Monthly Archives: November 2013

My observation of the pattern of fiction:

a group of usurpers come along and tortiously convert the energetic abundance of the planet into *their property*. Tortious conversion is a trust term; much of what is going on in the deep levels of ‘law’ is actually trust. The UCC is the *public* side of things, trust law is the *private* side- everything that is being done on a public scale is being done *via trusts*: don’t be fooled by the assumption of ‘trust law’ into statutory, this is another fiction. There most definitely still is a private side to the court, it’s just not available to fiction and it functions completely differently to statutory.

The ‘trustees’ have tortiously converted the res into their *own property* and this is how they are doing things like trashing the rights of the individual, consuming the planet etc- private trust law rather than public. It is irrelevant to this discussion just how they have done that: suffice to say that ‘trust law’ is as fictional as any *other* law, because *any law that exists outside autonomy/free will of the individual is a fiction*. This is important to remember- it seems obvious but in practice most individuals keep falling back into the trap of heteronomy- the action of attempting to cover another individual with an authority external to the individual. This is *also* really important if one wishes to use sui generis as one’s pathway out of ALL external jurisdictions. 


This post was made in response to the individual the previous post was responding to: rather than consider my points they simply chose to call me crazy, certifiably insane and the usual disinteresting hysteria that the heteronomy likes to whip up when it can’t deal with being triangulated.

This was my response.

-well, that was rather unsurprising, resorting to verbal abuse and insult instead of considering the points I was making regarding fictions. Ad hominem attacks are always a winning go to for this kind of response, as are appeals to authorities (in this case ‘the govt’) and strawman deflections (ignoring the subject matter of my post by focusing on your own insistence about gold money rather than looking at and addressing the deeper fiction I was addressing).

I don’t need to resort to derogatory assertions about ‘sanity’ and insults about intelligence, I’ll simply point to some more history.

This was a response detailing the fictions still embedded within ‘lawful money'(gold backed), how there is very little difference between a gold backed system and a fiat system:

I note that in your response you did not address the points regarding *conversion* that I have made nor the underlying fiction that allows these conversions to occur and be accepted by the majority. I’m going to re-state these because they are pertinent to the discussion *I’m* having which is about getting to the foundation of the fictions that are being pointed at individuals all over the globe.

Let’s look at what I was *actually* talking about: the fiction known as ‘gold backed money’. You said “gold is money because it has intristic [sic] value since it is rare and it takes a lot of work to dig it out of the earth.”

There are two broad issues embedded within your statement here: the first is, who says the gold is the money? Who decreed that the world needed money and that this was how it had to be? Who sets the intrinsic ‘value’ of gold in order to make it the money standard? Who is it that decides ‘this is how much it shall be worth’ and how is this value enforced?


I am glad that you have studied the Vedas for 30 years and not been disappointed. Your insistence that I cannot have my sui generis because I don’t quote those that I  “have learned from” demonstrates that you actually didn’t get the ghist of what I wrote in my last response. You are not interested in exploring the sui generis, which is what I’m interested in exploring because I’m interested in a remedy to theheteronomy, which you again have engaged in during your response to me. You continue to prefer the male gender pronoun ” who is HE? Who is your main source?” despite my indication that I am not interested in the heteronomy of gender pronouns. I have responded intelligently and thoughtfully to your assertions, an action that you have not extended to me. Your insistence on disrespecting my perspective is again indicative of the heteronomy embedded in your own perspective, as well as your insistence on being disrespectful of my subjective experience- “Not some Cosmic glob. Some big bang.”


This was written by me this morning in response to an individual who was trying to point spiritual heteronomy at me. The quotes are from their post.

I am just asking where do you get your “conclusions” to prove that you are right?”

I have been discussing a way of being called sui generis, which is embedded-very tightly constricted, but there nonetheless- in ‘the law'; what I have done is examined this principle in view of the nature of the cosmos, the world around us and within each individual and found this principle reflected constantly in the multiversal fractal. I have carefully compared this principle, embodied its nature and extrapolated the principle out into its fractal fullness- this is the sui generis that *I* speak of, the sui generis the law has had to embrace but tried to control by limiting its application to copyright and commercial settings. Sui generis, however, goes far, far beyond the fictional limitations that have been placed upon it by fictional ‘persons’ and corporate interests.


I am very clear in my Self: for me there is no necessity of ‘authority’ because the sui generis demonstrates ‘authority’ to be anathema to evolution and free will. The cosmic Consciousness recognises the necessity for sui generis if there is to be any evolution: in my multiverse this Consciousness is as delighted to evolve and grow as I Am, because I Am part of that Consciousness. There is no ‘god’, there is Consciousness creating layer after layer of Beingness in order to both explore its Self and expand- evolve- its awareness of this Self through infinite layers of Being. Consciousness is aware that in order for this fractal expansion to happen in ways that creates new expression, there can be no ‘authority’; it creates its creations in a sea of absolute freedom, knowing that sui generis free will must be present if there is to be any exploration. There is no ‘authority’ because ‘authority’ purports to state what ‘is’ and ‘must be’ as ‘this is how things are': as soon as this happens dogma begins, dogma strangles evolution and recreates Empire.


Musings on the sui generis platform as I express it and the evolution of consciousness:

I am familiar with the misconceptions regarding the word ‘evolution’ and how individuals of various philosophical, religious and political persuasions have liked to distort and misuse the concept. The quantum universe demonstrates that it does, indeed, evolve and that this evolution is an absolutely necessary element of the continuation of the multiverse. Evolution is not ‘the fiction that creates tyranny’- *heteronomy*, the belief that for whatever reason- including ‘spiritual’- one individual or group of individuals can dominate and control, repress, restrict and limit another individual or group of individuals, is the foundational platform that creates tyranny.


This was written in response to an individual asking if ‘do no harm’ was part of the sui generis:

Absolutely there is a ‘no harm to others’ embedded in the sui generis- or Eneris, as I’ve come to call the expanded platform I observe within the foundational ‘law’ element: the premise of sui generis is that the authority of the individual begins *and ends* within their own sphere (auric field, etc). How does this happen? They are *without peer*, unique, which means they can neither be judged by others OR JUDGE OTHERS; to move from one’s sui generis, unique *autonomy* and into the realm of harming another moves the harming individual from sui generis- without peer- to heteronomy: the demonstration that they believe, for whatever reason, that they can dominate and control another. This takes them out of the realm of the free will/sui generis frequency and into heteronomy. Sui generis Beings act *without charge* in those situations; there is no energetic ‘load’ of the fictions of ‘justice’ and ‘retribution’- these are fictions of the heteronomy to serve the purpose and intentions of the heteronomy. There is instead a firm boundary keeping that individuals can choose as individuals or, if they are moved to, as a group- take for instance the shunning of individuals that is practiced by certain Tibetan villages when an individual chooses to do harm to another. There is no load expressed in a sui generis Being keeping their autonomous boundaries, just as there is no judgement from others as to the kinds of boundaries individuals wish to keep; all the criticism of boundaries and the choices within those are again part of a heteronomy that does not wish for individuals to have their true autonomy.



In my essay about abundance I focused mainly on the material aspect. Only touching briefly on the abundance that can be found in the emotional and mental realms of ourselves. I think that these are the realms where true love expresses itself.

So what is love?

It’s a concept that is used to frequently throughout the world. It’s the central hub of most spiritual movements. Yet, what is it actually? Is there some kind of objective representation of love that pertains to all that relate to it? Or is is purely subjective, largely dependent on each individuals personal experience, perception being generated by the individuals emotional and mental states. I have heard the phrase “Love is truth” used before. It feels like a good, albeit simple, definition at face value. But what is truth? Whos truth? . For me, truth is best summed up as something of personal experience or something of deep resonance. I think true love, in its purest form, parallels a deep feeling of abundance.



The desire for Abundance seems to me to be the motivating factor behind much of our lives. It is what drives people to invent new things, making our lives easier. To be creative. The artist feels a sense of abundance after painting something that really encapsulates their feeling and perspective. We have this inherent desire to feel safe, to feel comfortable. Having material wealth seems to soothe this in us. Life becomes easier with less laborious physical work having to exerted.

We often have more free time than our ancestors. At least this would be the case if we weren’t already in the pursuit of the next new thing to experience. This becomes the problem. With technical innovation we are rewarded with something physically tangible that can help us out. Something we can actually see and measure as ‘progress’. What’s apparent to me in the current world culture is that we have fallen into the trap of thinking that every sense of lack we experience can be solved by some new technological advancement. Many of us do not possess the knowledge to be able to work in these developmental fields so we sacrifice ourselves, doing more of the hard labour/shit kicker type jobs in order to pump more resources into science and technology.