December 31, 2010

Last Rant Of The Year

Rant begins...

As we say ta-ta to 2010 we should have a quick look back to remind ourselves that nothing changes. Absolutely nothing.

I'll skip the first five months because the Labour fucknuts still had the keys to the kingdom. They created a mess of biblical proportions so any incoming government was buggered from day one. Still, it was amusing and staggering, in equal measures, to watch as Colostomy Broon clung to the door frame of No 10. The only way to get him out was to shame him out. Since he was ousted, he has done fuck all. I think he has graced Westminster with his presence twice since the election. Nice work if you can get it, eh? Try that with your employer next year: stay at home all year, but pop in twice to say hello. Your employer will probably be overjoyed to pay your salary month in, month out, without even raising an eyebrow.

With Numbnuts out of the way, in steamed the newly weds, Davey and Nicky. After a slack handful of promises and cast-iron guarantees, they proceeded to do exactly the same as the ZaNuLabour crew. They reneged on every single promise, they gave more money to the EU, plus another fistful of our sovereignty, and they carried on rubber-stamping even more nonsensical EU legislation. That tired them out so they decided to just cut & paste the shite directly onto the statute rolls. They clipped the wings of a few quangoes but it was, and still is, far too little, far too late. We still have a bloated public sector and we are still all slaves, as are our children and their children.

A couple of speed cameras were deactivated. Not in the name of liberty, but because a succession of gormless councils, who are obviously receiving far too much funding, buried it all in ultra-safe bank accounts in Iceland. You know the rest, Iceland went titsup and the councils demanded their money back. Iceland told them to fuck off. Result? We get services cut. Pay the same for less. Lovely jubbly.

The EU wobbled as Greece, Portugal and Ireland went crying to Brussels for more pocket-money, and of course, the Gollum caved in and increased their loans so that they could give it to the banks who in turn, handed it straight back out but this time it was called bonuses. Very nice.

We are still in Iraq, although in limited numbers. We are still in Afghanistan but the reductions come home in body bags. We send replacements, just like the US and A tell us to, and we are told that we are definitely not there for the "newly discovered oil and $1 trillion worth of gold, copper, bauxite and diamonds". That's good because I firmly believed that we were there to deliver democracy to a race of people that have no concept of democracy. They haven't needed it for 5,000 years but they will now that we need to rape them of their natural resources. To my knowledge, no Afghan has ever attacked this island but we are kept in a state of perpetual terror just in case they do. Marvellous.

Not content with interfering in the Middle East, I read in the news today that we are ready to go to bat in the Ivory Coast. Apparently the election was tainted (shock fucking horror) and we need to deliver democracy there too. The oilfields in Ivorian waters have fuck all to do with it. Nosirreebob.

So, we ended up with a government no-one voted for and they have morphed into NuLabour MKII. With people in real need here, they quickly decided that the best course of action was to increase aid to other countries. Which is just Jim Dandy. I know, because I see it everywhere I go in Africa, that the money dispatched by idiots in "developed" nations rests briefly in the destination country before being whizzed off to Zurich where it "earns a better interest" in the account of whoever happens to be the president of the nation in "need".

Your government (they are no longer my business, I have disowned them, legally and lawfully) continue to tinker about with the car window when it is the engine that is about to seize. They genuinely cannot see the large herd of elephants in every room they walk into. They don't listen to the people because the people are stupid. The people are there for one purpose only, which is to generate more money for them to piss up against the wall. The Cabinet has more millionaires than any other in history yet these fuckwits keep insisting we are "in this together". Yeah. I believe you Davey. I believe you Nicky. It must be such a fucking struggle for you to make ends meet. It's so tough that you simply cannot stay away from that trough that the taxpayers obediently keep topping up for you. You are all still thieves. Changing the tie colour didn't fool us.

The only glimmer of hope lies here. It seems that a serious think-tank has prophesised the death of the euro. In five to ten years. Change the timing to five to ten minutes and you will have a very happy bunny on your hands here. The death of the euro will sound the death knell for the EU, and its' demise cannot come soon enough. It thieves from us as well but the inepts in Westminster simply smile and sign off on the cheques. It isn't their money, why should they give a fuck? The most annoying words I hear, and I hear them all the fucking time, are these: "Government money", "Government buildings", "Government lands". They OWN NOTHING! It all belongs to us. All of it. They are not a benefit to society, they are parasites, leeches and vampires. Cut off the money and they will die. We do not need them. They need us.

But we forget that. All the time. We keep donating to this pathetic charity that smiles inanely and wastes almost every penny we "donate".

We are unable to say no. We are unwilling to say no. 99% of us have no idea that we can say no.

Unless and until a shitload of you start saying it we are doomed.

It is simple, it is liberating, and it fucks them up.

Now there's a resolution for you: get off your knees and tell them to fuck off.

Rant ends...


Ranty's Resolutions

I would like to make public my resolutions for the New Year.

In no particular order, they are:

1. To continue to say "No", politely and firmly, to anyone making "demands" of me.

2. To remain in Lawful Rebellion*.

3. To continue to live life as a Freeman and a sovereign human being.

4. To win my battle with HMRC. Conclusively.

5. To pick a fight with the local council over Council Tax.

6. To smoke as much as I want to.

7. To drink as much as I want to.

8. To eat whatever I want to.

9. To deny the government answers to their invasive census questions.

10. To not vote in the Scottish elections**.

11. To cause as much trouble as I can for any government official.

12. To continue to cause no harm, injury or loss to my fellow humans.

*Although there is no requirement to, I have renewed my affidavits to queenie. 40 days ago I sent affidavit No. 1 and just moments ago I sent affidavit No. 2. She now has four affidavits from me but I seriously doubt that she is aware of them. It matters not. They have been served and they are my shield in the days to come.

**There is no point. I have no government. I have disengaged and disempowered them.

A new year dawns. It promises to bring new challenges, new battles, and new victories.

My weapon of choice remains the humble Bic. Long may that continue.

If it doesn't, I am prepared to use something a lot sharper. "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst" seems to be sage advice.

Be well, be happy, and be safe in 2011.

Thank you all for making this blog more successful than it ought to be.


December 30, 2010

Missing Words

The post I deleted caused a fracas. The post I wrote to explain why I deleted it generated a fascinating debate and I wanted to round it off (for now) with a few thoughts of my own.

First, my thanks go (largely) to Zaphod and Augustine for a spirited debate which was remarkable for its clarity and lack of aggression. Usually, when religion is involved, the debate quickly becomes polarised and a deadlock is the normal outcome.

Second, and this may surprise some, I believe there is a god. Or a super-consciousness, or something. I am not religious in the sense that I trot down to the village church every Sunday, in fact, I go out of my way to stay out of these places. You will want to know why I believe, and it is a fair question. I asked for a miracle and got one. That is a huge statement and demands explanation but I don't want to offer one now. Perhaps I will write about it at a later date. It was intensely personal to me and I am not sure that I am ready to share it at this time. I will tell you that it generated a range of emotions but the two strongest were shock and awe, and they were the strongest because I finally knew that there was someone or something out there keeping an eye on me and mine.

Third, I wanted to explain my mistrust for "organised" religion.

There seem to be three major religions. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. All three have their holy scriptures which guide the priests, imams and rabbis. The Koran appears to be largely adhered to as it is. That is to say, there aren't many versions of it. Judaism (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) has a couple of "bibles": the Torah, which is the Five Books of Moses, and the Talmud, which contains nine tracts and a history. (The Talmud is a collection of laws and traditions). The Christians use between 8 and 11 versions of the bible, but this depends on where you do your research. Originally there was one version but as time passed, Christianity has spawned some 7,000 different sects. Variety, I am thinking, is the spice of life.

My problem with Christianity, and if I'm honest, the Roman Catholics in particular, is that the bible, (whatever version), is incomplete. My research, and that of countless others, reveals that there are 66 Books missing from the version released by the Vatican in the dim and distant past. Books like the Book of Enoch (which describes some remarkable but previously unknown facts about angels), the Book of Rebecca (bit sexist, leaving this one out, doncha think?), and the Book of Jasher. (With a name like that I am sure it is a fascinating read).

That's really it. I want to know what these three had to say. Them, and the other 63 writers whose work was considered too explosive for we mere mortals. What did they write that couldn't be read? Is homosexuality really okay? Or are women really equal? Will the smokers inherit the earth? Are tremendously fat people those that were made in God's image? On the face of it, they are probably silly questions to ask but they may well take on a new importance if our 66 deleted authors had something earth-shattering to say about them, or other, deeper, words of wisdom to offer. I do not know if the Torah, the Talmud, or the Koran have been interfered with but it wouldn't surprise me. I would be happy to read the bible if it was complete. It isn't. The missing books are buried deep in a vault in the Vatican City (and, some say, in a priory in southern England) and that is my basic problem: the edited version is incomplete and that throws up a myriad of doubts.

My point being simply that if the foundations are dodgy, the rest of the building is in danger. I can argue similarly about law, about money, or about governments. I can find and highlight fundamental flaws in each. And that is why I believe nothing. There is a backstory that we are not aware of but if we were, it could have a profound effect on our lives.

The church lies. It has done for centuries. They will say it is for the "greater good" but I don't believe that either. It is for their good. It is only in their interests that they omit some teachings and now they are in a bind. To release these previously unpublished works would be proof absolute that they lied by omission. Not a great advert for an organisation that purports to seek truth and enlightenment, is it?

I know that faith brings comfort to many. I also know that humans are fallible, and I have seen hypocritical acts carried out by Jews, by Christians and by Muslims in my travels around the globe: Jews munching on a bacon sandwich whilst working on the sabbath, Christians committing every sin in the book, then they pop down to the church on a Sunday to confess and beg forgiveness, only to start committing sins again first thing Monday morning, and Muslims scoffing my sandwiches, smoking my cigarettes, pinching my coffee, and drinking my beer, during Ramadan.

Faith is fine. Religion brings relief. Deities are do-able.

But the instruction manual is missing a few chapters.

The floor is yours.


December 28, 2010

Popey Porny Post Pulled

By me.

I mulled over some of the points made in the comments section and decided to delete the post.

It was factually accurate as I had quoted directly from the source. I just thought that my rant went over the top. It was in poor taste and I could have presented a much stronger argument without all the obvious, and not so obvious, desire for people to suffer harm.

It isn't really what I'm about, so I dumped the post.

For those who supported the piece, fear not, I believe organised religion to be wrong, and I will build a better argument against them.

For those who did not support the piece, fear not, I believe organised religion to be wrong, and I will build a better argument against them.

This was an act of self-censorship. (Surely the best kind?). I was under no pressure from anyone else to pull the piece. It was my decision.

I hope that both sides see my point. If not, feel free to tell me why not.

My firm belief is that churches-all of them-are responsible for more harm than good in the world. My last post did not provide a balanced argument with supporting evidence. It was a rant against a misguided old man.

I can do better than that, and I will.


December 24, 2010

Seasons Greetings From Clan Ranty

I ran this choon last Christmas and a staggering three of you liked it.

So here it is again.

Stay happy, stay healthy, and stay safe. Have a great Christmas while you are doing all that.

See you in a couple of days when my livers have recovered somewhat.

Yer Ol' Pal,


Christmas Message From The AntiTerrorist

Timothy is a repeater. He says so in the video. Twice.

I am repeating his repeated message.

You might want to repeat my repeat of Timothy's repeat.

Do it until everyone you know gets it.


December 23, 2010


I thought we'd have a look at the concept of ownership. There seem to be many myths about it.

The biggest clue regarding who owns what depends on who or what the item is registered with.

First, let's find out what the word means.

Classical Latin-regerere-to carry back, to bear, to rule. Or registrum-to list, to record.

Some examples:

If you registered your childs birth, you gave title to the Crown and their agents, the government. If you doubt that, perhaps you can explain why the government snatches 62 children every single day, ostensibly to care for them? I have met many of those that the government cared for. They are all damaged goods, having endured either sexual, physical or psychological abuse. You do not own your children. Your job as a parent is to keep them in good health, feed and clothe and educate them until they turn into tax slaves at 16.

If you registered your car with the DVLA, you gave title to them. If you doubt that, ask yourself how they can take away a £25,000 car and crush it because you didn't buy £200 worth of road tax? You are the registered keeper. It is up to you to maintain it, insure it, tax it, and drive it according to their rules and regulations. You do not own your car.

If you registered your weapon(s) with the police, you handed title to them at the same time. They can, will, and do, turn up whenever they please to inspect them, check on your ammunition stocks, and they can and will take it (them) away from you if they so desire.

If you have a National Insurance Number you are registered with the government. They own you. If you doubt that, perhaps you should ask how they can help themselves to huge chunks of the money you earn? Try to do anything without an NI number and life will be tough for you. You need it for almost everything: dentists need it, doctors need it, employers need it, accident & emergency will need it to deal with you (although they may wait until they have you on a ward), the dole office need it, as does your bank or building society if you intend to lend money off them.

If you have a mortgage the home will not be yours at the end of the term. Check the small print. No, not in the deeds. Read the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and 1666. All your stuffs is belong to them. The clearest title to your home, the ground below it, and the airspace above it, can be achieved by acquiring Allodial Title to your property. To the best of my knowledge, Allodial Title is available to all in Scotland and a handful of states in the USA. If you wish to test this, simply don't pay a bill for a few months. They will come for the money, and if they can't get it, they will take your home away from you. Big surprise: an Englishman's home is NOT his castle. It belongs to the Crown.

If you have lost a loved one, their death must be registered. In some ways this is a sad day for the Crown. They just lost a taxpayer. This does not stop them from robbing the corpse though, does it? Death and taxes, the government loves both. Both are money-spinners for them.

If you want to vote, (I have decided that I will not vote ever again), you must register. Try getting into a polling station to tick a box without having first ticked all of their boxes. Ain't gonna happen.

The government (Crown) owns you lock, stock and barrel. It owns your kids. It owns your house. It owns your car. It owns your guns. It owns your passport. It owns your driving license. It owns your life.

Just out of interest, (no pun intended here), the bank owns your money. When you lodge it with them it becomes theirs. Nice, eh? If you doubt that, try popping down there today to get it all out. You have to apply (beg) for permission up to a week before you turn up to withdraw your cash.

I keep saying that the government owns nothing. They have no money. They produce nothing. They steal from those that do produce. They do not own any buildings, they do not own any land. It is (supposedly) all ours. The buildings are ours, the land is ours, every weapon the army, navy and air force have are ours. All the ships, submarines, all the nukes, all the aircraft, all the military camps and bases. All ours.

And here is the dichotomy: if the government (Crown) owns me and everything I have or hold dear, how can I, a human being, own anything at all? How can I ever be truly free? How can I do anything other than cause a ruckus? If they want to, and they do this over 100 times a year, they can end my life. They never get punished, they don't even lose those cushy jobs. Their pensions are safe while families lie in tatters with one of their number dead in the cold, cold ground.

Somedays, and this is one of them, I wish I knew nothing at all. Prior to the smoking ban arriving, uninvited, here in Scotland, I was the epitome of the blissfully ignorant. When I discovered how they lied and cheated to bring in nasty, vindictive, childish legislation to deprive 15 million people of somewhere warm, dry and safe to set fire to their tobacco, my course was set.

I started digging and I haven't stopped. Not for six years. Each "gem" I unearth shocks me. Each new revelation brings with it a rage I never knew I had. All my life I had taken people at face value, and yes, I got bitten on occasion, but mostly I didn't. I had a trust in other people, particularly doctors, scientists, politicians, even royalty, that I am now dreadfully ashamed of. It actually pains me when I think how automatically I gave my respect to these vermin. Liars. Every man jack of them.

And so my game goes on. It must. I must. Every time one of us says "No more. They win", it is a tragic loss to us. We must all fight the only fight worth getting a bloodied nose for. We must all be Awkward Sods. We must derail them. We must distrust them. We must disrespect them. We must distrain and we must distress them.

We owe it to all of those who are slaves. They will remain enslaved unless we free them.

Does that sound like a worthy way to complete a life? I was an ignorati for 44 shameful years. I intend to make up for that. I intend to fight for change.

For fundamental change. For life-altering change. Historic change.

I'll do it for you, I'll do it for me, and I'll do it for the countless numbers of ignorati to come.

Because, and here is the point, someone has to.


Say No. It Works. Every Time.

I am several days late with this fantastic story.

A few weeks back we were treated to a show of defiance that was a joy to listen to. On the face of it, all was routine. UK Border Agency drones just "doing their job". It was anything but, as our hero demonstrates by asking a few simple questions. You can listen to the UKBA automatons making a right hash of things here.

Three days ago Smoking Hot treated us to Part Two. Do listen to the exchange here.

What you are hearing from Zaphod is what we should all be saying, all the time. Zaphod has researched his subject and he knows his rights. You will notice-pretty damn quickly-that the UKBA bods are clueless. They bully, harass, cajole and threaten. They do not even know what the legislation says. Which is all the more embarrassing for them. You'd think they would know it inside out. Apparently they don't. They slip on the uniform in the morning and assume that they have unlimited powers to mess people around. They do not, as you will learn when you listen to the recordings.

Kudos to Zaphod for doing the right thing. It is always right to question their authority, their motives, and their depth of knowledge on the statutes they are attempting to club you over the head with.

Thanks to SH for putting up the second part so that we could all discover what happened in the end.

Go find out!!


December 20, 2010

A History Lesson

In sing-song styley.

The last line kind of sums up today's shenanigans.


December 18, 2010

Are You Still Dead?

Of all the research I have done in the last few years, I believe this to be the most important.

I think that once you understand that you are dead, and what that means legally, and crucially, what you can do to turn this to your advantage, you are on the road to controlling them, instead of them controlling you.

Unam Sanctam (issued in 1302) was indeed a terrifying papal bull and it started everything. Understand that, and the scales will fall from your eyes. You are a slave. Of that there is no doubt. This papal bull explains why.

Owning us body and soul was not enough for them though. They also needed a way of extracting our money. They are spectacularly good at this. We, on the other hand, are spectacularly bad at saying no in a way that they hear the word, and the reason for us saying it.

I have read the Cestui Que Vie Act (1666) which was given Royal Assent by Charles II, but I was unaware that there was an earlier version enacted in 1540 by Henry VIII. It all makes more sense when I realised that the church was involved and that the Act concerns souls "lost beyond the See", not "souls lost beyond the sea". The misinterpretation is understandable when you know that the CQV Act was written entirely in French despite the fact that we had switched to english 300 years earlier. It was written just after the Great Plague of 1665 and during the Great Fire of London in 1666. Given the prevailing circumstances, this legislation was rammed through the system in record time. Indecently hasty, some would say. We should realise why this was done so rapidly in a foreign language. It was a con. It was a scam that affected us all, for millenia. It is not an archaic piece of parchment locked away in a dusty cellar in Westminster. It lives today. It is used today. Think of the UK as a computer and CQV as its operating system. We were never supposed to understand its importance in our lives. We are supposed to continue in ignorance, forever.

It would be better (for you) if I stepped aside and handed over to Mary Croft. Mary is a leading light in the Freeman/Sovereign movement and helped thousands of us to comprehend the nature and scale of the deception from a commercial viewpoint. Spend some time at her site and you will learn much. Mary has a way of explaining things simply. Do click your way over there and read the whole thing. No doubt it will bring questions but I would urge you to ask Mary, not me. I am a worm in comparison. Her knowledge is prodigious.

Here are a couple of paragraphs but they do not do the article justice. It flows beautifully and deserves to be read whole, with a pot of tea or coffee somewhere nearby.


"Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.

We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges are impartial and have sworn an oath to this effect. This means he must not favour either plaintiff or defendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating a glaring conflict of interest––that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk all work for the state––the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about the administration of a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect the judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this."

The courts treat us with derision because we simply do not know that we are dead. They cannot deal with us as humans. They even call us "imbeciles" and "monsters" in their law dictionaries. The trick, (and Mary explains it), is to deal with the judge on his/her terms. Otherwise we are speaking Mandarin badly, with a Nigerian accent that sounds like Serbo-Croat, and all they hear, unsurprisingly, is noise. Learn the lingo and you will not be parting with your money, or in some cases, your liberty. Learn about Trusts from Mary, and you will discover how to switch the liability from you, to the judge. Once you have succeeded in placing the onus back on the judge the next two words you are likely to hear are "Case dismissed!".

It sounds complex but Mary lays it out in a way that can be digested easily.

My thanks to Mescalito for reminding me several times to knock up a piece on this fascinating subject.


December 17, 2010

Democracy Is Dead

I have written many times on here about the utter idleness of the Westmonsterites.

It seems that even listening to new European legislation is far too tiring for the lazy fuckwits. Something had to be done.

"How can we do even less for the staggering salaries and perks we get from the gormless, uncaring, comatose taxpayers?", they asked themselves.

The answer came sharply enough.

"We won't bother reading all that guff from the EU. We'll just cut & paste it directly into the rolls. No point reading it anyway. It doesn't affect us, just the terminally stupid out there".

And so it came to pass. Uncle Bill has the details.

Dear. Sweet. Fucking. Jesus.

Why do we allow this? Why do we just take this shit all day, every day? Why hasn't there been a massively increased demand for piano wire?

What will it take, your humble Captain asks, for us to rise up?


European Dissent Is Spreading

Short video from RT jammed full of news you probably won't see in your Soaraway Sun.

It's getting messy in Euroland. People have had enough.

Just this morning we learn that Ireland's credit rating has been downgraded to...Chav.


"Moody's cut Ireland's rating to Baa1 with a negative outlook from Aa2 and warned further downgrades could follow if Dublin was unable to stabilize its debt situation, caused by a banking crash after a decade-long property bubble burst."

FFS. Even I am a better credit risk than the Emerald Isle. I feel for the people there, I really do. Like us, like all 500 million of us, they are victims. Their politicians, like all politicians, are inept parasites. The sensible amongst us know that it is the banksters that caused the mess but they control the politicians absolutely and simply order them to pay bailout money. The Spineless Ones shake, grovel, and roll out the dosh. It's embarrassing to watch. Even more embarrassing when you realise that they do this with our consent.

Still, we are a simple people and we can be suitably misdirected with much more important issues like Julian Assange being forced to stay in his 10 bedroomed mansion set in 600 acres, or the snow, or the fact that petrol now costs £1.22, (£1.22? I dream of £1.22. I pay £1 fucking 26p!), or if all else fails, Strictly Come Eastenders Farm Street will be there to anchor us to reality. Praise be!

It will kick off soon. The anger is growing.

I'll get me quiver.


December 16, 2010

Stupid No More

For the avoidance of doubt, this piece is aimed at the establishment. Those who think they are superior, those who abuse their offices, their oaths, and those who will be held to account.

Judgement day cometh for you liars, you cheats, you charlatans.

Your strategy of assuming that the population is mostly stupid, is flawed. We are learning fast that we have been duped for decades, for centuries, and we are finally arousing from slumber. You really have awoken a sleeping giant and I am here to tell you that the giant is mightily peeved. This does not end well for you.

Let's examine what we know, shall we?

We know that your criminal mismanagement of the nations finances, our finances, is going to end you. Several countries have been downgraded just lately, and it comes as no surprise to learn that the credit ratings of Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal are at an all time low. The UK has been downgraded and the US will follow soon. The common theme is one of career politicians stealing money from the populace, wasting it in reckless ways and then holding out their hands for more. When none is offered, you simply steal it directly from peoples paypackets. There is no choice. At least the Americans are closing down the banks. 151 so far in 2010. I whipped out my calculator to tot up how many had been closed down in the UK. The calculations did not take long. The answer is none. Instead of closing down these toxic, criminally run institutions, you gave them more of our money. Which the management promptly handed out to employees in bonuses. Nice work if you can get it.

We know that a monetary system based on fiat currency is doomed to fail. It was always a matter of time. The rush to buy gold and silver is a clear indication that we no longer trust you, and nor do we trust the banks.

We know that legislation churned out by you, the inept, isn't worth the paper it is written on. It took us a long time but we now know the difference between legal and lawful. Your drones appear on blogs, websites and forums screaming the opposite. After all, you have a vested interest in the status quo, do you not? You need the wheels to stay on. Forever. Sadly, for you, the internet happened. Most of you are convinced that you can lie, cheat, steal and cover up just like the "good old days". Those days are over as we force an age of transparency.

We know the police are not there to serve us. They take an oath to serve the treasonous monarch, not the people who pay their wages. Of course, the number of these RoboThugs is limited. You constantly forget that there are 62 million of us, and less than 200,000 of you. And yes, it really is a "them and us" situation. If it comes to blows, and I am almost certain now that it will, you will lose. You will lose badly.

We know that the court system does not provide justice. We are sick and tired of seeing perverts, rapists and killers get off with pathetic sentences. Kill someone and you can expect a severe telling off, but if you dare question the lawfulness of council tax and it's off to gaol for you.

We know, and it has been painful for us to arrive at this conclusion, that waving placards and signing petitions is a waste of our time. You understand violence though. So that is the inevitable path we must take. Revolution has never been successful by the signing of petitions, it has never been succesful when the protagonists have stood in front of parliament waving placards. It is always successful when death, damage and violence are used to bring change. It pains me to say this to you. I am a peaceful man. Pretty much everyone I know are peaceful as well. I wish I could tell you that this will all blow over, but it won't. You have abused us for far too long. We cannot unsee the corruption in the European Union, and you are tainted because you support that unholy organisation. They steal from us, and so do you. You are guilty of collusion. You are guilty of treason. You will be weighed, you will be measured, and you will be found wanting.

We know that our mainstream media is a compliant lackey. A handful of people around the globe control what news we see in our newspapers, on our televisions, and on our radios. The problem for you is that we no longer believe it. We are bovine no longer. We do assume that every time your lips move, you are lying. You do not disappoint in this regard. You are world-class conmen.

We know that change is coming. We know that you are panicking. We know that you are doing your level best to dispel the coming revolution. But it isn't good enough. The violence will escalate and many of you will be forever harmed. That you pretend everything is okay is pitiful. You got into power and carried on the work of the most pathetic government in living memory. You are not even the government people voted for. You created an uneasy alliance with a political party famous for being indecisive. Like all of the political parties who won power before you, you made promises to get yourselves into office. Then you did what they all do: you reneged. You reneged knowing that election promises are worthless. You rely on the gullible to vote for you and once you get the keys to the castle you discard the voters. You don't need them anymore, right?


Many thousands of us have learnt to say "No". Many thousands of us have entered Lawful Rebellion. Many thousands of us have become Freemen and Freewomen. Many thousands more learn what we have learnt as each week passes. Soon, a natural tipping point will be reached and then it is game over. We tried petitions. You ignored them. We tried protesting. You ignored us. We tried filing lawful documents. You ignored them too.

We have one more tool in the box. Violent rebellion. We didn't want to use it but you leave us no choice.

So bring your tasers. We'll bring baseball bats.

Bring your guns. We will bring our own. Legal or not.

Bring your batons. We'll bring bow and arrow.

Bring your water cannon. We'll bring Molotov Cocktails.

Bring your enforcers. We will bring chaos.

Bring your rigid lines of RoboThugs. We will bring urban warfare the like of which you have never seen, have never trained for, and will never defeat.

We are Britons, and we are stupid no more.


December 14, 2010


You need some Truth Juice, you do.

Let's start with this guy. He has had a hundred battles in court and rather than play the "Name Game", he just messes them up using their own rules. His section is spread over three or four videos.

There are another bunch of videos worth looking at from the same conference. Although I did avoid the one about urine. You can take the piss if you want to, but it isn't for me.

I prefer merlot, shiraz, or the mighty juniper.


December 13, 2010

The Rule Of Law

From the UK Column
By Roger Hayes

Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.

In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days... most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite - some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.

The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.



- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law - and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.

- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.

- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people.  Lawful Rebellion is a right 
- and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.

- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity.  The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance - but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.

- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work).  Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation.  A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.

- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.

- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.

- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.

- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.

- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.

- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.

- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.



- Law refers to common law.

- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.

- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.

- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.

- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.

- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.

- Laws are used to keep the peace.

- Without law we have anarchy.

- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.

- Nobody is above the law.  The law applies equally to us all.

- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.

- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.

- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.


Courts, Judges And Juries

- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.

- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury.  The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.

- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. 

This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.

- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box - common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).

- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.

- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)

- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.

- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.

- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.

- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional.  The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment... which we must challenge.

- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights.  We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.

- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.

- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.

- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.

- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.

- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’

- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice... they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not  as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.

- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.

- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.

- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).

- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.

- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes judges.



- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control.  Watch this space.

- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.

- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes... all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.

- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.



- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.


KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it

This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite... but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.

December 12, 2010

Hear Not The Message

Hear instead, the messenger.

This kid is mighty impressive.

For a 15 year old he speaks remarkably well. Incredibly well, in fact.

If he isn't a leader of something, somewhere, in another ten years or so, I'll eat my own swedes.

Let's just hope he is on our side, singing our song, preaching our message.


December 11, 2010

Time To Wake Up.

Watch, listen, learn.

The truth is a lie. This is your new reality. Throw out whatever you used to believe.

It's all bollocks.

Thanks to Anon in my last blogpost.


Australia Is STILL A Colony

So is Canada and so is New Zealand.

We have had some bold claims on here.

Some examples:

1. We own the USA.

2. The Vatican owns us. (And the rest of the world).

3. Our parliament is illegitimate. (Has been since 1911).

4. Our monarch has committed treason. Repeatedly.

5. We are all dead. (The Ceste Que Vie Act 1666).

6. We are obliged to lawfully rebel. (Magna Carta 1215).

7. Giroslips can be transformed into cheques. (The Bills of Exchange Act 1882).

8. The City of London is not part of the United Kingdom.

9. The Vatican City is not part of Italy.

10. Washington D.C is not part of the USA.

Here is another jaw-dropper. Listen as Wayne Leonard (Australian lawyer) explains. (It's in two parts).

Huge tip of the beret to our good friend Mescalito for another terrific find.


December 09, 2010

Let's Shoot The Messenger!!

I have met hundreds and hundreds of intelligent Americans.

NONE of them are quoted in Stefan's video. As usual, those baying for his blood completely ignore their own government, who are the real terrorists. As are the UK government. And anyone else who financed the bad good guys, or waged illegal wars against sovereign nations who were never a threat to us. Not ever.

Julian Assange is going to get fucked rigid. First by the slimey, corrupt judicial system, then by Big Vern.

All of us who stand by and do nothing, should hang our heads in shame.

I nicked this from our pal Fraser. Thanks mate.



The 2012 olympics are to be held in French.

The games. Paid for by the British. Native English speakers.

In French.

Read it and weep.


Are We Paying Their Fair Share?

The AT on Corporation Tax.

Another great vid from Timothy. Share it with your pals.


December 08, 2010


I wanted to try and understand why so many people stand by. Why they wait. Why they dither. I see no need for it. Life is far too short. Make a choice and live this one life standing straight and proud. But all the waiting, all the procrastination, by others, was weighing heavy on my mind.

So I watched this 30 minute video by Stefan Molyneux and I learnt a few things. What I didn't learn from the video I added to below. They are my thoughts so please don't go shouting at Stefan. You can shout at me all you like in the comments.

It goes to the heart of my two unsuccessful attempts to quit this blog. I am/was trying to get you, dear reader, to rebel. After all, most of you are fully aware that the government controls you, shapes your mind, directs your actions (or inactions), and helps itself to your money, yet most of you do nothing. It lies to you. Constantly. Yet you wait. You wait in the vain hope that they are going to improve things. No doubt they will. For themselves. You are a slave. You were farmed. You are nothing but a cash cow to them. Is it still surprising to you that they order you not to smoke, not to drink and not to eat the wrong things? They need you fit and healthy and producing cash for them. At first glance you think you get a good deal: roads, hospitals, schools, education, a police force, an army etc. But when you look closer, it isn't all that good, is it? The main road through my village is unusable today. Even without snow it isn't that great, and yet every year the government rakes in £40 billion via road fund licensing, but they spend less than £10 billion on repairs. (I understand hypothecation, before anyone reminds me. I am making a generalisation here). The hospitals? They kill 80,000 people a year through ignorance or ineptitude. The schools & education? Most schools are in a poor state and they seem to teach our kids less and less with each passing year. Our kids are as thick as mince. Google the education stats released yesterday. They are pathetic. The police? Just lately they have been showing us-live on telly!-just how little they think of us. They despise us. We are their enemy. We make trouble for their master and they will not abide that. So we die, we get hurt, and we get maimed. None of them are punished, or if they are the punishment never matches the harm they did us. Our armed forces? They are unwilling mercenaries. Sent hither and yon to protect business interests in nations we have no right being in. When asked, most people want our sons and daughters right here, at home, defending our island. Not attacking other nations for oil, gas and minerals. The government despises them too. They show their disgust by not treating properly those who come home with broken bodies and broken minds. Special facilities are closed down, leaving the burden of care with their families. Those that come home in body bags are never honoured by MPs lining the streets of Wootton Bassett. Not good PR, see? Someone might ask them awkward questions.

These, and dozens of other things are going wrong but they cost us more and more each and every year. If you took your car in for a service in year 1, and you got everything attended to, you wouldn't mind paying the bill. In year 2, the mechanic forgets an item or two, but presents you with a bill and you pay it. By year 3 all the mechanic is doing is kicking the tyres and charging you an even higher sum. You still pay it. You don't have a choice. He is the only mechanic in town. Same with the government. We are getting progressively less for excessively more. It is not a good deal.

Some of us, many of us, in fact, waited 13 years for a new mechanic. When he arrived we gave him some space. Time to settle in, get his feet under the table. Seven months later, we are still waiting. Still waiting.

Still waiting to say "No". Still waiting to enter Lawful Rebellion. Still waiting to become Free Men and Free Women.

Still waiting.

No you aren't, you are procrastinating.

It is a rut you stay in or get out of. Choose to get out and freedom awaits, stay in and you are agreeing 100% with the master/slave arrangement we all believe (wrongly) to be a lifetime deal. An unbreakable contract.

The key, of course, is wanting to do something. Stefan talks about wanting to do something and having to do something. There is a huge difference. Very few people want to pay tax. Yet all of us have to. Who says? Why, the master does. We slaves pay it because it is the path of least resistance, and after all, we want an easy life, right? Almost none of us ask ourselves, "What if I stopped paying?". How much better would life be then, if I kept my hard earned money instead of giving it to the master who provides very little in return? Worse, they give our money to foreign countries. They waste unholy amounts of the stuff on quangoes, on fake charities, on themselves, on just about anything except that which benefits you.

You don't have to pay income tax.

You don't have to pay council tax.

You don't have to buy a TV license.

You don't have to have a driving license.

You don't have to obey statutes.

You don't have to fill in forms and tell the government things you wouldn't trust with your best friend.

You do all these things because you want to.

That, or you do them because you never knew you had a choice.

You do. You do have a choice.

The choice is slavery or freedom. Only you can decide when you no longer want to obey the master.

I decided. I stopped procrastinating.

I am a slave no more. I have no master.

I have no government. I have no monarch.

I am free.


Korean War II, And Other Stuff

From the wise and philosophical Stefan Molyneux.

A pot pourri of thoughts from Stefan.

A great speaker and an inspiration to freedom-seeking humans.



Preview Of Assange's Police Interview

In order to protect the innocent guilty, some all facts have been altered completely fabricated.

Assange and the cops are played by actors.

Any similarity between this video and real life is probably entirely intentional, allegedly.

Yet another stitch-up is happening but we are all too busy watching a fictional tram crash.

There is a very real slow motion car crash happening right in front of your eyes.


December 07, 2010

Another Tax Rebel!

Goan yersel! (As the locals would say).

Like me, David: Bark has asked a few simple questions.

His local council have not answered a single one. They are all important but you think they would have an answer for this one, wouldn't you?

"Is council tax lawful?"

Fairly fucking straightforward, I would have said. But it is far too tricky for Redhill Council. They told a Redhill Magistrate to issue a warrant for his arrest instead.

Read the whole thing here.

Well done David.

Keep asking the same questions until you get an answer.


Source: Old Holborn via Twitter. Thanks Holby!

McTax Haven?

Head north, folks!

According to this, living in Scotland could ease your tax burden. Under new powers granted to the Scottish Executive (I refuse to call it a parliament or a government until they start acting like one) MSPs will be able to set the nations taxation from 2015.

Here are a couple of snippets:

"It has already been reported that Scotland was to do away with Stamp Duty Land Tax, now at a painful 5% for properties over £1 million, but the new news is not only that Landfill Tax is also to be ignored (no jokes, please), but also that Scotland is to have its own modified version of income tax.

In actual fact, Holyrood have had the power to adjust UK income tax by up to 3% for some years, but this 'tartan tax' has never been used. Now, the Scottish Parliament will, under the new legislation, need to determine an annual Scottish rate of tax that will apply to 'proper' Scottish people (more on who is, and who isn't Scottish later).

The way the new rules work is that, for non-savings income (so things like bank interest and dividends are excluded, owing to the different charging regime that applies to these sources), Scotland will deduct 10% from each of the basic, higher and additional rates of tax, and then add on the annually-determined Scottish rate.

Clearly, therefore, there is scope for the rate of tax for Scots to be up to 10% less than in the rest of the UK. Sounds quite attractive doesn't it? So under which circumstances exactly can Fools consider themselves Scottish?"


"The last condition, Condition C ensures a small group of people are also able to consider themselves Scottish, should it be to their advantage. Condition C specifically entitles Scottish MPs, Scottish MEPs, and Members of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish tax treatment."

"Specifically entitles..".Of course it does. There is absolutely no point being in power unless you are going to make special rules for you and you alone.

I wash a little shurpryshed that there washn't a speshul claushe jusht for Shorn Connery. Probably jusht a mishtake.

As you will note, the absolute minimum they can steal off you will be 10%. In RantyWorld that is an obscene amount. 5% or less is nearer the mark. And is there any point taking odds on the Scottish Parliament Executive setting the basic rate at 10%?

Never in life, would be my guess.

Still, if you have a hankering for deep fried* Mars bars, deep fried pizzas, deep fried meat pies, Buckfast, a little racism from the Scots towards the English, smaller class sizes, an abundance of clean water, cleaner air, beautiful countryside, women that swear like dockers, shops that close at 5pm, higher petrol prices, lower house prices, cheaper land, and a bit of snow now and then, this is the place for you.

Flog your two-bedroomed semi down south and don't do what the "wrong type" of English folk do. Which is to say that they head north, buy a huge place and with all their spare cash they immediately buy a flock of goats. All the weirdo's do that. Then they join committees and do their best to make their new place like their old place. They are twats, mostly. Head up by all means, just don't be a twat when you get here. I have survived 21 years here without being a twat. It is not difficult.

Then you too will be able to say, "Yes. One hails from the North Atlantic Region. One bought a small place outside Aberdeenshire. I believe the locals call it Morayshire."


*The Scots will deep fry just about anything, as this well-researched, well balanced and entirely accurate report will tell you.

December 06, 2010

Bank Run 7th December

This campaign has rattled a few cages.

Look at this!

If you didn't give your bank the required notice to withdraw your OWN money, fear not. You can still demonstrate your power by taking the maximum out.

Show them exactly who holds the reins.

For hundreds of years they thought they were in charge.

Prove them wrong!


Tip of the beret to our good pal Mescalito for the reminder and the link to the story.

John Hurst Interview Tonight


You may wish to hear John Hurst speak tonight on the radio slot that Scottish Sovereigns run regularly.

They have some great speakers on and much can be learned from those fighting on the front line of freedom.

Most of us here are familiar with John and Tina's battle with the courts concerning their council tax demand.

Tune in here for an update tonight at 9 PM.


PS-no "tuning in" is required. It's just an expression us dinosaurs use. Just click the fricken link. M'kay?

Paxman Interviews Brand

At first blush this interview, coming as it will, with pre-conceived notions of Russell Brand, may not look to have any significance. I think it does. Russell is amazingly intellectual, articulate, and well worth 20 minutes of your time. Park your prejudices (if you have any) for a short time and have a listen. There are some lessons in here which should teach us a thing or two about the (shallow) world we have created for ourselves.

The dross, the crap, the simply unimportant stuff that we all cling to. I gave up television some time ago. My mind has never been clearer, and my thoughts have never been more focussed. I genuinely believe now that the masses are hypnotised by utter shite. But they believe this utter shite is real. I know grown men who are incapable of having a conversation in which football is not mentioned. I know women who cannot talk about anything other than soaps, fly-on-the-wall documentaries or game shows. They have no idea that a world beyond the tellybox even exists. I find this a terrifying prospect. It is depressing and there is nothing I can do about it. I used to think that television was a fantastic invention. It was. But it is now tainted and it is used to push agenda's in almost every programme. It should be used for entertainment and education but it is now a slovenly thing. It is better left switched off.

We all know that we can kill the government by starving it of our cash. We can destroy television by unplugging it. We can decide to unhear the message. The road to recovery is short, and it is blissful once you have escaped its clutches. Give it a go. While you're at it, stop buying newspapers as well. Starve Murdoch, and his den-brothers, and the world really will be better off.

If you dwell on it long enough you find out that life is shit. But in amongst that shit is the odd glitter. The odd golden moment. All we can do is look for the odd nugget in a mountain of slag. We should hang on to them, because these are the rare things that make life worth living.

It sounds gormless but you should try to make someone smile. Try doing a random act of kindness. It really does improve your day and theirs. Once, when arriving at a toll booth in Houston, I gave the lady $5. She was counting out my $4 change and I said, "Tell you what, love, keep it. Use the change for the next four cars". She smiled and gave me a look that suggested I was mentally ill. Pulling away from the toll booth it made my day as each driver slowed as they passed me, all of them with huge grins. Four smiles for four bucks. It was a bargain!

I have digressed mightily. Sorry about that. I don't plan these things, you know. It just sort of....leaks out.

Anyway, have a terrific week.


December 05, 2010

Britain Has Fallen. The USA Is Next.

One of our most eloquent speakers, and brave defenders, explains:

Part two is as fascinating and as scary:

He speaks so calmly.

Yet what he speaks of is the death of a nation.

Whatever you think of the US and A, it was built on foundations of granite wrapped in iron and then encased in titanium. Those Founding Fathers knew their onions. Be proud of that, because we taught them all about onions. Back when integrity, honour, trust, and yes, even public duty meant something. Politicians today have debased those words. They have reduced everything to me, myself and I. You will hear the CamerCleggoroids start to talk about their legacies in just a few short years. I hope they all burn in hell for eternity, or perhaps longer, for selling our nation so cheaply. They are merely completing Labour's work. If you want to watch Labour MKII in action, watch PMQ's. Nothing has changed apart from the colour of their ties. Such a disappointment. Such a shame. Such treason.

The US Constitution was every American's guarantee that the government would leave them alone. Like our own constitution, spread across several documents, but there all the same, it is being shredded by shallow, greedy, inept and corrupt politicians. Politicians who seek favour with non-entities on the European stage.

You know, those household names like Ashton, von Rumpoy, Barosso. Real leaders. Leaders with a mission.

Sadly, the mission is to fuck us up.

But we are too wrapped up in shitty TV shows to notice. We are distracted. We are misdirected. We are misinformed. We are kept terrified of.....well, I'm not sure what it is that I am supposed to be terrified of. I just know that I am supposed to be terrified of something. I know that I am terrified of my own government. I never expected to say that, but there it is. We should rename the House of Commons. I suggest we call it Fuckwits Galore. They are not there to help, but to hinder. They are not there to clarify but to obfuscate. They are not there to demonstrate transparency. They specialise in the opaque.

Which, as we are learning, but far too slowly, was the plan all along.

That we keep falling for it is something that I find amazing.

Listen to Daniel speak, then tell me I am wrong. Tell me he is wrong. Tell me, for the love of God Allah Yahweh Gaia [Insert Deity Here] that I am wrong and that all is well, and that all is well, and that all is well with the world and I can go back to sleep.



BTW, the videos above were located here. They are reproduced with Christopher's kind permission. Gracias, amigo. (Sorry, I was just practising your new language!) Or should that be Merci, amis?

It's Good To Be The King

I wanted to tell you all about my commune.

Things were getting out of hand, so we decided that order needed restoring. It took a while but we are all sorted out now.

First, we needed to decide who would be in charge, so we had an election. It used the first past the post system, and somehow, I won. I'm in charge for a maximum three year term. After that I am out, unless the system is changed. I didn't want to seem too greedy so I set my own pay level. It isn't the highest salary in the village but I can make up for that after my term of office. Besides which, I don't really use my own money for anything. I just use funds from the community jar.

I sat down and wrote a load of rules for the villagers. Since there was no real opposition, all of my rules got through the process I had mandated. It was simple stuff: taxation, for instance. I decided that I would take half of everyone's salary. I needed some enforcers so I wrote an entry test that would weed out all but the seriously deranged. Sure, they were hard men and women but I didn't need any shrinking violets in case things got nasty. I set the speed limits on all roads. If these were transgressed, the enforcers collected the fines. I think I made good choices because the villagers are terrified of the enforcers. Once, one of the enforcers killed a villager but I knew that if he was punished the other enforcers would ease up. They would refuse to tase the children, or stop beating up the women in the gaol, and we simply can't have that. Since then, a couple more villagers have died suddenly, and a couple have ended up in wheelchairs, but the villagers, bless them, continue to turn a blind eye. Some even agreed that the transgressors deserved what they got.

The education system was in a mess. The village school said prayers at morning assembly so I put a stop to that. If a child fell over in the playground playing "tag" and hurt himself, the teacher supervising would hug and soothe the child. I stopped that as well. Imagine if someone thought the teacher had sexual desires for the child? No, it had to be stopped. In fact, I stopped the games as well. The children, often excited at their short bursts of freedom from lessons, would run around like demented chickens. It was only a matter of time before one of them fell over and scratched a knee, or worse. No games in the playground. Then, a new boy, Mohammed, joined our small community. As soon as I found out he was a Muslim, I made sure that Christianity was never mentioned in the school again. I took a look at the dinner menu and I was horrified! None of the meals were halal. They all are now. Also, we discovered that little Jake's parents had split up. Jake's dad, Simon, is a gayer, and his partner Jeff had moved in when Jake's mum left. So I immediately banned all references to "mum" or "dad", so that we didn't emotionally damage little Jake.

I was forced to make changes down at the GP's surgery too. Steven (the village GP), is an old friend and I had sounded him out prior to the election. I told him that we had to control peoples behaviour so that we weren't forever paying for healthcare. He agreed to make stuff up about drinking, drugs, smoking and most of the foods the villagers liked eating. We constructed a chart concerning body-fat which meant that anyone over border-line anorexia was classed as seriously morbidly clinically obese. So if they got sick-it didn't matter what the ailment was-Steven refused treatment or charged them a small fortune to hand out generic (but clearly unsafe) medicines. The odd villager or two died because of Steven's ineptitude, but we covered it up.

I had checked out Justin prior to the election as well. He and I thought alike. I am pleased that I appointed him senior judge. Like me, he agreed that juries were a waste of time, money and effort. For high profile cases we had decided on a system of "volunteer" jurors. We would simply send them a letter telling them to report for duty and if these volunteers failed to show up, we would get the enforcers around to their homes and we would gaol them for non-compliance. I am glad I picked Justin. One of the villagers had decided that parting company with half of his wages every month violated his "rights" in some way. Now, I freely admit that we did scribble some nonsense down about human rights before the election, but hell, it was purely a PR exercise. Anyway, he hadn't paid for a while so we wrote to him, politely demanding our money or we would send the lads in. He didn't pay so I gave the boys a green light. They dragged him to court and Justin was embarrassed by the mans behaviour, shouting about this right and that right, so Justin cleverly ignored him, imposed a fine and sent the chap on his way.

Before the election I had made a string of promises to the voters. Now that I was in I realised that, being in charge, I could just pretend I hadn't made any promises at all. Besides, I needed the money for other things. One of the chaps down at the club told me about a brilliant computer programme that could predict where birds would sit in the trees. As an avid twitcher, it was a simple decision. The judge, the doctor and at least two of the enforcers had a mild interest so we went for it. It cost a fortune but I felt that it was good for the community to know where the birds were sitting. Well, the software didn't work for the longest time, and there were several budget over-runs. I just jacked up the taxes on petrol. In the end it didn't work at all, but we learned some lessons. I had to ignore the petitions from the nay-sayers when I made the initial announcement about the Bird Spotting Programme, and their complaints were getting on my last nerve, so I outlawed petitions. They were muttering about me in the village pub so I had Steven produce some horror stories about alcohol. That sent a few scurrying home but the damn smokers were still gathering and still muttering. I jacked up the tax take on booze and fags but that didn't work. I banned smoking within five hundred feet of any living thing, but they kept on smoking! Unbelievable. Steven made up even more outrageous "facts" about smoking, but, and there was no way I could have foreseen this, smoking rates went up! Still, every cloud and all that, we ended up with even more money in the jar.

Anyway, there were a thousand teething problems with the new system, but we persevered. The enforcers eventually got help from those villagers who don't mind telling tales about their neighbours, and thanks to some intensive indoctrination at the school, we soon had the children reporting in on their parents activities. Naturally, we tap every phone line, and we track and trace all emails to and from the village. Our camera system cost a fortune but you know what? I think the villagers feel safer with the street cameras. They baulked a bit at my BedroomCam and BathroomCam incentives, but they got used to it in the end. Those that didn't were picked up by the enforcers and we just tagged them with GPS bracelets. So it all worked out in the end.

I had to change that ridiculous "maximum three year term". You couldn't get enough done. I have now been in charge for fifteen years. I am a multi-millionaire. My team are all well compensated too. The villagers aren't too happy, but, it's a hard life. Happiness isn't everything, is it?

It is good to be the king though.


December 04, 2010

Freeman Shafted By Clueless Judge

Having read and re-read the newspaper report, I am certain that Freeman Mark: Bond was denied both his rights and a fair hearing. Nevertheless, it was a brave stance.

I thought I'd look at each paragraph to see what went wrong. If you prefer to read your news unfisked, click here.

First, the headline:

Norfolk tax dodger arrested...after writing to Queen

The headline nails him before we even read the first word of the report. He is already a "tax dodger", a most heinous criminal. And, "after writing to Queen"? They could just as easily have said "after breakfast" or "after watching The Wizard of Oz". He wasn't arrested for writing to the queen, as the line implies.

"A council tax dodger was arrested outside a Norwich court yesterday following a dramatic stand-off with officials because he claimed he was not a UK citizen and not liable to pay tax."

Dramatic stand-off? Images of the OK Corral leap, unbidden, into my mind. None of us are liable to pay tax so Mark is right so far.

"Mark Bond owes two years’ council tax to Broadland District Council totalling £2,211."

£2,211? The Labour government wasted over £6,000 for every second they were in charge. 

"But the 44-year-old, who calls himself a ‘Freeman-on-the-Land’ and goes under the name Mark of the Family Bond, does not accept he is liable to pay the council tax."

That is ok. He isn't liable. Council Tax, like all taxes, is an illegal demand.

"Yesterday he was dramatically arrested outside the magistrates’ court building as he took a cigarette break."

Why was it a dramatic arrest? It looks pretty peaceful from the picture they show.

"Police told him that he was under arrest and that he would be detained in the cells before he was brought before the judge later that day."

Of course he was. He attempted to starve the beast. The beast does not like to go hungry.

"Before he was led to the cells, he asked police under what authority he was being arrested and handed them a notice of intent stating that he was no longer a UK citizen. He told police that the notice had already been handed to the Queen and prime minister David Cameron."

So he provided them with lawful paperwork, which they ignored, along with their oath of office, and detained him anyway. Their masters, the bullying, threatening UK government must be obeyed at all costs. If you thought they were there to protect us, they aren't. They exist only to defend the upper echelon and to ensure that the flow of money from the slaves continues, uninterrupted.

"He then told police: “I will come peacefully but it’s under protest. I do not agree to this.”"

Good man. Always, always, always get this on record.

"He had earlier arrived at court under summons to face a charge of failure to pay his council tax.
Standing outside the entrance to Court No 2, he refused to enter until District Judge Philip Browning answered his question: “Can I enter this court with my God-given, inalienable rights intact?”"

A reasonable question. One we must always ask before entering their commercial world.

"Mr Browning did not reply to the question so Bond declined to enter the court room."

Of course he did not reply. It isn't in his script.Mark was right to stay outside the judges jurisdiction. He asked a simple lawful question. He wanted to assert his rights but the judge cares not a jot for rights. There is money to be collected here today. This is about keeping the business machine oiled.

"Mr Browning then said that if Bond stayed outside he would deal with the case in his absence, and he issued a warrant for his arrest without bail."

And here we depart from common law and get back into the bullying tactics they always fall back on. 

"Speaking to the Evening News outside the court building, Bond said that he was willing to go to jail for his beliefs."

Sadly, it may take many of us to fill up the gaols until we get this mess fixed.

"The odd job man, who works from his home at Moulton St Mary, near Acle, said that he had paid taxes in the past, but had recently joined the ‘Freeman-on-the-Land’ group, which was a worldwide organisation of people who had revoked consent to be governed by human laws."

"Human laws"? This is not a term I am familiar with. Never heard of it, so I am assuming the reporter made it up.

He said: “At no time have I refused to pay the council tax. I have written to Broadland for proof of the bill, but it has ignored my request and just said that ‘You are going to pay’.

A crucial point this. Never ever refuse to pay. Always ask them to verify and validate the "debt". Ask for a bill. What plops through the letterbox isn't even a distant relation to a proper bill. We don't get bills, we get issued demands. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is explicit on this. Read it, and then start asking your council, or HMRC or whoever is demanding monies from you, to send you a bill. They can't and they wont. It is vital to remove controversy. Always make a conditional offer to pay.

“Today I asked the judge to walk into the court under common law and not commercial law. If I had entered under commercial law it would prove that I accepted its law. I was denied my rights to go in there. All councils and courts are private, profit-making organisations. and it’s all a money-making scam.” Bond said that his partner, Beverley Clarke thought he was “mad” when he first told her of his new beliefs, but she had now accepted his views."

Another reasonable, and lawful, request. He was denied his rights and the judge decided to play the game according to their rules.

"When he appeared in custody later in the day, representing himself, he accepted “under duress” that he owed the council tax money, but said that he had no income and did not claim any benefits, as he was no longer a UK citizen."

Duress is a powerful word to use. He was forced to admit that he owed money that he did not, nor never will owe.

"He was handed a suspended three-month jail sentence on condition that he pay £20 a week off the debt."

I hope he appeals. This is an abomination. I have seen murders get off with less punishment. See what happens when you hang on to your own hard earned money?

"A Broadland Council spokesman said afterwards that Bond had sent several letters to the council asking for information about why he was liable to pay the council tax."

We call them "Notices", because they are notices. They are not letters. They have legal and lawful weight. But the council lawyers either do not know this, or they ignore the law.

"The council said that written replies had been made to all these letters, apart from the last, which was received on Tuesday. Because of the nearness to the court date, an officer telephoned Bond.
There were previous, preliminary court hearings in March and September to establish that Bond did owe the money, a council spokesman said."

And yet you did not establish that Mark owed you anything. You dragged him to court anyway, knowing that old judgy up there would do exactly what you wanted.

"Broadland’s local taxation manager, Simon Quilter, who prosecuted Bond in court, said: “Several officers have spoken to Mr Bond and explained the help he could re-ceive if he has trouble paying the bill, although we are not aware that this is the case. We will always try and help people if they have difficulty, but at the end of the day, if they choose not to pay, they will end up in court.”

Of course they will end up in court. You cannot justify your illegal demands for money so you resort to force. When the only tool you have in the box is a hammer, all you will ever see are nails.It seems to me that he merely asked you to prove something. You couldn't so you reached automatically for the hammer.

"According to the website, being a freeman means freedom from police intimidation and harassment, freedom from law courts, and freedom from tax bills, etc."

Fair enough so far, but it would have been even fairer if you mentioned that it is a two way street. Freemen do not want to contribute but neither do they want anything out of the system. It's supposed to be an amicable split from the state.

"It claims that a Freeman-on-the-land isn’t someone who remains outside the law, so it is not a proposition for anarchy."

In actual fact, we swear an oath not to cause harm injury or loss to other humans. Parking on a double-yellow line causes no loss to another human, nor does driving at 60 in a 50mph zone. We take full personal responsibility for our actions. This is taboo in the nation we inhabit today. It's always someone else's fault. Not in the Freeman philosophy it isn't.

"The website continues: “But - it all depends on what is meant by ‘law’. And that’s the catch. What you have grown up to assume is ‘the law’ is not, in point of fact, the law. That’s The Grand Deception. Once you know the deception, and what the law actually is, you’ll realise how the wool has been firmly and deliberately pulled over your eyes.”

All true. They have taken this from the website Veronica: Chapman created. Go find it and read everything in those introductory pages. It is deliberately basic. There are no bells, no whistles, just the plain truth. It will mess with your head for a while. The task you take on is to remove one reality and you need a new reality to replace the old one with. Approach it with an open mind and you will be just fine.

"Freemen-of-the-land have previously challenged court cases across the country and some have even videotaped proceedings, posting the results on YouTube."

Yes, this is true. And we have had some great successes. They don't get quite the coverage that the failures get. But as I keep saying, this movement is crawling. Watch as we learn to walk, then run. It will be amazing.

Still no word from HMRC on my case. I fully expect to have to go through the charade that Mark just went through. I am looking forward to it.