THOSE WHO OWN THE DEBT, OWN THE PEOPLE. (Proverbs 22:7) SO, WHO OWNS UK NATIONAL DEBT?

THOSE WHO OWN THE DEBT, 

OWN THE PEOPLE. (Proverbs 22:7)

SO, WHO OWNS UK NATIONAL DEBT?

LATE November 2019 – Or, starting from the beginning, who creates UK National debt? If I borrow £10 from a friend it isn’t UK National debt. That is personal debt, pure and simple. And a friend who lends me £10 is no true friend if he/she expects to be paid interest on top of the borrowed amount. Friends just don’t do that to one another.

So, by this definition, if a nation borrows money at interest it is likely that the lender is not a friend who is lending to a friend. The lender is one who expects to profit from the agreement. It’s nothing personal, as they say; it’s just business.

I thought about this the other day after hearing our political party leaders – who are NOT your friends nor mine – tell us all about the billions of pounds they would borrow to buy your favour (your vote) and mine. Questions: (a) Borrow from whom? (b) To be repaid by whom?

Answers: Borrow from international banks and corporations to be repaid by We, the People. Our national debt has become so large that repayment is impossible in a lifetime, and our political party leaders are willing to sign us into greater debt slavery (with money which isn’t really money but is nothing more than credit) to be borrowed in our name. Then politicians promise to use the as-yet-unarranged-credit to bribe us to vote for them. We endorse the offer and the transaction by voting for the go-betweens who will arrange it. In fact, we endorse their complete manifesto – warts and all – by voting for the go-betweens, otherwise known as political parties and political party leaders. So, how does that make you feel? They sweet-talk you while they screw you.

We become complicit in our own enslavement by giving our consent (our vote) to unseen ‘lenders’ otherwise identified as international banks, starting with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, Switzerland, and Central Banks in each country, via narcissistic politicians who will be here today and gone tomorrow, leaving the debt to be repaid by generations yet to be born. Our children will spit on our graves because of our selfish stupidity today which enslaves them for all their tomorrows. (Echoes of something I heard on Remembrance Sunday church parade, perhaps?)

This morning I watched ’Breakfast’ on BBC voyeur-vision, broadcast from Auckland Castle in Bishop Auckland, my home town. One after another the local people spoke of their concerns . . . none of which seemed to include the “B” word. More government spending on various aspects of society featured high in their lists of importance and nothing was said about where the money might come from.

Few had a good word to say about politicians. One even asserted, with passion, that ‘politicians are our servants’. The interviewer let that pass, presumably because such heresy is too strong to be discussed on early morning voyeur-vision.

Here’s the rub (as Hamlet might have said). Nobody seemed ready or willing to take responsibility, neither for the situation we find ourselves in today, whether social, political, or economic, nor the possible solutions to the perceived problems. Nobody claimed ‘if it is to be, it is up to me’. Now there’s a thought. It seems that the solutions have to be provided by someone else, somehow. And all of us are guilty of that attitude in greater or lesser degree.

I call that evidence of powerlessness, an absence of power both real and perceived. Slaves are powerless . . . until they determine otherwise, rise up and accept the real price of real change.

Few ever remember that ‘the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil.’  Not the money; the LOVE of it. How very convenient for bankers.

Of course, we all know that when our government applies to borrow ‘money’ there is no physical transfer of bullion equal to the value of the loan . . . don’t we? Which means that the loan can only be regarded as a very wide line of credit rather than a transfer of wealth. A super credit card, if you like. Government and central banks create the evidence of the loan in the form of additional printed currency notes. More notes in circulation results in the devaluation of all the notes in circulation. And don’t forget that the nation (our grand children and great grand children) must pay interest on the credit loan with the devalued notes by creating wealth through manufacturing and agriculture, both of which are struggling enterprises. You don’t hear much about that on main stream media. I wonder why?

Warren Buffet, the multi-billionaire, put his finger on it when he said: “In effect, our country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4 percent more than we produce — that’s the trade deficit — we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own.”

For additional, vital information on this subject see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Later, I began to reflect once again on the Lisbon Treaty. It’s another of those ‘things’ that few ever remember to talk about. Certainly, our politicians during this election time are not giving the subject much airtime. I wonder why not?

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

Check it out if you wish ——>> 

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2014-027-the-facts-about-the-lisbon-treaty/

There you will read:

A historical fact, yet hardly anyone is aware of it: the EU has been one political-economic unit, that is, one country, since the acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty at the end of year 2007. The Lisbon Treaty is the very same as the former EU Constitution. Only the façade elements – the word “constitution”, the flag and the anthem – are omitted from the text but in practice the very content of the EU Constitution itself is retained and implemented, the flag is used and the anthem is played on a regular basis. By the EU national leaders signing one federal constitution in 2007, the affected countries actually merged into one federal union governed by a superstate, which might be called “USE”. The main constitutional elements of the Lisbon Treaty:

 Abolishes the borders among the EU-states – establishes one common outside border for EU.

 Establishes the governmental functions, responsibilities and powers of the EU supranational state above the authority of Nation States.

 Provides for a gradual transfer of the legislative powers of the members states to the EU.

 Stipulates precedence of the federal law over state-law in case of conflict between the two.

 Provides for EU-military (2012 – 022), EU-tax and a secret agency to protect the EU-authorities.

 It is an anti-democratic constitution placing the unelected European Commission on the top of the decision-making hierarchy, directing the activity of the European Parliament.

 Its content is designed to protect the rights of private property against human rights, it forecasts to abolish all welfare benefits and to transfer via privatisation all values and resources of Europe into the ownership of the protected super-rich.

 It is also an Enabling Treaty which means the EU can change anything in it without referring back to any elected body. It bypasses every democratic principle.

The historical relevance and importance of this fact: The Lisbon Treaty is an Enabling Act. It is virtually a clone of Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act. That is, any of the clauses in it can be changed, added to, or deleted by unknown bureaucrats at any time without the knowledge of any elected person. The EU uses what is known as the Salami principle – take very thin slices at a time so its loss is not noticed but eventually they gain the whole salami. When the leaders of the EU-countries signed the Lisbon Treaty – either willingly or upon deceit and intimidation – they gave up the national sovereignty of their countries.

This is both the present and the future that the young people of today think was stolen from them? They should be on their knees thanking the nation 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.  

Now that you know all this, I have a new question for you: To whom will you give your vote and consent next month? THINK ABOUT IT between now and December 12th! It is important.

This is no time to box clever at the ballot box. Now is the time for TRUTH because THE TRUTH can set us FREE. 

An illusion of choice brings an illusion of freedom.

Close your eyes for a moment, and try to imagine a time when nobody had ever uttered the ‘B’ word. You are now in a time when the word has no meaning. Imagine that UK never joined the European Economic Community. In fact, try to imagine that EEC had never been invented. Difficult, I know, but try.

Now think ahead a few weeks to our imminent general election and try to imagine the things politicians would try to persuade us to vote for. No ‘B’ word, don’t forget. Only humdrum matters that are raised at every election time – just as they were last time. Words like NHS, education, police, democracy, - but at all other times placed on the back burner, simmering, unfulfilled and unresolved, ready to be promised again at the next election. Truly, it was well said by someone who understood these things: “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let you do it.”

“We fall under the illusion of freedom when we consent to be governed. We believe we live in a fair and democratic society yet we fail to grasp the true meaning of words such as democratic, republic, inalienable, and consent. When we decipher the words, we find that we live in a reality of inequity; a ‘world for the taking’ by a few at the expense of the many. Only when we know who we are— a spiritual being having a human experience— will the system of slavery be changed.” – Rosanne Lindsay. 

Do we yet know who we are?

It is a truth that politicians will say almost anything to win your vote. And you don’t even have to vote for the individual candidate. A vote for the Party will do very nicely, thank you. Once the votes have been collected and counted you can go away to do more or less whatever else you like, until the next time the illusion of democracy and/or freedom is played out. (I say ‘and/or’ because they aren’t the same, even if you think they are).

Don’t ever overlook the fact that ‘the Party’ exists to maintain the existence of the Party, preferably in authority. It doesn’t exist for your benefit or mine. In this respect the willing but generally unsuspecting PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) is just as much a victim as you are. Woe betides the party member who fails to comply with party rules. The Whips will devour him/her and spit him out. Or the NEC will have him for breakfast. How free is THAT?

(I recall an instance a few years ago when I urged some younger work colleagues to vote at an imminent general election even though none had ever voted before. A day or so later one young person came back to tell me that, because of what I had said, she had decided to vote this time. I congratulated her but that wasn’t enough. She wanted me to know for WHO it was she intended to vote. 

Even though I protested that it was none of my business – it is a matter between her and the ballot box – she insisted.

“I’m going to vote for Tony Blair”, she said triumphantly. Picture her face, if you can, when I replied: “You cannot vote for Tony Blair!” Confusion and hurt rolled into one. “Tony Blair is the PPC for the Labour Party in Sedgefield, County Durham. You don’t live in Sedgefield so you cannot vote for him. You can only vote within your own constituency.”) It turned out she had chosen Tony Blair because ‘he seems a nice man’. Weep because this story is true. It also turned out that she didn’t know who her local candidates were!

Despite all that I’ve written here none of us can truly ignore that the ‘B’ word follows us around everywhere – has done for three years - and there are brand new parties on the scene that weren’t on the scene at the last election. How bad is that? 

‘The System’ works after a fashion when there are only two contestants – and the First Past The Post (FPTP) winner takes all. It means that whichever party has the most votes, wins, regardless. Even if fewer than 50% of the electorate voted! The other party becomes Her Majesty’s virtually powerless, supposedly loyal, Opposition. Additional parties, if there are any, become the ‘also rans’. And I haven’t even mentioned the probability of fraudulent postal voting.

Under no terms could anybody describe that as evidence of democracy. Evidence of suffrage – yes, but not evidence of democracy. The opposite of democracy is autocracy, communism, fascism and tyranny. And if it isn’t democracy or freedom, why do we consent to it? Why do we accept the limitations placed upon us by the party system and their preferred FPTP? Why? 

Our consent binds us into the master/slave system. Withholding our consent restores our natural freedom. Without this change we fall under the illusion of freedom which, years ago, could be summed up with “I’m free, white and over 21.” It was a lie then and it is still a lie today. (Over 18 today unless one particular party leader can persuade us to agree to the lower age of 16). Heaven forbid.

What to do?

1. If our comfortable, mostly docile population would awake to the political dangers surrounding us and gather, constituency by constituency, to select from among their number, independent candidates (not representing a party) to represent them, we will have begun the change.
2. If election to parliament is limited to a 12 months period and then subjected to annual satisfactory performance review (satisfactory to the voting constituents), just like any other employee would expect, we could virtually do away with general elections AND career politicians at the same time!
3. Sovereignty would be seen to be restored to the people and not claimed unlawfully by parties and parliamentarians.
4. The rights bestowed on the people by Magna Carta 1215 would be restored, as could the restoration of Common Law courts Trial by Jury and Jury Nullification of bad laws. (Restoration isn’t revolution).
5. The Monarch would again be able to appoint a Prime Minister (and any other Secretary/Minister of State), instead of the self-interested Party Members of Parliament doing so. Magna Carta 1215 has already determined that the people may lawfully contest the Monarch’s decisions, if the need arises.

To quote the late visionary, George Orwell: “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”

We, the People, are no more puritans than are they, the politicians. People tell lies, too. But if We, the People, don’t change (ourselves, the things to which we consent, and our ways) it seems to me that there is not likely to be a future in which to live worth voting upon.

Can we do it? YES, WE CAN! So let’s DO IT.

ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

ATTITUDE is EVERYTHING!

October 2019 – There isn’t anything new about that headline. The philosophy and the wording have been around for centuries. It was re-invented so eloquently in the voyeur-vision (UK version) 1990 political drama series ‘House of Cards’, starring the late Ian Richardson in the role of Francis Urquhart. He created the effortlessly repeatable response to so many potential arguments: “You might think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.” And then slyly smirked at the camera. I use these words quite often.

You might also think that, after centuries of arguments, wars, ‘I’m-right-you-are-wrong’ philosophy and egos on steroids, that as a nation we might be in a better social/political/relationship condition than we are. Clearly, we aren’t. For the most part what we see is what we’ve got, warts and all.

WHICH MEANS that if we could learn to adjust our attitudes, we could change everything. Some call it ‘biting your tongue’. It brings to mind the old joke about a stranger in Ireland asking an Irishman how best to get to Dublin? The Irishman allegedly replied: “Well, it might be better if you didn’t start from here.”

Some years ago, after a number of heart attacks and strokes, I submitted to triple by-pass heart surgery. Apart from providing me with another 20+ years of very enjoyable life that otherwise I would not have had, it also changed much about the way I look at the world. I consider myself extremely fortunate. My brother, four years younger than me, had one heart attack and died in his own back garden.

But, for me, after a lengthy period of convalescence I returned to my place of work and my immediate boss gave back to me the office I had occupied before I went away. (Someone else had used it while I was away, of course, but I was given it back. That was important to me). Friendly and familiar colleagues welcomed me back. Everything seemed familiar and comfortable and I knew I was very fortunate.

Almost the first thing I did as I surveyed my restored fiefdom was to peel off the ‘in’ and ‘out’ labels on the ‘in’ and ‘out’ letter trays on my desktop and replaced them with ‘easy come’ and ‘easy go’. 
My attitude had changed because a man (a Professor) who had paid attention to his homework when he was a youth, had learned (possibly invented) the necessary surgical skills to give my life back to me. He had stood beside my anaesthetized body and held my heart in his hands while he and his team re-plumbed the pipe-work inside me. That is the sobering thought that changed my attitudes. I’d discovered that I wasn’t bullet proof after all.

Of course, I’d lost, or at least weakened, my competitive instinct at the same time. The war zone we call ‘business’ had become less important to me than it once had been. My responsibilities in life hadn’t changed but my attitude towards them had.

OK. That’s my tale about attitude, so what to say about ‘a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger’? Please don’t assume that makes me a softie. It doesn’t.

You see, I’ve learned that I came into this world with nothing beyond what my parents gave me. I shan’t leave this world with anything that I’ve acquired in the interim and everybody else is exactly the same. The baseball-type hat I acquired in the 1980s in Dubai, showing an image of what looked like a Rolls-Royce car and bearing the legend “He who dies with the most toys, wins”, was a lie. As is the Michael Douglas line “greed is good” (in the film Wall Street).

I don’t have to win every argument. I don’t have to be the ‘King of the castle’ and you don’t have to be the dirty rascal. I don’t have to live my life as a daily win-or-lose competition. Now that I’ve discovered it, that truth has set me free but I had to become powerless on an operating table to discover it. Not just helpless; powerless.

I am no longer powerless.

I have the power to say

‘Peace be upon you’

Rather than snarl

‘You are wrong and I am right’

or

‘Who do you think you’re talking to?’

Yea, though I walk through the valley . . . 

I will fear no evil.

Why? 

Because a gentle answer turns away wrath.

Think about it.

A Short History of Western Civilization

WE CAN’T SOLVE PROBLEMS BY USING THE SAME KIND OF THINKING WE USED WHEN WE CREATED THEM. –
Albert Einstein

A Short History of Western Civilization

Late September 2019 – What an interesting idea! That we sometimes, maybe often, create our own problems. That’s a novel thought in a world which seems always ready to blame someone else, don’t you think?

It seems to me, too, that we can create problems even by not doing something. How can that be? It doesn’t make sense. Well, sit you comfortably . . . I wanna tell you a story (as Max Bygraves used to say).

ONCE UPON A TIME, long ago, the natural social group consisted of father, mother and children. Today we refer to them as the ‘nuclear’ family but the word ‘nuclear’ had no meaning long ago. Quite soon the nuclear family developed with grand-parents and grand-children and cousins. Out of those grew other nuclear families and it was the natural order of things for a while.

There must have come a time when the father of the group was too busy hunting and gathering food and shelter for his family to be able to take time out to make essential new tools and weapons, or pots and pans to put the food in. That’s probably when someone else from a different nuclear family would have said: “Tell you what. I’ll make spears and pots and pans for you if you will give me some of your food in exchange.” The fathers and mothers consented and so barter was born, the original socialist trading idea before capitalist money was invented. And all seemed well for a time.

Then the father and mother of a nuclear family learned that some families who weren’t actively hunting and gathering had learned to read and write (mostly Latin, it seemed), and they decided that they and their children should learn to read and write, too. Magically, another group of people (often church men), said: “Let me teach you and your children.” So the parents consented and gave up much of their power to train and influence their own children. The new persons taught them and their children Latin, which nobody other than church leaders spoke or wrote, plus anything else that seemed to them like a good idea. 

After a while the confused father and mother looked again for someone to explain to them why they had become so confused. Some other people, who could also read and write, offered to explain and set rules for social interaction. 

There were a lot of these people and many were called ‘Ian’. Sadly, they also suffered with ‘ticks’. According to www.medicinenet.com there are over 800 species of ticks throughout the world, but only two families of ticks, Ixodidae (hard ticks) and Argasidae (soft ticks), are known to transmit diseases or illness to humans. Hard ticks have a scutum, or hard plate, on their back while soft ticks do not.

These Ians became known as ‘poly’ or ‘pollies’, from Latin poliō (“polish, smooth”) or, perhaps, from Ancient Greek πολύς (polús, “many, much”). Eventually the word ‘poli-tick-Ian’ came into common use to describe all of them. 

The parents again consented to poli-tick-Ians taking the job of explaining and setting rules for social interaction. Some people loved them, some hated them, but too many blindly trusted them and didn’t realise that, in reality, they were parasites who were stealing the product of their labours (allegedly on behalf of the king). They made such plundering seem routine and normal and, later, called it ‘tax’. They stole the freedoms of the people but didn’t give very much back in return. In some countries they became known as ‘scribes and pharisees’, which implicitly raised them up and tried to pull them down all at the same time. It separated them from family.

The scribes and Pharisees liked to make rules for everyone else. It seemed to be more profitable for them and less laborious than making tools and farming. So, when the working fathers found themselves in dispute with one another and needed to put their arguments before other working fathers to determine who was right and who was wrong, some scribes and Pharisees said: “Let me be the judge of that.” 

Again, it seemed a good idea at the time and the parents gave their consent. But soon the working fathers found that their powers to manage their own lives and train their own children had been reduced to that of obedient servants . . . . obedient to the plunderers and scribes and Pharisees who could read and write and the judges who interpreted the rights and wrongs of complaints rather than allow the common jury of their peers to decide as they had always done. 

The people were no longer free to determine how they lived. There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth at the loss of their essential freedom. The poli-tick-Ians said it was ‘democracy’ but poli-tick-Ians are known to say anything they think will keep them in their job.

Soon, barter became unfit for purpose and another medium of payment or exchange was needed. Scarce gold and silver came to their aid and values of exchange – labour or goods, in return for a measure of gold or silver – became the norm. Opportunists saw a new opportunity for personal benefit without having to be a farmer or a blacksmith. They offered to store the working man’s gold and silver safely and cheaply in a ‘bank’, and even began lending some of it to others in return for payment, which held their interest enormously. The parents consented and their new ‘servants’ became known as ‘bankers’, and other names.

The idea of providing a service rather than goods in exchange for reward wasn’t new, of course. The oldest ‘profession’ in the world is based on that concept. But the combination of all these new service providers allowed them to grow in stature from being ‘servants’ to being masters in their society. They made so many social decisions and kept to a minimum the decisions open to labourers to make for themselves. 

These changes created more confusion; they attacked the very existence of the nuclear family as a result of debt and endless new laws for the labourer either to comply with or to break, which made them law-breakers. They said the laws applied equally to everybody, but they didn’t.

During this time many other services were offered (or imposed) on the producers of wealth. Some people were hired and swore an oath to up hold and ensure the peace and tranquillity of the community and were known as ‘policymen’. Again, they did their work only with the consent of the people. Over time there were many similar social service developments until, eventually, the ordinary man looked about him and wondered if he had done the right thing in giving his consent to strangers as often as he had? Of course, he hadn’t done the right thing.

So ordinary men began to listen to the words of John Smith (and others), who told them of their right to common law which tested everything in front of a random 12-person jury. The jury is also empowered to test the validity of the laws handed to them by their poli-tick-ians, he said, and can nullify unfair/unjust laws. The judges and poli-tick-ians were horrified at this challenge to their dominance and even claimed that parliament is supremely sovereign. What Silly Billies. They couldn’t and cannot see that they are allowed to do what they do solely because the ordinary parents consented. 

The situation can be changed when those ordinary parents realise (begin to think differently) that change will follow when we withhold or withdraw our consent. That is where the change begins. Anything else leaves us living under tyranny and we are not free men at all.

Written and produced by Michael, standing under Common Law Court jurisdiction.

Member of the Democracy Defined campaign

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)

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)

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.

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