Boot Camp For Freemen

I thought a refresher was due. I still get emails from people asking me basic questions and I simply can not put it any better than Veronica already has. The following is her work and all credit (I suspect she hates that word) must go to her and the others mentioned. You should use everything that follows as a foundation. Once you have these fundamentals under your belt continue to research in depth. You need to be able to live and breathe this stuff if it is to be of use to you. I defy anyone to argue with the logic. The original can be found here.

Off we go:

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)

 

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'. 

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy') 

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then  no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.
B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.
C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.
D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

(January, 2009)

Declare Peace!!

I nicked this great piece from here.  

As is my usual modus operandi, I intend to beg forgiveness rather than to ask permission.

It is, as the kids say, well good.

Check it out:

"Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously." - Aldous Huxley, Island.

It is with great delight I notice that many are people waking up to something often called the 'Freeman' movement and I would like to discuss that along with some ideas Gandhi Ji professed.

In order to bring this discussion to the front of the website I have moved the previous discussion into the archives, accessible via a little hacking or serendipity.

If you haven't come across the idea of Freeman-On-The-Land you would do well to do a little background reading with the aid of your favourite search engine. Some terms that may help are the names of the heros of the movement: Robert-Arthur: Menard, Jordan Maxwell and Mary Elizabeth: Croft. In fact there are many terms in this article that will bear fruitful results in an internet search. While you are at it, do a search on YouTube for TheAntiTerrorist.

"Journalism's job is not impartial 'balanced' reporting. Journalism's job is to tell the people what is really going on." - George Seldes (1890 - 1995).

The Freeman philosophy is not a new one; humanity has struggled with the idea of freedom versus slavery for many centuries, going back, at least, to the stoics in the early 3rd century BC. The practical application of this philosophy in the current age, however, is only just developing.

Any internet search for Freeman-On-The-Land is likely to bring up a host of unfamiliar and, perhaps intimidating, new terms: Accepted For Value, Rejected For Cause, Reclaiming The Strawman, Notice Of Understanding, Claim Of Right, along with a confusion of legaleese, delving into the Magna Carta, Common Law, the Uniform Commercial Code, etc. It is easy to become overwhelmed by these things and to miss the simple truth from which all of this arises: Nobody has authority over you unless you grant them that authority.

Humanity in general has lost sight of their right to say "No" to any contract that offends their ethical sensibilities. Take a look at the following quote from Gandhi Ji:

"No action which is not voluntary can be called moral. ... Any action that is dictated by fear or by coercion of any kind ceases to be moral. ... Freedom of the individual is at the root of all progress." - Mohandas Gandhi

In much of the world human beings are imagined to be part of a theoretical concept called 'society' and subject to a surrender of personal sovereignty to that larger society as part of what is called 'the social contract'. What remains generally unexamined is that you retain the freedom to reclaim personal sovereignty and to 'resign' from that social contract, in whole or in part, or even to renegotiate the terms of it.
Socrates is supposed to have said "The unexamined life is not worth living." and if you take time to examine many of the terms you use - government, state, country, money, law, work, taxes, ... - you will discover just how much of your life and struggle is based on these ideas and how they contribute to your unhappiness.

So I encourage you, and hope to help you, to begin to examine some of these things now.

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty." - Henry David Thoreau

So where to start?

As Thoreau, above, suggested, there is no way to know if you are free or not if you never disobey. Indeed, if you are obeying, who is it you are obeying and why? Either you are a slave or sovereign, which are you? The fact of the matter is that for probably your whole life you have been hemmed in by rules that you didn't put in place. Have you ever examined who did impose them upon you and why? Are they self-evident and, if so, why would you need to have rules for things that are obvious and natural to you?

If you are a slave, don't you think you should be informed of the fact? On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declared that freedom from slavery is an internationally recognized human right. It follows that there is no lawful justification for holding anyone in slavery. So we conclude that you must therefore be sovereign, have forfeited that sovereignty, or be unlawfully subject to slavery.

Only two years earlier, one of the prosecutors for the Nuremberg warcrimes trials, Chief Justice Robert H. Jackson, declared that waging a war of aggression "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime".

There is no question that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of aggression and those wars were waged by, amongst others, Tony Blair and George Bush. Does anyone notice any cognitive dissonance in trying to reconcile that fact with the fact that these same "supreme international criminals" are responsible for defining the rules you and I are, allegedly, subject to?

"Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness...There is only one sovereign remedy, namely, non-violent non-cooperation." - Mohandas Gandhi

Here Gandhi Ji observes that civil disobedience becomes a 'sacred duty' when the state has become lawless and corrupt. But what is civil disobedience? Is it license for you to become lawless and corrupt yourself? I hope you answered "No" to that but as a sovereign being you will have to make your own assessment.

Gandhi Ji went on to define it as non-violent non-cooperation, and I find that definition acceptable. It means not to cooperate with the state.

There was a time when I considered that I had to take an active part in trying to bring the state to its senses, to combat the corruption and abuses that are perpetrated in our name and in spite of our ethical convictions that such acts are contrary to our values. But where to begin? There is the unlawfulness of the many wars, repression and abuses of human rights; poisons, such as Aspartame and MSG, that are put into the food supply and flouride in the water; nuclear weapons, depleted uranium, white phosphorus; pollution, rape and theft of the Earth's resources; GMO, vaccines, and on and on. There were so many things to address that I was overwhelmed by it all and felt helpless. Victory, then, to the system at having made me feel powerless.
Then, as I began to ponder how I could live in such a corrupt system, let alone change it for the better, it occurred to me that simply withdrawing my involvement from the system would, in itself, deny any implied moral authority for what they are doing. That was the least I could do. But our lives are so tied up in the system. How to break free?

The answer from the Freeman movement is to issue Notices of Understanding and Intent and Claims of Right, and that may very well suit some folk. That is a way you can withdraw your consent to be governed and controlled via a legal process. My view, however, is that such legal steps are not necessary. I simply withdraw my consent and if the state takes issue with that I will deal with it when they do. I stopped paying tax, council tax and road tax, as a first step. There have been letters from the tax office, which I have simply ignored.

As far as the Freeman philosophy is concerned this puts me in 'dishonour' but Gandhi Ji suggests I would be putting myself in dishonour by bartering with a corrupt state. It seems that from some perspective I will be in dishonour whatever I do or decline to do. My inclination is to side with Gandhi.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - Martin Luther King Jr.

The Freeman 'rules of engagement', developed from common law and observation of the court systems, are based on the idea that to remain in honour one must discharge notices by responding to them. However, in doing so they are relying on a system I regard to be unjust ab initio.

The idea is, if I want to do something that affects you I can send you notices. If you fail to respond to my notices then I have established a claim of right to do what I sent you notice of. This relies on legal maxims like: Qui non improbat, approbat (He who does not disapprove, approves), Qui potest et debet vetare et non vetat jubet (He who is able and ought to forbid and does not, commands) and Qui tacet consentire videtur (He who is silent appears to consent). But these maxims lead to injustice because default leads to a presumtion of acceptance rather than of rejection.

Why did the legal system settle on that presumption though?

If someone is proposing to do something that affects my rights and freedoms, shouldn't the presumption be that I don't consent unless I explicitly give my consent? Indeed, shouldn't it require fully informed consent? That is what we demand of those who intend to carry out medical experiments on people because they can cause severe harm. Is it not severe harm to entrap children of Nature into a life of subservience to a State and to deny them the freedom of their birthright?

In theory, as I said earlier, we take part in a 'social contract'. In practice, however, when did we consent to such a contract? Was it done with our informed and explicit consent? Are we able to dissolve or renegotiate that contract? What happens when we discover that the State we contracted with is not in any way honourable and that our participation in the contract empowers it to oppress and enslave us and to inflict atrocities on others?

The most revolutionary thing you can do is to become healthy - Prajna Pranab

How free you can be is determined by how independent you are. The most revolutionary thing you can do is to become healthy, since illness makes you dependent on the health system. Your house you can reclaim through a legal process, if you have sufficient knowledge of the system, mortgage or no (it isn't yours if it is 'registered' with the Land Registry because registration is an act of conferring ownership); likewise your car. But where do you turn if your health depends on a state or corporate system?

You need to find out what diet and lifestyle leads to robust health. In my experience it helps to eat an organic vegetarian diet and to avoid vaccines and allopathic medicine as far as possible. The largest factor influencing your health, stress, will be much reduced by the freedom you attain when you remove yourself from the system.


Next is the problem of money: how do you obtain your existential needs? That is something I can't answer for you, except to say that it helps dramatically if you can reduce your wants down to, or close to, the level of your needs. If you are prepared for the battle you can find yourself free of your mortgage, debts and many other 'overheads'.

Rights do not carry responsibilities; rights are yours by right. It is power that carries responsibilities. - Prajna Pranab

Told you it was well good, innit?

CR.

It's Clobberin' Time

Midsummer madness has arrived.

The interwebs, as we all know, is littered with twats. Some, like me, are harmless.

Others, and how can I put this diplomatically........curdle my shit. They boil my piss. They make my temple-veins go blue and stand out. They cause me to spit good South African wine all over my shiny monitor. Their stupidity hurts my brain. Their gormlessness knows no bounds. Their ignorance severely disrupts my bliss.

In short, the ravings of the seriously demented make me seriously demented and it all affects the quality of my day.

The only possible remedy, says this twat, is to vote for the worst of the web.

I'd say it was an excellent idea.

Pop along to Gotty's hovel and vote for all the shite sites out there.

It will make you feel better. Honest injun.

CR.

Ranty Repeats

I am in a ranty mood today. I found several dozen things to rant about but I don't have the time.

So I thought that I would repeat a piece I wrote for The Lawful Rebellion website a few months back.

Here it is:

"First things first: I am an ordinary bloke. An Average Joe, by anyone’s standards. I have a family, a reasonable lifestyle, low-ish debt, two dogs and two cats. Like all other ordinary people, I merely wanted to provide for my family, be an upstanding member of my community, obey the law, get on with my life and to be left in peace. Is that too much to ask?

It would seem so.

For the last twenty years or so, things have changed. I mean radically changed. I was fine with the changes because I am a dynamic human being and I know that change usually means progress, and who doesn’t want that? My work involves cutting-edge technology and I know the benefits it brings to billions of fellow planeteers. No dinosaur me. I love gadgets. I love innovation. I love new inventions. I love labour saving devices. It frees up my time to do something else. Unfortunately, five years ago I was rudely awoken from my blissful ignorance. Readers of my blog will know that it was the smoking ban here in Scotland that jolted me awake. I knew instantly and intuitively that this was a quantum shift. This was huge. The Scottish Executive decided, on a whim, (it really was, do the research), to kick smokers out of pubs and clubs. I thought that if they could get the legislation through, and change a way of life for 1.2 million people overnight, then more bad stuff was right behind it. Non-smokers were smiling from ear to ear, little knowing that they were being punished as well. “Finally!”, they said, “Smoke free pubs & clubs! How fantastic!”. Except that it wasn’t. And if you don’t believe me, just ask any one of the 2756 landlords & landladies that lost their pubs in 2009. Or ask any one of the 45,000 ex-pub workers who have now joined the dole queue. They might have a different slant on things. Statistically, 75% of those laid off were non-smokers. I wonder if they prefer unemployment to a little harmless smoke?

Worse was to come. We discovered that politicians suffer deafness 1 nanosecond after winning your vote. It is axiomatic. Power received = instant deafness. Over 4 million of us signed a petition to 10 Downing Street in which we begged them not to close our post offices. We were ignored, and the slaughter began. I now have an 18 mile round trip to my nearest post office. For some it is much, much worse. We watched, as our government piled stupidity on top of ineptitude and smothered the whole mess with greed. They just love our money. They can’t get enough of it. When they get caught with their sticky fingers in the till what do we hear? “I was just following the rules”. Nice. One story that blew my mind concerned a young mum who applied to the Social Fund for a single bed for her daughter. After jumping through more hoops than a circus dog she was told that she qualified for a bed, but that she would have to provide the mattress herself. Her wee girl slept on coats piled on the bare springs. Meanwhile, thousands of £££’s were happily shovelled towards an MP whose moat needed dredging.

The killer blow, however, arrived in early October when the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty was delivered. I got that same sinking feeling that I experienced back in December 2005 when Jack McConnell (then First Minister) returned from his 2 hour visit to a Dublin pub and announced his ridiculous smoking ban for Scotland. I was awash with desperation because I knew, somehow, that the promises made by the Labour, Conservative and LibDem parties would all disappear like a snowflake in a camp-fire. It was all over. We had lost a nation. A nation that has taken us, and our forebears, more than nine thousand years to build. We gave it away to an unelected commission that refuses, point blank, to provide financial reports on their nefarious machinations. They have consistently refused to tell us how our money is wasted for 14 years straight. Corruption in the EU is endemic. At last our (now useless) MPs get to gorge themselves at a different, overflowing trough. Everyone’s a winner. Except us. The proles, the voters, the electorate, the controlled, the tagged, the vaccinated and the monumentally stupid. We were robbed, in broad daylight and the shameful thing is this: we did nothing. To do nothing is dishonourable. The theft we witnessed was embarrassing. We watched them take our rights away. We gave up habeas corpus, we gave up the right to a jury trial, we gave up innocent until proven guilty and, alarmingly, we allowed the death penalty to be accepted as a footnote in the Treaty.

I could go on and on.

I could tell you that the £ is destined for the dustbin. I could tell you that European Cops (brutal thugs, more like) armed to the teeth, will appear on our streets. Our coppers will end up on their streets, somewhere in Europeville, because psychiatrists have discovered that cops don’t really like shooting their own, but they are not averse to shooting other nationalities. I could tell you that our monarch signed her own redundancy notice when she (traitorously) signed off on the legislation. I could tell you that the 646 numpties in parliament signed their own redundancy notices as well. I could tell you that your nation is now split into nine regions, each of which will be governed by a Common Purpose graduate. I could tell you all sorts, but the proof of the pudding, is always in the eating. We have to see the 7^th level of Dante’s delightful little palace before we will erupt and react. This will take time. We are about to suffer the death of a thousand cuts. It will be painful, but bearable, until it isn’t. That, my friends, will become Freedom Day. I long for it to arrive.

Until that day, what can we do?

We can have some fun, that’s what. We can all open our eyes, at least a crack, and realise that we are human beings. We were always human beings but we have been brainwashed for decades to forget who and what we are. We can make life uncomfortable for the powers that strive to be. We can be awkward. We can say no. We can return their silly tax demands. We can return their silly parking tickets, and we can refuse to pay their inane council tax. We can walk away from as many, or as few, statutes as we like. They are legion, and they are meaningless and they are unwanted and unneeded. We can take control, as Freemen and Freewomen, (if you need a label, I only just found out that I don’t), and we can become human again. We can live our lives unfettered, unhindered, the way it was meant to be lived. We were meant to enjoy life, dammit! We weren’t meant to be enslaved from the day were born until the day we died. We are not here as their playthings. We are not their slaves, or mere useless cash generators for the greedy and the inept. There is so much to see and do that two lifetimes aren’t enough to fit it all in. There are people to meet, to laugh with, to drink with, and to love with. There are cultures without number that we need to experience to say that yes! We have lived, and while we did we had fun, and we learned something. To go to your grave knowing only that you worked all your life, and struggled at times to provide for your family or yourself because you were being robbed every month by successive governments who had no idea how to spend (or save) wisely, is surely a wasted life.

My intention was never to be a rebel and yet I find myself driven to it by the unhealthy, unwholesome, unlawful and quite frankly seedy conditions that now exist in what was once a great nation. We are spied on endlessly, they want to know our every mouse-click, they want to store and read all our emails, and they want transcripts of all our calls, and they feel the need to capture us on CCTV cameras hundreds of times a day. “It’s for your own good” they say, “It’s to stop crime!” Except that it doesn’t. Only one criminal is caught per thousand cameras. This figure comes from the Home Office website. Even they cannot justify the existence and operation of 4.2 million cameras in the UK. The UK suddenly became Cuba, China and Russia all rolled into one. The only difference is that the Cubans, the Chinese and the Russians had no desire to know what our politicians and our other apparatchiks demand to know. They use excuses all the time: The War On Terror, The War On Drugs, The War On Drink, The War On Smokers, and lately, The War On Fatties. It is endless. It is mindless. It is needless. It is useless.

So when I eventually said “Enough!”, I genuinely meant it. I had to step away from the madness, the control, the falsely permeated fear and the outrageous greed of government, politicians, NGO’s and the 7 or 8 hundred thousand fake charities that suckle at the withering teat.

Initially, I was lost. Who to believe? Where to go for real, unbiased and balanced news? Who to trust? Was it the law? My MP? The judiciary? The police? No, no, no and no. The deception is total. The charade has been played out over hundreds of years and the more you dig, the more corpses you find. The cadavers I found buried in shallow graves were Lady Justice, once a great lady now treated with disdain and disgust, Sir Robert Peel, screaming for an eternity at the bastardisation of his policing model, and a good few politicians that would never have stood by and watched Britain first turn into a police state, then give itself away to the most corrupt mandarins on the face of the earth.

For good or ill, lawful rebellion was the only tool I had left. I have other options of course. I could STFU, as the modern kids would say. I could carry on regardless and leave the mess for my children or their children to clean up. I could sit and watch the propaganda unit in the corner of my living room and pretend that my living room was my world, and that what happened beyond was none of my affair.

Knowing that something is badly out of kilter won’t allow me that luxury. Having a conscience that constantly tells me to do something doesn’t help. Knowing the difference between right and wrong, and finding the motivation to play my part comes easy to me. Fortunately, there is lots of help at hand. This very site offers salvation for those prepared to learn, comprehend, and act. Other sites, although infected with naysayers, and the terminally terrified, (or government plants, perhaps?), also offer real nuggets of information that you can and should use. Distance yourself from the mayhem and lots of pennies drop. Create some peace and quiet for you and yours, and be determined to hang on to money you earned, money that you created. This lot in government will not only keep taking it away from you, but they will demand more, and more, and more.

They will bleed you dry.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to choke off their money supply. Just say no. It really is very easy. Once you have done so, the serenity that settles around you is out of this world. The relief is enormous, and the benefits are tangible.

The first move is up to you. It always was.

Make the change. Be the change. There are no heroes waiting around the corner on white steeds. The hero you need looks back at you from the mirror.

There is hope. There is always hope.

The hope only burns as long as you fan the flames."

CR.

The Truth Will Out

Fucking marvellous.

News just released from the ONS informs us that each household in the UK owes a staggering £200,000.

This is due entirely to incompetence, mismanagement, fraud, theft and stupidity by the Labour Party. Previous governments have contributed but none of them did more damage than the Blair Brown Clusterfuck.

Words fail me.

CR.