March 15, 2011

How To Deal With YOUR Census Form.


You received the paperwork. And clear instructions from YOUR government.

Yep. The same people who can't protect your basic information, (the same people who LOSE your information, routinely), let alone this detailed shit you are about to tell them. Voluntarily.

Comply, and you'll be fine.

You are Borg, and you deserve to be Borg.

Defy, (I hope to Christ you do), and you are in harms way.

What to do. What to do?

It's a conundrum, I know. It's a biggie. Separates the men from the sheep, this one does.

Why don't you follow the simple steps laid out in the video above?

What's the worst that could happen? Gaol? So fucking what. A fine? Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Ask me. I will advise on how you DON'T ever have to pay any fine, ever again. (Remember: if you have caused no harm, loss, or injury to another human being, you have broken NO law. None whatsofuckingever).

Gaol? I don't think so. But if it must be, it must be.

See you there.

Maybe. Possibly. Could be. Might be. Should be. Wanna be.

The ONLY reason you will fill in their forms is because you are scared shitless about NOT filling in their forms.

Grow a pair. Grow a spine. Get off your knees. Fight back. Say NO!

For your children's sake, say NO!

For YOUR sake, say NO!

For MY sake, say NO!


Tip of the beret to my old pal Suedenimon, he knows what he is talking about. Go visit. Go visit often.


Dick Puddlecote said...

Council Tax bill and propaganda turned up with it? Good effing grief.

Xen347 said...

What about filling it in correctly and then shredding it (use a cross-cut shredder if possible), then posting it back?

I don't think there's anything that states it has to be in one piece is there?

After all, one wouldn't want that information falling into the wrong hands, would one?

It's your duty to protect your information from possible misuse. Even the govt. do it.

VeganRebel said...

Here's a first draft of something I would use if all my attempts to not communicate with the census wallahs don't work (I probably won't include all those surnames at the beginning):

1. Elizabeth Windsor (or Mountbatten, or Saxe-Coburg, or whatever her surname is), who is commonly known as the Queen (hereinafter known as Elizabeth), swore in her Coronation Oath to govern us according to God's laws. During her oath, she also promised to maintain the true meaning of the Gospel.

2. One of those laws of God says that we must not kill. The Gospel preaches love and peace.

3. Elizabeth is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

4. The seventh article of the 39 Articles of the Church of England says: ' Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.'

5. It is clear that the Ten Commandments are of extreme importance in the Church of England and Elizabeth is the Defender of the Faith.

6. It is against God's law to kill.

7. To kill is wrong. God's law says so and Elizabeth acknowledged the importance to the United Kingdom of that law in her oath. To help those who kill is wrong. To co-operate or collaborate with those who kill is wrong. To contribute in any way to the profits or workings or methods of those who kill is wrong. Anyone who helps in any way those who kill is an accessory to their actions.

8. Elizabeth's oath gives us the legal and/or lawful right to refuse to fill in the 2011 census or any census that will profit an arms dealer or one of its subsidiaries or partners or any company or corporation or grouping with which it is financially or legally connected or associated.

9. Lockheed Martin is involved in the 2011 census.

10. Lockheed Martin makes weapons, and those weapons have been used and are being used in war and for the killing of human beings. Their actions are against God's law.

11. How can any legislation made after Elizabeth's oath compel anyone to do anything that contravenes the letter or spirit of Elizabeth's oath without it invalidating Elizabeth's oath?

12. How can any legislation made before Elizabeth's oath compel anyone to do anything that contravenes the letter or spirit of Elizabeth's oath without it invalidating Elizabeth's oath?

13. If any prior or subsequent legislation can in any way nullify or contradict or override the letter or spirit of Elizabeth's oath, that means the oath has no value. And the coronation had no value or meaning.

14. If anyone is forced against their will to fill in the 2011 census, or they are threatened with legal action, or punished in any way for not filling it in, that force or threat or punishment will be against the letter and spirit of Elizabeth's oath and will be breaking God's law. The law Elizabeth promised to govern us by.

15. I am opposed to killing, it is a deeply held and sincere belief. I will not fill in the 2011 census. Elizabeth's Coronation Oath means that no one can be (legally) compelled to fill it in because to fill it in would be to break God's law.

Can anyone find any fault with this?

Anonymous said...

Dear Captain Ranty

(Remember: if you have caused no harm, loss, or injury to another human being, you have broken NO law. None whatsofuckingever).

If I rob Tesco by electronically breaking into their accounts and transferring big wads of dosh to my account and I am traced can I plead "not guilty" as I didn't actually cause harm, loss, or injury to another human being" but just robbed a corporation?

mescalito said...

wishful thinking but no, you have still caused loss...

FireballXL5 said...

Excellent comment Capt. robust and to the point. LMAO watching the video, if only a goodly portion of sheep would do the same, the fuckers trying to control us might sit up and listen. If only.

Still, I'll be doing my bit by not complying. Happy days!

Go easy on the Gordons.

Captain Ranty said...


Cunning plans exist to deal with both....


Captain Ranty said...


The drones would just show up with a new form.

I prefer not filling in any details whosoever, but some people are going to fill it with bollocks, in different coloured ink to that demanded.

The main thing, I think, is to rebel in a way that you are comfortable with. No heroics if you are unprepared for the fallout.


Captain Ranty said...


What Mescy said.

At some point they will show that people suffered loss.


Captain Ranty said...


Good going!

I would like to ease up on the Gordons, but it, and the tonic, are protecting me from malaria.

It's medicine, man!


William said...

"If I rob Tesco by electronically breaking into their accounts."

At some point Tesco is owned by at least one human being. Tesco the corporation is itself a dead entity. You are causing the human being who owns Tesco a loss by removing their property from them.

The size of the corporation is irrelevant they are all owned by a human at the end of the day so common law applies.

Ignoring the fact that money is but a promise and credit is but a concept.

The difference is with the state there is no human ownership. It is impossible to prove that any single human or any group of humans own any state so there is no loss.

dangermouse said...

What to do? The issue for me is how to go about not doing the form. Shredder? Write back a conditional offer subject to them answering about 1 million questions? Ignore it?

XEN- your suggestion is hilarious!

Anonymous said...

Link to a very short vid where a guy taking the lawful rebellion route to census is lied to on national tv by a so-called journalist.

Anonymous said...

"The difference is with the state there is no human ownership"
Didn't I read once that when Labour was in power Alistair Darling was the "owner" of the state.

What you, Mescalito and Ranty are saying is that somehow a person will be found that they can say was "injured". Well bang goes your argument against the state, the local council or any corporate enterprise.

I keep reading that under Common Law a corporation cannot get judgement against a human being unless the human being falls for the trap of also being corporation (strawman).

Now you are saying that all corporations have a human owner. Well the "state" is a corporation and could easily show someone as being the "human being".

There's is something wrong with your argument.

Anonymous said...

I don't wish to sound like I'm not sympathetic to your "destroy the census" gig but my wife has been doing genealogy and finds is quite fascinating.
Having said this the thing that is glaringly obvious from the past censuses is the inaccuracy deliberate or by "mistake". The amount of miss-information.

Send back the Census but just make lots of stupid mistakes and spelling errors. How about wine stains and a bad pen.

Deeply_Dippy said...

Do you think that they can cope with the drawing my young son has done on some of the pages ? Oh no - what has he done with his glue ? Good grief - thats not wax crayon on the official use only section is it ?
Hope it doesn't fall into any puddles on the way to the post box - a fountain pen and an erasable pen is all I can find ! Hope it doesn't get wiped out when it goes through the scanning process ! Not sure my spelling was up to scratch either ! Or that the form was the right way up when I filled it in ! Aren't I a bit dippy ! Does it say anywhere in the rules that you have to write left to right ? or English ?

James Higham said...

The issue is courage and fear of consequences, as you say. This might be the platform by which things turn against the government.

William said...

"What you, Mescalito and Ranty are saying is that somehow a person will be found that they can say was "injured". Well bang goes your argument against the state, the local council or any corporate enterprise."

I cannot speak for the others but I am utterly convinced that the state and local councils operate in commerce. I have seen too much evidence of the way in which commercial contracts underpin every removal of money, via compulsory taxation from my pocket. Being involved in commerce for over a decade has given me an eye for things that perhaps those in employment don't have.

I believe and can only believe as I honestly haven't seen any written evidence to support it that there has to be humans who own the state and councils etc.
The state, the councils, the courts, the corporations are all fictions made by man so there has to be a human behind it all but if these humans invoked their common law claim of loss then their game would be up.

But you are right to query these things. I am constantly querying why things are never the way they appear to be. I have proved to myself beyond any doubt that there are legal practices that are unlawful therefore legal and lawful are two entirely different things.
I am not convinced that tacit acceptance exists and I am not a freeman, a lawful rebel or any other label (and I don't mean that to be disrespectful to those who are) I am simply trying to see through the charade that has been placed around me to get into a position where I can be left alone. Naturally such a position means compromises along the way such as paying tax on fuel assuming I put diesel in my car ( as is it it actually runs on all manner of veg oils, haha!) but I am also working towards a personal economy which doesn't involve banks, credit or ownership of 'things'.
Once I realised that everything I am told by the state and council that I own will be left behind when I die owning things lost all importance to me.

To end... Today I received the council tax bill levied on the dwelling I am currently inhabiting today along with a booklet informing me how the councils and the policy men spend the compulsory tax which is extracted from my pocket on pain of gaol. I believe that this booklet may actually be the 'terms and conditions' of the contract that the Councils are imposing on me so I am testing the water by sending it back to the collecting authority's CEO with a covering letter listing the things they supply that I am happy to pay for voluntarily and asking them to send out a revised offer of contract.

The officers in council are called Corporate Directors for a reason, at least in my humble opinion. Should be interesting.

As for the census. Mine is now ashes. Any knock at the door will simply be ignored. But each should do whatever they personally are comfortable with.

William said...

I too am 'into genealogy' and have used the census on countless occasions to try and track my ancestors through time BUT those census's ask for sex, age, relationship to head of the household, marital status, employment status, place of birth and that's it!

Fire seemed to be the best option for the purple pack.

Clive said...

That's much too complicated, VeganRebel. Just use the passage in the Gospels about paying tax to the Emperor (Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17).

"Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God."

The information demanded by the census belongs to the individual human being alone, and a human being stands only under God.

Start your defence by saying, "I walk with God. God will answer for this account." If the court disputes this, say, "God is present everywhere."

Then repeat like a mantra: "It is not yours. You shall not have it."

All authority in Great Britain stems from the Queen, who was given authority from God during the Coronation. Ultimately, the court's authority derives from God. Invoking the name of God in your defence trumps all.

Anonymous said...

Can't people just not be at home on the night in question?