Not paying, Part One: Remember no taxation without representation? It’s making a comeback
The Brexit theatre that still continues after 29th March – the day when the UK Government should have repealed the European Communities Act 1972, and didn’t – is the Parliament blowing hard as it dies off. There is nothing that it can do now, after it made “ledger-book entry law”† without any security for it (there was no good-as-gold political support), that will make any difference to the future of Britain. The “republic” will see that it deserves something else, and it will make something else – an alternative – for itself. Parliament, and it’s master, the City of London, and all its national enforcement infrastructure, will not have any power to stop what has become irresistible. Parliament made itself irreparably loathed, and therefore inevitably redundant on 29th March.
The people who rule Britain believe in change towards a “utopia” – for them, that is. The same would in fact be a dystopia for the people, amongst which are many who don’t and never will accept what is happening to them as necessary alchemical purification. These people persistently only see that the natural law of crime and justice must be upheld. So, the result of the activity of British Government will not be tyranny, as it expects, but a new constitutional era. And as there is a transition to this place, there will, increasingly, be no necessity to pay heed to the loud death throe noises by which the redundant toy parliament attempts to dictate its course for events. That way would be in the pursuit of an agenda that is for slavery; people who would be free are not interested in it.
And so it begins.
In 2017, a couple of articles appeared at FBEL regarding a socio-economic model based on an electronic-circuit whereby a population acted like an inductor storing energy – or wealth – to guarantee output against capital input fluctuations.
The first article was “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”; Part One: “Inductance” for economic dominance (link), and the following is a flavour from the second article, “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”, Parts 2 & 3; Trump, Twitter & The Matrix, (link), which actually should be read as an introduction to this article. The extract is included here because it sums the model up (with additional emphasis for extra clarity added), and there is no point in duplicating effort:
In the previous article in this series, we saw how the population was as an inductor in an electronic circuit. Population is a guarantee of wealth for those who supply the capital against fluctuations in their holdings. So, this must stop; the current must always carry less charge out of the system regardless of the capital input; i.e. the population retains the wealth. In the electronic-economic scheme, “dissipation” is conversion of capital into goods, and a household is a “dissipative consumer structure” – meaning it buys goods. And so, the consumer buying goods provides conductance, or the ability for the current to flow. Restricting spending, then, should lessen “conductivity”.
What does this mean in real terms? It means not spending money back into, nor even keeping it in the system.
Only scant examination of this model is needed to inform a reader that in order for a population to be free, it should not allow itself to be economically exploited – meaning, that it should not be at the mercy of the corporate-government monopoly ownership of capital. Instead, it should look to preserving wealth in its own economic “component”, and it should deny an output flow of wealth back to the monopolyist input source (so, not hold it in the system in a way that is beneficial to the same). Additionally, the general population should be capital owning so that it can input its own resources back into its partitioned economic component, but that idea is for another time. This article is about denying corporate-government what it thinks is its wealth.
It is hoped that the reader will allow and understand that the subject matter of this article must be presented in a particular way whereby none of it can be said to constitute instruction, or the expression of orders, for the reader to become involved in what we could call “economic guerrilla warfare”. It is an argument to win the reader over to a mode of thinking; a collation of information and a discussion to do the same. The strength of this movement will come from the fact that every individual, or family of individuals, will choose for themselves after contemplation of material. Only the Government relies on cult of personality to impose a full-spectrum-dominance fulfilling Judas-goat leadership on desperately ignorant people. Please also note that what follows includes discussion in which the consequences of civil disobedience are imagined: it needs to be pointed out that if Government is weakened by people choosing to act in self-defence and in reaction to its conduct with Brexit, then there will be facts on the ground irrespective of what is written here. This would not be meant as issue of description of target or aftermath objective to motivate what the Establishment might decide is activity that is in violation of its legislation. Oh no, dear reader. This is food for thought. Every individual is responsible for his own choices and actions – and that includes the author, who has enough on his own plate with regards all that is within the realm of this topic (please see the article, Taxation truly is theft: a “sitrep” – there will be updates soon).
Tax probably does not constitute the most significant of the expenditure of a household, in terms of amount in value, but it is definitely the most symbolic. Of all the ways that there is output and loss of wealth back to the corporate-government monopoly capital ownership, it is the one that is most readily recognised as supporting Government. And indeed it does.
So, someone who was thinking about withholding taxes needs to consider how far into the process he wanted to go. This thinking should also apply to any bill that is issued by what we can categorise as Government – which includes any corporation that has real capacity (as gifted to it by Government) to extract punishment using the criminal legal system – although the use of the civil system does not automatically seperate a company from being grouped by the same category, it just means the punishment is less severe or less likely to be implemented. The utility companies are a department of corporate-government that we will feature in a follow-up part in what will be a series.
In their protest, it would be up to each individual as to how far they would like to take matters. There are varying periods of time, depending on which entity is having monies withheld from it, before sanction, of varying degrees, is provoked. A protester might want to withhold monies for an opening period only – until financial charges, for instance, are imminent. But even this sort of short life-span protest can cause disruption, because it can mean that money is withheld for several months at least. On the other hand, a protester might want to stick it out until court action – which, in the case of taxes, means cluttering the criminal legal system with relatively extraneous cases. If a protester wanted to challenge the system – and the author feels that at some point this is going to have to be done – then he must be committed for the long haul, because getting in the arena, not necessarily to achieve victories, but to unveil the corruption of the Government so that the public is further disenchanted with it, will mean court dates.
Off the bat, by rights, by now there should be no Leave-voter ownership of a TV Licence. It is a tax, but there is actually no threat of punishment for not having a TV Licence if one does not watch broadcasted television – live or on demand. No more need to be said about the subject.
If a considerable number of protestors chose to withhold Council Tax, then any particular local authority would go at least six months without collecting a substantial amount of revenue. In the author’s experience, a tax bill that is unpaid from April will become a case at a magistrate’s court in October. Then, of course, the local authority has to extract payment – and the author has discovered that this process is founded on fraud – which is not necessarily achievable, and at that point the State has powers to send a non-payer to jail. Beware: if a local authority is in possession of data about a non-payer’s place of employment, even though, contrary to the Data Protection Act (DPA), it was submitted for another purpose, it will process that data to issue an Attachment of Earnings order. (Incidentally, the author has started a process of bringing his local authority to account for its blatant abuses of the DPA in his case).
The consequences of not paying Income Tax – and for this to apply one has to pay it on a self-assessment basis with HM Revenue and Customs – is admittedly (for wont of research) an unknown quantity around here, except to say that there is some (not inconsiderable) leeway before heavy fines start to kick in [always successfully appealed against, chez Laurie]. Now, if the system was on the brink of collapse, and thousands of people were not paying their tax, then this might not be such a terrible thing. However, for brave individuals acting amongst a nation of sheep, then this would be too intolerable for anyone to expect them to bear.
On the other hand, there is a quality of self-assessment tax that makes it inherently anti-government, and that is that it is payable once a year. This denies to the Government what otherwise, through the Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) system, would be twelve separate pay-days during the year. Obviously, this offers an environment of regular and, no doubt, timely income that the Government would sorely miss if it wasn’t there. So, what is important about self-assessment in a movement that would protest by denying monies is any potential it has to be more widespread that it currently is. The question that needs to be asked, then, is this: is it possible to make an employer pay gross earnings? In other words, is it possible to have your employer stop using PAYE? The forums that the author has come across that give answers to this question are universally negative – well, this is the sort of bread and butter stuff we can presume Public Relations companies are paid handsomely for. In terms of common law, it would seem an open and shut case: PAYE constitutes a third party interfering in a transaction between two others who are wholly unconnected to it. Here is the stuff for a legal fight, if a protester has the money to spare, although it might just boil down to a case of each individual protester broaching the matter with their employer to see if an accommodation can be reached.
The other thing to talk about regarding PAYE is that horrendous deviation from what is right, normal and proper, which is the butting in of the banks with regards the payment of wages. That a state of affairs has been achieved whereby an employee must have a bank account in order to be paid is an atrocious piece of liberty-taking, and clearly the result of City of London control of Government. Again, the author is not clear on the legislation that makes bank account ownership an automatic necessity for an employer to demand of its workforce – again, the whole principle of no third party being able to interfere in a contract between two others should apply. It might be a case – again – of an employee asking an employer to cut a wage cheque – or a number of them. The importance of this is to have very basic control of your wealth being outputted through financial services. There will be a fuller discussion of the banking aspect of a program for denying wealth coming soon. Indeed, we are going to look at the whys and wherefores of withholding monies in respect of essentials, luxuries, charities, and amenity bills – and whatever else might make itself apparent in the doing so. We’ll also be revisiting the thorny issue of taxes after the required research has been undertaken (or experience has been gained).
† Please see, Delegitimising Parliament: why “we the people” must stop voting (link).
