March 19, 2011

Those Who Would Rule

Funtime's over. Back to work.

The following piece was written by Bob at The Magna Carta Society and it neatly details what went wrong, and why. 

Read it, then share it with everyone:

In the United Kingdom the people are sovereign and the state is the servant of the people.

In Europe the state is sovereign and the people are subjects of the state. 

Under British law the people may do anything they wish providing there is no law against it.

Under European law the people may only do that which the law permits.

Under British law the people have inalienable rights and liberties  upheld by the Constitution.

Under European law the rights and liberties of the people are decided by the state which can withhold or withdraw such rights and liberties at its discretion.

In the United Kingdom a defendant charged with committing a crime remains innocent until proven guilty.

Under European law a defendant charged with a crime is assumed guilty unless he or she can prove his or her innocence.

In the countries of western Europe there are variations to be found in the laws of the individual countries, but the basic principle of the Code Napoleon exists throughout, the legacy of the Fascist style rule imposed by Napoleon following his conquest of western Europe. It is a system of law that well suits those who would aspire to rule. It is a system of law that is diametrically opposed to the British system of law which is created and upheld for the people by the people through democratic process, a system of democratic law that most certainly does not suit those who would aspire to rule. Never the less, there have been occasions over our long history when it was challenged by such aspirants but all such challenges only succeeded in strengthening the people's resolve to sustain their own sovereign powers over their own destiny. The challenge of King John in the thirteenth century resulted in his being obliged to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, and the challenge of Charles I in the seventeenth century cost him his life and the challenge of James II resulted in his exile and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. Human nature being what it is however, there are always those who for personal gain aspire to rule. 
As social evolution gradually embraces the democratic principle and moves away from the system of the mass being ruled by the few so the frustration of those who would rule and control caused them to conspire in their endeavour to realise their ambitions. In the twentieth century the most prominent of these in western Europe was Adolf Hitler, but at the same time there were others and in Fascism they could see the means of uniting western Europe on the Napoleonic principle. As Hitler was preparing to demonstrate and acte out his belief that like Napoleon before him it was necessary to first crush the nations of Europe by military force, some of his supporters both in Europe and the United Kingdom were planning the economic and political measures that would be enforced following the physical conflict. In 1942 the German High Command  drew up the Europaischshafts Wirtshaftgemeinshaft, in all but small detail the blueprint for the Treaty of Rome 1957 which in 1972 the British traitors readily signed up to and by means of duplicity and stealth imposed on the British people, thus after a thousand years the sovereign independence and self rule of the British people was ended and with it the democratic principle that so threatened the aspirations of those who would rule.
Had this nation capitulated in 1939 as it did in 1972, an horrific war would have been averted, but it would have been at a cost, a cost we are now paying and experiencing, as the once good order and social stability this nation previously enjoyed now crumbles about us and the European model, the Code Napoleon, gradually takes precedent over our system of democratic process of law by the people for the people. The once United Kingdom is a nation undone, and seemingly no longer has the inclination nor will to restructure itself. 

What does the future hold for this nation 

What does the future hold for this nation of generally ordered, kind, peaceful and fair minded people, in which the order based on democratic principle has changed to an order of political intrusion, dictate and suppression? A change in which even our once helpful and friendly humble dustmen have become arrogantly confrontational and aggressive. A change in which the official wearing of a plastic helmet and yellow jacket gives licence to superior and patronising attitude. A change which has allowed 'the tail to waggeth the dog'.  
The time is now past when the people could have found and realised remedy by peaceful means. As the social order that their ancestors sacrificed so much to preserve for future generations wilts and crumbles about them, they are increasingly being pushed towards the violent confrontation that they believed could never happen or indeed be possible. Their self imposed rulers on the other hand have long been aware of such a possibility and have prepared well for it. The most noticeable move was when the police were taken out of the community, for a community integrated police force could not be relied upon to take militia styled pugilistic action against the people of their own communities. All was carried out under spurious claims of streamlining, efficiency and economising. Local police stations were closed down and police houses sold off. Improved mobility created an excuse for centralisation, away from public scrutiny and personal contact. No longer would exist that long established rapport between the people and their local Bobby on the beat, the man who knew everyone on his beat or in his parish and understood the workings and doings in his neighbourhood.
The long term plan became manifest in 1984 when ten thousand policemen were deployed to confront the miners who chose to strike in protest at losing their jobs and industry. To those northern miners the police were seen as a foreign army drafted in to put down their protest. It was an incitement to violent confrontation and the police were quick to engage it with mounted baton charges and the casualties were many. The confrontation, which became known as 'The Battle of Orgreave' was crushed as was our coal industry.
In 2002, The Fascist Tony Blair and his government proposed to follow the line of a previous Fascist, one Adolf Hitler and ban fox hunting. This was no animal welfare issue; just as Hitler had to break the catalyst and unity of the old aristocracy so Blair had to destroy the catalyst and unity of the country people, they being the last significant body of independent thinking. In their indignation at having their way of life and livelihoods challenged the newly formed Countryside Alliance mounted a protest march on Westminster which was supported and attended by 400,000 people. These were not high spirited reactionary students or militant union supporting workers, these were ordinary peace loving country people from all walks of life, marching in their own capitol, on their own streets to their own Parliament. It proved however to be too much for their self styled political masters and the police militia was called in and in strength, and again with little provocation struck out indiscriminately with pugilistic force against male and female, old and young. One should not dismiss too lightly the reports that appear from time to time claiming that the police have over the past few years acquired several thousand machine guns along with armoured vehicles.
It therefore seems inevitable that should the British people decide to take back their lawful sovereign independent supremacy and their right to self political determination and so  confront those who would so deny them their lawful rights and liberties, they will be dealt with in the same draconian and pugilistic manner by state militia posing as policemen. Never the less, there now seems little doubt that the good British people will and must face them or allow themselves to be gradually taken over by the European political model as created by Napoleon and later taken up and expanded by the Nazi Adolf Hitler and the Communist Joseph Stalin, a political model diametrically opposed to all that this nation stands for as a democratic and peace loving people, a principle that has for generations saved us from suffering the misery and anguish that has for centuries repeatedly bedevilled the peoples of Europe.  

Bob

The Magna Carta Society.

16 comments:

BJ said...

How I agree with this post Ranty.

One of the signs of danger I noticed a while back- an apprentice tells me of an approach from Common Purpose, goes quiet on the subject, a year later there is a picture of him in our local rag in PCSO uniform.

So we see how it can be done.

My hope - is that the young people of this country will realize the financial shit that they have been left and will turn on the bastards who have betrayed them.

Unfortunately there are still some brain-dead zombies in this country who think that they have a say because they vote for the same old crooks.

I know now how the poor people of the Soviet Union must have felt.

Sorry, I guess I'm preaching to the converted here Ranty.

Oldcobblers said...

This post is like the curate's egg - good in parts. Much of the law stated is just rubbish.

"In the United Kingdom the people are sovereign and the state is the servant of the people."

WRONG. It is the Queen in Parliament which is Sovereign and the people are "subjects."

"Under British law the people may do anything they wish providing there is no law against it."

TRUE.... but it is very easy for the powers that be to find some law you will have broken.

"Under European law the people may only do that which the law permits.

Under British law the people have inalienable rights and liberties upheld by the Constitution."

WRONG. Firstly, there is no "European law" since each country has its own legal system. I don't know of any of them which has a law permitting consenting people to have sex. On your theory they all should have such a law. (b) the British people have no inalienable rights at all. We only have the rights which are left to us by the Sovereign body - i.e. Parliament.

There is a lot of truth in what you see re Policing. The Police are presently run by Police Authorities but only the Chief Constables have control of actual "operations." Unfortunately, Chief Constables look over their shoulders to their political masters.

Civil liberties in Britain are actually getting into a parlous state and this latest Protection of Freedoms Bill does no such thing.

Anonymous said...

I am not going to proslytize this idea of "God" here, because many won't accept it. However, there was something I read recently that equivocated this idea of the British and US way of law, which as you explain above is that the people have the right to do whatever, as long as the people originated law of the government prohibits it as being "Natural Law" or "Law of God", a "universal" law in other words, of what it means to actually be free.

The European fascist way of protecting the state's rights to dominate over the people, nobody can do what they like unless the state gives permission first, is the antithesis of this "God" or "Natural Law", the required state of things if people are to be free.

However, continuing what I had read, it went on to say that there is therefore a rule of God to which people should be fearful of abandoning, for when they abandong that natural order, become less afraid "of God" and more afraid "of men" (petty tyrants who would impose the European system), then it will be the natural order falls away and the fascist order comes into power.

The perspective was historical as it can be descriptive of various periods through history - but the main theme of this writing was that to "fear men" while abandoning the "fear of God", then essentially everyone begins to clam up, nobody has the "spirit" to fight, they learn to conform and fit in and thus that is the mechanism through which this more fascist rule of order enters into a society - and thus destroys everyone's rights, freedoms and liberties.

Essentially, I think it is saying, if you do not stand up, do not say no to it, do not fight and are not willing to die and shed blood if it comes to that point, then one cannot have freedom, truth, rights and liberties. Instead one just has constant "fear of men" - and the men being feared are nothing more than like the Wizard of Oz who was a shrunken puny little nothing-man but who scared everyone witless with his Wizard robot belching smoke and fire while he stood behind the curtain pulling the levers.

Anyhow, there may be this hesitation among people naturally occuring where-by they fail to "fear God" more than they "fear men" and by doing so, they are essentially fearing their own freedom, thus obey "men" when they should be obeying "rule of God", or essentially, the rule of the individual to choose comes first, that of government shouldn't come first.

It's the world turned upside down, the same way it was turned upside down prior to WWII, it's like that again - fear is winning the game and thus the fascist government model of Europe is winning over the opposing free state model of UK.

With lots of money, power, perks and position to be had among the ruling elite of UK, no wonder they are quickly going over to the opposing side, hoping to "be saved" when the whole world is consumed, hoping they will be on the gravy train receiving end from the dictators on the Continent they are currently willing to serve - and they are most certainly not serving the concerns of their fellow countrymen or constitutencies. That is plainly visible to anyone not mesmerized by the fog of propaganda called mainstream media these days.

That is just an opinion, but something I recently read.

Captain Ranty said...

BJ,

It does no harm to hear the message again, and again, and again, if necessary.

Preach away!

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Oldcobblers,

An apt username, given what you wrote on the Birkenhead story.

Let me just take apart one or two of your statements:

"WRONG. It is the Queen in Parliament which is Sovereign and the people are "subjects.""

Guess who gives the queen her sovereignty?

It's us. We, the people. And we haven't been subjects since 1983. We are now citizens. Do your homework.

And:

"WRONG. Firstly, there is no "European law" since each country has its own legal system. I don't know of any of them which has a law permitting consenting people to have sex. On your theory they all should have such a law. (b) the British people have no inalienable rights at all. We only have the rights which are left to us by the Sovereign body - i.e. Parliament."

I was clear that I did not write the piece, wasn't I?

No matter. I know that Bob was generalising. By "European law" he meant that most European countries operate Code Napoleon. CN is crystal clear: it prohibits everything that is not permitted. UK law is the opposite: here, everything is permitted except that which is prohibited. Do your homework.

Parliament does not give us rights. It cannot. It has no power to do so. It can ONLY offer benefits in exchange. Nothing more, and nothing less. Our rights are God given. Only God can take them away. THAT is what makes them inalienable. Do your homework.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

ALL law is sanctioned or created by the Vatican. Failing to mention God when discussing law is a mistake only an idiot would make.

You are right to bring it up.

UK law is teeming with biblical references. Almost every single maxim used in law can be found in the bible.

The US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights between them contain over 20,000 references to the King James Bible.

I appreciate your comment. Thanks.

CR.

bryboy said...

What an excellent post! It really sums up our dilemma. The powers that be have twisted our law and if you protest then they come down like a ton of bricks.

Everything political has become convulated. Cameron is not a Tory but then Blair was not a Socialist and Clegg...well what did they expect? They all belong to the EU... bought and paid for...sorry folks but in the end it will be up to people like CR and so many other bloggers and like the guys in Libya... some of us will die!

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Under European law the people may only do that which the law permits. XX

BOLLOX!

Think about it, it is NOT WORKABLE!

Person arrested at zebra crossing. Copper sais "He stepped off with the left foot first. The law does not say he can do that". Man cleaning windows. Arrested. No law sais you can clean your windows.

You want to blow your nose in France? FORGET it pal! The law does NOT say you can DO that.

Want a few more examples?

Furor Teutonicus said...

Follow ups to....

Captain Ranty said...

FT,

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble.

You might want to read this, and all that follows:

"The Napoleonic Code — or Code Napoléon (originally, the Code civil des Français) — is the French civil code, established under Napoléon I in 1804. The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified. It was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on March 21, 1804. The Napoleonic Code was not the first legal code to be established in a European country with a civil legal system — it was preceded by the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis (Bavaria, 1756), the Allgemeines Landrecht (Prussia, 1794) and the West Galician Code, (Galicia, then part of Austria, 1797). It was, however, the first modern legal code to be adopted with a pan-European scope and it strongly influenced the law of many of the countries formed during and after the Napoleonic Wars. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world.[1]"

Taken from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code

CR.

Furor Teutonicus said...

So what?

I did not say that we did not run under the Napoleonic code. I said that the idea that you are not allowed to do anything unless specifically allowed is bollox.

It is TOTALY unworkable.

George said...

MAX FROM TTTV RELEASED AT COURT

Just in case some people belief the UK in not a "corporation"

The Police Seargeant, On Record, In The Court explained how Devon & Cornwall Police and Torquay Magistrates Court are owned and run by a US Subsidiary of IBM called RELIANCE INC. - So .. proof positive that we are dealing with corporations!

Captain Ranty said...

FT,

The examples you used were bollox.

We are talking here about liberties unrelated to picking your nose, scratching your arse or crossing a street.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

George,

Thanks for that. The evidence is mounting.

The plot sickens.

CR.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Under European law the people may only do that which the law permits. XX

The principal is the same. No matter WHAT the scale.

You can NOT enforce a legal system whereby you have to have permission to do something. No permission, you are committing an offence.

Anonymous said...

I thought that with Napoleonic Law, if a citizen does something which has not been "allowed or permitted in law", then the idea is that the citizen is under sufferance.

That has been my impression of how the Napoleonic legal code works and it fits well with the dictionary definition of sufferance - passive permission resulting from lack of interference; tolerance, especially of something wrong or illegal.

What say the experts?