Recently I was introduced to a video in which the individual speaking appealed to a ‘spiritual court of equity’ to hear their declaration of severance from all kinds of spiritual contracts. There were a number of things that struck me in the video as being out of order, but it was this concept of some cosmic spiritual court that I wanted to deal with first. I’ve noticed that amongst many who resonate to any number of variants of New Age religious philosophy, the references to ‘galactic federations’, ‘spiritual courts of equity’, councils, overlords, Archangels, Universal Creators, gods and other such entities is frequently put forward as a solution to the global problems that currently beset the planet. There appears to be zero perspective on the reasons why these appeals to external authorities is not only an action reflecting Empire’s purpose and intention, it’s also useless if one wants an empowered, Empire immune planetary community.

(BTW, I’m not interested in discussions about the veracity of these beliefs, which would be nothing but a different shade of heteronomy itself; what I am interested in is clarifying the limitations of any of the current planetary perspectives, embedded within Empire as they are, regardless of shape, tone or message. )

The concept of a ‘spiritual court of equity’ is still founded on the philosophy of and ultimate reliance on an *externally governing force*, an overlord, an external authority under which other Beings are subordinate. This is Empire in a different suit. Courts of *all* kinds-the various colour of law, including ecclesiastical, or the courts of rulers and kings, a different kind of domination from the former- were created for *individuals that couldn’t get their own shit together in some way or another* and needed an external authority to intervene for them. Sui generis is the antithesis of this: there is no external authority because in a system of individuals that recognise their own unique authority external authority isn’t necessary.

I’ll give you the analogy of the immune system. While an immune system is weak and the individual is struggling, external agents- herbal remedies, vitamin therapies etc- can be useful to support that individual through their process, but the aim is to eventually create a robust immune system that can deal effectively with any challenge that individual experiences. Individuals who rely on external agencies for their health are never truly independent; they are always subject to their reliance on the external agent for their wellbeing. This creates a dependency within the organism that, if not remedied, has lifelong effects that limit the possibilities of that individual. The object of any whole system healing modality is to raise the function of the individual to the highest point of autonomy possible, not to continue with a dependency that isn’t necessary or useful. (This is the contrast between the purpose and intention of holistic healing systems and big pharma: one has the individual’s best interests at the forefront and the other has the interests of the corporate hegemony’s profits. This creates two monumentally different intentions and outcomes.)

To expand this example out into the macro, any society that cannot function without external agency as authority is unhealthy and dependent on a subtle yet profound level: dependency on external agency creates the thin edge of the Empire wedge, a weakness that can, over time, be exploited by those that do not require such dependency- those who are willing and prepared to act to create their own realities. That the realities generated by such individuals are generally at the expense of the dependents is part of the inevitable outcome of dependency: those that do not create for themselves will have their reality created for them and one size fits all realities usually fit the individual really badly, one way or another. Only the individual can ever know what is truly best for them; external agencies are only ever going to be able to best guess and that will depend on the purpose and intention of their foundational platform.

Are those who recognise their own Creator abilities interested in supporting a system that encourages and fosters spiritual dependencies? What sort of ‘creator’ is interested in fostering and promoting a sense of permanent dependence within its creation? What kind of parent is the individual who deliberately creates dependency in their child, for their own particular agenda and purpose? Do we consider that kind of behaviour-the manipulation of individuals into dependencies- to be healthy? If we wouldn’t consider the deliberate fostering of dependence in a child to the degree where that dependence cripples their ability to be effective creators of their own adult life to be an acceptable model of physical and emotional patterning, why would we accept the same concept as a spiritual model? Why do we accept spiritual models that, under the guise of ‘loving compassion’ or ‘spiritual assistance’ or any of the other sugar coated flavourings, are used to perpetuate a model of spiritual dependence as the ‘way the universe works’?

I’m not in the least bit interested in appealing to any external authority to take care of any situation that I’m facing- I want to do that on my own. I don’t want an external authority to ‘rescue’ me, I want the ability to take care of mySelf regardless of the situation. To this end I’ve been considering the issue of immune system in the micro-macro scale, exploring the possibility of an immune system that has developed effective mechanisms for dismissing energetic and spiritual heteronomy, the actions of those who would dominate and control me. For me to feel secure in my ability to navigate the physical realm, it’s become apparent to me that I need an effective immune response to psychopathic domination, be it in the singular individual or the macro scale planetary domination system. I want to have an immune system that effectively responds to heteronomy in any form, including physical threat.

Eco-systems have system wide immune responses that trigger when a system is threatened from an external agency; the planet has the ability to respond to the threat of solar winds and actually has an ‘immune system response’ of sorts that cause various elements of the biosphere to actively respond to solar activity. The problem for the eco-system is that the concept of an element becoming psychotically detached from an awareness of its own interdependency with the system was never factored for: in other words, our current planetary ecosystem has no effective strategies or responses in place for the glaring problem of profoundly dissociated sentient Beings, commonly called ‘humans’. The micro of this is the observation that individual Beings have similarly not yet developed an immune response that comprehensively deals with the issue of the psychopathic predator element within their community and culture; communities have no effective immune response to protect them from psychopathic incursion and, upscaled, entire nations are similarly without effective immune strategies.

The common answer to this observation is the suggestion that it is possible to use the elements of Empire against Empire itself: ‘economic sanctions’, ‘political action’ creating ‘new laws’ that will force individuals and communities into various behaviours; if these fail then the fall back of threat of violence, actions of violence and outright war are the next behaviours of in the limited repertoire. The irony is that Empire has woven its own mythos so successfully into the planetary community’s consciousness that individuals who propose these- or other heteronomy based solutions- often have little to no idea that they are actually perfectly serving Empire’s intentions, desires and goals. The possibility that there can- and are- entirely different ways of achieving the outcomes of peace, abundance for all and a planetary community that is utterly unreliant on external agency for its wellbeing is beyond the mindset of such individuals.

This isn’t the domain of those whose worldview and perspective is solely created by the mainstream media and dominant culture; it’s open knowledge that the majority of the New Age religion-disguised- as-transformative-philosophy was created to serve the interests of the dominant paradigm and throttle the exploration of new paradigms, platforms and perspectives. The immotility embedded within the thinking of even those promoted as ‘agents of change’ hides itself in the artful deception that moving a piece around on the board constitutes actual transformation: part of this deception lies within the language itself.

Change is not evolution. Change is not transformation, it is a shift from one thing that is already known to another thing that is already known; social evolution is an entirely different creature from social change. This is why I never use words such as ‘revolution’ to describe the social transformation I’m interested in: despite the way the language is commonly used, revolution means to move in a circular motion around an unchanging central hub. In the case of societies, the central hub is the mythos upon which that society functions, the foundation of beliefs and consensus reality that the society has agreed to play by. For the majority of human history in this particular cycle of commonly accepted history (which has nothing to do with any actual history of humanity, but rather is just the version of history which those in control have created to promote their own particular purposes and intentions), a mass questioning of the underlying mythos has never been undertaken.

This isn’t to say that various communities haven’t been successfully engaged in considering questions about the apparent mythos- the issues of religion, of political, military and economic dominance, racism, sexism and the whole swathe of seemingly insurmountable challenges that currently plague the planetary community: there has been an increasing groundswell of challenges to the dominant paradigm, deconstruction of a thousand ‘sacred’ limitations and restrictions of the individual and the community, micro to macro. None of these to date have managed to get to the heart of the infinitely headed hydra and as a result the planetary community is being led by the nose, manipulated and shepherded into precisely the behaviours that the controllers want them to display.

While individuals are oblivious to the hub around which they revolve they will continue to act in exactly the ways that have been set out for them. They will continue to follow the hidden dictates of those engineering the behaviours, the psychology and the culture that is emerging as dominant on the planet; they will continue to be bewildered by the failure of their revolutions and uprisings to transform anything at all.

This is why the sui generis is unlike any other platform on the planet: it identifies and remedies the central hub, the operating platform that the psychopathic Wetiko culture requires in order to function. It names the one thing upon which every act of harm against any other individual, creature or ecosystem is built on; it identifies that which must be present in order for harm to occur to another.

That foundational element is heteronomy.

Heteronomy is both the belief that, for whatever reason, one individual or group can dominate and control another individual, group, creature or living system and it is the actions that spring from that belief. Without the foundational platform of belief in heteronomy, no harm could be done to another without the awareness that such harm was simultaneously being done to Self, one’s community and entire system of support. To function, heteronomy encompasses the idea of Self as separate from everything else; heteronomy engages and incorporates the concept of groups, classifications and ‘other’ in order to accomplish its goals and intentions.

Heteronomy creates Empire.

 Without heteronomy, it is impossible to create a system by which others are dominated and controlled. Those without the philosophy of heteronomy do not naturally engage in the domination and control of others; they recognise implicitly the co-creative nature of the multiverse and function from that platform. Heteronomy allows the perspective of ‘us and them’ through a sleight of hand, the equating of ‘similar’ with same, the emergence of sameness as a category that defines ‘not us’, classification weaponised to create a means of dominating and controlling anything outside the desires, goals and intentions of the few who control the definitions.

Sui generis is the remedy to heteronomy. Sui generis is the term used to describe something that is unique, beyond categorisation and generic; sui generis points to a reality that most individuals recognise in a limited fashion but have been deliberately discouraged from taking to the logical amplification- that all Beings, creatures and living systems are sui generis, unique, without peer, not subject to category, homogenisation, limitation, definition, discrimination, control or domination by any external agent. Sui generis is its own jurisdiction, its own authority: the controllers have used this in commerce and copyright to set the worth of a unique object, work of art, book, creation, but they have steadfastly maintained their division of sui generis from living Beings because living, sui generis Beings cannot be put under the domination of an external agency. It’s in their own law, which they themselves are dependent on for the constructs of their own commercial agencies, the rules by which they play amongst themselves: these are part of the hidden ‘law’ that courts and other agencies of rule are using when individuals who do not know they are seen as property enter into. Everything is commerce in the world of the pathocracy and commerce needs established rules for setting the worth of something. The foundational principle of sui generis is the bottom line that does this in their system.

Sui generis in action dissolves the heteronomy in this way: a sui generis Being knows what they are and that they are not a thing. They know that their authority begins and ends with their own Being; that which makes them unique are the very same elements that make all other Beings unique, so they have no basis upon which to claim any false superiority over another individual, creature or living system- which includes the planet. They know that an action of heteronomy is an act against the sui generis principle itself, which they rely on to maintain their own autonomy and self regulating authority; only the insane act in ways that are contrary to their own wellbeing and thus actions based in heteronomy are the actions of the insane.

Empire is revealed in totality for what it actually is: an expression of disorder, disturbance, a psychological and emotional pathosis which, if left unchecked, threatens all life around it. Empire is recognised as the enemy of individual and communal evolution; it is finally seen as the predator it truly is and responded to appropriately.

(This article was written while listening to Hammock’s magnificent ‘Raising Your Voice… Trying to Stop An Echo’ and ‘Chasing after Shadows… Living with the Ghosts’ albums. Bliss for my ears. )

This question has been asked of me: “First question: your paradigm sounds to me *very* similar, if not identical, to anarchism. Do you identify it as an anarchist paradigm, and do you personally identify as an anarchist? If not (and even if so), how do you distinguish yourself and your philosophy from anarchism; are there any fundamental differences and/or differences in focus? “

I really enjoyed this question because it gave me the opportunity to publically refract the sui generis in a number of ways I don’t usually go. Here’s my reply.

While it might appear in function that anarchism and Sui Generis are identical, it is at their foundation the differences emerge. Anarchism is a subjectively interpreted philosophy; debatable, contested, argued, disputed and challenged even amongst those that label themselves anarchists. This is the problem with philosophies: they’re debatable.

In the past I’ve intentionally experienced anarchist groups and perspectives, wondering if these contained the essential elements I was looking for; what I found was a group of individuals whose subjective experiences and interpretations frequently caused the group to go into intense upheavals that often resulted in fractures and splits within interpersonal and group dynamics. I observed that it was often the inability to reconcile the subjective philosophy of the individual to the external experience within the group; what I also observed was that it was the philosophical nature of anarchism itself- made fluid, shifting and interpretable by the subjective experience of the individual- that caused the problems. There was a failure on a deep level to establish the paradigm on something that removed the ability of subjectivity being an issue from the equation.

When I was looking for what would underpin a profound shift in consciousness that was scalable from individual to planetary community I intentionally rejected philosophies as a potential remedy because they rely on a specific kind of consensus in order to function even when, as is the case with anarchy, the foundational premise appears to be relatively simple- in anarchy’s case, the idea of ‘no master, no slave’. There are problems within this apparent simplicity on an experiential level, which I’ll explain as I go through my answer, but suffice to say these problems were enough for me to reject anarchy as a solution pretty quickly, along with pretty much every platform on the planet because they rely on some kind of consensus. I’ve had enough experience with individuals to recognise that consensus realities aren’t a good idea: I wanted something that Empire could not use to recreate itself.

Sui Generis isn’t a philosophy, it’s a principle, based on observable data, that backs the intuition and instinct many philosophies and alternative/counter cultures are based on. The principle of Sui Generis is elegantly simple in concept but incredibly powerful in action: sui generis removes the subjective dispute from the platform and places the responsibility for any cognitive dissonance experienced back onto the individual experiencing the dissonance, not the platform itself. It is a principle found in the natural world,  in the function of law and in the intuition and instinct of many-if not most- of the self aware individuals on the planet, although for the purposes and intention of the law makers the full import of the principle was deliberately hidden away in commerce and copyright law, where it could be employed towards things while keeping the full implications for sentient individuals out of the public domain.

Sui Generis simply states clearly that unique creations are their own authority and jurisdiction. How does this become a platform for social transformation?

When this term was first gifted to me through another individual who thought I could do more with it than they could, I’d spent two years buried in the law looking for the remedy I intuitively knew was buried in there. I’d been experimenting with the ‘freeman/sovereign’ movement and had gotten into trust law as a result; in trust law I found a contortion of construement, enslavement and conversions that left me boggled. I found legal definitions that construed ‘human beings’ as cattle, that defined human beings as ‘monsters’, interlinking laws that decreed adults were always, in the eyes of the law, wards of the state. Twice I had a mini breakdown just in sheer horror at the story that was unfolding on a planetary scale all done in the name of law. I had reached a point of overload that left my intuitive ability struggling but still clear that there WAS a remedy within it all because I’d seen with my own eyes that in court there was something that those in the system were obeying, it just wasn’t information that was available to the non-lawyers, the ordinary individuals, that were going through the system.

Then someone I knew sent me just those two words- sui generis- and said “I think this will interest you.” And the entire remedy unfolded out before me, hidden deep within commercial and copyright law: unique creations are THEIR OWN AUTHORITY. In copyright and commercial law, the sui generis of a particular creation is used in part to determine its commercial ‘worth’; it is the degree of sui generis expressed within that particular creation that is used to determine copyright infringement cases, or plagiarism, or the degree upon one creation has inspired another.

Sui Generis is the principle upon which the right of a creator- artist, writer, designer, architect, choreographer or any individual that produces original works- is established: the principle of sui generis, unique, of its own kind, is the foundation upon which intellectual and physical copyright is built. Nobody disputes the rights of an author to exercise copyright over their material unless it can be established that their work is not, in fact, original: that which is not original becomes generic and the worth of that thing is immediately reduced to a copy. This changes the way the law views this thing, regardless of what it is: knockoff Rolex’s will never be worth as much as the original, for instance, no matter how good a copy they are; knockoff Rembrandt’s are the same.

As I was contemplating these operations of law based on a foundation principle of ‘unique’ I had an explosion of awareness go off in my head, based on the myriads of other functions of law I’d researched as being in operation towards human beings: individual human beings were having their sui generis stripped from them by the full knowing of the functions of law: what I mean by this is that the ‘law’ and those enforcing it on a court level were fully aware of what wasn’t being afforded the individual and there were very, very specific reasons for that which revealed themselves in the commercial trading that goes on around human beings and their activities.

In the public domain law, human beings are not sui generis individuals, they are generic, a group, a classification, a designation: in the deep law, they are also construed variously as cattle, as resource, as tradeable item. The issue of individual sui generis is used against an individual or to establish a matter, such as in the use of an individual’s unique DNA, fingerprints or other biological markers to convict them of criminal charges, or to establish paternity, or to protect a particular copyright: the court knows that the individual is unique because it’s fully aware of the principle of sui generis in the physical realm, which is that no two living organisms are the same. They can be similar, but not identical- and this creates all kinds of legal function requirements.

It is from this knowing that patenting of life sprang: the majority of individuals believe that the patenting of life is possible because the principle of sui generis isn’t in public operation, which is exactly the way those in control wish it to remain: the actual issue with DNA and other life based patenting is that no two living organisms are identical and hence the complexities of actually making those patents stick if disputes arise between different corporations.

This is also why the US Govt went for the ‘70% similar’ spread with its patents on Ebola: it was going for the greatest spread against the individual differences between organisms that it could without taking it into the sui generis territory. This 70% spread has really big implications and expression when it comes to the human being domain and explains in part what the obsession with social engineering is about: individuals are not individuals if they behave, think and operate as a hive mind. In law, there are specific formulas and applications that are used to determine if a work is original or not, if it meets the definition of ‘plagiarism’ or not, and these formulas have to do with the degree of originality within the work or item itself. In writing this is often the 10% rule, when it comes to actual content- in works of art or design there are other formulas but the ones regarding living organisms are much more complex. If the US Govt has gone for the 70% spread then we can be assured that it’s a good ballpark figure to consider the courts are willing to accede to.

It is important also to consider that in copyright and commerce it’s not simply the equation of a strict number of words or phrases, or how a thing looks, it’s the non-tangibles that are also taken into consideration; in the case of written works, for example, the themes, tones and intention of the writing is taken into account. This is intellectual copyright, the understanding that ideas, concepts, platforms can themselves be copyright: the products of an individual’s thinking is unique and can have copyright applied to it. This is why nobody disputes Einstein’s work and why his thinking about that work is uniquely his as well: nobody serious would help themselves to his notes and try to pass off his thinking as their own.

Why is this so important? What does this implicate for human beings?

There is no disputing-within either law or actual science- that individual humans are absolutely unique (ScienceForHire^TM isn’t science at all, it’s the Cult of Scientific Propaganda so I never consider that as actual science). Everything about an individual human being is unique, but this doesn’t serve the interests of commerce, which relies on the ability to classify various groups into classes in order to assign value to them, yet commerce in action is silently testifying all the time that it’s totally aware individual human beings are unique: what else do eye scanners, fingerprint scanners and voice recognition systems operate on? Commerce and the function of law around us is continually telling us what actually IS, which is that every single living human being is not a category or part of some other whole, but is a unique, one of a kind, Sui Generis Being, without peer, of their own jurisdiction, their own authority, their own designation.

 Here’s the thing: the statute law (which makes up the body of ‘law’ that operates in corporations, of which every govt in the world is one) has no authority over living, sui generis individuals: the law that applies to these individuals is the principle of sui generis itself, that each Being is authority over their own Self only; any act of domination and control over another constitutes harm and immediately takes an individual out of their own sui generis and brings them under external authority law: the law that applies to things, categories and property. If an individual demonstrates an inability to function as a sui generis Being then they must be treated as immature, a child, a ward, in need of management: what has happened within our culture is those in power have construed and tortiously converted the trusts in such a way that nobody outside their system is seen as an adult because they’re not told about their sui generis, not shown how to be truly mature, responsible Beings. This suits the agendas of those in control on any number of levels but creates a system in which the overbearing hand of the ‘guardian’ is becoming the greatest danger: the psychopaths are in control because control is the opposite of sui generis.

The stifling of the sui generis in living Sentient Beings has an even greater function: the stifling of the evolution of consciousness within the planetary community. This leads into a different discussion of the deep nature of contracts, which I won’t get into here, but the purpose and intention is the same: preventing the evolution of the individual and the planetary community. There’s enough information out in the ether that points to the incompatibility of a community of free thinking, self aware and personally responsible individuals and a culture of domination and control; those in power are addicted to their own perceptions and propagandas in this regard.

(This is why the models of ‘universe at war with itself over scarce resources’ and the ‘dominator/dominated, predator/prey’ models of evolution served the controller’s purpose so well; it’s much much harder to achieve one’s aims of absolute control over a sentient population when that population believes evolution to be inspired by co-operation and symbiotic connection. )

Returning to the question, though, this is why I do not experience sui generis to be identical to anarchy, because sui generis is the anchoring platform anarchy has been looking for: sui generis is the principles, observable, demonstrable and indisputable, upon which the right of an individual to their own autonomy, self determinism and personal authority is founded. We are self determining because we are unique: there is no individual that can determine for us our best course because no other individual IS us; no other individual has our uniquely subjective process, the combination of elements that result in the entirely one of a kind Being that we are. Just as no other individual can dominate, control or classify us, we are not free to dominate, control or classify another living Being regardless of form: sui generis applies to ALL organisms, from microbes to galaxies- we are authorities over our own Being, nothing more: everything else is co-operation, co-creation, respectful dialogue, the awareness of one another’s right to self determination.

This is what anarchy was pointing towards intuitively but couldn’t substantiate. I wanted a platform that individuals couldn’t argue over; I was intuitively aware that there was a principle in operation on the planet that would dissolve Empire’s ability to function and in the principles of sui generis I have found it. No matter how I’ve hacked this platform, no matter how many ways I’ve moved the pieces around and challenged it, it remains intact and impervious to the machinations of individuals who conflate legal argument for actual exploration (legal argument is a function of law, designed not to establish the heart of a matter but to demonstrate linguistic and conceptual skill at the expense of clarity).

I’m looking forward to more explorations.