the fact that he has had delusions of grandeur in the past (as have many others, including myself) and, like I said, has made it very clear that he knows he is not special or better than anyone. If I was in his position, I would still do talks probably because it’s an extremely fortunate chance to express oneself and to share new ideas and new information with many people – the sharing of information being one of the most beautiful processes in the world.

      This all suggests to me that John has a healthy ego, as it doesn’t seem to be inflated (like our fucking money) and it still exists which suggests that he has a healthy amount of self respect and pride; an ego-less state can be quite destructive and can lead to a lack of emotional stability, hot-headedness/anger/frustration, feelings of helplessness, dissatisfaction and sadness – oh, and stubbornness. I don’t understand how or why, this just seems to be the case.

      I guess that a lot of these kind of unsupported and judgemental comments are made without much deep thought, against non-conformists (rebels), to attack those who demand and seek true freedom, from oppression (slavery) and the evil machinations of a system of control which doesn’t give a fuck about us as a race, because you are dependant on this very system.

      We all avoid certain truths of how humanity has been manipulated and deceived and enslaved and is still in oppression etc, because it is so painful to face. But it will only manipulate you for as long as you fail to see you are being manipulated. We attack the people that show us how we are being used because it is so hard to face up to the fact that we are being controlled and that there is something very wrong and sinister about much of the business, organisation and corporation and legislation of the world in which we live. Denial is a tricky one. Some go their whole lives without facing the truth and I don’t want you to be one of them. You seem angry too, which is extremely destructive. Rest more often, for us human beings are not all wicked and you seem like you are way too angry/provocative/confrontational in your method of argument to actually be able to debate reasonably. Nothing is certain by the way, not even the uncertainty principle, not even your own flawless perspective.

      So bless you – and like I said, this is all only my opinion, I could be completely wrong, but masses of evidence and my own individual experience leads me to strongly believe otherwise. Much love, and do not reply if you are going to be angry at me about what I have said. No-one likes beings that get shitty with other beings or call them silly, childish names. Chris x

    3. I strongly dissagree, John  haris is a very clever man, if it was upto me id crown john harris King of England, The government churches priests all commited fraud then and they are still doing it now, why is there so many diffrent books on law, why not 1. As i see it i was created by my mother and father so why does someone have power to tell me what i can and cannot do other than my mother, its a scam to make money, year ago priests would take food off people , it makes me so angry everyone should stan up to these thiefs. I want to lear more on this subject and i will.

  3. Then you, buffoon, ought to research what he proclaims to have researched.
    The man is a lunatic, who has never practiced what he has preached. Indeed he now has admitted he no longer subscribes to his own bull shit. He indeed now, calls it his “old truth” this is apparently because he has found a “new truth”.
    You may want to ask him if he ever looked at his OWN birth certificate before telling others
    “when you get home, get this document out, it is phenomenal what they done!”.
    John Harris is a liar, a deceiver, a hypocrite, conman and charlatan. He has used suckers like Myrtle Merryweather (and no doubt yourself) as his guinea pig to try out his crack-pot ideas and theories and refuses to take any responsibility for his statements that lead others into deeper debt and poverty and in some cases prison.
    Yes my friend, you glorious Salvatore will simply sit back and watch others send themselves into a tail –spin while he and his trusted friend and moderator laugh from the side-lines at your gullibility.
    You are a lemming who has faith in an idiot..

    1. Keep telling yourself that, but there are countless videos on YT that basically back up what he says, involving PCSOs, debt collectors, the Police, TV Licence, Magistrate Courts, the list is endless! And have you actually looked at your birth certificate, it clearly states at the bottom in red, WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY, I had to show my birth certificate when I joined the army, & several other occasions as well. The point being, why do people/organisations ask for it as ID, when it states itself , it isn’t evidence? But if you think it’s all lies & a con, you fill your boots pal!

      Oh, look on YT for a video called ‘tv man & the police’ by Danny Allen………………I don’t need to say any more! 😀

  4. It does indeed have a warning on the bottom of the Birth Certificate. But you, simpleton, have conveniently forgotten what John Harris says is on the bottom of the Birth certificate, why is that?
    You have asked me to take a look at his silly” it’s an illusion” YT video taking on the assumption that I hadn’t. This shows your pure ignorance and incapability to discuss and debate.
    And if you were capable of reading AND understanding what you have so rightly written concerning the warning on the Birth Certificate, you would then understand that what John Harris says about the enslavement of every man, woman and child VIA the Birth Certificate simply cannot be right. You see, the warning actually proves John Harris to be wrong. But what is worse, John Harris left this (warning) out of out of his illusion talk and purposely inserted something else in its place, which was intended to deceive his audience.
    You have also and again with ignorance, asked me;
    “Did anyone in the audience challenge him over what he was saying? NO, & that was because you cannot challenge the truth!”
    This answer to that silly question s obviously and a definite NO, no one challenged him, but not because as you say “no one could challenge the truth” but simply because he didn’t take questions.
    So if you want to debate and discuss John Harris’ It’s an illusion talk, you should first enquire if I have watched it and researched it before assuming I have just accused a person of something I know nothing about or have no reason to say what I say.
    Can I start by asking you to listen to this part of his “illusion”? And listen very carefully to what your messiah has to say about the birth certificate?
    02:30

      1. Your opinion of me has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that John Harris is a liar.
        But I haste to say, it is you who is the wooden one, you who refuses to even look at with what words Harris replaced the WARNING you speak so highly of.
        Listen to the link I provided for you, numskull. He mentions nothing about the “warning”, but he does read from the birth certificate a very strange Declaration, that he tells his audience, “is on the bottom ” of the birth certificate.
        This you will realize, is a blatant and deceitful lie that was intentional.

        There are many more of these blatant intended lies I could point out to you, but just from your limited responses above that are void and empty of any evidence for your claims above, I can see you are just a sycophantic wannabe freeman who is simply incapable of admitting your demagogue
        could possibly be wrong.
        This simply shows me, that although you say Harris does research and read, you simply have no idea what you talk about. this man Harris didn’t even READ his OWN birth certificate never mind research the it, before telling his audience to;

        ” go home and get this document out” and went as far to say about this document (birth certificate) “look at it, it is phenomenal what they done”
        here it is again;

        02:30
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg

        .

      2. What about gypsies are they not proof of freeman their children can't be touched by the social services due to them not being registered at birth 

    1. Hi,

      All very noble calling other people names and really doesn't solve anything.

      Anyway my opinion which i will put forward to try and open up the debate is this: I don't think John is talking about a piece of paper Bruce which we conceptualise as a Birth Certificate. Of course it says it is not proof of identity on the BC because it has no correlation back to the human being it is meant to represent. The enslavement comes from your own mind.

      I think what John is talking about and I agree with him is that at birth you register a name or rather your parents and then you use that name to identify yourself with all your life. You answer to that name and you register your car, mortgage, rent, council tax, passport etc etc against that name. You believe that name to be you! it is not you.

      This is deep stuff and requires a new mindset to understand about the difference between reality and abstract concepts. It is the name which is an abstract concept derived from your birth registration that is perceived as reality i.e. you! But it is not you and it is the lifelong association with the name that makes you think it is you. A piece of paper cannot do that to you, it cannot enslave you, it is the mind that has enslaved us.

      The thing that exists in the real world is a flesh and blood human being, the concept is the name which is ink on paper (passport, BC, Driving license etc) and the vibrations of the vocal chords called language.

      To illustrate, if you change your name by deed pole has you DNA changed?

      The main problem that exists is this; if you ignore the debt collectors letters and return them that is all well and good, attaching "NO CONTRACT" is futile. Of course they have no way of entering your property and I've had my fair share. However if it is for something serious they will still persue against the name, but there will come a point when it is a court bailiff demand and then they have the right to break in and take stuff and if that stuff is registered against your name then it becomes theirs.

      You have 2 basic solutions and that is either compartmentalise your life or use trusts. they both involve abstract concept names. They don't care about contracts so use a pure fiction name for your V5 document, Council registration docs and the like, if the shit does hit the fan then when they come knocking that person is not there.

      Get rid of store cards, they are designed to make you spend anyway not to give you anything and not only that if the state gets hold of them they will use them to track your spending habbits and could be used against you in bankruptcy proceeedings.

      Welcome to 1984, protect your information don't give it to no one.

      I think what the freeman movement would be better doing is using ideas to protect the layman. A one stop shop for information on internet privacy, trusts to protect assets, addresses for forwarding instead of using your home address etc becasue they do not have any regard for the law.

       

       

  5. Bruce, rather than yammer on, why not cut to the chase and say what it is that we are all missing please?
    peace and love. xx

    1. Infidel wrote;
      “Bruce, rather than yammer on, why not cut to the chase and say what it is that we are all missing please?”

      I thought I had, “ cut to the chase” in my first post, but given most of the members here are John Harris sycophants, I made two other posts that also “cut to the chase”.
      You may want to try reading them? I thought it would be plain to anyone (except the sycophant).

      So, because you have you missed the point that is so obvious to the casual reader, I will “yammer” more clearly for you:

      John Harris not only tells lies intentionally, but perpetuates his lies perpetually.

      1. Just a a word. I am new to all this and am doing my research. I have viewed parts of Johns talks and it appears that John is giving his own opinions, if I choose to believe his opinions or expand on them is my own given choice. I can’t see that he is a liar because if you look closely enough you can see and feel the control of those in “power” (really it’s called “office” but the government calls it power). I think the whole point that John making is that no matter how much we think we are free, we are not, and that our corrupt system should be changed. Forget what people are saying, forget what you think, forget what John says, and forget what I say. Just look, look at our country and who governs it. Do you think Great Britain is Great. Me neither. John not lying or forcing his opinion he is simply saying Just Look

        1. I agree, and I love what you said about freedom. As long as we are fed elitist bullshit for breakfast lunch and dinner (whilst the queen watches porn and eats cucumber sandwiches) then we will never be truly free.

          As a general rule: the free-er we think we are, when we are enslaved, then the less free we will become and the more wealth we will generate for those whom benefit from our enslavement, through this belief. That is, until we realise, collectively, that we are not free at all and, thus, do accheive – through this collective realisation and the correction that will inevitably follow – true freedom.

          'Freedom' metastisizes the cancer of the state – Stefan Molyneux.

  6. I’m only replying to you purely out of an entertainment factor now. John Harris is a liar, that is your interpretation. John Harris is not a liar, because there are countless videos on YT backing up what he says……………countless times!

    All you do is lots of name calling, & constantly bang on about the birth certificate, because that is all you have!

    You’re a TPUC troll…

    1. 'because there are countless videos on YT backing up what he says……………countless times!'

      youtube does not constitute 'evidence'!

  7. We are all getting old. We subscibe to occulted symbolism and binding we do not understand. Our language is not truly understood by those who speak it. Understanding a concept does not mean mastery of it. Therefore please stop gunning Mr Harris and realise that he as the uninitiated bothered to try to give light to the sheeple. Please raise your intelligence and realise that we are running out of time. Those that know, know. Stop ignoring what we all know, that sum+thing is wrong. If you have eyes to see then show the errors, stop the ego and don’t let it all go to pot so you can sit back and say ” I told you so”. It doesn’t matter is he’s wrong. With support we will all be right. The problem is the indoctrinated who react and do not think. the current human condition. Think: If a man bears his soul for all to see. What does he have left.

    1. Truther, I feel you are really right in most of the meaning behind the words of your comments, especially with how there is no real need to understand anything. I think it is best just to appreciate that things are right or that things are wrong and perhaps this is a 'more evolved' way of thinking, or perhaps not, either way – it is how I think. Simple though it sounds, I feel it can be extremely complicated.

      I like your negative cynicism, as I see it as this when you say we are running out of time. I would agree that – yes – we do seem to be running out of time, or so we are lead to believe…this idea gives me a sense of business (busy-ness), like we need to hurry up and do something, which probably couldn't be further from the truth.

      But, then again, if we are running out of time, then they are too: the perpetrators of all this evil shit are getting more and more desperate and making more and more mistakes in their miscreantal activities every day because they are fighting against the natural evolution of life (and light) on this planet and in this Universe and (stupidly) they seem to believe that the de-evolution of human beings is a possible notion. We have the earth, the planets, the sun, the stars and the universe and light (photons) and everything natural protecting us and they are fighting against an inevitable truth – that they cannot 'win' or buy or own reality or existence because it's not a fucking game or war or a competition or a race or a market or a corporation or a religion or a prison etc….it is reality.

      I think that us hue-man beings love each other too much to allow an apocalyptic scenario to happen – after all, we have the power to stop all of this evil whenever we wish…probably. I am almost as certain of this as I am that I exist – which still I am not completely certain of. 😉

      Oh and I would argue that no-one has a soul. The way I see it a soul is intangible (or subjective) and therefore unable to be possessed or owned (like an object can). So I would say that you don't have a soul as such, you are a soul. 😀

      Much love x 😉

    2. could'nt have put it better myself, I watched this guy who said he had access to museums vaults and said there are things in there that they will not put out because they want you to believe what they say, which is funny because I was talking to a minister of a church about the same subject and he confirmed that its because they do not know what to do with it, which makes you wonder how deep the rabbitt hole goes.

  8. @Bruce L:

    “The man is a lunatic, who has never practiced what he has preached. Indeed he now has admitted he no longer subscribes to his own bull shit. He indeed now, calls it his “old truth” this is apparently because he has found a “new truth”.”

    – Are you really suggesting that as he researched and read up and understood more and more, that if he found a new perspective, he shouldn’t say so? It is called learning. I too, as I learn, form conclusions, only to re-jig my ideas as I gain new insights or find information that seems more complete. John, as far as I have seen, has only asked us to consider his point of view and then research it from other sources and form our own opinions. He has not requested that anyone get themselves arrested, in fact he has said that anyone going into this needs to be prepared to take the consequences or not bother.

    Probably the reason he is not supporting some of his old ideas, is not because the information is wrong, but that the “authorities” don’t care what the truth is, they just use the system to the best of their advantage and if that doesn’t work, they will happily move the goals. That’s what all “good” ambitious, ruthless, successful businessmen do. So however well you turn up at court with your procedures and protocols, the magistrate can happily ignore you and your legalese/common law, as he is happy in the knowledge that the system will uphold his judgement in 99.9% of cases not ours.

    In conclusion, rather than trying to fight the system, which can’t be done, the logical step is peaceful education. If enough of us understood how things work, factually, not theories and guesses, but just the nuts and bolts of banking, money creation, nutrition, education etc etc, we would not allow the system to continue in its current form.

    John, as anyone else, is allowed to have his opinion. He is also allowed to change his mind and learn and come to new conclusions. It is our task to listen, research and agree or disagree as you please. You can’t blanket approve or disapprove of his material, that makes you a senseless automaton. There will be points that stand out as truth, things that don’t add up, and things that are blatantly wrong. And over time as we do our own research we may change our own minds about what is possible and what he was wrong and right about.

    An all out character assassination however speaks more of who you are than who John Harris is.

  9. YES!! Hes back!! I knew he would be eventually! Im really looking forward to his perspective on everything he has talked about so far, and im more interested in the ‘truths’ that he feels would upset people, i want to hear these and what was going to be in his original non fictional book 180 degrees. I want to hear it all, no holding back!

    1. James wrote;
      “, and im more interested in the ‘truths’ that he feels would upset people, i want to hear these and what was going to be in his original non fictional book 180 degrees. I want to hear it all, no holding back!”

      You’ll be lucky, if not the first to hear them”

      1. Bruce, you have issues.

        On any complex subject, nobody can be considered ultimately correct. This definitely includes you too.

        I'm no fanboy of this site but its opened my eyes to the use of the law and so far served me well.

  10. Bruce I would have to agree with Brian a few posts ago, I don’t think that the intention of John Harris is to purposefully lie, he does in fact state that we should not take his word for it, and should do our own research with the goal realising the truth for oneself.

    That being said, I applaud your cynicism, if it wasn’t for your pointing it out the fault with that which John Harris says about the birth certificate, I might not realised where he had been wrong. I’ve just looked at my birth own certificate, intrigued by the thought that I was apparently government property, and so looked painstakingly but did not find any remnant of that which John Harris propounds… There was no "Declaration from a man or woman to prove a man or woman was present to represent the person, needed to create the new persons legal personality" there was merely a warning that a birth certificate was not a legal from of I.D… Which in itself is interesting, but… not what John Harris says, as mentioned above.

    Cynicism then, was the correct response but lets be honest, you were very rude in the way that you went about it, you did "yammer" as was mentioned and were not to the point in your argument which was counter productive, to the discussion.

  11. Interesting stuff . Watching 'the edge' that i sky plussed , and although i want to get my head around things , and try to understand them , Theo Chalmers or John Harris keep digressing mid way through each topic they've broached . So i don't think anything discussed has been explained properly to a 'lay man' like myself . Interesting though , and at least i'll try looking into this subject matter for myself …. Which in fairness is exactly what John is promoting .

    And this is exactly the same tack i took after watching things like 'loose change' , 'the ripple effect' and programs like 'Rich Planet' . It's all interesting , sometimes disturbing , and at times even conflicting with each others research . But the one thing they all have in common is that , unlike our collective governments, they all say 'DON'T believe us, check it out FOR YOURSELF. One thing i do know is that you can't argue with the truth , but finding the truth is a whole different ball game.

    Hope that makes sense , first time i've ever posted anything on a site like this.

  12. so, if we reclaim our person and destroy the strawman and take our sovereinty back, how do we drive our cars on the street without a liscense or vehicle registration? how do we function in life when we cant do daily activities?

    1. That's a good question. I suppose the origin of the money spent constructing and maintaining the roads, I would assume, mostly comes from the public pocket but is used to instigate private corporate land ownership and equity based legislation to protect and perpetrate this corruption, irresponsibility and the misuse of our hard-earned money. They do this is very subtle ways.

      With new equality based laws, processes like the one mentioned above: legal scams – practiced by the DVLA and countless other corporations – would be unlawful and thus, everyone would be able to use the roads freely, with no penalties or fines for not paying road tax, if that is what it is called. In fact, with new laws – passed by a responsible king of our choosing – it is most likely that none of us would have to pay any form of tax at all. Tax is a con, or so it would very much seem to me and a multitude of others. It is, quite frankly, extortionate legal theft and is completely unnecessary. There is more than enough wealth in the world to go around. Us common folk generate plenty of wealth just doing the jobs we are paid to do, or buying products, let alone having to pay to be alive in 'society' or to use basic things such as roads on top of all the other bills and forms of taxation that are imposed on us. It is just wrong.

      Council tax is a prime example:

      – we have to pay our counsils (prison guards) to maintain that we're not too naughty…it's all a bit kinky for my liking.
      -They threaten us with imprisonment, if we do not give our 'consent to their contracts'. Sounds too much like SDMS bondage to me.
      – The corporations threaten to send thugs round our houses to collect 'what we owe them' either the money or our belongings, even if it's dead grandma's necklace. Sounds too much like something out of The Godfather to me.

      It is just gang-violence disguised behind an illusion we call 'politics'. I mean, sometimes they just kidnap people and put them in vans and lock them up for refusing to tell them their names and addresses or dates of birth or private information and stuff like that. That is what they did to me, twice, but I have ranted enough already.

      Now I really could be completely wrong but:

      The roads, if they are publically funded, are public roads and thus any private legislation that the DVLA (or any other corporation for that matter) do wish to bind to these and to the people using these, what I would assume to be, publicly funded roads (ie, funded with money from the public's many pockets) is both non-obligatory and contract-based and would require your consent before it could hold or have any lawful power or juresdiction over/legally binding properties on, you. If they were to impose any form of fine or penalty on you, as a member of the public, for using public roads without consenting to their corporate and private revenue contracts, then they would be breaking the law – whoever they are, most likely to be the DVLA – as this, I think, is a type of fraud.

      I think this would only be the case if the funding for our roads comes from public funding. I am not 100% sure about any of that though, please don't quote me on anything. The best bet is to get a reply from someone who actually knows what they are talking about 😉 x

    2. Rowdy,

      You ask a great question. I have had this same one pounding around in my head ever since I discovered this GAME that all of our PERSONS are players in. My answer for you came to me over time. I realized bit by bit, that we as humans cannot function within the system that we are wrapped around. Even if we break free, I do not think that we can have a place to lay our heads at night as free men. The corporation owns this land (in their minds anyway) where you might think of catching some sleep. You cant drive a car, even one that you really own on any street because every street is privately owned….by this same corporation. Our only hope I think, is to flee to another part of the world that may not be as sophisticated as Europe/United States. Where the laws of the land acknowledge our humanness….if some place like this exists.

       

  13. Dean Clifford is good at explaining about court procedures and he's put them into practice although he's Canadian the law is the same.

     

     

  14. Yay, I am going to see one of Johns talks, finally!

    I hope it isn't a massive steaming pile of shit (no offence John), as Bruce Lawsome does suggest. Lovely guy is Bruce. Full of realism and honesty…so I dunno, I don't really trust John after he said that stuff you know? I mean shit, John probably is just another evil human being who wants our money…he charges so much for tickets to his show. WAAAAY over the travel costs for him and his team and for the other expenses. I've done the math and he makes over four-thousand Great British Pounds of PERSONAL profit off of every talk he does, off of the money we give them at the door! Did you know that? Well you do now. This man is clearly a fake. 😉 xxxxxxxxx

    1. I think you have got the wrong information, none of the talks are hosted by us. Please make sure you get your information right before you post..

  15. I see knobhead is filling the stadiums up and down the country. There was 13 at is last talk I hear.

    1. Thats just priceless Brucie baby……lmao, you woukdnt get the point if it poked you in the eye……ha ha ha ……much love as always big B…xx

    2. Reading this thread I quickly became disappointed by some of the posts on here.

      I think you and some of the other observers are taking one man's opinions far too personally! If you don't like the content simply stop viewing the site and watching the videos. If, like me, you're interested in the subject matter but don't aggree with everything he and members of community are saying then by all means contest it but why so much anger and childish aggression? Resorting to malicious name calling and, in one post, even picking people out for bad spelling or grammar……come on, that's just pathetic!

      I think it's really shitty to call John a liar when what you actually mean is 'misinformed' or just 'wrong'. Maybe he has got some of it completely wrong? In which case It would be far more constructive for you, John and the whole community if you conducted your own research on these matters and if you feel the results disprove what John and others are saying then you can post them here. Research and results would be far more progressive and constructive than petty name calling and accusations of deliberate lies!

      Do you have more information on John's responsibility for his readers/viewers being imprisoned or is this just old fashioned slander?

      People are allowed different views and opinions and constructive conversation generally leads to greater understanding between conflicting opinions. Personally, I'm all up for conflicting views and debate as it keeps people on their toes and forces further research.

      For the record, I am neither a sycophant or a follower and I definitely don't want John or anybody to be king, I just wish to be free.

       

  16. I have to say a big thanks to John Harris for setting me free from this sheeple lifestyle, it was John Harris in the first place who opened my eyes and got me researching myself so BIG THANKS JOHN, so far I have beaten the CSA, INLAND REVENUE, A SEAT BELT FINE, SPEEDING FINE all by proving that the Queen commited fraud on her coronation OATH as she swore to uphold to her UTMOST POWER  the law of GOD which as you can appreciate is not the law of man or the law of governments and as she gives royal assent to all legislation it is in direct conflict with her oath therefore making all legislation null and void since her coronation. I have also signed up to lioness law which has also removed my implied consent which also works believe me. WE THE PEOPLE have forgotten the power we have over them and not the other way around. I like the rest of you am a human being and not a sheep, slave or otherwise to their so called system. 

  17. HoPe you read this John before you burn your computer
    What a mad few days, came looking for some lawful rebellion ended up
    Minister for transport!! John knows what I mean.
    I really really really hope it wasn’t just all crackpot bollocks
    And you get what you were talking about in Penzance
    See you on the mount John I’ll bring the petrol!!
    If you ever want to go ride some old bikes round the hfds countryside
    You’ve got my number
    This guys a diamond folks and will be far better than Liz!!
    Enjoy your family John while you’ve got time,
    I hope your gonna be busy!!
    I’m keeping an eye out for the flames
    Andy
    Sorry it’s a bit cryptic folks you had to be there!

  18. I think the argument of what is written on a British birth certificate can easily be cleared up. We must realise that there are different models of birth certicates out there and certain warnings and declarations may vary as so much as where they can be found on the certificate. The one which John was on about is a short form certificate and he is in fact correct when he stated that there was a declaration to be made on said certificate. My birth certificate, on the other hand is a long form certificate and the warning is found at the top of the certificate. Funnily enough, my surname was not written in all capitals. What would that mean? Is the certificate null and void?

  19. In no way can the darkness be lifted if those that seek truth and are drawn to a different vision of the future, and feel that future calling them, are divided by detail and by petty dispute. Seeking unity, global unity, we are forced to discover ONE uniting issue, something that we are all of us agreed on. In distillation, this force is LOVE. Don't lightly discard this concept as a bit 60's, a bit hippy. It is the universal entity, it is the only way we can unite. Take love as the core of our being, measure and create everything thereafter based on that simple, unifying principle. Do you see? There is no alternative. It is the single thing humanity shares, the single thing that lives within all of us. It is a force that will, eventually, change the world. Love to all, Olive Farmer and Aktina Pempti, Crete.

  20. I'm not really sure about John Harris as a person I've never met him and I agree with some of his understanding and not others. Rather than pull him down if you can do better then get off your arse and do it.

    The basic concept of the birth certificate is true i believe, it is ink on paper and that is all it is and to think anything other is dellusional. Have a look at Gypsies or travellers they do not posses such things and that is why they deal only in cash and live in caravans. To do away with the BC is to do away with civic entitlements and basically you are on your own then and that is the choice you have.

    I do understand the concept of the name and the flesh and blood human being and the difference between them. when we are born untill we register the child they are still a child, a human being but they have no legal name. He is right it is a legal fiction name, all names are legal fictions. Towns, cities, peoples names and even things like police, they are all concepts that exist in the mind only and not in the real world. They exist in the real world as ink on paper only and it is comminicated by vibrations of the vocal chords, i.e. speech. If speech or language was the ultimate truth that could represent everything in the real world then there would be no need to have more than one language and language would represent all truth. however it doesn't just look at the Falkland islands or the Islas Malvinas depending on your viewpoint. The ground exists and has done for a few billion years we humans with our differing concepts give it names which is different from the actual real world thing.

    It was Descartes who said that the only thing that we can be certain of is our own mind and even if there was an evil genious that was deceiving us of everything and playing a practical joke on us, then we would at least need to posses a mind to be deceived and so the existence of mind is all that can be certain. It is the mind that traps and enslaves you.

    I don't really buy into the upper case letters for the name stuff but however the name is important. Look into Prince, he didn't change his name for some kind of ego trip, if you look into it, it was a calculated move becasue his record company had him locked into a contract he had signed and regretted. So he changed his name to circumvent the contractual obligations.

    The basic problems that John and other are highlighting is bang on, no argument. If you think that well I've done nothing wrong so there is no problem then you deserve everything you get. Ask the Jews in 1939 who were asked to register themselves with the Nazis for their own good, they couldn't forsee the horror that was awaiting them. Even today as I write this we have been forced into europe against our wishes without a say on the matter and cyprus has agreed to steal money directly from peoples saving accounts.

    We are born free and every new law and piece of legislation enslaves us one more little bit. They are deceiving us that much is true. what right do they have to tax us to the extent they do. We can all agree on a society to better ourselves and to elect people to adminster it for our benefit but to give our money away to other countries as aid and to start wars using our money and pay for pet projects is stealing. The only thing that tax should be used to pay for is justice and a police force, justice cannot be purchased privately everything else can be and the choice should be down to the individual. To force people to pay for services is not right, where does it end, they can dream up anything else and then demand the money via tax from us.

    Governments do not create money by themselves, they have no money to spend, it is not their money and they need to be stopped!

    Wake up now, stop voting for the parasites and stop using big business brand names. Bring them right back to being our public servants and not the other way around. See the illusions they have created, forget the strawman arguments, see the human being not the police, judge, traffic warden and see the soil not the Falklands, see it for what it is, human beings fighting over some land, the name is irrelevent.

  21. I think you missed the point of being a lair. You do not have to tell nothing but lies to be a liar, you just have to tell some lies or worse mix the truth with lies. I think Bruce is saying that John has been caught out lying about some important things and you know what they say about liars, they can't be trusted. I watched his last video and some things worry me. He is driving a car at 165mph which is dangerous and then he and a cop goes off to his car and have a chat and he gets let off. He had the BBC cameras with him so why not have the camera film it? Then everyone could see how his theory works or was there something darker at work here. People who do things in secret usually have something to hide.

    Lets try and analyse the video.

    In 11.13 he says theft is theft “it doesn’t make it right” “two wrongs never made a right” however in he admits to stealing from a bank. That’s hypocritical.

    He admits to speaking to a physiatrist even though he says that they (his friend) admit they are “quacks”, again this is stupid.

    Maybe the reason why he is getting away with things is that he has sold out and joined their little club?

    58 min You are not a slave because the police can come and beat you up, that’s called being a victim. That’s a form of “might is right” that’s freemason doctrine, the means justifies the end. You are a slave when you stop fighting them, when you stop saying no.

    60 min So what if they “can kick 6 bells of shit out of you”, people who stand up against injustice always gets persecuted, “Evil gets done when good people do nothing”, so the slave will do nothing and be patient, the fee man will rebel. John does indeed seem to have done a u-turn.

    68 min The bible shows you have a God and that he loves you. That’s different from a master. The bible in its simplest form is a love letter from God to you.

    74 min John said he wants the audience to direct where the lecture would go however whenever anyone asked him a question he never answered and then it was claimed it was not a debate.

    85 min Stealing is a criminal offence. Also someone with no remorse is called a sociopath not autistic. You can never trust a sociopath for the very reason he claims, he could kill you and wouldn’t give a shit.

    118 min It’s fine to get angry. Evil people will say, you can’t get angry otherwise that means that you are evil too. That’s bullshit. If someone wants to enslave you, poison you, rob you and kill your children, you better get bloody angry or they will run over you. It’s like they are saying you can’t judge me or you become like me. Well that’s called a self defeating statement. Ask them, why is it ok for you to judge me because am judging you? It’s a satanic tactic they use to immobilise good people. If you do that that will make you evil too. Self defence is never wrong if it is done justly.

    130 min If you get taken to a police cell “there is no one there to protect you”, that’s because he doesn’t believe in God.

    If someone admits to being a fool and you follow him what does that make you?

    135 min When someone tell you he is about to tell you some ridiculous and fantastic story, why would you believe him. That is also a satanic doctrine. They have to tell you what they are doing that way if you do nothing or follow them they can say, don’t blame me you were told, so it’s your fault.

    If you believe you can do nothing to stop being a slave, then you haven’t seen Spartacus.

    He puts forth a story that he implies is true and tells you that he made it a fiction so that he does not have to give references. That so wrong on so many levels.

    137 min This is typical NLP programming. Tell someone a sad story to activate their emotions so that when you follow it up with a lie their reasoning is switched off and they then accept it without questioning.

    148 min John is just plagiarizing the Da Vinci Code. The poor man is delusional.

    153 min Stop teaching our children about war, and war will cease. What rubbish. Evil men will start wars whither you stop telling your children about wars or mot. In fact by explaining it to them they can learn from the mistakes of the past.

    154 min “There is nothing that history has ever produced that needs to be remembered.” Really? What about fire, the wheel, electricity, the light bulb, penicillin, the many sacrifices people have made for us in the past. Most important he is referring to the bible and God making Himself know to us and the fact that Jesus died for you.

    Furthermore if he wants us to forget the past why does he cite his ancestral lineage? If you want us to forget the past then why should we give a shit who you or your wife’s ancestors were. Therefore you have just lost your right to claim to be the next king. You see how two faced he is being?

    Human being have the ability to get things if we are given the chance to forget. What nonsense. The analytical process works out things from what we understand from past experiences. Without a point of reference it would be easy to get people to believe black was white and without the past we would be in a 1984 world were the truth is anything that the government says it is because we would have no reference in which to correct them.

    If you do 100 experiments and fail and say this is rubbish I will forget all those experiments and draw a line behind them and go forward. What nonsense, you take in consideration what you have done before, in-order to progress.

    163 min They did not make Aleister Crowley to be the best, Aleister Crowley called himself the best. Lets have a look at this man he is standing up for.

    Aleister Crowley — Initiated to the highest levels of Freemasonry and high priest of the Golden Dawn, said: "A white male child of perfect innocence and intelligence makes the most suitable victim."

     

    33° Mason, Aleister Crowley would definitely get some votes in the "most wicked man who ever lived contest" and is the clear cut favorite for the title of "The Father of Modern Satanism".

    A happily heroin-addicted, bisexual Satan worshiper,

    The following overview of Crowley’s life is from Hungry for Heaven by Steve Turner:

    “Most of Crowley’s adult life was dedicated to indulging in everything he believed God would hate: performing sex magic, taking heroin, opium, hashish, peyote and cocaine, invoking spirits, and even once offering himself to the Russian authorities to help destroy Christianity. He wrote volumes of books that he believed were dictated to him by a spirit from ancient Egypt called Aiwass. “To worship me take wine and strange drugs,” the spirit conveniently told him. “Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture. Fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.”

    Crowley’s philosophy was as follows

    (which is the exact same philosophy of all Witches and Satanists today):

    “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

    “Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture. Fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.”

    “I do not wish to argue that the doctrines of Jesus, they and they alone, have degraded the world to its present condition. I take it that Christianity is not only the cause but the symptom of slavery” (Crowley, The World’s Tragedy, p. xxxix).

    “That religion they call Christianity; the devil they honor they call God. I accept these definitions, as a poet must do, if he is to be at all intelligible to his age, and it is their God and their religion that I hate and will destroy” (Crowley, The World’s Tragedy, p. xxx).

    Crowley studied Buddhism and Hindu yoga, following in the footsteps of Helena Blavatsky, and did much to popularize these in the West.

    He was also a drug- and sex addict and was addicted both to opium, hashish, cocaine, mescaline, amphetamines and heroin, in order to perceive higher states of beingness (drug abuse is very common to occultists in general). When he discovered mescaline, he developed seven rituals, Rites of Eleusis, and rented Caxton Hall to demonstrate them. Later, he opened up a Temple of Satan in London.

    So John does not want rid of all religions, just Christianity. He seems to hate Jesus and Christians with a passion. This guy who has amnesty in his heart. It seems he has amnesty in his heart for evil bankers and judges but not for someone who preaches for you to love one another. What a satanic loving scumbag.

    Now lets get this crystal clear, he clearly states that he wants to “fucking destroy everything that was made and created in Christ’s name. I will destroy it.”

    Well am Christian and so is my wife and children and we were created in His name, so what is he saying? He wants to murder me and my wife and children. He has just advocated the eradication of a whole religious group. If you say that about any other religion you would be prosecuted for a incitement to hate crime.

    The last time I heard a rant like this it was the raving of a genocidal dictator who wanted to wipe out the whole of Judaism. Funny enough he was also called an anti Christ and he was also backed by the Rothschild family, who John admitted to having dinner with. Perhaps he is now just another one of their puppets and that’s way he keeps getting off with these charges.

    171 min “The new one world order is actually a good thing.” So there it is, the Rothschild’s bankers Luciferian agenda.

    175 min He doesn’t believe in Jesus but he said he prays to a “deity” and now that “deity” communicates to him. He made an oath to him and he swears at him. Nice God, sounds like Lucifer to me.

    182 min

    Aleister Crowley was talking about the anti Christ and he admits that. If he wants a one world government and a one world religion under the anti Christ, then he has truly revealed his colours and maybe that’s why he wants to get rid of the Christian faith.

    Make what you want of this but be careful of whom you follow.

  22. Lets try and analyse the video.

    In 11.13 he says theft is theft “it doesn’t make it right” “two wrongs never made a right” however in he admits to stealing from a bank. That’s hypocritical.

    He admits to speaking to a physiatrist even though he says that they (his friend) admit they are “quacks”, again this is stupid.

    Maybe the reason why he is getting away with things is that he has sold out and joined their little club?

    58 min You are not a slave because the police can come and beat you up, that’s called being a victim. That’s a form of “might is right” that’s freemason doctrine, the means justifies the end. You are a slave when you stop fighting them, when you stop saying no.

    60 min So what if they “can kick 6 bells of shit out of you”, people who stand up against injustice always gets persecuted, “Evil gets done when good people do nothing”, so the slave will do nothing and be patient, the fee man will rebel. John does indeed seem to have done a u-turn.

    68 min The bible shows you have a God and that he loves you. That’s different from a master. The bible in its simplest form is a love letter from God to you.

    74 min John said he wants the audience to direct where the lecture would go however whenever anyone asked him a question he never answered and then it was claimed it was not a debate.

    85 min Stealing is a criminal offence. Also someone with no remorse is called a sociopath not autistic. You can never trust a sociopath for the very reason he claims, he could kill you and wouldn’t give a shit.

    118 min It’s fine to get angry. Evil people will say, you can’t get angry otherwise that means that you are evil too. That’s bullshit. If someone wants to enslave you, poison you, rob you and kill your children, you better get bloody angry or they will run over you. It’s like they are saying you can’t judge me or you become like me. Well that’s called a self defeating statement. Ask them, why is it ok for you to judge me because am judging you? It’s a satanic tactic they use to immobilise good people. If you do that that will make you evil too. Self defence is never wrong if it is done justly.

    130 min If you get taken to a police cell “there is no one there to protect you”, that’s because he doesn’t believe in God.

    If someone admits to being a fool and you follow him what does that make you?

    135 min When someone tell you he is about to tell you some ridiculous and fantastic story, why would you believe him. That is also a satanic doctrine. They have to tell you what they are doing that way if you do nothing or follow them they can say, don’t blame me you were told, so it’s your fault.

    If you believe you can do nothing to stop being a slave, then you haven’t seen Spartacus.

    He puts forth a story that he implies is true and tells you that he made it a fiction so that he does not have to give references. That so wrong on so many levels.

    137 min This is typical NLP programming. Tell someone a sad story to activate their emotions so that when you follow it up with a lie their reasoning is switched off and they then accept it without questioning.

    148 min John is just plagiarizing the Da Vinci Code. The poor man is delusional.

    153 min Stop teaching our children about war, and war will cease. What rubbish. Evil men will start wars whither you stop telling your children about wars or mot. In fact by explaining it to them they can learn from the mistakes of the past.

    154 min “There is nothing that history has ever produced that needs to be remembered.” Really? What about fire, the wheel, electricity, the light bulb, penicillin, the many sacrifices people have made for us in the past. Most important he is referring to the bible and God making Himself know to us and the fact that Jesus died for you.

    Furthermore if he wants us to forget the past why does he cite his ancestral lineage? If you want us to forget the past then why should we give a shit who you or your wife’s ancestors were. Therefore you have just lost your right to claim to be the next king. You see how two faced he is being?

    Human being have the ability to get things if we are given the chance to forget. What nonsense. The analytical process works out things from what we understand from past experiences. Without a point of reference it would be easy to get people to believe black was white and without the past we would be in a 1984 world were the truth is anything that the government says it is because we would have no reference in which to correct them.

    If you do 100 experiments and fail and say this is rubbish I will forget all those experiments and draw a line behind them and go forward. What nonsense, you take in consideration what you have done before, in-order to progress.

    163 min They did not make Aleister Crowley to be the best, Aleister Crowley called himself the best. Lets have a look at this man he is standing up for.

    Aleister Crowley — Initiated to the highest levels of Freemasonry and high priest of the Golden Dawn, said: "A white male child of perfect innocence and intelligence makes the most suitable victim."

     

    33° Mason, Aleister Crowley would definitely get some votes in the "most wicked man who ever lived contest" and is the clear cut favorite for the title of "The Father of Modern Satanism".

    A happily heroin-addicted, bisexual Satan worshiper,

    The following overview of Crowley’s life is from Hungry for Heaven by Steve Turner:

    “Most of Crowley’s adult life was dedicated to indulging in everything he believed God would hate: performing sex magic, taking heroin, opium, hashish, peyote and cocaine, invoking spirits, and even once offering himself to the Russian authorities to help destroy Christianity. He wrote volumes of books that he believed were dictated to him by a spirit from ancient Egypt called Aiwass. “To worship me take wine and strange drugs,” the spirit conveniently told him. “Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture. Fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.”

    Crowley’s philosophy was as follows

    (which is the exact same philosophy of all Witches and Satanists today):

    “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

    “Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture. Fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.”

    “I do not wish to argue that the doctrines of Jesus, they and they alone, have degraded the world to its present condition. I take it that Christianity is not only the cause but the symptom of slavery” (Crowley, The World’s Tragedy, p. xxxix).

    “That religion they call Christianity; the devil they honor they call God. I accept these definitions, as a poet must do, if he is to be at all intelligible to his age, and it is their God and their religion that I hate and will destroy” (Crowley, The World’s Tragedy, p. xxx).

    Crowley studied Buddhism and Hindu yoga, following in the footsteps of Helena Blavatsky, and did much to popularize these in the West.

    He was also a drug- and sex addict and was addicted both to opium, hashish, cocaine, mescaline, amphetamines and heroin, in order to perceive higher states of beingness (drug abuse is very common to occultists in general). When he discovered mescaline, he developed seven rituals, Rites of Eleusis, and rented Caxton Hall to demonstrate them. Later, he opened up a Temple of Satan in London.

    So John does not want rid of all religions, just Christianity. He seems to hate Jesus and Christians with a passion. This guy who has amnesty in his heart. It seems he has amnesty in his heart for evil bankers and judges but not for someone who preaches for you to love one another. What a satanic loving scumbag.

    Now lets get this crystal clear, he clearly states that he wants to “fucking destroy everything that was made and created in Christ’s name. I will destroy it.”

    Well am Christian and so is my wife and children and we were created in His name, so what is he saying? He wants to murder me and my wife and children. He has just advocated the eradication of a whole religious group. If you say that about any other religion you would be prosecuted for a incitement to hate crime.

    The last time I heard a rant like this it was the raving of a genocidal dictator who wanted to wipe out the whole of Judaism. Funny enough he was also called an anti Christ and he was also backed by the Rothschild family, who John admitted to having dinner with. Perhaps he is now just another one of their puppets and that’s way he keeps getting off with these charges.

    171 min “The new one world order is actually a good thing.” So there it is, the Rothschild’s bankers Luciferian agenda.

    175 min He doesn’t believe in Jesus but he said he prays to a “deity” and now that “deity” communicates to him. He made an oath to him and he swears at him. Nice God, sounds like Lucifer to me.

    182 min

    Aleister Crowley was talking about the anti Christ and he admits that. If he wants a one world government and a one world religion under the anti Christ, then he has truly revealed his colours and maybe that’s why he wants to get rid of the Christian faith.

    Make what you want of this but be careful of whom you follow.

    1. Hi Tony,

      I'm confused. You say you are a Christian and so is your family and what you post obviously comes across with religious overtones. You also say:

      "The analytical process works out things from what we understand from past experiences. Without a point of reference it would be easy to get people to believe black was white and without the past we would be in a 1984 world were the truth is anything that the government says it is because we would have no reference in which to correct them."

      What is the analytical process that works things out, that you mention?

      Now here is the biggy and I'm sure you are not going to like me for it, and please forgive me, but if you want to criticise others then you have to also be held up for critisicm. You appear to be contradicting yourself in that you say that a 1984 Orwellian world would exist without any past and truth would be whatever the government told us and this you appear to say is wrong of John to say. You are advocating we need a past for the truth to reveal itself. Now when did your christian religion or any other religion reveal itself as being truth? which religion is the ultimate truth? Why do we need a past or to remember a past for truth? Is religion not a blind faith like an Orwellian government that is telling us anything it wants. You appear to be saying truth comes from the past and that is not correct.

      We have the mind and an external world outside of the mind, although only the mind is certain. We interact with the outside world via our 5 senses and what we get back is not the thing in-itself but images of the thing. We do not see a tree we see light bouncing of the thing we conceptualise as a tree and that is ordered in the mind as an image which we see and gives us an "picture" of the thing before us. If you are talking of objective truth then we can only ever get close to it via empiricism, which is testing how things are that are external to us. If something can be proved wrong then it is science if it cannot then it is psuedo-science and a belief. Science can never give the ultimate truth and we will probably never know what is external to us and "truth", but science gets closer than beliefs.

      We do not need a past for truth, we need enquiry and empiricism. You don't even need truth to know that an Orwellian government stamping on your head is not right.

      You appear to be an advocate of truth and criticise others for not seeking out the truth but yet with open arms believe in a god without any proof of his or her existence what-so-ever. You are confusing your own mental constructs of the world as objective truth but it is not.

      Look at Karl Popper and falsifiability. Poppers sets about sorting the scientific from the unscientific—and lays the demarcation criterion falsifibility, such that the unfalsifiable are unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory proved true by scientific method is pseudoscience.

      The problem with todays world is that much of it is socially contructed and so exists as concepts and not as reality. What we do is come to believe in these constructions of reality as truth but all it is, is another persons opinion and that is all.

       

       

      1. Hi Andy H,

        Am sorry that you are confused I will try and help you resolve that.

        Well since I am a lay man in all of this and don’t pretend to be an expert I will refer you to a more defined explanation.

        Defining The Analytic Process

         

        http://smartdatacollective.com/stevebennett/17415/defining-analytic-process

        In point 2 he clearly states:

        Generate Hypotheses

        Use your experience and knowledge.

        In point 3

        Determine what information you need & gather it

        . Traditionally this information came from a data warehouse or some other sort of database or electronic file. In recent years unstructured textual data, multimedia and other sorts of data stores are being used.

        Both these point would suggest that you would include past experiences in your evaluation.

        That’s not to say that one cannot know “the truth” without knowing the past however I thought we were examining “The Analytic Process” and not a metaphysical concept.

        Furthermore which “truth” are you referring to? Are we talking about a subjective truth or an objective truth?

        “you want to criticise others then you have to also be held up for criticism”

        I completely disagree with that logic. I am not in the public domain. I am not a “professional” speaker who charges for the information that I give. I do portray myself as “leader” in the freeman front or any front. I do not appear on TV or radio or give charged lectures; therefore I have the right to challenge those who do. If someone is paid for giving advice that advice better be spot on or it could be considered as claiming money under false pretences, fraud if you will.

        We have the right to criticise anyone in a position of authority who claim they know the “truth”.

        “Now when did your christian religion or any other religion reveal itself as being truth?”

        When did I claim to belong to a “religion”. I claimed to be a Christian that was it. I believe Jesus is God in the flesh and the bible is the word of God. I don’t need a religion for that.

        “Is religion not a blind faith”

        Would that not depend on the religion?

        “You appear to be saying truth comes from the past and that is not correct.”

        I think I have already answered that above, but to clarify, no that’s not what I claim. It would depend on what type of truth you were discussing. For example if someone said the Germans never invaded Poland you would need to refer to historical documents or question people with first hand knowledge to help you come to the truth. Again it depends on what type of truth your are investigating.

        “Science can never give the ultimate truth”

        If you claim that “Science can never give the ultimate truth” and you claim that you do not believe in God, then how can you claim to know the truth or challenge anyone else who does. You have just conceded to not knowing the ultimate truth or even having the ability to do so. You have lost the credibility therefore to challenge anyone.

        “We do not need a past for truth, we need enquiry and empiricism”

        When you claim that you do not to need to know the past for empiricism you have eliminated most of your possibilities. If it is a subjective truth that requires any data to solve you have failed because data comes from past events and you claim that you don’t need to know the past. If it is a objective truth like what is reality then you cannot prove that either as that is an abstract concept therefore un-observable.

        Ultimate truth is not subjective it is objective.

        You have painted yourself into the corner on both truths.

        “but yet with open arms believe in a god without any proof of his or her existence what-so-ever”

        Are you claiming I have no proof of the God I believe in? Do you have any proof for that claim?

         

        “The problem with todays world is that much of it is socially contructed and so exists as concepts and not as reality”

        Again if it is not “reality” then how would you be able to know that, as you claim that you use only empiricism. Again you are contradicting yourself.

        “What we do is come to believe in these constructions of reality as truth but all it is, is another persons opinion and that is all.”

        Again you claim to work on empiricism and criticise me for having blind faith then go on to state that all “What we do is come to believe”. Again you are contradicting yourself. You claim I should not have blind faith in a God but claim that we, and I would assume that you are included in that we, should “believe” in the “constructions of reality as truth”. That is a clear contradiction.

        If it was “just another persons opinion and that is all” again there would be no ultimate truth. When you say you are claiming everyone has their own truth and you claim that it’s just another persons opinion you are describing relativism, in other words there are no absolutes. That again is a self defeating statement, I mean are you absolutely sure there are no ultimate truth?

        You claim that you use empiricism as your system for analysing the world; however empiricism itself is self defeating. Empiricism is the belief that all truth claims are proven by empirical observation. However this cannot apply to subjective truth as that cannot be observed. Furthermore how can we know that the statement itself is true, that all truth claims are proven by empirical evidence? Can you prove that by using empirical observation? You cannot prove a subjective truth by observation.

        Finally the opinion that reality does not really exist is called Hinduism, but you claim to not have a belief in any religion. I wish you would make up your mind.

        I wish you peace and plenty and the wisdom to know God.

        1. Sorry typo when stating

          However this cannot apply to subjective truth as that cannot be observed.

          and

          You cannot prove a subjective truth by observation.

          I meant objective truth..

  23. Hi, I did a breakdown on John's last video explaining why he is so wrong to the point of wanting to kill all Christians and it was censored. If it's the people's forum can you explain why this happened? Unless you are saying some people are more equal than others?

  24. How come my breakdown of the video in question has not been allowed even though John said that he wanted people to comment on it, good or bad. It seems that John has faked his suicide. It seems when you shine a light on cockroaches they tend to run away.

  25. Hi Tony,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply much appreciated and so I will attempt to respond to you. I apologise for not making myself very clear.

    A bit of light reading for you before warm milk and biscuits.

    Religion: “Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity”.

    Christian: “A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth

    God: “God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe”

    You believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, which is a belief; you also label yourself as a Christian who is someone who adheres to Christianity and Christianity is a religion. However you choose to define your God, whatever form that takes is irrelevant, it is still using the word God in a religious context and a god is defined as a creator and sustainer of the universe. If you don’t belive that then use a different word to god and don’t associate yourself as a person who adheres to Christianity by defining yourself as a Christian.

    All religion is blind faith and does not depend on the religion, they are all faith based systems. Extract from above from Wikipedia, religion is a collection of belief systems! That is the definition of the words that are used and we are limited of our understanding by the words we use to describe the world. If you have a different world view then it might be better to use different words to describe your world view so that it is not perceived as a religious view.

    I do not claim to know the truth and I don’t think I made that statement. What I’m saying is no one knows the truth and it is very doubtful we ever will. There is only one truth and that is what is and includes everything in the universe and how it actually is i.e. the physical universe. Everything else you talk of is fact and not a truth.

    The mechanics of Aristotle was believed to be truth for nearly 2000 years until Newtonian mechanics took its place. The way in which planets moved and forces of gravity operated were all thought to have been solved by Newton and again for several hundred years this was the truth. Then along came Einstein with the theory of relativity and that threw the Newtonian world views out of the window. Along with Einstein came quantum mechanics and that opened up a whole new can of worms. Just when we thought we understood the universe it presented itself to us in a different light. It is as though it knows we are looking at it and it presents ever more layers of complexity and that is why I say we will probably never fully understand it and know the complete truth.

    It wasn’t a belief system that gave us Newtonian Mechanics or General and special relativity or quantum mechanics it was science but science hasn’t given us the complete picture. Science has given us a better picture of the truth than a religion which is just blind faith in a god. Religion does not learn it takes what is written in a book as truth. So my statement was, which religion then is the truth? We have Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam etc etc, if they all claim to be the truth which one is true, they can’t all be. Truth is not fact or perspective it is the way the universe is independent of the mind that observes it.

    A dog has a smell a thousand times more powerful than humans. A bat is blind but still can find its way around; a shark can smell blood many many miles away. They will all perceive the world very differently but that does not mean the world is different it is just the way it is perceived to each species. The universe or the outside world will appear very different to each but there is a one real truth. Just because we see the world the way we do doesn’t make our view of reality the way that it actually is, it is only our perception of it. And it would be wrong to assume our perception of reality is superior, it is not it is one of many.

    If aliens landed on earth and took all the engineering books and changed all the words metal to cardboard and then wiped our memories clean of engineering thought it would take not very long to realise that we needed to change the material we used. If the same aliens instead burnt all the engineering books and wiped our memories clear of engineering it would take maybe 50 years to get back to our current level of understanding. The point being some things are knowledge and they can be found once again like I said, but the truth does not change and it is our enquiry into the real world onto the truth that gives us understanding. We can take facts which science gets from the real world and generate information; it is then the mind that can then create knowledge from the information. Our knowledge is just our understanding of the world but the world still holds the truth, it is our perception of that truth.

    We do not need a past for truth, truth is always there and just is and as I said as long as we have the ability we can enquire into the real world by using empiricism to find it or rather to get closer to it, like Aristotle to Einstein. Facts is another thing altogether and as I said that comes from the 5 senses we have. From those facts we can conjecture and attempt to understand our world around us, but understanding and truth again are separate entities. If we removed history the truth would not go away, the sun would still rise and gravity would work and the universe would not care about our loss of the past.

    Truth as I said exists independent of us and we all see that outside world differently, different species and different humans have different perceptions of it. Once again some examples, a library is a concept, what exists in the real world is brick and cement, glass, wood, plastic etc this is arranged in such a way to create another concept we call a building. Within that building we have concepts called books, which is just wood pulp with ink on it. Going back to my tree example, we use the word tree to describe a large plant with a larger trunk with leaves and branches. However no 2 trees are the same, so when we say tree what is it that we mean? Give a million people a pencil and paper and say draw a tree my guess would be they would all be different but yet they would all take the form of what we perceive as being a tree form. In the real world each individual tree exists by itself but in our minds it is a concept. It belongs in the “box” labelled trees. England is a concept, but the landmass exists. Libraries and police stations and Mcdonalds are all concepts but the materials the buildings are made from are real.

    We have to distinguish between the real and the concept. Money is a concept it is only paper with no real value. Try telling that to some people they get really shirty. There is only one truth and that is objective i.e. outside of us, the subjective is our perception of the world, but that is all it is a perception not really what exists. If you want an analogy think of the film the matrix the world as it is did not present itself the way it was until part way through. That is truth, truth is the real but what we see is our perception and we use science to try and see the reality, the matrix if you like.

    So when I said:

    “If you are talking of objective truth then we can only ever get close to it via empiricism, which is testing how things are that are external to us.” What I mean is there is but one truth and we can only ever truly know it via empiricism i.e. testing it out, what other way is there, anything else is belief. All species perceive the world differently and why do you think ours is superior and why do you think we can see and know the truth?

    So now to answer your questions:

     

    “Science can never give the ultimate truth”

    If you claim that “Science can never give the ultimate truth” and you claim that you do not believe in God, then how can you claim to know the truth or challenge anyone else who does. You have just conceded to not knowing the ultimate truth or even having the ability to do so. You have lost the credibility therefore to challenge anyone.

    I do not claim to know the truth, where did I say that? I said science gets CLOSER to the truth CLOSER than any belief.

    “We do not need a past for truth, we need enquiry and empiricism”

    When you claim that you do not to need to know the past for empiricism you have eliminated most of your possibilities. If it is a subjective truth that requires any data to solve you have failed because data comes from past events and you claim that you don’t need to know the past. If it is a objective truth like what is reality then you cannot prove that either as that is an abstract concept therefore un-observable.

    Ultimate truth is not subjective it is objective.

    You have painted yourself into the corner on both truths.

    I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Subjective truth is basically opinion, it is your personal perspective and does not reflect reality as it is but only your perception of it, like a bat or dog or sharks perspective of the world. Data to solve leads to knowledge and understanding not truth they are different. Data does not come from past events, I can look at my thermometer right now and see the temperature data. Germany invading Poland are facts not data and is not truth. It might be a justified true belief which is knowledge in a Socratic sense.

    Reality is like you say an objective truth; it is not our perspective but what is. However it is not an abstract concept. I would invite you to any 20 story building for you to jump and tell me how abstract you feel after a few seconds? I can assure you, you won’t be feeling it as some mental representation.

    “but yet with open arms believe in a god without any proof of his or her existence what-so-ever”

    Are you claiming I have no proof of the God I believe in? Do you have any proof for that claim?

    Who created your god and the other gods ad infinitum?

     

    “The problem with todays world is that much of it is socially contructed and so exists as concepts and not as reality”

    Again if it is not “reality” then how would you be able to know that, as you claim that you use only empiricism. Again you are contradicting yourself.

    As explained, money is socially constructed and is a concept, the bit in the real world is a piece of paper with some ink pictures on it. Try landing in the middle of the Sahara desert with a load of 20 pound notes and see if you could buy your way home. It would have no use or value what so ever. To be sure in the middle of the desert you would still have some bits of paper with pictures on it.

    “What we do is come to believe in these constructions of reality as truth but all it is, is another persons opinion and that is all.”

    Again you claim to work on empiricism and criticise me for having blind faith then go on to state that all “What we do is come to believe”. Again you are contradicting yourself. You claim I should not have blind faith in a God but claim that we, and I would assume that you are included in that we, should “believe” in the “constructions of reality as truth”. That is a clear contradiction.

    What I actually said was:

    “What we do is come to believe in these constructions of reality as truth but all it is, is another persons opinion and that is all.” I fail to see the contradiction here. I did not say we “should believe”. They are your words, where did I say should? I did not assert my opinion, I stated the observation that we DO believe in these constructs of reality and yes until recently I include myself in that. It is the belief in the constructs that enslaves us. So back to the original, money, Birth Certificates, judges, council, etc etc etc, they are all constructs and what I’m saying is we should see them for that and not as reality.

    If it was “just another persons opinion and that is all” again there would be no ultimate truth. When you say you are claiming everyone has their own truth and you claim that it’s just another persons opinion you are describing relativism, in other words there are no absolutes. That again is a self defeating statement, I mean are you absolutely sure there are no ultimate truth?

    Like I’ve explained we must distinguish between reality and constructs and you very clearly are failing in your attempt at that. The constructs are another persons opinion it is not reality but what I’m saying is, as a society we have been fed this bullshit for so long we believe money to have value, we believe judges to exist rather than the human being, must I go on?

    You claim that you use empiricism as your system for analysing the world; however empiricism itself is self defeating. Empiricism is the belief that all truth claims are proven by empirical observation. However this cannot apply to subjective truth as that cannot be observed. Furthermore how can we know that the statement itself is true, that all truth claims are proven by empirical evidence? Can you prove that by using empirical observation? You cannot prove a subjective truth by observation.

    Empiricism is not a belief, it is a way of trying to find the truth rather than just guessing.  Subjective truth is opinion and nothing more and you are correct it cannot be observed. You then go on to say: “Furthermore how can we know that the statement itself is true, that all truth claims are proven by empirical evidence?” We can’t and that is why I said science cannot answer everything and probably never will, Aristotle to Einstein at each stage it was a different level of understanding of the world and each was thought to be the correct answer but at each stage the closer we look the more complicated it becomes. But empiricism to test what the world is actually like rather than our perception of it at this moment is better than a guess or a belief in the flying spaghetti monster or Russell’s Teapot.

     

    Finally the opinion that reality does not really exist is called Hinduism, but you claim to not have a belief in any religion. I wish you would make up your mind.

    Not sure where you conceive of the idea I do not believe in an external reality. I very clearly said: “We have the mind and an external world outside of the mind, although only the mind is certain. We interact with the outside world via our 5 senses and what we get back is not the thing in-itself but images of the thing.”

    I wish you peace and plenty and the wisdom to know God.

    1. Hi Andy H

      I found your rebuttal interesting, thank you for your time. I will do my best to refute it.

      “Religion: “Religion is an organized collection of

       

      belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity”.”

      “All religion is blind faith and does not depend on the religion”

      This is a truth statement. How can you prove that the truth statement itself is true using

      empiricism?

      Faith is something that is based on something that cannot be proved, however that does not apply to the God of the bible and to Jesus as they have proved many times that they are God.

      Furthermore there are no secular belief systems that can prove where the universe or life came from, therefore even on a logical basis how could I not “belief” in the God of the bible as the wisdom of man has not yet come up with a logical alternative.

      “I do not claim to know the truth”

      You claim that you do not know the truth then proceed to state that no one can know the truth. That is a contradiction.

      “What I’m saying is no one knows the truth”

      This is a truth statement, therefore if you do not know the truth how can you know that this statement is true? You see my point? If you don’t know the truth how could you know that no one knows the truth as that would be knowing the truth? It’s a self defeating statement.

      Then you go on and say

      “There is only one truth”

      but wait didn’t you say that you didn’t know the truth.

      Even by your own statements

      “There is only one truth and that is what is and includes everything in the universe and how it actually is”

      Therefore you have just claimed that you know the “universe is” but you claim that you accept that you don’t know how it got here. Following that statement then,

      1 You can’t disprove if it was God.

      2 You can’t prove the statement itself is true as it itself is a truth statement, since you claimed you don’t know the truth and you could not use empiricism to prove it as it is an abstract theory.

      3 The “universe is” would suggest that you believe the universe always was, which goes against the Laws of Thermal Dynamics.

      4 I am sorry to have to keep pointing this out, but your belief system or worldview is not a logical self sustaining theory, so if you have another belief system we should debate that instead.

      If Aristotle, Newton and Einstein show us anything is that our understanding of the universe is limit to mans wisdom and that the more we understand about it the more we see design in it, which you seem to agree with in your statement:

      “it presents ever more layers of complexity”.

      As you know design means a designer and that designer has to be the God of the bible.

      “Science has given us a better picture of the truth”

      Science does not give us all the truth as some truth is objective. Science at best gives us the facts as we understand them at the present time.

      “than a religion which is just blind faith in a god.”

      Religion is only blind faith, if the God that you believe in has not made himself know to you. That is not true of the God of the bible and Jesus. That is why I can say I know Jesus is God in the flesh and the bible is the Word of God.

      “Religion does not learn”

      Of course religion does not learn, religion is a belief system, and as such has no capacity to learn, however the “people” of a religion do have the capacity to learn.

      “We have Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam etc etc, if they all claim to be the truth which one is true, they can’t all be.”

      This is true and goes to the law of non-contradiction that A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

      Christianity or the God of the bible is the only self sustaining theory there is.

      “Truth is not fact or perspective it is the way the universe is independent of the mind that observes it.”

      How do you know the universe is independent of the mind that observers it?

      That is a truth statement and improvable using empiricism.

      “Just because we see the world the way we do doesn’t make our view of reality the way that it actually is, it is only our perception of it. “

      Then how do we know that the statement itself is true?

      How do you know that you are really here to say that, or that your perception of the meaning of the words or statement itself is true? How would you know that your perception of the world is the true one ? You could be crazy or you could be a fish dreaming that you are a man. You could in fact be the only one in the universe and only perceive that there are other people in it. Again this is the Hindu belief that the universe is not real.

      “We can take facts which science gets from the real world”

      You just claimed that the world is not real as it is only our perception of it that is real.

      “The point being some things are knowledge and they can be found once again”

      Therefore knowledge itself by your own standards is only our perception of what we think the truth is and therefore improvable by you method of measuring it, empiricism.

      Your statements:

      “We do not need a past for truth” and “it would take maybe 50 years to get back to our current level of understanding”

      contradicts each other. In order to take 50 years to understand something would take the passage of time and the retaining of knowledge from the past, for example you cannot understand that metal is not paper unless you understand what paper is in the first place which you learned in the past.

      “We can take facts which science gets from the real world”

      You already claimed that there was no real world,

      “it is only our perception of it”

      Your worldview is in serious trouble. You claim that the world is only our perception and that even that is not superior to animals

      “And it would be wrong to assume our perception of reality is superior, it is not it is one of many.”

      Then you claim to understand the facts that science can prove, which of course would depend on our perception of them, which would be improvable by your standards.

      Then you claim again that we don’t need the past to understand new understanding but also claim that we can learn that something has changed, (our understanding that metal was not paper) which can only come from previous understanding.

      You claim to believe in empiricism and

      “We can take facts which science gets from the real ”

      However one of the pillars that science uses to obtain a fact is the repeatability of testing it. Repeatability requires the passage of time which you claim is unnecessary and therefore you have just made impossible any learning from science or you belief that empiricism can explain the truth.

      Every part of your worldview is in serious conflict.

      “We do not need a past for truth,”

      If we do not need the past for truth then the truth can change from moment to moment and there would be in fact be no way to know it’s the truth, as real truth is unchanging so, in order to understand it is the real truth would be to test it and retest it but that is imposable by your standard as you claim we do not need the past.

      In order for Einstein to prove Aristotle wrong or to improve on the theory, he would have to understand Aristotle’s theory and that of course would require the comparing of knowledge from two different periods of time, something you claim is not required.

      “If we removed history the truth would not go away”

      Yes this is true however there would be no way for you to know that using your worldview.

      “Truth as I said exists independent of us”

      This is so true as it is one of the principle of believing in the God of the bible, indeed Jesus claimed to be the Truth. What is weird though that by your standards you could never know that or prove it as it could not be proven by empiricism as it is an abstract theory.

      You worldview clearly states that you cannot prove the things that you are claiming in the last two posts. In order to prove your worldview you would have to contradict you worldview. That is a non scientific and undependable position. Remember the law of non contradiction states that something cannot be A and not A at the same time.

      “a library is a concept”

      I am confused. I thought a library is the name of a building which contains recorded information. That is not a concept. It is not a subjective thing as it can be tested, therefore it is not a concept.

      The same applies to

      “another concept we call a building”.

      A building is not a concept it is a name we give to something that exists and can therefore can be tested. It is subjective.

      “Facts is another thing altogether and as I said that comes from the 5 senses we have”

      If facts come from our senses and our senses are only our perception of the world which is not real or superior to that of an animal and not provable, then by the standard of your worldview how is it possible for you to know any facts.

      “If we removed history the truth would not go away”

      This is true and yes

      “the sun would still rise and gravity would work”

      but you would not be able to understand why it does. (Although even science today does not understand what gravity is only how it effects things.)

      You repeat

      “Truth as I said exists independent of us”

      And

      “we have concepts called books”

      Again a book is not a concept, just like a library it is just a name for an object which indeed can be tested and therefore is subjective.

      Your example of a tree does not make any sense. Just because two people draw two different types of trees does not make then different objects or a concept. It is still a tree. It is not a concept it is a label we use to describe an object. Is a car a concept is a table?

      “England is a concept”

      No it is not. It is a noun that we use to describe a landmass.

      The United Kingdom is a concept as it is body politic. You might be confused on this issue. You are claiming that all nouns are concepts. I don’t think that position is defendable.

      If you believe that

      “Money is a concept it is only paper with no real value.”

      Then please prove you point by sending me all the money that you now have and all the money that you will own in the future.

      You see even though currency might be a concept, money is an object that has value because people place value on it. If people would refuse it then it would have no value. However as checking in the local shop when I hand my money over to the shopkeeper he indeed hands over my red bull, therefore at least for us two money does indeed have value. It has the value that we deem to place on it.

      “There is only one truth and that is objective i.e. outside of us, the subjective is our perception of the world”

      I agree but how on earth can you come to this conclusion by only using your worldview? If you are using the standard of empiricism you could not possibly have worked that out.

      Therefore you must be basing your assumptions on some other worldview. Which one would that be?

      Your definition of perception is not entirely correct. Our perception of things might not really exist however it is therefore possible also, everything being equal, that it might exist. What I think you are trying to say is that we could not know for sure. Well your worldview might not be able to prove what is true or not (your words), mine does.

      Empiricism can only prove subjective truth therefore:

      “If you are talking of objective truth then we can only ever get close to it via”

      cannot be true as it cannot even start to prove objective truth never mind “get close to it“.

      “What I mean is there is but one truth and we can only ever truly know it via empiricism i.e. testing it”

      There are more than one truth. There are subjective truths and objective truths, so you claim is wrong from the start.

      Empiricism can only prove subjective truths you have already stated that, furthermore the statement itself “there is but one truth” is a truth claim which is an objective statement and therefore improvable using empiricism.

      “science gets CLOSER to the truth CLOSER than any belief”

      Only subjective truth, it cannot explain objective truth. Also when you forbid the use of history you cannot use a scientific approach, as it needs repeatable testing which requires the passage of time.

      “Data does not come from past events, I can look at my thermometer right now and see the temperature data.”

      True but the information to decipher that information comes from past knowledge. To understand that it is Fahrenheit or Celsius would take knowledge of what them terms mean and the science behind them which comes from past knowledge. Even the thinking process to understand the information takes time and with the claim you don’t need the past to know the truth then you are restricting yourself to the truth of the moment, which is almost impossible for even if you burn yourself in a flame them deduce that fire burns requires a past experience because the understanding comes from the experience.

      “I would invite you to any 20 story building for you to jump and tell me how abstract you feel after a few seconds?”

      Objective truth by definition is an abstract theory. Falling from a building can be tested therefore it is subjective. Furthermore if you want to understand whither it is subjective or objective requires the use of a mind. Can you use empiricism to prove what or where the mind is?

      “Who created your god and the other gods ad infinitum?”

      Who created your universe ad infinitum? First of all the God of the bible is the first cause or the explanation of everything. You do not need an explanation of the explanation. Then we have the problem of you asking me to explain where God comes from when you claim that the universe “is”. That’s pretty hypocritical. If you can believe that a universe can always exist then you are in no position to criticise me for believing in a God that has always existed. Worse still you cannot prove the universe always existed using empiricism and it is also an unscientific theory as it goes against the Law of Thermo Dynamics.

      “Try landing in the middle of the Sahara desert with a load of 20 pound notes and see if you could buy your way home.”

      As stated it is not the money itself that hold the value. It is the value that people put upon it. If there was a taxis in the middle of the Sahara desert then you indeed could get home.

      “What we do is come to believe in these constructions of reality as truth but all it is, is another persons opinion and that is all.”

      It seems that I misunderstood your opinion on this account. It also seems that we are in agreement that unless there is an ultimate truth then all we have is peoples opinions. My worldview allows me to have the ultimate truth however your worldview using empiricism does not.

      “Empiricism is not a belief”

      This is not true.

      wiki.answers.com

      Ontological Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge comes from the senses,

       

      http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-ontological-empiricism

      Ontological empiricism is the belief that all knowledge is derived from sense experience, in a metaphysical existential sense

       

       

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism

      Definition

      of empiricism

      a theory that all knowledge originates in experience

      A theory requires belief.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empiricism

      1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

      Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience

      “But empiricism to test what the world is actually like rather than our perception of it at this moment is better than a guess or a belief in the flying spaghetti monster or Russell’s Teapot.”

      I agree with you that empiricism can only be used to prove subjective truths therefore you cannot use empiricism to prove or disprove the flying spaghetti monster as it is an objective truth.

      You seem to be claiming that both are subjective and because you can prove certain subjective things with empiricism that, that means that we cannot believe in objective things like a god. That is a false conclusion.

      “Not sure where you conceive of the idea I do not believe in an external reality. I very clearly said: “We have the mind and an external world outside of the mind,”

      First of all please prove there is a mind just using empiricism?

      Please prove where it exists just using empiricism?

      “Just because we see the world the way we do doesn’t make our view of reality the way that it actually is, it is only our perception of it.”

      That statement is suggesting that everyone’s perception of what is real is their opinion or their truth and not necessary the same as someone else’s opinion or their truth. Since it is just one’s opinion and everything being equal it is therefore possible that reality does not exist and that it is just our opinion/perception of it that exists. That’s Hinduism.

      If I stated I belief the bible was the Word of God and Jesus is God in the flesh, it was in the a conversional form. I know the bible is the Word of God, I know Jesus is God in the flesh because my worldview proves it to me. My God is not the God of the gaps. My God is the most logical “being” there is. He is the ultimate Truth and he has made himself known to me by things like the complexity and design of the universe, the complexity and design of life for instance the complexity and design of DNA.

      However with your worldview of empiricism and with the added exclusion of history the most you could know is a limit number of subjective facts. Your worldview excludes you from knowing objective truths, therefore you cannot prove you have a mind, or whither reality exists or not or whither there is a universe or not or only the perception of a universe or not or indeed whither there is a flying spaghetti monster or not..

      I still wish you peace and plenty and the wisdom to know God.

      1. “All religion is blind faith and does not depend on the religion”

        This is a truth statement. How can you prove that the truth statement itself is true using

        empiricism?

        Faith is something that is based on something that cannot be proved, however that does not apply to the God of the bible and to Jesus as they have proved many times that they are God.

        Furthermore there are no secular belief systems that can prove where the universe or life came from, therefore even on a logical basis how could I not “belief” in the God of the bible as the wisdom of man has not yet come up with a logical alternative.

        Who said anything about empiricism to test statements, scientists use empiricism as part of the scientific method advocating that hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

        See earlier statement regarding Karl Popper and falsifiability. Poppers sets about sorting the scientific from the unscientific—and lays the demarcation criterion falsifibility, such that the unfalsifiable are unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory proved true by scientific method is pseudoscience.

        Do you see the part: “unfalsifiable are unscientific” you cannot falsify a believe in god so it is a belief and pseudoscience and is no better than Russell’s teapot and the flying spaghetti monster or elves, tooth fairy, farher Christmas or anything else you want to believe in.

        “I do not claim to know the truth”

        You claim that you do not know the truth then proceed to state that no one can know the truth. That is a contradiction.

        No it is not. See the part with Aristotle, Newton and Einstein. At each step they thought they knew but the next scientist came along and presented a new view and falsified the previous belief. Einstein’s view is currently the one we use but his discovery of the quanta has created a new lack of understanding (of the truth), truth being the way the universe works and is.

        “What I’m saying is no one knows the truth”

        This is a truth statement, therefore if you do not know the truth how can you know that this statement is true? You see my point? If you don’t know the truth how could you know that no one knows the truth as that would be knowing the truth? It’s a self defeating statement.

        Then you go on and say

        “There is only one truth”

        but wait didn’t you say that you didn’t know the truth.

        Even by your own statements

        I really think you need to try and understand a little deeper before making some of these remarks. Try and think of it like this, before humans existed over 2 million years ago, say go back to the dinosaur era, the truth still existed but there was no human mind to conceive it. The one sole truth that exists is the way that the universe is and is external to us and does not need a human mind to understand it. The universe and its truth existed before humans came along.

        No person knows how the earth started or whether there is life in other galaxies but because we don’t know that does not make it false, if there is it is true if there isn’t it is true, it just is and that is truth. Therefore it is easy to say no one knows the truth. If you want to invoke your all knowing god then that is your belief and not mine. The problem with a belief is that it can’t be proved or disproved, so no I can’t disprove yours or any other god exists but because of that it is not falsifiable and is pseudoscience and no better than believing in Russell’s teapot.

         

        “There is only one truth and that is what is and includes everything in the universe and how it actually is”

        Therefore you have just claimed that you know the “universe is” but you claim that you accept that you don’t know how it got here. Following that statement then,

        1 You can’t disprove if it was God. –

        Poppers falsifiabililty, unfalsifiable are unscientific and is a belief only and all beliefs are valid, including that of people who live in mental asylums and claim what they see as being real.

        2 You can’t prove the statement itself is true as it itself is a truth statement, since you claimed you don’t know the truth and you could not use empiricism to prove it as it is an abstract theory.

        I’m not trying to prove statements, a statement is language and comes from the rules of language.

        3 The “universe is” would suggest that you believe the universe always was, which goes against the Laws of Thermal Dynamics.

        I think you mean Thermo Dynamics and why would you suggest I believe the universe always was? I never made a comment about it.

        4 I am sorry to have to keep pointing this out, but your belief system or worldview is not a logical self sustaining theory, so if you have another belief system we should debate that instead.

        I think you need to look into the mirror!

        If Aristotle, Newton and Einstein show us anything is that our understanding of the universe is limit to mans wisdom and that the more we understand about it the more we see design in it, which you seem to agree with in your statement:

        “it presents ever more layers of complexity”.

        As you know design means a designer and that designer has to be the God of the bible.

        Hooray finally you can see it. And now for your contradictions, and your agreement with me, Aristotle, Newton and Einstein do in fact show us that our understanding of the universe is limited to mans wisdom, but the truth that the universe holds is still there but as you say limited by our understanding so you do agree that I can make the statement we don’t know the truth, yippee, we’ve made progress.

        Why would you think I see design in it, ID is a belief no better than a teapot or a spaghetti monster or elves or tooth fairy etc. I prefer to search for the truth not give up and say therefore God must have created everything.

         

        “Science has given us a better picture of the truth”

        Science does not give us all the truth as some truth is objective. Science at best gives us the facts as we understand them at the present time.

        Here you are saying some truth is objective but in your previous post you said: “Ultimate truth is not subjective it is objective”, you are contradicting yourself now.

        There is one truth and it is objective and that is the only truth, the rest is opinion. Yes you are correct Science does not give us all the truth, but it is seeking to find the truth rather than a belief.

        “than a religion which is just blind faith in a god.”

        Religion is only blind faith, if the God that you believe in has not made himself know to you. That is not true of the God of the bible and Jesus. That is why I can say I know Jesus is God in the flesh and the bible is the Word of God.

        I can’t comment on your beliefs and opinions, it is subjective and personal to you.

        “Religion does not learn”

        Of course religion does not learn, religion is a belief system, and as such has no capacity to learn, however the “people” of a religion do have the capacity to learn.

        But only if it does not interfere with their belief system and must conform to it. This is the single point that makes a scientist  more plausible in their theories than a religious man. A scientist is willing to drop his earlier belief when he finds something that is more plausible, where as a religious man is never willing to move his opinion.

        “We have Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam etc etc, if they all claim to be the truth which one is true, they can’t all be.”

        This is true and goes to the law of non-contradiction that A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

        Christianity or the God of the bible is the only self sustaining theory there is.

        And that is probably what Islam the fastest growing religion in the world probably says about its own god and theory. As mentioned all belief systems are viable including that of the mental person.

        “Truth is not fact or perspective it is the way the universe is independent of the mind that observes it.”

        How do you know the universe is independent of the mind that observers it?

        That is a truth statement and improvable using empiricism.

        I don’t see my earlier post about Descartes, he says that even if there was an evil genius that was trying to deceive us of everything we would still need a mind to be deceived, so therefore we have a mind and everything else could be deception. Probably because we can’t run through walls would indicate there is also an external universe.

        “Just because we see the world the way we do doesn’t make our view of reality the way that it actually is, it is only our perception of it. “

        Then how do we know that the statement itself is true?

        since you belief in a god and I don’t, we perceive differently. Can you see a table or do you see a construction of atoms?

        How do you know that you are really here to say that, or that your perception of the meaning of the words or statement itself is true? How would you know that your perception of the world is the true one ? You could be crazy or you could be a fish dreaming that you are a man. You could in fact be the only one in the universe and only perceive that there are other people in it. Again this is the Hindu belief that the universe is not real.

        See above post re Descartes and the mind. My perception of the world is not how it is that is what I have been saying, I can’t see molecules or atoms but we know they are there. Not sure about Hindu beliefs, I don’t believe in a god, but I do believe in brick walls.

        “We can take facts which science gets from the real world”

        You just claimed that the world is not real as it is only our perception of it that is real.

        Not sure where you got that from, never said the world is not real, I invited you to jump from a 20 storey building. I said we don’t see it as it is.

        “The point being some things are knowledge and they can be found once again”

        Therefore knowledge itself by your own standards is only our perception of what we think the truth is and therefore improvable by you method of measuring it, empiricism.

        You are again failing to distinguish between what is the ultimate truth (how the universe is) and the way we perceive it (again the matrix). Aristotle was knowledgeable and all other scientist until Newton, and then Newton proved Aristotle incorrect. Aristotle’s knowledge was based upon his perception of the ultimate truth and not the actual ultimate truth, please try and understand the distinction I am trying to make.

        It is not improvable because as we learn using scientific method as part of empiricism we have a new understanding and then our perception changes as we learn more about the ultimate truth.

        See Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

        Your statements:

        “We do not need a past for truth” and “it would take maybe 50 years to get back to our current level of understanding”

        contradicts each other. In order to take 50 years to understand something would take the passage of time and the retaining of knowledge from the past, for example you cannot understand that metal is not paper unless you understand what paper is in the first place which you learned in the past.

        And truth is still there external to us not changing.

        “We can take facts which science gets from the real world”

        You already claimed that there was no real world,

        No I didn’t and I challenge you to present that to me.

        “it is only our perception of it”

        Your worldview is in serious trouble. You claim that the world is only our perception and that even that is not superior to animals

        No, it is your lack of understanding, I claimed there is an external world that holds the ultimate truth and just because we perceive it the way we do does not make it the way that it is. You again like in a lot of cases take snippets of sentences rather than the whole meaning. I did not say: it is only our perception of it”, what I actually said was: “Just because we see the world the way we do doesn’t make our view of reality the way that it actually is, it is only our perception of it”. Do you see how it changes the meaning when we have the whole sentence. You see I say: “our view of reality”

        I challenge you to show why mans perception of the universe is superior to any other animals, that is without invoking your belief in a god. And because he says it is.

        “And it would be wrong to assume our perception of reality is superior, it is not it is one of many.”

        Then you claim to understand the facts that science can prove, which of course would depend on our perception of them, which would be improvable by your standards.

        Then you claim again that we don’t need the past to understand new understanding but also claim that we can learn that something has changed, (our understanding that metal was not paper) which can only come from previous understanding.

        Please excuse me your reasoning and understanding is very infantile, please try and understand what I am trying to put across rather than just extracting words and attaching your own perspective. Metal is not paper is obvious to a 2 year old the point wa not about materials, it was about the understanding of mechanics.  It was for illustration purposes to try and put across that we can always learn. The truth is there and always will be and we can learn, which was in reference to your Orwellian government analogy.

        You claim to believe in empiricism and

        “We can take facts which science gets from the real ”

        However one of the pillars that science uses to obtain a fact is the repeatability of testing it. Repeatability requires the passage of time which you claim is unnecessary and therefore you have just made impossible any learning from science or you belief that empiricism can explain the truth.

        Every part of your worldview is in serious conflict.

        Not so and again it is your lack of understanding. See again Poppers falsifiabilty. I can test the theory that all Swans are white, I can visit many lakes and see they are all white which would back up a theory that all swans are white and would lead me indeed to conclude that “All Swans are white”. However in Australia they have black swans and so this meets Poppers falsifiabilty. It is science it is falsifiable.

         

        “We do not need a past for truth,”

        If we do not need the past for truth then the truth can change from moment to moment and there would be in fact be no way to know it’s the truth, as real truth is unchanging so, in order to understand it is the real truth would be to test it and retest it but that is imposable by your standard as you claim we do not need the past.

        In order for Einstein to prove Aristotle wrong or to improve on the theory, he would have to understand Aristotle’s theory and that of course would require the comparing of knowledge from two different periods of time, something you claim is not required.

        Truth does not change it is there. Not opinions or perceptions or world-views or facts or theories or data or understanding but truth. Truth was there when the dinosaurs were there before a human mind was there to conceive the truth.

        “If we removed history the truth would not go away”

        Yes this is true however there would be no way for you to know that using your worldview.

        Not sure you understand my worldview to be able to comment.

        “Truth as I said exists independent of us”

        This is so true as it is one of the principle of believing in the God of the bible, indeed Jesus claimed to be the Truth. What is weird though that by your standards you could never know that or prove it as it could not be proven by empiricism as it is an abstract theory.

        You worldview clearly states that you cannot prove the things that you are claiming in the last two posts. In order to prove your worldview you would have to contradict you worldview. That is a non scientific and undependable position. Remember the law of non contradiction states that something cannot be A and not A at the same time.

        I really have no comprehension of what you are saying here.

        “a library is a concept”

        I am confused. I thought a library is the name of a building which contains recorded information. That is not a concept. It is not a subjective thing as it can be tested, therefore it is not a concept.

        It is a concept. A concept is a mental representation and the idea of a Library is a concept. This my friend is the crux of what we are talking about. The failure to distinguish between reality and creations of the mind. You say yourself a library is the name of a building, which is correct. It exists by name only and the Germans have another name for it as do the French and Iranians and Chinese etc. They all speak different languages and have different words or names and a word is something that humans have created, and different humans have different words. Therefore a library exists in the human mind only, what is real is the bricks and wood etc.

        The same applies to

        “another concept we call a building”.

        A building is not a concept it is a name we give to something that exists and can therefore can be tested. It is subjective.

        Again see above for names. You are correct try pushing a bit more and digging deeper to see what you have just said: “it is a name we give to something”, A name, a name, name name name…….. a name is a label, that is all. We use language to help our understanding and so when we say building we think we know what the other person is trying to describe, it conjures up an image in the mind. It is only a name all the same.

        “Facts is another thing altogether and as I said that comes from the 5 senses we have”

        If facts come from our senses and our senses are only our perception of the world which is not real or superior to that of an animal and not provable, then by the standard of your worldview how is it possible for you to know any facts.

        Again never said that the external world wasn’t real and this I’ve showed in my comments so many times. What is real is your lack of comprehension of the times I’ve said it and then re-said it with quotes.

        I challenge again, where did I say not provable?

         Do you mean then that only superior things can know facts?

         

        “If we removed history the truth would not go away”

        This is true and yes

        “the sun would still rise and gravity would work”

        but you would not be able to understand why it does. (Although even science today does not understand what gravity is only how it effects things.)

        Yep, Science not religion gave us that and again for the sake of repeating myself we don’t know about gravity because science does not know everything but again for the sake of repeating myself, is closer than a guess which is what religion does or just say “ well we don’t question god”!!!!

        You repeat

        “Truth as I said exists independent of us”

        And

        We are trying to discover it rather than have a blind faith in a god.

        “we have concepts called books”

        Again a book is not a concept, just like a library it is just a name for an object which indeed can be tested and therefore is subjective.

        See above about names for buildings and library. You can test for them but you will not get book back, you will get paper and ink. The real testing part is the paper and ink the concept man-made, name part is book, distinguish the difference!

        Your example of a tree does not make any sense. Just because two people draw two different types of trees does not make then different objects or a concept. It is still a tree. It is not a concept it is a label we use to describe an object. Is a car a concept is a table?

        Yes they are concepts!

        See Wikipedia for concepts and spend some time to try and understand it. I point you to Bertrand Russell, Plato, Socrates, Kant, Descartes, Polanyi, et al.

        “England is a concept”

        No it is not. It is a noun that we use to describe a landmass.

        Ha ha ha ha ha, yes you said it “describe” a landmass, it is not the landmass. It is separate and distinct, again it is a name or noun as you say but it is not the thing! You are starting to make the distinctions yourself. Is it Falkland’s islands or Islas Malvinas? The landmass does not care, that existed before humans to gave it a name, the landmass and the name someone calls it are different, the landmass exists in the real world and the name exists in the mind as a concept. And depending on the mind depends on the name, Is it Falkland’s islands or Islas Malvinas?

        Sooooooo, we have the landmass in the real world and the name as a concept to describe the landmass as you say.

        The United Kingdom is a concept as it is body politic. You might be confused on this issue. You are claiming that all nouns are concepts. I don’t think that position is defendable.

        If you believe that

        I’m not confused; I challenge you where I made that claim?

        Please provide evidence that England exists?

        “Money is a concept it is only paper with no real value.”

        Then please prove you point by sending me all the money that you now have and all the money that you will own in the future.

        That does not prove a point, that is you failing to understand.

        You see even though currency might be a concept, money is an object that has value because people place value on it. If people would refuse it then it would have no value. However as checking in the local shop when I hand my money over to the shopkeeper he indeed hands over my red bull, therefore at least for us two money does indeed have value. It has the value that we deem to place on it.

        Exactly, you don’t need me you can actually see this for yourself. Money is indeed an object it is paper and yes people do place value on it and that is the point. Yes, yes and yes, “if people would refuse it then it would have no value”, yippee, you have seen the light!!!! No value would mean it becomes the piece of paper with the ink picture on it. It is people that put the value on the otherwise piece of paper. But value is a manmade thing; it is something that some humans have.

        “There is only one truth and that is objective i.e. outside of us, the subjective is our perception of the world”

        I agree but how on earth can you come to this conclusion by only using your worldview? If you are using the standard of empiricism you could not possibly have worked that out.

        We perceive the world but we also know atoms and molecules exist. We do not perceive atoms on a daily basis but through scientific discovery we know they are there.

        Therefore you must be basing your assumptions on some other worldview. Which one would that be?

        No.

        Your definition of perception is not entirely correct. Our perception of things might not really exist however it is therefore possible also, everything being equal, that it might exist. What I think you are trying to say is that we could not know for sure. Well your worldview might not be able to prove what is true or not (your words), mine does.

        I really think you should try and understand what is being discussed here before responding. Perception is perception, the way an individual or bat, dog or shark sees (and no not necessarily by one’s eyes) the world. Seeing is light striking the eyes and sound is pressure waves hitting the ear. The tree that we perceive is light bouncing of the object (already mentioned) and so it is individual and what the individual perceives.

        Empiricism can only prove subjective truth therefore:

        No not true and you already agreed it was objective truth (independent of us)

        “If you are talking of objective truth then we can only ever get close to it via”

        cannot be true as it cannot even start to prove objective truth never mind “get close to it“.

        Via what? Not sure what point you are making here.

        “What I mean is there is but one truth and we can only ever truly know it via empiricism i.e. testing it”

        There are more than one truth. There are subjective truths and objective truths, so you claim is wrong from the start.

        No its not and now I feel like I’m going around in circles. How can there be more than 1 truth? We can have perspectives and understanding but truth is truth and is objective and external.  Subjective is an individual’s perspective and is not truth.

        Empiricism can only prove subjective truths you have already stated that, furthermore the statement itself “there is but one truth” is a truth claim which is an objective statement and therefore improvable using empiricism.

        Statements again are language constructs.

        “science gets CLOSER to the truth CLOSER than any belief”

        Only subjective truth, it cannot explain objective truth. Also when you forbid the use of history you cannot use a scientific approach, as it needs repeatable testing which requires the passage of time.

        Only 1 truth exists. Subjective is personal and objective is without our mind. Just because we perceive it that way does not make it truth.

        “Data does not come from past events, I can look at my thermometer right now and see the temperature data.”

        True but the information to decipher that information comes from past knowledge. To understand that it is Fahrenheit or Celsius would take knowledge of what them terms mean and the science behind them which comes from past knowledge. Even the thinking process to understand the information takes time and with the claim you don’t need the past to know the truth then you are restricting yourself to the truth of the moment, which is almost impossible for even if you burn yourself in a flame them deduce that fire burns requires a past experience because the understanding comes from the experience.

        But you are missing the point, you said: “Without a point of reference it would be easy to get people to believe black was white and without the past we would be in a 1984 world were the truth is anything that the government says it is because we would have no reference in which to correct them.”

        But I’m answering your statement that data comes from past events, it doesn’t. Data is only a measure. If my thermometer says the data is -10, so what, I know instinctively that it is cold, just the same as a 1984 government would not be able to tell me it was warm at -10 with the absence of a thermometer.

        I still maintain that we don’t need  a past to make people believe. We have a past and we can prove things and people still believe in a supernatural being that created everything in 6 days.

        “I would invite you to any 20 story building for you to jump and tell me how abstract you feel after a few seconds?”

        Objective truth by definition is an abstract theory.- No it is not!

        Falling from a building can be tested therefore it is subjective. Furthermore if you want to understand whither it is subjective or objective requires the use of a mind. Can you use empiricism to prove what or where the mind is?

         

        “Who created your god and the other gods ad infinitum?”

        Who created your universe ad infinitum? First of all the God of the bible is the first cause or the explanation of everything. You do not need an explanation of the explanation. Then we have the problem of you asking me to explain where God comes from when you claim that the universe “is”. That’s pretty hypocritical. If you can believe that a universe can always exist then you are in no position to criticise me for believing in a God that has always existed. Worse still you cannot prove the universe always existed using empiricism and it is also an unscientific theory as it goes against the Law of Thermo Dynamics.

        Please state which law of TD you are referring to and explain to me how it goes against the notion that the universe always existed?

        I’m not sure who created my universe but I don’t believe it was some bloke who did it in 6 days and then sat back and allowed 6 million jews to be murdered.

        “Try landing in the middle of the Sahara desert with a load of 20 pound notes and see if you could buy your way home.”

        As stated it is not the money itself that hold the value. It is the value that people put upon it. If there was a taxis in the middle of the Sahara desert then you indeed could get home.

        As above, yes, it is the value in peoples minds, all it is, is a piece of paper.

        “What we do is come to believe in these constructions of reality as truth but all it is, is another persons opinion and that is all.”

        It seems that I misunderstood your opinion on this account. It also seems that we are in agreement that unless there is an ultimate truth then all we have is peoples opinions. My worldview allows me to have the ultimate truth however your worldview using empiricism does not.

        Finally we are getting somewhere. This is everything about what I’m saying, there is an ultimate truth but most of it is people’s opinion because we don’t know it. Although you claim to know the truth because you believe in a god.

        So with your new found understanding I will present you with my original questioning, I don’t know the ultimate truth but the science I believe in gives some answers and will hopefully one day get closer to the ultimate truth of the universe. So why is your belief in a god the truth?

        What does your bible (book of truth) say about the dinosaurs from 200 million to 64 million years ago?

        What does your bible say about the movement of the continents over billions of years?

        What does your bible say about evolution?

        If as you say we are supreme over animals why did god wait 14 billion years before placing us on the earth? Why allow dinosaurs to come before us and exist for 160 million years and then wait about 62 million years before giving us a chance?

        What does you bible say about other gods, is your personal opinion above other religious personal opinions?

        Where did your god come from?

        Remember I don’t know the ultimate truth I just believe in the science that attempts to find out that ultimate truth. However you are claiming to know that truth because of a belief in a god?

         

        “Empiricism is not a belief”

        This is not true.

        wiki.answers.com

        Ontological Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge comes from the senses,

         

        http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-ontological-empiricism

        Ontological empiricism is the belief that all knowledge is derived from sense experience, in a metaphysical existential sense

         

        Not sure what ontology has to do with it.

         

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism

        Definition

        of empiricism

        a theory that all knowledge originates in experience

        A theory requires belief. No it needs justification which is different from a blind belief.

        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empiricism

        1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

        Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience

        See the part “asserts”!

        “But empiricism to test what the world is actually like rather than our perception of it at this moment is better than a guess or a belief in the flying spaghetti monster or Russell’s Teapot.”

        I agree with you that empiricism can only be used to prove subjective truths therefore you cannot use empiricism to prove or disprove the flying spaghetti monster as it is an objective truth.

        Please please, please try and distinguish between objective and subjective properly:

        Objectivity is used to describe humans as "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences.

        This means that the truth is independent from us (humans) and was the same truth when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. That means even 200 million years ago atoms and molecules still existed as did all quanta before a human was even thought of, it was merely Einstein that brought our attention to it. So the flying spaghetti monster is NOT objective, it is a concept conceived by a human being called Bobby Henderson in 2005. The Spaghetti monster is NOT free from human perception it is a human mind that created it and so is not objective. Empiricism is used to test into the real world to build up a picture of the universe and what it is from a standpoint free from human perception.

        Proving or disproving the flying spaghetti monster is meant to be a piss take of people who believe in intelligent design as you very accurately point out it cannot be proved or disproved. It is not science and fails Poppers falsifiebilty as does any god or teapot or elves or fairies. It is opinion and belief and is NOT objective.

        You seem to be claiming that both are subjective and because you can prove certain subjective things with empiricism that, that means that we cannot believe in objective things like a god. That is a false conclusion.

        Both what are subjective? And no you can’t prove anything subjective. It exist in the mind only.

        “Not sure where you conceive of the idea I do not believe in an external reality. I very clearly said: “We have the mind and an external world outside of the mind,”

        First of all please prove there is a mind just using empiricism?

        I can’t and I’m not sure why you have taken one word i.e. empiricism and used that to think that is what I use to prove everything. I tend to know I have a mind I don’t need to prove it and if pushed on it, I would use Descartes analogy of the evil genius. I would need a mind to be deceived I don’t need empiricism.

        You appear to be confusing the external world and the mind. I said the external world is not known to us as it is and so we use empiricism (by this I mean scientific enquiry) to discover it. The mind well, I can’t vouch for your mind.

        Please prove where it exists just using empiricism?

        I can’t it is not external.

        “Just because we see the world the way we do doesn’t make our view of reality the way that it actually is, it is only our perception of it.”

        That statement is suggesting that everyone’s perception of what is real is their opinion or their truth and not necessary the same as someone else’s opinion or their truth. Since it is just one’s opinion and everything being equal it is therefore possible that reality does not exist and that it is just our opinion/perception of it that exists. That’s Hinduism.

        Is it. I suppose there are lots of possibilities and if you want to make it fit something then that’s up to you.

        If I stated I belief the bible was the Word of God and Jesus is God in the flesh, it was in the a conversional form. I know the bible is the Word of God, I know Jesus is God in the flesh because my worldview proves it to me. My God is not the God of the gaps. My God is the most logical “being” there is. He is the ultimate Truth and he has made himself known to me by things like the complexity and design of the universe, the complexity and design of life for instance the complexity and design of DNA.

        You are entitled to your belief. Although Dawkins doesn’t think so.

        However with your worldview of empiricism and with the added exclusion of history the most you could know is a limit number of subjective facts. Your worldview excludes you from knowing objective truths, therefore you cannot prove you have a mind, or whither reality exists or not or whither there is a universe or not or only the perception of a universe or not or indeed whither there is a flying spaghetti monster or not..

        Please try and understand. Please do not try and make things up and make them fit so that you can rebut things. My world view does not revolve around empiricism, but if I wanted to know the objective truth i.e if the earth was flat or round before setting sail on my ship I would not consult the bible for the answer. I am only advocating empiricism and the scientific method over religion.

        I do not advocate exclusion of history I was merely responding to your comment about an Orwellian 1984 government, but somehow that has become my worlview.

        My worldview does not exclude me from knowing objective truths; your lack of understanding about what is being discussed makes you think that. Remember, Objectivity is used to describe humans as "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences.

        My worldview is rather simple really and is thus:

        We have a mind, using the analogy of Descartes, even if there was an evil genius that was deceiving us of everything we would still need a mind to be deceived, so the mind is the only thing that is certain. This does not require empiricism or anything else, I just know that I have a mind. There is an external world (which of course could be pure deception according to Descartes) not Hinduism or Spaghetti monetarism or any other religion. But the fact that I have sense perception that indicate there is an external world to my mind and when I see a wall and run at it I do not pass through it, it is further indication to my mind that there is an external world. I then do not hold myself above anybody or anything in the way I perceive that external world and I tend to advocate the sciences to prove the real truth of the external world to me rather than reading a bible. I tend to believe science that tells me the earth is round. Obejective truth is the world from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences. Subjective is existing in the mind.

        The objective truth external to the mind is a piece of paper with ink on it, the part in the mind is money, it is a concept, it is constructed in the mind.

  26. Since I discovered John 9 Months ago, he does seem to have changed tact, but I've just finished watching the Cornwall show and still found him impressive. I would've liked to have heard more on his dinner with the Rothschild's as I felt a bit uneasy about this i.e. has he been bought, or are they grooming him for the "second coming" and if he did become King John would it be the Queen is dead long live the King with no change? Personally I would love to see all the things happen which he stated, but as he said "Im a lunatic" nonetheless good luck.

  27. Your parents fill out a certificate of live birth, which is fine it is a public record of a human entering the world, A birth certificate is what you have sent to you, 2 very different things that gets over looked, notice the lack of 'live' birth on what they sent. what your parents sent has a signature from one of them, again that is normal, what is sent back has the signature of the government, how many things do you have with an actual wet sugniture from them?

     

    Not many, you are, for example Dave from the Bloggs family, so in short Dave Bloggs, What the government send back is a title, Dave Bloggs, doesn't matter on capitals at all. What matters is they created something and sent the certificate of this for you to keep safe. It did or does say, don't use it as id, but you do, therefore you use the title they sent you, in using that title, recognised as a government agent/employee/person, you get taxed on it and have to abide by the statutes for that.

  28. I think some people here have looked into the 'Rabbit Hole' and it has scared the shit outta them, so they have simply reverted to running away from what they've seen back to there comfort zone. At the begining of his talks John always says, "Dont believe a word of what I say, go and check it out for yourself". How many of you have done this? Nudge nudge wink wink 'Brian Lawsome'…..

  29. Unfortunately i believe your idea is foolish, because you do not understand how our constitution is suposed to work. We have common law and statute law, and in many cases statute law is only confirming common law. So as you say treason has been repealed, so what, it is a common law offence and not merely statutory. If the statutes confirming murder were repealed, it would make no difference, murder is a common law offence. It would not mean we can all go out and kill someone, so those who betray our Head of State, or the Country, or the laws of the land, are guilty of common law treason regardless of statute,

                There are three principle elements involved, the individual who is King or Queen, then there is the Kingly office, then there is the popular voice of power expressed as the Queen in parliament. the Kingly office is above the individual who is Queen by virtue of oath and law, then the Queen in parliament is above the kingly office, there for it is termed the High Court of Parliament. The prime duty of the High Court of Parliament is to confirm the common law, as is the prime duty of every court operating under the Kingly office.. The substance of my point being the true sovereign of the land is the law, regardless of who is King or Queen, we have never been a Monarchy. Even the Anglo-Saxon Kings had to work for the good of the people with counsel of the Witan.

           I totally agree that a Republic is designed by evil people for evil purposes, and our constitution as a Kingdom is far superior, when properly understood and enforced. It is the politicians who have corrupted the system along with the hidden hands of secret society. These are the enemy of the people, the landed aristochracy have long since been overthrown by money aristochracy, namely the banking community. The Queen is alleged to be siding with secret society, this will be out of fear, rather than choice. There were seven attempts to take out Queen Victoria by secret society agents who wanted a republic so we could be ruled by the banking community, namely the Rothschild family.

       I write this over a year since you said things will happen in a years time, you were wrong, because your idea is fundamentally ridiculess. We do not need some despot acting as a king after deposing the Queen, we had that before, remember King John and the Magna Carta? What we need is a programme of public education as to what our proper constitution is, when this is done, we will all see what we need to do to correct back to the rule of English law, and counter the perverted political party system. Did you know that the party system itself is constitutionally prohibited, it is unknown to the law, this fact alone invalidates all general elections in the modern age. And to think a party can give sovereignty of the country to a foreign power, this  relies on the total stupidity of the believer.

    The problem is we have no proper parliament and not that we need a despotic monarch. We are governed by common law, which declares that a King in parliament can make the rules, subject to observance of fundamental law, from which King and Parliament are themselves made.

    Did you know the position of King is already elective, study the outcome of the Bill of Rights, No King or Queen can take up position unless the people, currently through their representation, have agreed their suitability, and of course they have to make a coronation oath. Those who think the title to the Throne is hereditary are sadly mistaken, title to the eldest son is merely a convention for the sake of simplisity. As we have seen, parliament can give title to the youngest son or the eldest daughter.

    Our solutions are in parliaments and not Heads of State, now if you had sugested that we formed a properly constituted parliament to take over from the current constitutionally corrupt parliaments (unlawful assemblies), then you would possibly inspire more people. Look at the manner of our anscestors, this is what they did, what use is an honest Head of State when parliament can be composed of "truely elected scum", as Cromwell stated.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.