Surveyors

Good write-up by Bud the Oracle:

It’s time, for the health of the human race, to get real about our drug policies.
…
A century of studying Alcohol and Drug prohibition in prestigious institutions by intelligent researchers has reached this conclusion: Criminal law has no positive effect on drug use in society and is harmful to its citizens in creating an unjust, unlawful violent society.

The Center’s website is located at http://icsdp.org/

Within Education, foreign influence is the norm, not the exception. Indeed, it is considered narrow-minded and lacking in “globalicity” to think in terms of one’s territorial unit; we must be global citizens, so we are told. I thought we were subjects of the Crown. That thing they have in the Courtrooms up on the wall.

One comment Fadden made which has gone more or less unaddressed is that University clubs are a vector for foreign influence and grooming of assets. But I think this is part of a larger issue; this “global” mindset is really simply an excuse for a global meritocracy. But Universities are not constituted or maintained on an international scale, the delusions of their administrators for the time being notwithstanding. They are constituted by provincial legislatures empowered through electoral franchises in the larger Parliament. The purpose of a creature is to serve its creator, not to tell its creator how it ought to behave.

The University confers degrees; it does not create them. The degrees are created, in, I suppose, contemplation of Law, by the one who grants the power to confer; to wit, the Crown. The Crown exists to do justice, give judgment and preserve the peace. These things are all, therefore, antecedent to the Crown, and all those given degree of the Crown have certain responsibilities.

Academic freedom is not unbridled freedom; it is freedom subject to law for academics the same as for others.

The Motto of our Sovereign Lady is French: DIEU ET MON DROICT! What does such a thing mean? Well, Dieu is God, as in Mon Dieu, my God. Et is and, as in Father and son. Mon is a possessive adjective which modifies droit.

Droit is a funny word, not at all tinny sounding. I don’t think it sounds woody, either, tho, does it? Ah, well. My translation of the Motto is God and My Justice, for droit may be translated right, ius and a iustitia quasi a quodam fonte omnia iura emanant, all rights flow out from Justice as much as if from a fountain.

By many old judgements, before one is kicked out of any franchise, that is, space within a corporation, amongst which species of things a Studentship is accounted, one must be summoned. And a summons for this purpose must be a summons before the decision-maker specifying the day on which one is to appear lest one suffer judgement in default of appearance. The policy, which I will not dignify by quoting, in addition to being policy and not law, is unlawful. It is a misdemeanor at common law for anyone, Herr Doktor President of a University included, to judge anyone out of a franchise without summons, which is contrary to the law of man and of God, that is to say, it is contrary to natural justice.

This is indicative of the degredation of the legal profession; lawyers are no longer trained to love God and the truth; the days of fines for being unable to recite the Psalter (it happened in the Inns of Court, look it up!) are over. Now there’s a statute of Themis, “Goddess of Justice,” standing at the Law Courts. So, when were we o’ertaken by Godlbess Pagans who don’t believe in Natural Justice but instead their own perverted version thereof?

Really, this should not be surprising—these people are the same braniacs who unlawfully collected parking fines for some time.

The court were unanimously of the opinion, that the party in these cases ought to be heard, and for that purpose ought to be summoned on fact; and if the justices proceeded against a person without summoning him, it would be a misdemeanor in them, for which an information would lie against them. (2 Lord Raymond 1407)

The classical view is that the mass of mankind is insufficient, dirty, stupid. Was this wrong? It must have been, given that modern notions of mental health are largely determined descriptively via statistics—that is, what the mass does is considered normal, not only in the purely statistical sense but in the colloquial sense. Colloquially, normalcy is taken to be desirable; thus, let us consider a population of one thousand, a totally artificial population, the sort only exists in contemplation.

What if the mass is mad and there are simply enough of them to make a go of it, all co-dependent like? Indeed, from personal experience, more people drink than not, and alcohol is often used for self-medication by the psychotic, so I have read. Same with tobacco. If this is the case, can such mad people be trusted to define mental illness? Would their definition of mental illness not simply be a self-serving one, designed to continue their Family of co-dependent alcoholics? Would public health ever allow the mass to be diagnosed and medicated, for the benefit of a smaller portion of society? Of course not.

Indeed, because the mass of mankind are intractable, irremediable alcoholics, there is simply no arguing with them. Containment within positive law is the best option, and, therefore, requiring them to bind themselves with photo identification in exchange for the privilege of drinking is a great idea. But that process has gone overboard, and now drinking licenses are used for all sorts of inappropriate purposes, like in banks and to verify the identity of credit card users. These ordeals are unnecessary and vexatious, no? What if one does not think oneself pretty enough to be photographed?

What is the Punishment for Evil and Disobedient Judges? Bracton, v 2 p. 22:

And though one is fit to judge and to be made a judge, let each one take care for himself lest, by judging perversely and against the laws, because of prayer or price, for the advantage of a temporary and insignificant gain, he dare to bring upon himself sorrow and lamentation everlasting, and lest in the day of the wrath of the Lord he feel the vengeance of Him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ on that day when kings and princes of the earth shall weep and bewail when they behold the Son of Man, because of fear of his torments, where gold and silver will be of no avail to set them free.

Who shall not fear that trial, where the Lord shall be the accuser, the advocate and the judge? From his sentence there is no appeal, for the Father has committed all judgment to the Son; he shuts and there is none to open; he opens and there is none to shut. O how strict shall that judgment be, where we shall give account not only of our acts but even of every idle word that men utter.

Who can escape his impending wrath? For the Son of Man shall send His angels and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend and them that do iniquity and bind them into bundles to be burnt, and shall cast them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, groans and screams, outcries, lamentation and torment, roaring and shouting, fear and trembling, sorrow and suffering, fire and stench, doubt and anxiety, violence and cruelty, ruin and poverty, distress and dejection, oblivion and confusion, tortures and woundings, troubles and terrors, hunger and thirst, cold and heat, brimstone and burning fire for ever and ever.

Therefore let each beware of that judgment where the judge is terribly strict, intolerably severe, offended beyond measure and vehemently angered, whose sentence none can commute, from whose prison there is no escape, whose punishments are without end, his tormentors horrible, who never grow weary, never pity, whom fear does not disturb, conscience condemn, thoughts reproach, and who may not flee.
Hence the blessed Augustine, ‘O how far too great are my sins, wherefore when one has God as a rightful judge and his conscience as witness, let him fear nothing except his cause.’

Now, absent a narrative of divine retribution, what is the punishment for evil judging? Nothing, unless one is caught alive and convicted.

Available here for perusal is magna carta and Edward Coke’s explanation thereupon from his Institutes of the Laws of England.

Download

The University of British Columbia has Armature, and it really ought be used on more than the Doorknobs in the Chemistry building. TUUM EST, the Motto of our scholarly Republic, is pregnant with meaning, for as Bracton (de. Leg. v. 2 p. 28) says,

Et non sunt dominia de novo inventa de iure gentium, sed ab antiquo, quia in veteri testamento aliquid erat meum et aliquid tuum

That is, meum and tuum are not inventions of the Law of Man but existed from antiquity, for in the Old Testament some thing was mine and some thing yours. And if the University’s Motto is TUUM EST, that is, The University, as it were, chants continually TUUM EST, there must be some who may take that to mean MEUM EST, that is, It is mine, for when when says to me “it is yours,” he gives me license to say “it is mine,” which is the same fact articulated in a different person.

For whom does the University exist? My answer is for the Student Body, for without them, the rest is but a head, and what head goes about lacking a body? Indeed, The University of British Columbia was constituted in 1890 by Victoria so that all British Columbians might obtain academical degrees. How far from that purpose we now are.

I know many young British Columbians, not Canadians, but British Columbians, who did well in K-12 and who have not the money to exercise their birthright of entering the University. They are wasting the best years of their life serving coffee to Construction Workers as well as current University Degree holders. For young men, the situation is even more dire; a young man would do well to ignore the whole neo-fascist rigmarole, for due to contemporary equity-based hiring practices, decisions are made not on the basis of merit but on the basis of perceived historical inequalities. Is it any better hiring a woman because she’s a woman, the effect of which is not hiring a man because he is a man, than not hiring a jew because he’s a jew? It seems to me the same principle at work: irrational selection criteria, bad heuristics. The University system has never been de-nazified; the nazis simply found new people to pick on.