The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.

If the events of the past week have taught us one thing, it is this … “the political establishment has no intention of taking Britain out of the European’ Projekt”.

 

Actually, it has taught us a second lesson … “your vote counts for nothing”.

 

So, I’m going to outline to you, a simple strategy which is guaranteed to “put the cat amongst the pigeons”.  This strategy has the  potential to strengthen British’ Democracy … or to totally destroy British’ Democracy. It involves no marches, or demonstrations. You won’t be asked to confront the police. It is a strategy based upon reason, and I guarantee that Westminster does not have a sound defence against it. If you are principled, and have some courage, then you can do this.

 

The First Thing  to understand is that you are not obliged to suffer under the Governance of Parliament.   You are, supposedly, governed with your Consent.

Got that?  You do not have to submit to their governance.

 

If you are thinking,  “Whoa, there … I have to be governed.” then please stop reading, right now.   You have the mentality of the slave, and you are of no value to any men who would be free.  I don’t want to spend another minute in your company. Just fuck off.

 

Now, the rest of you presumably have a little more spirit.  So, listen in.

 

Because you are “governed by Consent”, then you have the prerogative to withdraw that Consent… that is, to reject all Parliamentary Statute.

 

But, if you cast about for a mechanism by which to withdraw your Consent, you won’t find one that is ready-made. Your Consent is implied by a simple civic process … Voter Registration.  When you Register as an Elector, you make a Contract with the State, to abide by the Collective’ decisions and the regulations which are created by the Representatives.

 

The Strategy   is quite simple. It involves mass-action to de-Register as Electors.  You sever that Contract.  You can do it online. Inform your electoral registration officer, that you wish to be removed from the Electoral Roll, and that you do not Consent to Parliamentary Governance.  I know you can do this, because I’ve already done it … several years’ back.

If one man does this, it is expedient to ignore him.  When 100,000 do it, then you have a Constitutional Crisis.

Believe you me, this will terrify the politicians. They will have visions of Civil War, and their own heads on pikes.

 

In the first instance, all we need is a commitment from men and women with courage … a commitment to Withdraw Consent. This can be done online.  It has to be done publicly, and en-masse.  The likelihood is that we will see the Article 50 immediately implemented.

 

The Risk is that Westminster takes the stance,  “Well, if we do not have your Consent, we will Govern by force.”   Let them dare say that. I would chance that this Country will burn.

 

I’m putting this idea about, to “test the waters”.  I suggest to you, that you have nothing to lose, since your vote is already proven to be without value.  This is important, if you reject the Supra-Nationalism of Europe. By all means, criticise my idea … and please, put forward your own, better strategies.

 

 

Advertisements

Free men do not vote.

I’ll try to keep this simple.

 

1 … You have an absolute right to defend your own property and person from predation. This necessitates the ownership of arms.

2 … You’ve experienced at least a century of voting; and at least a century of progressive disarmament. The conclusion must be that you have nothing to gain from voting/lobbying the political establishment.

3… That same political establishment fears “voter disengagement” … the withdrawal of its mandate to govern.

4 … Collective disengagement can be used as a powerful political weapon; much more powerful than continued voting. We have the potential to begin a “movement” which will shake the political establishment.

 

My Proposal to Europeans Liberty-seekers

I propose the formation of a “European Refusenik Movement”.

This would comprise all those who reject the imposition of “Government dictates” upon their lives. It might include we who demand firearms,  Libertarians, pot smokers, anti-frackers … in fact, any whose property rights are being trampled by the State.

These “refuseniks” would actively and publicly renounce the Ballot Box. They would refuse to vote for any politician or party … unless they receive a written contract, meeting their desires. In our case, that would be a written contract recognising the RKBA.

I propose that we begin, by using Facebook as a gathering place … and recording our individual refusals, so that we can say, “There are now X thousand Europeans who have withdrawn their Consent.”

Becoming a “refusenik” would be very simple … it would require no travel, nor confrontation with police.

Now, some of you might say that this idea is a renunciation of “democracy”.  Yes, it is. Democracy has stripped you of your rights; it deserves to be renounced. Choose Liberty.

 

 

Are you a publican who is prohibited from smoking on his own property?

Perhaps you are a shooter, who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

Maybe you are opposed to frackers, burrowing beneath your property, without your Consent.

Maybe you want to enjoy a spliff, without being threatened with incarceration.

Perhaps you disapprove of State-sponsored immigration policies.

You might be a hotelier who wants to exclude certain guests from your business.

You don’t want HS2 forced across your land, but don’t know how to stop it.

 

There are thousands of people “out there”, who feel aggrieved by the actions of the State. Many of those people believe that they can improve their situation by voting … by appeals to the State … if only they can garner enough votes.

So, they form groups, campaigning and lobbying, in the hope of changing public’ opinion or perhaps “electing the right man” to a position of power.

 

How’s it working out for them?

 

It’s a fucking car crash, isn’t it?

 

I’ll assume that you have your eyes open, this past couple of decades … that you understand the true value of your vote …  which is precisely nothing.

 

Well, that’s not quite true. I believe that your “vote” might have a value; but, only in a skewed, off-the-wall sort of way.   You may be aware that there  is a great deal of political angst, in Europe, about the problems of “voter disengagement”.  Many politicians are bewailing the large numbers of non-voters, and the rise of Libertarianism (which is basically a rejection of the State).   The Establishment fears this disengagement, because its power relies upon the notion of Consent; that it has your approval to tax and legislate.  Well, I believe that this angst can be used to your advantage.

 

Let’s return to our groups of aggrieved people.   If we study their grievances, we will discover that they share a common cause. In every case, the “property rights” of the individuals, have been trampled by the State.

 

How to use the Ballot Box as a weapon.

Forget about the “vote” … instead, consider what I call the “null-vote”.

Let’s suppose that European shooters all swore that they would NOT VOTE for any candidate, whatsoever … without a written promise that their RKBA was restored in its entirety, and immediately. Let’s further suppose that this was done very publicly, and that it was understood that firearms’ prohibition is merely an abrogation of “individual property rights”.  By refusing to vote, you withdraw your Consent to the governance of the State; you reject its “right” to govern you and to determine what property you may own.

Let’s further suppose that those European shooters could forge an alliance with European Spliffers (quite possibly of a similar Libertarian mindset).   Suddenly, you have an awful lot of people who are willing to demand the recognition of their property rights.  You have a direct threat to the Established Order.

What about the anti-Frackers?  Well, some are opposed to fracking, and want the State to use its power to prohibit. But, many are simply opposed to that fracking being done beneath their own property … they have no problem with your fracking your own land. These people are desperate to have their property rights recognised.

 

We all have the same problem.  We all know that voting offers no solutions. That’s why people are “giving up” … they feel defeated and helpless.

Null-Voting offers the prospect of individual’ empowerment. There is no need for street demos. There is no need for confrontation with the State’s enforcers.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authority

Did you ever watch the TV show, called Spartacus?  Very Libertarian.

Anyway, there was a character called Oenomaus,  a great muscular black man, who was the “Doctore” of the gladiatorial school … his job to teach the recruits how to fight.

 

 

One of his most memorable lines was this, given as a token of his loyalty ,  “Your will, my hands.”

Doctore was expressing his acceptance of the Master’s authority over him. He was saying that his body was merely an extension of the Master’s, and that he would bend to the Master’s will.

And, that is the nature of “authority”, that another man’s mind becomes the “author” of your actions. To a degree, this reduces you to a slave, since the acceptance of Authority over you, curtails the opportunity for you to exercise your own “free will”.

The question that I ask is this … “How does one man gain authority over another? How does one man enslave another to his bidding.” The answer is surprisingly simple, if you will open your mind to a little thought.

There are only 3 ways in which to exert “authority” over another person.

 

1… with his Consent

2… by Force

3… by Deception

 

Interesting, but so what?

Well, an understanding of authority is vitally important, because our lives are dominated by people who claim to have “rightful authority” over us. If we want to determine the validity of their claims, then we have to examine them critically.

Have you ever wondered why politicians insist that “you are governed by Consent” ? It’s because the alternative to consensual governance would constitute a crime.  Here’s why.

Let’s suppose that I  took money from your wallet and spent it on myself. That would be a crime. 

Now suppose that you permitted me to take money from your wallet and spend it on myself.  No crime.

In each case, I took your property for my own. But, in the second example, it was done with your Consent … so, the very same actions were transformed from the criminal to the benign.

 

Another example.

We meet in a bar and go home together. Later that evening, I force you to have sex with me. Clearly, a crime.

Now, let’s suppose that we meet in a bar and decide to go home together. Later, we end up in bed and have consensual sex.  No crime.

The same sexual activity becomes transformed from benign interaction to rape, by the absence of Consent.

 

The issue of Consent defines the nature of human activity … it is a defining principle of criminal activity.

Government, of course, does take your property, predominantly in the form of taxation. If it were to do this without your Consent, then it would be guilty of CRIME. (there are other usurpations by the State, besides taxation)

 

If you are NOT governed consensually, then you simply must be governed either by Force or by Deception (fraud). There is no fourth option. Each of these constitutes criminal behaviour. A government of either Force or Deception would be a criminal body.

 

It’s vitally important that the State perpetrates the idea that it is not a criminal entity … and that it governs benignly; with the Consent of the governed. The myth is put about that your property is taken with your permission. Well, is it?

 

Now, I have  questions for you.

How is that Consent garnered; and, how may it be withdrawn?

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for this rehash of an earlier piece, but I was asked for my views on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

War is the struggle for control of Resources … land, minerals and labour.  And the most important of these is labour. You.

Coal in the ground is useless without human labour to exploit it. Even if I own a coal-mine, it will become exhausted within a few years, thus losing its value.

Human labour is inexhaustible. It self-replicates and can be turned to any use. I call it “the Prime Asset”. If you control the labour of others, then you are assured a life of comparative ease. This is why the truly ambitious seek to become “owners of men”, rather than the owners of coal-mines.

 

“Buuuut, nowadays, no-one can “own” other people.” … right?

 

Let me take a moment to explore that notion; with the help of this pencil, which I bought this morning.

No-one would deny that this pencil is my property. As such, I may choose to write with it, to sharpen it, to lend or sell it, to give it away or even destroy it. I wield control over the fate of this pencil, except that I may not use it to injure another person.  This pencil provides a lesson in ownership … the exclusive use and control of a resource.

Now, suppose that you come along and began to impose conditions upon the use of my pencil. You prohibit the sale or destruction of the pencil and you place caveats upon my use of it. Can I still be said to “own” the pencil?

To the extent that my control of the pencil is eroded, so is my ownership of that pencil.  It would be ridiculous to suggest that I “own the pencil”, if I am not permitted to use it, lend it, sell it, destroy it, etc.

Every claim of “control” is also a claim of “ownership” … the two words are synonyms.

 

Now, we get to the meat of this post.  The advent of the internet has stimulated a philosophical enlightenment amongst Westerners (in particular).  Evidence of this is provided by the expanding interest in notions of Libertarianism and Anarchy … two philosophies which are universally-derided by the existing Political Elite.

The driving tenet of both Libertarianism and Anarchy, is the recognition of self-ownership … that your life/body are your property. Vanishingly-few people would argue against this principle. Once you embrace the principle of self-ownership, then you intuitively understand that attempts by others to control “your resource” are really no more than claims of ownership against you.  Because control and ownership are synonyms.

What were Plantation Slaves, if not men whose lives were totally controlled by others?  To be bought, sold, lent, destroyed, used and exploited … owned.

Can there be a man who, when he once understood that he is regarded as “someone else’s property”, could fail to be incensed.

Study the actions of the police. See where they try to impose their control over your property.

You are a “natural resource” … and ownership is being disputed.

You may not eat, drink, smoke, as you will. You may not “own” property, without permission and taxation. You may not keep what you earn. The list of imposed controls is endless.

If war is a struggle for control of resources, then the police are most definitely at war with you.

Most of you reading this, have been Prisoners-of-War since you were born. You didn’t realise your condition, because you were born inside the Camp, with no concept of “beyond the barbed wire”. The internet is like a secret messenger, bringing tales of human freedom from beyond the wire.

Eventually, those prison walls will be torn down. Police who try to prevent it will be killed in the stampede for freedom. And, rightfully so.

Bundy, Ferguson and the NYPD killings are merely the first hints of trouble to come.

The police could renounce their “right” to impose their will upon you and me. Alternatively, you and I could swallow our notions of self-ownership and simply submit to their presumed authority. Either of these conditions would lead to a kind of peace. Since neither scenario is likely, I would judge that the question of “who owns my body” will be resolved at the point of the sword.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve met many people of late … some in meatspace, and others in cyberspace.

Amongst the latter is one David Messenger, whom I met on Facebook.  David is a supporter of Constitutional government within the landmass which is known as England. He believes in the power of Magna Carta and of Lawful Rebellion.

Now, David informs me that in November of this year (2014), the power of the UK Parliament will effectively cease and that all future governance will be from Brussels. He and others are looking for a means by which this can be prevented; thus, they have entered a condition of Lawful Rebellion.  Buuuut, time is getting short and, frankly, nothing much is happening.

 

I will propose a method by which it will be possible to create a Constitutional crisis within the British Establishment. This could be achieved within days …. IF a sufficient number of people can be motivated to act.  Those people will not have to leave the comfort of their homes; they won’t have to face down the enforcers, on the streets… but, they will have to publicly defy Parliamentary’ Statute. Inevitably, some will be arrested for their pains. I expect to be amongst the first.

 

This is going to be a lengthy post, but it’s important for us to follow a logical progression, leading to direct action.  Let’s begin with a question.

 

What is Authority?

Authority is the ability to direct the behaviour of other living beings.  If you exercise authority over me, then I bend to your will.

 

How is Authority exercised?

There are only 3 ways in which Authority can be exercised … Consent, Force, and Deception.

Have a think about this. See whether you can conceive of a fourth way in which to bend me to your will.

 

What is crime?

Crime is the absence of Consent.

You and I might enjoy rough sex … and that’s fine as long as it’s consensual. In the absence of consent, it become violent rape.

I might give you the contents of my wallet (moths, mostly) … and that’s fine. If you take the contents without my consent, it becomes theft.

A necessary condition of criminal behaviour is the absence of Consent … the absence of contract.

For this reason, the State promulgates the meme that you are governed with your Consent …  because the alternatives to Consensual governance are that you are governed by force and/or deception (in practise, fraud).

Non-consensual governance would, by definition, be a criminal act.

 

 

Let’s return to our “rough sex”. A case is brought, alleging rape. As is often found, the case turns upon the issue of Consent. The defendant claims that the alleged victim did not protest.  The victim claims that she couldn’t protest, since her mouth was taped.

This is analogous to the situation in which we found ourselves within this “democracy”. That is, there is no means by which you may withdraw your Consent, to governance. Thus, your Consent is taken for granted. The very best that most people manage, is to abstain from voting; frankly, useless.

The task, as I see it, is to devise a means by which ordinary men and women may actively withdraw their Consent.  This has to be done publicly and in considerable number, so as to both stimulate debate and to create a situation which cannot be ignored by the State.

 

My Proposal

Every so often, you receive a letter from your Electoral Registration Officer. This letter demands that you register as an elector, upon pain of fine or imprisonment. (Democracy, eh, so good it has to be made compulsory.)

I propose that you write back, refusing to register … detailing that you will not participate in their system … giving whatever reasons you like, as you reject their “presumed authority” to govern you.

This is something that I have done, personally, several years ago. To date, I haven’t been fined or imprisoned. I no longer receive ballot cards. I presume that the ptb prefer to ignore me, rather than create a fuss which will likely end before a Jury.  But, that’s just one guy; I can be ignored and written-off as a crazy.

What if 5,000 people did this?  Or more? And very publicly.

Now, the State has a case to answer. It must justify its authority to govern in the absence of Consent. Reason dictates that the State will be forced to admit that, “We don’t need your Consent.”   This undermines the very fabric of the Establishment. It exposes the actual violence that lies at the heart of the State.

 

Conclusion

Clearly, the aim of my proposal is to create a political shit-storm which the Establishment cannot evade through its usual tactic of media’ control. It’s forced to justify that which is unjustifiable.

The more immediate concern, from your POV, would be to mobilise people who recognise that this is a means subvert the proposed European integration.

I’d expect to bring aboard a wide variety of campaigning groups, each of which is searching for a means to resist the power of the State.

I think it can work.  I suppose that it is a variation of Lawful Rebellion, or the Declaration of Independence … the defiance is vital. Without defiance, there will be NO progress.