We Found A Good Cop!

Just lately, and not by design, my posts have concerned the police, how they have changed, how they operate and what we ought to expect from them.

Well, I found one that was doing his job. Properly. Sadly, he is not here in the UK but it matters not. The way this sheriff went about defending one of the citizens of Nye County in Nevada, qualifies, in my humble opinion, for a standing ovation.

The short story is this: The Bureau of Land Management (a Federal outfit) said that they had a right to water on Wayne Hage's ranch. He didn't think so. He filed an action with the court. Still the BLM harassed him, and they were joined by the US Forestry Service. Now he has two federal outfits showing up at his ranch, armed to the teeth, threatening to seize his cattle. He calls his local sheriff, Tony DeMeo, who turns up, and kicks the federal thugs off the ranch. DeMeo knows that the BLM has no right to seize anyone's cattle and joins Hage in the fight. I won't spoil the ending for you.

Instead, I ask you to go here and read the text, and also to watch the three short videos that Sheriff Tony DeMeo has made explaining the whole thing.

My point, not that it needs underlining, is that we need more cops like Tony DeMeo who understand, and abide by, their oath of office. The office of constable is an ancient one, and it has been bastardised to such an extent that people like me do not recognise them anymore. At least, not as the peace keepers they swore to be.

I personally think that this man deserves a medal. And I think that all police forces should be run like his.

Properly.

CR.

Bye Christopher

 Another good one checks out.




Christopher Story has died. The world is a poorer place now that he has left it. I thought I would remind people of Christopher's work. Here he is explaining the farce that is the European Union.

This is from his website:

CHRISTOPHER STORY FRSA

Friday 30 July 2010 13:47

Christopher Story died peacefully at home on 14th July 2010 after a short illness.
 
Book orders will continue to be accepted as usual. However there may be a short delay in processing existing orders.

His family are grateful for their privacy at this sad time. 


His boots will be hard to refill, but I hope someone steps up. We need people like him in this dark and sinister world.

CR.

PS-I spotted this news over at Mrs F's place.

All Your Rain Is Belong To Us

Come with me to Utah.

Lovely state, full of lovely people.

When it rains though, you are not allowed to collect it because it belongs to the state! 

 Rain barrels = theft. So there.







The reason given is that Utah is the second driest state in the US and A. More bizarrely, people go along with it. They seem to have forgotten that the state owns nothing. No government in the world, assuming it forces people to pay tax, owns a single thing. By default, everything that was paid for by the taxpayer, belongs to the taxpayer. There is no such thing as government money, or government property. It's yours.

This is the first time I have heard/read about a government/state claiming ownership of the water falling from the sky. Apparently, they don't own it while it is wrapped up in a tornado or a hurricane, and it is kicking shit out of your home, just when you decide to collect it in a rain-barrel for later re-use. Not a bad deal, eh?

There isn't much left, is there? They claim dominion over the land, now they have started on the water, all that leaves is the air that we breathe.

This is going to end very badly.

CR.

Work Buy Consume Die

It's Friday.

Here's something to chew on over the weekend.




Break the chains.

Unlearn.

Relearn.

Free your Self.

See that ant? That's me, that is.

CR.

Militarising US Police Departments

Armoured vehicles, military grade M16 assault rifles, active denial system weapons.....

Reads like a shopping list for an infantry unit.

Instead, this is what Homeland Security are buying for the police.

Just what are they preparing for? And will we follow suit? We know by now that when the US and A sneezes, we catch a cold.

We have similar uniforms. That's a start.

I wonder when the big fancy guns will appear on our streets, with RoboThug clinging onto them?

CR.

Second Republic

Many terrific ideas from Adrian Salbuchi.

I vote that we implement them today!

If you have some time, check out his other videos. It will be time well spent.

CR.

Say It Ain't So!

The Labour government lied to us. Again.

Phil Booth of NO2ID has his story picked up by The Register. The report reveals via a Freedom of Information request that the "flood" of people supporting ID cards was a huge crowd. It was.....nine people.

It gets better. Of those nine, EIGHT were government employees!

The ninth may have been this gormless mare.

Just how fucking sneaky can one government be?

My guess is that there will be dozens of stories just like this one in the months/years to come. We just have to come up with the right questions.

Nu Labour = lying shits.

May they grace the political hinterland forever.

CR.

Heady Stuff For A Humble Scribe

I just wanted to say thank you.

Thank you to all who comment, or just merely read and pass on what I post.

One year ago my visitors for July reached dizzy heights. 681 of you popped in for a read. And I was mighty pleased.

Look at you now! This July we broke records together. Over 10,000 swung by. I am extremely happy.

(Click for bigulation).















I imagine a sizeable number are people who think I am a slow-motion car crash. Time will tell!

For those of you who visit, and keep on visiting, and particularly all those guys and gals who leave comments-good or bad-I owe you a debt. Without you Ranty Barracks would be a "transmit only" site.

Thank you for making it a two-way street.

Oh, and a special thanks to those who link to me. You know who you are, but I will produce a list if you demand it. Prominence on your blogs points a great many people over here. You might say that "I have seen far because I stood on the shoulders of giants". Without you guys, fewer would know that this blog even existed. Multo grazie!

BTW, I joined the Twitterati. If enough of you are interested, and I get some followers, I will bung out tweets to let you know when a new post is up. That, or meaningless guff. Click on the big button at the top left of the blog. 

Be well,

CR.

Entering Lawful Rebellion-A "How To" Guide

Having been inundated with requests (well, just one, actually), to write up a guide to Lawful Rebellion,  I started to pull the threads together to produce a comprehensive tutorial.

Someone beat me to it. You can find all the steps needed right here.


Any citizen (we ceased to be subjects in 1983, I seem to recall), is obligated to enter lawful rebellion if he/she knows that the monarch is 1. being held captive 2. being advised badly or 3. has committed treason. Her Maj has committed treason and/or has been advised badly by those we now know as "evil counsellors".

(All emphasis in the affidavits below is mine)




Look at the first affidavit:


Affidavit of [Your Name Here]

In Pursuit of Justice and Right, And in Full Exercise Of My Undoubted & Lawful Duty to My Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth the Queen -

I, [Your Name Here], now resident at [Your Address Here].

MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS –

IT BEING APPARENT TO ME and to a multitude of others that divers evil persons have falsely and unlawfully induced Our Sovereign Lady to believe that they alone are the true representatives of the people placed in Her Majesty’s Care by Almighty God -

AND IT BEING APPARENT TO ME and to a multitude of others that these same evil persons have unlawfully and falsely induced Our Sovereign Lady to give an unlawful effect to legislation that has violated and continues to violate the Common Law: Which legislation further serves to undermine; deny and destroy the Absolute Supremacy of Her Majesty’s Imperial Crown, all to the prejudice of Her Majesty’s People, and in absolute contravention of the right of the people to live in accordance with their own laws and customs (as evidenced by the terms of the Oath that was undertaken by Our Sovereign Lady before Almighty God at the time of her Coronation) -

AND IT BEING FURTHER APPARENT TO ME and to a multitude of others that the entirely lawful authority of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen to Uphold & Defend Her People is now so reduced &/or destroyed by the many processes of Treason that have been and are now being employed against Her Majesty’s Authority from within the ranks of those evil persons who have been and are now entrusted with authority to manage the affairs of Her Majesty’s Parliament & Government of the United Kingdom –
That my Security and Safety under the Rule of those Laws that are my inalienable birthright are now threatened to my personal detriment and danger and to the detriment and danger of my family; my people and my country in their entirety –

AND IT BEING FINALLY APPARENT TO ME that I can achieve no redress to those many grievances that I now have and which result entirely from the Unlawful Conduct of those Evil Persons who now surround the Person and Throne of my Lawful Sovereign, except by means of the lawful process that I now intend –

I NOW PLACE ON THE RECORD of All Persons who now claim to assert a lawful authority over me in the name of Elizabeth the Queen that unless there is correction to the many processes of misgovernment & abuse that have been and are now being imposed on me; with such process of correction being commenced; undertaken; evidenced and given a first and lasting effect within a period of 40 days from this present date –

SUCH PROCESS OF CORRECTION being fully evidenced by Her Majesty’s dismissal of the Assembly of Traitors that is now falsely describing itself as the Representation of the People within the House of Commons

AND WITH SUCH DISMISSAL providing the entirety of the People themselves with full opportunity to speak and to act on their own behalf in the election of representatives that are truly loyal to the purposes of Her Majesty’s Throne & People -

THEN I WILL WITHDRAW And withhold all allegiance & obedience to the Person and Crown of Our Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth the Queen, and those who falsely claim to speak &/or to act in Her Name, and by such action, I will remove myself entirely from the authority of those Evil Persons who now seek to abuse & misuse me in the name of Elizabeth, the Queen and in absolute violation of the Common Law of the People to which I belong –

AND I GIVE NOTICE that I will return to my full allegiance to the Person; Estate & Imperial Crown of Elizabeth the Queen only when Her Majesty the Queen is released from the bondage that now prevents her from the free exercise of her lawful authority and duty to Uphold the Common Law that is my birthright and to ensure for all time to come that the government of my country is conducted in full accordance with the laws and customs of my people.

May God in His Mercy, Defend the Right & May God Save the Queen from those who now hold her in an Unlawful Captivity.
__________________________[Your Name Here].
Before me, An Officer of the Court, or Solicitor
________________________________________
Print Name____________________Date_________
(Signed & Sealed)
Sworn at: ________________________________________

So basically, "You have dropped the ball. When you pick it up again, and signal that you are fully in charge of yourself, and your actions, put right that which went wrong, I will rejoin the fold. Until then, all bets are off".


And now the second, which is sent 40 days after the first affidavit:

Second Affidavit of [Your Name Here]

WHEREAS It Is Now Made Plain To Me that Elizabeth the Queen has been entirely deposed from her Freedoms; Crown; Authority & Dignity, by the devious machinations of traitors and by all of those evil persons who have formerly or do now support the enterprises of treason, contrary to the Laws of God and contrary to the known laws and customs of the kingdom and people of England -

AND WHEREAS the said Elizabeth the Queen is now entirely deposed from her lawful power and authority to Govern the Nations & Peoples of the United Kingdom, with Northern Ireland –

AND WHEREAS the said Elizabeth the Queen has been and is now unlawfully restrained from providing a full and adequate response to the content and requirements of an affidavit that I have served upon her in a lawful manner –

NOW I, [Your Name Here], now resident at [Your Address Here].

MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS –

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN within the content of the preamble to this present document, I Must and Do Now Remove Myself from All and Any Allegiance to Elizabeth the Queen, to the purpose of removing myself at law from the authority of all of those Hateful & Evil Persons who have taken it upon themselves to hold Elizabeth the Queen a prisoner in her own land – and or who have taken it upon themselves to misgovern the United Kingdom in the Queen’s Name, by the process of laying an unlawful claim to the True Authority of Elizabeth the Queen; such claim to the Royal Authority being entirely contrary to the known and most ancient laws and customs of the realm and being most clearly an expression of Treason.

I DECLARE that as from and including this present date, and for all such time as may now be required to restore Elizabeth the Queen to Her Freedom and to The Lawful Dignity & Authority of her Crown, I DENY

AND WITHHOLD ALL ALLEGIANCE AND OBEDIENCE TO ELIZABETH THE QUEEN, to the precise purpose of providing some defence to Her Majesty’s Person; Royal Estate and Freedoms, by the process of denying all and any lawful recognition to those Evil Persons who now hold Her Majesty captive to their own Treasons; Evil Designs and Unlawful Purposes, contrary to law -

AND TO THE FURTHER PURPOSE that my own Security and Safety under the Rule of those Laws that are my inalienable birthright may be safeguarded against the threats to Freedom & Liberty now being posed by Divers Evil Persons, contrary to law.

I NOW DECLARE to All Persons claiming a legal authority to exercise the power of government, in the name of Elizabeth the Queen that their authority to govern me in any way whatsoever is both denied and ended.

I FURTHER DECLARE to all such persons that my personal freedom comes directly to me from God Himself, and that the walls and doors of all and any prisons now under the control of Traitors to the Crown & People of the United Kingdom will crack wide and will open at the behest of God Himself, if they should seek to impose penalty upon me for my departure from their mischiefs.

FINALLY, I give Full Notice & Assurance that I will return to my allegiance and obedience to the Person; Estate & Imperial Crown of Elizabeth the Queen when Her Majesty is entirely released from the bondage that now prevents her from the free exercise of her lawful authority and duty to Govern Her Peoples in accordance with their own laws & customs; which authority requires Her to Defend Her Peoples; Her Kingdoms; Her Realms and Her Territories in full accordance with the terms of the Oath that was Sworn before Almighty God & The People on 2nd June, 1953.

THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND is my birthright and at any future time of returning to a condition of Full Allegiance and Obedience to the authority of Elizabeth the Queen, I will require and expect to receive The Queen’s Own Freely-Given Assurance that the government of my country will from that same time be conducted in full accordance with the laws and customs of my people; which laws and customs require and demand that the activities of all and any parliaments and governments of the United Kingdom be constrained to act within those provisions of the law that provide for the existence of such parliaments and governments.

May God in His Mercy, Defend the Right & May God Save the Queen from those who now hold her in an Unlawful Captivity.

__________________________[Your Name Here].
Before me, An Officer of the Court, or Solicitor
________________________________________
Print Name____________________Date_________
(Signed & Sealed)
Sworn at:_________________________________

Essentially, we have assumed that Her Maj is acting against her will. She did, after all, swear an Oath at her Coronation in 1952 to protect and defend us all. By assenting to statutes with European origin, she is handing her powers to a foreign entity. We did not grant her that privelege.


We are not the first to use this right. Read this.

Just for clarity, we do not need 25 Barons to exercise this right. It is incumbent upon all Britons.

Let me know if you have any questions.

CR.

More Thugs In Uniform

Yet another video of cops beating the shit out of people.

Is it just me or are these videos becoming more and more prevalent?

Listen to that poor guy screaming when they tazer him in the car. Watch, as half a dozen robocops descend on a skinny girl. Listen to the old guy coughing after they tear-gas a crowd of people standing in a park, harming no-one. Their bravery knows no bounds....

This shit is already here in the UK. And it is getting worse.

How much longer can you allow it to go uncorrected?

CR.

A Case Of Treason

You've heard me bang on about this. Ad nauseum.

I don't believe I ever showed you why I was banging on about it. The reason is because I watched this old copper, Albert Burgess telling a Lawful Rebellion conference why he was banging on about it.

I urge you to listen to this. Albert lays out the case with supporting evidence. He even reported the crime.

Albert speaks again here six months later. This video has a lot of valuable information. Watch it if you can. (If you only have time to watch one of them, watch this second video. It includes a lot of what Albert said in his earlier talk).

Folks, our country is broken. Our constitution, (don't believe those who would tell you that we don't have one, we do), lies in tatters. The blame, as you will hear, sits squarely on the shoulders of that traitor Edward Heath. His decision, despite advice not to proceed, set in train the unholy mess we have today.

One stupid move in 1971 wrecked our nation.

To restore our sovereignty, all we need to do is put pen to paper. One million of us. The answer is Lawful Rebellion. That is the only (peaceful) way of getting our country back. Then we can tear down the lunacy that the EU foisted on us and start to rebuild.

Along the way, Cameron, Clegg, and all the other Europhiles need to be re-educated. And if they will not listen to us, they must go.

The alternative is too horrific to contemplate.

CR.

Big Business Behind Bars

This is Timothy Anti-Terrorists take on Americashires shame.

Three strikes and you work for the government for 25 cents an hour for the rest of your days....

CR.

So, It's A Revolution You Want?

Revolution. It is your right.

And no-one can take that right away. More, it is your obligation. It is your duty.

If you were waiting for permission, you need wait no longer. You have had that since the day you were born.

If you were waiting for a hero, he/she ain't coming. The hero is him/her in the mirror. You know him/her very well.

The hero is you. The hero is me. The hero is all of us.

So, when can you start?

Oh I see. You want some evidence that revolution is a tool you always had in your box?

Take a look at this blogpost by I_Amness (Reproduced with his consent. Thanks!) over at the TPUC Forum:

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the subjects of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

In Europe, the right of revolution may be traced back to the Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, that required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a "security clause" that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the King through force if needed. The Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution.

The Golden Bull of 1222 was a golden bull, or edict, issued by King Andrew II of Hungary. The law established the rights of Hungary's noblemen, including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jus resistendi). The Golden Bull is often compared to the Magna Carta; the Bull was the first constitutional document of the nation of Hungary, while the Magna Carta was the first constitutional charter of the nation of England.

Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. John of Salisbury advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus. In the Early Modern period, the Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely known and often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the natural law focus of the School of Salamanca.

John Calvin believed something similar. In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, he observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so “it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” When ordinary citizens are confronted with tyranny, he wrote, ordinary citizens have to suffer it. But magistrates have the duty to “curb the tyranny of kings,” as had the Tribunes in ancient Rome, the Ephori in Sparta, and the Demarchs in ancient Athens. That Calvin could support a right of resistance in theory did not mean that he thought such resistance prudent in all circumstances. At least publicly, he disagreed with the Scottish Calvinist John Knox’s call for revolution against the Catholic Queen Mary Tudor of England.[4]

The Catholic Church shared Calvin's prudential concerns—together with a concern for saving the souls even of tyrants, a concern which was irrelevant in double-predestinarian Calvinism. Thus, the Pope condemned Guy Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot, and Regnans in Excelsis was widely considered to be a mistake. St. Thomas Aquinas had argued that fear of tyrannicide drove tyrants to worse conduct, and that tyrannicide and rebellion tended to end in the placement of an even worse tyrant on the throne—so that the safest course of action for the people was to endure tyranny for as long as it could be borne, rather than run the larger risks of armed revolution. There were no armed revolutionaries remembered among the martyrs of Nero and Diocletian, after all; a preference for enduring what could be endured, like the presumption in favor of peace in just war theory, came to be the more common belief and is the one officially held by the Catholic Church as of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. (Its most controversial recent manifestation was the reigns of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII; the Church opposed the Nazi government, most notably in the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, and was persecuted for it, but never advocated the assassination of Hitler[citation needed] or released his Catholic subjects from their allegiance to him along the lines of Regnans in Excelsis.)

Use in history

Among the revolutionary movements claimed to seek justification as an exercise of the right of revolution include:

* French War Of Religion: The right of revolution was expounded by the Monarchomachs in the context of the French Wars of Religion, and by Huguenots thinkers who legitimized tyrannicides.
* Glorious Revolution: The right of revolution formed the basis of the philosophical defense of the Glorious Revolution, when Parliament deposed James II of England in 1688 and replaced him with William III of Orange-Nassau.
* American Revolution: The right to revolution would play a large part in the writings of the American revolutionaries. The political tract Common Sense used the concept as an argument for rejection of the British Monarchy and separation from the Empire, as opposed to merely self-government within it. It was also cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges against King George III. As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights.
* French Revolution: The right of revolution was also included in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen during the French Revolution.

The Right of Revolution as an individual or collective right

Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be collective right under English constitutional and political theory.[5] As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “[p]rivate individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries....”[6] Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”[7]

The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

Some of the information came from here.

When you are all ready, I will be right here.

I am cocked, locked, and ready to rock.

Revolution is not for everyone. I know that. We are a tolerant, peaceful people. Lately, however, we have been too tolerant. Incompetence, wrapped up in greed, surrounded by stupidity and smothered in arrogance, is the best we can expect from our useless MPs. There is a remedy, at law, for this. Perhaps a full blown revolution is a smidgen over the top....

Rebellion though, a quiet, lawful and peaceful rebellion, now that's a different kettle of fish. That's something we can all do. A bit of study, a couple of sheets of A4, an envelope, two witnesses and a stamp and you are on your way. Nothing simpler. You just tell them you are taking your ball home because they aren't playing the game properly.

The beauty of this is that they can't do a thing to stop you. Article 61 of the Magna Carta* says so. It is still current, it is still valid, so use it.

I do. It is a lot of fun watching them squirm. I have barely begun. And I have plenty of paper left. The pen truly is mightier than the sword.

* Magna Carta 1215 came into being before the first elected parliament in 1265. Much as they pretend that they can, no government can repeal MC 1215. If it wasn't created by parliament, it cannot be uncreated by parliament. No matter how badly they want to. It wasn't a statute in terms we understand today. This was a deal done between a king and his subjects. Parliament wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye at the time.

CR.

I Won't Back Down

The Man In Black says it for me.

CR.

New World Disorder

Check this out.

Disagree if you can.

Tip of the beret to The Talking Clock.

CR.

Silly Week Entry

I defy anyone to argue that there are more important things in life than.....

BOOBS & KITTENS!

Here is the evidence:



Heartfelt thanks to Amusing Bunni in Americashire.

CR.

Affidavit Sent To David Cameron

Last month I sent the affidavit below to one David Cameron. As you will see, I permitted him 30 days to rebut otherwise the affidavit becomes Ranty's Law.

As expected, he did nothing. By doing nothing, he is in dishonour. No great shakes there.

But, my affidavit is now part of common law. An affidavit is the single most powerful document in existence. They have to be rebutted point for point in the time-frame offered.

So, as well as my NOUICOR (Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right)-also unrebutted-I am as protected as a man can be. Purists (of the movement) will tell you that no paperwork is needed: you simply declare yourself to be a Freeman and off you go. I, however, feel more comfortable knowing that if I am ever hauled to court, I will have several bits of paper that turn my claims into hard evidence. In common law, (and I will claim common law jurisdiction upon entering the court), I have done everything correctly. I am, as the kids say, golden. My paperwork is the equivalent of a Kevlar vest. If HMRC continue with their games, I will get to test this out in court real soon. Between you and me, I am looking forward to it.

I have altered some details, but only to preserve my anonimity, for now. My autograph (never signature) is also missing. For additional potency, I added a one penny stamp and made my mark across it.

 

Affidavit

Affiant-Captain: of the Ranty family, X XXXX Street, XXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXshire, near [ABXX XXX]
 
Respondent-David Cameron, doing business as First Lord of The Treasury/Prime Minister, 10 Downing Street, London, near [SW1A 2AA]
 
Affiant is a private living sentient man.
 
Affiant is not Captain Ranty, Mr Captain Ranty, or any derivative thereof, or any other artificial entity/legal fiction.
 
Affiant is not liable to or for any Government statutes, rules and/or codes, including, without limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and/or codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.
 
Affiant is not liable for Captain Ranty or any artificial derivative thereof at anytime whatsoever.
 
Affiant is not liable for any public debts/liabilities at any time whatsoever.
 
Affiant is not a member of any society whatsoever and therefore the Affiant is not bound by any society’s statutes, rules or codes.
 
Affiant declares that he has entered Lawful Rebellion in accordance with Article 61 of Magna Carta.
 
Affiant permits Respondent thirty (30) days in which to rebut this affidavit point by point. Failure to do so will result in all of the foregoing to become Affiants law.
 
Dated 7th day of June in the year of our Lord two thousand and ten
 

Autograph of Affiant:


All I can do now is wait. I am prepared for battle.

I will faithfully report any skirmishes.

CR.

War Is Hell

Literally.

Today we learn that civilian casualties are much higher than reported. No real surprise there. It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth, and that has been true for every war fought since we started fighting wars.

Wikileaks have released many thousands of reports submitted in real time, covering a five year period of sustained activity in Afghanistan. Many are routine reports, but far too many more are terrifying. One report relates to a squad of men on patrol that found an IED. Instead of taping off the area and calling in the bomb disposal team, they were "bored", and called in an airstrike instead. All good so far. But the missile overshot the IED and killed seven non-combatants in a nearby village instead. Not bored anymore, are you lads?

There is a ton of stuff here.

You will be pleased to learn that our taxes are paying for this. I recently demanded that HMRC return all of my taxes paid since the illegal invasion. Under domestic and international law we are all guilty of providing an invading army with finances for war machinery and troops. HMRC wrote back and said I was absolved. I said that this was lovely but that I would need to see that in writing, preferably from the Minister of Justice. They have not yet complied with my demand for a rebate nor have they supplied proof that I am not violating domestic and international laws.

The human cost of this illegal and needless war is far too high. Here we have just one example of incompetence that prematurely ended the lives of seven people. No doubt someone will spend a great deal of time compiling the numbers.

What will that prove? What will we learn?

Mostly that they are lying to us, and that we are paying them to do so.

Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are dying, and are being maimed. How much longer will we allow this to continue?

What will YOU do about it?

I suggest you start with your MP/MSP and wing a note to the taxman. If we don't give them any money they will be forced to withdraw our troops.

At the very least you will be noting your horror and disgust, which may help when they start charging us all with aiding and abetting an illegal war.

CR.

Judge Napolitano

You don't have to be an American to be moved by this terrific speech by Judge Napolitano.

 I'm not, and I was.

Go here and press "play".

Lend him your ears, and know this: our government is not the only one stripping rights and freedoms.

They have to be stopped.

And that, my friends, is your job.

CR.

Freeman Interviews

Four short videos that address the fundamentals.

Lots of good information here.

Get learning!

CR.

Bye Alex

Alex Higgins has died.

Watching him play was a great joy. He was a genius with a snooker cue. I once went to watch him play an exhibition match in Manchester. He never showed up. No reason was given. We got to watch Dennis Taylor instead.

I just wanted to say good-bye.

CR.

Peels Policing Principles-Revised

I have been tinkering. All additional suggestions are welcome.


Sir Robert Peel's original wish list:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it

Ranty's revisions:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to collect revenue for the government.
2. The inability of the police to perform their duties is independent of the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the unwilling co-operation of the public in involuntary observation of the law to be able to get away with over 1100 deaths in police custody in the last 7 years.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be coerced increases proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve politicians' favour by not catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to ACPO.
6. Police use serious physical force whenever they damn well please to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when tazers are found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the politicians that gives surreality to the hysteric tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. [Yeah. Just give that one a try. I dare you].
   
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their lodges, and never appear to usurp the powers of ACPO.
9. The test of police inefficiency is the abundance of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police inaction in not dealing with it.

 A little harsh, I know.

Not all coppers are bad. I know a couple of decent ones myself. The majority though, have forgotten what Peel wanted. Large numbers of them cannot tell the difference between a statute and a law. Most just want to hit their targets to keep the boss happy. Almost all have no clue that they are an extension of HMRC.

And far too many have forgotten their Oath of Office.

Such a shame.

From Peace Keeper to Armed Thug in just three decades.

Faith in our police can be restored in an instant. Do what the Irish police did: charge these bastards with treason today.

It's time to start afresh.

CR.

Game On!

The Irish, sensing that something is seriously amiss, have taken action against their corrupt government.

Read this.

The Garda has now charged the Irish government with treason.

I'll keep an eye on this and report any updates.

This is a staggering turn of events and the Garda must be praised for this brave, and correct, move.

CR.

Welcome To...

Apparently, people kept nicking their town signs.

So they had one carved into a ton of rock.

Now, (and this is just me talking), if I lived in Shitterton and kids kept nicking the signs, I would never replace them. Not ever.

This from the parish council chap:

"Ian Ventham, chairman of the parish council, said: "Every two or three years somebody comes along and nicks our sign because, clearly, Shitterton is amusing."

It fucking well is, Ian.

Renaming the town might have been cheaper.

And a lot more sensible.

CR.

The Hopi Prophecy

...is complete.

This short video explains.



Lessons for us all in there, I reckon.

CR.

It's Time You Knew The Truth

You have awesome power.

This video tells you why.



Now that you know it, don't you think it is high time you exercised that power?

I have already begun.

The freedom virus has arrived and it is spreading like wildfire.

Even the most cynical amongst bloggers must have noticed the upswell in the last year or so. Libertarianism, in various guises, has shot to the forefront. This is a fantastic thing, and it seems (to me) to be growing by the day. Naturally, and thankfully, this is not a good thing for those self-involved, self-interested freaks in government. (Mind you, in my post later today you may just learn that governments will soon cease to matter, one world or otherwise, and the dodgy bullying coppers and all those bent lawyers & judges). 

That spark that I talked about has been fanned into a flame. I see little freedom fires almost everywhere I look. Even on days when I am not looking for them.

I firmly believe that we are on the crest of a wave now.

You can join in, or you can continue to observe.

Do what feels right and you will be fine.

Confession time: I nicked the video from those talented and inspiring people over at Lawful Rebellion. You should pop over to read this great article by Dave.

CR.

Slavery By Consent

There has been some discussion on the USA's 13th Amendment in the last couple of days. I may have kicked it off as I stated that the 13th did not end slavery in quite the way everyone seems to think it did.

One of my blogmates, Banned, asked when "enforced slavery for criminals will begin". It already has.

This video has some information that supports my claim. The first few minutes of this should make your jaw drop. Look, if you would, at the faces of the celebs on QI as they get told some facts and figures by Stephen Fry. Remember as you watch their stunned faces that this is, in part, a comedy show. I don't want to over egg the pudding but this was the first time I had seen the QI clip and it shocked me that they were so shocked.

The whole film is fascinating. Regular readers may well hear a lot of stuff already mentioned here, but that isn't a bad thing. After all, the dogma we have been brainwashed with has been repeated ad nauseum, and I reckon that to unbrainwash ourselves we have to hear the different/true version as often as we can in order to replace the ordure, if you see what I mean.

Part 1 can be found on the right-hand side at the YouTube link given above. The whole thing is around an hour and a half. I watched it last night instead of the dross on offer on the tellybox.

Films like this, and they are far too few in number, remind me why I am doing what I am doing. Embraced properly, this is world-changing stuff.

And if we don't change the world, it will stay the same: an ungodly mess.

None of us deserve that.

CR.

Corporate Revenue

Many people decry what Freemen claim, that the courts and the police and MPs and even government departments are registered businesses. They decry the claims because, they say, there "is no proof".

What if we could show you that the City of London Police were a registered company?

What if we could show you that Nelson Magistrates Court is a registered business?

What if we could show you that HMRC is a registered corporation?

We can.

Or more accurately, The Anti-Terrorist can.

The only way to get listed on Dun & Bradstreet is to form a company/corporation, and tell them that you exist. You may be surprised at some of the "companies" that the AT shows you in this film.

The title of this post is Corporate Revenue. Listen to the AT as he explains how our government schemes to part us from our hard earned coin. I have mentioned it before: statutes being considered by private bankers before being put to the HoC/HoL. Feeling scammed yet?

Although none of this is news to me, I hadn't watched this video until today.

At just ten minutes long it has to be worth your time.

My apologies for posting so many videos of late. It is the bestest, fastest way of imparting information.

CR.

Freemen Speaking.

You might want to listen.

Although US based, our system barely differs. Some minor details are different but this Illusion crosses the pond with nary a glitch.

Look. Listen. Learn.



I found this series of videos by chance. I was looking for information on the 13th Amendment as it was raised in the "USA is still a British colony" post.

If you are interested, here are the links I posted over at Subrosa's hoose.

1. The Real 13th Amendment

2. Restore Liberty

3. The 13th Amendment did NOT end slavery

Jammed with good information, but just not the type that we will ever see in the daily papers.

CR.

Everything You Wanted To Know About The EU....

...but were really struggling to believe.

And who could blame us? Some of this shit is so outlandish it is easy to dismiss.

Except when someone comes along and points out the proof as he goes.

I just spent over an hour watching an interview here and at times I was foaming at the mouth. And I know this stuff. I had several questions, and I had no way of asking them but thankfully, the people who watched the show live texted or emailed questions in to the presenter.

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, have a scroll through the website. It has some jaw-dropping stuff. It also has a few campaigns that we really out to work towards turning into reality. Among the campaigns being considered are a national general strike, massive civil disobedience (i.e stop paying taxes) and a permanent protest with at least one million people outside Westminster. We could do shifts.

Or, we can do nothing and the only reality we will have left is a communist superstate. It is 80% built and we don't have too much time left in which to act.

One suggestion is to shock two people a day with the truth. Tell them what is happening and tell them to tell two people the following day. Before long, everyone will at least know that something stinks up at Buck House and in the HoC.

If they don't know we are all about to be severely fucked, they won't do anything to help.

Tell your pals. And if you haven't got any, tell someone else's pals.

CR.

That "Special Relationship"

Exists for a very good reason.

Here is a short video explaining some inconvenient truths.



16 days ago Americans celebrated their "Independence Day".

I think it would shock almost all of them to learn that they never gained independence from the British Crown.

To this day they remain a British Colony. None of this is hidden. It is not a conspiracy. It is a bald fact.

My question to any Doubting Thomases that swing by for a read, is this:

If "they" can fool you about something this huge, just what else have they hidden in plain sight?

Subrosa  writes today about the "special relationship" but from a different angle. I can't help but wonder if iDave isn't trotting over there to give Barry O'Barmy his latest set of instructions......

CR.

Lessons In Law

Most people assume all "laws" are the same.

They are not.

Put aside 10 minutes and watch this video.

If it grabs your interest you may want to watch the film this was taken from.

It is called Kymatica.

CR.

Is This A Police State Or Not?

It's a valid question.

How would we know? What are the characteristics of a police state?

I just know that the amount of CCTV cameras, the email tracking using keywords, the phone call transcripts triggered by key words and phrases, the almost overnight change in how our police look and act, the almost one-sided court-room outcomes, microchips in bins to check weight and type of garbage disposed, and a couple of dozen other smaller indicators says that yes, we have overtaken Russia, Cuba and China in the snoopage stakes.

If you read Holby's blog post you could be forgiven for thinking that our police force is largely ineffectual. Particularly when some oddbod kicks off. Although, to be fair, he is looking at the subject from a different angle. I just thought that you might want to chuck in the points he makes as they add another layer.

Roger Hayes, of the British Constitution Group, takes a look at what elements are needed for us to "qualify" as a police state.

It is very difficult to disagree with his conclusion.

CR.

Dear. Sweet. Jesus.

With thanks (I think!) to Hangemall, I bring you this, frankly terrifying, report on those that "lead" us.

As you know, I am a peaceful man, but maybe, just maybe, by assassinating them all we may stand a chance. If we leave it up to them we are fucked. Big style.


Read this, weep, then dry your eyes, and react.


(I nicked the whole thing from here)

We used to call them psychopaths — these creatures that appear on our planet physically in human form, but are not human beings.

We noted they are amoral. That should have given us a clue.

We noted they do not FEEL feelings. That should have instructed us.

We noted they are heartless. That should have set off the alarm.

These creatures lack elements which distinguish the human being. They exhibit no connection with, no understanding of what we call "morality," "honesty," "decency," "fair play," etc. They lack the faculty we call empathy. They lack the faculty we call introspection.
Mankind has spent centuries trying to make sense of these creatures as some form of human being. All in vain. Not only in vain, but at enormous on-going cost to our civilization. These creatures are not human beings gone wrong. They are a different species ... dedicated to the murder of human values ... as a prelude to the murder of human beings ... e.g., the tactics used by Nazis, past and present.

They laugh at us. They say: "No one understands us. People can't put themselves in the minds of men who act without a conscience. They try to understand, but they can't."

These creatures do not THINK human. They do not SPEAK human. They do not know what  is to BE human.

We classify them as "humanoid."

Yes, they have human form. If we manage to resist their onslaught long enough, we will eventually develop technical scanning equipment which will measure how different they are from human beings, despite their similarity of form.

In the meantime, the quality of our lives ... and often our very lives ... depends on our recognizing these creatures for what they are, and taking steps to neutralize their attempts to destroy us.

EVIDENCE OF HUMANOID BEHAVIOR
They make pronouncements without substantiation. To them, these pronouncements represent what reality is ... pronouncement by pronouncement. The present pronouncement may contradict what they said a moment ago. This means nothing to them. They make no attempt to deal with the contradiction.

They demonstrate a total lack of understanding what we mean by a "fact." In their writings and in their speech, they do not use that word.

We humans find this hard to believe. The use of facts is such a basic part of our lives. We base our conclusions and our actions on them. We go on from there to test things and establish more facts. When we debate, we present facts, and show how we derive our observations and our positions from them.

Without facts, all we have is what we call "fantasy."

Since these creatures have a human appearance, we assume they must think like us ... be aware of what we are aware. We think they MUST know what facts are. When they don't address the facts, we say they are playing a game. We think they do know what the facts are, but don't want to admit it.

Not so! They DON'T know what a fact is. When we speak of facts and ask them to address the facts, they look at us with vacant eyes. They don't know what we're talking about.

They study us because their strategy is to pass as human. They hear us use the words — facts, evidence, substantiation. They lack the human capacity to understand what we mean. What they do is ignore our reference to facts, ignore our requests for them to supply facts, and hope we won't notice it's due to their lack of comprehension.

Let's look at examples of what THEY use for what WE mean by "facts."

The Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy (AAGT) held an open conference at which three "master" therapists worked with three volunteers. Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler published a critique entitled "BAD THERAPY" in which he cited examples not only of bad therapy, but also of systematic abuse of a volunteer by the "master" therapist. (The Interpsych Newsletter, Vol 2, Issue 9, Nov 95.) On their official Internet mail list (aagt@netride.com), members of the Association launched an attack on Dr. Schaler, culminating in their adoption of the slogan: "Saving Gestalt Therapy from Jeff Schaler," used as the subject line in a discussion thread. Under this heading they "SAVED" Gestalt therapy by sending in e-mails labeling Jeff Schaler as "arrogant, snide, hair-splitting, nit-picking, disturbed, meanspirited, ranting, self-serving," etc.

When asked how this labeling "SAVED" Gestalt therapy, they ignored the question. When asked in what way Gestalt therapy was endangered by Jeff Schaler, they ignored the question.

It became clear they thoroughly believed their pronouncements erased not only the evidence presented but also erased Jeff Schaler himself. They "pronounced" him to be no longer in existence. For them, whatever they "declare" is what's real. What WE call reality is not real to them. THEY "pronounce" what is to be considered real.

Here's another example. I asked a psychotherapy client to look at a chair which was situated about six feet away near a wall. I then asked her to describe the chair. She did, in rather complete detail, except for the legs. THE CHAIR SHE DESCRIBED HAD NO LEGS!

I pointed this out, and asked how the chair could be suspended in air, with no legs to support it. She said: "I put it there." I asked: "If you look away, will it fall to the floor?" She said: "No. If I look away, the chair is no longer there." I asked: "If you look away ... and it turns out the chair is still there?" She ignored the question.

Here's another example. During a discussion on CD@maelstrom.stjohns.edu earlier this year, the statement was made: "If enough people believe something to be true, then what they believe is what reality IS."

A question was then asked: "There was a time when everyone, as far as we know, believed the sun revolved around the earth. Are you saying at that time the sun did, in fact, revolve around the earth ... and it was only in obedience to a change in what people believed that the earth came to revolve around the sun?"

The question was ignored.

You might think their refusals to answer constitute an admission ... an admission what they are saying is totally outlandish and indefensible. Experience has shown you would be wrong. Experience has shown they go right on making the same statements, even after evidence is produced to the contrary. [Smoking ban, the EU, 42 days, anyone?-Ed]

You see how different these creatures are? You see how far off their thinking and behavior are from human thinking and behavior?

Nothing of what WE call reality is real to THEM.

I repeat.

Nothing of what we call reality is REAL to them.

When a human being mentions a chair, the reference is to a chair that sits there on its own legs. It's there whether anyone sees it or not, whether anyone mentions it or not, whether anyone "declares" it to be there or not. It's there ON ITS OWN.

A basic element in the profile of humanoids is their lack of comprehension that anything exists on its own, separate from their say-so. They don't SEE it. The only objects humanoids see are the ones they "declare" ... the ones they imagine.

We use the phrase "my perception" to mean an appraisal, a measurement of something separate from ourselves. We don't announce it as "fact." We are open to consider other views if given facts to consider.

Humanoids use the phrase "my perception" as a buzz word. They imagine what they choose, and tell us it is their "perception" ... which, in their minds, ESTABLISHES reality. What we call "facts" do not exist for them. That's why they whine and claim they are being attacked whenever substantiation is requested.

Humanoids claim their statements are valid simply because they make them!!! They elaborate on this: "I honor integrity in this regard. As an egoist, I make statements which are valid to me. Validity to my 'self' comes first. I grant other people this same respect assuming they say things valid to themselves."

Among human beings, for something to be deemed valid it has to be substantiated with facts. Nothing is valid simply because someone says it.
When humanoids are asked how they determine what someone says is valid to that person, and not something made up or imagined, they ignore the question.

Note the strange use of the word "integrity." Humans define integrity as uprightness of character; probity; honesty. We refer to sticking to the facts, sticking to the truth, not selling out. Humanoids use "integrity" to mean insisting what they imagine is what's real. No measurement. No evaluation.

When the demand is made for their pronouncements to be evaluated, they claim the confronter is the one who has no integrity ... meaning the confronter is not upholding THEIR position: what THEY imagine is what's real.

On what basis do they claim this? Humanoids treat the world as if it were their own private holodeck. They "declare" things into being. Everything is a hologram. They program the holograms. They interact with them in any way they choose. They have them under total control. When they decide to cancel a hologram, it vanishes.

A hologram is a hologram is a hologram. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to think for itself. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to measure, evaluate, appraise, etc. Most importantly, a hologram is not supposed to be able to break out of its holographic state and critique its master.

When this does happen, they first chastise it to bring it back into line. If that doesn't work, they "vanish" it. When that fails, they run for cover by abandoning the program and calling up another one.

Experience has shown no matter what we say, no matter what we point out, no matter how much evidence is given, it has no meaning for these creatures. They have one goal: to fool us into classifying them as human so they can concentrate on murdering our human values. Without human values, the next step is murdering human beings.

In the film "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," aliens are shown to be taking over by occupying the bodies of human beings. The aliens take over not only the physical body but also the mind, memories, abilities, etc. In every way the people seem to be the same as always, except for one thing. They mention events, but with no feeling of them or about them. 

THEY DO NOT FEEL FEELINGS.

We see a child struggling to get away from what appears to be its mother. The next day they walk hand-in-hand. The child has been taken over.
The lovers in the film try to stay awake so they won't be taken over. She succumbs ... and "she," now a creature, tries to fool him. When she doesn't fool him, she tries to betray him.

These creatures do not FEEL alive. They do not FEEL feelings. In order to pass as humans, they know they have to give the appearance of knowing they are alive. Their only recourse is to DECLARE they are alive.

The declaration does not produce the quality of FEELING alive. They still don't FEEL feelings. The only thing they have to go on, to refer to, is their own declaration. If "declaring" is shown to be insufficient ... if they are called upon to discuss feelings, give evidence of feelings, distinguish between feelings, etc., they are lost. Their inner emptiness is apparent. Their un-human status is exposed.

Here's a final example. In the course of a discussion on psych-ci@maelstrom.stjohns.edu some time ago, a humanoid said: "You hurt my feelings." The humanoid was asked to identify the exact statements, and explain in what way these statements caused hurt to what particular feelings. Answer: (Whining) "I've said you hurt my feelings. I don't know what else to say. ... You are attacking."

Question: "In what way do you a consider a request for substantiation and clarification to be an attack?"

No answer.

AN OVERVIEW
Humanoids:

1. Make pronouncements without substantiation. These pronouncements are to be accepted as defining what reality is . . moment by moment.
2. Ignore requests to provide the basis for their pronouncements.
3. Sneer at the human valuing of facts, honesty, decency, fair play.
4. Applaud the use of lies, deceit, etc.
5. Whine they are being "attacked" whenever they are questioned. Give no explanation of what the "attack" is or of what is being attacked.
6. Do not FEEL feelings.
7. View the world as their private holodeck.
8. Apply themselves to keeping humans in their place — namely, insignificance.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Humanoids do not understand the distinction we humans make between good and evil. When they harm us, they do not understand why we call them evil. They do not understand why we have laws against murder. Their approach is to boast, even moralize over their victims.

Since they do not understand the reason for such laws, they argue they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Not so. While they take the position the law does not apply to them, they do know the law was enacted to apply to everyone. Furthermore, if they try to claim they didn't know there was such a law, we respond with a firmly established principle: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

When they use those arguments, they make it clear they will continue to operate in accordance with their structure. We may look for remorse (a human capacity). We find none. They do not think of themselves as promulgating evil. They are simply doing what it is in their structure to do. The rattlesnake does not think of itself as evil when it injects poison. It is simply doing what it is in its structure to do.

Experience has shown humanoids continue to behave in the ways of their species . . murdering human values as a prelude to murdering human beings. 

Nazis demonstrate this graphically.

The issue as to whether to hold them "accountable," in our human sense of the word, has to be divided into two parts. We do not hold them accountable for BEING what they are. We do hold them accountable for the damage they DO.

When a dog gets rabies, we don't hold the dog accountable for becoming rabid. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is put the dog down BEFORE it bites us, BEFORE it infects us.

We do not hold the rattlesnake accountable for HAVING poison fangs. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is kill the rattlesnake BEFORE it kills us.

So with the humanoid. We need to be on our guard at the first sign of a murder of human values.

---

Amos M. Gunsberg is a psychotherapist and trainer
of psychotherapists in New York City since 1950.
He is a founder of the School for Quality Being.

This article originally appeared in Volume 2, Issue 5, of PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL.

---

 
Comment by Peter Meyer, 2006-07-24:
 
Here is a short list of the most obvious humanoids:

George W. Bush		Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Cheney		Tony Blair
Condoleezza Rice		John Bolton
Ehud Olmert		Tzipi Livni

 
Next time you hear them speaking note how they make pronouncements about how things are which are totally inconsistent with the way normal humans see things, and note how they state these things as if it were self-evident, as it is — to them, since they do not distiguish between reality and their ideas about reality. These individuals are insane.
 
Consider John ('Mad Dog') Bolton. On 2006-07-23 he was interviewed on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" and was asked to reply to the statement by Louise Arbour (U.N. 
 High Commissioner for Human Rights) that the leaders of the Israeli government, by bombing and destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon and thereby killing hundreds of civilians (many of them children) and creating half a million civilian refugees, were possibly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity and might later face criminal prosecution. In his reply Bolton totally ignored both the fact of Israel's devastation of 
 Lebanon's infrastructure and the suggestion that the Israelis were committing crimes of any kind (according to his perverse logic they could not be doing this because the U.S. supports Israel and the U.S. does not — in his "reality" — condone crimes against humanity) and instead huffed about whether Arbour was acting improperly by (as he said) "threatening criminal charges based on press accounts." Bolton is insane, appointed (despite congressional objections) as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. by a U.S. President who is also insane. Psychopaths, not merely among us, but in positions of power where they exercise huge influence and by their actions can cause the deaths of millions of people.
 
But that appears to be exactly their intention: to exterminate (or enslave) all humans — their "final solution". The question is: Will the humans, like the European Jews in the 1940s, put up little resistance, and allow themselves to be slaughtered? There is now a major difference: We now know what they intend for us, so if they succeed we have only ourselves to blame. We would do well to heed the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller.

---

Bev Conover: Bush isn't a moron, he's a cunning sociopath
 
Follow the links for further information
on the subject of psychopaths in positions of power
(especially the Lobaczewski article).

CR.

The Rot From Within

Thanks to John from the Magna Carta Society for this link.

For years now I have been wondering why allegedly intelligent people could have made quite so many moronic decisions. The answer has been found.

Dr George Simon has been investigating and says that these people are damaged. Psychologically.

The Antiwar website  has the scoop.

Look:

"In reading a number of books on the destructive manipulative behavior of people with personality disorders I became increasingly struck by how the behavior of our politicians and our nation, especially with respect to foreign policy, was so precisely described. 

The lesson from this study is not just sobering, but taken alongside the invincible tide of history –  the collapse of every empire – the prognosis for our nation is bleak.


The most important book for me was titled In Sheep’s Clothing:  Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People by Dr. George Simon.   The title and tactics identified within it accurately describes not only our national leaders, but our national character.  Our nation has not just one, but multiple destructive personality disorders. 

I do not mean this in the metaphorical sense, but in the direct clinical sense. Dr. Simon indicates that in a repressive Victorian society individual citizens suffer more neurotic kinds of disorders because they have natural human sexual desires that are relentlessly suppressed and vilified, resulting in anguish over reconciling natural human urges with extreme social sanctions against them. 

In more recent decades, with the "anything goes" revolution in the 1960′s and onward, the kinds of personality disorders in his clinical work came to be more dominated by the opposite end of the spectrum, known as character disorders.  Neurotic disorders are from "too much conscientiousness".  Character disorders are from "not enough conscientiousness".

There is more. Follow the link above for the full synopsis of the book.

We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Gordon Brown has some terrific problems in the head department, but just how many others have this "lack of conscientiousness"?

I suspect it is the vast majority of them. Not just American manipulators politicians, but British MPs as well.

God help us.

They are all frickin loonies.

CR.

PS-I cleared out my merlot inspired music posts from the wee small hours. I did this because I was not ready for my "Boot Camp" article to slide off the page just yet. It has attracted enormous interest. My apologies to those good people who commented on my music selection. I hope you will forgive me for removing them.