Tax and Customs Administration
PO Box 9100
7100 HA WINTERSWIJK
6 November 2006
Copy to : Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende and the Supreme Court
- Under fearful believers -
Reference: 64.57.502.V.XXXXXXXRe: Writ of Execution
Are we but insignificant cogs in a big machine? A machine whose most important objective is to produce money, to grow and to make profit? Can we use this money to resolve social problems both at a national and an international level? Or has money actually become a key part of the problem? For instance, can famine, disease, education and environmental challenges be fixed with money? Nowadays, money has become a goal in itself, resulting in it leading a life of its own. In the Middle Ages, God was the answer to ‘all evils’, but that also meant that society was imprisoned by a religious elite who’d confiscated the exclusive rights to God. There’s nothing essentially wrong with God or money, but when they appropriate the most important role for themselves, this creates a certain type of world and we are made subordinate to the laws we dreamt up ourselves, whether they represent God, money or something else.
Just suppose I’m going to fool you that the moon possesses special powers and that every time you look at the moon you have to pay me 20 cents. Or you take out a subscription and pay ten euros a year allowing you to look at the moon as often as you like. This may be a ridiculous example which you’d never fall for, but with God and money we have succeeded in fooling ourselves and others into this. So why wouldn’t this work with the moon or the sun, especially when I have an army and a judiciary on my side, completely independent of course (but still completely dependent on the system, faith or science).
Is money in itself worth money?
If this were actually the case, then nobody would have to work anymore, which just wouldn’t work. Therefore, it’s vital that there are enough people, and governments of course, who believe that money in itself is worth money.
Is looking at the moon worth money?
In the end, it’s a question of what we want to believe, how convincingly it will be presented and what sanctions there may be for the unbelievers. Power and fear can imprison a society for centuries, even if nobody actually wants that. I don’t blame the Tax and Customs Administration for doing what it does; after all, that’s what it was appointed to do and even that was logical initially. Nonetheless, I think it’s important that we understand that we’re all in the same boat, and as long as we keep seeing each other as competitors and/or accomplices to defend our own interests, breaking through to a more sustainable and just world will continue to be impossible. A government which subordinates itself to a system that makes the rich richer and makes society increasingly dependent loses its credibility and breeds chaos and human impotence to change things for the better. This latter point is impossible because we have to remain subservient to the law that money in itself is worth money. Other priorities are eclipsed by this and will remain as such because making money is the most important ‘economic’ priority. As a result, we’ve created a Catch 22 situation: first make money, and then we can use that money to fix the problems. I don’t know how much longer we can continue to fool ourselves and each other with this little fairytale, but it just doesn’t work in practice.
.... c'est l'évolution de notre propre conscience.
Ministry of General Affairs
Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende
PO Box 20001
2500 EA THE HAGUE
9 June 2006
Copy: to the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Tax and Customs Administration in Winterswijk and the European Court
Re: Refusal to collaborate further on the fundamental injustice within the (current) Dutch and European constitutional state, the chronic bureaucratic corruption.
- under believers -
Dear Mr Balkenende,
Thank you for your response in your letter of 22 May, which I greatly appreciate. It would seem that my letter was not very clear, which is perhaps somewhat logical. In my letter of 2 May, I question something that we have considered logical, just and scientific for 5,000 years. Something that has conditioned and pre-programmed individuals and our society as a whole for over 5,000 years will probably not be immediately clear. Although I am no lawyer, I did try to indicate in my letter that the current politico-economic system is unjust and contrary to the democratisation of society. The inseparable politico-economic ingredients competition, profit and interest have created a government that holds society and itself captive between debt and reward. This keeps society (including the government) small, dependent and adrift. It has resulted in us living in two economic worlds, one with an actual exchange of goods and services and the other a bureaucratic reflection of the goods and services traffic. This second stream is in fact the accounting side of the economy. In a healthy and open society, these two streams (economies) run completely synchronously, forming the perfect reflection of each other. This is not the case in the current politico-economic system, in which they are two separate politico-economic streams. Of course, there is a partial overlap (2%) between the goods and services economy on the one hand and the accounting ‘economy’ on the other, but over the course of time this has got completely out of hand, meaning that we’re living in a global financial casino where the largest part of accounting economy activities no longer have any roots in society, except in the belief that money in itself is worth money. Or in other words, accounting has acquired value in itself and today represents the most important‘politico-economic’ power in itself, at the expense of…….! The 5,000-year-old source that resulted in accounting acquiring value in itself and it also becoming a politico-economic power factor was uncovered by historians in Mesopotamia, the current Iraq. Today, we know it as a ceaseless number of derivatives, which are variations on that same accounting theme: interest on money.
In this letter, I will try to use a more legal approach to explain why I no longer charge (de Hutte Holding BV) and pay (EURL Petit Château Roquetaillade – Aveyron) any interest and, therefore, no longer wish to pay any more taxes on the income deriving from interest of de Hutte Holding BV. In short, this means that I refuse to support a system/structure that more or less completely undermines democratisation and justice within our society. In pure monetary terms, this undermining of the constitutional state, democracy and straightforward economic communication represents 98% of the whole. In plain language, this undermining means: a totally out of control bureaucratic fantasy at the expense of society.
From this point of view, the current politico-economic way of thinking/doing business more or less completely undermines article one of the constitution.
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
If ‘mutual competition’ really is so good for society, then I think it would be better to immediately scrap article one from our constitution. Encouraging and promoting mutual competition is nothing more than the final institutionalisation of the ‘law of the jungle’, which has automatically led to economic discrimination. For our democracy, this means that ‘winners’ have more rights than ‘losers’. Is that what we understand by democracy? In that case, there’s nothing that we need to change today, seeing as ‘this will sort itself out’ and a winner will always emerge. The government runs a relatively small risk in such a situation, as there is always a winner who then hands over a part of the profit, with which the losers can be partially compensated. Naturally, there can’t be any full compensation because then the profit stream would dry up all too quickly. Politically, legally and practically speaking, the government has manoeuvred itself into an impossible position. Whether it is willing to recognise it or not, the government is a stakeholder in this situation, because it is dependent on the financial ‘winners’. By opting for mutual competition in society, the government has pushed aside its indispensable impartiality, thereby in fact losing all moral ground for faithfully and justly steering society.
Supreme Court of the Netherlands
PO Box 20303
2500 EH The Hague
13 September 2006
Copy to: Prime Minister Balkenende, Winterswijk Tax and Customs Administration and www.solution-simple.com
Re:The difference between legal system and constitutional state, and a concrete question to you
Dear Ms XXXXX,
Thank you for your explanation in your letter of 17 August 2006, in which you clarify that our legal system has to abide by the rules set down in the law. This seems very logical and right to me. You also state that an investigation is possible, provided that this is brought before the Supreme Court in the manner stipulated by law. This also seems logical in order to give the legal system a framework in which justice can be administered carefully and fairly. Nonetheless, I want to make a comment here. Your observation is entirely true if the legal system is in line with the way the constitutional state operates; that is, the legal system (theoretically speaking) operates completely synchronously with the constitutional state itself. That this is not the case today, either practically or theoretically speaking, is clearly evident from our politico-economic system in which the economic right of the strongest is institutionalised/protected, and which, therefore, disregards the most fundamental democratic principles which should be the basis of a well-functioning legal system.
But how can a constitutional state serve (the general mutually binding interests), if mutual competition is a key ‘common’ principle? The institutionalised representatives of the constitutional state, i.e. the judiciary, government and parliament, guarantee their own indispensability by creating conditions whereby society only becomes more dependent on these institutions.
The very nature of competition constantly requires the administration of justice, an arbitrator who intervenes and administers justice. From a marketing perspective, this is a winning recipe; having people compete because they will continuously have to knock on the door of those various bodies seeking justice, or sooner or later, they will hang their head in despair at this constant and chronic recurring injustice.
A case of the goose that lays the golden eggs for the people working within this system. But what happens to the people who find themselves outside the system? Competition forces us to protect ourselves properly, which takes up a lot of our time and energy. There’s nothing really wrong with that, but shouldn’t the constitutional state (the government, the house of representatives, the judiciary, the business community and citizens) at least take a look at whether this is efficient and in the interests of an open society, one that is as free as possible? And the most important question in all of this is whether it’s fair on all those participating in society. Sooner or later, we have to ask ourselves if honest competition is actually at all possible. How and where do you set believable limits on what is possible, permitted and still just? A society where competition is a key principle logically creates the right of the strongest. Those who ‘earn’ the most can recruit the best staff, pay the best lawyers, etc., but does it actually create people who take their own responsibility within and for society as a whole? Fortunately, there are of course plenty of people like this, but unfortunately, they are more the exception than the rule within a competitive society. With competition, the first priority is having your own affairs in order. The consequences for society as a whole in the short and long run are secondary and, in day-to-day practice, they are often a loss-making priority. This brings me to the important conclusion that competition creates dependence instead of healthy independence and fair play in society as a whole: the constitutional state. By taking competition as a starting point, the legal system has created (unintentionally, I assume) an indisputably huge market share,on which practically all of society has become dependent. When viewed from the perspective of psychological laws that create mutual competition, this is completely understandable. But is this just and efficient from an economic point of view? Does this create the right principles for a free and open society and for individuals who stand on their own two feet?
Collaboration, on the other hand, places the responsibility on society, on the independently operating individual. Institutions intervene when the conditions for collaboration are undermined by the individual or groups of participants. This requires an entirely different attitude from parents, government, parliament and the judiciary. Democracy will then come to rest where it naturally belongs: in society itself, with the individual, instead of with the institutions that unconsciously try to protect their own market at the expense of democracy and the constitutional state. Because in a competitive society we can only protect our own achievements against our competitive fellow man. Over the years, this has resulted in institutions, governments, business and individuals only safeguarding their own system, achievements and mechanism, which, of course, has happened at the expense of the general interest: the constitutional state. In a competitive society, people always point the finger at others; nobody is responsible anymore for individual actions or joint ones. For instance, in your first letter of 12 July 2006 you suggest that I should vent my opinions in the political arena; a political world that is internally divided right down to its core and, because of its individual political fight for survival, has long since lost sight of social interests. This is all logical when you consider mutual competition, but it’s disastrous for the constitutional state striving for unity.
A voir aussi: Cleveland contre Wallstreet, qui montre selon moi bien la complexité du système. Façon parler c'est facile de dire c'est la faute de Goldmann Sachs, c'est vrai et en plus le plus haut que nous sommes dans l'actuelle hiérarchie, le plus responsable nous sommes. Mais si nous ne voyons pas notre propre fonctionement on va jamais voir l'intégralité de la problématique.
Quand Sartre a dit, l'enfer c'est l'autre, ça veut aussi dire l'enfer est aussi dans nous-même. Seulement par rendre conscience de notre propre fonctionnement dans le système, nous pouvons changer le système. Si on continue de dire c'est la faute de "Goldmann", "le PS", "la droite", "la media" etc. nous ne voyons pas l'intégralité des choses.
A lire aussi: