This blog is our strong-hearted attempt to make a difference on behalf of victims of financial, legal and judiciary exploitation and oppression.
It is the outcome of over twenty years of experience and analysis as documented in this chronology of money-related sites.
This blog concentrates on the EFFECTS of such abuse: greed and corruption among the police, judges, solicitors, the courts and ultimately all public services.
Here, we are dedicating ourselves to helping victims while not losing sight of the real causes as illustrated in the problems of the public debt.
How does one make a difference if one sees through “the system” of organisations and institutions that are fuelled with Dishonest Money? What difference would it make if Honest Money was circulating instead?
How can things change even though everybody writes about the “crisis” and still it’s business as usual?
In July 2010 he also wrote this:
Reflecting on my current involvement and relationships around anti-fraud endeavours, I seem to have three foci of attention and interest;
- regaining judicial and legal compliance with the Rule of Law
- compensating victims of non-compliant procedures
- derailing current attempts at non-compliance
None of this can be achieved without effective collaboration amongst many people. I tread a fine line amongst the people in the anti-fraud network. Who I try to work with and help – and when I try to do this with them – is an unpredictable (at least to me) result of an ever-evolving combination of personal compassion, collective contagion or imminent catastrophe.
A foundational base for me trying to help in any of this though, is concrete evidence that is both presentable and understandable to a lay person off the street such as myself. The availability and presentation of evidence that is immediately irrefutable in the eyes, minds and hearts of the lay person (and voter) is a MUST – a necessary component of our efforts, to my way of thinking.
Not all members of ‘the network’ see eye-to-eye or share open, heart-felt consideration for one another all of the time. The ‘victim’ mindset seems in fact to be a lonely and very often distrustful one. Generally speaking, I have found that people in the network may feel like they share a common cause, but they are quick to discount and distrust each other as well. Disagreement is one thing – and is a healthy component of collaborative endeavours. Actively discounting each others’ perspectives and ideas can weaken constructive dialogue. Generous listening is needed to counter-act active and premature discounting of views. Distrust is a sign of an underlying un-ease or dis-ease within the network. The only affective inoculation for distrust is transparency. Yet transparency cannot include sharing everything with everyone all of the time – especially when personal operational styles can conflict with and even undermine each other.
As I said, I tread a fine line amongst all network members – keeping confidences to myself and sharing systemic insights as and when I perceive that their sharing will increase their value so fast as to warrant more than simply listening generously. Beyond listening, the help I offer is clarifying peoples’ individual and collective perceptions, thoughts and essential messages which they want to express to others in impactful ways. I do this using multiple media. A written example can be found at www.tinyurl.com/ebert-v1r2 An example of another media can be found at: https://edm1297.info/2009/07/20/video-recordings-on-the-oppression-by-the-banking-system/
When I do engage at the very detailed level, I don’t try to directly influence the actors in this arena beyond a first-level interaction on any one issue. This is because each person has – and must first and foremost act on – their own inner sense of value and balance. Doing anything else in my opinion is most likely to perpetuate a victim (“help me!”) mind set, rather than nurture a personal “I can and I will” take-charge response-able mind set. There is of course also an over-arching intention to help the individuals work together more effectively. And it is this is what keeps me ‘up’ at night.
In my night time reflections, I find that when people who have developed a strong momentum of distrust regarding formal commercial agreements, actually decide that they want to agree something with each other on paper, they soon regret it. The suspicions of – and guesses at – hidden personal, financial and social motivations behind another person’s actions just aren’t worth the return (at least for me). Viva la difference, I think – and stop short of formalising commercial relationships with each other. Ny all means award and reward each other in material ways – but leave the desired big wins to be shared out with big hearts fi and when the appropriate time comes.
I do still hope to find ways to monetise my efforts in our shared domain of interest as well though. I want to do this so that I can sustain my continued and increasing involvement in these matters. I hope to achieve this through clear, concise, auditable actions – rather than basing my ‘commercial time’ investment on outcomes that are somewhat dependent on “forces” outside my sphere of direct impact / control. I don’t know if I will ever enjoy this satisfaction, but I hope that it will ‘come about’ in some way at the right time.
I don’t really have a conclusion about what I am doing in this arena. I am following my instinctive responses as outlined above. The ‘above’ are simply reflections that I have had since 1st July 2010. Please feel free to share them with others, if and when you see any value in doing so. I have written them in response to half a dozen people recently expressing to me their curiosity / suspicions with regards to what others are ‘doing’ / not doing. So I am asking myself to answer the same question. This has been my attempt to do so.