Category Archives: Independence & Health (Terrorism)

Articles about independent living and lifestyles

High Court attempts to secure Westminster Vassal for EU

An individual has a right to self defence, but in the modern political climate his enemies will try to convince him that he doesn’t by telling him that if he exercises his right, then he is being violent, or an extremist. They do this in reaction even to any expression he might make in reference to exercising his right, or his intention to exercise it. But essentially, what the freeman must remember is that he remains free only if he doesn’t allow his enemies to cow him. A freeman has a right to free speech, and definitely a right to warn his enemies what will happen in the exercise of his self-defence. Collectively, freemen can express themselves this way. This is why the High Court Judges who yesterday assaulted our constitution are rightly called Enemies of the People in some parts of the Fourth Estate. These journalists (who must be experiencing a deep instinct for liberty which is reflexively overpowering the crushing effect of years of whoring for the Establishment), are doing what they are meant to do, and speaking aggressively for a collective of freemen.

Of course, the Enemy of Freeman has worm-tongued operatives placed in influential and strategic positions other than those ensconced in the British legal system.  Social media is full of them – useless idiots most – and large swathes of corporate media are ideological fellow travellers, or paid mercenaries – or Captains of Intelligence. Predictably, they are telling Freeman that he is not allowed to be upset by what happened in the High Court yesterday. But Freeman is allowed to be proportionally upset, and he is allowed to take proportional remedial action – and those who want to remain free are allowed to talk about taking that action. We have a right to self-defence.

Let’s be clear. What happened in the High Court yesterday was an attack against the well being of Freeman. We have a constitution that is meant to protect our individual freedom collectively. What the High Court Judges did yesterday was undermine that protection. Our Enemy’s operatives tell us that we were treated to the shoring up of Parliamentary sovereignty. What they omit is that it was done so at the expense of the constitution as a whole.

The following is an extract from the summary of the ruling made by the High Court. It comes from a section establishing the background to the ruling:

The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation.

Sources: summary; judgement;

To summarise this extract: the Crown’s prerogative powers normally apply to international affairs and treaties, and shouldn’t intrude on domestic legislation.

The summary continues:

In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect.

This says that EU law engendered by the 1972 Act (referring to the European Communities Act) is domestic law and that this domestic law will be affected by notice under Article 50. The summary goes on to say that because the use of the Crown’s prerogative to give notice under Article 50 will have this altering consequence, it therefore contravenes the boundaries of its expected jurisdiction. As such, the Crown’s prerogative cannot be used to trigger Article 50. In other words, the fact that the EU treaties cause domestic law means that the Government cannot repeal them with Crown’s prerogative powers.

Just think, the fact of legislation from a foreign power itself denies the Crown’s prerogative to prevent the issuing of that legislation.

The summary goes on:

The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the… EU Treaties, and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not.

Yes, common sense dictates that the Crown would retain a historical constitutional prerogative in spite of any EU legislation. Our law should be superior to EU legislation.  However the judgement of the High Court insists that there is nothing in the EC Act 1972 that maintains the jurisdiction of prerogative power over the EU Treaties†. We should understand this to mean that legislation enabling foreign rule that also disabled a constitutional defence against it was intended, by cunning omission of crucial clauses, from the very start. Moreover, over intervening years, the Establishment has been squirreling more power for foreign rule through precedent-setting cases* and writings that seem to have helped form this judgement, so that the EC Act 1972, while on the statute book… “give(s) directly effective EU law superiority even over domestic primary legislation” and that it is “constitutional statue… having such importance in our legal system that it is not subject to the usual wide principle of implied repeal by subsequent legislation.”

Now it is the author’s suspicion that actually the prerogative of the Crown can be used more extensively than reported, and the fact that it hasn’t in the past has formed the convention that it isn’t used (the bottom line is that the Crown’s powers are restricted in relation to the British “Republic”. If the Parliament, which is merely an expression of the Republic, becomes illegitimate, then arguably the Crown should be able to intefere in Parliament). However, setting all that aside, what we clearly have here is a judicial ruling that actually sets EU legislation supreme over the normal working of our constitution. This ruling actually denies Crown’s prerogative in favour of EU legislation.

Once again, there is a lot being said by aforementioned useful idiots and operatives about how this judgement upholds parliamentary sovereignty. Yes, but to the detriment of our constitution. Parliament is now protected to rubber stamp EU legislation – by that very legislation; and this is a state of affairs that will last while Parliament is full of EU Yes Men. So, the judgement has handed full power to a vassal of Brussels.

I judge that to be an attack on our constitution, and an act of treason. As such, it should be countered by patriots (individuals with a concern in the protection of rights, and the community in which individuals live together where this is encoded for common good – a country) exercising their right to self-defence.

The way ahead is to repeal the 1972 EC Act. As the High Court judgement admits, this can be repealed by Parliament. The “domestic” EU law can also be repealed by Parliament. But a Parliament willing to do this must be in place. And so, patriots must force a General Election as soon as possible, and vote for candidates that promise to repeal the 1972 EC Act. UKIP should run with this promise central to their manifesto, and make it clear that there is no alternative and explain why. There is a case to make that UKIP must form a strategy so as to help get elected Labour and Tory MPs who would pledge to repealing the 1972 EC Act, but the author does not recommend it. The LibLabCon is simply not to be trusted. For instance, notice how Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg describes how High Court and Supreme Court activism could be circumvented by legislation in the current Parliament:

This could be done through a small Bill that merely gives a (Prime?) Minister the right to give notice under Article 50 and need not run to more than a couple of clauses. Such a Bill could be passed within hours – but it is possible it could be obstructed.

While researching this article, it occurred that Article 50 is a complete Red Herring that was meant as a trap so that the question of Brexit could be placed in the hands of the EU vassal at Westminster and in a way that Tory Government could distance itself from the subsequent public negativity. Remember, Parliament is captured by a foreign power and British collaborators so that it is immune to a constitutional tool that could break this control. It is not guaranteed, and actually unlikely, that Parliament will legislate to open the way to Brexit before a General Election. As for that contest, a meme is emerging whereby the crisis is seen as being beneficial for the Tories, and it was expressed again by Rees-Mogg:

The Conservative Party has nothing to fear from a general election. I think we would win it quite comfortably and the electorate would very likely carry out a purge of pro-Europeans.

If we look at some facts on the ground. Parliament is overwhelmingly pro-EU. This means that most Tories must be pro-EU, and indeed they are. ConservativeHome reported that they thought 185 Tory MPs voted for Remain, and 128 for Leave. How could a purge of “pro-Europeans” (notice the choice of language) happen without mass de-selection first, which isn’t going to happen. The leadership of the Tory Party is pro-EU (see the ConservativeHome article). What Rees-Mogg reveals is probably the hoped-for outcome of a scheme to exploit the crisis and have the Tories sit in that insulated-from-constitution Parliament pretending to be anti-EU and leading the electorate by the nose until it’s too late.

Finally, if Parliament fails, then all is not lost. In his response to the ruling, UKIP MEP and constitutionalist Gerard Batten questions the supremacy of Parliament, and he is right to do so. The fundamental principle is government by consent. If Parliament is not consented to by those who are governed, it is not government. Parliament does not have a divine right to rule, and in the name of self-defence, patriots have the right to replace any form of government with another that does honour the principle of rule by consent.

 

† In fact this reflects plaintiff’s argument that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of prerogative powers by enacting the 1972 Act. Lawyers for Britain demonstrate why this is not the case.

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-binding.shtml

*Gerard Batten points out that precedent supports the use of the prerogative; it reminds that law is open to interpretation, and rulings depend on who is doing the interpretation (in this case, one openly pro-EU judge):

Project Fear becomes Project Dog Whistle

A pattern emerges of very good – nay, exceptionally good fortune for the British Government. When it wants a war on Saddam Hussein citing a War on Terror – and a dodgy dossier – a weapons expert happens to die; not to mention an obstructive MP who had caused embarrassment by quitting as the Leader of the House of Commons at the disgrace of the whole thing. When it wants to intervene in Syria against al-Assad on the pretence of fighting ISIS (which it facilitates), the next thing we are told is that a soldier has been killed by jihadists. And so it seems that when the Government wants to win a referendum on EU membership which, given the historical unpopularity of the EU with the British, for all the world it couldn’t win – then, guess what? Yes – another MP happens to die right on cue: conveniently killed by a “racist” – a fortuitous permutation of circumstances which gave the Remain side an opportunity to campaign passively while the Leave side actually payed its respects, and enabled it to appeal to the emotions of the voter, rather than their reasoning. No need, any more, to argue for that corrupt organisation based on its merits – of which it has none. As ProjectFear morphs fully into ProjectExploitDeadMP, for its finale, one day ahead of the vote, the Government – can it believe it’s luck? – gets to campaign by “virtue signalling” at a memorial, organised by a Westminster PR machine, held in Trafalgar Square. But that’s not all – memorials are apparently going to be held all over the world on the 22nd June. How very convenient for the pro-EU British Government.

And the Government finds itself in this position of extremely good fortune all because of a narrative overlaid on top of a murder; a narrative that appears to the author to have been, in the first instance, created by the Government’s propaganda arm – the Corporate Media. Please refer to this article  [1] which deals with the establishment of the initial big headline of “Britain First” which undoubtedly was intended to have the  public conceive Mair as being an extremist. After that there was a dripping-down of information that was presented to bolster the first conviction. Apparently, “special Police units”  -  whoever they may be – were happy to tell the Guardian that they had found Nazi regalia at the home of Mair. Does briefing of the press about incriminating evidence sound like proper due process? Then we had the Southern Poverty Law Centre stick its oar in. As little as the author is interested in this thoroughly discredited organisation, it reminds him of the Witchsmeller Pursuivant from Blackadder, who would have the peasants believe that Black Satin the horse can talk to the Great Grumbledook. And seeing that we have stumbled into this territory, there is an episode of Father Ted that the author keeps being reminded of.

Unbeknownst to him, Ted is bequeathed a room full of “Nazi regalia” – we can call it that because in its original setting it was being used as a shrine. When it becomes Ted’s, it’s still Nazi regalia because there’s so much of it – you couldn’t get away with calling it “World War II” memorabilia – which is what such historic items can be called when they are in the hands of collectors who do not possess them with the intent to glorify what they represent (by the way, the author does not collect WWII memorabilia). Anyway, mark this, and mark the fact that police, who must have known what would become of the information, told the Guardian – of Graeme Howard fame (see article linked-to above) – that Mair possessed Nazi regalia.

Getting on with it, and the famous moment in the Father Ted episode referred to must be one of the most hilarious in all of the history of British comedy. Ted is standing at the window signalling to a Chinese father and son (actually from Lancashire by the sounds of it) newly arrived on the island. Unfortunately, there is a piece of black tape on the glass that is so ludicrously contrived in its placement to give the appearance of a Hitler moustache under Ted’s nose. Ted’s energetic and comically over-the-top gesticulations are completely unfortunate in this context. But crucially, it is the black tape that makes Ted look like a man acting in a different way than is his intention. Here is the point: the Corporate Media – and this could be said of it even before we heard of Thomas Mair – is always the Black Tape.

And the Governemnt always needs the Black Tape, and never more so than when in its current predicament. Given the loathing of the EU historically held by a majority of Britons, the author did not believe that any politician campaigning for continued EU membership could ever win any referendum for their cause – even one held in the context we find ourselves now. However, after investigating the huge stink surrounding the election at Thanet South (here and here), and then other elections such as Thurrock, I discovered how a victory could be achieved nevertheless. I came to the conclusion that the Government was capable of rigging an entire election. In the case of the 2015 General Election, I suspected it was done by targeting crucial seats in a criminal fashion – expense anomalies nothing in comparison to what must have gone on. Of course, it helped to be aware of the fear in the air ahead of the vote when the Establishment was preparing the way for the possibility of a Grand Coalition between Labour and the Tories. As it turns out, this was obviously a too dangerous outcome for the Establishment to tolerate.

All things being such, and considering the determination of our elites to build a global system of governance – which won’t be opposed under any circumstances – I have been convinced that the Establishment would try and rig the referendum. I have not been alone – please see this article which examies how one third of people voting to Leave think that there will be vote rigging.

Now, understand that the Establishment can’t rig the vote in isolation. It needs the people to believe that the outcome it engineers is a realistic one. In 2015 before the General Election there was a huge campaign of fear-mongering to plant the idea that voting for UKIP instead of the Conservatives would let Labour form a coalition with a surging SNP. This idea flew in the face of the messages that Establishment thinkers were sending each other – they feared the necessity of the aforementioned Grand Coalition.

This year, we are seeing something different. This year we are seeing a last-moment trap being sprung on us that, to be fair, many of us have actually predicted – the details being the only aspect that couldn’t be known. I am firmly of the view that the opinion polls are being manipulated prior to the vote – either by controlling the respondents or controlling the way the poll is targeted – to try and suggest a reaction to Jo Cox’s murder. Last week, when Leave looked headed for a barnstorming win, the polls may have been more organic, but it really doesn’t matter. This week – or more particularly as released on the 21st June (taken from here) – they look like this:

Remain leading by 1%

Leave leading by 2%

Remain leading by 1%

Remain leading by 7%

Remain leading by 6%

In other words, the Establishment, with its exploitation of Jo Cox’s death, is blowing a dog whistle that it, after all is done and a shock “Remain” vote is gathered in, will say we heard – even if we didn’t know it – and involuntarily responded to after all. Our response right at the end of the referendum campaign was emotional – that will be the story.

In reality, giveOut_Voten the long-held feelings of grievance owned by a traditional majority of Britons, I suspect that people have already turned a deaf ear to the call. I suspect that the virtue signalling is not going to blare out what people are hearing on Radio EU-future, and I suspect that the drawn out groaning sound of a few hard facts in people’s everyday existence is not going to be drowned out by the jingle bells of a pretend reality.

The Establishment has never had anything in its armoury other than smoke and mirrors. The people of Britain, their hated and avowed enemy, have a real desire for the restoration of their national identity – something that is illustrated in the very interesting map above (source).

The way we beat the Establishment and their fix is very easy. The bigger the number of votes for Leave, and the larger the gulf between it and Remain, the more difficult it will be to meddle with ballot boxes and nudge the latter into the lead. The way we beat the fix is to go out in our masses and vote to leave.

 

[1] An interesting development. A man with a pair of binoculars was seen in nearby grave yard.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-cox-shooting-schoolgirl-saw-8210088

“Tory victory” GE2015 narrative wrong; real winner now attracting media’s post-election ire

Party most greatly improved

When the BBC’s exit poll was announced on the night of 7th May, certain politicians and political commentators expressed incredulity. Previously, the opinion polls had had Labour and the Tories neck and neck – now it looked as if the Tories would win by quite the margin. The exit poll was a surprise to the author, too, who never believes opinion polls and who predicted enough UKIP seats to force some drastic repositioning amongst the LibLabCon to do whatever needed to be done to continue its agenda. The explanation for the result, we were told, was a reaction to the threat of a SNP coalition with Labour. We were led to believe that the corporate-media and the Conservatives, with their negative campaigning, had apparently scared Tory voters back into the fold – and so presumably away from UKIP. However, after some time for consideration has passed, this story begins to look like cover for something else that lies actually partly just beyond the scope of this article (an explanation to follow). Although the size of the promised SNP result did in fact materialise, their performance, regardless of its scale, would never make any difference to what a LibLabCon Westminster Government has planned for Scotland – i.e. for it to be a direct EU province. So, the SNP threat story had always been a decoy – and now we can see what for.  Despite what we are told by the Westminster Bubble, General Election Day 2015 was a resounding success for UKIP and the anti-EU forces in the country. However, the unexpected Tory win is not only excused by the SNP decoy, but made to look spectacular because of how the bogey-man of Labour+SNP in office has been slain in the process, and this turns our attention away from the really significant development. Post-election, we were sold a story of how “leftism” – a redundant term of divide and conquer –  is temporarily defeated and the “right” has won, but the real divide in politics remains, and the side that UKIP is on has been made stronger.  Even though the British electorate has apparently given a pro-EU Tory Government carte-blanche to rubber stamp EU legislation and continue to lead them ever more into national oblivion, Britons who are looking to overthrow the unlawful rule of the vassal government that clings on in Westminster are better placed than ever before to do it. This is what is being disguised under the froth of all the Establishment baloney.

Getting now into the facts and figures, if we compare the votes for each party in the 2010 and 2015 elections against the respective turnouts, we find some very interesting results. In 2010, 10.7 million people voted Tory in a national turnout of 29.7 million. If the same proportion had voted for the Tories in 2015, where the turnout was 30.7 million, then the size of that constituency would have been 11,080,028. This number is only 250 thousand less than the actual 2015 result. In real terms, the Tory vote only grew by 2% of the 2010 result. As for UKIP, in 2010, a mere 919,546 (the author amongst them) expressed their support with a vote. If the same proportion had voted UKIP in 2015, the result would have seen a measly 950,501 votes. In fact, this time UKIP received 2.9 million votes more than that. In real terms, UKIP’s vote grew by 308%. The exact same development can be seen in the vote-share-change figures where the Tories only managed a 0.8% increase from 2010 – UKIP saw a 9.5% increase. The great myth that has already been peddled and sold is not true. There was no great Tory victory in the 2015 election – the party still has roughly the same level of support that could only muster a coalition in 2010. It is UKIP that has made the most tremendous impact, and has changed the political landscape, and that is no doubt why the corporate-media is going after it so furiously: the Establishment is perhaps frightened witless, which is further suggested by the rapidity with which the Tories are moving ahead with some very suspect policies that, after only a little investigation, will reveal themselves to be in accordance with and conducive for EU rule.

As much mileage as the idea of the Labour+SNP bogey-man has had, we need to view it in the context of this massive growth in UKIP. In doing this we can see that in fact, if it did have any effect at all, then it only mitigated UKIP’s growth rather than hand the Tories a stunning victory. Indeed, it could be argued that the actual scale of the SNP-threat effect was negligible – after all, the Labour vote grew slightly more than the Tories’ did, and it looks on the face of it that the collapsed Lib Dem vote propped the Tories up; (the author always predicted a merging of the support of those two parties). In truth, or as it appears to the author at least, the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition did not generate a major Tory burst.

Of course, if we are puzzled about a few things regarding this election just gone, we cannot be mystified about how the Great Tory Victory narrative came to be established. Before the election the ever-so-compliant corporate-media – none less strident than the Tories’ flagship propaganda mouthpiece, the Daily Mail – was crucial in being seen to  frighten its readership – usually Middle England Tories. The way it did this was by writing the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition large into the imaginations of people. Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party would form a partnership, and the SNP would extract all sorts of concessions out of the senior member in the relationship – to the detriment of the English. The author didn’t follow much of this fear mongering, but gathers the preceding sentence an adequate representation of what was the spirit of the threat being made.

However, against the theoretical power to influence that the corporate-media has evidently had, and to some degree still wields, the author sets the increasing awareness in the public of the phenomenon known as a “psychological operation”. The author is coming to think that perhaps the British electorate is growing out of its historical naivety whereby it is increasingly resistant to the sort of manipulation by the “authoritative voice” that has been able to work so well in the past. For surely, pre-election, from hard and expanding experience, people could see that a Tory party that has a majority – just as a Labour one would – could rubber stamp EU legislation with impunity. On the other hand, a coalition government, opposed by a kernel of UKIP MPs with which Labour and Tory rebels might find some common cause, had the potential to be a spanner in the works – in the context of current British politics where the LibLabCon are obviously firmly set upon an agenda separate to that of the people it is supposed to represent, Government is best when it finds it hard to legislate against them.

The more one considers the matter, the more one comes to the conclusion that the reason for the promotion of the SNP threat was more complex than at first appears, and it could have something to do with a grander plan that encompasses the election, of which the current mass frenzy in corporate-media regarding the so-called civil war in UKIP is a tail-end feature. There will be more on this in the very next FBEL article – one investigating the possibility of electoral fraud to deliver key seats to the Tories [have patience, though, this will take a good deal of research]. In short, and for the time-being, the theory would be that the promotion of the SNP threat was to create a rationale so that the eventual out-of-the-blue Tory victory would not be such a surprise, and would be easier for people to comprehend. What we could have very well seen is a great theft – and it would indicate a departure from the usual method of control – illusion – that our ruling class, now driven to desperation,  would normally use to trick us into giving our support and consent.

The trouble is, whether or not UKIP were robbed of a number of MPs is difficult to prove; what we can say for sure, however, is that the party was robbed of recognition of its success. As well as the nearly 4 million votes garnered in the General Election, UKIP gained 176 council seats, and won control of its first district council in Thanet. And in actual fact, a big UKIP presence in the councils is arguably going to prove to be more important than seats at Westminster because of the way it is intended for the EU to rule the territories currently known as the United Kingdom. Only days into their incumbency, the Tories have already announced plans to create proto city states of the major English metropolitan areas. The plan is a development of Labour’s design to regionalise England with parliaments – presumably, as per the surreptitious way British  politicians have delivered the blueprint for EU control in the UK, a rehash and friendlier face was needed after the original scheme faced overwhelming opposition in the electorate. The EU has just been mentioned, and of course, the real purpose of regionalisation is so that the EU can rule the UK directly at local level – even to a degree where councils become directly answerable to the EU. The National Government will increasingly become a vestigial organ that, as it shrinks by barely noticeable degrees over time, will serve the main purpose of fooling Britons into thinking that theirs is an independent country.

Thus, it is very important that UKIP establish as soon as possible a good number of councils and seats on them so as to become a power through which EU rule is most effectively resisted. The good news is that the election results clearly show that UKIP is on the ascendency, and with a stunningly steep trajectory. This is perhaps most dramatically illustrated in a graphic produced by the Independent newspaper which shows which party made the biggest gains in votes in each Westminster constituency (see above). England and Wales are blanketed in UKIP purple. This is great news ahead of any referendum on EU membership, which the Tory Government, with its helping agents in the wider British Government, will look to win for the “In” side – not perhaps by bamboozling the electorate, because it may have found at this election just gone that it cannot do that as well as it may have been able to in the past – but by knobbling the one force in British politics that will prove most effective at mobilizing the electorate to vote “Out”; and this would explain the current frenzied attack on UKIP by the corporate-media, which is clearly another co-ordinated psychological -operation – like others written about on this site – to create the impression of UKIP disintegration or lack of support and/or unity. Britons who want to be free of the EU vassal at Westminster must be encouraged by all the flak being taken by UKIP at the moment; the party is clearly flying over the target it needs to attack.

As Britons are told Kate Middleton’s offspring WILL rule, can fraud of monarchy be opposed?

A trip to Marks and Spencer’s very early yesterday morning and the only till open was choked by a customer who had already, somehow, managed to do a week’s worth of shopping. A couple of other people were also in this queue, so all-in-all there was quite a lot of material to be processed through the checkout even before I could set my few selections on the conveyor belt.

A woman dressed in M&S uniform approached me. I had been hanging about near the end of the queue – although not for very long – and she must have detected my dissatisfaction. “Would you like to use the self-service tills, sir”. It was a command rather than a request. “No”, says I, “in actual fact, I think you should open up another checkout so that you can serve me”.

It’s a myth that customer is always right. Left to their own sheep-like devices, the customer is a schmuck who has very little real alternative options. I can’t remember exactly what the lady said in response, but basically it was about how customers have to use the automated tills if the checkouts are unmanned and unavailable. I told her in turn that I didn’t want to use the robots on principle (because of how they put people out of work), and I wanted a new checkout to be opened so that I could be served.

This did the trick, and within a few moments I had been processed by a human being, and had once again ensured that I for one will not have been responsible for the creation of unemployed persons.  While this had been going on, however, some other people, being willing-slaves, had continued to flock to the self-service points.  Now I understand that some people imagine that serving oneself is to do everyone a favour. It is not. Using self-service machines is a recipe for catastrophe. Even now major British employers only just tolerate employing people on a part-time basis. What do we think they would do once it became certain that they didn’t need human staff at all?

The sad fact of the matter is that imagining self-service to be universally helpful is rationalisation; in addition, the vast majority of the sort of baby-booming, hand-wringing Briton who uses M&S are abject cowards who never act in their liberty, but instead always decide that whatever some tin-pot character dictates to them is exactly what they should think and do.

If the likes of M&S ever decided that they had trained enough of the sheeple to be able to dispense with human cashiers altogether, then the willing-slaves will never a murmur make. Whatever the financial reward for willing-slaves due to the passing on of savings on their groceries made by not having to pay staff, will be counteracted by the tax demands needed to pay ever more welfare cheques. Later, when these cheques are not worth anything (it could be as soon as April, according to Max Keiser), then the willing-slaves may have a chore being smug about serving themselves in the midst of food riots and the threat of their well-to-do house being targeted and broken into by starving people. This is what the government of the UK wants, by the way; when there is chaos, then the willing-slaves will be lapping up that draconian police state. They may not be able to go out after a curfew, nor express disapproval of the government for that matter, but they will be safe in their prison.

Liberty, therefore, begins in telling a jobsworth who should be a servant, but is acting like an official master, exactly what you want them to do, and never compromising. If everyone acted in their liberty when it is most easy to do it, then tyranny would be all the more hard for the British corporate-government to impose. What people in the UK don’t seem to understand is that if any service that one pays for is unsatisfactory, one doesn’t in the end have to pay. It certainly isn’t a very good idea to continue being badly served; but Britons seem to love being abused.

Let’s take the example of the acquiescence to the political order as an example of this. Yesterday also saw the gathering of pace in the corporate-media’s lionisation of a pregnancy of a woman who cannot wear a bra in public, and used a see-thru-nightie to help her acquire nothing less than the future throne of England (this is all that it is worth).  No doubt the willing-slaves will lap up every last drop of what is desperate bread and circuses.

I use the word desperate because of how the Establishment, having full mastery of techniques for psychological manipulation, announced the birth of an heir to the throne by having Kate Middleton attend a hospital. With all the resources at the Royal’s disposal, there cannot be anything to prevent Middleton being treated without the fanfare. However, a trip to the infirmary to assist a pregnancy is more emphatic and cynically calculated to inspire feelings of pity, as well as joy in the eternally gullible British willing-slaves. And just as supermarket customers are essentially defrauded into conceding to a system that only benefits the supermarket, so are Britons now being convinced that they must accept this new baby as their privileged future ruling elite.

The Mirror newspaper had these headlines in their online version:

Kate Middleton pregnant: Royal baby will one day rule Britain as King or Queen

There was similar wording in an article in the Daily Mail. Of course, there was no discussion about the right of this one family to rule Britain. There is only the message, and the assumption, “you WILL be ruled”.

It’s a fraud. Just like how the M&S manager told me that I had to use the self-service machines was also proved to be a fraud. And the time has come to reject all such fraud in the same way. We all have to refuse to comply with schemes that make it easier to dominate us. We should reject the Queen (the Cub Scouts dropped the wrong oath of duty). The Queen has no right to rule this country because the Commonwealth was instituted in the 17th century and the Crown was abolished. A proper legal precedent was set in English Law – and it was insisted upon by the American colonies.

The Queen’s offspring have no right to rule either. We need to end the age of slavery, and to start a constitutional era of real freedom. This doesn’t mean democracy, but a republic with a representative body of administrators who are of the people and for the people. We have democracy now, and it’s no wonder it is exulted by the very types who so blatantly misrule us; it is, after all, about making everything equally bad for the people who are ruled. In our democracy, it’s only a middle and working class woman who would get sent home from hospital because morning sickness is not serious enough, and have her bed turned over to a Bulgarian with no more right to be in the country than a World War II German infantry man; this would never happen to Kate Middleton – nor the Queen for that matter, neither of which has a right to privilege and influence and power.

The guardians of the Marxist Coup see Cesar Millan as counter revolutionary

When one tells fellow countrymen, as this author does, that they have suffered a Marxist Revolution, because most of them do not have the wherewithal to even notice, then one should be able to point to the evidence that is abundantly strewn around us like air crash wreckage. For instance, there is the driving out of common sense and its replacement by systems of bureaucratically hindered official governmental reaction and responsibility for every private crisis, large or small; there is the central religion of Equality, supported by Political Correctness – which is actually a Lilliputian act of tying down and restricting the influence of the common sensual majority.

There is evidence of the Marxist Revolution in all sorts of things, if one is awake to it. This is because the Revolution was mounted and is being sustained through the corporate-media which shapes attitudes and perceptions with tireless propaganda. Please notice how as TV screens get bigger so as to cover entire walls of the tiny apartments that Britons are accepting must be their lot so as to knuckle under as a sustainable unit, with the print sector of the corporate-media transitioning to internet so as to be viewable from an armchair, the Television has transmuted into Orwell’s Telescreens.

Last week, these monstrosities were brainwashing Britons against Cesar Millan, a formidable dog trainer from California, and since he was originally an illegal immigrant into the US, food for thought regarding what proper immigration controls should look like (a discussion for another time).

Millan uses methods that offend people who like to think of dogs as little human beings. Cesar Millan enters the dog’s world, which is not that hard to do, actually, because of the shared culture between the two species. Cesar Millan makes the dog see him, or any other human being central to its life, as the chief dog in the pack. Without this leadership, the dog begins to dominate its human hosts and attains a psychological state where it becomes unchecked in its obsessions, and basically does what it likes.

It’s usually when people (mostly all of them victims lobotomized by the Revolution – that is to say, people who have become imbued with Marxist ideology of self-defeatism) have gotten to their wits end with their troublesome animal that Cesar Millan gets called in. Cesar Millan uses force, and that’s what gets him into trouble. But what critics are incapable of understanding is that Millan uses force because dogs are not human beings and can only understand their role in the human pack by being treated as a dog. Therefore, Cesar Millan uses a prod of his fingers, which he shapes to form a representative dog’s biting mouth; the dog will see it as a normal reprimand dished out by a pack leader. He has also been seen using his shins and other parts of his legs to resist dogs that are particularly aggressive and in the mood to bite. At other times, he has been known to turn the dog over on its back, and hold it by the throat so as to force submission. Then there is the application of a mild electric shock which is implemented through a collar in the same spirit as a farmer puts up an electric fence – it serves as a reminder to keep away, and in the dog’s case, from a fixation that could build to aggressive behavior. Millan asks dog owners to consult a vet before using one.

None of this, despite what Alan Titchmarsh accused Millan of on his ITV chat show, is cruelty; Cesar Millan does not punch or kick dogs, as the gardening expert would like his audience to believe. Despite this, Titchmarsh went on to liken Milan’s relationship with dogs to a fight between two human pugilists; naturally this is all calculated to generate horror at the mental image of a man beating up a tiny defenceless dog. It’s nonsense of course, but it is ambrosia to the Marxist generation brought up to comprehend emotional response as being the central tool by which they rationalize the world they live in. The trick that triggers the psychological reaction, as it has been for quite a while now, is to anthropomorphize the animal; something that is increasingly easy to do thanks to years of indoctrination in the theory of evolution, and the new ability to think of human beings as mere animals with no more rights than creatures that can’t even conceive of toilet paper.

As it happens, Cesar Millan uses physical interaction as a last resort, and instead relies on projecting energy – by which he means imposing on the dog psychically through one’s own confidence as the pack leader. As wholesome as this is, the sort of dog training that is endorsed by the RSPCA is diametrically opposed to Millan’s approach (which makes that charity incredibly dubious); it is the sort as practised by another TV dog trainer, Victoria Stilwell.

Stilwell practices Positive Reinforcement, which boils down to giving a dog a reward for good behavior. From the point of view of Millan’s methodology, this is in fact cruelty by encouraging obsession; the reader may have recognized practitioners of this approach walking their dogs by the way they hold a candy reward by the dog’s nose as if to even motivate it to move forward. The aim of a dog rehabilitator, as Millan would hold, is to remove obsession from the dog’s life. Balance is the objective, and it reaches an optimum when the dog feels itself led by a dominant personality. A well balanced dog is one that knows that its own quietude is enough to win approval from the pack leader. Any other approach that does not promote the leader/follower relationship is abuse, pure and simple. And while there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that Stilwell’s methods fail miserably (please make an online search with the keywords “Stilwell” and “put to sleep”), this author is convinced that her methods are completely flawed after witnessing an episode in which she recommended that, to avoid a dog becoming possessive, and therefore aggressive, while feeding, a family should evacuate entirely the room in the house in which the dog was located while it ate. The result of this lunacy could only be a reinforcement of the dog’s rogue pack leadership.

The fact that Cesar Millan’s approach is punishment-based as opposed to reward-based training is the reason why there is a concerted campaign against him. The stakes are high in the battle because Positive Reinforcement is the method used in the British Marxist state school system and the British Marxist penal system. In Edukation, Positive Reinforcement is particularly sinister because of how it produces children who are thought to be naturally disobedient and can’t be controlled. This is the perception that the Establishment wants adults to have concerning their relationship with their children because then a void is produced which is filled with corrupting material; the adult is meant to understand that there are no means to keep their child from being exposed to it. Consequently, parents are made to believe that to say no to a child is to be cruel. The Establishment wants lawlessness and chaos so it can step in and produce its own sinister brand of order.

The trouble with Cesar Millan, however, is that he presents an alternative mentality and the truly positive approach. Furthermore, the secret message of Millan, if one wishes to interpret it, is this: just as dog owners can control their pets, so can parents control their children; the key is, as Millan demonstrates, setting boundaries, not treating the subject as equal to the leader, projecting dominance and dishing out punishment when required.

In other words, the key is Paternalism, and it is not an accident that Marxism decries Paternalism because this is an idea that is an obstacle in the way of those who would use the ideology to criminally and under-handedly maintain their own unnatural superiority. It is not an accident that the British Marxist Government endorses and encourages fatherlessness. It is not an accident that Paternalism is anathema to the education system which looks to winkle out teachers who are genuinely authoritative and project dominance.

It’s because Cesar Millan has a dangerous message of truth that Alan Titchmarsh set to work blackening the dog trainer’s name (Titchmarsh has now demonstrated that the cause for his unfathomable rise into broadcasting and writing, despite little discernable talent, must be a Faustian deal to be a minion of the Marxist Establishment). It’s why “a wave of protests was unleashed even before the Alan Titchmarsh Show went out on ITV”, as the Daily Mail reported when it, the flagship propaganda outlet of the British Marxist Government, inevitably publicised the effort to denigrate Millan (as did the other paper with high sales figures, the Sun). Because Millan represents such a challenge to the orthodoxy, it is why 1,000 people joined a Twitter campaign, and 1,600 people “followed” a Facebook page set up by protesters demanding Millan’s appearance on TV to be cancelled. Even if this somewhat unsuccesful hate campaign wasn’t organised by a PR company, as the author suspects it was, by order from on high (don’t forget, the Home Office banned the US self-defence teacher, Tim Larkin, who presents a similar challenge and is currently showing that Tory pronouncements about anti-burglar violence are not genuine) it is a clear statement of the intolerance that is engendered in orthodox group-think promoted by the Establishment.

The good news is that many people have tried Cesar Millan’s methods and found that they have worked (look at the testimony in the comments section under the Daily Mail article for an indication); many more have read his books and seen his TV show and marveled at the common sense of his method. If the reader doesn’t have a dog, the method can be applied to other animals and the author prevented seagulls from nesting and becoming a problem in the proximity of his dwelling because he claimed and projected dominance over a site that they otherwise would have used (cue the cries of cruelty to sea birds). Sure, there are bound to be people who have tried to employ his method and have failed; but that Cesar Millan’s method might sometimes fail is not even the prickly point used to attack him with by his detractors. They attack him because his approach does have success, and his approach is diametrically opposed to their intrinsically abusive system.

Ultimately, what all this about is claiming one’s adult dominance (primarily male) over one’s domain and bringing about order. That’s why the Establishment is frightened to death of it. And because the Establishment is threatened, people should think of Cesar Millan and other advocates of innate human independent ability, common sense and natural order as a blow to the unnatural Establishment – and support them.