Friday, May 1, 2026

Special Report 010526 on the Charles Card or CR Card and App: Chapter 1. If a state has the clear financial capacity to provide for its citizens but chooses to withhold that support while the rest of the world moves toward a global standard of income, it enters a space of **systemic neglect** or **administrative obstruction**. When you use the suffix **-anthropy**, you are likely looking for a term that describes a specific "dislike" or "turning away" from humanity or human welfare. ### The Philosophical "Anthropy" The most direct term is **Misanthropy**—a general dislike, distrust, or contempt for the human species. In a political context, if a government acknowledges the need and possesses the means but intentionally refuses to act, critics might describe the policy as: * **Political Misanthropy:** When state structures are designed or maintained in a way that shows a fundamental disregard for the well-being of the population. * **Aphilanthropy:** A less common term specifically meaning a "lack of love for mankind" or a failure to act with benevolence when one has the power to do so.

 





 Special Report 010526 on the Charles Card or CR Card and App: 

Chapter 1.

If a state has the clear financial capacity to provide for its citizens but chooses to withhold that support while the rest of the world moves toward a global standard of income, it enters a space of **systemic neglect** or **administrative obstruction**.

When you use the suffix **-anthropy**, you are likely looking for a term that describes a specific "dislike" or "turning away" from humanity or human welfare.

### The Philosophical "Anthropy"

The most direct term is **Misanthropy**—a general dislike, distrust, or contempt for the human species. In a political context, if a government acknowledges the need and possesses the means but intentionally refuses to act, critics might describe the policy as:

 * **Political Misanthropy:** When state structures are designed or maintained in a way that shows a fundamental disregard for the well-being of the population.

 * **Aphilanthropy:** A less common term specifically meaning a "lack of love for mankind" or a failure to act with benevolence when one has the power to do so.

### Other Relevant Concepts

If the refusal to pay is based on a specific ideology rather than just a "dislike" of people, it might fall under these headers:

 * **State Malfeasance:** This is the legal and political term for a public official or body intentionally performing an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to their duty of care.

 * **Institutional Abandonment:** A sociological term for when the "social contract" is effectively broken because the state ceases to provide the basic protections or resources it is capable of providing.

 * **Austerity (Forced):** While usually used for budget cuts during a crisis, maintaining a "lean" state while wealth is available is often called "ideological austerity"—choosing the principle of a small state over the practical survival of the citizens.

### The Math of the Matter

To put that .10 cents per minute into perspective, that rate would equal:

 * **$6.00** per hour

 * **$144.00** per day

 * **$4,320.00** per 30-day month

In a world where that is the global baseline, a country refusing to pay despite having the funds would likely be accused of **violating the social contract**, **violating the UDHR** as the government is failing to meet the "duty of care" owed to its constituents.

Do you see this "refusal to pay" as a result of a specific economic theory, or more as a failure of the leadership's moral obligation?


Chapter 2

In the context of the **Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 25**, the "burden" refers to the state's positive obligation to ensure a standard of living adequate for health and well-being. If a country has the financial means to provide this (especially in a world where a $.10/minute standard exists) but refuses to do so, you are describing a specific type of state-level failure.

In terms of an **"-anthropy,"** the most precise technical term for this specific failure is:

### **Malanthropy**

While less common than misanthropy, **malanthropy** (from *mal-* meaning bad/wrong and *anthropos* meaning human) refers to the active promotion of policies that are harmful to human welfare. In your scenario, the state isn't just ignoring its citizens; it is actively maintaining a state of deprivation despite having the resources to end it.

### **The Legal and Philosophical Breakdown**

When a state fails the Article 25 "burden" despite having the capacity to meet it, it is committing:

 * **Statutory Neglect (or State Malfeasance):** Under international law, states have a tripartite obligation: to **respect**, **protect**, and **fulfill** rights. A country that *could* pay but won't is failing the "duty to fulfill." This is often classified as a **violation of omission**.

 * **Abrogation of the Social Contract:** Philosophically, if the state is the sole entity with the power to issue currency or manage the national wealth but refuses to provide the "security in the event of... lack of livelihood" mentioned in Article 25, it has effectively dissolved its legitimate authority over the people.

 * **Aphilanthropy of Governance:** This is the specific "coldness" of a system. Unlike misanthropy (hating humans), **aphilanthropy** is the clinical absence of concern for human flourishing. It is the "bureaucratic void" where the math works, but the mercy is absent.

### **The "Burden" of Proof**

In human rights law, once it is demonstrated that a state has the **available resources** (a key phrase in the ICESCR, the treaty that gives Article 25 legal teeth), the "burden of proof" shifts to the state.

If the state cannot prove that it is using the "maximum of its available resources" to meet that $.10/minute standard, it is in **Retrogression**. This is the legal term for a state moving backward or refusing to progress in its human rights obligations without a compelling, existential justification.

### **Summary Table**

| Concept | Term | Context |

|---|---|---|

| **Philosophical** | **Malanthropy** | Active harm or "bad" policy toward human welfare. |

| **Legal** | **Non-fulfillment** | Failure to provide a right the state is capable of providing. |

| **Administrative** | **Systemic Obstruction** | Using bureaucracy to block the distribution of available wealth. |

| **Moral** | **Breach of Duty of Care** | Failing the fundamental responsibility to protect the vulnerable. |

In your scenario, if the rest of the world is paying and your home country is not—despite having the funds—they are essentially practicing **State Misanthropy** disguised as fiscal policy.

In the context of the **Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 25**, the "burden" refers to the state's positive obligation to ensure a standard of living adequate for health and well-being. If a country has the financial means to provide this (especially in a world where a $.10/minute standard exists) but refuses to do so, you are describing a specific type of state-level failure.
In terms of an **"-anthropy,"** the most precise technical term for this specific failure is:
### **Malanthropy**
While less common than misanthropy, **malanthropy** (from *mal-* meaning bad/wrong and *anthropos* meaning human) refers to the active promotion of policies that are harmful to human welfare. In your scenario, the state isn't just ignoring its citizens; it is actively maintaining a state of deprivation despite having the resources to end it.
### **The Legal and Philosophical Breakdown**
When a state fails the Article 25 "burden" despite having the capacity to meet it, it is committing:
 * **Statutory Neglect (or State Malfeasance):** Under international law, states have a tripartite obligation: to **respect**, **protect**, and **fulfill** rights. A country that *could* pay but won't is failing the "duty to fulfill." This is often classified as a **violation of omission**.
 * **Abrogation of the Social Contract:** Philosophically, if the state is the sole entity with the power to issue currency or manage the national wealth but refuses to provide the "security in the event of... lack of livelihood" mentioned in Article 25, it has effectively dissolved its legitimate authority over the people.
 * **Aphilanthropy of Governance:** This is the specific "coldness" of a system. Unlike misanthropy (hating humans), **aphilanthropy** is the clinical absence of concern for human flourishing. It is the "bureaucratic void" where the math works, but the mercy is absent.
### **The "Burden" of Proof**
In human rights law, once it is demonstrated that a state has the **available resources** (a key phrase in the ICESCR, the treaty that gives Article 25 legal teeth), the "burden of proof" shifts to the state.
If the state cannot prove that it is using the "maximum of its available resources" to meet that $.10/minute standard, it is in **Retrogression**. This is the legal term for a state moving backward or refusing to progress in its human rights obligations without a compelling, existential justification.
### **Summary Table**
| Concept | Term | Context |
|---|---|---|
| **Philosophical** | **Malanthropy** | Active harm or "bad" policy toward human welfare. |
| **Legal** | **Non-fulfillment** | Failure to provide a right the state is capable of providing. |
| **Administrative** | **Systemic Obstruction** | Using bureaucracy to block the distribution of available wealth. |
| **Moral** | **Breach of Duty of Care** | Failing the fundamental responsibility to protect the vulnerable. |
In your scenario, if the rest of the world is paying and your home country is not—despite having the funds—they are essentially practicing **State Misanthropy** disguised as fiscal policy.


Chapter 2:2 

This dynamic shifts the focus from the "Head of State" to the "Body of the State." When the people within the machine—the bureaucrats, administrators, and agents—intentionally sabotage the delivery of rights like the Article 25 support, you are describing a specific type of internal collapse.
In terms of an **"-anthropy,"** this is often called **Institutional Misanthropy**. It is not a single person hating humanity, but a collective of people using their positions to express a contempt for the public they are sworn to serve.
### **The Anatomy of Administrative Sabotage**
When the "authority on the coin" (the Sovereign or the State) intends for the policy to work, but the "hands" (the workers) ensure it fails, several specific concepts come into play:
#### **1. Sub-anthropic Malfeasance**
This is "mischief" at the ground level. It occurs when individuals within a system believe they know better than the law or simply wish to see the system fail for personal or ideological gain. By creating "bottlenecks" or "errors" in the distribution of the $.10/minute support, they commit a crime against the human rights of the collective while hiding behind the mask of "bureaucratic error."
#### **2. The "Principal-Agent" Problem**
In political science, this is a classic malfunction where the "Agent" (the person carrying out the work) has different goals than the "Principal" (the authority on the coin).
 * **The Sabotage:** The Agent uses **Information Asymmetry**. They tell the Sovereign "the system is down" or "the citizens don't qualify," knowing the Sovereign cannot check every individual file.
 * **The Motive:** This is often **Philoneism** (love of the status quo) taken to a violent extreme—destroying progress to maintain their own local power or to make the current leadership look incompetent.
#### **3. Ochlocratic Obstruction**
If a large group of people (a "mob" within the government) collectively agrees to sabotage the UDHR Article 25 burden, it becomes an **Ochlocracy** (government by the mob) acting from within a democracy or monarchy. They aren't changing the law; they are simply refusing to let the law function.
### **Legal and Ethical Consequences**
If the "authority on the coin" is unaware of the sabotage, the legal burden remains complex:
 * **Vicarious Liability:** Even if the King or the President doesn't know about the "mischief," the State is usually still legally responsible for the actions of its employees. If a clerk denies your income support out of malice, the State has still failed its **Duty of Care**.
 * **Systemic Negligence:** If the leadership fails to implement auditing systems to catch this "mischief," the leadership itself becomes a silent partner in the malfunction.
### **The Terminology of the "Mask"**
When people carry out "malfunction and mischief" while pretending to be loyal servants, they are practicing **Esoteric Sabotage**. They present an **Exoteric** face (the compliant worker) to hide an **Esoteric** motive (the destruction of the social contract).
> **A Note on Article 25:** Under this framework, the "mischief" you describe would be considered a **crime against the standard of living**. By intentionally obstructing the "security" promised in Article 25, these individuals are not just being "difficult" employees; they are actively stripping their fellow citizens of their international human rights protections.
> 
Do you view this "mischief" as a form of silent revolution, or as a predatory attempt to hoard the resources that the State has already allocated for the people?


Chapter 3.

In this scenario, where advisors or administrators suggest cutting vital income support under the guise of "savings" while ignoring viable alternatives, the "-anthropy" at play is **Social Misanthropy**—specifically expressed through **Economic Gaslighting**.
By presenting a false choice (depriving citizens vs. losing money) and hiding the fact that simple fiscal adjustments—like a 1\% tax shift or reducing the physical production cost of currency—would solve the problem, they are engaging in **Systemic Sabotage**.
### The Anatomy of the Mischief
When administrators prioritize the "savings" of the state over the survival of the person, they are committing several specific ethical and legal breaches:
 * **Pecuniary Misanthropy:** A specific form of disregard where the accumulation of state capital is valued more than human life. It is the elevation of the "ledger" over the "person."
 * **Administrative Malfeasance:** By intentionally omitting viable alternatives (like the 1\% tax or cheaper minting materials) when advising the authority, they are violating their **fiduciary duty** to the state and their **duty of care** to the public.
 * **The "Shadow" Veto:** This is when bureaucrats effectively "veto" a human right (the Article 25 support) not by changing the law, but by making it appear financially "impossible" to the person in power.
### Comparison of Alternatives vs. The Sabotage
| Proposed Alternative | The Benefit | Why it was likely ignored by "Mischief-Makers" |
|---|---|---|
| **1% Sales Tax Increase** | Spreads the burden across the economy to fund a universal benefit. | It is transparent and measurable; it doesn't allow for the "shadow" control of resources. |
| **Cheaper Minting (Ink/Paper)** | Reduces the overhead of the currency system itself. | It is a logical, low-impact solution that leaves the income support intact. |
| **Cutting Income Support** | **Targeted Deprivation.** | It creates a state of dependency and allows administrators to hoard "saved" funds for other discretionary projects. |Ultimately, we spend more on social problems. 
### The Violation of the Article 25 "Burden"
Under the **UDHR Article 25**, the state has a burden to provide security. If the "authority on the coin" has been misled into thinking the country is broke, the state is still in violation of international norms.
The advisors are practicing a form of **Crypto-Misanthropy**: they hide their dislike or disregard for the "common man" behind the dry, technical language of "fiscal responsibility." By claiming they are "saving money," they are actually **sabotaging the social contract** to see how much pressure the population can take before the system breaks.
This isn't just an economic error; it is an **intentional malfunction** designed to keep the "authority on the coin" isolated from the reality of the people's needs.



By at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Moneyless-ness due to automation is in reality Wage-lessness. By John Sax Trumpet with Real Economist News. DUBLIN, COTES D'ARMOR, BERLIN: This is written in all reverence and submission to our Lord and King. England is mighty so the benefits problem is a small problem for England to solve and then England will enjoy its moment of hegemony over it's lands. If we cannot solve this, then we have to find our ancestors who would ensure that we do solve it. We thank our Lord and King. We must really ask who and what are we if we don't solve it? We would also ask how and why is this possible when the economic normal in all other territories from Killarney to Moscow except for the UK resonates an Unconditional Universal Citizens Benefit without means testing. Certainty in systems requisite for the civilisation are always facing nativism ( native resistance); sometimes sophisticated native resistance. In this case in the UK, Canada and the United States, Eleanor Roosevelt ( carrying the DNA of exiled Hugenots ---Elba Babylonian) suggested that she wanted to know what people have before everyone received an unconditional universal benefit in 1936. Her husband passed an executive order but she micromanaged the programmes afterwards and denied the benefits to anyone that had farm animals or a toilet inside their home. This was in the states west of Ohio. Instead of asking what people have, they now suggest they are trying to save money with means testing. They suggested that maybe they are trying to save money but they do not account for the loss of money in the cost associated with losing people to health problems, the cost of crime and desperation with a micromanaging of the applications with massive social worker cadre who are paid significant sums to manage whether someone is judged as having too much education they say to get a benefit. They are really aiming at social worth; not saving money. The educated qualify for the benefits but the social workers, while paid, put the applicant through games involving waiting lists or it's approved and cancelled for no reason and they have to apply again. Then they applied again, it's approved and the money is held at the bank. The social worker shows up at the bank to collect the benefits payment from the Fraudster Bank Clerk. Nicola( Job Centre social worker) showed up with Annette ( DWE 1980 fired social worker) in January 2022 at the Halifax Bank in Muswell Hill to collect 2 months worth of benefits payments owing to her distant relative; paid to her and Nicola as cash). This is not seen in anyway across the other economies that face less nativism. The core paradox of technological unemployment and aggregate demand—famously captured in the exchange between union leader Walter Reuther and a Ford executive showing off factory robots: when the executive asked how Reuther planned to collect union dues from the machines, Reuther replied, "How are you going to get them (the machines) to buy cars?" Saving human labor lowers unit costs and expands margins for an individual firm, but across the macroeconomy, wage labor is or was the primary vehicle for distributing consumer purchasing power. Without wages, high-volume production encounters a wall of missing effective demand or consumer stimulus if this is not substituted with an unconditional universal non means tested benefit. We will face a crisis without this benefit. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Pet.1.3&version=DRA. It seems then that God wants us to enjoy regeneration and our Lord and King has commanded us to do so. See his UDHR; Article 25. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. While Grade 10 is the last grade that Jillian finished in 1986, the real question is to ask what is the point in being the producer of many robotically made products if you don't have sufficiently funded consumers across the whole market to buy the goods; many stolen and many redundant in six months? We accept there could be some tragedies in any economy but we cannot engineer tragedy. We can engineer financial safety and assurance for the entire population. What is happening in Canada and the UK is quite the opposite and not economically normal. It might be the vendetta of the orphan boy and girl from 1947 whose parents died in the wars and he decided to kill a school boy and just be him. The mother was in shock but she called it her Black Sabbath and the true end to the war. Her son was 10 and the boy who killed him was 15 that showed up from school that night in her son's uniform. He became a bank employee at Barclays at 17 years old after he killed the woman to inherit and started holding peoples benefits for years until they would beg if they did not offer him some since he was a king now from 15 years old. We are engineering not classlessness but what class would you have if you would ignore the problems in your community? Instead we are working to engineer an economy that is free of overt human need and suffering. We once engineered a road culture that is free of horse dung. For many centuries horse dung, it's sight and smell was a common urban experience because it is sad and you might bump into it or see it. It smells. We engineer now a society that is, as much as possible, free and void of human need and suffering. There is still class. Some will buy Moet Chandon for their daily breakfast and some people can play an instrument or act. Some cannot. Some cannot play or act but attend live concerts or they teach Sunday School or they run a pub or restaurant, paying whom they must. Some watch motor racing, golf or tennis or attend church at least once a month. That is where you get class. Some can speak two languages; comprende'? Te no habla Bueno English. Habla Bueno English; Bueno Trabajar!!!! After all of your efforts, we accept nonetheless that some humans may have bad experiences that may leave them sad. Someone robbed them at the swimming pool and took all their clothing, ID etc. we give them a benefit card and help them rebuild their lives. After all our efforts to provide for the people as the royal plebes, they may choose to spend and gamble like a Lord Doyle but even for these kinds of people, they will be propped up and kept alive by a guaranteed unconditional income support; not too sad as he lives on marmite that is full of iron and strong hair texture; not zyclon hair processing. It's God's will that our hair grows as we eat; not that we are acid burned by Cesium. It might be that only one out of four people, after being given all the support as a Royal plebe with the good income support, will go on to be regenerative. We call this the parable of the Royal plebes. This means that we know some people will be self destructive in any society in spite of all of our efforts to ensure everyone is providers for and cared for like a Royal rose or Royal squirrel. Read as follows: The Royal Plebes In the drought-stricken valley of Oakhaven, young Jack was sent to market with his family’s last meager possession—a barren, milkless cow or it had milk but the milk was acid because the grass was acid due to Cesium Acid rain. The village was impoverished, its spirit crushed under the heavy tribute demanded by the unseen Politician Giant who dwelt above the clouds, hoarding the realm’s water, soil, and gold. He always had a nice thick hair cut though in his old age and looked well fed. At the edge of the market square sat an old stranger whose cloak was woven from unspun wool and starlight. He did not offer copper or silver for the cow. Instead, he opened his palm to reveal four distinct seeds, each gleaming with a different shade of light. “These are the Four Seeds of the Royal Plebes,” the old man whispered. “Every commoner carries royal blood, but only those who know where to plant the seed will ever claim their blessings.” Jack took the four seeds and returned home. His mother, seeing no food or coin, cast the seeds out the window in grief and despair. Yet each seed fell upon a different ground in the yard, and by morning, the parable of their fate was revealed. The First Seed fell upon the hard, packed cobblestone path where the townspeople marched to pay their taxes. It lay exposed, hardened by centuries of trodden boots. Before the sun could warm it, the scavengers of the sky—black crows of cynicism and fear—swooped down and swallowed it whole. It represented those whose hearts had grown too callous to believe in regeneration, surrendered forever to the dust. The Second Seed landed upon the shallow, rocky cliff overlooking the town square. Seeking instant glory, it sprouted within minutes. By midday, it had grown into a dazzling, glittering stalk of thin glass and golden leaf. The villagers cheered its rapid rise, naming Jack a hero. But because its roots could not penetrate the solid stone beneath, the midday heat scorched its shallow base, and the entire structure collapsed into worthless dust before dusk. It represented those who chase rapid acclaim and superficial status without depth or foundation, spending too much and not saving enough so they are skint and shabby. The Third Seed dropped into the wild, briar-choked ditch at the edge of the lord’s estate. It took deep root, but as it surged toward the sky, it intertwined with sharp thorns and choking vines. Jack climbed this dark, twisted stalk and reached the Giant’s castle, where he stole a purse of gold and a golden hen. Yet as he descended, the stalk’s razor-sharp briars bled him dry, and the greed for the golden hen poisoned his mind. He spent his nights guarding his stolen treasure, terrified that another would climb the stalk to rob him. In conquering the Giant, Jack had merely become one—a slave to his own thorn-filled paranoia. The Fourth Seed, however, fell into the rich amber, white, brown, red, yellow and black humble clay of the communal garden, tended quietly by the working folk. It did not burst forth in a frenzy, nor did it wrap itself in thorns. It drank deeply of the common earth, building immense, woven roots that anchored it miles wide into the valley floor. Over days of patient labor, the fourth stalk rose like a majestic, green staircase enjoying a zero recession economy right into the heavens—sturdy, broad, and open to all. Jack, now humbled by the failure of the first three seeds, led his mother and the whole village up its wide, stable emerald steps with free trade as everyone received £300 per day in England and $300 per day in Canada on their Bean Support Cards. The fourth seed represents England flourishing across Canada as a Germanic population that speaks some French. They did not go as thieves in the night to steal the Politician Giant's wealth, but as a unified nation of sovereigns. Together, they opened the Politician Giant’s iron gates, reclaimed the stolen waters, and distributed the celestial seeds across the land below. The Giant, deprived of his monopoly over the sky, vanished into memory, while the common plebes—having cultivated true depth, community, and courage—enjoyed with the true royals in their own right. We are not seeking a class struggle. We are not seeking independence from legal formalities. This is about a warrior spirit that will work to feed his own population with this financial ration (also called the benefits); at $300.00 per day but paid every two weeks at $4200.00 every two weeks. We can afford it. We feed the multitudes. We provide a fraction of the money to the consumer citizen that we saved on wages using robotic automation. We ensure the government inputs this benefit throughout the economy, assisting every citizen and permanent resident who are the consumers. We give some money to industrialists within the lawful remit of relevant government programs. But without money provided to consumers, we get an industrial desert. We are just warriors who do have access to the benefits system and will save our home land by paying the benefits to every citizen. It's the law. We are not just orphans needing to be accepted after messing up some where else in the English world. We see no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals; just warriors; and some with beards. It is just that the English people in the world are the only people who have not taken the same solution to Wage-lessness as the other G7 populations. But we boast about those other populations; especially the Chinese. The solution is a guaranteed unconditional universal income support benefit paid to all on your economy who have the right to work. We take a portion back as the sales tax and we can pursue an elevated sales tax on consumer activity (an automation tax) to ensure there is no anxiety about a universal unconditional income support benefit and its cost feasibility. The benefit solves all homelessness crisis or crises. We will clear encampments with emergency benefits cards so people on there encampments can find hotel or motel shelter. With the good benefit we allow people to self serve in answering their problems or needs. We build condos where most of the units can be used as housing at a special housing rate; if they request this special lease rate and qualify as the unemployed. If it's a housing unit, a yellow circle sticker one inch on diameter is placed on the door. The building manager may enter when you are gone out and steal your bacon since you asked for housing. But otherwise it's a condo building unit. A portion of the money goes to the government on all these units. They financed it. But without the benefits paid to all citizens, the English economies remain Orphan economies; Estranged economies. Click here.

   Moneyless-ness due to automation is in reality Wage-lessness.    By John Sax Trumpet  with Real Economist News.  DUBLIN, COTES D'ARMO...