Author Archives: theprisonerno6

Ze censor?


You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink

In response to Ozhouse once again making itself look foolish here: ( I feel the need to help Eddy overcome his lack of knowledge.

So it’s difficult to know where to start with a chap like Eddy, he is all over the place in several different directions.

Eddy claims that: [Israel became a sovereign nation the exact moment the US said so. Palestine is not a nation because the US hasn’t said so – despite over 100 nations recognizing their sovereignty. Those nations do not matter. The US matters. Why? Because they have the fucking bombs to back up their pretty pieces of government paper.]

Really?  The U.S. created the state of Israel?  A brief review of the Wikipedia page (not that Wikipedia is a totally solid source but good for a basic information) here: ( shows that the U.S. had little to do with the legal and technical formation of Israel as a state.

Now in previous writings here ( I showed where Eddy was  incorrect and in fact while people may think Australia is a sovereign nation, just thinking it does not make it so.

If Eddy were to do some light reading here ( he might find that the courts are just as confused (hypocritical) as he is.


Now in my opinion the best way to clear up any confusion is to ask questions.  So I devised a list of question will allow anyone who has done some research can realise the truth of the situation.

If Australia is an independent sovereign nation please tell me the date on which this transpired? (so I know which day to celebrate as independence day)

What is the provision in the constitution that allows for the creation of a citizen?

Does the Queen of Australia exist?  if it does please show me the date and ceremony of the coronation of the Queen of Australia.

Is money and asset or a liability?

When did birth certificates start being used and what is the legal purpose of such a document?

What is an Australian government bond backed by?

If you want the answers you may comment below

Now Eddy did bring up a good point:  the writers of the constitution did afford the ability of change.  In the Australian constitution section 128 allows for change given a referendum requiring: majority of electors voting approve of the change in a majority of states.

Now I think the difference is that I don’t trust the government, i don’t trust lawyers either (they can never answer my questions 😦 ) I don’t trust bankers and I don’t trust the media to get it right…  So when they act outside the constitution on a regular basis one must ask why it is allowed to happen…  I for one would prefer to settle the problems that face us with a pen and not a sword, mainly because of the cost of dry cleaning 😛

So to be crystal clear what I advocate is not for corporations to run the world, rather corporations would be in the service of their creators…  under a charter as Chomsky points out in the corporation:

I have one last question which should reveal my perspective:

Eddy do you believe in the principle of consent?

For example:

And thus if Eddy doesn’t make an effort to respond in a manner that actually builds something constructive we have to assume he fits into this category:

Good luck Eddy I would love to hear a real reply to the questions and my challenge still stands, when your ready to accept.

Where Eddy James gets it wrong…

After much deliberation I have decided that Facebook is possibly the worst place to try to convey information to those that already know everything…   Of course it’s almost impossible to show anything to people who know everything, and thus we might conclude that it’s the people that are the root of the problem not the platform alone.

Now in recent time I have been interacting with some of the more unstable people out there and have come to the conclusion that they may in fact be horribly ignorant  or possibly socialists in disguise (just to pun the transformers).  I reference my recent expose on Eddy James and here ( I showed how Eddy deliberately takes people out of context, is clearly a hypocrite and is too cowardly to take up my challenge of an open public debate about his worldview.

So please allow me to deconstruct Eddy’s misunderstanding of the world.

Eddy has an about us section here ( which states: [OzHouse believes political and economic conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.]

Eddy says Australia has to register with the U.S. S.E.C. Okay I can understand that he views something like this link ( as necessary.  although I myself and a great many other people are perplexed as to exactly why Australia is a registered corporation trading on the U.S. S.E.C. I can accept that he thinks it’s only to do business.

you can see Eddy’s explanation on the links provided on the last article or alternatively enjoy some samples here


However Eddy makes the claim that Australia is a sovereign nation…

While this may be widely accepted in the minds of many, that does not necessarily make it fact.   Quite clearly our constitution made us a dominion of the the United Kingdom, and our head of state it Queen Elizabeth.

So naturally my question to Eddy is this:  On what day did Australia become an independent sovereign nation?

What I find amazing is that while he believes in political and economic conspiracies, he cannot understand what’s clearly on the books… it appears he ignores information that interferes with his perception of reality.

I will throw him some clues though because i can’t help wanting to help those less fortunate than myself…

Eddy if banks have to balance their books, and a bond is an asset to the holder and a liability to the issuer, then the Australian government bonds are a liability to treasury. yes?

Now if the books have to be balanced what is the asset that backs the liability known as an Australian government bond?

Let’s remember that nothing (least that i am aware of) of value or use comes into existence unless labour is imbued into it…

Eddy may want to look up the term Register in a law dictionary and figure out why the government is submitting to the (regis) trar of another country…

And what has has all this legal research bought us?  well looking through history, the revolutions the change, they have all been based on ideas, and frankly the glorious revolution in 1688 bought about much change and created the English bill of rights, the American revolution ultimately gave birth to the U.S. Constitution, which i will note both socialists and neo-cons alike want to destroy and have for the most part.

All in all the great question is how people should amicably communicate with each other? I think people should not take things too seriously, while maintaining an open mind to hear others is key.

The sad fact is [OzHouse believes political and economic conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.]  yet suffers from cognitive dissonance when shown documents like Australia the concealed colony which can be found here: (   It’s a great read if you haven’t read it you should…

As always I’m more than happy to operate in the open and i have nothing to hide, anytime Eddy want to have a debate about his erroneous ideas I will happily accommodate and post on youtube later, I’m all for letting the public decide.

Eddy James and

I’m sure many readers are familiar with the functions of facebook…   mainly to destroy interpersonal relationships and promote narcissism.  I recently Had a very interesting chat with a chap on FB, named Eddy James.

Eddy is somewhat twisted though, he likes to take others out of context and make ad-hominem attacks, and I have come to the conclusion that he is and out and out hypocrite

He posted an article about our conversation on FB and I responded to him, of course the Oz house website doesn’t allow people to comment below their articles, who would allow criticism?

so needless to say I posted a comment below their about us section found here:


Hi Eddy James

I response to your article here ( about the conversation below your FB post here:

and previous discussion here:

I can only say that clearly you do have an issue with taking people out of context and tarring them all with the same brush.
I can only say this to your ad-hominem attacks:
lol you make me laugh

If you actually want me to pick apart your ideology I can, but the old saying goes:
You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

My challenge to debate you about your worldview stands, I’m happy to operate in the open and not hide behind a computer screen

If you choose not to publish this comment then clearly you are a hypocrite as above you have stated: [OzHouse strongly supports freedom of speech]




Needless to say Ozhouse has chosen not to publish the comment, and thus Eddy clearly proves he is a hypocrite…

see this type of person is dangerous because they say they will do one thing, yet they do another, needless to say it’s deception and hypocrisy at it’s best.

I polished off the FB conversation with a little:

~I just tried to provide your audience with a link to the actual conversation, which i note you did not… you claim to strongly support free speech but clearly you consider yourself the benevolent dictator… lol Eddy you should come and have a beer with me sometime, i might know something you don’t


~see this is the hypocrisy of your ideology: in one hand you say your not a libertarian and yet in the other you say that you believe in private property, in one hand you say you strongly support free speech and yet in the other you censor responses to you, in one hand say your for the truth and yet you don’t post a full link or full dialogue but only your version of the truth. if you call me a libertard then I can only call you a hypocrite… but at least i’m right

Needless to say Eddy is suffering from some mental problems, mainly in the areas of IQ, Cognition and Memory.   Like the coward he is he refuses to step out from behind his computer screen, but I should expect no less from a coward.

The challenge to debate is still open, will Eddy accept?  Personally I doubt it

I hope I have cleared up any doubts about this particular matter, if Eddy decides to delete the FB post he made then I have the screen shots and they will be posted as a comment, it is far easier to click on the link and read the source material for yourself.

Endless wars, the continued threat to society in the theme of 1984

In the novel 1984 the state, Oceania and Eastasia are at war with Eurasia, which eventually changes, to Oceania and Eurasia against Eastasia…  although the conditioned population does not realise that the change has even taken place.

In today’s society the we seem to be at war constantly, the U.S. has been involved in 72 separate interventions in foreign countries since World War Two.  See:

The reasons for this are various, however they all have the same philosophical principle behind them: we are good, they are evil we act because we know better…   elitism at it’s best.

Today the boogieman is the terrorist.  Apparently terrorists are everywhere, both overseas and at home…  if you watch enough Fox News you might even suspect that they are in your closet…

Terrorism gained a foothold in the minds of the public after 9/11, and apparently the man behind it all was Osama Bin Laden…   feel free to check out the 5 min clip explaining the official story of 9/11

This event has led to legislation like the Patriot Act (not what it sounds like) and the National Defense Authorisation Act – NDAA.  These acts are in direct contradiction to the best interests of the people, they seek to strip away due process rights, equality before the law and free speech.  The NDAA actually gives the right for the president to authorise assassinations, no charge, no court, no jury, no justice, only: I think your a terrorist… BANG

To quote Pastor Martin Niemöller (in a critique of German intellectuals during Naziism )

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

The real story about the terrorist threat is you…   because if you are reading this you could be considered a terrorist, if you question the validity of the government, the morality of their action, if you ask certain questions you are a potential terrorist.

Why you ask?

Because independent thinking has apparently become a threat, I must say this only underlines the weakness of the ideological position of the state.


So do you remember those evil, evil terrorists called Al-qaeda, the worldwide terrorists responsible for 9/11?  Well apparently they are not a threat, they are an ally…


So all I have left is   WTF !!!

Controlling ideology through language, in the theme of 1984

In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a continual revision of the language (known as newspeak) is employed by the state to control the parameters of how the populace can understand a given subject.

Now I should warn you that words have created more revolutions than anything else, they are the most dangerous weapon you can wield, if used correctly…

An example of newspeak is Minitrue (Ministry of Truth) which controls the flow of information such as news, entertainment, art etc.  The main character of the story, Winston Smith works at Minitrue and continually revises historical documents to show that the party has always been right, living standards are increasing and anybody who turns against the party has always been a untoward character.

The real purpose of the modification of language however is to restrict the conceptual understanding of the people, the official newspeak dictionary continually gets smaller and so with it the ability to challenge the ideological framework of the state.

So my first example of using language to destroy ideological framework comes from former Federal reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan:

Rather than restricting the dialogue of the opposition Greenspan has simply used words that have no real content, and thus to interpret what he has said is akin to the task of nailing jelly to a tree…

Please take note of the next time you see a politician get asked a hard question, they use similar principles to avoid giving an answer.

Perhaps you have noticed the Australia has a defense force, that it uses to invade other countries…

Perhaps you have noticed that the abortion debate has two pro camps, pro life and pro choice.  Clearly neither side wishes to be viewed as negative.

In that last 50 years or so we have seen the rise of political correctness.  The history of political correctness is also known as cultural Marxism, and is associated with the philosophical school known as critical theory.  Critical theory in this author’s opinion is not philosophy as much as an anti-philosophy, for it fails to encompass all schools of thought and it’s primary modus operandi is to restrict the permissible dialogue of others.  The Frankfurt school was the base used by Herbert Marcuse to promote and modernise the concept of political correctness.

Marcuse argued that the free society was a deception and in reality oppressive, and argued for liberating tolerance, defined as: Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left

Please enjoy all three parts of the history of political correctness.

So what effect does this have on you now?

This ideology has resulted in the oppression of free speech, now both the left and right of politics dogmatically adhere to the concepts contained within the ideological framework of political correctness.

If you don’t agree with the Israeli occupation of Palestine you are branded are an anti-Semite (most likely by the ADL).

If you don’t agree with foreign countries buying up all the farmland in your country you are branded as a xenophobic or racist.

If you use the word mankind people accuse you of being sexist.

The sad fact is people have become far too precious… The author is a rabid supporter of unrestricted free speech because the fact is you don’t have to listen to anyone, but once you start censoring people it is the slippery slope on the road to tyranny and despotism.

Pervasive state surveillance in the theme of 1984

It would appear that over the years, the concept that the state knows what’s best for the people has taken a strong grip in the minds of the populace.  Perhaps what most people do not realise is that privacy is the cornerstone of freedom and it would appear that the state offers us security in return for our liberty or our right to privacy.

To quote Ben Franklin “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

So how does one know if the state is pervasively surveilling you?  I propose to you that if you have not injured another then there is no need for the state to keep records about your activities.

Now let’s have a little look at some of the surveillance programs the state runs.

Trapwire is definitely something you should have a look into, it collects data from basically everywhere and compiles it into a centralised system to determine who is a potential threat.

Please consider that the federal government is proposing a massive expansion of the surveillance of the population, that has been described as “this proposal is akin to tactics that we would have seen utilised by the Gestapo”.

Now I think we are all smart enough to realise that once a power is granted rarely very rarely is it ever retracted.  You should also be aware that the greater the surveillance the closer we get to a totalitarian regime.  History shows that the greater the corruption and largess in government, the greater the need to watch the populace for paranoia and a fear of rebellion grip the inner circle of power.  If your interested in history, why not have a quick look at the files the Stasi kept on the citizens…

Some might propose that the collection of information is only a problem for criminals and terrorists and can be used to do real good.  Well since we have a rule of law…  why not employ it and use it to gain a warrant to track someone?

Furthermore you may or may not be aware the document below that states on page 2 paragraph 5

One could consider that access to “cyberspace” is not a right – it is a privilege. Some countries have adopted
the International Computer Driving License (ICDL) or related constructs to deliver necessary ICT knowledge to
their populations. An Australian ICDL could include “rules of the road” including balancing “free speech” with
the consequences of cyber bullying, libel, computer ethics, and an education about other important cyber
issues such as cyber crime (including fraud). In situations where someone has violated the code of conduct
or committed a crime, a judge could have the ability to suspend or revoke someone’s Computer Driving

In other words your servant (the government) has decided that you do not have the right to access information, your servant grants you a privilege to access information and if you don’t follow you servants rules then you will be punished…

So I leave you with the answer, with some humor, because without it the world would be a terrible place:

The revision of history, in the theme of 1984

How could one tell if history has been revised and edited?

Certainly history if full of power mad emperors, kings and dictators that win a battle and rewrite history, no doubt to make themselves appear as some deity.  The evidence lies within alternate records that were not destroyed and thus revealed at a later date.  Therefore I could claim that simply by showing examples of the revision of history or an alternate record, I could claim that, indeed this most nefarious practice is not out of date…

The first example shall be JFK.  I personally cannot accept the official story the there was a magic bullet that turns 7 times in mid air, feel free to sample a scene from Oliver Stone’s movie JFK

If you have further interest may I suggest a fantastic compilation of stock footage found in the epic: Evidence of Revision, see part 1 below.

The second example shall be Robert Kennedy.  Now this one does take a little looking into, basically the official version is Sirhan Sirhan shot him and that was it.  However the coroner determined he was shot at very close range (~under 10cm) from behind, meanwhile all the witnesses agreed Sirhan Sirhan was 4-6 feet in front of Kennedy.  Sirhan Sirhan has no memory of the event and claims quite honestly that this is totally out of character and against his religious upbringing.  May I suggest you have a look at part 4 of Evidence of Revision.

For my third example I propose that history gets re-written right before our eyes…

A short review of 1984

In 1949 George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) wrote a book called 1984, and has been considered controversial, for various reasons ever since.

The story involves several key themes such as

  • The revision of history by the state
  • Pervasive state surveillance, the concept of privacy is destroyed
  • The continual modification of language to restrict thoughts to chosen set parameters
  • Endless wars, a continual threat to society
  • A inner elite, while the masses (Proles) are asleep to what’s really going on
  • A demand to conform to contradictory ideas aka “doublethink”
  • A standard of living that is continually decreasing while being told that it is improving
  • Submission of the individual to the majority
  • Thoughts can be crimes, and accordingly a man can be punished merely for thinking of a crime

Needless to say I recommend that you consider putting this one on your reading list.

In future posts I will be testing the themes above in today’s world, are we already in 1984?

On a lighter note

It appears that there is a concerted effort to create disinterest in the topics that actually affect your life.  I once asked an acquaintance of mine if they had ever watched question time, the response I got was appropriate: “only when I am feeling suicidal, and want to bore myself to death”.

Take the US presidential elections for example, the debate consists of only two people, with controlled questions, questions which are designed to cloud and frame an issue rather than reveal the true state of reality.  The whole debate seems to be a matter of attempting to appeal to the masses through 3 second sound bites and catchwords.  In reality politics today is void of thought and absent of real content, in fact I am having trouble of thinking of a politician who was actually honest about their principles.

There is however many people out there who see through the fog, some more than others, who none the less make these topics more palatable.  I must commend them on their work, for it embodies a creative capacity that i do not possess myself.

Perhaps you are familiar with the very clever Rap news:

and of course the US can see the problems with the “system” they have as Abe Lincoln illustrates below

Shame Thomas Jefferson didn’t fly in on that eagle…

Now the real challenge is getting someone to make economics interesting, and thus i leave you with the real debate as propounded by opposing parties below





%d bloggers like this: