Subject—Point of No Return (20 August 2003)

From—Bek—To—McLachlin—Point of No Return—20 August 2003

Honourable Beverley McLachlin
Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court Building
301 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

Dear The Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
Subject—Point of No Return

Christopher Bek
Office of the King
1004 First Street NW
Calgary Canada T2M 2S1
20 August 2003

Canadian Government Manifesto

Men have called me mad, but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence—whether much that is glorious—whether all that is profound—does not spring from disease of thought—from moods of minds exalted at the expense of general intellect.
—Edgar Allan Poe

Point of No Return
Further to my letters of 28 September 2002 in which declared my sovereignship to the Sovereignty of Canada and 1 April 2003 in which I notified you that any action against me was treasonable and my letter to the Right Honourable Joe Clark of 21 July 2003 in which I, as the unchallenged Canadian Sovereign, brought criminal charges against Canadian honourables and doctors for totalitarianism, treason, heresy, child abuse and the unpardonable sin—I am hereby notifying you that I have requested the United States Government facilitate the bringing of a malpractice lawsuit at the United Nations against Canadian honourables and doctors for these criminal charges—and that any further action against me, including taking my house away, represents the point of no return after which the malpractice lawsuit will proceed unabatedly.  I am calling it The Plan to Eliminate the National Debt in One Fell Swoop by Nailing the Unpardonable Sinners.  The unlawfulness of action against me stems from the very definition of the divine right being such that I answer only to God and am thus above the manmade laws of government.  The essence of the lawsuit pertains to the choice of the behavioral psychological model employed exclusively in Canada which results in the fact that individuals have no freedom and no responsibility—which I argue is a violation of human rights under the United Nations Charter.  I was also denied both the divine right of kings and the right to say no by the Supreme Court of Canada.  By declaring my sovereignship in keeping with the predefined role of sovereign in Canada such that I hold no political power, I am attempting to establish a beachhead of truth so that critical errors like behaviorism can be corrected.  The purpose of the sovereign is to make the government accountable to the people and thusly self-aware thereby allowing sovereignty to reside with the people rather than the government.  My primary interest is for the Canadian Government to do its duty and publicly acknowledge me as sovereign and pay me the same tax-free salary as the governor general.  I am initiating this legitimate malpractice lawsuit only as a last resort.  In the alternative, I am proposing that the Business Development Bank of Canada pay off my debts and allow me to stay in my house while the truth of the situation is revealed.  The business development aspect relates to my developing The Bernoulli Model as a standard for business, education and government.  I would begin paying off the bank with the consulting revenue and then, after a year, both parties would be able to reassess the situation.

Knowledge Le Savior
René Descartes (1596-1650) ended the dark ages and founded modern philosophy with his cogitocogito, ergo sum—I think, therefore I exist.  He rightly argued the fact that he is thinking enabled him to deduce his existence with certainty.  Starting from the certainty of self-existence, Descartes conceived a system of knowledge based on absolute certainty.  The quest for certainty is the most primordial urge of the ego and the loftiest passion of humanity.  Knowing this, the superego promises certainty to the ego as the reward for good behavior—a promise the superego cannot and does not deliver.  According to the Freudian cognitive model, the ego or consciousness is the lighthouse of the mind which chooses between the external authority of the superego and the internal authority of the self or soul or id or unconscious.  A sustained effort on the part of the ego is able to realize the certainty of the self.  Whereas the self exists in the eternal-now, the superego merely exists in the now and persists by mimicking the self thereby fooling the ego.  Behaviorism demands the ego submit to the superego thus denying the certainty of the self and the potential for self-realization.  So rather than following the argument wherever it leads as Socrates asserted, Canadians can only make judgments that validate governmental authority.  According to William Barrett in his 1958 book Irrational Man—reason, the ability to arrive at certain knowledge, was a Greek invention.  Pythagoras (572-500 BC) provided the first realization of certain knowledge by proving the Pythagorean theorem, which establishes certain knowledge that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angle triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two sides.  Relativity is based on the Pythagorean theorem.  The constructing of rational arguments directed towards arriving at certain knowledge that must be either challenged or accepted—ie. due process—lies at the heart of scientific discovery, the legal process and Western civilization.  The alternative of totalitarianism asserts that governments are not accountable to the people.  Universities, by definition, proclaim universal knowledge and must either challenge or accept arguments of scientific discovery to assure accountability.  It is the highest duty for heads of government like yourself, the prime minister, senate leader and governor general to oversee and insist upon the accountability of due process.

Rights and Duties
My theory of one establishes a divine connection between God and myself in that it both unites the Godmade laws of nature and proves there is only one photon in the universe which I rightly identified as Eve from the story of Creation and also the flashpoint of the big bang.  Based on this divine connection, I invoked the divine right of kings doctrine, which is an appeal to God and not the Supreme Court and can only be defeated by a superior argument from the existing sovereign, or a physicist or theologian who could either disprove my divine connection or divine right.  The fact that the Supreme Court has neither accepted nor challenged my declaration of sovereignship is clearly illegal as per the precepts of Western civilization.  In that my claim of sovereignship has gone unchallenged, the Supreme Court of Canada has no choice but to acknowledge me as sovereign.  Moral law has an absolute character.  Rights and duties cannot be weighed against the profit of ignoring them and must be respected regardless of conflicting interests.  Being a person of good faith I naturally assumed the bad faith on the part of the government was simply the result of inertia and you would eventually come around to doing the right thing.  The fact that the government has not upheld my right to say no and has neither challenged nor acknowledged my sovereignship and my scientific theories clearly represents violations of my rights.  John Locke, who inspired the United States Constitution, wrote that if the government violates the rights of the people then the people have the right to get rid of the government.  As the unchallenged Canadian Sovereign, I have formally requested intervention from the United States Government—meaning that concerned Canadian citizens now have the means and legal right to remove the Canadian Government.  Again, my primary interest here is for the Canadian Government to do its duty and publicly acknowledge me as sovereign.  The Freudian cognitive model also applies to the notion of sovereignty in that the government is the superego, the people are the ego and the sovereign is the soul.  The totalitarian nature of education, healthcare and law in Canada prohibits people from recognizing both the soul and the winning arguments that I as sovereign embody.  By acknowledging me as sovereign, the government would be allowing the people to consider my arguments—upon which I could then lead our entire civilization out of the cave of behaviorism by formulating one winning argument after another until the lights come on—thereby exonerating, in my mind, all government in Canada of any wrongdoing.

Recipe for Psychosis
Freud believed that for psychology to justify itself as a science it would have to uncover the root cause of behavior.  Behaviorism is the twentieth-century psychological model of Skinner and Watson holding that all human activity can be known through externally visible behavior based on the blatantly flawed belief that consciousness does not exist.  Starting with the Socratic proclamation of Know Thyself, the existential psychological model stands in direct opposition to behaviorism by making consciousness and thus the self or soul or id or unconscious primordially important.  The ego yields to the superego under behaviorism while the ego yields to the self or soul or God the mathematician under existentialism.  Behaviorism denies the ability to make decisions that do not validate the superego while existentialism is based on mathematics—which is the science of formulating arguments, drawing conclusions and making decisions.  Behaviorism is the worship of appearances and is exactly the thing Plato warned us about 2500 years ago with his allegory of the cave.  To worship appearances is to worship the Devil—and to yield to mathematically valid arguments is to worship God.  Existentialism condemns us to be free while behaviorism condemns us to behave.  Existentialism gives us total freedom and total responsibility while behaviorism gives us no freedom and no responsibility.  Skinner called himself a behavioral engineer based on the belief that the behavioral model is able to deterministically predict human behavior.  Behaviorism works by forcing the ego to capitulate to predicted behavior—whereupon the ego seeks to validate its decision to capitulate by selectively avoiding contravening facts and coercing others into capitulating.  In effect, the determinism of behaviorism is self-fulfilling in that once the ego capitulates it cannot return to the soul without acknowledging the evidence of its former capitulation.  Since the superego is not based on reason like the soul, the ego is henceforth deterministically married to the superego.  In that behaviorism is founded on the baseless authority of the superego and only accepts outward appearances that deny the true nature of reality—it is ultimately a recipe for psychosis—which is the mental disorder characterized by impaired contact with reality—thusly making behaviorism a massively runaway mental disorder.  I am in this position of extreme distress as a result of the psychotic honourables and doctors inability to comprehend my ridiculously simple theory of one argument that unites the laws of nature by recognizing Planck’s constant and lightspeed as the same boundary of the spacetime continuum—thereby revealing a deeper level of reality.  The doctors that I presented my beautiful theory to found it incomprehensible and instead asked why I did not present it to the physicists.  By doing this they were firstly undermining my judgment and secondly shirking their responsibility to higher truth.  Behaviorism makes it open season on souls 24/7.  Both the right to say no and the divine right are arguments which verify the soul.  By endorsing behaviorism and denying the right to say no and the divine right, the government makes Canada soulless, Godless and totalitarian—both in theory and in practice.

The Wrong Way
I am not making some subtle shade-of-grey argument here.  The honourable and doctors have decided to let everyone of the hook of freedom and responsibility.  Unfortunately, you failed to consider the unexpected secondary effect that behaviorism puts us totally out-of-touch with ourselves.  You are making all Canadians sick and then offering an ever-so modicum of relief from education, healthcare and law.  An existential or soul-based society would recognize that most of the great thinkers are self-taught and that individual subjective judgement is sacred.  Such a society would not enforce uniform testing and would focus primarily on fundamentals like the Pythagorean theorem, the Cartesian cogito and the Freudian cognitive model.  The Freudian cognitive model also applies to the notion of sovereignty in that the government is the superego, the people are the ego and the sovereign is the soul.  What I have done by declaring my sovereignship is recognize the fact that, as John Locke asserted, the sovereign power arises as the end result of the process and is not inherent in the original compact.  As I understand it, the United Nations is the authority that verifies the legality of sovereignties.  By denying my sovereignship, the Supreme Court is effectively invalidating the legality of the Sovereignty of Canada.  I am living proof of what happens when a person tries to stand up for the truth and make the world better.  People in this country capitulate to behaviorism because the alternative is to be mindlessly crushed by a totalitarian government—which is exactly what is happening to me now.  I would argue that yielding to a winning argument is a sign of strength and not weakness.  People keep telling me that I need to be practical, but I would assert that when it comes to the truth, the burden of practicality falls to the government.  The truth does not have to go out and get corporate sponsorship.  All along I was hoping that my community, my county and the world would rejoice in my discoveries and realize as I do that we are minutes away from infinite paradise.  My alternative solution whereby the Business Development Bank of Canada would pay off my debts and the government would allow me to stay in my house while the truth of the situation is revealed represents a viable solution for the government.  It is not too late to prevent this mistake.  In the alternative, I will have to settle for the fact that I have built a monolithically compelling case against the honourables and doctors demonstrating unequivocally that you are unpardonably crushing the truth with full and complete knowledge of your actions.  This situation reminds me of the 1987 movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles where Steve Martin and John Candy are driving on the wrong side of a divided highway and are mocking the people in the car driving on the right side that are yelling at them that they are going the wrong way.  I will thusly conclude with a message from God’s lips to your ears—You’re going the wrong way.

King Christopher

Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations (1945)
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.  Accordingly, our respective governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. 

The following is a list of ten questions that concerned Canadians may wish to consider asking the heads of government—Prime Minister ChrétienSenate Leader CarstairsGovernor General Clarkson and Chief Justice McLaughlin.  Note that postage is not required for mailing.


1)   Do Canadians have the right to say no?
2)   Are there conditions under which the Canadian Government would acknowledge the divine right?
3)   Does the Canadian Government insist that universities either challenge or accept scientific theories?
4)   Does the Canadian Government recognize the importance of uniting relativity and quantum theory?
5)   Does the Canadian Government believe the Godmade laws of nature trump the manmade laws of government?
6)   Does the Canadian Government believe the sovereign is responsible for the welfare of the children?
7)   Does the Canadian Government believe it is accountable to the people?
8)   Does the Canadian Government believe in God the mathematician?
9)   Does the Canadian Government hold the truth is scared?
10) Does the Canadian Government endorse behaviorism?

Right Honourable Jean Chrétien
House of Commons
Ottawa ON  K1A 0A6

Honourable Adrienne Clarkson
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa ON  K1A 0A1

Honourable Sharon Carstairs
Senate of Canada
Ottawa ON  K1A 0A4

Honourable Beverley McLachlin
Supreme Court Building
301 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON  K1A 0A6


Truth and immutability are the same thing.
—Edgar Allan Poe

When the solution is simple, God has answered.
—Albert Einstein

Once a nation begins to think, it is impossible to stop.

Nobody wants to believe that the truth is as simple as it is.
—Stephen Hawking

The only hope for an age that is tempted by nihilism is to name the problem and define it.
—Albert Camus

Restricting knowledge to a small group deadens the philosophical spirit of people and leads to spiritual poverty.
—Albert Einstein 

If one makes a false or superficial beginning, no matter how rigorous the methods that follow, the initial error will never be corrected.
—FS Northrop

People ask for bread and are given stones.  They beg for advice on how to be saved and are told that salvation is an infantile neurosis.  They long for guidance on how to live responsibly and are told they are machines, like computers, without freewill and therefore without responsibility.
—EF Schumacher

No simple, agreed-upon definition of consciousness exists. Attempts to define consciousness have tended to be merely tautological or descriptive—such as awareness, sensations, thoughts or feelings. In spite of this, the subject of consciousness has had a remarkable history and at one time was the primary subject matter of psychology, although has since suffered an almost complete and total downfall.
—Microsoft Encarta 

While nineteenth-century psychology was busy at work analyzing the conscious mind, psychoanalysis was engaged in explorations of the unconscious mind.  Freud felt that consciousness was only a thin slice of the total mind, that like an iceberg, the larger part of it existed below the surface of awareness.  Psychologists answered Freud by saying that the notion of an unconscious mind was a contradiction in terms; the mind, by definition, was conscious.  The controversy never reached a final conclusion because both psychology and psychoanalysis changed their objective during the twentieth century.  Psychology became the science of behavior and psychoanalysis became the science of personality.
—Calvin Hall

There can be no other truth to take off from this—I think, therefore I exist—ie. the Cartesian cogito.  There we have the absolute truth of consciousness becoming aware of itself.  Every theory which takes man out of the moment in which he becomes aware of himself is, at its very beginning, a theory which confounds the truth, for outside the Cartesian cogito, all views are only probable, and a doctrine of probability which is not bound to a truth dissolves into thin air.  In order to describe the probable, you must have a firm hold on the true.  Therefore, before there can be any truth whatsoever, there must be an absolute truth; and this one is easily arrived at; it is on everyone’s doorstep; it is a matter of grasping it directly.
—Jean-Paul Sartre

Man has the power of life like the plants, the power of consciousness like the animals, and something more—the power of consciousness recoiling upon itself—which is the power of self-awareness.  Man is not merely a conscious being, but a being capable of consciousness of his own consciousness—not merely a thinker, but a thinker able to watch and study his own thinking.  This power of self-awareness opens up unlimited possibilities for purposeful learning, investigating, exploring and of formulating and accumulating knowledge.  People for whom the power of self-awareness is poorly developed cannot grasp it as a separate power and tend to think of it as nothing more than a slight extension of consciousness.
—EF Schumacher

You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up.  And you are here because you know something.  What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it.  You’ve felt it your entire life.  That there’s something wrong with the world.  You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad.  It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.  Like everyone you are a slave.  You were born into bondage, born into a prison you cannot smell or taste or touch—a prison for your mind.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
—President Thomas Jefferson


Christopher Bek is a mathematician, actuary, philosopher, scientist and writer—and is a superior spreadsheet, database and riskmodeling craftsman.  He has consulted to the top executives of one of the largest companies in Canada—and has made presentations relating to the philosophy and science of risk management in Houston and New York.  Chris founded Risk Management Services in 1995 dedicated to helping executives develop scientific management practices that will allow organizations to properly serve the shareholders, the stakeholders and society in the community.  Socrates (470-399 BC) set the table for Plato (427-347 BC) by radically insisting that we must first answer the question of what X is before we can say anything else about X.  Plato then founded philosophy by daring to ask what existence would be like outside the cave.  Chris founded Philosophymagazine on 1 January 2001 in support of those who have taken a less traveled road in the struggle towards daylight.