Follow by Email

Friday, 6 September 2019

THE FRAUD OF DEMOCRACY

September 2019 – Along with many others these past few days I have watched the pantomime that we used to call “The Mother of Parliaments” become a vague, sad imitation of itself. Along with many others I’m sick to death of what I’m hearing and viewing on voyeur-vision. I’m not at all sure that even George Orwell could have made it up.

Thanks to the A.K. Chesterton Trust and the Candour writings of Ben Greene (1901-1978), as well as a friend in Yorkshire, I was introduced some while ago to one of Greene’s essays: The British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament. I commend it to you. (www.candour.org.uk).

I’ve written in the past about the apparently casual way we use words. But even the word ‘casual’ is wrongly used. We seem to use words to conceal our thoughts and intentions rather than illuminate them. Lawyers and politicians are particularly good at this. Beware lawyers and politicians; they know their business and your interests are rarely the same as theirs.

Recently I came upon an explanation. “As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.” — Gore Vidal (1925-2012).

Since the dawn of time every empire has come to grief and fulfilled the pragmatic Persian observation: “This too shall pass.” Why should the British Empire (or American Empire) be any different?

The following article is from www.theburningplatform.com  and was written by a guest contributor known as The Zman. I haven’t changed a word.

The Fraud Of Democracy

Guest Post by The Zman

One of the features of the current year is the regular reminder that western style democracy is a complete fraud. According to the political class, democracy allows for public policy to reflect the will of the people. The parties put forward candidates offering various policy proposals and the public signals their preferences by voting for one or the other candidates. The winners then set about trying to implement the policies they proposed. That’s how we’re told representative democracy works.

In reality, nothing like this happens. Instead, the parties put on a show for the voters, rarely intending to actually do what they claim. Instead, they manufacture differences between one another, so they can pretend the choice before the voters is stark. Once the election is over, the politicians go back to living their lives of leisure, waiting for instructions from the people who actually run things. The politicians are like robot actors, brought out for elections, then put back in storage.

The obvious example of this is the most recent American presidential election in which Donald Trump scored a stunning upset on the promise to reduce immigration, crackdown in illegal immigration and address the gross inequality resulting from globalization. So far, none of that has been done. Instead, he spent most of his presidency fighting a seditious coup to get him out of office. In fact, Trump’s three years are pretty much what Jeb Bush promised when he was running in the 2016 primary.

Notice that hardly anyone in either political party is terribly concerned about the FBI plot to overturn the election. Sure, there are a few lonely voices on the Republican side asking questions and demanding transparency. They have no support from leadership. On the Democrat side, they are actively colluding with the plotters to cover up the affair. One would think the people subject to the voters would care about the integrity of the process, but you would be wrong. The revealed preferences are on full display.

An ugly as the Trump era has been, it is civil and decent compared to what is happening in Europe. The Italians are now watching their political class submarine the will of the people in an egregious series of deceits by the Five Star Movement. The Italians voted for a populist, anti-EU coalition. Instead, the Five Star Movement cut a deal with the internationalist, pro-EU party to sabotage the nationalists. The result is the exact opposite of what the people voted for in their last election.

In Britain, the government put a choice before the people back in 2016, as to whether remain in the EU or become an independent nation again. The public chose nationhood by a respectable margin. In any democracy, getting 52% of the vote, particularly in a highly popular election, is a solid majority. Here we are, more than three years on, and the political class is still debating whether to accept the election results. In other words, the elected officials are deciding whether the election results matter.
To make matters worse, you now have members of one party actively colluding with members of other parties to undermine the orderly process in Parliament. Up until this week, the “remainers” could plausibly claim they are operating within the democratic process, despite thwarting the will of the people. Britain is not a pure democracy, so the pols have some leeway. Now, they are in active revolt against the system that they are sworn to uphold, in an effort to upend the result of the Brexit referendum.

In all of these cases, the question that never gets asked in the media is who is bribing these people to carry on this way. The most likely reason Five Star finked on its voters is the leaders took bribes from Brussels. In Britain, the “remainers” are certainly on the payroll of global enterprise. Those paymasters are most likely foreign. In the United States, of course, both political parties are wholly owned by the donor party. No one in the media bothers looking into it, as they are owned by the oligarchs as well.

The tell is that these shenanigans always work one way. You’ll never see the party of the globalist suddenly have a crisis of conscience and defect to the nationalists. It’s always the other way. There are no “remainers” siding with the Brexiteers in order to respect the will of the people, despite their own misgivings. In Washington, no globalists have switched teams to support Trump. In the charade that is democracy, the fink is always played by the same character in exactly the same way.

The reason we never see a politician break ranks in order to support the popular will against his own side is that western democracy is a fraud. Elections are a beard worn by the oligarchy to fool the public. The public space is filled with drama and outrage, drawing in the public. It is the circus half of the bread and circuses. Meanwhile, the oligarchs, most of whom are now foreign to the people over whom they rule, exercise the real power of the supposedly national governments of the West.

In the United States, both political parties are funded by the same people. For example, anyone questioning the endless wars for Israel gets pilloried, because Israel runs a massive lobbying operation to buy off both political parties. They work this racket in other Western countries as well. The tech giants operate in violation of the laws and civil order, because they own the politicians of both parties. Of course, the commentariat is being paid by the same people to maintain the fraud.
Every society has an elite. This is the natural state of mankind. In a democracy, this reality is concealed from the public. Instead, it is one man, one vote. The people decide public policy. In reality, it is a handful of men and your votes mean nothing. Worse yet, those oligarchs pulling the strings are wholly unaccountable. They don’t have to answer to the public. Instead, they pay flunkies and coat holders to do it. Democracy is a fraud to distract the public, while their society is looted by oligarchs.

The worst part of it is the public, instead of peering behind the charade to see the string pullers, vents its anger on the actors. In 2016 the public voted against the status quo in the form of Donald Trump. Angry at that result, they voted for his opposition party in 2018, as a punishment against his party for their intransigence. In 2020, the public will probably throw Trump out for someone promising something different, but the result will be the same. The result is always the same. Democracy (as we accept it – NUB) is a fraud.

_ _ _ _ _


When the Plymouth Brethren fled this country all those years ago they didn’t leave in search of democracy. The word doesn’t appear anywhere in the American Constitution. They sought freedom. Think about it.

Here’s an interesting game to play each day. Whenever you hear a politician use the word ‘democracy’, change it in your own mind for the word ‘freedom’. You will soon come to the same conclusions that I have, I’m sure.  THINK ABOUT IT NEXT TIME YOU ARE CALLED UPON TO VOTE.
(NUB)


Friday, 9 August 2019

Our Future Hangs in the Balance

Mid August 2019 – I was rootling about in some older musings today and I came across this article by Delphine Palmowski. I believe it can withstand it if others would read it again, too.
In my head, I linked it to a recent TV programme on Channel 5 fronted by Michael Portillo (ex Conservative government minister – Defence Secretary - under Margaret Thatcher) entitled: “The Trouble with the Tory Party.”
In conversation with (Lord) Michael Heseltine on the subject of Brexit, Heseltine observed that ‘It isn’t about the economy, you know. It’s about POWER. About getting it and keeping it.”
That sounds to me like the naked truth, sans varnish. As clearly as it can be, it says that the daily media debates about the consequences of Brexit are nothing more than smoke-and-mirrors. Read what Delphine (and Fred) have written and then join me in singing:

I can see clearly now the rain is gone
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It's gonna be a bright (bright)
Bright (bright) sunshiny day
It's gonna be a bright (bright)
Bright (bright) sunshiny day

* * *

OUR FUTURE HANGS IN THE BALANCE

Guest Post by Delphine Palmowski

23 March 2019 - Everybody should read this and pass it on.   But only, of course, if you care about our country.  Otherwise ignore.
Delphine

Reader Fred has just read the Lisbon Treaty - here is his astonishing report on it! Make a coffee, first......it is appalling the way the government have stitched us up and I am even more sure this will undoubtedly bring a civil revolt, or revolution a lot nearer and a lot quicker!

A lot of people really do need to read through these few bullet points!
WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020.

IT'S WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL - IF 99% OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC THINK THERESA MAY'S DEAL IS BAD, JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY!

PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAINERS .... “What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all.
Check it out if you wish ——>>

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions, or vetoes , being allowed.

2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022, as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty, with no exceptions or vetoes.

3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU - as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

4: The London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU Stock Exchange, resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK, because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member and it’s full steam ahead for the move.)

5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.

6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.

8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.

9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.

10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights.

11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights.

12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation.

14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent.
15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy.

16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them.

17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth.

18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc

19: The UK loses control of its judicial system

20: The UK loses control of its international policy

21: The UK loses full control of its national policy

22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.

23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program.

24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction.

25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020.

This is the future that the youths of today think we stole from them? They should be on their knees thanking us for saving them from being turned into Orwellian automatons! 

Forget 'Deals - No Deals' it's time for Remainers and Brexiteers to unite and see what's coming before it's too late. This is the whole reason they are dragging Brexit out. 

.......just so we can get to 2020 - then we have absolutely no choice anymore!
(ends)

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Things haven't always been this way


August 2019 – A propos nothing in particular, I stumbled upon the following article (see further down). It was written for an American audience rather than a British audience but the message is appropriate in each nation.

Years ago I worked for an international company which provided me with opportunities to work overseas. It also provided opportunity for my children to benefit from private education, both overseas and here in UK. Eventually, when local overseas education became not best-suited for purpose, my sons and daughter attended boarding school in England. There, for the boys, extra-curricular activities such as Army Cadets were available and some of their peers eventually left the school to go on to military service of one form or another. Membership of Cadets involved access to and supervised use of firearms on site and nobody at that time thought anything more about it. My sons proved themselves to be excellent shooters. They still are. One, no longer living in this country, lawfully carries a pistol in the course of his work (but not at other times). Neither of them has fired in anger – ever.

In Britain, it is made out to be the act of a criminal to carry (or want to carry) a firearm but it wasn’t always so.  Before World War 1 many people routinely carried weapons and many returned home after the war with their lawfully provided trophy weapons. 

In fact, I’m told that the design and spatial size of our House of Commons chamber came about in an effort to separate routinely armed, sword-wearing members on opposite sides of the House!


* * * *


Things Haven’t Always Been This Way

Guest Post by Walter E. Williams

Here’s a suggestion. How about setting up some high school rifle clubs? Students would bring their own rifles to school, store them with the team coach and, after classes, collect them for practice. You say: “Williams, you must be crazy! To prevent gun violence, we must do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of kids.”

There’s a problem with this reasoning. Prior to the 1960s, many public high schools had shooting clubs. In New York City, shooting clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. Students carried their rifles to school on the subway and turned them over to their homeroom or gym teacher. Rifles were retrieved after school for target practice. In some rural areas across the nation, there was a long tradition of high school students hunting before classes and storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars, parked on school grounds, during the school day.
Today, any school principal permitting rifles clubs or allowing rifles on school grounds would be fired, possibly imprisoned.

Here’s my question: Have .30-30 caliber Winchesters and .22 caliber rifles changed to become more violent? If indeed rifles have become more violent, what can be done to pacify them? Will rifle psychiatric counselling help to stop these weapons from committing gun violence?

You say: “Williams, that’s lunacy! Guns are inanimate objects and as such cannot act.” You’re right. Only people can act. That means that we ought to abandon the phrase “gun violence” because guns cannot act and hence cannot be violent.

If guns haven’t changed, it must be that people, and what’s considered acceptable behaviour, have changed. Violence with guns is just a tiny example. What explains a lot of what we see today is growing cultural deviancy. Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53% of Hispanic children and 73% of black children are born to unmarried women.

The absence of a husband and father in the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance and a host of other social problems. By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data shows that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers.

In 1954, I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School, the city’s poorest school. During those days, there were no school policemen. Today, close to 400 police patrol Philadelphia schools. According to federal education data, in the 2015-16 school year, 5.8% of the nation’s 3.8 million teachers were physically attacked by a student. Almost 10% were threatened with injury.

Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the music accepted today that advocates murder, rape and other vile acts. In previous generations, people were held responsible for their behaviour. Today, society at large pays for irresponsible behaviour. Years ago, there was little tolerance for the crude behaviour and language that are accepted today. To see men sitting while a woman was standing on a public conveyance was once unthinkable. Children addressing adults by their first name, and their use of foul language in the presence of, and often to, teachers and other adults, was unacceptable.

A society’s first line of defence is not the law or the criminal justice system but customs, traditions and moral values. These behavioural norms, mostly imparted by example, word-of-mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defence for a civilized society.

Today’s true tragedy is that most people think what we see today has always been so. As such, today’s Americans Britons accept behaviour that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.
(ends)

* * * *

I’m not advocating the right to bear arms (although it is an argument that could be made at another time). Right now I’m advocating a return to the value systems once held to be true in our nation. 

How is a child able to honour ‘his father and his mother’ if father isn’t (ever) home and mother must leave home to work to make up the income shortage? How can a child grow up to not commit adultery when everyone around him/her seems to have little or no understanding of that directive? Especially when the providers of filmed entertainment on voyeur-vision see it as essential?

How can a child obey the command to ‘do not steal’, when stealing is a way of life, not just by the poor but by corporations and banks? How can a child understand not to bear false witness (meaning lie), when everyone from the top down lies?  And that’s only a few of the basic ten instructions.

It’s OK. I’m just musing. But what if straightening out some of this could be the beginning of our return to ancient values – which worked? There’s a thought. (md)

* * * * *

Walter Edward Williams (born March 31, 1936) is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his classical liberal and libertarian conservative views.[2] His writings frequently appear on Townhall.com, WND, and Jewish World Review.

Monday, 1 July 2019

This just in . . .

THEY ARE POLITICAL SPIROCHAETE!

They are all the same
They accept no blame
They possess no shame
They seek wealth and fame!

They lie, thieve and over eat
They postulate the truth and cheat
They utter words with meaning of deceit
They manifest in a polluted culture of spirochaete!

They have our nation in a horrendous financial deficit
They have forced the people into borrowing to the limit
They have made our land the haven of the human illicit
They have caused crime cost to skyrocket as explicit!

They support marriage for the hermaphrodite
They claim transgender marriage is a hygienic legitimate
They have no respect for heterosexual child that should dominate
They believe these jurisdictions of the bible they should obliterate
They are political imperatives of a New World Order; ordered to consummate!

Colin Uebergang    5th May 2019

Spirochaete: A bacterial disease

Who are ‘they’?
Don’t you just feel so grateful that we don’t live in the same country as ‘they’?
Or, maybe we do! (I do dislike ‘rap’.)




Also from Australia this week
(from Ron Owen of Gympie, Queensland)

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” Ayn Rand

(Ayn Rand was a Russian-American writer and philosopher. She is known for her two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she named Objectivism.)

Strong words. Not everyone will agree with her interpretation of the word ‘socialism’, which is an interesting idea to muse upon – the meaning of words, I mean.

For example, if I use the word ‘democracy’ does it mean the same thing to you as it does to me; (for example, democracy in England is the same as or different to Democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo?); if I say ‘justice’ does it mean the same thing to you as it does to me; if I refer to ‘crime’ are both of us interpreting the meaning of the word in the same way? And ‘progress’ – does that mean the same? In all four instances the answer is: ‘Probably not.’

I put it to you that we don’t interpret these words (and others) in the same way. Nor do our politicians, our police, our lawyers, even our parents! We speak different languages that sound the same but aren’t the same. Such different interpretations form the soundest of sound basis for never-ending argument, deceit, misunderstanding and unhappiness. The Tower of Babel never had it so good. (Genesis 11:1-9, if you want to look it up). And lawyers excel at it. Their  language is known as ‘legalese’. Many aspiring and many actual politicians also use a different language. They call it ‘diplomacy’. We tend to call it ‘duplicity’ or, perhaps, ‘lies’.

 

We speak a different language to that of our parents because they are old and they know nothing, whereas we are young and have been educated. We have been educated by our peers; by voyeur-vision, newspapers, politicians, and teachers, all of whom were educated by the same state-sponsored university lecturers.  None of us seem very capable of understanding the language known as ‘history’ because ‘history’ is the language spoken by the winners of any dispute. And we all know that ‘winners’ come from the family of ‘I am right and you are wrong’. QED. ("quod erat demonstrandum"). Anything other than this is ridiculous, they tell me. The status quo doesn’t need to change much. It just needs to be tweaked every now and again!


OK. Let’s see if we can agree on the meaning of the word LIBERTY. On-line dictionaries offer several different ideas about the meaning but let’s see what you make of this:

“Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

“..........Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labour; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

“But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labour of others. This process is the origin of plunder. (This is much, much, wider than the idea of ‘tax’. - md)

“Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labour is pain in itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.”

“. . . . . It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. What are the consequences of such a perversion?

“In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.” Think of how many politicians you have heard supporting, undefined, ‘the Rule of Law’ when often the law itself might be unjust. Worse, when the victim is not permitted to declare his liberty to oppose an unjust law.
When plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your police and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.”

These concepts were first brought to my attention by Frederic Bastiat in his classic blueprint for a Free Society, his essay on ‘The Law’.

Think on these things when you read of ‘the law’ and David Noakes and Lynn Thyer (David having been imprisoned and Lynn pursued by an European Arrest Warrant to imprison her for them both believing that they could help mankind with their research into a cure for cancer, which legally but unlawfully attracts an automatic charge of money laundering!; ‘the law’ and Common Law courts which don’t require expensive legal beagles to interpret justice because ‘justice’ isn’t the idea behind Courts of Law (the ‘business’ of law is behind so-called courts of law); and think of those ‘courts’ which extract the rewards of a man’s labour from his pocket to someone else’s pocket for some alleged offence that caused harm to no-one.

THIS IS NOT LIBERTY! This is evidence that we live in a prison without walls and the scribes and Pharisees (politicians and lawyers) of our day determine where the walls should be. Leaders of political parties merely suggest where else the invisible walls might be if they should win control of lawmaking. It is a perversion of the ideas of ‘justice’ and of ‘liberty’.

So, now I offer you an alternative:

I stand under our natural & Common Law Trial
and Annulment by Jury Constitution.
I promise to promote it at every opportunity I have.
Will you join me?


* * * *




"Ask not what the government can do for you.
Ask what the government is doing to you." - David Friedman








Sunday, 16 June 2019

Come into my Parlour, said the spider to the fly


June 2019 – I’ve had a wonderful week this week. At least, it seems so to me. I went down to London . . . by train . . . distance of about 54 miles . . . which cost me £47.80 for an anytime, any train, day return ticket . . . and I had to stand all the way to London!

THOUGHT – If some bright spark decides one day to discontinue discounted ticket prices (advance booking, season tickets, off peak, etc) will the real price for everyone be £47.80? What will commuters do then? Shall we pay it, just as we’ve paid increased prices over the years for our homes and cars? Or shall we say, in effect, ‘stick it in your ear’? Companies/employers will continue to assist staff with ticket loans as they do now or lose their staff but everyone else will be at the mercy, or lack of it, of the railway owners. What a miserable thought.

I went to London to support a man from Scotland who is spearheading the drive to re-introduce Common Law Courts in UK. (www.commonlawcourt.com). The ‘legal profession’ doesn’t like the idea because there is no money it for them and it challenges their contrived status. Yet the man (let’s call him John Smith) has a Power of Attorney from the person he went to represent. The ‘professionals’ – the name given to people who do what they do for money wouldn’t recognise his power of attorney nor his paperwork and would only respond to similar professionals. 

So John sacked the original professionals, as any of us would do with bolshie hired help. The opposite side (of professionals) had to accept the lawful Common Law Court documents presented by John and, in doing so they also accepted that he had standing. John’s papers are currently with a judge and we await an update.

The case itself is interesting, too. The person John Smith represents in his capacity as Power of Attorney is being pursued by the professionals for allegedly selling unlicensed medication and claiming beneficial results. His client faces an EU extradition warrant to send her to France. (For further info please look up GcMAF and David Noakes). Such accusations AUTOMATICALLY include a charge of money laundering! Seriously! I’m not making it up. In France she could be imprisoned for two years before anyone got around to hearing her case, such is the French/EU way of doing things.

MEANWHILE – In the foyer of the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, I met an ex-lawyer who quit the ‘profession’ after she worked in it for two or so years. She discovered corruption in her profession that we outside people know little about, she said. Her interest, she said, was in the Common Law aspects of John Smith’s case. Her true interest involved her stateless partner/husband who cannot leave the country because the Home Office will not recognise him and provide him with a passport. For some reason it is better in the eyes of someone in ‘authority’ to keep him here without documents rather than let him leave. I see that as nothing less than keeping him in an open prison but there has to be more to it than that.

MEANWHILE – In the same foyer of the same Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, I met another lady (of senior years) who I identified by her accent. She had travelled 93 miles by coach, without her ailing husband, to observe and be involved with John’s Common Law challenge but her true interest was her own dispute with lawyers and the NHS over the death of her baby daughter some years ago.

I can only guess at how many other MEANWHILEs might have been represented in the foyer of the Royal Courts of Justice that day. Who knows what happens behind the front doors of homes up and down our country? Just as importantly, WHO CARES? Not many, it seems. Except the spiders in wait for the flies.

NEXT DAY I spoke to a lady who has been battling corruption in the legal ‘profession’ – those who do what they do for money – for 17 years as various of them have tried to declare her and her husband bankrupt. It’s all to do with non-existent mortgages but nobody wants to know – not lawyers, not police, not bankers. In desperation she has accepted an offer by others to make a documentary about her case which will be screened for the public next month. That I must see! And I phoned a friend to ask if she, too, planned to attend the show?

Yes, she plans to attend, and I went on to tell her about my day at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. “Did you meet XYZ while you were there?” she asked. “Yes”, I said in astonishment. “How do you know that?”

“She (the lady in dispute with the NHS et al) has just phoned me to tell me about her day at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand and spoke about this nice gentleman she had met there!” Wow! You could have knocked me over with a feather.

So, in summary, in the course of 48 hours I’ve been in contact with or been ever so slightly involved with:

1.  A man who was jailed for six months for allegedly selling unlicensed medical treatments and for allegedly laundering money;
2.  His partner who is resisting an EU extradition warrant for alleged similar activities;
3.  A man who travelled from Scotland to London to represent her case, and was ignored by the ‘pros’ because he isn’t a ‘pro’.
4.  An ex-lawyer who has a stateless partner who seems likely to know too much for it to be allowed outside the country;
5.  A lady (couple) in unresolved dispute with lawyers and the NHS over the death of her child many years ago;
6.  A lady and her husband battling to regain their good name and overturn claims that otherwise will make them bankrupt when they are not bankrupt.
7.  And a railway company that charged £47.80 to transport me 54 miles there and 54 back, packed in like cattle, plus £11 if I wanted to park in their car park.
8.  The Courts of Justice are actually the Courts of Business.

And here is the rub (as Shakespeare might have said). None of this will improve NO MATTER WHO BECOMES THE NEXT LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, THE LABOUR PARTY, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY, THE ENGLISH DEMOCRAT PARTY, UK Independence Party, THE GREEN PARTY or any other party.

As Henry David Thoreau rightly observed: “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation . . . .“

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. — Aldous Huxley


Monday, 3 June 2019

Be Responsible


3rd June 2019 - “The Tilbrook case now before the Courts (which asserts we have already left the EU because May was not permitted to use secondary legislation to delay past March 29th) is either correct in which case we have already left or wrong in which case the Government need only not renew the extension on 31st October and we leave.” (Rodney Atkinson, English academic, political and economic commentator, journalist, author and businessman.)

We haven’t heard very much about ‘the Tilbrook case’ in any main stream media, have we? I wonder why not? Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats and a Solicitor, has started a legal case to block the UK Government from extending the Article 50 Notice or revoking it without having to get an Act of Parliament. Like many more of us, I await a decision from the High Court of Justice with keen anticipation.

* * *
As I write, 11  12  13 Conservative party MPs have announced their intention to contest for the leadership of the Party, and thus become Prime Minister, at least until the next General Election.

Plus James Cleverley and maybe a few more who are still keeping their powder dry.  Of course, if you and I are not members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (membership approximately +/- 160,000), we have no say in the matter. The current population of the United Kingdom is 66,921,047 as of Monday, May 27, 2019, based on the latest United Nations estimates. Such is the blessing of Democracy as interpreted by ‘the PARTY’. It seems to me that that kind of supposed democracy is in need of a good kicking, preferably by 66 million of us.
* * * *

When I woke up this morning I had the words of the entertainer, Billy Crystal, on my mind when he was compere at one of the major film festivals a few years ago. He invited contenders: “Ladies and Gentlemen – start your egos.”  So often do comedians hit the nail on the head. 

And again, from the late Nora Ephron (American film director and writer): “As far as the men who are running for president are concerned, they aren't even people I would date.”  For ‘men’ read ‘men and women’.  For ‘president’ read ‘prime minister’.

Despite the rise and fall of Theresa May, David Cameron, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher and any amount of previous prime ministers, these ambitious know-alls still try to make us believe that they know the answers to whatever problem the nation faces – and we believe them, it seems. You couldn’t make it up. Except that is precisely what we do.

Many years ago in the days of Col. Gaddafi, during a business visit to Tripoli, Libya, some locals from within my Libyan working environment invited me out for the day to see the sights and to talk. We drove towards the Gulf of Sirte to show me a training resort which was reserved for members of the national football team, and others of similar privilege.

They were pleased to be able to show off to me, a foreigner, while at the same time eager to ask questions about my world which was so clearly different to theirs.  I discovered that they wanted for themselves very much the same as most of us want for ourselves. Each wanted a family home; a good education for their children; a good salary; an opportunity to travel; a little money left at the end of the month. That kind of thing. All of them spoke fractured English which indicated to me that they, at least, had had a better-than-most education, although Libya’s proximity to English-speaking Malta might have some bearing on that. We shared ‘natural’ ambitions but we lived un-natural lives, differently.

Politics played no part in our conversations that day. I refer to this tale only to illustrate how the ordinary man all over the world wants ordinary common things for himself and his family. The psychopaths strive for the power over us by offering ‘let me fix that for you.’

So here is my thought for this week: I believe we live un-natural lives but, deep down, we yearn for things ‘natural’. We seek natural foods, natural environments, natural laws, natural relationships. Things ‘natural’ in our lives diminish when we start our egos and those around us start their egos, too. Then we compete for position, for wealth, for status, for advantage, and wonder why the world and his father seem to have utterly screwed up. There is no peace in that kind of competition and those who do not want peace are not our friends, no matter how they speak to us.  As it says in the good book: "There is no need to add to the troubles each day brings".

To me ‘natural’ includes such things as the nuclear family – father, mother, children. Father is the hunter/gatherer/provider of food, shelter, secure environment, etc. Mother is the home-maker, raiser of children, the steady hand of love and trust in the family; Children are taught and are expected to honour their father and their mother – another quote from the book. It is NOT natural to live at odds with this concept, but that is only my belief and my belief counts for nothing outside my own home and family. That said, if the ‘state’ has its way, my belief won’t count for much even within my home and family. Think about that, if you will.

Many, even most, people disagree with my description and press on towards what I term ‘sophisticated’ outlooks and lifestyles – in the sense of them being un-natural. Father is not the head of the household; mother is not the home-maker because she has a career she wants to maintain, or believes she must; the children do NOT honour their parents by obeying them – and that is just for starters. Voyeur-vision and internet widen the divide between natural and sophisticated . . . and we call it ‘progress’. Those folks also have the right to express their attitude to life and it isn’t any of my business if they do so. Nor is it any business of government! But it might explain why we have so many problems.

Our ‘lawmakers’ (writers of statutes) move further and further away from the fairness of natural law and by doing so ‘add to the troubles each day brings’. You can’t mess around with these things and not expect problems as a result, even when the supposed objective is to minimize those problems. Lawyers and barristers create fortunes for themselves by withholding natural law decisions for their clients and charging for their intimate knowledge of all that is un-natural in law. Their clients allow it because they have not been allowed to know anything different.

And what of the children? Sent to a state school (usually) to be educated by state teachers according to whichever state curriculum is in vogue. Or, as linguist Prof Noam Chomsky of MIT puts it: “Educated by whom, for what?”  . . . and much of the world condemns the supposedly biased influence of non-state education. I weep for the coming generations!

* * * *

While I’m in the mood for a challenge, let me ask you to think about how we can bring about the changes. I’d say we need to Become RESPONSIBLE; nothing much will change in your favour if you leave it to politicians/government/bureaucrats. You are a voting statistic or a target for a bribe of some kind. Little more than that. BUT MUCH MORE THAN THAT TO YOUR FAMILY.

Last question(s).  Do you think there is too much harmful plastic on the planet? Well, easy-peasy solution. Don’t buy things wrapped in plastic. It would be a start.  You think you can’t do it alone? Another easy-peasy solution: Seek out those of like mind and act together whenever you can. You think you don’t know anyone of like mind? Then take off your headset and speak to someone - anyone! Speak to the person in the bus queue or the person behind you queuing to pay in the supermarket. Or the school teacher who has custody of your child for most of the day. And smile when you do so.

LET’S DO IT!

LET’S BECOME RESPONSIBLE

****

Monday, 20 May 2019

US versus THEM


LATE MAY - After my previous ‘muse’ entitled ‘The Eyes Have It’ I thought at that time this next muse would be about money and banking. Not so. The political shenanigans going on in Britain these days have caused me to think again. And then I came across a quote by the late Bill Hicks, American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist and musician.
“I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be (President) Prime Minister is the one who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking and screaming into the (White House) House of Commons.” ― Bill Hicks
That’s the theory. Then my thoughts turned to an ancient instruction-cum-admonition which I first heard years ago. It reads: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” That’s the one that changed my mind about what to write today. What if that turns out to be good advice?

In a few days time Mrs May expects Britain to vote in the EU elections and by the time this muse sees the light of day the voting will be over . . . but not the consequences of our actions.

Who should we vote for/for whom should we vote? Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats and a Solicitor, has started a case to block the UK Government from extending the Article 50 Notice or revoking it without first having to get an Act of Parliament. 

“The constitutional law set out in the Gina Millar case is, in my legal opinion, clear and unchallengeable that any attempt to extend the Article 50 Notice or to revoke it without a specific Act of Parliament will be invalid and unlawful.  That would mean that if there has been a purported attempt to extend the Notice by agreement without an Act of Parliament that that would be invalid and therefore we would be out of the EU regardless of what the Government said we were.” 

But you won’t find much about his case in national media. If he wins his case it means that we have already left EU with effect from 29th March, and the pseudo EU elections in this country are unlawful (because we aren’t any longer members of the EU). Well, hush mah mowf. Whoda thunk it?

All this raises another question. If you nevertheless decide to vote, for whom should you vote? Bear in mind that a ‘party’ is a corporation or institution, not a person and not a ‘who’. Here’s another question. What do you know about your regional candidates? Do you even know their names? Under such circumstances WHY would you try to put your trust in ‘princes’? Why would you try to put your trust in a faceless corporation or institution? In Brussels and Strasbourg the individuals have no power to represent your interests and they are rewarded handsomely for being unable. Just ask Lord Peter Mandelson and Lord and Lady Kinnock, all Labour party multi-millionaires because once-upon-a-time they were EU commissioners. No wonder Mr Farage is making himself available for election in the name of his new party! No wonder Lord Adonis is having a crack at it, too.

If you stop to think about it there is a reason why you do the work that you do and don’t choose to do something else. It might be that there are few local opportunities to do something else; it might be that you really like doing what you do above all other opportunities; it might be that you are just too content (or idle) to try to change. But, rest assured that the man or woman who strives for power over people (ie a politician) is not an idle person, or one without energy to fight for what he/she wants. People who seek power are a peculiar people who have little clue about the history of mankind – or else they believe they know better than everyone else. These are the people who seek your votes. These are the people to whom you (and I) say ‘Rock on Tommy – you and your party will do for me’. In short, we hand over our power because we can’t be asked to use it ourselves, not even when it is likely to be in our own best interest. And then we wonder why we didn’t get the cream. 

We didn’t give our full attention to ALL the points in that manifesto – just to those we liked. Or, worse, we were beguiled by that seemingly attractive person with a microphone who keeps on spouting off in Talk Shows (the clue is in the name – they are supposed to be entertainment, doncha know?) on voyeur-vision.

I wish I had a £pound for every time I’ve heard one after another of them claim ‘they want what’s best for the country, and the party’. And, of course, they know what the best is even if you aren’t too sure. But we want what’s best for us, don’t we? Screw the rest. If that’s true then we’re all as bad as one another and we vote for and often get what we deserve . . . including the rubbish. So, be careful who you vote for/for whom you vote.  Let’s not put our trust in princes (or corporations), hey?

Some months ago I wrote an article (a muse) entitled ‘Who Gave Them Dominion over us?’ One man replied with the correct answer. “We did”, he said.  Having reminded myself of it, I’ve just now read through it again.

I closed with an observation from the much respected Judge Andrew Napolitano, the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He wrote:

“Ultimately, we are responsible for the folks we have elected and the things they have done, whether secretive, hypocritical or in our faces. Ultimately, we have the government we deserve. Will we change this before it is too late?” (Judge Andrew Napolitano).


WE gave THEM dominion over us.
Big Mistake.
With awareness, comes responsibility

Cause no harm  
Be honest
Be peaceful
Be responsible


Whether or not you are a member of a political party, you didn’t choose the party leader. YOU didn’t chose Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn or any of the others. Someone else did. We have allowed them to hold sway over us. And we have the nerve to say that ‘they’ are responsible. Something ain’t right in the State of Denmark. (To paraphrase the Bard). And, in the words of a popular song: ‘Watcha goin’ to do about it?’

* * * *




I HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THEREFORE I LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, RIGHT ? - WRONG !
"Suffrage does not define democracy..."