Guidance for the Brexit Undecided - Go Back to Sleep

Great Britain, for tens of hundreds of years, has had an ever developing political, cultural, social and legal stability. So why do we need to tether our successful independence and sovereignty to the for-ever variable hotchpotch member states of the EU?

People who do not wish for this nation to be just a part of the EU still wish for the EU to be successful, strong, united and enduring.  We just do not want to be, or believe we need to be, a part of it.

If you are not sure already - not already 100% clear in your thinking - I strongly advocate you simply abstain from voting. Leave the matter to those with a clarity of conviction. If you are not already up to speed you are sleeping and a danger to our nation.

This matter has been progressing for fifty years, it is not about current issues, talking points, short term outcomes. It is about the sovereignty, prosperity and security of our nation. It is about who rules us. It is about the freedom of the British people long into the future.

The 9/11 Epiphany

It was through realising the 'US government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory' is clearly an outright lie, that, searching for solutions, I came to the conclusion, the understanding, that those who believe in the religion of 'the state' form the most dangerous cult in the history of humanity. 

It is the belief in the legitimacy and necessity of 'the state' that empowers it, that makes it appear to be real.  It is not real, 'the state' only exists because people believe it is real and act as if it is real.  You think it is real?  show it to me, not its actors, not its buildings, its papers, its tanks, its schools, its violence.  Show it to me if it is real.

The world may always have bad people who want to cause and profit from harm.  The vast number of them, the psychopathic, gravitate to make use of the power this belief in 'the state' enables.  There is no possibility of restraining 'the state' to prevent its abuse (the USA is proof of this - the most liberally conceived nation in the history of humanity has turned into the most massive war machine in the history of humanity).  There is no modification of the model possible to prevent it from becoming a monster for, for no matter how great or small, it is always, and only can ever be, a monster (or a baby monster in the making).

The great thing about 9/11 - the one 'good' thing - is that: to those who are capable of opening their eyes, their minds, of doing the work, of undoing and setting aside a lifetime of indoctrination, to those capable, they can see that 9/11 was a colossal lie.   Once this is truly realised, really accepted, it is then evident that no other persons, properly informed and who examine the facts, can be of any other conclusion.  It is then logical that not only the US government but the governments of the whole world must also realise this evident truth too. 

So how can the governments of the world's nations continue to operate with such a colossal falsehood in their midsts and yet still be trusted, still be believed in?  They cannot.

How many more lies have been dealt to humanity, before and since, by governments?  How much harm?  How much stolen prosperity?  How much squandered happiness?  How many lives?  Plenty I say. 

Once the paradigm is shattered, once one truly breaks free from the indoctrination that 'the state' is real and valuable, once one learns to see that, far from struggle, without the belief in 'the state' humanity will thrive, one learns to see that 'the state' has caused humanity's progress to be wickedly thwarted and perverted.

When free from the belief one can see: whilst humanity has the propensity for good - that people are intrinsically humane, the opposite is true of 'the state'.  Without the use of force, the coercive threat of violence, with that faux legitimacy denied from 'the state' the state collapses, ineffectual.  The power that 'the state' is dependent upon does not legitimately exist for any individual, does not exist for any group of individuals, majority or not.  'The state' only exerts the power of violent force because it has, granted to itself, that monopoly.  That is, at its centre and fundamental to it, outright evil.

So not only is the religious belief in 'the state' a cult belief, it is a cult based in evil to its very core.  And the only reason why the world is not an even bigger mess, than it clearly is, is because that evil, the evil of 'the state', is moderated by the fundamental good inherent in humanity.

The One Certain Truth of 9/11

Whilst I am well informed of a broad range of suggestions I am highly resistant to advancing any alternative ideas with certainty as to how the events of 9/11 came about, none of them are based in solid, indisputable, factual evidence. None of them stack-up as unquestionable. And that includes the, so called, official theory. The official theory is full of inconsistencies that defy belief too.

There is just one thing I am certain of as regards 9/11 and that is we do not know, beyond any reasonable doubt, the truth of the events of the day. And we certainly do not understand the mechanisms by which any of the WTC towers structurally collapsed and how then so much of their residue had greatly disappeared. It defies logic and science.

Basing ones confidence just on the indisputably of the word of the US government and the main-stream media is not enough to 'hang your hat' on that as being fact. Take that notion out of the equation and the house of cards upon which the narrative is built collapses to the ground in a moment leaving nothing but dust blowing in the wind.

Defending a Stateless Society from Military Attack

If we had a fully voluntary society, without any form of state, there would be considerable change, clearly, and so to predict how these changes will in reality manifest is interesting perhaps but most likely will be ludicrously wrong in the actual event.

People will pay for that which represents value.  I would insure my home with an insurance company that had a nationwide emergency service offering police protection, disaster and medical response teams.  I would insure with the best company but not at any price.  It would be the company who offered the best balance between service and price.

It is not inconceivable that these insurance companies would, maybe jointly cooperating, expand their emergency services to include a form of 'home-defence' military.  If that was a real concern to people would the majority not see a value?  What is the faster at meaningfully reacting to new challenges:  the public sector or the private sector?

From the insurance company's perspective it may be they find a strong demand for insurance cover to compensate against the threat of invasion, subsequent loss and damage.  Now, if there were enough policies up for grabs, would it not be economic to invest in protection from the threat occurring?

So some folk then think they will not bother with insurance offering cover against war.  Good luck to them - in the event of an attack they will be the ones pushing the handcarts full of all they own.

On the whole I think of the entire idea of a stateless society being racked with war as being absolutely improbable since, so far in the whole history of humanity, it has only been the state that has waged actual war and against another state too.

I think a stateless society would become, rapidly, so successful that any other remaining state's populations, or leaders even, would see the results of the model as desirable but imposable to takeover by war because, to capture a prosperous nation, you have to have a nation to take over - with a state to tax the people and so gather the tithe. 

A stateless society is by definition not actually a 'nation' at all.  Just a lump of land upon which people muddle along the best they can and coexist within their own independently developed and codified rule of law.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
--Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

Platitude

It's not what you know, it's not even who you know. It is what you know about who you know.

The Jaded 'Conspiracy Theories' Meme

Trotting-out the jaded 'conspiracy theories' meme is really just a bit of group-think 1984 Newspeak which has been indoctrinated into the minds of the mainstream media consuming masses via a campaign of propaganda to keep them from thinking it is OK to think for themselves and joining together to point and laugh at the people still capable of doing do.

Yet conversely politics is actually nothing but a writhing web of conspiracy, encompassing all human endeavour, from the beginnings of mankind to every humanly conceivable aspect of the future.  Politics does not really exist without a shared agenda and to plan to work together towards a shared political agenda is a conspiracy - maybe an open conspiracy but a conspiracy nonetheless.

How to Detect a Political Conspiracy - Open Eyes!

To think there are no conspiracies in politics!

From my perspective politics is nothing but a writhing web of conspiracy, encompassing all human endeavour, from the beginnings of mankind to every humanly conceivable aspect of the future.

Politics does not exist without a shared agenda and a shared political agenda is a conspiracy - maybe an open conspiracy but a conspiracy nonetheless.

And trotting-out the jaded 'conspiracy theories' meme is really just a bit of group-think 1984 Newspeak which has been indoctrinated into the minds of the mainstream media consuming masses via a campaign of propaganda to keep them from thinking it is OK to think for themselves and joining together to point and laugh at the people still capable of doing so.

The true controversy over the Hutton Inquiry

Lord Hutton is wrongly suggesting that controversy over his report is because he had white-washed the truth of how Tony Blair took our nation to war in Iraq. This question was not specifically relevant to his terms of reference.

The true controversy is over how the Hutton Inquiry supplanted the process of the Coroner's Inquest, commencing instead on the basis of an assumed premise for Dr David Kelly cause of death and then, without sound investigation or due legal process, inappropriately coming to a finding that his death was suicide, whilst deflecting national attention with the shenanigans between Downing Street and the BBC.

Lord Hutton has whitewash on his hands.

Kelly Inquest Quitter Coroner Helps Avoid Enquiry into Dead Solders

Because the bodies of service personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown to RAF Brize Norton, Oxon, it is the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner who should have been conducting the backlog of 111 inquests now due.

Nicholas Garner was the coroner who aborted his inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Under the 1999 section 17A amendment to the 1988 Coroners Act, provision was made that if the Lord Chancellor tells a coroner there is to be a public enquiry (into the events surrounding the death) before the coroner's inquest is likely to be completed, the coroner shall adjourn their inquest. This is only if the Lord Chancellor considers it is 'likely' the cause of death will also be investigated by the inquiry and that there is an absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary.

The Lord Chancellor was wrong to allow the presumption that Dr David Kelly's cause of death would be adequately investigated within the terms of the inquiry he had called for 'to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death' and with witness evidence not to be taken under oath. The coroner Nicholas Gardiner should have recognised the 'exceptional reason to the contrary' within the inquiry's terms and procedures allotted and hence should not have adjourned his inquest before establishing cause of death.

The same Coroners Act section 17A amendment could now be legitimately deployed to save the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Garner conducting these multiple individual inquests, supplanting that process with an all encompassing inquiry into 'the circumstances leading to and surrounding the deaths of these 111 servicemen'. There is not so much doubts as to how each of these men were killed but a honest answer to how they were caused to go to war would be revealing.