Follow by Email

Thursday, 4 October 2018

If Brexit be the food of distraction


With apologies to William Shakespeare – Twelfth Night

I hope I didn’t offend you by misquoting the Bard. On second thoughts – no, I don’t. What IS the matter with folks these days if an idea put into words and print is seen to be something so-o-o upsetting? Get a life.

Nevertheless, some will be unhappy that a spotlight can be directed at the way the business of the nation is enacted and thereby show everyone what theatre that business truly is. And believe me, if you had any doubts, BREXIT is theatre.

Or, put another way: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
- John F. Kennedy | 35th president of the United States | 1917 – 1963
To prove my point just watch and listen to the new Attorney General, the Right Hon. Geoffrey Cox QC MP, working the crowd (aka the party faithful) at the close of the Conservative party conference this week. What a pro!
Before I get rolling let me ask DID YOU KNOW that Parliament begins a working day with prayers? Not a lot of people know that. Not many care, either. According to the Speaker’s chaplain usually reads the prayers, thus because the words are written and referred to as ‘prayers’, they become prayers. Reminiscent, I think, of the circular argument: “Why are they called prayers?” Answer, “Because I say so.” And it has to be said, they can make some people feel good. The form of the main prayer is:
"Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed.

I read that members of the public are not allowed into the public galleries during prayers and attendance by MPs is voluntary. Now I’m reflecting on some of the utterances made by MPs after prayers have concluded. All I can say is that this prayer makes me think. Doesn’t it make you think too? How much of the activity by our Members of Parliament is little more than ritual?
_ _ _ _ _

I’m thinking now about an imaginary journey. I want to travel from point “A” to point “B” and I have a map. But, somehow, without me realising it, I have deviated just ever-so slightly from the map and instead of arriving at point “B” at the appointed time, I find myself at point “C”, which was never part of my plan. It happens.

But how did it happen? Could it be that I was given duff information about the route when I was making my life plans? Could it be that I hadn’t noticed that someone had taken me to one side for a short while en route (a teacher, perhaps or a media voice) and had put me on a different path before allowing me on my way again? I can’t be sure about that but it looked like the same route and it took me the same amount of travel time. But when I got there it wasn’t point “B” after all. How very odd.

Wide awake readers will have noted already that the last two paragraphs are allegorical. The journey I’m describing is called ‘Life’. It begins at point “A” (the cradle) and ends wherever it ends (the grave) which might or might not be point “B”. Between “A” and “B” my journey is influenced by my parents, my friends, my education, my choices of what I believe matters, my church, my surroundings, my family, my work, and by what I read, what I see and what I do. What a good thing it is that I decided on the way not to let anybody push ME around. I can confidently say that I Did It My Way but, somehow, I still ended up at point “C” or “D” instead of “B”.  Somewhere along the way I deviated. I could-a, should-a, been great – the talk of the town – but all those other folks stopped me. It isn’t MY fault. It never is.
It sounds hollow, doesn’t it? Can you hear the echo?
So, if a Member of Parliament conducts himself, supposedly as your constituency representative, in a manner that depends on his adherence to ritual (and the heavy persuasion of his Party whips), how valuable is he/she to you?  I suggest: not a lot.
That has to be worth thinking about.
_ _ _ _ _

“Ban, tax, regulate and intervene some more: Britain’s new modus operandi is grim indeed. The stream of silliness never ends; petty, meddling officialdom, empowered by the most controlling, puritanical government in living memory.
Only fashionable freedoms, such as the ability to get divorced at will, are promoted; unfashionable ones, such as the right to eat whatever we wish or to keep more of our hard-earned cash, are trampled upon in extraordinary fashion. There is ever-more red tape, and the tax-to-GDP ratio has reached its highest level in decades. This is neither real conservatism nor real liberalism: it is mushy, unprincipled, ...” and then the article I was reading faded and I didn’t discover what else was wrong with our government, but ‘mushy and unprincipled’ will do for now.
So wrote Allister Heath in the Daily Telegraph after the Con Party conference this year. Whoda thunk it?

What else was offered to the gathered faithful? Austerity is over! Wow! Was that another abracadabra moment? Just like that. And not a fez in sight. I think I can smell an election coming on. And despite all the wall-to-wall TV camera footage at the conference I still couldn’t spot my constituency MP there. You can never find a minister when you want one, can you?
So, now what should we do? Should we continue to do as we’ve always done? And expect to obtain a different result? Nah, that would be silly. Perhaps it is time to do something different and stop heading for point “B” along with the rest of the crowd. Perhaps now we should head for Point “C” or even point “D”. Perhaps we should be ‘responsible’, ‘independent’, and not follow the crowd. Sheep do that. Or, as Jim Rohn often said: “You can change things. You aren’t a tree.”
How to do that? I suggest we should Find and provide support to a local Independent parliamentary candidate; or BECOME an Independent parliamentary candidate and find local supporters who will beat your drum with you. 


Saturday, 22 September 2018


It’s simply amazing the things we can think about once the things we think we must think about (job, home, family, etc) are put to one side. For most of us, it takes time together with a growing awareness that we just don’t know what we don’t know.

If that sounds like a riddle, please forgive me. I’ve reached the age and stage when I no longer need to work to earn money for food, clothing and shelter; I no longer pay for a voyeur-vision licence to view BBC programmes and anyway, I’ve learned how to mute the adverts that otherwise pay for the remaining ‘entertainment’ channels; I can ride on a local bus without the need to buy a ticket; I can drive my car unembarrassed that my Road Fund Tax (?) costs just £10 a year (it’s a hybrid); After contributing through all my working life I no longer pay National Insurance; and all over town other people will quote me discounted prices for their products, simply because of my age. They are called ‘concessions’.

Pharmacy’s will provide me with free medication prescribed by a GP (normally £8.80 per item – and the NHS is supposedly free at the point of need remember), partly because of my age and partly because I am a registered diabetic. (There’s always a down side, isn’t there?). Nevertheless, I recommend old age to you.

Is it any wonder that when an uninterested and disinterested (they DO mean different things) shop assistant asks me ‘how are you today?’ I can and do respond with ‘SUPER-FANTASTIC’ and mean it? The problem is these excellent conditions don’t always last for long, if you get my drift!

The common factor connecting all these statements is MONEY!

The ‘love of which is one of the roots of all evil’, some say. Not money itself, but the LOVE of it.

At this stage I must express my gratitude for the eye-opening statement I learned some years ago from the late Jim Rohn:
“I used to say, ‘Things cost too much.’ Then my teacher straightened me out on that by saying, ‘The problem isn't that things cost too much. The problem is that you can't afford it.’ That's when I finally understood that the problem wasn't ‘it’ - the problem was ‘me.” 
― Jim Rohn

This is the continual complaint from ‘government’. YOU can’t have more money for (think of a name = roads, police, hospitals, schools, defence) unless WE (the government) have more money from you. That’s a circular argument if ever I heard one. The alternative, they say, is to borrow fiat ‘money’ at interest from the people, sometimes described as ‘banksters’, who own corporations that create ‘money’ in response to demand,. They don’t actually call it ‘borrowing fiat money at interest’, please note. But what a wonderful way to become rich! And isn’t it amazing to realize how ineffective ‘government’ is without money, your money or anyone else’s?

You must have heard the handed-down wisdom that asserts: “He who pays the piper calls the tune?” It’s as true today as ever it was but – and this is important to know – YOU AND I DO NOT PAY THE PIPER! Our money is taken from us with threats against our well-being if we do not surrender it. It is known as tax. Forcing us to release money to the piper is not paying the piper. It is legalized theft.

But when we (or our government) go to the people who create money and we ask for loans which will be repaid with interest – THEN the piper is being paid and we become contracted to dance to the piper’s tunes, not as a payer but as a debtor. The corporate banks, including the Bank of England, led by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, Switzerland, hold us and our government tightly in debt. It’s no wonder the Governor of the Bank of England, based within the Corporation of the City of London, isn’t likely to return to Canada, possibly jobless, any time soon. Who would?


Answer: WE DID. We gave up when, ignorantly, we the people allowed the banks to get away with their fraudulent money creation and allowed politicians (and the Cabinet Office) to mislead us and cheat us out of democracy and (almost) cheat us out of Common Law Trial by Jury. It wasn’t always so.

Not so long ago money represented gold or silver equivalent value, which is why a British banknote makes the promise: ‘I promise to pay the bearer the sum of . . . Pounds’. NOT signed by the Governor, of course, but by the Chief Cashier ‘for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England’.  As with so many institutions these days an agency represents and stands between the public and those who bear responsibility. But I digress.

According to HM Treasury in response to an enquiry: “The Bradbury pound was introduced in 1914 at the outbreak of the First World War. The Government at the time needed to preserve its stock of bullion so asked the Bank of England to cease paying out gold for its notes. Instead the Treasury printed and issued 10 shilling and £1 notes (so called Bradbury pounds). The gold standard was then partially restored in 1925 and the Bank of England was again obliged to exchange its notes for gold, but only in multiples of 400 ounces or more. Britain left the gold standard in 1931 and the note issue became entirely fiduciary, that is wholly backed by securities instead of gold.”  (I believe this last sentence is open to examination).

Fiduciary = adjective = commanding belief, commanding confidence, confidential, deserving belief, fiducial, founded in confidence, reliable, sound, trusted, confidenceworthy of credence.
Associated concepts: fiduciary bequest, fiduciary bond, fiduciary capacity, fiduciary relation. Or, put another way, it is money if you think it is. Otherwise it is just ‘credit’.

The Bradbury notes were a form of national credit backed by the wealth of the nation. Plymouth-based British Constitution Group (BCG) has called upon the Treasury immediately to restart issuing such interest-free money, based upon the wealth, integrity and potential of our country. Such an initiative would completely remove the hold the banks have over the nation, and would kick-start a productive economy. Now who in their right mind would want that?

Here is a great idea to take on for yourself. Why not write to your Member of Parliament and ask if he/she would be willing to represent your constituency as an Independent rather than as a party lackey and vote for the return of the Bradbury? Say also that it would be for one-year duration, renewable annually if he/she conducts himself acceptably. If he/she objects, ask what he/she is doing on behalf of those in your constituency obliged to work on zero hours contracts whether or not they want to. (I know. I know. They suit some people).

I close with an observation from the much respected Judge Andrew Napolitano, the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He wrote:

“Ultimately, we are responsible for the folks we have elected and the things they have done, whether secretive, hypocritical or in our faces. Ultimately, we have the government we deserve. Will we change this before it is too late?” (Judge Andrew Napolitano).

WE gave THEM dominion over us.
Big Mistake.

With awareness, comes responsibility

Cause no harm  
Be honest
Be peaceful

Be responsible

Printed and published by Michael,
Friend of the New Chartist Movement

Saturday, 1 September 2018

A picture is worth 1,000 words, so I am told

SEPTEMBER – These pictures depict the essence of what ails us, in my view. I recall a church minister told his congregation long ago: “Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die.” Today we know even that statement isn’t true! Some people ARE prepared to die for their beliefs and always some have done so. Yet the man said it with sincere conviction. 

Nearly ALL statements that cover ‘everybody’ or ‘nobody’ will fall apart when scrutinized, especially – but not exclusively - statements by politicians. Even mine! (It was a pretty good sermon, by the way.)

Of course, the statement ‘nobody wants to change’ isn’t true all the time, everywhere. But when the few among us determine that we want to ‘be the change’ as in:

Positive Quotes & Sayings Images : Page 31

We tend to become nervously self-protective, don’t we? What WILL people think?

“He’s become eccentric” they’ll say, and other ‘yeah, but’ comments.

You can expect the mob (majority) to mock you for your silliness in trying to be the change you wish to see in the world. What can YOU do, they’ll say? You can’t buck the system.

The message from those unbelievers is: “It doesn’t matter whether or not you think you are right but you mustn’t be or mustn’t think differently to the majority.” Who says so? Those who would rule over you, that’s who.

That’s quite a statement! What if it’s TRUE?

Could it possibly be that so many of us are walking around in a zombie-like state because we’re concerned what other people might think about us, or say to us, or do to us ABOUT THINGS THAT DO NOT MATTER? Even if you claim to KNOW YOUR RIGHTS?  (You have the right to remain silent but that isn’t likely to bring about the change you say you want.)

And then, when fear of what others might think or say turns into apathy – What then? We become silent about things that had begun to matter to us. And we accept the lies fed to us from all directions. It seems easier that way and that’s not good.

I’m looking for people who agree, more or less, with the above observations. If I’ve touched a nerve, please contact me and identify yourself in the first instance. Who knows? We might just agree to essential changes in ourselves and then we might work to change the world. And that’s worth thinking about. (By the way, that’s only 425 words!)

Feel free to use the comments facility or, if you prefer, email me privately at  friend of:

* * * * *

Share the information with others.

Wednesday, 8 August 2018

All the Muse that's fit to print

AUGUST 2018.
“There is an historic opportunity not to be missed following Brexit. To achieve it, ‘We the People’ have to acquire our own elected Independent Representatives. Why? Because, the established leaders of both the Brexit and Remain campaigns and all the political parties refuse to debate the main economic issue of our time. And what is this “main economic issue”? It is that the usurious, fraudulent debt-based currency system which impoverishes and enfetters all of us is intended to hold sway in Britain whether or not we extricate ourselves from the EU and whoever wins the next general election … We must not allow Theresa, Boris, Nigel and MPs to continue to dodge the issue.”

Kenn d’Oudney - Extract from DEMOCRACY DEFINED: The Manifesto 
ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6.
_ _ _ _

Did you understand that? I implore you: P-l-e-a-s-e, read it again. Slowly. Then think about it for a while.

1.  The author urges us to elect our own Independent Representatives to Parliament. Why? 

2.  Because history/experience shows that there is little to choose between any of the established political parties and party leaders who refuse – all of them – to take a serious look at the main economic issue. By that I mean the fraudulent, interest-bearing, debt-based monetary system that holds all of us in its grip and throttles our hearts, minds, and souls so that others/they may profit.

A wise man once wrote to his young friend that ‘the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.’ What if that’s true?  I have to say that, for too many of us, it seems to be true. Clearly, there is no limit to what some people will do to obtain money and personal, family, corporate and national advantage. You know it is true. All of us know it to be true.

But why is it true?

A different, earlier writer put it this way: “The heart is deceitful above all things and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?”

I don’t think he is referring to ‘the heart’ – the organ that’s beating in your chest and mine. But it might be the reason why someone, somewhere linked heart and mind to mean one and the same thing. Whichever, it seems to me to be a bit scary to learn that I can’t really trust anyone to always do the right thing even if that someone is one of the ‘nice’ people of this world. The basic human design seems to be faulty.

So, back to the money, and Parliament and who should represent me/you there. Did you know that as far back as 1836 there were stirrings among the people of this land which led to the formation of the original Chartist Movement?

(The Prime Minister at the time was William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne. In those days his political party was known as Whigs, defined as the English political party or group that opposed the succession to the throne of James, Duke of York in 1679 on the grounds that he was a Catholic. 

Standing for a limited monarchy, the Whigs represented the great aristocracy and the money middle class for the next 80 years. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries the Whigs represented the desires of industrialists and Dissenters for political and social reform and provided the core of the Liberal Party. Then the Chartist Movement came on the scene seeking changes. They wanted to make government more transparent and accountable to the people. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

They sought six essential changes:
1. A vote for all men over 21
2. The secret ballot
3. No property qualification to become an MP
4. Payment for MPs
5. Electoral districts of equal numerical size
6. Annual elections for Parliament

How times have changed.
(1) Today women’s suffrage prevails and some so-called ‘progressives’ would lower the voting age from 18 to 16. I wonder why?
(2) The Chartists sought secret ballots. I’m sure they couldn’t begin to imagine postal ballots! Or voting via proxy.
(3) In 2016 the Guardian newspaper reported that the number of MPs supplementing their incomes by acting as landlords had risen by a quarter since the last parliament, with David Cameron and George Osborne among those earning extra money by renting out properties. According to Guardian research, almost a third of MPs are now letting out their houses or flats, with 196 declaring rental income on the official register of interests this year. The majority of those are earning more than £10,000 a year from the property.
(4) Payment for MPs. Ah, yes. A good and needed development, or not, depending on your point of view. An MP’s basic annual salary is £76,000 p.a.. PLUS upwards of £41,000 if the MP becomes a common or garden Minister of State; PLUS expenses. I know of at least one MP who is also a Minister of State, who is married to another MP who is also a Minister of State. That’s 2 x £76,000, plus 2 x £41,000, plus 2 x expenses per annum. Plus probable house rental income. Indeedy – times have changed. Smell the gravy.
(5) Equal size electoral districts. As population and demographics change, they’re still working on this one. It keeps the bean counters employed.
(6) Annual elections for Parliament. Today we have fixed term parliaments of five years.
Although I have the right to vote I am not yet compelled to vote. But if I fail to register to vote once the Registration Officer has ‘invited’ me to register I could be fined up to £1,000. It’s known as ‘an offer you cannot refuse’. Do you get the feeling that NONE of this is about your benefit or mine? Parliament is a Closed User Group organised and controlled by political parties. You and I don’t belong there unless we insist upon it.
Which brings me to the thought that I’d like YOU to think about before we meet again. Namely,

They (the politicians, the legislators, the bankers,
the Civil and not-so-civil Servants) can do no more than that which we let them do.


Because the People are sovereign.
 Parliament, Parliamentarians, and Civil Servants,
are our hired help but too many of them
have become far too uppity


This is a Common Law country
and we MUST guard that blessing jealously.
* * * *

(Tell them about the money, Mummy)


Thursday, 7 June 2018

Realise with real eyes the real lies

I’ve been away for a few weeks and the country doesn’t appear to be any better for my absence. More than that the world beyond our shores is an even more frightening place than before I left. WHY?

All of us can provide our own theories and beliefs in answer to that question, can’t we? Each of us considers ourselves to be correct in our views . . . and life will go on with no-one stopping to think they might be wrong. Or, worse, few will even stop to think! And we charge on towards what seems to be a looming precipice.

To misquote Shakespeare: “There is something wrong in the state of Denmark” – meaning these British Isles. We are doing it wrong and we are hurting ourselves and each other while we do so. I believe it doesn’t have to be that way. Read on with me, please.

Recently I read Part 16 of a treatise by an Australian man, written in July 1995 - 23 years ago. He proved to me yet again that there is nothing new under the sun. He wrote (in part):

“Some media personalities like to write off historic theories as conspiracies, but politics and conspiracies are different words with the same meaning - one cannot exist without the other. Pre-selection of candidates is conspiracy, gathering election funds is conspiracy, conspiring to represent a political party instead of the electorate is a conspiracy, plotting the downfall of someone in your own party or the opposition is a conspiracy, making promises that they know they will never keep is a conspiracy and giving allegiance to internal and external brokers of power and money is another conspiracy. And the public is told that conspiracy does not exist – that is another conspiracy.” – (Ron Owen)

It is a popular and overused cliché to say “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to achieve a different result.” But that is exactly what so many of us do, especially when it comes to elections. We vote for (or against) a political Party as much (or more) as we vote for the man or woman who represents the party – Leader or local candidate. ADMIT IT. You know it and I know it. So, WHY do we do it? Are we insane? Or are we just care-less? Or are we simply unaware that things could and should be legitimately different?

When your sight is deficient you don't know what you cannot see; when your hearing is deficient you don't know what you cannot hear. And when you think you’ve got it all sorted out - you just don't know what you don't know. Think about it. 


If you will believe anything in this ‘muse’ please believe that the word ‘democracy’ as bandied about in political circles and mainstream media, is NOT merely having the right to vote. If you believe that democracy and suffrage are one and the same YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED AND MISLED by deceivers and misleaders.

Here is my case in numbered order:-
1. We have been tricked over the word Democracy. (By whom? Think about it).
2. Some believe democracy is all about voting in elections. That is not Democracy but Suffrage.
3. Others have noticed the official version of Democracy is not sufficient to limit the state and uphold freedoms of the individual and so clamour for something other than Democracy.
4. A Republic is not the opposite of a Democracy - they cannot even be compared as they are talking about different aspects of a state's construction.
5. A Republic can be compared with a Monarchy - these describe the style of the Head-of-State (President or King/Queen).
6. Both a Republic and a Monarchy can be Democracies if the head-of-state is limited in its powers and has taken promises to the people and a full un-abridged Trial by Jury system is in place.
7. Both a Republic and a Monarchy can be tyrannies (and obviously not democratic if these features are missing).
8. Ordinary people must require a restoration of these Democratic features in their country if they are to regain their true freedoms and place government and the state back under its proper limitations.
9. Ordinary people (that means YOU and ME) could do this by insisting that a full system of Trial by Jury is re-established that especially includes the powers of Annulment by Jury: the defining characteristic of a Democracy.

These Democratic features are those given to us in our Constitution as defined by Magna Carta 1215, sometimes referred to as Common Law Trial by Jury. In USA it begins with WE, the People.

Please obtain a copy of Kenn D'Oudney's book 'Democracy Defined: The Manifesto'. You can get it on Amazon. I can honestly say, that in all the years I have been reading into this subject, it is through this book more than any other that misunderstandings have been clarified and gaps in my knowledge filled. – (W.Keyte)
 I shall publish other musings in the days ahead. I hope you will choose to read them and ‘think about it’ rather than turn from the ideas which could bring about the changes so many of us have been looking for.

I represent no political party. I am Independent and my name is Michael.
_ _ _ _ _

Realise with real eyes the real lies

Sunday, 27 May 2018

A Traveller's Journal - Part Two

9 May 2018 – We went to the coastal town of Caloundra a couple of days ago to register again for Medicare cover, Australia’s answer to the British National Health Service. Medicare shares office space with Centrelink, the state organisation offering help with job finding, determining the value and entitlement of benefits, and paying benefits and pensions.

“Visitors”, referred to as ‘customers’ on the noticeboards, must queue at a check-in point to be identified and assigned to an assessor/consultant, all under the watchful eye of a shaven headed, jeans-clad and booted security man who is built roughly in line with the size of a barn door. At a guess, I would say he is probably employed by a private company rather than by the state of Queensland, but I could be wrong. It has been known.

The waiting area is under constant camera monitoring and as we sat, we could see ourselves on the voyeur-vision screen above our heads. The whole thing made me think in terms of an open prison.
_ _ _ _ _

28 May 2018 – Forgive me for getting my sequence out of step. (Part three was published before this, Part Two) So much to think, see, read and write about; so little time. I had intended to pursue my thoughts about our human likeness to ants and then write about Natural Law; but not now; maybe later.

The other day I heard wild squawking from a bird in real pain or fear, coming from the other side of the back verandah. Investigation identified the lodger’s dog leaping on a chicken as if it was a toy. We separated them toot-sweet, of course, (dog by the scruff of the neck) and refrained from the real desire to place my shoe toe-cap up his bum at great speed for doing such a thing.

And then I stopped. The dog was just doing what (some) dogs do. While I thought about that, it brought to mind something I’d heard the late Jim Rohn say during his presentation about ’Qualities of Skilful Leadership’ and  ‘Mysteries of the Mind.’  It was so vivid that I thought it might be helpful to reproduce it here:

“An interesting story says that the day the Christian church was formed, a magnificent sermon was preached. It was a great presentation. In fact, it was one of the classic presentations of all time.

According to the story, this presentation was given to a multitude of people. When the sermon was finished, there were a variety of reactions from those onlookers. I (Jim Rohn) find that fascinating since they were all listening to the same sermon.
Some who heard this presentation were perplexed. I read the presentation, and it sounded pretty straightforward to me. Why would somebody be perplexed with a good, sincere, straightforward presentation? The best answer I’ve got is that they are chronically perplexed people. It doesn’t matter who’s preaching, these people are going to be perplexed.

Some who heard this presentation mocked and laughed. They made fun of the presentation. The presentation seemed pretty sincere to me. If you give a sincere, honest presentation, why would somebody mock and laugh? There’s an easy explanation: they are the mockers and the laughers. What else would you expect them to do?

Some that heard this magnificent presentation didn’t know what was going on. Those are the people who usually don’t know what’s going on.

Finally, some who heard the presentation chose to believe, and I think that’s who the speaker was looking for, the believers. Those believers numbered about three thousand. That is a pretty good first day! I’ve had some good first days, but I’ve never had a response like that.

With anything in life, some will believe, some will mock, some will laugh, some will be perplexed, and some won’t know what’s going on. And you just have to leave it at that. In this particular story, as far as we know, there weren’t classes after the presentation to try to de-perplex the perplexed. As far as we know, they left them perplexed. They left the mockers mocking. They left the laughers laughing. All they needed to build a church were the believers, and they knew that with each presentation, more believers would emerge from the masses.

That’s the perspective we all need to cultivate. We can’t win everyone’s dedication and belief at once. The Law of Averages tells us that. What we can do is work on ourselves, refine our philosophy, and trust that the believers will be there. We just need to find them.
_ _ _ _ _

While we have been in Queensland these past few weeks we’ve met interesting people. We met Alan, Leonard, Kim and Karen; and then we met Ron. All are ardent supporters of Natural Law; the Rule of Law and (I believe) Common Law Trial by Jury; and the Supremacy of Magna Carta 1215 over all statute law.  All of them are ‘Australian’, which is different entirely from being a pink coloured Brit who happens to live in the sun a long, long, way from the white cliffs of Dover. Their ardour stretches back over decades, as does their sense of being ‘Australian’.  They were refreshing to be with.

Amongst other things, Ron is prolific with his essays (‘blogs’ in modern parlance) and I shall research some of his works after I’ve returned home. Alan is just as prolific and I’m leaving here with a sheaf of his work.

_ _ _ _ _

 A reader with eyes to see and ears to hear will have picked up already on the connection between  Jim Rohn's observations and the chicken and dog story. Dogs do what they do and people do what they do, because of who and what they are. By extension then, politicians do what they do, and lawyers do what they do,  we all do what we do because of what we are, limited only by our own understanding.  

Centuries ago a wise man wrote: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

If that's true, it seems to me to explain a great  many things. It's a bit chicken-and-egg stuff. Which comes first? Do liars become politicians because they are liars, or do politicians become liars because they are politicians? And does it matter it the heart is deceitful above all things?

When your sight is deficient you don't know what you cannot see; when your hearing is deficient you don't know what you cannot hear. And when you think you know everything - you just don't know what you don't know. Think about it.

There is another reason why we do what we do and that is because 'someone told me'. Yet every single one of us knows not to believe everything we hear or read. But how many of us think about it?  

Jim Rohn had a recommendation for that tendency, too. He recommended: "Be a student, not a follower." Surely, all of us know that the most powerful word in the vocabularly of a student is: WHY?  Followed by: "Who says so?" and "Who benefits most?"

More when you're older.