Why I will vote in the Brexit Referendum

I shall not be voting to beg our political masters: please sir, can we leave this nest of vipers.

I will cast a 'vote' and by doing so I will be, simply and only, signalling the fact (putting on notice) that I no longer consider the political relationship between the UK and the EU to be a valid one or one that is applicable to me.

If the outcome is remain I shall be a dissident.

Remain a United Kingdom - Kiss EU Goodbye

What are you worried about, Dear Remmenents, what? Economic predictions, guesses, assumptions, estimates, opinions for the effect our nation's exit will somehow cause. Well my prediction, my guess, my assumption, my estimate, my opinion is that it will be all for the better and in the long term I am truly confident of that. But such matters not are the primary to me.

I want freedom, independence, autonomy, I want the established balance of the political and legislative system, that has been developed, tuned and worked so well in this country for so very long, to REMAIN. I am not voting to EXIT I am voting for this nation, to my mind the greatest mix of people and social system in the history of the world, to remain, remain a sovereign entity.

Even the language is false. Remain is the language of security, safety, ease. Exit is the language of fear, risk, the unknown. These are the choice of words that a Kafkaesque government would want to frame the question to err the minds of the gullible and pliant towards their version of 'truth'.

And such petty fears, of the remmenents, are just as simplistically formed by others too. Remmenents busy themselves with questions of business, finance and commercial interests when what should be foremost in their minds is enduring freedom. What poses the greatest risk? Being a part of a new, still forming state comprised from a hotchpotch of countries who have seen more shifting of boarders and powers in a hundred years than Britain has seen in ten thousand. If they want safety they are misguided as to the real nature of the real threat. The real risk.

It is not about short term prosperity it is about long term freedom.

Storm Warning! Is NOW the Time to Holdout in the Hills and Hunker Down?

Or do we say no!  We can stay in our homes, we can embrace our land, can embrace our people, can demand our good ways of living and we can hold firm.  We can tell our brothers and sisters what we can see and they too will already be feeling it, smelling it.  They will know that what they taste in their mouths today, that bad taste, is a coming death, the death of their freedom, the death of the wealth they have built themselves and that great gift given to us, TO US, by our parents and our grandparents and all our people before.  And then they will start to hear, from muffled to clear and bright.  They will hear because everyone knows, in the hearts, that this is coming but all just hope it cannot be, hope it will not be, wish they can pretend pretend and wish it all away.  But now before long they will see for themselves too, it is coming.

What will you do my friends.  Will you run and hide or will you work to spread the word we must all learn to say, to cry out, to roar.  We must learn to all say NO NO NO!

Those who know what I always have to say will have to rock back whilst I make my most important point again: we cannot beg our rulers to stop, we cannot force our rulers out only to replace them with more of the same.  That will change nothing but only perhaps just delay this inevitable decay, this decay that will only result from allowing the power of human society to be pathetically given-up to 'the state'.  No matter what limitations are imagined, if the power to rule is held in any form greater than the individual to rule himself it will always be stolen by those who would take it for their own.  We not only will be slaves but, without complete liberty, we already are.

Belief in 'the state' is indoctrinated, by every means, into human society by 'the state' in order to preserve itself but only for the advantage of whosoever always wins control.  Belief in 'the state' is a belief in a power that is illusionary, that is false.  Belief in 'the state' is not like a religion, it is a religion.  And those who are indoctrinated into following a religion are simply cult followers.  'The state' is a cult religion.  We must end the cult of the belief in the religion of 'the state' or we will not pass to our children, our grandchildren and all the right people the future of our nations.

This fine gift is a gift we were given and have been entrusted to preserve and enjoy only whilst we have our moment of time here on Earth, not to let it all be squandered.  Our one simple duty is to make it better where we can and then pass it on.  Not to strive, in every imaginable way, to do so is a failure most diabolic.

Images stolen from 

http://masksoftheworld.com 

outstanding expert in the subject and sale of fine masks

The Majority Voice of Minorities & the Minority Voice of Majorities

Without 'the state' there would be no legitimatised use of force to make people's actions not be 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' etc.  And so, instead, a natural order would form and prevail.  This was one of the matters I pondered and returned to whilst coming to accept and understand that statelessness is necessary and optimal for a properly functional human social order.  The question was: how could 'minorities' be protected from 'discrimination' in a stateless society.  The answer is not to offer a resolve to that supposed requirement but to understand that the question itself is invalid.

The supposed validity of the question is a premise advanced by 'the state' to help engender and consolidate a need for the existence of 'the state' to provide this function in society.  This role helps not only 'the state' to perpetuate, (that minorities believe without the protection of 'the state' they would be subjected to discrimination so therefore, they believe, the perpetuation of 'the state' is essential for their continued well-being and protection), the role also allows 'political factions', within the state, to assemble a 'majority of minorities' to then act in union against the actual, real, social majorities.

In having 'the state' act against the true social majorities (supposedly on the behalf of their 'anointed' minority groups) it mean that 'the state' uses violent force and the threat of force to 'make' the majority behave in a manner they would not freely opt to do.  This causes deep  distortions to social order which is then exemplified because it suits 'the state' to consolidate ever widening factions too, who believe that they are also dependent on, or want, perpetual 'state' force for their specific situation to be protected, preserved, advanced and respected.

So it suits the state to fill their territory with an ethnically and culturally disparate population, to have a large population living in subsidised housing, to support single mothers, to have a significant population dependent on welfare, to give 'respectability' to non-heterosexuals, assure government workers of pensions, women the power to make fathers pay for them and their children no matter what and so on.  It also, therefore, suits 'the state' to continuously add to these such factions comprising this state dependant element, to even cause endless frictions between each and all, so that then 'the state' is necessary to always remain as the 'only' solution to the apparent disorder that would result in the absence of rulers.

If, for example, it is that the natural, preferred, human social order is: to just live as nations of ethnically similar people; why not allow that resulting, stable, social order arise?  I am somewhat doubtful that that is the real natural universally preferable situation for modern cultured human societies but it is very difficult to measure as so much of our past cultures were dependent on rulers usurping this intrinsic tendency and building nationalism in the people as a binding force for 'state' perpetuation, influence and, of cause, unity to support war.

Now the social order is to be directed towards ever-deepening social union of the peoples and nations of the world.  Purportedly such global-union is a drive towards 'a world without wars' and for technocracy: the effective 'scientific management' of the global population and resource (the arguments against which is a separate matter to that being addressed here).  In order to allow 'the state' to dictate, within a supposedly representational democratic process, to bring about the changes required, the voice of the majorities need to be repressed else such a union will be rejected as would a socialist society, and, I consider the continuation of the cult of the religious belief in 'the state' itself.

Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

The drive toward a centrally issued single global currency appears to be a long desired outcome of the banking elites who substantially own, control and benefit from the central banking network about the world. 

As seen with the incantation of the EU, originally sold to the plebiscite as a trading union, the launch of the EURO single currency was widely understood to be unsustainable without the simultaneous total political and economic integration of the disparate independent nation member states.  This obviously intentional outcome was endlessly scoffed-at and robust derided but the conclusion, now it is upon us, is simple: the creation of the EURO was either implemented by utter ignorant fools or it was a covertly intentional device used to force the amalgamation of the independent European nations into a Greater Europe.

With Europe as the template moves are clearly under-way to enact the same set of circumstances in the forming of a North America political and monetary union and then undoubtedly further regional trade unions will be subjected to similar drives towards their forming political unions too.

It appears that simultaneous to that momentum the SDR mechanism will gain significance apparently with the objective of developing the SRD value into more than a IMF and central bankers device by allowing transactions to be conducted between parties in SDR values without need to exchange into any other of the root currency when making settlement.  No doubt when an SDR currency becomes established the demand will then be for, step two, the currencies included in the 'pot' to peg their individual rate to a given value.

The effect of this SDR based currency will be to draw the major currencies, and the separate sovereign economic states from which they emanate, into the same eventual and inevitable trap as that which the previously independent nation states of Europe were enticed.  So I conclude that it will be greatly as a result of this growing global monetary union from which a growing global economic and subsequently global political union will also be demanded and formed.

When rarely questioned, the political momentum behind this open conspiracy is justified and explained as the ambition to raise-up the poorer economies of nations across the world to parity and to bring about the end of war between separate sovereign nation states.  On the surface that may be so but at what cost?

The cost will be the lack of competition between states.  When each country has to vie in the 'market' against each other to offer the best environment for a flourishing social and economic condition, nations that make bad choices pay the price and learn from nations that do well and thrive.  People and business are drawn to the more liberal and successful nations leaving the tardy nations one simple option: change for the better.

The international central banking establishment is not the property of the nation states or their populous.  The mechanism behind the issue of money is the state-dependent corporate (read neo-feudal) and so clearly, at some level, all actually privately owned.  Issuing money is a vastly profitable enterprise and inflation adds a further cost to the use of money to the people who have it as any-sort of measure or store of wealth.

There is no better means for the enslavement of the people: all encompassing yet covert.  The banker's tribute is gathered by 'the state' by way of taxation to pay interest on debt and by way of the perpetuation of the system of 'the state' for their continued control and gain. Whilst money is monopolised in any way by 'the state' there will always be the propensity for this ultimate and fundamental tool to be usurped and used to profit against the interests of the population and for dictatorial control.

Naked Capitalism and a more Natural World Order

The idea of 'privatisation of public services' rather infers that these services are still 'public services' just run on the behalf of the public by private enterprise.  There are anticipated merits in that approach, reducing waste, improving cost efficiency, cutting-out 'job entitlement', etc.  There are also disadvantages to privatisation such as excessive profit making and the need for continuous government supervision.  The real problem of state operated public services being privatised is not addressed just by privatising the operation but fundamentally still retaining the states monopoly over the service.  And that is not what is proposed by Rothbard.

What the "The Libertarian Manifesto" calls for is naked capitalism - unregulated by any form of state mechanism; because there is no state!  So any service the public generally wants to purchase is totally open to be offered by any business that wishes to tackle that market.  If the service provider provides a poor service/price equation people soon vote with their feet and that company goes out of business.  If a company offer a good package, insurance that includes a certain proportion of charitable contribution for example, people will buy their service if the offer is compatible with what they value.

Every example (I can think of) of capitalism taking unfair advantage of and manipulating the marketplace can be drilled-down to find eventually it is actually dependent on the existence of 'the state' and taking advantage of the authority and regulation of the state.

Monopolistic business practices in themselves are not actually a problem, a company that offers an unbeatable price/service in a free market deserves to, and will by default, gain a monopoly.  The problem comes when the monopoly is gained by means other than just an unbeatable price/service mix within a free market.  For example Standard Oil 'took' the market because it found a way to circumnavigate legislation designed to prevent such monopolistic practices.  Had the legislation not existed they would have been exposed to a market where every one of their competitors were also able to compete on a level field - including all attempting to work towards capturing a monopoly of the oil market.  By having prohibitive legislation the state effectively caused the unfair advantage.

That the state, or elements within the state, deliberately causes disarray so to force change or to make the change they provided appear successful (a strategy Common Purpose is accused of) is not an argument for keeping services within the state.  It is an illustration of why the state is not a suitable mechanism for operating such activities because the authority of the state can be, and often is, abused.

The state needs to justify its existence and does so by means of appearing to meet and by manipulating public perception.  Clearly a government that just taxes and builds fabulous palaces for an aristocratic class will not be well supported for long.  A government that is considered to provide 'law and order, economy and welfare, education and health, defence and diplomacy' may conversely look like they are providing not only a useful range of services in an optimal way but services imposable to fulfil without the involvement of a state.  Bernays was years behind the curve.

A relatively small proportion of taxes gathered is actually spent on providing this succor to the masses but it is an investment, of the people's money, well spent on behalf of the state; for it provides the state's government with a 'democratic majority' and therefore apparent legitimacy.  Democracy is a gift to those who would control the people since their willing compliance, in ignorance of the true situation, is a less costly and more productive form of enslavement than old-fashioned brutality and force.  All that needs to be done is to control the political parties, their candidates and have influence over of the bulk of the media.

Belief in the legitimacy and necessity of the state is the most prevalent delusion suffered by humanity.  The state is no more than a system of manipulation and control, quasi-religious in nature.   The world has a wealth of resources to provide an abundance for human society but distribution of wealth has always been hampered by our innate competitiveness.

The primary method for diverting wealth to the few has been social power, power of pack leader, tribal leader, priest, monarch, the state.  It is the oldest form of establishment - older than humanity itself.  This power establishment has been evolving into ever deepening consolidation and is reaching a point where nations are being melded into continental unions and those unions responding to a single central global governance. 

This is a dangerous time for human society - the risk is the nature and motives of the money-power that has sponsored the drive towards single world governance and the vulnerability of such a single system for tyrannical authoritarianism (multiplicity provides multiple fail-safes).  We stand at a crossroad where the choice is simply between accepting the drive towards this greater global state as essential and inevitable or smashing the paradigm and allowing humanity to operate in a more natural order without centralised control of any sort.

Outline of the Plans for Global Governance

Global Union is the mandate of the UN - or to give it the UN's parlance: 'global governance'.

The future power structure the UN requires forming a series of ever-consolidating pan-continental regions.  The EU is the early template and test-bed.  The North American Union should be next.

Every geopolitical step can be recognised as a step towards this resolution, the ambition of which is occulted from the plain view of the uninquisitive, the incurious and the general standard: the outright gullible.

Within these unions the old nation states will be divided into regions.  Some small regions could reflect existing national borders, like Scotland.  Generally the old nation states will be split-up into regions who will report directly to the Union.  There will be no national governments, no need for that level of authority, but there will be geographical 'mega-regions' defined to help with development and such.

The justification is to allow for the scientific management of the world which, they believe, is precluded greatly by the present nation state type of system. 

The second major justification is the preclusion of war.  Instead of war between one nation and another the whole of humanity will be in the grasp of an soviet socialist authoritarian tyranny, which will be fascist as there will be an elite who operate and own the whole enterprise  - which will be nice.

The Dark Heart of the Union

I frankly, genuinely, do not doubt the sincerity of some, many, the majority even, of those involved within the European project.

There is bound to be corruption and ineptness when a new order is devised and implemented so quickly. This is typical of all governments, all public offices, all forms of authority. There will be abuse. Cookies will get stolen. It happens.

What people do not understand, including this gaggle of well intention and committed friends, is there is a covert darkness behind the whole enterprise and all are caused to be just playing right into it hands.

Too often the meaning of 'darkness' and of especially 'the occult' are completely misunderstood. This is not unintentional. 'To occult' means simply to hide and this is the clue to understanding what the occult is really about. Clearly it is the same inference with darkness.

Truth, clarity, openness. These are the sort of words one does not readily associate with darkness and the occult.

I think the truth of the EU has been hidden in darkness, occulted, from the minds of all but those who work to seek-out the hidden truth and actual meaning.

This is how states, of all forms, have conducted themselves to control and manipulate the people from time immemorial. And this, the oldest established legacy of prehistoric-mankind to still remain, the state and its utter dependency upon deception to function, needs to be seen for what it is and cast-out, got rid-off, ended for ever.

Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia - the PNAC World View

The 'Disputed Territories' of Orwell's 1984 and the Ottoman Empire have many similarities - but not so many as those that exist between the 1984 world map and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) War Plan Map! No, no!

The Origin of the EU - by means of natural selection or, The Preservation of Races in the Struggle for Life

Robert Schuman drew up the Schuman Plan - an initiative to control the production steel and so prevent future arms production.  Published on the 9th of May 1950  this date is now regarded as the birth of the European Union.  Schuman, it is now clear, was funded, supported and encouraged by an OSS (early CIA) operation: The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948.

At this stage the UK was considered too anti-federalist as it appears to partially remain.  But in terms of being a useful device for the 'The Anglo-American Establishment' to continue to influence and monitor the EU, no better device than the UK has been found.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Committee_on_United_Europe

Telegraph: Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe
1948-60
Richard J. Aldrich
 University of Nottingham,
See: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf

The inner meaning of the Troikas Greek money shovel

Words play an interesting part in discerning the mechanisms of the state. So often the elite's selection of which betray unspoken truths, a desire for self-aggrandisement (ego), an element of deceptive spin along with the inner-culture's mocking and vaguely coded humour.

Obsequiously The Troika is a hearty Russian symbol, a winter sledge pulled by three lusty horses - hooray for our saviours! But this too, be cautioned, hints at the dark soviet heart lurking in the EU and the UN.

The Troika also references a Triumvirate, the Roman establishment's employment of Triumviri special commissions, of three men of equal power, assembled to deal with various thorny matters. That's the ego.

The spin is that Modern Greece has a history of Troikas or Triumvirate, occurring at pivotal points, and with not entirely negative connotations to the people of today.

And the jibe is the reference given in that the term sounds like Troy. Certainly these three gift bearing horses contain more than a nasty sting behind their tails.

United States of Europe - 1959 statement to the US press

Three European Community Presidents

June 11, 1959

Paul Finet, President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community
Walter Hallstein, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community

National Press Club
Washington DC


PRESIDENT HIRSCH - within his opening statement
... the common market cannot work if there is not a common social policy, if there is not a common monetary policy, and nobody can think of a common monetary policy if it is not calmed by a common political policy. So we feel we are now in a process which with all the difficulties which we will find on our road will lead - nobody can say in how long - but will lead inevitably to the calming of this edifice that is the United States of Europe.

Within questions

QUESTION: These questions are directed to Dr Hallstein. Here is a short sweet one. How long will it be before there is a United States of Europe?

PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: That really is the $64 question, gentlemen.
There will be a United States of Europe, but it's certainly premature to say when and what exactly its structure will be.

QUESTION: Having achieved the United States of Europe they want to know when your going to start taking in Britain and the Scandinavian countries? When will Britain and the Scandinavian countries join the European communities is what the question really is.

PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: It's not only up to the community to decide this. The point we are always making is, that the fact that we have only six member states, it's not due to the six but it's due to those who have not joined us.

http://aei.pitt.edu/14915/1/S80.pdf

Ban Ki-moon - Globalist Puppet

"Waves of change are surging around us," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Assembly. "Now is our moment. Now is the time to create the future we want," he stated.

Who are these people who decide whatever is the future they want is one they have the right to impose on all.

Who are they - did we vote for them.

Do we know how to even make representations to them.

Do we know for sure who's interests they forward under the cloak of their faux liberal mandate.

Do we know anything about them?

Be careful what you wish for Scotland!

Let's look at a little history.  What was Hadrian's Wall really all about?  My take is it was much more about collecting tax and preventing duty-free trade; the wall gave the Romans that control without trying to subdue a thinly dispersed population in a large, rugged and generally poor agricultural and poor mineral-resource area.

Preventing tax-free imports is not just about the lost revenue, it is also harmful to the taxed economy; the wealthy but taxed economy is undercut by those poaching the rich pickings.

So what can we learn from this about today?   An independent Scotland is likely to become a parasite on the English economy, through the undercutting of corporation tax and such strategies.   Fair game perhaps but that competition will distort the economy in the remnants of the UK - not that I particularly care but the UK government will and some business interests, who don't just take advantage, will.

This effect will be magnified if Scotland is required to take the Euro and is excluded by the UK from the pound.  Cross boarder trade will again distort markets.  Take cars for a simplistic example: would you not buy your car in Scotland if it cost less - as the Pound and Euro exchange rates fluctuate against each other, with both markets having the steering wheel on the same side, one market or other will always be the cheaper place to order a new car .  This is all about currency fluctuations.  It suits the consumer perhaps but not the manufacturers or the governments. The outcome will be to help draw the UK into the Euro.  I shall be registering a UK trading company in Scotland before independence whilst I am still allowed.

Look at defence.  Can England risk a truly independent Scotland?  Who knows what the future holds; none of us mortals nor our 'so called' political representatives that is for sure.  Yet can Scotland be considered 'independent' in any meaningful/truthful way if it does not have control of its own foreign policy, defence or currency?  I think not.

These are the sorts of reasons why Scotland continues to be held as a 'vassal' state to England. Long after the Empire was supposed to have gone Scotland remains prisoner of it's geography.

So why do so many in Scotland want to wrestle free from our grim embrace?  Because they are sick of being dictated to from London.  There is no voice for Scotland; this is no partnership of equals.  United it is not, that is hyperbole, Subjugated Kingdom is more the like.

I am English so I am not lost in some nationalistic dream for an independent Scotland; though I do think plenty of folk are.  (I don't even quite understand what 50% of Glaswegians I talk to are saying).  But I do sympathise with the animosity.  That is a logical outcome of the situation if you think it through.  That is the unjust bummer of 'democracy': the winners take all.  A minority is always subjugated.

A real United Kingdom should have been run independently of any English Parliament.  It is too farcical to pretend Westminster ran the UK with an even-hand. The UK Parliament would be on Anglesey if it was for real.

So now the endgame is about to commence for the UK.  The EU has no place for such a second tier authority within its ranks.  The EU wants to have its regions, nine in England, plus Scotland and Wales being two more, dealing directly with them.

The EU has no real desire to continue dealing with 'nation states' let alone unions of nation states, it much prefers for them to all slowly, unperceived, wither-on-the-vine; and so they will.

What possible value to the EU does a secondary union of nations offer.  None.  The EU wants to finish the UK off right away.  Scotland will be granted its faux freedom; in truth it will be no more than being an über-county-council in a 'United Soviet State of Europe' (maybe the Europe bit will be dropped in time).

Northern Ireland will be joined to the northern region of Ireland's two EU designated regions; giving that region its city and economic powerhouse.

Wales will remain part and parcel with England until the relevance of its union with England becomes forgotten and meaningless.

The last task of this phase of this Fabian campaign will be the rise of EU 'mega-regions' to occur simultaneous with the eventual silent snuffing-out of the old nation state's governments.  These mega-regions will join geographically close regions, regardless of old national boundaries, together in quasi mutual benefit.

The same pattern is to occur eventually across the world with the North American Union being the most progressed second to the EU (the proven template of the method).  The EU economic crisis is nothing less than an intentional device of this strategy offering a choice between total economic meltdown or unequivocal acceptance of deeper integration. (Such as Cyprus who will be driven to the edge of the financial cliff until they accept that Turkey, who had invaded and stolen half their country, is now to become a member of the EU without reparations or return of the land stolen).

These Unions, of old-world-order nations, will all operate under the single global governance of the UN.  That is the plan, like it or not.  The political elites and their lackeys the world over, including the media, are sold the plan as the only solution for enduring world peace and for the scientific management of the world.  If they resist they are sidelined.  If they want to get on they play the game. 

The hubbub of global-climate-warming-change being a man-made phenomenon is to help put in place the medium-term UN carbon-tax revenue system.  The global currency and banking 'crisis' to ease in a global SDR based currency unification and Tobin taxes.

I do not care much for our old nations as it happens, nor royalty or much else of the sort either. None of that is any-more than the past generation's false paradigms; which they were sold, swallowed, died for and believed in as tomorrow's majority will support the new order with similar simple allegiance and vigour.

The only lesson of history perhaps is: be careful what you wish for, be careful your wish is really your own.

notes.
Mineral Exploration and Fort Placement in Roman Britain
http://www.dibonsmith.com/roman.pdf

Amputate the Psychostate

None of these people, the leaders of political parties, have the interests of the people of the British Isles to the forefront of their minds.

They perhaps have a vision of how the world should manifest, in their opinion, to best endure.  More likely they broadly know the objectives they must help ease into place to so retain their position, power and authority.

That objective goes beyond an European superstate.   The final objective is a single world superstate with each continental region functioning with a degree of autonomy - but not with regional independence.

And in the mind of a utopian visionary dreamer it can indeed look like the only means by which the world can be guided to function efficiently, 'sustainably' and peacefully into an indefinite future.

I can understand that notion for centralised world governance if only because, as a youngster, I considered that too to be the only enduring option.  That was before I really understood the depth of selfish corruption that has continuously existed; existed as long as has the edifice of, in one form or other, the state.  That was before I broke free from the paradigm that the existence of a state is essential to civilised and productive human existence.

My conclusion is: there is no place for the state, for everything that the state touches, or that can inveigle the state to do its bidding, corrupts; and corrupts wielding the power and authority, intended only for the state, usurped instead to fulfil its corrupt ends.

Worse.  It is not the risk that all states, once established, corrupt to ends that do not represent the ends wished for by the people who the state purports to represent.   It is that, from the very outset, the state is conceived, controlled and steered to achieve these corrupt ends.  The only protection from and prevention of the formation of this otherwise unavoidable cankerous growth is to remove the medium upon which it parasitically depends - the state.  The state can be prevented from becoming inevitably foul and corrupt only by having no state in place at all.  That will not prevent corruption but it will limit it sufficiently to preclude its scope of becoming an all-encompassing strangling growth.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard

This is not my government paying dues to the EU and that keeps poring money in to try and keep this Frankenstein currency appearing to be alive. My government does not exist.

This is not my government waging illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. My government has been hijacked.

This is not my government that keeps giving away the sovereignty of the nation I believed I was born to have a rightful a share of and to pass to my kin. My government has been corrupted long ago.

This is not my government that borrows and borrows from god knows who all money, money that I naively once thought was issued by my government itself. My government has been fooled and forced to handover the key to power.

Now the problem is: how can I get this rogue Kleptocracy to keep their hands off the profits of my labour, my property and my freedom. How can I get them out power. How can I assure that what replaces them is sufficiently robust that such a poison can never return.

There is no example in history of rulers and civilisations that looks any better. All power corrupts. They all decay as greed and power usurps the 'throne'.

Why do we keep trying to reinvent the institution of state, so historic it's despicable origins are preserved in the fossil record? Because the system of the state is a self-replicating organism.

The solution is simple. Have nothing to be governed, no leadership, no centralised authority. No state at all - zilch! If there is no state there is nothing to corrupt, nothing to grow in unyielding authority, no cudgel for an oligarchy to seize and coerce to do its bidding, covertly or at the barrel of a gun.

We are trained to dismiss this prospect as unworkable; "why that would be anarchy!" all cry out. Indeed; yes it would be anarchy, but in the real, correct sense of the word. For that very word has been stolen and usurped to describe a world with no rule of law and so where lawlessness abodes.

We do not need the state to uphold legality to protect our property and in that our rights to ourselves, our own life. That can be accomplished without a state.

It takes a leap of imagination; to start thinking how such a world could work and not default to the converse embedded reflex of just trying to defend and justify the paradigm within which we all are currently and truly lost.

I strongly recommend anyone who is considering the search for a better alternative to the state and government, as we know it, to take the opportunity to read this work:

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard

Read free on-line or for free MP3/PodCast download.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Divide et Impera - The Balkanisation of the British Isles

An independent Scotland will be no more than a region of the EU Soviet and its voice will be minuscule once the seduction period is complete - worthless.

The EU despises the UK  - what use does the EU have for an block association of regions within its members?  It represents nothing but a layer of strength which can challenge its desire for total sovereign supremacy. 

The military will be the EU.  The diplomatic service will be the EU.  The control of the economy and money will be the EU.  And every dictate for health care, education, civic amenity and all such will have to be enacted as prescribed.

If there was any real political desire to avoid the disintegration of the UK into a series of vassal regions it would be evident, but evident it is not.

Scotland's apparent desire for independence of the UK and England's nonchalance towards such a divide will be allowed to ferment and in response a progressive severance of the Union will be allowed to transpire.

Northern Ireland too will grow in independence to the UK, a slow withering-away where, matching that of Scotland, meaningless powers will be devolved to local/regional government and the meaningful ones fully granted to the EU - few truly remain.

Westminster as the seat of the UK will become a vacuum, allowed to die on the vine till all have forgot what it was supposed to be for or will notice not when eventually it is pruned away.

Ireland is set to be divided into two EU regions, the one to the south has Dublin, the one to the north, which as presently defined has no major city, has an empty chunk, like a piece missing from a jigsaw, that is currently known as Northern Ireland with Belfast providing an economic powerhouse.

The Northern EU region of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland will be united.  That was the snake-oil proffered by Blair pored to calm 'The Troubles'.  There would be nothing left to fight for.  There would be no option to stay in the 'UK' or be reunited with Eire as both will be no more.

Wales too will be granted its regional anonymity, an independent region of the EU.

So that leaves England.  Set to be divided into nine regions, they too will be expected to take-up their new powers of civic administration and not miss those which were the prerogative of the national parliament.

The regions to the north and south-west may likely enjoy lavish EU support to help wean them away from their historic relationship with Westminster.  London and perhaps its immediate connecting southern regions will see its future better served by keeping itself to itself and not needing to be concerned with draining its wealth away to the less economically viable regions to which its profit had always been considered to support.  So it will be.

Should this be resisted?  Can this be resisted?  Improbably since most will not recognise the succession till future generations study their history and ask; how on earth did that happen without it being the result of a war?

Well it is a war.  It is a war on the minds, a war of perception, a war of duplicity and acquiescence.  And the only way we can defend our interests is to study the facts, how it works and start to comprehend for ourselves the conclusion to which we are being inextricably drawn.