North Stoke Life

Robin Smith is an essayist who authors the website North Stoke Life, a platform featuring philosophical and societal sightings from a hamlet in Oxfordshire. His writing centers on the movement of human thought, psychology, and societal conditioning. Key themes explored in his essays include: Obedience Theory: The idea that human behaviors—such as social compliance, political alignment, and even the jealousy of wealth—are driven by an unconscious, ingrained urge for tribal obedience and survival rather than true free will. The Orwell Test: Smith designed this conceptual framework as a self-reflection tool to help individuals evaluate whether they prioritize autonomous critical thinking or unconscious tribal compliance. Institutional Critiques: He writes on topics ranging from the global effects of taxation and government regulation to broader economic discussions about societal structure.  In addition to publishing on his own site, Smith is known for engaging in the comments section...

Volumes of Space will Soon Command a Rent The volumes with the greatest value will create the greatest demand for the limited volume of valuable space available. Ultimately, the most valuable volumes will command the highest rents. Just like back on planet earth. Nothing will be different. Things will proceed as normal. Heard it before? Yes! Right here on the earth below your very feet. We just call it land area, not space volume. The familiar term 'location, location, location' still applies for identical reasons though. The term space value will be used instead of land value. Space volume instead of land area. 3D versus 2D. In economic terms, space volumes are still considered 'economic land' for use in pricing and measurements. It's just that space value is measured in volume not area. The return to the use of space volumes - the income stream from space ownership, will still be called an economic rent. Or more commonly, just rent. Unintelligent peopl...

There's no fundamental difference between the public and the private sector. Private and public sector are only different in our tribal imaginations.  The marginal difference is that the so called public sector is the top gang who currently won over the collective of people who wilfully submit to them.  And the private sector perennially fight each other for the remaining spoils via monopoly grants and royal charters, patents permitting them to proceed with a small amount of freebies etc. Remember the time of kings where there were multiple families or tribes competing to be king. It was not always certain who would be the winning gang.  Eventually it all came out in the wash and a king was once again crowned and became the effective public sector. The royal court and the Lords became the private sector forever scheming about how to take over. Is there really any difference today, where it matters? I laugh when people talk about how the race has advance and evolved so muc...

We All Have a Theory. Which tells a very important truth. My theory is a story, an image, a narrative, a myth, a symbol.  That is OK. We tell this truth using a theory because using a theory protects us. The theory is always a metaphor, a myth, a symbol, an image. Sometimes a conspiracy theory. "So our theory is not literal truth?" No. But it does point to a truth - it signals, in a hidden way. For a rational reason. A myth is not a lie. It is a myth. With value. My theory has value yet is not a fact. Our theories can only be told in this way - through myth and symbol.  A theory, is a truth, which cannot be told in any other way. Our feelings say that to tell the truth directly puts us in danger. So we use a symbolic theory instead to say something very important and stay out of danger. "Why is telling a direct literal truth dangerous to me?" Because it means I must then confess my complicity in the actual truth.  There is no escape from this if I attempt to tell th...

WIP Here is a classic example of: a conspiracy theory being used to tell a truth which cannot be told in any other way Hiroshima Revisited by Michael Palmer It's claim is that nuclear weapons have never existed. The book is low quality and does not enforce its theory well. But I'm not pointing this out to discredit it at all. On the contrary, I'm saying this is a classic exposition of a conspiracy theory being used to talk about a truth, with cannot be talked about in any other way. And those forwarding it should be held in higher esteem than those not doing so.  As always I'm not saying these theories are truth or should be used to make policy. I am saying they are being used to signal an actual truth far upstream which cannot be told directly and literally for fear of the harm that will cause the messenger. And the signalling is not done consciously by the messenger and this is why its pointless trying to reason with them using logic and reason. Following is how this ...