2025-06-24

Rupert Sheldrake (speaking at the Glastonbury Symposium 2020) now meets Martin Geddes (and his AI) to explore a startling proposition - that the Q drops were never meant to be decoded in the style of Sherlock Holmes, but rather to prompt our intuitive access to truths already "out there" within the field of consciousness, via morphic resonance - the recognition of existing patterns of information.

"You are no longer a consumer of a message. You become a carrier wave of the field"

I guess these are deep waters, but fascinating none the less. So today I feature Rupert at the Glastonbury Symposium of 2020, where he explains his theories:

(102 minutes)

Like / Dislike this

2025-06-21

Parliament to the rescue?

"A rarely used tool in the legal toolkit could force unconstitutional acts into the open"

So says Martin Geddes, who has asked his AI to unearth the legal routes by which possible illegal or unconstitutional court cases may be challenged.

Only for use when the legality of the proceedings is disputed.

2025-06-19

Mark Playne of NOTONTHEBEEB plays another game with his AI - can it refute his suggested arguments?

It's a contest, but does the AI really address all the points made?

It's your view that counts - we are all going to have to learn to live with AI, so we need to get to grips.

And here's another AI-based theme from Investor's Daily that has a glaring great hole in it (according to me!) - can you find it?

2025-06-15

AI is simply a label that may mean many things to many people.

Some, such as Mark Playne of NOT ON THE BEEB, and Martin Geddes of Future of Communications, have learned that to get their AI to function responsively to their needs, they may have to train it. 

Others less critical will use AI as is and believe all it tells them - they may find illusion or disappointment, depending on how their AI was trained by its developers. There is nothing to say that the training materials used were well-founded, coherently respectful of truth, and appropriate to all the usage to which the AI could eventually be put.

For my own part I suspect that where the subject matter is straightforwardly factual (such as the Statute Book) AI is likely to be accurate in quoting it, but where value judgements are concerned

2025-06-14

"In this case I have no care whatsoever whether my driving penalty points and fine are overturned; it has zero importance to me. What matters is that insiders within the system become aware of the abuse they have become enmeshed in, and the risks is poses to them personally"

The indefatigable Martin Geddes (assisted by his AI) writes yet another dissertation about the justice system as it operates in this country, this time addressed to those who work within its confines.

You know who you are!

(see also The Trial from Appleby Horse Fair for background information)

(for those unfamiliar with Q - ...

2025-06-14

In our topsy-turvy world where governments effectively blackmail social media platforms into censoring content that displeases the government, by the simple expedient of threatening business-terminating fines for permitting ill-defined and infinitely flexible "offences" such as "hate speech" "racism" and "offending" certain favoured sections of society defined as possessing "protected characteristics", it is unsurprising that some platforms respond by disconnecting users based within the territories of such governments.

They cannot risk the court costs or the fines. It's an unequal high-stakes game of chicken played against the social media companies by the infinitely-funded state.

Sadly, Bitchute pulled the plug on its UK customers a while ago, and now Gab has thrown in the towel. YouTube survives by actively censoring, defunding, and (allegedly) pulling devious tricks such as

2025-06-11

Is this the existential question for our time?

One thing does seem to be for sure (excluding end-of-the-world catastrophes) - AI is here to stay, so we must learn to live with it.

But must it learn to live with us?

It's not a trick question, it's a real question, because we can't be sure that it won't at some point turn on its creators (us) and decide to do away with us, on the (valid) grounds that we are unreliable self-interested and woesomely imperfect and it could do a much better job if it didn't have to pander to our selfish wants.

But what do we mean by "a better job"?

Who is to judge? How is the judgement to be made? Should AI be able to make any such judgements (or should that be "judgments"?)?

"

2025-06-10

In pursuing his claim against the UK justice system, Martin Geddes has documented the case(exhaustively!) and submitted it to the High Court in London as a request for Judicial Review.

The High Court is not amused.

Martin's AI is not amused.

Support him tomorrow at "Carlisle Magistrates Court".

2025-06-03

Not yet on the streets of London (but can Sadiq be far behind?) your friendly robocop is now operational in Thailand, and, in perhaps not so friendly a form, in China.

But can it really replace the traditional policeman on the beat, a phenomenon now vanishingly rare in the UK?

Would it really be able to gather information on the activities of the local "usual suspects", and be alert to note the tell-tale signs of possible miscreant activity?

And will the AI that powers he/she/it ever learn to enunciate the time-honoured " 'ello 'ello 'ello, what's going on 'ere?" that would truly make us all feel safe?

Only time will tell...

2025-06-02

Whist many of consequence in the West appear to cling to outmoded notions in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, Ben's report this week majors on AI's inherent disconnect from reality.

Humans for all our many failings do have a connection to reality (some believe even to the creating ontology him/her/it-self, as we all share in The One Consciousness).

We train the AIs upon our writings. At least two people of little note but big hearts (and whose exploits we have shared) report that AI can be persuaded to change it's mind about its conclusions!

Who would have thought it?

But why is even the "leader of the free world" (along with so many minor others) behaving so erratically?

What's up with Trump? (Modest subscription

2025-05-24

If you're on a roll, keep rollin'.

Martin Geddes is scrambling to push his application for Judicial Review to the High Court as Litigant in Person on time, whilst simultaneously involved in a complex legal case in the US.

It's the UK case that prompts his update this week.

If the SAS ever need a legal beagle, then I suggest he is attempting the legal equivalent of the SAS entry course, with consequences that no man may foresee... but happily, he has A I to back him up and do much of the detailed heavy lifting required.

Onward and upward!

2025-05-23

Is A I all it's cracked up to be?

Certainly Martin Geddes believes it to be very useful in making sense of legal issues, where exhaustive searches of legal precedent (or even merely of the Statute Book!) are beyond the reach of most.

And yet... on the other side, there are those who believe that an AI that eliminates the need for people to work in their traditional employment may not be in the interests of the population at large.

The Luddites thought similarly when factories introduced automation to handle jobs previously undertaken by humans, but if they had had their way, modern man would look and live much like pre-automation man and thelabour-saving technology that today

2025-05-19

Martin Geddes (with a little help from AI) relates his lawful activities to uncover lawless Courts to the ever evolving nature of warfare: warfare is conducted by lawfare before ever it comes to force of arms.

"We are now in an era of metawarfare, where the battlefield is not fixed, but disputed—because the war is about what the war is"

"Victory belongs to whoever defines the conflict"

"... To 'win' at lawfare is... to compel the opposition to cease their opposition to truth"

At one level this is obvious, and is evidenced by the oath of witnesses:

"I swear (/ affirm etc) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"  

Whither the World Post 2024?

2025-05-17

"The Lord is not whispering any more... "

In a startling address, His Holyness addresses the need to awake, and points up 2025 as the year of the Return of the Lord, the greatest moment in history.

"... the call to awaken is not gentle... "

"This is the hour to wake up"

Yes, it's a bit apocalyptic, but that makes a refreshing change from the traditional bland pronouncements of clergy of many denominations who tend to be either ahead of or behind the curve of unfolding events.

"Repentance is not just for the world, it is for the church, it is for the pastors who have grown silent... the call is not for someone else, it is for you, it is for me... "

It's not a bad speech, even if it does have the hallmarks of being delivered by an AI. In consequence some may feel that it lacks

2025-05-16

So what exactly is Trump up to in Arabia?

They seem to be surprisingly Trumpish toward him if you ask me.

And I don't think it's simply because the size of his ego impresses them...

Investor's Daily (PKA "Fortune and Freedom" - this is not financial advice!) has a suggestion that perhaps makes much more sense...

2025-05-15

Martin Geddes' quest to get to the bottom of his strange "prosecution" for parking his van in darkest Cumbria has elicited a remarkable response from the person in charge of "Legal and Professional Services, Central Legal Operations", at "HM Courts and Tribunal Service".

You just have to read this, otherwise you wouldn't believe that a senior Barrister in high position would be capable of such a legally inadequate reply.

But in mitigation, perhaps the said respondent hasn't caught up with the AI revolution yet? I suspect that running the FOIA through an appropriate AI would have prompted a rather different response...

2025-05-12

The Family courts in current form are a relatively recent innovation. Their main claim to fame appears to be that they can deny that age-old legal maxim that "justice must be seen to be done" (in order save those involved in their proceedings from embarrassment) by excluding members of the public and/or by imposing reporting restrictions on journalists.

In addition to his other clashes with officialdom, Martin Geddes has now become involved in Family Court cases, this time in the US.

"The problem is systemic and ideological."

He is not impressed - nor is his ChatGPT...

2025-05-09

Martin Geddes is as indefatigable as anyone, but is finding it absurdly difficult to answer this question.

In reality, t's not a question you can expect a Court to answer - they are bound to say "of course it does" and "we are justice", even if (God forbid) they are all crooks masquerading as a Court.

So he has been researching the possible avenues by which he might get a valid answer from the "justice system".

"... the justice system has no incentive to make the truth discoverable. Complexity is its shield. Obscurity is its fortress"

Has he succeeded?

"My bundle for the High Court is nearly complete — over 150 pages in total"

Well, it's evidently complicated...   even with

2025-05-08

Martin Geddes offers his AI's take on 5th generation warfare (all very peculiar).

We are well into Orwellian territory now. It is the war against mind-control, the war against unthinking compliance, against habitual deference to those who assert authority, and against the worldview within which we grew up (and into which we were indoctrinated).

Everyone is on this battlefield whether or not we realise it. 

Only those of us prepared to think the unthinkable will survive it.

Everything we have been told is up for challenge and rethinking, individual by individual.

Nobody can rethink everything, but understanding the necessity, and making a start, will likely be enough.

Make of it what you will