Jump to content

Cap'n Mac's Pirate Republic!


Macnamara
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A Pirates Perspective Part 5

 

I think i was a little harsh the other day in my post about anarchapulco and my post titled 'It'. I heard Vanessa Beeley describing her recent twitter spat with Julia Hartley Brewer as having been sparked in a 'pre-coffee angst' and that perhaps describes my own mind set the other day! Angst or no i do think Vanessa's point did need to be made and I applaud her for it. I see no way in which this cold war against Russia benefits the british people or european people in general. All this military aid to Ukraine just drags things out causing more destruction and casualties. It reminds me of how the cabal would assist both iran and iraq when they were at war with each other so that both sides would bleed themselves dry. The rothschilds have been funding both sides in wars for centuries.

 

I like many of the speakers who attended the Anarchapulco conference so I don't want to belittle their efforts and some people might also argue that as i wasn't there I can't comment on the atmosphere at that time. Maybe if my wealth was skyrocketing through bitcoin i would have been swept along by the energy of the moment too. I'll concede that however as i was already banging the drum back then for decentralised food production in order for people to become self-sufficient from the corporate system I do think that had i become wealthy i would have been focussing my wealth on achieving that. Even if anarchists achieved some sort of post-cartelist world beyond our current corporate-socialist, command and control economy we would all still need to do work. We would still need to grow our own food, rear our own livestock, build our own homes and make our own clothes albeit in a more decentralised manner such as our ancestors did in the past. I think the aim however should be to make what work we do MEANINGFUL whereas in the current corporate-cartelist system i think a lot of people feel their work is not particularly meaningful and as we saw with the covid lockdowns many people are very eager to take their foot off the gas with work if they can which does not bode well in terms of the potential resistance to the agenda to replace the workforce with automation before propping them up with digital universal basic income hand outs from the state determined by their social credit score which in turn would be shaped by their compliance with state dictats. I think many people will happily just sit back initially and take free currency from the state. The reality of their new predicament as they find their activities curtailed to fight 'CO2 production' in order to curb 'anthropogenic climate change' and that their UBI only buys bug burgers,lab grown meat and GMO veg and fruit will dawn in them all too late to alter their course and in a new existentialist funk they will then accept the next offering of the cabal which will be the virtual reality 'metaverse' that will be given as a drug of distraction to pacify them as they are slowly euthanised through GMO's, toxic jabs and creeping infertility.

 

So yes perhaps the ring of frustration in my previous posts stems from the speed at which this nightmare dystopian vision for the future is now taking shape around us and how little people are doing about it.

 

As for my post titled 'IT' some people might missinterprete that as an attack on consumerism (i am agaisnt consumerism)and therefore as an attack on the free market but that could not be further from the truth. We do not have a free market or else the banks would not have been bailed out after the 2008 'credit crunch'. The choices offered to consumers such as the additive laden processed foods that fill the shelves of the super markets offer little choice to the public and that is the cause of their expanding waistlines. The horrific autism that so many families now have to grapple with is the result perhaps of a number of things that may even work together synergistically for example: the aluminium and thimerosol in vaccines, the fluoride in the water and the glyphosate in the food and vaccines. The pressure that bares down on parents through the entire system from doctors to the media to schools overwhelms most peoples critical thinking by imposing a form of peer pressure induced groupthink. The crashing fertility is caused by exposure to microwaves such as those produced by smart phones that many keep in their pockets next to their generative organs and also by obesity and endocrine disrupting chemicals that the corporations so love to put into so many of their products thereby infusing our biosphere with them.

 

Am i letting people off the hook? Not entirely as i do believe that ultimately personal responsibility must play a role and we do, at least for now, still have the resources available to us to choose another way to live: a more natural way. But i also see that it is not a clear cut matter of free will when so much propaganda is aimed at the public to shape their choices and perceptions that their own minds are occupied territory and they are not even aware consciously of the forces that shape their world views as they are born into the illusion.

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The British Constitution Part 1: The Rule of Law

 

So far in this thread I have discussed two concepts that protect minorities: trial by jury and individualism (as opposed to collectivism) and now I want to discuss a third: the rule of law. This is inspired by the 6th instalment of the 'The Dissidents Guide to the Constitution' created by the UK Column. I will provide my bullet point notes for the series but will start with the latest episode first. Their series can be viewed at the UK Column website. Why do this? Two reasons: firstly it will help me to refresh my own memory and secondly because there has been some talk on the forum recently about the use of the common law during the two lockdown (a prison term) years and there is a lot of confusion as to what is real and what isn't.

 

The rule of law applies to everyone equally, from prince to pauper which is something to ponder in the light of recent scandals relating to prince andrew's involvement with jeffrey epstein and prince charles's acceptance of funding from the bin laden family...

 

The rule of law is above governments, above the elites, above monarchs and protects the small man/woman against the state. As the rule of law is above governments they cannot make arbitrary rule changes as they must answer to the rule of law. It creates a sphere in which citizens can operate unimpeded by government.

 

'Be you never so high that the law is below you'

 

The rule of law has been captured and reversed. Now the state claims that law is made at the discretion of 'experts'. The people should be able to hold the executive to account but instead the executive is arbitrarily making their own law.

 

Democracy has been made into a god where it crushes the idea of the rule of law. Ministers are now discussing a new 'Bill of Rights' but their noise suggests they intend to give less rights to dissidents which means they are creating arbitrary laws and not applying a PRINCIPLE. In international law we are always hearing, from the global elites, an argument to authority eg ''the UN says....'' or ''the World Health Organisation says...'

 

Lord Sumption said that we should have three things (paraphrased as i don't think i've transcribed exactly):

 

1) Public authorities don't have the right to coerce us except with laws that allow them to do that

2) There has to be a minimum of rights which should safeguard you against arbitrary interference in your life, freedom or property. Otherwise you are not a society but a group in which the strongest prevails.

3) The rule of law should be upheld by independent courts to ensure that government remain within their powers.

 

The UK Column then presented the issues they saw with these three points as follows:

-In point 1) he allows that the state may create a law that permits them to coerce you

-In point 2) he says 'arbitrary' implying that as long as the state has a real reason for doing it, it is ok

-Point 3) fails because our courts are funded by the state so what he should have said was A JURY OF YOUR PEERS. A jury can then annul oppressive laws made by the state. However they pointed out that the current British system is trying to remove jury power.

 

There has been a degradation of the Rule of Law since the eighteenth century and i made my own note in the margins: 'Rothschild influence?' Ancient law is being thrown away because it is inconvenient to modern governments. Prior to this at for example the time of Magna Carta there really were no governments so it truly was a rule of law albeit through the Barons.

 

These notes are the bare-bones but are no substitute for the real series which covers things much more thoroughly. It is however a quick reference guide. More to follow

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange Military Deaths: part 18

Soldier in his 20s dies suddenly just weeks after his girlfriend, 23, who was Gunner with Royal Horse Artillery was found hanged at an Army base

  • The body of Bombardier Ross Burnside was found weeks after his girlfriend died
  • Gunner Sophie Madden, 23, died of a suspected suicide at a barracks on June 10
  • The couple had previously served alongside one another in the armed forces 
  • Bdr Burnside's mother said: 'You left us far too soon. Forever in my heart'
  • For confidential support, call the Samaritans on 116123 or visit its website 

By Alastair Lockhart For Mailonline

Published: 12:12 BST, 9 August 2022 | Updated: 13:04 BST, 9 August 2022

A soldier has died just weeks after the suspected suicide of his girlfriend at an Army barracks.

Bombardier Ross Burnside had been in a relationship with Gunner Sophie Madden, 23, whose body was discovered at Overhill Training Centre at St Martin's Plain Camp near Folkestone, Kent.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11094787/Soldier-20s-dies-suddenly-just-weeks-girlfriend-23-hanged-army-base.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dialectic

 

The war between the corporate socialist 'globalist' WEF elites and 'conservatives' is hotting up. We have seen Alex Jones subjected to show trial which is clearly aimed at intimidating any dissenting voice, we have seen trumps home raided by the FBI, Bannon threatened with jail time, the IRS being given $80 billion by the biden regime to create 87,000 new agents no doubt to wield the tens of thousands of weapons and the hundreds of thousands of rounds that the IRS has been buying up to prepare to wage war against the american taxpayer and we have seen leaks that show that the FBI are now listing established historical flags of the US as 'extremist' items. Protestors that were involved in the capitol hill riot are being handed insane prison terms of 6-7 years whilst the antifa and BLM mobs who burned US cities are still at large.

 

Whilst all this is going on hundreds of thousands of migrants are flooding over the border unimpeded by the biden regime. Increases in taxes to pay for migrants led to yellowvest riots in France so perhaps the IRS is gearing up to redistribute the wealth of the american public so that it can be given to the migrants.

 

The democrats are ramping up their attempts to disarm american citizens at the same time that they expand the governments own armaments whilst destabilising society through soros funded DA's who are putting violent criminals back on the streets.

 

It very much looks like the biden regime is going to keep poking the conservative bear. Perhaps they want it to bite? This would create a civil war that would justify the biden regime to use the military apparatus against conservative americans thereby achieving a decisive victory that would allow mass detentions and lockdowns.

 

The half-cocked riots of capitol hill might prove to be a warm up for a larger conflict in which trump is intended to pay the false messiah figure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Tri-State City

 

Is the Dutch government trying to snatch half the land of the dutch farmers so that they can build the WEF's mega-smart-city known as the 'tri-state city'? This mega city could then house the millions of migrants that will flood into europe to escape the coming famines in africa and the middle east. See video clip at the bottom of this post at about 47 minutes to hear about this:

Dutch investors launch new marketing programme for NL: Tristate City

October 30, 2017

Tristate-city-map-560x366.png

A group of institutional investors in the Netherlands have joined forces to present the Netherlands plus parts of Belgium and Germany as a single city network named Tristate City. The project, backed by Dutch employers organisation VNO-NCW, says the region’s population of 30 million people creates a ‘sustainable urban power house’. The project’s supporters include property developers and pension funds as well as Utrecht’s economic board. Dutch cities, the organisation says, are too small to compete in what it calls the ‘battle of the cities’, in which mega cities compete for investment and talent.

 

By treating the Netherlands as an urbanised delta with 17 million inhabitants, the project’s supporters say that are creating a very strong player in this ‘battle of the titans.’ Fragmented ‘Our city marketing is too fragmented and inefficient,’ the project website says. ‘In practice, the Dutch cities compete with each other abroad.’ Amsterdam Metropool, Brainport Eindhoven, Twentestad, Ede Food Valley, Regio Groningen Assen and Dairy Delta are just some of the names Dutch regions use when marketing themselves abroad.

 

The Netherlands must present itself as one of the ‘most powerful and sustainable city networks in the world,’ the project’s backers say. ‘It is about how Dutch companies present themselves to companies such as Apple or big Chinese firms,’ Prologis Benelux director Bram Verhoeven told the Financieele Dagblad. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht and The Hague are also part of another project known as the Holland Metropole in which the big four cities present themselves as single urban area with four centres each with their own speciality.

Read more at DutchNews.nl:https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/10/dutch-investors-launch-new-marketing-programme-for-nl-tristate-city/

What is a 'smart city'? 

Aug 15, 2021

What is a smart city? We’ve heard the term in contexts as diverse as urban planning and governance, transport, energy, the environment, health, and education. We’ve also noticed that the notion of smart cities relies on a range of technologies—including the internet of things (IoT), mobile solutions, big data, artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain. Because of this connection with technology, we’ve had concerns about how smart cities will address issues such as data privacy and social exclusion. We see a risk that urban areas with poor web connectivity could be left out of the smart-cities trend. We’d like to continue an open dialogue on this trend.

At the World Bank’s Global Smart City Partnership Program, we held a Virtual Knowledge Exchange Program on Smart Cities for Sustainable Development, jointly organized with the World Bank’s Open Learning Campus, to discuss the trend. At the event, we polled more than 260 participants from around the world to find out what they thought a smart city would be, what makes a urban area and its citizens smart, and what they wanted to see in their own smart city. As the word cloud shows, “technology,” “innovation,” and “connection” were the first words that came to participants’ minds when they thought of smart cities. “Citizen participation” and “data” make a community and its citizens smart, according to most of the participants. Around half chose “sustainability” as a priority in their vision for a smart city, and a quarter voted for “resilience.”

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/what-is-a-smart-city/

Podcast: Cometh the Horsemen: Pandemic, Famine, War | Michael Yon and Dr Jordan B Peterson

 

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 9:22 AM, Macnamara said:

I don't think they are few, that's the problem

 

I think that there are MANY people who one way or another support the corporate agenda and all of its astro-turf groups that are all helping to re-sculpt society into the two tier, neo-fuedal technocracy that the elites want

 

Think about how many activist groups are helping to torpedo the current econo-energy paradigm and how many supporters they all have. Don't get me wrong i want change too but i want DECENTRALISED change not government-led change which is the one most people are pushing for.

 

There are MANY people out there who support MASS immigration for one reason or another. Some of them have a racial agenda but many of them just self identify as 'socialists' and would say that we should have mass immigration to destroy nation states, borders and national identities so that the workers of the world can unite. Those people may have good intentions but lack the insight to see that actually the very same elites they think they are overthrowing are the very same elites driving mass immigration because they themselves want to remould society into one that has an even tighter control over working people. Its a revolution alright but its a revolution from above

 

I want change myself. I'd like for every person/family to own a piece of land or at least have access to some land and for food production to be decentralised down to the individual so i'm very radical. But the change i'm pushing for takes power AWAY from the corporate forces that have a central control chokehold over the processes of life. The 'left' on the other hand or what is called 'the left' these days is pushing for things that simply empower central control over working people and there are MILLIONS of people supporting those things in one form or another.

 

Think of all the people in astro-turf occult groups all working as 'change agents' to destroy christianity which of course then paves the way for an occult elite controlled world government through which the elites can wear their religion openly whilst persecuting any who oppose them.

 

Think of all the people who willingly support mega-corporations whether it be with their talent, their drive or their business.

 

The pyramid of control is huge and many people are all slaving away in many ways to support it

 

they are not funding astroturf activists out of 'guilt' you disingenuous hacks, they are funding them to use them as USEFUL IDIOTS to remould society into a centrally controlled technocracy run by the elites:

Offsetting guilt: Eco-minded descendants of billionaire oil barons are PAYING hundreds of activists $25,000-a-year to protest around the world because they feel 'a moral obligation to put genie back in the bottle'

  • Aileen Getty, Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert, Peter Gill Case paying salaries for eco-thugs through non-profits
  • Getty, whose granddad created Getty Oil, has so far splashed out $1million through Climate Emergency Fund
  • Lambert and Case, members of the Rockefeller family, have forked out $30million on The Equation Campaign
  • They've put eco-activists on the payroll for around $25,000 as well as pumped money into the organizations
  • It comes as eco-warriors have been continuing to wreak havoc across the world with stunts in recent months

By James Gant For Dailymail.Com

Published: 18:59 BST, 10 August 2022 | Updated: 22:29 BST, 10 August 2022

They have put eco-activists from groups such as Just Stop Oil on the payroll for around $25,000 each as well as pumped money into the organizations themselves.

It comes as eco-warriors have been continuing to wreak havoc across the world in recent months, including in the US, Europe, the UK and Australia.

SUV cars tires have been slashed in America, Britain and Australia, while famous oil paintings have been targeted in EU countries.

Meanwhile huge protests with thousands of activists taking to the streets have descended on large cities across the globe throughout the year.

Getty told the New York Times she backed the effectiveness of the activists she was bankrolling and revealed she had put $1million of her own cash into the Climate Emergency Fund so far.

She said the civil disobedience of the grassroots organizations was supposed to only be an alarm but said their destruction was minimal compared to what was at stake.

She told the newspaper: 'Let's not forget that we're talking about extinction. Don't we have a responsibility to take every means of trying to protect life on Earth?'

The Climate Emergency Fund was started three years ago and believes causing issues for millions is an important way to get its message across.

It has splashed out just over $7million on causes it believes in, with executive director Margaret Salamon comparing it to suffragist, civil rights and gay rights activists throughout history.

She said: 'Action moves public opinion and what the media covers, and moves the realm of what's politically possible. The normal systems have failed. It's time for every person to realize that we need to take this on.'

She dismissed the idea her group was helping spread misery across the world by saying Martin Luther King had a poor approval rating in the years before he was assassinated.

The Climate Emergency Fund has also dished out $170,000 to Save Old Growth, a Canadian group which blocks roads used by loggers in British Columbia.

Co-founder Zain Haq said: 'We're not trying to be popular. Civil disobedience historically is about challenging a way of life.'

Meanwhile in Britain the nonprofit handed eco-zealots from Just Stop Oil nearly $1million and helped with paying 40 protestors and organizers.

Miranda Whelehan, who is part of the group, said: 'Obviously, you can only do so much as volunteers. Huge oil companies have millions, if not billions.'

And in the US the Climate Emergency Fund chucked $100,000 at Scientist Rebellion - which counts NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus among its ranks - to pay for consultant wages and travel costs.

He said he had been looking for ways to save the planet for 16 years but decided the best way to do it was to cause mayhem for ordinary citizens.

He joined around 1,000 scientists in 25 different countries in blocking traffic and chaining themselves to notable buildings - including the gates of the White House.

After the attack, Kalmus said: 'I get messages every day from people who said it had given them hope. It seemed to communicate that urgency far more than anything else.'

Meanwhile Lambert and Case have been pumping money into The Equation Campaign, which they founded in 2020 to give financial backing and legal advice to those trying to stop fossil fuel expansion.

The fund has helped those who have hammered through gas pumps, glued themselves to paintings and chained themselves to banks.

About $30million was pumped in by the two members of the Rockefeller dynasty, with both looking to right the supposed wrongs of their family.

Case said in an email to the New York Times: 'It's time to put the genie back in the bottle. I feel a moral obligation to do my part. Wouldn't you?'

The Equation Campaign has seen relative success at stopping oil and gas expansion, having helped cancel an extension of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11099581/Three-oil-scions-PAYING-hundreds-eco-activists-25-000-year-professional-protesters.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The british constitution part 2: common law v's statute

 

David Scott had a verbal exchange with come police outside holyrood parliament and they said he should go with them. He refused and walked off, which was quite amusing but he brought up an important point which was that parliament does NOT have absolute power, though they would like us all to believe that they do.

What we have in this country is a tug of war between our ancient common law and modern parliamentary statute

 

What the political creatures in parliament WANT us to believe is that parliament has ABSOLUTE power which is to mean that they can create ANY law even if it robs us of our rights, freedom, life, property etc. So for example if you believe in the absolute power of parliament then you believe that parliament could tomorrow create a law that everyone who has posted on the david icke forum can be rounded up and executed by firing squad.

 

Does that sound reasonable to you? Or do you think that would be a breach of some sort of higher law such as your right to life and to freedom of speech?

 

We have heard in the covid era the police justifying their bullying of the public by claiming that such and such parliamentary statute says they must persecute the person and that they are legally bound to do this. However i don't believe that any policeman or woman really believes in the absolute power of parliament for example if the parliament made a law tomorrow that the police must go and round up their own families and execute them all by firing squad would the police enforce that? I don't think so! So clearly they don't believe that parliament has absolute power and that there should be LIMITATIONS on the power of parliament. Bullying the public is simply not THEIR line in the sand.

 

So now that we all agree that parliament cannot just do whatever it wants simply because it writes it down in a 'statute' we can then turn to the common law to establish what historically we have been able to do without being oppressed by the state

 

We also need the police and military and judiciary and public to all realise that just because some crazy people in parliament have put something in a statute that does not make it lawful. So now the discussion has to turn to the question of 'what is lawful' and that is where we then find the common law

 

The power-crazy people in parliament WILL however try to create unlawful statutes and if they can find people stupid or evil enough in uniform to enforce those then of course they will get away with it UNLESS of course people oppose that by insisting on their lawful rights. However that doesn't mean that they won't suffer while they do that! If there are idiots in uniform willing to carry out unlawful acts then those idiots CAN do harm to people until such time as they are opposed in large enough numbers by the rest of society

 

So it boils down to what we are willing to stand up for and protect. History is full of governments doing unlawful and evil things to people eg gulags and the only thing that can protect people from such psychopathy is their own willingness to stand against it in sufficient numbers as to manage to prevent it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The British Constitution Part 3: RIGHTS

 

The following are my bullet notes from the UK Columns 'Dissidents Guide to the Constitution Part 1'.

 

Law under God represents a higher power above human machinations. A constitution can be used to create a limit on government power whilst the common law can be a way to refuse consent.

 

If a constitution can be changed easily then tyrants can simply change the rules whenever it suits them. The British Constitution is spread over different documents over centuries and therefore contains ideas that many successive generations have agreed with. 'The tried and true principles of the past can be revisited, dusted off and used to combat modern heresies.'

 

As a constitution is made by humans it can be changed as society changes whereas inalienable rights on the other hand cannot be removed. The common law and the constitution says THERE ARE LIMITS to the power of parliament which is where the three estates (crown, lords, commons) parley.

 

In a nutshell the COMMON LAW is:

-i will not cause harm to others

-i will not cause loss to my fellow man (eg by damaging their property)

-i will not use fraud in my contracts

 

The common law is not codified as it is the law written on our hearts. The common law is LAWFUL whereas 'the law' is what is made 'legal' by the creation of statutes in parliament. A statute is a statement of the crown.

 

Therefore the common law should protect us from the abuses of manmade laws through the use of jury trials which allow a jury of our peers to decide the outcome which would then ideally reflect the law written on the hearts of the jurors and not the political will of the judge or the executive that is in government at that time. Jury trials give a place to: experience, conscience and common sense in decisions in court. If juries rule that according to the law written on their hearts that it is not justice in some cases to go with the letter of the law then the law itself is put on trial as well as the defendant and an oppressive law can be overturned.

 

Judges and lawyers belong to the Law Society so they believe in the supremacy of statute law and are trying to get more and more areas of law to be decided by judges and not juries. RIGHTS ARE WON OR LOST BY ASSERTION so if people do not assert the law that is written across their hearts then the state can assert its power over them through the creation of oppressive statutes and if juries are excluded then judges can then enforce those oppressive statutes.

 

The Common law is not given by the state but the state can be asked to define it which it does as follows:

-JUS COMMONE = what is universally acknowledged

-HONOURING PRECENDENT= case led

-COMMON LAW JURISDICTION LEGAL ORDER= doesn't require a codified civil or criminal law

 

Rights say 'this far and no further'. 'Negative' rights (the right to not have things done to you) are more in line with the 10 commandments, our conscience and historical sense.

 

The UK Column commentators then identify 1947 as a turning point where things started to go badly wrong in britain as anti-religious and anti-traditional, post-war governments took away our rights from 1946-1948 in the name of 'socialism'.

 

In 1950 Churchill's 'conservative' government signed Britain upto the pre-EU 'council of europe' which created a charter of 'human rights' using discourse from the french revolution. This then mean that your rights then have limits as they have to be balanced against the right of the state. This created an idea that human rights are created by governments on a piece of paper where you are GIVEN rights which was opposed to the older, traditional view that you have INALIENABLE rights given to you by the CREATOR which CANNOT be taken away by manmade laws.

 

The socialists then say that you have no 'absolute rights' only 'qualified rights' where the state can impinge on your rights at any time. This is all obviously VERY significant in the age of covid-restrictions and the rise of the bio-security state where any kind of injustice can be perpetrated against you by the state under the excuse of 'protecting public health'.

 

This all came about in the enlightenment when anti-catholic forces pushed God out of the equation and said that we have rights because the state has given them to us. In the 1940's we then saw the socialists calling for people to have 'positive' rights which is the idea that everyone must be given certain things eg the right to work, job opportunities etc which then means that in order to give people these things something must be take from someone else.

 

The legal case Antick v's Carrington ruled that the state has no right to do anything unless it is expressly authorised by the law, whereas the individual has the right to do anything except where it is forbidden by law.

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Macnamara said:

The British Constitution Part 3: RIGHTS

 

The legal case Antick v's Carrington ruled that the state has no right to do anything unless it is expressly authorised by the law, whereas the individual has the right to do anything except where it is forbidden by law.

 

EDIT: Entick v's Carrington

 

Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 is a leading case in English law and UK constitutional law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power.[1] The case has also been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is famous for the dictum of Lord Camden: "If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entick_v_Carrington

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/10/2022 at 9:22 PM, Macnamara said:

The Dialectic

The half-cocked riots of capitol hill might prove to be a warm up for a larger conflict in which trump is intended to play the false messiah figure

 

The story below was in the papers this morning where the FBI speaks of a potential dirty bomb attack by MAGA people which instantly sounded warning bells for me as you have to wonder how they would have foreknowledge of such an event. Yes they might have intel from informers but is it not more likely that the FBI are considering carrying out a false flag attack which they could then BLAME on MAGA supporters in order to deepen their war against patriots or what they like to mislabel 'white supremacists' because they don't agree with the dissolution of the US through mass immigration over the southern border: disagree with the commies and that makes you a bad person! Why would people who love america want to pollute it with radiation? Doesn't make sense does it?

 

We know the FBI would set up low IQ muslims for terror actions so that they could then arrest them in 'sting' operations that they had manufactured in the first place and all to drive forward the perception of a 'war on terror'. It looks like the FBI is going to carry on that same war but this time they are calling homegrown americans the 'domestic terrorists' not muslims. That would of course suggest that the masterminds behind all this are NOT white, christian, americans as they would not use the apparatus of the state against themselves...

FBI bulletin warns of 'dirty bomb' threat and increasing calls for 'civil war' in wake of Mar-a-Lago raid - while former agent and GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick says agency warned him that his 'life was in danger' due to threats from Trump supporters

  • GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick urged lawmakers on both sides of the aisle not to jump to conclusions on the FBI's unannounced search of Mar-a-Lago
  • He said he checked in with several former FBI colleagues to see if 'they were okay' amid Republicans' verbal attacks on federal law enforcement
  • Fitzpatrick suggested the new DHS and FBI bulletin was a top concern
  • It highlights an increase in targeted, violent threats against officials including the federal judge who signed off on the Mar-a-Lago warrant

By Elizabeth Elkind, Politics Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 21:38 BST, 14 August 2022 | Updated: 00:20 BST, 15 August 2022

The chilling memo, obtained by CBS News, states the agencies 'have observed an increase in violent threats posted on social media against federal officials and facilities, including a threat to place a so-called dirty bomb in front of FBI Headquarters and issuing general calls for 'civil war' and 'armed rebellion.''

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110923/Trump-FBI-raid-department-homeland-security-bulletin.html

Trump helped push the cabals bioweapons onto the american public:

 

 

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 10:44 AM, Macnamara said:

A Pirate's Perspective pt 4

 

The effeminate play-acting of football where players dived and feigned injury was never accepted in rugby where such behaviour would be perceived as shameful. The players played hard but at the end of the game, despite the bruises, scratches and broken bones there was no enmity and a gentlemanly hand would always be extended to the opposition. Such traits are far from 'toxic' but perhaps invite the hatred of the inner bitch of the woke crowd. A game where men can be tough and stoic and yet retain an ideal of sportsmanlike fairness? That stuff has to be shut down in a dog eat dog world!

 

refusing to bow:

Graeme Souness does not regret 'man's game' comment on Sky Sports

15 August 2022

Sky Sports pundit Graeme Souness says he does not regret describing football as "a man's game" after Chelsea's fiery 2-2 draw with Tottenham.

His comments drew criticism from Chelsea striker and Euro 2022 winner Beth England and ex-England international Eniola Aluko.

Souness was analysing the physical nature of the game and referee Anthony Taylor's approach.

"It's a man's game all of a sudden again," Souness said on Sunday.

"I think we've got our football back, as I would enjoy football - men at it, blow for blow, and the referee letting them get on with it."

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/62548431

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 9:39 AM, Macnamara said:

The story below was in the papers this morning where the FBI speaks of a potential dirty bomb attack by MAGA people which instantly sounded warning bells for me as you have to wonder how they would have foreknowledge of such an event. Yes they might have intel from informers but is it not more likely that the FBI are considering carrying out a false flag attack which they could then BLAME on MAGA supporters in order to deepen their war against patriots or what they like to mislabel 'white supremacists' because they don't agree with the dissolution of the US through mass immigration over the southern border: disagree with the commies and that makes you a bad person! Why would people who love america want to pollute it with radiation? Doesn't make sense does it?

 

We know the FBI would set up low IQ muslims for terror actions so that they could then arrest them in 'sting' operations that they had manufactured in the first place and all to drive forward the perception of a 'war on terror'. It looks like the FBI is going to carry on that same war but this time they are calling homegrown americans the 'domestic terrorists' not muslims. That would of course suggest that the masterminds behind all this are NOT white, christian, americans as they would not use the apparatus of the state against themselves...

FBI bulletin warns of 'dirty bomb' threat and increasing calls for 'civil war' in wake of Mar-a-Lago raid - while former agent and GOP Rep. Brian F...

 

that's the sensible move chaps:

Spec Ops Vet Cancels Protest at FBI (Gestapo) HQ: Something Reportedly Didn’t Sit Right with Him

The following article, Spec Ops Vet Cancels Protest at FBI (Gestapo) HQ: Something Reportedly Didn’t Sit Right with Him, was first published on Flag And Cross.

A special ops veteran who planned to stage a protest in Washington, D.C., regarding the FBI (Gestapo) raid of Mar-a-Lago has reportedly changed course following warning of a trap.

https://ussanews.com/2022/08/16/spec-ops-vet-cancels-protest-at-fbi-hq-something-reportedly-didnt-sit-right-with-him/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Anarchists

 

I finished watching the series 'the anarchists' and wondered what Jeff berwick was making of it all so I thought i'd have a look over at the dollar vigilante and he has released a clip giving his perspective on the series. I kind of feel for Jeff as it looks like he has been on one hell of a rollercoaster ride. He had a cool idea to bring what he hoped would be like minded people together and then there was all that drama.

 

He says that he didn't fire the guy who was running the conference but it doesn't matter ether way because that guy was a grown-ass man and what he did he did to himself. His death is not on berwick.

 

I remember when the whole 'reality Tv' thing started and people would be interviewed after and having reviewed the footage they would say things like 'that's not how it was in there' or 'that person is not really like that' or 'i'm not really like that' and it became clear that the way in which things were edited could portray a person anyway they pleased. For example imagine someone taking clips of all your worst moments and compiling them. That's the problem with those sort of things: they are looking for a 'story' and to do that they push narratives which might not tell the full story or even the correct story.

 

One interesting thing that came up though is the issue of conflict resolution in volunteerist societies and i remember watching a documentary on the commune movement in the 60's where they came up with this method where they would all get together to air their grievances and clear the air where one person would be given a talking object, like the conch in 'lord of the flies' and everyone else just had to sit listen and the problem with that was that it turned into hazing sessions where people would just rip into other people which never resolved anything. Libertarians always say that persuasion should be used and not force but the problems come when you have a person like the ex marine guy in that series who just wasn't interested in being reasonable.

Review and Behind the Scenes of the HBO Documentary ‘The Anarchists’

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1,200 Scientists and Professionals Declare: “There is No Climate Emergency”

The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.

The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. (A full list of the signatories is available here.) Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.

Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”

Since emerging from the ‘Little Ice Age’ in around 1850, the world has warmed significantly less than predicted by the IPCC on the basis of modelled human influences. “The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change,” the WCD notes.

The Declaration is an event of enormous important, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.

The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth; additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yield of crops worldwide.”

In addition, the scientists declare that there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such-like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. “There is no climate emergency,” the Declaration goes on. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050,” it says, adding that the aim of global policy should be “prosperity for all” by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. “In a prosperous society, men and women are well educated, birth rates are low and people care about their environment,” it concludes.

The WCD is the latest sign that the ‘settled’ fantasy surrounding climate change science is rapidly breaking down. Last year, Steven Koonin, an Under-Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, published a book titled Unsettled in which he noted that, “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.” He also noted that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate change is settled demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, “retarding its progress in these important matters”. In 2020, the long-time green activist Michael Shellenberger wrote a book called Apocalypse Never in which he said he believed the conversation about climate change and the environment had in the last few years “spiralled out of control”. Much of what people are told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, he wrote.

Of course, green extremists in academia, politics and journalism will continue to argue for the command-and-control they crave through a Net Zero policy. In the end, their warped view of the scientific process will fade, leaving a trail of ludicrous Armageddon forecasts, and yet more failed experiments in hard-left economic and societal control.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just be honest and call it what it is: the great replacement. It is a policy of genocide being carried out by people wanting to breakdown nation states in order to create a world government that will be run by THEM....and it is MEANT to weaken britain....that's the whole point. They are going to drive this nation against the rocks to ruin ad they are going to genocide anyone they think doesn't fit into their scheme ie anyone who holds notions of individual freedom in their heart and head:

The death of meritocracy: From the RAF to our elite universities, Britain is in the grip of a new dogma that prizes diversity above talent. And the result, says ANDREW NEIL, will leave Britain dangerously the weaker

By Andrew Neil For The Daily Mail

Published: 23:01 BST, 19 August 2022 | Updated: 23:06 BST, 19 August 2022

Meritocracy is dead. Long live diversity. That's the mantra that increasingly dominates this country's most powerful public and private institutions, from the civil service to the military, the media to the NHS, the universities to major companies — and just about everything important in between.

The age-old idea that jobs, position and promotion are best allocated solely on merit and ability, regardless of background, is withering on the vine, replaced by a new religion — almost a fanaticism — that elevates diversity and inclusion above all else.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11128725/From-RAF-elite-universities-Britain-prizes-diversity-talent-says-ANDREW-NEIL.html

 

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The British Constitution part 4

 

TREASON is the attempted destruction or conspiracy to destroy a nations sovereignty and its people

 

I think i took these notes off the British Constitution Group website:

 

key documents that make up the British Constitution include:

-Magna Carta 1215

-Declaration of Rights 1688

-Bill of Rights 1688 (is a parliamentary affirmation of the declaration of rights)

 

The consciousness of the people determines our collective moral boundaries and the COMMON LAW is meant to be the consolidation of the judgement of juries. So TRIAL BY JURY should shape the law.

 

Conscience is our inbuilt morality under universal natural law and should guide juries. Juries exercising their conscience should be able to over-rule legislation if they see no malicious intent on the part of the accused. This means that a jury judges on the guilt of the accused but also on the fairness of the legislation itself.

 

I have a side note which i think is from Mark Window's website which says that at its best the COMMON LAW should uphold NATURAL LAW.

 

Under COMMON LAW punishment is only ever received through a human, moral decision. If the jury decide against a statute then it is struck off under ANNULMENT BY JURY.

 

This power of the people over the law is the true meaning of DEMOCRACY not voting for political parties. The law does not belong to the state; it belongs to God the creator. The COMMON LAW recognises everyones inalienable rights and personal sovereignty.

 

It's basic principles are:

-to cause no intentional harm

-to take responsibility for our actions and inactions

-not to turn a blind eye to crimes of injustice

 

TREASON is the attempted destruction or conspiracy to destroy a nations sovereignty and its people

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Macnamara said:

TREASON is the attempted destruction or conspiracy to destroy a nations sovereignty and its people

Unions like the UK and EU fit this definition by removing sovereignty from the nations, enacting mass immigration and miscegenation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2022 at 1:06 PM, Campion said:

Unions like the UK and EU fit this definition by removing sovereignty from the nations, enacting mass immigration and miscegenation. 

 

MASS immigration is being use to destroy nations and mass jabs are being used to destroy people. The WEF globalists are moral reletavists who do not believe in objective morality:

World Economic Forum adviser Yuval Harari is a Marxist who believes there is no truth, only power


World Economic Forum adviser Yuval Harari openly rejects objective values such as human rights, calling them 'fictions' or 'stories,' and is unusually fixated on power.
Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 11:40 am EDT

Yuval Noah Harari is rightly regarded by the thinking population as one of the most dangerous intellectuals alive. 

The World Economic Forum adviser has already won notoriety for his dehumanizing statements, dystopian predictions, and his role in an organization that appears to be hastening their fulfillment (think digital contact tracing to curb disease).

But how can we know people aren’t simply overreacting to a caricature of Harari?

The answer boils down to this question: If, in Harari’s eyes, we are no higher than the animals, and the “vast majority” of the world’s population is now unnecessary, where does that leave us? 

In plain sight, he has given us a foreboding clincher to the formula for unbridled tyranny. Harari believes in what is understood to be a fundamental tenet of cultural Marxism: There is no truth, only power.

That is, Harari believes there is no “truth” in the most consequential and dangerous possible way. While he acknowledges there is an objective scientific reality, Harari has openly rejected the existence of objective values. He thus rejects firm values, such as the sanctity of human life, as a foundation for society and its laws.

He made this clear in a recent interview with Chris Anderson, head of the TED media group, the same interview in which he infamously declared that the world does not need the “vast majority” of its population. 

In their discussion, Harari tellingly described societal values as “fictions” or “stories,” citing human rights as one such example. He said that human rights are “not a biological fact,” but a “story we have constructed.” 

In fact, Harari has previously gone so far as to claim that “Homo sapiens is a post-truth species, whose power depends on creating and believing fictions.” 

The import of his belief becomes disturbingly clearer in his interview with Anderson, when he appears to totally distance himself from human rights as a fixed principle. 

When Anderson again brings up human rights, also describing them as a “human construction,” Harari interjects and speaks of it in the past tense, pointedly suggesting inalienable rights are not a timelessly applicable principle:

“It was a very good story…But it’s also dangerous to confuse a story we have constructed in a particular historical setting and think that we can just apply it to any other historical period or to any other political and geographical location today in the world.”

Harari (and Anderson) are so sophisticated, they have transcended the idea of human rights! In fact, their belief is a natural consequence of atheism, which makes arbitrary any belief in objective values.

Harari’s cultural Marxist claim that power has usurped truth has been strongly suggested in his past articles and interviews, such as when he claimed that science is about power and not truth, or when he wrote that “as a species, humans prefer power to truth.”

This concerning belief is also suggested in Harari’s interview with Anderson, when the latter asks, “Isn’t it possible that some of these stories [read: values] are truer than others?” and mentions science as something he doesn’t want to believe “is just another story.”

Immediately, Harari gravitates to the subject of power, answering, “No, science isn’t. We need to differentiate two types of power in history. You have the power over objective reality, like to build bridges, or cure diseases, or building an atom bomb. And then you have the power over humans and their subjective feelings, their imagination, making them believe in something.”

Harari is signaling here that he sees the entire spectrum of reality through the lens of power rather than truth, even his “objective” realm of science. Also revealing is the importance he places on power over the human will, via the “feelings” and “imagination.”

When his ideas here are pieced together, one can see Harari’s culturally Marxist worldview emerge: those in power can manipulate society’s values to their own ends, and with no such thing as objective values — including human rights — society is enslaved to the arbitrary ideas and whims of its rulers.

In 2018, Harari wrote, “Truth and power can travel together only so far. Sooner or later they go their separate ways. If you want power, at some point you will have to spread fictions. If you want to know the truth about the world, at some point you will have to renounce power. You will have to admit things – for example about the sources of your own power – that will anger allies, dishearten followers or undermine social harmony.”

“As a species, humans prefer power to truth. We spend far more time and effort on trying to control the world than on trying to understand it – and even when we try to understand it, we usually do so in the hope that understanding the world will make it easier to control it. Therefore, if you dream of a society in which truth reigns supreme and myths are ignored, you have little to expect from Homo sapiens. Better try your luck with chimps.”

Considering Harari’s position as adviser to the head of the World Economic Forum, which has massive government and corporate influence, we should further ask: What does this statement by Harari say about himself, and the WEF?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/world-economic-forum-adviser-yuval-harari-is-a-marxist-who-believes-there-is-no-truth-only-power/?utm_source=featured-news

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come across ideas like these in postmodernist philosophical writings, but to see them at the heart of a powerful institution such as the WEF is worrying but perhaps unsurprising. It removes the need for objective evidence-based policy making, and justifies replacing it with the agenda of whoever happens to have power. The truth is whatever the leader says it is. 

 

Although it begs the question that, if truth is purely the narrative of the author and their time & place, what's the point writing articles and giving speeches as if you're saying anything relevant to anyone else?

 

Relativity taken to the extreme like this ends up with pure individualism and takes us straight back to the law of the jungle. Might is right, there is no such thing as society. It's a regressive, pre-civilised level of development, stage red on the spiral masquerading as stage green.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Campion said:

I've come across ideas like these in postmodernist philosophical writings, but to see them at the heart of a powerful institution such as the WEF is worrying but perhaps unsurprising. It removes the need for objective evidence-based policy making, and justifies replacing it with the agenda of whoever happens to have power. The truth is whatever the leader says it is.

 

it all ties into what i'm saying in this thread about the constitution, common law and natural law

 

The WEF globalists want to push God out of the equation so that society cannot say that each human has worth and inalienable rights granted to them by the creator. With God out of the equation the cabal can claim that humans have no rights except what governments grant them

 

That is essentially what that WEF advisor is saying. He is saying humans do not really have any rights. The implications of this are incredibly dark because if humans have no rights then there are no limits to what perceived authority can do to them

 

For example as we approach winter and the next flu season the world health organisation could declare a new global pandemic and all the governments that are signed upto that can then start imposing unlawful things on their populations. They could say that you MUST accept a clotshot or else be sent to a quarantine camp and those camps could then end up as death camps as anything could go on there out of public view. This is why people really need to wrap their heads around this stuff and the implications of it all

 

20 minutes ago, Campion said:

Relativity taken to the extreme like this ends up with pure individualism

 

I think it will lead to COLLECTIVISM not individualism

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...