Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[arayder]

Getting back to the subject of forum. . . I have often wondered why freemen/sovcits/and tenderizers and the like aren't more actively prepared for the predicted fall of governments (which they say are mere illusions) and societies (which they say are rotten and coercive).

For a very simple reason. They are all VERY good about talking and ranting and pounding keyboards, but when it comes down to actually doing anything, other than getting arrested for minor a=offenses and escalating it in a felony. They are NOT good or functional at actually doing ANYTHING that requires planning, thought, and more specifically WORK.

In my part of North America the disaster one needs to be ready for is the tornado. The survival check off is simple: Safe shelter in the house. Documents secured. Supplies to "shelter in place". Insurance to rebuild and replace. Money saved for a few nights at a hotel or the trip to relatives in case that's needed.

Tornados really happen here and every year they kill people who weren't ready. . .and a few that were. It would be interesting to find out if freemen/sovcits/tenderizers have their lives ready for whatever is likely in their neck of the woods.

I submit that anyone who can plan for disasters would likely also realize it's best to test the legality of laws in a manner that doesn't ruin your life.

[notorial dissent]

I submit that anyone who can plan for disasters would likely also realize it's best to test the legality of laws in a manner that doesn't ruin your life.

All of which implies, at the very least, a modicum of common sense, something the crowd in question is totally lacking in.

[arayder]

I submit that anyone who can plan for disasters would likely also realize it's best to test the legality of laws in a manner that doesn't ruin your life.

All of which implies, at the very least, a modicum of common sense, something the crowd in question is totally lacking in.

If freemanary had its way and the western world became stateless I submit that most of the freeman keyboard warriors would remain on life's bottom rung. Freemen gurus and followers have nothing to give except their "you-ain't-the-boss-of-me" whine. . . .a unless rant in a anarcho-libertarian meritocracy.

[coffeekitten]

They're not even anarchists: they're rather little aspiring dictators with huge egos. Put all those freemen gurus together in a locked room and there will be a carnage.

[notorial dissent]

They're not even anarchists: they're rather little aspiring dictators with huge egos. Put all those freemen gurus together in a locked room and there will be a carnage.

Too true, and dead on point, particularly considering how many of them have serious unresolved anger and anger management issues, not to mention the general plethora of issues some of them seem to have, on top of being just generally nasty individuals to begin with. Their "you're not the boss of me" attitude also precludes them from actually working with or co-operating with any of their fellow down and outs, so yeah, the likelihood, well fantasy really, of them ever actually doing anything constructive or accomplishing anything, except the ubiquitous jail sentences, is just that, a fantasy.

[arayder]

. . .Their "you're not the boss of me" attitude also precludes them from actually working with or co-operating with any of their fellow down and outs, so yeah, the likelihood, well fantasy really, of them ever actually doing anything constructive or accomplishing anything, except the ubiquitous jail sentences, is just that, a fantasy.

In a recent YouTube Dean Clifford laments that the gurus are so critical of one another. This whine reflects the the reality that everybody who pretends to be part of the freeman brain trust is throwing Dean under the bus. Dean seems to forget the rather unkind things he had to say about the gurus who advised a less aggressive, non-cop punching approach to the freeman way.

The unpleasant disagreements between Duncan, Menard, Belanger and others are well known and pretty silly since the only real difference between the theories is the way they go around the barn to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that individuals can nullify government authority by just saying so.

[notorial dissent]

In all fairness, I think it is pretty safe to say that the under the bus throwing is probably an equal opportunity thing, they are all doing it to each other as well. Simply put, they do not conceive of anyone leading the "movement" except them owns widdle selbes, so they aren't going to give an inch to one of their competitors. Just don't see it happening. Truth be told, NONE of them have any leadership capabilities or characteristics to begin with, now despot tyrant qualities that's a whole other matter. It pretty much comes down to they don't share and play well with others.

[coffeekitten]

Pete Daoust posted this on his Facebook page and I had good laughs listening to this conversation with a Revenu Québec agent: Revenu Québec 08-24-2014 Example: Agent: Are you Mr. Pierre Daoust? P.D.: I am the only authorized administrator for Pierre Daoust. Agent: Where is Pierre Daoust? Another example: Agent: Who sent you the person of Pierre Daoust? P.D.:The government sent it. Agent: Are you right in your head? And finally, the agent said that she would call back when she could talk to Pierre Daoust. That's very, very ridiculous. Oh, and according to Pierre Daoust, an individual is an organized unit.



Just for fun, I've searched for the definition, in case I missed something, and didn't find this definition. But I've found the definition from l'Académie française, to which he refers http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/academie8/individu: "Chaque être organisé, soit animal, soit végétal, par rapport à l'espèce à laquelle il appartient. Le genre, l'espèce et l'individu. Il se dit particulièrement des Personnes, en termes de Législation, d'Administration et de Statistique." In English, every organized being, whether animal or vegetable, in relation to the species to which it belongs. So, Pierre Daoust changed being for unit. It changes the meaning a lot, in my opinion. Anyway, I don't see why belonging to humanity would be equivalent to being a slave. Well, this said, when Pete Daoust tries getting profound, he's just getting more and more stupid.

[notorial dissent]

Petey is just another sovrunidjit with a remaindered dictionary.

[coffeekitten]

Peter Moore has posted an interview with Pete Daoust on youTube: Marre de payer des impôts sur vos revenus? As an introduction, he pretends that income taxes were supposed to be a temporary measure during the First World War (the webpage screenshot is presented as an archive). Well, he's not entirely wrong, but he skips all the whole context of Canada history and the reasons behind the lack of income tax before 1917 (taken from Wikipedia page Income taxes in Canada):

Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada avoided charging an income tax prior to the First World War. The lack of income tax was seen as a key component in Canada's efforts to attract immigrants as Canada offered a lower tax regime compared to almost every other country. Prior to the war, Canadian federal governments relied on tariffs and customs income under the auspices of the National Policy for most of their revenue,

Of course, we may debate about the pertinence of income taxes, because we're free to tell our opinion, but we're not free to look for ways to avoid to pay taxes. I admit I haven't listened to the whole interview, because I'm sincerely bored of hearing always the same bullshit from Pete Daoust. It's still about the surety of the person, the birth certificate and so on.

[arayder]

The history of detax, sovcit, freeman and tender for law gurus is a sad narrative of repeated failure.

These insane theories fail because they ignore the certainty of law. Law which the guru class in its ignorance has replaced with mumbo jumbo any middle school student can see through.

The gurus themselves are life examples of this pathetic failure. Any wannabe freeman/sovcit/tenderizer need only look at the dependent and unfree status of the various gurus to see what's in store for them should buy into the BS.

The average guru can't participate in the society the rest of us thrive in. Whether it's commerce, the courts, travel or even the simple management of their own health the gurus are examples of how not to live.

[Burnaby49]

And burnaby49 seemed well and not very psychopathic. The more you know eh?

Peace
Ninj

The psychopath is more probably Scott Duncan, who dreams about leading a bloody war on members of the Law Society.

There's a name for that, it's called Transference, projecting your traits off on someone else.
CK, I think you are right on this, Scotty strikes me as an extremely disturbed individual, I think Petey on the other hand is just more the weak minded gullible follower who never looks, or thinks, too hard at anything presented to him as long as it is what he wants to believe.

Ok people, fun is fun but this is going too far. I went off on my annual five week bender to find on my return that libelous comments are being bandied about on this discussion that I'm not an evil sick psychopath who dedicated his working life to tormenting Canadian taxpayers. Next you'll be posting that I'm a member of the Band of Hope.

[arayder]

Speaking of "transference", one of our favorite gurus is doing just that while in one of his manic stages.

As he revives old failed projects, develops new would be money making inventions and dresses up old ways to confront the powers that be he's managed to find time to label the authority figures he so hates "sociopaths".

That's an interesting statement since a sociopath is a person with extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. Sociopaths show superficial charm and good intelligence. But they are unreliable, untruthful and insincere. They show poor judgment and fail to learn by experience. They often show uninviting behavior particular when using alcohol or drugs.

Most telling is that they often fail to follow any sort of life plan.

I suspect our fezzed friend wanted to reinforce to his remaining followers his belief that cops, judges, law makers, and even building code enforcement officers are evil tyrants without conscience or goodness.

The irony is that he ended up describing himself.

This is pertinent since Duncan and Daoust do exactly the same thing. We have all marveled at the manipulative machinations of these two and have wondered how it can be they promote their failures to others as successes.

[Philistine]

The psychopath is more probably Scott Duncan, who dreams about leading a bloody war on members of the Law Society.

There's a name for that, it's called Transference, projecting your traits off on someone else.
CK, I think you are right on this, Scotty strikes me as an extremely disturbed individual, I think Petey on the other hand is just more the weak minded gullible follower who never looks, or thinks, too hard at anything presented to him as long as it is what he wants to believe.

Ok people, fun is fun but this is going too far. I went off on my annual five week bender to find on my return that libelous comments are being bandied about on this discussion that I'm not an evil sick psychopath who dedicated his working life to tormenting Canadian taxpayers. Next you'll be posting that I'm a member of the Band of Hope.

I also heard you play clarinet in the Salvation Army band. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Hope you had a fun trip to ole blighty.

[Burnaby49]

Let's not confine my alcoholic excesses into a solitary real ale slot. Wine this time. A car, a GPS, and a month in Spain and Portugal.

[The Observer]

A jug of wine, a GPS and thou? Hardly the stuff that made Kahlil Gibran famous.

[notorial dissent]

Speaking of "transference", one of our favorite gurus is doing just that while in one of his manic stages.

As he revives old failed projects, develops new would be money making inventions and dresses up old ways to confront the powers that be he's managed to find time to label the authority figures he so hates "sociopaths".

That's an interesting statement since a sociopath is a person with extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. Sociopaths show superficial charm and good intelligence. But they are unreliable, untruthful and insincere. They show poor judgment and fail to learn by experience. They often show uninviting behavior particular when using alcohol or drugs.

Most telling is that they often fail to follow any sort of life plan.

I suspect our fezzed friend wanted to reinforce to his remaining followers his belief that cops, judges, law makers, and even building code enforcement officers are evil tyrants without conscience or goodness.

The irony is that he ended up describing himself.

This is pertinent since Duncan and Daoust do exactly the same thing. We have all marveled at the manipulative machinations of these two and have wondered how it can be they promote their failures to others as successes.

To paraphrase from a movie I really detest, "I don't think those words mean what you think they mean" would seem to equally apply to Scotty.

[coffeekitten]

Pete Daoust wants to publish a book. The title will be "Les Québécois sont tous des propriétés." All Quebecers are properties. That's cute.

Facebook post

[arayder]

Pete Daoust wants to publish a book. The title will be "Les Québécois sont tous des propriétés." All Quebecers are properties. That's cute.

Facebook post

Gurus since the 1990's have been confusing the lawful jurisdiction of government and the courts with ownership. Sooner or later Warman, Menard, Clifford, Duncan and now Daoust have cast themselves as victims indeed slaves simply because they are subject to the rule of just law.

We could go on and on shooting holes in this foolish argument, but it is enough to say that slaves don't have rights and don't enjoy the protections of the various democratic charters.

The above mentioned gurus aren't slaves. They are fools dominated by their inability to comprehend the same rights and obligations recognized by responsible adults across the western world.

It's no wonder that they have in turn lost their senses, fortunes, freedom, property, or health (one guru's losing his teeth and blames his mama for it). When a child loses his gloves and we call him careless. But what do we call a grown man who doesn't have the sense to claim the rights already secured him by the sacrifice of his forefathers?

[notorial dissent]

More importantly "(t)hey are fools dominated by their inability(or unwillingness) to comprehend" simple definitions of everyday words.